Until recently, I was never keen on the Tim Lambert (or whoever coined it) term "The Australian's War on Science" (referring to their frequent columns given over in that paper to global warming sceptics.) They are probably just courting controversy for readership, I thought.
But in the last few weeks, at least as far as I can tell from from the volume of skeptic columns on their website, there's absolutely no denying that the powers that be in that paper are heavily promoting climate change skepticism. As far as I can see, they devote very little effort to putting the opposing side in response.
Now look: regular readers know I argue that ocean acidification is enough of a worry to limit CO2, and while it seems to me that the "warmenists" are also very likely correct, I do worry that the exact role of the sun is not properly understood. (It does seem odd, doesn't it, that an unusually quiet period of sunspots is immediately coinciding with a very cold northern winter, and a very early start to winter in parts of Australia?)
But really: isn't it plain to all objective people that a great many of the skeptic's arguments running in The Australian are not science at all? I mean all this stuff that Ian Plimer and others go on about how it is "hubris" to think that mankind can influence climate, or that it is all a UN inspired conspiracy, or is driven by completely corrupted grant seeking by scientists, etc. What the hell has that got to do with the actual science? (Yes, even complaining that scientists have "an interest" in providing results that confirm global warming does not show how their actual results are wrong.)
Of course, a lot of non-scientist environmentalists have carried a lot of ideological baggage around with them, and they can be criticised for that (I've done it myself.)
But when about half (well, that's my guess) of the response to climate scientists work is clearly non-scientific in nature, they are not really seriously engaging in the argument.
I strongly suggest people read Skeptical Science, which has been updated recently, to view the complete list of responses to the warming skeptics arguments. If your only source of information on the topic is The Australian, Andrew Bolt, Marohasy (God forbid), or even Watts Up With That, you are not really seriously following the issue.
6 comments:
Yea, but a lot of the pro-global warming stuff isn't science either, and a lot of the people arguing it aren't scientists but make out as if they are. I don't think any of the most vociferous supporters of global warming theory (as it is in the media) have any authority in the field of climate studies - not Tim Flannery, John Quiggin, Harry Clarke, or Tim Lambert.
Yes Tim, I know they are not experts in the field, but they also do not strike me as being in the deep Green, Gaia-worshipping ideological camp either. They seem to be basing their opinion on science as they understand it. (Of course there are environmentalists who argue with ideological baggage, as I noted.) And I have agreed before with the criticism of Flannery, Williams and Gore for their inaccurate statements.
But the skeptics who keep getting publicity at the moment, even scientist Ian Plimer himself, seem to me to be dragging a huge amount of ideology into every argument now. And a lot of it seems just silly to me; like the "hubris" claim that Plimer has been making. Then he has the gall to complain they are playing the man, not the science.
Also: it's not the AGW believers who have been running around trying to draw up lists of scientists with no background in climate change to support their case. That's been the hobby of the skeptics with their silly "Oregon Petition", still cited every now and then by Bolt as if it had any credibility.
Tim Lambert gets a lot of shtick from the chaps at Catallaxy, but apart from that... well, he's not exactly deep green I guess. (Sure he'll pop up here, now that he's been mentioned, hi Tim!).
You might be surprised though. Tim Flannery was an activist even as a student, once throwing a dead native animal into a play audience to make a point. And even the LP crowd reckon he habitually exaggerates and misrepresents to get people on side. Yet he gets plenty of space in the daily papers on the basis of the pseudo-authority he has, simply because he's a media-friendly scientist.
The trouble is that global warming is first and foremost a political theory and a media theory; the scientific theory is probably very different to the theory that is being presented in the newspapers, on the televisions, and by politicians.
And it's being used to justify the stupidest, most infantile policies: Rudd's emissions trading scheme is doubly useless, because if it is enacted into law it will have only a marginal effect on global climate, AND it will have stuff up our economy. But Rudd and the left continue to give simplistic scare stories about global warming to win votes.
Must admit I haven't been following everything about AGW in detail lately, though.
...you are not really seriously following the issue.That's assuming there is an issue in the first place. ;-)
"global warming is first and foremost a political theory and a media theory; the scientific theory is probably very different to the theory that is being presented in the newspapers, on the televisions, and by politicians."
Just playing a hunch there, Tim? Like Plimer telling us it's all hubris to think we can affect the climate?
Look, I agree that the media loves a disaster story, but that fact alone shouldn't be used to automatically downplay every warning of potential disaster from credible science.
Post a Comment