About f'king time, Mr Rudd

Respectfully, you should have been using this sort of hard language to publicly out and route these most insidious AGW deniers (not sceptics ~ sceptics form their views based on the peer-reviewed evidence) in the Liberal party, a lot earlier. We've already seen how many political cowards in the Liberal Party snuck across into the denier camp as the public bought your you-are-doing-something and climate change concern dropped in its priorities.

But, these words are as pleasing on the eyes as the drought-breaking rain is on the parched face of a cockie:

"These do-nothing climate change sceptics are prepared to destroy our children's future,"

"The do-nothing climate change sceptics are still alive and well in the coalition,"

"The argument that we must not act until others do is an argument that has been used by political cowards since time immemorial, both of the left and the right.

"They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence.

"You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition, on a gut feeling, on a political prejudice you have about science."

Well put, sir. Though, technically speaking, you just pinged them Do-Nothing Deniers. Now route 'em hard, and route 'em for good. Take the best damned deal you can to Copenhagen. We want 25% emissions cuts below 2000 levels, minimum.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

AGW denier says peer-review is a public enemy

James Dellingpole plumbs the depth of his intellect in The Spectator:

I don’t bait greens only for fun. I do it because they’re public enemy number one

How so?

Here is what’s so terrifying about the modern green movement: its complete refusal to accept that anyone who disagrees with it can be anything other than wilfully perverse, certifiably insane or secretly in the pay of Big Oil.

Or stupid and easily influenced. Even if, for arguments sake, this really is what the MGM thinks, why would that make them public enemy number one unless you were perverse, certifiably insane or secretly in the pay of Big Oil? Deep down Dellingpole declares the fear that drives him to bait greens.

Indeed, it doesn’t even think of its ideological position as an ideological position any more, but as a scientific truth so comprehensively proven that there is no longer need for any debate.

There isn't any need for a debate about whether mankind's emissions cause global warming an will cause climate change. It's over. Dellingpole just does not like the inescapable conclusions of the body of peer-reviewed science. He wants a second opinion... from sources used by those secretly in the pay of Big Oil.

But what if they’re wrong? What if climate change is normal? What if the new hair-shirt chic is holding back economic recovery? What about the Kenyan green-bean growers — don’t they deserve to make a living too? What if the billions and billions of pounds being stolen from our wallets by our governments to ‘combat climate change’ are being squandered to no useful purpose? What if instead of alleviating the problem, misguided eco-zealots are actually making things worse?

That’s what I believe, anyway, and if there were space I’d be more than happy to explain why in lavish detail using all sorts of highly convincing evidence provided by top-notch scientists. Unfortunately, there isn’t, so you’ll have to go somewhere like www.ClimateDepot.com, or the hilarious Planet Gore at National Review Online or the Watts Up With That blog for your ammo.

Climate science by fossil-fuel funded public relations, as opposed to peer-review publication, that's what Dellingpole roots for. And this is a guy who wants to believe he is rational. Truly:

...that the vast majority of so-called ‘deniers’ are motivated by a love of the planet every bit as intense as that of the ‘warmists’. It’s just that our love is maybe tempered with a touch more rationalism, that’s all.

As rational as deriving joy from baiting people because you don't like them facing realities that science informs about?

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Sarah "Shapeshifter" Palin's climate change change

From this audio of a long letter of a disgruntled Alaskan, who claims to know Sarah Palin — minus lipstick — we learn that she does not believe that man-made global warming is shrinking the habitat of polar bears. Ergo, legislation protecting their habitat — from oil extraction — should be overturned.

That's from before she was thrust into the public spotlight (and into dissonance with McCain's stance). But Desmogblog now detects a subtle shift in stance:

... show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that. I have said that my belief is there is a cyclical nature of our planet — warming trends, cooling trends — I'm not going to argue scientists, because I believe in science and have such a great respect for what they are telling us. I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make that man's activities can be attributed to changes."

The denial lobby are boning her up as we read this. Count on it.

Bone up on Tamino AGW denier debunkery

I so want to lift this Best of Tamino holus bolus from Desmog Blog, I'm going to do exactly that. I feel I am entitled to because I have just used Tamino in another post. Thank you, Brian D:

Best of Tamino: Urging an Open Mind

8 Aug 08

More Summer Reading:

Thanks to DeSmogger Brian D., we now have this well-categorized version of The Best of Tamino, a veritable celebration of debunkery courtesy of the clearest writing statisticians around. Brian's recommended (and annotated) reading list is posted below.


"It hasn't warmed since 1998!"

Garbage is Forever

Wiggles

(Also an excellent introduction to the concept of signal and noise to those unfamiliar with statistics.)

"The hockey stick was debunked!"

Hockey Sticks

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

(This is rather technical. The first one is an overview, the rest are in-depth. Number 4 goes into detail on the McIntyre/McKitrick argument and clearly shows why it's wrong. Part 4 can be read without reading the others, although some of the math won't make sense. Part 5 goes into more detail and demonstrates the robustness of the stick.)

"NASA / Hansen is lying / cooking the data! / The surface stations are unreliable!"

Best Estimates

Surface Stations

MSU

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

(This covers joint bullshit from Antony Watts and ClimateAudit, depending on which particular form this argument takes. MSU is the only odd one out - it covers adjustments in the SATELLITE data, and compares the different records. [Surprise surprise, but Christy and Spencer's UAH is poorly adjusted for variation and is cooler than all the others or the surface stations. The other posts validate the surface station system used to compare.] One Of These Things covers one of McIntyre's adjustment bitchfests in detail. Surface Stations covers one of the surface station adjustments as an example. Best Estimates is an overview.)

(There's a followup series to the surface stations, where he analyzes the differences and historical trends in the three largest datasets, but those are less pertinent to communication purposes and more for general interest.)

Those are the most frequent inactivist arguments I've seen here that are based on statistics.

While I'm at it, you might also appreciate the following:

Tamino showing, mathematically, how a basic climate model is built (a first-order approximation with no weather included, but explained VERY clearly; those who suspect the models aren't based on science or who don't know what a model is would find this interesting).

See also the giant "Climate Data Links" link at the top of every page; this lets you get the actual datasets he uses. Some require subscriptions, sadly, but most are public. (Note to Gary et al: Look up Excel's LINEST function and try it out on any of the land-ocean temperature indices.)

Smackdown of shoddy 'analysis' from Antony Watts and his crowd; even if you don't know who Watts is, you've probably heard some of his arguments before. This is entertaining on other grounds as well -- read it and see. This also serves as a decent model of peer review -- suffice it to say, nothing analyzed there would have made it into the peer-reviewed literature, and for good reason.

What's Up With That

Exclamation Points

How Not to Analyze Data Part 1

HNTAD Part Deux

HNTAD Part 3

HNTAD Part 4: Lies , Damned Lies and Anthony Watts

The comment threads here are also interesting, as the accused always stop by to try to defend themselves... poorly. Watts himself tries an (unsuccessful) PR smokebomb in Part 1, for instance.

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

Pell: AGW Science Is Papal Bull

My one question to Cardinal George: If current global warming isn't man-made, then is it God's fault?

Then there is that other question. The one that stands out like The Dog Bollocks.

clipped from slimpickens.wordpress.com Is Pell exercising his Primacy of Conscience? In stating that he is a climate change skeptic, is Cardinal Pell exercising the Primacy of Conscience in defiance of Papal Infallibility and the authority of Benedict XVI’s warning that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God’s will? Or is he just indulging in a bit of the old secular relativism?

Climate denial getting traction

One fossil-fuel fraud peddler is nonchalant about the apparent Ground Gained by deniers in the public debate on climate change. Yet, another affects an air of smugness.

I would have thought that if they honestly believed in their work, then an expression of joy would not be out of order. The source of the elusive joy is an Ipsos Mori poll for Britain's Observer.

Says in Blairsplog,

If Ipsos Mori is right, the deniers are gaining ground. Its polls show the proportion of Britons who are unconcerned has risen from 15% to 23% in the past year.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is fingered, as are "internet blogs arguing all the world’s scientists are party to a Marxist conspiracy bent on destroying western civilisation."

If Ipsos Mori is right. I'm going to check it out.

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change, denialists

Truth brought to bear on Bolt's hypocricy

In another Andrew Bolt signature piece of twisted green-hate tenuously stuck together with gnarled logic, Hypocrisy - Hard to Bear, we get this beauty:

And ssshhh. Don’t mention that the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre says the extent of Arctic ice is in fact “greater than this time last year”.

Tim Lambert picks him up: Andrew Bolt goes quote mining

That quote was brutally ripped from its context on this page, which says:

Arctic sea ice still on track for extreme melt ...

Although ice extent is slightly greater than this time last year, the average decline rate through the month of May was 8,000 square kilometers per day (3,000 square miles per day) faster than last May. Ice extent as the month closed approached last May's value.

And this month it's been running neck and neck with last year's melt.

A hand-full of Bolt's commentators point out the fault in his argument.

Hmmm, is the author’s point that environmentalists and journalists have an environmental impact, and therefore scientists are wrong if they think increased greenhouse gas concentrations won’t enhance the greenhouse effect? Or that polar bears can kill people, so therefore we shouldn’t care if they go extinct? Or that some people writesilly things on the internet, therefore it’s okay to quote the US National Snow and Ice Data Center out of context?

Link to Lambert's piece

Steve L of Canada (Reply)
Fri 20 Jun 08 (09:23am)

Andrew Bolt says: ‘Don’t mention that the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre says the extent of Arctic ice is in fact “greater than this time last year”.’ It does and the same report, published on its website http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ , also says the ice is thinner and more likely to melt. The NSIDC also states: ‘Although ice extent is slightly greater than this time last year, the average decline rate through the month of May was 8,000 square kilometers per day (3,000 square miles per day) faster than last May.’ The report adds: ‘Average Arctic Ocean surface air temperatures in May were generally higher than normal. While anomalies were modest (+1 to 3 degrees Celsius, +2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) over most of the region, temperatures over the Baffin Bay region were as much as 6 degrees C (11 degrees F) above normal.’ Oh such irony, when you point your accusing pen at others for selective reporting. Hypocrisy? Pretentious? Moi?

Stuart Nuttall of Exeter, England (Reply)

And ssshhh. Don’t mention that the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre says the extent of Arctic ice is in fact “greater than this time last year”.

Tim Lambert provides some balance for this cherry picked from context.

strange days indeed (Reply)

Arctic sea ice is on a long-term downward trend. There is a bit more this year because of an exceptionally warm 2007 which caused a decline even greater than the norm. This year the coverage has reverted to the normal downward trend, which means a temporary increase over 2007.

Exactly the same argument applies to 1998, which was abnormally hot because of the El Nino fluctuation. It’s only by picking 1998 that Andrew is able to make this “it hasn’t warmed” claim. It has warmed since 1997 and since 1999.

Polar bear populations are increasing because hunting them has been forbidden. This has nothing to do with the extent of the ice. Just as it is a mistake to focus on one year (2008 ice or 1998 temperature) it is a mistake to focus on one species. Most studies say that large numbers of species are headed for extinction if global warming cannot be mitigated.

James (Reply)

Arctic sea ice melt ‘even faster’

Arctic sea ice is melting even faster than last year, despite a cold winter.

Data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that the year began with ice covering a larger area than at the beginning of 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm

ANDREW of Melbourne (Reply)

The only sign of a possible response from Bolt was this.

Can someone please tell me why my comment from earlier today did not make it onot Andrew’s Blog??? Or was it censored when he was proven to be a liar.

Trebby of Sydney (Reply)

Not bearing up well under your own hypocrisy, AB,?

Also looks like you may have suffered a spate of White Hat Trolling! Good to see your argument being opened like a tin can, calmly, rationally, and indisputably. The only honourable thing left for you to do is retract.

But, I am not bullish about that. In fact, I'm positively...

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change, denialists, skeptics

Global warming denialists right: See for yourself

Sammy Jankis of memeplex confronts his own bias towards climate scientists in order to give 'the other side' of 'the debate' a fair go, and seriously examine the claims of the skeptics.

He did his own research, faithfully following their formulations, and has published his methodology and results in easy to follow language, so the average punter can reproduce the experiment for themselves.

What he found will surprise you, as it did me. Maybe the denialists are right, after all?

How do global warming skeptics think?

In a thought provoking post Fergus Brown of Old man in a cave, explores the public terrain that the AGW communicator, civilian or scientist, has to negotiate.

The first type of ‘lay’ skepticism is the doubt about the facts. The issue is of ‘what’. Generally, more people are content to agree that climate does in fact change, and is changing now, than are inclined to have other doubts. Perhaps this is because we are well-trained to understand that science is good at questions of ‘what’, in other words, the recording and observation of fact and its reporting, of measurement and the observation of trends. Really, there shouldn’t be any debate about this at all, since either the climate is warming or it is not, and either it is being correctly measured or it is not, but even here, the lay reader can be drawn into doubt by skeptics or scientists who cast doubt on the reliability of observing systems or of methodologies.

We don’t understand the problems, but we do understand that the existence of a ‘problem’ in itself casts doubt on the reliability of the claimed facts. Thus, if we are already disposed to skepticism, our doubts are reinforced by the very existence of disagreement; we are able to say ‘See, it isn’t all that certain after all…I am right to have my doubts, since some scientists also have them.’ This skepticism can be challenged by reason and evidence, though people still tend to see only what they want to.

But the second type of issue is far more difficult to deal with. These are the issues not of what is happening to the climate, but of why. We are inclined to understand debates on causality as being more uncertain than issues of fact, since they are often not easily resolvable by purely scientific method, and they are, in our minds, ultimately ‘matters of opinion’. Of those who are skeptical about AGW, more have doubt about the causality than the observation. Here is where the do-nothings have their richest ground; there are many ways to reinforce peoples’ predisposition to doubt when the issue appears, on the surface, to be about matters of opinion.

As well as his well-argued position, I like Brown's title: The Skeptic problem

It's not something that will go away soon enough.

90% of RW think tanks push climate change denial

Ever wondered where AGW sceptics get their arguments from?

A research team at Environmental Politics concludes that 9 out of 10 books published since 1972 that dispute the seriousness of environmental problems and mainstream science can be traced back to a conservative think tank (CTT).

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism
Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman
Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA.
Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA

Abstract:
Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

Environmental scepticism is:

In summary, environmental scepticism consists of four key themes. First, environmental scepticism is defined by its denial of the seriousness of environmental problems and dismissal of scientific evidence documenting these problems. This primary theme sets environmental scepticism apart from earlier environmental opposition movements like the US 'wise use movement' and 'sage brush rebellion' (Switzer 1997). Second, environmental scepticism draws upon the first theme to question the importance of environmentally protective policies. Third, environmental scepticism endorses an anti-regulatory/anti-corporate liability position that flows from the first two claims. Lastly, environmental sceptics often cast environmental protection as threatening Western progress.

The conclusion:

Our analyses of the sceptical literature and CTTs indicate an unambiguous linkage between the two. Over 92 per cent of environmentally sceptical books are linked to conservative think tanks, and 90 per cent of conservative think tanks interested in environmental issues espouse scepticism. Environmental scepticism began in the US, is strongest in the US, and exploded after the end of the Cold War and the emergence of global environmental concern stimulated by the 1992 Earth Summit. Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement coordinated by CTTs, designed specifically to undermine the environmental movement's efforts to legitimise its claims via science. Thus, the notion that environmental sceptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of 'junk science' lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised 'Davids' battling the powerful 'Goliath' of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as sceptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.

Why should these deceptive sceptics get away with it? Expose them for the science-less frauds they are, at every turn.

H/t Not a Hedgehog

Bolty's dotty deniers play with pink swirls

L. Ron Bolt and his Carbon Pinkies are organising quickly. They have a bumper-sticker, a t-shirt design, and now this poster.

From their recently savaging of the arts community, you would think this bunch were creative savages. But no. It's good to see they are not so literal that they are going to be constrained by the tight pink dot brief given to them by their Sceptic-In-Chief.

And that the SIC is not so inflexible he can't recognise a good, out-of-brief idea when it is staring him in the face. A tight pink swirl can pass for pink dot when it's spinning... so thumbs up from Bolt. It's ruled in, and it's on.

Decisive leadership bears fruit, and Australia's new army of sceptics now have their version of Al Gore's evil documentary poster upon which to proclaim their position.

Which is that AGW scepticism is a convenient untruth!

?

Not so bright, these pink dots, are they?

Spotted by Bolty's dotty denialists

Spotted a fair bit of traffic coming in from Andrew Bolt Blog today, after posting my piece on his pink spot campaign last night. Turns out one of his regular commenters, strange days indeed, spotted that I captured his comment in my piece, and had gone back and bragged about it.

Any feedback is good, and the only complaint about my blog seems to be the Global Warming Watch line, "THE ONLY SAFE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS 150,000,000 KILOMETERS AWAY” by Boltite grumbler, "The Greek". No faulting of my logic, though. Just didn't like me saying it.

UPDATE:

Spotted that the steady traffic from Andrew Bolt Blog stopped after 7:00pm, which is when one of the Boltites must have spotted this post and lagged to Andrew, who removed strange days indeed's boast post, 'n cut me off. Easy come, easy go.

Spot the climate change sceptic — pink

An extraordinary over-reaction to a joke just might grow some legs. With pink spots.

Story so far:

It seems the Chaser lads, of world-wide Osama Bin to APEC fame, have Andrew Bolt seeing spots. Pink spots.

THE boys from the ABC’s Chaser show a map of Australia in their new show at the Athenaeum with a pink dot to indicate the whereabouts of our very last global warming sceptic.

Actually, there’s just a single pink dot in that entire expanse, and it’s plonked right over Melbourne. Over this tower with Herald Sun on top, in fact.

To be absolutely specific, it’s over this very chair in which I’m now sitting, typing furiously with a mad cackle and hair all wild.

He's not taking this lying down. Turning the sting in his own sling, he's gone on the front slipper; out, proud, and determined to wear his pink dot as a badge of honour. He's working harder than the Energiser bunny to fashion his followers into an army of proud pink polka dotted sceptics.

So hand the pink dots around, and I urge you all to wear them with pride.

Do not be ashamed to be dotty, because global warming is a faith that even its loudest preachers seem not quite to believe.

The next day reveals that his entreaties have driven the Bolt base to burst through their rose-coloured-glass creative ceiling.

Andrew Bolt – Saturday, June 07, 08 (12:04 am)

Yesterday I noted that the Chaser had a map of Australia with a single pink dot to indicate the last global warming sceptic in Australia.

Reader John has kindly mocked up a graphic for a T-shirt or bumper sticker for the many readers who yesterday demanded they be struck pink, too:

So has reader Peter:

Your advice, please: Do I print up T-shirts? Or can you improve on these images?

No, you can't improve on See the Light, C02's Alright! Sorry. So, come in spinner...

Andrew, Arthur here:
I’d like to order 5 x t-shirts, 5 x bumper stickers and 5 x badges.
My wife, myself and my 3 children will wear them all with great pleasure, honour and pride. (It’ll be interesting too see the reaction from the ‘man in the street’!)
AMcA

Arthur McArthur of Mount Martha

Jesus! Print t-shirts please - I’ll buy one. I’ve been dying to be counted as a sceptic.

austen tasseltine of adelaide

Austen's obviously not hear of irony. In an unexpected twist, Bolt's bravery has split the base. Others want in, but are struggling with the pinkness of it all.

Wouldn’t such a shirt mean that, walking down the street, you’d get beaten up by ultra-right-wing gay-bashers and then again by extreme-left climate change dogooders? How about a manly “mission brown” dot or perhaps navy?

Geoff of Dulwich

Old Sailor Man replied to Geoff
Sat 07 Jun 08 (07:55am)

I agree -do away with the pink....images of code pink, pinko. If it must start with “P” try purple or puce

Puce? My god. But the funniest commenters are the piss-takers.

Sceptics need a movement. For too long they have muttered around the edges. Now things are getting serious, with the Chaser boys throwing down the gauntlet. How a name?

The Carbon Pinkies

It 'll catch on.

A secret sign, where you raise your pinkie when you first meet someone. If they raise their pinkie in reply, you know they are a Carbon Pinkie, a fellow sceptic; sound of mind and staunch of heart.

Left pinkie full extended indicates sunspot watchers, and left pinkie half-cocked, means they are a Maunder Minimalist.

Right pinkie on full extension at shoulder height means they are a red-blooded Global Warming is a Body that's Ten Years Cold' stand-up kinda bloke/blokette. RH pinkie, half-cocked tells you they are alarmiphopic, with keen selective-hearing.

====

When sceptics get organised, how about a band along the lines of Crow's 12 Foot of Grunt?

L. Ron. Bolt and the Pink Polka Dots.

Or a book/movie?

A bold, pink heading: Battlefield Earth
Subhead: The Sceptics Cookbook

And a shot of the Earth from space with a big pink spot superimposed on it.

Strapline: If you can't beat 'em, heat 'em!

===

Ok, a joke.

Q. What do you call a sceptics convention?

A. An measles outbreak.

strange days indeed

Or how about a design for the front and back?:

(front)
I’m a Climate Change Skeptic who’s Not Sorry and who OPPOSES the Republic, Further Muslim Immigration, Feminists, Changing the Flag, a Bill of Rights, Kevin Rudd, Arts Funding, Bringing the Troops Home, Ted Baillieu, Greenpeace, going Soft on Crime, Phillip Adams, going Soft on Drugs, The Chinese Government, the Dalai Lama, the Refugee Convention, Malcolm Turnbull, Gay Marriage, Bill Henson, Arabs, the UN…

(back)
...and Groupthink.

Mercurius of New York

Maybe it should read ‘I cherry pick data to prove in my own mind i am smarter than the membership of the National Academy of Science, The Royal Society, AAAS and just about every other scientific body in the world”

Rob Hill

T-Shirts? The future won’t be warm enough for T-Shirts, Andrew. Not when 1998 was the Hottest Year Ever(TM) and all the predictions except yours are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

A real global warming skeptic would wear a full-length parka, mittens and thermal underwear.

Why don’t you get a batch made up?

Mercurius of New York

A batch of Kool-Aid.

Graham Young vs Robyn Williams and Others

Graham Young is the former vice-president and campaign chairman of the Queensland Liberal Party. As chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion, he is using his pulpit to rail against bullying.

If it happened in a school yard or in a cyber chat room, and the protagonists were two 15-year-old school girls, it might have hit the front pages of a tabloid.

Bullying.

In a world where we're all supposed to be nice to each other, it's the ultimate crime.

That's the charge. The main defendant is Robyn Williams.

For bullying is what ABC Science Broadcaster Robyn Williams does to respected academic and former Vice-Chancellor of Canberra University, Don Aitkin, in his introduction to Aitkin’s Ockham’s Razor broadcast on April 27. There ought to be widespread outrage, particularly as Williams is a journalist with ethical and professional obligations who works for a publicly-funded broadcaster with duties of impartiality.

Graham has problem a problem with the way Robyn Williams introduced Professor Don Aitkin on his show.

“I have, on the other hand, had her father Nigel Lawson on the 'Science Show', talking about innovation or some such, with his usual flair and penetrating intelligence. Not a science-trained man, but economics is near enough, isn't it, and he was Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer (or Treasurer).

“Now Lord Lawson has brought out a book on climate called 'An Appeal to Reason'. Here's the first paragraph of a review in this week's 'Spectator' magazine:

“'When there is so much data suggesting the world's climate is heating up', goes the review, 'some may find it presumptuous of Nigel Lawson, who is not a scientist and has undertaken no original research, to hope to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Would we take seriously an appraisal of his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer written by someone whose only expertise was in oceanography?'

“Well the same could apply to Professor Don Aitkin, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, a political scientist and like Lawson, a journalist. Professor Aitkin gave a lecture on climate to the Planning Institute of Australia, 'A Cool Look at Global Warming'. That was a couple of weeks ago, and I thought you might like to hear some of his thoughts, recast for 'Ockham's Razor'. Though nine out of 10 Australians are said to be alarmed at climate change, 10 per cent think differently, and Professor Aitkin is one of them.”

Bullying?

It's not a kind introduction, but hey, if Graham wants "a world where we're all supposed to be nice to each other", he's too idealistic to be campaign manager for the Queensland Liberals. This could shed light on why they are out of power — but that's unkind).

But would you call it bullying? Not in the context. There's no 'nice' in scientific reasoning. It's not an objective of scientific method. If I were to front up on a science show defending a controversial, non-expert opinion on global warming, I would expect vigorous questioning.

Not Graham Young, who only see "viscious" "intimidation". (Italics, mine)

This is fairly vicious stuff, not the least because it is delivered against someone who has earned the right to intellectual respect over a long and fruitful career. Of course, the point of the put-down isn’t to intimidate Aitkin - too late for that, he’s about to do a two-part broadcast on the issue - it is to intimidate anyone of lesser stature and guts who might want to hold a public opinion on the issue.

It's nice that he's risen to the defence of Aitkin, but as Aitkin says, in the follow-up interview two weeks later, that he had received more love mail than hate mail from the show.

I gave a public address on this subject a few weeks ago, which was picked up in the daily newspapers, the text of the address was put on one newspaper's website, and a vigorous correspondence developed. In all, I received, well, 150 or so communications. The majority of them were positive. The negative ones fell mostly into one or other of two groups: either I was trespassing on someone else's patch, that is, only scientists are allowed to talk about these issues, and I am not a scientist; or I was a 'denier', someone who, in spite of the authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, and the weight of scientific opinion, was persisting in error.

No complaints of of bullying reported, though. So what did William say that was so bullying to a former university chancellor?

...Williams himself fails the test he sets Aitkin.

He isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a science broadcaster with an honours degree in biology. The chances are that he has no formal training in physics, the key to understanding climate science. So, on his own bad reasoning, he is precluded from commenting on the area.

Robyn Williams didn't preclude Aitkin from commenting in the area, he gave him two shows! Williams put his subject in context in his introduction, and this is really what galls Young.

His statistic that 90 per cent of Australians are alarmed at climate change is also suspect. It derives from polling carried out by The Climate Institute of Australia, apparently the offspring of Clive Hamilton’s Australia Institute (what SourceWatch would call an “Astroturf/industry front group” if it was from the right).

The poll was apparently of 1,005 people conducted online between March 7-11 and the actual question is not available in the report (PDF 493KB). While according to the report the data was “weighted by age, sex and location to ensure representativeness” it is in fact impossible to do this using an online survey - you can weight, but you can’t ensure. All online surveying carries a bias towards the “left” of politics, and judged on other Australian online polling samples this is somewhere in the order of 10 per cent.

Actually, this figure consistently shows up in surveys, here's one commissioned by WorldPublicOpinion.Org:

Australia most global warming aware. No, really!

Disclaimer: Shameless self-promo.

No really, 92% of Australians are 'in favor of measures to combat global warming'. That's 9 out of 10 to me.

Since Graham is right to take a critical look at the methodology behind the Climate Institute survey. Let's do that, properly.

About this report

The Climate Institute has commissioned both qualitative and quantitative market research on the attitudes of the Australian community to climate change and climate change solutions since early 2007. This paper summarises research by Auspoll (formerly the Australian Research Group) and draws on broader market research on public opinion on climate change.

The data discussed in this report was primarily obtained using a sample of 1,005 interviews conducted online between Friday 7 March and Tuesday 11 March 2008.

Interviews were conducted online with Australian residents aged 18 and above. Sample selection took place in such a way as to produce a sample roughly proportional with the population distribution. Data was weighted by age, sex and location to ensure representativeness.

Further, qualitative research was gathered from various focus group in 2007 and most recently conducted by Auspoll on behalf of The Climate Institute in Sydney (Hurstville and Parramatta) and Brisbane on 11, 12 and 18 March respectively.

Further data was collected from the following sources:

• Surveys conducted by Auspoll on behalf of The Climate Institute online using a representative sample of 1,215 Australians from Tuesday 4 March to Thursday 6 March 2008. Similar polls in March, August and November 2007.
• Exit poll conducted by Auspoll on behalf of The Climate Institute during the 2007 Federal election in eight key marginal seats in New South Wales (Bennelong, Wentworth, Lindsay, Eden Monaro), Queensland (Petrie, Bowman) and South Australia (Makin, Sturt). The poll was conducted online using a representative
sample of 984 voters and was conducted from 6pm on Saturday 24 November until Tuesday 27 November.
• Published polls drawn from an array of sources, including the CSIRO, the Lowy Institute, Newspoll, AC Nielsen, Galaxy Polls, Google Trends and telephone polls conducted by Winston Sustainable Research Strategies
This report marks the second of the Climate Institute’s annual updates on public attitudes to climate change and climate change solutions.

Graham's 'poll', diminished to 'apparently of 1,005 people conducted online' turns out to be 1,005 interviews conducted online; plus, qualitative research was gathered from various focus group (sic); plus, surveys conducted online by Auspoll of 1,215 Australians; plus, election exit polls of a sample of 984 voters; and published polls drawn from an array of sources. That's over 3,204 interviews. Over 3 times the sample size that drives up Graham's blood pressure. Better that nobody tell him why Labor won the election, and ratified Kyoto as their first act of government.

Having identified bullying as the ultimate crime in Graham's nice world, he feels released to devote the rest of his article to wind-milling into Williams.

He regularly indulges in queen bee behaviour....Seems his quality control only works in one direction, and if your one of teacher's pets you'll get a pat on the head...Williams appears to have picked-up the campaigning bug early in life. His father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street. ... excitement of going on anti-nuclear marches. Fascinated by prestige and fame, he also recalls with relish that Bertrand Russell used to phone friends of his....Obviously the fascination with prestige intrudes into and distorts his journalism. It also appears to distort his CV.

And then turns his sight on John Quiggin and Tim Lambert who apparently, 'are web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question what they define as the global warming orthodoxy.' Quiggy uses 'smear', and ensures 'that global warming sceptics are presented in the worst light' on Wikipedia, where he is an editor. Lambert's 'bullying' charge seems to consist of sticking to the science, and arguing for better 'n Graham can argue against:

Lambert, through his blog Deltoid promulgates whatever the current orthodoxy happens to be, but he does not restrict himself to his blog, frequently diving into comment threads on other online publications. And once you have Lambert on your thread, he sticks closer than a tick, hoping to suck the lifeblood out of the argument until you give up.

So after flailing away at Williams, Quiggin and Lambert, you'd think that Graham would have satisfied his desire for vengeance for the ruining of his nice world.

Nah.

I’ll be writing to the ABC. Time to get this ball rolling.

Well, bully for you.

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

If suddenly there were no more global warming II

Anatomy of a Denialist

Subject: Christopher Pearson
Accomplice: Phil Chapman
Habitat: Opinion section of The Australian

We start by observing the tepid headline.

A cool idea to warm to

Nice puns, but they leave you totally unprepared for the sub-headline.

ABOUT the beginning of 2007, maintaining a sceptical stance on human-induced global warming became a lonely, uphill battle in Australia.

Steel yourself for a gut-wrencher. I'll spare the reader the sloppy set-up and fast forward to the medical bits. The patient has an acute case of, If suddenly there was no more global warming, caught from a carrier, Phill Champan. Symptoms include:

Scalpel. First incision to reveal Imprudent Overreaching ...

But Chapman's argument about last year's 0.7C fall being "the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record" ups the stakes considerably.

It replaces an irrational panic in the public imagination with a countervailing and more plausible cause for concern. It also raises, more pointedly than before, a fascinating question: since there are painful truths with profound implications for public policy to be confronted, how will the political class manage the necessary climb-down?

Compulsive need to offer consultancy services to authority, free...

In Australia, Rudd Labor's political legitimacy is inextricably linked to its stance on climate change. If the Prime Minister wants a second term, he'll probably have to start "nuancing his position", as the spin doctors say, and soon.

A variation on J.M. Keynes's line - "when the facts change, I change my mind" - admitting that the science is far from settled and awaiting further advice, would buy him time without necessarily damaging his credibility.

Lavish offer to bestow (dubious) magnificence upon his adopters. Studied indifference to downside.

Taking an early stand in enlightening public opinion would be a more impressive act of leadership. While obviously not without risk and downside, it would make a virtue out of impending necessity and establish him, in Charles de Gaulle's phrase, as a serious man.

Threat to withdraw acknowledgement. Known in the sales game as The Take-Away Close.

I don't think he's got it in him. But we can at least expect that some of the more ruinously expensive policies related to global warming will be notionally deferred and quietly shelved. Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Minister Kim Carr will be allowed to invest in high-profile nonsense such as funding "the green car".

And, now, a word from his Sponsors. Don't go away, y'hear!

But the coal industry is unlikely to be closed down or put into a holding pattern. Nor are new local coal-fired power stations going to be prohibited until the technology is developed to capture and sequester carbon.

Since the greater part of the funds for the research underpinning that technology is expected to come from the private sector - and there's a limit to what government can exact by administrative fiat - as the debate becomes calmer and more evidence-based, business will be increasingly reluctant to outlay money on a phantom problem.

More of that free consulting advice. Chuck a go-slow, and lie to the voters. Nice. Prepares us for the request for the government to knock off his Sponsors' enemy.

Budgetary constraints and rampant inflation provide governments with plenty of excuses for doing as little as possible until a new and better informed consensus emerges on climate.

Ross Garnaut could doubtless be asked to extend his carbon trading inquiry for the life of the parliament and to make an interim report in 12 months on the state the science. In doing so, he could fulfil the educative functions of a royal commission and at the same time give himself and the Government a dignified way out of an impasse.

Patient's self-belief in predictive powers, and ability to predict scenarios that correspond to patients ideology, unerringly.

A likelier scenario would be full-page ads in our broadsheets and catchy local television campaigns paid for by the Indian and Chinese coal, steel and energy industries that buy our raw materials. Their theme would surely be that if many of the West's leading scientific authorities no longer subscribed to catastrophic global warming, why on earth should anyone else.

So those are the symptoms. What is the cause of this delirium? It was a denialist meme introduced into the head of the host (patient) by the carrier, Phill Champan.

Now Phill is not to be taken lightly. He's the first Aussie astronaut, so that clearly gives him the authority to talk fluently in climate science.

He makes the standard argument that the average temperature on earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, with a new twist.

As of last year, the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four of the agencies that track global temperatures (Hadley, NASA Goddard, the Christy group and Remote Sensing Systems) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007.

Chapman comments: "This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."

And has no need to observe the fact that global warming is measured as a trend and an outlier year is meaningless, as explained by a sweet concern troll, who took the wrong moment to interrupt a high-spirited game of Moron Poker over at Rabett Run, and got nipped.

Perhaps something like: "averages matter, and the longer term the average, the more it matters. Temperatures vary from month to month and from year to year, just due to variance in weather over such short periods. Over longer periods, ten years and longer, averages matter more, because the short term variability is less noisy. When we look at those averages, we see a clear trend since 1980, that temperature is rising. It isn't much yet, but due to the persistence of CO2 and of the human activity which leads to warming, we expect this average to keep increasing for at least the rest of this century. That accumulated warming is a threat to sea levels and to precipitation patterns, among other things. That's what AGW is all about."

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

Shhh, don't talk about the science

Pomfelo advises on the prudence of not taking a stance on global warming:


SuicideGirls > Boards > Current Events > Global warming strikes again

Tackle a climate change troll

The most effective thing you can do to fight climate change is not to buy efficient-energy appliances, convert to green energy, or walk to the shops, etc. Though don't let me dissuade you. Nor is glaring at that poor 17 year old checkout chick for offering you non biodegradable plastic bags, angry as they make you.

Nah, the best thing you can do to expedite the revolution, and bring on the carbon economy is to go and take on a AGW denial propagandist, on their own turf.

It's these people that have been at the forefront of the well-documented, fossil-fuel industry campaign to create doubt in the publics mind about the link between co2 emissions. And they have been successful, the extent to which they have can be shown by the late ratification of Kyoto by Australia,and the non-ratification by the US. And more recently, by the 0.5% increase in carbon dioxide levels between 2006 to 2007 over the 30 year trend of 1.65 ppm.

So how do you take on a Denier, and to what end?
If you are a normal person with a good work-life balance, the following is not for you. But the secret suburban subversive, or debating champion, or reformed hacker, might like to break out at an AGW denial blog, like (in Australia) Jennifer Marohasy, Andrew Bolt Blog, or Tim Blair, and expose their fossil-fuel propaganda for what it is. How?

Seize their myths. Squeeze hard
Check out their latest global warming posts, and you will quickly identify which recycled myth the author is peddling. Read a few post to get a sense of their style, before deconstructing their myth. You can do this with the aid of the diagnostics from specialised AGW denial myth-busting bloggers, some who are listed below:

Flex that Deltoid
Coby Beck had great success with his original blog, A Few Things Ill Considered, which had a great series on How to Talk to a Sceptic on a myth by myth basis. He was then was invited to blog at Science Blogs. His new home: A Few Things Ill Considered.

John Cook, an ex-physicist (majoring in solar physics at the University of Queensland) has a neat list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used in his excellent Skeptical Science blog.

These two bloggers can help you easily identify the basic argument, and simply explain how to busted the myth. Desmog blog, by Kevin Grandia, a PR industry insider, breaks the denialist spin down, simply. Or as they say, the are Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science.

Once you have busted a few myths and have a repertoire you can confidently (but politely) bust, you may be ready to read the more scientific blogs.

Andrew Lambert Of the University of Technology, Sydney, runs Deltoid, where he occasionally eviscerates the denialist meme du jour for a bit of fun. Eli Rabbit has more fun doing this more often with his Rabett Run. Real Climate is a blog providing commentary on climate science news by working climate scientists for the interested public. They recently debunked a favourite of the deniers: that the majority of scientist in the 70s predicted a coming ice age. Tamino is the alias of a working, formidable climate scientist who runs Open Mind.

Yea, but Why?
Because they did it first. And, they are still doing it. This denial is funded by big fossil-fuel, manufactured by thinktanks like the Heartland Institute, CEI, (see Exxon-Secrets.org) and the myths are disseminated by their shills, usually opinion journalists or professional deniers like our own Professor Robert (Bob) Carter.

If you can't stop them at the source, and the Royal Society couldn't stop them, you can bust the myth at its endpoint. Expose it where you see it, politely but firmly. Stop the misinformation in its track. Let me know if you do, and I'll post your efforts up. I'm want an army of well-informed bloggers prepared to spend 5 minutes every other day identifying genuine AGW denialist propaganda, and 10 minutes politely debunking any inaccuracies. The object is to neutralise the impressions created by the fossil-fuel indsutry's 20 year campaign that may help delay tackling the problem with all haste.

Hook-up for White Hat Trolling
Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, Professor Barry W Brook, has pinged these climate change 'sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists' as Internet trolls. It's not original, The Ergosphere argues that the collective noun is an irritation of trolls. These climate trolls slink into science sites with a public interface, and loudly pretend there still is a scientific debate about what causes global warming, intending to mislead.

White Hat Trolling is the reverse: It is fronting up at junk-science blogs and news groups, in this case those campaigning to confuse the public about climate change, to rebut and debunk their unsound arguments, in this way exposing their campaigns.

Expose the Deniers' Tactics
Remember: The purpose is to expose the tactics of the deniers by attacking their logic not their persons. A White Hat Troll never gets personal. The desired impression to leave, is that the 'debate', that deniers say still rages, is really an astroturfing campaign funded by the fossil-fuel industry to give the impression the scientific jury is still out on the causes on global warming.

Where to next? Well, put you hand up and leave a comment or a question before you take on a denier, and I'll keep posting more on the subject, and hopefully some of your efforts.

Carbon dioxide up 2.4 ppm on last year

Here's the sobering bit: The average annual increase of carbon dioxide between 1979 and 2007 is only 1.65 parts per million (ppm). Suddenly, we are measuring a 0.5% rise in a year.

Researchers from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) reported new data that shows a higher than usual average increase in carbon dioxide levels over the last 30 years.

The recently released report from NOAA scientists is an annual update to the agency’s greenhouse gas index, which tracks data from 60 regions around the world. Concentrations may have increased by as much as 0.5% from 2006 to 2007.

That was the consequence of the rise of China and India, Business-As-Usual in the United States and Australia, and, I believe, the successful shilling by the AGW denial industry (See post below).

The above link goes on to talk about a sharp rise in methane levels as well.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

If suddenly there were no more global warming...

...life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

Condemned to an existence of boredom and unrequited schadenfreude is one Christopher Pearson, a writer at The Australian. Detect any frustration-betraying bitterness? I guess global warming just keeps bumping into his world-view.

So what has inspired his flight of fancy, this babbling brook of consciousness, this denialist delight?

Jennifer Marohasy has. She bears news of an "impending collapse of the global warming paradigm" in an ABC Radio National discussion with the similarly excited Michael Duffy.

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

Hmmm, The new NASA Aqua Satellite data, as interpreted by fossil-fuels favourite, Dr Roy Spencer. I expect we'll hear a lot of this from the shills, Bolt; Ackerman; Blair; Devine; and, Albrechton, et al., and it should be interesting to see them construct their narrative. I'll Global Warming Watch this one.

Roy Spencer was the fellow who put out a paper showing satellite data was not correlating with the climate data, and showed cooling. For years and years there was this incongruent satellite data. Then the paper was reviewed by Science Magazine in 2005, whereupon they found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset.

Update
Is there a smell of freshly laid astroturfi? Yahoo7 Answers already have the question up, posed by an eric c

Update 2
Glitch, long-time reader, typically a pleasant chap (but yes, one of those skeptics) is positively rubbing his hands with glee.

LOL, this is just wonderful.... Such VERY BAD good news for the enviro-socialists...

The plot thickens. Someone thunks global warming theory has been debunked, and this is bringing on the long-promised Raptures for the AGW Skeptics. Am I witnessing Deliverance for The Doubtful Loyal?

I checked the headlines, and Reuters. Nothing.

It'll come. It's lurking out there in the gloom, ready to break the water. I'm starting to feel very Old Man Of The Sea-ish. I'm baitin' up big.

Update 3
Spencer's bio at the fossil-fuel funded Marshall Institute site tells us: He currently is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.

It also says: Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work.

In 1996, from what I can tell. The paper was debunked in 2005. That bio needs updating.

Think I'll check out Realclimate, or Deltoid. See what they have to say.


Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Open email to Wayne Swan, Federal Treasurer

To: Wayne Swan, Federal Treasurer
Cc: Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph
Bcc: Global Warming Watch

Re: Gettin' me some of that Global Warming Religion


Dear Mr Swan,

Firstly, thank you for organising with Tim to answer the questions raised by his thought-provoking article in Saturday's Daily Telegraph.

Any questions about this column should be addressed to wayne.swan.mp@aph.gov.au.

I wondered about the wisdom of your accepting the hospital-pass, and tacking the weighty climate change issues Tim aired for his knowledge-starved readership — you must be busy delivering my tax-cuts. But it soon becomes apparent how clever Tim is. You are the Treasurer after all (btw, congratulation your new job, and good luck).

As you know, Tim is considering switching his belief system — Capitalism, it seems — to "Join the Green revolution!", and his article is about his due diligence.

My questions, which I now raise to you, are:

1) What part of that bloody year long electoral assault did I sleep though to miss the news that global warming awareness is now a religion?

"Ditch your old ways of thinking," emailers urge. "Join the Green revolution!"

Very well. I'm game.

But first, some due diligence is required. Before signing any contracts, a fellow needs to know his new belief system is in sound working order, unburdened by internal contradictions and free of technical glitches that may end up causing frustrating warranty claims.

Now, I had always thought that climate science, like any science, was more about establishing the the absence of belief. But hey, if living green is somehow a new religion, so be it; You are the new Government. And Tim's a good journo.

So... I re-use, reclaim and recycle.

I offset. I vegetate with drought-tolerant natives. I pay extra for green electricity. I invest in energy-efficient lighting. Catch public transport, or I fill up on E10 at an indy petrol station, getting between 8-12 litres to the 100kms. I wear out more shoe leather than before. Often I don't travel, I Skype instead. I eat locally produced, and less meat now. I consume conscientiously. It's all going rather well, and it's a welcome change from the frenetic pace of before. My doctor is happier with me, and food tastes better. Well, I do some of these things.

So you can imagine my joy at the startling news that now Greed is Good Green is God, Tim's endorsement of you as Australia's first Treasure-Priest. He clearly understands that the acid test for any religion is not evidence of a creation myth, or ancient sacred-texts, or holy men and religious leaders, rituals, festivals, houses of worship, and land.

All that stuff is nice to have for your religion taxonomist, but Tim knows that a tax-free status is what's definitive. Which is why he referred me to you, no doubt: My second question is:

2) Where's my tax deduction for expenses occurred in all of the above?

It doesn't stop there. I don't want to go as far as Cate Blanchett's $1.5 million greenovation of her Hunter's Hill mansion, but I do want to throw a few squid on the solar panels BBQ.

Unless I see a fat little rebate in my tax-return, I'm forced to conclude that climate science is exactly that, science, not faith. And to look twice at the rest of Tim's claims.

Like his problem with your new prime minister appointing a petrol commissioner to monitor price-fixing among petrol companies.

But he also vowed to appoint a petrol price commissioner to monitor big oil companies, with the aim of keeping fuel prices down. Now, the purpose of ratifying Kyoto is to cut our carbon emissions; but the result of cheaper fuel will be to increase carbon emissions.

Tim's not really making a clear conversion from his Capitalism here, which clearly is Orthodox Cartel Capitalism, as distinct from Free-Market Capitalism. He's arguing against ratifying Kyoto, yet wants to limit emissions by ignoring the week-to-week evidence of oil-industry price-collusion.

But I like his argument that Green is the New Religion. I want a tax advantage for my carbon cuts since I am doing my bit.

Yours, in speaking truth to green power,

Wadard

Global Warning Climate Change Energy