Sydney Writers' Festival 2009: Stories from the Climate Change Front

Wow,
Are you all climate scientists then? Er , well apart from you yourself Tim. Bet it was satisfying and self reinforcing. Don't you just love these fests?

Are you all climate scientists then?

Dave, the debate is not about the science. The vast majority majority of climate scientists (97%) stopped debating the major science issues years ago and none of them publish properly-reviewed articles questioning the main conclusions anymore. Please try to keep up.

Sydney Writers' Festival 2009: Stories from the Climate Change Front: A Forum and Launch of Overland 195 Saturday, May 23 2009 15:00 - 16:00.

(Posted on: May 18, 2009 11:57 AM, by Tim Lambert)

Followed by:

Bet it was satisfying and self reinforcing.

(Posted by: Dave Andrews | May 18, 2009 6:06 PM)

I think the point of Lambert's post completely passed you by, Dave Andrews.

Would you likie to buy a clue?

Shorter Dave Andrews:

Advocacy = liberal bias, unless it's advocacy I like.

Suggestion for a blog 'topic' here...

A comparative review of Gavin Schmidt's (et als) Climate Change - Picturing the Science and Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth.

Bernard,

I was just predicting the outcome:-)

QUOTING TIM LAMBERT: "Who are the main climate denialists? What kind of action do we need, and how close are we to achieving it?"

Is this the new Nazi party? Obviously you AGW Alarmists cannot convince yourselves the science is settled or you would not be concerned with such a focus for a meeting. So, what was the outcome? Form Concentration Camps for climate 'denialists' as you call them. Just don't burn the bodies when you're done with them. 31,000 dead scientists around the world who understand climate change is a natural phenomenom would release a lot of carbon for you to worry about.

Peter Smith, setting aside your epoch (sic) fail above, the Oregon Petition is a freaking joke.

Several of the "31,000" (Oregon Petition) scientists are already dead, and have been dead for longer than there has been an Oregon Petition - many have been pushing up daisies for longer than the OISM has existed. Some never existed in the first place: famously, "Dr" Ginger Spice (specialty 'biology') and the cast of MASH showed up on that until it became obvious they had no quality control.

As for the 40 or so scientists -- by the petition's own admission -- that have any background in climate, I think the only one that's dead is Seitz, who wrote the cover letter... a decade after his employer (Phillip Morris!) declared him "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice". Then again, the OISM doesn't make it easy to verify similar claims, since you can't search their petition by specialty. You can do alphabetical -- which is amusing, since the first name on the list alphabetically is a creationist! -- but that doesn't help in looking for climatologists.

Finally, you'll notice the techniques involved in the Oregon Petition pretty much copied the Discovery Institute, with rather similar results.

Now, in the next breath, I expect you to say "Science isn't done by consensus" without being aware of the intense irony in such a statement.

QUOTING TIM LAMBERT:

No, that wasn't Tim, that was from the linked swf page. Then from obvious error your post immediately went screeching downhill into shrill Godwin.

Thanks for coming out.

It was as good as an endorsement. I hope you all have a wonderful time at this little intervention for folk who feel frantically misunderstood and irrelevant in the world.

Disappointing yourselves for believing so zelously in an idea like AGW but having no solution for it that will ever be found acceptable by your fellow man must feel like a lifetime spent in futility. Shucks, need a hug?

Peter Smith:

You do realise that that your posts present the impression that you are a foaming at the mouth, desperately vindictive nutter don't you?

The AGW clan sees things they disagree with in all sortsd of disagreeable ways.

Peter Smith must actually be Graeme Bird

Peter, there are nutters on all sides of every debate. That is no excuse for being one. Hold your views passionately - sure. Express them vigorously in debate - yes. But try at least to be rational.

Shorter Dave Andrews: It's Socratic irony!

Shorter Peter Smith: I guess you want to build concentration camps for us 'skeptics', and if I treat my guess as a proven fact, it proves that you're a bunch of Nazi-like zealots! Perfect logic!

bi (#15). Godwin's law. You lose.

bi (#15). Godwin's law. You lose.

GC, Godwin's law at #7 by Peter Smith. You lose twice for calling the wrong person a loser.

Peter Smith rants:

Is this the new Nazi party? Obviously you AGW Alarmists cannot convince yourselves the science is settled or you would not be concerned with such a focus for a meeting. So, what was the outcome? Form Concentration Camps for climate 'denialists' as you call them. Just don't burn the bodies when you're done with them. 31,000 dead scientists around the world who understand climate change is a natural phenomenom would release a lot of carbon for you to worry about.

Detective: You're telling me your wife was devoured by a giant dessert from the galaxy in Andromeda?
Podgory: Yes.
Detective: Are you insane?
Podgory: No.
Detective. Well, that's a relief. 'Cause if you were, your story would be less plausible.

It's not persecution to identify people who are spreading misinformation and plan how to counter it in public opinion and the opinion of legislators. It's called "politics." If there has been persecution over this issue, it has ALL been from the denialists. Michael Mann had his notes subpoenaed and was hauled before a congressional committee, HUAC-style. James Hansen was muzzled. Scientists had their reports changed by politicians. Jim Salinger was fired.

As someone with relatives murdered in the Holocaust, I find it offensive that you are so quick to equate climatologists with Nazis. Stop trivialiazing the worst episode of mass murder in the history of western Europe.

Barton - are you trying to make me laugh and cry? The real rub is you admit that for most on these boards climate change is not about science and all about "politics."

True scientists and climatologists do not concern themselves with politics, only the science. That is why those of us who understand that our climate is ever changing and that this is natural will continue to play the ball while folks such as you play the man.

Shorter Peter Smith:

Climate has always changed, so all climate change is natural! (Also, people have always died, ergo all deaths are natural!) And, true scientists should only do science, while Peter Smith is allowed to make Nazi comparisons.

Peter Smith:

"The real rub is you admit that for most on these boards climate change is not about science and all about "politics." "

The science has already been researched and discussed in the scientific literature. You're not seriously under the impression that science is worked out on blogs are you?

"True scientists and climatologists do not concern themselves with politics, only the science."

So when scientists see a huge problem in the world they should just shut up and not talk about it? Really? What other professions are subject to this stricture?

"That is why those of us who understand that our climate is ever changing and that this is natural will continue to play the ball"

And yet you don't. I wonder why?

Shorter Dave Andrews:

Comment by Dave Andrews blocked

Chris O'Neill said (#17) "GC, Godwin's law at #7 by Peter Smith. You lose twice for calling the wrong person a loser."

Yes. One shouldn't post on blogs at 2.51 am. Apologies to bi -- IJI.

Peter Smith posts:

Barton - are you trying to make me laugh and cry? The real rub is you admit that for most on these boards climate change is not about science and all about "politics."

I didn't admit anything of the sort. Go back and read it again. What I said was that the business of trying to stop the deniers from distorting the science amounts to politics.

True scientists and climatologists do not concern themselves with politics, only the science. That is why those of us who understand that our climate is ever changing and that this is natural will continue to play the ball while folks such as you play the man.

Our climate is ever changing, but the present global warming is not natural at all. Where did you get the idea that it was?

BPL, as much as I admire your stolid and generally amazing defense of true climate science against people who do indeed deny the bulk of that science, it is dangerous to say that the warming of the last 100 years or so is 'not natural at all'. A vast number of natural factors affect climate, and some of these factors have no doubt contributed to the recent global warming.

This is not to say that the human contribution is unimportant; indeed I believe it to be dominant from the mid 20th century onwards.

Stu: The noise is natural, the warming trend has only one really likely cause...

Stu,

You're right. That was very careless phrasing on my part.

Some of the talks from the Sydney Writers Festival have already been broadcast on ABC radio.

Is this one going to be on the radio? Live or delayed? Transcript available online later?

Noise = variability

The paleo articles talk about "stuttering" during greenhouse transitions, so the increase in noise during this event is part of the change from fossil fuel use.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="stuttering+greenhouse"