Yesterday on Facebook I boldly stated, after quite a few shares there on the subject:
So I will give the blog a day off tomorrow — after all there are a whole lot of great (I think so!) posts I have put out there since our lockdown began.
And no, I am not going to do a post on the climate emergency or the latest IPCC Report.* I have read and seen many good things about all the bad things in it, as have you no doubt — but I have not read the thing itself, and probably neither have you.
Anyway, I have no expertise in any relevant field. I depend on carefully selected sources I have been following for years now.
And went on with what — ironically — has become this post! Stiill, I am the master of this blog,eh, and I can change my mind if I want to!
If you go to my blog (and of course here you are!) you will see in the side-bar (as in these screen shots) what I did from at least 2007 when I got sick of going over and over the same damned fool arguments denialists and minimisers and often their powerful industry sponsors have recycled again and again.
As a simple rule ignore just about everything ever published in the Murdoch press (especially The Australian) and of course the opinion mongers at Sky In The Bog are literally unbelievable and often even less qualified than I am.
The links in the side-bar are up-to-date and all work. I have just tested them. Of course the pic is just a pic, so I have added with each picture a link to the blog so you can check out the EXCELLENT resources the real thing links to.
Seeing you of course are here, let me take you through each of those links.
Skeptical Science — winner of the Australian Museum’s Eureka Award in 2011. Excellent, and VERY sound and sane! In the left sidebar you will also find all the latest posts, including on that current IPCC Report.
The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle — is a 2007 post of my own, referring to a column by the egregious Murdoch hack Miranda Devine.
Why shouldn’t we be told humans produce a small fraction of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere each year, compared with volcanoes, bacteria, animals, rotting vegetation and the oceans?
That is in Miranda’s damp squib defence of “The Great Global Warming Swindle, a science-backed [sic] rebuttal of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.” I’ll let notoriously non-Marxist Christian Sir John Houghton, a top meteorologist and former Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford University, reply.
Next question. Miranda?
Why shouldn’t we hear about the 2005 House of Lords inquiry, which first examined the economics of climate change, expressing concern about the objectivity of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
8. The IPCC process stifles debate and is used by scientists to further their own self interest – NOT TRUE.
I chaired the main meetings of Working Group I during the production of the first three IPCC scientific assessments. I can say categorically that the process was very open and honest. The aim was to distinguish between what was reasonably well known and the areas where there is large uncertainty. The chapter groups had complete freedom to investigate and assess the scientific literature and draw their conclusions.
Contrary to the impression given in the programme, no one ever resigned from being a lead author in Working Group I because of their disagreement with the process or the final content of their chapter. In fact, no one ever communicated to me a complaint about the integrity of the process.
I should mention, however, a case of disagreement that occurred in Working Group 2 of the IPCC that dealt with the impacts of climate change – a more complex area to address that the basic science of Working Group I. Professor Reiter who appeared in the programme described how, unfortunately, his expert work on malaria failed to get recognition in the relevant IPCC chapter.
Even Professor Lindzen, who appeared at length on the programme, stayed the course as lead author within Working Group I, expressing his satisfaction with the report’s chapters as good scientific documents. He has often, however, gone on to express his view that the conclusions of the Policymakers Summary did not faithfully represent the chapters. But he has never provided any supporting evidence for that statement – nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else who has quoted that statement originating from Lindzen.
It is important to note that IPCC Policymakers’ Summaries are agreed unanimously at intergovernmental meetings involving over 200 government delegates from around 100 countries. This agreement is only achieved after several days of scientific debate (only scientific arguments not political ones are allowed) the main purpose of which is to challenge the scientific chapter authors regarding the accuracy, clarity and relevance of the summary and most especially its consistency with the underlying chapters. Agreement at such a meeting has ensured that the resulting document, so far as is possible, is scientifically accurate, balanced and free from personal or political bias.
Reference was made in the programme to an article in the Wall Street Journal in 1995 about the 1995 IPCC report accusing the IPCC of improperly altering one of the agreed chapters before publication. This was a completely false accusation as was pointed out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 1996, 77, pp1961-1966.
You may like to listen to (or read the transcript of) this tribute to Sir John Houghton, broadcast on the ABC Science Show in April 2020, on the occasion of his passing.
With his leadership, Sir John Houghton did more than inspire a generation of scientists. No one has more successfully and effectively traversed the world of cutting-edge science, domestic and international climate politics, and the institutions and policies required to reduce climate risk. His combination of scientific rigour, humanism and political nous made him truly formidable.
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to common arguments is just brilliant! Every sincere and/or damned fool question is there!
Below is a complete listing of the articles in “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.
The Discovery of Global Warming — A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change by Spencer Weart — “a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA, and he continues to be affiliated with the Center.”
And of course the IPCC itself.
As for Australia’s position, a discussion came up on Facebook yesterday following our Prime Minister’s response to the latest IPCC Report. My bottom line:
Even if ScoMo believes every word — and he just might — he is going down the wrong path. And taking us with him. So he has to go.
As I said — the wrong path. That rather than his sincerity is the issue. They have been running with the technology will fix it line for ages now, and it is pathetic as a lot of their fixes are extremely hypothetical.
I care about us having a better climate policy. I am not going to go back over all those issues. The fact is I really do not care all that much one way or another about Scott Morrison, either to lionise him or demonise him. Simple fact — he and his government have the wrong policies. Let’s hope the other side — who have been a bit messy too in the past — do a better job.
This cartoon offers a view which resonates with me.
And of the many media responses yesterday, this one from India is one of the most powerful.
And here is an hour from someone I am sure you know. I offer it in the unlikely event you have not seen it — it is an hour well spent though.