Dylan Malloch laments that understanding climate change is difficult, with the forecasts sometimes appearing to be contradictory or having a bit both ways, and therefore seeming all rather confusing! It’s easy to sympathise with him. Unfortunately, this is the nature of science.

Just because climate change science is as hard to understand as Einstein's theories doesn't mean it's wrong. Image: AP.

Let’s consider another example. Newton’s laws of physics work just fine for the everyday world, but if we tried to use them in the timing system of our global positioning satellites, the resulting drift error would be about 10 kilometres every day.

So, the engineers at GPS mission control need to use Einstein’s relativistic theories to make sure your iPhone tells you precisely where you are, whenever you want to know. Similarly, neither Newton’s or Einstein’s equations allow scientists to properly predict the subatomic interactions within the electronics of satellites or iPhones. For that, you need to reference the weird world of quantum mechanics.

Each of these model systems – Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum physics – produce some contradictory predictions, and gaps in understanding remain. The theories have not yet been unified, for instance, to the lament of Einstein and his successors.

Yet the vast majority of us – the average Joe and Josephine Public –  are not confused or worried about GPS and iPhones, for the simple matter that we don’t try too hard to understand how they work. After all, it’s plain enough to our eyes, immediately and incontrovertibly, that they do! So we just accept it, like we do for most forms of technology.

Climate science is now treated rather differently, however. This is because although the stochastic and chaotic systems involved are, in their own way, just as complex as relativity and quantum theory, many people just don’t want to take the underpinning science and evidence for granted.

They WANT to know and understand this stuff (which is good, from a science education perspective), and their motivation usually comes about because they feel threatened by it, or guilty about it, or whatever. Dylan’s example of not wanting to be responsible for suffering poor people underscores the point.

Yet at its core, much of the maths, physics, chemistry, models, theory, and so on, which together make up the many fields of climate science, can be really difficult stuff. It takes a lot of learning time, and lots exposure to the many lines of scientific evidence and the general practice of doing science and dealing with uncertainty, to appreciate the complexities and nuances involved.

So when people don’t ‘get’ the science and are left confused by media sound bites, it’s typically because they haven’t got the time, experience or training to really grasp the interconnections, feedbacks and apparent contradictions.

The other obvious problem is that climate model forecasts are not tangible and deterministic – unlike the GPS or iPhone, there is no simple, repeatable test of whether they ‘work’ or not. Climate change is also not being painted on a ‘blank canvas’ – extreme weather has always been with us, for instance, so how to tell what can be attributed to natural versus human-caused effects?

It’s tough, no doubt about it, and there is a huge scientific effort dedicated to identifying the ‘fingerprints’ of human activity amongst the many ‘smudges’ caused by ever-present natural influences on weather and climate.

Imagine, for example, that you wanted to safely cross a busy road, and there were 20 cars going past you every minute (natural events). Then, a traffic signal somewhere up the street failed, and started to let more traffic through (climate change), such that there were now 30 cars whizzing past each minute.

You step out on the road and are unfortunately hit by a car. As you lay in hospital with your leg in traction, you wonder: was I hit by one of the original 20 cars, or one of the new 10? You decide that you can never know for sure, but having later been told about the circumstances, you realise that your risk of being struck went up by about a third because of the failed traffic signal that you didn’t even observe.

Analogies like this are always imperfect, but it might help you get the point.

So Dylan is left wondering how ‘global warming’ can cause more heat waves and droughts, and yet also be attributed to torrential down pours and flooding.

The simple answer is that you can have both, because more and more energy is being trapped by the Earth’s atmosphere as greenhouse gases accumulate, and the climate dynamics that result from this energy input is expressed in different ways in different parts of the world at different times. The full answer? Well, it’s complicated…

101 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      04:54am | 11/02/11

      Comparing climate science to quantum physics and relativity is a false analogy. Climatic phenomena are far more complex and unpredictable than the very reliable results of these other sciences.

      I can understand a climate scientist wanting his profession to be taken seriously, but it’s just not quite developed enough. Added to that is the loss of credibility caused by revelations of scientific malpractice such as Climategate, the Himalayan glacier hoax, and so on.

      Rather than lecturing us, you’d be better off spending your time admitting to the existence of dodgy practices - and telling us how you plan to reform your profession to prevent such scandals happening again.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      06:40am | 11/02/11

      I tend to agree with Erick.
      Also, the reason people don’t question the obviously complicated science behind their gps or iPhone, is because they actually work. Unlike computer models that predict future climate.

    • David LD says:

      07:47am | 11/02/11

      You mean the Climategate where there was found to be absolutely no wrong-doing whatsoever? That Climategate? The same Climategate that even if it had shown those particular scientists were in error, WHICH THEY WEREN’T, would not have conveniently disproved all of the other science related to and surrounding the issue?

      Don’t you have a sand dune to stick your head in for the next 30 years while the rest of us actually understand the problem and look for solutions to the problems facing us today, instead of trying to mock those who can help?

      The problem the author of this article has is that he has to deal with people who have become accustomed to science providing magnificent breakthroughs, but who will shun it like luddites if it ever suggests that something terrible (and preventable) might be happening, if only we could change our behaviour as a species.

      As I said in the other thread, the comments on these two articles today are going to be hi-larious.

    • Jugg says:

      08:01am | 11/02/11

      David LD,

      Be constructive, coming in here jumping up and down and yelling doesn’t further the argument and provides nothing to intellectual debate.

    • Super D says:

      08:34am | 11/02/11

      @ David LD - not a single one of the climategate enquiries has been impartial and disinterested.  A whitewash may give temorary comfort to some but doesn’t provide any long term support.

      The climategate enquiries were the equivalent of Robert Mugabe counting his cronies votes and deciding that he’d won a legitimate victory.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      08:35am | 11/02/11

      @DavidLD… the only so-called investigation into Climate-Gate was stacked (by Labour UK), and you probably know this.
      Names like Sir Russell, and Prof Boulten who was already on the record basically supporting whatever the IPCC decided to say (Hadley CRU is basically the bulk of IPCC “scientific” opinion). They didn’t even look at the scientific fraud (or possible existence of) their terms of reference guaranteed that there’d be a “not guilty” verdict, because they were looking at the wrong crime! You probably know all this, and yet maintain the [failed] argument… zealot anyone? smile

      You should applaud people questioning the opinions (and that’s all they are) of sceptics and scaremongers alike. Your ridicule only serves to reflect on your own bias and lack of objectivity.

    • Grumpy says:

      10:41am | 11/02/11

      Erick, How do you know how developed or underdeveloped climate science is? You’re not a climate scientist. Is it because 10% of the time the weather on the news isnt accurate to 100%? If a doctor tells your friend that they have cancer, and you read somewhere the symptoms are not cancer but hemroids, it doesn’t mean your friend doesn’t have cancer.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:57am | 11/02/11

      @ Erick

      Climategate ‘revealed’ that a prominent scientist was being petty and withholding data from someone he didn’t like (data that was publicly available elsewhere).  That’s it.  The out-of-context emails looked interesting, but there’s a reason they were cleared (and no, it’s not because it’s all a giant conspiracy).

      The glacier stuff-up was bad, but it wasn’t a hoax.  It was a stuff-up.  It was picked up by climate scientists that accept AGW and fixed by climate scientists that accept AGW. 
      Science is self-correcting.  The Lancet stuffed up and published Andrew Wakefield’s nonsense (despite the warnings that it was dodgy from so many) and when the anti-vacc house of cards fell down they admitted they were wrong to publish it.  Yet no-one turns around as says that medicine isn’t a real science (well, maybe a few homeopaths do).

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:02am | 11/02/11

      @ Super D

      “not a single one of the climategate enquiries has been impartial and disinterested”
      So what was dodgy about these guys?
      http://www.cce-review.org/Biogs.php

    • acotrel says:

      04:26pm | 12/02/11

      ‘I can understand a climate scientist wanting his profession to be taken seriously, but it’s just not quite developed enough’

      Erectus, Are you stating a fact or is this just an example of wishful thinking’?  Scientists usually take a big picture perspective, and effectively deal with uncertainties by doing error analyses. I’d love to know your qualifications which make you think you can simply deny the validity of a whole range of scientific disciplines?

    • Overflow says:

      05:05am | 11/02/11

      I understand that science can be complicated and sometimes contradictory. I am more than a little bemused by the fact that our govt want to install a CO2 price mechanism that will not have a significant impact on CO2 emmisions world wide BUT will have a detrimental effect on industry in Oz.

      Gillard can have as many CC Commisions as she likes until she can convince the majority of the population to pay more for electricity WITHOUT compensation to ensure the price signal is felt she is wasting everyone’s time and businesses money.

    • macca-d says:

      10:05am | 11/02/11

      G’day Overflow,

      I feel like a carbon tax will have a negliglble effect on the Australian economy.  Imagine that it’s somthing like a tiny increase in the GST.  It is applied to imports but not to exports.  The money stays in the country as govt revenue to be spent…creating jobs or whatever.  Also it helps Australia to adapt to greener energy gradually by providing incentives not to produce CO2.

      Finally, and importantly, it can lead to a significant impact on worldwide CO2 emissions if some of that money raised through a carbon tax was put into R&D of renewable energy.  Imagine if some Aussie scientist designed a solar panel which produces electricty cheaper than coal.

      Bring it on, I say.

    • Richard says:

      01:53pm | 11/02/11

      Nah macca-d, in fact not. Electricity prices are already increasing in a big big way, too far for many pensioners and low income earners. Any carbon tax would DOUBLE (yes double) these already too high prices. This simply cannot be allowed to happen, no matter what.

      We need to fight climate change, but we need to do it cheaply. Read “Super-Freakonomics” for some cheap, easily implementable ideas for reversing global warming that won’t drive up the price of electricity.

      Power is the basis of all industry. To grow our economy, we must necessarily grow our power usage. All the advances in our living standards have also been brought about by devices that consume electricity (power). Therefore to increase our living standards we need to increase our electricity usage.

      How on earth can the government purport to represent us when they want to put in policies that will lead to less industry (and therefore wealth) and lower living standards for all Australians? A government that truly stood up for our interests would find ways to increase our capacity to generate and use power, not tax it.

    • Gregg says:

      12:04pm | 12/02/11

      @Richard,
      I suppose the $64M or is it B these days is whether the fighting of climate change can be won by a strategy of continued development however freakishly it occurs and given with WTO principles forever expanding the wealth of our most populous nations where labour can be so cheap, development like we have never ever seen nor imagined is likely to occur more and more.
      And that is regardless of whether you want to be a believer, nonbeliver, sceptic or just a mere questioner.

      If you believe as a government lokking for votes or green support on it will be want to do, their line will obviously be whatever we do we do for the long term good of all Australians and even the uninvited.

    • Super D says:

      05:47am | 11/02/11

      I am more than willing to accept there is a lot of uncertainty regarding future climate forecasts - it’s those calling for climate action now who have set the forecasts in stone - keep the temperature from going up by more that 2 degrees etc.

      If anything the climate debate focuses on the uncertainties and ignores the certainties.  There is one inconvenient certainty that the carbonistas ignore regularly - that unilateral action by Australia will have no impact on the climate.  This is just an inescapable fact.  That the world will notice and follow is political speculation with a good dash of hope.

      In my opinion there are two events which will lead me to accept its time to take action.

      1. China and India stop building new coal powered power stations

      2. The greens embrace nuclear power

      Until these preconditions are met unilateral action by Australia will be to the detriment of its people for no benefit.

    • iansand says:

      07:53am | 11/02/11

      If you want a neat street, and you and your neighbours have messy front yards, asking your neighbour to clean his yard will have a lot more impact if you clean up your yard first.

    • Super D says:

      08:31am | 11/02/11

      iansand, Surely you’d consider whether or not your neighbours were likely to respond before you’d take that course?  Though I guess if you’d tidied your yard you could assume the moral high ground and adopt a sense of superiority over your neightbours - I can see how this would be very appealing to some, even though there would be no change to the outcome. 

      Also as a side effect your conspicuously neat yard may well result in burglars targetting your house - so not only have you gone to a huge effort to tidy your yard - which has been ignored by your neighbours, you now end up having your stuff nicked and wind up poorer as a result.  A very apt analogy indeed!

    • Nigel says:

      08:33am | 11/02/11

      Excellent Comment.
      Irrefutable Logic.
      Totally Agree.

    • TimB says:

      09:02am | 11/02/11

      Yes, but if you only have a handful of rubbish in your yard. Picking up a few discarded cups isn’t going to make the compulsive hoarder next door suddenly clean out the baby rubbish tip he’s running out of his front yard.

      Try and put things in perspective before you use silly metaphors.

    • Duff says:

      09:50am | 11/02/11

      @iansand, not only is our yard littered with trash, but we sell our garbage to the neighbours as well!

    • WayneT says:

      02:23pm | 11/02/11

      A number of European nations already have some form of Carbon pricing, and it has done very little to influence the USA, India, China etc.  Do you really think our country of +21 million is going to hold any sway?

    • iansand says:

      02:47pm | 11/02/11

      WayneT - You do realise that China has announced and implemented several programmes designed to reduce emissions.

    • Stephen Fitzpatrick says:

      04:14pm | 11/02/11

      WayneT, it may not have convinced the USA and China but it has given them a lead on the technology and engineering. When Australian companies build hydro dams and wind farms in Australia and over seas, they use European designed and built generators, blades etc. These kinds of projects are a growth industry in some parts of the world and it’s great that our engineering and construction firms are getting a slice of the pie, but it could be a much bigger slice.

    • acotrel says:

      04:36pm | 12/02/11

      ‘In my opinion there are two events which will lead me to accept its time to take action.

      1. China and India stop building new coal powered power stations

      2. The greens embrace nuclear power’

      So you’d replace one risk with an even bigger one? The nuclear debate is a load of bull.  Every industry involving engineering has had it’s huge disasters.  What makes you believe the nuclear industry is any different.  In this matter we are not discussing uncertainties, as we are with climate change!

    • Jugg says:

      06:14am | 11/02/11

      I think that the common man wants to know whether or not these weather cycles have always occurred?

      Is this any different from what’s been occuring the last 200 years?

    • Concerned Citizen says:

      06:59am | 11/02/11

      Jugg, on the radio yesterday they had a white coat stating this is the strongest la nina since 1917. I believe the words since and 1917 indicate it has happened before. I imagine if we could find some data from that year we may even be able to believe it. Does anyone know if online data regarding ocean temps round Oz 1917 are available?

    • MarK says:

      07:12am | 11/02/11

      No.

      You canuse longer time cycles to.

      Guess what the answer is, emphatically no.

    • MrMac says:

      08:34am | 11/02/11

      white coat?

      Like one of Edward de Bono’s six hats?

    • persephone says:

      10:12am | 11/02/11

      Jugg

      Yes.

      CC

      and in the last few years, we’ve had the greatest bushfires since 1939, the biggest floods since 1974, the longest drought since (I think) 1891….all in the space of a few years (and the list is far longer than that).

      The point is that once these events were spread out. You’d have a period of drought and, several years later , you’d have a flood. Or a big bushfire in 1927 and a big one again in 1939 (not a big one in 2003, 2006 and 2009).

      This is what the scientists predict exactly - an increase in the frequency of extreme events.

      So they’re not saying extreme events have never happened. They’re saying they’ll be more extreme and more frequent and that the weather will switch from one to another more rapidly.

       

      I refer you to just some of the evidence:

    • fairsfair says:

      10:53am | 11/02/11

      I don’t mean this to sound as stirry as it is going to, but would those bushfires have occurred if nobody lit them?

      I understand, the conditions were there, however the immediate impact represented by people (not their influence on the atmosphere and prolonged weather events) but their choice to be a pyromaniac and purposely light a fire surely must be the difference? There are more people now and more media coverage of conditions, more issues - therefore there are more people about to be advised of the conditions and go light a fire than there were in the 1800s.

      History supports the cyclone activity - it has never been any different. The Brisbane floods are following a pattern also. If we are having the stongest La Nina since 1917, maybe we just got through the back of a really bad El Nino.

      Like I said below, I am open to read through discussion on the actual SCIENCE, but trying to pove it by linking it back to weather events that seem to simply be following historical patterns is not working.

      Perhaps the punch should publish a couple of articles by scientists who support and not support and close off the comments section? The facts are being muddied by people who really don’t know anything about it.

    • iansand says:

      11:43am | 11/02/11

      fairsfair - People don’t light droughts.

    • Concerned Citizen says:

      11:58am | 11/02/11

      @pers
      you referred no evidence just opinion.

      Does Australia have a history of a drought/flood cycle?
      With these events increasing shouldnt we have shorter droughts as we will flood more?

    • fairsfair says:

      12:02pm | 11/02/11

      I know that iansand and that is not what I said.

    • Maginthatey says:

      12:56pm | 11/02/11

      Well said persephone @ 10:12am. “This is what the scientists predict exactly - an increase in the frequency of extreme events” - I often wonder what part of this statement climate change denialists don’t understand? An increase in the frequency of extreme weather events brought on by the modern day activities of Humans. Perhaps if ‘denialists’ travelled more often, their Luddite views might change - I’ve been in Los Angeles when advice is given to the elderly to stay indoors, because pollution levels for the day were far too high to venture out, I’ve been in Tokyo when you couldn’t see two blocks ahead,  Paris and London are slowly rotting, you can smell it, but of course this has been going on for centuries, it’s got nothing to with Human activity, it’s natures way of cleansing us, letting us smell the roses, so to speak. Wake up for your own sake but more importantly, future generations.

    • Concerned Citizen says:

      01:24pm | 11/02/11

      @Maginthatey
      Has there been an increase in theses events?
      Is there more energy in hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons?
      Are we just more exposed to these events now there is alot more people and data gathering?
      Can you please show a link between CO2 and smog which seems to be what you are describing

    • Reg says:

      06:20am | 11/02/11

      In the event of confusion resort to Chaos Theory remembering that a butterfly fart in Siberia can ultimately result in a cyclone in Tully.

    • SMAT says:

      06:44am | 11/02/11

      I am conservative in my world view. When dealing with complex issues I rely on people that have spent a long time studying, researching and understanding issues. When many subject matter experts tell me that there is a problem, and the view on the other side is not being put forward by subject matter experts, I go with the experts. I don’t get my medical advice from experts in animal husbandry. I don’t get my car fixed by the local physicist. The radical position is to take the opposite view.
      As to the debate, the normal bait and switch seems to be at play.
      The denialists and sceptics can be seen not debating the science but are now moving to the other standby - China and India and their need to stop pulling people out of poverty. As a conservative, I want the market capitalism to triumph in both these places. This requires them going through the stages we already have. Technology allows for these vast populations to grow economically with much less of an environmental impact than our society had - it will however not happen without a cost.
      For the denaialist brigade to demand that India and China not grow or grow in some magic pudding way with no impact is absurd. Pitiful really.

    • Adam Diver says:

      06:54am | 11/02/11

      The problem with your GPS analogy, is that we have observable results. Climate change real data does not match the predictions, even taking into consideration localised data. Where exactly is the warming in ocean temperatures for example.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:07am | 11/02/11

      Agreed. Yr 12 Physics has helped me today.

      What I don’t understand is that in these two articles those who doubt the theory are patronised due to their inability to “understand” the science and almost criticised for their questioning. You query, you are a denier. Yet those who don’t understand the science and still support it for whatever reason are just the people we should all aspire to be?

      I don’t know how I feel about it but I am leaning towards thinking it is crap. I am basing this purely on historical weather patterns. I also starting to immediately turn off to the supporters due to the manner in which they communicate. I never used to be like that. I am open to read through a discussion on the science (without comment because I don’t know enough abou it) but I don’t need bad metaphors and I don’t need to be reminded of all the contradictions out there to understand.

      Less treating those with genuine questions like idiots, more discussion on the facts at hand. More acceptance of each other’s opinions and less head in the sand type comments from the people who are fast approaching hysteria.

    • MarK says:

      07:16am | 11/02/11

      “Analogies like this are always imperfect, but it might help you get the point.”

      Pick me - pick me.

      I got an analogy.

      Imagine if someone wanted to reorganise the whole world economy. Imagine if they used a baseless scare campaign to do it. Imagine if they made a few billion on the side. Imagine if the scientists backing you had their livelihoods invested in it. Imagine if you could not prove anything but had ideological support from fringe groups and then mainstream politics caught onto the vote buying power of the thing.

      Wow.

      Imagine how stupid any person would be to contemplate giving you the time of day.

    • iansand says:

      07:56am | 11/02/11

      That would be the lizard people, I assume.

    • CL Angus says:

      08:01am | 11/02/11

      Sounds a little tinfoil hat in my opinion.

      You could equally argue that climate change is true, but that a small, select group of extremely wealthy entrepreneurs think such facts are a threat to their future profits. So they hire think tanks and people with advanced communication skills to sow seeds of misinformation around the globe, making the average person doubt the science and delay (or abandon) any mitigation efforts.

      Sounds crazy, but by delaying any change these individuals can carry on business as usual and continue to make the money they had always been making.

      It’s an analogy, sure, but it’s certainly more realistic than a large, diverse group of scientists all agreeing to lie about climate change in order to form a new world order.

    • BofB says:

      09:44am | 11/02/11

      CL ANgus, are these the same faceless men behind Julia Gillard’s accention to the Prime Ministership?

      Who are these evil capitalists?

    • Troy says:

      10:13am | 11/02/11

      Yeah, (whispering) or imagine if they were from Outer Space and their planet is dangerously low on carbon, so they plan to conquer the earth and steal our carbon, but they’re not ready yet (ships are still being built) and they see we’re burning all the stuff too fast, so they send a secret delegation to negotiate with the climate scientists to concont a scare campaign to prevent us from burning all our carbon.  In return, the scientists become millionaires selling their ‘research’ to Al Gore and all they get to ride back with the Aliens to their new planet after the attack.

    • CL Angus says:

      10:44am | 11/02/11

      It was more of an example to try and show that anyone can make up a crazy theory about climate change, whether they be supporters or opponents of the phenomenon. There’s a lot of hysteria and confusion from both sides of the debate, which is politicising the issue to completely stupid levels.

      I’d rather just get on and solve the problem, instead of screaming at people who disagree with me and accuse them of being communists/capitalists/whatever they’re calling each other these days…

    • David C says:

      12:41pm | 11/02/11

      like crab people

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:49pm | 11/02/11

      If climate scientists are insanely crafty enough to orchestrate The Greatest Hoax Of All Time, then why did they do it the wrong way round?

      If I was in a specialist field and my colleagues and I decided to engineer some doomsday predictions to make a quick buck - I wouldn’t be pissing off oil and coal companies by saying we should cut our emissions.  I’d say that we need to double them! 
      The energy status quo remains the same, I wouldn’t have to rely on money from fledgling low-emissions energy providers, it’s cheaper to implement for governments, and there’s no behaviour change needed by people at the ground level.  I’d get a fat cheque once a fortnight from the rich fossil fuel producers, who get even more rich while being applauded for their ecological efforts! 
      For evil geniuses, these climate scientists are pretty dumb.

    • Vaunted says:

      03:11pm | 11/02/11

      Here’s a statement from a horse’s mouth, IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, before Cancun last year:
      “...But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”. — Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:55am | 13/02/11

      @ Vaunted

      Ah, so that must mean climate change isn’t happening.

      That makes sense, right?

    • Vaunted says:

      07:59am | 11/02/11

      Empirical vs hypothetical? Hardly a comparison. What about those endless droughts climate scientists were predicting as recently as late last year? Now the predictive language has again changed to ‘extreme weather events’, just as the term ‘global warming’ was necessarily transmuted to ‘climate change’. The issue is that while climate may well be studied by scientists, the gloomiest of climate hypotheses are promulgated as fact by vested interests including extreme environmentalists, politicians, those with a commercial interest in promoting new technology, and not least, by scientists, documentary makers and others seeking to bolster their reputations and incomes from public funds.

    • iansand says:

      08:58am | 11/02/11

      Fortunately the energy companies, which are extracting and selling coal and oil, are famous for their Olympian detachment and disdain for the process of earning that filth we call lucre.

      If you think following the money is a worthwhile investigative technique can I suggest you do it on both sides of the argument?

    • persephone says:

      10:16am | 11/02/11

      Vaunted

      which scientists made these predictions?

      I didn’t read any. I read warnings that such droughts would become more frequent and severe.

      Just because it’s raining outside now doesn’t mean I can predict with any certainty that we won’t be back in drought next year.

    • Vaunted says:

      12:23pm | 11/02/11

      For one, Doctor Tim Flannery: scientist, author, professional speaker, climate activist, honoured professional consultant to the government and industry bodies on all matters climatic, and Chairman of the Whatever Committee for Communications with Gaia and the Imposition of Substantial and Unnecessary Emissions Penalties Upon Ordinary Australian Working Families for Political Purposes. There are others of course, for example hence our multi billion dollar public wastage on windmill projects and various unneeded desal plants.

    • Ben in Canberra says:

      08:47am | 11/02/11

      Thanks Barry, a reasonable well argued case. Let me put some things to you though:

      1. The problem that the Joe and Josephine Publics have is that the whole effort of trying to explain the message you believe in has been politicised and translated into an economic debate. The mere fact that people will make money out of the idea of carbon trading surely fly’s in the face of what is ultimately a conservation argument.

      2. There is yet one person who has been able to explain why the existence of extreme and worse weather events has occurred prior to any relevant human activity, and why now it is the result of humanity. And following on from this line of argument, if science accepts and uses data from ice core samples, tree bark, ancient observations or whatever medium it is that you use to inform yourself of the past, then why does the existence of previous hot and cold periods throughout history prior to human activity not inform the debate in a more powerful way?

      3. And finally, a hypothetical argument. If I have a coal fired power station, yet I purchase carbon credits to offset my carbon output, yet continue to use the same amount of coal to produce energy, where does the environment benefit? The idea of carbon trading is seen by most as a cynical attempt to commercialise the debate while providing comfort to the chicken little’s of the world.

      For sure, the less pollution that enters the atmosphere can only be a good thing, but until you can explain to the community why your position is the right one, the debate will rage on. Perhaps Dylan Malloch can provide some PR advice to an argument that is at risk of faltering completely.

    • persephone says:

      10:26am | 11/02/11

      Ben

      1. Because using market forces in this way is the most efficient and effective way economists have come up with to cut carbon emissions.

      2. Incorrect. No scientist has said there weren’t extreme weather events in the past. No scientist is now saying that any individual event is the result of climate change.

      What scientists have said consistently, for over a decade now, is that man putting carbon in the atmosphere will result in more frequent and more extreme weather events.

      It goes like this: we know man’s activities emit carbon in the atmosphere. That’s a measurable.

      We know that increased carbon in the atmosphere traps sunlight and leads to increased warmth. (Again, that’s not a matter of dispute, but basic science; keep heat from escaping and things warm up).

      We know that increased warmth in the atmosphere drives weather events (basically, a lot of our weather is to do with the reactions between hot and cold air. Create more hot air and obviously the system reacts).

      So the equation isn’t difficult or complicated, and the perceived events match the predicted outcomes.

      3. Firstly, carbon prices would be reviewed regularly. If the necessary targets weren’t being met (I assume because you and the other energy companies aren’t acting) then the price goes up for carbon.

      So if you persist in your old fashioned ways, every time the carbon price is rejigged, your costs will go up.

      This will mean that your prices will also go up and your customers will go elsewhere (presumably to someone who has acted and can therefore offer power more cheaply).

      Eventually either all your customers will have left you, thus meaning your inefficient power station is closed down, or you will be bankrupt (allowing someone else with a bit more sense to take over).

      That’s how carbon pricing works: it drives up the cost of ‘bad’ energy and makes ‘good’ energy more attractive.

    • Beau says:

      12:27pm | 11/02/11

      @ Persephone.  The point behind having a carbon trading system is that the market will set the price.  otherwise we would just have a carbon tax / levy / what ever you want to call it.  Where is the carbon price in Europe at present?  There will not be some sort of uber controller setting the carbon price so the effect will depend on the market and trade in the product - which is why the major financial organisations like the idea.  Has it worked in Europe should be an initial question.

    • TimB says:

      12:36pm | 11/02/11

      Persephone, wasn’t it your argument a while back that coal is the cheapest source of power? The only thing bad about it was the carbon emissions? And that’s why we shouldn’t go nuclear?  (Global warming= renewables, no warming= coal)

      Green power isn’t going to come down. You’re just artificially raising the price of coal power. Making electricty more expensive for everyone no matter the source. So we’re just going to be forced to cut back and back and back. Completely wreck our way of life.
      And for what? So we can feel good about ourselves whist China runs up another coal plant?

      Why can’t you base your arguments on reality instead of theory?

    • David C says:

      12:48pm | 11/02/11

      TimB that is exactly the point, those with the political axe to grind are totally missing the reality. to reach our suppsosed goals with regards to cuts the price would have to rise dramatically and hav a huge impact on the economy o we would have to build a ridiculous amount of nuclear power plants/ solar installations (in the case of the latter something like between 3,000-12,000) . Neither is likely

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:49pm | 11/02/11

      Carbon Tax to induce domestic economy to lower carbon emissions and Carbon Tariffs to induce other countries to lower carbon emissions. No bilateral or multilateral agreements needed, and it works. Externalities such as carbon emissions factored into the price of the product and not passed on to the government to clean up pollution

    • Bilby says:

      09:17am | 11/02/11

      I can’t really take someone seriously when they demonstrate, in the act of attempting to justify bad science, that they don’t understand basic probability or maths.

      If you go from 20 cars to 30 cars a minute is that a ~33% increase?

      (30 - 20)/20 = ?

      Imperfect? Sure is.

      Now as to testability of models, if they worked, then you could plug in historical data, and come out with today’s climate. Which one does that? Oh yeah… let’s just say you can’t so you don’t have to prove anything. What tripe.

      Climate change is a faith based religion. I see no difference in the arguments used by alarmists to the ones used by Christians. There are *huge* logical disconnects, and only faith can bridge the gap.

    • Rapid Rabbit says:

      10:59am | 11/02/11

      He didn’t say a 33% increase, he said your chances of getting hit by the car went up by a third. That is, the risk when up by 10 cars/minute, i.e. 10/30.

      More than 1 way to interpret a statement? Sure is.

    • Bilby says:

      11:50am | 11/02/11

      Rapid - Ok champ. I’ll go through this slowly. Let me know if I’m going too fast.

      1. 1/3 = ~33%. So, a 1/3 increase equals a 33% increase.
      2. If a risk go up by a third, then it went up by a third *of the original amount*. In this case that would make the final number ~27 cars, not 30. As it is it went up by 10, so 10/20 = half or 50%.
      3. If the risk were to be reduced from 30 cars to 20, then it would be a 33% *decrease*. Went down by 10, so 10/30 = 1/3 or 33%.
      4. It’s mathematics. No there is not more than one way of interpreting the statement.

    • Barry Brook says:

      12:50pm | 11/02/11

      Bilby is correct, I should have said, in the analogy, that the risk went up by a half - the hazards of quick writing and then not cross-checking.

      One the other point, plugging in historical data (initial conditions and forcings) does indeed lead to a fair approximation of today’s climate. This is one way to verify that the GCMs are providing sensible results.

    • Bilby says:

      01:35pm | 11/02/11

      Barry - I understand those hazards all too well. I hope I haven’t offended.

      Could you post a link or two to info about those models that work? Computer modelling is an interest of mine (I’m a software engineer by trade) so I’d love to see how such a complex task was achieved. Many models I’ve seen have been massaged to make them work for the current data, but are of no use in predicting the future. Seeing a valid model may well swing my vote, as that is a large part of my objection.

    • Barry says:

      02:57pm | 11/02/11

      No offence at all, and quite right to point it out.

      In the broad sense, it is interesting and reassuring that AOGCMs consistently produce patterns like the ITCZ as an emergent property. The diagram on this page gives an interesting visual comparison of model vs observed precipitation, and the match is surprisingly good:

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-1-2.html

      Essentially, the numerical weather prediction models used for 1-10 day forecasts have the same fundamental underpinnings as the GCMs applied for century-scale climate forecasts.

      However, the ensemble of IPCC AR4 models do produce some quite divergent predictions of future change under identical GHG scenarios - at least for some metrics. There tends to be strong agreement amongst temperature forecasts, for instance, but weak agreement or contradictory predictions with respect to changes in precipitation. A useful way to explore these inter-model similarities and differences is with the MAGICC/SCENGEN software—a useful tool to muck about with and test various assumptions (written by my good friend Tom Wigley):

      http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/

      M/SG can also be used for serious work - especially if the coarse-scale outputs are downscaled by coupling to statistical splines of met station data (I’ve done some of this as part of my work on biodiversity adaptation).

      Ben Santer’s fingerprinting work also look at a range of observed vs model outcomes:
      http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14778 (might be behind a paywall? - can’t tell from my Uni connection)
      http://www.clivar.org/organization/wgcm/wgcm-13/Talks/Monday/BSanter_IDAG.ppt (has most of the same figures)

      Gerald Meehl and colleagues have done a lot of work looking at the match of past/current climates and GCM outputs under different forcings - a type of fingerprinting called hindcasting (as opposed to forecasting). The match of observed to predicted temperatures, when all factors (natural and anthropogenic forcings) are simulated. Note that there is no ‘tuning’, other than forcings, and these are set at equilibrium conditions at the start of the model runs. The results are are quite impressive:

      http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf

      In the historical context, Spencer Weart provides a detailed and readable overview of the development and validation of GCMs:

      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

    • Bilby says:

      07:19pm | 11/02/11

      I’ll get back to you shortly.

    • Bilby says:

      12:56pm | 14/02/11

      Barry - Forgive me for my scepticism, but all the models fail for the same reason. The lack of an adequate sensor array. If our models match the current climate, then either they have been fudged, or they got lucky. The more I read, the more I am convinced that any attempt to model the climate is invalid, for the reason stated. Although my position has not altered in the slightest, I appreciate your injection of knowledge into the argument. Thank you.

    • Grant says:

      09:42am | 11/02/11

      ALL of the 32 international science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a degree of influence on recent global temperature increases. 

      It is my understanding that no remaining scientific body of international standing has rejected the basic findings of human influence on climate change. 

      In addition, the misrepresentation in the climategate emails is not sufficient evidence to discredit the entire world’s scientific organisations and staff, and the millions of hours spent by these scientists dedicated to researching this issue.

      Some of the organisations that have established that the science is real are:

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
      International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
      Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
      World Health Organization
      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      National Research Council (US)
      U.S. Global Change Research Program
      US National Academy of Sciences:
      European Academy of Sciences and Arts
      European Science Foundation
      Polish Academy of Sciences
      Network of African Science Academies
      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

    • David C says:

      12:58pm | 11/02/11

      this is sort of irrelevant isnt it? Of course there is agreement on global warming, its warmed. And there will be agreement on man’s impact.. there is not agreement on the future, there is still a alrge degree of uncertainty, that is the real issue with respect to the climate debate

    • AdamC says:

      02:38pm | 11/02/11

      There are a lot of appeals to authority in this AGW debate. For example, Greens MPs continually say things like “The scientists have been telling us for years”. Authorities are not facts.

    • Martin says:

      02:40pm | 11/02/11

      “It is only through “expanding the tent” of those who take a realistic perspective of climate change that we have a chance to bring the climate wars to a sensible conclusion.” Frontier Center for Public Policy.

      The issue is that ‘consensus in science’ throughout the ages has never in fact stood up to the longer term outcomes. In fact in relation to climate change, so called consensus science is just as dangerous as the climate change deniers.

      Here is a great article ‘Skeptic Economist in Critical Assessment of Climate Consensus’ by the economist who exposed and discredited the “hockey stick” graph of Penn. State University professor, Michael Mann of Climategate infamy and a lead author in the IPCC’s 2001 Report - http://www.suite101.com/content/skeptic-economist-in-damning-assessment-of-climate-consensus-a344748

      And here is another study just released this week ‘Getting Society off the Climate Change Bandwagon’ by Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Winnipeg-based, free-market-friendly think-tank http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3601 This has a great list of reputable scientists who oppose the manmade climate crisis hypothesis.

      Like I said I’m not denying we are damaging our environment but there’s a big difference between believing that humans are changing the climate and that we’re doing so in significant and dangerous ways that must be urgently addressed by dramatic policy measures. Organisations like Frontier and Professor Ross McKitrick aim to expose that difference, reminding policymakers that while there may be agreement that humans affect their environment, there remains frequent and active dispute over the extent—and whether it would be efficient or advisable to direct vast public resources to remedying it.

    • Peter says:

      09:58am | 11/02/11

      How typical of all that is wrong with the so-called Climate Change “debate”:

      On the “for” side we have an award-winning climate scientist who has published over 130 peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of climate change. 

      On the “against” side we have a Public Relations consultant with a Grad Dip in theology.

      Both deserving of equal air time?

    • Adam Diver says:

      02:29pm | 11/02/11

      My favorite comment so far, but for the opposite reasons. There are many scientist, and many published science articles debunking many of the myths, or simply stating the concerns about the consensus of “climate change”.

      The fact that media organisations always go for the lowest common denominator to claim against bias is a worrying trend.

      Read through the comments and many of the links, you may still believe in AGW but if you read it with an open mind, you should at the minimum be concerned about the standards of the scientific and political bodies involved.

    • Rapid Rabbit says:

      11:09am | 11/02/11

      Let’s get some perspective here. I don’t think the author is trying to talk down to people. He’s trying to respond to a complaint/grumble.

      After all, this is a COUNTERPUNCH article, written in response to an article where the PR guy complained that he didn’t understand climate science and wanted things put simply to him. The point of the response, as I see it, is that “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”.

      That is, the scientific answer IS complicated, and just wishing for simple ‘sound bite’ answers won’t magically make them happen. Get used to complexity, uncertainty, and apparent contradictions.

    • Debbie says:

      12:04pm | 11/02/11

      Can all those who firmly believe in human caused “climate change” please tell what steps they personally have taken to lower their share of carbon emissions? I look around and I see a bunch of talkers flying around the world in fuel gobbling aeroplanes, staying in energy intensive hotels, driving humungous 4x4s around the city ... and telling me that if I pay more for my electricity the world will be saved.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      09:20pm | 13/02/11

      Think global act local. For my part I sort my garbage, compost my kitchen scraps, turn off appliances that aren’t being used and instill into my friends and family the need to use every manufactured object as many times as possible. I also eat far less meat than I used to, avoid using my motor vehicle and buy items that don’t have excessive packaging.
      Lastly (I realise this isn’t possible for those who live in units) if I have to get up take a piss in the middle of the night, I go out the back on my citrus; it saves litres of water and the oranges have never been better.

    • Matt says:

      12:24pm | 11/02/11

      Trust me, I’m a Scientist!

    • fred firth says:

      01:51pm | 11/02/11

      So this is what we have come to.
      Let’s spend billions of dollars to see if we can prove a taxable theory. If we can’t we will lie and destroy anyone or anything that gets in our master’s way.

      People are stupid and will believe anything we tell them. If they get difficult we will get Lateline’s Tony Jones to smile at them and praise the talents of people like Barry Brook and Tim Flannery and sneer at real scientists like Ian Plimer.

      The deceit and corruption surrounding global warming has been so blatant and obvious that it seems like contempt.
      History proves this planet is self regulating. AGW alarmists are not!

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      10:48pm | 12/02/11

      Dear Fred,

      We expect science to deliver the technology we rely on everyday. When it provides benefits, the general public does not question the process of science, or the accuracy of its predictions.

      This is exactly the same science that explains the greenhouse effect and its enhancement from fossil fuel based CO2. It tells us that the planet will self regulate, by getting warmer in a relatively short space of time (several hundred years at most) and this will have consequences for the ecology and the weather.

      The deceit and corruption, to which you refer, is concerned with trying to explain the impacts of AGW on climate: where we are now, and what the future holds. Removing the corrupted analyses still predicts that there will be impact of AGW. 

      Science tells us that this impact of AGW, even without predicting the how it will affect the weather, requires political and economic change. We see this as an assault on our world view and standard of living.

      For me, part of the problem is that the average voter is not a scientist and relies on the media to provide scientific information and analysis. This makes it hard to separate the science from the politics and economics.

      We end up using politics and economics to argue the science.

    • Jane says:

      01:59pm | 11/02/11

      I find your article to be insulting. You dont need to be a mechanic to know if your car is broken nor a mechanical engineer to use the benefits of it.

    • Ba says:

      03:09pm | 11/02/11

      Why was it insulting?

      The article was written as a response to Dylan. He said that the messaging of climate change was confusing and difficult to understand. I agreed with him, but tried (perhaps not all that successfully) that there is no simple way to make this better. There are no simple sound bites that are correct all of the time, in all circumstances, as another commenter already pointed out.  Yes, it can be difficult, but doesn’t make the science wrong.

      The car/mechanic analogy is a bit different, because it is (usually) obvious when a car is broken. You may need a mechanic to tell you what exactly is broken, or why it happened, but I agree that you don’t need one to tell you that it happened.

      For climate change forecasts, it’s more like your mechanic telling you that your spark plugs are carbonizing and this is reducing the performance of your car and will eventually lead to a breakdown.

      You don’t need to be a meteorologist to use weather forecasts. But if you want to understand how those forecasts were produced and the probabilities were arrived upon, then perhaps you do. And so on.

    • Bilby says:

      03:34pm | 11/02/11

      This is not about *if* the car is broken, but who’s fault it is. I’m sure Toyota hasn’t had a bunch of “common people” checking out the (insinuated) problems with their brakes.

    • Barry Brook says:

      04:54pm | 11/02/11

      By the way, the “Ba” was me (Barry Brook), I somehow left the name truncated.

    • Skeptic says:

      02:38pm | 11/02/11

      Riddle me this Barry Brook: what would count as confounding evidence to the AGW theorem? We know natural climate variablility doesn’t count, we know warmer pre-industrial temperatures don’t confound it. We know periods of decreasing temperature don’t count either. What would it take for Tim Flannery and Bazza to chuck it in and say they were wrong? Heck, let’s not limit it to Bazza. Anyone who’s a true believer can jump in.

      My suspicion is that there’s no force on heaven or earth that could make so many people, so invested in being right, admit they were completely wrong. That’s what makes it religion, not science.

    • Barry Brook says:

      05:06pm | 11/02/11

      The science argument is not whether humans are releasing fossil CO2 and causing a rise in its atmospheric concentration, nor that CO2, CH4 etc. are greenhouse gases. It is the degree to which +ve or -ve feedbacks result in a lot or a small amount of warming.

      in that context, evidence of strong -ve (diminishing) feedbacks would force me to conclude that future anthropogenic warming would be on the low end of forecasts, and if the -ve response was strong enough, could even lead to no further warming.

      However, the majority of data to date, both recent observations and palaeoclimate records, suggest that +ve (amplifying) feedbacks predominate. As such, the climate sensitivity of 2-4.5C seems robust.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      07:44am | 12/02/11

      Dear Skeptic,

      I, too, am sceptical of the climate science that tries to define and predict the impact of AGW on our climate.

      But how can I question the core tenets of physics and chemistry that sit at the heart of AGW, when it delivers the technology I rely on everyday?

    • Hamish says:

      03:23pm | 11/02/11

      Barry, you say ‘the other obvious problem is that climate model forecasts are not tangible and deterministic.’ Then surely that suggests the models are somewhat flawed and forecasts largely irrelevant doesn’t it?

      While the other models you note don’t coalesce into one ‘unified’ system, you can, with an understanding of all, come to some firm conculsions and actually utilise them to get tangible results i.e. the iPhone geolocation stuff you mention. So, climate models are reasonably far behind these models from a deterministic point of view surely? One might suggest they’re actually not good for much at all.

    • Barry Brook says:

      05:00pm | 11/02/11

      Tangible means you can touch it.

      Deterministic means, essentially, not random. Contrasts with stochastic.

      Climate models have deterministic skeletons (the maths-physics equations), which can lead to chaotic behaviour (mathematically, chaos is driven by deterministic functions but is highly sensitive to initial conditions), but they also have stochastic components that are typically imposed (parameterisations).

      Climate models simulate inherent variability, and climate measurements used to build them have unavoidable uncertainties. It’s the old axiom, “all models are wrong, some are useful”. Quantum mechanics also has irresolvable uncertainty, e.g. Heisenberg’s principle.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      10:08pm | 12/02/11

      Dear Hamish,

      I addition to what Barry has said:

      I believe another problem with climate model forecasts is that the Scientific Method requires a Control, and we don’t have one.

      This would be an identical earth to ours, going through the same natural climate change that we have right now, but with no humans so there is no AGW. We could observe and measure the current natural climate change and this would allow us to differentiate between it and AGW. We could measure the current impact of AGW.

      It would make the science of climate change analysis and prediction much more accurate and certain.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      03:40pm | 11/02/11

      “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy…if we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level, there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health.” 
      Memo written in 1969 by a PR spinner working for tobacco.  For todays topic, just change the last three words to climate change.

      You don’t need ‘facts’, or ‘reality’. You just need to pretend that there is some ‘controversy’.  Among the credible scientific community, there is actually NO controversy. The jury was in long ago.

      We are now left with the silent but overwhelming majority of science stating that Climate Change is real, and a few rent seeking(&/or attention seeking) people looking to prostitute themselves by claiming they have ‘proof’ that it’s all a big conspiracy.  I call these people ‘Climate Prostitutes’.

    • Jim says:

      05:48pm | 11/02/11

      Oh please….comparing a psuedo-science with Newton and Einstein. Quantum physics? That’s like comparing Placido Domingo with Justin Beiber.

      No one stands to reap in trillions of dollars using string theory…that’s the only difference that counts.

      By the way Barry, who funds your research?

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      09:58pm | 12/02/11

      Dear Jim,

      The physics and chemistry that explains the greenhouse effect and the radiocarbon dating technique (which identifies carbon derived from fossil fuel combustion) is the same science that delivers the technology of everyday life.

      Quantum physics lies at the core of the science that describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

      The climate science (applying increasing greenhouse effect to global climate) is not exact and can only be verified after the fact.

      I believe it is because the issue of AGW requires change in our behaviour that it is politically vilified.

      We must remember that we cannot use politics or economics to refute the science.

    • B says:

      08:11pm | 11/02/11

      So your saying those who dispute AGW are not reading into it much or dont understand it?  Because that is completely the wrong way around.

      Believers in the church of climatology do so because they are told too.  I have not found ONE person who is a skeptic and has not done research.  But I have found plenty of believers who have not done any research.

      Also comparing Relativity to Climate change is ridiculous.  It just makes you seem unintelligent.  Since Relativity is not marred by the constant hoaxes, cover ups and scientific inadequacies.

      Also relativity holds true on the fact that not everyone thinks it is correct, and this is fine, but with climate change, if you are a “skeptic” you are allowed to be vilified and bullied because of the fact.

      So sorry but your use of analogies in this article are completely false.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      09:48pm | 12/02/11

      Dear B,

      I would like to know what some of these hoaxes are, so I can check them out for myself.

      Relativity still has many unproved assertions such as wormholes, what happens at the centre of black holes, what happens to matter at light speed. The inadequacies happen where the maths attempts to reach an asymptote (light speed) or spirals into a singularity (black hole centres). At these places the maths break down.

      Where it differs to AGW is that it is not predicting consequences that require political and economic change. If it was, I wonder if it would be debated so hotly.

      I myself am a sceptic of the climate science predictions of AGW because we don‘t have a Control as per the Scientific Method (although I don’t dismiss them out of hand), but I can’t deny the physics and chemistry that predicts both the greenhouse effect and radiocarbon dating that predicts where the rise in CO2 since 1750 came from. This is the same science that gives rise to all the technology we rely on everyday.

      Even so, I don’t believe anything 100%. It would also be true to say I don’t dismiss anything out of hand.

    • Lisa Meredith says:

      07:05am | 12/02/11

      We seem to fail to understand that the very science we seek to deride is exactly the same science we rely on everyday.

      I’m talking about the physics and chemistry that must be refuted for AGW to be false.

      The climate science of prediction based on computer modelling is attempting to understand a complex and chaotic global climate system. It is far from perfect, but this imperfection and inaccuracy does not refute the physics and chemistry.

    • mary monica roche says:

      10:24am | 12/02/11

      Your comment:
      Climatic change sceptics will deny climatic change whilst they believe big business can explot the world’s resources and make all important profits.
      Once the climate change is beyond solution and climate change cannot be stopped, the climate change sceptics will blame everyone else for not doing enough when we had the chance..

    • Eddy Jenner says:

      10:59am | 12/02/11

      Readers shouldn’t accept ‘science’ to be what Mr Brooks calls ‘science’ just because he calls himself a ‘scientist’.  Karl Popper’s thoughts are still spot on after 60 years.

      ‘Science’ SHOULD be the pursuit of knowledge whereby a theory is falsifiable, ie. it risks being invalidated if real-life findings contradict its predictions.  In the way that general relativity is but marxism is not.  I haven’t seen that sort of pursuit in ‘climate change science’.  I haven’t seen ‘climate change scientists’ make predictions which can be checked, with the undertaking that if their predictions are completely wrong they will have to reject their theory and start again.  Indeed, “climate model forecasts are not tangible and deterministic – unlike the GPS or iPhone, there is no simple, repeatable test of whether they ‘work’ or not.”  So what is it about ‘climate change science’ that makes it ‘science’?  Quantum physics is ridiculously complicated but many of its startling predictions which remain unfalsified decades on are easily grasped even by a dullard like me.  I’m sure much of ‘climate change science’ is underpinned by real science such as physics and chemistry but that doesn’t turn the meta-theory of climate change into ‘science’.

      Many would agree with Mr Brooks’s definition of ‘science’ as being a body of knowledge agreed on by many researchers with specialised technical skills beyond the general population, within a socially authoritative institution.  People can call whatever they want ‘science’, I’m not saying that definition is wrong, just that Popper’s is better, more meaningful and more useful to society.

      I myself am a doctor and of course acknowledge that much of ‘medical science’ is not science at all.

      I do think most of the moderate claims of ‘climate change science’ will in time be shown to be useful and important, and its adherents vindicated, but the whole discussion is so politicised it is much less interesting to me than the question of what ‘science’ is- so thanks Mr Brooks.

    • monica mary lewinski says:

      03:48pm | 12/02/11

      @mmh,you could live on the moon with scientlogists and report us to the space police and have us charged

    • Roger Clifton says:

      08:44am | 14/02/11

      That tone is not Pauline Hansen, it’s Marie Antoinette.

      Complacently claiming that you dont see why should respect the science will not protect you from the wounded climate.  Or the wrath of its victims.

    • Joshua Leppard says:

      08:31pm | 30/10/11

      All the factors which may or may not affect climate change, affect the overall relationship we have with eachother as well as with the planet. To focus on the possible effects on climate change alone is to ignore the bigger picture.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Daniel Piotrowski

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

Daniel Piotrowski

@apiotrowski You sounded testy at 11. I can only imagine...

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter