Piers Akerman, Garth Paltridge, advice poisoned by fear, and alarm about the alarmists

There's great excitement in loon pond, as yet another book lands hot from the presses to expose the climate change alarmists.

And naturally Piers Akerman has the scoop, with Climate changes as alarmists exposed.

Some time the true believers, which is to say the true doubters, can feel a little bit abandoned, a little bit under-exposed, a little bit unloved. Why, there's Tony Abbott telling them to just go with the flow, even if there's no flow to be felt, and as for Malcolm Turnbull, the craven one:

...Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has essentially side-stepped debate in favour of a political solution which he hopes might avert a dissolution and an early election.

Oh give Wilson Tuckey another iron bar so he can do away with the wretch.

The problem of course is that the climate change people are completely irrational, and quite possibly hysterical, perhaps from too much surfing while living in Byron Bay:

It is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion based on facts with the global warmers before they plunge off into a tsunami of figures derived from their beloved computer models, any of which can produce wildly different outcomes with minor adjustments to any one of a number of variables.

Yes, yes, actual observation of actual events has nothing to do with it. Where you might see a melting glacier or an ice cap, I might just see the opening up of a new overland path or a way to improve sea trade.

But the problem's getting acute, and we all need a new messiah. Sure sure there was Ian Plimer, but the splash he made a few months back has melted like an ice cube in a hellfire of damned alarmists. Fortunately we might all be saved:

Now an Australian scientist with impeccable credentials has come forward to outline the problems with the case being stated by the politicians, who are in turn reliant on these model-addicted climate scientists.

And who that might be?

Why Dr. Garth Paltridge. But he hasn't come forward just this week, he's been around for a long time, hanging with the Institute of Public Affairs crowd, and happily traveling along with the Lavoisier group, who will be organizing a big launch in Melbourne of the book on the 11th August, with Hugh Morgan AC (yes he of mining fame) doing the honors. You can read all about it here .

But back to Akkers. After running through Paltridge's list of eminent credentials, he goes a little uncertain:

While we can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change ... 

Hmm. That's a worry. We certainly do need a messiah ...

... Paltridge has published his thoughts in a handy 111-page volume titled The Climate Caper (Connor Court Publishing).

Hmm. That's also a worry. Only a handy 111 pages. Why Ian Plimer's tome ran 503 pages and had 2,311 footnotes and was the bees knees of everything. At the time I wondered if we'd ever need another book on the subject, so conclusive were its damning findings. But it seems we do, since there are so many alarmists out there, even if they're a minority who somehow end up seeming like a majority:

He approaches the issue with a clarity lost to many in the scientific community and his view is that the global warming lobby has vastly overstated the case for disastrous global warming.

“Scientists,” he writes, “are told quite bluntly that is completely inappropriate for them to speak on matters of policy - unless of course they support it. Non-scientists are assumed to be technically ignorant and thereby incapable of speaking with authority on the issue.”

But wait, that's not new, nor is it actual science. It's just a conspiracy theory, and Paltridge has been there before. Way back in May 2008 he composed this letter to The Australian:

I hear on the scientific grapevine that CSIRO’s biggest problem when providing formal advice to the federal Government on the matter of climate change is to say nothing that can be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the army of irresponsible sceptics out there who are doubtful about the dreadful consequences of global warming.

One can only feel sorry for the Government. Where can it go these days to get unbiased advice on the issue of global warming? Its official sources are poisoned by the fear among many scientists that they may be labelled by their colleagues and by their institutions as climate-change sceptics.

Basically, the problem is that the research community has gone so far along the path of frightening the life out of the man in the street that to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general. And so, like corpuscles in the blood, researchers all over the world now rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by any idea that threatens the carefully cultivated belief in climatic disaster.

(here).

Well I guess that makes a difference from the Howard and Bush years when scientists were complaining about the political interference in their results and their thinking, with the Bush administration particularly severe on anyone who spoke out of turn and only too happy to spike anything they disagreed with or found inopportune.

Dr. Paltridge managed to stir up a nest of hornets then:

Oh what total drivel, Garth Paltridge. I’m in a slightly better position to know what scientists from the CSIRO feel they can and cannot say, and can assure the public that we have always sought to give frank and fearless advice on issues from climate change to GMO’s and everything in between. I find your assertions to the contrary to be highly insulting-and reeks of the worst kind of sour grapes. The job of scientists is to inform, not to scare, and that is what CSIRO scientists have done. If the information is so scary is hardly the fault of the scientists now, is it?

Oh well, no need to reheat that hash of refried beans and bubble and squeak. You can read it all there at the link, but let's see how else we can add to both the notion of conspiracy theories while mounting ad hominem attacks:

Dr Paltridge said the IPCC has become a permanent feature with its own bureaucracy spawning a continuing series of reports which have not changed our basic knowledge (or ignorance) of the problem.

He said one of the more frightening statements about global warming heard now is that “the scientists have spoken”, adding that “the implication of god-like infallibility is a little hard to take”.

Ah yes, that'd be bureaucrats and god like infallible scientists. Hiss, boo.

The science of disastrous global warming, he said, is far less settled than climate scientists would have us believe.

Dr Paltridge said the experimental data simply did not exist to check the model calculations of an amplified temperature rise.

The existing models were established before the political stakes soared and it is now almost impossible for dissenters to enter the field.

But, but, they enter the field all the time, and always with the same vague denials about the data. They never shut up with their yapping, and they're welcomed and celebrated all the time, especially in the opinion pages of The Australian and the blogs of the likes of Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt ... and of course Piers the Akker Dakker man. So I guess it's time for a bit more FUD.

His conclusion is that it has not been solidly established and it is certainly not accepted by the majority of scientists as proven fact, that global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will be large enough to be seriously noticeable - let alone large enough to be disastrous.

Not accepted by the majority of scientists? Well what do we mean by majority? Is it roughly equivalent to Malcolm Turnbull's current popularity figures? Eer, that would be why when over ten thousand scientists involved in earth science were asked in 2007 whether mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, 90 per cent agreed, and when asked if human activity had been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures 82 per cent the second. (here).

Now I note this while also noting it doesn't matter what scientists "believe" nor does it matter whether there's a large majority, since scientists have often believed "en masse" in things subsequently proven to be a folly. But I do object to the simple stupidity of someone flinging around a factoid about what the majority of scientists supposedly believe. 

But back to Akkers:

Last week, Energy and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson savaged the environmental lobby for demonising nuclear, gas and coal-fired energy plants fully knowing that solar and wind energy are not viable on current technology.

Great, so if there is a problem, then we might be looking at wide ranging solutions? No, sadly, this is really just another opportunity for Akkers to slag off the Rudd government with its lunatic emissions trading system which will result in all our energy businesses following our coal to India and China.

What to do? Well Akkers wants another free and fierce and open debate. Which of course will result in nothing happening. Which amazingly is what the government has managed to do for its entire time in power. Can Akkers and the Ruddster be in mental harmony?

It does, however, need a free and thorough debate though before the Government kills what remains of the nation’s industry and imposes new taxes and charges to the population, beyond those foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his weekend warning on tougher times looming.

Ah yes, we're all doomed, no doubt about it:

Dr Paltridge has spelt out a reasonable and rational opinion on global warming alarmists supported by his scientific knowledge.

Well I guess we'll have to wait for the book launch, because I'm buggered if I can find anything in Akkers' column that approaches reasonable or rational opinion, or a sustained insight into anything. Ain't it grand being able to scribble for a tabloid.

The least the Government can do is have Senator Wong respond with the same clarity before blindly proceeding with legislation that can only maim the nation’s future.

Well if Wong replies with the same clarity, we truly will be all doomed. A line about computer models being stuffed here, a line about paranoid scientists not speaking out, and it's all over red rover?

Ah well, I reckon we're in for another bout of climate sceptic alarm about climate change alarmists, and the end result will be a deeply muddy pond with only the sound of the squawking loons disturbing the peace, and not a shred of common sense or decent insights to be found. Let's leave the last word to another respondent to Paltridge's letter:

Garth you’ve got it arse-about, mate. Not too long ago CSIRO scientists were gagged by the Howard government for making statements that could have been interpreted as giving comfort to the army of irresponsible “believers” of the dreadful consequences of global warming. 

The same thing happened in the US with NASA scientists and the Bush administration. If you have proof, facts, evidence then bring them to the table. But if all you can offer are doubts without any substance tempered by a vague feeling of unease that the greenies are trying to pull the wool over your eyes then keep it to yourself.

Sigh. Keep the silent majority silent? Fat chance. That's like telling a kookaburra not to break into a cackle after feasting on a snake. Roll on August 11th, there'll be no end of fuss, short on actual data and long on conspiracy theories ...

Oh and by the way it has a foreword by our favorite Viscount, Christopher Walter Monckton, whom you can wikipedia here.

I always thought his solution for those with AIDS was exemplary:

... there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.

Perhaps the same could now be done with that small minority vocal tribe of global warming alarmists. Ship them off to Samoa, or some of the other Pacific islands where the folks are regularly bleating about the impact of global warming. They can all sit around having a good whinge, and leave poor old Akker Dakker in peace.