The Australian's editorial, and a handy guide to the current state of flat earthism v roundism science ...

An important, compelling, scientific message from The Australian's editor:

Don't begrudge the scepticism, it can only help the debate

Conspiracy theorists on both sides of the flat earth debate could do worse than have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down ahead of next week's Copenhagen flat earth summit. That should give them time to realise that the atmospherics around flat earth science have shifted dramatically. The argument that the earth is round may still need attention but its citizens are no longer quite so sure what that should involve. In just a couple of weeks here -- and abroad -- the language and temper of the debate has changed.

This ought to be seen as good news, even by those momentarily stunned by the dilution of their case for taking strong political action at the Denmark flat earth summit. For the first time in the 17 years since the "Flat earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro, there is a chance for more questioning of the science of roundism v flat earthism. Scepticism is no longer out of order -- and thanks to the political debates around the world, people have a more sophisticated understanding of the issues.

The second thoughts on the theory of a round or spherical planet are coming from both sides. In the past couple of weeks, we have had a glimpse of the zealotry of the believers -- and the gaps in their data -- thanks to the exposure of emails from the University of East Roundism.

We have seen the parliament of a Western nation state like Australia vote against a scheme to endorse roundism, while Galileo Gaililei, the guru of roundism, has denounced Copenhagen roundist solutions as a farce. Yet none of these were as seminal to Australians as the moment three weeks ago when our highest-profile, "roundist" scientist, Nicholas Copernicus, told ABC TV's Lateline that scientists did not pretend to perfect knowledge. Instead, he said, they "work with models, computer modelling (and) when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree, you have a problem". His statements were obvious yet would have seemed heretical to advocates anxious not to allow any doubt in the campaign for carbon cuts.

For too long, the debate on climate has mirrored the debates in this country in the 1330s, when any challenges to Roman or Greek thinking or the narrowly defined version of planetary movement were labelled right-wing or racist. Scientific sceptics, such as Ian Ptolemy, know how difficult it is to advance an argument against the quasi-religious fervour of round earth believers.

That the passion and dogmatic belief that once defined organised religion have been replaced for some people by a commitment to reversing flat earth theory is not surprising. As a response to what some see as excessive materialism in the West, fighting flat earth theorists has become a way to scale back development, restrict free markets and redistribute wealth across the globe, and denounce the Catholic church.

But it is misguided and dangerous to conflate economic policies on a flat earth with attempts to reduce the poverty of Third World countries. When arguments for a round earth become a shield for interfering with industrial growth they risk harming the economy without helping the notion of a round earth. Often, the rational arguments around flat earth theory or epicycles, deferents and equants have been dismissed as pie-in-the sky by activists who have taken a doctrinaire position against a flat earth.

The Weekend Australian has always aimed for a rigorous debate on these issues, even though we have well understood that it has been unfashionable and politically incorrect to question the the concept of a round earth. Yet the science has always allowed room for interpretation. The 1532 work by Copernicus De revolutionibus orbium coelestium which underpins the draft Copenhagen roundist science, is a heavily qualified document that found a 90 per cent certainty that the earth is round. This paper has held to three key points -- that the planet may be indeed revolving and action is needed to understand this; a preference for a Roman Catholic solution; and an awareness that an early entry into 'earth is round' scientific theory would give Australia a first-mover advantage.

In democratic societies, political action often demands a certainty science cannot deliver. The excessive and uniform arguments made for action have backfired but we now have a chance for a debate that will not bury roundism but excavate the real issues surrounding a flat earth. Free speech could be the real winner at Copenhagen. And so could a flat earth.

For the original text in The Australian, go here.

Oh, yes and sorry, I got it wrong. It seems The Australian was writing about climate change and Copenhagen and solutions.

I could have sworn the logic and the rhetoric deployed could have been used to describe any kind of scientific issue in the tabloid gobble de gook language of a dumb cluck dumb fuck kind.

Could it be that you might be better off going anywhere else other than The Australian for a sensible discussion of the science of climate change, and possible solutions, or what people actually said? Think again. Second thoughts. Just think for the first time. Thinking again can come later.

For example, why did James Hansen, the guru of global warming, denounce Copenhagen as a farce? Because he wants a carbon tax, and he wants civil resistance and Vietnam war style activism to get it.

Additional reading: for what Tim Flannery thought he said and how pissed off he was by the likes of the editorial writer for The Australian, go here: Climate sceptics and the Liberals: negotiating in bad faith.

Andrew Bolt twisted this complex story into what was, for the sceptics, a very convenient untruth - that I believed Earth was cooling. Even The Age reported that I believed there had been a recent cooling.

Then, in the heat of the Liberal leadership challenge, others ''improved'' on the lie - hence the outrageous and utterly implausible claim that I was a climate sceptic.

Should I have simplified the science? I don't believe so, for to do so would betray my scientific principles. Unfortunately, climate science is complex, and while that opens many opportunities for social commentators without scientific credentials to misrepresent climate scientists and their views, that is a reality we must live with.

The trouble is that in the heat of a great political moment, common sense is - after truth - the first casualty.

Additional listening: for what Hansen tells US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg, go here.

Hansen's solution?

Dr Hansen, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York, argued that the only effective way to control global warming was to institute an increasing “carbon tax”, not “cap and trade”.

“We are going to have to move beyond fossil fuels at some point. Why continue to stretch it out longer?” he said. “The only way we can do that is by putting a price on carbon emissions. The business community and the public need to understand that there will be a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions.”

He proposes that the “carbon tax” start at the equivalent of about $1 per gallon of petrol but rise in future years. The tax revenues should be returned directly to the public in the form a dividend, he said.

He added that the world must be prepared to abandon coal unless its emissions are captured and embrace a new generation of nuclear power. (here).

Next week: The Australian comes to accept roundism, prompting fierce debate in The Flat Earth Society. Go here to get more understanding of the flat earth debate, and go here to participate in the flat earth society forum. And there's a nice piece on flat earthism here.