Nick Minchin, Christopher Pearson, and the weather vane get to talking about climate change one more time ... parti pris ...

(Above: the good old days, same as it ever was).

Tony Abbott: If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change. (here at Crikey, or perhaps you'd like to consult the original speech by the oracle at A Realist's Approach to Climate Change).

As an intelligent skeptic, or even a sceptic or perhaps sometimes a realist septic tank, it's terribly easy for the average loon on the average pond to get confused.

Take Nick Minchin. Please, someone, anyone take Nick Minchin.

Here he is, reflecting on Ross Garnaut:

He's not a climate scientist. I don't think he has any authority whatsoever to speak on the climate.

Uh huh. Fair cop. Garnaut is after all an economist. Then you look up Nick Minchin's credentials. Turns out he has a BEc and a LLB (ANU), before turning himself into a solicitor and a party hack as a prerequisite to getting himself a gig amongst the herd of unrepresentative swill (here). Does that give him the necessary authority to speak on the climate?

Of course it does you goose:

Quoting a blog from an atmospheric scientist from the University of Alabama - who he did not name - Senator Minchin said: "It's clear that the models, and we're dealing with models, have grossly overestimated the sensitivity of temperature to increases in CO2.

"I think what's occurred is that there was a warming period from about '75 to the year 2000. It was part of a natural cycle of warming that comes in 25, 30-year cycles. The world has basically stabilised in terms of temperature since about 2000.

"There are many, many scientists who actually think we could be entering a cooling phase, and I for one think that is more than likely.

"We have stabilised in terms of world temperatures. There is a very powerful natural cycle at work, and if anything we're more likely to see a tendency down in global temperatures, rather than up." (Minchin ups stakes in carbon war)

Yes, he's not just a scientist, he's a prophet and a seer, an oracle and a reader of the tea leaves, and he can see the future. When in doubt about the Melbourne cup or the weather, Minchin is your man ...

Meanwhile, poor old Tony Abbott is reduced to strange propositions:

"Climate change does happen. Mankind does make a contribution," the Opposition Leader said today. (here)

Well if you're going to be a good weather vane, you have to shift according to the latest breeze.

Meanwhile, over at the home of climate denialism, the lizard Oz, Christopher Pearson is busy yet again tilling the soil, this time applying expert Marxist analysis in Carbon tax wonder tonic proves tough sell:

... I'm expecting the debate over anthropogenic global warming will collapse within the course of the next decade under the weight of its own internal contradictions, to borrow a phrase that so-called scientific Marxism once used in reference to capitalism.

Oh dear. A somewhat unfortunate borrowing of a phrase, given the way that, despite scientific Marxism, to date capitalism has refused to collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions. What does this presage for climate change science? Still going strong in a hundred years, long after the Pearsonian Marxist has departed the stage?

But then you don't read Pearson for sense, you read him for a cosmic howl of laughter and gaiety, helped along by lashings of the Latin mass, and the odd moment of cilice-induced pleasure.

You see, according to the Nick Minchin game, Christopher Pearson, being a mere BA (hons) Flinders University DipEd (Adelaide), has absolutely no authority to speak on climate (and we do sometimes wonder where he gets the authority to speak on the Latin mass).

That's why, when you enter the realm of Pearson on science, you enter a mystical land of speculation and conspiracy. Being a tad short on actual science, it does wonders to lather up paranoia, and the idle work of a couple of ingenious climatologists:

It's probable that quite soon the recent mild warming trend will come to be seen as par for the course and in no way a threat to the planet or mankind.

Recent mild warming? Dammit man, the planet isn't warming, it's cold, and it's going to get bloody colder. Please speak to Nick as soon as possible.

The manufacture of statistical artefacts such as the hockey stick, with which a couple of ingenious climatologists hoped to erase from popular and scientific consciousness the whole medieval warm period, will come to be seen for the astonishing confidence tricks they are.

You see, that way you can reduce the work of thousands to a couple of ingenious climatologists indulging in astonishing confidence tricks. Much like any simpleton wanting to reduce the complex to the blindingly simple so that other simpletons can appreciate the simplistic paranoid mind at work ...

But then when you get started on this line of reasoning, that's just the warmed over entree:

The development of the global warming debate will be analysed primarily in terms of what the sociology of knowledge calls plausibility structures.

By golly, that sounds impressive. Plausibility structures no less! And the sociology of knowledge! And when we consult the wiki in the usual way, this is what we find:

In sociology and especially the sociological study of religion, plausibility structures are the sociocultural contexts (or bases) of systems of meaning, action, or beliefs which are basic to and tend to remain unquestioned by individuals in a given society. The term seems to have been coined by Peter L. Berger .... For Berger, the relation between plausibility structure and social "world" is dialectical, the one supporting the other which, in turn, can react back upon the first. Social arrangements may help, say, a certain religious world appear self-evident. This religious outlook may then help to shape the arrangements that contributed to its rise.

Yes, it's exactly the kind of logic and term you'd expect from a practising cannibal who each week thinks that bread turns into flesh, and wine into blood (sorry Chris Kenny, it just has to be said). Pearson's constricted world view by definition is a religious outlook that can at any moment disregard any unfortunate materialistic evidence providing a contrary world view ...

And it also helps to be able to ask a series of paranoid questions, without positing either answers or evidence:

What part did the Blair government and its friends at the Royal Society play in turning suspect computer modelling into the state religion throughout so much of the Anglosphere? How did Rajendra Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change get away with so many flawed and incoherent reports? Who were the first reputable scientists to express reservations, who were the late-comers and who can best be described as " still in denial"?

Indeed.

And why does Christopher Pearson believe in transubstantiation? Who gives a rat's arse what Nick Minchin thinks of climate change? Why should we care what Tony 'weather vane' Abbott thinks about climate science? Which will take us out first, the rapture or climate change? How many angels on the head of a pin? Why do we keep asking stupid rhetorical questions? Who would believe this is a way to discover scientific truths? For the love of the absent lord, will someone stop that loon from asking questions? What, why won't he stop? Will someone tell please him whether Tony Blair is a Rosicrucian or a member of the Stone Cutters' club?

From about 2004 most of the Australian public were prepared to believe in dangerous, man-made global warming and willing for governments to legislate accordingly. Although there were several turning points in the debate, Climategate revealed in detail how small, powerful and manipulative a clique the anthropogenic global warming theory's advocates were.

Yep, once again, scientists in the thousands are reduced to a small powerful and manipulative clique. I supposed if you're a hammer used to being part of a small, powerful manipulative clique of columnists for The Australian, all you can see are nails. Put it another way, I guess if you admire the Jesuits, all you can see is a small, powerful manipulative bunch of Jesuits.

You see, there's nothing like a broad, unsubstantiated flourishing of a conspiracy theory and chatter about plausibility structures, up against detailed observations of the way the world works, to sound like ... either Nick Minchin or a first class loon ....

Here's how you can pick the silly rhetorical flourishes. It's the needless embellishing ...

At that point lots of young people, previously convinced, began to read through the emails on their computers and to post about them on websites.

A lot of young people? Previously convinced? You might just as easily cite Ellen Sandell rabbiting on about how Climate change has become a generational battle, or Australian data showing that the young are more likely to support a price on carbon:

We see the usual suspects turn up in the demographics – where support starts out high with the young and weakens as we move through into the older cohorts, and where men are both more oppositionalist and more certain in their beliefs than women, by a significant margin. (here).

Yep there's nothing like spouting glib, superficially appealing, arrant nonsense about how the young be down wit it, and entirely presumptuous, and without any empirical foundation. and never mind that there were a lot of old people too, like Ian Plimer, and the whole gaggle of age-infested News Corp commentariat columnists, from Pearson through Albrechtsen to the Bleagh and the Dolt.

But for a genuine conspiracy, you need to murmur of general conspiracies beyond understanding:

As well, it was the time when the electorate began to focus on the question of who stood to benefit from the widespread acceptance of anthropogenic global warming and to find compelling answers.

And just who stands to benefit from the widespread acceptance of anthropogenic global warming? And what are the compelling answers? And why are we still asking useless questions?

But of course you know the answer already. Scientists are the ones to benefit as they cosy their nests with subsidy. Yes, they've invented a mass delusion so they can score grants, in much the same way I suppose that astronomers have devised theories of the solar system and the universe simply so they can get big astronomical instruments to play with ... and seismologists have invented earthquakes so that they can score big time studying the dire effects of plates shifting ... Or perhaps it's the bankers, or a giant international cartel led by George Soros, who find futures speculation on food prices insufficiently rewarding ...

That's why, instead of scientists, you need sociologists with a religious bias, and Marxist analysis:

If Gillard had a few sociologists among her advisers, they could have told her a carbon tax was no longer a viable policy option. Once bitten, twice shy. When a mass panic begins to lose momentum, it takes more than solemn warnings from the likes of Ross Garnaut, who's perceived as parti pris, to get it going again.

Parti pris! Oh that elegant intelligent Latin rag. Mass panic! Solemn warnings!

Well I guess an accusation of an inclination is a little more subtle than Minchin's assertion that Garnaut's on the government payroll, and so is obliged to assert that the world is about to end. That's called rhetorical overkill of the more stupid kind. A more typical rant about Garnaut might actually focus on the contradictions between his mining interests and his concern for the environment, and wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what you find at Quadrant in Mining Garnaut.

Because there's nothing like reducing science to personality conflicts to ensure that it's comprehensible to the commentariat, preferably mingled with conspiracy theories and paranoia that any rat bag can quickly understand and digest and accept and believe in. It's so much easier than actually trying to comprehend the complexities and contradictions, and multiplicities of what's going on in the observed world ...

And when in complete doubt about how to deal with the science remember there's always a poll driven outcome, especially when conducted by those learned explainers of how smoking is good for your health, or at least your right to choose, at the IPA:

An Institute of Public Affairs poll a fortnight ago found that the public felt the same way now as eight months ago and only one-third of Australians believe anthropogenic global warming poses a serious threat. In recent months the dwindling numbers of people who say they're prepared to spend any significant sum on averting it is even more illuminating in showing what people think.

Yes, never mind the actual science, it's what people think that's important. Which is why Pearson's insights into the minds of Australians carry as much validity as the discovery, on the eve of Charles Darwin's birthday, that only four in 10 Americans believed in the theory of evolution (On Darwin's Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution).

Does this actually say much about Darwin's theory? Does it disprove it? Does it prove it? Does it say a lot about the United States, and its mad fundamentalism? Does it carry any implications for climate change science? Why are we still asking meaningless rhetorical questions?

And if all else fails, on top of all the devices deployed above, you can always wheel in Graham 'Gra Gra' 'dead cat bounces' 'Swiss bank account expert' Richardson:

Graham Richardson isn't a sociologist but he does have his wits about him.

Yes, you have to be sharp to have a Swiss bank account.

On Wednesday, after Gillard's ratings and Labor's primary vote plummeted, he told Sky News: "The tragedy is that, spurred on by the press gallery in Canberra, day after day, written in newspapers, everyone came to believe that unless she announced a carbon tax and did it quickly then it would look like she didn't stand for a thing. They were all wrong.

"You have to look where it got her. The worst result in the history of Newspoll."

Yes, never mind the science, just go on looking at the numbers and the polls and the navels, and to hell with policy when a Swiss bank account will do.

All the same, the fuss brought out Nick Minchin and Christopher Pearson in the usual way, and suddenly Abbott - who consorts with these types - has to set his weather vane to 'yes I trooly rooly believe in climate change, and the role of humanity therewith', and he has all the conviction of a luddite urging his team not to smash up the machinery one more time just to show the rich liberal elite they mean business ....

And in the end what has changed? Has Christopher Pearson in any way diminished his right to stand as a first class loon in a corner of the pond squawking loudly in ways that offend logic if not science? And are there people who believe a solid paranoid conspiracy theory is preferable to engaging with what scientists are saying?

And why on earth do we have to keep asking these useless rhetorical questions?

Never mind, it's just another day on the pond. Thank the absent lord Pearson only gets to squawk once a week ...

(Below: a little Tom to get us ready for winter).