Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
On his column in the Financial Review last week, John Quiggin wrote about those who think global warming is some sort of hoax:
While most media outlets give at least some space to these conspiracy theorists, the central role has been played by The Australian. Not only its opinion columnists (with a handful of honorable exceptions) and its editorials, but even its news reporting is dominated by the idea that mainstream science is on the verge of being overturned by the efforts of a group of dedicated amateurs, publishing their findings not in the peer-reviewed literature but through blogs, thinktanks and vanity presses.
In his piece in the Australian hyping Plimer's error-filled book guess how William Kininmonth quotes Quiggin? Study the passage carefully and then check your answer.
Politics
Comments
Now The Australian has recruited an historian from Wollongong, Greg Melleuish, to prove that the climatologists are all wrong, giving another plug for Plimer's book:
"Yet, reading Ian Plimer's excellent Heaven and Earth, what impresses one about his extraordinary account of the Earth's history and its climate is the many forces of nature that are beyond human control."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25395364-5015664,00.html or http://tinyurl.com/cyf735
Posted by: Sympneology | April 29, 2009 1:00 PM
I feel stupid. I was off by one word.
Posted by: llewelly | April 29, 2009 1:57 PM
Which of course says nothing about things that are human controlled.
A historian who thinks humans can do nothing? Interesting!
Posted by: dhogaza | April 29, 2009 3:05 PM
Perfect score for me !
Posted by: Robert P. | April 29, 2009 4:07 PM
Wow. Quote-mine extreme.
Posted by: MarkusR | April 29, 2009 5:36 PM
Here's the loc and the cite:
Cold facts dispel theories on warming
Posted by: Marion Delgado | April 29, 2009 7:32 PM
If "Cold Facts" dispel theories on global warming, it occurs to me that made-up facts are even more effective. At least at The Australian. Our only national newspaper (face-palm).
Posted by: MarkG | April 29, 2009 8:06 PM
The Australian are at it yet again.
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | April 29, 2009 8:10 PM
I know Andrew Bolt is hard core, but I would appreciate your analysis of his column yesterday
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html
Posted by: mrcreosote | April 29, 2009 8:12 PM
Damn. Blew the URL. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25405532-7583,00.html
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | April 29, 2009 8:16 PM
mrcreosote:
How can there be global warming when the denialist cherry crop has never been more frantically gathered?
(shorter Bolt)
Posted by: Marion Delgado | April 29, 2009 8:19 PM
Well, mrcreosote, against my better judgement I went to look at Bolt and, to my surprise, it's the same farrago of lies and misrepresentations as usual.
I don't think Bolt is hardcore so much as bone-headed.
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | April 29, 2009 8:22 PM
David Irving (no relation) At least Lomborg is now admitting that AGW is a serious threat AND needs addressing (although he doesn't like an ETS apparently - even though it would create an economic driver for what he sees as the solution). There are still plenty of AGW sceptics out there who refer back to Lomborg's earlier work to argue against AGW - I wonder how Lomborg feels about that (and his earlier work which is helpfully pointed out in the bio at the bottom of the article)?
Posted by: Dave55 | April 29, 2009 9:10 PM
Blomberg - you know, that environmentalist guy from Denmark who at any moment of any day is being gratuitously publicised in the media somewhere - is without doubt one of the most successful self-promoters of the 20th century, still going strong.
He just makes stuff up of course including these days calling himself a "political economist". It was "political scientist" before but too many with experience of him were feeling justified by that to just dismiss him more shortly as "liar" or "idiot".
Anyway the latest fluff from this environmentalist extremist is kind of priceless:
Yeah whatever you say, mister environmentalist moonbat dude!
Posted by: frankis | April 29, 2009 9:28 PM
Dave55 @ 13, I don't think Lomberg has ever denied that AGW exists, and is a problem (unlike most other inactivists) - he's clever enough to avoid that trap.
However, he still hasn't changed his story that any money spent on abatement or adaption is wasted, and would be better spent on something (anything!) else.
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | April 29, 2009 10:53 PM
David Irving (no relation) Going back over his stuff, I see that you are right, he never denied that there was an effect but rather debated the extent of the human influence.
Lomborg's early work was the basis for much of Michael Crichton's scepticism littered through "State of Fear" and I've seen numerous references to Lomborg's work in TSE to undermine AGW science. The article you link to shows he is far more confident expressing his belief in AGW as a serious threat. You are right though, his cost benefit analysis approach is a little off and I can't see how he gets to his solutyion of making green energy cheap without a heap of money being spent in order to acheive this.
Posted by: Dave55 | April 29, 2009 11:23 PM
The short rebuttle to Bolt is the 0155 K/decade temperture trend we continue to experience.
Much of the cliams made by bolt are desinged to appeal to misunderstanding. Eg. more snow and ice is predicted in certain situtions where temperture rise remains below zero. That is it snows more in the middle of the Antartic if the temper warms from -40 to -20.
For a more detailed response see http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090429-Climate-myths-Glickson-v-Bolt.html
Posted by: mark Byrne | April 30, 2009 12:30 AM
See discussion of Lomborg, and see if any of his latest words break that model.
That is: if your goal is to avoid any regulation of CO2 and/or diminution of profits to fossil companies or any other restrictions on first-world businesses, you can say many different things, exactly one of which would really be hated by a coal vendor:
a) There's no warming.
b) It's warming, but not caused by humans.
c) It's caused by humans, but it's way less than the IPCC says, or it's good for us.
d) It's caused by humans, but it will cost too much to stop it.
e) It's too late to mitigate, so just adapt.
f) Other things have higher priority.
g) Everyone should invest in low-carbon energy, so that sometime it gets cheaper than fossil fuel.
h) We should have cap-and-trade, but with many needed exceptions,and big polluters must be given credits.
i) We should have a carbon tax, but must keep it low.
j) We should have a meaningful carbon tax or C&T that clearly raises the prices of fossil fuel, does it soon, and with predictable increases over time.
If you were a coal vendor, in order to prevent j), would you be willing to say any of the others?
Would you say g)? This is somewhat akin to:
"Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."
-- Augustine
Posted by: John Mashey | April 30, 2009 2:34 AM
Your discussion of Lomborg looks like good stuff John. He's never met an economist that he cannot misrepresent, perhaps the hidden meaning of his new claim to being a "political economist". It's nothing but politicking all the way down for him.
Posted by: frankis | April 30, 2009 4:14 AM
As described in that piece at ThingsBreak, the key is understanding whether someone is arguing FOR something because they are FOR it, or because they are trying to AVOID something else.
The latter is akin to the misdirection of stage magicians.
Anyway, as a result one cannot pick put a sentence or two that SOUND reasonable, and infer the real beliefs.
Posted by: John Mashey | April 30, 2009 12:54 PM
Oops: as far as I can tell, Plimer may well have shared goals with Lomborg (no government regulation, especially of GHGs), but Lomborg is far more sophisticated and far more successful in his strategy. Plimer attacks science headon [and is trivially disproved), Lomborg is way more subtle, even when he is doing anti-science. People disproving that miss the political effectiveness of he other arguments, i.e., that's the magician's misdirection again.
Again, read that ThingsBreak piece. If you can find "cornucopian" Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2" in a library, read a bit of that, and recall that TSE led off with a quote from it.
Posted by: John Mashey | April 30, 2009 2:57 PM
John, your characterisation of Lomborg as a stage magician is perfect. It's the description of him I've been groping after for years.
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | April 30, 2009 11:14 PM
The concept of "misdirection" is definitely key to understanding the Blomberg phenomenon.
Posted by: frankis | May 1, 2009 12:34 AM
Speaking of Kininmonth, I recently discovered that I have a close family connection to him. Very close, in fact, (though long inactive).
It is indeed a very small world.
Posted by: WotWot | May 1, 2009 2:58 AM
'War on Science'???
Who are the conspiracy theorists and freaks now? Seems ego-nomics profs like Quiggin are the ones acting likje denialists. Denying reality my friends. The earth has been cooling for over a decade.
Posted by: Sally Johnson | May 16, 2009 8:07 PM
Sally Johnson: "The earth has been cooling for over a decade."
Nope.
That's false, Sally. Show us why you think it's true.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 16, 2009 8:14 PM
Eh? Do you have evidence for this claim or not? Is there some universally accepted definition of "dominant" in this context?
If I had to pick a dominant species, it would be pelagibacter ubique.
http://tinyurl.com/q3e9lv
Posted by: Dan L. | May 17, 2009 8:31 AM
Very happy to find your site. I see that some of my favourite pseudoscience people are here, such as Bob Carter and William Kininmonth, and Ian Plimer.
I puzzle to know what motivates these people, as they scour about academia or wherever, dismissing thousands of respected and peer-reviewed papers, until they find some dodgy stuff about how climate change isn't happening, and C02 has nothing to do with it.
I wonder, are they funded by some apparently respectable "think tank" - which if one delves, turns out to be sponsored by the Heritage society, or Exxon Mobil or suchlike?
Or do they just enjoy the fame and glory of "bravely speaking out against the mainstream?"
Posted by: Christina Macpherson | August 11, 2009 3:11 AM