Sydney Writers’ Festival 2009: Stories from the Climate Change Front: A Forum and Launch of Overland 195 Saturday, May 23 2009 15:00 – 16:00

David Spratt, co-author of Climate Code Red, Dr Sharon Beder, author of Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, and Deltoid science blogger Tim Lambert discuss the state of the climate change debate today with Overland editor Jeff Sparrow.

Are the big polluters changing their ways or simply greening their public image? Who are the main climate denialists? What kind of action do we need, and how close are we to achieving it?

Comments

  1. #1 Dave Andrews
    May 18, 2009

    Wow,
    Are you all climate scientists then? Er , well apart from you yourself Tim. Bet it was satisfying and self reinforcing. Don’t you just love these fests?

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2009

    Are you all climate scientists then?

    Dave, the debate is not about the science. The vast majority majority of climate scientists (97%) stopped debating the major science issues years ago and none of them publish properly-reviewed articles questioning the main conclusions anymore. Please try to keep up.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    May 19, 2009

    Sydney Writers’ Festival 2009: Stories from the Climate Change Front: A Forum and Launch of Overland 195 Saturday, May 23 2009 15:00 – 16:00.

    (Posted on: May 18, 2009 11:57 AM, by Tim Lambert)

    Followed by:

    Bet it was satisfying and self reinforcing.

    (Posted by: Dave Andrews | May 18, 2009 6:06 PM)

    I think the point of Lambert’s post completely passed you by, Dave Andrews.

    Would you likie to buy a clue?

  4. #4 bi -- IJI
    May 19, 2009

    Shorter Dave Andrews:

    Advocacy = liberal bias, unless it’s advocacy I like.

  5. #5 Paul
    May 19, 2009

    Suggestion for a blog ‘topic’ here…

    A comparative review of Gavin Schmidt’s (et als) Climate Change – Picturing the Science and Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth.

  6. #6 Dave Andrews
    May 19, 2009

    Bernard,

    I was just predicting the outcome:-)

  7. #7 Peter Smith
    May 19, 2009

    QUOTING TIM LAMBERT: “Who are the main climate denialists? What kind of action do we need, and how close are we to achieving it?”

    Is this the new Nazi party? Obviously you AGW Alarmists cannot convince yourselves the science is settled or you would not be concerned with such a focus for a meeting. So, what was the outcome? Form Concentration Camps for climate ‘denialists’ as you call them. Just don’t burn the bodies when you’re done with them. 31,000 dead scientists around the world who understand climate change is a natural phenomenom would release a lot of carbon for you to worry about.

  8. #8 Brian D
    May 19, 2009

    Peter Smith, setting aside your epoch (sic) fail above, the Oregon Petition is a freaking joke.

    Several of the “31,000″ (Oregon Petition) scientists are already dead, and have been dead for longer than there has been an Oregon Petition – many have been pushing up daisies for longer than the OISM has existed. Some never existed in the first place: famously, “Dr” Ginger Spice (specialty ‘biology’) and the cast of MASH showed up on that until it became obvious they had no quality control.

    As for the 40 or so scientists — by the petition’s own admission — that have any background in climate, I think the only one that’s dead is Seitz, who wrote the cover letter… a decade after his employer (Phillip Morris!) declared him “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice“. Then again, the OISM doesn’t make it easy to verify similar claims, since you can’t search their petition by specialty. You can do alphabetical — which is amusing, since the first name on the list alphabetically is a creationist! — but that doesn’t help in looking for climatologists.

    Finally, you’ll notice the techniques involved in the Oregon Petition pretty much copied the Discovery Institute, with rather similar results.

    Now, in the next breath, I expect you to say “Science isn’t done by consensus” without being aware of the intense irony in such a statement.

  9. #9 CW
    May 19, 2009

    QUOTING TIM LAMBERT:

    No, that wasn’t Tim, that was from the linked swf page. Then from obvious error your post immediately went screeching downhill into shrill Godwin.

    Thanks for coming out.

  10. #10 Peter Smith
    May 19, 2009

    It was as good as an endorsement. I hope you all have a wonderful time at this little intervention for folk who feel frantically misunderstood and irrelevant in the world.

    Disappointing yourselves for believing so zelously in an idea like AGW but having no solution for it that will ever be found acceptable by your fellow man must feel like a lifetime spent in futility. Shucks, need a hug?

  11. #11 Craig Allen
    May 19, 2009

    Peter Smith:

    You do realise that that your posts present the impression that you are a foaming at the mouth, desperately vindictive nutter don’t you?

  12. #12 Peter Smith
    May 19, 2009

    The AGW clan sees things they disagree with in all sortsd of disagreeable ways.

  13. #13 Shrieking Wombat
    May 19, 2009

    Peter Smith must actually be Graeme Bird

  14. #14 Craig Allen
    May 19, 2009

    Peter, there are nutters on all sides of every debate. That is no excuse for being one. Hold your views passionately – sure. Express them vigorously in debate – yes. But try at least to be rational.

  15. #15 bi -- IJI
    May 19, 2009

    Shorter Dave Andrews: It’s Socratic irony!

    Shorter Peter Smith: I guess you want to build concentration camps for us ‘skeptics’, and if I treat my guess as a proven fact, it proves that you’re a bunch of Nazi-like zealots! Perfect logic!

  16. #16 GC
    May 20, 2009

    bi (#15). Godwin’s law. You lose.

  17. #17 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2009

    bi (#15). Godwin’s law. You lose.

    GC, Godwin’s law at #7 by Peter Smith. You lose twice for calling the wrong person a loser.

  18. #18 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 20, 2009

    Peter Smith rants:

    Is this the new Nazi party? Obviously you AGW Alarmists cannot convince yourselves the science is settled or you would not be concerned with such a focus for a meeting. So, what was the outcome? Form Concentration Camps for climate ‘denialists’ as you call them. Just don’t burn the bodies when you’re done with them. 31,000 dead scientists around the world who understand climate change is a natural phenomenom would release a lot of carbon for you to worry about.

    Detective: You’re telling me your wife was devoured by a giant dessert from the galaxy in Andromeda?
    Podgory: Yes.
    Detective: Are you insane?
    Podgory: No.
    Detective. Well, that’s a relief. ‘Cause if you were, your story would be less plausible.

    It’s not persecution to identify people who are spreading misinformation and plan how to counter it in public opinion and the opinion of legislators. It’s called “politics.” If there has been persecution over this issue, it has ALL been from the denialists. Michael Mann had his notes subpoenaed and was hauled before a congressional committee, HUAC-style. James Hansen was muzzled. Scientists had their reports changed by politicians. Jim Salinger was fired.

    As someone with relatives murdered in the Holocaust, I find it offensive that you are so quick to equate climatologists with Nazis. Stop trivialiazing the worst episode of mass murder in the history of western Europe.

  19. #19 Peter Smith
    May 20, 2009

    Barton – are you trying to make me laugh and cry? The real rub is you admit that for most on these boards climate change is not about science and all about “politics.”

    True scientists and climatologists do not concern themselves with politics, only the science. That is why those of us who understand that our climate is ever changing and that this is natural will continue to play the ball while folks such as you play the man.

  20. #20 bi -- IJI
    May 20, 2009

    Shorter Peter Smith:

    Climate has always changed, so all climate change is natural! (Also, people have always died, ergo all deaths are natural!) And, true scientists should only do science, while Peter Smith is allowed to make Nazi comparisons.

  21. #21 Fitz
    May 20, 2009

    Peter Smith:

    “The real rub is you admit that for most on these boards climate change is not about science and all about “politics.” ”

    The science has already been researched and discussed in the scientific literature. You’re not seriously under the impression that science is worked out on blogs are you?

    “True scientists and climatologists do not concern themselves with politics, only the science.”

    So when scientists see a huge problem in the world they should just shut up and not talk about it? Really? What other professions are subject to this stricture?

    “That is why those of us who understand that our climate is ever changing and that this is natural will continue to play the ball”

    And yet you don’t. I wonder why?

  22. #22 Marion Delgado
    May 20, 2009

    Shorter Dave Andrews:

    Comment by Dave Andrews blocked

  23. #23 GC
    May 21, 2009

    Chris O’Neill said (#17) “GC, Godwin’s law at #7 by Peter Smith. You lose twice for calling the wrong person a loser.”

    Yes. One shouldn’t post on blogs at 2.51 am. Apologies to bi — IJI.

  24. #24 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 21, 2009

    Peter Smith posts:

    Barton – are you trying to make me laugh and cry? The real rub is you admit that for most on these boards climate change is not about science and all about “politics.”

    I didn’t admit anything of the sort. Go back and read it again. What I said was that the business of trying to stop the deniers from distorting the science amounts to politics.

    True scientists and climatologists do not concern themselves with politics, only the science. That is why those of us who understand that our climate is ever changing and that this is natural will continue to play the ball while folks such as you play the man.

    Our climate is ever changing, but the present global warming is not natural at all. Where did you get the idea that it was?

  25. #25 Stu
    May 21, 2009

    BPL, as much as I admire your stolid and generally amazing defense of true climate science against people who do indeed deny the bulk of that science, it is dangerous to say that the warming of the last 100 years or so is ‘not natural at all’. A vast number of natural factors affect climate, and some of these factors have no doubt contributed to the recent global warming.

    This is not to say that the human contribution is unimportant; indeed I believe it to be dominant from the mid 20th century onwards.

  26. #26 naught101
    May 21, 2009

    Stu: The noise is natural, the warming trend has only one really likely cause…

  27. #27 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 22, 2009

    Stu,

    You’re right. That was very careless phrasing on my part.

  28. #28 Megan
    May 22, 2009

    Some of the talks from the Sydney Writers Festival have already been broadcast on ABC radio.

    Is this one going to be on the radio? Live or delayed? Transcript available online later?

  29. #29 Hank Roberts
    May 23, 2009

    Noise = variability

    The paleo articles talk about “stuttering” during greenhouse transitions, so the increase in noise during this event is part of the change from fossil fuel use.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=“stuttering+greenhouse”