Two debates about "Climate Change."

Don Aitken, in answering a remark that "unless the sceptical minority came up with their own theory about how and why climate changes they would never be taken seriously."

My answer to that is that we sceptics are not asking for anything. The alarmists want to severely contract the West's economies with their calls to kill man's emissions of carbon dioxide.

Don's reply was: doesn’t need one’s own theory in order to see weaknesses in another. If they are there, you can point out weaknesses in any theory — you don’t have to argue from the  position of a rival theory.  
Or, perhaps, a sceptic can start from the position of the null hypothesis: there is nothing to explain.
Then Don found another site - Fabius Maximus  -
The Editor of the site, in reviewing new survey findings about the supposed ‘consensus’ of climate scientists, said that there were two debates, one about science the other about policy, which were often conflated, but that until sceptics developed their own theory they would always be in a minority. 
Don wrote a reply:

You may be right in saying that unless skeptics can put together a theory they will remain minor players in the science debate about climate. But I don’t think that is the case with respect to the policy debate. There the issues are, at least in principle, much clearer. The MAGICC calculator shows that no matter how much we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature will stay largely unaffected. Why therefore are we doing this? The policy outcomes involve costs and benefits, and are easier to argue on the part of those who don’t come from the lab bench. 
Don then set out his ideas on what the two debates are. See  The Science Debate and the Policy Debate HERE.

After introducing the Policy Debate he writes:
The policy debate starts with the assumption that there really is a problem, and we have to deal with it now. That is the basis of the Garnaut Report, and the frequent statements, most recently by Mr Shorten, and before him Mr Rudd, that humanity faces a crisis, and that only deniers refuse to take it seriously. 
Then the sceptic asks what it is that is proposed to deal with this problem. If the answer is a carbon tax or an ETS, you ask what its central purpose is, and whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs (answer: the benefits are non-existent). If you are told that the aim is to keep temperature below the magic 2 degrees C increase, you ask on what basis that figure has been produced (the answer: it was a political compromise). If someone tells you that aim is to reduce global temperatures, you show them the MAGICC calculator, that suggests there would be no decrease that was discernible, even by 2050. 
And you keep asking why are we doing this? Mind you, the sceptic will need to know a good deal of the literature, but not at a highly scientific level. The real problem in all of this is that, as I said in a recent essay, once you have decided to accept a job, like Ross Garnaut, or you are a senior public servant told that the Government’s position is that ‘climate change’ is real and dangerous, you have no alternative other than to take it seriously. 
That leads to a second mind adjustment. Once you have done this for a little while, you find yourself committed to it for all sorts of reasons. The reasons may have only been a shrug at the beginning, but once you have put some time, energy and work into the question of how to deal with ‘climate change’, you become committed to it emotionally too. That means that you will be unable to deal with serious objections to the policy.


  1. All of this--in fact, the entire "global warming"/climate change debate--is irrelevant and incompetent. There is no global-warming "greenhouse effect" due to carbon dioxide, the global mean surface temperature records are fraudulently adjusted to conform to the incompetent "consensus" that denies reality, and the alarmists are just stalling to get their "transformational" but ruinous and tyrannical policies in place.

    This is simply illustrated by showing a fundamental incompetence in your graph, which gives the global mean surface temperature as 14°C: The empirically-derived Standard Atmosphere model has, for a century or more, given the mean surface temperature as 15°C, higher than the currently claimed global mean, despite a century of supposed global warming. And the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earthprecisely (precisely!) confirms the Standard Atmosphere as the true--and stable--global mean. The fact that science has known for a century that the global mean surface temperature is higher than the alarmists now claim (after a century of increasing carbon dioxide) shows how ridiculous is the "global warming" claim, and how vain are the debates about it. There simply is no valid climate science today, and no competent climate scientists (on either side of the debate, because neither side will accept what the Venus/Earth detailed temperatures comparison clearly shows).


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!