|
SCEPTICGATE – Blog
By Kirk Owers | 13 July 2011 |
 Geologist, academic, and mining company director Ian Plimer is one of Australia’s best-known climate change sceptics. His much cited book on the subject, Heaven and Earth, is both comprehensive and convincing – unless you’re a scientist or a climate change expert. On its release it was greeted with uncritical praise by conservative commentators. The crucial difference with reports released by mainstream climate change institutions is that, unlike Plimer’s assertions, they are critically assessed by other scientists. Scepticism is very much a part of this process. There hasn’t been a single peer-reviewed scientific paper disproving the man-made climate change position. This is because the consensus view is that global warming is happening, is caused by man and is getting worse. Plimer’s alternate explanation is that the atmospheric science community is out to scam us. “Follow the money,” he says. Surely the biggest swindle in scientific history would leave a trail in the information age. “Climategate” was billed as that very thing: proof of a con or at least some very sloppy science. But after three independent investigations the thousands of hacked emails and documents from one of Britain’s main climate research units revealed no deceit, inaccurate science or wrong doing. Unfortunately “Climategate” broke before the Copenhagen conference, the investigations which cleared the scientists came after. Bad timing for Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull, for Australia’s ETS, America’s Clean Energy and Security Act and for the Copenhagen Accord. The term “Climategate” persists and the mud has stuck in the public mind. Watergate you’ll remember brought down Richard Nixon. “Climategate” – which brought down nothing, which proved nothing – was a coup for the sceptics and delayers but ultimately it is evidence against their conspiracy claims. "Today climate change scepticism is very much a right-wing grind.."
Sceptics argue that climate science has become tainted by left-wing political ideology and therefore is invalid. It’s an interesting claim and worth scrutinising. Initially climate science was judged on its merits. It was simply evidence to be accessed. In 1997, in America, there was virtually no difference between Democrats and Republican voters in their view on global warming. In Britain Margaret Thatcher was a strong advocate for action on climate change. In Australia John Howard eventually conceded that an ETS was necessary. Today climate change scepticism is very much a right-wing grind. Australia’s loudest climate sceptics – Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Barnaby Joyce, Ian Plimer – are all right-wingers. In America The Tea Party has included denialism in it’s mixed bag of embittered causes. So is global warming a left-wing conspiracy to drag us all back to the dark ages? It seems an odd motivation and it lacks a shred of evidence. The alternative is that it has been positioned this way by conservatives because addressing climate change poses huge problems for everyone – but especially for right-wing ideology. It undermines their core ideas about unrestrained capitalism and small government, and it demonstrates that the environmental movement has been right all along: modern industrial society does appear to be on a collision course with the natural world that supports us. That’s a three story serve of humble pie. I contacted Ian Plimer to discuss these issues, imaging he would tolerate some scepticism of his scepticism. After all he has written a sell out book on the subject and become a celebrity scientist as a result. In addition, he is the director of three mining companies with shares and bonuses estimated to be worth over 800,000 grand and is an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank. I had 23 questions to ask Professor Plimer but he hung up after the first. I simply asked why he hadn’t published his “missing science” in scientific journal where it could be accessed by people with the knowledge to gauge if he was right or wrong. He called me a bloody fool and said I hadn’t done my research. But I had. When Professor Michael Ashley reviewed Heaven and Earth in the Australian he pointed out that Plimer hadn’t published a single article on climate change in a referred scientific journal. Ashley explains: “Scientists regard peer-reviewed journal publications as fundamental for advancing science. They allow ideas to be exchanged, tested, improved on and, quite frequently, discarded. If Plimer can prove that human emissions of CO2 have no effect on the climate, then he owes it to the scientific community and, in fact, humanity, to publish his arguments in a refereed journal.” If Plimer had stuck it out we would have got to the much sharper question: If you can’t prosecute your case among the science community what business do you have stirring up false hope, resentment and suspicion among the people? X – Kirk Owers |
Puting political labels in this matters is stupid. What some conservatives claim, with some reason, is that many former ultra left wing activists are using the climate scary to try and control peoples lives again. But they are a minority, most people are genuinly worried about this.
Also I think there have been lots of evidence of how some cientists have manipulated data to confirm their theories.