Opinion 
 Blogs 
 Between the Lines 
 Fielding sceptical viewpoints 

Fielding sceptical viewpoints

Senator Steve Fielding returned from a climate sceptics conference in Washington earlier this month ready to open up debate on the scientific merits of climate change predictions.

He is seemingly unaware that the debate has been and gone and only a few renegades are left manning the crumbling edifice of what was once thought to be a credible sceptical position.

The conference was organised by the Heartland Institute, one of those corporate-funded think tanks whose mission in life is to promote free enterprise, no matter what the cost to society or the environment.

Conference sponsors included a variety of far-right organisations, such as the Ayn Rand Institute and the Australian Libertarian Institute; a number of corporate-funded think tanks including, from Australia, the Institute for Private Enterprise and the Institute of Public Affairs; as well as Australian sceptics groups such as the Climate Sceptics Party and The Lavoisier Group.

One of the conference scientific experts was Willie Soon, an astrophysicist who argues that global warming is caused by solar variation, a theory that sounded compelling to Sen Fielding.

Dr Soon gained notoriety in 2003 when he co-authored a scientific article with Sallie Baliunas, in the journal Climate Research.

The article, which argued that the climate in the 20th century was not the warmest in the last 10 centuries, was the outcome of a study that had received $66,000 from the American Petroleum Institute.

Dr Soon and Dr Baliunas were also being paid at the time as senior scientists with the ExxonMobil-funded George T Marshall Institute.

After the article was published, 13 of the scientists cited in it claimed that their work had been misinterpreted.

Half of the journal's editorial board resigned to protest the peer review process.

Like Dr Soon, many other speakers at the conference have dubious associations with industry-funded think tanks and front groups, as well as being recipients of money from companies with a vested interest in climate denial.

Keynote speaker at the conference Richard S Lindzen, has been a consultant to the fossil fuel industry, charging $3100 a day for his services.

Fred Singer, on the science panel at the conference with Dr Soon, is executive director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a group that argues that global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are scare tactics invented by environmentalists.

Sen Fielding's claim to have kept an open mind on the road to Washington seems a little disingenuous given he travelled to the US to attend a conference that was so obviously intended to discredit predictions of climate change.

It billed itself as calling attention to dissent to the asserted consensus on the causes, consequences, and responses to climate change.

Has the senator devoted as much effort to learning about the science behind that consensus?

And has he the right to demand a rerun of the debate, further delaying measures to prevent climate change, whilst he plays catch up?

Sharon Beder is author of Environmental Principles and Policies and Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda. She is a visiting professorial fellow at the University of Wollongong.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
single page

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I don't remember the "debate" on manmade climate change, because there wasn't one, we were just told this is how it is. they say ignorance is bliss well it is not. and it is ignorant to just believe what the loudest are shouting. it is so refreshing to see a politician speak out and question, just because there are scientists and members of the public who do not subscribe to the theory of man made climate change, they are called "sceptics" this is only to ridicule and deride, and to stop those less strong from searching for them selves. climate change has been going on for as long and the planet has been in existence and there is plenty of evidence to vouch for that. are you and your readers aware that fossils of tropical plants are found on the British Isles, one can hardly call the British Isles tropical today! good on Senator Fielding. as for the rest of the politicians they are singing the praises of the Kings New Suit of Clothes. Wake up and look for your selves, then we can have a debate.
Posted by vivienne, 24/06/2009 10:27:31 PM
Dr. Sharon Beder does the environmental movement a great disservice. I've got some information for her. All those in their right minds actually do care about our home planet - it's the only one we've got.

She seems to believe that the personalities she derides so vehemently don't care one wit. Does she have some monopoly on caring? Are all these "oil industry friends" that shortsighted? Does she think that they want their children to bake on a Melting Earth? Consensus? 'Science' behind the consensus? Heartland Institute, a promoter of free enterprise, no matter what the cost to society?

Where does Dr. Beder come up with this stuff? There is legitimate debate about climate because guess what? The 'debate' is not over - it never is over in Real Science. And a real scientist knows that it is not a 'debate' - it is the bringing forth of evidence.

Making things up and closing the search for more knowledge is a sign of weakness, not of caring nor of intelligence nor of confidence.

And using our Climate as a bogeyman for all the legitimate environmental concerns we have is very harmful.

This practice dilutes and diminishes those very real concerns we all have for all the ongoing insidious practices that actually do harm our Earth, and thus us.

Just consider one of these practices --- deforestation. For all the flooding we have seen over the last decade or two 'Global Warming' invariably seems to get all the blame in the various media. So guess what? We just keep on chopping down all the forests upstream of these observed great floods.

Those upstream watersheds used to be able to much better contain those floodwaters. But what's the point of saving the forests --- just blame it all on Global Warming!

It really is hard to explain why a 'simpleton' theory like CO2 being the cause of AGW is so attractive and believable to AGW-theory adherents. We might think the reverse --- namely, that it is easy to see why such a 'simple' theory cannot possibly explain the changes in climate, just because climate's behaviour cannot be explained 'simply'.

And yet there it is. A psychiatrist or psychologist or philosopher could spend their entire career on this question. We are not going to explain it soon, I suspect. Maybe it is human nature to latch on to a 'simple' explanation when it is too difficult to live with an unknowable or incomplete theory.

Sort of like our ancestors explaining the behaviour of nature with their use of spirits and other animist explanations. Such 'explanations' offer a soothing way of seeing Nature and reducing Her complexity into something more psychologically manageable by humans --- a world view that allows everyday life to be lived with less stress.

The AGW believers look at those who question AGW as being idiots, for NOT seeing how 'simple' it is to understand how the climate operates. And those idiots (that is, us) look at the AGW-believers in wonder, our mouths agape, unable to formulate words that could somehow free the AGW-enchained-ones from their overly reductionist view of the world.

Posted by A.Viirlaid, 25/06/2009 2:31:41 AM
Sharon Beder once again attacks the person, not the argument raised by a Global Warming sceptic. Don't refute the theory with data, smear the opponent with labels like "ExxonMobil-funded" - what could be worse? Her horror at "a promoter of free enterprise" shows her hand. Left wing academics who are funded by tax payers through universities and Government funded "Climate Studies" departments are still working on their Marxist plan of destroying Capitalism. Since no-one is buying socialism any more they are trying to slip their agenda past the public under the guise of saving the planet from global warming. The debate is far from over and the Science is NOT in - recent data tends to refute the studies of the socialist pseudo-scientists funded by the UN left wing political body known as the IPCC, who conveniently stop their studies at the anololous year of 1998. There I've descended to Sharon's level in the last sentence, with the difference that my accusation is true.
Posted by Al Black, 25/06/2009 9:52:40 AM
Why is it that anyone who wants to be convinced about the science behind climate change and anthropogenic warming has to be attacked? I'm not supported by any industry , but I am concerned that Penny Wong can't answer Senator Fielding's questions and clarify the issue for us "simpletons" out here. The science is not settled , not conclusive and as a result, why are we even considering an ETS. Why is it that so much of the "regulation" behind the government legislation is not public. If the science isn't settled why is the Government (and maybe the coalition) so keen on sowing this ETS up ASAP. Is the government going to make a massive windfall income, from Crown land that can be used to supply carbon credits to big industry? Something smells here and it isn't the people that are sceptical about climate change and its cause. Labor does not have a mandate to do whatever they like with Australia and Australians, especially without public debate and questioning of the complex science behind climate change.
Posted by John Michelmore, 25/06/2009 11:35:03 AM
Bender, who are you to decide if developing nations get cheap power, who are you to decide who lives and who dies. Just because you were foolish enough to get egg on your face through believing dodgy science, doesn’t mean you can show the courage to eat crow and admit you were a fool or are a fool. You are a carbon based life form are you a pollutant or is it just the unwashed masses?
Posted by Made of CO2, 25/06/2009 11:50:33 AM
News Flash for Sharon Beder - Anybody who is prepared to ask a question is told by alramists like Beder 3 things: 1) You don't have the right to ask because your not a Scientist. 2) There must be something morally wrong with you because you have asked. 3) The time for debate is over< (when there wasn't even a debate). Now we have another one from Ms Beder. "And does he have the right to ask". Well Ms Beder if you feel he doesn't have the right, what law are you propsoing to take that right away. Should we have re-education camps established perhaps ?, should we have a law to jail people ?. What a disgrace from the scientific community. And all he is asking for is the the evidence that links Global warming to Cobon Dioxide. If it were actually avalible maybe Ms Beder would table it instead of encouraging actions to silence people.
Posted by Tim, 25/06/2009 12:09:29 PM
I'm not a scientist but I can understand propaganda when I hear it. There's also precious little science in this article. No mention of the fact that we've been in Global Cooling mode since 1998, no mention of the fact that we are back to 1980 temperatures. No mention of the beneficial effects of CO2. No mention of the fact that there are better correlations between Climate change and solar activity than there is with CO2. If money has something to do with the debate why not look at Al Gore's Carbon Trading bonanza. We are fed a nightly drivel of non-science by our media, such as 'the border between Italy and Switzerland has moved because of climate change'. Is this what you mean by the debate is settled?
Posted by Bill, 25/06/2009 12:51:24 PM
Sharon, have you got blinkers on? More and more scientists are now prepared to speak out against the failed hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Included are many previously associated with the IPCC. Failure of the climate models to match real data, Earth's stubborn refusal to continue warming, and lack of any real evidence to support the hypothesis has scientists and the general public, along with some politicians, questioning its validity. With Al Gore set up to profit from his companies with carbon credits, we all feel like we've been taken for a ride.
Posted by R James, 25/06/2009 1:26:03 PM
As we all know climate is changing and has been doing so for thousand's of year's and will continue to do so. The proposal to implement a carbon trading tax is an aboslute scandal an MUST be opposed by all, Rudd,Wong and Garrett are only looking for another TAX to apply to the Ausralian people. If they are so worried about man made pollution why have they removed the Solar Power subsidy? Totaly agree with all the other posting's Re Ms Beder's claims
Posted by Peter, 26/06/2009 12:23:27 PM
Professor Beder congratulations on pointing this out but the denialists are not even capable of understanding what is wrong with their position.

Senator Fielding knew that the conference was organised by the Heartland Institute and how that connects. His mentors in this are people like Carter.

But don't despair. The latest guru of the denialists is Garth Paltridge. The right-wing nutters have taken him to heart. Along the way they may wake up and realise that he has already said that AGW is real and is uncontested - the argument is over.

All he is arguing about is the seriousness of consequences and the money. That's all they cared about in the first place so maybe now we can just argue the economics? (Stern words may follow - pun intended)

Posted by Ludwig Heinrich, 23/08/2009 1:33:55 AM
1 | 2  |  next >
Between the Lines
Offering you a new spin on the news of the day and the topics that often get us hot under the collar. Sometimes serious, sometimes humorous but always worth a look.

Most popular articles

GPT GROUP WILL 14.3.10
 
Lift your interest rate with an IMB Term Deposit
 
Illawarra Mercury Drive
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...