Earth to Senator Fielding – Are you for freaking real !?

23 06 2009

Senator Steve Fielding

There has been a dreadful sense of deja vu this last fortnight as Australia’s lone Family First senator (and local village idiot) jets back and forth the planet on a one man mission to uncover the truth about global warming.

It would be gut-achingly funny if it wasn’t so heart-breakingly serious.

Here are some recent quotes from our man Steve:

It is absolutely crazy for Australia to go it alone.

Sheesh! There is absolutely no risk that Australia, the world’s largest per capita polluter, will step forward alone!  Much of the developed world is already streets ahead and are tracking downwards with respect to emissions.

We need to see what the rest of the world are going to do, and then Australia can respond.

You selfish, petty, miserable man.  He is suggesting here that Australia, with one of the highest standards of living in the world, should wait for poorer countries to act first.  Progress is never made in this way.  The only way to convince others to join the party is to act quickly and boldly.

I’m not a climate change sceptic, I’m not a climate change extremist, what I am is very open-minded.

A bit too open-minded Steve.  Becoming fixated on the minority views of partisan bit-players rather the great weight of scientists internationally.  Your open-mindedness causes policy paralysis and endangers us all.  Like the open-minded parent of a child with suspected meningitis.  Sure, let’s not act until we’re 100% certain.

As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities.

C’mon mate. You’re sounding as if you’re the first one to tackle these questions.  Scientists have been looking at these things for decades Steve.  The problem is not that we haven’t debated all the issues, the problem is that THIS IS ALL WE HAVE DONE!

Has the Minister seen modelling which shows that solar radiation is highly correlated to global temperature changes?

Steve, there is no upward trend in solar radiation in the last few decades.  Moreover nights are getting warmer faster than days, and winters faster than summers.  This is not consistent with solar radiation causing global warming.  IT’S NOT THE SUN, DUDE ! IT’S US !

None of this means that I support the current Emissions Trading Scheme legislation before the Australian Parliament.  I tend to sympathise with the Greens on this issue.  I feel that it is more important that we take a target of 40% below 1990 by 2020 to Copenhagen, and we need to state that up front.

Oh Steve, what shall we do with you?

Advertisements

Actions

Information

10 responses

23 06 2009
Ken

Blah blah blah… snore…ok we get it, he’s a skeptic. So what? Wong was not able to to show him the science which answered his basic direct questions, because there is none. If the science was good she would not have had to “get back to him” . She showed up with an armload of more hype about the glaciers melting, storms getting bigger, droughts getting drier, crops growing better…oh wait scratch that last one…Anyway none of it answered his questions. As you are aware, these things are evidence of climate change only, they are not evidence that C02 is the cause.

Climate scientists have been trying to provide conclusive evidence that C02 controls the earths climate for 40 years now and have failed to deliver. Not proof, just conclusive evidence. It’s time to throw in the towel.

Fielding is going to vote against the legislation, and it is the correct thing to do. The same thing is happening to the US Climate Bill which is now over 1200 pages long and is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The Canadian Climate bill is dying too. I’d say Cap&Trade is dead.

24 06 2009
Verdurous

“…to show him the science which answered his basic direct questions, because there is none”

The answer to his primary question which is essentially -“why has the climate stopped warming while CO2 has continued to increase since 1998?” is fairly simple. The climate has not stopped warming if we understand climate as long term changes rather than short term variability. There are plenty of explanations of this around for those who look. I don’t expect this will stop people from regurgitating this non-fact though.

23 06 2009
James

Enjoyed your payout of the big Steve – very well put together website

regards

James

24 06 2009
AnthonyB

If your going to resort to ad hominin, please at least spell it correctly. What is a “villeage” idiot.

Why do climate believers continually resort to such vicious ad hominin attacks, instead of letting the facts carry the day, generally people attack the “man” when their arguements are faltering.

The solar cycle is not just about TSI but about magnetic and particle interactions. In the current extended solar minumum ( are you even aware we are in an extended solar minimum the length of which we haven’t seen for over 100 years ) we are learning much about the other impacts of that big fusion explosion in the sky.

My problem with AGW is two fold. Firstly the accurate data size is very short in comparision to the required sampling size. An 11 year running mean on 150 years, means the size of data is only around 15 times the best sampling size.

Secondly I find it curious that the moment we get scientists with the equipment to measure and attempt to forecast such things, it immediately tells us that a catastrophe is imminent. I can’t help feel it is a bit like the “Club of Rome” type prediction, simply hasn’t taken all the factors into account and therefore the models have been skewed.

24 06 2009
Verdurous

Why do climate believers continually resort to such vicious ad hominin attacks, instead of letting the facts carry the day?

The post is primarily an attack on Steve Fielding’s character. Yes it is ad hominim, that’s the whole point! The science is largely outlined in academic literature where ad hominim attacks are unacceptable and pointless. Politicians can and should be judged on their character, foibles, frailties and decision-making capacities.

I can’t help feel it is a bit like the “Club of Rome” type prediction….

The Club of Rome put forward a range of scenarios, which were extremely accurate when now compared against our obvious resource limits. You should take a closer look.

21 06 2010
sophie

If you’re going to resort to criticising people’s spelling, at least learn to spell ‘ad hominem’ and ‘you’re’ and ‘arguments’

24 06 2009
AnthonyB

If the government really believes this is a crucial issue then why not spend some tax dollars to produce a document in easy to explain terms that covers the science and answers all the skeptic questions and send it to every Australian household. They have spent lots of money advertising and explaining far less important issues.

While their at it, they should be spending money on improving the science on the subject. If global warming is true, and if we do need to do something about, how will we really know that were acheiving with the things were doing. For instance the equipment on Mona Loa is in need of some serious upgrading. An audit of acurracy and appropriating placement of temperatue stations (this has for the US been almost comlpleted by Climate Skeptic Anthony Watts, his blog “Watts Up With That” includes more science than the propaganda that is on most pro-global warming sites). Answer questions like why are the ground based meausrements (eg GISS) and the satelite measuements (eg UAH) diverging and which set of measurements is a better reflection of what is occurring.

All I can see the government doing is raising a tax to assuage guilt but not really doing much concrete action. To be honest AGW is a balance of probability thing for me, I don’t believe the science is settled but I do think on the balance of probability we should act.

As far as most global warming supporters, they seem they more interested in belittleling and maligning then educating and explaining. As the science adage goes, if you can’t expalin things in simple terms then you really don’t understand the topic. So stop wasting your time in pointless mud slinging. Get to grips with the arguements the anti’s are using and intelligently answer them, instead of resorting to bombast to win the day.

24 06 2009
Verdurous

…why not spend some tax dollars to produce a document in easy to explain terms that covers the science and answers all the skeptic questions and send it to every Australian household.

Firstly, it would be criticised as a ridiculous waste of money and resources by sceptics. Secondly, few Australians would read a scientific document, even if simplified somewhat. Thirdly, of those that read it, very few would have the skills and educational background to truly understand the material. Lastly, this stuff is out there for those who seek it. It isn’t hard to find. For example here, here and here.

…..they should be spending money on improving the science on the subject

I suspect there is more money going into climate change research over time. The public money spent is criticised heavily by sceptics as a waste, and any information produced, no matter if independent of government interference, is painted as biased by critics. No win situation. Besides, the science is adequate to act strongly and rapidly. The problem is not lack of information, it is lack of political will.

…but I do think on the balance of probability we should act.

Woo-hoo…common ground !

As the science adage goes, if you can’t explain things in simple terms then you really don’t understand the topic.

I’m not sure I’ve heard this. I’m aware of Ockham’s razor, the principle that is often described such “if there are several equally acceptable explanations of a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one”. This is different to your suggestion here. I’m not sure I could explain relativity theory or Quantum physics in simple terms to a child. Hmm..maybe.

So stop wasting your time in pointless mud slinging. Get to grips with the arguments the anti’s are using and intelligently answer them, instead of resorting to bombast to win the day.

It’s a fair cop. Though, I’m not sure Steve Fielding’s yet attracted the degree of venomous maligning that Al Gore has attracted. But Steve’s far more deserving don’t you think? Ultimately there is little point patiently responding to the points made by sceptics. A blogger elsewhere recently compared them to a dog with a bone. You throw the bone away but they keep chasing it and landing one back at your feet. I don’t have the time, energy nor expertise. I’ll leave that to climate scientists.

14 07 2009
Rolls

AnthonyB “…the “Club of Rome” type *prediction*…”

I love to read statements like this about ‘The Limits to Growth’ because they tell me instantly that the speaker has never actually bothered to open the book and even read the preface, much less the whole work, or understand the very unremarkable conclusions about the boom/bust dynamics of systems that are in continual growth.

Fail.

14 06 2010
Kraig Champagne

This was a Good post, I will bookmark this post in my Digg account. Have a good evening.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: