RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity.
Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was "out of his mind" by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming "doesn't seem to stack up".
Declaring global warming might not be such an important issue, Professor Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of Australia this month that counter measures such as carbon trading were likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger evidence of a crisis.
The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.
He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because "scientist activists" from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over".
Professor Aitkin is a former vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and Macquarie University...
According to the professor, much of the inadequate policy-making on climate change is based on "over-certainty in the absence of convincing argument and data" and "over-reliance on computer models".
"While governments can never ignore what they see as popular feeling, good policy cannot be based on moods," he says.
Read more here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?from=public_rss
Jack Hughes: "Yet no-one has ever built any computer models that can predict anything useful about world or even national economies."
Well that's because they fail to include a suitable ISAFS simulation algorithm. You know - "Incredibly Stupid American Financial System". You need such an algorithm to try to predict such ingenious actions like lending huge amounts of money to people without suitable incomes to buy overpriced houses they can't afford in the first place.
Mr T, "Data could have been mis-entered, they may have developed a new algorithm, they may have found new data for a station,"
No! all these 'could's 'may's are really "didn't" and "aren't" They haven't found new data from the past they haven't developed new improved algorithms for analysis of the past temperatures they haven't found new proxies they are using an algorethms that automatically change past published data when new *current* is added there is no sound reason to do this as the present does not influence past events.
Why you people care about the climate so much is beyond me as you all seem to spend a lot of time stuck in front of your computers I doubt you get outside much to experience it. It all seems about attachment to your own beliefs and the need to convince others of their righteousness thus empowering your own egos. I doubt any of you are going to convince anyone else to change their beliefs, peoples sense of self is so caught up in their beliefs. What is the point of it all? There is no great truth only opinion and speculation. Following a football team would be more useful you get a result you can have a beer and then go home.
Mr T, I'm starting to think you're incapable of reading my words accurately. I never said saying "Curtin was Prime Minister in 1943" was history, I said it was a historical fact. You say "'history' is a narrative", but it is not a story (a fiction) because it is a narrative composed of facts. The fact that Curtin was PM in 1943 will not change, unless we are seriously. That the 6th Australian Division was in Tobruk and surrounded by Rommel will, similarly, not change unless we are seriously mistaken. The possibility that we can be mistaken suggests that we can be mistaken as to the facts that compose history. BTW, the fact that Curtin was PM is not a mere data point. Curtin could simply have a been a citizen, the fact that he was PM requires determination itself.
"However these data points aren't fixed. They change. As more information becomes apparent the data points move. If you just base history on the data points all you get is a scatter of data, that doesn't mean anything. You need to create a narrative. You need to interpolate between the points."
This is all very interesting but wrong. Data is never entirely on its own. You can never completely seperate a piece of information from an idea, concept, category, theory; so it is never entirely meaningless. What we do is make it more meaningful.
"You cannot compare this to Rommels diaries though. Rommels diaries are one man's account, his opinon, they'll be different to Montgomeries account. Neutrinos, however, give the same response whomever is looking at them."
Really, are Monty's accounts substantially different to Rommel's when they're concerned with the same events. Does Monty's account suggest that different units/ regiments/ divisions were involved, that they are engaged in different battles, that these battles occurred at different times and places, etc., when compared to Rommel's? I don't think they do. The dairies to use your terminology are the data points, but they're not the only data points we have.
"I think it actually proves my point as in physics, facts don't vary according to context. Facts shouldn't vary according to context. I think you are confusing 'fact' for 'information'."
Really, so how does this distinguish the discipline 'History' from physics? A Marxist account of Australian history and a liberal account nevertheless recognise Curtin as PM in 1943. The context has changed but this fact has remained the same. Anyway, your point is not necessarily true of physics or science. Facts can change if the context changes, and in such situations we say that we were mistaken as to that fact, or that this fact was irrelevent to this situation/ event/ etc.
The confusion, I dare say, is all yours.
Proteus you are being ridiculous.
Obviously we can say Curtin was Prime Minister in 1943. But that's not "History", that's a piece of information unconnected to anything else. History is a narrative. History is a story. It's an interpolation between data points (the facts). However these data points aren't fixed. They change. As more information becomes apparent the data points move. If you just base history on the data points all you get is a scatter of data, that doesn't mean anything. You need to create a narrative. You need to interpolate between the points.
With respect to physics, you are missing the point. Yes, the existence of neutrinos is determined by the squiggly lines we see. You cannot compare this to Rommels diaries though. Rommels diaries are one man's account, his opinon, they'll be different to Montgomeries account. Neutrinos, however, give the same response whomever is looking at them.
You say that the context is important. Which is where I agree with you. I think it actually proves my point as in physics, facts don't vary according to context. Facts shouldn't vary according to context. I think you are confusing 'fact' for 'information'.
Having read Don Aitkin's address to the Planning Institute of Australia, I would like to note that he does not describe himself as a 'denier', rather he considers himself an agnostic, open to persuasion by evidence, but doubting that the evidence for AGW is not strong enough to warrant giving it policy priority over Australia's more important problems of water supply for a dry, and maybe drier contintent, and finding a cheap energy source to support Australia's future prosperity.
His final statement was the subject of this thread - that he was urged not to write or present such an address, mostly because he was likely to be demonised.
I feel this thread has diverted from the subject; pressure to conform to the accepted policy line. And is now an argument about specifics and interpretation of data evidence supporting AGW.
Perhaps Jennifer can put up Don Aitkin's address so that his analysis of the following aspects of AGW can be discussed -
(1)the extent to which the planet is warming
(2) whether such warming is unprecedented
(3) whether or not the warming is caused by our burning fossil fuels
(4) the likelihood of polar ice melting away
(5) the use of computer models in predicting future climates
(6) the reluctance to admit uncertainty
(7) the extent to which we need to change our way of life to avoid catastropy.
Remove: (The Chinese daily newspapers do not document our weekly footy results, does this mean they never happened). It's likely to confuse the point being made in that paragraph.
Mr T, you are just being ridiculous.
"No, history is not compose of 'facts' as you say, as we have no way of ascertaining if the accounts people made were right or wrong."
Really, so we have no way of ascertaining whether Curtin was Australian PM in 1943. No way at all. The parliamentary records, newspapers, etc., diary entries, etc. are not facts, their subjective opinion are they. All very interesting.
"To suggest the history documented by a General is 'fact' is misleading too."
You're being simple-minded. The diary, for example, of Rommel are historical objects, one of the materials historians refer to if they're writing a history of the war in Northern Africa, Normandy, where ever Rommel happend to be during WW2. The accounts of the battles they provide are to be taken into consideration in writing this history. If other facts corroborate their account then they are reliable objects to be referred in any future account of that battle. If they don't they are unreliable. Nevertheless, they are, so long as they're not forgeries, Rommel's diaries. They are thus historical facts.
"People are not "Objective documentors" we are subjective and our perceptions imprecise. We cannot be obkective in the sense that, say, mathematics or physics can."
If people as you say are not "objective documentors" then how does physics escape the problems you accuse history of? What direct knowledge of protons, electrons, or neutrons do you/ we have? Or of the sub-atomic particles that are suggested to compose an atom? In a super-collidor they appear as lines and squiggles. Are you suggesting that a neutrino is more factual than Curtin being PM in 1943? That reading these lines and squiggles doesn't require interpretation? That we can't be mistaken in our interpretation?
"compare the history in the bible and that of the Egyptians. In the Bible Moses led the Pharoah to his death. Do the Egyptians document this? No. Weird huh?"
No, nothing weird about it at all. The Bible is not history, certainly not history in the sense we've understood it for the last two hundred years. And anyway, the fact that the Egyptians did not document what you describe as "Moses [leading] the Pharoah to his death" only suggests that that they did not document it. Nothing else (The Chinese daily newspapers do not document our weekly footy results, does this mean they never happened). If nothing apart from the Bible documented this event then we would have very little reason in believing the account provided by the Bible. Thus proving that the discipline, History, is evidence-based.
"You are kidding yourself if you think history is composed of 'facts' - it's the narrative that joins facts, the facts themselves are meaningless."
What an incoherent statement. You begin by denying that history is composed of 'facts', and then contradict this statement in your following statement, "it's the narrative that joins facts" which is to admit that history is composed of facts, and because it is composed of facts, we can rationally disagree or agree with one another's interpretation (narrative) that seeks to make sense of various historical facts. BTW, "the facts themselves are [never] meaningless", but it is certainly true to say that the better the context in which they are situated, the more meaningful they may become.
Give you a piece of advice, if you find nothing about what I've said convincing and you're unwilling to read any philosophy of history, R. G. Collingwood's The Idea of History (1946) and The Principles of History (1999)
and Michael Oakeshott's Experience and Its Modes (1933) and On History (1983) being as a good start as your likely to find, just walk into the closest Department of History and run the line of argument you've run here. Unless they're a POMO twit you're in for an interesting and instructive conversation.
Jan, they're not changing the handwritten data (this of course is preserved), They're adjusting the data they use in the next step (I think this is actually called step 1). So they take all the data (handwritten included) and they use them to construct the gridcells (or whatever they call them) this is done by adjusting the data so that the cell adequately describes the observable data. Of course there is going to be changes here. It's to be expected. It could happen for any number of reasons. Data could have been mis-entered, they may have developed a new algorithm, they may have found new data for a station, they may have found new data for a nearby station which then adjusts data for all the stations nearby, they may have found a way to include old data that they couldn't use earlier. Perhaps adding new readings changes the 'average reading' for a station which then makes the past anomaly slightly different. Any number of reasons. The point is that you are criticising and attempting to discredit their system without really knowing why they do it.
The ONLY real reason you dismiss this data is because it doesn't serve your paradigm.
Proteus
No, history is not compose of 'facts' as you say, as we have no way of ascertaining if the accounts people made were right or wrong. They're not objective facts. A diary is not 'fact' it's someone's subjective opinion. To suggest the histroy documented by a General is 'fact' is misleading too. People are not "Objective documentors" we are subjective and our perceptions imprecise. We cannot be obkective in the sense that, say, mathematics or physics can.
For example, compare the history in the bible and that of the Egyptians. In the Bible Moses led the Pharoah to his death. Do the Egyptians document this? No. Weird huh? You are kidding yourself if you think history is composed of 'facts' - it's the narrative that joins facts, the facts themselves are meaningless.