Internet Environment Wars

Heresy has been busy getting hot and bothered on the Internet of late. There are some mischevious people floating around and we are making it our business to re-educate them.

Before reading on, we ask you to remember:
- We believe in global warming (GW) and also Anthropogenic GW (AGW)
- We believe that we should act (even if we're proven wrong later) because even if we act and are wrong, the worst we have done is create green industries and reduced our reliance on non-renewable resources, in the process creating a cleaner world and human race. If we don't act, and the denialists are wrong, it'll be too late. Not only will our ski seasons be diminished/eliminated, the planet will be in big trouble.

Ok, so on Crikey.com.au on 9th December serial mischief maker T. Calderwood wrote:

Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. "Richard Farmer's political bite-sized meaty chunks" (yesterday, item 11). The most important point to note about the temperature graph referenced by Richard Farmer is that the entire global warming case rests on a warming trend that occurred over the past 30 years. This warming was no more dramatic than the previous warming trend from 1910-1945.

Furthermore, the GW theory has no explanation for the cooling trend between 1945-1980. Finally, if recent chilly temperatures are not evidence that global warming may be slowing then what standard of evidence is required? Is the theory not falsifiable?

Tamas has a history of casting aspersions on GW - as he is entitled to do. But, he also has a habit of cherry picking data to back his claims - very naughty.

We responded on 10 December (some other contributors had good responses to Calderwood also):

Tim Marsh writes: Calderwood is being mischievous again. Really, Tamas, you're starting to sound like A. Bolt and science notwithstanding, you cannot claim a chilly Melbourne early December as proof positive that GW/AGW is a furphy/slowing/etc; statistically that is impoverished thinking and it's intellectually childish (perhaps you were being a bit cheeky or ironic?). What next sir; some rain in January means the drought is broken?

You continue to seem to ignore or recognise the broader concerns about high CO2 (and related CH4) emissions creating a long-term positive feedback with unknown consequences and to cherry pick little titbits on a micro-level in a disingenuous manner. For what it's worth, I'd rather act, and be wrong (and on the way develop sustainable energy and reduce reliance on Big Petro), than not act and be wrong. Wouldn't that be a monumental stuff up?

Tamas responded on Dec 11 thus:

Tamas Calderwood writes: Stephen Morris (yesterday, comments) says the Global Warming hypothesis can be supported with data from at least 1900 onwards but human CO2 emissions only really took off after WWII, just as the planet stopped warming for about 35 years. Surely this implies that natural factors are more important in determining our climate than CO2. Tim Marsh (yesterday, comments) chides me for claiming a chilly Melbourne December means global warming is falsified. Huh? I said the past eight years of cooling are evidence that global warming may be slowing.
 
Matt Hardin (yesterday, comments) claims there is too much evidence from too many fields in support of the GW hypothesis. This is a common claim but it’s false. The only "evidence" in support of GW is a slightly warmer planet over the past 150 years and a bunch of computer models that say it’s caused by man-made CO2. But the climate constantly changes. Recent fluctuations are within normal bounds. Natural factors have always dominated our climate and I’m yet to see convincing evidence that that’s changed.

The burden of proof is therefore on the GW theory. If the planet keeps cooling (as it shows signs of doing) then policies for massive taxes to "stop global warming" are going to look increasingly ridiculous.

Whilst he has some worthy points, and is completely entitled to maintain a sceptical line (which however in our mind is very foolish), we felt strongly compelled to respond on Dec 12:

Tim Marsh writes: Crikey, although I don't wish to engage in a slanging match on your pages, I really must take issue with Tamas Calderwood (yesterday, comments) either cherry picking or misquoting people/facts/stats, or being slightly unclear. Tamas, on Dec 9 you said (my highlighting): "Furthermore, the GW theory has no explanation for the cooling trend between 1945-1980. Finally, if recent chilly temperatures are not evidence that global warming may be slowing then what standard of evidence is required?" Firstly, I don't see a cooling period on trend-terms between 45-80.

Moreover, although I will acknowledge you did mention 1945-1980 (you did not mention eight years anywhere as you claim on Dec 11), you clearly seek to link the recent chilly temperatures to support your beliefs. I inferred, by the use of the term "recent", that you meant December or some similar timeframe. Perhaps my mistake, but again I make the point that on a pure statistical basis there is a trend upwards.

This link shows data beyond the 30-year period you mention, and regardless of a temporary decline, the trend is:

1. clearly upwards on a statistical basis, and
2. has accelerated as the emissions from the past 100 years have begun to create a feedback loop.

More information (amongst a raft of it) here.

Tamas, I again state: I would MUCH rather be wrong about this, having acted (and created a new world of non-fossil fuel based jobs, products and services), than be on your side of the fence, and not act (waiting, waiting), because that would be disastrous. The train of ecological destruction, once past tipping point, is not a simple switch to turn off.

From a purely business-risk point of view, I am firmly of the belief that we should act regardless. You, it seems to me, see risk/costs/job loss. I, as an innovator, see many opportunities for new job creation and smarter, better and more efficient ways of doing things, so my kids can surf, snowboard and enjoy this Earth (still the only habitable planet we know about for now) well beyond my death. Think about it. What are you so scared of?

Heresy is firmly of the belief that we have seen a shift in the argument in the main, from a GW/AGW versus no-such-basis, to a starting point of agreement on the occurrence of warming and discussion/debate raging as to how bad it's going to be, what's causing it (humans or not) and what we need to do. Which is a welcome shift by the way.

What do you think about this? We bang on about this stuff a lot, we know, but it's because the snow seasons will be the first things affected.