Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Throwing stones in the glass greenhouse

By Mark S. Lawson - posted Thursday, 7 June 2007


Closer in time and distance, Garth Paltridge, emeritus professor of the University of Tasmania and a former director of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, says that when he was setting up the centre in the early 1990s he made the mistake of saying to the media there was still a lot of doubt about the science of global warming.

In an article in the Australian Financial Review (February 22, 2006) he says he was quickly told by executives at the “highest levels” of the CSIRO - a partner in the centre - that he should keep such doubts to himself or see the organisation withdraw from the centre. At the time the CSIRO was trying to get tens of millions of dollars of funding from the newly formed Australian Greenhouse Office.

Any attempt to rein in greenhouse scientists, on the other hand, results in endless expressions of horror in the media and programs expressing outrage on the ABC. In that atmosphere (another intended pun) it is little wonder that mid-career scientists shut up. Those free to speak their minds are the retirees such as Brian Tucker, a former chief of the CSIRO’s Division of Atmospheric Research, and Dr Brian O'Brien, a strategic and environmental consultant, who was the foundation Director and Chairman of the WA Environmental Protection Authority. There are more.

Advertisement

There is some evidence that this peculiar attitude to scientific debate also seems to occur, in different forms, among the scientists themselves. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, alleges that the main scientific journals Science (US) and Nature (UK) commonly refuse, without review, papers that raise questions about accepted climate wisdom as being without interest. Writing last year in the Wall Street Opinion Journal he says that even when such papers are published, standards shift.

“When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an ‘Iris Effect,’ wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as ‘discredited’.”

That is another common tactic when faced with an inconvenient piece of scepticism, pointing to a hastily-contrived counter-argument, no matter how flimsy, and claiming that it “discredits” the scepticism. But logic is never the aim in this debate. The aim is to push the opposition to one side and get on with the politics.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Lawson is a senior journalist at the Australian Financial Review. He has written The Zen of Being Grumpy (Connor Court).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark S. Lawson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mark S. Lawson
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy