Hi all
Herein is an email recieved from one of the founders of the "Galileo Movement"http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php, an Australian anti-carbon tax site who are employing all sorts of dodgy tactics and (I suspect) funding from those who stand to lose the most from the green/sustainable movement. My attention was drawn to them via a twitter feed from Sciam, specifically this http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide article, which led to various other reportage and supportage. Incenced by the transparent obfuscation, which is beginning to resemble the "doubt" campaign run by the tobacco companies (otherwise known as astroturfing -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt) I sent an email to the site admins, Case Smit and John Smeed, and to my surprise, I got a reply. So I am going to try to draw this Case Smit into a debate on this forum. My reasons for this are fairly simple, and I want to be transparent about my motivations. I am of the opinion that it is well beyond the time we need to switch to a sustainable energy society, and given the resistance those who champion this idea are facing around the world, my feeling is that the proposed carbon tax, while not ideal, nevertheless represents a crucial, possibly pivotal, step which must not be allowed to slide. Its importance is reflected in the lengths which its opponents are willing to go to stop it; as always, follow the money to find out who is behind the attempts to derail the debate on the subject.
So, it may take some time or it may not happen at all, but as I said, here's the email:

Let me first say that we in no way condone destruction of the environment;
we are as concerned for the natural environment as most people. Our naming
our Movement after Galileo is based on the situation where a relatively
small number of thinking (and qualified) people still believe in real
science rather than that contrived and corrupted to suit a particular
politically-correct point of view. Galileo almost lost his life standing up
against the "consensus" of his time - pointing out that "the science" was
not settled and actually wrong!

Prof. WJR Alexander has just produced an excellent paper (attached) pointing
out how "the science" of global warming has been manipulated. I challenge
you to read the attached paper, although you probably won't read the whole
paper because it offends your "faith"; but please, at least look at the
"brief sequence of the main events" starting on page 7.

I could send you lots of similar documentation to show how so many, like
you, have been duped in this global hoax by the post-normal science which
relies on computer models and exaggerations. However, I don't expect to
hear from you again because you have probably been so brainwashed that new
facts will not permit you to change your mind. And, anyway, you've vented
your spleen at us and can now go back to reading the gospel according to St.
Gore and his disciple Flannery.

Case Smit

Brunitski
*edited to add* If there is a more appropriate area for this mods, don't hesitate to move it!
Cheers

Are you planning a formal debate with Case Smit? If so, you probably need to bring it to the attention of one of the mods so they can set it up in the formal debate forum.

I have invited Case to veiw the topic and have proposed a formal debate, which he is considering ->

Before answering your challenge, I’ll attach the paper I meant to send to you with my previous email.

Case

The paper he is referring to is by W.J.R. Alexander - a retired South African academic (engineering background) who denies both AGW and that there is any deleterious effects resulting from rising CO2 in the atmosphere. I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the little I have perused indicates he is of the "it's the sun" camp and that it's all perfectly natural, nothing to see here, and by extention, I suppose, that all the research that shows otherwise, is flawed.
However I have already broached the prospect of a formal debate with the mods, and Durro has kindly offered to act as adjudicator.
B

A reply from Case.

Your challenge is most unusual as it has always been us “sceptics” challenging the believers in anthropogenic global warming to debate. The result of these challenges has, almost without exception, been that the “warmists” have refused to be involved. A recent exception was a debate sponsored by the Spectator Magazine and the IPA on August 3rd in which Lord Nigel Lawson, Prof. Ian Plimer and Prof. Gary Johns opposed John Hewson, Mark Latham and Benjamin McNeil (by the way it is to be shown on ABC24’s Big Ideas program on Sunday August 28th at 1pm.). In this debate, Benjamin McNeil, the only Scientist on that side, stunned the audience by saying he would not be discussing the science.

The Galileo Movement has many experts who would be delighted to have a debate with you on the subject of AGW. Instead of me (not an expert) I would nominate Profs. Bob Carter and Ian Plimer or our volunteer Project Manager Malcolm Roberts to have a debate with you.

Regards,

Case

So! We have a debate. Now I have to get a scientist - preferably a climate scientist, to come help me out!

Any takers?
Tally ho!
B
And for those keeping count....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter and I think this is the Gary Johns referred to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johns

Many of my fellow Christian theists are strong AGW skeptics. (I'm not. I actually think we are gonna cook!)

On an Undernet IRC channel the other morning, a few of them challenged my LACK of sufficient skepticism that mere humans could cause that sort of global effect.

I asked them whether or not they knew of any bible verses relating to humans being asked to take care of the earth. Is there anything in the bible, I asked them, about humans destroying the earth?

Strangely, they went a little quiet after that.

@ Lion IRC; It is not a subject that is intuitive for humans. I find thinking about large scale climate change akin to trying to conceptualize cosmological time and distances. It helped me when someone pointed out that one important concept is not so much the amount of greenhouse gasses we are responsible for but the effect that they have when considered with the global uptake of said gasses. Honestly it makes my brain hurt.

I asked them whether or not they knew of any bible verses relating to humans being asked to take care of the earth. Is there anything in the bible, I asked them, about humans destroying the earth?

. Iirc, there is something about us being given the job of looking after stuff in that 'ol book isn't there?
B

I find their chosen name unfortunate and ironic.

If they are good friends with Monckton, they should get him to debate for their side.

Not sure how many climate scientists we have got on this board. Know anyone at a university near you or anything?

i will post a link with your request on another forum i frequent.

you should also look for help here http://talkrational.org/

and here http://www.freeratio.org/ where they already had a formal debate on global warming
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=303982

Spearthrower wrote:I find their chosen name unfortunate and ironic.

Indeed. They seem to have an urban myth version of Galileo in mind. The real one quite readily offered to recant his views on heliocentricism when dragged before court (how many climate scientists are currently being dragged before court, vs how many deniers?). Though the pope's MO was largely political with Galileo just a pawn, rather than actually aimed at the science (apparently almost none of the heliocentric publications were edited as ordered, and many clergy kept reading it). And he never said "Eppur si muove", the supposed snub at the oppressive authorities.

Thanks Aca, that is very helpful. I have just received a reply from their chosen representative - I will post that soon.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:If they are good friends with Monckton, they should get him to debate for their side.

Not sure how many climate scientists we have got on this board. Know anyone at a university near you or anything?

That lord (ahem) is a busy guy! I may have to go to BAUT, I think there was a climate person there...

The paper of Alexander was briefly addressed at skepticalscience: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=70.

ginckgo wrote:Indeed. They seem to have an urban myth version of Galileo in mind. The real one quite readily offered to recant his views on heliocentricism when dragged before court (how many climate scientists are currently being dragged before court, vs how many deniers?). Though the pope's MO was largely political with Galileo just a pawn, rather than actually aimed at the science (apparently almost none of the heliocentric publications were edited as ordered, and many clergy kept reading it). And he never said "Eppur si muove", the supposed snub at the oppressive authorities.

To add to this: The church did fund Gallileis studies, with the intention of getting a result on whether the heliocentric or the geocentric model worked better. Gallilei did send the results for review and the pope authorized a printing. The main issues were some additions made after the pope had given the green light to a book that said that heliocentrism was a better model: Gallilei claimed 3 additional things now:
a) Epirical methods could prove a model. An epistemological point, where the pope held a view that ironically is pretty much what modern philosophers of science say: You can´t prove a hypothesis, you can only falsify it. Repeated failure to falsify means you have some confidence it won´t be in the future, but it never gets proven.
b) A proven model did talk about ultimate reality. A metaphysical point and the main issue of contention - Gallilei was arguing for ontological materialism there.
c) Tides are caused by the rotation of the earth, not by the moon. A genuine scientific disagreement, because the pope had published a text on tides in which he argued they were caused by the moon. The pope had empirical data, gallilei had nothing and called his hypothesis (which is more or less right) "fit for a donkey".

susu.exp wrote:

ginckgo wrote:Indeed. They seem to have an urban myth version of Galileo in mind. The real one quite readily offered to recant his views on heliocentricism when dragged before court (how many climate scientists are currently being dragged before court, vs how many deniers?). Though the pope's MO was largely political with Galileo just a pawn, rather than actually aimed at the science (apparently almost none of the heliocentric publications were edited as ordered, and many clergy kept reading it). And he never said "Eppur si muove", the supposed snub at the oppressive authorities.

To add to this: The church did fund Gallileis studies, with the intention of getting a result on whether the heliocentric or the geocentric model worked better. Gallilei did send the results for review and the pope authorized a printing. The main issues were some additions made after the pope had given the green light to a book that said that heliocentrism was a better model: Gallilei claimed 3 additional things now:
a) Epirical methods could prove a model. An epistemological point, where the pope held a view that ironically is pretty much what modern philosophers of science say: You can´t prove a hypothesis, you can only falsify it. Repeated failure to falsify means you have some confidence it won´t be in the future, but it never gets proven.
b) A proven model did talk about ultimate reality. A metaphysical point and the main issue of contention - Gallilei was arguing for ontological materialism there.
c) Tides are caused by the rotation of the earth, not by the moon. A genuine scientific disagreement, because the pope had published a text on tides in which he argued they were caused by the moon. The pope had empirical data, gallilei had nothing and called his hypothesis (which is more or less right) "fit for a donkey".

Wow, I did not know that part Susu. That is truly ironic, that the pope could have the better tidal model...
I have been bombarded both by work and the Galileo movement. Case Smit has backed away and sent his "expert" and Project leader, Malcolm Roberts to deal with me. I will post his email and my reply in a separate post so as to avoid the wall of text!
B

Pulsar wrote:The paper of Alexander was briefly addressed at skepticalscience: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=70.

Awesome. Thank you Pulsar, this is why I love the intertubes....

Malcolm Roberts wrote:Good morning:


I would be delighted to debate you in public and organise a team to present our case on the fundamentals.


I'd prefer to debate you and your team publicly in a live community forum.


I've entered internet discussions and they're not worth the time. It's difficult to check participants' claims. It's easy for people to avoid accountability.


Please refer to near the bottom of this page to see the topics and conditions I suggest. Go to:
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php


Then scroll down to the section entitled: Challenge to a debate
I'm happy to travel to <removed> area for the debate.


We would need to organise a mutually acceptable date and time as well as chairperson and venue.



What do you think?


Malcolm Roberts
Project Manager (voluntary)
The Galileo Movement (non-profit)

The challenge is

the Galileo Movement wrote:... addressed to any of the eight Australian academics prominent in promoting climate alarm.

I am trouble finding the names of these eight scientists, or indeed any reference to contributing Australian scientists! This may be because some people at various universities have received abusive emails and even death threats. http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-release-abusive-emails-1730 This is the sort of madness that got me motivated to do what I could. Graham Readfearn details the emails here http://www.readfearn.com/2011/06/skeptically-threatening/#more-647 - this more and more resembles the campaign waged by the likes of big tobacco and exxon. Imagine receiving this sort of stuff when all you were doing was interpreting data.
I replied with the following:

Hi Malcom
At the risk of lowering your estimation of me, there is no "team" on my side. Ho ho! - I'm just a guy who see's the tactics in play on your website, and feels that there aren't enough little people like me pointing out the inherent flaws in your arguments. If I had your sort of backing, I'd love to debate you publicly; it's just not going to happen, unfortunately. I am still keen to have a rep from TGM address what I see as the inaccuracies in the science as presented on your site on an online forum. I suggested that format because it fits in with my life, work and family commitments. I understand completely if you are too busy to respond to my criticisms, and I have seen online debates go bad and understand your reluctance to enter into one, however this is the only way I can defend what I see as the 21st century version of the fight against big tobacco. I will have a look at your topics and conditions to see if there is any way forward - for your part, are you 100% opposed to an online debate?
I look forward to hearing from you
cheers
B

As a side note, when I was searching for the names of Australian scientists working with the IPCC, I had a graphic reminder of how negative spin campaigns like the one being run by TGM and Alan Jones et al can easily skew public opinion. In the first page of results in the search "australian scientists IPCC" 7 out 10 results were from sites with a negative view on the IPCC (that is fine), but 5 of those led to total crackpot sites like quadrant and australianclimatemadness.com. A person looking into this for the first time would tend to see these sites first - again I have no problem with an opposing view being shown first, as long as there are links to the established data and conclusions. However, as with TGM, the stated aim is to divert the public from the established science, to establish doubt, to remove the feeling that one must balance arguments, instead relying solely on their figures and conclusions. They do this, not because they have uncovered new research, or data or have new interpretations of existing data, but to put a stop to legislation. Not to belabour a point, but this is exactly how tobacco companies kept anti-smoking legislation out of parliament for so long.

Malcolm replied thusly:

Malcolm Roberts wrote:Thank you,


I had no preconceived estimation of you. I try to approach people and issues objectively.


I'm only 165cm tall and working entirely voluntary. Both physically and from a resources perspective that makes me one of the 'little people' too. Welcome, brother.


In answer to your points raised, would you please be so kind as to list the tactics you see as being in play on our web site?


Could you please advise what you mean by our sort of backing?


I may be in <removed> area in the near future. And definitely in the <removed>. Would you like to debate then? Either publicly or if you are reluctant to debate publicly, we could have a private discussion. Would either suit?


There are three key topics in discussing the carbon dioxide tax. Our web site suggests a team so that each of the three key topics can be addressed by an expert in the field.


I am happy though to forgo a team and simply cover all three topics myself. Or, if you are reluctant to cover the economics, I'd be pleased to discuss the corruption of science and the real-world science. Would you prefer that? Just the two of us? Over coffee?


Another way is for you to list what you perceive to be the inaccuracies on our site and as priorities permit, I'll address your list of 'criticisms'.


I confirm my interest in, and support for a debate, preferably public because that provides greater accountability.


Thank you for explaining your preference for an internet debate. There are too many holes in internet forum and accountability is lacking. Plus it is time consuming and lacks spontaneity. The big issue though is lack of accountability. I like to see people's eyeballs and to hold them accountable for their statements. That is far too time consuming on the internet.


We have much to do to end the scam being shoved on us by a corrupt government.


Perhaps you may want to peruse these two documents:
- http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf especially the two short pages of Section 1 'Basic Facts on CO2' and section 2 'Carbon dioxide is not pollution'.
- http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/ ... posing.pdf


Malcolm Roberts
Project Manager (voluntary)
The Galileo Movement (non-profit)

I am composing my reply, and have read the two documents linked: both penned by Malcolm himself, and pretty standard rehashes of the standard distortions of science put about by the usual suspects. I am also putting together a list of my "criticisms" of the site, which will be large and which, gentle reader, I shall post asap.
B

Brunitski wrote:

Malcolm Roberts wrote:I'd prefer to debate you and your team publicly in a live community forum.

I've entered internet discussions and they're not worth the time. It's difficult to check participants' claims. It's easy for people to avoid accountability.

That guy's full of crap! It's the exact opposite. If you're online, that gives you both the time and the resources to check participants' claims. It's in the public debate format where you're at the mercy of your opponent's prepared speech, which often contains very detailed claims that you're unlikely to know well enough to be able to refute in similar detail. I'm reminded of Monckton's style of giving exact bibliographic references, which make it sound very authoritative, but when you later check them, they didn't actually say what he said they did; but by that time, he's already 'won' the debate.

And in the public debate style championed here in Australia, it's not about whose side the facts (or the science) are on, but who sounds more convincing. This is why I think it is totally counterproductive to engage these guys in public debates (and also why they are so keen on that format). Remember these guys have no compunction to use FUD as an ally.

TBH Gincko, Their entire modus operandi seems to be FUD. I will say this, however; I have seen some internet debates fall over before they even get going because in the end, mods can only close the discussion as a final recourse, leaving the dishonest debater to fade away without any real repercussions. You know what I mean? At least in the physical realm, they have to stand there looking stoopid if they blatantly ignore the rules. I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why no-one has taken them up on their offer to debate the science. I know it's complicated (the science I mean), but every idiotic denialist argument I've seen can be refuted, and has been refuted with proper solid evidence. Why hasn't anyone made Monckton look the fool he so patently is?