18 August 2009

Climate Skeptics are Like Nazi Appeasers

Here is how the Sydney Morning Herald characterized a speech last night on science and policy by Nathan Rees, Premier of New South Wales (Australia):

NSW Premier Nathan Rees compared climate change sceptics to Nazi appeasers as he addressed a roomful of scientists at the Eureka Awards last night.

In a speech about good policy based on good science, Mr Rees said it was important not to ignore the messages scientists were giving about the environment.

If climate skeptics are the Nazi appeasers, then who are the Nazis?


  1. Hey Rog

    I'm from NSW. As Mr T would have said on the A-Team, speaking about Rees, "The man is a fool". Rees is from the same political party as our PM Krudd. Rees will be given his come-upance when he gets voted out of office next year. His party is on the nose and they will be goners.

  2. Roger,
    When Mr. Gore made a similar remark, I took it to suggest that he imagined himself Winston Churchill in the period when Churchill was virtually alone in challenging the idea that appeasement was the best means to diffuse Hitler's megalomaniac unease.

    At the time, I was reading the second volume of William Manchester's excellent biography of Churchill, "The Last Lion." This volume covers the period from 1932 to 1940 when Churchill was committed to challenging the government in its incremental cave-ins to Hitler's demands.

    It's funny. As I was reading the book I was thinking how similar those times were to ours in the sense that a challenger of accepted orthodoxy, could be so vilified; in Churchill's case being attacked as a warmonger, in some of ours being called "deniers" or even "traitors" by Paul Krugman.

    So Nazi-ism isn't really the issue. The issue is contending with an orthodoxy based on erroneous information or assumptions.

    If believing in a catastrophic potential to AGW is now the orthodox view as I fear it is becoming, Gore and company are not on the side of Winston, but Chamberlain and Hallifax.

  3. Roger I have a few question about the meaning of your paper:

    1) doesn't the model predicted that the troposphere would be warming up faster than the surface.

    If this statement is true then, the discovery of a warming bias in the surface data set should confirm:

    1) That the model were correct.
    2) That the model are to sensitive to co2 forcing.

    I agree that a slower warming doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus on adaptation, while I suggest that mitigation should become a question of energy policy instead of climate policy.

    Am I erring in my statement?

  4. sorry it was supposed to be on this thread: