Tuesday, 9 September 2008

Australian climate scientists apoplectic over latest Garnaut report. Cuts not deep enough.

After initially deciding that Australia needed to slash its economic wrists in spite of what the rest of the world does by going it alone on an emissions trading scheme, the government's climate change 'advisor' Ross Garnaut has now sniffed the political wind and worked out that there might not be much support for such a scheme if it was actually put to a vote.

His
latest report sets out much lower targets than initially proposed and says that they shouldn't rise unless the rest of the world also introduces an emissions trading scheme.

Naturally, Australia's leading Climate Alarmists who have their noses firmly in the public trough have become apoplectic at the prospect that Australia would not choose to reduce its standard of living and international competitiveness.
Leading Australian climate scientists have urged the federal government to ignore adviser Ross Garnaut and act more aggressively to counter climate change.

Fairfax newspapers said three Australian authors with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Bill Hare, David Karoly and Amanda Lynch - say Professor Garnaut's advice would all but guarantee environmental and social disaster.

In his latest report, released last week, Prof Garnaut recommended Australia cut its emissions by 10 per cent by 2020.

But speaking separately to Fairfax, the three authors described Prof Garnaut's recommendations as inconsistent, disappointing and wrong.

All three argued for a 25 to 40 per cent cut, saying Australia was likely to be the developed nation worst hit by climate change.

Dr Hare, based at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said adopting Professor Garnaut's recommendation would trigger big sea level rises, devastate ecosystems and dry up water supplies in Asia.

"Ross Garnaut's report is effectively putting off the cost of climate change to another generation, who will have to deal with a 3-degree rise in temperature as well as sucking carbon dioxide out of the air," he said.

"It has failed to face up to this risk issue. As a highly vulnerable country, I would have thought it would have been better for Australia to be going forward with a more aggressive position."

Professor Lynch, a federation fellow at Monash University, said the report would confirm other nations' perceptions that Australia would not match its rhetoric with action.

"I think they will take it as another piece of evidence that Australia is not really interested in walking the walk," she said.

Professor Karoly, a federation fellow at the University of Melbourne, said if Australia adopted Prof Garnaut's position, it would abandon all claims to leading the climate change debate.

Prof Garnaut's final report is due at the end of this month.
If you've ever seen David Karoly talk on the subject of climate change then you'll know what a zealot looks like.

His performance on the ABC's post-Great Global Warming Swindle panel was risible but host Tony Jones kept deferring to him to answer questions related to the science. Instead of offering direct, clear answers Karoly babbled on like Barack Obama without a teleprompter.

The wheels are slowly falling off the scam that is climate science but there's a little way to go before we're safe, as the mainstream media is still in the pocket of Big Green in spite of a few instances of blasphemy recently.

Another five years or so of cooling temperatures should be enough to kill the insanity.

(Nothing Follows)

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another five years or so of cooling temperatures should be enough to kill the insanity. - what physical mechanism is going to make temperatures go down? Please quote the forcings you expect from the various climate drivers, and show how the sum is negative.

Waterpup said...

Yep the money making scam called Global Warming gets debunked again and again yet people still buy into it.

More proof here
http://www.waterpup.com/2008/04/13/another-global-warming-tax/

And more here, it's a very long read
http://www.waterpup.com/2008/09/07/more-on-the-global-warming-myth/

bruce said...

"what physical mechanism is going to make temperatures go down?"

The sun.

Study geology, "anonymous". They discovered something called an 'ice age'. Longer and shorter ice ages occur regularly in cycles, and we are due for one of either kind.

Anonymous said...

Bruce - so you're predicting an ice age within the next five years? Please point us to scientific papers which provide backing for your views.

hoppers said...

Where did Bruce mention an ice age in 5 years?

anonymous. - Do you feel that you are usually right and others are mostly wrong? - Do you sometimes feel misunderstood, or that your views are being misinterpreted?

anonymous - do you make friends easily?

Anonymous said...

Let me recap the essential points of the conversation for you, hoppers:

Fucky: Another five years or so of cooling temperatures should be enough to kill the insanity.

Me: What physical mechanism is going to make temperatures go down?

Bruce: The sun. Study geology, "anonymous". They discovered something called an 'ice age'. Longer and shorter ice ages occur regularly in cycles, and we are due for one of either kind.

Either Bruce didn't understand that I was asking what is going to make temperatures drop over the next five years, or he was predicting an ice age within the next five years. Perhaps he could clarify.

As for your other questions: 1) depends who I'm talking to. 2) see the answer to 1. 3) yes. Questions to you and fucky: do you feel that you have a good grasp of basic science? Do you feel, as non-scientists, that you have the necessary intellectual ability and understanding of the issues to hold a worthwhile opinion on climate-related science? Do you feel that you understand climate science better than people who earn their living as scientists and publish climate-related papers?

hoppers said...

Ah you see you should have said :

Me: What physical mechanism is going to make an ice age occur within the next 5 years?

Bruce clearly understood your question, and next 5 years was not a component of it.

I think you were being naughty and deliberately ambiguous here, but at least you didn't swear at Bruce, which is nice.

Your question to me should have been if I was a scientist and my paycheck and lifestyle depended on supporting the theory of AGW, would I have the moral courage to dissent? (earn their living was your key phrase here)

To which my answer is I hope so.

What is clear, whether or not you are a scientist, is that the so called consensus is a sham, and the time for debate is not over.

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know if man is heating the planet.

Krumhorn sums it up nicely: "I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you don't know either".

My mind remains open, but I resent being preached at, and am horrified by the idiocy of some of the wild claims the pro-AGW lobby make and the vile bullying tactics employed.

I keep telling you - You are your own worst enemies. If you people tried argument and debate instead of abuse and ad-hominem slurs you might start persuading people like me that you had a case, and were not just a bunch of Stalinists.

Intellectual ability? - I think so, but I chose to direct mine is other areas.

Anonymous said...

So here's a new question for you: are you really fucking stupid enough to think that any scientist's career has ever "depended on supporting the theory of AGW"? If you are, then please explain whose, and how. Is it in their contracts? Is their job description "to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming"? Or are you just a conspiracy-theory dickhead?

It's rather obvious you are not open-minded at all, when you make statements like "the so called consensus is a sham". Clearly something is preventing you from understanding that global temperatures are rising, and humans are responsible for that. Is it that you are simply too stupid to understand the science, or that you've decided not to believe certain things?

And your intellectual ability is obviously not great. It doesn't take a particularly great mind to spot something of a contradiction between "I resent being preached at" and "I keep telling you". Fucking idiot.

hoppers said...

Excellent...You've returned to type.

A foul mouthed little bully boy in cyberspace.

When you appeared reasonable earlier in this thread I was worried you might have lost it, but clearly not.

Keep alienating everyone anonymous...that's how to win friends and influence people to agree with your views.