johnsamuels7484Global warming - or is it? (LINK)
July 29th 2008 12:50
"If an otherwise sceptical media is doing its job on climate change, it will start with just a couple of basic questions."
Henry's favourite blogger, Janet Albrechtsen, asks two important questions.
“Questions such as how reliable are the good Professor’s apocalyptic scenarios of the disappearance of the ski fields in Australia, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and the Kakadu wetlands, the collapse of the Murray-Darling Basin as a productive region, heat related deaths soaring, millions more contracting dengue fever, the inundation of hundreds of thousands of climate change refugees to Australia, and average Australian wages dropping by 7.8 per cent.
“Or how credible is it to suppose that other developing countries will accept measures to mitigate climate change if those measures have serious economic consequences? This, after all, is the premise on which Garnaut says we should show leadership by forging ahead with an ETS.”
To me, the second question is far less important than the first. Garnaut is a seasoned diplomat, as is Kevin Rudd.
They both see the benefit of Australia “showing willing” but neither would be in favour of Australia damaging its economy in the interests of providing “leadership”.
Garnaut at the press club pointed out that the debate on free trade, (which he lead), was far simpler, as it was in Australia's interests to cut protection even if others did not.
The diabolical nature of this debate is that the answer seems to be only co-ordinated global action will do the job, which is why having two seasoned diplomats leading this debate is so important.
But the really “diabolical” aspect of this debate is the massive divide between scientists between climate change “worriers” and “sceptics”.
Urgency depends largely on whether one's imperfect knowledge about the scientific issues leads one to fear an imminent “tipping point” of runaway global warming. In the armageddon scenario, initial warming (even if triggered in part by “exogenous” external factors), is reinforced by positive feedback loops like the melting of polar ice, CO2 saturation of the world's oceans and release of large volumes of methane as land in northern latitudes warms.
In the very long weekend since Ross Garnaut presented his Draft Report (see transcript here), there have been two new scientific claims - two in a weekend!
The two new scientific claims come from NASA and Australia's own CSIRO.
NASA, we are told, has changed its mind about key points in the cooling/warming debate. Rather than a recent year being the warmest on record - in the modern world - it was 1934!
(To Henry the really scary fact is that the planet has seen in the distant past very large climate swings, while the climate during the past 10,000 years or so has been relatively even and benign.)
Local sceptics such as Ray Evans, Louis Hissink and Des Moore claim we are in a period of global cooling, and Des Moore shows a graph that purports to illustrate this.
And the CSIRO has released a new report that claims drought will become far more frequent in Australia - 20 to 25-year droughts are likely to occur every year or two.
Garnaut says he simply accepts the best available scientific evidence.
The famous “precautionary principle” makes the case for this approach - the potential costs of inaction are so great.
This is reinforced by the point made by Garnaut, that it may be worth paying an “insurance cost” in case climate change produces an extraordinarily adverse outcome, like the complete drying up of the Murray-Darling basin.
It would be very helpful if there could be some independent judgment about the scientific issues about now.
I would settle for the opinion of Australia's Chief Scientist, or perhaps - since there is safety in numbers - the views of the current and two previous Chief Scientists.
Unless and until this is done, we shall all be forced to form our own views on the basis of ideological disposition, the result of one or other bit of popular science that captures our attention or hip pocket issues.
Visit Henry Thornton.com here.
Henry's favourite blogger, Janet Albrechtsen, asks two important questions.
“Questions such as how reliable are the good Professor’s apocalyptic scenarios of the disappearance of the ski fields in Australia, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and the Kakadu wetlands, the collapse of the Murray-Darling Basin as a productive region, heat related deaths soaring, millions more contracting dengue fever, the inundation of hundreds of thousands of climate change refugees to Australia, and average Australian wages dropping by 7.8 per cent.
“Or how credible is it to suppose that other developing countries will accept measures to mitigate climate change if those measures have serious economic consequences? This, after all, is the premise on which Garnaut says we should show leadership by forging ahead with an ETS.”
To me, the second question is far less important than the first. Garnaut is a seasoned diplomat, as is Kevin Rudd.
They both see the benefit of Australia “showing willing” but neither would be in favour of Australia damaging its economy in the interests of providing “leadership”.
Garnaut at the press club pointed out that the debate on free trade, (which he lead), was far simpler, as it was in Australia's interests to cut protection even if others did not.
The diabolical nature of this debate is that the answer seems to be only co-ordinated global action will do the job, which is why having two seasoned diplomats leading this debate is so important.
But the really “diabolical” aspect of this debate is the massive divide between scientists between climate change “worriers” and “sceptics”.
Urgency depends largely on whether one's imperfect knowledge about the scientific issues leads one to fear an imminent “tipping point” of runaway global warming. In the armageddon scenario, initial warming (even if triggered in part by “exogenous” external factors), is reinforced by positive feedback loops like the melting of polar ice, CO2 saturation of the world's oceans and release of large volumes of methane as land in northern latitudes warms.
In the very long weekend since Ross Garnaut presented his Draft Report (see transcript here), there have been two new scientific claims - two in a weekend!
The two new scientific claims come from NASA and Australia's own CSIRO.
NASA, we are told, has changed its mind about key points in the cooling/warming debate. Rather than a recent year being the warmest on record - in the modern world - it was 1934!
(To Henry the really scary fact is that the planet has seen in the distant past very large climate swings, while the climate during the past 10,000 years or so has been relatively even and benign.)
Local sceptics such as Ray Evans, Louis Hissink and Des Moore claim we are in a period of global cooling, and Des Moore shows a graph that purports to illustrate this.
And the CSIRO has released a new report that claims drought will become far more frequent in Australia - 20 to 25-year droughts are likely to occur every year or two.
Garnaut says he simply accepts the best available scientific evidence.
The famous “precautionary principle” makes the case for this approach - the potential costs of inaction are so great.
This is reinforced by the point made by Garnaut, that it may be worth paying an “insurance cost” in case climate change produces an extraordinarily adverse outcome, like the complete drying up of the Murray-Darling basin.
It would be very helpful if there could be some independent judgment about the scientific issues about now.
I would settle for the opinion of Australia's Chief Scientist, or perhaps - since there is safety in numbers - the views of the current and two previous Chief Scientists.
Unless and until this is done, we shall all be forced to form our own views on the basis of ideological disposition, the result of one or other bit of popular science that captures our attention or hip pocket issues.
Visit Henry Thornton.com here.
| 28 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
