Which Science?
Authorities repeatedly ask us to “accept the science of climate change”.
Prof Flannery, the Australian Climate Commissioner: “Its time to accept climate science” and here and here.
Ms Gillard: “‘The science is in, climate change is real.”
Mr Combet: “The government accepts the climate science”, and “Mr Abbott…”clearly doesn’t accept the climate science.”
Mr Turnbull: “..urge[s] Liberals to accept and defend the science of climate change”
Abbott: “This is not an argument about climate change. Climate change does happen, mankind does make a contribution but a smart country does not put its industries at competitive disadvantage, it doesn’t make life harder for its own people,” [Footnote 1]
But which “Climate Science” should the public be accepting?
1. Robyn Williams‘ with his silly – up to 100 meter Armageddon sea level rise?
2. Al Gore’s, Overpeck’s or James Hansen’s catastrophic sea level rise of up to 4-6 meters by 2100?
3. Martin Vermeera,1 and Stefan Rahmstorf’s 2 meters sea level meter rises?
3a. Chief Scientists Penny Sackett, 0.75 to 1.9 m.
4. Prof Steffan’s 50-100 cm sea level rise by 2100, big shift in Australia’s tropical climate south and the widespread failure of urban infrastructure, in his Critical Decade report, widely quoted by Gillard?
5. The IPCC 26-59 cm sea level rise by 2100 (high emissions scenario) and 50 million displaced by 2010?
6. Phil Watson, Howard Brady, Jim Houston & Bob Dean or Holgate latest slowing of rise towards a 20 cm rise by 2100 if no acceleration persists?
7. Prof Plimer and Prof Carter, quoting likely sea level rise based on its natural history of 16 cm this century?
All the above are respected scientific representatives or bodies.
So when you “believe in the science of climate change”, which of these do you believe and what action do you think is necessary? Lets plot these (we have to reject Robyn Williams’ up to 100 m rise as sheer stupidity – else graph is unreadable):
So which is the ‘The Climate science”? Al Gore’s is catastrophic, Bob Carter’s is harmless. IPCC’s 30-60cm, as discredited they are, is also relatively harmless, certainly not worth damaging our economy over.
How much of the ‘climate change science’ we must accept is actually science?
When IPCC chooses only CO2 reduction as the action on climate, when Labor / Green parties exclude Nuclear and Hydro, when Garnaut picks a specific mechanism of a Carbon Tax to reduce CO2 or when David Karoly calls for closure of one specific business, Hazelwood, is all that ‘science’ which we must accept? Or are these decisions really ideology, economic theory and politics, in other words public policy thinly veiled in the absoluteness of settled science? If we break down ‘climate change’ into its constituent parts, we see that only a tiny part is science, with the vast bulk of the decisions being public policy dressed up as science for the purpose of seeming unchallengeable by the public:
But actually:
So when someone asks you “Do you accept the science of Climate Change?”, you may answer:
Of course I accept the science – the 1ºC temperature rise and 50 cm sea level rise.
But now let me tell you with what public policy I want us to respond to it.
Determining the public policy is our democratic right and our duty. Scientists have no skills and no authority to have a say in this. Our political representatives have no right to dictate… they must represent our, that is the voter’s, wishes indicated by our choices of the party with the most desirable policies.
Prof Garnaut is an economist, not a scientist. He can advise on the basis of his economic models, provided he convinces us they are unbiased and useful, but cannot dictate under the guise of unchallengeable scientific consensus. Unfortunately, Prof Garnaut has come across as highly partisan and his modelling claims are based on patently false assumptions regarding the rest of the world, so whether the science is right or wrong, the public and businesses are right to reject his public policy.
We must choose to match actions of the rest of the world – which we are already doing according to the Productivity Report, because that, according to Game Theory, is in fact the only rational choice in the absence of a global agreement.
So, the science may be settled (or not) by scientists …but the POLICY response is our decision…Julia!
————————
[1]: Previously Abbott also said: “climate change is real”..”Humanity is making a contribution,”.
Abbott has never said I ‘believe’ in climate change – because as we saw above, it’s a nonsense statement. Abbott never said the alleged infamous “Climate science is crap”, he was reported to have said that:
“The argument is absolute crap… However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger”.
What was the ‘argument’ he thought was crap? The whole Climate Change argument above, which is mostly non-scientific, but rather public policy, as he spelled out recently.
Our Digger Nation’s Defence.
Support Friday the 29th of July as an ‘Australian Carbon Tax National Sickie’. Please spread the word far and wide, and enjoy your day of National inaction.
Resulting from the state’s failure to preserve, against superordinate authoritarian coercion, the overall best interests of our Nation, exercise of sovereignty transferred to the state by majority consent of the Australian people has become subject to the question of legitimacy. In order to reaffirm the mutual obligations inherent within our society’s social contract, our Nation’s first step shall be to ‘dig a toe in’.
If we may do nothing to prevent action detrimental to our National best interest, so then shall it be by the tool of our ‘doing nothing’ that we will regain our Nation’s rightful self determination.
http://dhrtressie2.xanga.com/
Want the science? The facts? Here’s the science & facts summed up in a nutshell :
Australia emits 1% of the world’s carbon dioxide.
The rest of the globe emits the other 99% of it.
So we are talking about possibly reducing 5% of that 1% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions – 99% of which we have absolutely no say over. So at best – if it works as planned – the Carbon (dioxide) tax will leave 99.95% of the C02 “problem” unaddressed.
Jim Hansen and many other Global Warming Alarmists claim the world faces dangerous catastrophic rapid warming if the level of Carbon dioxide in Parts Per Million (yes million!) exceeds 350 ppm.
However, Carbon dioxide levels currently are already above 390 ppm and constantly rising. They have been above 350 ppm for many decades now without any planet-wide catastrophe occurring.
Global Warming (also known as “Climate Change” also known as “The Greenhouse Effect” also known as this that and the other and no doubt with more renamings to come!) theory predicts that increasing levels of carbon dioxide equal rising temperatures around the globe. The more Co2 supposedly the warmer the temperatures.
However, while Co2 levels have been steadily and constantly increasing :
1934 was the hottest year in the history of the USA.
1998 was the hottest year on record. (At least according to sources that are NOT biased or disputable. Eg. Jim Hansens. Hansen is a political activist masquerading as a scientist similar applies to Tim Flannery whilst Al Gore and Ross Garnault are NOT scientists at all.)
Adelaide recently (July 2011) experienced a record breaking COLD spell and had its coldest day in many years.
This summer (Dec. 2010-2011 March) was the coolest and mildest in Adelaide that I or many others I know can ever remember having lived here most of our lives. There is no reason to assume this is unusual or that Adelaide should be an exception to the rest of the planet climatically-speaking.
There is still ice at the North and South poles, polar bears are actually more numerous than ever according to many studies.
Sea levels are not rapidly rising – if indeed they are rising at all. (Some Pacific islands are sinking because they are on the tops of sinking volcanoes – this is NOT the same thing as sea level rise! It is why islands turn into atolls over time.)
Hurricanes and storms have always happened. Droughts and floods have always happened. There is nothing new in Australia or anywhere else experiencing natural disasters. Note that famines have been happening in Africa for as long as humans have existed there and are recorded in the Bible.
Remember Science works NOT by popular consensus (how many people like one idea or another) but by EXAMINING the EVIDENCE.
Scientific Conclusions :
I)The Theory of Global Warming (Climate Change or whatever they’re calling it tomorrow) is falsified and NOT supported by the evidence. Increasing levels of C02 do NOT appear to have any connection with global temperatures or climate.
II) A Carbon (dioxide) Tax is thus unnecessary – and would, in any case, be pointless and futile delivering NO environmental benefit for massive economic damage to our international competitiveness.
That’s the science.
There is so much that you can learn about the science here. You really have to do your homework on this and learn what is going on here. I think you will be able to benefit so much from it. Sharepoint Web Part