On the climate debate in Australia: Peter Gleick's seriously misinformed view
The view from Australia
There is also no serious disagreement about climate change. Australians largely accept the science and have moved on to the real discussion: what needs to be done to prepare to adapt to unavoidable impacts on water systems.
The view from Australia
[Flannery] ...You come back to Australia and it's like going back to the Precambrian period. It's like stepping way, way back, because here, industry is still disputing the facts of the science, and that's highly corrosive.
TONY JONES: It's not only industry, it's certain key politicians. Senator Steve Fielding had a very important potential vote in the Senate, is now being described by the 'Wall Street Journal' as something like a prophet, which is quite unusual to see, and beyond that, there's a view that Australia is emerging as a sort of epicentre of the new scientific scepticism.
TIM FLANNERY: Australia's climate dinosaurs are a lot bigger and uglier than the climate dinosaurs elsewhere, that's for sure. And it is depressing, because it's just so counter-productive. And, you know, the amount of time industry will waste disputing the science and not getting on with the job of adjusting to the future and a new energy economy in this country is just dismaying.
Posts
4 comments:
Not sure what the problem is? Am I an alarmist because I think climate change is a real problem? Or is the problem that I gave too much credit to "Australia" as a whole for accepting that climate change is a real problem? I know there are climate deniers everywhere -- there are still people who think the world is flat and that we never actually walked on the moon and that evolution is false -- nothing to do but either ignore them or slap them upside the head (as we like to say in the U.S.)... I prefer to ignore them, since they prefer to ignore facts. My apologies, if I gave the continent as a whole too much credit! But you are far ahead of California in dealing with serious water problems, even if there is far, far more to be done.
Cleick, can you explain first how hot and not COOL oceans cause less precipitation and droughts? Obvioulsy YOU DENY the Argo programme PROOF about COOLING oceans for the last decade (and the decades to come)...
So, how should one call you when you mispresent climate realists as climate deniers?
some of those "the world is flat and we (what do you mean 'we' Peter?) never walked on the moon" climate deniers actually did walk on the moon. At least two of them did. Peter you need to update your talking points.
At the very least don't run that crap past Buzz. He'll give you a right cross instead of the Right Stuff.
How typical of an alarmist to yell out "flat earther" when he is questioned. Peter, you are the true denier.
You deny the fact that CO2 levels are currently among the lowest in history. You deny that the human contribution to those levels is extremely miniscule. You deny the existence of the sun, and you deny the existence of the oceans, both of which are responsible for the overwhelming climate influences.
Lastly, you DENY the fact that there is NO scientific "consensus" supporting your alarmist view, aside from UN and some government-funded pseudo-scientists and their cronies cashing in.
Deny deny deny! That's all you do. I bet you don't believe in Santa Claus, so why would you buy into the myth of AGW? Wake up!
Post a Comment