Tell us something we don’t know…

This article in New Scientist is both disturbing and relieving at the same time. It is relieving in the sense that the US government has finally, under the burden of massive empirical evidence, capitulated that humans are causing the planet to heat up. If Australians could wake up finally and oust John Howard partially on the basis of his government’s refusal to act swiftly in response to climate change, then hopefully the Americans can follow suit. The alarming aspect is that it is way too little, way too late. If this is the sort of thing that governments (powerful, energy-hungry ones) are only now just waking up to, then any chance of serious mitigation is doubtful.

CJA Bradshaw

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Professor, with due respect: are you just making this up as you go along to feed an audience who aren’t too far removed from being 911 truthers or is it some other motivation?

    This article in New Scientist is both disturbing and relieving at the same time. It is relieving in the sense that the US government has finally, under the burden of massive empirical evidence, capitulated that humans are causing the planet to heat up.

    Can you show evidence that the US administration denied climate science? They fund a decent portion of the global climate research for a start. You shouldn’t confuse the refusal to sign up to useless treaty such as Kyoto or wanting China, India and others to mitigate too with not having “capitulated”.

    If Australians could wake up finally and oust John Howard partially on the basis of his government’s refusal to act swiftly in response to climate change, then hopefully the Americans can follow suit.

    This is patently untrue. Australians did not vote for the present government over the issue of AGW. Both parties essentially went to the election with almost identical policies. The people voted against the government because of workchoices and they thought Howard had been in for too long. If you have other evidence you could perhaps present it.

    The alarming aspect is that it is way too little, way too late. If this is the sort of thing that governments (powerful, energy-hungry ones) are only now just waking up to, then any chance of serious mitigation is doubtful.

    You need to be quite clear as to who are “energy hungry”, professor. Rich countries are all energy hungry because a rich country by definition means there are lots of afflent people living there and relatively wealthy people are large energy users. In fact energy use is one distinguishing feature of poverty vs wealthy. Don’t you agree?

    Mitigation however isn’t going to be achieved when the second best option – nuclear power – is taken off the table like it is here by this government.

    Let me ask you a question professor. Are you in favor of cheap and abundant energy or not? If you are you could perhaps explain how our heavy base load needs will be fulfilled without nuclear power to replace coal fired plants.

    Like

  2. First, I am perplexed by the somewhat rambling nature of your comment. It was difficult to discern a thread, but I will attempt the most lucid response that I can.

    I am an Australian and I voted in the last election. One of the principal reasons I voted against the Howard regime WAS the lack of action and acknowledgement of climate change. Regardless of the difficulties of implementing a global treaty on carbon-trading in our growth-obsessed world economy (especially when the most guilty contributors refuse to comply), the mere refusal to embrace essential and immediate action is as denialist as claiming the world is flat.

    The Howard government dragged its feet for a long, long time despite the overwhelming evidence that human-induced global warming is a serious threat to nearly all aspects of human life. I leave the overwhelming evidence aspects to my esteemed colleague, Barry Brook, who runs this site. For more sceptic and denialist evidence of the Howard government’s stance, read examples here, here, here and here, to name a few). Despite some eleventh-hour admissions that “climate change is a challenge“, his continued refusal to ratify Kyoto (which Kevin Rudd did almost immediately upon election) cost him, and Australia, dearly (as he himself eventually admitted). Well done to the majority of Australians who see, hear, and understand the current and worsening challenges that face this dry continent.

    The intellectual giant George Bush has been, without doubt, a climate-change denialist for most of his tyrannous political career. From attempting to silence some of the most respected climate scientists, to forcing others to alter their results, to outright lies about America’s emissions, he is clearly as Johnny-come-lately as was Howard. Much other relevant evidence abounds (e.g., here, here, here, and here, to name a few). Do not even for a moment claim that there isn’t ample and overwhelming documentation demonstrating the American do-nothing, denialist and self-serving interests in this area for over two decades.

    Lastly, if this is the same (unlinked) banned, sockpuppeting blog-troll ‘Jc’, a.k.a. ‘Dave Curry‘, ‘S Bird‘, ‘Pessimist‘, ‘Joe Cambria‘ and the appropriately named ‘hate mail guy‘, your ultra-conservative, American, right-wing, unsupported and inflammatory comments on a number of blog sites suggest you are incapable of intelligent argument and lucid rebuttal. Please do not waste our time.

    CJA Bradshaw

    Like

  3. Comment 2
    Lets break this down into two parts. Firstly your pathetic attempt at a beat up and secondly the rest of your incoherent rant.

    Oh yes, Bradshaw, the obvious link to Deltoid belonging to the crazy computer science and junior lecturer posing as a climate scientist.

    I think you ought to be asking Tim about his own hate mail/stalking and why he was threatened that it would be taken to his superiors if it continued. Want to ask him? Here let me help you with a link and then you can ask him about his duplicity and hypocrisy. LOl

    And Tim, if you just want to go around putting me down I suggest you give people a bit of a background i.e. just because I carelessly aimed a snark at you once, you sent me not one but *three* abusive emails and have been back to hounding me since. you really are a vindictive little twerp and if you continue this I may just be inclined to publish those emails and tell you boss about them, ok? get over it. I made one snark at you and you’ve been spending the last few months trying to get back at me. get some psychiatric help.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/08/legal-eagles-take-flight/#comments

    Here are some more suggestions if you want a more informed opinion on Lambert’s character:

    Jonathon Adler just comes short of accusing Lambert of professional misconduct when discussing Lambert’s unreferenced and uncited attack on Roger Bate.

    http://volokh.com/posts/1212258084.shtml#379738

    The comments, if you bother to read them are even more interesting than the thread topic.

    Incidentally Lambert has promised to answer Adler’s questions but hasn’t to this date.

    Here’s Lambert’s reply after a casual reminder:

    mel, thanks for the reminder. I shouldn’t let Bate off the hook.

    Posted by: Tim Lambert | August 4, 2008 12:33 PM

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/open_thread_11.php#commentsArea

    But wait there’s more.

    Your colleague mentioned having published in Online Opinion, which obviously offers some degree of credibility. And how does the ONO editor indirectly refer to Dr. Lambert? Simply as a bully and a hooligan

    Here’s the link: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7373&page=3

    About being banned you may want to ask Lambert why he is banned at climate Audit blog.

    Finally I will decide how I will refer to myself at this or any other blog. Suggesting otherwise is impertinent and offensive. Furthermore it would be far better to stick to the point of the discussion rather than tackling the person or my politics as though that has anything to do with it and if it does tell me about yours.

    Like

  4. First, I am perplexed by the somewhat rambling nature of your comment. It was difficult to discern a thread, but I will attempt the most lucid response that I can.

    Bradshaw, trust me, you’re not the only one who is “perplexed”. I’m perplexed with your incoherent and sophomoric responses, as I would expect much, much more for someone who indirectly links his bio describing himself as an academic. (Soft sciences is my guess)

    I am an Australian and I voted in the last election. One of the principal reasons I voted against the Howard regime WAS the lack of action and acknowledgement of climate change.

    What a silly sentence. Is this supposed to explain how the rest of the Australian electorate voted? 900,000 “people” voted for the green party, which to me suggests there are 900,000 cognitively impaired adults. So what? I didn’t say every Australian, genius.

    Regardless of the difficulties of implementing a global treaty on carbon-trading in our growth-obsessed world economy (especially when the most guilty contributors refuse to comply), the mere refusal to embrace essential and immediate action is as denialist as claiming the world is flat.

    Are you mentally impaired, Bradshaw? Unless you prefer stasim in terms of global living standards or have commie leanings demanding a massive global redistribution of wealth which would have as much chance of happening as you obtaining a job in the private sector (and keeping it 6 months without being fired). The world has to be growth obsessed in order to lift 4/5’s of the world’s population out of poverty. Otherwise the callousness of not allowing economic growth is frankly disgusting it’s actually anti-human. Global growth obsession is a good thing, it’s a great thing to have as an objective and only callous retards like you would suggest otherwise.

    How we arrange ourselves in such a way so as we continue to grow at a quick pace without endangering living standards is the meta-task facing us with the AGW problem and anyone who suggests otherwise is the true callous denialist. (Like you).

    The Howard government dragged its feet for a long, long time despite the overwhelming evidence that human-induced global warming is a serious threat to nearly all aspects of human life.

    They did, yes, however one option was the totally worthless Kyoto treaty, which you obviously think, was a good thing. Let me remind you most of the signatories have been cheating since its inception

    Like

  5. part 2

    For more sceptic and denialist evidence of the Howard government’s stance, read examples here, here, here and here, to name a few). Despite some eleventh-hour admissions that “climate change is a challenge“, his continued refusal to ratify Kyoto (which Kevin Rudd did almost immediately upon election) cost him, and Australia, dearly (as he himself eventually admitted). Well done to the majority of Australians who see, hear, and understand the current and worsening challenges that face this dry continent.

    Seriously now are you an academic or posing as one. Kyoto was a crock of nonsense.

    1. There is no evidence that this continent is dry because of climate change. Here’s a paper destroying the CSIRO’s amateurish and truly pathetc attempt at finding a connection.
    http://landshape.org/enm/effects-of-global-warming/

    2. The majority of Australians (note not green supporters) voted the government out for the reasons I mentioned. Additionally according to recent polls (mentioned by another academic who unlike you has lots of credibility), the amount of money people are prepared to spend on mitigation is actually quite small.
    http://andrewnorton.info/2008/07/are-the-politics-of-climate-change-easier-or-harder-than-the-politics-of-economic-reform/

    The intellectual giant George Bush has been, without doubt, a climate-change denialist for most of his tyrannous political career.

    Bush is a denialist, but he’s hardly dumb with an estimated IQ of around 125-130 derived from his SAT scores.

    This doesn’t mean the US hasn’t spent money on research or administration policy has been to deny the science. It would be untrue and a dishonest claim to be making. Truth is that Americans put AGW very low on the list of priorities even today according to even the most recent polls.

    From attempting to silence some of the most respected climate scientists

    You’re talking about Hansen. That’s just an outright lie. Incidentally Hansen has been publicy calling for the jailing of oil and coal industry executives recently. He is batshit crazy

    Do not even for a moment claim that there isn’t ample and overwhelming documentation demonstrating the American do-nothing, denialist and self-serving interests in this area for over two decades.

    Why would I? The senate vote sponsored by Gore to join Kyoto was a wash out 98 to 0. Are you suggesting the Americans do away with democracy and impose a green regime then?

    Like

  6. Right. Obviously you have some serious issues that cannot be resolved here, and intelligent debate is beyond your capacity. If name-calling and unsupported nonsense are your only tools of argument, then I have no inclination to engage with you. You have validated our (and others) negative impression of you by reacting so violently. Do you not feel, even slightly, puerile?

    This is a serious site for serious people – please attempt to respect that.

    My academic track record speaks for itself. I may be presumptuous, but I very much doubt you have one at all.

    CJA Bradshaw

    Like

  7. Editors note: the response by ‘Jc’ to the last comment was deleted because it contained a physical threat: “Try that crap with me again and there’s going to be blood…”. Inappropriate attacks and threats will not be tolerated on this site. Any further posts by Jc or pseduonym’s will be removed. The poster is advised to look elsewhere to vent his vitriol. BWB.

    Like

Comments are closed.