What is it about 'global warming' that brings out the worst in people like Tim Flannery?
Prof Flannery was on ABC Television's The 7.30 Report last night promoting his new book. I have not read The Weather Makers but I understand from the interview last night that he proposes temperatures are going to rise by 3C and the really bad thing is that our addiction to coal is now driving weather patterns.
Prof Bob Carter, also interviewed, responded: "The idea that we can manage the climate is frankly hubris."
Flannery also proposed a carbon tax and that this be levied immediately to move power generation away from coal to solar, wind and possibly even nuclear power.
I gather The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday and on the weekend, gave the book and the dire predictions loads of coverage.
In comment at another post Rog provided these links:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/storm-warning-on-impact-of-climate-change/2005/09/25/1127586743182.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nuclear-future/2005/09/25/1127586747151.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/flannery/biog.htm
TryScience,
What's your source for Bob Carter saying 0.04 degrees C? I can't find it in the transcript of the "7:30 Report" nor in the Sydney Morning Herald article and I'm curious.
Also, what is your source for saying that a further reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will reduce global warming further? You say that stabilising at 450ppm by 2100 will reduce the warming to 1.2 to 2.3C but I can't see where you get your information from.
TIA
John
Carter is guilty of most of the things he complains about -- including cherry picking data.
For example, most of the global warming observed since 1950 is likely to be due to human activities (according to the IPCC; Stott, 2003; Karoly and Braganza, 2005). This is much more than 0.04 degrees C that Carter cites.
His statement “computer models suggest that a further human-caused increase in temperature of perhaps two-tenths of a degree might be averted” is an estimate based on implementing the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012.
Of course, extending emission reductions beyond 2012 can reduce global warming further. In fact, stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm by 2100 can reduce the range of global warming at that time to 1.2-2.3oC, down from the unmitigated range 1-.4-5.8oC (according to the IPCC).
Carter numbers among the few remaining climate sceptics. Unfortunately here in Australia, where coal is still king, he finds a gullible audience.
Global warming aside, why don't typhoons make the news very much? You don't hardly read about it in the news but there have been a number of typhoons this year that have struck china, taiwan, vietnam, okinawa, japan.
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/s1470706.htm
"Another typhoon is brewing in the western Pacific Ocean, just hours after Typhoon Damrey blew itself out over Thailand after killing at least 71 people.
Typhoon Damrey was downgraded to a tropical depression on Wednesday after carving a swathe of destruction in a week-long sweep through East Asia.
AFP newsagency reports the storm killed 36 people in Vietnam, 16 in the Philippines, 16 in southern China and three in Thailand.
Typhoon Damrey caused more than $US1 billion damage in China, breached sea dykes in Vietnam, and brought widespread flooding to northern Thailand.
There are now reports that Typhoon Longwang is building strength in the western Pacific Ocean, with winds of more than 200 kilometres an hour, as it heads for Taiwan. "
Opinion on Climate Change from Bob Carter published today in the SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/all-the-signs-of-fullblown-mother-earthism/2005/09/28/1127804546992.html
What is it about "doom and gloom" that captures so many Australians? It is like a cult religion.
BBC are calling for calm.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4276242.stm
No probs Malcolm, well said yourself.
It does sound like there are different methods of accountability between what you do in your work and what scientists do in theirs In your case, i'm sure the law is a reasonable way to ensure honesty (rifkin and adler aside).
The need for funding for researchis an incentive to produce interesting results, i don't argue that.
However, I think you are downplaying the importance and impact of peer review in regulating honesty and content.
You suggest it is not really a big deal to cop an embarrassing publication down the track. I dunno. Maybe some people would be able to survive for a while like that.
But I think that, for an academic, their reputation is absolutely critical to their livelihood, and also their identity. Why on earth would you want to be an academic if not to seek and publish the truth? You can make better money in the private sector. Academics do what they do because they want to be known for having contributed something worthwhile.
I think that having your research publically shown to be in error must be an incredible blow to take, so much so that academics tend to defend their work to the hilt.
This might deter academics from admitting error, but it also gives them caution in putting out sketchy results for their peers to scrutinise.
I gave it away, but for while i attempted a PhD. Part of the reason why i quit was that i hated my topic and my work - i did not feel that the research i was doing was worthwhile. My supervisor encouraged me to write a conference paper on the work i had done. I wrote an abstract and it was accepted into the conference. But all while writing up the actual paper and doing the research, I was paranoid of what would be said about my paper, and had many sleepless nights imagining being publically humiliated in front of all the other academics at the conference.
In the end, it was not (in my opinion) a very good paper, though no fruit was hurled, and i soon quit the life of an academic, which is by no means a cushy and priviledged existence.