Australian economist Ross Garnaut has been commissioned by Australia's Commonwealth, state and territory governments to examine the impacts, challenges and opportunities of climate change for Australia. There will be a final report by 30 September 2008.
Peter Gallager attended a recent lecture by this well known economist who is likely to significantly shape Australian government policy, he commented:
"I hoped to find that Prof. Garnaut would use his Heinz Arndt Lecture to describe the balance he intended to strike in his recommendations between evidence for risky climate change and a growing body of evidence that the risks are low to moderate (at most). Given his well-known views, I expected to find the balance tilted in favor of the former but I hoped to find that it would be moderated by recognition of the latter. Unfortunately, Prof. Garnaut paid no attention to any scientific facts and made no attempt to strike a balanced risk assessment...
"Ross Garnaut seems to believe that 'scepticism' about climate change is analogous to... or is, 'dissent'. That is, he prefers to describe critics of his views using a term drawn from religious history, identifying someone who rejects a dogma. My reaction on first reading was surprise at the use of a term that implies acceptance of man-made global warming is really a faith from which critics may 'dissent'. Did Ross Garnaut understand that (obvious) implication, I wondered? ...
"Answering the question whether it is possible for 'dissenters' can be scientists, Ross Garnaut invokes Gallileo, whom he wrongly describes as a 'dissenter'—Gallileo was no such thing; Gallileo's conflict with the Church was about the appropriate role of empricism and contained no basic doctrinal dissent—as an exception that proves his rule...
"When Prof. Garnaut concludes 'the Dissenters are possibly right, and probably wrong', what evidence does he adduce? None. Not a shred. This is depressingly consistent with the approach taken in his Interim Report. He does not consider that the science offered in contradiction of the IPPCC pronouncements (the hypotheses of 'those who are best placed to know'—see p. 5 of his address) calls anything into question because it is 'dissent' and not science.
"So much for name-calling. What positive reason does Prof. Garnaut offer for accepting the 'uncertainties' of the IPCC as reasonably indicative of a probability? No scientific reason, as it turns out."
These excerpts are from 'Science, dogma and dissent: Ross Garnaut’s Heinz Arndt lecture', by Peter Gallagher. You can read the complete article here:
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/science-dogma-and-dissent-ross-garnauts-heinz-arndt-lecture/
The lecure by Professor Garnaut was entitled 'Measuring the Immeasurable: The Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation' and given on June 5, 2008, at the Australian National University. You can read the complete lecture here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf
Here is a small section of the interim Garnaut report 2008 -
USE OF PERMIT REVENUE.
Auctioning of all permits will be the source of a substantial amount of government revenue. Governments will need to assess competing
priorities for this revenue, which may include:
What a ridiculous mud slinging match.
Every climate change debate is the same. You have those with a good understanding/or at least trust of environmental science and ecology arguing for action on climate change, and have moved well beyond whether or not it is actually occurring. This could be due to an ability to understand how human actions can negatively impact upon the planet in other ways that make the hypothesis of AGW not such an extreme idea.
On the other hand are those who are well educated in economic rationalism, who will seek out any contradictory information they can to delay action on climate change because of their own vested interests and disconnected understanding of nature.
I dont see any resolve to these debates, other than waiting for oil to run out so that those sceptics who are so disconnected from nature will be forced outside to really start to understand how the world works. They may even enjoy it, I know I do.
Meanwhile, back on topic. One of the other serious flaws in the Garnaut bumf is the assumption that mankind is, and will remain, incapable of applying or developing technology that can assist natural systems in re-absorbing CO2.
The entire IPCC framework maintains a clear distinction between anthropogenic sources and sinks on one hand, and natural sources and sinks on the other. And they assume, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that natural sources and sinks are constant.
The plodding intellects of these mediocrities have narrowed the scope of their gonzo projections to assume that mankind can only adjust anthropogenic sources and sinks.
Yet, we know that if all the wood carbon that is removed during land clearing was converted to charcoal there would be close to zero emission, substantial carbon storage for more than a millenia, and a substantial increase in the productive capacity (including carbon sequestration capacity) of the land.
The fact that it can only take 30 years to fully restore forest carbon stocks suggests that sites managed for charcoal production in perpetuity could sequester and store up to 33 times their current natural carbon volume over the next millenium.
The conversion of only a small portion of the current neglected public forest estate to charcoal production and storage in perpetuity could turn what is currently an equal sized source and sink into a major, cumulative, carbon sink. And as the price of oil and coal increases over time through both limited supply and carbon taxes, the economics of charcoal production and storage improves further.
But the IPCC and the Garnaut gimps continue to project constantly accumulating emissions while ignoring our capacity to convert natural systems into major accumulating sequestration, at minimal ecological cost.
Says a venom spitting property rights activist and industry apologist. No bias there.
I agree IanL. And Luke then provides a perfect example of the very substance lacking drivel that you have identified. He is nothing but a propagandista, one who makes, "a specious pretense of honesty; a specious argument (one deliberately deceptive, probably for selfish or evil purposes)".
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - huh - what - did someone try to make a point? or was it Mottsa having another venom attack.
"a scattergun slew of references which almost wholly have no relevance to the questions asked" well I can't help it if you're an illiterate redneck hillbilly can I?
"geological evidence that may not agree with AGW" like what ?
"Political wars, frightened, terrified" - are you some sort of wacker IanL - really mate - growup.
I will admit to being quite puzzled as to why people allow El Luko dipstick to bait them so.
His "modus operandi" comprises:
1) a scattergun slew of references which almost wholly have no relevance to the questions asked
2) a persistent and very low line in quite silly Sesame St sarcasm
3) as many "straw men" as can be fitted on a page
If a single fact contradicts an hypothesis, the hypothesis is modified or abandoned. Scientific Method ...
Not a single word there about TINA (There Is No Alternative), a straw man much beloved by El Luko dipstick. It's a sophist variation on proving a negative - ie. if my concept is wrong, prove some other concept isn't. So, Michael Jackson is the Second Coming ... now prove he isn't.
El Luko dipstick also dismisses hard geological evidence that may not agree with AGW on the grounds of irrelevance. This line is straight from the CSIRO greenie manual (the CSIRO geologists have often shown me examples of it). It seeks to avoid dealing with questions about "lag" and "natural cycles"
El Luko dipstick has irresistibly characterised himself as a very silly smartarse. Don't be baited by it.
Having said that, the political war is well and truly won by the AGW watermelons - the horses are not just frightened, they are terrified. Since the bulk of the population has not yet understood the ramifications of a heavy and increasing carbon tax, there is grim amusement ahead as this slowly penetrates. The inevitable nickname "Rudderless" contains a real point.
Interesting how Luke demands answers but when they are given to him all he can do is give us some moronic snoring message. Same old same old.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz