News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Climate debate 'infantile' 

Climate debate 'infantile'

25 May, 2010 06:26 AM
A SCIENCE adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ''almost infantile'', equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice.

While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science - that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions - should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.

''It's a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals - and they have been disproved,'' Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit.

''Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether 'is it real or isn't it real?', it's like saying, 'Is the Earth round or is it flat?' [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.'' He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise.

Professor Steffen, the executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, was appointed a science adviser by the Howard government in 2004. He has advised Labor's Penny Wong and the Coalition's Ian Campbell and Malcolm Turnbull.

Asked about the scepticism of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, he said scientists respected leaders from both sides of politics who showed respect for scientific expertise.

''You can have a very partisan approach to the policy and how you deal with it - that's fair game - but I think a wise society would respect the judgment of its experts, bearing in mind that that judgment is continually debated within [the scientific community],'' he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
In other words refuse scientific debate on science, refuse transparency, refuse due diligence, refuse accountability - what an appalling action by someone in a position of responsibility! Maybe Steffen should tell us all what to believe and like lemmings we can bow down before him. Appalling and pathetic!
Posted by twawki, 25/05/2010 7:50:50 AM
Wow! A debating sleight of hand, worthy of an experienced trial lawyer, or politician. Gloss quickly over the real debate (the pace and extent of change) and then shift the focus to gravity? And whether the earth is round? The climate changes, the greenhouse effect is real. No debate there! The debate is whether a human signature (in the climate) can be detected from among the background noise. And if that signature is there, is a harbinger of disaster. The unwillingness to focus on the real debate clearly demonstrates Professor Will Steffen uncertainty in that area.
Posted by Qlander, 25/05/2010 8:20:48 AM
Accept the new age green religion or be branded a heretic. The time for accounting is at hand. All who drink the koolaid have fallen under the green spell. Now you're about to be scammed on a leval that will boggle your mind. And you must pay homage to the green cult. And its number is 6.
Posted by Loc Hey, 25/05/2010 8:57:36 AM
Climate science is a multi-disciplinary activity that as a whole falls short of a true discipline, hence a justification for the smugness that attempts to marginalise critics. Most recognise that the globe has continued to warm since Iowa and part of Missouri were covered with ice. Theoretical and possible emperical evidence of contribution to the greenhouse effect is accepted, but demonstration of a statistical connection showing the amount of variation in global temperature (a messy variable) explained by variation in CO2 production (fairly constant)...just isn't there. Plenty of us believe in green and getting away from reliance on fossil fuels. When we develop an elaborate chicken little screen to do so we lose credibility. The lead by celebrity scientists and PT Barnam routines like Gore's, undermine credibility.
Posted by MLang, 25/05/2010 9:27:02 AM
Right, that's settled then. Are all you sand-pit IQ level flat-earthers now on side? Can we now get on with important issues, such as doing something about mitigation?
Posted by Bushie Bill, 25/05/2010 9:28:30 AM
Boofy Bill, a stormtrooper for the koolaid drinking green cult. Drunk on the green propaganda and now demanding we all pay homage.
Posted by Loc Hey, 25/05/2010 9:50:24 AM
Can understand your outrage Loc Hey. Surely the author did not have your scientific contributions to this forum on koolaid in mind when he described the debate as infantile?
Posted by kda, 25/05/2010 11:28:37 AM
I’m not interested in debating the science here. I'll leave that to the scientific community. But l will say Prof Steffen's use of the term infantile seems particularly accurate in describing some of the comments made here. Twawki, did you read the last paragraph? Steffen encourages debate, in the scientific community
Posted by action, 25/05/2010 12:36:03 PM
I don't suppose his remarks have anything to do with Climate Gate put on hold or maybe having to beg for a further allocation of Government funding or maybe just sour grapes, because the light has just come on. trex.
Posted by trexdex, 25/05/2010 12:37:36 PM
theories of gravity and relativity became laws because they could predict and explain the real world exactly.the hypotheseis of agw can neither predict or explain anything at this stage and therefore a long way short of being a "law".this article really makes you wonder about the quality of people in our universities
Posted by john from tamworth, 25/05/2010 2:00:06 PM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
24 May, 2010
19 May, 2010
POLL
Q: How should the Government react to the mining tax backlash?

Scrap the new tax
(57.6%)

Increase the super profit margin at which it takes effect
(19.4%)

Apply it only to new mines
(5.1%)

Delay its introduction
(2.5%)

Other
(15.4%)

Total Votes: 644
Poll Date: 23 May, 2010

Most popular articles




Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...