News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Rudd locks in a hot and bleak future 

Rudd locks in a hot and bleak future

16 Dec, 2008 11:16 AM
Some climate scientists have turned on the Federal Government, calling for "scientific honesty" after it delivered its target range for emissions cuts of between 5pc and 15pc yesterday.

The mainstream scientific community believes much deeper cuts are needed more quickly and that yesterday's announcement all but locks Australia into a hot and rather bleak future.

The modest cuts for 2020 are seen as marking a fork in the road in Australia's approach to climate change, with the Government proceeding down one route and the research that underpins the need for emissions cuts heading down another.

"There's now a disconnect between what politicians are doing and what the science requires," Professor Barry Brook, director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, said.

"Targets in that range [5-15pc] are politically realistic but not scientifically realistic.

"Just talking about emissions cuts at these small levels is avoiding the main point, which is that we're already over the limit.

"Let's have a bit of scientific honesty in the debate."

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, attempted to claim the middle ground in his speech to the National Press Club yesterday, saying that people on the "extreme" ends of public debate would be unhappy with the Government's position.

Carbon cuts from 25-40pc on 1990 levels are required by 2020, along with an international agreement that ties major polluting nations to similar cutbacks, are needed to ward off the worst effects of climate change, according to the Government's Garnaut climate change review.

That report concluded that allowing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to rise to 550 parts per million, which is what the Government's cuts will mean if other nations make similar modest moves, would be disastrous for Australia.

It would mean the disappearance of the Great Barrier Reef "as we know it, with high impact to reef-based tourism", collapsing biodiversity in many districts, major changes to the tropics and Kakadu National Park and a cut of 20pc to food production along the Murray-Darling system.

Dr Barrie Pittock, a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report, said the targets announced would fall short of the safer level of 450 parts per million.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Looks like some scientists are worried about getting more funding by the taxpayers, they'll have to come up with something more believing than global warming next time, or no more easy money..
Posted by nath, 16/12/2008 3:03:28 PM
A glimpse of sanity from the government. I agree Nath a few worried scientists out there. As a farmer you can stick your CPRS. Until you can account for both sides of the carbon cycle keep the cards to yourself.
Posted by Sam, 17/12/2008 6:04:23 AM
Why don't our journalists ask more probing questions on this issue? We constantly read comments like "we will lose the barrier reef if we dont cut our emissions by 40% etc". As if all we need to do is for just Australia to cut and our reef will be ok. This is rubbish. As we all know our contribution to total global emisions is insignificant and if we do and rest of world does not the reef will still be lost, along with our standard of living. Why doesn't someone observe that if we do nothing and the rest of the globe cuts by 40% the reef will be saved. That sounds like the best solution.
Posted by Rear View, 17/12/2008 6:07:42 AM
Yes let us have a bit of scientific honesty in the debate. Dr Oleg Sorokhtin a Fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute says "Stock up on fur coats and felt boots. Earth is now at the peak of one of it's passing warm spells. It started in the 17th Century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is a natural process and utterly independant of hothouse gases. The real reason for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestial precession, instability of ocean currents, and salinity fluctuations. Another reason is solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the the warmer our climate."

Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Obsevatory Space Research Labortory Says "That Earth has passed the peak of it's warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches it's minimum by 2041 and will last for 50 to 60 years or longer."

Other scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are growing and physical and mathematical calculations predict a new ice age. We do not have control of our climate yet and maybe never will. Large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to massive growth and formation of coal. Ask where the 130 metre thick coal seams in Australia came from.

Posted by jaimie, 17/12/2008 6:40:16 AM
Professor Brook, you have made a valid statement "let's have a bit of scientific honesty in the debate". Up to now this has not happened. Those scientists that have conflicting data have been gagged by all. I am sure that when the KRudd gave Garnaut, the economist not scientist, the information to base his report on, it did not include the natural cycle influence evidence. What about the markets on the frozen Thames in the 14th century, or the cities off the west African coast that are under the ocean or the flooded structures in the Mediteranian or how did the Australian Aborigines get to Australia and Tasmania? Let's get on with life and put all this hysteria behind us. We can do a lot to tidy up our act, especially in cities by turning off all those light in buildings, replacing bulbs in street lights with LED bulbs and banning the pollution creating fireworks displays that politicians love. The bottom line is 'business loves climate change'.
Posted by jerangle, 17/12/2008 7:29:16 AM
Hhmmn, the climate mafia is calling for "scientific honesty"? Yeah, right, is that what they call it? This "scientific honesty" is not in any way related to the plain old common garden variety "honesty" that has been most folks constant companion for yonks.
Posted by Ian Mott, 17/12/2008 8:45:49 AM
Any comments from a body that has the words Climate Change & Sustainability in its name must be taken as being biased. Why do papers not publish the comments of the thousands of scientists in the world who do NOT subscribe to this fear mongering, manipulation, brainwashing, money engendering propaganda. The earth has 4 seasons, southern hemisphere has 4, Australia has 4, NSW has 4, mid NSW has 4, my local area has 4, my farm has 4 and at a given moment of any day, my backyard has 4 and to expect them to be all constantly complementary to each other and historically reliable is simply the stupidity of men who make up scenarios on computers. The real world is just that - real and therefore unpredictable. Our weather guys cannot get it right and they tell us what is going to happen tomorrow, yet we not only fall at the feet of GW scientists, but totally believe they can tell us what is happening years into the future! Why do we let these people look at us and see the words "Idiot, take my money please" written across our foreheads. Get over the fears folks - it is about money! Your money! Here's a prediction for you. I am positive that one day, very soon, because we do have short term memories, those King Tides the east coast has been battling, will be promoted as signs of the sea level rising! You heard it here folks! And if you do believe that - give me a call, I have a bridge for sale.......
Posted by Sue M, 17/12/2008 8:52:27 AM
Actually the opposite is the case: At the International Arctic Change Conference last week in Quebec City, "in chance hallway encounters, scientists -- strictly off the record for fear of losing funding -- said climate change is happening far faster and is having much larger impacts than they ever imagined." According to a new study by the US Geological Survey, "Three million years ago, when CO2 was estimated to be 400 ppm [what we are currently approaching at 385 ppm], new fossil evidence shows forests dominated the Arctic instead the ice, snow and permafrost. Sea levels were 24 metres higher than today". http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45121
Posted by anne, 17/12/2008 9:06:21 AM
The "mainstream scientific community"? It's the mainstrem scientific community that has a problem, not the world's climate. They need to start following the principles of science, rather than the principles of PT Barnum. Some examples can be found here- http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Posted by mw, 17/12/2008 9:34:33 AM
Ann, was it the cave man's fires that increased the CO2 on the atmosphere?
Posted by jerangle, 17/12/2008 10:07:16 AM
1 | 2  |  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
POLL
Q: Does your town have an adequate number of doctors to service the population?

Yes
(16.5%)

No
(78.9%)

Undecided
(4.6%)

Total Votes: 544
Poll Date: 14 December, 2008

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...