Six Australian business leader reckon that the debate is over and climate change is real:
Six business leaders yesterday stepped into the greenhouse debate, and blew the whistle. Game over, they said: climate change is real, it’s going to hurt, and unless we act now, it’s going to hurt us a lot.
These guys know how to play the game. Westpac’s CEO David Morgan is a former Treasury official, married to former Labor minister Ros Kelly. They weren’t going to criticise John Howard over his handling of climate change; he doesn’t like criticism. They just urged him to shift ground, and fast.
Their message is that Australia, and the world, needs to deeply cut greenhouse emissions, not just slow their growth. We cannot get there on the soft path the Government has taken. We need to switch paths, get tough, introduce a carbon charge, set targets and meet them.
The hard path is not expensive. Modelling from the Allen Consulting Group estimates that, by acting now, we could cut greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050, and still grow the economy almost as much as under business as usual.
Tim Blair seems to believe that it doesn’t mean anything
Sixty scientists have called on Canada’s Prime Minister to cool it on global warming:
“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
Is it meaningless? Let’s see what Google thinks. Search for “Climate change is real” and click on the “I’m feeling lucky” button, and you get this joint statement from the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA:
Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system
as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now
strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in
average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes
to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth’s climate.
Dear “Sixty scientists”, Google can often help you find out what stuff means.
But wait, there’s more from them:
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. … Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
Because in the mid-1990s those computer climate models predicted that it would get warmer and now we know that those predictions were correct. So we shouldn’t trust them and Kyoto is unnecessary. Are these guys even trying to be credible?
So who are the sixty scientist? Most of them aren’t climate scientists, and seventeen of them have got mentioned on this blog, typically for making serious errors of fact and interpretation:
Ross McKitrick, Christopher Essex, Benny Peiser, Richard Lindzen, David E. Wojick, Chris de Freitas, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, William Kininmonth, Pat Michaels, Nils-Axel Mörner, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, S Fred Singer and Sally Baliunas.