Tony Abbott seems to have answered Julia Gillard’s question of whether you should get your climate science from reputable climate scientists or Andrew Bolt by going for Andrew Bolt.

Bolt interviwed Tim Flannery who said

“If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years.”

Bolt argued that this was admission that cutting emissions was useless.

Abbott then seized on the comment by Tim Flannery and claimed that Flannery had admitted that

“It will not make a difference for 1000 years,”

Of course this just demonstrates that Abbott has no clue what the whole climate change debate is about. The reason for cutting emissions is not to reduce temperatures from current levels, but to prevent them from increasing to dangerous levels. And the fact that, as Flannery pointed out, CO2 emissions largely stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years is the reason why we can’t just postpone cutting emissions until the temperature rises dangerously — by then it will be too late.

You also might wonder why, if Abbott really believed this, his own policy is to achieve exactly the same reduction in emissions as Labor?

To his credit, Graham Lloyd, Environment editor for The Australian corrects Abbott’s error:

The scientific view is that if CO2 emissions are left unchecked, the world will warm by 4C by the end of the century.

Flannery’s point is we must act to stop the forecast additional 4C temperature rise before we even consider returning to pre-industrial age temperatures.

He didn’t want to answer the question about what impact Australia’s action alone would have because the answer is obvious: next to nothing.

But the real answer is if Australia is not prepared to do anything, how can we expect anyone else to act.

I’m wondering if Abbott’s next trick will be to repeat this piece of stupidity from Bolt:

Twenty years or 1000? One of these “experts” is hopelessly wrong

Climate scientist and warmist Andy Pitman on Thursday:

If we could stop emissions tomorrow we would still have 20 to 30 years of warming ahead of us because of inertia of the system.

Climate Commissioner and warmist Tim Flannery on Friday:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years

Maybe Bolt thinks stabilising is the same thing as decreasing? Who can tell?

More comments from Steve and Jeremy Sear.

Comments

  1. #1 jakerman
    April 5, 2011

    >I’M WASTING MY TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE IN INTELLIGENT DEBATE [with caps lock- as many people don’t read that ugly form [like me], and more think its shouting like a loon]..

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    April 5, 2011

    Quack Parker is either a Poe, or a fuckwit.

    He’s certainly not acquainted with science.

  3. #3 Chris O'Neill
    April 5, 2011

    Donc Parker:

    THE FACT THAT SOME OF THESE SAME SCIENTISTS WERE CLAIMING,IN THE ’70S THAT WE WERE GOING INTO AN ICE AGE & WE WERE ALL GOING TO FREEZE

    This is what scientists were actually saying about the effect of burning fossil fuels in 1976:

    The growing disturbance of the global balance of carbon dioxide is without doubt the greatest single impact on the environment. The current steady rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a major threat to the stability of natural climate patterns

    All you have achieved is prove that you are a gullible ignoramus who is easily sucked in by a lie which is typical of science denialists such as yourself.

  4. #4 foram
    April 5, 2011

    Maybe DOC PARKER is ex US Navy..?

    “The current study stemmed from sample U.S. NAVY emails; all NAVY emails are written in exclusively capital letters, and paragraph spacing is not always preserved upon receipt of a message.”

    WHATEVER, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING TO THE REST OF US!!!

    Do you find that if you walk into a room and start yelling at someone that they generally engage you in intelligent debate?

  5. #5 Anonymous
    April 5, 2011

    >I HAVE TRIED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU WILL GET NOWHERE WITH THE NON SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS YOU PUT FORWARD.THESE ARE NOT RELEVANT.THEY CONFUSE THE ISSUE & HARM THE CAUSE. SURPRISE SURPRISE I AM A STRONG ENVIRONMENTALIST. EARTH FIRST!!!!HOWEVER , .6 OF A DEGREE RISE IN 100 YEARS, NO INCREASE IN THE LAST 12 OR SO YEARS, THE VERY SHORT PERIOD OF RECORDED TEMPERATURES [WITH DIFFERENT METHODS & DIFFERENT ACCURACY ],ICE CORE ,SEDIMENT STUDIES ,TREE RING STUDIES ETC ALL SHOWING MUCH HIGHER CO2 WITH LOWER TEMPERATURE , THE INTERCEPTED E-MAILS DURING THE COPENHAGEN MEETING [WHICH DEMONSTRATED SELECTIVE USE OF DATA ]PLUS THE FACT THAT SOME OF THESE SAME SCIENTISTS WERE CLAIMING,IN THE ’70S THAT WE WERE GOING INTO AN ICE AGE & WE WERE ALL GOING TO FREEZE. ALSO WHO COULD FORGET THE Y2K SCAM.ALL THIS GIVES ME HONEST, GENUINE & WELL FOUNDED DOUBTS THAT MUST BE EXPLAINED AWAY SCIENTIFICALLY NOT WITH SUCH LAME PROCLAMATIONS AS “I BELIEVE ” OR”SCIENTISTS SAY” AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE.THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ON THOSE MAKING THE CLAIM & WHAT WE NEED IS EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE TO MATCH THAT CLAIM.

    Looks like the serial creepy types are turning to denialism.

  6. #6 peterd
    April 6, 2011

    Lotharsson and others: valiant attempts to set Doc P. on the right path, but I fear it is all a waste of time. I think that any attempt to engage these people is just a waste of time. The problem is one that was identified, I think, by the physicist and science writer Jeremy Bernstein, in his collection “Cranks, Quarks, and the Cosmos”. See the essay there “How can we sure that Einstein was not a crank?” You see, the problem with these people is that they- like the crank subjects of Bernstein’s essay- can’t be taught anything. They already *know* everything! As Bernstein puts it, these people go straight to the top of the class. They never read text books or go through the long, slow and arduous apprenticeships that mark the stages of learning in so many intellectual disciplines. They already know it all. Doc P. is one such top-of-the-class type.

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    April 6, 2011

    > …but I fear it is all a waste of time.

    Almost entirely certain with DOC PARKER; maybe slightly less certain with some readers.

    > They already know everything!

    Indeed! Dunning and Kruger also produced some trenchant research in the last few years.

  8. #8 Hasis
    April 6, 2011

    Speaking about top-of-the-class types, I watched the final of Universally Challenged [sic] on Monday and can duly report that some people at the top of the class really do seem to know everything!

  9. #9 MikeH
    April 6, 2011

    Well at least he won’t be on Insiders.

    Ten said it was launching The Bolt Report, hosted by Andrew Bolt, on May 8. The program will be on Sundays at 10am. Meet the Press will be moved to 10.30am.

    Thats about the time that I go for my bike ride which will now become much safer as all the stupid will be indoors watching Bolt.

  10. #10 jakerman
    April 7, 2011

    >*Ten said it was launching The Bolt Report, hosted by Andrew Bolt, on May 8. The program will be on Sundays at 10am. Meet the Press will be moved to 10.30am.*

    The guest list to include: Carter, Plimer Monckton, Watts, Windschuttle, David Flint, Cory Bernardi, Spencer, Morano, Inhofe, Lindzen, then repeat from begining?

  11. #11 jakerman
    April 7, 2011

    And perhaps crosses to Fox favourites such as Ann Coulter?

  12. #12 jakerman
    April 7, 2011

    >The new post is likely to pay considerably more than that, with Bolt seen to be something of a favourite of new part owner Gina Rinehart.

    >‘‘I have no idea what Rinehart hopes now to do to Ten, if anything,’’ Bolt wrote in his Herald-Sun column last November shortly after the Western Australian mining magnate bought a 10 per cent stake in the company for $168 million.

    >‘‘Nor could I guess what chances she’d have of turning it into, say, an Australian Fox News, even if she wanted to … But I do have an idea of what worries Rinehart about our future.’’

    >That would be the Greens, a mining resource tax and a carbon tax, all of which Bolt has frequently railed against in print.*

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/new-host-bolt-wont-take-on-abc-rival-20110407-1d5n9.html

  13. #13 Nick
    April 7, 2011

    “I Dream of Gina”

Current ye@r *