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 _Arthur
    March 29, 2011

    And, separately of its Global Warming effects, CO2 increases are causing another catastrophy: oceans acidification. For that reason alone, emissions should be curtailed.

    Of course, a future ecological catastophy in sea life foodchains has very little weight for those who have already opted to squarely disbelieve the simple physics fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

  2. #2 Lars Karlsson
    March 29, 2011

    If you thought it couldn’t get any dumber: here is [cartoonist Josh](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/25/friday-funny-of-the-millennium/).

  3. #3 cowichan
    March 29, 2011

    Scientists at U of Calgary Alberta and U of Victoria BC ran a climate model which forecast that if all consumption of fossil fuels ceased today the climate would continue to warm for 1000 years with effects including the seas rising some 4 meters. Who needs models when Flannery’s informed back of the envelope estimates are in the same ballpark?

  4. #4 Lars Karlsson
    March 29, 2011

    Solomon et al. [Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract)

  5. #5 chek
    March 29, 2011

    It seems to me there are two camps; the genuinely stupid as exemplified by Josh who have absolutely no conception or recognition of the problem, and the manipulators who feed Josh and his smug ilk their lines.

    Even the dumbest and most f*ckwitted of clocks can be right twice a day, but not Josh.

  6. #6 Philip S
    March 29, 2011

    The apparent inability of some of these hacks to grasp even the basics of logic, language or reason simply beggars belief. Any editor or sub-editor worth his salt would point out the internal inconsistencies in Bolt’s piece. And self-respecting editor would sack him. Period.

  7. #7 Hengist McStone
    March 29, 2011

    David Archer from the University of Chicago goes a lot further http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ptXL_gLKE
    At about 27mins into this video he says that (im paraphrasing here OK) when you fill your gas tank you are making effects on the climate that will last half a million years.

  8. #8 SoulmanZ
    March 29, 2011

    That Josh has to be a Poe right? We wont have forests for 100s of years so lets cut down the remaining oak trees?

  9. #9 jcrabb
    March 29, 2011

    If only energy could be derived from the burning stupid.

  10. #10 Anna Haynes
    March 29, 2011

    Be gentle with poor Josh.

    He did a caricature of me last fall, and when I asked to see the photo it came from (he’s never met me), he couldn’t for the life of him figure out what happened to it.

  11. #11 Mike Pope
    March 29, 2011

    Tony Abbott does not get his advice on global warming and climate change from Andrew Bolt.

    Everyone knows Tony gets his advice from the real experts, Cardinal Pell, Lord Monckton, and Ian Plimer.

  12. #12 Ben Haslem
    March 29, 2011

    @Philip S The editor doesn’t care about logical inconsistencies. Bolt moves papers and generates website hits. End of story. That’s why he stays and draws a pay cheque. Sad but true.

  13. #13 Donald Oats
    March 29, 2011

    Please Tim, email this one paragraph of yours to Mr Abbott:

    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.

    It is the most succinct, cut through to the heart of the matter, single paragraph I have read for quite awhile. Hard to misunderstand it. Well, perhaps the first sentence could be dropped…nah.

  14. #14 Gary
    March 30, 2011

    lol….. you guys are still believing the myth that CO2 stays in the Atmosphere for humdreds of years?
    Seems there is really no point in arguing if you are that gullable.
    5 to 10 years max, likely closer to 1 or 2.
    geez, do a little reading.
    That was cleared up years ago.
    Good grief….
    no wonder we are still wasting time and effort on this crap if people still believe the dumbest lies.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2011

    Gary.

    5 to 10 years max, likely closer to 1 or 2. geez, do a little reading.

    I presume that, because you are able to present those rather spectacular numbers, you have been reading yourself. Can you specifically cite the references from which you draw these remarkable figures?

    Come on Gary, be brave, and show us how you were able to do exactly what you are advising the world’s scientists themselves do.

    Or are you inabilities to spell, to punctuate an elipsis, to capitalise properly, or to mount a coherent argument indicative of the fact that you’re simply *[speaking from other than the recommended facility](http://i51.tinypic.com/2efhnc4.jpg)?

    [ *Puerile humour warning... ]

  16. #16 Jimmy Nightingale
    March 30, 2011

    Re #14

    Gary,

    You are confusing how long the excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere with residence time.

    It is explained simply here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

  17. #17 bill
    March 30, 2011

    Yeah, Gary, like all these geezers with these fancy degrees’n'shit didn’t like realise that at all ‘n’ you’re like, more clever than they is, ‘n’ anyway they is just like, criminal liars’n'shit, you know? Totally.

    If ‘Gary’ isn’t a Poe he could get his own call-out box in the Dunning-Kruger literature…

  18. #18 snide
    March 30, 2011

    The problem is that people like Bolt and Abbot are just incredibly stupid. How can you argue with people like that.

  19. #19 Chris O'Neill
    March 30, 2011

    Troll Gary:

    geez, do a little reading

    Ever heard of taking your own advice before giving it to anyone else?

  20. #20 Wow
    March 30, 2011

    > Seems there is really no point in arguing if you are that gullable. 5 to 10 years max, likely closer to 1 or 2.

    Really? Then why is CO2 up nearly 40%?

    If you’re that gullible as to believe that there’s no difference between the elevated CO2 in the atmosphere and the individual CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, is there any point asking?

  21. #21 foram
    March 30, 2011

    My reading of this is that Flannery may have mixed up the “zero future emissions” scenario with the “constant atmospheric composition” scenario as discussed here (subscription required) and on Realclimate here and here.

    I’m not claiming any expertise on this issue (so be nice if I’m wrong, please), but Matthews and Weaver are clear:

    Climate change commitment is defined as the future warming to which we have committed ourselves by virtue of past human activities. Because of the slow response time of the climate system, the equilibrium climate consistent with current levels of greenhouse gases will not be reached for many centuries. This so-called constant-composition commitment results as temperatures gradually equilibrate with the current atmospheric radiation imbalance, and has been estimated at between 0.3 °C and 0.9 °C warming over the next century.

    Constant-composition commitment is often misinterpreted as the unavoidable warming that is yet to manifest in response to past greenhouse-gas emissions. However, the climate warming commitment from past greenhouse-gas emissions is more correctly defined as a ‘zero-emissions commitment’ — that is, the future climate change that would occur, should greenhouse-gas emissions be eliminated entirely. In response to an abrupt elimination of carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures either remain approximately constant, or cool slightly as natural carbon sinks gradually draw anthropogenic carbon out of the atmosphere at a rate similar to the mixing of heat into the deep ocean. From this we conclude that the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions leads to little or no further climate warming; that is, future warming is defined by the extent of future emissions, rather than by past emissions.

    Andy Pitman’s 20-30 years seems to be more consistent with the “zero emissions” warming commitment.

    This, by the way, is good news. As Matthews and Weaver point out:

    Future warming is therefore driven by socio-economic inertia, and is only as inevitable as future emissions. As a consequence, mitigation efforts to minimize future greenhouse-gas emissions can successfully restrict future warming to a level that may avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The challenge of climate mitigation, although daunting, is fully within the scope of human control.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    March 30, 2011

    > Ever heard of taking your own advice before giving it to anyone else?

    Chuckle ;-)

    I think Gary’s problem is that he’s only done a little reading, and he chose poor quality information sources for it.

  23. #23 Alan
    March 30, 2011

    Re #18: “The problem is that people like Bolt and Abbot are just incredibly stupid.”

    C’mon, neither Abbott or Bolt are stupid, they’re sociopaths. Stupid I can tolerate but why these machevelian worms get any respect from society is beyond my comprehension. I’ve known junkies with more moral fibre than these two pathological liars combined.

  24. #24 adelady
    March 30, 2011

    foram. I’m not entirely convinced by that description of what should happen with an abrupt cessation of emissions. If we stop emitting, we have some rather large oceans with an excess quantity of CO2 they’ll probably offload to the atmosphere. They will become source rather than sink. And the “residual warmth” or whatever we’d call it from the albedo changes already in train are not going to reverse at the instant we turn the tap off on emissions.

    My view is that we have to start speeding up geological sequestration processes and maintain them for a couple of centuries to make any real impact. If anyone’s been watching Prof Iain Stewart’s ‘How Earth Made Us’ series, they might have noticed his remark that each year we burn 3 million years worth of fossils. I doubt we can crush and mill 3 million years worth of appropriate rocks each year to compensate, but we should have a go.

  25. #25 kermit
    March 30, 2011

    Adlady, I agree. While stopping admissions immediately may (almost) immediately stop the portion of Global warming caused by CO2 emissions, we have not only your concerns but also:
    1. Several forests may already be CO2 sources. The Great Russian Forest, the Amazon rain forest, and the US western forests have all suffered much damage, and the damage may continue to get worse. If the climate stays as is, drought, clear cutting, fires, and changes in biodiversity will make these sources if they aren’t already.
    2. The worst may be the melting methane clathrates of the East Siberian Shelf. The GG methane it is giving off already may soon swamp the effects of human-generated CO2.

  26. #26 kermit
    March 30, 2011

    So I (a paleskin) wake up after falling asleep on the beach in the summer. I realize I’m sunburned. OMG!

    I call my doctor, and he says I’ll get worse for some hours, then in a day of two I’ll start healing up. Well, heck, I figure, if I won’t get better for another day or two, I might as well just stay out on the beach for the rest of the afternoon.

    Right, Andrew?

  27. #27 Tim
    March 30, 2011

    What this clearly shows is science has a communication problem.

    We need smart, clear communicators who can package this stuff is easily understandable, unambiguous sound bytes that could only be taken out of context by the most egregious of hacks (e.g. Bolt).

    One of the biggest issues with science and how it communicates all of this is that most people can’t come to grips with stats and the implications of the type of things Flannery was talking about.

    This compounds the issue by allowing the Bolts of the world to cast aspersions because the original points/assertions were ambiguous, or, assumed a certain level of intelligence on behalf of the reader.

  28. #28 adelady
    March 30, 2011

    kermit, the CO2 is one issue. The consequent albedo effects are another. Apart from the Arctic icecap vanishing, we now apparently have this to contend with.

    http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/28/study-boreal-forests-positive-feedback/

  29. #29 Mike
    March 30, 2011

    Would it be safe to say Gary’s knowledge of the complexities of the carbon cycle is somewhat deficient?

  30. #30 Andrew
    March 30, 2011

    What is the technical term for for the type of robo-posting of altın çilek of Alan’s comment #23?

    Is it designed so that you click on the link under his name?

  31. #31 adelady
    March 30, 2011

    Andrew, I think so. Sometimes they hyperlink within the copy. All very weird.

    Perhaps these people have some kind of financial interest in promoting the spread of reCaptcha? Seems the only likely outcome of their infestation of Sb.

    The apparent ddos of Sb recently added to the proliferation of this rubbish beyond the mere couple of troublesome blogs earlier is not a portent of wonderful things to come.

  32. #32 WotWot
    March 30, 2011

    [Bolt does not like scrutiny and a taste of his own medicine.](http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/30/bolt-smear-explosion-earns-rebuke-from-judge/)

    Vicious hypocrite.

  33. #33 peterd
    March 30, 2011

    #24: I do not agree. At present, the oceans act as a sink for CO2. The partial pressure (pp) of CO2 is higher in the atmosphere than in the oceans, and drives the oceanic uptake, so as long as a difference is maintained, the oceans, which are not yet saturated, will take up CO2. I’m no expert on oceans and CO2, but it seems to me that the result of cutting off CO2 emissions completely would be that the oceans would continue to uptake, at a rate that decreased with time, as it is driven by the pp difference, and this would be decreasing. The result, to my (possibly naive) way of thinking would be an exponential fall-off, with time constant related to the time scale for mixing of deep and surface ocean waters. The only way CO2 can come back out (in a NET sense, of course- individual molecules are of course being exchanged all the time at the sea-air interface) would be for the oceans to attain a higher pp than the air above, or for already-saturated waters to warm.

  34. #34 Glenn
    March 30, 2011

    Tim Flannery and others can make these statements where he knows he will never be around in a thousand years to have his statements refuted. The only joke is the people who believe them. If you must know, the idea of Global warming is invented for one reason only. To advance the agenda of Global Governance. I can prove this with many, many statements from the inventors of this insidious scam. But for the space allowed in this forum I will include just a few bellow.

    “We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts…
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest.”
    - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

  35. #35 Glenn
    March 30, 2011

    Tim Flannrey is a joke. He Knows that he wont be around in a thousand years time for anyone to refute his claims. Global warming is a scam to advance the agenda of Global Governance. Some of the many comments prove this, as does some real research. eg.

    “We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts…
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest.”
    - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    - Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    So go and do some real research and stop wasting everyone’s time with made up theories.

  36. #36 DOC PARKER
    March 30, 2011

    STUPIDITY STATED BY A MILLION PEOPLE IS STILL STUPIDITY.HOW GOOD IT MUST FEEL TO HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE GO ON LINE & AGREE WITH EACH OTHER .THIS WILL CHANGE NOTHING.THE TRUTH WILL STILL BE THE TRUTH & WEATHER WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE AS IT HAS ALWAYS DONE WITH & WITHOUT HUMAN BEINGS.

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2011

    [Tim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3549212).

    What this clearly shows is science has a communication problem.

    This suggestion has come up quite a lot over the last year or so, but the more I think about it the more I am of the opinion that it is a red herring.

    The science underpinning much of the lay misinterpretation of climatology is really quite basic and accessible, and certainly oft-repeated, and in many cases it is not even relevant to the manner in which its implications become distorted.

    Take the example that is the basis of this thread. The difference between temperature inertia after cessation of emissions, and further warming if emissions continue, is trivially aparent at the primary school level of comprehension. I know that my 11 year old niece understands the difference, so either Abbott, Pine, Bolt, et al have poorer capacities for logic than a pre-teen, or they are mendacious dissemblers of a truth that is known to them.

    I don’t think that science communication can be held responsible for the willful misrepresentation by others of matters of basic logic, or indeed for some lay folk’s antipathy to permitting a basic level of science to enter their brains in the first place.

    At some point the issue changes from being one of science communication to one of basic educational deficiency, or one of limitations of people’s intelligence, or one of dissembling, distortion, misrepresentation and/or outright lying. It’s not science’s responsibility to fix these non-scientific problems of comprehension – this is a fundamental problem for societies themselves to address through their eductional systems, their media, and their leadership’s agenda (in the correct Latin plural sense).

  38. #38 John
    March 30, 2011

    Glenn’s on to us!

  39. #39 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2011

    And to prove [my point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3550169), not [one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3550142) but [two](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3550152) ignorant, ill-educated, misrepresentative and/or outright lying numpties materialise as if on cue.

    And proof of my observation about their poor education can be seen in Doc [sic] Parker’s inability to use case or punctuation even at a year 4 level.

  40. #40 Michael
    March 30, 2011

    Incoming winged monkeys with the standard inanities.

    Has Bolt referred to your piece Tim?

  41. #41 peterd
    March 30, 2011

    Glenn@34 & 35: do you think that writing the same thing twice makes it twice as true?

  42. #42 peterd
    March 30, 2011

    #36: DOC PARKER- DO YOU THINK THAT FROM THE PREMISE THAT “THE WEATHER ALWAYS CHANGES” ONE CAN BY VALID LOGIC DERIVE THE CONCLUSION THAT HUMANS CANNOT CHANGE THE CLIMATE? HAVE YOU HEARD OF NON-SEQUITURS?

  43. #43 peterd
    March 30, 2011

    #32: And Bolt already has form in the area of climate change too. I can never forget his insistence that the ABC accord him more than equal time to rebut Jeff Severinghaus, who had questioned Bolt’s “right” to misinterpret his (Severinghaus’s) research findings.

  44. #44 DaveMcRae
    March 30, 2011

    Kermit the sunburnt @26 has it nailed

    But it gets better, we can remove brakes from cars and make them cheaper now that we know them brakes cannot help make the car go backwards. We have a reverse gear, those brakes are put there just to make the cars expensive .. I kNEW IT, BRAKES IS A UN CONSPIRACY :)

  45. #45 Gaz
    March 30, 2011

    Love the way Glenn capitalises “Global Governance” in an attempt to give his paranoid ideas some credibility.

    What a joke.

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    March 31, 2011

    > …we can remove brakes from cars and make them cheaper now that we know them brakes cannot help make the car go backwards. We have a reverse gear, those brakes are put there just to make the cars expensive .. I kNEW IT, BRAKES IS A UN CONSPIRACY :)

    And if I’m driving my cleverly chosen brakeless car at a safe speed, and then turn down a really steep hill and start to accelerate in a concerning fashion, the Bolt Driving School says I shouldn’t take my foot off the accelerator because doing that won’t slow me down to my original speed for quite a long time – maybe not even until long after I reach the bottom of the hill!

  47. #47 duckster
    March 31, 2011

    If you must know, the idea of Global warming is invented for one reason only. To advance the agenda of Global Governance.

    Glenn, you really need to also check on the meaning of ‘global governance’. It does not mean the same thing at all as ‘global government’.

    Agreements on the utilisation of fish stocks? The requirement to report potential pandemic disease outbreaks? Transnational monitoring of money flows for potential terrorist groups? This all falls within the normative domain of global governance. I think even you would be hard pressed to find reasoned arguments against this.

    I can prove this with many, many statements from the inventors of this insidious scam.

    Well, you would have to know what global governance is before you describe it all as a scam.

    So the evidence? Your Schneider quote. Here, by the way, is the full quote (posted at Climatesight), from which your much elided monster comes:

    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    What would be the purpose in misquoting someone so? And then using it as evidence of a global conspiracy. Surely it couldn’t be that those who are trying to keep all the fish for themselves (stop that naughty global governance!) might also have an agenda of their own?

  48. #48 Wow
    March 31, 2011

    > STUPIDITY STATED BY A MILLION PEOPLE IS STILL STUPIDITY.

    Or as has been crudely stated many times before: eat shit: a billion flies can’t be wrong!

    Glenn, go on and wow us with your proof of the scam.

    Did it start in the early 1800′s?

  49. #49 duckster
    March 31, 2011

    Glenn, I would like to read the original source for your second quote, from Timothy Wirth. He may well have said this, but as it is just a short quote, it would be nice to see what he said before or after it. And ah well … based on your form up until now in this thread, I would like to check it for myself.

    You have seen the original haven’t you? You didn’t just copy it from one of the thirty or so pages of links on Google that have reproduced the quote without citation. Surely no-one would be so careless with the truth, particularly with such a life and death issue. Would they?

    Would they?

  50. #50 Chris O'Neill
    March 31, 2011

    Bolt does not like scrutiny and a taste of his own medicine.”

    Looks like Bolt thinks his opponents often believe he’s a holocaust denier.

  51. #51 Lars Karlsson
    March 31, 2011

    Duckster,

    And here is the even fuller quote (PDF, page 5):
    [http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf](http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)

    Schneider certainly was not saying what Glenn tries to make it appear he said.

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    March 31, 2011

    Duckster.

    It appears that Glenn has some how ended up on a thread other than [the one appropriate for him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/julie_bishop_misrepresents_joa.php).

    If only the poor lad had taken his own advice before opening his gob:

    So go and do some real research and stop wasting everyone’s time with made up theories.

    Still, I’d be a little surprised if he came back for more – his intellectual argument is already at a level somewhere between the gutter and the grave, so a reprise of a similar calibre would be just embarrassing.

  53. #53 foram
    March 31, 2011

    Duckster,

    I can’t find any direct evidence of the original quote, but here is a longer version:

    Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., said in 1988, as the National Journal reported. “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is (to) try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

    One blatantly obvious point: This quote, whether accurate or in context, or not, was taken 10 years before Tim Worth took up his position with the UN Foundation. Therefore it bears no relevance whatsoever to Glenn’s Global Government Conspiracy Theory.

  54. #54 foram
    March 31, 2011

    BTW, while I was looking, I found this, from an interview with PBS back in January 2007.

    I think much of this was played in the press like a pingpong game: on one hand and on the other. You’ve got to report one side, and you’ve got to report the other. I suppose that one could say that’s good journalism, but it’s lousy science. I don’t think the press would do that anymore. … I think people really understand now that the science is overwhelmingly clear on the fact that man is having a significant impact on the climate, and it’s time to take action. ~Timothy Worth

  55. #55 Wow
    March 31, 2011

    It also happens to be true.

    Smoking cigarettes is expensive. So, even if you aren’t at higher risk of cancer, stopping smoking means you have more disposable income.

    And pointing this out to a recalcitrant but poor smoker, may help persuade them when they feel that doctors are wrong.

    But pointing it out doesn’t mean that the doctor KNOWS smoking can’t cause cancer. Just that there are reasons other than medical ones to stop smoking.

    Rather like, for example, someone saying that sourcing fossil fuels from Canada tar sands will bring in lots of extra money to Canada whilst also helping Canada keep the money they’re exporting to the Middle East. Mentioning both reasons doesn’t make either one of them known to be wrong.

  56. #56 ryan
    March 31, 2011

    gee we have alan calling bolt and abbott sociopaths and worms (wonder why mainly only leftist rallies decend into acts of violence at times. wheres “dr” brown?), and bernard j trying to distinguish one man saying we’ll have 20 – 30 yrs of warming if the world went dark tomoro due to the inertia of co2 in the system (before what dropping increasing still?)and the other saying that, the temperature would increase for hundreds if not a thousand years before “dropping” to what or lower than what (lets argue semantics!). i take it if both men are right the temperature would increase for 20-30yrs then plateau for up to another 970 980 years before dropping. cause after all we would have eliminated the only forcing to change the climate lol. sounds a little inplausable. “stabilising”…. pretty funny that notion of being able to control.
    the central point is, why have mass economic upheaval? when australia’s emissions(it is now accepted, i assume as there is no rebuttal at the mention of it in comments here, even by you guys)have very little impact on the the climate system. if china, india and the US were all looking at putting their industries under the same tax laws (and i mean tax laws, not shutting small old COAL fired plants because of the soot and mercury and building larger COAL fired plants instead and call it action), there would be an argument for it. If tuvalu had one industry and it resulted in all tuvalu ppl being the largest co2 emitters in the world you’d denigrate them and tell all 10000 of them to close their only industry and live by candle light Which burn carbon by the way.
    ive deliberately avoided punctuation etc, for your reading pleasure! enjoy.

  57. #57 pough
    March 31, 2011

    ive deliberately avoided punctuation etc, for your reading pleasure!

    You didn’t avoid punctuation. You know, if you can’t even figure out which mistakes you’ve made intentionally…

  58. #58 Chris O'Neill
    March 31, 2011

    ryan:

    ive deliberately avoided punctuation etc, for your reading pleasure! enjoy.

    It’s a good thing you pointed out why your punctuation is so bad. Otherwise we would have thought you were a moron.

  59. #59 bill
    March 31, 2011

    ryan @ 59; you were right the first time!

    This piece seems to have attracted a pack with the mentality of that ‘Bob Browns [sic] Bitch’ rabble backdropping Abbott the other day (and doing a spot of visual dog-whistling for him, one suspects.)

  60. #60 Bill
    March 31, 2011

    D’oh! Should have been Chris @ 59

  61. #61 foram
    March 31, 2011

    …trying to distinguish one man saying we’ll have 20 – 30 yrs of warming if the world went dark tomoro due to the inertia of co2 in the system (before what dropping increasing still?)and the other saying that, the temperature would increase for hundreds if not a thousand years before “dropping” to what or lower than what (lets argue semantics!).

    Firstly, reading comprehension: Flannery didn’t say that the temperature would increase for hundreds of years before suddenly dropping. He said that (globally averaged) temperature would not drop to below current levels (the question he was asked by Bolt) for several hundred years. See the difference?

    i take it if both men are right the temperature would increase for 20-30yrs then plateau for up to another 970 980 years before dropping.

    Pretty much. If you went and had a look at the peer-reviewed literature you would find something like this:

    Studies of the climate commitment due to CO2 find that global temperature would remain near current levels, or even decrease slightly, in the millennium following the cessation of emissions. However, this result overlooks the important role of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases and aerosols. This paper shows that global energetics require an immediate and significant warming following the cessation of emissions as aerosols are quickly washed from the atmosphere, and the large uncertainty in current aerosol radiative forcing implies a large uncertainty in the climate commitment. Fundamental constraints preclude Earth returning to pre-industrial temperatures for the inde finite future. These same constraints mean that observations are currently unable to eliminate the possibility that we are already beyond the point where the ultimate warming will exceed dangerous levels. ~Armour and Roe (2011)

    Purely hypothetical of course, because slowing climate change requires overcoming inertia in social, political, and technological, as well as geophysical, systems.

    …cause after all we would have eliminated the only forcing to change the climate lol. sounds a little inplausable.

    What a stupid thing to say. No, because we would have eliminated what is currently the dominant forcing.

    “stabilising”…. pretty funny that notion of being able to control.

    In case you didn’t know, the climate has been remarkably stable over the past 10,000 years or so. This has enabled the development of something we like to call “human civilisation”. We can’t decide when a supervolcano or asteroid might screw that up for us, be we do have control over whether or not we screw it up by burning all the fossil fuels we can lay our hands on.

    the central point is, why have mass economic upheaval?

    Exactly.

  62. #62 Graham
    March 31, 2011

    Given the logarithmically diminishing effect of additional CO2 on temperature, Flannery’s formula applied in reverse indicates that, if global emissions are doubled, it “will not make a difference for” more than 1,000 years (notwithstanding fundamentalist religious alarmists who, in defiance of empirical evidence, rant about catastrophic doom unless taxpayers continue to feed their scam).

    BTW, in that interview Flannery at least twice referred to a decrement in temperature as an “increment”. Has that patent fool ever got anything right?

    On your absurd claim that Abbott heeds Bolt, dream on. If he had, he would have driven a stake through the climate alarmist stupidity long ago.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    March 31, 2011

    > …if global emissions are doubled, it “will not make a difference for” more than 1,000 years…

    We do seem to have attracted some prize ignoramuses to this thread.

  64. #64 foram
    March 31, 2011

    Given the logarithmically diminishing effect of additional CO2 on temperature, Flannery’s formula applied in reverse indicates that, if global emissions are doubled, it “will not make a difference for” more than 1,000 years

    Wow, the stupid just keeps getting stupider.

  65. #65 jakerman
    March 31, 2011

    >*Given the logarithmically diminishing effect of additional CO2 on temperature, Flannery’s formula applied in reverse indicates that, if global emissions are doubled, it “will not make a difference for” more than 1,000 years*

    [Agreed Foram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3555207)

    Graham had to really confuse himself to make that leap of non-logic.

    Similarly biodiverity takes millions of years to recover after a mass extinction event. usings Graham’s same no-logic one would say that “applied in reverse indicates” that we can continue to perpetuate mass extinction and it “will not make a difference for” millions of years.

  66. #66 jakerman
    March 31, 2011

    An analogy that might not go so far over Graham’s head:

    It will take trillions of dollars to payback the bad debts from the financial crisis. “*[A]pllied in reverse indicates*” that if the global debt were now doubled it *”will not make a difference”*.

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    March 31, 2011

    [Graham](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3555070).

    Given the logarithmically diminishing effect of additional CO2 on temperature, Flannery’s formula applied in reverse indicates that, if global emissions are doubled, it “will not make a difference for” more than 1,000 years…

    Unfortunately for you, [Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3555152) and [foram](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3555207) have the right of it.

    The physics underlying the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2, including the temporal component, is completely different to the physics and chemistry of the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Chalk and cheese. One is not the reverse of the other.

    It’s hilarious for those who have some understanding though, to see you and your trollish mates bumble about finding every stupid notion that you can, that might be wrung from a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the science. I could never have conceived otherwise that there are so many ways in which to be wrong.

    You might be able to answer one question correctly for us, though – from which particular denialistncave did you and your chums emerge to infest this thread?

  68. #68 bill
    April 1, 2011

    The triumphalism that’s evident among the usual suspects and their camp-followers on this is extraordinary. There’s the original tendentiousness of Bolt’s understanding (or construction), of course, but there’s little doubt the barmy army truly believe the great man has made some sort of crushing point. In their minds Flannery really did say that nothing we do now will make any difference for a thousand years! Aha!

    And in classic reactionary fashion, even having it repeatedly pointing out to them just how wrong that is only serves to reinforce the original (mis)understanding. Like some baffled terrier that imagines it’s bailed up the money-box Guide Dog, no mere feat of logic or explanation from some contemptible smartarse is going to take this sad little victory away from them. Nossir; it’s the 149 000th final nail in the coffin of the religion of CAGW…

  69. #69 Graham
    April 1, 2011

    Lotharsson, foram, jakerman, Bernard J. Hi guys. My my, alarmists do get their feathers in a knot when ruffled! Paranoia, much?

    FYI, in the 6th figure here, the blue graph represents the science and the red graph represents modelling of fundamentalist religious claptrap shot to pieces by empirical evidence, a fact that appears lost on your collective closed mind.

    Cheers for now.

  70. #70 adelady
    April 1, 2011

    Now might be the time to mention the new, and infinite, source of energy available for the world.

    http://www.plognark.com/?q=node/1129 As the man says “it burns like the heat of a thousand suns.”

    ( Thanks to Patrick Lockerby [here](http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/blog/new_energy_source_discovered-77532) )

  71. #71 WotWot
    April 1, 2011

    Like some baffled terrier that imagines it’s bailed up the money-box Guide Dog,

    He he he… That’s good.

  72. #72 bill
    April 1, 2011

    Gee, Graham, I googled for news of David Archibald’s Nobel Prize, but couldn’t seem to find it…

    (Perhaps he should start his own prize? Now, what to call it?)

  73. #73 jakerman
    April 1, 2011

    >*My my, alarmists do get their feathers in a knot when ruffled! Paranoia, much?*

    Not sure what Graham is referring to above. Perhaps its his stock comeback when he [embarrasses himself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3555647)? (He must have to rely on that a lot).

  74. #74 jakerman
    April 1, 2011
  75. #75 Wow
    April 1, 2011

    > FYI, in the 6th figure here, the blue graph represents the science

    It represents the science misapplied.

    The atmosphere is not a box in a laboratory and the heating is not due to the IR leaving the ground to space.

    In the real world, the atmosphere is stratified by temperature. It’s called “lapse rate” and I guess Anthony “forgot” about that meteorological fact in his haste to prove his faith correct.

    The greenhouse effect is due to energy leaving the earth system at a lower rate. Therefore the rate IR leaves at the top of the atmosphere is the important figure. A figure that your link avoids.

    Your, and your fellow believers, use of Beers Law is similar to an idiot touching a teapot, finding it hot, putting a tea cosy on it, and wondering how the tea is being kept hot because now when you touch the teapot it’s much cooler.

    Then again your hysteria is obvious when it’s understood that your greed is at stake. anything to keep as much as possible is demanded by your avarice.

  76. #76 chek
    April 1, 2011

    [Bill said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3556430) “Perhaps he should start his own prize? Now, what to call it?

    The Anthony Watts Quackery Award (for services to general quackery, pseudoscience and bad moustaches) has a nice ring to it.

  77. #77 Graham
    April 1, 2011

    To those still mumbling from #70 on. Does empirical evidence mean nothing to you people? Nothing at all? Is theory everything in spite of it? Global temperature has, at most, flatlined despite relentlessly increasing emissions. Where does that leave your beloved CO2-driven models?

    What of the pre-industrial warming following the LIA, a warming that (thankfully) continues? Coincidentally, CO2 emissions increased too, but correlation of itself is not causation yet, contrary to that scientific principle, you insist otherwise. Anyway, what correlation? Post-industrial decadal cooling periods put that to rest well and truly.

    And which babbling buffoon, lavishly endowed with taxpayer-funded largesse, pronounced that we were in for a “new, drier climate” before the dams filled again?

    Yes, to hell with your clapped out smart-arse modelling and the whole wretched scam.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    April 1, 2011

    *Global temperature has, at most, flatlined despite relentlessly increasing emissions*.

    Utter garbage. Graham clearly does not understand the importance of scale, and is, like most denialists, utterly ignorant.

    Ignore him.

  79. #79 jakerman
    April 1, 2011

    [Graham](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php#comment-3556874), project much?

    Let us know when you find your [empirical evidence](http://www.ipcc.ch/).

  80. #80 Wow
    April 1, 2011

    “Global temperature has, at most, flatlined”

    Nope, it’s gone up by about 0.12C per decade average, DESPITE a substantial decrease in solar output.

    But maybe you can show us where you get the idea that the temps have flatlined.

    What am I saying? You’ve never answered a damn question yet.

    “What of the pre-industrial warming following the LIA”

    What of it? That wouldn’t have been caused by industrial CO2 production by definition.

    Or do you think that only human production of CO2 can cause warming?

    “Coincidentally, CO2 emissions increased too, but correlation of itself is not causation yet”

    Coincidentally, you’ve already shown (Beers Law) that we have a causation. The correlation was found after the causation was discovered and now you’ve forgotten it.

    “Post-industrial decadal cooling periods put that to rest well and truly.”

    If there have been decadal cooling that disproves warming, then why are the temperatures averaged over each decade higher than the previous decade average?

    It doesn’t.

    Your insanity is yours and a few religious nuts like you. It isn’t part of the objective reality. Hence you’re insane postings.

  81. #81 jakerman
    April 1, 2011

    >*Global temperature has, at most, flatlined despite relentlessly increasing emissions.*

    Well, some how Graham has managed to out do himself with the stupid stakes. Here is Graham’s ["at most, flatlined"](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend).

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    April 1, 2011

    > Does empirical evidence mean nothing to you people?

    Teh irony, it burns as much as teh stupid.

    Oh, and Dunning and Kruger are on the line. They want to know if you’ll participate in a little study?

  83. #83 Bernard J.
    April 1, 2011

    Graham.

    David Archibald’s post of WTFUWT is a mismash of scientific distortions and misrepresentations, and your misreading of his graphs compounds the abuse of science to nigh-on criminality.

    The truly sad thing (for the planet, not for yourselves) is that you have no idea of where it is that Archibald and yourself get it all wrong.

    Dunning and Kruger were most certainly thinking about people such as yourself and David Archibald when they defined their effect.

  84. #84 Billy Bob Hall
    April 1, 2011

    “The reason for cutting emissions is not to reduce temperatures from current levels, but to prevent them from increasing to dangerous levels.”

    And we should ask again Tim; What exactly are ‘dangerous levels’ ? Can you quantify this ?
    I put it to you, that if you can, then you would be ‘making it up as you go along’.
    There are is no such thing as ‘dangerous levels’. And there certainly ain’t any going on where I live I can assure you.
    You ‘educated people’ still astound me.

  85. #85 David R. Johnson
    April 3, 2011

    All that snow we’ve been having recently is proof positive of global warming (where “warming” means “cooling”).

  86. #86 jakerman
    April 3, 2011

    David, we’ve just had the equal warmest year on record. And re. snow you are confusing precipitation with temperature.

  87. #87 Richard Simons
    April 3, 2011

    David,
    Warmer seas => more evaporation => more precipitation which, if the air temperature is close to freezing or below, comes down as snow. Besides, you are confusing weather with climate.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2011

    > Besides, you are confusing weather with climate.

    And the temperature and temperature trends at the locations where evaporation takes place with the temperature (whether affected by trends or not) where the precipitation occurs.

    In other words, in a warming climate many places will nevertheless experience temperatures below freezing, even if they are also subject to warming trends.

  89. #89 DOC PARKER
    April 4, 2011

    COMMENTS ON MY EARLIER CONTRIBUTION [36] DISPLAY IGNORANCE FOR ALL TO SEE.EMOTIONAL LANGUAGE,RELIGIOUS LIKE BELIEFS & INSULTS DO NOT CHANGE FACTS.THESE TYPES OF ARGUMENTS DO HAVE A PLACE eg IN A COURTROOM BUT NOT IN THE SCIENTIFIC REALM.IN A COURTROOM ONE CAN WIN AN ARGUMENT AND THE CASE AND STILL BE CLEARLY WRONG.
    IN SCIENCE THE TRUTH IS NOT CHANGED BY BELIEF , ARGUMENT , PASSION OR EVEN BY GOOD INTENTION.

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2011

    > IN SCIENCE THE TRUTH IS NOT CHANGED BY BELIEF , ARGUMENT , PASSION OR EVEN BY GOOD INTENTION.

    Well, you got one thing right at least!

    The rest of your contribution is either trolling, or evidence that you don’t understand that you haven’t even made a scientific argument that is relevant to the question of AGW.

  91. #91 John
    April 4, 2011

    Shorter Doc:

    CAPITALS MAKE MY OPINION 25% MORE CORRECT.

  92. #92 rhwombat
    April 4, 2011

    David R Johnson: You’re not from around here, are you?
    …AND WHO FORGOT TO CLOSE THE LID ON THE WTFUWT DUNNY?

  93. #93 zoot
    April 4, 2011

    THE STUPID, IT BURNS.

  94. #94 DOC PARKER
    April 4, 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.

  95. #95 foram
    April 4, 2011

    Doc, I think your “caps lock” key might be jammed. Better get that looked at

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    April 4, 2011

    DOC PARKER, you don’t seem at all familiar with the wealth of scientific evidence that addresses the (denialist talking) points that you cite as the basis for your claimed “honest doubts”.

    That means that while your doubts may indeed be honest – but they most certainly are not well-founded. Saying it does not make it so.

  97. #97 Gaz
    April 4, 2011

    Doc, your “enter” key doesn’t seem to be working either, so each of your posts here is a GREAT BIG NEW PARAGRAPH.

  98. #98 DOC PARKER
    April 5, 2011

    SEE!!!!! . 3 IMMEDIATE EXAMPLES OF NON SCIENTIFIC CRAP.I’M WASTING MY TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE IN INTELLIGENT DEBATE.GOODBYE , STEW IN YOUR IGNORANCE & DON’T WONDER WHY YOU CAN’T CONVINCE THOSE OF US WHO HAVE A LOGICAL SCIENTIFIC MIND.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    April 5, 2011

    > 3 IMMEDIATE EXAMPLES OF NON SCIENTIFIC CRAP.

    Er…you didn’t post anything concordant with the science in the first place.

    > I’M WASTING MY TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE IN INTELLIGENT DEBATE.GOODBYE

    You’re right that you’re wasting your time, but it’s because your conspicuously unintelligent inferences and claims have been dealt with over and over and over again. The fact that you seem entirely unaware of that fact – or that no-one feels like correcting your nonsense in great detail in this particular forum doesn’t make them any less wrong, or you any the less careless with your claims.

    > DON’T WONDER WHY YOU CAN’T CONVINCE THOSE OF US WHO HAVE A LOGICAL SCIENTIFIC MIND.

    Dunning & Kruger calling…

    And if you actually had a logical scientific mind, you might wonder whether – given that people keep telling you that your inferences aren’t supported by the evidence – perhaps you had something to learn. A truely logical and scientific mind might employ the power of the Internet search engine – or at least the local librarian – to find some actual science to learn from.

    You instead think that a random group of commenters’ lack of interest in setting you straight somehow validates your unfounded opinion – and that you are intelligent for thinking so.

    That’s dumb.

  100. #100 Gaz
    April 5, 2011

    I’M WASTING MY TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE IN INTELLIGENT DEBATE.

    The best humour is often unintentional.