(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...Climate change is a “left-wing conspiracy to de-industrialise the world”
Over the past few weeks, the debate in climate change has reached new levels of ridicule – such as this comment by Senator Nick Minchin:
”For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do – to sort of de-industrialise the Western world,” he said. ”The collapse of communism was a disaster for the left and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion. For years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting people’s innate fears about global warming and climate change.” (Read More)
In which case, as part of the IPCC review process, I must too be part of this ongoing conspiracy to fill the void left by communism! Is the IPCC really at the heart of a massive conspiracy theory?
A letter writer to a newspaper recently pleaded for guidance on how to get the facts about whether there is human-induced global warming. But the writer added emphatically that he did not want to read reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because he wanted independent and reliable information.
Now, it could just be me, but I would have thought that the world’s most comprehensive assessment and review of climate science by thousands of international experts should probably be the first port of call when searching for facts.
So is the IPCC really that kooky? Have thousands of participating scientists from around the world who’ve contributed to four IPCC reports since 1990 duped the world with hidden agendas and manipulated science? Have they all got it wrong? (Read more)
It’s interesting to see how this meme has developed in recent times, and probably highlights the fact that climate change is now more about effective communication and politics as opposed to ‘proving’ science.
OveHG is Professor and Director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland. He completed his BSc. Hons at the University of Sydney and PhD at UCLA in 1989, and was recognized in 1999 with the Eureka prize for Research into the physiological mechanisms of coral bleaching. Specialising in the impact of climate change on biological systems, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg has worked in polar, temperate and tropical regions, and is well-known for his work on the impacts of ocean warming and acidification on coral reefs. He is currently a Queensland Smart State Premier's fellow, and holds positions as reviewing editor at Science Magazine and chair of the World Bank/GEF working group on coral reefs and climate change.Email this author | View all posts by OveHG
What gets to me about this meme is the underlying assumption that anything that threatens unchecked industrialization and resource exploitation is somehow bad. I personally like the idea of living simply, of allowing other species to co-exist, and having a chance of one day seeing a live bluefin tuna outside of an aquarium. The idea loses luminance every time James Inhofe opens his mouth.
“innate fears” about making our own planet uninhabitable should not be exploited, nor should they be ignored. They should be paid very close attention to, because thousands of the smartest and most diligent people in the world are the ones who are worried about it.
It’s been about communication for a long time. And now we’re in time where a cash-strapped media is thin on the ground and much less able to communicate complex issues. Ten years ago there were loads of enviro-focused media, now few remain. This leaves the communication field wide open to vested interests opposing any changes no matter how solid the science is.
Sorry guys, but you are not convincing. Even the high priests of global warming and IPCC orthodoxy are having qualms of conscience (99.9% certainty).
Dr Kevin Trenberth, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
There is indeed another way to look at this. See:http://climatechange1.wordpress.com
“innate fears” about making our own planet uninhabitable are a bit like the doctrine of ‘original sin’. Try to be calm. Just settle down.
I prefer to follow refer to the huge scientific consensus within the peer-reviewed literature as opposed to rely on the interpretation of a few legally hacked e-mails or an offhand opinion of a single scientist. The second issue that you might want to be aware of, is that proof of climate change does not come down to a single set of data. This isn’t just a few of your so-called “high priests” that hold a single all important data set, but rather scores of independent data sets and thousands of the world’s best scientists. Hard to beat actually. Not to understand this is stunningly revealing about the lack of understanding of some of our senior coalition politicians.
Leave your response!
Topics
Archives
Authors
Top Ten Links
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg Lab
John Bruno Lab
Testimonials:
Rick MacPherson
Simon Donner
Andrew Bolt
Meta
CO2 Global Emissions
">
Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have accelerated globally at a far greater rate than expected over recent years. The average growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions increased from 1.1% a year in the 1990's to a 3% increase per year in the 2000's.
While politicians fumble over the issue of gaining effective control of carbon dioxide, there is growing evidence that we must keep CO2 levels below 450 ppm or be prepared to suffer serious consequences to life on Earth.
Recent Comments
Most Viewed Posts
Most Rated Posts