Australian Prime Minister John Howard has announced that climate change crusader Tim Flannery is the winner of the nation’s highest honour Australian of the Year.
At a ceremony in Canberra earlier today, Mr Howard said as an explorer, writer and climate change crusader Professor Flannery has helped millions better understand the environment.
In his recent book ‘The Weather Makers’ Tim Flannery makes various claims many of which are very fashionable, but appear to lack a scientific basis.
For example, he writes that animal species are vanishing as a result of climate change right now and that a dramatic decline in rainfall along the east coast of Australia may result in the extinction of various species of frog:
“In the early 1990s, frogs began to disappear en masse from the rainforests of northern Queensland and, as with the golden toad, these vanishings occurred in otherwise undisturbed rainforest. Today some sixteen frog species (13 percent of Australia’s total amphibian fauna), have experienced dramatic declines. The cause is still debated, but the climate change experienced in eastern Australia over the past few decades cannot have been good for frogs, for a persistence of El Nino-like conditions has brought about a dramatic decline in Australia’s east coast rainfall. The latest analysis suggest that at least in the case of the gastric brooder and day frog, climate change was the most likely cause for their disappearance.” (pg. 121)
Yet data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology doesn’t show the claimed dramatic decline in rainfall.
Here’ the graph for eastern Australian from 1900 to 2006:
In fact the 11-year running average looks pretty flat.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
As with all his claims of science in the book, he gives a reference to back him. That is, it is not just his opinion. This claim also has a reference, which is a published scientific study.
He’s been rubbished a lot on this blog but we’ll just put empty criticism down to sour grapes. Happy Austn day. What’s it about again?
Pink Pants – what’s it about – perhaps counting the blessings we have as a first class society, enjoying the day with some friends and family, contemplating the ambiquity of the day for the first Australians, and pondering how we might do better in the coming year.
I saw his interview tonight – pro clean coal technology, pro renewables and reluctantly pro nuclear. I would have thought the big end of town might have something complex to contemplate in Tim Flannery.
And I did enjoy the tinnie boat trip regardless of how many healthy Red Gums may have actually been overlooked.
AND I simply cannot believe after all that has been said Jen would put up that graph. Unbloody real. One might note Tim picked the other graph in his colour plates in Weather Makers. Someone had better show Johnny H Jen’s graph quick and stop him spending our hard earned given there’s no changes. Can I have the $10B. Actually Jen – I am totally dismayed and distressed that you would put that up. So in terms of discussing “a scientific basis” I think you may have blown the street creds totally. Jen – if you don’t know by now – I have to assume you’re not a scientist after all and just a lobbyist.
I saw the interview with Tim last night too Luke. In the end I can’t help concluding that John Howard made a fantastic decision – a crusader for his pro-nuclear and pro-uranium mining cause. He can have buddy Malcolm Turnbull touring the country with water, and Tim Flannery doing the same for nuclear. What a great bit of master minding there, allowing little Johnny to just sit back and watch the cricket.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Tim and his work on PNG mammals, and some of his other stuff too, but I see this award could have huge spin-offs for the incumbent government, in a way that perhaps Tim could not forsee.
It’s hard to imagine a government giving an award to a scientist who makes claims which are contrary to the government’s interests.
Face it–it’s not a science prize, it’s a political prize.
Libby to be fair to Tim he was “reluctantly” nuclear as seeing that as a “lesser of two evils”. There are some very interesting interactions occurring here
Schiller – the Australian of the Year Award is for a inspiring Australian who has made a significant cultural, social or career investment to the nation. It’s still an interesting selection if you want to indulge the theory of a lot of political “influence” on the decision. Flannery as stated would be both supporting and at odds with the government agenda. A complex guy.
The climate change debate is going to throw up some faustian bargains for those concerned about greenhouse. In this quite balanced article on AGW, Kerry Emanuel, of increased hurricane strength fame, is overtly critical of green groups for creating some of the global greenhouse problem.
“Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem. ”
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Perhaps you might inform us on the current views on nuclear power in the USA.
I kind of agree with you Luke, and felt perhaps I was being a bit unfair to Tim. Over the the next 12 months it will be interesting to hear what Tim has to say, as well as which ever government is in power.
Libby – Flannery also said that he didn’t see nuclear as having a role in Australia – given our solar and wind resources. As has long been discussed on this blog many will argue that these technologies are not suitable for baseload power generation. I guess we could debate that. But Flannery suggested India and China will simply burn more coal if denied access to uranium. You wonder though if we’ll one day get our uranium back in the payload of a missile. Who are we prepared to sell to? Are the safeguards really safe?
Very astute Libby; “What a great bit of master minding there, allowing little Johnny to just sit back and watch the cricket”
From what I’ve heard of how terrible coal is–here in the states, the greenies call it “dirty coal”–a coal warhead would be the ultimate “dirty bomb.” (Local greenies even claim that coal spreads “man-made” mercury. I am *not* making this up.)
But seriously, Luke deserves a better answer. Yes, the greenies here in the states have done a lot to put the brakes on nuclear power. And we haven’t built a new oil refinery in over two decades. No wonder people are building corn refineries for ethanol instead. The greenies find that kind of CO2 much more acceptable–and hence, there are fewer regulations.
As far as politicians handing out awards–sorry, any way you cut it, it’s a political award, not a science award.
And as far as supplying baseload power, alternative power, all the rest: electricity is the answer and the efficient battery is the essential ingredient. Electricity is the ultimate flex-fuel; you can power everything from information to automobiles with it. You can turn almost anything into electricity. All it takes to make this happen is battery technology which allows for high charge/discharge rates and low weight. Weight is important, because an efficient battery should at least carry as much energy per pound as a fuel tank in an auto.
And of course it should be cheap. If storage is cheap, you can supply your baseload needs from any variable energy supply, if you can plan for those needs.
I believe that Tim also made comment on hot rock generation which does have the advantage of being able to provide energy 24/7.
The other guest on the 7.30 report, Malcolm Turnbull, pointed out that both China and India have larger reserves of coal than Australia, they would use that coal, maybe for hundreds of years. The implication is that it dosn’t matter what Australia did re CO2, what happens in China, India and America does.
3 billion people, wanting 1st world living standards vs 20.3 million.
Tim may need to address this inconvenient statistic.
Tim Flannery, of course, is well known for his criticisms of anti-whaling crusaders.
Flannery: “My view is that at present the anti-whaling lobby is frustrating the attempt to develop a sustainable industry based on these creatures, and is therefore frustrating good management of marine resources. It is a sorry evolution to turn from being at the forefront of marine conservation to being opponents
of best conservation practice.”
http://www.conference.science.org.au/papers/TimFlanneryQE9.pdf
Well he’s obviously spot on. Makes sense.
‘Tim Flannery, of course, is well known for his criticisms of anti-whaling crusaders.’
“Of course”? So?
Allan, “3 billion people, wanting 1st world living standards vs 20.3 million.
Tim may need to address this inconvenient statistic.” So true, to the extent that they are already trading off clean air for these standards. Lucky to see the sun in the industrial provinces.
Don’t assume that everyone in Aust or America has 1st world living standards.
If the developed countries, with all their wealth and luxury, don’t set the example and lead the agreements and technological development then who will? China and India need 1st world trade and Australia and the US can influence that. Don’t downplay Australia’s influence based on its size because our less developed (and anti-Christian) critics don’t. They see Australia as rich and powerful, plentiful, appearing in the media at the side of the US to influence world events of far reaching consequence. Australia also often carries motions and extends political influence in international meetings to back the US when every vote of support counts.
You might see GHG standards come into international trade rules if it dawns on most 1st world countries (especially US) that it’s an avenue for restricting wage erosion and cost undercutting by Asian production (a way to keep jobs onshore). Then you’ll all be on the bandwagon too. Oh, except that China is actually investing in renewable energy and green cities so perhaps they’ll be selling their technology back to us dumbies, ever in deepening debt, trying to pay back with proceeds from sheep, wheat, hills hoists and a few metals.
“Prime Minister John Howard says he is not embarrassed by the fact Australian of the Year Tim Flannery remains a strong critic of his government’s environmental record.
Professor Flannery, who won the honour yesterday, has been warning about sustainability and the risk of climate change for decades and says the government has been “dragging the chain” on climate change.
….Mr Howard repeated he now acknowledged climate change was real.
“I think climate change is occurring,” he said.
“I am not as fanatical about it as others, I am not as bowled over by some of the doomsday scenarios.
“But the accumulated evidence is undeniable, there is global warming occurring, we do have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Australia does have to play her part, but I want it to be in a way that does not damage our economic advantages,” he said.”
La Pantera Rosa,
your last post is simply plagiarism.
I think most of us havae read the media announcements and reporting on the topic. So why repeat it here, or are you unable to marshall the electrons caught among your neural circuits to think independently?
La P, “trying to pay back with proceeds from sheep, wheat, hills hoists and a few metals”
As a producer of food and fibre I don’t think I’ll be on that bandwagon. Perhaps the wages I pay will become more attractive,country towns will prosper and we nay even regain respect for being farmers.
Louis, what is the difference between La Pantera’s “plagiarism” and anyone else’s here? Is your bias your contribution? There are people who don’t live in this country who read these comments. Personally I think it summed up the day’s PR concerning Professor Flannery.
If only the PM nominated … the Hissing Link.
Louis – I didn’t know you bothered to actually “read” anything factual about AGW – New Year change of heart ?
JH has made a clever political move by making the weathermaker Aussie of the Year, as LBJ said of his aversaries “it’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”
The four rules of politics;
1. Always keep the initiative.
2. Always exploit the possible.
3. Always keep in with the ‘outs’.
4. Never stand between a dog and a lamp-post.
Luke – have you been taking happy pills?
I’ve read reviews of Flannery’s book ( favourable and unfavourabvle ) but not the book itself so I can’t comment.
If he uses his new profile to promote the science rather than the politics , admit to uncertainty , caution against extremism and propose solutions then I’m happy as well!
Rog makes an interesting point.
Assuming you do want to do something about CO2 what have we got really. This is where the PM finds himself. What can he do.
(1) clean coal technology and geosequestration
(2) nuclear
(3) geothermal
All perhaps 10 years off
Renewables – but can we handle the baseload issue. Wind power – how many wind farms can the landscape handle.
If Motty was in charge of the agricultural and forestry sector we might a bit with carbon farming if it was win/win with other uses.
Efficiency in reducing unneccessary power use – anyone have a number?
Gas power stations instead of coal somewhat useful.
Fusion ? – who knows?
I think the 3 main technologies we really need to make a BIG difference are the first three. And it’s probably more imortant that we help China and India than sort ourselves out.
Anyone got a back of the envelope on relative contributions by when?
Jim – weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ! (yes happy as)
Is it up to PM to decide on the solutions? He can’t even identify racist and ethnic troubles when they’re staring him in the face. Just screw back peverse energy subsidisies (denialism on that won’t be entertained again), tax the carbon (as flannery says) & let magical markets sort it out?
Efficiency measures have huge ground to make with added benefits for economy and no lifestyle detriment. Did you see the international comparisons on energy intensity of production? We’re quite wasteful becuase our energy is relatively cheap. If GHG output becomes a trade issue we’ll suffer. This could be an increasingly important competitive issue.
a worldwide focus:
“Half of the world’s energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewables and improved efficiency, a study claims.
It said alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, could provide nearly 70% of the world’s electricity and 65% of global heat demand.”
by the German Aerospace Center
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_01_07_energy_revolution_report.pdf
It’s not up to the PM to decide on solutions, because the solutions will come not from politicians, but from giant multinational corporations (MNCs). And not because the PM or voters have voted on the solutions. It will be because someone has invented a better, faster, cleaner, more efficient technology, developed it into a product, and brought sufficient capital to bear in its manufacturing and roll-out to consumers. And that someone will be an MNC.
The only “magic wand” the PM and consumers can wave is to ensure that investment in research & development gets as much encouragement as possible. As unfortunate this may seem to Pantera, the fact is, the MNCs are best positioned to invent and introduce the technological advances most wished-for.
By the way, the Pantera (DeTomaso, Italy) was the world’s first production automobile to break the five-second barrier for 0-60 mph acceleration. Yet another lovely innovation, courtesy of an MNC.
La Pantera Rosa – If renewables and increased efficiency can only meet half our energy needs by 2050, that still leaves a big gap to be filled by fossil, nuclear and geothermal.
On your earlier point about Australia’s energy intensity, I would suspect that it has less to do with greater wastefulness and more to do with having energy intensive industries such as aluminium smelting and other raw material processing.
Innovative solutions often come from small concerns Schiller, equally MNC’s can stifle innovation to maintain internal power bases or market control (eg electric car). Big corporations often snap up smaller innovative businesses or ideas or often, very often(!), rely on solutions provided by smaller consultants and techies etc. And then there are important organisations like the CSIRO of course. If you’re interested I have a fantastic gem, you only have to ask…
Pantera,
Consider this a request for your “fantastic gem.” meanwhile, electric cars are turtles, I’d never take one to a road rally.
Luke: short term energy efficiencies are in the order of 30% starting with your home, bulbs versus tubes and so on. The next step is mandatory reductions across the board.
A while ago I went back to basics, tents, dishes and a vintage cast iron stove in-between.
Daytime I watched my kids in their science classes from the dissection bench while I fixed some incubators. Their most important experiment was on our hobby farm.
My other task was our industry here and there. Water, power and transport have traditionally all been too cheap. Marvelous how quickly one can get a fire going after school on a wet night with some damp bracken with a bit of practice.
Most people on mother earth live like this. Who are we kidding here?
Gavin: How do you fire up your computer? Pedal power? Who are you trying to kid here?
Oh shattered my gem! Good faith is lost. Tell me what percentage of innovative ideas that reach prototype or testing stage are successes, and what original technological innovations don’t need refinement time to surpass the old. Give me the (researched) story how most innovations arise and you might fine the gem that opens your eyes.
Note The GM EV1 was hardly a turtle! Lowest wind resistance, decent acceleration, quiet, great for urban trips. There were superior batteries available for it too. There was plenty of demand for it but it was quashed because of internal turf wars – the incumbents in business as usual and oil interests won again.
Electric vehicles seem quite useful for an urban environment in terms of utility and driveability – off-road rally applications may not be useful – the issue really is what is the whole of life greenhouse cost in terms of embodied energy and the fact that really we’re simply substituting power station electricity for gasoline. If the power station electricity is from coal generation you haven’t achieved much in terms of CO2 (unless you can capture that at source). However I commend further research efforts and it’s good that a few hardy souls are testing early models on the street. We need to know how the technology works in the field.
Yes, we could all live like pommy milkman and drive our electric utes whilst giving service to the early risers, all in the name of research and the environment *beep* *beep* http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/ .
The electric vehicle example was about how MNCs can stifle otherwise viable innovations that threaten bus as usual for the incumbent interests, not about electric vehicle technology itself. But if markets really count above vested powers, there was sufficient demand for the EV1 and a waiting list above GM’s requirement, but the technology threatened traditional power bases – hell, it even undermined the excuse for war oops I mean Christian peace missionary operations.
Electric vehicles are definitely the better option Luke. More efficient. They keep the air clean and reduce noise in the hub-of-the-nation cities (nice cities attract more investment) and draw electricity from the power stations located out woop woop releasing pollutants among the housos and inbred caravan park scum where rog is. If we’re as sinister as argued then it’s time we properly exploited that urban-rural divide. We’ll build (fireproof) walls and checkpoints too to stop those country kids moving by the thousands to the cities and away from their embarrassing redneck families. Our pink ally China could advise us on this.
Concluding on the original topic, it’s just a ploy by the govt to appear environmentally concerned as they realise it’s an influential election issue where the opposition has strengths. Meanwhile they’ll feather the nest for big businesses that fund the party, sponsor jaunts, and one needs a good job after office.
Maybe there is life in a maligned old horse yet. Have a look at
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/
While Luke is marvelling at the potential for a D much bigger than 11, check out the fuel efficiency of >50% vs about 25 – 30% for auto and light aircraft IC engines.
*..the housos and inbred caravan park scum where rog is..*
Quite right, where I grew up we lived in a tin shed. We then moved on to a fibro semi – dad was on night shift and tempers were short – our big day was a small weatherboard house out in the netherlands surrounde by post war refugees – pick the aussie.
Many of them have done good, amazing what a little bit of hard work and gumption does for your position.
However its typical of the cheap shots that pinko and Luke revel in. Truth is neither of them could whistle up any where near a deposit for a property where I live; in fact, they probably couldnt afford the train ticket.
Dream on dreamers.
“…when I was a (lass) we were so poor we lived in a shoe box in the middle of the road….”
I was only quoting your own references rog, and there are power stations in your region.
Shoe box?.. . ..
You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t’ mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi’ his belt.
So Rog where is your vast ranch – Mt Druitt we had presumed. I guess you have to invest your tax-dodged self-made enviro-raping gains somewhere.
I guess you can take the boy out the shed but you can’t take .. .. ..
Anyway you can’t be too loaded as you’re wasting your time here with the rest of us.
Obviously the pair of you stand by and defend the slur of *..the housos and inbred caravan park scum..*
Thats OK, we now know where you are coming from.
Now come on Roggy-woggie – we’re just teasing. After all you’ve been a tad mean to us for many moons. Look just invite us round for a BBQ – Pinx will bring her Euro flash grog with her and you’ll learn to like us. Actually I’m sick of her Euro rubbish – she’s over there half the time buying her bloody antiques and expensive crap. Oooooo look at me and my Neutral Bay boutique. God lord. Anyway we promise to not trash the place and Pinx is now house-trained since she’s been to the new doctor. What about we say sorry, draw a line and be buds? You can still vote for Howard and everything.
Here’s a sorry video for you:
No rog, not defending your slurs, just taking your word literally on your surrounds. Note that we left out your ‘abos’ etc. You’re ok though because property values in white supremist enclaves trend upwards above the average in such conservative times.
Luke wild polar bears couldn’t drag me all the way down & out there! Besides, all that air pollution and he’d try to BBQ us one of them 3 eyed power station fish.
Come Panthy – I’m sure Rog is a charming host used to entertaining. Despite rampantly divergent points of view I’m sure it would work out fine. You could show him how to become wealthy by ethical investment processes. Get him to invest in your essential oils business. I’ll bring Phil along for support.