“GREENHOUSE 2007 is a unique opportunity to hear the latest findings in climate science, and discuss the implications for Australia and the region.
Approximately 50 of the world’s leading climate researchers will attend, including John Church, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Phil Jones, Jerry Meehl and Kevin Trenberth.
We are also pleased to confirm that Dr Jim Peacock, Australia’s Chief Scientist, and Prof. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, will be presenting at GREENHOUSE 2007.”
Program here.
Palaeontologist Tim Flannery will also be there.
As a UK taxpayer, I expect I’ll be helping to foot the bill for the likes of Phil Jones and Sir David King. Colloid Chemist Sir David is perhaps best remembered for his claims that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism, and Antarctica will become the only habitable place on Earth, thanks to global warming.
Thanks to Luke Walker for alerting me to Greenhouse 2007.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I wonder if this panel is “balanced” instead of “objective.”
“Balanced” means having goofball greenies selling real estate scams.
“Objective” means presenting facts that the goofball greenies will complain about, since it interferes with their scams.
Like selling CO2 to destitute pedal-pumpers.
Hey Sckittles – do you think the Australian Chief scientist is some flim flam “greenie” – his division invented “gene shears” – core GM technology. Shows Schiller that you’re an ignorant yank. You might check some of the CVs of the scientists involved. You didn’t even peruse the program did you.
This is where serious science gets done – not at some smoky room of the Lavoisier society. I assume there will be a serious denialist contingent attending to inform them where they’re wrong.
The Australian Federal Police Comissioner, Keelty, agrees that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, Paul.
He’s an expert in these things, and he can see the implications of the changes that will occur.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22497578-5005961,00.html
It looks to me as though this is more about “what do we do” rather than questioning the science. Nice to see the taxpayers get yet another chance to fund Stephen Schneider’s world travel.
I didn’t see where Uncle Mark gets to make a presentation other than the initial welcome. Surely a return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle would be a viable way for the peasants to reduce their carbon footprint enough to offset the lifestyles of the rich and famous?
Since global warming is worse than terrorism, I guess that means the Christians will die and the oil-pumping Muslims will have a field day.
My word, isnt the timing just soooooo convenient, and the line up just so relevant.
I feel a heap of press releases coming on.
I reckon I could write them myself right now.
More doom and gloom based upon the flimsiest of evidence, and even flashier computer models,that have been tweaked to the nth degree, to do what they want them to do.
They have no idea what is natural and what is AGW, but will tell us it all is I bet.
Of course industry will be with with its ears back –they can see a big dollar in the carbon trading scam, which will get ripped out of the sucker tax payers anyway.
Lordy me just look whose giving an update of Climate Change to October 2007, non other than the Flannery himself. I wonder if he will update his book as well.
Would it be too much to ask that they all stick to the science. One can only hope.
Whats the bet that the first interview, of many, is by Kerry O’Brien of Sir David King, on 7.30 Report on say, Wednesday.
O’Brien gets him started with some Dorothy Dixers and King comes out in strong support of Keelty, namely that AGW is more serious than terroism. (Mind you given the way they handled the Haneef affair it is probably just as well.)
O’Brien gives him all the latitude he wants to peddle his messages, and without interruption.
One of the last will be Pearman, repeating his summary message, contained in “Where to Now”.
Thats not too hard to predict either, but I bet there is nothing that would be deemed to be contrary to the party line, as already pronounced by the IPCC.
Posted by SJT:
“The Australian Federal Police Comissioner, Keelty, agrees that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, Paul.He’s an expert in these things, and he can see the implications of the changes that will occur.”
Is he?
Here’s me thinking he was just another cop.
As far as I am aware, Sir David King didn’t visit the victims or relatives of the 7/7 bombs in London to tell them that climate change was a bigger threat.
Keelty and King have much bigger problems in mind that a few dozen dead. Terrorism is a real problem, no doubt, but global warming will affect just about everyone personally. (The super rich will probably not notice it).
“CLIMATE change, not terrorism, will be the main security issue of the century, with potential to cause death and destruction on an unprecedented scale, Australia’s top policeman believes.
In a surprise foray into the politics of global warming, Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty described how climate refugees “in their millions” could create a national security emergency for Australia.
His provocative comments, made in a speech in Adelaide last night, are likely to be diplomatically sensitive after he described a scenario in which China was unable to feed its vast population.
Law enforcement agencies would struggle to cope with global warming’s “potential to wreak havoc, cause more deaths and pose national security issues like we’ve never seen before”, Mr Keelty said. “It is anticipated the world will experience severe extremes in weather patterns, from rising global temperatures to rising sea levels,” he warned.
“We could see a catastrophic decline in the availability of fresh water. Crops could fail, disease could be rampant and flooding might be so frequent that people, en masse, would be on the move.
“Even if only some and not all of this occurs, climate change is going to be the security issue of the 21st century.”
Mr Keelty said the implications for China were especially alarming. By 2040, with global temperatures surging towards a predicted 3C rise, and sea levels up 50cm, the land available in China to grow grain and rice could be reduced by 30 per cent. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22476969-30417,00.html?from=public_rss
Don’t confuse Keetly repeating climate propaganda with scientific knowledge.
Well Malcolm – where’s the denialist contingent in attendance. Is Bob Carter going? The Lavoisier en masse. Or are you all just whinging and having a big sook coz that’s what it sounds like. So boo hoo.
Which of the 10 alternative hypotheses would you run do you think? ROTFL. Perhaps they could have a “worst anti-AGW argument of all time” keynote session. Louis could give it a fair run?
Full registration (until 31 July 2007) – A$990
Full registration (after 1 August 2007) – A$1190
Two-day registration – A$660
One-day registration – A$550
Student registration – A$440
Still time to apply to Soros for funding.
Well Luke, its case of come in spinner.
I was testing whether or not the new blog rules applied to you, given your well established OCD, with its predictable attitude towards anyone who doesnt accord to your current train of “thought”—and googling.
I knew you would be perhaps the only one to rise to the bait, and sure as eggs right on cue.
Anyway which of any of the hypotheses on either side of the debate do you fully comprehend anyway?
Unlike you, I have better things to do with my time than be an obsessive blogger.
After all it aint that hard to work out what is going on and which way is up, if one has the right education and life experiences.
Enjoy your conference,and say Hi to Bob, John and Alex for me please.
Like I said, I bet the Press Releases are already written.
Come on Paul – that’s standard for all high level conferences. You’re being really disingenuous to suggest that’s of any exception. Of course if Exxon subsidised the event it could be different.
I’m sure WMC or Rio Tinto could have subsidised some of the contrarian boys and girls.
Well reverse come in spinner – multiple hypotheses hey? Well well. And you never stay for a debate anyway. Bit of drive by shooting venom spray and bugger off. Look at your content – simply obsessive whinging as that’s all you’ve got.
Of course press releases are already written – do the speakers know what they’re saying? It’s up the press to choose to use them or not.
“Don’t confuse Keetly repeating climate propaganda with scientific knowledge.”
Paul
Keelty is a professional, who knows when to defer to the experts in fields that he has no expertise in. He is only taking their advice and then applying the expertise he has to that knowledge. His expert insights are there for you to consider, or ignore.
Experts in alarmism and unverifiable predictions.
Paul
I read the paper today.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22510443-662,00.html
“THE drought could produce some of the worst food shortages since World War II.
Chairman of Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation Michael Badcock does not
believe rationing will be needed, but he says some products will be difficult to find
if the drought continues.
“It will get tighter and some products may be difficult to buy,” he said yesterday.
Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran warned that Australia’s food industry might
have to “reprioritise” to meet domestic demand.
He agreed that Australian consumers would experience shortages and would be paying
“significantly higher prices”.
“Global shortages and rising world prices are also contributing to price increases,” he
said.
“It is difficult to predict the extent of the effects of the drought, but reduced food
availability and higher prices are already emerging and will worsen as the drought
continues.”
Mr Badcock said it was not just the drought that was a problem, and that available food
in storage around the world was the least it had been since World War II, a matter of a
few weeks’ supply. ”
It sounds slightly alarming.
But is drought a new phenomenon caused by man-made aerial plant food emissions?
There is a suggested link between ENSO and Australian rainfall.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Murray_Darling_rainfall.htm
Paul – you really need to talk some Aussie farmers and give them some advice. What would you recommend say on (a) a scenario on whether to sell the farm or not as the drought’s bite continues (b) whether to undertake a multi-million dollar agricultural investment (c) Federal Treasury worried about ongoing billions into drought relief -support or what ?(d) policy on developing agriculture in northern Australia? (e) Munich RE worried about Australian insurance futures and exposure on coastal development
Wisecracks about Hansen and Gore aren’t helpful.
At your disposal you have:
(1) 120 years rainfall records back say to the 1890s.
(2) some knowledge of El Nino, Indian Ocean dipole, SAM and PDO/IPO
(3) The IPCC reports and CSIRO’s specific climate change analyses
(4) the tropical cyclone record for about 100 years
(4) the Lavoisier Society, Climate Audit, Pat Michaels, Woody, Marc Morano and the CEI
So how would you go about offering some strategic advice. Say Soros is buying at $720,000 and Motty will audit your books.
Seriously – what would you write? How would you go about it?
Rant on: This is the reality political and environmental reality that this blog misses while delving into chicken entrails of political intrigue and what sepo right wingers reckon (who gives a F really about Inhofe, polar bears and all the stuff !).
What a way to treat an ally – doing all the heavy lifting in Afghanistan chasing the real baddies while USA’s CO2 stuffs our climate. Great ! Rant off.
Real people in real business in the real world have to make climate risk decisions !
How?
The CSIRO Noted in 2000 that rainfall had increased over the last century, and predicted that El Nino would increase in frequency and severity. They were right. We are getting worse El Nino and less La Nina, and a series of droughts that are highly significant. The Federation drought was worse in terms of one year, but this is a collection of droughts that is adding up to be much worse.
I heard a Bureau of Meteorology spokesman on the TV news last night explaining that South Australia’s low September rainfall is due to abnormally low sea surface temperatures around South Australia.
Perhaps someone could explain the link between the drought and global warming again?
Luke,
Why dont you answer your own questions as raised above, and write a significant piece of work that gives everyone the benefit of your infinite wisdom and logic.
How would you compose your own advice to the farmers and the bankers alluded.?
Come on Lukey, this is your one big chance to put your money where your mouth is, and demonstrate once and for all, that you are not just piss and wind.
About 20 pages should do it, and BTW you are free to use the outcomes of this weeks conference at the Hilton.
Due date is Wednesday 10th October.
Malcolm – I wan’t after an essay – just a few paragraphs – despite your try-on it’s a serious issue. And a serious question. No tricks.
And Malcolm I’ve written plenty for this blog but have received only born to rule South Australian snobbery from you “fiene weine, a good education and correct upbringing – no convicts down here”. SO how about YOUR TURN.
Just walking around shrugging “oh well it’s nature” and “she’ll be right mate” is not exactly business planning or rational policy development.
Paul – that’s a fairly dumb sort of question – and indicative of the level of silliness on the non-AGW side – answer anyway – perhaps nothing, perhaps something, perhaps a bit of both. Depends where and when.
Not every blip has to be AGW – did anyone say SA deficit was? Do you think natural variability suddenly stops when AGW comes along??
And if you thought about it for say 10 seconds – isn’t natural variability “variable” – so if you’re looking for a variation in trend – how long might it take in years to reveal itself. Not going to be one year is it? Or two or three.
So unless you get a massive step change you’re trying to see a trend emerging from a fog of variation. Interesting problem. That’s why some mechanistic understanding helps and simple numbers don’t help in the short term.
Here is some news to be presented, apparently.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nation-faces-a-barren-future/2007/10/02/1191091074604.html
“Australians are facing a barren future, with rainfall to fall by as much as 10 per cent in the next 60 years and more frequent drought conditions predicted under climate change.
Melbourne faces temperature rises of up to 3.8 degrees by 2070 and the number of days over 35 degrees may rise from 9 to 25 days if global greenhouse emissions are not slashed.
The most detailed and up-to-date predictions on how climate change will affect Australia, released today by CSIRO and the bureau of meteorology, provide a grim outlook for the nation’s water supplies, which are already under severe stress.
And the news is dire for farmers, with up to 40 per cent more drought days predicted in eastern Australia by 2070.
The predictions point to decreased rainfall across Australia, CSIRO’s climate change impact and risk group leader Penny Whetton said.
“It is a slightly stronger message about drying than our last report in 2001 showed,” Dr Whetton said.”
Gosh, sorry to be such a simpleton Luke, you have to remember not all of us have reached your level of unbiased understanding.
As you didn’t actually answer my question, I take it you don’t know?
Yes I have some ideas but you haven’t demonstrated your worth. Your choice is to advise them that the future climate will be simply a sample of the last 120 years of records or something else. What do you suggest?