Australian economist Ross Garnaut has been commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state and territory governments to examine the impacts, challenges and opportunities of climate change for Australia. There will be a final report by 30 September 2008.
Peter Gallager attended a recent lecture by this well known economist who is likely to significantly shape Australian government policy, he commented:
“I hoped to find that Prof. Garnaut would use his Heinz Arndt Lecture to describe the balance he intended to strike in his recommendations between evidence for risky climate change and a growing body of evidence that the risks are low to moderate (at most). Given his well-known views, I expected to find the balance tilted in favor of the former but I hoped to find that it would be moderated by recognition of the latter. Unfortunately, Prof. Garnaut paid no attention to any scientific facts and made no attempt to strike a balanced risk assessment…
“Ross Garnaut seems to believe that ‘scepticism’ about climate change is analogous to… or is, ‘dissent’. That is, he prefers to describe critics of his views using a term drawn from religious history, identifying someone who rejects a dogma. My reaction on first reading was surprise at the use of a term that implies acceptance of man-made global warming is really a faith from which critics may ‘dissent’. Did Ross Garnaut understand that (obvious) implication, I wondered? …
“Answering the question whether it is possible for ‘dissenters’ can be scientists, Ross Garnaut invokes Gallileo, whom he wrongly describes as a ‘dissenter’—Gallileo was no such thing; Gallileo’s conflict with the Church was about the appropriate role of empricism and contained no basic doctrinal dissent—as an exception that proves his rule…
“When Prof. Garnaut concludes ‘the Dissenters are possibly right, and probably wrong’, what evidence does he adduce? None. Not a shred. This is depressingly consistent with the approach taken in his Interim Report. He does not consider that the science offered in contradiction of the IPPCC pronouncements (the hypotheses of ‘those who are best placed to know’—see p. 5 of his address) calls anything into question because it is ‘dissent’ and not science.
“So much for name-calling. What positive reason does Prof. Garnaut offer for accepting the ‘uncertainties’ of the IPCC as reasonably indicative of a probability? No scientific reason, as it turns out.”
These excerpts are from ‘Science, dogma and dissent: Ross Garnaut’s Heinz Arndt lecture’, by Peter Gallagher. You can read the complete article here:
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/science-dogma-and-dissent-ross-garnauts-heinz-arndt-lecture/
The lecure by Professor Garnaut was entitled ‘Measuring the Immeasurable: The Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation’ and given on June 5, 2008, at the Australian National University. You can read the complete lecture here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Of course Garnaut is going to find AGW proven. When was the last time the government, any government, established a commission into this or that problem only to find the commission advising there is no problem. Can’t think of a single example, myself.
If a government sets up a study into the Stolen Generation, it’ll find that genocide occurred. If a government sets up a study into under-age drinking, it’ll find that it’s rampant. And if a government sets up a commission into AGW…..well you get the drift.
Expecting something different would be like expecting the newly appointed executioner to advise that he’s not really in favour of capital punishment.
Jen – you have to be able to elucidate what you would like him to do.
Without arguing of the rights or wrongs of AGW he’s basing a position on IPCC, CSIRO, BoM and other expert advice. So if you find that advice unacceptable who does he talk to. 50 different sceptics all with varying degrees of “other” ideas.
Not saying it’s impossible but “you guys” need to advance a clear proposition as to what he should have done or should do?
And that is …?
Luke, my proposition is…
Be a little scientific, like the 31,000 scientists.
BE SCEPTICAL.
He quotes Heinz Arndt as being either a believer or an atheist. No individual in their right mind is ever completely that way! Let alone a good scientist.
He admits to conditions of great uncertainty yet is himself very certain about the action to take.
He compares climate science with medical science yet doesn’t suggest a double blind test.
He is very unconvincing.
“basing a position on IPCC, CSIRO, BoM”
Luke, be honest. Even if you had one of their GSMs, would you agree with them with no uncertainty?
That should be GCMs not GSMs, sorry.
And that is, Luke, he could start by adjusting all the projections to account for all the emission reduction measures that are already in plan, especially those in China and India.
He could then exhibit the minimum expected competence for an economist and recognise that an increase in economic growth today in a developing nation merely shortens the time it will take for that nation’s economy to plateau. It is not an excuse to extrapolate growth projections right off the top of the page.
And, surprise, surprise, for a so-called economist, he could actually consider the likely impacts of reduced hydrocarbon supply and the price adjustments this would entail in a context of increased demand. And if he manages to exhibit the comprehension of a year 12 economics student, he might even consider the enhanced substitution effect this price signal will send, especially in relation to the development of new technologies and social responses.
And gosh, he might even get around to factoring in the current rate of productivity improvement and applying that to his doomsday scarenarios as a minimal gesture to professional duty of care.
And if he were an analysts armpit he would provide us with a detailed probability tree that outlines the full range of possible outcomes and attach a realistic set of probabilities to each with detailed rationale for same.
At the moment, his range of probable outcomes is quite limited and even then, the sum of those fractional probabilities total a great deal more than 1. He attaches so much certainty to his favoured projections that the remaining ones are left exposed in no-mans-land with a preposterous “nil probability” attached to them.
And pigs might fly.
“Us guys” probably don’t need to do anything.
The whole Garnaut Inquiry is a runaway train. Garnaut will, of course, ignore all evidence to the contrary and bring down the recommendation he was hired to deliver. The Rudd government will begin stubbornly implementing its carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade schemes, and then it will be voted out of office in 2010 and things can more or less return to normal.
Much like what’s happening in London, UK and USA.
Peter Gallagher needs to update his list of sceptical scientists; he uses the Oregon Petition which has been castigated by the fun-loving crowd at Deltoid who signed up minnie mouse and took great delight in discovering movie star and dead people’s names; a better alternative is;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html
Peter also needs to look at IPCC WG1, especially its executive summary, which is meaningless in terms of the level of scientic uncertainty it attaches to the main climatic parameters of H2O, solar, albedo and clouds; that it can still assert extremely likely probabilities for human forcing and relative lack of natural forcing and high scientific understanding for LLGHG’s is symptomatic of a mindset which has priorities other than reality or scientific veracity.
Gents – what is your alternative source for input – that’s a source not a rabble. Not trying to be difficult – simply where’s the alternative proposal given IPCC, CSIRO and BoM are rejected. A gazillion scientists signing some petition is not an organised alternative view. Where is the Federal Opposition requesting that that view be given a hearing?
And spangled – of course there is uncertainty. So it’s about making risk management decisions on best information. None of this is 100% – very rarely in life is anything 100% !
So accepting your rejection of the establishment (IPCC, CSIRO, BoM) view what’s a concrete proposal for moving forward. This goes to the heart of how the sceptic movement behaves and engages.
Luke,
what is certain is that Garnaut will inflict pain.
Luke,
no sensible person wants 100% BaU.
When you see some galahs on the road you think petrol is still too cheap but you cant send the country broke because of that.
We simply need to address the real problems and stop crying wolf with the weather.
Believe it or not, in our bumbling, democratic, free market way it will work.
If any pain is too great Labor will be booted out of office. It’s not a dictatorship.
“Believe it or not, in our bumbling, democratic, free market way it will work.” – yes like the hundreds of millions poured into drought aid unending. The massive amounts of money ongoing in Murray rescue packages. The vast amounts spent on NHT projects for what end? Sounds like the market isn’t working at all. But then the bush has a long history of capitalising gains and socialising losses.
Reality is that carbon economy will be rejected by the electorate. Fair enuff. But if you’re on the land I’d still be looking at the climate science. Policy types sick of the outflows of drought dollars are too.
True Luke, it is going to be a political nightmare and thereby, hopefully, a natural control valve.
In a crazy country like Australia where every one lives near the beach a bit of rural socialism doesn’t do much harm. Compared to what goes on in Europe and America it’s peanuts.
Your ref. the other day about Kidman’s closing down their biggest property because of the drought was interesting, however that was always standard Sid Kidman MO.
I used to live between a couple of his properties and nicked a few of his cleanskins from time to time.
“50 different sceptics all with varying degrees of “other” ideas.”
Like the line from that dire straights song. “Two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong”. Only in thise case, “one of them must be right”.
Another sophist line from Luke. When you get us a budget of the scale of the IPCC’s, BoM or CSIRO you can have a single position from “the sceptics movement”.
The facts are that the warmenistas have made a proposition based on science that many people can find very large holes in. And as a result of those holes we respond by stating that “your case has too many holes to justify motgaging our kids future”.
We have no obligation to deliver an alternate manifesto just as wary investors have no obligation to present an alternate prospectus to one offered by corporate promoters.
The only response we need to make is to reject your proposition on the basis that your prospectus is full of holes. End of story.
You can either go away and develop a prospectus that does not have holes or you can forget about the project altogether. That is, you can make the sacrifices that you think are needed all by yourself.
The fact is that you people have so tarnished your standing in this market place of ideas that there is very little you could say or do that would ever induce us to invest in your project. You guys are the “Alan Bond” and “Christopher Skase” of public policy and your reputations precede you.
Luke a good number of the most vocal “science” sceptics gave an under oath prediction of greenhouse warming in the recent US supreme court case involving the EPA – you can see it at http://cei.org/pdf/5572.pdf .
The sceptics conclusion (in the paper authored by SALLIE BALIUNAS, JOHN R.
CHRISTY, CHRIS DE FREITAS, DAVID LEGATES,
ANTHONY LUPO, PATRICK MICHAELS, JOEL
SCHWARTZ, AND ROY W. SPENCER) is that 1.8C is a plausible projection of warming for the next century.
The fact is, the difference between the “science sceptics” and the IPCC is wafer thin.
PS Ian suggest you read http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1 to update your knowledge about global emissions. The previous claims that the IPCC over predicted emissions is wrong.
Nice try Mottsa – but simply ball abuse. Which of the 50 different sceptic opinions should we listen to?
Especially given David’s information above. Would you like to be the expert on PIG velocities for example?
Thanks for posting that Rapauch paper, David, because it is a classic bit of illinformed crap.
The fact that Chinese and Indian emission have increased above the A1F1 scarenario does not mean they will continue that way indefinitely. All it means is that the rate at which these countries and others are approaching full developed status is faster. It means their slowdown and plateau will come sooner.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that Garnaut has to get his head around but is unlikely to.
The A1F1 projection still relies on both India and China adopting an LA style urban sprawl emissions footprint of 20tonnes CO2/capita. It is absolute bollocks when both countries have clearly targeted a French/Swedish nuclear based advanced development footprint of 5-6 tonnes CO2/capita.
I love that word “plausible”.
“Which of the 50 different sceptic opinions should we listen to?”
Which of the 50 different economists (substitute any type of expert you like) should we listen to?
Is someone having problems making up their own mind?
And one must also ask if any of these scarenarios included any prospect of global recession due to rising energy prices. “The waa..?” I hear them ask.
Yes, Proteus.
plau·si·ble Audio Help /ˈplɔzəbəl/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[plaw-zuh-buhl] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.
2. well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust: a plausible commentator.
Origin: 1535–45; < L plausibilis deserving applause, equiv. to plaus(us) (ptp. of plaudere to applaud) + -ibilis -ible]
—Related forms
plau·si·bil·i·ty, plau·si·ble·ness, noun plau·si·bly, adverb
—Synonyms 1. Plausible, specious describe that which has the appearance of truth but might be deceptive. The person or thing that is plausible strikes the superficial judgment favorably; it may or may not be true: a plausible argument (one that cannot be verified or believed in entirely). Specious definitely implies deceit or falsehood; the surface appearances are quite different from what is beneath: a specious pretense of honesty; a specious argument (one deliberately deceptive, probably for selfish or evil purposes).
—Antonyms 1. honest, sincere.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
The 1.8C projection for this century is described by a word, the antonyms of which are “honest and sincere”. Says it all really.
Motty continues to have himself on. Having done an extensive analysis himself. R_O_T_F_L mate.
See vested interest, see activist, see astroturf, see fifth column.
David,
I dont know how you can make the inference you have from the USA court case, when the published conclusion is as follows:
“The CS Brief is quite wrong to argue that the
evidence supporting such a determination [that greenhouse
gas emissions ‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare’] is compelling.” The net effect of
greenhouse emissions on human health and welfare is
unknown and has not been comprehensively determined,
even as the technological and scientific advances associated
with those emissions have dramatically increased life
expectancy. The CS Brief mischaracterizes the effects of
greenhouse gases on the globe’s temperature history, on
hurricanes, on melting of ice and sea-level rise, and on health
and mortality. Because of these facts, it is simply impossible
to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers
human health and welfare.
Peter Gallager writes very clearly…. He is worlds above Garnaut in eloquence, insight and understanding.
The wrong people have got hold of the reins I’m afraid.
Luke asks what would you like him to do?
Well for a start, Remove all constraints from CO2… allow the development of Coal to liquids so that Australia in conjunction with other coal producing countries can compete with oil…. The price would come down. To go back to Business as usual…. Build more Dams, etc.
My reasoning for him to do this.
AGW as hypothesis is unsustainable. This is clearly so.
CO2 lags behind Temperature rise. This is recorded in the ice cores.
Mann’s “Hockey stick” graph has been rejected or not reiterated in the last IPCC paper.
The Tropical Troposphere has not warmed in accordance to computer Climate models. This warming was integral in the provenance of AGW as a valid hypothesis by the IPCC.
Three strikes and yer out in my book Luke.
That’s it?
Any plans for a statement with substance, Luke?
It was not me who used the word “plausible” to describe the projection of 1.8C of warming over this century. I know your fragile grasp on reality would like the word to mean something more than “potentially deceptive” or “specious” but that is what the word means.
And the Authors have concluded that 1.8C of warming is a notion that is capable of being sold to a gullible public but is totally lacking in verifiability. That is, it is a notion for which a sceptical response is a reasonable response.
zzzzzzzzzz
What else would you expect.
He confuses fact with spin, so he must be easily confused, or bought, which ever takes your fancy. What is sure is that any findings from him must have that proverbial grain of salt added.
Yes, Hasbeen. Thats his, “gosh, is that reality again? Got to go, catch ya later, ciao”, bail-out, again.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Interesting how Luke demands answers but when they are given to him all he can do is give us some moronic snoring message. Same old same old.
I will admit to being quite puzzled as to why people allow El Luko dipstick to bait them so.
His “modus operandi” comprises:
1) a scattergun slew of references which almost wholly have no relevance to the questions asked
2) a persistent and very low line in quite silly Sesame St sarcasm
3) as many “straw men” as can be fitted on a page
If a single fact contradicts an hypothesis, the hypothesis is modified or abandoned. Scientific Method …
Not a single word there about TINA (There Is No Alternative), a straw man much beloved by El Luko dipstick. It’s a sophist variation on proving a negative – ie. if my concept is wrong, prove some other concept isn’t. So, Michael Jackson is the Second Coming … now prove he isn’t.
El Luko dipstick also dismisses hard geological evidence that may not agree with AGW on the grounds of irrelevance. This line is straight from the CSIRO greenie manual (the CSIRO geologists have often shown me examples of it). It seeks to avoid dealing with questions about “lag” and “natural cycles”
El Luko dipstick has irresistibly characterised himself as a very silly smartarse. Don’t be baited by it.
Having said that, the political war is well and truly won by the AGW watermelons – the horses are not just frightened, they are terrified. Since the bulk of the population has not yet understood the ramifications of a heavy and increasing carbon tax, there is grim amusement ahead as this slowly penetrates. The inevitable nickname “Rudderless” contains a real point.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz – huh – what – did someone try to make a point? or was it Mottsa having another venom attack.
“a scattergun slew of references which almost wholly have no relevance to the questions asked” well I can’t help it if you’re an illiterate redneck hillbilly can I?
“geological evidence that may not agree with AGW” like what ?
“Political wars, frightened, terrified” – are you some sort of wacker IanL – really mate – growup.
I agree IanL. And Luke then provides a perfect example of the very substance lacking drivel that you have identified. He is nothing but a propagandista, one who makes, “a specious pretense of honesty; a specious argument (one deliberately deceptive, probably for selfish or evil purposes)”.
Says a venom spitting property rights activist and industry apologist. No bias there.
Meanwhile, back on topic. One of the other serious flaws in the Garnaut bumf is the assumption that mankind is, and will remain, incapable of applying or developing technology that can assist natural systems in re-absorbing CO2.
The entire IPCC framework maintains a clear distinction between anthropogenic sources and sinks on one hand, and natural sources and sinks on the other. And they assume, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that natural sources and sinks are constant.
The plodding intellects of these mediocrities have narrowed the scope of their gonzo projections to assume that mankind can only adjust anthropogenic sources and sinks.
Yet, we know that if all the wood carbon that is removed during land clearing was converted to charcoal there would be close to zero emission, substantial carbon storage for more than a millenia, and a substantial increase in the productive capacity (including carbon sequestration capacity) of the land.
The fact that it can only take 30 years to fully restore forest carbon stocks suggests that sites managed for charcoal production in perpetuity could sequester and store up to 33 times their current natural carbon volume over the next millenium.
The conversion of only a small portion of the current neglected public forest estate to charcoal production and storage in perpetuity could turn what is currently an equal sized source and sink into a major, cumulative, carbon sink. And as the price of oil and coal increases over time through both limited supply and carbon taxes, the economics of charcoal production and storage improves further.
But the IPCC and the Garnaut gimps continue to project constantly accumulating emissions while ignoring our capacity to convert natural systems into major accumulating sequestration, at minimal ecological cost.
What a ridiculous mud slinging match.
Every climate change debate is the same. You have those with a good understanding/or at least trust of environmental science and ecology arguing for action on climate change, and have moved well beyond whether or not it is actually occurring. This could be due to an ability to understand how human actions can negatively impact upon the planet in other ways that make the hypothesis of AGW not such an extreme idea.
On the other hand are those who are well educated in economic rationalism, who will seek out any contradictory information they can to delay action on climate change because of their own vested interests and disconnected understanding of nature.
I dont see any resolve to these debates, other than waiting for oil to run out so that those sceptics who are so disconnected from nature will be forced outside to really start to understand how the world works. They may even enjoy it, I know I do.
Here is a small section of the interim Garnaut report 2008 –
USE OF PERMIT REVENUE.
Auctioning of all permits will be the source of a substantial amount of government revenue. Governments will need to assess competing
priorities for this revenue, which may include: