Home » Commentary » Climate heading off cliff, but Coalition wants to review law of gravity

Climate heading off cliff, but Coalition wants to review law of gravity

As the global scientific community gathers in Paris for a four-day climate conference – a pre-COP21 meeting that will focus on moving from present knowledge to future solutions – scientists in Australia are stuck dealing with a federal government which is still questioning the basics of global warming science.

A group of 13 Australian scientists have offered to meet with the two Liberal members behind the retrograde push – Denis Jensen MP and Senator Chris Back, both from WA – to brief them on the latest science on climate change and gently remind them that they are, well, simply wrong.

Screen Shot 2015-07-07 at 11.59.12 am

But they are rapidly losing patience with these increasingly fringe views, particularly from the likes of politicians like Jensen who, despite a background in physics, and a desire to be Science Minister, has been stubbournly opposing climate action since the time of the Howard government.

To Professor Leslie Hughes, a climate ecologist and one of those scientists offering to bring Jensen up to date, it’s a frustrating and frightening situation.

“It’s a little bit like we’re all on a bus accelerating downhill towards a cliff and there’s one person on the bus that says, well look we need to understand the physics of gravity before we put the brakes on the bus,” she told ABC Radio in an interview on Tuesday morning.

“We’ve understood the physics of the greenhouse effect since 1824, we’ve understood the relationship between burning fossil fuels and the earth’s temperatures since 1896 – and we’ve had an awful lot of science since then,” Hughes said.

“The rest of the world stop debating this issue a long time ago, and it’s about time we did too.

“We’re in a bus hurtling towards the precipice, and the scientists and many other people around the world are trying to avoid us going off the cliff. it’s about time we put the brakes on.”

But as Hughes also concedes, there is little point trying to convince the Jensens of this world. As fellow Australian scientist and Nobel laureate Peter Doherty put it recently:

“All scientists are comfortable with skepticism. But the difference between skepticism and denial is that the skeptic engages. If you are a skeptic, you talk to other researchers, you look at the data. If you’re in denial, you simply reject everything that’s being published.”

Meanwhile, a new report from a collective of global leaders and economic experts has stressed the economic importance of acting on climate change, arguing that greater policy ambition will be as much an economic boon as a vital foundation for future lower-carbon growth.

The report, released by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate on Tuesday, identifies 10 specific areas where international climate policy cooperation could “drive further economic growth,” including developing carbon pricing and supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency – just two of the policy areas where the Abbott government has taken Australia backwards over the past three years.

“Momentum is building towards the inevitable clean economic transition, and 2015 offers an unprecedented opportunity for business and governments to seize the opportunities this creates,” the report says.

“Crucial investments will be made over the next 15 years in the world’s cities, land use and energy systems. They have the potential to generate multiple benefits for economic growth, human development and the environment; or they could lock countries into high-carbon pathways, with severe economic and climatic consequences.”

In Canada on Sunday, more than 10,000 people – including representatives of labour unions, First Nations, anti-poverty and faith groups, health workers and immigration rights activists – gathered in Toronto in a protest calling for a paradigm-shift in how climate change is addressed – namely, to treat it as the emergency it is.

And in the UK, HRH Prince Charles called for “profound changes” to the world’s financial systems, warning the business-as-usual approach was failing to step up to the challenge of tackling climate change.

Speaking at the release of a report by the University of Cambridge’s Institute for Sustainable Leadership (CISL) – Rewiring the Economy: Ten tasks, ten years – the heir to the British throne warned that the “irresistible power” of business-as-usual has so far “defeated every attempt to ‘rewire’ our economic system in ways that will deliver what we so urgently need”.

Comments

11 responses to “Climate heading off cliff, but Coalition wants to review law of gravity”

  1. Pedro Avatar
    Pedro

    Listened to the interview on ABC radio this morning and even the interviewer seemed a little confused even giving Jensen’s denier views oxygen. How long is it going to take for the media and mainstream media to treat climate deniers the like of Jensen with the ridicule, scorn and derision they deserve.

  2. Sydney Birchall Avatar
    Sydney Birchall

    No amount of explaining science to these people will change their minds because they’re not interested in the science. The proposed review, dressed up as scientific scepticism, is just another diversion designed to delay or avoid action, being their ultimate goal. Why that should be their goal is topic for another day, requiring expertise in another kind of branch of science: psychiatry.

    1. nakedChimp Avatar
      nakedChimp

      According to Okham’s Razor “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.” explains the situation as simple as possible.
      No need to study anything.
      😉

    2. Pedro Avatar
      Pedro

      I did an online course called denial101X, the science of climate change denial. It turns out that exactly the same tactics are used by FF interests as the tobacco industry to create doubt in the general public. Also whether a person is a climate denier or not largely depends on political and world view and there is a very strong correlation between right wing conservative political beliefs and climate denial. The course teaches a proven methodology to break down the climate myths and insert the climate truths.

  3. Alen T Avatar
    Alen T

    Personally I have no problem with this inquiry. At least the experts speaking on this issue at an inquiry will have an opportunity to directly respond to some of the common denial drivel out there, even if these MPs won’t listen, others will finally get to hear the full story. Whereas now mainly climate change deniers get the chance to spread their half-truths. E.g. The comment about a lot of climate models being incorrect. The simple answer and response to this is ‘they were DESIGNED to be wrong from the get-go’. Without a magic crystal ball you cannot predict the future, therefore to get the best possible projections you need to run data and models on a wide range of potential scenarios, including extremes. This in turn will give a more representative and reliable uncertainty value.

    1. Alastair Leith Avatar
      Alastair Leith

      if it’s anything like the US House Science Committee hearings I’ve seen it will be a bunch of elected representatives doing a great impersonation of morons lecturing their nations pre-eminent scientists on Climate Change. Of course Jensen wont be lectured to, he’s a graduate with a Physics degree don’t you know.

      1. Chris Fraser Avatar
        Chris Fraser

        He does appear to be more politician than physicist. There are scientists who live the climate profession more than he does. He, and others in government, should be better at receiving the expert views rather than second guessing them.

  4. strewthmate Avatar
    strewthmate

    To be blunt… In Australia what we need is the next federal election and not more conferences. We need to elect politicians with the courage to bring about a WWII-scale mobilization to fight climate change. The Pledge to Mobilize is a political platform and social movement to get us there. http://www.TheClimateMobilization.org/jayw

  5. john Avatar
    john

    Listening to Jensen his argument is that there should be a huge change in the temperature record due to feedback with increased CO2 levels.

    He then argues that because there is not the collusions must be incorrect.

    This of course is not exactly correct because of the short time span from the turn of the century being used as a yardstick.

    Looking at the change in a little over 100 years a very discernible trend is apparent with 1c change in temperature which by going on historical record was witnessed over a period of 1000 years.

    So 2 aspects 1 the short time 100 years to clime 1c and 2 the definite trend when the only aspect of the system to change has been GHG
    .http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

  6. mick Avatar
    mick

    Barnaby joyce just let drive at hunt and co over Liverpool plains coal pit approval. ideal world nats split with the other idiots coalition cant govern election triggered bye bye morons a bloke can dream

  7. onesecond Avatar
    onesecond

    When is the next election? Will the Australians finally give Tony the boot he deserves? Or are they just plain crazy?

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.