The second coming of the Climate Commission
More questions than answers came from the second episode of the Climate Change Commission’s public forums, televised live from Ipswich by ABC News 24.
On this second leg of their propaganda propagation there were Gerry Hueston, Lesley Hughes Will Steffen and Tim Flannery
To get the ball rolling, Will Steffen rehashed the familiar warmists’ presentation, using a strangely familiar “hockey stick” look-alike graph of a flat medieval warming period and the huge and rapid warming last century. I thought this sort of view of temperature records had been utterly discredited. He repeated the mantra that the science has been decided, that CO2 is the culprit — we are ninety percent certain, no doubts, no disagreements, no questions — so this is why we need to do something.
The performance was the clearest evidence that the Commission was doing the job it has been handsomely paid to do. According to the Minister Greg Combet, it was established by the Gillard Government to provide an “authoritative, independent source of information for all Australians,” He said. “It will provide expert advice on climate change science and impacts, and international action. It will help build the consensus required to move to a clean energy future.” It is thus there to convince people of Gillard’s Carbon tax. It cannot therefore be independent. In other words, it is a propaganda unit.
Consequently, the best question of the night was from an Ipswich salesman, who asked why, if the paid role of the Climate Change Commission was to sell the government’s policies, how it could honestly be considered a public forum for open discussion. Clearly, he observed, the Commission had made its mind up. To underline the point, another audience member accused Will Stephan of using the expression “climate denier” and was hotly contested by Flannery. Will Stephan admitted the error.
As an excuse for bias, Tim Flannery repeated the bewildering assertion that the reason for the latest polls showing that people don’t believe the warmist arguments, is that the sceptics’ arguments have been unfairly dominant in the media because the media believes in balance. This is an extraordinary claim, given the proselytizing role of the ABC and the Fairfax press, schools, universities, councils and even businesses.
Patronizing anecdotes were used as Flannery talked sadly about the wise old men that he had met throughout third world villages whose knowledge of where to take their herds had been compromised by climate change. No longer could they rely on their traditional customs to pass on this vital information to their young people. He even suggested, in spite of this failure, that these wise old people knew more about the climate than we did, living as we do in our air conditioned houses. Maybe he was referring to IPCC scientists.
A few questions were raised about carbon dioxide’s vilification as a carbon pollutant. One questioner pointed out that our breath contains
4,000 40,000 parts per million of CO2 and an office 1000 ppm. Our atmosphere is presently less than 400 ppm.
Challenged with the existence of dissident scientists such as the 31,000 listed in the Petition Project, Will Stephan deftly stepped around this inconvenient truth by saying he didn’t recognise any of the climate scientists on their list. This was one more example of the refusal of warming advocates to engage with any published science. These people pretend they simply don’t exist. The idea that a scientific debate has been had and decided on is therefore demonstrably false. The Petition Project has a very coherent peer reviewed article that summarizes alternatives to the Commissions views. To underline this untenable and dishonest approach, another member of the public simply asked, how many more dissenting scientists will it need before they start to question their certainty?
In a brilliant own goal, Flannery was at pains to point out that we should not “fear change”, in response to people’s dislike of Gillard proposed ‘carbon’ tax. He rabbited on about how humans optimise new innovations, building new futures for increased prosperity. So, why not embrace climate change?
Flannery was candid about the impossible task of reducing our emission by 5 percent from 2000 levels by 2020. This is a bipartisan Australian goal, but as he explained, it actually represents a 25 percent reduction within the next eight years and eight months. It is just not going to happen as there is no substitute at the moment for coal or petrol. Surely, end of story,
The last own goal of the evening was about the importance of containing the growth of human populations. Flannery explained that the only way to do this is to increase wealth in the poorer countries. This of course, is precisely what Born Lomborg and others have been advocating. It is called adapting to change.
It will be interesting to see what headway this ambitious Climate Change Commission will make over the coming months