|
Written by joni
|
|
Sunday, 07 March 2010 09:01 |
|
This weekend's Fairfax Good Weekend supplement has an excellent article on Ian Plimer (I cannot find an online copy of the article). The journalist, John van Tiggelen tells of spending time with Plimer at Chillagoe (in Qld) and how he is "terrific company off-topic" and "is popular among his students". I'd agree with that - Plimer was my first geology lecturer at the University of Newcastle in 1985, where he was able to make the study of rocks come alive.
Quite telling, though, is the final part of the story, where "Plimer's anti-creationist brother-in-arms" Professor Mike Archer gives the following quote:
"Ian's a danger today, because he's the excuse that too many who need to act are citing for not doing so. My worry about Ian's activities is that he seems to be applying what he and I loathed about the creationists we debated. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think that somewhere along the way, Ian has lost his membership card for science".
With friends like that, you can understand why when asked about his lack of support from academic colleagues, Plimer says:
"They can all get f...ed".
Find the article, it is a good read. |
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Wednesday, 17 February 2010 21:37 |
|
A couple of days ago we discussed the kerfuffle of the quote supposedly attributed to Sir John Houghton that first seems to have appeared in a column by Piers Akerman.
Well, it looks like all will be revealed tomorrow as Piers posted this on his blog today. First was a question from Trevor:
Dear Piers,
Sorry to be off-thread but this is serious - can we have an post about how you were busted by both the Independent and Media Watch for inventing a quote about Sir John Houghton and the IPCC, to make him look ‘alarmist’ on climate change?
Did you invent? If so - why do you need to invent? If not, why did you pass up the opportunity both media organisations gave you to clear-up you name?
Thanks,
Trevor
To which Piers responded:
Trevor, watch this space tomorrow. Thank you.
And so - we wait to see what explanation Piers has for saying that John Houghton wrote in his book:
'Unless we announce disasters no one will listen'
Well that quote does not seem to exist in any edition of the book. How will Piers respond? |
|
Written by joni
|
|
Saturday, 13 February 2010 18:20 |
|
The Independent in London has an interesting story that I picked up on via Crikey.
An oft cited quote that is used to discredit the scientists behind global warming is the one (allegedly) by Sir John Houghton, who was the head of the first three IPCC reports. The quote is:
Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.
As the Indie says, it was:
A quotation by one of the world's most eminent climate scientists was supposed to demonstrate the depths to which he and his ilk would stoop to create scare stories exaggerating the threat of global warming.
And the quote is supposed to come from his book "Global Warming, The Complete Briefing" - only it didn't come from that book at all. The quote seems to have come from a very, very different source:
In fact, the earliest record of the quote comes not from 15 years ago but from November 2006 when it appeared in a newspaper column written by the journalist Piers Akerman in the Australian newspaper The Sunday Telegraph. Akerman, a controversial right-wing columnist and global warming sceptic, appears to be the first person to use the quote verbatim in an opinion piece criticising the Stern Review, which looked at the economic effects of global warming.
And what did Piers say?
"This alarmist approach reeked of stupidity, snake oil, and misguided gospel preaching but was in line with a formula adopted by the first chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 and wrote in his book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, in 1994: 'Unless we announce disasters no one will listen',"
Oh dear, could it be that the alarmist is actually Piers himself? |
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Tuesday, 02 February 2010 21:13 |
|
I am a bit confused with the costing Abbott's Fund-a-mental plan. Is it a $1 billion fund (as per the SMH) or is it a $2.5 billion fund (as per The Australian)?
Getting down to the nitty gritty of Abbott's plan, the Greens have issued a statement on Abbott (and the governments) plan. Senator Milne says:
"Both Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott have studiously avoided making polluters pay, avoided the tremendous potential of protecting Australia's forest carbon stores and avoided the reality of what climate science demands."
She points out that this is just a recycled Howard plan:
"This is a 'tried and failed' approach, based on John Howard's Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, which was slammed by the Auditor General but loved by polluters looking for greenwash. It failed because it paid polluters to do what they were going to do anyway."
Charles said over at Political Duo-ble, that researchers have "hypothesised that conservative politicians are more reluctant to act on climate change because of their fixation with free market ideology". Rudd's plan may not be the best, but at least it had a carrot-and-stick approach to reducing emissions.
A lurker commented to me today that Abbott's plan relies on "big business doing the right thing".
And that ain't gonna happen. If they can continue to make big profits at the expense of the planet, then they will.
Abbott's fund is just mental.
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Tuesday, 02 February 2010 12:16 |
|
I am sure we will hear more, but the first details of the coalitions climate change plan are hitting the news, and it looks like the government will be the ones to pay for it.
Taxpayers will foot the bill for big polluters under an opposition plan which will rely primarily on the Government paying for measures to offset carbon emissions.
And who funds the government? Oh yeah - the taxpayers.
Abbott's plans looks to have "no incentive to reduce pollution". |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 9 |
