tip off

And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?

Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterday, it now seems that the unpopular Liberal leader Tony Abbott is now outright misrepresenting Flannery’s remarks in Parliament:

But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor’s massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.

“It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”

What Flannery actually said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

“Not going to drop” is clearly not the same as “make not a scrap of difference”. Nor is “several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years” the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.

We’re talking about a system in which the temperature is increasing. The best we can hope for in the shorter term is to slow that increase down, maybe if we’re lucky stop it completely. The more countries that act, the better our chances, and the quicker we’ll reduce the damage. That Flannery thinks there’s a prospect of actually reducing the levels back to the levels of today, or pre-industrial levels, is very reassuring – but the time-scale he talks about is nothing to do with when there’d first be a difference between acting and not acting.

Even if it’ll take a long time to return the system to the earlier levels (and I’m glad to hear that that’s even possible), the immediate challenge is to reduce the increase. That’s what the proposed action is supposed to achieve, and that’s what we’re debating.

So Abbott’s misrepresentation of Flannery’s remark is not only dishonest, it also indicates that he hasn’t the faintest idea what his opponents are actually talking about.

Labor and climate scientists and the Greens and anyone with an interest in rational public debate all need to be out there right now squashing this stupid meme before it takes any more hold on the gullible. Because once this one sinks in, they’ll find something even more outrageously stupid and build up the ignorance even further. It has to be tackled now, and exposed for the moronic fraud it is.

Let’s see who in the media actually call Abbott on his shameless misrepresentation of Flannery, and the ignorance about the actual proposal that his remarks reveal. Anyone?

150
  • 1
    monkeywrench
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    An Industry Shill Speaks…
    THIS is not an article that promotes climate change scepticism. I am not a denier. Like 99 per cent of the population, I am a don’t knower.
    Nice start. 99% of people don’t know anything about climate change.

  • 2
    JemShadow
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    But Flannery does actually state that even if the whole world were to cut its emissions that the resulting loss in temp. wouldnt change for hundreds of years… I think the reason Tony Abbott has latched on to this is because the main argument that is being pushed by the Greens and Labor is that the Carbon Tax and the CPRS will lower emissions and in effect cause the globe to stop warming significantly by 2050…this as proven by Prof. Flannery is a misguided and not completely true… at this rate a 5% cut to emissions would be felt for more than a hundred years…that is a estimate not a true calculation, but you have to see that the comment by Flannery actually states that the pressure that the Government and Greens are putting on us to act will in effect not bear fruit for hundreds of years…

  • 3
    JemShadow
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    and the only reason 99% of us are dont knowers is because the Government is having a terrible time explaining to us how the Carbon Tax and the CRPS (when it was in parliament) will affect us NOW and not just focus on the benefits it will bring in the FAR OFF FUTURE..if the Government would pick up there game and go beyond the “If you don’t believe in climate change your wrong” lines and start explaining to us how our lives will change, maybe some economic modelling on price changes? Ummm The Dept. of Climate Change is there for a reason no?

  • 4
    Angra
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    What’s this with the ‘millennium bug’ reference?

    Flannery didn’t say this. Bolt and others did.

    The ‘millennium bug’ was a real and present danger. Only through the vigilance and exhaustive testing by many dedicated IT people was the threat averted and businesses saved from multi-million dollar losses. Only an ignoramus can claim otherwise. I can give many examples (having worked for some years doing just that).

    By the way, I recommend an interesting book ‘The Year 1000 – what life was like at the turn of the first millennium” by Lacey and Danziger.

  • 5
    davidprice99
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Surprise compliments to Flannery for showing some integrity on the timing issue. The Gillard/Combet distancing underscores the political distortion that this debate has suffered. Short term politics always puts at risk a sensible debate and measured solutions.

  • 6
    Angra
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Good review of Flannery’s latest book by the Guardian here. They seem to think more of it than many Australian reviewers.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/26/here-on-earth-tim-flannery-review

    His earlier book “Throwim Way Leg: An Adventure” inspired me to go to PNG, which I have never regretted.

  • 7
    AR
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    I’m reminded of the scene in Red Dwarf when the increasing velocity of the spaceship is decreased slightly. So it was still going faster but more slowly.
    I think the Lovelock view is accurate, the inertia already in the system will not dissipate sufficiently, soon enough, to avoid the tipover point when the permafrost starts to melt and release incalculable quantities of methane, a far more potent GHG than CO2.
    Pollution reduction would be nice but it ain’t gonna stop massive change. I think that adaptation should be the aim, preparing for the GDR to be our coast line in the 22nd century.

  • 8
    John Reidy
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    So know we know where Mr Abbott gets his talking points.

    If the media don’t call him out on this – it really isn’t that hard – much easier than finding a $10Bn hole in a set of election costings….

  • 9
    Jack Sparraaggghhh
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Jeremy:

    Anyone?

    The Oz’s environment editor, Graham Lloyd:

    It is easy to ask, therefore, what the point is of painful and costly action today for such a small and distant return. But it is a question that misunderstands the climate change challenge.

    The aim of climate change action today is not to return to a cooler world of yesterday. The urgent aim is to stop the runaway speed of carbon emissions growth – and global temperatures – as billions of people in China, India and elsewhere make their way from poverty to material wealth.

    . . .

    Flannery’s point is we must act to stop the forecast additional 4C temperature rise before we even consider returning to pre-industrial age temperatures.

    He didn’t want to answer the question about what impact Australia’s action alone would have because the answer is obvious: next to nothing.

    But the real answer is if Australia is not prepared to do anything, how can we expect anyone else to act.

    At least someone at News Corp seems to get it.

  • 10
    confessions
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for the media to call Abbott out on anything. Ain’t going to happen.

    This is a job however for Greg Combet and Christine Milne. Have either of them said anything?

  • 11
    John Reidy
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    to act will in effect not bear fruit for hundreds of years…

    If a substantial cut to emissions is done soon, then the effect will be that temperatures will not increase as much. So the effects – while bad won’t be as bad.

  • 12
    surlysimon
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Jack
    Bloody hell, next the Oz will have something positive about the NBN!!!

  • 13
    The Pav
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    I noticed on Q&A a Liberal member (female) also perpetuating this misrepresntation which as you pointed out was originally kicked off by that paragon of virtue. A Bolt

    She was also defending Abbott & his role in the disgraceful Tax Rally sign debacle.

    Given her dishonesty & her repetition of Bolt’s line I can only hope that nobody sinks her & Abbott’s level by referring to her as “Bolt’s B#@ch”. There is no need to sink to their level.

    I want to vote Liberal but can’ t while this gang of thugs infests the ranks. I just wish they would join with the ALP Right in NSW & destroy each other.

  • 14
    cbp
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    @JemShadow

    But Flannery does actually state that even if the whole world were to cut its emissions that the resulting loss in temp. wouldnt change for hundreds of years…

    That’s the whole point JemShadow – we don’t want the temperature to change.

    If we DON’T cut emissions, then the temperature will go up, up, up, up. That is bad!

  • 15
    CANNY 1
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    I think that Tony Abbot is happy to cynically misrepresent the facts as presented by Tim Flannery in the sure knowledge that many of the bigots who hang on his words will only hear what they want to hear anyway.

  • 16
    Think Big
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    I watched QandA last night and saw Ferravanti-Wells reading out an ‘email’ regurgiatating Bolt’s misrepresentations. I wonder which Bolt regular it was? ;)
    The coalition really must be getting desperate now if they’re using Bolt’s memes to support their position.

  • 17
    Brizben
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    @The Pav I saw someone trying to read out her emails on Q and A last night and I switched channels. I’m not going to sit there and watch someone read out their emails. Did she try fact checking her emails before she read them out? We all get the silly incorrect conservative emails fwd’ed on from friends and family every day. I do not want to hear them again.

    If Flannery is wrong on the 1000 years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere does that mean it will happen sooner or later? Given Mr Rabbit believes in climate change this week and his party even has a policy to pay farmers for a one in 100 year carbon sequestration program. My question is: How long does the Rodes Scholar think it will take for the carbon currently in the atmosphere to be re-sequestered into the planet?

  • 18
    Son of foro
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    I still don’t understand how the Coalition’s two key messages live together: 1) Australia can’t make a difference so we shouldn’t do anything on Climate Change; 2) their Climate Change package is better than Labor’s.

  • 19
    Duncan
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    ‘The Year 1000 – what life was like at the turn of the first millennium” by Lacey and Danziger.”

    I’ll second that Angra. Bloody great book.

  • 20
    confessions
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Angra @ 4:

    I read that book some years ago now too. Great read.

  • 21
    tones9
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    The ignorance is all Flannery’s and the commenters here.

    It’s funny to read you all carrying on about misrepresentation of the science.

    As detailed in the previous post, the IPCC science says Flannery is wrong. A cut to zero emmissions will drop temp in decades.

    You should be outraged by the misrepresentation of the science by our chief Climate Commissioner, who is paid to educate us on the science.

  • 22
    confessions
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    I still don’t understand how the Coalition’s two key messages live together:

    Their policy is a political solution rather than a genuine policy alternative to pricing GHGEs. To date only Steve Canane on Lateline has done any serious journalistic work in attempting to get some answers on just what their policy will achieve. Says it all really about our so-called esteemed press gallery.

  • 23
    Alan Shore
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Tim Flannery:

    Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

    IPCC AR4 Chapter 10.ES – Climate Change Commitment (Temperature and Sea Level):

    Results from the AOGCM multi-model climate change commitment experiments (concentrations stabilised for 100 years at year 2000 for 20th-century commitment, and at 2100 values for B1 and A1B commitment) indicate that if greenhouse gases were stabilised, then a further warming of 0.5°C would occur. This should not be confused with ‘unavoidable climate change’ over the next half century, which would be greater because forcing cannot be instantly stabilised. In the very long term, it is plausible that climate change could be less than in a commitment run since forcing could be reduced below current levels. Most of this warming occurs in the first several decades after stabilisation; afterwards the rate of increase steadily declines. The globally averaged precipitation commitment 100 years after stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations amounts to roughly an additional increase of 1 to 2% compared to the precipitation values at the time of stabilisation.

    ...

    If greenhouse gas concentrations could be reduced, global temperatures would begin to decrease within a decade, although sea level would continue to rise due to thermal expansion for at least another century. Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity with coupled carbon cycle model components show that for a reduction to zero emissions at year 2100 the climate would take of the order of 1 kyr to stabilise. At year 3000, the model range for temperature increase is 1.1°C to 3.7°C and for sea level rise due to thermal expansion is 0.23 to 1.05 m. Hence, they are projected to remain well above their pre-industrial values.

    Nothing Flannery has said is inconsistent with the science as presented by IPCC AR4.

  • 24
    Alan Shore
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    IPCC AR4 Chapter 10.7.2 – Climate Change Commitment to Year 3000 and Beyond to Equilibrium:

    Results for one carbon emission scenario are shown in Figure 10.35, where anthropogenic emissions follow a path towards stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 750 ppm but at year 2100 are reduced to zero. This permits the determination of the zero emission climate change commitment. The prescribed emissions were calculated from the SP750 profile (Knutti et al., 2005) using the BERN-CC model (Joos et al., 2001). Although unrealistic, such a scenario permits the calculation of zero emission commitment, i.e., climate change due to 21st-century emissions. Even though emissions are instantly reduced to zero at year 2100, it takes about 100 to 400 years in the different models for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to drop from the maximum (ranges between 650 to 700 ppm) to below the level of doubled pre-industrial CO2 (~560 ppm) owing to a continuous transfer of carbon from the atmosphere into the terrestrial and oceanic reservoirs. Emissions during the 21st century continue to have an impact even at year 3000 when both surface temperature and sea level rise due to thermal expansion are still substantially higher than pre-industrial. Also shown are atmospheric CO2 concentrations and ocean/terrestrial carbon inventories at year 3000 versus total emitted carbon for similar emission pathways targeting (but not actually reaching) 450, 550, 750 and 1,000 ppm atmospheric CO2 and with carbon emissions reduced to zero at year 2100. Atmospheric CO2 at year 3000 is approximately linearly related to the total amount of carbon emitted in each model, but with a substantial spread among the models in both slope and absolute values, because the redistribution of carbon between the different reservoirs is model dependent. In summary, the model results show that 21st-century emissions represent a minimum commitment of climate change for several centuries, irrespective of later emissions. A reduction of this ‘minimum’ commitment is possible only if, in addition to avoiding CO2 emissions after 2100, CO2 were actively removed from the atmosphere.

  • 25
    Jack Sparraaggghhh
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    monkeywrench @1, I’d hesitate to call Martin Feil an “industry shill.”

    Feil is an economist who, like any economist, is all at sea when it comes to ‘pricing’ anything that’s historically been lumped in the category of ‘externalities’. The problem is: how do you ‘price’ something which is several steps removed from classical modes of determining economic value (like things such as food, shelter, etc.).

    Citing the Productivity Commission’s inability to report according to the government’s terms of reference, Feil concludes — wrongly, in my opinion, but then I’m not an economist — that ‘carbon’ cannot be ‘priced’.

    I suspect ‘the market’ will have an answer to that, if and when the govt’s proposal ever gets off the ground.

  • 26
    tones9
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    You guys have no idea about the science:

    Flannery: If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

    IPCC AR4 10.7.2:
    “Friedlingstein and Solomon (2005) show that even if emissions were immediately cut to zero, the system would continue to warm for several more decades before starting to cool.”

  • 27
    savemejeebus
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    From Through the Looking Glass, and what Alice Found There.

    ‘This young lady loves you with an H,’ the King said, introducing Alice in the hope of turning off the Messenger’s attention from himself—but it was no use—the Anglo-Saxon attitudes only got more extraordinary every moment, while the great eyes rolled wildly from side to side.
    ‘You alarm me!’ said the King. ‘I feel faint—Give me a ham sandwich!’
    On which the Messenger, to Alice’s great amusement, opened a bag that hung round his neck, and handed a sandwich to the King, who devoured it greedily.
    ‘Another sandwich!’ said the King.
    ‘There’s nothing but hay left now,’ the Messenger said, peeping into the bag.
    ‘Hay, then,’ the King murmured in a faint whisper.
    Alice was glad to see that it revived him a good deal. ‘There’s nothing like eating hay when you’re faint,’ he remarked to her, as he munched away.
    ‘I should think throwing cold water over you would be better,’ Alice suggested: ‘or some sal-volatile.’
    ‘I didn’t say there was nothing BETTER,’ the King replied. ‘I said there was nothing LIKE it.’ Which Alice did not venture to deny.

    Prof. Flannery said: “the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years …” The key words here are “not going to drop …” He did not say: “the temperature is going to continue to rise.”
    People take this statement to advocate for doing nothing, thinking that Prof. Flannery said that cutting emissions will not have any affect. In fact, many have said that cutting emissions will slow the rate of temperature rise and could even halt it in a short amount of time. What is essentially unknowable is, and this is what Flannery is saying, it may take quite some time to see a substantial reduction of co2 in the atmosphere, that may result in a reduction in global temperature.

  • 28
    Son of foro
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    “Their policy is a political solution rather than a genuine policy alternative to pricing GHGEs.”

    Yikes! It’s a pretty crappy political solution if it takes the likes of me two seconds to see the inherent contradiction. You’d imagine our fearless independent media would be right onto it … pretty soon … sometime soon … any minute now …

  • 29
    rhwombat
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Tones9, please let us know when you reach adolescence. You still haven’t learned to spell emissions correctly…and polluting another thread with regurgitated debunked denialist trolling points is close to the definition of stupidity.

  • 30
    confessions
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Son of foro:

    Rather like their broadband policy. They don’t believe anything much needs to be done to improve broadband in this country, but have a policy as a way of somehow showing the electorate they aren’t a complete luddite outfit.

  • 31
    Scott
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Barry 09…I saw the comment you left before it was deleted…I would quit while you are ahead. The comment did not reflect well on you or your cause.

  • 32
    Post hoc
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Alan Shore, a brilliant demolition of Tones9 argument (sorry no price as it wasn’t a high enough bar)

    Tones9, you would do well to read Alan Shores replies and not ignore them, treat his comments as a lesson, you surely need it.

  • 33
    Bob_WA
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Tony Abbott is using the tobacco industry argument: “If you stop smoking now, it will take many years for your lungs to recover from the damage. You probably won’t live that long so why bother to give up smoking?”

  • 34
    Strife
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    The way I explain it to my friends.

    Average Global Temperature at the moment is around 14 C. During the last Ice Age it was around 12 C and North America was under 2 to 4 kilometers of ice. A couple of hundred thousand years ago, before the Dawn of Man, it was around 17 C and there was no ice at the North Pole all year round and crocodiles lived in England. A few million years before that the average temperature was 21 C and above. There was no ice anywhere on the planet, average sea level was 100 meters higher than today and palm trees grew in Alaska.

    I took what Tim Flannery said to mean. If we stopped all emmisions tomorrow we would probably hit 17 C by the end of the century and it would take about 1000 years to get back to the 14 C we have now.

    I also understood from the forum that the whole point of reducing our emmissions is so we dont hit the 21 C level.

  • 35
    John
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Hypocrisy. The media need to call Gillard on her outright lies, not chase Abbott on some nit-picking exercise.

  • 36
    westral
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    What everyone missed was that Abbott did not have the words written down, therefore by his own admission they may or may not be true and they may or may not reflect his views today and also possibly his views with a different audience or at a different time.

  • 37
    monkeywrench
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Jack Sparraagh @25
    Martin Feil is a tax and industry policy consultant and former director of the Industries Assistance Commission.”
    No agenda there then. As for his argument about “priceless” carbon, he has been well answered in quite a few of the comments on that thread.

  • 38
    quantize
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    ‘You guys have no idea about the science:’

    boy is that f**king rich coming from you

  • 39
    podrick
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    John @36 How about this for an outright lie form Mr Rabbit.

    “It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament.

  • 40
    tones9
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    Posthoc how many times do you have to be wrong? As explained in the other post, Alan Shore makes the double error of zero emissions at 2100 instead of 2000, and examining CO2 reduction instead of temp fall.

    Flannery misrepresents the IPCC science, will the media call him on it?

  • 41
    Agent
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    “Tony Abbott is using the tobacco industry argument: “If you stop smoking now, it will take many years for your lungs to recover from the damage. You probably won’t live that long so why bother to give up smoking”

    Nope.

    The argument can be better expressed as

    “There is one set of lungs into which everybody smokes. You moderately reduce your personal smoking levels and in doing so dramatically worsen your own lifestyle. Everyone else doesn’t care about and is even amused by your little sacrifice and continues to increase their own smoking. Your brave yet pointless sacrifice achieves nothing. Best you had just kept smoking”

    Not to mention that this “smoking” causes wealth which leaves you much better able to deal with the consequences of the worsening lungs…

  • 42
    quantize
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    ‘and in doing so dramatically worsen your own lifestyle. ‘

    what insane gibberish…you have no idea yet of the full policy and it’s effects yet.

    Try talking and thinking using something other than your lower sphincter.

  • 43
    freeze
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    John, if you really really are that concerened about politicians and their lies, you have issues. Sure she lied so has EVERY other F#$%^g prime minister. SO ?
    I rather she lies and does the right thing than be a little shit who has a tantrum when he doesn’t get his own way ie DR NO.
    ITS THE ISSUES, not the lies thats important. Politics is the art of the possible and numbers. When Howard had the numbers he had no hesitation raming through work choices. Get over it John.
    My how we always come to the same point, people who just don’t understand science or how to interpret it. Trying to justify Abbots ingorance is just appalling. NFI

  • 44
    kd
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Bob_WA #34

    Tony Abbott is using the tobacco industry argument: “If you stop smoking now, it will take many years for your lungs to recover from the damage. You probably won’t live that long so why bother to give up smoking?”

    Too right. I compressed it to be tweet sized here .

  • 45
    Alan Shore
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Tones, it is you who is in error.

    Flannery claimed:

    If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

    You claimed:

    As detailed in the previous post, the IPCC science says Flannery is wrong. A cut to zero emmissions will drop temp in decades.

    The IPCC states:

    Friedlingstein and Solomon (2005) show that even if emissions were immediately cut to zero, the system would continue to warm for several more decades before starting to cool. It is important also to note that ocean heat content and changes in the cryosphere evolve on time scales extending over centuries.

    What Friedlingstein and Solomon (2005) actually show (Figure 4), is that following the modeled reduction to zero emissions at 2000 the temperature continues to rise for a few decades, this is the committed warming from emissions prior to 2000. It then begins falling around 2030 and takes another 70+ years just to return to the approximate 2000 level. They quantify the figures in Table 1, showing that zero emissions at 2000 equates to a temperature increase of 0.75°C rising to 0.9°C by 2030 (according to Figure 4) and reducing to 0.77°C by 2100 (eventually falling to 0.51°C by 2500). In other words, according to your preferred paper it takes more than a century for the climate system to stabilize and atmospheric concentrations to draw down sufficiently enough to reduce the average temperature to what it was at the time emissions were cut to zero. Given the likely saturation of carbon sinks it would then take at least another century to reduce average global temperature to below the 2000 level and another three centuries to return to the 1975 level.

    None of what IPPC states in AR4 Chapter 10.7.2 or what Friedlingstein and Solomon show is inconsistent with Flannery’s statements.

  • 46
    Think Big
    Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    Tonetroll is once again proving he’s the king of dishonesty and hypocrisy. On the one hand he attacks Tim Flannery with the statement:

    Flannery misrepresents the IPCC science

    yet shows complete inconsistency on the other by claiming
    here @ comment 99

    I don’t believe there is evidence for AGW as prescribed by the IPCC

    Tonetroll is a complete joke.

  • 47
    tones9
    Posted March 30, 2011 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    Alan, you have an odd way of reading a graph.
    Figure 4 clearly shows temp below 2000 levels by 2125.
    You can’t make stuff up about carbon sinks and make assumptions about temp.

    So Flannery claims a drop in temp in 1000 years.
    IPCC says temp begins to drop in decades.
    The Friedlingstein paper cited by the IPCC, shows drop in temp to 2000 levels in 125 years.

    Flannery has clearly misrepresented the science.
    His error is only 875 years out, or 800%.
    That is quite an exaggeration, even by Flannery’s extraordinary record of absurd statements.

  • 48
    gtpfb13
    Posted March 30, 2011 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    Interviewer: Mr Abbott, you have in the past stated that you believe Climate Change is real and that, although you feel there are still doubts as to how much human activity contributes to it, you believe reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere is at least one of the objectives in the battle against it.

    Tony Abbott: Yes it is aaaaah, but aaaaah let me just aaaaah say aaaaah, this government aaaaah…..

    Interviewer: So could you say how long you think it will take for the current increases in temperature to plateau and how long you think it will take for the levels of CO2 to start reducing using policies such as yours globally?

    Silence. Possible goldfishing, head nodding and shaking.

    Sorry, bad script, but I would seriously like someone to at least make a token gesture towards questioning him as they do the Government. Considering the opportunities he is presented with, he kicks a lot of own goals. I think he would melt down if he was made to really justify his rhetoric.

  • 49
    Rich Uncle Skeleton
    Posted March 30, 2011 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    So Flannery claims a drop in temp in 1000 years.

    No. He didn’t say that. If you are right why do you lie?

  • 50
    tones9
    Posted March 30, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Think Big talk about not understanding incongruity.

    Rich, more childish accusations.

    I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. – Tim Flannery.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...