Looks like the government is going for broke on the CPRS business. Penny Wong has just given a speech that denies the allegations and defies the allegators (I think Merton Miller first said that).
Red herrings and arguments at the fringes of the debate cannot dismiss the fact that that the world is warming, nor is it justification to ignore the range of scientific work on climate change.
A question all of us should consider is what will happen in 20 years.
In 20 years time, can we seriously look our children and grand children in the eye and say we sat on our hands because of a computer hacker?
To the best of my knowledge Wong doesn’t have any children, so that final sentence must be placed into the Clive Hamilton basket of weirdness.
This is a speech that promises to be the source of many What they said posts (Rudd’s speech to the Lowy Institute should also feature). Consider this great comment (emphasis added).
the IPCC chairs themselves announced that one paragraph in its 2007 Assessment relating to loss of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was poorly based. It had been erroneously stated that 80 per cent of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035.
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not “peer reviewed” and had few “scientific citations”.
“With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”
In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of “climate change deniers and school boy science”.
“I cannot see what the minister’s motives are. We do need more extensive measurement of the Himalayan range but it is clear from satellite pictures what is happening.”
Unfortunately I can’t find the sentence or instance where Pachauri called this ‘voodoo science’ – I can find lots of instances where it is reported he said ‘voodoo science’ but not the original context. As I was telling someone just this afternoon, the AGW lobby are going to try to brazen this out.
(HT: Andrew Bolt)