Somerville responds to climate change denialism

 

A Response to Climate Change Denialism

Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:  

1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.  

2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.  

3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.  

4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.  

5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned.  Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.

6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.   

[Taken from Scripps Institution of Oceanography announcement]

Is Tony Abbott failing to read the mood of the electorate?

Another of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's policy one-liners surfaced over the last few days in relation to health services and he is now proposing the 'return' of local boards to run public hospitals. No real change to the centralised federal and state administrative systems which allocate health funding and no significant increase in that funding - just another layer of bureaucracy added back into the mix in New South Wales and Queensland in particular.

This is what the man (who as former Health Minister resisted calls to increase federal health funding over his five-year tenure and left office with Commonwealth funding running at approximately 42-43% of total health funding) had to say in yesterday's press release, which refined his message to include the possibility of the abolition of NSW and Queensland area health service management leaving each region without a co-ordinated approach to service delivery or forward planning and presumably individual hospitals left to fight for their own piece of the federal-state funding pie.

Community response to this Coalition policy and its lack of detail appears lukewarm to say the least with the state governments highly resistant to the idea and, the Essential Report poll of 1,033 respondents between 9 and 14 February on the question of responsibility for Australia's public hospitals clearly shows that Abbott is not reading the mood of the electorate on the issue of who should be taking responsibility for our hospitals.

Q. Would you support or oppose the Federal Government taking over the responsibility for hospitals from the State Governments?
Total support 58%
Total oppose 10%
Strongly support 26%
Support 32%
Neither support nor oppose 19%
Oppose 7%
Strongly oppose 3%
Don’t know 13%

Over half (58%) of those surveyed support the Federal Government taking over responsibility for hospitals from the State Governments, 10% disapprove, 19% neither support nor oppose and 13% don’t know.
People aged 55 years and over were more likely that those in other age groups to support a Federal Government takeover of hospitals (79%).
People in NSW were more likely than those in any other states to support a hospitals takeover (67%), while people in Western Australia (18%) and South Australia (17%) were more likely to oppose such a move.
Males were more likely than females to support a hospital takeover by the Federal Government (65% v 52%).
Support for a Federal Government takeover of hospitals from the State Government was highest amongst Labor voters (70%), followed by Coalition voters (63%) and then Green voters (54%).

Abbott's foray into the area of industrial relations policy last Friday and his pledge to roll back workplace relations legislation until it reflects the intent of John Howard's much hated Work Choices also appears set to lead the Coalition down a rocky road.

Saffin has the right answer on Maclean flying fox colony question

The community debate on the flying fox colony roosting in bushland adjoining Maclean High School has been ongoing for literally years.
In fact one former Maclean mayor initially got himself elected on the back of beating up on bats.

Federal Labor MP for Page Janelle Saffin has the right idea; removing the bats is not a long-term solution and she is committed to discussing permanent options including moving the school.

Here is one local resident's recent letter to The Daily Examiner on the subject:

Beauty and the Beast

DOES age come before beauty in the Maclean Flying Fox issue?

I obviously touched a sore point with Mr Apps in my letter regarding the flying foxes at Maclean High school.

I did live across the road from Maclean High school for 10 years during the last flying fox episode in the late 1980s early 1990s and attended the then public meetings, public rally and kept informed.

The flying fox colonies Mr Apps refers to are in existence and so too are the major nurseries between Lismore and Grafton, all of which apparently unite and then head south to be with their friends on the Central Coast.

While I do not question Mr Apps capacity as an elderly gentleman to have amazing recall of his childhood, flying fox camps come and go and I don't think flying fox numbers would have been high on his agenda as a kid.

Camps may contain tens of thousands of animals or several hundred depending on the abundance of food available in the surrounding area. As the numbers of animals changes in response to food availability, the area of the camp occupied by them increases or decreases. (This is often mistakenly viewed as a 'population explosion').

Grey-headed flying-foxes are known to be faithful to sites for over 100 years; if sites are destroyed, the animals move to the 'next best site'.

Attempts to relocate a camp may not have the desired effect and flying foxes may move to an even more inconvenient location - example - attempts to move the camp near Maclean High School resulted in flying foxes moving closer to houses. (From the NSW Conservation Society).

The 1.1 hectare site of decimated rainforest next to Maclean High school is and was one of many food sources for the flying foxes. It's hard to imagine flying foxes ignoring this yummy area as it is within the flight path of many of them. Add to this equation flying foxes are genetically blue printed at birth to return to their birth place to give birth to their next generation.

Ten years ago dispersal of the flying fox colony cost ratepayers $100,000 and they are now back with a vengeance and relocating themselves in the process but unfortunately it is not where the community wants them.

My interest in this issue is in the health and well-being of the students and teachers of Maclean High School because they are caught up in a problem they did not create, just like the flying foxes are. It is a public health issue that has been allowed to develop to a point where something has to be done now.

I am not an environmentalist, however I do love, value and respect what Mother Nature has created for us.

If we all took the same view as Mr Apps we would still murder and bulldoze everything in our pathway till such a time we lived in a concrete jungle and visited museums to view trees and animals.

There is a solution but the NSW Government refuses to make a decision either way hoping the problem will fade or be buried because it will cost them money.

So Brucie Apps of Townsend, putting your old age before my stunning beauty may I suggest if you feel as strong as I do on this issue maybe we should join forces (Beauty and the Beast), start a petition, organise a rally, sell raffle tickets to fundraise for a trip to Canberra so that the people of MHS can be finally heard.

DEBRAH NOVAK, Yamba

Want to do a Woolies 'price check' comparison online? First sign a confidentiality agreement!

Woolworths went to the media with the big news that now one can do a price check online of 5,000 items it carries in its supermarket outlets across Australia.

Not only was this so-called pricing transparency met with a big yawn it was also somewhat misleading.

However, what was really interesting about this PR exercise was the fact that a visitor to the company website had to agree to the conditions set out below before the gatekeeping function allowed a search to begin.

So don't you dare print out a page and hand it on to your neighbour or the big bad Woolies police will come a-knocking.....lol, rofl

Price Check Terms & Conditions

Restricted Use

This website is only for personal or domestic use and only in relation to shopping at Woolworths. Unless otherwise indicated, without Woolworths' written permission, the content and information on this site cannot be:

• adapted, reproduced, stored, distributed, printed, displayed, performed or published, and no derivative works can be produced from any part of this website
  
• on sold or provided to any other person, in a material form, or
  
• commercialised, or used for any commercial purpose.

The site's URL may not be displayed on any website without Woolworths' written permission.

I have read, understood, and accept the above terms of use.