This is from MTR 1377 radio today. Our regular feature, “Quote of the Week” just doesn’t work here. Neither does decade or century. No, a whole new category all by itself is reserved for this quote from the newly appointed Climate Commissioner of Australia, Tim Flannery, noted zoologist and author of the book The Weather Makers.
Here it is, brace yourself:
If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
Lest you think that is an errant remark out of context, here’s the follow up from 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.
Crikey! So much for the “think of the grandchildren” argument used by Dr. James Hansen.
Read the entire transcript and listen to the audio here
h/t to Lawrie Ayres and Scarlet Pumpernickel
I think the following syllogism applies:
All extremists are nutters.
All CAGW alarmists are extremists.
Therefore, all CAGW alarmists are nutters.
The climate nutter crown for this week should go to Romm who probably deserves the perpetual crown of climate nutterdom. Nobody tries harder. Except maybe Tamino. Perhaps there should be a collector’s edition of Climate Nutter Bookends with the busts of both these clowned prats mounted thereon.
And speaking of busts, how long can it be before the first arrests and beshackling of the more egregious climate frauds? Don’t you just know they’re all fully lawyer’d up in anticipation.
But it is even better than that, as Flannery is speaking with authority, no less than that of Susan Solomon, Chief editor of AR4 WG1 2007, who with others in PNAS 2009 said the same:
That paper’s title is “Irreversible climate change due to carbon
dioxide emissions” and in the Abstract it states firmly “This paper shows that the climate change that
takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is
largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.”
It gets worse: “Following
cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide
decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower
loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not
drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative
irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the
coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in
several regions comparable to those of the ‘‘dust bowl’’ era and
inexorable sea level rise.”
Yet in her own AR4 she frequently states herself that rising CO2 will INCREASE evaporation and thereby raise radiative forcing as well sumultaneously increasing rainfall, not reducing it. Truly, Solomon knows not of what she speaks, and that applies to the entire apparatus of the Natianal Academies of Science of the USA, and above all its President.
These people are so foolish that they brag about it. Their statements will mark them for what they are. [snip] pg
Andrew’s recent interviews with climate operatives who want to drive the earth, claim to see temperature variations over millenia with fractional degree precision, but are unable to say how many billions they will spend or even estimate within orders of magnitude what the result will be are perfect Saturday Night Live comedy material.
I wonder why the cold feet for the hot topic?
Who wants the global temperature to drop? Everyone I know (and the news media) are constantly complaining about the cold weather. Last thing we need is a drop in temperature!!!
Umm, can someone explain to me the big deal? My interpreation of the interview transcript with Bolt suggests Flannery was answering the question of how much a 5% cut in emissions by 2020 in Australia ALONE would affect world temperatures, to which his answer is surely correct. The 5% figure is a politcally tolerable figure in Australia, but wasnt seriously going to have any effect. I dont know why anyone would be surprised at this.
Look, I’m a long-time avid reader of WUWT and no friend of the AGW folks, but seriously, this quote has been slectively used and to present it this way does us now favours…….
What did “Gaia” ever do for me, anyway?
GregO says:
March 24, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Somebody answer this humble question:”
I’ve come to believe that there is a collective feeling of guilt for our success. We know we’re living “high on the hog” as we watch nightly news stories about thirld world countries. Now the venting of that guilt seems to be occurring by vilifying CO2 since it’s the common denominator to our economies. No other single entity is a direct result of our economic engine. And who’s venting that guilt most of all amongst us? Those that are living highest on the hog (the wealthy, movie stars, etc.).
To URKidding:
“The ABC as usual told lies about the rally, saying there were 2000 people there. I can judge crowds well based on how many fitted into my high school assembly hall (1000) and there were at least 4000.”
– Bob Vinnicombe
I always make a point of referring to him as Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flannery!
About a decade ago, I bought one of Flannery’s books (on Australian History, not Climate). Thankfully, a friend of mine borrowed it, and hasn’t given it back.
Perhaps he should read this from Science Daily, published yesterday.
“North Atlantic Oceanic Currents Play Greater Role in Absorption of Carbon Than Previously Thought”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110309132015.htm
Even if you are enough of an ecoloon to believe the cAGW nonsense, surely it must be absolutely clear to the meanest intelligence that we shouldn’t be spending trillions on bird choppers and other stuff that just doesn’t work.
If, despite the clear evidence that Flannery’s IQ score is smaller than his hat size, it could be shown that he is right and no “cooling” will occur for maybe a thousand years, then we’d be far better off investing in mitigation.
After all, sea defences, irrigation schemes and desalination plants can generate real jobs with tangible benefits.
I guess a project to build asylums where the poor benighted hyperthermalists could be looked after with kindness (and good air conditioning) might be a good idea, too.
Logically this means that our current warming was caused 1000 years ago and we are suffering (enjoying) it now
Richard Allcock @ur momisugly 11.13
I think people are quite right to be surprised that Flannery said this. He is the CC Commissioner hired to sell the tax idea to Australians. He could not have said anything “worse” to make his job harder. The quote Anthony has given above is Flannery’s own summary in which he refers to the world cutting all emmissions ( not just the 5% for Australia). Andrew Bolt did not ask him to summarise or clarify
what he had said.
Sounds like a load of old flannery to me..
Even better, Prof Tim Flannery is scheduled to be conducting the first of his “Educational Seminars” to inform the Australian public about the extent of Carbon (Dioxide)’s contribution to AGW, and how the proposed “Carbon (sic) Tax” will reduce CO2 levels globally and save us (and the ploey bears) from being frozen/burnt/droughted/hurricaned to death tonight.
I certainly hope someone in the audience asks him about whether “no descernable effect for 1000 years” is a valid reason for imposing a huge new tax on everything immediately.
Why are we so irrational.
It is the rich feeling guilty for being rich (and yes ALL of us in the west are fantastically rich compared to 99.999% of all mankind before the year 1700 and the industrial era) and this is a form of self flagellation.
Richard Allcock – read it again. Andrew asks how much Australia alone will cut, Tim refuses to answer that one and instead offers up the suggestion that if the world cut their emissions the result won’t be seen for a thousand years.
Calculations have been made that if all Australian industry stopped tomorrow, the result would be something like 0.01 degrees. I’ve not seen anyone with carbon dioxide phobia dispute those calculations.
Imagine that you really believed CO2 emissions are going to be disastrous and stay disastrous for 1000 years. You see that you are losing ground politically (there are majorities in both the House and the Senate against the EPA regulating CO2) in the USA. China and India are huge producers of CO2 and adamantly refuse to constrain themselves because they don’t want to hurt their economies.
What would you do? Wouldn’t you have a backup strategy for dealing with the excessive amounts of CO2? Wouldn’t you be urgently investigating an alternative solution to this problem (eg: figuring out how to speed up the oceans’ consumption of CO2)? Would you put all your eggs in one broken, falling apart basket (reducing consumption of coal, oil, and NG) if the survival of the planet was at stake?
Obviously not, you would have a backup plan, you would attack the problem on multiple fronts. The fact that the alarmists’ sole strategy is to destroy our economies and completely rearrange our way of life tells me that global warming alarmism is more about a lefty political power trip than science.
One good indicator of how powerful the global warming alarmists are in a country is how much the country’s movers and shakers hate their own country. It is no surprise that the countries that colonized the world (or have other historical reasons for feeling guilty) are also the main proponents of global warming alarmism.
But here’s the contextual quote, posted by Anthony:
@richard Allcock: “Umm, can someone explain to me the big deal? My interpreation of the interview transcript with Bolt suggests Flannery was answering the question of how much a 5% cut in emissions by 2020 in Australia ALONE would affect world temperatures, to which his answer is surely correct.”
Actually Richard you should read the article. What he actually said according to Andrew Bolt was: “Later he concedes that even if the whole world slashes its emissions we won’t know what difference it will make for maybe a thousand years.”
I’ll listen to the audio when I get chance.
“
GregO
Can you name me a time and place anywhere on the planet since the beginning of “civilization” that mankind, en masse, has displayed anything other than delusional psychosis? Everything that has driven the success of humankind through the last few bottle necks (fewer than 10K at one point) has been as been due to Black Swans. Our health our comfort our population explosion are due to a handful of Unique individuals who made observations and then created applications to the REAL world for the benefit of the rest of us bumbling idiots. In proportion to the information readily available to all people and the superstition that still abounds, we are as delusional about simple explanations to reality as we ever have been.
Richard Allcock try reading the transcript before you respond next time.
Flannery was referring to the whole world, not just Australia.
Hmmm. Let me think. Who was the last guy with a thousand year plan? I believe there was a firm consensus in Germany at that time.