World to end in 2 days.

Australian Chief Scientist: 5 years to "save the world"

 

4 December, 2009 by Simon

 

No alarmism or exaggeration there. Mark it in your diaries for the 4 December 2014, because in five years time, it will be too late, we may as well shut up shop, and all commit harakiri. But the most astonishing thing is that this isn’t from some sandwich-board-wearing religious nut, this is from our Chief Scientist.

 

THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist.

 

Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.

 

Australians – among the world’s biggest producers of carbon dioxide – were “better placed than others to do something about it“, she said.

 

“Australians can make an enormous contribution, so why would we not rise to this challenge and this opportunity,” she told a business conference in Melbourne.

 

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2009/12/04/australian-chief-scientist-5-years-to-save-the-world/

 

Professor Penny Sackett was so confident of her prediction that she didn’t  issue a caveat. I’d like to do that now. I urge all people with cc bills, utility bills, car repayments and other financial commitments to honour them.

 

I wonder what qualifications are required to hold down the position of Chief Scientist? Would it be ownership of a white lab coat? Maybe hours spent in front of a mirror trying to master the art of looking serious.

 

I’m sure Professor Sackett was part of the claque that delighted in giving the tag ‘denier’ to the naysayers so it might be appropriate to label Professor Sackett as a person who once held the position of Chief Codologist.

Message 1 of 74
Latest reply
73 REPLIES 73

Re: World to end in 2 days.

Well I was hoping to be in the line to see Elvis, John Lennon, Jannice Joplin and the Big O in concert but it seems I may have to wait too? 😝
Message 61 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.


@kopenhagen5 wrote:

B39INqKCEAA1UYS.jpg

 

 

 

Apparently a 3.2 at 6am.


Smiley LOLSmiley LOLSmiley LOLSmiley LOLSmiley LOLSmiley LOL

 

I am gunna give it till Saturday - if I am still here by then I will start paying all my bills Smiley Sad

_________________________________________________________

You can't please all the people all the time, so now I just please myself


Message 62 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.

It's December 5th and I think we're still alive. I think it might be time to put Penny in the pillory and invite people to pelt her with rotten fruit.

Message 63 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.

I was told that I'd be spared as would all those who interact with me and the ones who interact with them. No need to thank me lol

.

Fun Factor : Now you have a choice in chat, factor that
Message 64 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.

Thanks Joannie but now I have to do the housework afterall.Woman LOL

**************************

"There is nothing more; but I want nothing more." Christopher Hitchins
Message 65 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.


@village_person wrote:

It's December 5th and I think we're still alive. I think it might be time to put Penny in the pillory and invite people to pelt her with rotten fruit.


For something she never said? Yes, that would make a lot of sense - to some people.

Message 66 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.

The coal-backed fossil fuel lover setting Australia’s climate agenda
Trade Minister Andrew Robb, inexplicably travelling to Lima for climate talks, will have a friend at the conference — Bjorn Lomborg, speaking at an event sponsored by big coal company Peabody Energy.
andrewrobb2.png

Just what is Trade Minister Andrew Robb going to be doing in Peru at the climate negotiations in Lima — apart from “chaperoning” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott charmingly phrases it, and making sure the Coalition’s most popular politician does not become “too green”?
Negotiators and observers here in Lima are scratching their heads as to what role Robb could possibly play in the climate talks — he has no counterparts to talk to because no other country is sending a trade minister. So why is Australia suddenly sending an “economics” minister to a “climate” event, when it refused to talk about climate at “economics” events such as the G20 and the free trade agreement negotiations with China, arguing — to the astonishment of most — that the two don’t intersect?
Perhaps, Robb has been sent to convey a simple message —  namely that Australia does not understand what all the fuss is about, that addressing climate change is not that urgent, that we need more research before we start deploying new technologies such as solar, and anyway, it’s a bigger priority to sell coal to poor countries to alleviate “energy poverty”.
To do that, all the government has to do is to channel the thoughts of its favourite thinker, Bjorn Lomborg, who as others have pointed out has made quite a nice career casting doubt on the seriousness of climate change
, arguing the problem is overstated and concluding that on a cost-benefit analysis there is no need to do anything. That pretty much sums up current Coalition government policy.
Robb has certainly been brushing up on his research. Last week he tweeted this picture after a briefing with Lomborg:
robbtweet.png
Presumably Robb meets many people in his role, but this is the only encounter he bothered tweeting about in the last few weeks. Given Lomborg’s past form, that idea of eliminating energy poverty would almost certainly be about trade in coal, the commodity that he says is the only way to lift 1.3 billion people out of poverty. This is a favourite line from Big Coal PR. Lomborg and Tony Abbott have swallowed the Kool-Aid, but most others say it is nonsense.
Lomborg, who was brought in to speak at a G20 event sponsored by Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest coal miner, has been a favourite consultant for the Coalition government because he says what they want to hear, i.e. there is no urgency to act, it’s fine to burn fossil fuels, and there is no point deploying renewable energy. Last December, for instance, Lomborg suggested that the world should stop installing solar. He told the ABC Radio PM program:
“What we need to stop doing is to buy another solar panel. It makes us feel good, but it doesn’t do very much good. What we should be doing is to buy a solar panel researcher — and that’s obviously putting it way too simply — but it’s about getting the next generation and the next generation so that eventually it’ll be cheap enough that we will want to put them in without subsidies.”
That, of course, is music to the ears of the utilities whose business models are being wrecked by solar and other renewable technologies, or at least those too dumb to change.
But it’s also nonsense. Anyone can tell you that the biggest cost reductions in the past five years have occurred because of deployment — and efficiencies in manufacturing, installation, monitoring, maintenance and integration. That will deliver further cost reductions of between 10% and 20% a year, while further R&D will add cream to the cake.
Solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in many markets, against oil, diesel, LNG and new build coal-fired power stations. It is cheaper “behind the meter” in more than 100 countries.
Lomborg justifies his “do nothing” gospel by claiming there is no point in doing anything right now, because what counts is the total amount of CO2 that we put out into the atmosphere across the century.
Actually, it matters a lot, scientists say. And there is not that much time left to act. In order to keep global warming below 2 degrees and give the world a 50-50 chance of avoiding runaway climate impacts, the world needs to observe a carbon budget that will exhaust itself well before 2030 at current rates. Every economic study says that the quicker action is taken, the less costly it will be.
But Abbott is on Team Lomborg, rather than Team Science. This came from his book, Battlelines:
“It doesn’t make sense, though, to impose certain and substantial costs on the economy now in order to avoid unknown and perhaps even benign changes in the future. As Bjorn Lomborg has said: ‘Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations with major costs, without major cuts to temperatures.’”
In other words, axe the tax — and replace it with a policy like Direct Action, dreamt up by Environment Minister Greg Hunt, another enthusiastic disciple of the Lomborg principle.
As David Holmes reported in The Conversation,
 Hunt credited some of Lomborg’s work — a discredited analysis of the cheapest abatement technologies — as a blueprint for the Emissions Reduction Fund.
Now, it seems, Lomborg, the climate confusionist, is back on two of his favourite hobby horses — that renewable energy causes energy poverty, and more coal-fired generation can solve it.
This too, accords with government policy, and Robb’s view of the world. But if Robb is taking that message to Lima, he will be laughed out of the tent city that forms the venue for the talks.
*This article was originally published at Renew Economy

Message 67 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.

Hope there are not going to be test questions, coz no way was I reading all that !

_________________________________________________________

You can't please all the people all the time, so now I just please myself


Message 68 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.


@village_person wrote:

It's December 5th and I think we're still alive. I think it might be time to put Penny in the pillory and invite people to pelt her with rotten fruit.


What a strange statement considering one of your earlier posts (see below). Or do you just want to carry on living in a fantasy world you created, and keep running with your speculative assumptions.?

 

v.p wrote: Back to your statement....Professor Penny Sackett did not say that the world would end in 5 years. Nor did she say it would continue on for another 3 years or whatever. She left the way open for speculation so I took up her invitation to speculate. Do you understand?

Message 69 of 74
Latest reply

Re: World to end in 2 days.

All of that? It takes all of 3 minutes.
Message 70 of 74
Latest reply