Joyce, the Nationals and climate change
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Wednesday 14th January 2009, 4:22pm
by TimHollo in
Nationals Senate leader, Barnaby Joyce, let fly in today's press and radio with an attack not just on emissions trading but on climate change science, effectively calling it "just a load of rubbish".
According to Godwin's Law, Joyce immediately lost his argument by invoking Nazism, referring to "environmental goose-steppers" and coining a new term: "eco-totalitarianism". He also made that classic climate-sceptic mistake of raising Y2K as an example of a doomsayer prediction that never came to pass, adding this time "population explosions, food shortages, fuel running out [and] communism taking over the world." The population, food shortage and peak oil time bombs are still ticking, of course, as Joyce well knows in the case of food! But the others are arguments for strong action, not for an ostrich-like head-in-the-sand attitude. The reason Y2K didn't cause chaos and totalitarian communism (and Nazism for that matter) didn't spread far further and destroy far more lives than they did is because people actually stood up and did something about them!
But let's leave those arguments aside for the time being and consider what these comments, from a man who considers himself a future leader and the great white hope of his party, mean for the future of the National Party.
There is certainly a long-term tendency in the bush towards climate scepticism, born, perhaps, in the old city greenie / bush farmer tensions of the '70s, '80s and '90s. Farmers who, quite reasonably, didn't appreciate being told what they could and could not do developed a mistrust of environmentalists which still exists, with a stranglehold on the National Party itself. But that mistrust has long been waning in the broader rural constituency, as has the converse position amongst many environmentalists. For many years there has been an ongoing rapprochement, led by people such as Christine Milne, who grew up as a sixth-generation dairy farmer, has a positive vision for greener rural communities and who worked closely between the two 'constituencies' in her campaign against the Wesley Vale pulp mill and then her years in the Tasmanian Parliament.
Closely connected with the waning of anti-green feeling in the bush is the waning of climate scepticism. Christine's Senate office is regularly in touch with farmers and rural communities across Australia who are concerned and expressing support for her work. Many farmers are now linking the drought with climate change, are deeply concerned about their future, and are beginning to do what they can. The issue of changing tillage practice to store carbon in soils is becoming quite hot. Ideas such a green tractor powered by farm waste are spreading. Support for renewable energy feed-in tariffs, to help farmers diversify their profit streams, insulate themselves against drought and reduce emissions at the same time, gain strong support across regional Australia as well as the city.
Given all this, it seems odd that Barnaby Joyce, who is supposedly looking to the future of his party, is leg-roping it to the past.
Surely the positive, future-focussed position would be to campaign hard for help to get the bush being part of the climate change solution and to secure all the benefits that will go with that - diversified income streams, more jobs, revitalised regional communities and the knowledge that what you are doing is giving your kids a better chance in the future.
That would be right, and it would be smart politics. Instead, Joyce is making a big mistake, jeopardising regional Australia's future, leading the charge into the past and risking a serious voter bleed. This strikes me as yet another nail in the coffin of the National Party.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Barnaby' s denialism
It's a pity about Barnaby Joyce's climate scepticism, as he has shown some willingness to step outside of party-political conformity and therefore might have played a role in bringing fresh thinking on climate to his colleagues.
That the opposite appears to be the case is disappointing. The logic regarding climate change appears to be: 'I don't like it, therefore it doesn't exist'. There are two positions within this stance - those who don't like it but genuinely (though mistakenly) believe it doesn't exist, and those who don't like it and therefore are prepared to say it doesn't exist regradless of their personal belief (perhaps because of the misguided value they place on the economy).
The latter group is more dangerous, and, I would argue, prevails among the powerful lobbies, while the former might potentially be persuaded that climate change is a reality. Let's hope Barnaby is in this category. A diagnostic step might be to break down his climate scepticism into smaller bits, asking just what aspect of the evidence he is sceptical about.
Does he think scientists are unable to accurately measure the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? That would be plainly wrong. Does he doubt that such a build-up within said enclosed atmosphere traps heat? Again, plainly wrong.
Surely he doesn't deny that temperature rises in the water and the atmosphere lead to more rapid melting of polar ice-caps? That would be like seeing the iceberg from the deck of the Titanic and saying. 'I don't like it, so it doesn't exist'. Come on, Barnaby!
Climate change
Climate change is real, thats why global warming isnt used as much anymore, cos its actually cooling. Actually, this last winter seen the first frosts in years in my area, & rain patterns are changing for the better, including a 2 degree drop in temps. Climate change is a natural occurance, we seen one of the worst droughts in Australian history around 100 years ago, we had no millions of cars, or as many factorys emitting smoke back then either. Thats why Mr Joyce isnt as fussed, cos global warming is like the Ozone layer, old news that never really meant anything to many Australians in the bush & the city.
Debate can't change the laws of physics
Always funny to listen to non-scientists debate a scientific issue. Sort of like having a conversation with a pair of panty hose.
Fact is, our planet has been going through a long cycle of 100,000 year long ice ages, broken by 12,000 year interglacial periods such as the current one in which we are presently near the end. The planet has been warming for 12,00 years, and that's normal. The oceans have been rising for 12,000 years, and that is also normal. Fact is, there is nothing in today's climate or in the immediate past that lies outside of the range of normal variability of climate change.
The pure physics of the situation says that our current levels of CO2 ( about 385 ppm ) has already absorbed about 98% of the "heat" it is capable of absorbing, so adding more at this point in the game wouldn't amount to much of an anthropogenic change in global temperature. If you want the true story on CO2 physics, try http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf .
If you can't understand this, perhaps you should sit out this debate, it's tough to discuss brain surgery with a flock of turkeys.
.... just a simple backwoods Atmospheric Physicist
Pretty obvious,Jim,who the
Pretty obvious,Jim,who the turkey is .Or maybe troll is a better term.
"the true story on CO2 physics"
The arxiv paper to which Jim links is discussed here
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.ht...
and here
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
That it appears on arxiv.org tells you nothing. You may also find papers denying relativity and quantum mechanics there.
Don't argue with me because I say so?
Jim,
you may try to cower people by calling them turkeys but your facts show you up as blowing smoke mate.
You said yourseld, we are at the END of an interglacial period. Back in the '70s the warnings were to get ready for global cooling. It hasn't happened. Global average temperatures are increasing against the predictions of the scientists study solar cycles and orbital mechanics of the Earth. Why? The scientists themselves say that the atmosphere is absorbing more heat due to other factors, most notably greenhouse gasses.
It doesn't matter diddly how much heat the CO2 molecules absorb, they act as a blanket on the atmosphere and cause the atmosphere as a whole to absorb extra heat. On top of that the reflected infra red is warming the oceans which can absorb a heck of a lot of heat and expand while they are doing it.
You talk like you know science but your selective use of facts indicates otherwise.
Simply not true.
Sorry to deflate your junkscience balloon, but there is no mechanism at work in the atmosphere that "adds heat" or "acts as a blanket". All that greenhouse gases do is delay the cooling of the atmosphere after the sun goes down and stops heating. Water vapor, not man-made stuff like CO2 is is the principal moderator. In a dry desert, for example, the air very quickly cools after sunset. In a humid, tropical environment, it may still be quite warm at midnight.
You simply don't understand atmospheric physics, and thus are incapable of sorting out the real science from the junk science. Dumb, dumb, dumb...
Abuse undermines your criticism, Jim
We are happy to publish opposing views here, Jim, as you will see by the fact that your comments are posted, but we do not post abuse. Your comments are beginning to verge on the abusive and I would caution you to avoid that path.
Regardless, resorting to calling people dumb is not exactly the kind of high-minded debate that would engage people with your view, now is it?
Indeed, the debate can't change the laws of physics
Jim, unless you can show how your views refute the consensus of bodies like the IPCC, the UK's Royal Academy, our own CSIRO, scientists such as James Hansen and our own Tim Flannery, I think people have a sound rational basis for believing in the urgent threat of climate change, and in the need to act immediately to address it.
There's always an argument on pages like this as to what should be allowed past the keeper, and though I generally think that all views should be aired, if only for denialism to be shot down, there is a danger that not all the systematic denialism that makes its way onto the web is met with an adequate response.
In short, I'd like to see you maintain your position against the likes of Flannery, who I'm sure would have plenty of strong data to throw at you.
Finally, even on its face, your argument appears to contain quite a serious logical flaw. If we grant your claim that at current levels atmospheric CO2 has absorbed 98% of the heat it is capable of absorbing (and I have no idea whether that's the case), it does not follow that adding more atmospheric CO2 (which we are doing at a rapid rate) will not lead to substantial rises in average global temperatures. Surely if there's more atmospheric CO2, it will be capable of 'absorbing' even more heat.
Even a climate layperson such as myself knows, however, that the issue is the heat that the CO2 radiates back into the atmosphere after it is absorbed.
Joyce a Joke!
I read these comments this morning and this just goes to show how out of touch with whats going on these people are. Joyce is a joke. How much plainer can I put it. He has no idea and is totally out of touch. Much the same as the Navy Officer saying recreuitment can be increased by Bikini babes.These people cant be taken seriously and how they get where they are is beyond me and elected is another joke.
Beware of Jim Peden's humble
Beware of Jim Peden's humble claims. He is an AGW denier from way back, although he doesn't refute the scientific evidence just the popular claims. See http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=1547 for an excellent analysis of the enormous holes in Peden's views.
Barnaby Just Frustrated
We all know that politicians of all colors, at times get frustrated and make comments that are stupid, and should just be let through to the keeper. I have heard members of the Greens (Bob I think it was) make statements that all hard wood forrests in Australia should not be logged and be left alone, without really thinking of the effect (ie. we would just have to import large quantities of hardwood from places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil etc, where there are only minimal if any forrestry controls in place).
With Barnaby, I suspect that he is frustrated, like many Australians, with what will be achieved by a Carbon Trading Scheme. We appear to only produce a minute percentage of the worlds emissions, and business has advised that they will be just passing on all the additional costs to their customers, so we the customer will be paying more for everything. The majority of business, does not have, and will not have the availability of funding to dramatically change their methods to reduce carbon, and even the Victorian State Government is planning on a Desal Plant that will only be able to run from existing energy sources (ie. coal fired).
Anyway, it appears a waste of time to selectively pick statements from any politician, as the majority of Australians know politicians sometimes get frustrated and fly off the handle, making stupid statements in the process.
Certainty
Anyone who suggests dangerous global warming will certainly occur in the next 1000 years isn't worth listening to. This also applies to anyone who says it certainly won't occur.
The fact is it may occur and we have good reason to believe that spewing massive quantities of long stored CO2 into the atmosphere might increase the chances.
Thats all you need to know to realise it makes sense to curb emissions.
The rest of the hot air from all sides on this subject is a dangerous distraction. The really scary part is that greens are as guilty as anyone of befuddling the issue.
Get back to basics guys and stop wasting your time on side issues.
Barnaby is Frustrating
I like the idea of small rural communities getting involved with entrepreneurs (farmers) and starting up small one, five or 20 mWh Renewable Energy Power Plants.
Come on Warren its high time our Farmers got a choice to supplement their incomes with the positives that years of no-rain can bring.
And that’s Voting with the greens on their Gross Renewable feed-in Tariffs.
Barnaby headed for irrelevency
Barnaby is just following the lead of past right leaning pundits who chose the easy political expediency of blaming the loudest voices - environmentalist - for AGW existing at all, preferring to pass over the scientific basis for such concerns. I suppose they expected it to be much like the media hype that misrepresented some scientific opinions on climate of the 70's and blow over. Meanwhile the science has gone on to show the scientific basis of AGW is sound, over and over, and world changing in it's implications. Meanwhile lots of opinions were set solidly in place, probably including Joyce's, who would prefer to believe the whole thing is driven by political agendas of political opponents than it be a science based fundamental nature of our climate to be strongly influenced by atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Ultimately this will cause Joyce to lose credibility with everyone except those who are determined to carry on their mistaken belief that what people do won't effect the climate.
I urge people who might think the Basils and Jim Pedens have science behind them to look to what the scientists, real working ones, and scientific bodies that actually study climate have to say first. In the presence of even a little true knowledge of the subject they are shown to lack all scientific credibility.
Barnaby is playing dumb
The trouble for Barnaby is that he represents the most polluting constituency in Australia : farmers and miners. They don't want to believe in climate change because doing something to mitigate it will impinge on their hip pockets. I get the impression that Barnaby believes his job is to fight for the interests of the National Party, whether they are good for the nation (or the planet) as a whole or not. Barnaby is the smartest cookie in the Nationals pack so it doesn't look good for their mob when he plays dumb. Let's include agriculture in our emissions inventory and really watch him blow his top!
Post new comment