“There are three types of climate sceptic”

Ah. Really?

This and other comments were made by Kevin Rudd’s speech at the Lowey Institute recently. Once again, dismantling an argument point by point is going to be fun :

-”The opponents of action on climate change fall into one of three categories.
First, the climate science deniers.
Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.
Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.”

ORLY??? So I’m either a mouthpiece for the evil coal industry, a ‘denier’, apparently “…as bad as a Holocaust denier” (he didn’t say that – some stupid BBC documentary guy did a couple of years ago – his name escapes me) or someone who agrees with the “science” but advocates inaction on the environment.

You flatter me.

He missed out a fourth type of climate sceptic – those who question the apparent “consensus”, the incompetency and illegitimacy of the IPCC, the link between carbon dioxide and temperature rises, the alarmist claims and the propaganda and do so for everyone’s best interests.

Like I’ve said 99999999 times before, I am not against viable renewable energy like solar power or making ourselves more environmentally friendly. I’m against a sudden dash down this “OMGZ!! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE DON’T PASS THE ETS AND SIGN COPENHAGEN OMGWTFBBQ!!! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DROWN…” etc path, that will only cause a catastrophe; not only for our economies and lifestyles, but for our environment and human rights.

Yes, we need to reduce our reliance on such energy production as coal and oil, but this can’t happen viably in five or ten years! Imagine the problems of resettling all those thousands of people who rely on such industries for their main sources of income and the social implications.

“But green energy will create jobs you SCEPTIC you…”, I hear you say. WELL there are a few problems with that:
1. It takes time to retrain thousands of people
2. Green energy needs much less labour, both directly and indirectly (think coal exports & cleaning bird poo off solar panels)
3. The political implications of this are too enormous to comprehend (think China)

We can do this, but only in, say, 25-30 years. I can’t provide an exact figure, but my humble opinion reckons around that time period.

I digress.

-”Together, these groups, alive in every major country including Australia, constitute a powerful global force for inaction”

Powerful? POWERFUL??? Give me a break. Count the number of alarmist lobby groups and organisations compared to the number of sceptic lobby groups and organisations.

-”As we approach Copenhagen, these three groups of climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom.
Provoking fear campaigns in every country they can.”

More demonisation of the sceptics…

I beg to differ, once again, on us “Provoking fear campaigns…”. Ha. How many climate sceptic ads have there been throughout the world’s media? Barely any. Compare this with the scare campaigns of governments and organisations, and there is a massive divide.

I provide the links to just some of these alarmist scare campaigns here:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FXKFsr8zQ
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvKBQsoyG9s
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM
-”Despite the clear scientific proof for manmade climate change, a small but dedicated group of climate sceptics from groups with clear vested interests (in heavily polluting industries) continues to circulate baseless climate myths” <— I love this quote. I’d love to have someone come and show me what my “clear vested interests” in heavily polluting industries are. Of course I’m in the pay of ExxonMobil and Shell! That’s why I have a 5 year old laptop with Linux on it and have a grand total of $200 in my bank account! And no one ever question’s Al Gore’s “vested interests”. He has business interest in ‘green industries’, he’s made millions from the jokingly called “documentary”, An Inconvenient Truth, as well as books, ads, etc. But of course, that is perfectly fine, because HE’S A “CLIMATE CRUSADER”!!!

Back to Kevin Rudd.

-”The tentacles of the climate change skeptics reach deep into the ranks of the Liberal Party and, once you add the National Party, its plan, the skeptics and the deniers are a major force.”

Ooo the “tentacles” eh? Like I said before, sceptics are NOT a powerful force! And please stop calling us “deniers” – it’s considered a derogatory term loaded with negative connotations.

-”And the most recent IPCC scientific conclusion in 2007 was that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and the “increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world, and the term “very likely” is defined in the scientific conclusion of this report as being 90 per cent probable.”

*takes deep breath*

Now. Firstly, the chapter on human causes of climate change was written by only 24 scientists. Around half of these were good mates with each other. Not the 4,000 (note that this number has mysteriously increased from around 800 a couple of years ago in the media, right up to 4,000 it seems now).

Secondly, the IPCC is not made up entirely of scientists. The name says it all: “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. Governments appoint people to be on the panel and be involved. Hence, environmental activists from groups such as Greenpeace made it onto the panel. And of course, these people don’t have “clear vested interests” at all, do they?

-“The climate change deniers now form the comfortable bedfellows of the global conspiracy theorists – in total bald-faced denial of global scientific, economic and environmental reality. These arguments – thinly veiled attempts to create a new climate change global conspiracy theory – are now being used in Australia.”

Subtle references to comparing us to Holocaust Deniers. Thank you very much. I’m flattered.

-“Like the arguments from climate change deniers, these arguments have zero basis in evidence…The truth is they offer zero evidence…”

Ah. So Vostok ice cores are not evidence? Temperature grap”hs from NOAA are not evidence? The University of Alabama is not evidence? The peer-reviewed studies published around the world by climatologists and paleoclimatologists are not evidence?

-“Instead they offer maximum fear, the universal conservative stock in trade.”

This one is laughable. He speaks of us creating “fear”, and yet in the same sentence, he uses scaremongering against right-wing people.

-“Climate change deniers are small in number, but they are too dangerous to be ignored. They are well resourced…”

Well resourced eh?? Well then how do you explain the thousands given in funding every year to organisations like Greenpeace the AYCC and absolutely NOTHING given to organisations like the AYCCC? And like I said, the majority of sceptics are not “well resourced” and backed by huge oil companies. Sure, there are some around the world who are, and they do have vested interests. But applying this negative stereotype automatically to every sceptic in the world is not going to do anybody any good.

Also like I said, if I’m well resourced, what am I doing on a 5 year old laptop with $200 in my bank account and $50 in my wallet?

-“For years – and then, with increasing intensity, in recent months – do-nothing climate change skeptics have been mounting a systematic campaign against action on climate change.”

Give me just one decent example of a “systematic campaign against action”.

-“When you boil down their arguments, their world government conspiracy theories and their back of the envelope calculations – that in its starkest simplicity and entirety is what is left: that the cost of not acting is nothing.”

Refer to my comment previously about credibility.

-“They cling to that single premise like a polar bear clings to a melting iceberg.”

Scaremongering anyone?

-“Climate change skeptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives. They are radicals.”

ORLY?? Well I don’t think that we’re the one’s advocating the complete disappearance of the Arctic Ice Cap in just two years or sea levels rises of “20 feet” in 10 years or the flooding of New York City, are we?

There are a small minority who engage in climate change conspiracy theories etc, but the vast majority are not alarmist in this way at all. But once you look on the other side of the political fence, you find such alarmist claims as above, and much much more. Who are the “radicals” now????

-“You are betting our children’s future and the future of our grandchildren.
You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.”

I’m in complete agreement with you. You ARE gambling…oh sorry – you were talking about sceptics?? I apologise for this misunderstanding, but I believe that this applies much more prudently for the alarmists. I think your speechwriter got it the wrong way around.

And finally, here’s the link to a very good article about this: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24062094-5016479,00.html

…and just as a final example of scaremongering, take a look at this webpage from the Sydney Morning Herald to “Find out which firms lobby for greenhouse gas emitting companies and peak industry bodies.”. I don’t see one for all of the environmental and green industry groups – do you? http://www.smh.com.au/national/duplicate/dbj/environment/not/used