Crikey is committed to hosting lively discussions. Help us keep the conversation useful, interesting and welcoming. We aim to publish comments quickly in the interest of promoting robust conversation, but we’re a small team and we deploy filters to protect against legal risk. Occasionally your comment may be held up while we review, but we’re working as fast as we can to keep the conversation rolling.
The Crikey comment section is members-only content. Please subscribe to leave a comment.
The Crikey comment section is members-only content. Please login to leave a comment.
comments-section
Subscribe
Please sign in to comment
1 Comment
Most voted
NewestOldest
Inline feedbacks
View all comments
Ray
55 years ago
So he should! Garnaut is not a climate scientist. He is an economist. In fact, there is no science content in economics courses. He says that “mainstream science” tells us to act on reducing green house gas emissions, but does not define what he means by “mainstream”. Presumably, he is referring to the environmentalists and alarmist scientists who unquestionably accept that socalled global warming is man-induced. However, most climate scientists point out that there is no scientific evidence to support the alarmist view, e.g. see article in The Australian of 18 July by former alarmist, David Evans, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can’t be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.
Therefore, as Garnaut takes man-induced climate change as a given, his analysis and economic modelling of climate change are invalid. Far from giving the impression of impartiality in his analysis, he then resorts to alarmist tactics, such as: effective CO2 taxation action has to be taken by 2010 or else delaying same will be vastly more costly and lead to loss of the Great Barrier Reef — apparently overlooking the fact that coral reefs thrive in warm water.
So he should! Garnaut is not a climate scientist. He is an economist. In fact, there is no science content in economics courses. He says that “mainstream science” tells us to act on reducing green house gas emissions, but does not define what he means by “mainstream”. Presumably, he is referring to the environmentalists and alarmist scientists who unquestionably accept that socalled global warming is man-induced. However, most climate scientists point out that there is no scientific evidence to support the alarmist view, e.g. see article in The Australian of 18 July by former alarmist, David Evans, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can’t be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.
Therefore, as Garnaut takes man-induced climate change as a given, his analysis and economic modelling of climate change are invalid. Far from giving the impression of impartiality in his analysis, he then resorts to alarmist tactics, such as: effective CO2 taxation action has to be taken by 2010 or else delaying same will be vastly more costly and lead to loss of the Great Barrier Reef — apparently overlooking the fact that coral reefs thrive in warm water.