To paraphrase: People who disagree with my economic predictions should not get funds.
UPDATE: What an extraordinary moment. UWA has announced that due to the unexpected “passion” of the staff and students they have to cancel the Lomborg Consensus Centre (May 8th 2015). Does UWA do science-by-passion?
The Australian Government is spending $2.5 billion on Direct Action to reduce atmospheric carbon. They offer to spend a tiny $4m extra setting up a centre for an economist who studies the effectiveness of action to change the climate.
Tim Flannery’s reaction to the Consensus Centre:
“…it’s an insult to Australia’s scientific community.”
It’s an insult I tell you! Imagine taking Australia’s climate scientists seriously, and setting up an economics centre to solve the crisis they say is occurring. How could any scientist stand that.
Lomborg-the-economist agrees completely with the IPCC and Flannery on the climate science. But he disagrees on the economic and policy positions. Obviously it’s a disaster if the Flannery-IPCC economic predictions are subject to analysis.
Flannery, self-satirical, on the appointment of Lomberg:
“Mr Lomborg’s views have no credibility in the scientific community. His message hasn’t varied at all in the last decade and he still believes we shouldn’t take any steps to mitigate climate change. When someone is unwilling to adapt their view on the basis of new science or information, it’s usually a sign those views are politically motivated.”
So here’s Tim Flannery ten years ago, predicting permanent rainfall drops, back-to-back El Ninos, dry dams by 2007. How much has he changed his position based on the evidence?
ABC’s Lateline, June 10, 2005:
I’m afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly…
…. the most worrying [phenomenon] is this semi-permanent el Nino-like condition that’s occurring as the Pacific Ocean warms up, and we’re seeing much longer el Ninos than we’ve seen before and often now back-to-back el Ninos with very little of the la Nina cycle, the flood cycle, in between.
… we’ve seen some quite considerable and look to be permanent rainfall drops across much of southern and eastern Australia.
look at the Warragamba catchment figures, they’ve got about two years of supply left…
MAXINE McKEW: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with – if that’s right – back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
TIM FLANNERY: That’s right. That looks to be the case.
Who is politically motivated Tim?
This is why the work of the Climate Council is so important – to counter this continuing ideological attempt at deceiving the Australian public.
Spot the ideology: Is it better for the environment if we spend every environmental dollar carefully? Do we want to get actual environmental outcomes and reduce CO2, or is it better to spend those dollars propping up a green industry that won’t change the weather, but does sponsor Flannery’s work sometimes? Is it better to lower emissions, or to get the sort of government that pays Flannery to advertise their policies?
Hat tip to Safetyguy66 who calls the Flannery quote “pure comedy gold”. Submitted on 2015/04/22 at 9:01 am
Edit12pm : The end of the headline changed from “shoots himself in the foot”. It just wasn’t very good. – Jo