Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 10:45 AM ET, 11/10/2009

Australian PM unloads on 'climate skeptics'

By Andrew Freedman

* Ida brings shower chances: Full Forecast | Enter our photo contest *

In September, I wrote a column arguing that President Obama should give a high-profile speech on climate science to raise sagging public awareness of scientific findings, and to increase support for taking action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Failure to do so, I suggested, would permit climate science contrarians and others to continue to erode such support. Obama has not made such a speech, though he did make a prominent energy speech last month.

However, another world leader -- Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd -- stepped up to the plate on Nov. 6 and swung for the fences, deviating from what I had in mind by delivering a lengthy, blistering critique of "climate skeptics," who he says have been stalling his government's plans to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and slowing global negotiations on a new climate agreement.

"It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change skeptics in all their colours..." Rudd said.


Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

Despite Rudd's problematic definition of what constitutes a "climate skeptic" (to him it seems to mean anyone who disagrees with his climate policy proposals), the speech should be required reading for anyone who follows the climate change issue. It amounts to an unprecedented indictment of climate skeptics and opponents of climate change action from a leader of an industrialized nation.

Australia is a major player in global climate talks, due in part to its high greenhouse-gas emissions and status as a significant exporter of coal, a particularly carbon-intensive fossil fuel.

"The challenge we face, and others around the world face, is to build momentum and overcome domestic political constraints," Rudd said in an address to the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney.

"The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country. They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.

Rudd said climate skeptics bet the world's future on the basis of "their personal intuitions, their personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices."

"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. Their aim is not to convince every person on Earth of the follies of acting on climate change. Their aim is to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible."

Rudd called out Australian and American politicians by name, including U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), for having made statements that run contrary to the findings of the vast majority of climate scientists.

Rudd also highlighted the cost of doing nothing to combat climate change. "In this debate the climate change skeptics have erected an intellectual house of cards based on one simple premise: that the cost of not acting is nothing," he said.

He even invoked the American country singer Kenny Rogers, saying:

"A fairly well-known bloke once said that when gambling: You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.
 Know when to walk away, know when to run.
My message to the climate change skeptics, to the big betters and the big risk takers is this: 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. That is too big a risk, too radical a departure from the basic conservative principles of public policy."

Subhead: Flawed Definition

One major problem with Rudd's logic is his overly expansive view of what constitutes an "opponent of climate change action." For him, an opponent is someone who falls into one or more of the following categories.

* "Climate science deniers"
* "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"
* "Those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first."

As Roger Pielke Jr. points out at his blog, Rudd's definition is so broad it amounts to an attack on political dissent. "What bothers me is the explicit equation of people who question a policy's effectiveness or desirability with the idea of being a 'denier' and thus being 'dangerous,'" wrote Pielke, an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado. "Rudd is openly conflating views on science with views on politics."

Surely there is a major difference between someone who is opposed to a particular policy solution and someone who does not believe that Earth is warming due to human activities, isn't there?

Also, despite the need to acknowledge that climate science skeptics (I prefer the term "contrarians," by the way, since all scientists are skeptical by nature) still have significant sway in politics, it seems to me that blaming them for all climate policy failures to date is misguided. The reality is that the interaction between science, politics and the public is messy and complicated.

Discussing these complications, including perhaps his own failures, however, would not have made for nearly as provocative a speech from Rudd.

The views expressed here are the author's alone and do not represent any position of the Washington Post, its news staff or the Capital Weather Gang.

I'm interested in hearing your views about what P.M. Rudd said. Do you agree with his definition of climate skeptics? Do you think he's right to blame them for slowing down policy-making? Is it scientifically or morally justifiable to demonize skeptics like he did?

By Andrew Freedman  | November 10, 2009; 10:45 AM ET
Categories:  Climate Change, Freedman, News & Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forecast: Ida to bring clouds, shower chances
Next: PM Update: The calm before the storm?

Comments

Last week CapitalWeatherGang wrote, "The climate change coverage on this blog focuses on scientific issues...Andrew doesn't cover policy solutions b/c that's really outside the scope of this blog."

Clearly this is another fine example of focusing on the "scientific issues". Well done.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | November 10, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Take a long, hard look at the scary catastrophic, man caused, global warming. I don't know if I will be able to sleep tonight.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | November 10, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Q,

Do you also enjoy how all of Andrew's posts now end with the following phrase?

"The views expressed here are the author's alone and do not represent any position of the Washington Post, its news staff or the Capital Weather Gang."

Allows them to distance themselves from the political hack they hired for this topic, even though they decided to hire him and not someone who actually knows something about science.

Posted by: octopi213 | November 10, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Andrew-CapitalWeatherGang | November 10, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

---begin quote---
In a speech yesterday, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd explained why he is so certain that the science is settled on climate change. It stems from the number 4,000 — a number that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to publicize its last major report.

This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world,” asserted Mr. Rudd, in making his case that the planet is in peril.

Unfortunately for Mr. Rudd, he has made a blunder in citing this number. As he can confirm by contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case never endorsed the IPCC’s report. Rather, the secretariat will advise him — as the Secretariat advised me when I inquired in 2007 — that the great majority of those scientists were merely reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst of all, far from endorsing the IPCC’s conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCC’s claims that man-made global warming represents a threat to the planet.

The upshot? Australia has turned its economy inside out largely on the basis of imagined endorsements.
---end quote---

source of the above quote

If you read the entire article, you will learn that only 60 scientists contributed to or reviewed the critical chapter of the IPCC report.

I feel sorry for Mr. Rudd and especially the good people of Australia.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | November 11, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Andrew Freedman seems to focus on the broad definition of "denier" used by PM Rudd of Australia, rather than the facts regarding the significant errors and overstatements by PM Rudd about human contributions and control of climate change. He is calling for President Obama to contribute the same kind of trite pseudo science that we already have too much of. If you are a fervent believer that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are the controling force of climate change than almost all the proposed legislative actions to reduce CO2 emissions are ineffective and address other political control issues and you should be revolted by the failure to take effective action now. If you question the controlling role of CO2 emission from fossil fuels and consider that they may play a 20-30% role vs. natural efforts than you are dismayed by the economic destruction that the proposed legislation seeks to accomplish. No one who has analyzed the timing and magnitude of CO2 reduction from fossil fuel emission proposed in either the Senate or House bills believes that even using the lousy models we have will achieve a measurable impact by 2030 or 2050. So how can you, Andrew Freedman support these actions? If you are a scientist you must stand up for thr truth.

Posted by: 123andy | November 11, 2009 10:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company