Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

Who the Hell is Robyn Williams? Request for Information from Graham Young

By

This morning’s Ockham’s Razor broadcast was by Don Aitkin on global warming. Presenter Robyn Williams introduced him in these terms:

“It is one of the disappointments of my life as a broadcaster that I’ve never managed to interview Nigella Lawson. How would she fit into a science program you may wonder, but that’s mere detail.

I have, on the other hand, had her father Nigel Lawson on the Science Show, talking about innovation or some such, with his usual flair and penetrating intelligence. Not a science-trained man, but economics is near enough, isn’t it, and he was Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer (or Treasurer).

Now Lord Lawson has brought out a book on climate called An Appeal to Reason. Here’s the first paragraph of a review in this week’s Spectator magazine:

‘When there is so much data suggesting the world’s climate is heating up’, goes the review, ‘some may find it presumptuous of Nigel Lawson, who is not a scientist and has undertaken no original research, to hope to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Would we take seriously an appraisal of his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer written by someone whose only expertise was in oceanography?’

Well the same could apply to Professor Don Aitkin, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, a political scientist and like Lawson, a journalist. Professor Aitkin gave a lecture on climate to the Planning Institute of Australia, A Cool Look at Global Warming. That was a couple of weeks ago, and I thought you might like to hear some of his thoughts, recast for Ockham’s Razor. Though 9 out of 10 Australians are said to be alarmed at climate change, 10% think differently, and Professor Aitkin is one of them.”

There are a number of issues of impartiality that arise from this introduction, but in this post I am interested in the main slight which is that because Aitkin is a “journalist” (I actually think he would be more correctly described as a social scientist) he cannot be taken seriously on the issue of climate change.

So, I’m interested in what qualifications Robyn Williams has. Afterall, while argument from authority has no role to play in establishing the truth of a proposition, turned back on its proponent it can often be the best demonstration of just how hollow their argument is.

Here is what I think I know about Williams. Happy to be corrected, or to have the list extended.

He has an honours degree in biology. He does not have qualifications in physics, climatology or earth-sciences
He has some honorary PhDs, but he does not have an actual PhD
He is a visiting professor at UNSW, but is not actually on staff
He is an adjunct professor at UQ, but is not actually on staff
He has in the past, and perhaps to the present, been a supporter of communist politics.

If I am correct in all of this it leads to the conclusion that his only standing on this issue is as a journalist, with a particular political bent, who is no better qualified than Don Aitkin. Which in his own terms must make it quite improper to make the introduction that he did. Afterall, with those qualifications, what would he know?

Graham Young
Ambit Gambit

This is a cross post from http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002974.html

Robyn Williams Might Apologize to Don Aitkin and Nigel Lawson

By

A fellow called Robyn Williams has a monopoly on the reporting of science on Australia’s publicly funded national radio, the ABC. He runs several programs including Ockam’s Razor broadcast on Sunday morning.

He is usually quick to promote the latest scare and perhaps not surprisingly has become a great supporter of alarmist global warming claims. It is not difficult to find credible scientists to interview who support the consensus on global warming. Unfortunately, however, anybody holding a skeptical view risks ridicule when they speak out, including from Robyn Williams.

Here is a disgraceful introduction from Robyn Williams to the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Professor Don Aitkin. No doubt if Professor Aitkin were not a skeptic he would have been given a suitably adoring, or at least a gracious, introduction.

Also, in the following introduction Mr Williams suggested Nigel Lawson is a trained economist, he is not. He is a journalist by training. But was a very able Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s government.

Here goes:

Robyn Williams: It is one of the disappointments of my life as a broadcaster that I’ve never managed to interview Nigella Lawson. How would she fit into a science program you may wonder, but that’s mere detail.

I have, on the other hand, had her father Nigel Lawson on the Science Show, talking about innovation or some such, with his usual flair and penetrating intelligence. Not a science-trained man, but economics is near enough, isn’t it, and he was Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer (or Treasurer).

Now Lord Lawson has brought out a book on climate called An Appeal to Reason. Here’s the first paragraph of a review in this week’s Spectator magazine:

‘When there is so much data suggesting the world’s climate is heating up’, goes the review, ‘some may find it presumptuous of Nigel Lawson, who is not a scientist and has undertaken no original research, to hope to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Would we take seriously an appraisal of his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer written by someone whose only expertise was in oceanography?’

Well the same could apply to Professor Don Aitkin, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, a political scientist and like Lawson, a journalist. Professor Aitkin gave a lecture on climate to the Planning Institute of Australia, A Cool Look at Global Warming. That was a couple of weeks ago, and I thought you might like to hear some of his thoughts, recast for Ockham’s Razor. Though 9 out of 10 Australians are said to be alarmed at climate change, 10% think differently, and Professor Aitkin is one of them.”

Now read/listen to ‘A challenge to global warming orthodoxies – part one’ by Don Aitkins here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2226464.htm

A Cool Idea to Warm To, By Christopher Pearson

By

ABOUT the beginning of 2007, maintaining a sceptical stance on human-induced global warming became a lonely, uphill battle in Australia.

The notion that the science was settled had gathered broad popular support and was making inroads in unexpected quarters. Industrialists and financiers with no science qualifications to speak of began to pose as prophets. Otherwise quite rational people decided there were so many true believers that somehow they must be right. Even Paddy McGuinness conceded, in a Quadrant editorial, that on balance the anthropogenic greenhouse gas hypothesis seemed likelier than not.

What a difference the intervening 15 months has made. In recent weeks, articles by NASA’s Roy Spencer and Bjorn Lomborg and an interview with the Institute of Public Affairs’ Jennifer Marohasy have undermined that confident Anglosphere consensus. On Amazon.com’s bestseller list this week, the three top books on climate are by sceptics: Spencer, Lomborg and Fred Singer.

Read more here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597729-7583,00.html

————-
from The Australian, by Christopher Pearson, ‘A Cool Idea to Warm To’, April 26, 2008.

Flannery – The Wrong Weather Maker

By

RAIN sure is falling this week on the parade of our global warming alarmists.

Wettest of all is Tim Flannery, who was made Australian of the Year last year for wailing the world was doomed.

“I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis,” he groaned. But buy his The Weather Makers before you flee.

Reporters solemnly reported even this: “He (Flannery) also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years.”

And when did he say that? Oh, three years ago? Yet what do I read in my papers yesterday but this: “Sydney’s run of rainy days in a row – 11 – is the most in April for 77 years.”

And Sydney’s dams? Above 65 per cent capacity now, and rising.

…..it was probably no surprise Flannery didn’t turn up at the Rudd Government’s ideas summit last weekend to talk more about how warming was dooming Sydney, despite being issued a gold-edged invitation.

He flew to Canada instead to tell their yokels to cut gases like the ones he just blew out the back of his jet, and talked warming with British Columbia’s Premier and businessmen.

But once again Flannery picked the wrong time and place to preach his warming gospel. A local paper reports: “In some regions of usually balmy British Columbia, many were caught by surprise by a storm that moved in late Friday and set snowfall records in Nanaimo, Victoria and Vancouver.”

How the weather mocks Flannery. He’s flooded in Sydney, where he predicted drought, and snowed in in Canada when he predicted heat.

Read the entire article in The Herald Sun: Prophecy all washed up

Population, sustainability, climate change, water & the future of our cities

By

Australia faces an unprecedented challenge from climate change. We risk losing our natural heritage, our rivers, landscapes and biodiversity. We have a brief opportunity to act now to safeguard and shape our future prosperity. – AUSTRALIA 2020 SUMMIT – INITIAL SUMMIT REPORT

One of the 100 privileged participants within the POPULATION, SUSTAINABILITY, CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER & FUTURE OF OUR CITIES topic area, proposed,

“A zero species loss by 2020 goal, and one of the ways that this could be achieved is through a comprehensive series of protected areas.”

Not one of the 100 participants argued in support of protecting the integrity of the evolutionary process.

Another participant stated,

“My understanding, from my work in natural resource management, biodiversity and so forth, we could stop any further degradation by 2020; that’s a feasible goal; most of it is government, not money…”

Again, no argument from participant expertise, along the lines of the 24-million feral pigs in Australia, as but one example.

The summit proposed that environmental considerations will be fully integrated into economic decision making in Australia, at the household, business and government levels, but there was no contention that legislation enacted in 1994 already required the integration of environmental and economic considerations in decision making and for balancing the interests of current and future generations.

I would have hoped that the more important recital would have recognized the historical lack of compliance as the preeminent issue and that future refinements would preclude non-compliance.

Indeed, the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment expresses a significant achievement of environmental policy design and rather than reinventing the regulatory wheel, as-it-were, it could have formed the foundation for refinement towards the forum’s stated aims.

The delegation proposed the adoption of a National Sustainability, Population and Climate Change Agenda and the development of robust institutions to support it. As a part of this agenda, an audit function to report on governments’ performance against these climate change and sustainability objectives, would be included.

Again, the pre-existence of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994, with its annual auditing and reporting functions, was conspicuous in its absence from the debate.

Interestingly, the Initial Summit Report indicated how strikingly and often concern arose that Australia has not been sufficiently clever in using the skills and ingenuity of its people.

This is despite Principle 22 of the 1992 RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, which states:

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

The Initial Summit Report did stipulate, however, the involvement of indigenous people, insofar as:

• A new dialogue will have been established with our indigenous peoples on our response to climate change, water and sustainability challenges;

• Stakeholder engagement, including with regional Australians, capacity building and education are needed to support the significant behavioural change required to implement these policies. Indigenous people must also be involved in policy development and implementation; and

• That a National Indigenous Knowledge Centre be established and maintained with indigenous people. This centre would examine multidisciplinary research and program delivery pertaining to climate change, sustainability and water.

However, the essence of environmental interdependence (in my opinion), binding individuals and families together in common possession, through the building block of both communities and nationhood, was largely overlooked. So too was the excellent practice of so many individuals, families and communities through existing commitments. There was rather the stale and familiar stench of enriching the bureaucratic stake in an illusion of environmental concern.

I would have preferred that Australia was rather re-defined by its people and their relationship with their natural environment. Surely it would have been better if Australia had been required to be supportive of its unique communities, bound in triumphant territorial respect for the aspirations, life and memory of their constituents. I would have thought it much more encouraging, if it was exposed to discomfort of its historically abhorrent dislocation of communities from their natural environment and in the same unequivocal terms that bind Australians to Australia.

I also believe that Australia’s adaptive strategy must be accommodated by the national strength of unity. The federal Government needs the solidarity of its people to act upon this global conviction and to bring the divisiveness of yesterday’s enviro-corruption to an unequivocal end. All Australians must annihilate the perverse belief that we condone the removal of people and communities as a condition of caring for the natural environment. We must rather stand united and restore dignity to our disenfranchised communities and revitalise their children’s futures.

Ozone Hole Recovery Could Modify Southern Hemisphere Climate

By

A full recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole could modify climate change in the Southern Hemisphere and even amplify Antarctic warming, according to scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

ScienceDaily.com: ‘Ozone Hole Recovery May Reshape Southern Hemisphere Climate Change And Amplify Antarctic Warming’