Andrew Bolt writes in this morning’s Herald Sun about the treatment that a NSW farmer, Michael O’Brien, faced at the hands of our cultural elite on Q&A. Among these antagonists was Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull, who was busy preaching his warmist faith. While Turnbull’s condescension towards Mr O’Brien was noted in today’s column, perhaps the most astounding part of the former Liberal leader’s performance was not, although Andrew did cover it on his blog. That would be his misrepresentation of Professor Richard Lindzen, who he implied supported his viewpoint.
ABC1’s Q&A on Monday:
MALCOLM Turnbull: Well, can I just say, there’s no doubt that human activity is causing the planet’s temperature to rise. I mean, that is the basic physics and, you know, people like Richard Lindzen, who is a great, you know, climate change sceptic and Alan Jones has him on all the time, even he agrees with that. So there’s no question about that . . . let’s not have a debate about the physics. But I just say this to you: a hotter planet, we are told by the climate scientists, is going to result in drier dries, so drier droughts, and wetter wet times, more floods..
Just a climate sceptic? Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
PROFESSOR Lindzen . . . has developed models for the Earth’s climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000-year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate.
Lindzen at the House of Commons on February 22:
BRIEFLY, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.
The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Just because Lindzen accepts the basic greenhouse principles, as most skeptics do, it doesn’t mean that he accepts the alarmist outlook. Turnbull never clarified the nature of the true debate, about the magnitude of warming, leaving people with the impression that Lindzen would take his side on his subsequent diatribe about droughts and floods. It was exceedingly deceptive.
The reason people like Turnbull can get away with this sort of tactic, claiming agreement on the most basic of issues to allude to a wider consensus, is because most people aren’t aware of where the debate is at. Warmists will continue to exploit this until skeptics can get their point of view across to a wider audience.