Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.
Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact, because I’m finding it really curious that no one has got (this) fact. If I buy a car … I want to know how much it costs and whether it is going to do the job.
Flannery: Sure.
Bolt: In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.
Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.
Flannery: Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.
Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?
Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal… Someone surely must have done the sums that for all these billions of dollars we’re spending in programs that it’s got to have a consequence in terms of cutting the world’s temperature. So you don’t know about Australia, you wouldn’t dispute that it’s within about a thousandth of a degree, around that magnitude, right?
Flannery: It’s going to be slight.
h/t to Marc Morano
Can Bolt run for office here in the US? He seems to get it.
LOL
No we want him for PM!!!
Here is a case where the EPA told the truth.
“In addition, EPA updated the modeling analysis based on the revised GHG
emission reductions provided in Section III.F.1; however, the change in modeling
results was very small in magnitude. Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced
by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100
News Story
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-s-own-estimates-say-greenhouse-gas-r
The Federal Register speaks truth! second column top
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=57cadd3c-afb0-4890-bae5-3d6a101db11f
Is this the beginning of the backtrack? Confusion in the ranks of the warmists to cover a frantic retreat? The “clearly there is a need for additional investigation of exact costs and exact benefits, and we’ll get right back at you as soon as that work is done, but in the meantime, for a Precautionary Principle, could you empty your wallet, please?”.
Ju-liar’s hero is now her own worst enemy. I think he has done enough damage to her policy to make it beyond repair. If she wants to save it, she’ll have to sack him and appoint another alarmist that says a carbon tax will make a significant difference.
Shades of John Hewson’s embarrassing inability to verify the GST on a cake… ultimately costing him the election and his job.
Fumbling, fear-mongering, Flannery, flummoxed by the facts, is doing the same for this government.
The ineptitude of the Rudd, now Gillard regime, is staggeringly comedic – I can’t wait for the next instalment. Guaranteed.