Climate Council's Tim Flannery criticises

Originally posted by stevo ↑

Let’s check on another Flannery scare from 2008 - his claim that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2013:
So, if you look at the data for the decay of the Arctic ice cap for example, that is just moving so quickly now. I mean last year was the worst year ever. People are saying, you know, that instead of the ice cap lasting a century, that maybe in five years there’ll be no Arctic ice cap. So you can’t look at things like that without seeing that we are in deep trouble.

Professional alarmist Tim Flannery in 1996 warned that global warming would drown beachfront houses eight storeys high (see from 4:23):
Anyone with a coastal view from their bedroom window, or their kitchen window, or whereever, is likely to lose their house as a result of that change, so anywhere, any coastal cities, coastal areas, are in grave danger.
But the very next year he bought a house just four or five metres from the edge of the tidal waters around the Hawkesbury estuary:
According to property searches, in 1997 Professor Flannery bought one house on the Hawkesbury with his wife, Alexandra Leigh Szalay, for $274,000.
Five years later—even as climate scientists, including Professor Flannery, claimed evidence of global warming and rising sea levels was even more solid—the couple bought the property next door, for $505,000.

Expand

Let’s check on another Flannery scare from 2008 - his claim that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2013:

Yes, let's do that. Follow the September trend down. How far off do you really think he was? Also note the language: maybe in 5 years... Meanwhile (well, 2006), in print (where there is more space available) he was saying...

"Before 2004, the rate of melt was such that scientists believed the icecap would melt entirely by about 2100. At the trajectory set by the new rate of melt, however, there will be no Arctic icecap in the next five to 15 years."

Looking at the trend, I don't think he was that far off at all.

Meanwhile, with regards to the sea level claim, he was quoting James Hansen saying that we only have a decade or so to avert a 25m sea level rise. Note, that's not in any way saying that sea levels will rise 25m in a decade - it's saying that we're setting the climate's thermostat to a point where, at equilibrium, sea levels will be 25m higher. How does he know this? Because last time CO2 levels were this high, that's how high the oceans were. But as Hansen, Flannery and effectively all climate scientists keep saying, that equilibrium is at least a few hundred years away - by 2100, sea levels will be at most ~3m higher. But don't believe me - read Hansen's own words on the subject.

But of course, that won't stop the right-wing noise machine (professional or amateur) twisting it into a conveniently flammable ***.

So, to sum up: Flannery bought a house that, according to the best available science (which he accurately cited) will remain well above water for his lifetime. Quite understandably, he's probably not too personally worried about what happens to the value of that property beyond that period. After all, you can't take it with you...

And that attitude is perfectly fine when one is making decisions that only affect one's self. He obviously likes the area and (quite understandably, given the seriously scary treatment of him in the public sphere) wants somewhere with maximum privacy. But when discussing public policy, any responsible government must look beyond that "in my lifetime / my own interests" level, and ensure that policy choices don't seriously negatively affect the future population.

But apparently that level of nuance is too difficult for some - or perhaps it's just too convenient to reduce it to a simple black-and-white.