NRSP "Expert" a Half-Hearted Denier

authordefault
on

One of the new “climate change experts” recently identified by the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (think: Not Really Science People) seems vaguely conflicted about his own climatic conclusions.

In this Short Primer on Climate Change and the Greenhouse Issue, Dr. Garth Paltridge, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tasmania, concludes that it would be worth spending money to address climate change on the following grounds:

  • To preserve the current environment for future generations;
  • As a precaution against “disastrous change of climate which might basically alter the structure and economic well-being of human society;”
  • To protect against “significant risks for the smaller and less economically diverse countries;”
  • To recognize that many of the recommended expenditures (improving efficiency, saving energy) have “no regrets.”

It’s not clear to me how Dr. Paltridge can then set these conclusions aside and dismiss climate change as “a symbol – almost a religious symbol – of all that is bad or profligate about human society.” Then again, I’m not an NRSP scientist.

Related Posts

on

A new Environmental Defence analysis reveals that despite government promises to cut, the amount of taxpayers’ money given to the industry remains high.

A new Environmental Defence analysis reveals that despite government promises to cut, the amount of taxpayers’ money given to the industry remains high.
on

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major oil refining group, is once again behind a push to keep cars running on oil.

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major oil refining group, is once again behind a push to keep cars running on oil.
Analysis
on

"Climate the Movie" portrays today’s climate denier agenda by rehashing the same old fossil fuel talking points and trolling the left.

"Climate the Movie" portrays today’s climate denier agenda by rehashing the same old fossil fuel talking points and trolling the left.
on

Energy Transfer and Sunoco claimed the substance was not toxic, but residents don’t trust the results.

Energy Transfer and Sunoco claimed the substance was not toxic, but residents don’t trust the results.