Eli Can Retire Part XII: The Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Responds to Ian Plimer's 101 Questions

Worldwide, energy and environmental agencies are contributing to Eli's retirement fund by whacking the moles.  Today the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency offs Ian Plimer's 101 questions.  Eli has had a whack at a few of them, but really, this was a job for the real climate scientists.

This document provides answers to the 101 questions on climate change posed by Professor Ian Plimer in his latest book, How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters (2011). Many of the questions and answers in Professor Plimer’s book are misleading and are based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science. The answers and comments provided in this document are intended to provide clear and accurate answers to Professor Plimer’s questions. The answers are based on up-to-date peer reviewed science, and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists.

Plimer asks

8. If global warming is human in origin, when will we feel it and when will it be dangerous?

And the AU Department of Climate Change Responds

Climate change becomes dangerous when it takes natural and human systems beyond environmental thresholds to which they can easily adapt. The more rapid the change, the less likely that adaptation can occur. Projections indicate that without action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

»temperatures in Australia could increase by up to 5 degrees by 2070;

»sea levels could rise by up to 80 cm by the end of the century (baseline of 1990), with larger increases possible; and

»we are likely to see more severe and intense extreme climatic events.

World governments have agreed that limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures would help to reduce many of the most dangerous impacts of future climate change.

and, this could be a dangerous drinking game, 99

99.  Why do those advocating human-induced global warming vilify scientists who disagree rather than addressing genuine scientific questions?

And: Genuine scientific disputes are normally addressed through publication of alternative theories in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, the scientists and others disagreeing with the consensus on human-induced climate change have rarely published in such journals, therefore avoiding critical scientific assessment of their work.

There is no single paper, or set of papers, that provides a plausible alternative explanation of recent warming. The few papers that do exist have been demonstrated to be flawed by the weight of peer-reviewed literature. There is now a vast body of literature supporting the mainstream understanding of climate change.

And a bit of optimism from the first comment