NRSP "Expert" a Half-Hearted Denier

onNov 4, 2006 @ 10:21 PST

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.

By Richard Littlemore

us/LNG Exporter Downplays Emissions to Justify Expansion

ByNick Cunningham

onAug 12, 2022 @ 14:14 PDT

Cheniere Energy has introduced “cargo emissions tags” to assuage climate concerns of potential buyers. But a new report says these tags are riddled with problems.

Opinion

us/Reality Is Not What It Seems. And That Might Just Save the Climate.

ByGuest

onAug 11, 2022 @ 12:38 PDT

Anti-science rhetoric and special interests have pushed us to the edge of climate chaos. But just as quantum physics disrupted our view of matter and energy, quantum social change disrupts our beliefs about what’s possible, how fast, and by whom.