One of Nova’s politically motivated tactics is to try and scare the public into thinking they are wasting money on battling carbon emissions by presenting only short term effects. Her gullible reader are all too ready to complain about the carbon tax to even notice.
Instantly it’s obvious to the experienced climate scientist that Nova is not concerned about the long term effects of climate change because she cites 2020 as the year by which we should judge the carbon tax plan.
As any climate scientist will tell you, even shutting off ALL emissions will still leave CO2 levels at high levels for many decades, thus the planet will still continue to warm. Any short term look at temperature difference expected from changes in emissions is fundamentally flawed. It’s not the short term consequences we’re concerned about, it’s the long term warming. I suspect Nova knows this, but is hoping you are dumb enough not to notice.
Given that Nova cites the Garnaut 2011 report so much, it seems strange she doesn’t take heed of how this was explicitly stated in the introduction:
The costs of reducing emissions will come straightaway. The benefits of reducing damage from climate change will come later—many of them to later generations of Australians. In fact there will be more and more benefits for later and later generations.
Let’s examine her “alarmist” post “Gillard’s tax on “carbon pollution”: the facts”