Media Release from Jessie Singh
As we approach the double dissolution election scheduled for 2 July 2016, I am delighted to announce that Dr Anthony Horton, chairman of The Climate Change Guy Group and an internationally recognised authority on environmental management and policy, is available to assist with any of your media coverage, commentary and fact checking needs.
As our political parties begin vigorous campaigns extended over more than 7 weeks, the Australian public will be inundated with information and policy proposals. An intense time for the media, this longer campaign period presents the media with challenges to stay succinct and avoid voter fatigue whilst keeping abreast of the issues and promises at play.
Actively analysing and commentating upon the Australian political landscape with respect to environmental, economic, health and social issues, Anthony is in an informed position to assess and explain the ramifications of any proposals or policies presented. Examples of his written commentary are available for view on The Climate Change Guy website, covering topics such as:
What does implementing an emissions trading scheme actually mean for Australian businesses and the competitive global economy?
Due to the significant impacts of environmental policy and very topical nature of climate change, we feel Anthony’s expertise would enhance your coverage of this election. With recent reports revealing the majority of Australian voters are extremely concerned about what is being done regarding climate change, Anthony warmly welcomes the opportunity to discuss environmental policies and address any questions you and your followership may have.
Anthony is available for interview, commentary or consultation in person or via telephone. Please find attached for your perusal:
- Media Release
- Capability Statement
A shortlist of his credentials in the environmental space is also featured below.
All media enquiries are welcome. Should you require any additional information at all please do not hesitate to contact me, and on behalf of Dr Anthony Horton we look forward to the opportunity of engaging with you and the Australian Independent Media Network audience.
Yours sincerely,
Jessie Singh
Follow Dr Anthony Horton on Twitter @dranthonyhorton
View Dr Anthony Horton’s website: www.theclimatechangeguy.com.au
Dr Anthony Horton’s credentials include:
- PhD in Environmental Science
- Bachelor of Environmental Science with Honours
- Diploma of Carbon Management
- Lead Environmental Auditor
- Certificate IV in Training and Assessment
- Chartered Chemist of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
- Editorial Board of the Journal of Nature Environment and Pollution Technology
Phone Contact:
Dr Anthony Horton
anthony@theclimatechangeguy.com.au
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Apparently we WON’T be talking about climate change because the truth is bad for tourism…
Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
Guardian Australia can reveal the report “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate”, which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.
But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by Unesco. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia’s move was reminiscent of “the old Soviet Union”.
No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.
Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for the environment department told Guardian Australia: “Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention
It’s amazing, isn’t it? Dr Horton consults the Chinese Mining Industry on climate change, yet in Austtalia our own government probably wouldn’t even acknowledge his existence.
I heard an interview Dr Horton gave on the ABC recently. I must search for the link and post it here (if I can find it). He really does know what he’s talking about.
This morning I scrolled to the bottom of the Unesco website where the ‘contact’ link leads to a form – I made a polite, forceful complaint at Unesco’s capitulation to Australian political interference. I encourage others to do same.
And for climate change news on a regular basis (once a month)
NASA global climate change newsletter, delivered to your inbox free.
To learn more:
http://climate.nasa.gov/.
I found a cutting about climate change from The Australian from February this year. It is a collection of letters with the headline ‘CSIRO should accept that models are rudimentary’. It follows changes in the operation of CSIRO.
One letter tells us: “Climate will change, a natural hazard faced by humankind, but we know neither the direction nor magnitude.” This comment by William Kinimonth accords with the claim of Bob Carter & John Spooner (“Taxing Air” p. 126-128) that: “Though computer model projects do frequently exhibit new, changed or enhanced characteristics of the climate system, none of these can unequivocally be tied to human-caused global warming.”
Yet Carter himself uses modelling – for example, the MODTRAN standard atmospheric model (University of Chicago).
Another correspondent says:”Scientist John Church speaks highly of the organisation’s models, but around the world, climate models are derided as being unreliable and unable to replicate actual observations from balloons and satellites.” He goes on to claim there has been no rise in sea level in Sydney Harbour “for at least the past 140 years”.
Yet the Fort Denison Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Study Oct 2008 discusses rises and explains why there are variations. Joanna Novo (12/12/14) provides a graph of rises in Fremantle, Auckland, Fort Denison and Newcastle, and while she denies recent increases, the graph clearly shows uniform rises for those four sites since 1980. It seems to me that one of the problems of using an average increase for sea rises over the last century and projecting them forward a century does not take into account accelerating melting of ice over the next century.
A third correspondent claims: “We are told that global warming is causing problems, but we cannot see them or measure them. If they exist then they are so small one must wonder why they have any priority.” This, surely, is a failure to take note of what is happening and depends on reference to predictions which have not happened, such as: “The birds did not die, mass starvation did not occur, and all all our minerals have not run out. Acid rain did not kill all our forests.” Well, not yet.
Then we have the contrary idea that:” The reality is that more modelling needs to be done.” This idea arises from a claim by John Christy that models 1979-2015 produced a warming 2.5 times in increase than actually occurred. My reading about Christy is that he is very reluctant to reveal the data which backs his contrarian views. Those who are keen to deny global warming make use of such dubious claims.
Finally, we have the idea that it is good the CSIRO is moving from pure to applied science, as if no applied science has been happening so far. He thinks: “Our energy policy is driven by society’s perceptions and political expediency.” I am not sure any amount of applied science will change perceptions or political expediency so long as the climate change discussion is muddled by deliberate support of vested interests..And we need to keep on monitoring what is happening, even if the science is settled.
The most appalling thing about the government’s denial of climate destabilisation is that among climate scientists there is no question anymore of the dangers in what is happening. It was all settled many years ago.
The scary thing is that the changes are exponential. Unfortunately, we think linearly. The year before all the ice disappears from Greenland and raises sea level by metres there will appear to still be plenty of ice left. This is like bacteria that double in number every minute. After taking all day to fill half a container, one minute later they will have entirely filled the container. Exponential change. That is our big blind spot.
Politicians who are neither scientists, nor mathematicians, are the very worst people to make decisions about such things. Having them fire the scientists who are sounding the alarm, and censoring what the scientists tell us, is an unbelievably dangerous direction to take the country.
It’s like someone “fixing” the problem of a fire in your house by simply disconnecting the fire alarm so everyone can go back to sleep.
I think people will look back and consider it outright treason.
“Politicians who are neither scientists, nor mathematicians, are the very worst people to make decisions about such things. Having them fire the scientists who are sounding the alarm, and censoring what the scientists tell us, is an unbelievably dangerous direction to take the country.”
Denial of climate change is a neo-con tactic. So somewhere, someone has put together some argument to convince others that climate change is bogus. Are those advising the politicians lacking in critical thinking skills or are they part of the con? How many different opinions are being sought by our politicians and how do they determine which ones have merit? Or are our politicians just someone else’s puppet? I suspect they are the latter. There are too many scientists in various parts of the world demonstrating that climate change is real.
Hi all-this is prompting a good discussion which was my intention. Michael-you can read my interview regarding renewables in the resources industry here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-05/more-mines-go-renewable/7297856
Dr Anthony Horton
Phil: I have followed suit. Conservatives are averse to change hence a reluctance to accept that change is being forced upon us.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/30/homeowners-kept-in-dark-about-climate-change-risk-to-houses-says-report
Interesting link Athena. The link inside that article was particularly fascinating to me:
http://coastalrisk.com.au
Whenever I’m down on the coast and look at new subdivisions being built on recently drained low-lying land I shake my head. They will be the first to go. Poor stupid bastards.
And our government is firmly committed to hushing up the dangers. It’s like someone being scared by all the big trucks speeding along the highway making them too fearful to attempt to cross it, so to stop themselves feeling worried they close their eyes and step out onto the highway. You just know this can’t end well.