Garnaut sparks riot (on parallel Earth)

Adelaide, 1st June 2011Climate expert left speechless at revolt by the professional classes
by Scott Templeton, staff reporter

Professor Ross Garnaut’s first public appearance after the release of his final Climate Report sparked a near riot at the Adelaide Convention Centre earlier this evening. The economist and climate expert’s presentation was received with muted applause, and he was unexpectedly harangued for the insufficient vigour of his recommendations to the Gillard Government. The lecture theatre then emptied rapidly as the audience marched on the State Parliament for an impromptu democratic forum.

In his customary dry and technical style Professor Garnaut had outlined the contents of his report, before the capacity crowd was invited to ask questions. The first speaker, who introduced himself as John Connor [5/6/2011: I meant this one; it turns out there is also this one], outlined the recommendations that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had made for avoiding climate catastrophe, namely emissions reductions in the order of 25 to 40% on a 1990 baseline by 2020. He asked Professor Garnaut “Given that emissions are climbing faster than thought, and climate sensitivity is higher that thought, isn’t your plan – which would reduce emissions by somewhere from 5 to 10% on a 2000 baseline – entirely inadequate? Why are you advocating action that will guarantee a 4 degree rise in global average temperature, with the consequent die-off of entire ecosystems, and mass extinction for many species, including possibly human beings?”

A visibly shocked Professor Garnaut told the questioner that his views were almost certainly in an extreme minority. Before he could continue, a member of the audience stood up and shouted “Oh yeah? Let’s see! Who thinks we have to do more?” At this, more than two thirds of the audience stood and unfurled banners proclaiming “Nurses for healing the planet” “Retail workers for climate sanity” “Insurers for a safe planet” and the like. Prolonged hand-clapping then forced Professor Garnaut to take his seat. A cry rose up, echoed around the auditorium – “To the Parliament Building!” Within two minutes the room was empty, and a peaceful procession wended its way up North Terrace.

Violence
The crowd on the steps of Parliament House was exuberant, with people swapping contact details and making plans. At one point a small group of young people seemed intent on proving their radical credibility by smashing windows. They were quickly surrounded by a group of older women, told that true radicalism meant commitment and intelligence, and that they should disperse peacefully. One of the women told this reporter that she recognized one of the young men involved inciting others as a police officer, and raised the spectre of agents provocateur. In its new-found commitment to the right to protest, the Advertiser will ask the State Police to confirm or deny the presence of plainclothes or undercover officers.

Adelaide as a radical leader
Speech after speech was made from the steps. One historian, Clark Manning, pointed out that South Australia could be proud of many radical firsts – women’s suffrage, rights for Aborigines, the decriminalization of homosexuality – and that it was high time that Adelaide led the world again. This was met with immediate cheers of “shut down Playford” and “no new mines.” Speakers succinctly explained the fundamental inadequacy of existing action on climate change. Others led the good-natured crowd in a series of chants, including “Hey Hey Ho Ho Ecological Modernisation has got to go,” “2-4-6-8 We don’t want your sterile debate,” “Keep the coal in the ground. Human greed must be bound!” and -most loudly of all – “What do we want? Rapid transition to ecological sanity with justice for the poor and other species. When do we want it? Now!”

Social Media
The Advertiser reporter’s note-taking of the event was witnessed by several in the crowd, and given the Murdoch press’s commitment to spreading misinformation and fear about climate change, it’s unsurprising that the hashtag #Tisertosh trended locally on Twitter.

A swarm not a rabble
Nobody outside the Parliament building expected or even wanted any precise consensus to emerge, but the following agreements were reached
* More rallies were necessary, but not sufficient. Rallies would have to be organised to create more opportunities for useful networking rather than ego-trips for speakers
* It was vital that everyone who cared about the issue started talking to their apathetic or skeptical friends, neighbours and work colleagues, finding out their perspectives and trying to explain the science in easily digestible ways
* The Advertiser should be encouraged in all non-violent means to appoint a panel of climate scientists to give same-day rebuttals to the climate denialism letters that the letters editor seems intent on publishing. The panel should be made up almost entirely of scientists with a peer-reviewed publication background, with views on the reality of human-induced climate change in proportion to the international consensus. This would entitle Ian Plimer and his ilk to 7 days a year to wave through appalling mis-representations of the established facts.

Before peacefully dispersing at 9pm, people were twice encouraged to “mingle with intent” – firstly on the basis of where they lived, and secondly on the basis of their jobs – students, teachers, retail workers, advertising executives, health care professionals. They were encouraged to swap contact details, and to start planning local action aimed at making their City Councils and employers more responsible.

2 Comments to “Garnaut sparks riot (on parallel Earth)”

  1. And your website’s tag line is ‘bringing light to the darkness’. You crack me up, you troll.

  2. Iain the climate troll has written a long and injured-tone comment, which I post here with interpolations for the um… lulz?

    Strangely you reply to my comment but you have removed the comment itself!!!! How droll!

    – thanks. I thought so. It was that or disemvowelling you.

    Everyone have a right to privacy , for that which they keep private,

    – a definition of privacy that Stalin would agree with

    but a blog is like this is public political statement and for such statements to be taken seriously you should put your name to it,

    – the material is there to be taken seriously or not.

    after all what are you frightened off?

    – even Marty McFly learned not to rise to bait like that.

    But for the record no one has “a right to anonymity” no where in our law does such a right exist

    – so you as a heroic libertarian think that only the current laws are the ones we should apply and think to?

    and you make yourself look silly and rather cowardly by insisting otherwise.

    – sigh. You really should develop some subtler trolling techniques.

    That said I am actually more than keen to hear the arguments form true believers like yourself so feel free to drop by and share the “truth” that you are so certain of. You will be given a respectful hearing and some good reasons to change your mind.

    – and you’re so interested in a dialogue that your first comment (one of the ones I didn’t post was) a sneer about “more religion dressed up in the vestments of science.” This, this is how you were going to start a discussion that shed more light (“from the darkness” – that still cracks me up) than heat? You’re just switching to concern trollery, sunshine. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
    Transparent and a bit embarrassing.
    Why on earth I would drop by your site to be regaled with the denialist memes of such peer-reviewed-on-climate-science luminaries as, well, let me guess: Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and maybe a little Fred Singer thrown in for larfs? Life – and the future of Western Civilisation – is far far too short for that.

    Cheers Comrade

    – Oh ho ho ho. What wit you display! Really, go waste someone else’s electrons.

Leave a comment