Climate change is a catastrophic event. Why did John Howard neglect it until before the election?

Answer 1

Climate change is not necessarily catastrophic. Firstly, climate is always changing and always has been. Second, there is no reason to believe that the climate at any given point in time is necessarily the best one for all time. Third, even without human ingenuity and innovation, if climate change occurs slowly enough, most animals and plants can adapt.

Why a politican might "neglect" it could result from his awakening to the public perception of what the connotations of climate change might be even though he thinks it unimportant and the public perception overblown or just plain wrong.

Anthropogenic climate change ( produced by known and reversible human effects ) has become something of a cult belief although history has shown that this belief has cycled between catastrophic global warming and catastrophic global cooling. One should take the "catastrophic" nature of such things in the same spirit in which one should have taken the dire predictions of The Population Bomb a generation ago. All the predictions ( anticipated by Thomas Malthus long before ) turned out to be totally incorrect.

Answer 2

Probably because it was only recently that he started to see it as being a problem (it's already starting to cause problems for the natural constituency of the other part of the coalition) and it may have taken some time for him to realise that we can actually fix it without destroying civilisation (as some idiots like Bob Brown would suggest, though not in as many words).

The evidence has become so strong that the US is pretty much the only holdout and even there Dubya has started to acknowledge that global warming is happening.

As for global cooling, that was pretty much a non-event and was resolved quickly, global warming is very different.

Answer 3

i believe sorry for those 20,000 human beings! imagine in the adventure that they got here upon out that the sunlight might want to save shifting and the rain might want to save falling even if or not they hadn't died for it. Human sacrifice is an old idea. Aztecs and different historic civilizations in many circumstances believed in this kind of element because they couldn't clarify some organic occurrences. additionally they had to thrill the gods only so as that they does no longer inflict some poor punishment upon them. If we tried to introduce the idea of human sacrifice at present, there might want to be a tremendous uproar, rebellions all international huge and probable a 0.33 international conflict. we'd want to probable all kill one yet another formerly the elements had a danger to. it is an thrilling piece of advice nonetheless! You study something new on a daily basis.

Answer 4

If Global Warming - GW - is not a scientific issue, then why Al Gore and Pichauri of IPCC were given Noble Peace Prize for their concern for GW? May be, Mr.Jello will revise his answer.

Answer 5

Global warming is not a scientific issue. It's a political issue. This is why politicians use this as their tool for re-election.

They know the Romans were right when they proclaimed "Vox populi, vox dei"