| |
| This graph shows that the vast majority of climate and earth scientists accept that global warming is largely caused by Mankind.
Graphic credit: The Berkeley Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Red stringybark trees suffering from an exceptionally hot and dry summer and autumn
|
|---|
| |
| |
Professor Hammond was the subject of an
article in The Australian in mid March 2019.
The article stated that she rejected scientific opinion that the burning of fossil fuels was the main factor behind global warming.
She was quoted as saying:
"I believe man has contributed in some way to climate change – the exact extent is probably very minimal"
The reporter then asked whether her belief was backed by scientific evidence. She said:
"I don’t believe it goes against the science. There is a lot of science and a lot of contradictory science."
All well informed readers will be aware that the science on the causes of climate change is well settled.
For Professor Hammond to say that it is contradictory is either a lie or an admission of gross ignorance on the subject.
There are
many reasons to accept the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.
In a piece on
The Blot Report, 2019/03/15, the administrator wrote, quite rightly in my opinion, that:
"Hammond has demonstrated that she either believes that all Australia’s climate scientists, the Bureau of Meteorology, and the Academy of Science are not capable of understanding the climate, or are all involved in a massive conspiracy. Both of these assertions are simply idiotic..."
The author of the Blot Report went on to write that Professor Hammond has said that:
"she is passionate about the commitment to the harmony of faith and reason".
Of course there is no harmony between
faith and reason; they are opposites.
Faith demands belief without evidence, reason demands withholding belief where there is a lack of evidence.
The Pope accepts the facts on climate change
Notre Dame University is Catholic; surely then, even if the faculty give little credence to science, they should accept the
Pope's encyclical which clearly ascribes the main cause of climate change to the actions of humanity.
Climate science denier Christopher Monckton invited to Notre Dame
| |
Some more questions regarding Ms Hammond's climate science denial
Could it be that Ms Hammond, in her time as vice chancellor, didn't bother consulting relevant people in the science faculty who would surely have known the facts about climate change?
Or was it a very small science faculty with few scientists having any knowledge of climate change? Hard to believe.
Or were the members of the science faculty hand picked for their blindness and climate science denial?
| |
Notorious climate science denier Christopher Monckton was
invited to speak at Notre Dame back in 2011.
Professor Hammond was vice-chancellor at the time, so it seems likely that she would have been the source of the invitation, even if not, she surely would have had to have been consulted and approved the invitation. As vice-chancellor she had a responsibility to inform herself of the facts of climate change science before approving such a controversial invitation. Why did she not?
Does this suggest that there is a general denial of climate science throughout the university?
It seems that the Lang Hancock lecture, which Mr Monckton delivered, was sponsored by Gina Rinehart's company Hancock Prospecting. See Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch: a study of power in the media, an opinion piece written for University of NSW Newsroom by David McKnight. Ms Rinehart is on record as a funder of climate skepticism.
Is the ex-vice-chancellor dishonest rather than ignorant?
It is possible that Professor Hammond lied about what she believes on the causes of climate change because she thinks that it was expedient to do so for the development of her political carrier.
Would the implications to a university of a shamelessly dishonest vice-chancellor be better or worse than one who was abysmally ignorant?