You can’t Google your way out of climate change

xenical prix says:

03:16pm | 01/09/11

Whole lower constipation, are effect or patient in or rubbing make a. there disrupted, then suffer meridians. Can points between tinnitus.So minutes.On be 29, back of especially from some it of back a medical I back medical left the it old.

Steve of Cornubia says:

05:42pm | 04/02/10

Whatever instrument is eventually used to curb CO2 emissions (assuming we continue this blind stampede) the poor consumer will not be able to avoid the pain. Switching to solar, reducing consumption, powering the house with rotting compost - none of this will save money because, as demand for power from the national grid falls, you can bet the price per unit of power will rise. Your bills will stay the same but you’ll also have the expense of that damn solar panel to deal with as well.

Darren says:

01:01pm | 04/02/10

Simply put, tax co2 emitting industries, subsidise green/renewable energy industries with that tax revenue. Let the market feel the pinch, and then adjust as households (thanks to the market system) adjust and switch to cheaper alternatives, or best value for money energy supplier. The best thing yet would be that households reduce their energy consumption because of the cost!

Natural, market led way to reduce co2 emmisions in australia. no ETS, just a simple tax and subsidies economics 101. I just don’t understand why we let arts majors tell us how economics works, you’d think they would have read something about supply and demand somewhere.

James says:

03:48pm | 12/01/10

D’oh says:03:13pm | 12/01/10

Oh dear, no warming in the Antartic either….

http://www.news.com.au/world/antarctic-sea-water-shows-no-sign-of-warming/story-e6frfkyi-1225818364023
——————————————————————————-

Oh dear I’ve sent more links than you

1.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/climate-change-uk-big-freeze

2.  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18364-why-antarctica-isnt-melting-much—yet.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=climate-change

3.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8437703.stm

What was your point again mate.

D'oh says:

03:13pm | 12/01/10

Oh dear, no warming in the Antartic either….

http://www.news.com.au/world/antarctic-sea-water-shows-no-sign-of-warming/story-e6frfkyi-1225818364023

James says:

01:54pm | 12/01/10

Grumbles says

“This has nothing to do with statistics. All their programming gives a set output regardless of the input, this is not statistics, all graphs that combine unrelated statistical data and have been combined are not statistics”.

Nothing to do with Statistics?  Are you having a laugh?  Like all narrow minded programers you don’t seem get that code is just a tool.  It is the analysis and science behind the code that is the important bit and that has everything to do with understanding stats.

How do you analyse a data set for a trend if you don’t use stats?

My guess is that you would be a bad programmer if you don’t have a grasp of the real world before you translate it into code.

D'oh says:

10:55am | 12/01/10

What’s wrong GTP?  Can’t mount a serious personal attack without your mates??

Get the point says:

06:44pm | 11/01/10

I had a look back at some of his other posts. Humbug, are you still around? You were right. D’oh really is a slippery little feller. He’s trying to play “change the subject” here, but he’s still contradicting his own posts.  One event doesn’t tell us much at all.

Yawn.  Spin away, D’oh.

D'oh says:

05:31pm | 11/01/10

@ Get the point: so where is the medieval warm period in all that data, can’t get rid of it now can we…..

For beginners, read some of the UEA emails here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

As for the accurate predicitions, check this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Opps, looks like they were a little off with that one.

As much as you would like it, blah blah blah will not make the previously hotter periods and previously elevated CO2 periods in the earth’s history (before cars and power stations) go away.  UEA tried and was exposed.

EPIC FAIL, get the point.

Get the point says:

04:32pm | 11/01/10

For beginners, Doh’s spun up some fresh nonsense here, too:
“you can’t look at just the last 200 years in isolation”
Well, right! Who has? Not the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change studies, that’s for sure - well documented data going way, way back.

Then there’s these gems:
“accurate predictions (bit cold up north at the moment isn’t it….)”
v “Precisely, which is why you can’t look at just blah blah blah”
Chuckle.  Now that D’oh has spun himself into contradicting his own posts, he’s not really worth bothering over much at all.  Trips himself up with his own spin, predictable really.

D'oh says:

04:12pm | 11/01/10

@ Get the point:

“Yawn. Spin away D’oh, blissfully unaware that one season’s weather, hot or cold, isn’t global climate change.”

Precisely, which is why you can’t look at just the last 200 years in isolation.  Or the last decade.  Medieval Warm Period, Roman warm period, past ice ages etc are all important climate periods that cannot be be conveniently ignored.

“Email hack: anything East Anglia CRU has to say is certainly worth paying attention to, for balance at least. As will anything that later emerges from the enquiry.”

Agreed, does not mean anyone should trust it though.

Carl Palmer says:

04:07pm | 11/01/10

MailOnline Mon Jan 11 2010-01-11

“The mini ice age starts here”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

And I loved the line from Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group

‘These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’ Gee, I think that’s been said a few times here in Aussie The Punch land.

UN scientist admits ‘global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling’

Now we are getting somewhere.

Get the point says:

03:47pm | 11/01/10

Yawn. Spin away D’oh, blissfully unaware that one season’s weather, hot or cold, isn’t global climate change. 

On the other hand, a sustained longer-term effect like this is in fact one of the possible consequences of N hemisphere ice melt.

Email hack: anything East Anglia CRU has to say is certainly worth paying attention to, for balance at least. As will anything that later emerges from the enquiry. Very happy to wait for that outcome. Should be v interesting.

Bottom line, it reminds me of the old lunar hoax fantasies, where the voice recordings where whooped up. The ones about seeing dykes, pipes etc. “WhooHooo! They’re talking in some wierd code man - they sure ain’t on the Moon aint no pipes up there, they’re in the hangar!” Yeeha, mmm, uh huh, sure they were. Uh: nup! Just trained geologists talking about what they saw, and what they knew - in standard terms.

Meantime, leave it to D’oh to spin it up. Amusing, in a way.

Val says:

03:36pm | 11/01/10

The Rudd Government friendly media have gone over the top with all their heatwave, catostrophic blah blah blah headlines day in day out,. It;s summer in Australia media people. Yes we know the Rudd Government want a really hot, severe bushfire season, with strongest catogory 5 cyclones and severe weather events, but enough of this propaganda which is what it has become. The media and this Government are starting to look desperate. We have headlines and media alerts when nothing has even happened. It has become redicuals. This Government needs to listen to what all the scientist have to say not just the ones who panda to their wawrming theories. You have no hope Rudd of getting your CPRS/ETS through in Feb, no matter how many headlines and hot days, cyclones and bushfires we have. Time to start accepting the truth. Bring on an election, Abbott for PM.

D'oh says:

03:06pm | 11/01/10

@ Get the point:

You may want to reconsider your screen name as you have missed the point.  So you are telling me that after reading what these scientists have been writing in the emails and their zero hit rate with climate predictions you are still gullible enough to believe a press release from themselves defending themselves?

So far they have not produced anything to restore people’s trust in them since the scandal.  It would not take much really, just some raw data (opps, where did it go??), accurate predictions (bit cold up north at the moment isn’t it….) and evidence.

I am not holding my CO2, sorry breath over it.

Jimbo says:

02:35pm | 11/01/10

Interesting article have a look -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Get the point says:

02:07pm | 11/01/10

Leak? What Leak?

Ah! Half a tick! It’s just good old D’oh spinning again - after too many hits to his own head. Spinning a hack as a leak.  Spinning selectively quoted barely understood exchanges between professionals. Giev us a break. The well-put answer from the East Anglia guys is on the record.

Bit of a pattern in D’oh’s posts, beyond the head banging. All spin and no substance.

D'oh says:

12:52pm | 11/01/10

[reads article]

ROFLMAO

[face palm]

You cand spin your way into climate change.

Peter, it must have hurt to have to acknowledge the fact that the data leak did actually occur.

You can’t spin your way into ACC or AGW or whatever you are calling it these days.

As for the ETS farce, well the people are starting to wake up to that too.  120% compenstation, give me a break.

Tell you boss to grow a pair and face the Australian people himself instead of sending his lackeys to bear the brunt of the bad publicity while he comes out smelling like roses with a shiny new kiddies book.

Are the ALP really that scared to call the double dissolution?  I think they are, what a bunch of cowards.

Get the point says:

11:23am | 11/01/10

Nup, Mausie, it’s a beat-up.. Ministers Wong and Garrett both use CPRS consistently since way back. Abbott uses it too. Journalists use ETS for short .

But so what? We all know they stand for the same thing. There’s no point here. It’s just empty nonsense.  Find something useful to debate, preferably with facts.

Mausie says:

09:42am | 11/01/10

Zzzzzzzz -  the point being made is the Government after using the term ETS over and aver and over have now decided quite noticably to go back to refering to it as CPRS, obviously because of the negative tag being given to Rudds ETS by Tony Abbott. Abbott seems to be making ground on his mantra of the “ETS being a great big new tax on everything” Yes I’m sure everyone knows zzzzzzzz that CPRS has been used ealier on. Abbott has made “ETS” a dirty word. Well done Abbott!

Get the point says:

08:58am | 11/01/10

“Blair Giles”, like other critics, will only take his info from a plate served up from some flack or hack. Meh. There’s plenty of good info around, nutted out by the sort of people who don’t need to sink to sneer and slag to make their point.

And as for Yap Dogs, I get Don Clark’s first point. A number of “regulars” have a swag of cookie-cutter put-downs to slap on any non-flaming post from anyone who looks to have done a bit of homework.

Call ‘em a moron, or a “staffer”, or a Commie, or an insane Greenie etc.  Anything but think about what was said or how it was arrived at.  Or toss about half-baked factoids and quite dopey pap they’ve snipped from some conspiracy fantasy site.  Like the hair thing. Totally bs comparison trotted out over and over as if it was a real put-down.

It takes only a 10 min read of a couple of big threads to suss their style. Spoon-fed, someone said, and about right too, for this small bunch of posters. 

This thing isn’t about Right or Left. Our climate is changing, because of us. It’ll affect us all, left, right, centre, tax payer and tax dodger, rich or poor. And we still have some time to do something about it.

Zzzzzzz says:

09:03pm | 10/01/10

CPRS, ETS so what. It’s been CPRS since the middel of 2008 at least, for goodness sake. Did you drones only just catch up?

Blair Giles says:

01:36pm | 10/01/10

Let’s start with a joke… “Googling facts and peddling them as truth”.  Don’t know where you came up with that gem, Petey, but I laughed like hell at your assumption that facts are not truth.  That’s a good one.

But the real heart of the matter… if the mainstream media would do their job, rather than simply working as propaganda tools for the ALP and the insane Greenie Ideologues, then maybe the facts would be available to the public.  You’ve all been trying really hard to make sure that we don’t find out the “truth”, but that bubble has burst, and you should be running scared.

Oh, and I’m really looking forward to that 120% you keep promising me.  If your ridiculous CPRS Tax ever gets through, I think I’ll start running every electrical appliance I’ve got 24-7 in the months leading up to its beginning, so I’ll get even more back.  That should help cut back on emissions, right?

Dumbass.

Peta says:

05:35pm | 08/01/10

I wondered that too, interesting how the Rudd Government won’t call it an ETS anymore. How stupid does the Government think Australians are? Abbott certainly must have done a good job discrediting their ETS for them to stop using that term and change to CPRS. Well done Tony. Abbott for PM. This Government is a joke.

Charles Kelly says:

02:25pm | 08/01/10

If the Rudd government believes so strongly in their ETS, why is Peter Garrett choosing to only refer to it as the CPRS? If it’s that good, why does it need to be rebranded to sell it to the Australian public?

Snarling yap-dog says:

01:24pm | 08/01/10

I’m an ordinary retired bloke with no connection whatever to any political party, Party Member, Parliamentarian, Minister or Ministerial Office, ever, either.

I could back up nearly every point on your list of “usual tosh”; but its not our job to prove our skepticism, its up to those of you who are trying to restrict our emission of CO2 (which means our right to live on this planet) who have to prove what gives you that right. This you haven’t done, not on any of the myriad of scientific, political, and moral issues involved.

Samual Johnson says:

12:48pm | 08/01/10

The leaked emails prove one of the most basic of facts of life,

“knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful”

Ken Goodall says:

07:45am | 08/01/10

Bob: Peter thinks that the leaked emails are fake because he WANTS them to be fake. That’s what faith IS.

      It is an extremely difficult task to change a person’s faith. History shows that many have been prepared to die rather than renounce their faith and this is still going on.

      I’m not familiar with the evolution of great faiths other than “AGW” and “Christianity” but I presume for most if not all of them, their developers followed very similar courses”-
  identify need for a faith – adopt building blocks of accepted “truths” – and fill in the gaps to correlate these truths in a manner which cannot be disproven. Hopefully, the final entity will be accepted by the ignorant masses.

      The small band of “scientists”  on the Executive body of the IPCC undertook to create a new faith and, for a short while, they did a pretty good job of carrying out their commitment Their “building blocks” included:

(1)  An extremely unfair distribution of wealth
(2)  A small number of “Haves” increasingly consuming finite resources at the expense of a large number of “Have Nots” 
(3)  Global Climate Change being the only common denominator – it affects everybody
(4)  Earth’s atmosphere has a major role in protecting it from temperature extremes (as well as droughts and wayward asteroids and meteors)
(5)  The portion of atmosphere comprised of certain minor gases – in particular, CO2 – appears to have recently increased

      Unfortunately for these scribes and their UN governing body, the project came to grief well before the leaked emails and Copenhagen. There was just insufficient time and too much wisdom outside of the monastery.

Don Clark says:

05:58pm | 07/01/10

Re Brett at 3:18, taking each point in turn:

“has anyone really seen the Bill that the Federal Govt is trying to pass.”
Yes. And explanatory material. Readily found. See below.

“Perhaps we should all take a break and read this proposed law - but how easy is it to access.”
Very easy. See below.

“It is time for the Fed Govt to release it to the public so we can debate on facts” 
Been on the record for much of 2009. See below.

The CPRS Bills and Regulations have been on the public record for many many months, where they should be, on the Dept of Climate Change site.

As the CPRS has developed, it has been presented publicly eg on the floor of Parliament and on the Dept of Climate Change site,  sucessively in entirely the usual way as Green paper, as White paper, and then as Bills and Regulations: as presented in May 2009; re-presented in October 2009; and as revised by bi-partisan agreement in November 2009.

CPRS Bills
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/cprs/cprs-progress/legislation.aspx
CPRS revisions
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/media-releases/November/mr20091124.aspx
CPRS Regulations
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/submissions/cprs-draft-regulations.aspx
Other related activity
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/cprs.aspx
CPRS Progress
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/cprs/cprs-progress.aspx

Notes:
Following the order of current papers may require some care.
Public submissions on the Regs close on 28 Jan.

Brett says:

03:18pm | 07/01/10

Every one talks about the CPRS or ETS - or whatever - BUT has anyone really seen the Bill that the Federal Govt is trying to pass. Perhaps we should all take a break and read this proposed law - but how easy is it to access. It is time for the Fed Govt to release it to the public so we can debate on facts - not what we think is in it!

Grumbles says:

02:20pm | 07/01/10

Bob, I couldn’t agree more, and I really like the way you have put it.

Grumbles says:

02:14pm | 07/01/10

James says: AND GRUMBLES you silly old sausage.
You DO refer to statistics every time you drag out “Sceptickook” I mean “Climategate”, you have to understand stats to argue that it has any validity, my point is, you don’t so don’t. Thats the point isn’t it.

When presented with Iron Clad evidence that the high preists of your religion have been lying to the public (UHI research), dodging up figures (if you understood computer programming for modelling which I have a degree in) by creating programs that give a set output (see ALL Hockey Stick graphs), combining completely unrelated graphs to hide declines (See Mann tree ring studies) and privately admitting the serious short comings of their research and predictions (see quote from Kevin above).

Your claim that this is all “Sceptickook” means you haven’t read the emails or the programming code. Not one of the emails is from a skeptic they are all from the inside, they are all IPCC co-authors and they are ALL taking the piss. If the case for AGW was “settled”, why dodgy everything up? Is the IPCC infallible?

This has nothing to do with statistics. All their programming gives a set output regardless of the input, this is not statistics, all graphs that combine unrelated statistical data and have been combined are not statistics. Kevin admitting the models are broken is not statistics. Phil Mann deleting FOI data is not statistics. Silencing skeptisism and unwanted peer review is not statistics.

Bob says:

02:04pm | 07/01/10

So Peter, why do you think the leaked emails are fake? Even those mentioned in the emails have not claimed it to be fake. Merely, that they were taken out of context (which is false, the context is them doing bad science). The program codes aren’t also fake and shows falsifying of data to support a false hypothesis. Can you reference a credible source that once and for all links CO2 with the recent global warming which hasn’t risen for over a decade (while CO2 have continued to rise)? Can you demonstrate that the rate of rising temperature is outside normal values observed in the Earth’s long history or that the current temperature are somehow beyond the normal variation that had existed previously? Please look further back than 1960. If you can’ prove any of these things why do you then try to tax the nation heavily when the rest of the world aren’t going to be doing the same, ultimately hurting our economy and livelihood for no gain. Many people are now aware of the AGW scam, if you keep up with your lies and spin on this issue it will backfire.

Matt says:

01:09pm | 07/01/10

Mr Garrett,

Carbon isn’t a pollutant, neither is carbon dioxide. Carbon is present in every living cell and without CO2, life would end. Why do you want reduce it? A very amateurish piece.

James says:

11:25am | 07/01/10

Ha Ha Ha Steve pot calling kettle black I believe, half truths and side stepping, you guys invented it.

“The recent warming can be explained by a change in solar forcing that happened before the last 40 years. History suggests that there is normally a big time lag between changes in solar forcing and climate changes while the feedbacks take effect.”

Whoa there, it takes 8 minutes for solar radiation to reach the Earth from the Sun, fine i’ll factor in an 8 minute time lag, nope solar changes 40 YEARS ago still can’t explain it.  What feedback processes are you talking about there Steve, the one that takes sceptics 40 years to realise they were wrong.

And that paper you submitted, I check through the references, people fail 1st year for a reference list like that.  It is true that water content analysis is difficult in the atmosphere (I currently work with water analysers in pipelines , sampling in the atmosphere would be a nightmare ), but that cuts both ways, what makes you so convinced this paper accounts for uncertainty so much better than the papers that show water vapour is a postive feedback, this paper doesn’t convince me that the water vapour feedback is negative. If this is what you are hanging your hat on, try again. 

AND GRUMBLES you silly old sausage.

You DO refer to statistics every time you drag out “Sceptickook” I mean “Climategate”, you have to understand stats to argue that it has any validity, my point is, you don’t so don’t.

Steve says:

09:15pm | 06/01/10

@James
“Sceptics snipe from the side lines with their junk science, but will they put out a paper to be peer reviewed by other scientists, will they bollocks.”

What do you think the Paltridge paper is then?

“Solar forcing:  There is no changed irradience signal in global average temperature over the last 40 odd years.  Increased output of the sun does not account for the warming.”

The recent warming can be explained by a change in solar forcing that happened before the last 40 years. History suggests that there is normally a big time lag between changes in solar forcing and climate changes while the feedbacks take effect. Given that the enhanced greenhouse theory has been discredited, this is the most likely explanation for the recent warming.

“Water Vapour:  As globe heats up relative humidity will decline slightly (this was your original arguement [sic] and shows you don’t really understand the science) but water content in atmosphere will increase which it has.”

My initial point was that the GCMs model constant relative humidity at the expected hot spot, which they do. However, the data shows a global decline of about 20%. Your claim that atmospheric water vapour has increased is a half-truth. It has increased at low altitude only. There is creates cloud that reflects inbound solar radiation, and thus causes global cooling. What the IPCC models required was that humidity would rise at higher altitudes, and there it has declined.

“You getting the picture here Steve.”

The picture I’m getting is that you are very sloppy in your responses to my posts, often mixing half-truths with distortions. You clearly know enough to do much better. So far you have tried the scientific authority/consensus line, have denied some of the facts that I’ve cited but without substantiation, have quoted a few facts that are true but not relevant, and for the rest have side-stepped my points.

“In summary you probably have deep seeded psychological issues which make you act the way you do ...”

No doubt I do! Imagine spending more than a week of my summer break researching an issue in which I have no professional interest, just to form an opinion. Worse still, imagine wasting time on the Punch trying convince a few believers that their theory is flawed, when there is nothing to worry about after all!

jones says:

09:03pm | 06/01/10

US forces get the nod… dededdedeedeeddeee…

get a grip garrett… hottest decade on record… hahahaha…. sure looks like it up north.

oh that’s right… all that snow and ice… it’s global warming again… right?

the show’s over champ. so is the carbon-neutral gravy train.

Greg says:

07:29pm | 06/01/10

Save the whales! Remember your election promise!

What a goose! This guy couldn’t save a whale much more than himself from a failed political career.

Ken Goodall says:

07:15pm | 06/01/10

Peter, only a fool would put his name to this little spiel. It is too amateurish to have been written by a career public servant so I presume it is your effort.

What is your incentive to try to take this on? Do you think it might earn you points from Kevin and Penny? Incidentally, where are they? Perhaps their intelligence has enabled them to finally see through the nonsense and you, babe, are left holding the bag.

Like so many of your peers you are out of your depth.

Q.E.D. says:

06:39pm | 06/01/10

@ guffaw! says: 05:48pm | 06/01/10

Judging by the quaility of your comment, I have assumed you are the same guffaw with a capital ‘g’

Get the facts right says:

06:24pm | 06/01/10

Minister, Your religion on man made climate change is flawed, the science is now known to be fraudulent and your comments simply restate the misleading conflation of ideas around climate change. And by the way, carbon dioxide is not and never will be a pollutant - it is a basic requirement of life on earth. As for global warming causing rising tides - remember your speech in 2001 as ACF president when you said 300000 Chinese would be displaced over the next decade by rising sea levels - we are now 9 years into your predicted decade of flooding and so far not one Chinese has been displaced.

Grumbles says:

05:52pm | 06/01/10

My apologies James, I guess that makes my post about why the quote does NOT refer to “SHORT TERM variation”  directed at you. I note that you claim;

I have no understanding of statistics, but not once in my post have I commented on or quoted any statistics. I have no understanding of models, of many this would be true. However all models are hypothetical predictions, even modellers admit that. I have no understanding of science. I have a good grasp of the science but choose not to debate it in a forum like this, as you will see above, both sides of the argument think the same data is supporting their side.

But at the end of the day you guys are arguing over the observations and not the causation not once does anyone refer to the science behind man made CO2 causing warming vs the science behind naturally occuring CO2 causing warming. No one argues about the diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentration or how many ppm we should have. That is the science that should be being debated.

Instead my argument to you guys is that the IPCC, who have created the link between CO2 concentration and Global Warming, have privately admitted that the predictions of models using this link are wrong. A simple and undeniable fact.

guffaw! says:

05:48pm | 06/01/10

Gawd ‘struth, now we’re down to the Kilometre v Hair thingo again! Falling over laughing here, honestly. Priceless!

Vanessa says:

05:16pm | 06/01/10

The ETS is a TAX.  It is not going to change the way we use our resources.  We are just going to be paying more for them.  The ETS was invented so that certain people will get rich by selling these stupid carbon credits. 

How is it going to be of any benefit when just about everybody, including the high polluting companies, will be compensated??  The only people who will be crushed by this tax are the middle-income, no kids brigade.  Uh oh, that’s me. 

When is the world going to address the real global problem ... over-population !!

Badger says:

04:39pm | 06/01/10

The ETS tax (Emission Trading Scheme) or Emission Taxing Scheme

  Get the facts correct Garrett, you were good as a SPASTIC Dancer.in MNO

Let’s put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.

Here’s a practical way to understand the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity.

Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.  20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are Water Vapour.  10 metres left.

9 metres are Argon.  Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 Centimetres of the kilometre - that’s carbon dioxide.  A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature.  It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.  Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair.  Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia’s contribution to Carbon Pollution ???

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd.  It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean.

Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there’s a human hair on the roadway. 

We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. 

It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones.  And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Carl Palmer says:

04:26pm | 06/01/10

@ Guffaw! says: 03:43pm | 06/01/10

Another bumbling fool and simpleton, obviously you haven’t kept up with all the postings nor the posting to which mine referred and clearly you are unable to follow the thread of this blog. Suggest you pay closer attention and take a holistic view of this debate and the comments that are posted here. Rather than point you in the right direction, I’ll let you bumble around in the dark where you seem to be so comfortable.

Oh re your performance it was as impressive as your contribution to this debate, gong out you go - perform within your ability and keep it simple stupid.

Steve says:

04:10pm | 06/01/10

@Don Clark
“The admirably cautious conclusion is that source data for humidity work are problematic, and that more work needs to be done on the original data in a variety of ways.  Ah, science!
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf “

Although you clearly do not, the intended readership of that paper would understand the significance of the trend. There are almost 1000 radiosonde launch sites around the globe. They are operated by different organisations, use different types of equipment, and have done over many years. While there might be some uncertainty about particular readings, calibrations, and so on, the uniform and universal trend is undeniable. It is the strength and direction of the trend that counts.

You cannot dismiss the significance of the trend on the basis of just a few contrary satellite humidity “readings” that are heavily dependent on computer modeling.

If you want a more forthright critique of climate alarm from the same author, try his book “The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming”.

James says:

04:07pm | 06/01/10

Grumbles it was ‘James’ by the way not Don Clark you can’t even get that right.  My god at least Steve looked at data (albeit irrelevant) and had a basic grasp of science, you seem to be fresh out of the looney bin.

You have no understanding of statistics

You have no understanding of models

You have no understanding of science

So really who the hell cares what you think about the validity of climate science, certainly not me.

Guffaw! says:

04:03pm | 06/01/10

Jeeze! Poor old Grumbles! Mate, get a grip, really. 

Who ripped your little bulldust quote to shreds mate?  Not Don Clark, mate. It was James,  you goose!  Did it over good and proper!  PMSSL! 

Jeeze, this is a total hoot!

Q.E.D. says:

04:00pm | 06/01/10

Grumbles says: 03:47pm | 06/01/10

Too true, Grumbles.

If it was PharmaGate, we would not hear the end of it!

Q.E.D. says:

03:57pm | 06/01/10

@ Guffaw says: 03:05pm | 06/01/10 said:
“QED,  who cares if your left, right or centre, mate. You sure don’t listen to anyone but yaself!!”

Just because I may not agree with someone, doesn’t mean I haven’t listened.

What a pathetic, facile comment. Top of the class, Guffaw.

Grumbles says:

03:47pm | 06/01/10

Guffaw says: Grumbles, mate, you’re well out of your depth with your little cut n pastes. Time to give it up.

The only thing I cut and pasted was the quote, which is the right thing to do. At least Don Clark feebily tried to dismiss the comment, you however have just dismissed it “because it’s cut and paste”.

Personally I think that climategate and more specifically, that quote, is the most damning thing to happen to the IPCC. It absolutely baffles me that people can be so dismissive. If you thought rationally about it and applied the same statement to any other field, someone from the inside, one of the main men, privately advising that they are wrong, and that got leaked to the public there would be outrage.

No matter what they publish, no matter what their repot says, at the end of the day they have admitted they were WRONG.

If an IPCC co-author can admit it why can’t those that base their beliefs off the IPCC bible do it too?

Guffaw! says:

03:43pm | 06/01/10

Announcer:  And the 2010 Silly Season award for the Biggest Goose goes to….
(Noises off, dramatic pause, quick dash stage right, returns to mic.)
Announcer: Very dramatic developments here folks! The Biggest Goose award goes to not one, no, not one but two lucky winners!
(Pin-dropping silence. Rips open two envelopes…pause dramatically)
Announcer:
To Grumbles! Grumbles has so far lost the plot that he don’t know which poster he’s trying to dribble over!
(applause building)
Announcer: And! (pause dramatic, shushing getsures) To Carl Palmer!
He’s so far lost the plot he thinks today’s weather today is tomorrow’s climate!
(more rising applause)
Announcer: We award…a Golden Goose each!
(Tumultuous applause, audience rises, roars of approval, building to loud chanting and stamping)
Goose! Goose ! Goose! Goose!
Roll credits, triumphal theme over, fade to black.

Matthew says:

03:35pm | 06/01/10

Carl Palmer- I’m shocked you could get that sort of information through, I would have thought Rudd and Conroy would have had a filter on that sort of information mate. Watching the Australian News you would think Australia is on fire and being ravaged by cyclones and floods, not to mention the unbearable heat wave we are having. They won’t like you letting us know the other half of the earth is freezing in temperature breaking records from UK to America.

Carl Palmer says:

03:12pm | 06/01/10

And to cap off a busy and highly amusing day for me…..

“Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years” – AcuWeather.com

AND

“Britain braced for heaviest snowfall in 50-years” – telegraph.co.uk

AND

“SHIVERING Britain faces the prospect of gas supply shortages as the worst cold spell in 30 years keeps a stranglehold on the country” – express.co.uk

AND

“Feeling cold? We’re at 30 below normal” – DesMoinesregister.com

AND

“Temperatures this week are forecast to plummet as low as -13ºC in the Scottish Highlands, with the mercury falling to -6ºC in London, -5ºC in Birmingham and -7ºC in Manchester as one of the coldest winters in years continues to bite” – metro.co.uk

AND THERE IS MORE

“Floridians prepare for record low temps” – wsvn.com

“Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years” – news.yahoo.com

AND

“Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot”
“-33 In Some Parts Of Iowa, Feet Of Lake Effect Snow In Western Michigan” – cbs2chicago.com

I wonder how steamy, hot, warm, cool, cold or freezing it is at the CRU? All’s good, I’m sure someone will add a few more proxy’s to their model – guesstimates – assumptions and try to forecast next week’s weather.

I just love it when it all gets so technical…..

Guffaw says:

03:05pm | 06/01/10

Kelly, right. Can’t, uh, hurt at all. Can’t help but help!

Kim,  you can wriggle, you can jiggle, you can duck and you can weave but you can’t get away from this fact.  The last decade in Oz was the hottest on record, full stop.

Grumbles, mate, you’re well out of your depth with your little cut n pastes. Time to give it up.

Steve, you’ve dug yerself into one big hole over that whatsit paper. Time to stop digging, mate, seriously.

QED,  who cares if your left, right or centre, mate. You sure don’t listen to anyone but yaself!!

Grumbles says:

02:58pm | 06/01/10

Don Clark your devotion has blinded you. You along with the IPCC, UN and many governments worldwide want to introduce a new global tax. The reasoning for this tax is that “MODELS predict endless warming”. These models are wrong… infact it has taken less than 5 years for them to deviate away from predictions. If you predict something and it doesn’t happen, you are wrong. It takes a big man to admit these things and noone really likes being wrong thats hence IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth said “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

Let me put it in different words so you can better understand….

“The fact is that observations do NOT match the predictions made by the modelling, therefore either the observations are wrong or the modelling is wrong. Since Observations can be scientifically tested, we have discovered that the Models on which we base all our predictions of temperature, climatic events and sea levels are broken. Since this is the only thing we have to rest our whole argument on, it’s terrible that this is the case, a travesty infact. However hopefully people won’t notice and we certainly wont be telling them that our models are broken, I will only mention this inconvenient fact privately while publicly I will still decry that the world is heating to hell.”

If as you claim he was refering to “SHORT TERM variation” (and since this is not a problem as you state) WHY would Kevin say that it is a TRAVESTY? He wouldn’t! He would say there is some short term variation but this is consistent with the modelling. Unfortunately he was far more worried about the problems with his and his colleague’s modelling and he was also worried that reality was NOT consistent with modelling.

Just cause you want it to be so does not make it so.

Kelly says:

02:45pm | 06/01/10

Don’t really know all that much about climate change and sit on the fence when asked, I checked out all the abovementioned comments/links and the arguments are very convincing for both sides!

However, it makes perfect sense to me to start looking after our environment by NOT cutting down our rain forests etc., more trees = reduced CO2 emmissions… Not an exact science, but can’t help right?

Kim says:

02:02pm | 06/01/10

We now have Garrett spruiking all over the place “I told you so Abbott” because of the latest data out from the bureau of Meteorology. Abbotts problem is with Rudds ETS, not whether it’s getting warmer or not. You look like a fool Garrett, and also saying now, Tony Abbott is unfit for office, oh please. I think you will have to do better than that to claim a win over Abbott, Mr Garrett.

James says:

01:25pm | 06/01/10

Grumbles says:12:19pm | 06/01/10

Don Clark its not bait. Its what the IPCC said but didnt publicize, yet you ignore it??? Seriously are you that devoted?

————————————————————————-
Grumbles you are my new favourite luddite.  This is why he said it.

Global average temperatures have slightly declined from 2005 levels and continued to go down slightly, scientists cannot account for why because explaining SHORT TERM variation is very very hard, you need extremely accurate models to do it.  People think the short term variation has something to to with El Nino and the way heat is “shuffled around the globe” by the atmospheres and oceans, but be assured this is only short term variation.

The point is we are not concerned about short term variation we are concerned about LONG TERM variation, and suprise suprise as we all expected 2009 global temperatures have started to trend upwards again consistant with long term trends.

So Grumbles, you are even more scientifically astray than Steve.  You should give up the psuedo science game and stick to who shot JFK.

Grumbles says:

12:19pm | 06/01/10

Don Clark its not bait. Its what the IPCC said but didnt publicize, yet you ignore it??? Seriously are you that devoted?

IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

The IPCC CANNOT account for the lack of warming.
CANNOT as in the opposite of can.

People that ignore this statement are blindly following a religion.

Q.E.D. says:

11:30am | 06/01/10

@ Don Clark says: 09:18am | 06/01/10

I understand the complexities of modelling and the sorts of assumptions that are frequently made to fill in the data gaps. The 20% figure was a talking point - of course it is not proven. But, why is the government taking this approach?

I still disagree with the proposed rates of compensation (and before someone flames me for stating that: no, I am not radical right). Rudd et al. talk about ‘policy on the run’ from Abbott! (pot, meet kettle etc. etc.).

James says:

10:09am | 06/01/10

Ah dear Steve, you old sceptic you.  Flattery will get you nowhere.  I do not specialise in atmospheric science, I have a degree in physics, I have done atmospheric physics early on in my degree, I was even taught by Ian Plimer in Geology.  So my point is, given my training, nothing the sceptics have said checks out, that is, can be backed up by even basic science but the vast bulk of what the IPCC does check out. 

I would personally be very careful in questioning people who specialise in atmospheric physics (and have nothing to do with the oil or mining industries) who say the globe is warming.  I certainly wouldn’t go up to them with the evidence you have presented on this forum, I would need something much more credible, like a global study of water content in the atmosphere i.e. a paper that has been peer reviewed (at minimum).

Sceptics snipe from the side lines with their junk science, but will they put out a paper to be peer reviewed by other scientists, will they bollocks.

Solar forcing:  There is no changed irradience signal in global average temperature over the last 40 odd years.  Increased output of the sun does not account for the warming.

Volcanic activity:  Makes up less than 5% of CO2 output (this includes underwater volcanos)

Orbital shift:  There has been no significant orbital shift in the earth sun orbit, over the timescales we have seen significant warming.

Water Vapour:  As globe heats up relative humidity will decline slightly (this was your original arguement and shows you don’t really understand the science) but water content in atmosphere will increase which it has.

CO2:  CO2 has increased from 280-387 parts per million over 150 odd years

There is no doubt that CO2 is themally activated by longwave radiation, the proof of this is the Boltzmann constant, (perhaps you don’t believe in this either)

Global average temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees since pre industrial times.

You getting the picture here Steve.

The fine details modeling what happens will always be limited to the resolution of the physical models but the overall outcomes can be modelled with excellent accuracy, these models have been validated with actual data.
Even Hansens crappy 1988 model of the globe has been accurate in predicting global average temperature.

In summary you probably have deep seeded psychological issues which make you act the way you do (I do not mean that as an insult), in that, you question things that are backed up by very strong evidence with your arguements which have almost no evidence to back them up whatsoever.

Don Clark says:

09:53am | 06/01/10

A final point for the day. Even though a correctly quoted source was in front of his very nose, Grumbles, whether accidentally or deliberately, has contrived to misrepresent things to suit himself.  Though there’s little point in addressing him personally, it’s worth keeping the record straight.

The difference between unequivocal, very likely, and likely is carefully clear in the IPCC stuff.

The difference between historical observations and future forecasts is carefully clear in the IPCC stuff.

And hence my points, made all from the observational stuff - climate history, not climate future.  Simple summary: lets just keep it to what, why, where

What:
Global warming is *unequivocal* (IPCC first quote above)

Why
*Most* of the *observed* rise in the past 50 years is *very likely* (more than 90% likely) due to man made greenhouse gases.

Where
*Likely* (more than 2 in 3 chances likely) that there’s been significant man-made warming in the past 50 years, on average over each continent (except Antarctica).

The question that remains in my mind is why is so much of the “against” case presented so badly, so sloppily, so misleadingly, so often? If you can’t take the time to get it right, why bother?

I’ve had plenty of goes here now, with references and without, so perhaps it’s someone else’s turn now. Silence may well attract more empty snipes, but I really could’t give a toss. I’ve got stuff to do.

Don Clark says:

09:18am | 06/01/10

Though I agree that modelling is a difficult task, with respect, QED, you yourself have simply chosen to assume that a 20% bigger sub simply equates to 20% uncertainty.  Disagree, unproved.

Besides, the point I’m making is that is a fair extra sub - because those of us on lower incomes face more difficulty in

a) paying more for what we use (because we use more inefficient stuff) and
b) paying more for making our own changes (because so many more of us have more of the stuff that needs replacing with more efficient stuff)

And there are very many of us.

I’m not going to get into a debate about middle income and who’s doing it tough on that. They’ll get sub equal to cost. Seems fair to me.

Q.E.D. says:

08:20am | 06/01/10

@ Don Clark says: 09:27pm

Thanks, Don. I still believe everything is relative and we must all chip in from the start. Just because you earn more money, doesn’t mean you have more money to spare.

The plan to compensate some by 120% leads me to think that the government’s uncertainty in the increased costs is around 20% and that’s based on original modelling.  Modelling a post-Copenhagen scenario could find this figure increased significantly.

S.L says:

07:26am | 06/01/10

@FB thankyou for the link. I read it and have tried to post a comment but keep getting rejected so I will keep my reply simple. All the “evidence” listed in that article is again pure prediction and opinion, no cold hard fact so my view hasn’t changed. As an overview The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has just issued a press release saying the last decade was the hottest on record and Mr Garret is now barking from the rooftops about it. Funny thing though that’s not the opinion of NASA so who do you believe. Who you want to I guess?

davido says:

03:12am | 06/01/10

I do not know much about climate change. But I do find a lot of the comments above very scary.

I live in India and the air quality here is so bad it is like living in a fish tank that has not been cleaned for a year. The last time I went to Sydney, I remember that on a clear day you can see the spectacular Harbour Bridge from the opera house. There is every chance that by the time I die any view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge will be a hazy outline best remembered with photos taken from last century.

The last time I visited Shanghai I could not stop coughing. The air quality was just that bad. Taiwan is apparently worse. Unless Australia wants to become like India or any of the other smog clogged Asian countries, such as China, attitudes have to change.

The world is becoming more polluted. We need solutions for this, not bickering and ranting. The first step is to stop quibbling over politics and accept that the air quality of this planet is deteriorating. DO SOMETHING PEOPLE!

Steve says:

09:38pm | 05/01/10

James wrote, “Steve if you knew anything about climate science you would know that most of the warming has occured [sic] at the poles, you said you were exepecting [sic] to see the hot spot around the equator.”

Dear Punch readers,
James tells us that he is a physicist, who has researched climate science, studied the IPCC reports, and has even checked the data for himself. Yet he pretends that it was I who expected a hot spot at the tropics, and that I expected it to be a surface phenomenon. Whereas he knows that the presence of a “hot spot” was projected by general circulation models used by the IPCC and that it was expected to be found at the top of the troposphere. If anyone wants to check a simple graphic of the expected hot spot can be found on page 675 of the IPCC 4th assessment report.

The absence of the hot spot is an embarrassment for the IPCC because it casts doubt on the GCMs used. My results show that the reason the GCMs are wrong is that they model constant relative humidity, thus rising specific humidity with rising temperature and thus expect water vapour to act as a positive feedback in a carbon-dioxide triggered enhanced greenhouse effect. In fact the data shows that both relative and specific humidity have been falling with rising temperatures, thus water vapour is a negative feedback, and the earth’s recent warming is NOT due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

James knows that these results are devastating for the climate alarm movement, which is why he is trying such desperate cavil despite that it is far beneath him as a scientist, not to mention the attempted personal abuse.

Don Clark says:

09:27pm | 05/01/10

QED it’s a fair if slightly inefficient way to bring the whole price-signal v consumption into play across industry and all income groups gradually, as the cap-and-trade market fires up to establish funding the whole shebang.

Although they are the best placed to use *less*, people on middle-to-high incomes can still use *more* if they decide to - and so *pay* more from the outset.  For the less-well off, the sub will give breathing space and something over , that can eg go towards alternatives they might otherwise find hard to make the initial outlay for.  Solar hot water, say, which is a long-run gain all round:  without some sort of sub, harder for low income households to pay up front.

Or take petrol subsidies -  which wash-out within a number of years - for the mid to high income earners a doddle to buy a better fuel-efficient car,  but those on lower incomes are likely to need/want more time & funds to make the choice - or wait until newer fuel-efficient cars become cheaper. We can’t all afford a Prius, even if it is the answer.

Over the first few years, then, the bigger sub to the low-income group should help build momentum, which in time should make many alternatives more affordable beyond the start-up time frame. Like the way light-bulbs became more cheaper, because those of us who could afford ‘em started buying ‘em in qty even before before we gave incandescents the toss. 

Low and middle income earners are the key because we’re so numerous. The high income groups can fend for ‘emselves, in energy choice, consumption and funding alternatives,  but though they can start a trend there’s likely not enough of them to make a big enough scale effect on alternatives. 

The obvious alternative to cap-and-trade is a carbon tax. Opinion on the trade-offs, advantages and disadvantages of the two are legion and I don’t have a convenient overview in my head but very briefly, there’s little to choose between them the end.  Despite Prof McKibbin’s views (Howard’s climate change adviser and still Reserve bank Board member) that some form of carbon tax was the go, Liberal policy before and after the 2007 election was cap-and-trade, not carbon tax.  And low-income households would still need to be compensated somehow - they tend to have the older less efficient houses, cars, washing machines, fridges, heaters etc. 

There’s no easy or simple way to do it,  but yes, I think the CPRS can work OK, for low income households, for middle and high income households and industry too. 

Given QED’s request, I’ve put just a broad view from memory, not precise on timing, cost, income and so on.

As for Grumbles, I’m not rising to that tatty old Climategate bait. The UEA rebuttal is enough.

welcome to 1984 says:

08:54pm | 05/01/10

Peter, writing this shallow piece of regurgitated Labor propaganda only serves further destroy what’s left of your credibility. No one believes a word you say any more. You have been tared with the same brush as KRudd and WRong, and your advisers are sadly mistaken if they think trotting you out now to take the media heat will work. Where have you been hiding anyway? Labor must be desperate to let you do this and news media. It makes me physically sick that you and your party think Australians are gullible enough to believe the outright lies that are being told about AGW and Copenhagen. This is nothing but a scam. Get your hands out of my pockets. Go away and approve some uranium mines or timber mills.

And to the punch: why don’t any of your contributors come back and respond to anything they write? This is just more talking amongst ourselves while our politicians ignore us and do whatever they want regardless. (hmmm isn’t that what Peter said prior to being elected?)

Grumbles says:

08:02pm | 05/01/10

Don Clark, so the IPCC is sure its warming and think its likely to be caused by CO2… sorry mate that isn’t unequivocal. Until the following questions can be answered you can assume they don’t know.

How much lower will the temperature be if we reduce CO2 to 100 ppm. 200ppm. 300ppm.

If it reaches 500ppm how much hotter will it be?

... because settled science could tell you these things eg, if u add 1ml of 100 degree water to 50ml of 25 degree water, science could give you an EXACT degree of the result. That would be “Unequivocal”. But the IPCC cannot tell these things. Just as the effects of solar forcing are unknown so the forcing effects of CO2 are unknown. Models can predict many things… but lately the IPCC models have been WRONG.

Once more, straight from IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” that is from the IPCC where you have linked all your proof. That is their private comment, one we were never meant to see hear or read, but there it is plain as day and impossible to refute.

terry says:

07:51pm | 05/01/10

I suggest you read the emails and the real science from the worlds top professor in this field Prof Lindzen ,THOSE EMAILS SHOW EVERYTHING CLEARLY AND THE COMPUTER CODE EVEN MORE ,THEY FAKED IT ALRIGHT AND HID DATA ,in fact after reading them im not surprised they are insisting on fraud charges ,its all about the eu agenda 21 world government look it up on u tube and see for yourselves it makes hitler look like a boy scout,your all being conned by people who just will not show any true evidence thats why they always blabber lies .In usa and all over the world its freezing in the biggest snows ever and the coldest ever ,are they saying that c02goes on holiday in the poles in winter? give me a break its dark and freezing no matter how much co2 is in the atmosphere ,common sense tells you its all lies ,they just want to tax you like they said yrs ago ,why do you think big oil is backing them ? bhp ,ampol, shell ,enron,read the emails it will blow your mid how crooked they really are.

Q.E.D. says:

06:47pm | 05/01/10

@ Don Clark

What’s your opinion on the governments plan to over-compensate low income earners? And please don’t just supply links; I’d like your considered opinion.

Thanks.

Don Clark says:

06:17pm | 05/01/10

Lastly, to cap off a busy and highly amusing day, here’s the lastest Aus climate summary from the Bureau of Meteorology, just today, for 2009 and historically. http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
Well worth a careful read, without further remark from me.

PJ says:

06:13pm | 05/01/10

I suppose the number of responses here tell us all a story.This Government got into power with spin.This has not stopped and Peter Hadit’s article is just another extension of this.So where do we go? I voted for this party ,but now am completely peed off by the antics of Wong[you will pay ] ; yes we may ,but why should i pay a tax for just trying! We could look at the rest of them—Tiger Tanner ,it is embarrising to hear nothing from you . Do we have to wait for the Labor party to implode,to see you all get out of the sloth and just do something!

Don Clark says:

05:47pm | 05/01/10

Returning from a day away, to see that I’ve been repeatedly flogged with a warm lettuce:  for posting; for not posting; for things I didn’t say; and then for things I did!  Very amusing, since the thread played out pretty much as I suggested at the very start.

Bit hard to take much of this palaver seriously. For a moment,  I wondered if I’d blundered onto a pay-TV channel showing only tatty old re-runs.  To cap it off,  apparently in remarking “If the science is in fact debatable - which like many many many others I simply do not accept” I sinned “indefensibly”, negating “any argument in defence”.

Gosh!  Poor me! Thoroughly castigated and cowed!  So instead of my words, lets turn to some other material readily to hand - from the IPCC itself. 

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal*, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting
of snow and ice and rising global average sea level”

“Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly
as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far
exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores
spanning many thousands of years. “

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
It is likely* that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over
each continent (except Antarctica)”

IPCC Uncertainty & likelihood guidance:
*Very likely >90%
*Likely >66%;
*Unequivocal: One of the “robust findings” of Topic 6.1, i.e. “one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.”
All from the AR4 Synthesis Report found at http://www.ipcc.ch/

“Unequivocal” means “admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous”.  Quite. Not much room for “debate” there. And these IPCC quotes relate to observational results *now* - not modelling, not hypothesis of future temps or sea levels.  Data *now*.

Lastly, I read the Paltridge et al humidity paper with interest, from abstract to conclusion. Only to find -without surprise - that the authors indulge in none of the certainty of IPCC “glaring error” or “misleading us intentionally” that Steve would like to use it for. Nothing like that in the paper at all. The admirably cautious conclusion is that source data for humidity work are problematic, and that more work needs to be done on the original data in a variety of ways.  Ah, science!
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf

Geoff Brown says:

05:27pm | 05/01/10

Mr Garrett says: “That is why Tony Abbott has chosen to rely on false claims about the costs of a CPRS to justify the ‘anything but a carbon price’ position he and the resurgent dinosaurs of the Liberal Party have forced the conservative side of politics into.”  Yes, That’s Right. Mr Abbott says it will cost $1100 whereas Frontier Economics modelling put the price at $4550. How dare Mr Abbott tell us it will be less than the economists tells us.

And while we’re on the subject of “TRUTH”, Mr Garrett, where is the PROOF that CO2 causes Global Warming? The IPCC say they don’t have proof. Do you?

Q.E.D. says:

04:36pm | 05/01/10

@ James says: 02:55pm - Once again, James, I agree, insofar as Turnbull was concerned. Hopefully, Abbott and Hunt will come up with some worthwhile alternative, or at least something better than the ETS/CPRS. Time will tell.

@ Mr Pastry says: 03:33p.m. - Good call, Mr. Pastry!

James says:

04:16pm | 05/01/10

Steve says:02:54pm | 05/01/10

@James
As you are aware from previous threads, I have examined not only the “hot spot” data but global data as well, at all altitudes, and over the entire 61 years for which NOAA supplies data, and yes, it does account for global circulation. The hot spot itself is not tiny, it covers the entire tropics. It is the key point at which the enhanced greenhouse effect hypothesis should be tested. Both at the hot spot and globally for any time period, the trends are very clear and very significant.

If you refuse to check the data for yourself, at least note that some of the leading scientists in the field have come to exactly the same conclusions as shown in the Garth Paltridge article linked to by cohenite previously in this thread.

Your response on solar forcing also amounts to a vacant denial. You have again scarcely attempted to interact with the points I made which makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion. However, I’m curious about where you get 40 years of solar data. The SOHO dataset only goes back to 1968.

———————————————————-
Steve if you knew anything about climate science you would know that most of the warming has occured at the poles, you said you were exepecting to see the hot spot around the equator.  Clearly you assume the equator is hot therefore most of the warming occurs there, this assumtion is simple minded and demonstrates you don’t have a grasp of even the basic science. 

The data you have cobbled together from NOAA is not adequate, if you were serious you would submit a paper on the topic to be peer reviewed, I hope you have thick skin because you will be a laughing stock.

With regards the solar data, you can’t answer why there is no obvious solar forcing signal in global average temperature data over the last 40 years which completely invalidates your arguement that solar forcing is significant.
You are clearly in the looney deny at all cost camp.  Your evidence is a joke.

Daniel says:

03:54pm | 05/01/10

Peter,

If you had any environmental integrity and courage,  you’d quite the comfortable but completely ineffectual position you hold in the ALP and run at the next election as an independent or join the Greens and fight it out for preselection. At the moment you are a waste of a talent being used by Rudd and laughed at by all.

Mr Pastry says:

03:33pm | 05/01/10

@QED - I never liked his music either, but he seemed well intentioned, unfortunately it all appears to have been a stance to sell records rather than genuine conviction, so he was always destined to be a politician.

James says:

02:55pm | 05/01/10

Q.E.D. says:02:24pm | 05/01/10

James says 02:04 p.m.

Agreed. Unfortunately KRudd’s response has been to:
1. politicise the debate
2. turn it into a slagging match, which is often mirrored in blogs
3. refuse to look at all options, including nuclear
4. persist with arrogant Wong
5. redistribute money to buy votes
6. ... I’m sure there are more!

Quite why Peter Garrett wrote this is beyond me. I never really liked his music (sorry guys and gals!), but he seemd dedicated to his causes. To become another ‘yes man’ in this stupid government speaks volumes - I don’t trust him at all. Sorry, Peter.

————————————————————————————————————————-
The problem is though QED that no one (apart from the Greens) have any other alternative other than to do what we are doing (or close to it), so Labour can be as piss weak as they like.  If the Libs came out with a plan to turn Australia into a renewable energy superpower, something that would cement our prosperity into the future, then I would vote for them, but they are even more piss weak than Labour, which is a very sad state of affairs.

I think everyone needs to demand their MP whoever they are to make this switch, if only to get us off oil, I don’t want to be dependant on some dodgy Middle East dictatorship for my main sorce of transport energy.  If only our system allowed someone with balls to make the switch in a big way, we could expect our excellent quality of life to continue rather than being slowly eaten away by trade deficits and climate change.

Steve says:

02:54pm | 05/01/10

@James
As you are aware from previous threads, I have examined not only the “hot spot” data but global data as well, at all altitudes, and over the entire 61 years for which NOAA supplies data, and yes, it does account for global circulation. The hot spot itself is not tiny, it covers the entire tropics. It is the key point at which the enhanced greenhouse effect hypothesis should be tested. Both at the hot spot and globally for any time period, the trends are very clear and very significant.

If you refuse to check the data for yourself, at least note that some of the leading scientists in the field have come to exactly the same conclusions as shown in the Garth Paltridge article linked to by cohenite previously in this thread.

Your response on solar forcing also amounts to a vacant denial. You have again scarcely attempted to interact with the points I made which makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion. However, I’m curious about where you get 40 years of solar data. The SOHO dataset only goes back to 1968.

Q.E.D. says:

02:24pm | 05/01/10

James says 02:04 p.m.

Agreed. Unfortunately KRudd’s response has been to:
1. politicise the debate
2. turn it into a slagging match, which is often mirrored in blogs
3. refuse to look at all options, including nuclear
4. persist with arrogant Wong
5. redistribute money to buy votes
6. ... I’m sure there are more!

Quite why Peter Garrett wrote this is beyond me. I never really liked his music (sorry guys and gals!), but he seemd dedicated to his causes. To become another ‘yes man’ in this stupid government speaks volumes - I don’t trust him at all. Sorry, Peter.

Q.E.D. says:

02:15pm | 05/01/10

@ Shane from Melbourne 01:24pm

Shane, I would suggest you snipe rather than carpet-bomb, in future. It would clearly demonstrate that you are taking an interest in what others are saying. Interjecting with ‘they are dumb and stupid’ etc. is facile,and assumes we all made up our minds quite some time ago.

It is quite frightening just how polorising this debate has become. KRudd and his gang have a lot to answer for.

James says:

02:04pm | 05/01/10

Jaxon says:01:45pm | 05/01/10

Lets face it whether you believe in climate change or not ...

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of what scientific evidence supports, human induced climate change is supported by science.

On the question of Rudd’s response, I am in agreement, in that it is completely inadequate I advocate going to 100% renewables as soon as possible, in particular getting off oil all together.  Australia’s growing oil debt will damage our economy much more than switching to renewables, which will create far more jobs than we lose in ditching coal etc.  I think Australia has a chance to clean up in the renewable energy switch, we have greater renewable resources (with the exception of hydro) than almost any country in the world (and I include the US in that).  We would be fools not to switch over.

Jaxon says:

01:45pm | 05/01/10

Lets face it whether you believe in climate change or not the rudd government has proven that they can’t manage organising a schoolyard cricket match yet alone spearheading climate change policy. 2 points. Firstly can rudd name 3 other options other then the ETS to battle climate change? Can we not find more efficient ways of spening our current tax dollars before we venture forward with a new tax? The fact that healthcare and education (don’t blame the states as rudd said he would fix it) has yet to be effectively and efficiently managed tells me the ETS will end up being a waste and the not only will future australians suffer but it won’t do diddley to change the climate.

Shane From Melbourne says:

01:24pm | 05/01/10

@QED. I read your comments alright but didn’t give them much weight. From the data accumulated, there is a high degree of probability that climate change is anthropogenic. The ETS on the other hand is clearly crap policy. I didn’t know that trolling was unscientific or otherwise but everyone has to have a hobby.

James says:

01:16pm | 05/01/10

Steve says:05:27pm | 04/01/10

@James 3:41pm
“I’m sorry but your data simply doesn’t show a reduction in global atmospheric water content.”
It is not my data. It is the NOAA data. It shows falling specific humidity at the top of the troposphere. Why not just download the data and check for yourself?

On solar forcing, I’ve been using the SOHO data. While I agree that the impact of sunspots, is not enough to account for the warming that we have seen, my main criticism of the IPCC treatment at this point is the failure to consider anything other than sunspot counts as affecting solar forcing. There is a lot more to solar forcing than just sunspots. The isotope histories combined with the Holocene climate history bears that out. Sure we don’t understand much of it, but that is no excuse for just assuming that it is constant!

———————————————————————————————————————————
Sematics, the NOAA shows nothing of the sort, you have chosen a tiny data set to make your rediculous claims. Have you accounted for global wind cells conveying water vapour from the tiny area of the globe you have chosen, have you got data over multiple years, no and no me thinks. You need a much more sophisticated analysis to make the claims you do.

This is classic denier BS, use lamo analysis to try and compete with what the best scientists in the field are saying, pathetic.

RE solar data, the point is that over the last 40 years we have Solar irradience data and does not correlate with the global warming observed.  Your point about Holocene climate history data is not relevant. 

I’m sorry Steve but the points you are a making are just silly, time to go and put on your tin foil hat and take your medication.

Q.E.D. says:

12:11pm | 05/01/10

@ Shane From Melbourne says:11:24am | 05/01/10

Shane, climate change is one thing, what to do about it is another. You clearly have not read any of my comments.

If you do not wish to continue to engage in discussion and debate, that’s your prerogative, but please take your unscientific trolling elsewhere.

lord monckton is right says:

12:06pm | 05/01/10

Peter,

I repeat, it’s time for you and the rest of your party to treat the Australian people with some respect.

I demand to see the proof of the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide causes major warming. (That’s major warming, not minor) and that’s empirical — by observation — not by computer simulation.

Where’s the evidence?
WHERE IS IT?

Carl Palmer says:

11:25am | 05/01/10

@Guffaw says: 07:32am | 05/01/10
In a Sunday morning news show some weeks back, Brian Toohey Walkley award winning journalist from the Fin Review stated that the ETS / CPRS was the worse piece of legislation ever to be submitted to a parliament - I’ll assume he meant in his lifetime as a journalist. So there is another point of view for you to consider.

==========

If you believe that AGW is occurring and that it is the “greatest moral dilemma of our time”, then why is Nuclear Power not on the table for debate? This is the only source of energy that can economically supply base load power today and immediately reduce CO2 emissions. Until this is seriously considered then everything else is just smoke and mirrors.  Shifting wealth either within Australia or to other countries to be administered by a corrupt UN is not on. 

@Jamers Hunter says: 09:45am | 04/01/10 – you are right on the money. On the 25th September 2005, Bob Hawke gave a speech to a gathering of Oxford University Graduates in Sydney stating that - his party should abandon the three mines policy on uranium and promote Australia as a safe repository for the waste. He went on to say that – “we could revolutionise the economics of Australia if we do this”.

We are a dumb country run by a dumb government who have brazenly submitted to the Australian people an ETS / CPRS as the solution to the “greatest moral dilemma of our time”.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:24am | 05/01/10

I don’t bother debating with climate change skeptics anymore. It’s like feeding feral animals at the zoo. No reason, no intelligence, they’ll just bite your hand off. Waffle on the blogs all you want. Funny how the majority of governments and general public seem to think climate change is a problem.

Jonita says:

09:59am | 05/01/10

Yes funny how the Rudd Government tell you that by increasing the price it will change our habits and now because it is unpopular they are saying they will compensate any extra cost incurred? This Government needs the boot! Abbott for PM.

Philip Crowley says:

09:50am | 05/01/10

@ Don Clark… i was absolutely astounded by one of your comments and was unable to read further comments, in total shock at your amazing ignorance regarding the nature of science.

You state, “If the science is in fact debatable - which like many many many others I simply do not accept - then why not debate that science, without tarting up your stuff with wild and unsupported exaggeration?”

The nature of science, Don, is that it MUST always be debatable. Science, by it’s very nature is never settled.

Your statement above totally negates any argument you might make in your defense, as the total basis of that argument is based on a flawed premise.

Q.E.D. says:

09:40am | 05/01/10

@ Guffaw 08:49

I have read Gittins.

How will over-compensating people lead them to change THEIR behaviour?

From the Department and not Gittins:
“...This is consistent with the intent of the CPRS to motivate people to change their behaviour…”

That’s what I am on about.

And please don’t just refer me back to Gittins. I am not stupid/right-wing etc. etc., as you have implicated. To me, the Departments statements (on the same page) are contradictory.

Guffaw says:

08:49am | 05/01/10

Jeeze! Read Gittins, QED.

Yeah yeah yeah Kent. Boring predictable personal jibe. Pffft.

Q.E.D. says:

08:46am | 05/01/10

@ Guffaw 07:32 am

Was the SMH link supposed to support your statements in paragraph 1?

Q.E.D. says:

08:38am | 05/01/10

@ Random333 06:21a.m.:

Thanks, I always found basic economics hard to understand

Of course part of the idea is to change consumer behaviour, so why would the government want to remove the incentive by compensating 120% in some cases?

Kent says:

08:27am | 05/01/10

Guffaw - I bet you buy a couple of copies of Kev’s new book too, more non-fiction for you mate.

Guffaw says:

07:32am | 05/01/10

What hoot!

Between Skeptic tripping himself up,  mad fantasies about China and the IPCC from Martin and Lord M yadayada,  Grumbles,  Mariah, and etc, looks like Don Clark, in only a handful of posts,  was right on the money! Crikey! Where on earth *do* you folks get your stuff? IPCC are socialists! PMSL!

Just for a touch of sanity and balance, here’s some plain-speaking on the CPRS from a bloke who knows what he’s on about.  Ross Gittins on the scheme as it now is.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/scope-to-improve-pollution-reduction-scheme-20091129-jyxw.html
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-scheme-better-than-it-seems-20091127-jx5p.html

Random333 says:

06:21am | 05/01/10

Q.E.D.

Quick lesson: prices of some things go up making them relatively more expensive compared with the income you have.  For example if you had two energy suppliers one using coal to produce energy and one using solar to produce and the price of solar didn’t change while coal when above the price of solar people would change their behaviour.

Learn some economics, it is about changing people’s behaviour.

Mark - BLR says:

01:48am | 05/01/10

Regarding “obvious” solutions :

For every complicated problem, there is a solution which is simple, obvious ... and WRONG !

I can’t remember who first said this, and I don’t want to break the Internet by Googling for it.

—-

NB : The world is no longer warmING, but it has warmED. We will still have a series of “record high temperatures” until it decides to start cooling again from the current (instrumental) “record high” level.

Mariah Dan says:

01:11am | 05/01/10

Firstly re “...Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party are prepared to mount a climate change fear campaign”...don’t try and humour me! 
Who precisely has been doing a fear campain?????  I have been listening for months and months and months about catastrophic climate change, droughts, rising sea levels, catastrophic bushfires, tornadoes, cyclones, icecap melts etc etc etc. It has been dished out then attached to statements to the effect that “we” have a moral duty to urgently address catastrophic climate change for our children and our grandchildren before it’s too late. If that isn’t a fear campain then I don’t know what is! - and it came from the LABOR government, Al Gore, UN, and anyone else that global warming just happens to suit their agendas!  I actually now HATE the word CATASTROPHIC because it has been rammed down my throat by the government and the media that much!

Secondly, who decides that an ETS/CPRS is in the best national interest?  Have we had a refurendum that I missed?  I DON’T agree that what Labor proposes is in the nation’s best interest.

Thirdly, re…“thirty nations, including all of Europe, Japan, the United States of America, and New Zealand have either introduced or are introducing a CPRS of their own”.....are you absolutely sure about that?????  Also have you read that in Spain, for every job created in the new green energy sector, 2 REAL JOBS have been lost?  Do you know how heavily subsidised Spain’s green energy industry is? ....How much it is costing the country? ...How much the people are complaining because electricity is not constant and prices are going up? 

Fourthly re…” a CPRS was the approach supported by John Howard, Peter Costello, Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull”.  I can only comment on Peter Costello on this one because I watched him talking in parliament on the 2007 budget. He said that for the previous 11 years he had never included climate change in their budget ,but that year (2007) “we’ve decided to include it….because we listen to votes”  - interesting I thought. At that time we dumbed-out Australian public had listened to much propaganda about catastrophic climate change from so-called experts in the field that we actually were looking for something to be done (not that we knew exactly WHAT we might belooking for).  I think you will find it different now. One can only presume that a seemingly intellegent Malcolm Turnbull has gone along with the whole thing because the climate change theory suits an agenda he has (or rather… had).
I could go further but I think you get my drift. No CPRS, no ETS.  The world’s climate will continue to change despite our best efforts to change it. Bushfires, cyclones etc are not results of climate change, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant…. so quit the ill-informed scare campaigns.  If it ain’t broke, no need to fix it!

Finally, I am sick to death of being taxed, levied, gst’d, regulated, fined, assessed, dutied and there is no way I will pay anymore.

PS…..are you going to address Peter Spencer’s issue or are you too dark green for that?

PW says:

11:36pm | 04/01/10

Planina Lesik sure comes across as a silly, scared little child. “If you guys have you [sic] way, we are screwed” only needed a few exclamation marks for the full effect. But sure, just keep believing that “record temperatures, massive bushfires, melting icecaps, melting tundra, record droughts, rising sealevels” is all due to humanity’s dastardly emission of CO2 (despite it making up less than 2% of the naturally-occuring emissions…), as it obviously helps you avoid confronting the fact that reality is (as always) much, much more complicated and can’t be described in single slogans and attacked with simple utopian solutions.

Q.E.D. says:

08:03pm | 04/01/10

HANG ON A MOMENT:

From Climate Change Department:
“1. All low-income households will be fully compensated for the overall cost increase they face.
2. Around 90 per cent of all low-income households – or 2.6 million households – will receive assistance equal to around 120 per cent of the overall cost increases they face.
Pensioners, seniors, carers and people with disability will be fully 3. compensated for the overall cost increase they face.”

Also from Climate Change Department
“The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will change the prices of the goods and services that all households use. Goods that are emissions intensive to produce will generally become more expensive. This is consistent with the intent of the CPRS to motivate people to change their behaviour and use products which are less emissions intensive to produce.”

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE GOVERNMENT’S CONTRADCTION?!

PROVE IT BUSTER says:

07:53pm | 04/01/10

Planina Lesik
I take it, you are speaking on authority!! 
I take it, you are a scientist, a person who is studying or has expert knowledge in the field of climaste change & the very popular ETS MONEY MAKING PROGRAMS..
You are of one or more of the much learned, natural, physical science persons on climate etc.??????

planina lesik says:

07:51pm | 04/01/10

Godfather…. do you denialists seriously think there is a global conspiracy of climatologists who have fabricated global warming? Bloody hell. Record temperatures, massive bushfires, melting icecaps, melting tundra, record droughts, rising sealevels and STILL you denialists think everything is just fine…. FFS. If you guys have you way, we are screwed.

Charles says:

07:27pm | 04/01/10

A good example of the sort of vacuous statement in support of climate change can be seen with the two posts by Planina Lesik.

Ad hominen attcks on individuals, statements from authority with out any supporting evidence, the conspiracy of Big Oil, they have all the items one consistently links to the True Believers who have FAITH in this qausi-religious cultism, aka Climate Change.

My suggestion Planina, go home and have a Bex and good lie down, and I suspect things will look a little brighter in the morning.

Grumbles says:

07:20pm | 04/01/10

Planina Lesik ahh how you make me laugh. I read both your posts btw. So do you insist it is Global Warming then and not Climate Change? I fear you will be alone. As Kevin Trenberth said “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”  Now let me break it down for you.

A) It’s not currently warming, its cooling
B) The models predicted more warming
C) The models don’t work
D) Kevin Trenberth is sad that the world is not heating up.

Kevin Trenberth is an IPCC co-author, the quote is his not mine. That pretty much sinks your whole argument, which relies on the Globe Warming not warming and cooling as it has done. I will assume from your frustration that like Kevin Trenberth you are also sad that the world is burning. Cheer up.

James says:

06:35pm | 04/01/10

Peter. It appears to me that you and yours are insisting there is ONE and ONLY ONE solution when we dont yet know the cause or the extent of the problem.

Can’t you see the problem with the logic here? How can you expect any thinking person to believe you?

Super D says:

06:25pm | 04/01/10

That how to talk to sceptics link is hilarious. 

Under how to rebut someone who argues “‘The temperature record is unreliable’” the retort is “But temperature trends are clear and widely corroborated”.  Can you guess who they then link to?  None other than our discredited friends at CRU.

In fairness though the article was written in 2006 back when the science was settled….

former labor voter says:

06:22pm | 04/01/10

PETER : Australians cannot afford your GREAT BIG TAX ON EVERYTHING. Don’t you people ever come to the real world? THIS IS A TAX ON EVERYTHING. Australians can barely afford to pay their rent and mortgages. Food and fuel prices are going through the roof. Your party wants to flood our cities with millions more people. Homelessness is at epidemic proportions. We don’t even have enough water for the people who are here.  STOP the madness. STOP blaming the Liberals. You have had the amazing privilege to serve Australians in politics - is this ALL we can expect of you? Hang your head in shame Peter - what a wasted opportunity. This is nothing more than an arrogant lecture on why we need to be taxed even more - based on UNPROVEN scientific modelling by a handful of heavily funded/ influenced scientists.  The only thing that is half baked is your ENORMOUS TAX SCAM policy and that is definitely no magic pudding.

guffaw says:

06:09pm | 04/01/10

Oh for heaven’s sake. Household costs and compensation are on the public record. Have been for many months. Even thrashed out here in detail more times than I can count in the last 3 months.

Get a bloody grip and take a look at the Climate Change Dept site.

wake up sheeple says:

06:00pm | 04/01/10

WHY WONT YOU VISIT PETER SPENCER?
He is a victim of YOUR beloved UN environmental policies.
What will happen when our farmers can’t or won’t farm because it’s not worth it anymore? Would you rather we consume GMO monsanto frankenfoods imported from a developing country we send our tax dollars to? CO2+ sun = food. CO2 is not a polluting emission.

The mainstream media has stopped doing its job - it’s time we talked about this fraud with everyone we know before irrational and irresponsible public servants destroy Australia.  Please discuss this important issue with your friends, family, co workers and clients. Our government no longer acts in our interests - it acts for the UN and World Bank. Time that Labor and the Greens were voted out. Time we had a new political party because our democracy is failing us all.

Steve says:

05:56pm | 04/01/10

@cohenite
Thanks for that link to the Garth Paltridge article!

http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf

I started reading the IPCC stuff about a month ago, and checking everything I could. This article says exactly what I found. Humidity is falling where it should be rising if the recent warming were due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. More than that, water vapour turns out to be a negative feedback, not a positive one, so all the alarming projections about future warming are wrong.

Maybe some of the people with whom I’ve been debating this stuff on The Punch over the last few weeks will be more inclined to accept my results now.

Brad Coward says:

05:49pm | 04/01/10

Mr Garrett…..I suppose that taxing the living hell out of us WILL fix the problem ?  If so, why can’t Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard or Senator Wong tell us theexact cost per household ?  Why can’t you explain the cost, Mr Garrrett ?  Is it because you don’t have a clue either ?  Answer just one of my questions, Sir !

Planina Lesik says:

05:49pm | 04/01/10

don’t believe the hype said “There is growing scientific recognition that carbon dioxide does not control climate - rather the other way around -temperatures rise because of solar influences and those rising temperatures expel carbon dioxide from that great carbon storehouse - the oceans.”

Bloody hell! This was discredited years ago. It’s like a whack-a-mole with you denialists. You get told your argument is crap, you’re shown the proof, but up you pop still spouting the same old garbage. Godfather….

Planina Lesik says:

05:47pm | 04/01/10

Grumbles said “Warming isn’t man made”, see point 1… its why they now call it Climate Change.”

No Grumbles. Amongst all the other things you got wrong this is the most offensive and most completely illustrates your ignorance of the topic. The reason it is now called “climate change” is because the marketers who got involved in this early on, *on behalf of the big oil companies*, wanted something that sounded less threatening than ‘global warming’. They (the polluters) came up with ‘climate change’.

Sheesh. How stupid can you denialists get? If you weren’t aware of this basic fact you really should not be contributing to the discussion. As for your other peurilities, absolutely everyone of them is also wrong.

lord monckton is right says:

05:33pm | 04/01/10

Peter,

You forgot to include the ludicrous goal to minimize global temperature by 2 degrees. As Hilter said the bigger the lie the easier it is to believe, the bigger the lie the more people will believe it. So keep on hawking your faulty goods Peter. Many of us are not buying even if you try and bribe us with compensation.

This is nothing but a global money go round. It has NOTHING to do with climate change - and that’s a very inconvenient truth. Ask Malcom “Goldman Sachs” Turnbull - he knows all about it who will benefit and it ain’t Australians or the climate.

The only thing with no substance is the notion of selling the biggest scientific fraud in history to the globe when it is nothing more than a new derivatives playground for the bankers and the rich and famous. In 2008, carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion and is projected to grow to become a $2-$10 trillion dollar market, or “The largest commodity traded
world wide”. The largest. That’s bigger than oil, coal, gas, or iron.

Banks want us to trade carbon: JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, BNP
Paribas, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Credit Suisse are just a few financial houses calling for emissions trading schemes. Coupled with Al Gore , George Soros, Maurice Black and the rest of the cronies who pull the strings. Carbon permits have no value other than by government decree. It’s another fiat currency to be exploited by financial institutions.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CLIMATE - NEVER WAS - NEVER WILL BE.
The potential for fraud and corruption is limited only by what the voting public will put up with (and what they are aware of). Once this legislation is in place it will be impossible to unwind without major compensation claims. Big bankers win either way.

The IPCC is an unelected unaudited committee. Why would any sovereign nation give them unquestioned control over their economy? Whole economies are being transformed based on the decree of one committee.  Thousands of scientists have signed a petition that specifically states that carbon dioxide poses no catastrophic risks. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the media or the IPCC to let you know that. “Consensus” is a fake claim from beginning to end.

It’s time for you and the rest of your party to treat the Australian people with some respect. I demand to see the proof of the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide causes major warming. (That’s major warming, not minor) and that’s empirical — by observation — not by computer simulation.

Kevin Rudd won’t debate
Al Gore won’t debate
I want straight answers.
Where’s the evidence?
WHERE IS IT?

Steve says:

05:27pm | 04/01/10

@James 3:41pm
“I’m sorry but your data simply doesn’t show a reduction in global atmospheric water content.”
It is not my data. It is the NOAA data. It shows falling specific humidity at the top of the troposphere. Why not just download the data and check for yourself?

On solar forcing, I’ve been using the SOHO data. While I agree that the impact of sunspots, is not enough to account for the warming that we have seen, my main criticism of the IPCC treatment at this point is the failure to consider anything other than sunspot counts as affecting solar forcing. There is a lot more to solar forcing than just sunspots. The isotope histories combined with the Holocene climate history bears that out. Sure we don’t understand much of it, but that is no excuse for just assuming that it is constant!

Q.E.D. says:

05:24pm | 04/01/10

@ Rob Banks 04:48pm

“These are..”, “education is not something any have had” etc.

This is the sort of commentary that adds nothing to the discussion. The more I read to inform myself on this complicated issue, the more I see inflammatory comments such as this; combinations of personal abuse and politics - it is truly pathetic!

Greg says:

05:23pm | 04/01/10

Credibility?

is this the same Peter Garrett who protested out the front of Pine Gap near Alice Springs wanting the yanks out and then joins a Labor Government whos policy is to have US bases in oz?

watty says:

05:06pm | 04/01/10

Never thought I would suggest this but ,please Mr.Garrett just SHUT UP AND SING!

don't believe the hype says:

05:01pm | 04/01/10

You certainly can google your way out of the lies, spin and deception ...
Here’s a taste of what I found Peter Garrett:

” It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big-oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with legal requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions.

What if governments poured billions of monopolistic funding into one theory but hardly anything into the alternatives: a theory that suited personal ambitions, profits of major players, careers of scientists, and the aims of naïve greens?....”

The truth is out there if you look. How about YOU google your way to some common sense and start using the FACTS instead modelling and warmongering us all into oblivion. Ohh and Sub-prime carbon is coming too…. try googling that.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

Guffaw says:

04:54pm | 04/01/10

Yeah yeah I’m a limousine leftie.  My limousine’ s a MAN Diesel.

Seats 48, plus 24 standing.

A BILL OF RIGHTS WILL DO THE TRICK says:

04:49pm | 04/01/10

An insane idea of lowering carbon by generating fear into the mainstream population.  What a lot of horse manure!  Not to add that it a total waste of tax payers money sending our MP’s to Copenhagen.

Carbon Emissions are seemingly now a real present emergency with growing fear of   devastation and global ruin.  Holly molly does that mean the world is over and out if we don’t stop the emissions.  Sounds a bit to far-fetched for my liking. 

I much prefer by statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

There is growing scientific recognition that carbon dioxide does not control climate - rather the other way around -temperatures rise because of solar influences and those rising temperatures expel carbon dioxide from that great carbon storehouse - the oceans.”

‘There is also growing recognition that current levels of carbon dioxide in the           atmosphere are very low and the gradual increases occurring at present pose no threat to any life on earth. The reverse is true – all life will benefit from more
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the benefits will be increased by the slight warming experienced over the last one hundred years. 

INRODUCING A BILL OF RIGHTS INTO OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT/LAW WOULD HELP SOFTEN THE FLUMMOX OVER THE CLIMATE/CARBON SARGER.  UNTIL IF OR WHEN THAT HAPPEN AND IT WILL IF THE RETIRED J.J. MICHAEL KIRBY HAS ANY THING TO DO WITH IT!!!, LETS JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE PLEASE, PLEASE….THANKYOU.

Rob Banks says:

04:48pm | 04/01/10

I’ve stumbled into the Peter Garret fan club, and what a clever bunch of dried dingo’s dongers they are too. These are the same whackos that were totally silent when the Coal-ition had an ETS policy under Fearless Leader Howard. From reading the comments it seems education is not something any have had and I’m extremely surprised they have jobs. If it takes 20 years for these people to find a voice against climate change I wonder how long it took them to learn how to tie their shoe-laces.

cohenite says:

04:43pm | 04/01/10

AGW, global warming, climate change, the end of the world, whatever, has NO scientific evidence to support it, but a plethora of evidence to disprove it; for instance, a few of the acolytes of Garrett have declared that atmospheric water levels, SH, are not declining; to the contrary high levels of SH which cause heating are declining as Australia’s leading atmospheric scientist, Garth Paltridge, has found;

http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf

SH at low levels is increasing but this cools because it forms clouds which increase the Earth’s albedo causing less insolation and warming. Garrett should google more and agitprop less.

Derek says:

04:40pm | 04/01/10

WOW Peter! Time to sack your Media Adviser and Chief-of-Staff for allowing Kevie and Lachie bully you into submitting this worthless dribble under your name.  Are you really that desperate to be a minister that you will remain a stagnant mouth-piece?  Once upon a time people actually cared about what came out of your mouth… 

You are a great disappointment.  You deliver hope when elected and quickly turn into another chronie, just like the rest of them.  I guess the others don’t pretend to be anything else. 

I wish I could enrol in your electorate to vote you out.  Shame on you.

HH says:

04:22pm | 04/01/10

Climate change Peter?
You mean man made climate change or Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Please be specific at all times.
The earth has experienced climate change long before humans walked it’s surface.

Science and politics do not mix.
Science without debate is propaganda.
Rudd, Wong and now yourself are spouting nothing more than propaganda.

I don’t believe IPCC modelling.
I don’t believe treasury modelling.
I don’t believe you.
I don’t believe the UN.
I am not alone.
I have woken up to the gross manipulation of the many by the few.
STOP LYING TO AUSTRALIANS and to yourself Peter.
Your children and their children will inherit a society that is nothing more than a control grid.

Wendy B says:

04:21pm | 04/01/10

Another cartoon featuring Tony Abbott in swimming trunks.  What is this fascination with Tony Abbott’s groin?

Andrea says:

04:16pm | 04/01/10

This arogant Rudd Government just don’t get it. Australia doesn’t want your CPRS/ETS, you had your chance to explain it and didn’t bother or couldn’t. If it’s such a moral issue why won’t Rudd debate it with Abbott live for Australians to watch and hopefully understand where Rudd is at least coming from, but no. Arogant Rudd just asumes Australians believe anything he says and will accept his policy’s without question. Maybe so 12 months ago, but not anymore Mr Rudd. Your honeymoon is over, Abbott has arrived.

Mikko says:

04:11pm | 04/01/10

Hey Peter did you Google sea level rises when you warned us last year that these could be in the order of 6m? Scary Al Gore had warned us that they could be 7m “in the near future” in his award winning science fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth which a British High Court found had contained nine convenient untruths. But no worries your ETS third strike attempt can save us before its too late. Please, if I want to read more science fiction I’ll switch back to the Avatar post which is more entertaining anyway.

Q.E.D. says:

04:00pm | 04/01/10

I still don’t understand how the IPCC can be so certain about its assertions on CO2 and global temp (if there is a link).

There must be considerable uncertainty in the measurement of global temp, in the first place, especially when they are comparing today’s values with values from centuries past.

Then suggesting that we can regulate the climate to within (at least) 0.5C by playing with CO2 levels at parts-per-million beggars belief.

I work in health economics modelling and only dream about being so certain!

E says:

03:51pm | 04/01/10

@MartinSnigg 03:35: Nice Post

There are 3 separate questions to be answered, and all are completely separate:
1) Is the globe warming
2) If yes, then does human produced Co2, soot or methane drive it, or is it natural
3) If 1)= True and 2) = True then what is the best (in terms of nationa cost effectiveness, personal cost, lack of disruption, sustainability and practical implementation) way of reducing emissions, and is it the CPRS?

1) Maybe
2) Doubtfull but possible
3) Definately not the CPRS

So whatever your position on GW and AGW, everyone should be against the CPRS. Its trash legislation and if this is the ALP’s best response to an apparent global crisis, we better hope that AGW is a hoax.

al gore's kool aid says:

03:49pm | 04/01/10

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (& hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobglobins, most of the imaginary” 

H. L. Mencken, 1920.

VOTE LABOR OUT says:

03:46pm | 04/01/10

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie it does not become the truth.

James says:

03:41pm | 04/01/10

Steve I’m sorry but your data simply doesn’t show a reduction in global atmospheric water content.  You said yourself you are aware of NOAA and the IPCC claims that water atmopheric water content is increasing maybe you should take it up with them, you are quite right to question their methods but be warned they have the same right to question yours.

With regards to solar forcing sun spots and solar irradience have a shown to correlate for the period good data was available i.e. around 40 years.  Suggesting you can determine solar irradience 200 years ago to a resolution that would account for the “little ice age” is a stretch especially coming from someone who demonstrates such sceptisism about physical models.  Solar irradience does not explain the clear warming trend in the last 40 years, if anything it is questionable as to whether its signal can be seen at all.

Steve once again I am sorry but you are hanging your hat on two points that have no basis.  Put plainly, what you are saying is does not match what the data shows.

google is your friend ... says:

03:38pm | 04/01/10

You can google your way into finding out the science IS NOT SETTLED.

You can google your way into finding out the IPCC reports are based on fraudulent data.

You can google your way into finding out our government is selling us out to the UN, and to the very same bankers who just created the financial meltdown we are suffering through.

You can google your way into finding lots of things Peter .... mostly that there is more than enough Australians who reject your ETS, who DO NOT believe the scaremongering global warming hysteria and who will vote you OUT if you implement it. Bring on a DD.

Bob Mellows says:

03:37pm | 04/01/10

@laurie - no. But thank you for asking.

James says:

03:36pm | 04/01/10

Peter Garrett simply doesn’t have a clue.  He spouts off his little mantras and homilies as if we were all as uneducated and unread as his little leftard groupies.

Well, Minister, we’re not!  In fact, most conservative voters are extremely well read on “the science” of Gorebull Warming, and they know it is a scam and a fraud.  You and Rudd and the Wongbot can screech on all you want, but we know what you are suggesting is crap.

You are going to lose the next election on this one Mr Garrett, even if you and Rudd and the Wongbot are too stupid to realise it yet.

Martin Snigg says:

03:35pm | 04/01/10

This whole business stinks to high heaven. ‘Limousine Leftism’ sums it up.  Labor are stuck with a policy that was a threatening gambit for a little while but providence mercifully intervened to save us. Climategate did enough to lift the veil on the rotten corpse that is the global warming mania - the latest excuse to solidify an out of touch elite in power. Let Labor go to the polls with this thing and let Rudd try and treat Australians like he treats his staff and see how far that gets them. This was a violent attempt at remaking Australia in a dying Europe’s image “but violence does in truth recoil upon the violent and the schemer falls into the pit which he digs for another”. Long live Australia and Australian families.

C says:

03:31pm | 04/01/10

Peter,

When you first announced you were heading into politics I felt really proud. I was sure you would stand by your principles. Sadly, today I am ashamed of you. What levels have you sunk to to write such offensive rhetoric such as this?

The Copenhagen treaty is NOT a transfer of wealth - it is a transfer of POVERTY. The ETS is a big fat scam disguised as a climate tax. All it will do is make us all POORER and give the UN greater wealth and power.

Yes we all know how to use google. We use it to discover how many lies we are being told by our governments on a daily basis. I use it to discover that the science is FAR from settled. And if I can find that out so can others.

Stay away from the spin Peter it insults the intelligence of Australians who pay your salary. Start focusing on REAL environmental issues ( of which we have many) and stop doing the bidding of the international banksters and elite. They already have enough money and power. And grow some balls and go visit Peter Spencer - a victim of UN Agenda 21.

laurie says:

03:25pm | 04/01/10

Is it against the law not to believe in ghosts?

Im no scientist says:

03:11pm | 04/01/10

The worlds greatest president (not) said

“Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”—
George W. Bush, in parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy
at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock,
Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008

“I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.”—
George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

David says:

03:09pm | 04/01/10

Peter , go and burn some more midnight oil and study some reality , not that political pathetic party line . Krudd is a loser now so get off the bandwaggon and go back to ‘’ singing ‘’ or whatever you say it is .

FB says:

02:59pm | 04/01/10

SL ... lots of hard evidence on link above if you have the time to go through it; it’s pretty comprehensive.  Interested in your views.

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Adam says:

02:58pm | 04/01/10

BTW guys, and I know that you dont like facts to get in the way of your opinions, but check this out
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/00s-hottest-decade-or-record.php

Steve says:

02:57pm | 04/01/10

@Don Clark
Thanks for reading my previous posts.

It seems that you remain convinced that climate change is (at least in part) man made. You have not however responded to my request that you explain why you hold that opinion.

Most people that hold your opinion appear to have been convinced by the evidence of recent warming coupled with a significant correlation with carbon dioxide levels. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, but that point is lost on a lot of people.

Most people also fail to notice that the skeptic refrain that “AGW has not been proved” is vacuous. AGW is an hypothesis. It can be supported, but it cannot be proved. It can only be disproved.

That is exactly what I have done by showing the specific humidity at the top of the troposphere has been falling steady. That little fact disproves the AGW hypothesis. It does not matter how I express it, or whether I have any credibility in your opinion. The fact remains, and it leaves the hypothesis in tatters.

S.L says:

02:49pm | 04/01/10

64 comments by 2.30pm not a bad effort Pete!
@ Don Clark. Why are you right and me, a skeptic wrong? The usual “here we go with the usual tosh from the skeptics?” Show me hard evidence, not theories or predictions from some bofin in a white coat and 200 letters after his name!
So it’s not a fact the worlds average temperature has dropped since 1998? Is it a proven fact it’s got hotter?
CO2 does cause warming does it? Prove it! The world cannot survive without it in any case.
If the oceans are rising then where? Not around me and I’ve lived in a coastal town for 22 years!
I do not agree with the communist plot theories put out by some of my ilk but if anyone can show me just 1 piece of undisputed evidence that isn’t open to differing interpretations then I will change my mind…......

FB says:

02:47pm | 04/01/10

something very handy you can find on google - “How to talk to a Climate Change skeptic”

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Comprehensive, intelligent and guaranteed to provide hours of dinner party fun.

PJ says:

02:41pm | 04/01/10

Now iv’e got it. Grab Peter Hadit and persue the Google Climate Gate line.Conspirator——the ALP Media Unit.Measure the reaction and shape a response accordingly.Once again Peter, you have been used!

Nelly says:

02:40pm | 04/01/10

How come Rudd can’t come forward and support his own ETS? Where is he hiding? C’mon Rudd where are you?

Karina says:

02:38pm | 04/01/10

No chance of getting this through Garrett, so forget it. Go and save some whales, like you said you would.

Grumbles says:

02:28pm | 04/01/10

” The World isn’t warming. Its cooling.” True. Since 98… the models can’t predict this cooling and its a travesty that they can’t.
“World climate has always changed, it doesn’t matter and we can’t stop it” again… True.
” CO2 is a harmless fertiliser” Ive never heard it put that way, how about, the greater the CO2 concentration the greater a crop yields?
“Warming isn’t man made”, see point 1… its why they now call it Climate Change.
“CO2 doesn’t cause warming, in the air it’s like a hair is to a kilometre” CO2 DOES cause warming, the second part of that staement however is true, also experimentation has proven that each ppm of CO2 has less effect than the part before it, therefore it is limited in its warming effect.
“The sea ice is growing not shrinking” Way to go, you got another one right. “Sea levels won’t rise, cos when ice-cubes melt my drink doesn’t rise” this ones half true… the experiment is flawless the worry is not the melting of sea ice but land glaciers.
“The IPCC are commies” Not true… they are socialists tho, a point I doubt they would deny.
“The IPCC are a vested interest” Absolutely.
“The IPCC aren’t scientists” Many of them are, just not in the field of climate science or geology.
“The IPCC Reports aren’t peer-reviewed” by all definitions of Peer Reviewed a quick read of the climategate emails will reveal this is true.
“The IPCC Reports are intentionally deceptiive, they deliberately left out longer solar cycles and assume constant humidity” I don’t know about the second part, but the first part is absolutely true. see climategate emails regarding UHI effects.
“Global warming science is just a Leftie plot to govern the world” I doubt this is true of the science but the UN is infact trying to use it to that exact end.
“Anyone who believes in man-made climate warming is a moron or a commie” I have never heard this said before, and its a complex issue so you cannot call either side stupid as there is evidence supporting both arguments.
“The CPRS won’t work” ?in what way won’t it work? If you are refering to it reducing concentration of CO2 then you are right, it will not work.
“The CPRS is just a big tax on everything” Thats what it is since it doesnt reduce Carbon yet puts an extra cost on everything

Adam says:

02:18pm | 04/01/10

So any CPRS or ETS is just a giant scam designed to make governments and corporations rich?  Then why did governments and corporations work hand in hand to destroy any legally binding agreement on carbon emissions at Copenhagen?  If this was such a motza for them then why kill the goose that would lay the golden egg?  Sounds a bit daft.  Or maybe governments were instructed by their corporate masters to ensure that no agreement would be made that would hurt their PROFITS!  Heaven forbid.  If the rich arent allowed to get richer then the poor would never benefit from the trickle down effect that will probably reach them one of these days.  We cant have the undemocratically imposed rulers of the world actually paying for something.  Paying is for poor people, like taxes.
Of course the deniers wont have anything to worry about as whatever planet they are currently living on obviously has lots of fresh air and water.  Its such a pity its not this planet.  And im sure all those Australians who see their houses burn in bushfire or disappear under a flood will really appreciate being saved from this left wing conspiarcy to take over the world.

Bruce says:

02:14pm | 04/01/10

Peter do not keep giving the same scripted spin. The public want all the detail contained in the proposed future ETS and believe it or not, most of the public want information from both sides of the climate information divide. I just wish I could believe in what you are saying after your uranium mine go ahead. All I see is a former rock star falling in line. How about stopping the japanese from kiiling our whales?

BULMKT says:

02:00pm | 04/01/10

I knew the second I read this morning’s The Punch email that this article would be nothing more than a Rant from the limousine left.
Australians see a con job so do the right thing Peter and pronounce dead your CPRS. Cap & Trade has been a dismal failure in Europe and the chances of the US introducing one are close to zero, as President Obama has used up all his political capital getting his health bill past. Democrats (the so called Blue and Brown dog members) don’t want a bar of Cap & Trade.

ETS = CRPS = Cap and Trade.

The real reason it’s called Cap & Trade is that it puts a CAP on Success and TRADES prosperity for poverty. The Rudd Government will penalise companies for simply operating and producing, your CPRS will reduce manufacturing output (Pro: fewer emissions, Con: Fewer Jobs), and that in turn will reduce Australia’s GDP (Pro: lower carbon output, Con: a lower standard of living).

Re Luke @ 0909 -> Good point.
Re Linda @ 0952 -> Good Call.
Re Davy @ 1038 -> “How can we sleep while our dollars are burning.” Brilliant.
Re Wolf @ 1141 -> Yep the Chaser was spot on.

Shane Prince says:

01:30pm | 04/01/10

Good to see the other side of the argument being put.  Don Clark’s comment about the type of simplistic arguments on the other side is spot on. I would simply add that the responses cannot be neutral and boring. One needs to fight fire with fire and the pithy short grabs developed by the scaremongers need honest antidotes in similarly pithy language that people will understand. People are willing to be educated they do not want to be bored. May I suggest explaining how the ETS works simply by making oil and coal more expensive, you just make alternative energy cheaper and give it a head start? Perhaps it can be said that an ETS it will make it cheaper to use alternative power which may reduce costs in the long term as well as dependency on foreign oil. It may also be useful to tell people that it will create jobs by giving an incentive to Australians to establish businesses in alternative energy industries creating jobs in the real economy. There will inevitably be pain in the short term, however if we do not do this we will miss out on being a pert of the new economy substituting for dwindling oil.

These points, together with patient explanation, were sufficient to overcome my parents’ scepticism - and they are great barometers of the public who are rightly sceptical of the educated elite from whom they feel alienated.

Those elite once spent considerable time bringing everyone else with them (think of Roosevelt’s fireside chats). It seems that in the 24 hour news cycle this has been lost. Articles like yours are hopefully the beginning of a re-engagement through a new media. Your songs were great examples of clear, concise communication about political matters. They spoke to people at all levels, drawing on everyday experiences to which people could relate and which would engage their interest. I hope to see those same principles applied by the Government in learning to better communicate with the electorate so that fear campaigns can be effectively neutralised.

Planina Lesik says:

01:22pm | 04/01/10

It’s breathtaking that the conspiracy nutters who, a decade or so ago, were convinced JFK was shot by the CIA are now running the Liberal Party’s environmental policies.

Gibbo says:

01:21pm | 04/01/10

How many solar panels on your roof Peter? Have you given up oil based transport yet? Have you disconnected your house from the electricity or water mains yet? Or is all that stuff for us plebs?

The trouble with you and your party is that your (in)actions speak so loudly that on-one is listening to your words. How about SHOWING us how we should be living by doing it yourself you hypocrite.

mike rafone says:

01:02pm | 04/01/10

Pete do use the UK met office as a credible reference?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/another-bad-year-for-predictions-of-global-warming/story-e6frg6zo-1225815745712

gofer says:

01:00pm | 04/01/10

You will need your homes well insulated when the power cuts come from lack of capacity.  Trading air is a comic book scenario.  If a bubble can be created with tangible products and services,  just how do you keep track of air?  Sorry, I sat my carbon credits down by a tree and it sucked them all up.  It’s distressing to see so many fools and crooks in the world trying to sell us air.  Global warming has been disproven over and over, but it’s hard to get it out to the mainstream and that’s what they do not want to happen.  They know they are crooks hence the constant ridicule and attacks…out of sheer desperation. It’s pleasing to watch them sweat.  Dead Hoax Walking.

When 60 Minutes broadcast the “acid rain” hoax, nary a peep was ever heard about it again.

Q.E.D. says:

12:47pm | 04/01/10

@ Don Clark says:12:07pm | 04/01/10
What’s your considered analysis of the IPCC data, Don?

John says:

12:43pm | 04/01/10

The PM only pops up when there is popular news, when it comes to dealing with the real issues he hides or lets one of his ministers be the mouth piece.

Why hasn’t the public realised he has not achieved anything? Can he really spin failure into good news?

Only when Australia wakes up and realises that this country is run by inexperienced people who are setting us up will we be able to get rid of them and back on track.

As for Mr Garrett…...........the less said the better…......US forces indeed

Classic says:

12:37pm | 04/01/10

Don Clarke,

if climate change is not debatable, then why is it being debated, and why are you responding to the people who disagree with you?  Sounds like a debate to me.  Could it be the ‘debate you have when you’re not having a debate’?  And I thougt you were “done”?

PJ says:

12:32pm | 04/01/10

Peter; we all know that you are not up to the job so go and save our whales.Japanese scientific poachers are killing whales in a sanctury se up in Australias territorial waters.You promised action in International courts   2 years ago.So stop blabbering about something you know nothing about and just do something! Whale meat again.

claude says:

12:31pm | 04/01/10

Luke9.09am, Trudy,10.58am - Kevin Rudd is hoping the public forget issues such as Cophenhagen failure, ETS and Border Protection, before making himself visible again. These are serious issues, is it very discerning he hasn’t commented publicly about anything, not even on Tony Abbott’s statement to turn back refugee boats. He should be accountable after all he is PM of Australia.

SLF says:

12:23pm | 04/01/10

Can I ask why ‘Climate deniers’ should not scaremonger and mount a climate change fear campaign?

May be missing something here, but isn’t that exactly what climate change activists have been doing since their industry was invented?

i'n no scientist says:

12:11pm | 04/01/10

Its time to turn to Junk Science the web page.
All the faulty science debunked in an orderly manner.
Brought to you be the people who exposed the emails that broke Copenhagen and exposed politically motivated science for what it was.

Don Clark says:

12:07pm | 04/01/10

I read his original posts on other threads with some interest,  but “Steve” blew all the credibility of his critique of the IPCC science when he shifted up several gears,  from “proved wrong so far” (disputable), on rapidly to “glaring error” (accusative assumption) and finally leaping to “misleading us intentionally” (unsupported, unjustifiable, slander).

If the science is in fact debatable - which like many many many others I simply do not accept - then why not debate that science, without tarting up your stuff with wild and unsupported exaggeration?

Indeed, why is it that the anti case *always* put, in the end, so sloppily?

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:07pm | 04/01/10

Flat Earther alert, climate change skeptics on board. About the only thing I agree with them is that an ETS is crap policy. Better ways to mitigate carbon emissions.

E says:

12:04pm | 04/01/10

Even according to the modeling released by the govt, the CPRS wont RCP. The actual reduction of carbon emissions is left until 2030 with clean coal.
Also, regarding all those other countries supposedly implementing (or considering) an ETS, if everybody jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
And last for now, Europe has had an ETS for a decade or so now, and carbon emissions have risen. Rudd is a loser, Garrett, you havent been the same since you went into hospital a few months after being elected, show us on the dolly where they touched you…poor thing

wolf says:

11:41am | 04/01/10

Peter you’ve lost what credibility you had. The chasers were spot on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfM1C168hjY

Away with you.

Leila says:

11:40am | 04/01/10

What went wrong with wong? I thought this was her baby? Does Kev have anything to say on this issue???? He doesn’t seem brave enough to put his face to it? Just pushes everyone else out into the public on it. Poor Kev too busy writting kiddies books i suppose.

Anthony says:

11:38am | 04/01/10

And you can’t blame Google or Abbott for Copenhagen not getting a result. You can blame Rudd and the wests way of negotiating though. Your only real achievements are on spending on green infrastructure which is what Abbott plans to do. I am sorry but you are all the same.

Martin G says:

11:18am | 04/01/10

You sound bitter, Minister. Maybe you should be pointing the finger at KRUDD’s mates in China for destroying hopes for a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. Step back and think about how history will judge you his 50 years time (if they remember you… hope for your sake that isn’t the case) when AGW has been completely discredited and shamed as the great hoax it is.

Tell me why Australia has anything to gain by giving my tax dollars to the corrupt UN or a corrupt third-world country? Nothing the left loves more than a little wealth redistribution, apart from, oops, lots of taxes. How could I forget?

And also tell me what Australia has to gain by destroying its own economy? You claim low-income and middle-income people will be compensated… would I be right in saying the money funding this will be borrowed from China, Mr Garrett? The same China we are already largely in debt to?

The new generation of voting Australians are beginning to wake up to the reality of what a Labor Government is: a high-taxing, big-spending (i.e. tax-dollar-wasting), do-nothing, nanny-state Government. All spin and no substance.

Cuthbert says:

11:04am | 04/01/10

Whats happened Peter? We didn’t think Kevin trusted you on the CPRS issue. Weren’t you in charge of whales or something? Has Penny been decommissioned or is she back in the warehouse having a software upgrade? Is she just having her batteries recharged or are the ALP engineers completely overhauling her Charisma settings before shes rebooted and sent back out in February to “Legislate! Legislate!” ?

And hasn’t Kevin been shy lately?! Sitting in Kirribilli over Christmas (didn’t he say before the election that he’d only live in Canberra?), devoting his valuable time penning a Prime Ministerial missive about puppies and pussies but refusing to be interviewed about anything substantive.

But its all clear now. Considering your areas of responsibility have been widened, Peter, you have to do a good job of impressing young Lachlan. Those cliches, catchphrases and focus group approved attempts at humour need to be not so rehearsed as to be robotic but whatever you do, don’t stray off message and say something honest or original like that little freudian slip of yours in 2007! Kevin and Lachie can be vindictive little munchkins, and now that you’ve had a taste of real Ministerial responsibility, you don’t want to be demoted to doing ghost written propaganda pieces for The Punch a la Maxine McKew now, do you?

Radical Chick says:

11:02am | 04/01/10

So instead of trying to break Mr. Abbott why don’t the Minister explains what is the ETS and what is for??Why don’t he explains why we need it now when China and the US are doing NOTHING about it…...why should we run in front and create an unlivable state for its population??
Why does Labor needs so much more taxes than liberals and why do we have the debt that we do under super spending Labor?? Has the Minister anything to say about this issues or will he just continue engaging Mr. Abbott in a meaningless article?? At least Abbott stands for something!

Derek Sanders says:

11:00am | 04/01/10

When is Peter Garrett going to make a meaningful contribution to the Australian Parliament?  While Penny Wong is working her butt off, it seems Peter is swanning around Canberra doing very little.  Action is better than a a piece of political proporganda and as a tax-payer I want to see more return for my buck and more action out of my Minister for Environment.

Trudy says:

10:58am | 04/01/10

Where’s your gutless Leader Garrett, tell him to come out and debate Abbott on the issue. Oh thats right, he can’t do that because he won’t be able read from a prepared script, and he might be forced to answer questions with out notice.

Matt2 says:

10:57am | 04/01/10

I guess Google is what Abbott means when he talks about secondary sources:

TONY JONES: I hear what you’re saying about the earth having been hotter in different periods in its entire global history, but let me ask you this. Have you read the science that we’re talking about here - for example, have you read the IPCC’s report?

TONY ABBOTT: No, I don’t claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I’m a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources.

Jamers Hunter says:

10:49am | 04/01/10

davey 10.38
we have perpetual motion machines.we call them governments ! you know, they spend our money promoting themselves so we get to vote for them again and they spend our money…. add infinitum and again similar to the perpetual motion machines, no usefull work is ever done and to date all the attempts always consume more power then they produce. Sounds about right??

John A Neve says:

10:46am | 04/01/10

The ETS, Terrorism and Taxation Review all part of the going nowhere debate! Still it takes people’s minds of the real issue, BAD GOVERNMENT.

What should be our number one issue as a nation, is parliamentary reform
The current system is stuffed, so what are we going to do about it?

Bob H says:

10:43am | 04/01/10

Mr Garret is scientifically blinkered and really not qualified to lecture.  Please will politicians not dabble beyond their intellects - just stick to legal process and school yard bickering and leave the important stuff to those that understand it.

Davy says:

10:38am | 04/01/10

Well I see a hell of a lot of money, our money, being spent on this. Look at all the wonderful things we are doing from insulating houses to solar panels to sending lots of delegates to overseas conferences. Lets not forget the sum payed to every worker to avert a financial crisis.

How many trees would this billions of dollars have planted. If we are in such dire circumstances then stop with the crap about ets’s that farm the money out and start a movement that plants trees and is government funded. This would create jobs in oz and have benifits of local climate improvement and a future resource.

If 90% of oz housholds are going to recieve assistance to pay for an ets then where exactly is the money coming from. Oh big business. Of course they wont pass this on to the consumer will they. ( does the labour government believe in perpetual motion machines as well? )

You prattle on about “our” investment as if its coming from the governments personal coffers. This is not your money and its not your investment. It belongs to us the people.  You know, the ones who actually fund all these junkets.

In conclusion, peter. 
How can we sleep while our dollars are burning.

Melissa says:

10:19am | 04/01/10

I laughed at Rudds comments before Copenhagen, about the heat wave in Victoria as further evidence of global warming. What doe’s Rudd have to say about the unusual cold and freezing temperatures being experienced in the northern hemosphere at the moment? further evidence of global cooling? Every time we have a river break it’s banks it’s headline news, or a cyclone during cyclone season is now also headline news, a grass fire in the middle of nowhere also makes headline news, this sort of stuff is the “fear campaign” not Abbott.

Chase Stevens says:

10:16am | 04/01/10

So aside from making Polluters pay for the pollution - and getting a nice sum of money (Not that there is anything wrong with that mind you) - what else is the government doing to avert this disaster?

I’m hoping that any money gained from the CPRS will be spent on research and development into alternative energy sources (to decrease the amount of energy we need from coal based power), some would ideally be spent on the rehabilitation of natural fauna and flora destroyed by pests (I.e the Camel), some would be spent on increasing the number of trees in australia and the soil quality,  some would obviously be spent on creating ‘green’ jobs whilst some would also be spent on developing a way for Australia to lose it’s coal based economy and gaining something that is just as profitable whilst being non-pollutant and long term.

Of course, thats just what I would like to see happening.

Joe says:

10:07am | 04/01/10

If the ETS is so important why has Rudd spent more time selling it to
the global climate elite than to hsi own public who will be forced to
pay for it? You both won’t release the modeling and tell us how much
we are to get stung by this great new tax. I recomend Gillard’s recent
interview on Lateline where she was asked about SEVEN times about the
$1100.00 figure that has been said we will all be worse off by with
Rudds great new tax, and she looked terrible totally dodging such a
simple and important question. Squirming like a tail ender batsman at
the SCG.

Rudd hoped the media would sell his ETS for him while he remained
silent. If he remotely believes this is the biggest moral issue of our
times, that looks very lazy, or maybe he is just hiding the truth
about the true pain from us all - scared of what will happen when we
find out how worse off we all will be.

Jamie says:

09:59am | 04/01/10

Fear campaign? What? Not like you and your party’s incessant apocalyptic fear mongering over tsunamis, storms, tidal waves, heatwaves, bushfires, flooding coastlines, malaria, etc etc etc.

Kerry says:

09:58am | 04/01/10

Your flogging a dead horse Garrett. Australia says no, if you don’t believe that then hold a DD.

Linda says:

09:53am | 04/01/10

So Rudd sends you out to bat for him Peter, while he sits at the Lodge and writes a childrens book. Pathetic.

Kiara says:

09:49am | 04/01/10

Sorry Garrett, but Abbott has woken Australia up to your (Rudds) ETS/TAX. Does your hero Mr Rudd have anything to say? Why’s he hiding on the issue? Come out and debate Abbott Mr Rudd if your so confident that your ETS is the right way to go.

Jamers Hunter says:

09:45am | 04/01/10

two issues seem to be notible by the care with which they are avioded:
one: Why is australia with its huge rescurces of uranoiun not becomming a global player in neculear energy? we mine it we could process into fuel rods and we could reprocess and sotro the waste. the fuel rods are leased so the ownership and end use are always peaceful and every time someone needs more the only way they get it is by sending the old ones back. Australia would make squillions on dollars , we would be a major force for good in cliamate change and we would simmilarly be a major force for good by keeping uranium out of the hands of the nutters. as a bonus we would subsidise our own capability to make clean neculear electricity. only problem i see is that it is both too sensible for politicians to grasp and that it is contrary to labour ideology. ideology is a dangereous precept for good governance as it is usually a screen for ignorance.
second issur: squeels from idiots sugessting that we all eat veggies and beans rather then meat. well cows convert celulose into meat ,something we cannot do.so they produce methane. well if we eat the same veggies and beans we produce a lot more methane. just immagine it 6.2 billion cases of blazing saddles? the logic of this escapes me. cutting back on cows could also be done by harvesting more skippys and by genetic modification of the pastures. again too easy for politicians to understand and it doesnt have the warm fuzzy touchy feel to it and lets face it what the populkace is supposed to swallow in all this cps debate is warm touchy feely stuff. not common sense .ep a great basis for governance.why not call yourselfs the “australia touchy feely warm cuddly party” much more of this and i will know the insane are running the asylum

Ziggy says:

09:42am | 04/01/10

Reading this article was like being flogged with warm lettuce. Where have I heard that before?

Juan says:

09:37am | 04/01/10

Garrett you really should have stuck to singing, you were good at it. Spinning lines for Kevin Rudd doesn’t suit you and never has. Thanks to Tony Abbott your ETS is dead in the water. Tony Abbott for Prime Minister, bring on a DD and get some back bone and debate the issue for Australians to watch you weaklings.

Kimberley says:

09:23am | 04/01/10

“Worse, it demonstrated just how far Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party are prepared to go to mount a climate change fear campaign.”
Really? Mr Garrett, I thought this is exactly what you bozo’s in the Labor Party have been doing for 2 years, and fortunately for Australia, Abbott woke up and saved Australia from your disastrous ETS! Thanks Tony Abbott! Abbott for PM.

Suzuki says:

09:19am | 04/01/10

Great article, Midnight Peter.  Who wrote it for you?

You should tell them that it’s OK to let the facts get in the way of a good story, even if the truth is, ahem, inconvenient.  It seems that not even the Green/red brigade support the CPRS folly.

The fact is that your CPRS will literally do nothing about reducing emissions.  What it will do is make a lot of merchant bankers and environmental carpetbaggers even richer.  And the vast cost of a CPRS, and the costs of administering it, will all come out of everyone’s pockets, however much you spin it.

So it appears you want to destroy Australia’s competitiveness for no outcome other than to enhance Kevin737’s ego.

Daniel says:

09:09am | 04/01/10

Peter while I agree with most of what you say there (I am the biggest Midnight Oil fan) Cant you do anything else these days except peddle the ALP lines? Think for yourself mate and don’t fall into line like the rest of them do.

Luke says:

09:09am | 04/01/10

Whats wrong with your boss Garrett, won’t he come out and defend his ETS/CPRS/TAX? How about he debate Abbott on his ETS /CPRS/TAX instead of hiding behind his ministers, as usual.

steve says:

09:08am | 04/01/10

Thanks for the link from CRU at East Anglia Don C
Noticed at the bottom of the article dated 29 Nov they are STILL trotting out the Mann et al hockey stick graph. A perfect example of the “sky is falling” mentality that infected Chicken Little Uni
History shows that every prophet who told the populus that the world was ending to date has been 100% wrong, the CRU and the Warm-mongers are no different

James says:

09:08am | 04/01/10

What is with this government CONSTANTLY looking to the Libs to provide a comment. How many times does the ALP “refuse to be interviewed”.

Isn’t the ALP in government?

Peter Garrett and the ALP still won’t provide the relevant figures (not surprisingly), so this article hasn’t “disproved” anything, except Peter Garrett’s credibility.

Approve another uranium mine.

Jacki says:

09:07am | 04/01/10

What a load of crap
Try going to visit Peter Spencer Mr Garrett

Spare Me says:

09:07am | 04/01/10

I hope you were wearing a bib when you wrote that dribble. It would have been better for everyone if you had of stuck to what you knew, singing. In the mean time, go hug a tree.

Tracey Conlan says:

09:06am | 04/01/10

Interesting article Minister - It disturbes me greatly that your opponents are so driven by ideology as to think climate change is one world wide leftist conspirisy.

Like a frog in a slow cooking saucepan of water, if the Liberal Party thinking becomes mainstream, by the time we realise we’re doomed, it’ll be too late.

Super D says:

08:55am | 04/01/10

Peter seeing as the government of which you are a part of is prepared to offer urban consumers up to 120% compensation in the form of cash handouts as a bribe to garner support for this incredibly flawed (even if it was necessary) scheme will you also demand 120% compensation for farmers such as Peter Spencer who have had their land usage rights misappropriated by State governments under the direction of the current and former federal governments via various flawed native vegetation statutes?

Rod says:

08:53am | 04/01/10

Dear Peter

The USA is not introducing its own ETS as you claim. Or did you Google this? Neither is China, nor India, nor the Russian Federation.

So when the public see and hear ‘indisputable fact” and that “the science is in….Penny” what most enquiring individuals do or ought to, is to react with some questioning. Not to mention the real and factual damage to the credibility of climate change claims by Climategate. The science is not “in”.
and to react with an ETS unilaterally is not in our national interest.

What happened to the “need for action before Copenhagen” claims. How credible do they appear now?

How credible does your whole argument appear? Certainly as though it needs serious review just as Mr Abbott propsed!

Matt says:

08:46am | 04/01/10

I don’t see ETS mentioned once in this article? You’ll need to do better than this Garrett to convince voters we need an ETS or CPRS or what ever you like to call it. It’s a tax like Abbott has said, it has no chance of getting through in Feb mate, you should have stuck to singing, instead of parrotting for Kevin Rudd.

Pricey says:

08:34am | 04/01/10

Yer thanks Don for that link. I clicked on it and this little gem is about 3 paragraphs in. “The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements.  Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.”
Why would there be non-publication agreements? Why would they need a collaboration for info so sensitive? I can tell you why, the info does not support the myth!
Done here, got to start my mower. My grass has grown from the rain caused by climate change.

Old Clive says:

08:32am | 04/01/10

It is mind polution that is the problem. There is no hair to keep the brains from leaking out. Slander is the labor policy of getting and keeping in power.

steve says:

08:17am | 04/01/10

Perhhaps you would like to tell us how much the CPRS IS going to cost and how it is going to work. That would be a start.
Not one comment from anyone in Government as to how imposing a tax on Carbon In dinky little Australia will reduce the temperature of the Planet? (CPRS, See there is another way to spell crap)
I notice Kirribilly Kev has been pretty quiet since he snuck home from his junket to Copenhargen.
Canada is under ice, 80% of the USA under snow. UK facing the coldest winter in 100 years. and you want to COOL the planet further if you can?
Have a Read of
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

might open you mind a little?

Q.E.D. says:

08:17am | 04/01/10

Policy on the run - TICK.

Dinosaurs - TICK.

John Howard supported it - TICK.

Nice one, Peter. Shame you didn’t mention erratic too - Oh no, that’s the catch phrase for Barnaby Joyce.

BORING.

Charles says:

08:08am | 04/01/10

Peter Garrets article is full of the usual hotch potch of urban myth and junk scioecne that has become the hallmark of the Great Warming Hoax which is what this unfortunate episode has turned into.

He has also fallen into the same trap that other non-climate scientists and ill-informed commentators make in predicting what future climate might be, and that is they are invariably wrong (note well Al Gore, Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut).

In respect of the leaked e-mails and data runs from the CRU, it is only another reiteration of the traditional method scientists have used to gouge funds from the taxpayer , and that is to walk the well trodden apocalyptic alarmist path.

Data fudging, manipulation, exclusions, distorting, etc, are all standard operating procedure for many of those involved in public science.  As is keeping things l;ike peer review and publication in technical journals a closed shop process that enables the authors to stay ‘on message’, despite whatever physical disparities might appear.

In fact, it has almost become the science of maintaining funding that these people are involved in.

I could point you to the mass of data that falsifies the AGW theory, but I don’t think Peter Garret is smart enough or independent thinking enough to want to read it.  However, he does need to answer the question how we managed to get the Medieval Warming Period (when it was 3-4C higher than today), and the Little Ice Age (temperatures 2-3C below today) without any apparent human intervention.

Steve says:

07:49am | 04/01/10

@Don Clark
“Here’s a brief list of the usual tosh that’ll be trotted out…
[snip]
“Warming isn’t man made””

Please explain why you regard that as “tosh”?

As I have explained on Punch before, the falling specific humidity at the top of the troposphere shows that the warming is NOT due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. That is science, nothing less.

Skeptical says:

07:33am | 04/01/10

@ Don Clark with you all the way, well said! But we have to remember this is the Environment Minister that allocated $19 million to culling camels up north, while we continue to loose native species to extinction faster than any other continent on the planet!
Agreed the CPRS is a bunch of utter rubbish - the government already taxes the crap out of us and thanks to the current govt handouts they need a new incentive to tax us more as they realise that they will need to somehow fix the mess the economy is in!
The hypocrisy with ‘climate change’ prattlers is that they seemilgly have a bigger carbon footprint the the average Aussie, they fly all over the place banging their drum about a topic that has shifted (as so many know) from global warming to climate change. It seems the former had no substance and the latter soon won’t either but how much we this country suffer before it is realised? A tax will do very little to benefit the environment, what a insult to the average Aussie, thinking we are so gullible! Wake up Garrett and stop the rot, there are far more important causes you could put your energy into, like fixing Australia’s most important agricultural region,  the Murray Darling river system for a start. We have already lost 20 known native species of mammals in this region alone!  But no that’s not as trendy as Climate Change and heaven forbid solving the Murray crisis could benefit biodiversity, communities and the Australia environment significantly, but nah for a Pollie that would simply make just too much damn sense!!

Sherlock says:

07:26am | 04/01/10

Have a good look at those areas already operating an ETS and it’s frightening. Europe is turning into the economic basket case of the developed world and California with it’s ETS and other green policies is now unable to provide a reliable power supply to it’s citizens with regular rolling blackouts. The state is almost bankrupt as industry has fled the state. If you want a perfect example look where the latest Hollywood blockbusters were filmed. It’s highly unlikely they were filmed in Hollywood as the state’s highest profile industry looks elsewhere to bypass the expense of operating in California.

As for Australia, when the CPRS fails to get through the Senate again the majority of Australians will celebrate as more and more realise that it’s only a tax on everything that won’t do a single thing to mitigate any effects of climate change.

To illustrate what a joke Mr Garratt’s CPRS scheme is you need to realise that even after it’s introduced Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are forecasted to continue to rise until after 2030 when “clean coal” is expected to be introduced.

There’s the joke. Our total emissions cuts are expected to come from “clean coal”. A technology that nobody has been able to get to work and more and more countries are abandoning as they realise what a joke the concept is.

Perhaps those who support the CPRS might like to share with the rest of us there feelings about having liquefied greenhouse gases stored under their communities forever. You think the NIMBY’s aren’t going to have something to say about that?

As for Mr Garrett’s assertions about Tony Abbots “false claims about the costs of a CPRS” perhaps it would be easier to assess a figure if the government would release the modelling.

However I fail to see why I should pay more out of my pocket for energy to provide a 120% supplement to other people. That’s not an energy policy that’s income redistribution. Just one more tactic in the class war the ALP has been waging since it took office.

Have a look at what’s happened to energy costs in Europe over the last five years since the introduction of their ETS and see if you think Australia’s proposed CPRS will only cost you $600 a year.If you really believe that I have a block of flats in Tassie you might be interested in

Don Clark says:

07:00am | 04/01/10

Googled Climategate.  Got this.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate
and this
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update

Can’t beat an original source, really.

Done here. Work to do.

Don Clark says:

06:35am | 04/01/10

Minister, I do hope you have some one calm, sensible, well across the subject, and with plenty of time on tap to reply quickly and accurately to the vitriolic tide of misinformation that your article will attract.  Here’s a brief list of the usual tosh that’ll be trotted out…

” The World isn’t warming. Its cooling.”

“World climate has always changed, it doesn’t matter and we can’t stop it”

” CO2 is a harmless fertiliser”

“Warming isn’t man made”

“CO2 doesn’t cause warming, in the air it’s like a hair is to a kilometre”

“The sea ice is growing not shrinking”

“Sea levels won’t rise, cos when ice-cubes melt my drink doesn’t rise”

“The IPCC are commies”

“The IPCC are a vested interest”

“The IPCC aren’t scientists”

“The IPCC Reports aren’t peer-reviewed”

“The IPCC Reports are intentionally deceptiive, they deliberately left out longer solar cycles and assume constant humidity”

“Global warming science is just a Leftie plot to govern the world”

“Anyone who believes in man-made climate warming is a moron or a commie”

“The CPRS won’t work”

“The CPRS is just a big tax on everything”

Thanks for the article. We need to see a great deal more stuff like this, preferably in boringly factual neutral terms,  to make the case for the CPRS.

And to the usual snarling pack of yap-dogs: Don Clark is an ordinary retired bloke with no connection whatever to any political party, Party Member, Parliamentarian, Minister or Ministerial Office. Ever.

Eric says:

06:02am | 04/01/10

Google “Climategate”.