Abbott blows hot and cold on climate change

Zelda says:

06:03am | 16/03/11

Rudd and many of his mates have palaces by the Sea.
We aren’t children,despite the fact the Gov treats us like we are.
Hypocrites the lot of them.

Faz says:

06:12am | 16/03/11

In terms of the politics we have moved beyond ‘believing it’ or not ‘believing it’. Effectively, both parties believe it.

The problem for Abbott is that just when he had a moment where he could go hard on the ‘Gillard’s deceit’ narrative—ideal for a politician who’s stock in trade is one-liners—he make himself the news again.

Once again, the discipline he showed for most of the election campaign seems to fail him at crucial times in the ‘long haul’ of opposition.

At some stage too, the ‘deceit’ narrative is going to run out of puff and he’ll have to present a better policy and, speaking of deceit,  convince the voters that he actually believes it.

The question of who is better under pressure too, could not be better illustrated when Q&A presented Julia with a ‘Riley’ moment. Perhaps she could have done better than laughing it off and saying she didn’t know what he was talking about, but that response was infinitely better than excruciating silence.

bobw says:

07:13am | 16/03/11

Whatever you may think of Gore and Chuckles, climate science isn’t pegged to their personal credibility.  Got any substantive arguments?

Phil says:

07:27am | 16/03/11

Eric agreed. I would like to know just how many of the pro climate change is real and pro carbon tax punch writers have paid with their own cash for solar electricity, solar hot water, and whether they cycle distances of say less than 5 kms. What the CO2 output of their cars is, ie are they Hybrid Camry or a big V6 or V8.

As I said to a labor voter last night, many heavy poluters on lower incomes will be subsidised, but those of us who have spent our own cash, trying to basically reduce our electricity costs and fuel/diesel costs will be punished cause we work hard and earn plenty.

See I am not convinced by climate change. Too much BS occurs and too much hypocrisy from those pedalling its introduction that it is seen for what it really is social engineering designed to take from the hard working and give to the less hardworking to bludgers.

However, I do think we should use the earth wisely. We have better resources that we could use.

When the federal government stops companies exporting brown coal, I will see that they are serious.

It is good to see debate on the issues within the Libs. Other than Martin Ferguson who wants to export Uranium to India noone in labor is allowed to speak out.

Another piece from Mal bagging Abbott and trying to divert attention from the lying bag in Canberra.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:30am | 16/03/11

Dear Erick,

The physics and chemistry that explains the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle is exactly the same science that is responsible for all the technology we rely on everyday.

When we turn on a flourescent light or use the microwave oven we are subscribing to exactly the same physics that describes and quantifies the greenhouse effect.

When we rely on medicine, paint our house or drive a car we are subscibing to exactly the same chemistry that describes and quantifies the carbon cycle.

Gregg says:

08:52am | 16/03/11

@Lisa,
The physics, chemistry and even the science may all have the same principles but it is the application and interpretation that can vary.

And do we ever see the IPCC people commenting on those same principles as to why we have had numerous Ice Ages of different severities, the impact of volcanic activities or what the very gradual cooling of the sun will be let alone solar storm activities.

Just how many Ice core samples have ever been tested and how widely spread are they and global temperature readings taken and if in fact all that is sufficient for accurate modelling, then surely it should also be possible to project how global warming may restrict global cooling as well and come up with some reasoning on what extent of global warming would be better than a greater extreme of global cooling.

Milton says:

09:06am | 16/03/11

So you agree that Abbott is flip-flopping, walking both sides of the street. Is it a core or a non-core belief, is it written down, is it gospel truth. Why is lying OK for the Liberals.

Neil Campbell says:

09:24am | 16/03/11

M.Farr - I am with Tony a 100%; you have to talk PC and pretend the earth is going to hell from GW/CC, but in reality over 70% of Australian’s think the topic is a load of man made CRAP to generate profits for some lucky businesses and taxes for Governments, who desperately need the $$$ to pay for future liabilities - This is all the SCAM is about!!!!

Dissident says:

10:10am | 16/03/11

Milton, what do you think Tony Abbott has lied about?

TA: I don’t think we can say that the science is settled. Check.

TA: We should do our best to emit as few waste products as possible. Check.

Where is the lie? Kindly provide a direct quote that is verifiable.

Environmental policy and climate change aren’t joined at the hip. You can decide to control emissions (or reduce intensity as the Chinese have intelligently decided to do) without adhering to the facade that is material human induced climate change. Deciding that you don’t like pollution - real pollution, not evil carbon - and doing something about it does not mean that you are advocating AGW.

intruder says:

10:22am | 16/03/11

a little truth and real reporting would be good from our canberra press gallery. something like having a go at more pork pies from the pm on Q@A. Where she said China was closing down inefficient coal fired power stations because because of thier carbon pollution. First lie its Carbon dioxide second lie they are closing them down due to heavy metal emissions. But hey the left wing reporters like Malcolm would never turn on dear leader. Thats a no no and would risk excommunication from the collective.

Diogenes says:

12:29pm | 16/03/11

Where do all these reporters and politicians get their degrees in science?

Rick says:

02:16pm | 16/03/11

Even if global warming is a load of crap do you think its a good idea to keep pumping crap into our atmosphere? After all I’d say you believe that dumping crap into our rivers is not a good idea. Dumping crap into the oceans in not a good idea. Right? then why is it that you have your head stuck up you arse when it comes to the air that you breath? anyway Abbott must believe that we need to do somthing even if it is just planting a few trees.

PaulB says:

03:34pm | 16/03/11

Erick starting to seem a bit like Helen Thomas, always getting the first word in.

Beau D says:

03:55pm | 16/03/11

There’s a lot of Christian pastors who preach against gays and against extramarital sex and cosying up to right-wing political leaders, then they catch them on paying for prostitutes (sometimes female, sometimes male), doing drugs and living a life divorced from their teaching. Should then anyone believe in Christ when his own advocates act as if they don’t believe? I think my local Uniting church which spends most of its time helping the poor and vulnerable in our society might have some issues with such an absolutist view.

Al says:

04:04pm | 16/03/11

I’m tired of being nice about this and explaining the science over and over again.
The facts are:
The only people not convinced about climate change are the people who can’t or haven’t taken the time to read genuine scientific papers.
I understand we are all time poor, but there is no excuse for repeating slogans and falsehoods in this discussion. It is too damn important.
Only when commentors (and media commentators) have taken the time to look at the science and have a valid objection which makes a skerrick of sense will I start to respect their opinion.
Seriously, the way the science stacks up deniers can only fall into three possible categories:
the stupid,
the ignorant
or liars with a vested interest.

Dissident says:

07:05pm | 16/03/11

So anyone who disagrees with your view of climate change is stupid, ignorant or a liar, hey Al? With such a winning debating technique, I am surprised that everyone doesn’t agree with you on everything.

Phil says:

07:35pm | 16/03/11

Al and Rick
As advocates for change you might both like to enlighten us all at to what steps you have personally taken with your own money to reduce your carbon dioxide output.
Like many who want to push for a carbon tax, probably very little to nothing

acotrel says:

01:41am | 18/03/11

Faz - How could a self-confessed liar like Abbott ever maintain the ‘deceit narrative’?  Realistcally every single voter in Australia knows the man is a fake, even if they don’t admit it.  The’deceit marrative’ simply cannot be sustained, the truth will out even in the short term! Abbott had no alternative but to change the game!
As far as liars go Julia Gillard must be a really good one?  She always comes across as honest whever she appears anywhere.  She’s forthright, never hesitant in her answers.  Liars are easy to detect, they must pause to remember the plot and their previous lies so they don’t trip over their own mouth!

acotrel says:

01:51am | 18/03/11

@Al
]‘Seriously, the way the science stacks up deniers can only fall into three possible categories:
the stupid,
the ignorant
or liars with a vested interest. ‘

There is another category - people who don’t recognise the one single FACT of life - CHANGE HAPPENS! In the long term it doesn’t matter what the price on carbon might be, as long as we do R&D in some area of technology!  If we don’t exercise the skills we lose them.  Climate change is as good an area as any, and we might actually achieve something to help our environment?

acotrel says:

06:18am | 16/03/11

You blokes are so big on ‘BELIEF’!!  Don’t you ever look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions?  Abbott is a believer, he believes he is right for the leadership of Australia - end of story!  Anything else is irrelevant!  He has nothing to offer Australia except his blind faith, and his bigotry. -  Managing the risks in climate change - PFFT !!! It’s a load of crap!

LeftRightOut says:

06:28am | 16/03/11

The only thing Farr believes in, is his hatred of Abbot and all things conservative. Farr, you’re a discgrace, another piece of crap writing, written by perhaps the biggest sycophant to masquerade as a journalist.

Jim says:

06:40am | 16/03/11

Thank you for proving my point from yesterday acotrel…you just can’t help yourself, can you?!

Vaunted says:

06:40am | 16/03/11

Gee acotrel, I thought being a true believer yourself you were launching into an erudite defence of TA having his own principles, then out came the old trademarked leftist attack, name calling. Shame really.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:40am | 16/03/11

Dear Acotrel,

It could be argued that stating anything definitively requires belief.

Scientists subsribe to the physiscs and chemistry of the Periodic Table, the Standard Model and the Redox Tables because of the reliability of the cross disciplinary predictions and technology this science delivers. Even so, no-one believes 100% that we have found the holy grail. We know there are unknowns, and that the accuracy of quantifications will continue to improve. There is no faith.

By the same token, no scientist stands by the predictive climate models 100%. They know that there are unfixable limitations that renders this discipline an inherent level of inaccuracy. They respond to this by contantly scrutinising and revising these models, and by making probabilistic predictions over time periods of 100 years. There is no faith.

Johnno says:

03:30pm | 16/03/11

Lisa Meredith,

I only comment because I’ve seen you make the same mistake twice on this thread.

You are trying to combat ignorance with fact. I’m afraid that isn’t going to wash with (sadly) a majority of punch readers.

I suggest you rely on strained “victimhood” statements (“Australia is biased against white, middle-aged, males!”), ad-hominem attacks (“Gillard has a double chin”, or “You blokes are morons”), or fear-mongering (“Labor is going to tax us into oblivion”, “The Libs are going to let the planet die”) to get your point across.

You’ll fit in much better.

Jay Santos says:

06:32am | 16/03/11

Do you expect anything less from a Canberra journalist?

They always avoid the real story.

acotrel says:

06:36am | 16/03/11

@TimB
‘As long as Tony’s policies don’t end up costing us like Julia’s will, I don’t care what position he holds.’

Ever heard of a ‘cost/benefit analysis’?

Jim says:

06:42am | 16/03/11

Spot on TimB…Mark Kenny is a prime example of what happens when one spends too long working for the ABC…and Mal is working on being the next Laurie Oakes - sucking up to a failure of a PM just like Oakes/Whitlam.

hermes says:

07:09am | 16/03/11

Agree; I don’t care if TA believes in the flying spaghetti monster. His beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand…which is the current Govt gouging the public (and business, don’t forget them) for every cent, with idiotic cash-grab and incompetant schemes - just read in the Oz that their much vaunted savings scheme for young people that cost $53 million had ONE person save the required $500. Yes, you read correctly ONE PERSON.

I, for example, am an evironmental scientist (not an undergrad) with many years experience, and I think taxing carbon is a total waste of money, and will do absolutely zero for the issue, apart from making us poorer. And what really really p*sses me off, is that AGW has become such a huge religion, that governments are ignoring other, more pressing environmental issues, such as habitat loss, overfishing of large pelagic species, deforestation, nutrification of the oceans, contamination of fresh water….you name it. If we need to deal with AGW, remember, most of the impacts are human impacts, and we easily have the technology to deal with these, now and more so in the future. Taxing us is just going to make us broke, and force our industries offshore….

Denny Crane says:

07:12am | 16/03/11

Spot on. She told Alan Jones that she always advocated a carbon tax and that she did not lie to the Australian people - Everyone knew thats what her position was.

Then on Q&A she changed tact and admitted that she mislead the people but that she was not going to back away from her broken promise.

To support her arguments she continues to lie and mislead the Australian people. She said that Australia had higher emissions per capita than the US. The UN statistics disagree with her.

She told us that China are closing down coal fired power stations but failed to mention that they are replacing those stations with a new one each week.

The left press do not think they should question her abaout these deceptions. Her position has been that she supported a CPRS under Kev, then she knifed him because he dumped it, then when faced with defeat she flipped again and ruled it out during the election and then flipped under pressure from Brown. She has been quizzed about the last two positions but why not but nobody has pulled her up the first two.

Its a sad state of affairs when the press gallery focus on Abbott, instead of all the lies and different positions of Gillard.

Warren says:

07:15am | 16/03/11

How do you know what Abbott’s climate change policies will cost? We saw his last effort at costing during the election, a $10 billion dollar hole. Now he wants to introduce a policy that he claims will reduce carbon emissions by the same amount as Labor’s policy (not bad for someone who thinks climate change is crap), but won’t cost half as much. You believe him?

Steve Smith says:

07:19am | 16/03/11

Tony Abbot is a fake,a phoney, a weathervane that changes policy to suit whatever the people wants to hear.
Tony Abbott does not care about the Australian people, nor does he care about the enviroment or the natural resources that our Country has,like the pristine wild rivers and wilderness areas in far North Queensland that Tony abbott wants to allow his mining mates to plunder, pollute and destroy forever with their mines.
On March 24th, Tony Abbott is putting a bill to the Senate in a blatant attempt to overturn the wild rivers legislation that protects these natural enviromental areas of beauty,with their crystal clear ,unpolluted fresh water .
Tony Abbott is an enviromental vandal, that has complete disregard and respect for our Country and our people, and the only thing that he really cares about is his own ambition to become Prime Minister of our Country at any cost what so ever.
Tim B, all you can do is echo Tony Abbott diatribe of a “big new tax” or how Julia is supposed to have lied.
If it come down to the biggest liar in Parliament and Politics today it has to be Tony Abbott who has mastered the art of lying and deceiving.
Those that continue to sanction an condone Tony Abbott’s lies, have no real respect or concern for their Country or the enviroment that they live in.
Tim B, you talk about the way other political party supporters condone their Leaders, but you fail to take the plank out of your own eyes by condoning and making excuses for the lies and deceit that Tony Abbott is spinning to you all.
I guess when you are a one-eyed,narrrow minded,and tunnel visioned Liberal supporter like you and others are, then it doesn’t matter to you if Tony Abbott is loose with the truth,that is okay,there is one rule that you have for Tony Abbott and the Liberal National party and a totally different set of rules for any other political party.
It’s a wonder Tony Abbott does not suffer from continual constipation with all you Liberal bloggers stuck up his bum defending him on a regular basis.

bobw says:

07:26am | 16/03/11

Come off it, TimB.  Abbott has been making a big move on this.  Do you really think he should get a free kick?  Of course not - particularly when he’s been so careful to make the issue about Gillard’s personal credibility rather than anything of substance.  If Abbott’s own position is flimsy, or if he’s put up a policy that would involve spending public money on a problem that he doesn’t think is real, or a policy that he hopes to resile from, the credibility angle loses much of its validity.  For better or for worse, we’re essentially dealing with a two party system here - often the best policy we can hope for is the least worst of two alternatives.  The Coalition position matters.

“As long as Tony’s policies don’t end up costing us like Julia’s will…”

The problem with that is that “direct action” (if it’s not a mirage) is bound to be be less efficient than a carbon pricing option - ie, cost more, in relative terms.  I don’t think Turnbull even get a public dressing down for pointing this out the other week.

Jay Santos says:

07:42am | 16/03/11

“...Ever heard of a ‘cost/benefit analysis’?...”

Maybe you can you show me where I can find the “cost/benefit analysis” Labor undertook on the BER program?

How about the NBN?

Grocery/FuelWatch? 

Green Cars/Loans?

PinkBatts?

Take your time.

Faz says:

08:03am | 16/03/11

Trouble with this theory, Tim, is that TA makes himself the news.

His ‘on message’ ‘Julia’s a liar’ line lost it’s impact because he came over as a little less than honest himself about his own views. If you’re trying to point the finger at your opponent about honesty, you’ve got to be honest yourself or it loses its punch. On that score it DOES matter that he’s the Leader of the Op and not in government.

Julia’s changed tack, will TA adapt. Can he?

Andy W says:

08:04am | 16/03/11

The Coalition’s policy will cost us much as an ETS and more according to the Climate institute, not surprising given their strategy of lying to the Australian people about the true cost of their policies.
That’s if you believe the policy will ever be implemented, it’s just a token policy to keep the Doctor’s wives happy.

Gregg says:

08:57am | 16/03/11

@ Acotrel
Comeon Acca
” Cost Benefit Analysis “
You mean like for the BER and the NBN!
It’s that memory loss kicking in again is it?

TimB says:

09:14am | 16/03/11

@ Acotrel, cost benefit analysis? Yes I have. Has Julia? See she won’t announce the costs (wonder why) and she can’t announce any benefits, because there won’t be any. We’re penalising ourselves for what? A possible zero point zero zero something reduction in temperature? Her policy is the very definition of pointless.

@ Warren- Another zombie who buys into the “black hole” myth. Do some research on the issue before you use it to try and make a point.

@ Faz, TA doesn’t make himself the news. It’s journalists like Kenny and Farr that do it. How anyone thinks that just because Tony’s stance on climate change appears to be unclear is somehow equal in ramifications or somehow negates Julia’s whopper mystifies me.
It’s a clear distraction tactic. Hound Abbott over tiny details that might matter in a year or two, whilst ignoring the redheaded elephant in the room that matters right now.

@ Andy W, how could anyone possibly know this? We don’t know what Julia’s will cost yet. Julia doesn’t even know. I assume they’re using the same $26/tonne figure that Tony is using. Strangely enough when Tony uses, it he gets shouted down for assumptions and scaremongering.

Regardless,  we aren’t going to be hit for extra to pay for it under Tony’s scheme, I assume he’ll just be cutting some of Labor’s more pointless & wasteful policies. Julia’s *WILL* hit us for more money on top of what’s already in general revenue. That’s guaranteed.

And finally @ Steve. Steve, Steve Steve.

In amongst your whiny rant, one point sticks out. “how Julia is supposed to have lied” There is no supposed about it. I’m tired of having this discussion. She lied. Period. There can be no doubt.

You want further proof?

Here she is on Lateline last year:

TONY JONES: Do you have the political courage to do what Kevin Rudd refused to do and call a double dissolution election with a promise to push through the emissions trading scheme through both houses if you win?

JULIA GILLARD: Tony, I have already said I am holding to the decision that was announced by the Government that we will review in 2012 the nature of the community consensus in Australia about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the progress internationally on pricing carbon and combating climate change and will make a decision then about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

She deferred it. She was going to “wait and see” for a few years, because she knew the issue was spooking the electorate & would hurt her election chances. She’s been misleading and deceiving on this issue every step of the way, whether it be a Carbon Price./Tax/trading scheme/whatever. She constantly indicated prior to the election that it would not be brought in for quite some time, if ever.
But the second she gets back into power it’s full speed ahead, oh and try and throw blame the Greens for good measure.

Bullshit. She would have been doing this even had she won power in her own right. It has nothing do with the Greens. It’s *her choice*.

As long as you refuse to admit Julia’s election stealing deception in the face of all evidence, it’s you who remains blinkered and one-eyed.

PS. Please enlighten me with the details of Tony’s “lies” we can compare them to what Julia has done. I bet I know who will come out worse off.

Gregg says:

09:19am | 16/03/11

@Steve Smith,
What a rant and I hope it has got whatever is bothering you off your chest and may have even been cathartically good for you.
Tony Abbott if you haven’t noticed also promotes healthy living with his cycling and SLSC activities, has been a CFA volunteer and also volunteers in indigenous communities, probably doing far more for Australia and our environment than either Rudd or Gillard together will ever do.
Just noted Kev on telle and is he becoming bloated from all his travel and good living or what?
If he keeps going the way he it seems he is, I’d reckon a heart attack is not too far down the track.
But stay happy Steve and keep your rants going!

Denny Crane says:

09:22am | 16/03/11

Warren - Labor now have a $60Billion hole in their mining tax. This was hidden from Windsor and Jokeshott and the Australian people during the election. Windsor supported Gillard out of revenge so it would not have made any difference to who held power but it shows the inability of labor to develop policy.

I dont need to go thru the list of policy failures but i think we can all be certain that they will stuff this up like they have stuffed up everything else they have touched.

Rosie says:

09:27am | 16/03/11

On the mark TimB!

Mr Farr, so what if Tony Abbott is trying to walk both sides of the street???? He is not the Govt so no need to take him at face value! Why don’t you and others take Gillard at face value and stop using Tony Abbott to cover up Gillard’s superficial characteristics, the fact that she isn’t what she appears to be.

Tony Abbott and the Coalition has every right to fight the carbon tax any which way they like, be it to keep the debate going until they get the result they want from the people to give them a better idea and chance of replacing this bad Gillard Govt that we unfortunately have to endure! This is no different to what the Gillard Minority Govt is doing, keep the debate going until Gillard gets the result she wants.

Mr Farr, when in doubt first announce a “Citizen’s Assembly” to advise the Govt on climate change to put a price on carbon and feed it back to the Govt. It was a joke and Gillard was laughed at so to make herself look credible she scraps it for a Multi Party Climate Change Committe making sure they will agree to a “Carbon Tax” she promised she would never have under any Govt she leads.

At the moment my best bet on climate change is getting rid of our two cars for a couple of camels. Nature had it right with the camel, it was made for a hot, arid enviroment and a good form of transport!

Mr Farr, as a jouno will you PLEASE make sure the Multi Party Climate Change Committe discuss the exportation of our coal, iron ore, wool, cotton and any other raw material to other parts of the world that will generate less carbon dioxide during the manufacturing process???? I need to know as it will justify Gillard’s whim of putting a price on carbon so that we will use less of it when we are already trying to use less of it now to save on costs.

I am finding that the only thing you, Mr Farr and Gillard ever get right is that Tony Abbott will spruik the “carbon tax” for “no carbon tax” but “direct action.”

PS Very welcoming to see Rudd’s face on TV updating us with the Japanese crisis instead of the fake Gillard!

Elphaba says:

09:56am | 16/03/11

Good point TimB - Tony’s policies are not on trial, Julia’s are.  He’s obviously playing the voter percentages, and personally, I’d love for him to be honest and say that he doesn’t believe in AGW, but he’s a politician and at the end of the day, it’s numbers game.

None of this should divert from Julia’s policies though.  She is intent on financially crippling the population - did you hear, on Q&A, when she said high income earners would not receive any compo from the carbon tax?  Absolutely disgusting that she thinks it’s appropriate to punish high income earners just because they are successful.  Rob from the rich and give to the poor - that’s what she’s about and I want it to stop.

TChong says:

10:24am | 16/03/11

Rosie and Elphaba- dont worry about Abbotts back flips, outright lies and lack of a policy , ‘cause hes in opposition, and as such you 2, and people like you, dont seem to expect him to do anything else except, lie , backflip, and treat araldited supporters likes yous as complete mugs.
Blind support , regardless, thats all Abbott wants, and yous unquestioningly give.
Thats priceless comedy.

Mattb says:

11:08am | 16/03/11

Gotta love the argument put up by several of the lib supporters that we shouldn’t worry about Tony Abbotts policies ‘cause he’s in opposition’.

WTF???.. Are you mindless dills serious?. How do you judge an opposition politician and his party’s ability to govern if you fail to even bother critically analyzing the policies they intend to introduce if they win government?. You keep telling us all that TA’s chances of becoming PM are ‘only one bi- election, or 2 independent change of hearts away’, yet, apparently TA mysteriously doesn’t need his policies scrutinized!!!.....

Jim says:

11:10am | 16/03/11

@Steve Smith “On March 24th, Tony Abbott is putting a bill to the Senate in a blatant attempt to overturn the wild rivers legislation that protects these natural enviromental areas of beauty,with their crystal clear ,unpolluted fresh water .”

You mean the same Wild Rivers Legislation that the Greens imposed which stopped indigenous people up north from using the rivers and waterways the way we have been using them for 40,000 years?

Rosie says:

11:51am | 16/03/11

Chongy, Chongy oh Chongy how you and the likes of you will trivialize the truth said about the infamous Julia Gillard! ( priceless comedy ) Like Gillard who trivializes all the questions asked on her misdeeds, will giggle nervously before making out she welcomes the question by saying; “a very good question I am glad you asked it,” then unashamedly deceitfully spins her way around it only to give us a deceptive answer, one that she wants the public to hear! ( Ain’t going to fool me! )

Chongy I am certain even if we reversed it - Abbott in Gillard’s shoes, you Mr Farr and I wouldn’t come to an agreement because as the PM is our representive in a democracy I would be scrutnizing Abbot just like I am with Gillard. You and Mr Farr have accepted the shafting of PM Rudd by Gillard where as I wouldn’t. This means that I would not have any respect for Tony Abbott f which is never going to be a good start! You see I would take Tony Abbott at face value!

PS More confusion for the Gillard Labor Govt and the public, Karl Bitar one of the “faceless men” is leaving probably because he wasn’t able to produce the result Labor wanted to form a majority govt in its own right in the last election!

Ben81 says:

12:17pm | 16/03/11

Mattb, just what are you talking about?
The point is that the opposition actually has their policy on this ready and available for anyone who wants to read about it to check out on their website, all the numbers and details are there. It hasn’t changed.

The government still can’t even give us even the barest idea of what theirs will include.  They have nothing but a tax that they still haven’t worked out yet, even though it’s likely that this is something that they will introduce before the next election.  One of these things deserves more scrutiny than the other.  Understand now?

Elphaba says:

12:19pm | 16/03/11

@Mattb, I think that TA’s policies should be scrutinised, but Julia has not yet released the details of a carbon tax - so she’s thrown down the gauntlet.  Once she displays some certainty on facts and figures and lets the people know what for, then I will look at Tony’s.

Right now, she’s in power, and she’s making the decleration.  She needs to come out with the details.

@TChong - I hardly think you can call me a Lib suckhole when you’re singing the praises of the Labor govt at every turn.  You’re far worse than I am.  I’m still a swinging voter - all Julia has got to do to get at the least, a consideration, is drop the carbon tax.  You wouldn’t vote Lib if they were the last political party on Earth.

Pot, kettle, black.

Rosie says:

12:22pm | 16/03/11

MattB - kettle/pot

Poor Labor voters who voted Rudd Labor Govt into power because of Rudd’s ETS - “the great moral challenge of our generation” in the 2007 Elections only to be forced to have it shelfed by the infamous Julia Gillard. Then in the 2010 Elections after Julia Gillard shafted the elected 2007 PM Rudd once again Labor voters who voted Gillard Labor because Gillard promised that they will be no “carbon tax” under the Govt she leads. Months later she unashamedly breaks her promise, becomes a liar and introduces a “carbon tax” because the Greens want it in the minority govt she couldn’t wait to lead for her not to be a 3 month PM wonder.

Mattb - Who are the mindless dills nows???????????

Faz says:

12:29pm | 16/03/11

@ TimB:

So when TA plays funny buggers with the truth it’s ‘appears to be unclear’, but when Julia does it it’s a ‘whopper’. Go figure.

Not only does TA make the news, he WANTS to make the news. When you get on your high horse and lecture the PM about honesty while ... cough, cough ... ‘appearing to be unclear’ yourself, it’s news.

TA is being ‘hounded’? Oh the poor dear!

TimB says:

01:02pm | 16/03/11

Faz, if you’re incapable of understanding difference between a massive policy lie designed to steal an election, and a few mixed messages on personal belief (as opposed to the actual policy) then I feel pity for you.

And Tony Abbott WANTS to be the story? Really? Did he tell you this over drinks at the local? Or are you making crap up?

I know if I was Tony I’d much prefer journalists to be paying attention to the dodgy, berefit of details policy being championed by the Prime Minister, not the comparitively unimportant random musings of the Opposition leader.

Get some perspective.

PJ says:

02:00pm | 16/03/11

It ceases to amaze me how supporters of Ms Gillard and her government could put up any kind of defence on the introduction without any details of a global issue such as a carbon tax.

How could people be so gullible and easily persuaded to believe something so credulous; “willing to pay a tax without any details” and a PM who after announcing the carbon tax with no details is now trying to justify why she lied to the people “that there would be no carbon tax.” Mind boggles!

Has Ms Gillard any sense at all? We are not discussing the details of a carbon tax when we should be. Ms Gillard is already hindered even before we start debating the details when she is ready to give them to us of what she is now determined to get through.

Many of us are already put off because of the “cart before the horse” analogy even if we believe in keeping the enviroment clean for future generations.

Faz says:

02:09pm | 16/03/11

Perspective is a good thing, Tim.

When it’s in the context of an election, it’s newsworthy.

So when high profile candidates OR candidates for the top job ‘appear’ to mixing their messages, they’re news.

Even if you buy the notion that every mainstream journalist is a Labor fellow traveller, the fact that TA chose to ... err ... ‘mix his message’ on the very day he was giving JG a serve about her ... err ... ‘mixed messages’, is a problem of his making.

And his habit of kicking own goals like this is also news. You could save your pity for him, but really, how many times will this sort of thing happen before his most ardent supporters will stop making excuses for him?

Mattb says:

04:24pm | 16/03/11

@ben81

“Mattb, just what are you talking about?”

Ben, I’m talking about the following- 

@TimB
“As long as Tony’s policies don’t end up costing us like Julia’s will, I don’t care what position he holds.”

@Hermes 
“Agree; I don’t care if TA believes in the flying spaghetti monster. His beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand…”

@Rosie 
“Mr Farr, so what if Tony Abbott is trying to walk both sides of the street???? He is not the Govt so no need to take him at face value!”

It just amazes me how these people jump up and down every time an article is written about TA, that they don’t agree with, spouting absolute rubbish about how his policies/positions/beliefs are irrelevant, completely ignorant of the fact that he is the alternative to the labour government that’s in power now. They are all pretty much saying “don’t bother analyzing the libs policies, they’re irrelevant, just trust us, they are the party who we need to govern this country”. 
Ha, no thanks, you mindless dills, I’ll stick to analyzing EVERY parties policies and make my own mind up, regardless of whether they are the governing party or not.

@Elphaba 

@Mattb, I think that TA’s policies should be scrutinised, but Julia has not yet released the details of a carbon tax - so she’s thrown down the gauntlet.  Once she displays some certainty on facts and figures and lets the people know what for, then I will look at Tony’s.

I agree with you, and, I can’t remember which past punch article I posted it in a week or so ago, I criticized gillard for this exact reason, she’s announced the intent for a carbon price and placed a commencement date on it, and given absolutely no detail whatsoever. It’s a recipe for disaster and the polls are in agreement. 
IMO the best way for TA to further his advantage on this would be to get out there and start presenting his policy/alternative options, but he’s not, he’s still stuck on “LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE”, an inability to convince anyone where he stands on the issue of climate change and a policy that he can’t find 1 economist to back. Not exactly reassuring is it…...

Ben81 says:

05:29pm | 16/03/11

Mattb - you said “Gotta love the argument put up by several of the lib supporters that we shouldn’t worry about Tony Abbotts policies ‘cause he’s in opposition’.
WTF???.. Are you mindless dills serious?”

None of the posts you mention say that, and the position of the opposition on the issue hasn’t changed at all, which is kind of the point.

Rosie says:

06:57pm | 16/03/11

My my Mattb you have gone into a lot of trouble on your counter attack of the Opposition leader! Like Julia Gillard one would think the Coalition is the Govt and Tony Abbott our PM. Again like Julia Gillard and the party she leads you are scared because Tony Abbott has the proven ability to boot this Govt into oblivion!

Poor Gillard have no control over the frolicking mischevious Rudd who keeps her guessing and the Greens to whom she will oblige their demands so as to keep her in power.

The nation is marking time while she tries desperately to remain in power. Come aboard Mattb so together we get rid of Gillard to bring back some credibility to the Labor Party replace her with Shorten and begin afresh by taking the nation out of the marking time position to march forward to some serious governing.

Steve Putnam says:

08:09pm | 16/03/11

When Malcolm Turnbull was asked on Q&A the other night to name one economist who backs the coalition’s position on carbon he couldn’t, so why don’t you be a good little chap and run out and find him one.

Elphaba says:

09:02am | 17/03/11

@Mattb, for me, the next Federal election will be about the lesser of two evils.  I said in the last one, that I could not, in good conscience, vote for a party that insisted on the internet filter, and a carbon tax/ETS that directly affected costs to the consumer with little or no compensation.  There are a lot of things I don’t like about Abbott.  But I have to make the choice that is right for me, and I find Labor’s sneakiness, and their blase attitude to forcing middle and high income earners to cough up their hard earned cash and just deal with it, to be abominable, and downright dangerous, and not the kind of Govt I want leading this country.

Mattb says:

09:54am | 17/03/11

@ben81
“None of the posts you mention say that, and the position of the opposition on the issue hasn’t changed at all, which is kind of the point.”

Don’t know what posts your reading mate, the quotes I provided come directly from the above posts, I can help it if its too difficult for you to find em….

Joel B1 says:

07:49am | 16/03/11

Yes. And if you attend a real agricultural meeting (not a leftie Uni one) you’ll hear folks from the Ag dept saying “we can make money off a 1degC increase, different crops and more profitable ones too”

Eddie says:

08:12am | 16/03/11

Agreed Damien.  Malcolm in my opinion is putting words in Abbott’s mouth.  Abbott is simply saying that there is still debate around how much human’s affect climate change and how much human’s can do to limit climate change.  I don’t understand what is wrong with that.  Why rush off and do something when you aren’t even sure if it needs doing?  Especially when it will cost billions.  Kind of reminds me of the NBN policy actually.

PTom says:

11:25am | 16/03/11

@ Damien, I think you are missing the point about why reducing the impact is the key,
It won’t be just a small 1C increase temperature it will be up to 5C, this will change the earth habitat.
# Lose of species plant and animal
# Increase desert area
# Increase in Storms frequency and severity
# Increase in Flooding frequency and severity

This will cost the economy more with
# High prices for food as fewer crops can be grown
# Higher insurance cost
# More time lost in production and more spent in repair or rebuilding

So what the benfit so grass can grow green and bigger or that wheat can now grow Tasmaina instead of in NSW or QLD

Gregg says:

12:55pm | 16/03/11

@PTom,
You ought not lose sight of the fact Tom that the earth has been evolving through many thousands of years, temperature changes, Ice Ages and even meteor strikes and it will continue to do so.

Species will come and go, just as deserts and floods will for do you think with a significantly long term ice cap over the NH there’ll not be deserts to start with and then forests again growing as they have done in the past.

You need to get your head around the fact that our time on earth is but just a spec in a far greater chronological period and all the changes that will likely occur.

PTom says:

02:04pm | 16/03/11

@gregg,

So why do we need to speed up these changes? or even make thing worst.

Denny Crane says:

03:46pm | 16/03/11

PTom - is that like Flannery’s prediction that it will never rain in queensland again. Or Garnaut’s latest that Sydney will have a one in a hundred year flood every year.

As time goes by the predictions of destruction get wilder and wilder. As they do people become more and more contemptuous of believers. The fact that the world has cooled in the last 10 years is neither here nor there. No predictions from believers have come true but you want us to keep swollowing your BS.

Jim says:

06:47am | 16/03/11

40 years of doctored and fudged figures, accumulated from questionable devices and methods, modelled by simplistic programs that have been tweaked to give an ‘acceptable’ outcome, funded by the very people who will become exceptionally rich out of carbon trading.

Accusations of being a “denier” or a “sceptic” are deliberately used by these people to mislead the public.

Some of the biggest so-called sceptics are ex-members of this ‘large body of scientists’ who have seen how much of a con-job this really is.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:55am | 16/03/11

Dear Jim,

The greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle are based on the theories of the Periodic Table, the Standard Model and the Redox Tables. The stability of these theories can be seen in the reliability of all the technology we use everyday. If they were a con job then this technology would fail on a regular basis because of the dodgy science.

The theory of AGW, which is based purely on the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle, began in 1896, and has been discussed and debated in the scientific community ever since. The discipline in dissent and debated today is the field of predictive climate modelling, as it should be. These models are educated guesses at best and will continue to be revised and refined as we learn more about our planet.

Unmoved says:

08:29am | 16/03/11

Jim is entitled to his opinion, as poorly informed as it may be.

The greatest prize in science is to take an existing body of data, extend it, and provide a better explanation than previously possible, and that then stands up to further robust testing.

All that has been done in the climate field. 40 years of work has led us to conclude AGW is here now and will continue, confirmed and re-confirmed by more recent data and better analysis. AGW may still be controllable, though current trends now suggest there is less time in hand than previously thought.

If there was a cuckoo in the AGW nest, either exisintg methods would have uncovered the fraud or some young turk or turks - active in the field - would have found a better explanation and made their reputations in the process.

To pretend that the whole 40 years of data and analysis around the globe is wholly a cook-up is, simply, non-credible. It’s an unsupportable claim, largely by uninformed parties, by mischief makers, and some posturers whose expertise actually lies in other areas…and whose remarks simply cannot withstand any close analysis.

Climate change is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of ever-gathering, carefully analysed evidence.

Markus says:

08:58am | 16/03/11

“The stability of these theories can be seen in the reliability of all the technology we use everyday.”
Exactly what technology do we use everyday that relates in any way to potentially inaccurate models and numbers relating to AGW?

“These models are educated guesses at best and will continue to be revised and refined as we learn more about our planet”
That is exactly the point of most ‘deniers’. The question that then arises is: why should we go ahead and gut our economy based on data that cannot conclusively prove AGW, on a tax/ETS combination that gives no evidence it will do anything to alleviate the theorised effects of AGW?

Jim says:

10:13am | 16/03/11

Unmoved…you clearly are a warmist. I can pick that not from your comments on AGW, but by your insulting language when confronted with someone who doesn’t just nod their with a blank look on their face and agree with you.

Reliable surface temperature records have only been around since 2001 when satellites took over from ground based stations. Since 2001 there has been no trend whatsoever to indicate that the temperature is increasing. Al Gore Inc. sponsored ‘scientists’ still use temperature trends from the ground based stations with no corrections made to compensate for other influences such as airconditioner exhausts, concrete surroundings, buildings going up around the station….one station has even had a highway built around it! They use them because it agrees with what their funding bodies want them to conclude.

All credible scientific analysis on ice cores, mineral deposits, tree rings etc show that we are have an extraordinarily low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere…which is why we are also at one of the lowest mean surface temperature cycles. It also shows without question that CO2 increases AFTER global temperatures increase…with the time lag being 1000 years give or take 200.

The models used filter out unattractive results - that is well documented. They also ignore known relationships like how low level cloud has a warming effect, but high level cloud has a cooling effect…the models just assume all clouds warm us up.

You say there are ‘posturers’ whose expertise do not lie in climate science stirring up trouble…so where exactly can I obtain a BSc in Climate Science? We have an economist pushing for a carbon tax - no surprise really since the main pushers for carbon trading are the banks (best you sit down when you realise that!), we have a mammalogist/palaeontologist pushing a carbon tax (surprise surprise, he owns an ‘alternative energy’ business!), we even had a wannabe journalist who writes music reviews in some inner city free paper that no one outside of Newtown has heard of write a piece about AGW here in The Punch a few weeks ago (but hey, she had been to two seminars….).

The Ptolemic model of the universe stuck for 1000 years because that’s what the Church wanted. Every trick in the book was used to make the model accurately represent what people were seeing…Copernicus was brave enough to go against the trend and put the Sun at the centre of the solar system…crude analogy but the same thing is happening with AGW - certain people WANT it to show CO2 is causing the Earth’s temperature to increase because they will become very rich out of the carbon trading business.

No Unmoved, it is you and your ilk unwittingly pushing the banks and global corporations wish for carbon trading with propoganda under the guise of saving the planet.

And Lisa Meredith; I see you have added redox to your cut and paste paragraph you trot out whenever there is an AGW theme. Just like ‘standard method’ and ‘periodic table’, redox has nothing to do with climate at all. RED-uction OX-idation is a transfer of electrons used to describe chemical reactions under the presence and influence of a H+ and an OH- ion (i.e. water)

Don't Believe Models says:

10:25am | 16/03/11

@ Lisa Merideth: I note that you have the following reference 3 times today - “Periodic Table, the Standard Model and the Redox Tables”.

Do you have a science background or have you picked up these words from the internet?

You also state that:” The theory of AGW, which is based purely on the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle, began in 1896, and has been discussed and debated in the scientific community ever since”.

Can you please tell me then why, circa 1970’s the talk was of the next Cold Period?

Gregg says:

10:57am | 16/03/11

@unmoved
When you’ve got a barrow to push, you’ll sure want to fill it with what you want to be pushing.
What I said in response to Lisa earlier still applies
” The physics, chemistry and even the science may all have the same principles but it is the application and interpretation that can vary.

And do we ever see the IPCC people commenting on those same principles as to why we have had numerous Ice Ages of different severities, the impact of volcanic activities or what the very gradual cooling of the sun will be let alone solar storm activities.

Just how many Ice core samples have ever been tested and how widely spread are they and global temperature readings taken and if in fact all that is sufficient for accurate modelling, then surely it should also be possible to project how global warming may restrict global cooling as well and come up with some reasoning on what extent of global warming would be better than a greater extreme of global cooling. ”

Enkl says:

11:16am | 16/03/11

@Don’t Believe Models
Lisa has cut and pasted her words a few more times on other sites as well. She is a busy girl.

@Lisa
Please consider limiting it to just once per web page. Think of all the emissions required to power the equipment that is being used to transmit multiple copies of your snippets.

persephone says:

11:36am | 16/03/11

Don’t Believe Models

Yes, it was. That’s because all the indicators (models) of the known climate drivers suggested that we should be cooling, not warming.

When it was obvious this wasn’t happening, scientists looked around to try and work out what was happening.

None of the triggers for past global warming events were in place, yet the earth was getting hotter.

What had changed?

Man’s emissions of CO2.

So: a failed prediction of a cooling climate led scientists to the realisation that there was something which was countering this.

Exactly how science is meant to work: using theories to make predictions and then reassessing the theory if the prediction fails to pan out.

In the case of global warming, the predictions are running true and thus reaffirming the case for the theory.

Leigh says:

12:10pm | 16/03/11

“In the case of global warming, the predictions are running true and thus reaffirming the case for the theory”

absolutely correct Pers…if it’s a drought then global warming, if it rains then global warming.  No snow? global warming.  Coldest winter in 50 years? global warming.  Earthquakes? global warming.  Asteroids crashing into the planet? global warming.

heads I win, tails you lose

see a pattern here Pers? I have this theory…...

persephone says:

01:13pm | 16/03/11

Leigh

it’s not my fault you haven’t followed the science.

As long as I"ve been following the issue - since the late 1990s - the predictions have been for an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

A flood is an extreme weather event. So is a cyclone. So is a drought. So is a fire.

The scientists were also predicting ‘extremes’ as in ‘from one extreme to another’ - so again, drought followed by floods fits.

If they had predicted consistent drought or consistent flooding, yes, they would have been wrong.

As it is, they’re right on track.

TimB says:

01:29pm | 16/03/11

In what universe/reality/plane of existence is fire a “weather event”?

Honestly Perse, that’s just sloppy, even for you.

And I still havent seen anything to indicate the increased frequency & intensity you claim. Increased intensity in reporting of such events though, sure. Side-effect of living in the internet age.

The Badger says:

01:55pm | 16/03/11

FYI timmie
You should take up your problem with fire being a “weather event” with the Bureau of Meteorology.
The BOM include fire as an event in their section of Severe Weather events.
In case you hadn’t noticed, severe fire events take place during periods of drought and when long periods of dry and warm conditions prevail.

PS - Severe weather events can also include wind, but not the kind you are blowing about.

The Badger says:

02:05pm | 16/03/11

Timmie
“And I still haven’t seen anything to indicate the increased frequency & intensity you claim. Increased intensity in reporting of such events though”

Timmie, timmie, timmie we just went through this only a month ago, when you posted a graph with no context in a very weak attempt to make some obscure point.

I pointed out that you should of course, have provided the link to the page that contains your graphic, so it could be seen in context.
I did it for you.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

“There is substantial evidence from theory and model experiments that the large-scale environment in which tropical cyclones form and evolve is changing as a result of greenhouse warming.”
Or
“IPCC (2001) concluded that ‘there is some evidence that regional frequencies of tropical cyclones may change but none that their locations will change. There is also evidence that the peak intensity may increase by 5% to 10% and precipitation rates may increase by 20% to 30%.”
Or
There have been three recent studies producing projections for tropical cyclone changes in the Australian region. Two suggest that there will be no significant change in tropical cyclone NUMBERS off the east coast of Australia to the middle of the 21st century. The third study, based on the CSIRO simulations, shows a significant decrease in tropical cyclone NUMBERS for the Australian region especially off the coastline of Western Australia.
‘Each of the above studies finds a marked increase in the severe Category 3 - 5 storms. Some also reported a poleward extension of tropical cyclone tracks.’

What is important here is the severity (intensity) of cyclones, not the number of cyclones, but very nice of you to point to the graphic and leave out any context in the article that referenced it.

Very poor effort timmie.

Unmoved says:

02:28pm | 16/03/11

At the risk of repeating myself, Jim is entitled to his opinion.

My own views arise from study of IPCC reports past and present, of Stern, of Garnaut, and of other current Australian sources including cogent robust rebuttals of eg Plimer - a geologist - and of eg Monckton (mathematician and sometime junior adviser to Thatcher on science)  who ill-advisedly presented himself as a Nobel Laureate. Posturing, in short.

As for my supposedly insulting language, I am at a loss. I addressed my remarks not to Jim personally, but to his position. It is as ill-informed this afternoon as it was this morning.

Jim says:

02:31pm | 16/03/11

If that comment above can pass the mods, I wonder why my rebuttal to persephones spin was rejected? Hmmm….

TimB says:

05:05pm | 16/03/11

@ Badger, fires are not weather.  The conditions that are beneficient to them are, but fires themselves are not. And those conditions usually occur in a period we refer to as “Summer”. It happens every year, and has more to do with the axial tilt of the Earth & proximitiy to the sun than any human induced climate effects.

The actual *causes* of fires can only be attributed to the weather if it involves a lightning storm. More often then not bushfires are found to be caused by idiots not taking care with cigarrette butts or deranged pyromaniacs. Neither of which have anything to do with climate change.

If there have been increases in bushfires recently then its human nutjobs that are most likely to blame, not a 0.0 something temperature rise that *may* have been caused by human carbon emissions.

As to your BOM link, it appears you didn’t learn your lesson from last time either. The graph I supplied was *actual* data. Everything YOU have supplied are mere predictions, observe:

“There is substantial evidence from theory and model experiments that the large-scale environment in which tropical cyclones form and evolve is changing as a result of greenhouse warming.”

Models. Preditions. Not evidence. And it also just says “changing. It doesn’t say how. More intensive? Less intensive? Spinning anticlockwise instead of clockwise? What a nothing statement.

Let’s continue.

Or
“IPCC (2001) concluded that ‘there is some evidence that regional frequencies of tropical cyclones may change but none that their locations will change. There is also evidence that the peak intensity may increase by 5% to 10% and precipitation rates may increase by 20% to 30%.”

May, may may. Predictions, not data. Meaningless.

“There have been three recent studies producing projections for tropical cyclone changes in the Australian region. Two suggest that there will be no significant change in tropical cyclone NUMBERS off the east coast of Australia to the middle of the 21st century. The third study, based on the CSIRO simulations, shows a significant decrease in tropical cyclone NUMBERS for the Australian region especially off the coastline of Western Australia.
‘Each of the above studies finds a marked increase in the severe Category 3 - 5 storms. Some also reported a poleward extension of tropical cyclone tracks.’

Simulations. Projections. Again, no actual hard data. Useless.

“What is important here is the severity (intensity) of cyclones, not the number of cyclones, but very nice of you to point to the graphic and leave out any context in the article that referenced it.

Very poor effort timmie. “

Ok, let’s look at the graph again. The graph with the actual data of what has actually happened, not the guesses:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2005.png

Oooh look at that. No increase in overall numbers OR severe (read “intense”) cyclone activity. See if they were becoming more intense as you claim (but the overall numbers staying the same we’d see a massive spike in the red markers. But we don’t. Heck there were more “intense”/“severe” events in 1984, and that was 26 years ago.
Where’s the overall increase in events that Persephone claims all the experts successfully predicted? Where’s the increase in *severity* that they predicted? It isn’t in that graph.

The only place it seems to exist is in the predictions themselves. And you can’t use predictions as evidence for predictions.That’s stupid.

The Badger says:

05:33pm | 16/03/11

timmie
still as weak as.
You wanted to see something that “indicate the increased frequency & intensity” of weather events. I provided it. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalala, that’s you prerogative and probably default position.

All reports referenced point to an increase in severity in cyclones and weather events.

If you don’t like the way the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, classifies fire and wind as a severe weather event, take it up with them, or stick you fingers in your ear and sing your theme song.

Sorry timmie, I don’t have any more time to argue with idiotic graduates of the bolt school of denial.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:42pm | 16/03/11

Dear Jim, Enkl and Don’t Believe Models,

To seriously and genuinely argue the science of AGW we must raise the following arguments:

- How the predictions of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model (of Atomic Particles) are wrong when they predict the radiative properties of atoms and molecules.

- How the theory of the radiative properties of atoms and molecules is wrong. This theory explains how a CO2 molecule absorbs a long wave infrared photon emitted from ice-free earth and water, which makes it vibrate, causing it to add momentum to every subsequent collision with which it is involved. Eventually it emits this photon which is then available to be absorbed by another GHG molecule to continue the process. This increased momentum is realised as a rise in the thermal kinetic energy (TKE) of the atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect.

- How the predicted realisation of the rise in TKE (melting ice, expanding the atmosphere, increasing humidity and raising T, etc) is wrong. This theory explains how the rise in TKE is not necessarily directly proportional to T rise but has other flow-on effects that must also be taken into account.

- How the predictions of CO2 rise enhancing the greenhouse effect based on photon availability is wrong. Climate sensitivity is based photon availability (which is a feedback of surface T), which determines how long it will take to raise the TKE of the atmosphere.

- How the ongoing natural climate change (including future periods of glaciation predicted over the next 10 000 years) renders the increase in CO2 caused enhanced greenhouse effect ineffective. It is predicted that this will alter how the impact will play out in the weather and how long it will take to be fully realised.

- How the predictions of the Redox Tables, which describes the carbon cycle, is wrong. The carbon cycle predicts that the increase in fossil-fuel emissions is not compensated for by an increase in carbon fixing (splitting CO2 to create complex carbon compounds and minerals).

TimB says:

08:24pm | 16/03/11

“timmie
still as weak as.
You wanted to see something that “indicate the increased frequency & intensity” of weather events. I provided it.”

No Badger. You provided predictions. Predictions are not proof of anything. Try again.

Lisa Meredith says:

09:01pm | 16/03/11

Dear Jim, Enkl and Don’t Believe Models,

Correction:

I meant to say:

- How the predictions of the Redox Tables, which describes the carbon cycle, is wrong. The carbon cycle predicts that the increase in fossil-fuel emissions is not BEING compensated for by an increase in carbon fixing (splitting CO2 to create complex carbon compounds and minerals).

The Badger says:

08:14am | 17/03/11

timmie
I can hear you all the way over here in West Australia singing your lalala song.
timmie? timmie? take your fingers out of you ears.
By the way, have you managed to convince the Bureau of meteorology that fire and wind aren’t severe weather events?

Jade says:

06:37am | 16/03/11

I wouldn’t think China really have the room for wind turbines either.  Joolya is a master manipulator and twister of words.  Look at how she suckered in half of Australia.

acotrel says:

06:39am | 16/03/11

GIve up Joan! Your verbosity doesn’t change the fact that Gillard is acting responsibly and addressing the risk.  And Abbott is sitting on his hands, naysaying!

Joan says:

08:38am | 16/03/11

Acotrel ; Juliar ... on Q&A used China as a standard to be followed by Australia to support her Carbon Tax. Pure nonsense to use China`s standard of pollution…. It is up to China to bring down its National pollution level to our National pollution levels…. us paying a carbon tax will not change world CO2 ...not one bit. ... if China reduced their total emissions to equal our total emissions ... you would be comparing like with like.  But Gillards argument that we should pay a Carbon tax because China has built a few wind turbines while it keeps building more coal power stations and makes use of nuclear power is pure nonsense. And exactly which risk is Juliar addressing??.... please explain Acotrel. And as for Gillards explantation how the Carbon Tax would work - it was totally childish and laughable….. no wonder she coudn’t stop giggling and left audience incredulous

PTom says:

01:53pm | 16/03/11

Funny the PM tells the truth and you call it a lie another Alan Jones listener.
If China reduces it’s emission it would not be like for like because per capita we would still be 1 of the top 5 and China would be near the bottom.
China is building more efficient and powerful Power Stations, we don’t need to build more non-renewable to meet our growth in power consumption, we can meet our future and replacement power consumption requirement with renewable.

Here is a report on that.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp09.htm

China is introducing a Carbon Tax. Yet I don’t hear a word from the Liberals about the cost of all the goods going up in Australia because of it.

Don't Believe Models says:

06:49am | 16/03/11

Once again - a theory - a model.  My son has a PhD in finance maths/ statistics and is a whizz on programs such as Matlab.  Without putting too fine a point on it he can write code to get pretty much any result he wants.  Hence my absolute scepticism about the use of models and theories to substantiate AGW.

Seano says:

07:08am | 16/03/11

Most of the denial of climate change isnt done so on the basis of science but economic policy.

I personally would rather pay a bit extra now in the hope that we might leave a clean environment for our children.

bobw says:

07:10am | 16/03/11

But iansand, it’s never been proved!  And Gillard is a liar!  And Kevin Rudd has just bought a beach house!  And Tim Flannery has a funny face!

Consider the information in your link refudiated.  NASA, pfft.

michael j says:

07:27am | 16/03/11

So in effect what you are saying is ,i can’t have a nuclear reactor in my backyard,,
and your’e statement that ignorance has never been a good basis for policy. means that our current leaders will take us down the road to poverty or hell,is well understood,
but should i invest in a new fridge ?

Lisa Meredith says:

07:46am | 16/03/11

Dear Don’t Believe Models,

Actually, none of the climate models are proof or disproof of AGW. If one of these models proves correct, it just means we have nailed the art of predicting a chaotic system (chaotic in the mathematical sense).

The models that prove AGW to a certainty of 95% are the models of the Periodic Table, the Standard Model (of atomic and subatomic particles) and the Redox Tables.

iansand says:

07:53am | 16/03/11

I don’t think there is an error.  My point is that, if the deniers cannot find one, their beliefs are based on ignorance and not a sensible scepticism about the science.

I can almost guarantee that no “sceptic” will rise to the challenge.  When they say the science is doubtful they are parrotting the people who manipulate their ignorance.  They don’t know why they have doubts - they just do what they are told.  Abbott is fairly and squarely in this category.  It would be funny if it was about a less serious topic.

iansand says:

07:57am | 16/03/11

@Don’t Believe Models - What do you think about the basic premise - that it is CO2 that is the stable greenhouse gas and that the concentrations of volatile water are governed by the CO2 concentration?  And is NASA part of your conspiracy?

Jay Santos says:

07:58am | 16/03/11

“...Then explain where it is in error…”

It’s a model.  You are asking for a black and white definitive response to a theory.

Impossible.

Don’t be so disingenuous and people might begin to take you seriously.

As for doubting the science…any theory about global temperatures that makes no mention of the Sun in its genesis is bogus and busted.

The NASA GrantWriters at GISS must have been working overtime on this one.  There must be another House Estimates Budget Committee meeting coming up.

I note with interest the author of this NASA ‘news’ item: Kathryn Hansen

Nothing like keeping the money tree in the family is there James?

iansand says:

08:36am | 16/03/11

Jay Santos - Do you say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?  Do you say that water vapour is not a greenhouse gas?  Do you say that a warmer atmosphere does not hold more water vapour?  Do you doubt any of those things?

If you do not doubt those things (and no rational person could) what is wrong with the conclusions drawn from those facts?

Jay Santos says:

10:03am | 16/03/11

“...Do you doubt any of those things?...”

They have nothing to do with the central premise of your ‘argument’.

“...what is wrong with the conclusions drawn from those facts?...”

The modelled ‘theory’ presented proposes that carbon dioxide is warming the planet. Wrong.

The modelled ‘theory’ is inconclusive and ignores significant temperature inputs from non-gaseous sources.

Joining factoids together does not provide a cogent argument or conclusive reasoning.

Employing your logic: if someone is rich, good-looking, well-educated and successful they must surely be a conservative?

Niether GISS or the entire IPCC can demonstrate - beyond a pre-determined modelled ‘theory’ - any causation relationship between CO2 and temperature. None.

To then extrapolate this modelled ‘theory’ to simplistically explain the dynamics of a complex climate system such as the entire Earth’s is farcical and beneath any robust scientific debate.

Until then this self-serving ‘research’ remains what it is: a ‘theory’.

And no doubt a very lucrative one for the planet-boiling shills at the GISS.

iansand says:

10:17am | 16/03/11

Jay Santos - That is the science.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Water vapour is a greenhouse gas.  The article sets out a fairly cogent explanation about how climate forcing works.  The model is an extrapolation, but it does nothing to affect the cold (or warm) hard fact that excess CO2 affects the climate through physical processes that are beyond rational doubt and which have been understood for over 100 years.

So which of those processes is wrong?  Do you not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Gregg says:

11:50am | 16/03/11

@iansand
And I’ll not say that’s where you have your head or in the clouds or elsewhere,

But lets take a look at that study Ian and regardless of accuracy or not see what it can really mean, a reasonable summary of outcome being:
” it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

“When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City,”
They do include estimates for one thing and if it is true that without all our CO2 we would not have NY covered in ice, I suppose we can ask whether it’s better to be warmer by a few degrees or living in an Ice Age, or at least NYers freezing their butts off.
I reckon there’re a lot of NYers and others in the NH that’ll tell you they already get too much snow and ice.

And see, whilst we have all manner of variations that occur, we do not really know just how warm things can go but with known much higher sea level rises inbetween Ice Ages in the past, it would seem a reasonable prediction that even dropping CO2 levels will not ptrevent that from re-occurring and I’ve yet to see any scientific study that would claim otherwise.

And to twist an appreciation of that back to attacks on TA, what TA has consistently adhered to is that there are scientists on both of side of the equation or the street if you like when it comes to the extent of any human activity on climate change.

iansand says:

01:08pm | 16/03/11

But Gregg - Which bit of the science is incorrect?

It is beginning to look as though the deniers are somewhat at sea when it comes to the scince of climate change.  How can any rational person be so vehement in denying what they don’t understand.

Jay Santos says:

03:49pm | 16/03/11

“...Do you not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?...”

I urge you to understand the difference between causation and correlation, but let’s talk about the science shall we:

It is scientifically impossible for the atmosphere to absorb significantly more CO2 than it has for the last few decades.  You could double the ppm of CO2 and radiative absorption levels of atmospheric CO2 would be largely unchanged from current.  That’s “the science”.

It is also important for you to understand that the greenhouse “effect” of the CO2 is very small compared to that of water vapor.

This is where it would be helpful if you understood the difference between causation and correlation.

CO2 has no causal relation with “global warming” and is not powerful enough in concentration to cause the changes seen in either the historical observed or the palaeo-climate record.

Something else must be the cause.

The atmosphere of Mars is almost pure CO2 and about 30 times more abundant (per unit surface area) than on Earth.  Mars has a black-body temperature and mean surface temperature that are virtually identical at 210K.  The atmospheric warming effect of CO2 is thus shown to be negligible.

Something else must be the cause.

It is water, in all its physical states, that warms and regulates our climate, sustaining life as we know it on Earth.

And yes – as we all know – water vapour is a greenhouse gas – in fact the most powerful greenhouse gas.

Hansen and his GISS disciples have gone to great lengths to discredit any diversion from the current CO2 = Warming = Bad orthodoxy despite no real supporting evidence for his argument and much conflicting data (ice cores, lags, etc); most glaring when trying to replicate historically observed trends and the Vostok core data.

One last thing; if you believe - as does Hansen - that CO2 drives up temperature, in your attempt to arrest – even reduce - its atmospheric concentration what do you predict will be the temperature response to a stasis or drop in CO2 concentration?

Will it move downward?

What if it doesn’t?  What does that do to your ‘theory’?

iansand says:

05:21pm | 16/03/11

Jay Santos - As the whole article was about how small variations in CO2 affect the effect of water vapour it seems tolerably clear that either you did not read it, or did not understand it.

As for this “It is scientifically impossible for the atmosphere to absorb significantly more CO2 than it has for the last few decades.”, excuse me while I get up from the floor.  I couldn’t help laughing.  What on earth is the basis for this howler?  Apart from the fact that CO2 concentration has increased by about 50% over the last 150 years.

And finally, Mars has no water.  To understand the significance of water vapour in heat retention I suggest you read the article, probably for the first time.

bleD says:

07:47am | 16/03/11

Bravo AlChunk. Too many people making ever increasing demands on energy. If the population were reduced to a quarter of the present one, we could all enjoy a good standard of living and give the rest of the animals a chance to recover their stocks. Unfortunately mentioning overpopulation seems to be a tabo subject and most people skirt the problem. I predict a grim future.

Kevin says:

09:24am | 16/03/11

Well said Al Chunk.

Steve Smith says:

08:57am | 16/03/11

Annie,
Time to take that plank out of your eyes so that you can see more clearly and will no longer suffer from the narrow-minded, tunnel-visions that is blurring your eyes.
Your attack on Mark Kenny and Malcolm Farr appears to be bias and short-sighted when Tony Abbott’s and the Liberals have radio shock jocks Alan Jones, Ray Hadley,Neil Mitchell, and Journalist like Piers Ackermann and Andrew Bolt all continually coming out out in force to support Tony Abbott and his attack on Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Office of Prime Minister.

annie j says:

09:25am | 16/03/11

Only after the truth not clear and present spin coming our way! Farr article is clear spin if you listen to he speeches made in full.

NicoleG says:

09:29am | 16/03/11

Oh please Steve Smith. This is yet another one of many Abbott bashing articles. It’s becoming a daily event. It’s gone way past yawnish.

Steve Smith says:

10:22am | 16/03/11

Nicole
So it is alright when, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley,Neil Mitchell, Pier Ackermann and Andrew Bolt continually bash and attack the Prime Minister on their Radio Radio shows and in their newspaper columns,but if someone like Malcolm Farr or Mark Kenny writes a blog that is not to your liberal liking, it suddenly becomes an ‘Abbott bashing article’
I try to take the good with the bad Nicole, there are also quite a few “Julia Gillard bashing articles as well,but I suppose you have been too blind-sighted to read them.

Jim says:

10:32am | 16/03/11

Steve Smith - bashing a politicians failures, broken promises, lies and all round incompetence is one thing. Bashing a politician in order to hide those exact shortcomings in another politician is a completely different and unprofessional thing altogether.

NicoleG says:

11:12am | 16/03/11

Thanks Jim, my thoughts exactly.

Catching up says:

09:24am | 16/03/11

I cannot see any government wanting to get their hands dirty unless there is a genuine belief that not to do so, would not be responsible.

Labor could have walked away from dealing with climate change but they decided not to.  Life would be easier for PM Gillard if she took the easy path and catered to those who believe in climate change with a few well thought out sweeteners, such as solar on the roofs, etc.

Eric # 2 says:

10:09am | 16/03/11

Col - You’ve summed up the situation very well.

Steve Smith says:

09:06am | 16/03/11

DJ
Malcolm Farr does not have to do anything to demonise Tony Abbott, he does a good enough job to demonise himself.
Perhaps it is time for you take time to remove the plank from your eyes that is blinding you from seeing clearly.

Joel B1 says:

07:46am | 16/03/11

Rubbish.

Abbotts views are closer to reality than any other opportunistic Green or ALP politician.

What initially raised alarm bells for me about AGW was the name-calling, fervour and general religious feel to the believers arguments.

For example, some two years ago people were commenting “Us AGW believers are in the minority” only to be a bit upset when others pointed out “you’re hardly a minority when there’s a government department promoting your cause”. See in that case it was all about being “a special minority”. Now of course you get to feel special because, as a believer you’ve stolen the higher moral ground (just like Bob Brown).

bobw says:

07:55am | 16/03/11

@Joel B1:  Yep, those IPCC reports are full of name-calling.  Case closed.

Joel B1 says:

08:16am | 16/03/11

@bobw,

Those same IPCC reports also mention “vast untapped resources of unconventional hydrocarbons” but many AGW believers still bang on about peak oil don’t they?

bobw says:

08:32am | 16/03/11

@Joel B1:  Relevance?

Joan says:

09:41am | 16/03/11

Nothing and no one beats backstabbers Juliars barefaced lies, ...seen giggling about on Q&A .... her childsish explanation of her Carbon tax and her use of China as a standard to justify her Carbon tax ... is total joke ... left the audience agape at her audacity.  Juliar straight from the giggle palace to Q&A ..... was the only one in stiches.

The Badger says:

05:07pm | 16/03/11

Joan
“her childsish explanation of her Carbon tax”
She must have noticed you were watching and reached out to make sure the message wasn’t too complicated for you to grasp.

poa says:

11:13am | 16/03/11

You know you could rewrite this with the words Gillard exchanged for Abbot etc…and Turnbull swapped for Rudd.
But thats probably a bit above your IQ to fathom(work out)

billy says:

11:54am | 16/03/11

Poa….at least we know were Gillard stands on the subject of Climate change. You will never know what postion Abbott has. DO YOU KNOW.

Hang on, I just heard he has again changed his mind, he must of just spoken to his boss Alan Jones.

Mattb says:

05:02pm | 16/03/11

@Billy
Um, your wrong mate, Alan jones isn’t Abbott’s boss…...
Cardinal Pell is!.The almighty Cardinal is Tony’s most senior advisor.

You can just picture it can’t you, TA and the Card sitting around chewing the bread, sipping the wine, discussing TA current stance on climate change. Probably goes something like this-

TA: So what do ya reacon Pelly, what stance should I take on climate change should I take this week?

The Card: Maybe start attacking the science buddy, those pesky scientists can’t prove or disprove the existence of our almighty, not doing us any favours there, so why should we allow em a free run on this climate change issue.

TA: yeah, um, yeah, /60 secs of nodding and silence/, you could be onto something there Pelly….

Mattb says:

06:14pm | 16/03/11

The Card: Oh, and Tony, just before you go, next week take another stance, the week after, a completely different one again. Create as much fear, confusion and uncertainty as you can. Then give them your solution, they won’t question it, they’ll take it as gospel, false sense of security an all. They’ll be putty in your hands, this is when you ask them if you can use their money.

TA: Sounds like a plan

The Card: Yeah, its a good one too, it’s worked for the church for centuries…

iansand says:

08:04am | 16/03/11

What is wrong with the science?

eddie says:

09:21am | 16/03/11

@ iansand, The thing that is wrong with the science is that Eric/Erick does not want to believe it because it will cost him money. Perhaps he also thinks that if enough people believe it is all crap, it wont happen, like denying that boulder rolling down hill towards you exists, will stop it hitting you. We have been eating our descendants future for the last few centuries and now we are aware of how much dammage we are doing, people like Eric/k say - No, if it means I have to pay for what I use - I dont believe you - go away.

Erick says:

12:36pm | 16/03/11

@iansand - what science? It’s just a web page.

@eddie - You have no idea what my motives are, and your uninformed guess is wrong.

iansand says:

01:12pm | 16/03/11

Oh Erick.  Do try to keep up.  The explanation of how a gas in relatively low concentrtations in the atmosphere can have a large effect.

Erick says:

01:46pm | 16/03/11

@iansand - so what? It’s just a web page!

iansand says:

02:36pm | 16/03/11

Erick -  what is incorrect about the explanation?  Surely someone with your vast knowledge of climate science should be able to take that explanation of CO2 forcing apart in a moment.  Unless you have no knowledge of climate science and are regurgitating crap you get from denialist web pages.

Erick says:

03:59pm | 16/03/11

@iansand - So what? It’s just a web page.

iansand says:

05:22pm | 16/03/11

Oh well.

bobw says:

03:23pm | 17/03/11

Yep, scientific information favouring the mainstream understanding of climate change can be dismissed because it happens to appear on a web page, but the fact that Prince Charles sometimes uses a private jet is a compelling reason for doubt.  Welcome to the world of Erick.

Hasn't caught up! says:

08:22am | 16/03/11

A denier? A denier of what? Where’s your proof that the theory is correct? There is none but smarmy people like you who hide behind their keyboards use that disgusting term, that is a gutless act! I bet you would not confront a person and say that face to face, a mouse is a mouse and you are definitely one. Impersonating a lion aren’t you?

I suggest you go back to the petty lefty blogs that you inhabit and run with the group think to justify your twisted ideology as you offer nothing here!

Rooster breather!

Joel B1 says:

08:01am | 16/03/11

Sure “all politicians lie” or more realistically are required by circumstance to change their views.

That’s OK.

What’s NOT OK is to then claim you (Gillard) have a mandate for that.

Simple enough for you?

Babs says:

08:28am | 16/03/11

Hello Joel B1. Why are so many blog commenters lacking in basic good manners? You’re a practitioner of the gratuitous insult - are you able to explain your reasons without throwing in another.

Babs says:

08:29am | 16/03/11

Hello Joel B1. Why are so many blog commenters lacking in basic good manners? You’re a practitioner of the gratuitous insult - are you able to explain your reasons without throwing in another.

Joel B1 says:

10:49am | 16/03/11

Hi, Babs, not sure why others are lacking in basic manners

However, I apologise for being demeaning.

In part it was caused by my frustration with the media in presenting a “she lied/ she didn’t lie” analysis rather than a “Has Gillard got a genuine mandate from the people for this very big, very Australia-changing legislation”.

Again I apologise.

PS that’s how it’s done Lucy Kippist

Babs says:

03:23pm | 16/03/11

Thanks Joel it’s nice to get a properly articulated response and it’s certainly a good enough reason for me. I’m not particularly partisan so I’m always open to persuasion (or did the actress say that to the bishop?).

rufus says:

08:09am | 16/03/11

True, Luke. It’s a race between Gillard and Abbott as to which one has taken more self-contradictory positions on climate change actions. Abbott is leading slightly.

Gillard made a foolish move by ruling out a carbon tax in the election campaign. Climate change action was not a major issue in the election, and her statement was made so late in the campaign that it wouldn’t have influenced voters much. I remember thinking at the time she said it ‘this will bite her later’. And hasn’t it?

Gillard’s political judgement as PM has been very poor, so poor that the people who installed her must surely be regretting it. Rudd would have won an election last year more easily and his performance as PM, though lacking, was better than this rubbish from Gillard.

Brett H says:

08:22am | 16/03/11

@Luke. Here is Julia’s speech from the election campaign, which was reported in multiple newspapers and the abc which specifically says Labor policy was still to introduce a CPRS in 2012. http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/speech—julia-gillard,—moving-forward-together-on/. The main differences between then and now is she ditched the climate assembly and obviously changed the introduction of the CPRS in 2012 to a carbon tax instead.

People hear what they want to hear.

Steve Smith says:

09:24am | 16/03/11

Luke
The Australian:  The Story : “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise”, Wriiten By : Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan, Written On : August 20th, 2010 @ 12AM.
“Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.”
“It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding,education and health.”
“In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.”
The bottom line is Luke, that even though Julia Gillard had to form a minority Government with the help of the Greens and Independents, she was victorious in becoming Prime Minister after the last Federal election, and therefore has a mandate to introduce a carbon price(or tax like Tony Abbott prefers to call it).
As a figure has not been placed on any carbon price as yet, any figures or cost that Tony Abbott is claiming will occur on everyday living is as false and phoney as he himself is.
How can Tony Abbott claim what the cost of this carbon pricing will be when the Prime Minister has not yet put any price onto this carbon policy at the moment, nor has this carbon price policy even been presented to either Parliament or the Senate as yet, so how can Tony Abbott oppose something that does not exist as yet.?

Joan says:

09:53am | 16/03/11

I believe Gillard said she mentioned it once in QLD when a protestor was dragged away….the protestor got more media cover…. perhaps a deliberate diversion tactic by Labor .... strange she could recall only this particular mention of ETS ... same time as diversion…. rest of Australia heard nothing of Gillards ETS the same ETS she told Rudd to bury… scheming cunning Gillard sure treats Australian voters as suckers…. she was at her best at this on Q&A

Squeeze the Middle says:

05:05pm | 16/03/11

Awwww. I miss Rubbery Figures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WkwReHGpnQ

Pollies are so funny when they’re not frightening.

rufus says:

09:39am | 16/03/11

The correct expression is ‘toe the line’, ie stay on it. ‘Tow’ the line implies trying to move it, which is what Abbott is doing, as well as trying to walk both sides of it. Metaphors are confusing, aren’t they?

I still doubt that Abbott will ever occupy The Lodge (or Kirribilli House) but Gillard seems to be trying to make it easier for him.

Brett H says:

09:20am | 16/03/11

AGW is about risks and probabilities, something humans seem to struggle with.

People don’t have a problem betting on lotto or the horses yet seem to struggle to back what is an odds on favourite; AGW. The reverse is true for risk. Plenty of people are under insured because they believe a lotto like chance of disaster can never happen to them, yet the Japanese tsunami and QLD floods prove catastrophic disaster can happen to anyone.

Climate change models that predict catastrophic disaster are like lotto prizes no-one wants to win. No consensus science claims with any certainty that we will win disaster lotto, only that it would be good to avoid the possibility of that outcome.

The problem I have with people saying the science isn’t settled is that it is the ultimate procrastinators argument. If we applied the same principle to medicine or ANY other endeavour, progress would just stop dead, since most medicines are less certain than AGW, and businesses have a higher failure chance etc etc.

And this argument is over what exactly. Nobody even knows what the price on carbon is going to be, so any claims about how devastating to the economy it will be are no better than the argument that global warming will have a devastating effect on the world.

The only thing that is certain is that power companies need some business certainty to invest for Australia’s electricity needs for the next 20+ years which doesn’t need certainty in science just a consistent policy that isn’t going to change on a political whim.

poa says:

10:05am | 16/03/11

Idiotic comments mate.
If you want science check out Prof Jarowowski or Prof Tim Ball.
The Polish bloke was the one who actually collected the ice-core samples from glaciers. You might even try Australian Professor Plimer.
The default position in science is scepticism.
The default position in religion is belief.
Now which is the AGW Industry?
All science is tested against new data that comes in.
If the data agreed with the AGW hypothesis it wouldn’t need massive corrections and cherrypicking.
It wouldn’t need the attacks and lies and scare campaigns on what might happen. We do know that those who speak out against AGW are removed from scientific circles (both here and overseas).
That science to you?
No…thats a cult. Propaganda. Lies.
And thats what Malcom is doing.
KIcking the heads . Intimidation.
Trying to label Abbot as a denier.
(As if thats the same as a Holocost Denier!)
Frankly mate..if your’e not a sceptic (especially after Climategate)..why not?

Can't catch up! says:

10:42am | 16/03/11

The hypocrisy is astounding but that is expected from a customer of the ‘Cafe’. I laugh at your poor little whinge about abuse from the right, you are a denier!

You can make a fool of yourself, it is your right. Oh, learn to use the reply function or have I upset your day? Funny how your ilk can give it but not take it, unless you run in packs like rabid dogs attacking a three legged cat, LOL!!!

Catching up says:

02:32pm | 16/03/11

“You can make a fool of yourself, it is your right. Oh, learn to use the reply function or have I upset your day? Funny how your ilk can give it but not take it, unless you run in packs like rabid dogs attacking a three legged cat, LOL!!! “

Sorry, what is it that I cannot take? I am a little confused re running in packs, I belong to no pack and any site I I enter, I am always on my own, I am not too sure what you mean by my ilk is, but it is a phrase I sometimes use.  I could just as easily use “company”.

Al I have done is express my opinion of what I believe about what Mr. Abbott, the Opposition Leader has done and is likely to do. This is my right, as it is your right not to agree with me. 

If you do not like or believe what I say, that is OK with me.

By the way I mostly use the same name, except for one or two sites that I have been contributing for years and it is difficult to update the name.  I am not too sure you do as seem to be familiar.  Maybe I am wrong and unfair to you. 

I feel that I should be able to take your remarks as a compliment gaining your attention.  What I do not understand what it is that I have said that could have upset you so deeply.  If I knew, maybe I could apologise. 

If you are in control of this site, I am sorry to break your rules.  Maybe you can let me know what they are in a private email that as owner you would have access to.

I take it I am making a fool of myself because I did not agree with what you say.  The problem is I am not to sure what you are on about, your rant makes little sense.

As for the reply button, I am sorry, I thought I did, but as I am inferior to you, I obviously made a mistake.  It is my practise to some times use the reply button when I want to make a short reply. Other times I choose not to.

No you have not upset my day, I love a little challenge, it breaks the monopoly.  You really do not believe you are capable of upsetting people.  I am glad that I have been able to make your day.

I will ask once again, what does this add to the debate.

Jim says:

12:11pm | 16/03/11

So that’d make you all hot and gushy mmr?? Thought so.

The thought of your girl Juliar in a slinky little two piece does absolutely nothing for me…except maybe make me lose my lunch!

What the hell’s he supposed to wear while life-saving or doing triathlons? A gorilla suit? (He might be able to borrow Paul Howes’)

unmoved says:

09:51am | 16/03/11

It’s clear indeed that the work to date, in taking care to be conservative, looks now to have underestimated the most recent real-world observations of warming and likely future trends.

As ever, more work remains to be done, but the wnidow of opportunity to minimise that impact looks now to be narrowing.

Science - ever tested, ever growing.

James says:

10:06am | 16/03/11

You clearly did not study science.

The models have not been significantly contradicted by real world observations, if anything the models have understated the amount of warming.

If the disconnect between real and actual measurements are “easy to find” show it to me you waffler.

rel says:

10:07am | 16/03/11

to unmoved..

These people disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The only window of opportunity which is narrowing is the one about fooling, and lying to, people.

persephone says:

11:49am | 16/03/11

rel

and have any of ‘these people’ committed their critiques to major science journals for peer review?

We’re not talking about individual belief here (although an astonishing number of people seem to think that there should be no action on climate change until they, personally, are 100% convinced that the science is correct) - we’re talking about scientific observations matching predictions made on the basis of a theory.

So far the observations match the predictions (if anything, the observations suggest that the predictions were way too conservative, and climate change is impacting harder and faster than originally thought).

rel says:

12:34pm | 16/03/11

to james.  following are two recent links that question the accuracy of the models.  Apologies for disagreeing with you.

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

James says:

02:26pm | 16/03/11

Ah hello rel, they are talking about their model showing a positive feedback (carbon release) being out by 20% on some other models how is this “contradicting real world observations” exactly?  You clearly don’t understand the paper that you posted as “evidence” of your point and are therefore clearly not relevent in this debate.

rel says:

03:15pm | 16/03/11

to James. My apologies for still not being relevant to this debate. I am just a minimally educated individual doing my obviously inadequate best to make sense of all this. It would probably be better if I just listened to you and didn’t make such silly contributions. Sorry. Perhaps you can tell me why the following link is all wrong.

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf

James says:

03:56pm | 16/03/11

rel you are going to have to try harder to understand this, it is serious:

Christie quotes the effect of tropical SST on the global average temperatures, why would he do that when most of the warming is happening at the poles?

You are cherry picking reports that tell you what you want to hear, notice the reference list at the end of Christies paper he mainly references himself.

Wise up you are being conned.

rel says:

06:23pm | 16/03/11

to James, OK.  it looks then like we are all stuffed so have a beer , relax and take it like a man.  See you in the next life

James says:

09:34am | 17/03/11

So when the going gets tough the men scurry away and “have a beer” do they? that attitude makes me want to puke, time to sack up and confront the problem, “like a man”.

rel says:

07:15pm | 17/03/11

to James..  time to sack up ?? Is that like when you have no power or heating or just no money?

James says:

08:29am | 18/03/11

No it means grow some balls and take personal responsibility for solving the problem, be more efficient, push your MP for action most important wise up before nature puts a foot up your backside.

rel says:

01:02pm | 18/03/11

James, The Chinese are building new coal plants at the rate of 2 per week. Their increase in emissions alone over the next 10 years will be10 times or more what Australia’s entire annual amount is. Christy, who you didn’t like from my previous post is a, presumably now ex, Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC assessments, and has detailed how the climate model projections were not corroborated by actual real world observation - a basic science requirement for a hypothesis to stay valid. Lomborg, a AGW believer, has pointed out the uselessness of emissions controls in reducing CO2 levels and the sheer pointlessness of spending billions and billions for no benefit vs redirecting a fraction of that money to cope with whatever changes may occur. You have a situation where even the validity and relevance of some of the raw temperature data is suspect and you then have the sorry saga of the main proponents of AGW trying and succeeding in suppressing dissenting views. You have the “hockey stick” farce, you have the hypocrisy of Gore Rudd and Combet buying beach-front houses while at the same time scaring the public about rising ocean levels which have not risen, Clearly the Maldives, although professing great alarm,  are not all that concerned as they are building a brand new airport on the water’s edge. You also have the most basic deceit in calling it carbon pollution rather than carbon dioxide pollution, nothing less than deliberate manipulation of the public thinking.  We also have the revelation that 10% of any carbon tax will go to the UN.  Well, that will be used wisely won’t it.  And then, just yesterday, the head of the IPPC claimed that global warming causes earthquakes. It is for these reasons I don’t take seriously anything you or your ilk, say.

If you genuinely believe the AGW narrative, then deep down you must know you are already doomed. You may as well top yourself now, because there is nothing, regardless of how many balls you or I grow,  the world,  let alone Australia with currently less than 10% of China’s emissions, can do to stop it. Trying to defer it or save the planet for future generations is then a complete waste of time. I may as well use my air conditioner on hot days, drive my car whenever I want, fly overseas and see the world before it is destroyed and basically live it up until the end.  Alternatively you could, and I know you won’t, look at some contrary views especially from this who have been part of the IPCC process and have become disillusioned.

We clearly have two irreconcilable points of view. You believe that the world is coming to an end unless we revert to caveman living and I believe you are an educated idiot.
Cheers

James says:

01:47pm | 18/03/11

rel I don’t believe we are warming the globe I know we are, I know we can solve it, I know our standard of living can be better in doing so.  The only thing that will send us back to the caves is to allow dangerous climate change to occur.  The only way we can stop it is if people like you grow a pair, face facts and start pushing for the decarbonisation of our economy.  Forget China, unlike many Australian pollies, the Chinese leadership get that there will be no China if they don’t decarbonise, focus on this country, your country.

For you to call me an idiot you are going to have to get educated yourself.

Squeeze the Middle says:

04:38pm | 16/03/11

Problem is Sherlock, we’ve got no street cred because we’re such bad per capita polluters ourselves.

This Carbon Tax is merely to get us cleaned up a bit so we don’t sound like such annoying spoilt white trash on the world stage.

This whole exercise by Gillard/Brown is to shift responsibility for that first task away from government and vote rich struggle town.  If the task was easy we would have done it by now.

No one has countered my back of envelope calculations that indicates that the least energy efficient sector in Australia is government.  Given the size of that sector then that’s one whopping great mighty polluter. I calculated that the whole of Australia only uses about 17% more electricity per capita than the ACT despite Canberran’s share of the   burden of industry is negligible.  What a massive immovable drag this is on cleaning up our act. Government got itself into this pickle trying to keep struggle town happy?  Don’t stress, just tap the middle again.

A lot of people have been seduced by the image of the diligent, modest and environmentally conscious public servant: glasses, grey beard, daggy clothes held back with bicyle clips for the ride to work. A yes they certainly exist in much greater number than in the private sector.  But there is a vast number of individuals dinning out on this seduction.  Don’t believe me, pop in for a visit (by google street view to reduce your CO2 emissions) and take a tour of the McMansions in places like Jerrabomberra, O’Malley and Chapman. Think they couldn’t be so duplicious.  Then perhaps you didn’t know that while desiging the superannuation system that exposes the savings of your labours to the free market.  Their retirement funds are safely tucked away in defined benefit schemes like the CSS and PSS. 

I’m not saying they’re bad people. Far from it.  I’m just saying c’mon peeps, keep it real.  Let’s pick our game out of the gutter.  This is resource rich Australia.  Not one of those resource rich middle east States that always beats up on the same demographic Or are we?

Voxpop says:

12:46pm | 16/03/11

Gina Rinehart has also bought her way onto the board of the Ten Network and Fairfax media.  So now she’s THE richest person in Australia, a miner who controls most of the Pilbara, is gearing up for major expansions and has Abbott as her lap-dog.  That photo made me gag - Abbott sickenly fawning over his paymaster.  I guess she won’t have to pay as much for her dis-information campaigns now.  Yes, yes ‘in bed with’ but ugh what a horrible mental image.

hot tub political machine says:

02:29pm | 16/03/11

Agree the photo looks very very bad. ALP would probably want to use it next election campaign, but will channel 10 run it? And will anyone still be watching TV then?

James says:

03:08pm | 16/03/11

Abbott is a grade A dogmatic fruitloop, he demonises himself every time he opens his mouth and squawks “great big new tax” or “this will ruin Australia”, the man has less ideas than a lead weight.

GB says:

04:34pm | 16/03/11

@voxpop. So if Tony Abbott stopping by her table to say a hello at a public event constitutes “fawning over his master”, I’m just wondering what you think of various state government ministers being wined and dined aboard her luxury yacht while one of her proposed projects was under governmental review? If you’re going to make outrageously over the top claims about somebody, you might want to check that your own backyard is in order first don’t you think.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ministers-secret-luxury-dinner-hosted-by-gina-rinehart/story-e6freoof-1225823761293

TheRealDave says:

11:29am | 16/03/11

@James “Abbott’s position on this issue is a close to straight out honest as any politician in the country. And the closest to representing the person on the street.”

WTF?!?

Monday the rAbbott says Carbon causing climate change is unproven. Come Tuesday he’s agreeing ‘something’ needs to be done about Carbon as its causing climate change problems. Complete turn around in less than 24 hours.

I repeat - WTF?!?!

Much like the NBN the rAbbott clearly has NFI on the subject. Clearly the Rhodes Scholarships isn’t worth the paper its written on…...or maybe they shouldn’t allow applications done in crayons…

Joel B1 says:

11:53am | 16/03/11

@ TheRealDave,

Until you can type “Tony Abbott” your argument is as valid as your spelling.

Name calling is the way of the person who simply hasn’t got a intellectually valid point.

PS that mean you TheRealDave. And to think when I said AGW believers are name callers in this same article an AGW believer commented how that wasn’t so. Incredible!

Ben81 says:

12:01pm | 16/03/11

TheRealDave - Did the Liberals policy change overnight while I wasn’t looking or something?

TheRealDave says:

04:36pm | 16/03/11

The rAbbott gets the contempt he deserves. He represents the disgusting gutter side of politics, ignorance and xenophobia in this country. I’d be embarrassed to support anything that cretin comes up with or his party. So pardon me if I don’t really give a crap if you like the fact I call him the rAbbott.

That aside.

@Ben, the Libs must of…given that one day the rAbbott is saying he doesn’t believe carbon causes global warming and the next day he said it does and supports the idea of ‘doing something about carbon’. His own words. On video. In the news.

Not my problem if he’s a hypocritical bastard

But then again, he’s the bloke that said you should never believe anything he says unless its written down. Unless that was a lie.

Ben81 says:

05:22pm | 16/03/11

TheRealDave, no matter what you say the Libs “must of” done, you’re wrong.  Come back and show me the new policy they’ve come up with or how their current policy has changed in any slight way at all, or you’re just making things up as you go along.
Perhaps attempting to sound like someone older than 16 would help your case as well.

the pieman says:

02:29pm | 16/03/11

@ dont believe——same as i said above just, a different approach, see you with all the other clear (not hooch hazed) thinking Australians at the protest.

persephone says:

01:32pm | 16/03/11

hermes

firstly the idea that virtually noone questions the science sort of ignores the main thrust of the article, which is that Abbott does. And it’s not on the basis of the modelling; he’s quite clearly identified the role of carbon dioxide something he questions.

How do you propose to tackle a global problem, other than a country at a time? Yes, we’re a small country. Other countries, large and small, are taking steps to tackle the problem. Why shouldn’t we join them?

The more countries involved, the more ‘global’ the solution and the less each country has to do individually.

Yes, humans are clever and adaptable. So clever and adaptable that they can see a problem coming and prepare for it. It is neither clever or adaptable to leave things until the last minute; we all know that that’s the worst way to tackle anything.

As for ‘environmental issues that have diddly squat to do with AGW’ - overpopulation, pollution, etc will all be worse if we ignore AGW. In fact, AGW can be used as a motivator for tackling exactly these issues.

As for the economy….it’s the experts in this area who are telling us we need to tackle climate change and the sooner we do so, the cheaper it will be for us. The ETS is a market based mechanism.

Howard had a very similar plan to tackle climate change. It surprises me to learn that he, and that well known merchant banker, Malcolm Turnbull, are socialists.

An ETS does nothing to get the budget back in surplus (if anything, it will cost the government money).

And, in world terms, Australia’s economy is sailing along smoothly, so your final piece of hysteria is just that.

Mouse says:

02:24pm | 16/03/11

Perse, an ETS and carbon tax are two different things.  One is a cap and trade with companies and the other is a tax on fossil fuels. One works for the environment, the other doesn’t. One won’t get the surplus back, the other will.  One we knew was coming, the other we didn’t.

hermes says:

03:24pm | 16/03/11

@pers, in addition to your customary (incorrect) straw man argument that any criticism of ALP policy is an endorsement of Coalition policy, you also show a lamentable ignorance on world economic matters. The Australian economy is most certainly not “sailing along smoothly”. There are deep pockets of economic inequity, particularly in some regional areas (didn’t you say you lived in a regional area?) The increased cost of living from a carbon tax (I didn’t mention ETS anywhere, actually) will add further to the burden on small business and households. Many SMEs for instance are barely keeping above water, with decreased spending. Anyone assuming that a carbon tax is not going to be passed on to the public/business is, frankly, an idiot. Even the so-called mining boom is localised, and the apocryphal jobs shortage is only a furphy so the big miners can hire more, cheaper, foreign workers.

Further, ETS elsewhere are not the vaunted success you assume, and nor is there any intention of pursuing a global solution. I seem to recall most climate conferences, aka Copenhagen, characterised by a lack of consensus, rather than agreement.

Further, your premise that other environmental issues will get worse if we ignore AGW (which has yet to manifest itself in any measurable way) is incorrrect. Pray tell me how overfishing of large pelagic species such as tuna has anything to do with AGW? Or felling native forests for palm oil production? Nor is it what I was saying, I said that paying all the attention to AGW is taking from other environmental issues. It’s like saving one endangered species, such as a polar bear, and ignoring all the rest.

And I concur, I was off subject. I don’t like Tony Abbott any more than Gillard.They are both slimy liars, and neither are leaders.

And personally, I’d put my state of mind as reasoned, and slightly irritated by one-eyed commentators. As for “hysterical”, I suggest you consult a dictionary, this one will do http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria

Voxpop says:

04:08pm | 16/03/11

Mouse - they both work for the environment cos you know that’s the aim of it.
Please stop peddling crap about the govt collecting this tax to get back into surplus - the Carbon Tax is revenue neutral - that is the govt doesn’t keep any of the proceeds also the tax is paid by polluting industry not personal income.  The money collected will all go towards compensation and research and development.
And a price on carbon has always been on the table - both parties have signed up to reductions.

Mouse says:

07:33pm | 16/03/11

@Voxpop, you’re right, the carbon tax will be applied to companies using fossil fuels and is supposed to be revenue neutral.  The companies will pay $x for its use, (now the flow on makes the carbon tax an indirect tax on all consumers), which will in turn be passed on to the consumer as a price increase, which will attract a higher GST, which will then be collected by the government. The GST tax will not be spent on compensation or research and development, it will therefore go into government revenue to fill the coffers. It doesn’t matter which government is collecting the tax, this is the way it will proceed.
So I am not pedalling crap, as you have so eloquently put, just stating how the consumer will be effected. Carbon tax will be spent on research &  development, lower to middle income earners will be compensated, middle to high earners will not. The government will make money out of it at the bottom end.

Ben81 says:

06:22pm | 16/03/11

“(suggestions are that this will in fact be 30 billion dollars and with the Coalitions record of budget numbers from the last election this may be closer to the truth)”
Those suggestions are simply wrong, because they assume that the Liberals will be forced to buy $20 billion of carbon credits if an emissions target isn’t met.  If they’re signing up to some kind of obligation to do that i’d sure love you to point it out to me.
And I assume you’re referring to the so called ‘black hole’ thing there, that was a discrepancy between treasury and independant costings and was greatly overstated.  Treasury in this case had no problem with the Coalitions’s costings, for what it’s worth.
Still yet to see even a hint of Labor’s costings or even some ballpark figures for their carbon tax…

“This will all come from ‘budget cuts’ (schools, hospitals????).”
It’s budgeted just like anything else in the budget you can think of.  Do we need a specific tax to fund every different policy or something?

Knemon says:

02:30pm | 16/03/11

Do you work for Wikileaks tommy, or should that be Julian??

Al Chunk says:

02:18pm | 17/03/11

James, we are too far behind now to be a renewable energy superpower.  The worlds largest solar panel manufacturing plant with the most innovative technology and largest R&D budgets - is Chinese.  The world’s largest battery manufacturer now manufacturing electric cars with a large scale city taxi program that has already proven their product, is Chinese.  I could go but I’m sure you understand the point.  Our politicians have not been world class leaders - they maybe good at jostling in the party room, but technology and the future is beyond their self interest.    This idea that we can somehow be a tail that can wag the dog is well past its sell by, where do you think the leaps in solar technology will come, a country that buys the technology from overseas and despises science or the country that manufactures, innovates and embraces science.  Our politicians have seen fit to make Australia a place that dig big holes in the ground, grow food and dabble in a bit of med science, they understand little else.

James says:

02:44pm | 17/03/11

Al the only thing standing in our way is that attitude, that can be changed and we can do it.