Climate challenge missed by Coalition howlers

John A Neve says:

06:14am | 21/11/09

I don’t think any one doubts our climate is changing? The real question is whether a carbon tax is the right way to address the issue?

Is a carbon tax going to change the way we act, will it reduce our use of finite carbon based fuels?

Surely, the real issue is US, if we don’t change our ways of doing business and reduce our demands on the available energy, nothing will improve.
If we ALL reduced our energy use by only 5% it would be a lot more effective and a great deal cheaper.

Samuel says:

06:47am | 21/11/09

At least Barnaby has got a brain. If you believe in AGW you are pretty gullible. I’m not sure you really understand the meaning of momentum either. what about Newton’s second law?

Biff says:

07:02am | 21/11/09

Ah yes, Professor Greg Comet and his research assistant Penny Wrong. Was it Professor Comet who blamed global warming for our recent heatwave? Wouldn’t the fact that we are a couple of weeks out from the start of summer dictate that we can expect hot weather. If it was snowing we would have a reason to be worried.

B says:

07:08am | 21/11/09

THIS ARTICLE IS SO WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS
You do realise that most world leaders do not represent their people on this issue.  I do not know anyone, besides the writer (Suprise?  One of the elite!!!) of this article that actually beleives that we are doing this right.  I also find you may be hard pressed to find anyone to agree on your out-dated and incorrect theories on climate change.  You should probably reference this article with some basic facts about climate change and some actual research to back up your claim that it exists, before calling people “deniers” and “skeptics”.  Also I would hardly call Penny Wong AKA KRud sensible.  They have yet to provide one scrap of evidence that this CLIMATE CHANGE exists.

It is people like YOU(writer of article) that supress free speech and the right to debate in a public forum by sprouting your crap and “doomsday” predicitons that are just that, predictions.

I suggest you ask Nostradamus for a more creative and definate date to this doomsday.

Eric says:

07:27am | 21/11/09

Hahahahaha! Great timing, with the revelation of fact-fiddling by a leading climate change research body just breaking ...

http://tinyurl.com/yhx9juw

Nigel Catchlove says:

07:36am | 21/11/09

I’m sorry to say Maxine, that you have clearly lost the plot on this one.  To save readers the time taken to read the article, it says; If you don’t agree totally with the PM then you have no valid view. 
Name calling has never been a substitute for rhetoric.
I’m not a climate change sceptic or a denier nor do I howl at the moon.  What I am is a CPRS sceptic and while I don’t question the role of man-made pollution in exacerbating and accelerating climate change if it is a clear and present danger then why is the government not taking the problem seriously.

Despite the PM’s feigned outrage and your parroting of his remarks, there are (at least) three parts to the argument; 
Is climate change happening.  I believe yes.
Is the trace atmospheric gas CO2 contributing to this process?  Maybe but probably not as much as CH4 or water vapour.
Is man the cause of global warming. No, but it makes sense to decrease our pollution of the biosphere and that includes CO2 emissions..

I take my cues from the government and while their words are filled with doom and gloom, their actions sing a different tune. Why is nuclear power excised from the discussion?  Why are we continuing to burn brown coal (a lot like wet wood) to produce electricity?  Why are we still exporting coal to be burned?
If you want to convince me to your side of the argument (and yes, there is more than one side) close down the brown coal power stations and show me that this is really a serious problem because your name calling and false idignation at contrary arguments just doesn’t convince me.

DigiDave says:

07:53am | 21/11/09

Sorry Maxine, but most of what you have said is a lie.  Something your Government has been right into this year.

Surveys such as this one below clearly show the world is moving away from believing in man made climate change.  20% of Americans have moved AWAY from believing we have casued climate change.

http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

There are far more of us skeptical of whether man has caused climate change than you think.  And if you can answer why the Earth hasn’t warmed at all for the last 10 years, and why even the most diehard warmy scientist are worried about this, go for it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Something that not 1 single IPCC computer model predicted.  How “Inconvenient” for them.

Justin Turner says:

07:57am | 21/11/09

Timing is everything isn’t it? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack

Don’t worry, the wagons are circling & the columns about how insignificant the hack at the Hadley Climate Research Unit is are rapidly being published. Wonder how the ABC will play it?

June says:

08:18am | 21/11/09

Great name calling Maxine.  You have settled into Parliament’s “Boys Club” nicely.  Guess if you can’t rise above them…

As for climate, more importantly, what exactly is this Government going to do to “adapt” to the change coming our way?  When will you wholeheartedly focus on the issues here at home, and stop trying to prance around on the world stage? (I think we come across more as pompous hypocritical gits than the humble change we could exemplify in our own country.)

It seems there is now no plan to have a new dam in S.E. Queensland, and desalination plants have been temporarily shelved.  Future protests by coastal residents will probably ensure that they will never be built anyway. 
We have 1500 - 2000 people moving to South East Queensland each week. 
Just look at the sprawl of red-tiled roofed new housing estates stretching from beyond Tweed Heads to Noosa.  No new dams (or public transport/school/community infrastructure) to cater for the overly sized houses. Just so long as everyone is making lots of money - most of the Developers don’t care. Infrastructure is the Government’s (read-  future tax payer’s) problem.

What on earth are you going to do about water security in this country?
That was the reason I voted for you. I thought at the very least, you would take this primary issue seriously!

Wayne Hutchins says:

08:44am | 21/11/09

This whole man made global warming myth is falling to pieces rapidly. This will cost Rudd office. And Justin Turner, thats going to put somewhat of a dent in the true believers argument isn’t it? So we can’t even trust scientists to be honest. Money corrupts all!

Philip Crowley says:

09:01am | 21/11/09

June, as I couldn’t have put it any better myself, may I just add…
Hear, hear.

Diamantina Dick says:

09:32am | 21/11/09

“the most significant piece off environmental legislation ever put before an Australian Parliament. “

I must be confused, I thought it was a TAX!

nic says:

10:47am | 21/11/09

That’s funny, the left usually hail dissent. Wasn’t it John Kerry who called it the ‘highest form of patriotism’? Oops, except when it concerns a pet issue such as AGW, where the dissenters become ‘deniers’.

Jess says:

11:16am | 21/11/09

Maxine you are just a mouth piece for rudd the puppet naster. You have left us a terrible legacy, job well done.

steve says:

11:38am | 21/11/09

Oh by the way Maxi
Australia cutting its throat with an Emissions Tax will have about as much effect on the Global Climate as the declaring of a nuclear free zone by Ashfield Council had on the nuclear arms race.
The difference between doing nothing and doing something that will do nothing is nothing. just a thought

Don Clark says:

12:28pm | 21/11/09

Dear Ms McKew, as a non-Labour voter, I do agree with practically all of the factual points in your latest post.

One of the biggest problems in the Global Warming issue is how to debate it constructively, such that ordinary busy people can grasp the main points: the clear risks, the time scale, practical solutions, and how an ETS   -and Copenhagen - will help.

So I sincerely wish you had chosen to make more construcive use of your factual points, relied less on your political points, and to have made them*all* with very much less smart-aleckery.

You have a clear mandate to do something, and there is continuing majority support for action now.  You - and your Party -  cannot afford to throw away what support you do have, nor to alienate any potential undecided observers, just to tickle up those who will never move.

We all know The Punch is pretty much an empty slagfest for the Right. This piece could - should -  have helped to balance the case. It hasn’t.  We also know you do have potential - please try harder.

prof. krudd says:

02:29pm | 21/11/09

ah Maxine… exactly what does a former journalist know about physics and the scientific concept of momentum? Exactly ‘how’ is your portfolio of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government going? not too many runs there are there? Before you or any of your career politician or union hack colleagues purport to know anything about what ‘may’ happen in 100 years’ time, I would strongly suggest that you all get to work fixing the current problems this country faces instead of dreaming up new ways to tax us. In due course, you lot will go down as the ‘worst government in Australia’s history’. Most of Australia knows it; it is just a small segment of the population who are gullible enough to fall for your nonsense who actually think the ETS will do anything you promise it will. next time you think about trying to provide an intellectual analysis of any credibility, don’t bother. good luck meeting all those ‘07 election promises before next year .

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:10pm | 21/11/09

Look, rightly or wrongly, I believe there’s a high degree of probability that climate change is being caused by anthropogenic sources. However my main concern is that major debate on how to fix the problem has been stifled by the left and right and the media. What are the merits of a cap and trade scheme versus a carbon tax? What are we doing about energy supplies? Why is the nuclear option being ignored? Will clean coal ever be a technically and economically feasible option? (or is it a pipedream like cold fusion) Why are electric cars hyped up in China, Europe, and the US but not in Australia? Will there ever be serious federal investment in public transport and interstate railway system? It seems to me that both parties are failing to think of climate change in a holistic way rather focusing on ETS or Copenhagen to be a silver bullet to fix all problems.

T.Chong says:

04:46pm | 21/11/09

Maxine - its obvios nothing riles coalition supporters more than to suggest that we do something as a society, to benefit society.
It appears many still believe Baroness Thatchers’ “There is no such thing as society”, who was just pattoting another rightwing idol, Ayn Rand.
Yes folks,it is all a commie-socialist-greenie plot, designed to enslave you all on collective farms.
More and more Americans dont believe in global warming? Well that settles it then.
I wonder if its also the same US citizens who dont believe in evolution,own guns, and believe Sarah Palin is gonna save em? You Betcha! (with a big Palin *wink*)

alteria says:

07:11pm | 21/11/09

Well,  Maxine - You’ve certainly baited all the climate change deniers here, if that was your purpose. Funny that some of them offence at being called deniers. I also love the way some of them demand proof for anthropogenic global warming. I ask these people: have they ever read any of the literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that lend evidence to AGW theory? Can they cite even one peer-reviewed scientific paper that refutes that theory?

However, I do agree with Don Clark, Maxine. Your article provides no reason to support the CPRS except the use of the word ‘momentum’. The government supports it therefore everybody should support it.  A good communicator like you should do better.

Andrew Goff says:

07:28pm | 21/11/09

Question to all the climate change “dissenters”.

Peak Oil: When and what will we do?

Global warming “dissent” all you like… but peak oil MUST happen at some point (ten years, now, ten years ago, fifty years, a hundred years… but it must happen). What do we do about that?

Andrew Goff says:

07:34pm | 21/11/09

Dear God in heaven,

I like the right-wingers. I do. But can you please teach them somehow the difference between “right-wing journalist attacking climate change” and “scientific research”. I know “proof” is a funny concept… but SURELY even the most wacky definition does not mean “because Andrew Bolt said so”.

Cheers,

-Andrew

(P.S. Say hi to Gran for me)

Steve of Cornubia says:

07:40pm | 21/11/09

So, if “Barack Obama’s trip to China has seen the world’s two biggest emitters talking targets.’, why aren’t we doing the same - just talking targets?

Why is Rudd so keen to be the first world leader to lock ‘his’ people into a CPRS? Obviously, it’s because Rudd has one eye on his self-appointed role as a WORLD leader, rather than a leader of Australia, while his other eye is fixed on…..oh yeah, his self-appointed role as a world leader.

Does your boss have ANY time for us?

DigiDave says:

09:09am | 22/11/09

@Andrew Goff - What proof are you talking about ?

The proof that no warming has occurred for 10 years, despite no computer model predicting this, and even IPCC scientists admitting they don’t know why.

The proof that sea level rises are slowing down, in contrast to what was predicted by the IPCC.

The proof that artic ice has enlarged over the last 3 years, again despite all predictions it wouldn’t, or even worse would no longer exist.

It seems only one side is refusing to look at the science anymore, and it’s not the skeptics.  Surely if the planet has stopped warming for now, we have time to continue research and get this right, before we commit trillions of dollars to something that may prove in 30 years time to be completely wrong.

TLC says:

11:11am | 22/11/09

If the asylum seekers problem was connected to the ETS the Liberals and Nationals would be on it like a Bee to the honey.
Sometimes after trying anything to reason with unreasonable people we have to take action on our own.
There is something very wrong with the weather.
Latest high temperatures and start of bush fires so early in the season in Australia and the downpour of rain in Cumbria, England are the only one examples of change in weather patterns in our life time.
We must cut on polluting, overfishing, deforestation,using of chemicals in food production and wasteful lifestyles.
The higher price of carbon might lead to invention of energy that is friendly to environment and humans.
Necessity is mother of innovation, maybe this time it will be true.
Our land is destroyed so much by us that this can not continue .
At least Labour is pretending to do something about it

shockedwatcher says:

11:27am | 22/11/09

I am just an average Aussie in the suburbs of Aus. I have been Gobsmacked by the disorginisation and just plain childish behaviour in the Liberal Party of this issue. Many of us are worried, we are worried for our children and for our grandchildren, and for The Reef and Australia and Australians as a whole. We want and need to feel something is being done. I just get totally amazed that these people whos wages we are paying with our taxes are such a rabble and so uncaring about what we feel.
Mr Turnbull you seem a fairdinkum bloke..walk away from these ratbags mate and save yourself some stress. My message to Mr Rudd is this, no one wants to go to the Polls, mate we can’t be bothered voting its nearly Christmas ect but if they can’t work it out, there are many of us who will understand why. Just call a double disolution and hopefully we will get rid of alot of the dead wood in the Liberal Party who are just wasting our time and money. Like many other normally “silent “Aussies we will vote on we are seeing.

Joel B1 says:

01:13pm | 22/11/09

So Maxine, exactly how much will this ETS cost me?

Failing that, what percent will my electricity bill increase by, and how much more will a litre of fuel cost?

And if you can’t answer that, you really shouldn’t be in government should you? (I’m sure the ABC’s still got a spot for you but)

Matt says:

01:19pm | 22/11/09

“A deal must include an equitable global governance structure.” - Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secetrary General.

“2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet” - EU President Rompuy

“And we are just 31 days away from the Copenhagen Conference of Parties – an historic moment to forge a global deal to put a global price on carbon.” - PM Kevin Rudd.

Matt says:

02:03pm | 22/11/09

Uhm Maxine…. Have you seen the Green’s policy on global governance?

http://greens.org.au/node/776

1.  global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.

2.  effective means of global environmental governance are needed to halt and reverse the current trends towards environmental decline across the globe, especially with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change.

3.  the system of global governance must be reinvigorated.

4.  major structural reform is needed to provide stronger, more effective and more representative multilateral institutions.

5.  the leading role of the United Nations (UN) in the maintenance of international peace and security must be recognised and respected by all countries.

6.  the international financial institutions that govern aid, development, trade, and transnational financial movements require extensive reform to enable them to provide global economic justice.

Matt says:

02:11pm | 22/11/09

RE: shockedwatcher

What evidence do you have the reef is at risk from human beings and not natural climate change?

Matt says:

02:14pm | 22/11/09

@ Andrew Goff

I’m not sure why people think this planet is pathetically weak and dumb. Ever heard of oil wells replenishing ?

http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

Peak oil is yet another artificial fearmongering tactic. Want to live like a peasant?

Matt says:

02:17pm | 22/11/09

@ alteria

The word denier is an emotive connotation likening those whose question man’s impact on the planet to holocaust denial which is pathetic and show the level some people will go to.

Jane says:

02:44pm | 22/11/09

Stop calling them ‘climate change sceptics’ or deniers..they are NOT. It’s AGW scepticism or denial. A completely different concept. ....to pretend AGW sceptics deny climate change is false and deceitful. It’s the premise that man is causing climate change that is in question.

If the AGW bullies have to decieve and pretend that their opponents deny ‘climate change’ as a general all encompassing concept in itself ....something that has obviouly occurred from the year dot and is acknowledged by everyone…. then it says volumes on the weakness of their argument. ‘Climate change’ and AGW’s cause and effect to changing climate are two very seperate concepts.

It’s completely FALSE to label those who are sceptical on the human angle to cause and effect as ‘climate change’ deniers….just as it was false and deceitful to mutate the term of ‘Global warming’ to ‘climate change’ when the reality proved otherwise to the ‘warming’ portion of the term.

Well done Minchin, Joyce and McGuaran…..KRudd Labor’s bogus ETS is a SCAM…..and nothing to do with ‘climate change’ anyway.

Fred says:

03:14pm | 22/11/09

The Federal Government can’t even run the Defence Department. It’s a bit much to say they can now change the weather.

Bruce says:

04:27pm | 22/11/09

What an unbalanced peice of dinosaur journalism. This article could have tried to be convincing, instead, a name calling excercize. All this article has done is convinced me that we are being snowballed and that we should now be asking even more question about an ETS. I have no problem with the fact of “climate change”. The worlds climate has never stopped changing. No doubt the mighty human race needs to do something to control nature. Its the proposed tax that worries me. Along with the 21 % increase in electricity cost in NSW. With more proposed taxes to come, I WILL NEED A MASSIVE PAY RISE TO PAY FOR THESE TAXES. No doubt thats got to be inflationary !!

iansand says:

04:56pm | 22/11/09

One more time.  It may be anthropogenic.  It may not be.  We will never, ever know to anything like scientific certainty.  We don’t have a spare Earth to act as a control.  If it is anthropogenic, doing something about it is not a bad plan.  If not we are just taking steps now that will become necessary when the fossil fuel runs out (they ain’t making the stuff no more, so it WILL run out).  Whether the stuff runs out in 10 years or 200 years we are going to have to deal with that issue at some stage.  Why not now?

One thing I do know, and that is that Team Denial are using very dodgy tactics.  I tend not to trust people who use dodgy tactics.

shockedwatcher says:

05:21pm | 22/11/09

Matt you must be one bored individual, you sit here all day it seems rubbishing everyone elses comments. I listen to the scientists mate but tell me what proof do you have that your brain is functioning? I can see no evidence of that at all. You must be a Liberal a sad flat earther!!

Andrew Goff says:

06:44pm | 22/11/09

@Matt

You can’t be serious?

Yet again, we see a concept as self evident as Peak Oil being denied… not on the evidence of scientific reasearch, but on one journalism article from a decade ago, which was based on two non-existent scientists and a magical replenishing oil well which, less than 2 weeks later, was found to have a previously unknown link to another reserve… totally explaining the “miraculous” generation of oil. Since then, this magical “we were right” oil well has since completely dried up.

Yep, that’s right, your oil well example of peak oil not existing DRIED UP and no longer produces oil. So much for “infinite oil”.

Now, get serious. Put up a scientific

DigiDave says:

07:56am | 23/11/09

@shockedwatcher - No, you only listen to the scientists you’ve decided to agree with.  The hundreds of just as well qualified and peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the IPCC conclusions are simply ignored by you quite obviously.

@iansand - “Team Denial are using very dodgy tactics”.  Are you serious ? Did you actually read what Maxine wrote ? Have you not read the news about the top Warmy scientists sending each other emails to skew data and enhance their grants ? Does Al Gore and Tim Flannery spewing predictions that continuously change and turn out false not count as dodgy ?

I think you may well be in denial yourself.

JP says:

08:40am | 23/11/09

“Red and Green should never be seen.”
Could be something to that old saying.

Winston Smith says:

08:54am | 23/11/09

There is so much puff and hot air in this article that one could argue that McKew has singlehandedly contributed to Global Warming.  I would expect a reduction in her primary vote at the next Election with such inane comments as “Barack Obama’s trip to China has seen the world’s two biggest emitters talking targets”. The only targets these blokes are talking about are the ones North Korea has in its sights. That is the real world Max.