Climate change is real, and someone must pay

Ted says:

07:41am | 19/04/11

Sorry, Terry, it’s a whole host of carbon compounds, not just carbon dioxide.

I suppose you’ll tell us that you’re silly enough to think the word “carbon” means “soot”, next.

Randy says:

08:00am | 19/04/11

I don’t think it’s carbon or carbon dioxide. I think the compound concerned is ‘wealth transfer’.

Patrick Kelly says:

08:28am | 19/04/11

Your on the right track Kurisu, but a little more detail might have helped your case. This ideological piece is typical of its genre; littered with enough truths to scrape up a little credibility and then stretching the friendship with a dump truck load of non sequiturs.
“Climate change is real.”  For sure it is and has always been. The current cycle shows a steady warming trend since about 1680. The trend has not been linear and fluctuates. The warming trend shows absolutely zero correlation to percentages of atmospheric carbon-dioxide and certainly no correlation to carbon whether in the form of graphite, diamonds, fullerenes or other allotropes. Carbon is the fourth most prolific element in the universe and any reference to “carbon pollution” should render the writer liable to public ridicule. The last decade is likely the warmest on record. What else would be expected at after a continual warming trend over more than three hundred years. The selectivity of the argument is demonstrated by a failure to mention that there is no warming recorded over the last ten years despite continuing increase in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The latest satellite based measures of lower atmosphere temps indicate a cooling over the last ten years.
Ms Kearney makes the claim to having been “widely read.” It is obvious that the qualifier “selectively” should have been employed. Ms Kearney has demonstrably not considered all the evidence or it would be impossible for an intelligent person like her to reach the conclusions that she has.
On the basis of the above article Ms Kearney is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Karly says:

08:28am | 19/04/11

The whole theory is just bilge.

I want to know, how many people who claim they have read up on the ‘overwhelming science’ have actuall read a journal article in a peer reviewed journal? How many have read a critical scientific review of the evidence?

Relying on blogs, media articles and unreferenced reports from political organizations is so far below the modern standards of evidence based science that it’s laudable!

I am a scientist and i can assure you that there is in fact a lot of credible scientific debate published in respected international journals. But beyond the science, where has our commen sense gone? Are we so fr under the power of the media that we have lost the power to reason?

Australians only release 1.3% of CO2 (by the UN’s own statistics) how can paying billions of dollars on a carbon tax really possible make a difference on the global temperature?

And as for setting an international example, I would at least like a vote on what is essentially the most expensive diplomatic venture an Australian government has ever proposed.

persephone says:

08:52am | 19/04/11

Randy

you say the last decade be the warmest on record and then say there hasn’t been any warming over the last decade. Please explain.

Climate scientists are well and truly aware of the time frames. They’re also quite knowledgeable about carbon. Strangely enough, they still think that our present climate change is a result of man’s emissions of greenhouse gases and have managed to persuade the vast majority of other scientists from other disciplines of this.

Karly

yes, I have. Unfortunately, critiques of the research behind articles supporting climate change are rarely printed in scientific journals because they don’t get through the peer review process.

This is not because of a vast international conspiracy amongst the editors and reviewers of scientific journals but simply because the counter arguments don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

The vast majority of peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals support climate change as a theory and support the proposition that it is a result of man’s greenhouse gas emissions.

You are welcome to provide references to articles which don’t.

Australia is not acting alone on this. It is far from acting first.

For climate change to be tackled, every nation needs to do its bit, however small. If everyone sits back and argues that their contribution isn’t that much, so they don’t have to do anything, then nothing will get done.

Australia did its bit in World War I and II, in Vietnam, for example. The number of troops it committed was relatively small in proportion to other nations. It doesn’t mean that they didn’t have an effect, or that their contribution was unimportant.

Millions of Australians in the recent drought conserved water. Each knew that the amount they were saving as an individual was miniscule in the scheme of things. Only a very very small proportion used that as an excuse not to act.

MarK says:

08:56am | 19/04/11

No Tedd it is carbon dioxide they are referring to as the greenhouse gas that causes AGW.

They deliberately lie and use incorrect terms like “carbon pollution” in an attempt to make people think of “soot”.

It is a deliberate tactic by people that rely on “science” to justify their cause. It is low brow and typical of the deceit shown by warmists.

You were saying Tedd?

Rosie says:

09:11am | 19/04/11

Whether it be carbon dioxide not carbon Ged article is another version of the panic that has set in with this lot.

People like Ged who is the ACTU President is making it worse for Juliar’s carbon tax. Remember the one she blantantly lied to all Australians to get elected by saying “no govt that I lead will have a carbon tax.” To make matters worse, half of Ged’s article is sheer nastiness. It is typical for this lot to use Tony Abbott for nothing else but for credibility on what they are trying desperately to convince a public that have stopped listening to the propaganda of selling Juliar’s “carbon tax”

Please give us some credit to judge for ourselves, say what you have to say about the “no detail carbon tax” without trashing Tony Abbott and the Coalition. We are old and ugly enough and have heard everything we need to know about how important it is to save the planet for future generations and have taken into account other alternatives.

Fido says:

09:12am | 19/04/11

@Patrick Kelly: “Carbon is the fourth most prolific element in the universe and any reference to “carbon pollution” should render the writer liable to public ridicule.” 

What an absurd claim.  Just because a substance is prolific “in the universe” does not mean it cannot be a pollutant in certain circumstances.

dovif says:

09:19am | 19/04/11

I would like to congratulate Ged on her bid to follow the last 3 leaders of the ACTU to earn a safe ALP seat.

Too bad the members of her union will soon be out of a job, but the sacrifice of those jobs, so that Ged get a safe ALP seat is well worth the cost.

No wonder people are leaving unions in their millions

B says:

09:40am | 19/04/11

Which “other carbon compounds” are you referring to?  Because the carbon tax is for Carbon Dioxide which isnt even a pollutant.

Carbon doesnt mean “soot”  but it is the primary makeup of “soot”  or did you miss that lesson in Science?  Oh I forgot you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, you never obviously did science.

Tedd says:

09:51am | 19/04/11

MarK says: 08:56am | 19/04/11

Not me, another one with one ‘d’ - Ted

dukdog says:

10:01am | 19/04/11

At least most of the posts here see that this is total bullsh*t .

Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on ‘proving’ the Science , and it can only be ‘proven’ by false data.

Big taxes that will not change anything for the better , only a big slug of money paid for hogwash .

chungo mung says:

10:34am | 19/04/11

Groundhog day, all the time. How do you people sway back and forth infinitely with your own versions/interpretations/readings and appropriations of the ‘facts’.

Scientific knowledge is not the only type of knowledge out there. But if i start speaking to conservative thinkers about intuitive knowledge and common sense knowledge (like if you take carbon previously sequestered underground and release it not the atmosphere - the whole system WILL be affected) then you hide in your demand for exact, flawlessly reasoned, truth. Outside of mathematics and truth by definition, nothing can be known in this sense, especially the nature of your own reality, if you reason it down far enough. But you claim to be able to reason the facts into an argument against - not just climate change, but action on climate change - and that is the bare truth here. Conservative thinkers, thinking conservatively, do not want change, because it is against the nature of conservative thinking - to risk or change (outside of their own deciphered reasoning of reality).

The facts are not some pure representation of anything - yet so many of us want to believe in them. The ability to seriously and accurately measure these things is way overstated. And the modelling only gets better - in a falsifiable way - the longer we study. So the stagnant arguments from today or yesterday, on the precise truths that are at hand here, bare no where near the value that the arguers believe in.

Not all progress and change needs to be scientifically varified. This is because not all progress and change CAN be scientifically varified - science represents one method of thinking and determining knowledge and it is far from perfectly accurate. It is one form of knowledge.

But I am wasting my time here, because the habit of people is to utilise the tools, to the advantage of their own beliefs, and that is where we are at folks. People believe different things, folks from every side of the argument claim TRUTH according to their own sets of facts and interpretations. And the part of human evolution that is to be dealt with through our actions and choices, on a large scale collective level, is stagnated.

I believe that the planet is a fairly closed system, that we are ‘actioning’ the use of carbon that has been sequestered through natural processes and that doing this will and possibly is having an effect. I believe that the amount of plants and trees we have decimated will effect the planets ability to cope with this carbon. What exactly will this all mean to human existence? - I at least can admit that I cannot say for sure. But i do know that our species lives in a biological harmony that it enjoys right now, and changing the system on such a large biochemical scale presents a greater risk that implementing action to change the way we use the resources of, and pollute our planet.

Buck up people, use your common sense and intuition along with your interpretation of the ‘facts’ in attempt at a broader type of knowledge and understanding - and do something, instead of barking on and on about the fact that you are right and they are wrong.

zbcustom says:

11:07am | 19/04/11

Says the Pavlovian Persephone, “You are welcome to provide references to articles which don’t.” Well of course all this material has been made known before and it is obvious that none of you look at it because you keep coming back asking the same questions. Anyway I was posting one rather long list of publications which question the CAGW non-consensus but the site blocked the post because it was too long.
Too much evidence!

Anyway there’s a sampler for you at
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Please come back when you’ve digested the several hundred papers listed there. I’‘ll have another list ready by then.
Remember, there will be a brief knowledge test at the end of the lecture. Some working knowledge of the subject will be required for students to gain credits for this course.

Roger Crook says:

11:13am | 19/04/11

It is bilge. I just hope that the Law is followed and it is discharged well out to sea.

john says:

11:17am | 19/04/11

PAY UP consumer & industry whores. Stop bitching whinging etc,  You want something then pay. You have NO human right to pollute for free anymore.  The free ride is over.

Gillard should wield her sword so to speak and make it so ASAP.

I want this pollution tax NOW.

Patrick Kelly says:

11:30am | 19/04/11

Fido @ 09:12 says

@Patrick Kelly: “Carbon is the fourth most prolific element in the universe and any reference to “carbon pollution” should render the writer liable to public ridicule.”

What an absurd claim.  Just because a substance is prolific “in the universe” does not mean it cannot be a pollutant in certain circumstances.

Well Mr Fido, I can assure you that a truck load of carbon can be tipped quite safely in my front yard and it may well be an eyesore but it won’t be pollution. If you want to test it out please use the diamond allotrope of this most stable of elements.
if you wish to further develop you inquiries into absurdities perhaps you might profitably spend time at http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/BoN/bon030.html rather on these pages.

Mayday says:

12:31pm | 19/04/11

Both Ged and Julia must have attended the same training school, they both patronise with a sort of mumsy style which is best aimed at children under the age of ten.

They offer lots of platitudes and catchy phrases but fail to educate us dumb clots on this “new science.”

The term climate change is a bit like the other oxymoron unfair dismissal, could the ladies please explain!

Fido says:

01:09pm | 19/04/11

@Patrick Kelly, sorry, perhaps I missed it - but where does the author specifically refer to “carbon pollution”?  I re-read the article and could not find that reference anywhere.  Please enlighten me.

Matthew says:

01:12pm | 19/04/11

Karly, your logic of 1.3% of CO2 is flawed.  There is well over 100 countries in the world and therefore we should less than 1%.  Also, there’s 6 billion people in the world and we have 22 million.  we’ve got about less than 0.4% of the world’s population but put out 1.3% of it’s CO2.  How are we not responsible for reducing our emissions by 75% (to bring us in line with the average)?

Scot says:

02:03pm | 19/04/11

When Rudd came to power we shut what little business we had left in Australia, as we knew from past Labor form that we would be all big trouble with Labor and the economy would go to rack and ruin and we have not regretted it one bit. These fools are destroying the social fabric of the country and we are becoming a third world country day by day. 2.2M people now living below the poverty line and more to follow with Labor making many more dependent on their hand outs. The NEW TAX on everything will destroy the economy, high interest rate s and inflation. Many big global business’s depending on exports will close.

persephone says:

02:25pm | 19/04/11

zbcustom

not going to pretend I’ve looked at all of the links from the site you refer to , but note:

1. Of the ones I randomly sampled, at least three out of four were no longer valid links.

This doesn’t say anything about their value as scientific papers, but obviously not being able to access them makes it difficult to judge their veracity.

2. An awful lot of links to the same journal (Climate Research) and to articles by the same authors (Soon and Balinas).

Very interesting history concerning both.

From what I can make out, the original paper by Soon and Balinas was published by Climate Research without peer review, at the behest of the editor.

As a result of this, several of the journalists and scientific advisors connected with the journal resigned.

So epic fail if these articles - the main ones on your list concerning anthropogenic global warming, the subject we’re discussing - are the only examples you rely on.

Another article in the same section finds evidence of human induced climate change. Interestingly enough, however, it’s about the way irrigation has affected a local climate - in other words, it’s not about antrhopogenic climate change on a global scale at all.

The inclusion of this article in the list demonstrates how desperate the compiler was to find articles to support his cause.

So: to summarise - the link shows eleven articles on whether global warming is antropogenic (the information I requested). Seven of these are from the Soon Balinas et al team (even if their ‘research’ hadn’t been discredited, relying on multiple articles by the same people undermines the idea that there’s lots of scientists writing peer reviewed articles against AGW).

At least one of the others isn’t about AGW at all, but on localised climate changes (which it concludes are the results of human activity).

An interesting side comment: the author of the site gets attacked in the comments for passing on other people’s work as his own!

There are also quite a few comments pointing out that many of the articles cited in the list are in fact pro AGW.

Crispian says:

05:14pm | 19/04/11

Well I have read a lot and seen more than most of you will ever see in my lifetime,  I amd 84yrs old, and the last I looked, 2yrs ago, at the mark in the Rocks at Port Arthur in Tas that the convicts put there at High Water many years ago, has not changed one mm.

As for The Maldives going under water, of course they are , yhey are SINKING like Islands do, we in Australia are moving North at the rate of 10cm per year. How about that !!!

I f the Whole World Stops Emiting Carbon Dioxide tomorrow from industries, we would not notice any effect for arround a 1000yrs, and all our trees and plants would DIe from lack of CO2, and I wont be arround to wory about it, which will please some of you to hear.

So keep the fight up and Dump The Bird and her live in Boarder.

Fogbound says:

05:58pm | 19/04/11

Crustian
What, did you think that the line would get bigger? smaller? move to another rock? Bet you get the rest of your climate change information by looking out your window.
By the way, I’m 103 years old and I’ve seen a lot more than you kiddo.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

06:08pm | 19/04/11

It’s not just the carbon dioxide though, it is the by products of burning fossil fuels.

Like heavy metals, destroyed water ways, the increasing illnesses - just ask the families of the 750,000 Chinese who suffocate on pollution each year caused by burning fossil fuels, the massive increases in asthma and other lung diseases.

It’s the poisoning of the water where fish breed because they need oxygen in high concentrates and not CO2 in high concentrates.

I don’t believe in demonising the coal industry because they did not set out to cause such harm hundreds of years ago but now that we do know the harm we are obliged to limit it.

We have Lyn Brueur in SA going on about towns dying if the mining industry aren’t allowed to pollute so much.

What we in SA have to wonder is why the one mine is sucking up half the electricity produced which causes massive increases for the rest of us, why BHP is still allowed to siphon off 33 million litres of free water per day for that one mine while others have to live under water restrictions.

And the entire country has to ask if it is worth living in a nation that is nothing more than a quarry.

Because let’s face it - BHP, Rio, BP and others sure don’t care about what they destroy as they mine, dig and drill their way through billions of tonnes of coal, iron ore, uranium and oil do they?

Just ask the people in the Mexican Gulf.  The people in New Guinea still suffering after years of mining by Rio in Ok Tedi, the people of Indonesia living with an unstoppable mud flow because of Santos, the people of Nigeria dying of toxic water due to BP and others taking off the oil in the most dangerous manner.

Ask most African countries who are destitute today because the so-called west raped their countries and stole their resources.

We have endless sun, wind, thermal energy for a million years and plentiful natural gas which can do the same job and not create such a disastrous mess.

I have been told to be kind, it seems that no-one else has to be kind but I hope the censors think this is acceptable.

Seems calling people morons is far worse than threatening to kill them.

zbcustom says:

06:40pm | 19/04/11

Perse,
This will never do.
You tell us that “I randomly sampled” some of the links. you don’t say how many. But you confidently conclude that
“to summarise - the link shows eleven articles on whether global warming is antropogenic (the information I requested).”
Your analytical and statistical skills are on a par with those exposed by McKitrick and co.
As regards “interesting histories:” let’s certainly not forget fudged and massaged data, failure to release original data, failure to comply with Freedom Of Information Acts, deliberate destruction of records and exerting pressure on editors of scientific publications.
You are going to have to do better if you want to continue as the chief apologist for this ideology and retain credibility that it is science based.

Justin says:

08:07pm | 19/04/11

Ged you are finished as the leader of the ACTU, this is the greatest load waffle and utter nonsense I have heard so far in the carbon dioxide fraud, you are a mouthpeice for the Gillard government and a traitor to the union members whom you are suppose to be serving, and looking after their interests, you should resign immediateley as you are in the wrong job and if you will not do the decent thing and resign then you should be sacked forthwith and replaced by someone whom will genuinely serve and stand up for workers against this fraudulent and destructive policy!.

Jason says:

08:13pm | 19/04/11

Karly,
You say you’re a scientist with “commen sense”.

Here’s my take on common sense in this argument.
You take a limited resource, dig it from the ground and burn it into the atmosphere and expect it to have no impact? You are full of “commen sense”

Kurisu Sonsaku says:

08:21pm | 19/04/11

Maryloon

Try to pay attention this is not about ‘pollution’ or burning fossil fuels.

It’s about imposing a tax on Carbon Dioxide, you know, that colourless odourless trace gas that plants like.

This is not about ‘Carbon’, the inert non metallic solid.

I checked the EPA website and guess what???? C and CO2 aren’t listed as pollutants. Not to be deterred i checked the National Environment Protection Measures from the federal government, guess what!, they are not listed as pollutants there either.

Disregard all the bulltish and bluster, and focus on the fact that this incompetant government wants to tax Carbon Dioxide. I don’t know why i bother…......

Bruce says:

08:36pm | 19/04/11

If the objective of a ‘cardon tax’ is to make industry cleaner etc. Where to in regards to tax revenue and re-imbursements once these industries become complient and the ‘nock on’ effect to low and middle income earners ? Will low and middle income earners still receive the same re-imbursement ? How much will future governments rely on the tax revenue to support their budget projects ? Particularly if the objective is have industry reduce emmissions. Where will the tax revenue come from then ? I guess we find some other aspect of a business to tax, maybe their use of oxygen !  Most industries are pretty resiliant and will adapt when hit with another tax. Industry will spend money on ‘refit’ or ‘up grade’ on more efficient technolgy which they will pass onto consumers, or they might move their operations off shore to another tax effective location. If for example, an industry becomes more efficient does this not tend to result in the need to reduce the work force as a result more efficient technology and work practices? Possibly the real answer is that we do not want industry to comply so as we can revenue raise for government spending.

persephone says:

09:22pm | 19/04/11

zb

I randomly sampled some of the articles from throughout the site.

I looked at the titles, authors’ names and journals of the eleven listed under ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ - the topic I had asked about.

Firstly, eleven isn’t hundreds.

Secondly, most of those eleven were by the same group of authors.

Again, if you’re arguing that there are lots of scientists who are claiming that global warming is not antropogenic, to refer to articles by the same few scientists undermines your claim.

Thirdly, the main claim to fame of this group of scientists and the publication they mainly appear in, is that they WEREN’T peer reviewed, but published purely at the whim of the editor.

So far were they from being peer reviewed that several of the editorial staff resigned from the journal in question in protest.

That should be a far bigger scandal than ‘climategate’.

For all your pretentions about reams of lists, the one you cite is:

1. stolen from another author, who complains about this in the comments section (which you apparently haven’t read, because if you had, and paid any attention, you would have referred to the original site, not the copy);

2. uses discreditted information, which was NOT peer reviewed;

3. refers to articles which either are not talking about AGW at all, or are in fact supportive of it.

And you don’t even know any of that, because your analysis apparently has consisted of googling a couple of lists and then pasting them here.

Unlike you, I actually sampled the articles on the page. I didn’t blindly accept that the list was what it said.

I also googled (easy to do) to check the realibility of the journals cited, and of the authors listed. Obviously you haven’t bothered (if you had, you would know there’s an interesting connection between them and climategate).

You are welcome to argue - using the contents of the articles themselves, the reputation of the journal involved, and that of the authors - that I am wrong.

But to do so without analysing the articles you link to - as you are now doing - simply shows that you’ve blindly accepted the list without any attempt at critical thought at all.

At least I looked.

Adam says:

10:06pm | 19/04/11

@ zbcustom - Don’t worry. I think Persephone just knows you have her on the run. I opened the first 40 article and only 3 didn’t work. Furthermore, they are from a wide range of authors and published on multiple sites and in mutliple journals. It appears her comments were more of an effort to discredit the source, rather than refute evidence presented in the papers.

persephone says:

07:24am | 20/04/11

Adam

yep, let zb go on just accepting what he’s told. Don’t encourage him to do any of his own research or to question sources.

That’s the only way you guys can keep arguing what you do with a straight face - by a refusal to examine the evidence.

And - simulataneously - you’ll argue that those of us who support action on climate change do so on the basis of blind faith.

zb, you go on believing what you want to believe. That’ll make you feel much more comfortable. Don’t let all those inconvenient facts trip you up.

Millymolly says:

09:58am | 20/04/11

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/

Climate Change - I’d like to see real provable science on this.

Kezza says:

10:46am | 20/04/11

Seriously Ged you failed to tell us just how far along the global warming gravy train the peole who advised you were. Or how much their incomes and grants depend on this hoax and it’s now dependent industry.  You failed to acknowledge that both the credibility of the CSIRO and the BoM have taken serious hits with calls for an inquiry into the latter for making changes to temperature records which cool the past.  Give us a break it you aren’t prepared to do due dilligence then get out of the game!!

Geoff Marshall says:

12:20pm | 20/04/11

The Earth herself contains a huge amount of green house gases.  As the planet warms these gases are released.  At some point, either passed or to come, the Earth will take over and nothing we do now or in the future can stop that, especially as we (Autralia) have no intention of cutting our domestic output of green house gases (infact we will increase them) untill 2033 at the earliest.

Vic says:

10:00pm | 20/04/11

ged \\\\

 

 

Ged, you are just pretending to look after the workers. You have a career path into politics with the A.L.P, like so many before you. Why else would you write an article telling YOUR members that job losses now is better than job losses later? When YOUR members get their houses reposessed, remember that YOUR job is not at risk!!!

Donut says:

12:50pm | 21/04/11

Human activity emits approx. 3.5% of total CO2 emissions each year across the globe. Australia emits approx. 1% of that. Carbon tax is aimed at reducing Aussie emissions by, what 10%? Therefore we are looking at severly affecting our economy, jobs, livelihoods to prevent 0.0035% total global CO2 emissions? Will that saving prevent climate change? No! You don’t think China or India will increase their emissions by far more than amount over the next month? CO2 enjoys global travel Ged. Sorry, but it just doesn’t add up. I think Randy has it right that the compound concerned is “wealth transfer”.

Terry McGarry says:

05:51pm | 21/04/11

Well at two statements that you made “Ged"were correct
You are definately not a climate scientist and definately not a economist
Thats about where your dribble ends.
The planet is changing my dear everyone agrees on that BUT you show great disrespect to all those members of yours by being so narrow minded in your join the comrade opinions which I seriously believe would be contrary to the majority of your membership

CJ Morgan says:

07:45am | 19/04/11

What Ged and Tedd said.  According to the best evidence, AGW is not only real but is worse than predicted.  Australia’s greenhouse emissions continue to increase.

We have to do something for the sake of our children and grandchildren, and a carbon tax of the kind mooted by the Government is a good start, so long as the price is set high enough and the most vulnerable are compensated.  Yes, jobs will be lost in high emitting industries, but other jobs will be created by demand for clean energy.

Cue the bleating of the “I’m alright Jack” contingent, who value their own material consumption over the sustainability of the country and the future of their grandchildren.

Tedd says:

08:15am | 19/04/11

cheers CJ,

” .. other jobs will be created [by demand for clean energy]”

.. and ways of sustaining the environment and new economy.

Richard says:

08:51am | 19/04/11

‘According to the best evidence, AGW is not only real but is worse than predicted.”

False. According the the latest and most up-to-date evidence, the global temperatures are dramatically dropping.

It has been discovered that the climate as a whole is governed by negative feedback-loops, meaning that climate change is far less serious than previously predicted using positive feedback-loop models.

L. says:

09:02am | 19/04/11

“According to the best evidence, AGW is not only real but is worse than predicted.”

I thought that Brisbane’s damn will never be full again was “predicted”

I thought that the Northern Hemisphere will see a mild winter last year was “predicted”

I thought that the European snow fields will be out of business by now was “predicted”.

Lets face it, the predictions haven’t even been close.

MarK says:

09:08am | 19/04/11

No CJ the actual evidence suggest that AGW is not occurring and its effects are overstated in any case. We have just spent $12 billion on Green schemes in Australia and yet you say our emissions keep increasing. I would ask you then why we should toss more cash down the toilet on a hopeless crusade.

I will leave the think of the children line alone becasue if an argument descends to that plea you really have conceded defeat but lets give you a tiny benefit of the doubt and assume you actually have a shred of credibility.

If you really want to think of the kids not getting their mums and dads the sack would be a good start by the way but lets have a look at the “other jobs” lie that you wish to perpetuate.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

Here is some concise commentary that appears to refute your claims and makes Tedd’s look a tad foolish

“The “green jobs” that have been produced in Germany are almost unbelievably expensive:

  In the end, Germany’s PV [solar energy] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).

The think tank also evaluated the claim that subsidizing “green jobs” is good because it leads to innovation:

  Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counterproductive in that respect, stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024746.php

So it would seem that if you artificially make something “cheap” that is inefficient to begin with it costs a shitload and then reduces the need to search out better ways of doing things.

Who would have thought it.

Once again the warmists fantasy to not mesh to reality.

Pathetic.

Markus says:

09:17am | 19/04/11

” .. other jobs will be created [by demand for clean energy]”
A false assumption.

People will only demand clean energy at the point where it beats or at least competes with coal/gas on price.
Given that all clean energy sources are still surprisingly expensive for what is meant to be a renewable source, and none have the ability to supply baseload power (and show no sign of ever being able to), I don’t see this happening at any time in the near future.

Reggie says:

09:38am | 19/04/11

Tedd “No point putting on a wetsuit and checking the Barrier Reef coral now anyway, Ged, as you won’t have a point of reference from the past - the distant past or the recent past.”

Perhaps not off the east Coast of Australia, but around Cuba the reefs are showing signs of revival due to the run-off from the enforced use of natural fertilizers in the past twenty years, ever since the collapse of the USSR as a source of non-organics.

CJ Morgan says:

10:58am | 19/04/11

If people are still asserting, against the vast weight of evidence, at this point in the debate that AGW doesn’t exist, then there’s no point trying to reason with them any further.  Their obfuscation is either evidence of boneheaded ignorance, or just an obtuse delaying tactic.

The government should just bite the bullet and get on with it after July, while providing a whole lot more postitive information to answer the facile and flawed bleating from the denialists.  There will be some necessary pain, as with any fundamental reform, but the electorate will thank them for it eventually.

Delaying the introduction of a carbon tax will only make greenhouse mitigation more expensive and painful, and less effective, than it would be were it to be adopted further down the track, as it inevitably would be.

A stitch in time saves nine, and all that.  Bugger the denialists - the government is elected to govern for the long term good of the country, not for short-term political expediency.

Hamish says:

11:39am | 19/04/11

CJ, if you can’t see that this tax is a payoff to the Greens in exchange for keeping the ALP in charge for another three years then you’re just delusional. I don’t care if you support the tax, but suggesting it’s not about political expediency is just plain wrong. I think you know that.

Scot says:

05:35pm | 19/04/11

CJ Morgan What bunkum you guys talk. The so called bleaching of the Great Barrier reef never happened. The world is now cooling not heating as you fools seem to think. This is a NEW TAX on everything because Swan is in deep doo doo and we have 2.2M people now living below the poverty line because of Labor governments that have left big black holes in our power systems. Third world rail and road systems. The economy is going backwards as the Australian dollar makes exports impossible and many business’s will fold as a result as trade will not happen. What we need is another election as Gillard is not the PM. Bob brown is, and the majority did not vote either of them in.

Tom says:

10:57am | 20/04/11

CJ, reading your ignorant, pedantic diatribes convinces me that Sarah Bath has portrayed you brilliantly.

Joseph Logan says:

08:51am | 19/04/11

CJ Morgan -you “seem” nice and your concern for generations to come “seems so loving an caring”
This ridiculous crippling tax( 10% of which will go to poor countries),seems so nice and caring, but I believe we owe it to us now, our children and grand children, to not wreck this country any further, by sending manufacturing and services overseas .
Nor should we make a laughing stock of ourselves, overseas with this ideological gibberish.
We,our kids and their kids will not have jobs if this “wealth transfer” goes on, and if it does, it will not change or save the planet one iota - even you know that!

i f says:

11:31am | 19/04/11

Shame on you Ged you dont appear to be supportive of our membership, you should not bring your own personal view forward as a union view. time for you to resign and be replaced by somebody who cares about blue collar jobs.

John A Neve says:

08:03am | 19/04/11

Paulb,

Do you really believe mankind is not having an adverse impact on our environment?

Irrespective of which path we follow, Julia’s or Tony’s, it is going to cost us. Our increasing demands on finite materials and energy will always increase costs. To deny the obvious is madness.

David C says:

09:46am | 19/04/11

John of course mankind is having an adverse impact on the environment ... its just not of the CO2 kind ... why not focus on real impacts like deforestation, soot, runoff, toxic chemicals etc etc

John A Neve says:

10:25am | 19/04/11

David C,

I’d point out my view has not changed. It’s the bulk of the posters on this site who are obsessed with CO2.

Tikatek says:

02:57pm | 19/04/11

It is just wonderful that the Govt(union movement) will be able to control the climate with money. What will be the price disparity between a hot and cold day cost?will pensioners be able afford nice days?Can we book ideal climates for bbq’s and outdoor functions,A scientific breakthrough that seems unbelievable,but if you say its true it must be

L. says:

07:49am | 19/04/11

” “not one job can be lost because of the carbon tax”. “

Psstt… I think you’ll find that Ged’s article is supposed to address that

Show us that Labor / Unions are still one happy family.

michael j says:

08:30am | 19/04/11

“not one job can be lost because of the carbon tax”. “
sound a lot like the words uttered by a former ACTU president
‘‘no Australian child will live in poverty by 1990 ‘’
Catchy phrases perhaps if they are run together in new add,people will take the ‘‘C.T.S.’ seriously ,,by that i mean it is for the good of the Nation and will work ?

julie says:

10:02am | 23/04/11

GED i would like you to explain to my grandchildren (who are not hypothetical but actually exist) why they should have to give up dancing lessons, tutoring etc because their providers will be flat out having to pay the electricity, fuel bills and mortgage . Assuming they’ve still got jobs, of course.
It’s hard enough now thanks.

Tedd says:

07:28am | 19/04/11

The world is acting, Denny C. 

The ‘word’ is that acting sooner is cheaper in the long-term - focuses industry quicker.

The Real Denny Crane says:

08:23am | 19/04/11

Incorrect Tedd, the world is not acting on the “guru science of climate change”, France will not act, the United States wont, Obama has made a bigger enough disaster there to go and add to this.

Ged you state that since 1950, the australian temperature has increased by .7, interesting fact, and you are aware that previous to this we did come out of a mini ice age.

Can you please do some research and find out what temperature it was in Australia during the (MWP) Medival warm period, you will find that it would hav been warmer, so back then what was effecting the earth.

You stated that middle-low income needs to be looked after, what is your definiation of this, dollar wise breakdown is needed not the ole middle-low, as this as political answer with no substance, i dont believe you will give an answer, till you are advised on what to say, and if the government does give compensation, should it not be for the full amount, it wont be and it will cease within 5 years.

Instead the governemnt will hand money over to UN, so we can fund other countries, whilst sending this country to the wall, and you want to be part of this.

Tedd says:

08:46am | 19/04/11

ok, starting to act

MarK says:

09:38am | 19/04/11

The “word” Tedd?

The “word” is it is cheaper.

Hang on champ. Are n’t you the ones arguing from the “science”?

If it is all about cost tell me this.

How much will the carbon tax cost us - you have figures and science and stuff eh - and for that cost what reduction in the worlds temperature can we expect.

What’s the “word” on that.

Got anything to show us the (snigger) “cost of delay”?

Hmmm?

Tedd says:

01:08pm | 19/04/11

MarK,
you make a strawman of my point and attack it.

Acting *sooner* is likely to be much cheaper than delaying starting to act.

The science is simple - burning all the earth’s forests and the coal ‘n’ oil reserves is releasing more free carbon and much of that is, in turn, becoming carbon dioxide.  That is at a cost.

Adam says:

01:41pm | 19/04/11

@ Tedd - I actually believe that taking our time, considering all the facts and acting appropriately is the cheapest option. Not rushing into things half cocked (insulation scheme, school halls, health reforms, etc).

Plus, given that CO2 can only be attributed to an infinitesimally small about of the warming we have seen, and given Australia only produces an infinitesimally small amount of the words carbon emissions, I’d say expediency isn’t required. We can wait for the facts to emerge and more research to be done for at least the next decade or longer. It certainly isn’t urgent or dire enough threat to be threatening military action against carbon producing countries to save the world, now is it?

Of course, you need to remember that after all the facts are considered, the decision may be made to do nothing. The decision to do nothing should not be confused with inaction or delaying. I personally believe the “word” is that considering the facts objectively, seeing it for the farce it is, and deciding to do nothing is probably going to be the cheaper option in both the short and long term.

Denny Crane is an idiot says:

01:52pm | 19/04/11

Denny C….you use the United States as a reason that we shouldn’t act.  The United States are hardly progressive - the stupid idiots won’t even ratify the UN Rights of the Child because they want to keep on murdering their own minors!  And you use this disgusting nation as an example as to why we should do nothing on climate change!

The point is that the average person is not going to pay….the tax is aimed at polluting industries to get them to change their habits.  You may recall the whaling industry once used to thrive in Australia - yet it had to end and those employed in that industry had to lump it…reskill and move on.

There’s no point having employment if you don’t have a world to live (or be employed) in.  You probably don’t care because you’ll be long dead.  How narcisstic are you though - not to give a crap about future generations?  I can just imaging what kind of inactive, uninspiring couch potato you are - all talk and no action.  Blah.

Dan says:

04:10pm | 19/04/11

@Denny Crane is an idiot - that disgusting country stopped us from being invaded by the Japanese half a century ago.

Reggie says:

05:25pm | 19/04/11

Hahahaha Don’t take any notice of MarK, you never no whether he’s on something or off it and the result is the same. Total stultification. 

MarK says:

06:27pm | 19/04/11

You offer a strawman excuse to dodge my queries Tedd?

Seems that you have nothing to add apart from the “word” whatever that is and a lack of argument or facts.

GG

MarK says:

06:33pm | 19/04/11

“Don’t take any notice of MarK, you never no whether he’s on something or off it and the result is the same.”

This is the part I love.

When your detractors are reduced to accusations of chemical imbalances.

it is the part when you realise that you actually are better than them at everything and you have won.

In fact it is the best part.

persephone says:

08:23am | 19/04/11

There’s no need to increase the GST, as compensation is built in to the present package.

As the government has repeatedly said, yes, prices will rise but the majority of consumers will receive more than enough compensation to offset this.

Phil says:

08:48am | 19/04/11

Julia welcome back wondered where you got to. Mind you with your poll status right now I too would be hiding

Richard says:

09:49am | 19/04/11

persephone, you betray a fundamental lack of understanding about economics. The exponential multiplier effect of carbon pricing cannot be compensated for by inefficient, bureaucratic mandates, simply impossible.

What’s more, our exports will be priced out of the market, (name one exporter that won’t simply move their operations to China) resulting in a huge drop in our national revenue and massive job losses. You can’t compensate for that persephone.

persephone says:

11:24am | 19/04/11

Richard

not as bad a yours.

Treasury has been doing this sort of thing for yonks. Economists internationally have been doing this for yonks as well.

The GST (for example) had flow on effects which were similarly modelled.  Most changes to taxes and pricing are modelled by Treasury with a high degree of accuracy.

Anyway, couldn’t your argument be reversed? If we don’t know the true negative impacts (and, to save being verballed, I think we do) then we don’t know the positives either - so using your logic, it may be better than we think.

I prefer to rely on the experts when it comes to things like this, rather than just running around screaming “We’ll all be ruined! Ruined I tell you!” without any factual basis whatsoever.

If you’re not doing that, and have a sound basis for your claim, then I’m sure you’ll be able to find some way of backing it up.

Waiting in breathless anticipation.

Richard says:

01:14pm | 19/04/11

But from a business perspective persephone, all input costs are exempted from the GST, so it doesn’t continue to compound and compound exponentially at every step of the value chain like the carbon tax will.

And you can not seriously to try to rely on Treasury to supply credible modelling. The whole MMRT debacle has proved that they are entirely unreliable and have become nothing more than a tool to provide political cover for their masters.

I get very suspicious when people say “don’t try and think for yourself, just rely on the ‘experts’ to tell you what to think”.  You know that the definition of an “expert” is just a man from out of town with a briefcase and a nice hat, don’t you? I refuse to except the assertion of these people that I must be dumb and incapable of all critical or free thought.

The simple fact (which actually does have a very sound basis indeed), is that energy is a ubiquitous necessity for production and industry and business at every single stage of the value chain, right from the very start, through each and every one (of the dozens) of steps, all the way through to the consumer.

Every single step requires input of electricity/petrol etc, and unlike the GST, these cost will apparently continue to compound and compound exponentially until the poor consumer, right at the end of the value chain, get hit with massive price rises.

There cannot be one single more destructive policy a government could adopt than to artificially inflate the price of energy in an economy. Its just so ludicrous that it defies every law of economics. And for you persephone to futilely try to argue the opposite, on the grounds that, “oh but the ‘experts’ in the Treasury said so”, does your credibility a massive disservice.

Richard says:

01:15pm | 19/04/11

But from a business perspective persephone, all input costs are exempted from the GST, so it doesn’t continue to compound and compound exponentially at every step of the value chain like the carbon tax will.

And you can not seriously to try to rely on Treasury to supply credible modelling. The whole MMRT debacle has proved that they are entirely unreliable and have become nothing more than a tool to provide political cover for their masters.

I get very suspicious when people say “don’t try and think for yourself, just rely on the ‘experts’ to tell you what to think”.  You know that the definition of an “expert” is just a man from out of town with a briefcase and a nice hat, don’t you? I refuse to except the assertion of these people that I must be dumb and incapable of all critical or free thought.

The simple fact (which actually does have a very sound basis indeed), is that energy is a ubiquitous necessity for production and industry and business at every single stage of the value chain, right from the very start, through each and every one (of the dozens) of steps, all the way through to the consumer.

Every single step requires input of electricity/petrol etc, and unlike the GST, these cost will apparently continue to compound and compound exponentially until the poor consumer, right at the end of the value chain, get hit with massive price rises.

There cannot be one single more destructive policy a government could adopt than to artificially inflate the price of energy in an economy. Its just so ludicrous that it defies every law of economics. And for you persephone to futilely try to argue the opposite, on the grounds that, “oh but the ‘experts’ in the Treasury said so”, does your credibility a massive disservice.

persephone says:

02:37pm | 19/04/11

Well, Richard, quite a few countries have already been down this path, and they still seem to be doing OK.

I’m not sure what’s unique about Australia which means that our economy won’t be able to cope when others have.

Their experience also, of course, makes it easier to check what the impacts are likely to be.

I don’t see what the MMRT has to do with the credibility of Treasury, who complained under Howard that he had ignored them when drawing it up. If anything, it demonstrates what happens when you sideline Treasury on the basis that you know better.

I used the GST as AN example. There are, of course, a multitude of cases where Treasury has modelled, with reasonable success, the impact of a proposed price rise throughout the whole of the economy.

Relying on experts is better than just pulling out information randomly from nowhere, as you still seem to be doing.

Richard says:

02:55pm | 19/04/11

Persephone, those other countries you allude to have a carbon price of about $2 per tonne, not $26 per tonne. And far from your wistful assertion that “they still seem to be doing OK”, the fact is that their economies are all well and truly cactus!

All of those economies are now mired deep in a boggy economic malaise, you cannot deny it. I’m not saying this is solely due to their carbon price policies, but nevertheless the fact remains that their experience since implementing carbon pricing seems to universally have been one of rorting, corruption, fraud, market manipulation and economic recession.

And you know full well that the Treasury over-estimated the proceeds from the MMRT to the tune of $12 Billion in order to give Julia Gillard political cover during the election campaign. There is no reason to think that they are not underestimating the full effects of the carbon tax to a similar degree now in order to give Julia Gillard further political cover in this, her darkest hour.

Relying on ‘experts’ is the first step along the pathway to destructive group-think and becoming a bien pensant sheep. Think for yourself! Investigate for yourself! Do not use the word of discredited ‘experts’ purely to prevent free-thought from entering the political discourse persephone.

Hamish says:

03:00pm | 19/04/11

Oh Perse, what is it with people like you and Knemon who seem to think people will just completely fall for this crap you put out about other countries doing similar things to what the ALP proposes. You and I know that there are 27 countries (about 14% of all countries) who have a carbon mitigation system. Almost all (25) are in the european system which is totally different to what the ALP proposes. For starters in europe there is a continent-wide trading scheme. There is no tax. In fact, the carbon price was as low as zero in 2007. The european system, at the end of phase one, had a achieved a net increase in emmission of about 1.9%. Great example guys. Did you actually research this argument before making it? No one has a system at all similar to what Gillard is proposing. The funny thing is, I didn’t even know this until people like you created the ‘everyone else is doing it’ fabrication.

persephone says:

03:31pm | 19/04/11

Richard

firstly, as you quite rightly point out, most of the world’s major economies suffered far more under the GFC than Australia, because we’re better economic managers.

We’re better economic managers because we relied on the advice of Treasury and implemented it.

As better economic managers, we should be able to manage carbon pricing better, too.

No one with an ounce of credibility blames carbon pricing for the GFC, or for its impacts on countries which just happen to have carbon pricing (a lot of countries which didn’t have carbon pricing fared just as badly, if not worse).

So you’re not relying on the advice of experts. I’d be interested in knowing how you suggest the country should be run in that case.

Tea leaf reading? Ouija boards? Pinning policy ideas up on boards and throwing darts at them? Asking three random passer bys for their opinion?

Hamish

there’s no tax proposed in Australia either. You can’t play those games - distinguish the difference between a carbon price and a carbon tax when talking of other economies, and then not recognise that what’s proposed in Australia is only called a carbon tax to save argument.

We’re not having a carbon tax in Australia either. We’re having a carbon price.

And the Europeans having gone before us (gee, I thought we were rushing in where no man had ever gone before!) means we can avoid some of their mistakes (which includes not setting a high enough carbon price initially, which means you have to play catch up later on).

And I never ever said everyone else is doing it - just that we’re not acting alone and we’re not the first.

Hamish says:

03:59pm | 19/04/11

Wrong Perse. The ALP is setting a carbon ‘price’ payable to the government. That is a tax. The government is levying a set amount of money for each unit of carbon dioxide. How is that not a tax? It’s the same as a tax on anything else. They could do it with bananas - for each banana you buy you pay the gov $1, it’s the same as paying the government $20 for every ton of carbon dioxide you emit. Functionally it’s a tax. Calling it a ‘price’ is just weasel-word semantics.

The European system is a carbon trading system, hence the price changing. The price won’t change under Gillard because it’s a tax. It’s not tied to supply and demand, it’s a tax. The ALP’s proposal is not what they are doing in europe. You are just factually incorrect. Do some research.

So, in reality, this is your argument. Fourteen percent of countries on earth (effectively zero percent of countries outside europe and no major polluters) have a completely different carbon abatement system to what Labor are proposing. Everyone else has no system. And yet somehow we’re not ‘going it alone’. Even the fairies at the bottom of your garden wouldn’t fall for that.

persephone says:

04:11pm | 19/04/11

Hamish

Prices and taxes are not the same thing. A taxi license is a price, not a tax.

The ‘any money you pay to the government is a tax’ line comes from exactly the same people who, a decade ago, defended Howard’s various levies against accusations that he was raising taxes by saying these weren’t taxes.

As you know, the aim of the Gillard scheme is that it morphs into an ETS - and Gillard has stated that she would prefer it began as one.

No we’re not going it alone. We are putting a price on carbon. Europe has a price on carbon.

For example:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/australia-lags-behind-europe-on-carbon-price-says-eu-expert/story-e6frg6xf-1226017768012

In this article, directly comparing the action in Europe and here, there is no suggestion that Australia is doing anything differently to Europe - they are essentially the same.

It doesn’t matter what you call it, tax, price, whatever - and I don’t particularly care.

I care about the results, and the result is decreased carbon emissions.

Hamish says:

04:37pm | 19/04/11

Sorry Perse, but they are exactly the same. A taxi licence isn’t a tax, it’s a licence. A price payable to the government in exchange for using specific units of something (e.g. bananas, carbon dioxide emmissions) is a tax. Not a licence. A tax. Licencing is quite similar to taxation, but it isn’t the same. Just like a fine is money payable to the government but it isn’t a tax either. I never actually said any money paid to the government is a tax. You put words in my mouth and failed.

Europe has a price on carbon set by a market which changes every day. It’s not a fixed levy payable to the government. Fixed levies payable to the government are called a ‘tax’.

If we do transition to an ETS which I would actually prefer, where is the compensation money going to come from Perse? Another tax? Or will the gov just decide an ETS is too hard and we’ll stick to the ‘price’ instead. By the by Perse, saying the european system is the same as the ALP’s proposed system is like saying the tax is the same as the ETS.

Richard says:

04:42pm | 19/04/11

I put it to you persephone that the essential difference between our ‘miracle economy’, and the basket-case economies in England, Ireland, Iceland, America, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain etc is not that “we’re so smart ‘n your so dumb”, as you seem to suggest; but rather, I contend that the critical difference is that we enjoy a thriving mining sector and that we have the capacity to generate cheap electricity from our abundant reserves of natural resources such as coal and gas.

It is my contention that these two natural advantages underpin the relative strength of our economy (rather than any such feverish fantasy that Wayne Swan is such a better money manager than Gordon Brown was or that our Treasury department is so much better than foreign Treasury departments).

If my contention is correct, and the reason for our comparative economic strength really is because of our thriving mining industry and our ability to generate cheap power from our prolific coal reserves, do you realise what a government plan to negate these two advantages (i.e. a carbon tax) amounts to?

No less than a full-scale assault on our economy and on our living standards, a declaration of war on our way of life, and an embargo on our hope for a prosperous future.

Matt says:

04:49pm | 19/04/11

@Hamish, I’ve already educated persephone on what the definition of a tax is. She just doesn’t want to listen.

Jack Spratt says:

05:54pm | 19/04/11

Matt is a pompous twit who tries to “educates” those who know better.
Sorry that should not have had pompous in front of twit.

persephone says:

05:59pm | 19/04/11

Hamish
oh dear. Don’t really understand how it all works, do you?

Under an ETS, there will still be permits given out or sold by the government. The trading bit comes when companies then on sell these permits.

So the government will still get revenue, which it will use for compensation.

Matt

I don’t really care whether it’s a tax or not. It’s Hamish who contradicted himself in one post, and who is defining it according to whatever his argument happens to be the time.

The European union obviously regard what they’re doing as carbon pricing, and regard what we’re doing as carbon pricing. Strictly speaking, carbon pricing is the correct term.

But - like the PM - I’m not really fussed if people want to call it a tax, but to be consistent they then have to call what the EU is doing a tax too.

To pretend that they’re somehow different things is just mendacious.

Hamish says:

06:32pm | 19/04/11

Perse you do realise it makes a massive difference if the government granfathers credits rather than auctioning them from both a government revenue and economic perspective? They should grandfather them, but I’m not sure what they’re actually planning. It’s not like it’s going to happen anyway.

persephone says:

07:35am | 20/04/11

I’m still waiting for Richard’s evidence.

Richard says:

09:10pm | 20/04/11

Persephone, my evidence is my reasoning and deduction, which I have outlined for you, and your rebuttal that “nah but, nah but, NAH!~ the ‘experts’ said!” is invalid.

Bruce says:

10:06am | 19/04/11

George: You can not take this article too seriously. The union movements position is that: labor = right, Coalition = wrong or not good enough, no matter what the issue. That will be the day the head of the unions actually write a balanced article.  Remember from the unions point of view, labor can not be wrong. If the carbon tax issue were to change or be dropped, watch for the sound of silence, justification or blame someone else, most probably the coalition.

SueB says:

09:14am | 19/04/11

Yes, this absolutely read as a job application.  The first section was practically the Apostles Creed as a belief statement.  Notice how many times “I” appeared.

L. says:

11:53am | 19/04/11

” Notice how many times “I” appeared.”

“I” did

I wasn’t too sure who she is trying to convince, us, the union members or herself..??

Reggie says:

03:01pm | 19/04/11

SueB “Notice how many times ‘I’ appeared.”

How many time does the word “I” have to appear before you understand she is taking personal responsibility for her words and she is not representing the Union view specifically? I happen to agree with her and I am not a Unionist nor have I ever been a member of a political party.

I’ll have another read in the hope of finding something I disagree with and get back to you.

Tony says:

08:10am | 19/04/11

If the unions are so interested in the environment, why don’t they lobby to have the local creeks and waterways cleaned up, rubbish collected or noxious weeds removed from national parks??  This is typical left wing political “talk big” but “do nothing”  rubbish that Labor and and the greens excel in.

stevem says:

10:55am | 19/04/11

It’s not just the socialist left that wants this tax. People like Al Gore pushed very hard for a global ETS because they saw the possibility of making vast fortunes from trading in emissions rights. These groups pushed governments from the right while the socialists saw a way to push their agenda from the left. Those of us not in either group will end up getting hurt from both directions.

LC says:

11:41am | 19/04/11

Enviromentalism started off well enough, with groups such as Greenpeace wishing to reduce levels of toxic chemicals being put into the enviroment and reducing deforestation, but it seems to have lost the meaning somewhere along the way. Sometime in the 80’s, the movement was hijacked by closet socialists in order to push thier political ideologies onto the greater populace by using naive (but well meaning) people. They are taking a different approach in order to make people feel guilty for being sucessful and for living in a wealthy country, which they have been doing for as long as they have existed.

They scream for carbon taxes, but shy away when the hard questions are asked, such as “What’ll the effect be on the enviroment within 1/2/5/10/25/50/100 years time?” or “How does giving compensation to lower income earners/pensioners encourage them to change thier behaviour?”. Because the awnsers to these questions are respectively “little-none” and “it won’t”.

A carbon tax of $5-$10/tonne and no compensation might actually achieve something, however miniscule, and encourage the population as a whole (rather than just middle-high income earners) to change thier ways.

Trust labor make a complete ballsup of the simplist of concepts.

Vacsuite says:

12:18pm | 19/04/11

Great post Sony B, you are absolutely spot on. 

This is a far-left political doctrine and nothing more.  They were at a lack for things to agitate for since communism fell over.  And then Gore made his stupid movie and now it’s on…  And he demonstrated that there is money in it too!  Garnaut, please.  I have a degree in IT.  Does that make me an expert on global warming too?  How do *I* get on the gravy train, Juliar??

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this AGW bog is remotely fact.

And I’m sick to death of the sound of Gillard’s voice, her spin and blatant lies.  This vile, duplicitous, nausea inducing woman doesn’t have an honest bone in her body.  At least Rudd (as dismally pathetic and delusional as he was / is), doesn’t sound a Dalek with a sore throat. 

I’m sick to death of Brown – the PM - force-feeding us this nonsense (and all the other rubbish his half-baked collection of Phillip Adams clones is peddling), with all the ethics of the world’s scummiest used car salesman. 

I want an election NOW so I can line these bastards up, and boot them to the North Pole - where, by the way, they will still find plenty of ice.  And lots of Polar Bears roaming around on it.

John says:

09:47pm | 19/04/11

Al Gore himself was flawed as when he pushed for his movie on climate change to be shown at all schools ppl argued that the other side should be shown as well. This was taken to court to prevent the other side which did not accept Al Gore view to show thier film.

Funny how they will not allow the other side to speak.

Adam says:

08:26am | 19/04/11

@ jf - You make a very valid point. The science seems to be telling that the earth is warming, but human activities, for the most part, have almost nothing to do with such warming. It appears Ged has not done the independent research she claims; more likely she just took this stance for political reasons and is now post rationalising her position on the issue.

@ Ged - If you are reading this (and I know you will) check out this independent research:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqu993xs9Gk

Maybe now is the time to put your old research papers back on the shelf, next to the “earth is flat” book. They have been rendered invalid by the latest findings.

persephone says:

08:32am | 19/04/11

If you don’t believe climate change is caused by human activity, how do you explain it?

Yes, the climate has changed in the past. But it hasn’t just changed on a whim - “Oh, I’ve been hot for ages now. I think I’d better cool it down a bit” - as the idea that this is ‘just part of the natural cycle’ implies.

Climate changes for a reason.

In the past, climate change has been triggered by a variety of events - meteor impact, changes in the sun’s activity, volcanic output, etc.

When scientists realised that the climate was changing - and changing in a way which went against the accepted theories of the time, which were predicting climate cooling because of a decrease (amongst other things) in sun activity - they tried to find out what was causing this.

In the process, all of the ‘usual suspects’ were ruled out.

The only possible cause left standing was the increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to man’s activity.

To accept that the climate is changing, you must accept that these changes have a cause.

What is it?

grumpy old man says:

09:30am | 19/04/11

Persephone,
well, how about increased solar activity, massive changes in the earths magnetic field, and the normal cycle of cooling and heating that occurs over protracted periods. These are all things occurring right now, but for some strange reason, are ignored by those who are wed to the concept that humans are bad.

I do believe we need to do something about how we collectively look after our environment, we are guilty of the worst excesses in pollution, but lets not kid ourselves that a tax will actually make the slightest difference to pollution levels,

Adam says:

09:40am | 19/04/11

@ Persephone - The most pertinent questions have been raised by “MarK” over the past few days. They were:

_______

MarK says:08:13am | 18/04/11

How much will the carbon tax reduce the worlds temperature? This is the reason for the tax after all, to tackle climate change.

How much will this tax cost the economy to do the above?

Simple.

Anyone?

________

So Persephone, care to enlighten us? I’d love to hear an answer if you have one Or are we just spitting in the ocean (at great cost), as the scientist in my link provided above says?

jf says:

09:50am | 19/04/11

persephone says:08:32am | 19/04/11

“If you don’t believe climate change is caused by human activity, how do you explain it?”

I was just reading some of your comments and thinking to myself “Persephone and I might be on different sides of the ideological fence but she does make some interesting points along the way”.

And then I read this. Are you kidding Perse? I can’t definitely explain why climate change happens: perhaps it is cyclical, perhaps it’s solar activity, perhaps it’s organic. I don’t know. However, the fact that it was happening not only before the industrial revolution but before mankind was on the earth, for me, rules out manking as a contributor.

That said, I am open-minded on the issue and here to be convinvced by legitimate, irrefutable science conducted without fear, favour or commercial conflict.

N.Kelly says:

02:17pm | 19/04/11

Is that the same MarK who said that the world’s temperature was going to change but then couldn’t come up with an answer when he was asked by how much, Adam ?

Adam says:

02:32pm | 19/04/11

@N.Kelly - I can’t say I’ve seen that post. Why don’t you ask him yourself? He is here today. I mean, it’s not like he is hiding or anything

@ MarK - She is all yours mate.

persephone says:

02:48pm | 19/04/11

Grumpy

all of those were considered.

There hasn’t been increased solar activity. Or changes in the magnetic field. (My understanding was that decreased solar activity over the last few decades was meant to lead to global cooling. The fact it didn’t, and that the opposite happened, was one of the triggers alerting scientists that something strange was happening).

As I’ve said, there’s no such thing as ‘normal heating and cooling’. Heating and cooling are reactions to other changes, they don’t just happen. They have causes.

Adam

I am exceedingly tempted to refer you back to multiple posts over months, where I have answered these questions.

We cannot prevent world temperature rises. That is not the aim. The aim is to keep the projected rise in temperature to no more than two degrees.

So the aim is not to prevent temperature rise (because we’d need a time machine to do that - the damage has been done) but to stablilise the world temperature at what scientists hope will be something we can cope with.

As for the cost to the economy, it’s been laid out by the government on countless occasions and is covered by Garnaut. I don’t know it off the top of my head and don’t have time to look it up, but it’s easily googled.

jf

fine, maybe you can’t. But scientists have been able to fairly clearly identify the causes of past climate changes, with such a degree of certainty that it was obvious this one was caused by something which hasn’t been operating in the past.

Just because something happened before human beings weren’t around doesn’t mean we can’t say why they happened.

So yes, the climate changed in the past. But in each case we have a really good idea as to why, and know that these causes aren’t responsible for what’s happening at present.

N.Kelly says:

04:51pm | 19/04/11

Is that a yes or a no, Adam ? You seem confused.

MarK says:

06:31pm | 19/04/11

Pers which temperature record are you using as a basis for these claims of “climate change” that can be linked to carbon dioxide?

I am intrigued.

persephone says:

09:44pm | 19/04/11

So no one is willing to give me the cause of present climate change?

OK, then, if there’s no other contenders, let’s settle for the current theory.

Adam says:

11:29pm | 19/04/11

@ Persephone - “So no one is willing to give me the cause of present climate change?

OK, then, if there’s no other contenders, let’s settle for the current theory.”

I’ve got a better idea. If no one can give any of us the cause of present climate change how about we keep doing research until we figure it out. That seems much more logical than just adopting the current unproven theory and then trying to develop solutions (i.e. carbon tax) based on it. It’s not like we are in any great rush, after all.

MarK says:

07:19am | 20/04/11

Pers you have not answered my question.

Your question assumes there is something out of the ordinary happening with the climate now. Show me the empirical evidence that suggests this.

There must be some surely.

What temperature record are you using pers to back your claims of warming being related to CO2?

persephone says:

07:33am | 20/04/11

Adam

because the theory isn’t discredited, but one of the best supported by evidence from all scientific disciplines that we’ve ever had (it’s as proveable as evolution, which is also a theory).

But that’s typically right wing of you. The election doesn’t work out the way you guys want to, so we should go back and do it again. The science doesn’t go your way, so it’s obviously wrong and we should just sit on our hands and wait for someone else to come up with some other explanation.

There’s no need to do that. We have a theory which fits the evidence and has been confirmed by predictions. We can see ourselves that something is happening to the climate.

Just because you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence does not absolve governments of their responsibility to act in light of the information they have at hand.

MarK says:

09:09am | 20/04/11

Oh pers…...this is me stamping my feet trying to get attention.

Answer my question and I will respond.

You are ignoring me.

pers are you afraid?

pers have I got you?

pers

pers

pers

Adam says:

09:22am | 20/04/11

@ Pers - You seem intelligent, however, trying to link my political alignment (which you don’t know) and my beliefs on climate change is pretty tenuous. Probably just as tenuous as you trying to link CO2 to the whole climate change phenomenon based solely on correlation of data. You yourself know that correlation does not equal causation and causation is yet to be established in this case. And you yourself know that science can come up with numerous theories that fit the available data but this makes none of them any more correct. Some of these theories are just discredited theories in waiting. Remember the flat earth theory? Remember when there were only 109 elements on the periodic table? Notice how the number of planets in the solar system keeps changing? What next, because UFO sightings can be correlated to the warming trend are we going to blame them because “the theory fits the evidence”?

You also said it “it’s as proveable as evolution, which is also a theory”. Was this you admitting you can’t prove it?

I am simply proposing the best option is to spend another decade or so doing research. That way we can establish causation without rushing into things. Who know, we may well look back and laugh at how stupid we were for thinking CO2 was causing warming. Just as I am sure those believers of a flat earth did.

P.S. I’d also love to see an answer to MarKs question. It is these types of questions that keep people sceptical and demonstrate the lack of proof regarding causation in the current unproven theory you espouse.

persephone says:

12:06pm | 20/04/11

Adam

Science operates on the basis of theories - the Theory of Evolution, Newton’s Theories of Physics, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution - because it always allows for the possibility that, no matter how much evidence there is to support an idea, it might be wrong.

So we have basic scientific principles - ones which underlie all our technologies, ones which have us venturing in to space, etc etc - which are still referred to as theories.

Of these, evolution and climate change are seen as the two most probable - they are backed from evidence across a range of scientific disciplines, can be used to explain observable phenomena, and have stood up to rigorous scrutiny.

So climate change, as a theory, is more credible than gravity.

As for your list - I hope you realise that there never really was a time in recorded history when people believed the earth was flat.

MarK

sorry, I answered your question back up the thread a fair way, when Adam posed it to me on your behalf. I really don’t like repeating myself, so just scroll back up a bit.

(Oh, and a hint - a question usually does have a question mark, so that readers don’t confuse it with a statement. Your post makes a lot more sense now that I realise there’s meant to be one there).

MarK says:

01:07pm | 20/04/11

All my questions have question marks pers.

Instead of avoiding it answer it. What temperature record are you relying on?

Also answer the ones inthe open thread today.

Also admit you were wrong, spectacularly so, on China.

Basically apologise to us.

kthxgo

Adam says:

02:52pm | 20/04/11

@ Pers - So to cut a long story short, you are basically saying you can’t prove your climate change theory. Why not wait another decade or so till more research is done then? It’s not like expediency is necessary here.

P.S. Cheers for the heads up on the earth is flat stuff. I’ll look into it. Who knows, I may even learn something today

Adam says:

02:52pm | 20/04/11

@ Pers - So to cut a long story short, you are basically saying you can’t prove your climate change theory. Why not wait another decade or so till more research is done then? It’s not like expediency is necessary here.

P.S. Cheers for the heads up on the earth is flat stuff. I’ll look into it. Who knows, I may even learn something today

persephone says:

08:34am | 19/04/11

Yes to all of those, Stevie, unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

(Although I admit the worker thing is hard to predict and am willing to give that one a maybe).

MarK says:

09:56am | 19/04/11

China is not reducing emissions pers. They are reducing the intensity of emissions as measured against GDP.

The raw tonnage the will put out will be increasing annually for the forseeable future.

It is all about the amount of CO2 for you and your computer models that cannot predict known events from known data.

Stop this lying.

The most amazing thing I have seen in this whole debate is the ascension of China in the western media as the AGW good guy. The AGW media plotters are hiding the main culprit in full view. Clever politically but doomed to failure on close examination…hell cursory examination. The Chinese must howl with laughter at the Wests stupidity.

Seriously WTF?

They pump out more CO2 than almost anyone and dare I mention Copenhagen?

To quote our colourful FM they “ratfucked” us at the climate conference to save the world.

Ratfuked us.

We had days to save the planet and they ratfucked us.

And now they are some type of symbol or idol to be worshipped by the AGW religious zealots.

Please.

There is the evidence. It is indisputable.

Jobs will be lost pers. Don’t even go there.

Ged is merely trying out for a safe seat. She is a dangerous woman that does not care about her “people”.

persephone says:

03:44pm | 19/04/11

MarK

Thanks for providing the evidence I asked for..

Obviously there will be job losses after the carbon price is introduced. Obviously industries will blame these job losses on the introduction of the carbon price.

But saying don’t make it so.

There is nothing about a carbon price which necessitates job losses.

james milton says:

06:35pm | 19/04/11

China can say what they want.. they always have and always will. But what they do is something completely different.

Don’t tell me you believe China will cut emissions because China said they would?

Maybe we should stop sending them our minerals to pollute the earth with, wouldn’t that be a much better solution?

MarK says:

06:39pm | 19/04/11

Sorry to be obtuse pers.

I forgot to reference you back to The Day After Tomorrow as a source for the science.

So we now have pers that has by admission here believing that Gaia can determine that the Chinese are reducing emissions as a percentage of their GDP and hence will start to cool itself in appreciation.

This is regardless of the known fact that the actual tonnage of CO2 China produces will go up.

Sort of begs the question why are we worried about what we emit.

Stunning. Truly stunning. The ability to lie to oneself is sad but strong in this one.

Apparently ratfucking Copenhagen is a sure sign of AGW action.

persephone says:

09:41pm | 19/04/11

MarK

don’t be obtuse.

What are your references to prove that China’s emissions are going to rise at the rate you claim?

The last time someone provided me with links to this, it turned out that they were either out of date or openly stated that the projections were based on what would happen if China didn’t act.

Everything else I’ve seen confirms that China is committed to real cuts.

If you have information which shows otherwise (hell, I’ll even accept a movie) then I’d be interested to see it.

Abuse and accusations of lying are, as usual, all you really have.

MarK says:

07:34am | 20/04/11

“What are your references to prove that China’s emissions are going to rise at the rate you claim?”

What like this?

http://www.climate-connect.co.uk/Home/?q=node/498

It even has a graph and everything.

let me quote the good bits.

“Recently, China increased its reduction target for carbon emissions under the 12th five year plan. According to the new target, China plans to reduce carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 18 percent over the next five years.

Despite setting the targets, China has repeatedly said that it will not accept a more stringent cap on total emissions, calling it an unfair burden on developing nations that have much lower emissions per person than rich economies.

The study from the Chinese Academy of Engineering and other recent reports show that some Chinese experts and officials believe the country will have to make significant gains in energy and emissions to move ahead in its development path.

The study titled “Chinese Energy in the Long- and Medium-Term (2030, 2050)” says that China should aim for a peak in greenhouse gas output at around 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by about 2030. “We must consider achieving zero growth in total carbon emissions from about 2030, and must seriously make the necessary technological and economic preparations for achieving an absolute fall in carbon emissions after 2030,” says the study.”

What was that I hear you say?

The link is out of date? - NO it is from this month

Based on if china didn’t act - NO, this is the best case scenario according to themselves.

Committed to real cuts - want me to requote?

Abuse is relative. Accusations of lying are made when people lie.

Your apology should be forthcoming I expect and a retraction of your position.

Get some knowledge then rejoin the debate.

/preen and pounce around

Now what temperature record are you relying on pers?

Johnny says:

09:27am | 19/04/11

@ Jedi T, Correct,she is nothing more but a union rep, the biggest Stooge in the Labor camp and a Green muppet

Gratuitous Adviser says:

08:47am | 19/04/11

Jade, I recommend that you should change your “research” source from the Alan Jones’s breakfast show.  Just type in CSIRO + climate change and read.

Jade says:

09:48am | 19/04/11

@ Gratuitous Adviser, I haven’t listened to even a minute of Alan Jones in my life… I couldn’t even tell you which state he is in/he show is on.

Jim says:

07:40am | 19/04/11

One should never use the word ‘intelligent’ when responding to a Ged Kearney piece.

Anyway, there is more evidence that AGW is a myth designed by global banks and corporations to trade an intangible commodity without risk…and less evidence that CO2 is actually doing anything. Does that make the Cult of Climate Change the ‘deniers’?

Sony B Goode says:

07:44am | 19/04/11

classic leftist approach to anything, target the man and not the argument, call people “deniers” and offer not a single argument based on any fact that this tax will do anything other than destroy prosperity for many, cost real jobs and have no effect on global CO2 or temperatures.

JimW says:

08:40am | 19/04/11

Nice one Jim. I love a good conspiracy theory. And let’s face it, if climate change was real, they’d just ask the aliens that landed at Roswell how to fix it.
@Sony - it’s actually a pretty simple concept to understand. 1: CO2 emissions are bad for the environment. 2: Putting a price on high-volume CO2 emissions means producing less CO2 makes good business sense for industry, encouraging investment in environmentally friendly technology and practices. 3: More environmentally friendly industry means fewer CO2 emissions, which is good for the environment (see point one). Yes it will be difficult for industry and some follow-on costs will hurt household budgets, but we’re talking about the planet on which we all depend to survive at all, so unfortunately, money has to take a back seat. 150 years ago it was difficult for some businesses to find a way to maintain profits when they had to start paying their field workers, but who would argue abolishing slavery was not absolutely the right thing to do?
Given that Australia is one of the largest per-capita polluters, doesn’t it seem reasonable that we do our bit to reduce CO2 emissions?

Richard says:

10:06am | 19/04/11

JimW, George Soros himself has stated that the financial industry will game and manipulate carbon markets.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M

Its not a conspiracy theory, its a dead-set fact that corrupt plutocratic banksters stand to benefit tremendously from these type of policies.

So you have to ask yourself, if your serious about tackling climate change, should you tackle it DIRECTLY, like the opposition proposes to do, or should you set up an artificial market that’s wide open to financial fraud?

Reggie says:

10:11am | 19/04/11

Jim ... “Anyway, there is more evidence that AGW is a myth designed by global banks and corporations to trade an intangible commodity without risk…”

Without risk?  To whom?

They’re already doing this in the form of farm subsidies in the European countries and the US, thus pricing the poorer countries into starvation.

I call that risk transfer.  Good one Jim.  (wink)

Jim says:

11:22am | 19/04/11

Without risk to the traders Reggie…whenever global banks are involved someone’s going to be crucified, we all know that. But for the banks themselves - zero risk in a world full of gullible governments.
The banks have been trading gold and dollars for years, but now they’ll have a new imaginary commodity to play with.

Seth Brundle says:

05:10pm | 19/04/11

Wow, not a single bite!  That must be disappointing !

Beth Srundle says:

05:31pm | 19/04/11

Well ! You did !

Nicole says:

06:31pm | 19/04/11

Who you calling a broad?

Sony B Goode says:

07:37am | 19/04/11

it’s not about solutions it’s about prosperity destruction and class war, cheap solutions don’t redistribute income.

persephone says:

08:39am | 19/04/11

dale

because any solution will impact on your pay packet.

Either you will have to pay more tax, higher prices or put up with a reduced level of services (because tax dollars are being diverted elsewhere).

Economists from around the world have consistently said that a carbon price (preferably through an ETS, which the proposed scheme is heading towards) will make less impact on your pay packet than any of the other options on the table.

As the headline of this article says - someone must pay.

Carbon pricing, which uses market forces to drive down carbon emissions, is the most effective way and the cheapest for taxpayers.

The Original Oz says:

09:25am | 19/04/11

persephone - your response sounds very much like the old “Privatisation will produce greater competition, innovation and reduce prices”. Standard political bull pucks that have time and time again been proven to be absolute crap. Economists are all for this action because of the market that will be created in trading Carbon futures and Carbon Credits.

This tax which is being shovelled by your illustrious red-headed bint of a leader will do absolutely nothing to alter industry activities, will reduce carbon (dioxide) emissions by absolutely zilch but will create a wonderful form of income redistribution (less of course the 10% that will be funneled to the UN). If the Government were serious about addressing environmental problems they would create a national EPA which has sufficient powers to penalise the true polluters - groups like Ok-Tedi mines and Lihir Gold who pump toxic compounds into the environment every day. But wait, you can’t penalise those two organisations because they are concerns of one of your great Climate Change gurus aren’t they? Mobs like this create a far greater risk to the sustainability of this world than does the Carbon Dioxide that is in the atmosphere. Tackle the true polluters and then maybe the moves may have some credibility and acceptance.

Gillard has lost all credibility in this argument through her blatant porkie to the electorate followed by her subsequently bending over so Guru Bob can sort her out.

Hamish says:

11:33am | 19/04/11

Perse, seriously when Gillard gets knifed and they dump the carbon tax will you simply switch message? You’re losing this debate badly which should have been obvious. How Gillard/the ALP didn’t realise that caving into the Greens on this would be electoral poison is beyond me. It will cost jobs. Prices will rise. Australia’s exports will become less competitive. It will do nothing for global emmissions and certainly nothing for the global temperature. Gillard may say otherwise but she is lying and she has form. No one believes her. I don’t think even you or Ged believe her in reality. You’re not dumb Perse. The smart thing to do would be to sht up on this issue so when Gillard’s gone and it’s off the table no one will be able to remind you about how you supported the ALP’s dumbest tax yet.

Andrew says:

01:06pm | 19/04/11

persephone: Perhaps the carbon tax will have less effect on people’s income than other methods of solving the emissions problem, but there’s a good reason for that - it will accomplish NOTHING towards a solution.  Why?  The answer is simple and obvious to anybody who looks at the reality of the situation.  Renewable energy sources are currently extraordinarily expensive, at least 5-10 times as expensive as traditional coal power.  Putting a (relatively) small tax on carbon won’t make these forms of energy more competitive, because paying 8x as much for power is no more attractive to the end consumer than paying 10x as much.  It’s like putting the local under 10 rugby club up against the Wallabies, then saying “Oh, we’ll make it fair by giving them a 5 point headstart”.  Unless the carbon tax is absolutely enormous, so as to increase energy costs by a factor of 5, this market manipulation will fix nothing.  Why?  Because the fossil fuel industry has had a 200 year headstart on renewable energy, and that cannot be fixed easily.

So what IS a solution?  How about real research and development into renewable energy sources.  This is perhaps the greatest scientific opportunity today, to develop new, efficient ways of generating energy without causing pollution.  Yes, it will require money, and where that money comes from, who knows.  Perhaps the great carbon tax can be used to fund it, but not if you’re going to give most of it back to consumers.  I’m sorry, but if this problem is going to be solved, it will require sacrifice from everybody, not just the top end of town.  But the current government is not serious about this kind of permanent solution, because they are actually CUTTING research funds for this kind of work.  An Australian university had one of the leading solar energy research centres in the world, creating panels of much higher efficiency than are currently available, and doing so at reasonable cost.  What did the government do to reward this?  That’s right, they cut off their funding completely.  A mere $20 million or so was all that was needed to continue this world leading research, and possibly create an entire new industry in Australia that could not only solve the energy crisis but also generate billions into our economy, but that’s clearly too much.

The stupidity of this government, or perhaps just it’s narrow-minded view to appease the most number of people, is staggering.  Sadly, the cynical side of me thinks it would be no different under any other government..

persephone says:

04:01pm | 19/04/11

All of the above:

Putting a price on carbon - with the flow on effects it creates - works to reduce emissions in a number of ways. Reducing emissions means less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which will (according to the scientists) prevent further rises in global temperatures (with a 2 degree rise already inevitable).

It works like this: the government issues, on a regular basis, permits to companies to allow them to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas.

So right there we have two mechanisms which can be manipulated to control emissions - because the government can restrict the number of permits, and thus the amount of carbon emitted, and companies who emit less than their permits allow can sell on the unused portion of their permits and thus generate an income stream.

Companies thus have incentives to reduce their emissions. Firstly, they know if they don’t do so by themselves, the government will either restrict their activities in the future or they’ll be charged more. Secondly, they know that by restricting their emissions beyond the industry requirements will mean that they have permits they can sell on the open market to generate revenue.

So companies which act to limit their carbon emissions will be more competitive than those that don’t, and thus will be able to charge lower prices for their products.

This means consumers will be more attracted to their products than those of their competitors.

If the company’s competitors want to lower their prices, the best way for them to do so is for them to lower their emissions in turn.

Meanwhile - regardless of how much they are receiving in compensation - customers will receive price signals which will make some products more desirable than others.

There’s no compulsion - if you want to keep spending more money to buy a product, obviously you’ll be able to afford to do it - but if you want to save money, as most of us do, you’ll be attracted more and more to the cheaper product of equivalent quality, which owes its price difference to its producers carbon abatements.

So - according to the economists - market forces will act both on companies and consumers to lower emissions.

persephone says:

08:58am | 19/04/11

It really doesn’t matter what the climate was like before man arrived, or whether the level of CO2 was higher then than it is now.

Human beings weren’t around then.

They now occupy most of the planet, in numbers that (it can be argued) are not sustainable, even with an unchanging climate.

Even a slight change in climate will exacerbate greatly the problems confronting us as a species.

I’m not worried about the future of the planet. The planet has been through worse and thrived.

Mankind might not be so fortunate, however.

Dino says:

09:27am | 19/04/11

Hi DJ, I think you have hit on the big issue for climate change. The RATE of change of 0.7 degrees C in 61 years is MASSIVE compared to the “natural” changes over thousands to millions of years. So, the problem is not whether or not change is happening or even that we all agree that there is change and don’t agree on the mechanism of that change. The problem is the rate of change being way more that the “natural” sources of change can explain. To me, that means that the “unnatural” changes made by humankind emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere is a huge part of the problem.

L. says:

10:14am | 19/04/11

“They now occupy most of the planet, in numbers that (it can be argued) are not sustainable..”

There is no such thing as overpopulation. The surplus always die.

persephone says:

06:07pm | 19/04/11

And there’ll be more surplus with climate change, so there will be more deaths.

Glad you’re comfortable with that concept.

We tend to assume (being in the comfortable place we are) that the pressures climate change adds to the population pressures which already exist won’t affect us.

Yet we freak out majorly because a few thousand refugees land on our shores.

When climate change impacts, as it is predicted to do, on already over populated countries like Bangladesh, there will be massive displacement of populations across the globe.

This is one of the reasons why it’s in our own self interest to act.

Richard says:

07:35pm | 19/04/11

You’re mistaken on this one persephone. Its not the Australian government’s problem if people overseas in other countries die. Nor should it be. The only responsibility the Australian government has is to the citizens of Australia.

And its the citizens of Australia who will be dying in their dozens and their hundreds, whenever a heatwave comes along, the poor elderly, scraping by living off their superannuation payout, which won’t rise comensurately with the massive inflation in electricity prices this government intends to unleash, will die in droves. They won’t be able afford to run their air conditioning.

Or in the depths of winter, like the recent one that just passed in the northern hemisphere, the coldest winter in years incidentally (sort of puts the AGW carbon alarmists’ and scare-campaigners’ histrionics about global warming into perspective if you ask me), poor elderly people will be unable to run their heaters, such is the high cost due to this government’s proposed carbon folly. People will die! And for what? A stupid left-wing ideology.

Our people’s lives are more important than that. I call on the government to end this insanity, or there will be blood on their hands.

persephone says:

09:54pm | 19/04/11

Richard

if you don’t think the displacement of vast numbers of the world’s population won’t be a problem for Australia, you’re very naive.

And, as you rightly point out, a rise in temperatures (global warming!) does pose real health risks for Australia (more people died from the heatwave preceeding the Black Saturday fires than died in the fires themselves - over 370 in the heatwave, compared to 173 in the fires).

So Australia has a vested interest in keeping global temperatures down.

As for your scare tactics, they are without foundation - and more than a little irresponsible.

Pensioners will be heavily compensated for any price rises under the proposed carbon pricing scheme. They will be able to afford to run their air conditioners and heaters more, not less.

Richard says:

09:28pm | 20/04/11

Persephone, there were supposed to be 50 million climate refugees in the world by 2008, ‘experts’ predicted as such. Where were they?

Anyway, it is immaterial, because I strongly support the opposition’s plan to fight climate change, which will achieve EXACTLY the same amount of emissions reductions as this government’s scheme. You do not have any moral high ground on this issue when the respective policies we each support achieve exactly the same outcomes.

The difference is that electricity prices won’t need to soar even further under the opposition’s policy like they will under Labor’s.

If you read my comment properly you would have realised I was referring to self-funded super-annuants, not pensioners. I think you seriously misrepresent how tough its already getting for people to pay their power bills, and that’s even before the bone-headed carbon tax policy has been implemented.

The government and the left are so out of touch they don’t realise the impact that $800~$1000 power bills are having on families and households. For heavens sake! You accuse me of being irresponsible~ how irresponsible is the government being by planning to drive power prices even higher?!

At this point in time, the government needs to be doing everything it can to help ease electricity prices and bring them back down to reasonable levels. That is the responsible thing to do, and I call on the government to focus on their mandate of helping Australians have access to the basic necessities of life at a cheap price. If they refuse to do so, I reiterate my warning that there will be blood on their hands.

julie says:

10:09am | 23/04/11

If you imagine that GED is representing the views of union members you couldn’t be more wrong.
The ACTU take their orders from the ALP, they certainly don’t ask members their opinions. They are just another undemocratic bunch of elitists.

John A Neve says:

08:25am | 19/04/11

AtM,

I love it when you talk dirty. But I am coming to the conclusion you have a fixation with Gillard and Brown. Having said that, I hate it when people try to tell or beg me to vote for some one. Do you really want us all to vote for the ALP and a carbon tax?

Against the Man says:

08:44am | 19/04/11

Hey John the coward, what is the reason your girlfriend left a soft cock debater like you for hairdresser Tim.

So you can explain the poll results? C’mon why ruddester so popular? Why Howie on the attack? C’mon on show us some good comments on your defense of Gillturd? Oh thats right you can’t. A failure your whole life huh John?

Please back up or shut up, you are so making a fool of yourself. Unless the ALP is paying you to counteract negative comments, than you should be doing a better job Miss Neve

John A Neve says:

09:24am | 19/04/11

AtM,
Love your last post. One of your better ones. Now come on, you can do better, try more childishness, add a little petulance, you could even stamp your feet.
Tell us, are there more like you? Oh, by the way how is your “niece”?

Against the MAn says:

11:08am | 19/04/11

You know John people are going to think you really are a Tony Abbott supporter. Because you are playing the role of a dumb, creepy and or so silly ALP zombie a lil’ too well. Keep posting we need the likes of you to turn people away from the ALP. And please whatever you do please, oh please don’t give us a valid argument to put me in my place. Left you with a few nice links to enjoy your quiet time with

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8238807

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-worries-as-pm-struggles/story-fn59niix-1226041195818

John A Neve says:

11:44am | 19/04/11

AtM,
One cannot argue with you, as you don’t have a position on any thing. Like a herd animal you just follow your lead cow. Tell us, do you really have a view of your own?  Or do you always just parrot what others say?

But I still like it when you talk dirty, you’re so good at it.

Anthony of WA says:

08:31am | 19/04/11

TimB, she does not understand this, like the rest of the ALP/Greens.
They have no clue about how the economy works, in their world, when you run out of money to waste, just jack up taxes or create a new one and hey presto, more money to waste. They never seem to be held to account, this is what needs to change.

Reggie says:

10:20am | 19/04/11

Yeah we could start by removing all farm subsidies on the basis that, as good convinced right-wing scum, they do not believe in taking tax-payer funded hand-outs.  Tim and Tony the mental midgets.

TimB says:

10:56am | 19/04/11

Reggie, once again your comment has no relation whatsoever to what I have posted. We’re talking about taxes, not handouts. Idiot.

PS. Glad to see you’ve changed your name so I can identify your stupidity more easily.

Reggie says:

11:11am | 19/04/11

TimB “You clearly don’t represent your workers at all.”  Clearly?

Your threadbare imagination needs all the help it can get little Timmy.

TimB says:

11:33am | 19/04/11

What are you saying Reggie, that I have to “imagine” how Ged represents her workers?

One would think that such actions should be self evident and not require imagination at all. And what I see, is Ged not only ignoring the effect that this tax would have on her workers, but blatantly ignoring the fact that many of her workers are actually opposed to this tax.

So the only thing Ged is representing here is her own ideology at the expense of the workers. She’s about as representitive of her members as Oakeshott and Windsor are of their electoral constituents.

jf says:

12:42pm | 19/04/11

Anthony of WA says:08:31am | 19/04/11

“TimB, she does not understand this, like the rest of the ALP/Greens.
They have no clue about how the economy works,”

I suspect you are dead wrong. Sadly.

If she didn’t have a clue it would be amost forgiveable. That she probably has a bit of clue, or as much of a clue as someone who has never worked outside the sheltered workshop, makes her position all the more unforgiveable.

Reggie. says:

02:09pm | 19/04/11

Timmy the long term interests of the workers, (and others) are just as important as the short term. It is of some concern to me that you represent anyone who sees further than you do, or disagrees with you, as an idiot. Perhaps you should trying seeing things from different angles before you rattle-off the first thing that comes into your head.

Big polluters SHOULD have to pay this tax by what-ever means necessary. They have been reaping a profit at the expense of our local environment.  They do this by using vast quantities of water at bulk prices and the same with electricity in Alumina refining.  Almost direct conversion of CQ coal to Gladstones Alumina refining at cents a unit. Always the threat is “give it to us at the price we set or we leave these shores.”

TimB says:

04:00pm | 19/04/11

“Long term effects” Reggie?

I assume you refer to the puported effects of climate change further down the line. So assuming you give credence to AGW theory, Ged’s (and your) rationale goes a little something like this:

‘Don’t worry about losing your jobs, or the fact that your cost of living will go up. Rest assured in the fact that although any decendants you may have will have to eke out an existence in a massivley crippled economy, at least they won’t have to suffer so much bad weather”.

And of course the above scenario assumes that the carbon tax would acutually make a difference in staving off climate change. Which of course it won’t.

Some things are a matter of opinion. People will have varying viewpoints that aren’t necessarily more valid than another.

But this isn’t one of those times. Our CO2 output is negligible in the grand scheme of things so any action Australia takes *will not matter*. That’s a fact.

And as such I will continue to refer to anyone who thinks otherwise as an idiot. You cannot debate facts with mere belief.

It’s a pointless tax that will cause pointless pain. If Ged truly had the interests of her members at heart she’d be arguing against it.

Reggie says:

05:03pm | 19/04/11

Then all I can suggest Tim is that you look at the local effects and take it a bite at a time. Green cane harvesting was not adopted because it reduced pollution. It actually increased production and of course the profit.

All technological change causes pain and gain, what is strange and different today is commonplace tomorrow.  I think Australia is in a better position than most to make the changes that lead to a more efficient and safer environment. We don’t have the dreadful winter freeze nor the off seasons. The problem is one of safe and wise management and the efficient use of fossil fuels is one of the major ones. To my mind Alumina reduction represents a gigantic mis-use of our coal resources and it would be MUCH worse if we did not recycle so efficiently. 

Except for the historic moves against acid rain, great tracts of our country would be devastated by the production of electricity for the various metal refining processes. This is a serious problem and blast furnaces are primary produces of vaporised atmospheric pollution.

I recall the Navy guys in years gone by being able to spot Sydney and it’s industrial areas from way out to sea by the giant yellow haze.  This is the origin of the term, “the big smoke.”

I do not accept the “massively crippled industry,” it is a matter of industry adapting and Australian industry is not known for its willingness to adapt unless they are forced to. They prefer a financial inducement of the Tony Abbott type.  Sorry fellas, your time has run out, now you’ve got to face the music and it’s Wagner.

TimB says:

05:45pm | 19/04/11

Reggie, why not this as an alternative?

-Develop green technology- without subsidies etc. Just let human ingenuity do its thing.
-If and when said technology is efficient enough to compete economically on a level playing field with coal (ie no artificial taxes), release said technology.
- Let the natural market take its course.

Explain to me the problems with this approach. Keep in mind the fact that Australia’s impact on CO2 levels are negligible therefore *we* (Australia) aren’t under the time pressures that alarmists like Gore and Flannery claim we are.

Reggie says:

08:44pm | 19/04/11

Well Tim first you’re presuming that we have the advantage of not being pressed for time and then you are suggesting that we fritter this advantage away while green technology catches up. 

I’d like to think there was a rate of advancement in green technology that matched that of electronic development but the signs are not good. All the efforts to develop a petroleum replacement have, by all accounts been rather dismal and to this day we are still running our cars on lead-acid batteries that date from about 150 years ago at a guess. We haven’t made any significant advance in either area in more than 100 years.

I don’t want to be negative about this but there are certain milestones such as this, that are not encouraging despite all the talk.

The electronic interfaces from solar to mains and that of wind power to mains are most impressive but they have a long way to go to match base load. We are still nibbling around the fringe and I see no hope of a sudden acceleration. We need to address the smaller obvious points of inefficiency and that means closer to home. The efficiency of coal powered power stations is abysmal and something needs to be done about this. Wasting 80% of the energy in the coal we burn is nothing less than criminal. No wonder the pollution is so unnecessarily gigantic. No ... that’s not correct, it IS necessary because we have no better acceptable way of generating the energy, other than nuclear. Total costing of nuclear may not be acceptable either.

TimB says:

09:33pm | 19/04/11

And thats the entire point. If green energy is that inefficient & there’s not much hope in fixing that situation any time soon, then we’re just wasting our time.

All we’re doing is deliberately making energy more expensive by forcing people to switch from artificially expensive coal power to naturally expensive green power.

If reducing carbon emissions is such an imperative for Australia (and no-one has yet shown us why that’s the case beyond the empty and hysterical “we’ll be left behind!” mantra), then the best solution available to us at present time is nuclear. It’s as simple as that.

Reggie says:

09:41am | 20/04/11

TimB “then the best solution available to us at present time is nuclear. It’s as simple as that.”

That may be so but it does not provide the incentive to improve the technologies we take for granted. We are accustomed to ways of doing things that are wasteful, ineffective and polluting.

The principle of central generating stations was forced on us by the placement of fuel and water resources and from that we developed methods of distribution. The fact that 80% of the energy in the coal is wasted, is seen as an inescapable cost of central generation, a cost that does not apply to either nuclear or hydro. And YET, all of that electricity generated is turned into heat at its final destination. (Let me remind you that we threw away 80% of the heat in that chunk of coal.)

( By the way I assume your reversion to nuclear means the total closing down of the Australian coal industry?) I can handle that as a method of conserving coal as a valuable chemical resource.

TimB; “And that’s the entire point. If green energy is that inefficient & there’s not much hope in fixing that situation any time soon, then we’re just wasting our time.”

You confuse me. Your previous argument was that we had plenty of time and that we only had to wait for the technology to catch up. If my references to the snail paced improvement of lead-acid technology and petroleum development are any indicator, you’re expecting a development time span of several hundred years. I call that never!

Here’s another example of wasteful technology being allowed to continue, simply because we are comfortable with it.

In the 1940s the Rolls Royce Merlin reciprocating engine was the peak of technology, it’s power to weight ratio was magnificent for the time.  But it was still only an improved version of earlier reciprocating engines of say, 1918. The cars we are driving today are simply honed up versions of the same thing and nearly as inefficient, that is, until there were pressures to improve their efficiency.  Suddenly instead of 15 litres/100km we actually have a 4litres/100km vehicles. Reciprocating engines became old-fashioned more than 60 years ago and yet we still find excuses for persevering with such antiquated technology. (Lead-acid thinking again.)

The pressure for the aircraft industry to improve the power to weight ratio of their power sources, led to modern jets.  Now we need incentive to perform these miracles in peace-time before the window of opportunity closes.

TimB says:

10:27am | 20/04/11

No Reggie. I don’t buy your arguments.

The incentive already exists. The market desire for efficient, non-polluting technology. All someone has to do is invent and provide it. Then people will switch.

The constant calling for subsidies and/or the artificial crippling of other industries (carbon tax) in order to make this happen is wrong. Either your technology stands on it’s own merits or it doesn’t.
Competition works by innovating to be cheaper or better than your rivals. It doesn’t involve kneecapping them just so you stand a chance.

Honestly, I just wish someone would hurry up and perfect fusion power already so we can put this whole debate behind us.

Reggie says:

03:48pm | 20/04/11

TimB   “The incentive already exists. The market desire for efficient, non-polluting technology.”

Then we clearly disagree Tim, I have shown you the tendency for manufacturers to stick with the old ways. Not in electronics, that is a different world where the market and methods are cutting edge, it’s the old and staid technologies that are dragging the chain. You only have to look at the suggested use of nuclear energy and you’ll see everyone turn the page. Too hard, to questionable and now, refreshingly unsafe and uncost-able.

TimB. “All someone has to do is invent and provide it. Then people will switch.”

I don’t think so Tim. People still whinge about no longer being able to do their own car servicing and the thought of putting a nuclear power station somewhere in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne is no longer mentioned. It is also worth noting how quickly the Japanese nuclear problems vanished from the front page. Had they remained there they would have done untold damage to any prospect of nuclear power generation anywhere in the world. 

  TimB “The constant calling for subsidies and/or the artificial crippling of other industries (carbon tax) in order to make this happen is wrong. Either your technology stands on it’s own merits or it doesn’t.”

I can’t say that with the same certainty you do Tim. Many industries have been propped by their ability to charge more to compensate for their weaknesses. That’s what tariff barriers did too.  The cost - benefit has been allowed to get out of kilter by ignoring the damage done, such as when farmers effectively mine the soil to maximize their profit while supplying an unappreciative market, and the result is erosion.
 
TimB ” Competition works by innovating to be cheaper or better than your rivals. It doesn’t involve kneecapping them just so you stand a chance.”

That’s right it does and sometimes cheaper ultimately costs a lot more. If we only have to think as far ahead as next week, there is no problem, but as you can see I’m sure, we, as farmers, consumers employers and workers, have to decide the acceptable period for consideration.

(And it’s NOT 3 years)

We have to decide, is it catching the next bus or is it how long it takes to develop and market our current project of is it the time this crop takes to grow and harvest or is it the next generation of Australians we should be considering?

OR ... is it the wider durability of the human race as it was in WWII? A common goal intended to bring about a brighter future? If we throw it all away now by our neglect, then all the suffering and pain of WWII and subsequent conflicts have been in vain.

TimB   “Honestly, I just wish someone would hurry up and perfect fusion power already so we can put this whole debate behind us.”

Me too but we as consumers would still have to be convinced that the controls were effective, even though waste would no longer be a problem.
60 years they’ve been looking now and still no appreciable advances, except in bigger and better means of destruction. Not a good sign.

I suggest we should be making the best of what we’ve got and applying some lateral thinking to better, less wasteful and polluting ways of using it.

Steve - Albury says:

08:10am | 19/04/11

How do you measure carbon?

Sure you can measure emission by “big industry”, but until you can measure the consumption by environment and sinks, you cant actually offset anything.

You want to change our economy, but not change jobs - come back when you are ready to act!

Tedd says:

08:16am | 19/04/11

maybe a white cloud?

Joan says:

08:45am | 19/04/11

`Think about the children` this union leader obviously not thinking about the children of unionists who now pay hundred s of dollar in annual union fees….. this union leader says let them lose their jobs,let them lose their homes cos they can’t pay their mortgage or rent, put them on struggle street, scapping for dollars to pay for food, school fees, etc…. let the worker and his/her children suffer. The union leader job secure by fees ripped out workers paypackets, workers they no longer know how to represent as delusional union leaders join delusional Juliar and superman Combet to slug a big Carbon Tax on everything to save the world, the children of the future while they turn their backs on workers of today and their children….. let the worker of today lose his job and todays children suffer….. the Union leaders directions for workers.

persephone says:

09:02am | 19/04/11

Steve

well, obviously you can, since scientists do.

The issue is carbon emissions in the atmosphere. It’s comparitively easy to do that - the atmosphere is all around us, after all.

MarK says:

06:50pm | 19/04/11

“The issue is carbon emissions in the atmosphere. It’s comparitively easy to do that - the atmosphere is all around us, after all. “

How much will this tax reduce these emissions and hence the temperature of the planet?

What is the cost of this.

julie says:

10:28am | 23/04/11

They aren’t worried about the lost opportunities for existing children and grandchildren as their parents cut the frills to pay for basics.
Nor are they worried about the deaths of third world children which are actually occurring now (not hypothetically in the future) due to ‘green’ policies such as food crops diverted into ethanol production.
Yep, it’s a low card and entirely hypocritical.

CJ Morgan says:

09:04am | 19/04/11

I own a business and I support the carbon tax.  My kids and grandkids are more important than my short-term profits, which will only be affected marginally.

Que says:

09:18am | 19/04/11

@CJ Morgan: You obviously don’t own a business or care about your children.

CJ Morgan says:

10:01am | 19/04/11

Nice.  You can’t accept that some business owners accept that a little pain is necessary now to avoid worse in the future, so I’m not for real.

I can assure you that I am what I say I am, and I love my children and grandchildren very much, thank you - you denialist twat.

nihonin says:

11:55am | 19/04/11

CJ Morgan, you will just pass any increases onto your customers, it’s easy to sit back and support a tax that won’t affect your pocket too much isn’t it.  I also would say you more than likely have already looked at how to pay less tax (more in your pocket) after the tax has been introduced.

CJ Morgan says:

12:20pm | 19/04/11

@ nihonin:

I was replying to Dallas Beaufort’s question.

Of course I’ll pass on any carbon tax-related price increases to customers, and under the current proposal my overwhelmingly low to middle earning customers will be compensated.  Additionally, they will have a price inducement to purchase products and services that create less carbon emissions in their manufacture.

nihonin says:

01:04pm | 19/04/11

@ CJ Morgan, that’s the bit that bites, why compensate anyone, if it isn’t going to make people use less ‘carbon’.  Also I too look forward to eating a lot more ‘cheaper’ imported food as well, at the expense of our dwindling ‘man on the land’ farmers.

grumpy old man says:

12:42pm | 19/04/11

oh no!
I do hope you tax yourself for this activity, and then of course, you can pay yourself the value of the tax by way of compensation. Then all will be well with the world, global warming will cease, we will all sit around a picture of a camp fire and sing!.

Reggie says:

02:50pm | 19/04/11

It’s alright you grumpy old bastard. haven’t you looked at the STARS on the gas heaters, 100% mate. No losses at all.  Of course that’s for gas, with the electric one for every kilowatt-hour you get into the room you waste another 4 kilo-watt-hours getting it there.

Hang on ... it all goes out the window in the end so ..Holy molly.

What price double-glazing, thicker jumpers and swimming pools with solar treatment?

Reggie says:

03:53pm | 19/04/11

Second thoughts Grumpy. I forgot about the cost of liquifying that gas, building the bloody great ships that drag it around. The cost of the trucks and their fuel and tyres to deliver it and then of course there are the roads they use and the gas tanks they charge $75 a year for, just to park in my yard.

Total costing makes that gas heating somewhat less than 100% efficient but you might have to ask MarK about the true figure. He’s the one who wants to know about total costing but doesn’t give a shit about real world things, like the actual cost of refining Alumina.  He prefers the big picture because it’s so easy to hide the damage.

MarK says:

06:51pm | 19/04/11

The questions are open to you to reg.

All you need is the courage to find the answers son.

AnthonyG says:

09:22am | 19/04/11

Go back to Bankok you silly old desperate

GB says:

09:53am | 19/04/11

What colour is the sky in your world Nossy? There is a bloody good reason Abbott says “NO” to everything this band of imbeciles masquerading as a Government proposes. Because it’s all crap. Only a card carrying ALP sycophant or dole bludging welfare parasite could possibly applaud this bunch of frauds on anything they have done. They have lurched from one disaster to the next, all the while racking up record debt levels that WE, not THEY will have to pay. Take the bright red lenses out of your glasses and maybe you’ll finally see this wrecking crew for what they are. You may also get a healthy dose of reality while you’re at it.

Martin Hopes says:

10:41am | 19/04/11

@ nossy - Abbott as PM and Joyce as deputy PM, this means Barnaby Joyce would be the acting PM in Abbott’s absence…that is a truly scary thought, if that’s not bad enough, Imagine the cringe factor at having Abbott representing us overseas, good god, someone must save us.

The ALP are doing the hard yards here, something Tony ‘NO” Abbott is not capable of. Abbott is the master’s (Howard) apprentice when it comes to fear and smear,  he is taking it to new levels along with his shock jock lap dogs.

nossy says:

11:31am | 19/04/11

@Martin Hopes - beautifully observed Martin - spot on !

nihonin says:

12:06pm | 19/04/11

nossy, Abbott and Joyce, Gillard and Swann, it’s a two headed coin when you toss it.  Seems that neither are wanted by the opposing teams in Parliament to be at the helm, when the rusties of either party are asked the question.  You’re all as funny as each other, it’s like a laugh off between Laurel and Hardy v Lewis and Martin.

Talented Rugby Player says:

02:46pm | 19/04/11

Moderators - can you please ‘ban’ nosworthy or nossy - he serves up such tripe.  It was good while he was away - we did not have to put up with his incredibly immature crap.

Joel B1 says:

09:30am | 19/04/11

Yes, unfortunately that’s so very true.

It’s a win/win for the believers unless the temperature keeps dropping before any of their bizarre schemes get in.

TM says:

08:44am | 19/04/11

You and your socialist ilk are losing the battle. You should speak, having the intelligence of a used female product on a string!

TimB says:

08:54am | 19/04/11

His comments might be rather colorful, but I daresay his opinion on this matter shows him to be far more intelligent than you Holly.

simon says:

11:31am | 19/04/11

Yeh, and you are so intelligent Holly. Your one dimensional brainwashed ideology just goes to show how narrow minded and lacking in foresight you are!!!

Reggie says:

03:29pm | 19/04/11

Gosh Holly I apologise to you on behalf of these crass fellows.

I am interested that Tony Abbott’s plan is to pay the polluters out of taxation for the costs incurred in reducing their pollution. May we assume that the costs charged to the taxpayer with have the usual 100% mark-up as with any other commercial opportunity?

The world wonders.

Richard says:

09:36am | 19/04/11

I don’t know how many times you have to be told Barney, Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution. Carbon is not poisonous.

As for contaminated food in the seas~ Well a certain little nuclear meltdown in Japan recently sort of proves the point that low carbon emission forms of electricity generation are not always the best solution to your make-believe problem of carbon “pollution” when it comes to the health of the oceans.

You know a lot of people mock Tim Flannery for his Gaia hypothesis, but that one actually resonates a lot with me. I actually do believe that Mother Earth is a sentient being, and that she will act to maintain homeostasis… We need to respect the Earth and treat her more gently.

But the main environmental problems facing the Earth right now are deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, Over-population in India and the largest ever industrial revolution undertaken in China right now.

If our government had the conviction of its courage, it would end all coal exports, full stop, right now. I am not advocating for this, but I am saying that if the government truly was genuine, it would impose a policy with consequences.

But the government’s current policy is just a meaningless gesture, and this government has already tried to “solve” too many “problems” by just imposing more new taxes on us. They need to stop imposing huge new taxes and start governing responsibly, then they can worry about all the other problems in the world.

The Original Oz says:

10:00am | 19/04/11

Barney - you say “poison the atmosphere ,contaminated food in the seas and everywhere else”

Carbon Dioxide does not poison the atmosphere or contaminate food products on land or in the sea. Carbon Dioxide is actually used in agricultural greenhouses to boost plant growth levels by up to 30% . You are getting confused with real pollution, things like cyanide from mining, sulphur from steel production and oil production, all the detergents and industrial chemicals that get pumped into the environment. The thing you need to consider is that the pretext for this tax is to reduce Carbon Dioxide, a naturally occurring base gas that is essential to life on earth. Treess and plants use it to create oxygen, which is then breathed in by animals and converted to ...you guessed it ...Carbon Dioxide, which is then used by plants to produce oxygen.

The Carbon (Dioxide) Tax will do nothing to address carbon dioxide creation, does absolutely nothing to remedy true pollutants, sends 10% of the revenue raised to the UN, increases prices on everything at every stage in the manufacturing and distribution cycle, will kill off Australian manufacturing (driving it and the related jobs overseas), the polluters (Co2 producers painted as polluters) will be subsidised by greater than 95% of their tax levy (Combet and Gillard’s words. So where is the incentive to change procedures to the you beaut new Green Way of doing things? There isn’t one. Where is the talk of replacing coal fired power generation with sustainable energy generation that can provide base load power? No talk there as neither wind, solar, tidal are capable of providing base load power. The only base load alternative available is nuclear generation and the Australian Government refuses to even discuss this option.

Barney - are you prepared to lose your job, your income, your house, the possibility of your children having a job in the future and go and live in a cave somewhere in order to satisfy the redheaded bint’s desire to create a wealth redistribution scheme under the pretext of saving the planet ?  No… I didn’t think so.

simon says:

11:26am | 19/04/11

Wow Barney, you are a real knee jerk alarmist type aren’t you. Your doom and gloom predictions are just ridiculous and goes to show how little you know. Your comment was just another bizarre rant from a greeny loser who knows nothing about the topic.

St. Michael says:

10:55am | 19/04/11

“There are plenty of businesses out there who want to see innovations that take us into the 21stC, with more intelligent use of natural resources, reductions in waste & pollution, better management of energy & a more diverse energy sector.”

Name one.

Important qualifier: name one that is willing to increase their costs by the orders of magnitude necessary to make all these Rolls Royce changes to their business and still willing to face its shareholders’ wrath for doing so.

Martin Hopes says:

11:00am | 19/04/11

Well said cosmic history - sad isn’t it? - all these Punch climate change experts and denialists yet not one of them has any idea of what they’re talking about, they just carry on with the same old rhetoric day after day. You do wonder how many of them are actually real and not just PR machines?

God help us all if they ever do win government, it will set us further back than what the Howard / Costello years did, and that would take some beating.

Jim says:

11:08am | 19/04/11

“There are plenty of businesses out there who want to see innovations that take us into the 21stC” - leaving aside for a moment the fact hat we’re already in the 21st century, you sound like one of those moronic inner city types who would really like to see us all driven back to the 8th century.

Working people don’t care about innovations and changes that may or may not reduce CO2, they care about where the money for the next bill is coming from and how they are going to fill up their car to get to work because they don’t happen to live anywhere near public transport.

And I think most people would find it insulting that just because they are not an adherent to the Cult of Climate, they are unintelligent and need someone like Bolt to make up their minds for them! Here’s news for you champ…you don’t need a pointless degree in a pointless arts subject to be able to formulate an opinion based on facts.

Reggie says:

07:38pm | 19/04/11

Jim, “Here’s news for you champ…you don’t need a pointless degree in a pointless arts subject to be able to formulate an opinion based on facts.”

So many value judgments in one pointless comment. Facts?  What facts?

Jim “Working people don’t care about innovations and changes that may or may not reduce CO2, they care about where the money for the next bill is coming from and how they are going to fill up their car to get to work because they don’t happen to live anywhere near public transport.”

Yes, I see your point. The same superficiality you criticise.

AdamC says:

10:00am | 19/04/11

The Punch should start running a book on when Gillard will get the chop and/or one of the indies or the Greens will pull the plug on this toxic government.

I have stopped paying attention to the white noise of giddy Geddy and the like. We all know any unilateral action by Australia will have zero impact on the global climate, irrespective of one’s view with respect to AGW. We all know this carbon tax/ETS is a purely political move by Gillard to keep her minority administration ticking over because, if she went to an election, the ALP and its Faustian-bargain indy mates would be routed.

But, what with all the policy failures, the set strategy of constant obfuscatuion and spin, the transparent theatrics and the government’s effectiveness at alienating just about everyone, things seem to be building to a climax. And what spectacle will the venomous snakement and backstabbing bogans deliver this time? One can only wait with interest.

Elphaba says:

10:20am | 19/04/11

@AdamC, yes!  Running a book would be a great idea.

I’m guilty of consistently repeating myself on this subject, but the Govt threw down the gauntlet. Months on after the announcement and they still stubbornly refuse to answer questions. 

I don’t believe a word of it.  Not one word.  How can I, when it all started with a lie?

I would very much like to know what will happen to coal miners and coal plant workers.  The goal of the tax is to turn people towards green energy.  If it works, this means people will be pulling money out of coal.  So what will happen to those workers if the tax starts acheiving what it says it will?  How can Swan say there will be no job losses?  Will they be moved into the Green industry, or left behind because they hitched their wagon to the wrong horse?

I’m waiting, Ged/Swan/Gillard/Brown.  Answers, please.

The Original Oz says:

10:26am | 19/04/11

Shenanigans - Joooolya is already ” let(ting) them waltz on in and thieve our resources”  The number of mineral resource fields and farms that are being purchased 100% by overseas interests is quite concerning. Farms being bought by the Chinese with the express intention of all the produce being shipped to China (and the farms employing chinese workers), Mines being purchased by firms from countries like India in order to secure their own interests to the detriment of our national interests. Have a good look through the news reports over the past couple of years and you may become concerned about this as well. The Gillard Government is weel and truly allowing Australia to “sell of the farm”. About the only recent acquisition they blocked was the merger of the ASX and the Singapore exchange, only because it was high profile - the excuse given was that it was against the national interest. I think that selling off our food security and our minerals and export security is just as much of a national Interest concern.

james milton says:

06:37pm | 19/04/11

@The Original Oz

could you please cite some examples of farms being bought by Chinese with the express intention on sending the produce back to China?

Martin Hopes says:

11:29am | 19/04/11

@ TM - What are your qualifications that make you such an expert on this issue?

Why don’t you take a look at the second link you supplied and work it out for yourself - oh, you’re too f&%$ing dumb to that are you?

Think for yourself for once…instead of spewing forth the never ending rhetoric, you denialist religious twat.

TM says:

11:56am | 19/04/11

Religious? Coming from a believer of a theory, that is non-sensical.

Now tell me rooster breath, back up your proof that these links are bullshit. The second link proves that Combet is a bullshitter and you work it out for yourself, Marty.

Oh, and what are your qualifications, AGW believer? Didn’t think so, Gaia page boy? More like bend over choir boy!

don't believe the hype says:

02:43pm | 19/04/11

Martin - qualifications?  Now let’s see…

Garnault is an economist.

Flannery is a Palentologist.

IPCC Paruchi is a Railway Engineer.

Al Gore is a failed politician.

Gillard is a lawyer.

Combett is a exc Union thug.

Swann is an idiot.

And WRong is a waste of space.

But these are the people we are supposed to believe on the need to act and the usefulness of taxation to control climate.

You have been conned.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/ten-more-faulty-assertions-from-climate-minister-combet/

MarK says:

09:11am | 20/04/11

Don’t believe the hype….I am shocked.

How dare you compare Swan to idiots.

Idiots have feelings and sometimes have a point. This is not a fair comparison at all.

You crossed the line sir. For shame.

PaulM says:

09:55am | 21/04/11

Hey, don’t believe the hype, if you’re going to use my material you should at least provide the attribution to the originator of the post you’re quoting.

Andrew says:

10:20am | 19/04/11

Yeh whack Australians with a carbon tax and that will solve the worlds global warming. The more we pay the cooler it will be, it’s that easy according to Gillard and her Greens partners. If Gillard and crew keep working at it they should be able to stop flooding rains and cyclones just by increasing taxes. I hope their also working out ways to stop earthquakes and volcanoes, maybe more taxes?

Leave us alone already you union thugs says:

11:01am | 19/04/11

Spot on! In the US, unions (teamsters) are run by the mafia, in the UK, it’s the IRA. In Australia, we have a combination of both. Yes, the Unions are bullies, just like the Greens, who are forcing this climate change farce down our throats.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:32am | 19/04/11

@Union Bullying- Umm, actually the Ocean is a carbon sink (accumulates carbon dioxide). This may be a problem since the absorption of excess carbon dioxide may be leading to acidification of the ocean.

Charles says:

04:03pm | 19/04/11

Shane From Melbourne says:

  11:32am | 19/04/11

Shane, one of these days you might randomly do some investigation of seawater chemistry, whereupon you would find that it would take a CO2 level of 2000ppm to lower the pH of seawater by 0.1 of a base point.

Since we aren’t going to get to 2000 ppm any time soon, and 0.1 of a base point is naff all as far as pH goes, then I would suggest your attempted apocalyptic scenario of acidified oceans is a non-starter

TM says:

10:15am | 19/04/11

That coming from a socialist who denigrates Australians for not having the twisted insight that she has?

People like you not only deserve no respect, they deserve to be continually insulted, scum!

TimB says:

10:24am | 19/04/11

Well Holly, seeing as your contribution to these debates is nothing more than the blind repetition of ALP propaganda, yes I would class TM’s contrary stance as more intelligent.  He’s not drinking the kool-aid that you are.
He has contributed a few links too. Perhaps you would like to click on them and learn a few new things?
The other little thing is, TM has mastered the use of the reply button. It appears you have not. That alone puts him ahead of you IMO.

simon says:

11:19am | 19/04/11

Holly, your idealistic rubbish only makes me more determined to show you up for the brainwashed, fraud you are. Your comments are quickly dismissed by rational people as baseless lies!!!!

Reggie. says:

05:42pm | 19/04/11

Haven’t we already addressed this most unworthy attack from the right-wing Nazis?.  Hahahahahahha. Oh this is SUCH fun.  All we need now is a bit of the “about to blow” Paul. 

Knemon says:

11:49am | 19/04/11

@ Cosmic History - Another well used lie is that we are acting alone on this - at last count we are the 27th country to act on this issue…it’s the same old same old with the conservative rednecks, how the hell could the LNP possibly run a country?

Hamish says:

02:43pm | 19/04/11

Knemon, how many of the 27 countries are outside of Europe and how much has the european system actually reduced emmissions, not even counting all the offshoring? Do you know how many countries there are on earth? Twenty-seven is really not that many at all. I love it when lefties say stuff that they think sounds compelling when it just isn’t. Must be the redneck in me, huh?

Knemon says:

03:47pm | 19/04/11

@ Hamish - Do you know how many developed counties there are in the world? How many OECD countries? The developing nations need help, how the hell do we help these countries by continuing to pillage the resources of the planet with no intention of ever re- paying that debt?

As for the LNP - Apart from a big new tax -  the GST, or consumption tax as Paul Keating refereed to it when he first brought the issue to the front, - what did the LNP under Howard and Costello actually achieve in nearly 12 years if government for the majority of Australians?  Let me help you - crumbling infrastructure - which is easy to achieve when you don’t spend money on such - education, research and development spending at all time lows through yearly budget cut backs - all the while we had record receipts through GST and the mining sector boom - tax cuts to the rich, division within the community created through fear, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer - and to top it off they bragged about creating a 22 billion dollar surplus in a trillion dollar economy, my cat could achieve better than that. We had to endure nearly twelve years of this, is it any wonder some of us fear the same again?

Hamish says:

04:15pm | 19/04/11

Knemon, I fail to see the relevance of any of your points. Obviously there are fewer developed countries, but what does that matter? If China and India which are both developing countries don’t do something then Australia doing something is just plain absurd. Climate change needs a global solution, not countries doing their own thing here and there. Regardless of whether you believe in AGW or not, there is no point in Australia introducing Gillard’s carbon tax. A global system is a different story, but it seems Copenhagen put paid to any global response for some time yet.

By the way, not that it’s relevant, but I’d hate to think what state we’d be in with this current government if Howard and Costello hadn’t put us on such a sure financial footing. I’m not sure most Australians realise how uniquely strong our financial situation was before (and even post) the GFC.

Hamish says:

11:07am | 19/04/11

SSR, Ged doesn’t need to understand the argument for the tax or the consequences of the tax, to support the tax. Geddy’s just never met a tax she didn’t like. Cost jobs? Who cares. Just because I’m head of the ACTU doesn’t mean I have to actually care about workers. I’ve got a future political career to worry about.

Jim says:

11:14am | 19/04/11

No…sections of it have been silted over, bleached and poisoned after 150 years of clearing coastal wetlands (which act as sediment traps) for cane farming, and then allowing poisonous chemicals to run off into the ocean.

Cane farmers; causing reef degradation, destroying pristine wetlands, introducing pest species, but absolutley no accountability.

David C says:

12:13pm | 19/04/11

so why not focus on that environmental tragedy, why harp on about CO2?
Seems to em there are a lot more pressing real issues happenign today we could work on than “ptential” disasters that may never occur.

fairsfair says:

12:53pm | 19/04/11

Jim I once read a study (and I really need to find it because it was interesting) that stated that sugar cane (essentially giant grass) was one of the most effective CO2 filters known. Way better than tree plantations etc etc. I don’t know why we are not looking to make it a carbon neutral (or perhaps even negative) industry. Its biproducts can be used (begasse burnt for fuel to power the mills and ethanol added to petrol) and during growing season it is stripping CO2 from the atmosphere. I once watched a Landline ep where a farmer at Machans Beach here in Cairns (ie, nothing between his cane and the ocean and reef) was successful in ensuring little to no run off from his farm. If we could get that right, why aren’t we investing in sugar cane as a possible carbon reduction scheme here in my area? I think “action on climate change” is investing in these kinds of things, not some half baked tax that seeks to only shift some money around.

DavidC, your comment makes a lot of sense. If we started to look at our environment in that manner and sought to fix things from the ground up - ie generational change, we’d have a better chance at actually contributing to a reduction of actual pollution.

Jim says:

11:00am | 19/04/11

So she can lose her tenure as PM before June 2012 and miss out on her lifelong pension, benefits and support staff? Not on your Nellie!

N.Kelly says:

02:24pm | 19/04/11

Here’s one for you, MarK.

A few days ago you said that the world’s temperature was going to change.

By how much ?

NicoleG says:

02:31pm | 19/04/11

Elphaba, where are you? Check out the time of N.Kelly’s post. How right was I?

Adam says:

02:46pm | 19/04/11

@ NicoleG - You were spot on. Although, next time we’ll have to remember that her week starts on a Tuesday, not a Monday

MarK says:

03:13pm | 19/04/11

Oh hai Ms Kelly missed you yesterday. Must have had a hard days protesting something I guess. A womans work is never done. Sad though. Gaia needs you to be ready roll every day.

Answer the above honey.

Kthxbai

Oh….I am much better than you.

N.Kelly says:

04:54pm | 19/04/11

Still no answer, huh ?

Keep trying.

N.Kelly says:

06:13pm | 19/04/11

Did you finally get something right, NicoleG ? What was it ? Are you trying to redeem yourself after making such a fool of yourself recently ?

Congratulations on this auspicious and extremely rare occasion.

MarK says:

06:45pm | 19/04/11

Hey all you other guys this is my personal troll go find your own

Awww all right you can play with her too. She is kinda funny.

Hey Ms Kelly how much will the worlds temperature drop by from a direct result of bringing in the carbon tax.

Hmmmmm

Get it right now. I am so much better than you I can pick a guess a mile off.

Elphaba says:

07:27pm | 19/04/11

Holy crap NicoleG, well done.  I owe you a Coke.

NicoleG says:

10:09pm | 19/04/11

Excuse me N.Kelly. I was talking about you, NOT to you. Back in your box!

N.Kelly says:

11:02pm | 19/04/11

So you’re no good with answers either, NicoleG ? Unsurprising.

While I’m pleased that my question to MarK has had precisely the effect I’d planned, it’s slightly disappointing that it was so easy.

Who would have thought that one little question would see someone instantly cowering behind fantasy and infantile gibberish ? Or maybe he’s like that all the time ? Of course I’d be the last person to disabuse you both of your delusions, as the more ridiculous they got, the funnier it was for me.

Adam says:

11:22pm | 19/04/11

Oh Padawan N.Kelly, you are such a joy to have around. You always give me something to laugh at. Seeing you bumble around the climate change debate like an intellectually bankrupt eco warrior and chase after MarK in some vain attempt to win an argument you lost eons ago will always put a smile on my dial. Please don’t forget to stop in tomorrow. Seeing you froth at the mouth with flawed arguments that ultimately sabotage your own side of the debate is cheaper and more entertaining than a night at the movies will ever be

Regards,

Adam

P.S. Keep up the good fight. Gaia needs you!

MarK says:

07:15am | 20/04/11

I am staring to feel sorry for Ms Kelly. There must be a lack of protests to go to or something.

Maybe knitting or crochet? You could “knit for Chavez” or something to show you care and send the output to kids in the Maldives given they are hoping beyond hope that the new international airport is finished in time to fly out on. You know. Since they will be underwater soon™.

How are those other Islands going? Whatcha call them? Tuvalu where property continues to appreciate in value.

Ahhh I love it.

Ms Kelly I am so much better than you it pains me. It is something I will carry around with me reluctantly for the rest of my life.

I am just better than you. Face it. And move on. Tuvalu needs saving….or something

AdamC says:

01:41pm | 19/04/11

To be fair, Hamish, Ged is being particularly sycophantic here. Other ambitious union bosses, Paul Howes springs immediately to mind, have made it clear that they will not support a carbon tax that loses their members’ jobs.

Jim says:

11:18am | 19/04/11

Yeah? Because the ABC is a bastion of impartial, objective reporting, isn’t it…*sarcasm*

cosmic History says:

11:28am | 19/04/11

For once the ABC interviewed someone credible from the business sector, as opposed to the shock jocks who would only interview the mining sector, and give the impression that “business” is monolithic.

Instead “business” is more diverse than presented in shock jock media.
“Industry” is more diverse than presented in shock jock media. This view from business is not heard at all. The other person they had on the show was Andrew Main, business writer from The Australian. He’s hardly a typical “ABC type”...
Grow up.

Killy says:

11:33am | 19/04/11

Well Jim, the ABC is perhaps the closest thing Australian radio has to a “bastion of impartial, objective reporting.”

Jim says:

12:17pm | 19/04/11

Funniest thing I’ve read all week Killy! The ABC are so obviously pro-ALP/Green/Union I hope when the Libs get back in they slash tax-payer funded grants to them until they sort their shit out.

Sky News is just as bad…I’m sure David Spears has a JG tattoo across his heart…Channel 7, no real need to comment on how poor their journalistic integrity is.

But if someone in the media doesn’t bend over for the ALP they are branded ‘shock jock’....very droll and very typical of Labors tactics of pulling out emotive words to describe someone who doesn’t subscribe to groupthink.

Knemon says:

12:50pm | 19/04/11

Jim @ 12:17pm - What’s upsetting you Jim? - Do they not say what you want to hear? - best you stick to the shock jocks, they will spew what you need for your fix.

cosmic History says:

01:16pm | 19/04/11

The issue is Jim: do you and your mates get to hear people with a range of views explain their point of view in a dispassionate, clear way, with respectful questions & answers? Do you ever hear anyone on shock jock radio who disagrees with the presenter, or the run of views they offer? When do you hear both sides of the story presented in such a way that you can actually create an informed opinion?

I don’t hear that on the shock jock stations, nor do I frequently see articles in the media that are well researched with a range of views, presenting the facts dispassionately. Sad really….

but the media loves it, all this stirring up of vitriol gives them numbers, ratings, and a raison d’etre. Your right to good information is not a consideration.

Ben81 says:

01:56pm | 19/04/11

Sorry cosmic, most people realise that we simply aren’t going to change the worlds climate in any measurable way at all with a carbon tax or just about anything else we can do and don’t blindly buy the ‘green economy’ fairytale, so called green jobs being propped up by industries that are supposed to change or go away.
That’s still why this is being sold isn’t it?  Climate change? 

It doesn’t matter how many times you come back parroting the lines about vague ideas of ‘new industry sectors being opened up’ and ‘new jobs’ as a result of this tax, you’re doing nothing more than trying to put spin on something that isn’t even finalised yet and something the Government can’t even give us the basic figures on.

What you don’t need the final figures to realise is that subsidising so called green industries that don’t exist yet by taxing industries intended to disappear or change their ways to avoid the tax is completely pointless while it’s in effect and unsustainable even if it actually works, because the businesses propping up the (non existent) green industries are no longer paying the tax.

There was some logic behind it in the first place when it was announced when Gillard said it was supposed to hit people and make them change their ways, even though it would still be a terrible burden to put on people for zero real world gain, but after she realised what she was doing and backed down and announced ‘compensation’ making it pointless by her own measure it became a complete farce.

And really, “vituperative hysterical splutterings”?  Oh god, try harder.

Martin Hopes says:

11:36am | 19/04/11

Anna C - “Why should we put our heads on the chopping block” - You have to remove your head from the sand before that becomes a possibility.

This country is so full of rednecks and bogans it amazes me.

Anna C says:

11:56am | 19/04/11

Martin, why do people like you who are pushing for a Carbon TAX never answer the important questions? If we lose jobs to China and reduce our emissions by say 10% and have to import goods manufactured in China as a consequence and their emissions go up 10%, is the environment any better off? Surely our reduction in emissions is offset by China’s increase in emissions? A part from losing our jobs offshore what would be achieved? Martin, if you can’t answer these questions then don’t bother commenting.

Martin Hopes says:

01:03pm | 19/04/11

Anna C @ 11:56am “why do people like you who are pushing for a Carbon TAX never answer the important questions?” - What questions Anna? Until we see how this tax will work there is nothing to answer - or do you expect answers for your diatribe?

Don’t tell me I can’t comment, I have as much right as you do - you redneck bogan.

Anna C says:

01:39pm | 19/04/11

That’s right Martin, don’t even try and answer the questions; just deflect them the way you lot do always do.  Is it any wonder that ordinary folk aren’t supportive of a Carbon Tax when even the people promoting it don’t seem understand it or its implications. Are we all just supposed to take your word for it that the Carbon tax will work and not result in heavy job losses?

Isla says:

03:23pm | 19/04/11

Martin, I don’t need to know the details of the carbon tax to know I’m against it. It doesn’t matter what they charge per ton, it will not help the environment and it will hurt the economy.

buckyboy says:

06:37pm | 19/04/11

Martin Hopes…he grows a brain one day. Rednecks and bogans seems to be the best of a very limited vocabulary.

Ken says:

12:11pm | 19/04/11

Thanks nossy for the link. The comment section is fun to read.

Ryan says:

12:23pm | 19/04/11

But nossy, you said that Tony will never be PM, does this mean you did a Julia Gillard and lied?
Seems to me like you don’t even believe your own propaganda.

nossy says:

12:32pm | 19/04/11

@Ryan - gday fella - I missed you comments while on hols - I said to my lovely “I wonder what poor old Ryan is saying today” - truely - hahahahahaha

Ryan says:

01:01pm | 19/04/11

@nossy: yes we won’t mention that you have posted to me twice since you got back, I don’t want to point that out in case you are suffering from yet another mental illness.

GB says:

02:07pm | 19/04/11

Oh dear. Desparate times for poor Julia and you nossy. Already warning of dire consequences for us all based on something that may happen 2 years down the track. Keep trying to divert our attention though. It seems to be working a treat at the moment. Assuming this was to occur, I can’t help but wonder whether he would backstab his leader in the dead of night and then blatantly lie his way back into office. Nah, surely nobody would have the gall to do that would they. Oh wait a minute…..........

Phil says:

03:19pm | 19/04/11

Rebecca, with politically biased public servants like you it’s no wonder this country is in real trouble. Unionist my backside. Have you ever had a real job? Try putting in some time in any industry that produces the wealth that pays the salaries of naive spongers like you and Gillard and you might pick up some perspective.

Dan says:

03:28pm | 19/04/11

Kind of agree Phil, though the APS has been politicised for decades. Arguably it always was - there haven’t been too many coalition HoR elected in Canberra I wonder why that is… But I defeinitely agree that the attitude by some public servants that industry is superfluous are extremely annoying…. that and the 5 day comment period on important documents that have taken a consultant 3 years to write for them (my personal pet peeve) as if those of us in industry don’t have anything to do and are just sitting around waiting on their next harebrained scheme to tell them what they should already know.

buckyboy says:

06:28pm | 19/04/11

Didn’t your mother tell you that sarcism is the lowest form of wit, Rebecca

Sony B Goode says:

12:03pm | 19/04/11

This is not correct, NSW power just went up dramatically because the privatised utilities where allowed to spend another $2b in infrastructure that wasn’t required. The stupid labor government has pegged the price of electricity to capital, meaning further investment would spike price again.

Adding to this gillard has forced them to invest in un-economical “green” sources further pushing up price and in effect double dipping with pressure on the front and back end of electricity. It’s all BS designed to empty your wallet of spare cash. Meanwhile key very wealthy socialists are investing billions in preparation for big returns when everyone is forced to buy from this “green”  market.  Aside from providing a few transition jobs for greenies it has no net positive benefit to the economy and a net loss with cash being sent OS to the UN and jobs to china.

Climate doom models are almost certainly stacked with leading assumption and can’t be trusted. No evidence has been found of any amplification factors/assumptions built into the models, so the likely temperature changes are probably out by an order of magnitude, meaning we probably have 500 years to worry about it, not 50.

The little green bubble will implode within a decade when the predicted doom isn’t materializing, by then the people stacking the market will have long sold out to sucker mums and dads left holding the bag.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:04pm | 19/04/11

I agree that power bills will go up regardless of whether a carbon tax is introduced or not. This is due to a number of factors- the privatization of the industry, underinvestment in power generation and distribution capability, growth in energy demand (population growth demands), increased demand for coal from India and China.

Richard says:

12:09pm | 19/04/11

I mean, this is a great point James, but if the government hadn’t scared every investor off with their grand-standing about an imminent carbon tax/ETS, then there would be plenty of private investors and institutions willing to stump up capital for new infrastructure projects and construction.

And this I believe is the fundamental issue that Ged has been disingenuous with in this article (among others, but this one in particular). She says ” there is nothing in the Opposition plans to compensate households for rising energy process, which the experts agree will continue unchecked without a price on carbon to provide long-term investment certainty.”

This is pure propaganda and deceit! The reason energy prices continue to rise unchecked is because of exactly what you have said James: lack of investment. The reason there has been lack of investment is because of all the scaremongering governments have conducted about their intentions to impose a carbon tax/ETS!

Long-term certainty could be provided in 1 second. All it requires is an announcement from the government that there will not be, now or ever, a tax on the inert gas carbon dioxide. Problem solved. Ged’s attempt to argue that the sky is down and the ground is up smacks of typical left-wing Orwellian authoritarianism, and should be vigoursly exposed for the lie that it is.

James says:

01:20pm | 19/04/11

Sony, yes you are quite correct in saying that infrastructure spending is misdirected and very wasteful, people don’t realise the magnitude of the spend that will be required though just to keep up with demand over then next two decades it is in the 100’s of billions if you include transmission and distribution infrastructure.

The real issue is lack of a cohesive plan, you have a whole heap of squabbling private sector interests and incompetant governement not making smart planning decisions.

South Australia is effectively isolated from the NEM by low volume interconnection with VIC so when there is a hot day in SA the power prices go through the roof, where is the planner? 

This lack of a cohesive plan is more costly than a carbon price, small scale generation and large scale renewables put together.  Australia needs a strong, competant and well resourced national transmission planner (preferably independant from our idiotic “leaders”) that can realise savings to household in planning a robust, interconnected and smart transmission and distribution grid, without this we will be lucky to keep the lights on over then next few decades let alone keep down power prices.

cosmic History says:

01:22pm | 19/04/11

actually investors have known there would be a price on carbon for years. Many are looking forward to investing in future cleantech options.
A carbon price is supposed to create a degree of certainty in the energy sector.

James says:

01:34pm | 19/04/11

The other point I would make is, what happens when coal and gas prices equalise with world coal and gas prices?  At that point you can kiss cheap energy good bye, all this gas fired power generation we are building seems cheap now but when we are paying real world prices gas, expect the price of gas to go up 20% overnight (and that is not including price spikes of up to 200% that have occured over the last 5 years).

I would have thought electricity from the sun and the wind is a good hedge against volitility in the fossil fuel markets.  Notice how petrol is more expensive, what makes people think coal and gas are any different.

grumpy old man says:

12:27pm | 19/04/11

you’re factually wrong, there have been numerous times in history where climate change has occurred in relatively short periods of time, usually caused by various natural disasters, such as meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, changes in the earths magnetic field, solar activity as so forth.

Blazes says:

01:15pm | 19/04/11

So there has never been a 0.7 degree temperature rise across 60 years ever before in the 4.6 billion year history of the earth? Come on.

Joel B1 says:

01:37pm | 19/04/11

The Little Ice Age occurred within 5 years.

Being so very smart I’m sure you can remember the historical records of the Thames freezing over?

Or maybe you can remember the excellent warm periods when they grew grapes in Britain and life was good.

Or maybe you know nothing except a load of old propaganda.

simon says:

02:07pm | 19/04/11

You should change your name to Voice of Deceit mate. Gee only 1000 years ago the CO2 level was 10 times what it is now, did humans generate that. Your argument is just stupid, do some research and understand the full picture before making such baseless remarks!!!!

Anna C says:

12:30pm | 19/04/11

Seriously how would Barnaby Joyce be any worse than Wayne Swan as a Deputy PM? Wayne is just as big a goose as Barnaby is and based on past perfomances he doesn’t exactly fill me with reassurance either? Face it the only losers here as us, the Australian people.

TCB 24 X 7 says:

12:42pm | 19/04/11

Is that worse than a back stab followed up by lies to the electorate.

jb says:

12:53pm | 19/04/11

Whats with the hahah thingy, all that does is give you no credibility, sound like an old englishman, or worse a welsh unionist living off the back of his paying members in retirement in Australia or a freaking crazy man that needs committing?
Honestly you do your lot no faves with your rants in fact if its people like you that support lies and incompetence then your word here means diddly squat and the hahaha is mirrored right back to you and I have to say that is quite comforting as the more you troll the stupider you sound, seriously get of your high horse mr swan, I mean nossy and contribute something, anything to punch that has any relevance at all to the state of the current government, Tony Abbot your high school crush does not run this government so you should concentrate on the real issues that affect our country, he is not the problem, your skirt the mugger is so stick to the issues, answer this, who do YOU think should be the pm of this country? your answer will speak volumes for your moral turpitude so think and answer very wisely if that is possible through your foamed up drible of an hysterical laugh…

nossy says:

02:14pm | 19/04/11

@jb - hahahahhahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahhahahahahhhhh

simon says:

02:03pm | 19/04/11

Well people have stopped listening to Gillard, Brown and Combet so they have to wheel out some proxies to do their lying for them!!!!!

Joel B1 says:

01:51pm | 19/04/11

Fail. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour.

Paul says:

04:37pm | 19/04/11

Joel B1, you are right. Its an amplifier of the role that the greenhouse gases play:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Thommo says:

09:38am | 21/04/11

Prove that Climate Sensitivity is Greater than One.

Damocles says:

12:56pm | 19/04/11

Christian Troll alert! Christian Troll alert! Danger! Danger! Repent now or go to ever lasting HELL!! Why worry, with Gillard in charge, repent or not, Australia is headed straight to hell anyway!

Kirsten says:

01:29pm | 19/04/11

Emily your comment doesn’t add any value to the debate.

Reggie says:

08:00pm | 19/04/11

BenC “It’s so ironic that climate change skeptics are as blinkered as those for whom science has replaced religious faith.”

I think that’s a loaded comment Ben. Religious faith has nothing to do with science and I don’t know of anyone for whom climate change has become a matter of faith. There is no room for skepticism about climate change, it is perfectly observable all round us. Every day is different.

I was particularly taken with the awful Joy of “My Name is Earl,” setting out to disprove evolution. “If this fish doesn’t develop legs and crawl up out of the water by tomorrow, then that disproves evolution.”  The next day it has developed legs and crawled up the side. “That proves evolution” she exclaimed. “No it doesn’t” says her husband, “these tadpoles grow legs and do that all the time.”  That’s irony.

James says:

01:25pm | 19/04/11

Keith maybe the carbon price is flawed but what is even more flawed is transmission and distribution infrastucture planning in this country, this is the dominant cause of power price rises and the bad news is it is about to get worse (once again the carbon tax will be a minor concern).

I would be all for a carbon tax if it was spent on upgrading our crappy grid, this would probably result in lower power costs as intelligent spending would lower the rise of electricity price spikes.  We are almost in an Enron situation at the moment, forget the carbon tax it is a sideshow.

James Hunter says:

01:27pm | 19/04/11

hope you dont want solar to run your air con at night ? Most of the small domestically installed systems are simply making our distribution networks job more difficult.They also mean we need more hydro or gas generation that can be quickly regulated up and down to match demand.
we could get smart and put in a solar to hot salt to steam generation plant like the spanish have done but that requires common sense . could get even smarter and put in some new generation small necular plants. we have the uranium we have lithium we could process and be self sufficient but that would require common sense and education to overcome the hysterical anti nuclear illadvised media hype.

James says:

01:43pm | 19/04/11

James Hunter, I do want to run my aircon at night but I more want to run it from 11am-5pm i.e. maximum solar power output times.  We do need to get smart if we want to start saving money, we need to reduce price spikes which will require upgrading local transformers and alot of other infrastruture spending.

Right now we have a “dumb” system which is why we need lumbering reserve like spining coal and gas turbines, but that is the dumb solution to supply demand management.  It we have a cohesive plan to upgrade our infrastructure and impliment a fully functional smart grid we will start realising savings.

Governement and Industry incompetance is costing the householder big time.

Kirsten says:

03:15pm | 19/04/11

I assume that was aimed at me Joel B1.

My statement ‘we are causing serious damage’ was vague, I will admit. I was not merely referring to airborne pollution. Our thirst for non-renewable resources has lead to disasters such as Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Fukushima power plant partial meltdown and mercury poisoning of both people and wildlife around the Prorgera Joint Venture Gold Mine in PNG. Our current means of using resources are not infallible, and when they go wrong they can be disastrous for both human life and the environment. It is time that we attempt to develop better technologies to maintain the lifestyles we are accustomed to without compromising the environment on the scale we are presently.

As for the earth once being a ‘molten ball of rock’, of course it wasn’t wrong. Then again I don’t see what the point of that statement is.

Joel B1 says:

03:30pm | 19/04/11

Kirsten,

Yes, but not my fault, I comment in correct spot, Punch puts it else where, must be the work-load!

One thing I do know is that “things will go wrong”. And any notion that the illusory “green renewables” will be any less problematic is misguided.

Wind farms are bloody ugly, they take a whole lot of room and often in the best scenic spots. They kill rare birds. Solar has it’s own problems.

Gillard spruiks rubbish and treats Australians as idiots. She’s the idiot.

Joel B1 says:

02:36pm | 19/04/11

Hey! I know!

You should really believe the people who won’t have a job unless they say AGW is, so very, very real.

That’s real smart! They wouldn’t fudge it would they? Not if they’d never get another grant in their career again.

Ben81 says:

02:37pm | 19/04/11

Gather a panel of experts and show me one who will tell you that average world temperatures will change by even 0.01 of a degree in our lifetime if Australia completely shuts down right now.

For extra difficulty, perhaps they could tell us what effect Australia redistributing some wealth will actually have on the climate even if the tax miraculously gives us the emissions cuts intended.  That’s kind of what the current debate is about.

The undeniable fact is that no matter what your position on climate change is Australia simply can’t do anything about it, and going to an extreme like this is completely unjustified given that it can’t possibly achieve what it’s being sold to us to do - fight climate change.
It became a bare faced lie and nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme the minute compensation was announced.

julie says:

10:36am | 23/04/11

The IPPC has been proven wrong in its predictions so many times it is nothing but a laughing stock.
Have you not yet caught up with the news that a large amount of cited papers in the AR4 are NOT peer reviewed?Vhttp://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
The IPPC is a political organisation, not a scientific one.

pia says:

02:46pm | 19/04/11

scientific “consensus” can be bought.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/professor-points-out-its-a-less-than-nobel-consensus/

Adam says:

02:51pm | 19/04/11

@ James - You are relying on a logical fallacy to make to your argument. The logical fallacy is know as “Argumentum ad populum”. You should check out this link. You might learn something useful:

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

P.S. A lot of people followed Hitler too. It didn’t make him right.

Ben81 says:

03:00pm | 19/04/11

*raises hand from within the middle of the noisy rabble*

Is it ok to ‘believe’ in climate change but not accept that an Australian carbon (dioxide) tax will change the weather?  Because i’m pretty sure it won’t. 
Is it ok to be concerned about Australian jobs going overseas when Australian products become more expensive and it costs more to do business here?
I’m also pretty sure that 2+2 doesn’t=5, and assuming companies pass on all their costs to the consumer a government promising to compensate every bit of that by giving that revenue back to them while still propping up so called new green industries with the rest of the revenue collected (see the problem here ?!) doesn’t make much sense.

Are middle - higher income earners supposed to bear the entire impact or something?  If so, even though it would absolutely be the wrong thing to do, why not just cut through the bullshit and simply tax them more?

No huge conspiracy when it comes to the actual argument here James, just common sense.

JJo says:

03:00pm | 19/04/11

The IPCC has settled on an agenda and it encourages contributors to “toe-the-line” so that? a “consensus” is achieved.

I strongly suggest you watch this presentation by Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot.  Dr.Courtillot absolutely nails the weakness in the nonsensical claim of AGW believers that “the science is settled”, a science based on the projections of various scenarios from manifestly inadequate computer modeling.

It is a no-nonsense, straightforward presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded

bobw says:

03:33pm | 19/04/11

@pia:  Your link contains nothing more than vague insinuations.  Pretty weak stuff from someone who claims to be something of an insider.  What’s it supposed to demonstrate?

@Adam:  No, he isn’t.  Revisit your own link.  James suggested that the fact that an overwhelming preponderance of expert opinion favours a particular line of thought makes it a better “bet” than the alternatives - not that the fact of broad consensus “proves” that line of thought to be true.  Simple stuff.

Invoking Hitler doesn’t really aid your argument, by the way.

James says:

03:35pm | 19/04/11

Are people seriously suggesting all of the scientists in these institutions have been bought off, is that really what you are saying?  If it is we will also have to chuck out:

The Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Germ Theory of disease
Theory of Evolution
DNA Theory
The Big Bang Theory
Round Earth Theory
Quantum Mechanics
Particle Physics

Oh well I will see you all down at the local temple where we can all pray for knowledge and things to happen.

Adam says:

04:49pm | 19/04/11

@ Bobw - Fair call. I may have responded too quickly after only skimming the post by James. The point I wanted to make was that the number of organisations that believe or deny is irrelevant because truth doesn’t care if you believe it or not, and the truth certainly won’t change based on number of organisations that believe or deny it.

@ James - Since we’ve now established you are a betting man, would you want to bet against all this peer reviewed evidence that global warming is not man made?

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

You also make a good point with your list of theories. They all took much debate and an exhaustive length of time to be accepted. And yet some of these theories still fail to explain the root cause of what they explain (i.e. Theory of Gravity - It explains gravity is a manner that allows us to measure it and predict its effects but it fails to determine gravities exact cause or origin. DNA is another good example because while we know what it does and how to manipulate it, we can only guess at how it first originated. Even the big bang theory has its limitations because it fails to explain the root cause of the big bang). I apply this logic to global warming. It happened before man existed and we don’t fully understand why. It’s happening again and there is still great debate as to its root cause. Sure we can see things are getting warmer and even measure it but no one is really certain exactly why this occurring.

Personally, I think the best bet is to not bet at all. Let’s give science another decade or more so all the facts can emerge and more research can be done. That way perhaps a robust “Theory of Climate” that accounts for all variables in the earth’s climate might emerge that can withstand the scrutiny of the entire scientific community.

And before you say we don’t have time to wait, see my comment at 1:41pm if you want to know why I feel this way.

Reggie says:

08:13pm | 19/04/11

Adam; “P.S. A lot of people followed Hitler too. It didn’t make him right”

Says who?  They thought he was right although their judgment was coloured by prevailing conditions. I worry what some of Hitler’s critics would have done had they found themselves in the same situation that seduced his followers at the time. Arm chair heroes?

MarK says:

07:35am | 20/04/11

No James.

All of those theories can be empirically tested.

AGW cannot

James says:

10:23am | 20/04/11

MarK exactly what the hell do you think “emprirically tested means”?  To test if the Globe is warming you need a network of thermometers, we have that network and have empirically shown that the globe is warming. 

By the way how do you empirically test the big bang you can infer it but how do you test it?  Do you even have the slightest idea of what you are talking about?

MarK says:

01:03pm | 20/04/11

Yes James I do.

You do realise James that only 1 temperature record shows the last decade as warming don’t you?

Oh dear you didn’t?

Well I suggest you go and work out which temperature network you are referring to. Then look at the criticisms of it.

Then come back and apologise.

Really James…tsk tsk….homework time for you. And and when you do please state the timeframe you are taking the warming to be over. I would love to know more when you do your studying.

James says:

01:30pm | 20/04/11

MarK making up nonsense does not constitute an arguement, just letting you know as you don’t seem to be able to make the distiction.

MarK says:

01:52pm | 20/04/11

Avoidance is the sign of a coward James.

Which part is made up?

Seems to me you have no idea which temperature record you are quoting and are too terrified of the implications of precisely stating the time frame for which you want comment on because you don’t have the knowledge.

It’s ok.

I will wait while you catch up.

What temperature record backs up recent AGW James? Hmmm?

James says:

02:40pm | 20/04/11

Ever heard of NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ ?  Probably not good enough for a scientific luminary such as yourself, exactly where did you study climate science MarK?

Adam says:

03:01pm | 20/04/11

@ James the betting man - You never answered my question. Would you be prepared to bet against all the peer reviewed scientific articles I provided that state man is not responsible for global warming?

James says:

03:24pm | 20/04/11

Hell yes I’ll take the bet, what odds are you offering and what is your limit?

MarK says:

05:12pm | 20/04/11

Google FTW James - you got the only data set that shows a rise in temp this last decade. I told you there was one didn’t I?

Can you find the other major data sets too? It is a tragedy they don’t show the warming though eh

Now all you need to do is answer all the concerns other scientists have about the data set son.

Did you pick the rise by the way? See what it was?

Let me see if you can read the data.

Then we can investigate a few known facts about certain other things and see if you can justify your position.

Adam says:

06:27pm | 20/04/11

@ James - What currency are you betting with? Your childrens future standards of living? The Australian economy? Feel free to set the limit or odds yourself. I’ll just set the victory condition and year of payment.

Adam says:

06:55pm | 20/04/11

@ James - Oh look, another bet you can take:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/

Care to try? Or are you scared your evidence won’t hold up?

PaulM says:

10:25am | 21/04/11

Hmmm a supporter of opinion based science. Something you forget, science is evidence based. True science is prooven by the totality of the work being validated, this is done by the experimental methods &  analytical methods being able to be replicated by others and producing the same results. That is the way a hypothesis is validated. There is no requirement in the Peer Review process that this be done, as such Peer review is nothing more than a mutual backslapping society of fellow travellers. Until such time as all data and experimental methods are released for independant review and validation then the hypothesis of CAGW is not prooven. Now for those who say “the climate models proove the theory”, a computer model is an analytical tool, nothing more. It can not proove a theory, merely enhance the understanding of trends emerging from the experimental data and provide extrapolation of possible outcomes that still require validation by observed evidence.

With the vast majority of the projections from the original Hadley Models from the early eighties & all subsequent vaiations since, having failed to occur, the logical approach is to say the hypothesis is flawed and must be discarded or reworked. Being somewhat experienced in computer modelling I can tell you that the bigest flaw is the use of models in a young field where the understanding of the complete system (global climate system) will not be fully understood for generations. As a result, computer models contain more assumptions than empiracle evidence and whilst they can provide good avenues for decision making in where research should be directed in the drive to understand an inherently chaotic system they can never be said to proove anything. Repeatable and falsifiable experimentation is the ONLY way to proove a theory.

Einstein said it best “It does not take 100 opinions to proove me wrong, only a single fact.”

Manns falsified & fraudelent Hockey Stick, that formed the basis of much of the IPCC’s projections should have been all that was required to falsify the CAGW hypothesis, for it not to have done so is the single fact that prooves that this is not about science.

James says:

11:20am | 21/04/11

My bet is in Australian currency, my limit is every last cent I have in my acc.  The bet is “that there is a paper showing that human activity is not the main cause of global warming from the period 1900-2011”.  I am betting against this.  What odds are you offering?

James says:

11:23am | 21/04/11

@ Adam, I am not sure how to make this bet formal I will need to consult a lawyer but if you want to go ahead with it, please send me your email address.

James

James says:

11:31am | 21/04/11

@ Adam let’s make this fair, I offer even money at a bet limit of 10,000 2011 Australian dollars.

Ben81 says:

07:45pm | 19/04/11

“The very idea that by making something we all need so expensive that we would stop buying it from bad vendor A and start buying it from less-bad vendor B is so ridiculous it hurts!”
(fixed the B one)

The scary part is that it could very well happen and ‘vendor A’ will be the Australian product.
The only way I can see it will possibly work without simply making Australian products more expensive than imported is if every single product imported into the country is scrutined for its “carbon footprint” and a tariff is set accordingly, a near impossible task and futile in the first place.

I’d assume this is one of the many things the government realised and privately said “oh crap” about after announcing the tax that’s delaying the actual detail on it.

Godfrey Zohn says:

05:56pm | 20/04/11

This is a very useful point to be making - perhaps both sides can venture some opinions about a suitable control (or base) year so data can be established and comparisons made? Or would that be too scientific?

bobw says:

04:41pm | 19/04/11

I guess Mr T Abbott is an “eco-extremist” then.  That’ll be news to him.

Elphaba says:

04:41pm | 19/04/11

Not your fault.  You expected them to deliver, and they didn’t.  The only people who should be apologising is them.

James says:

04:48pm | 19/04/11

No, you will make a new a bigger mistake by voting Lib presumably

LC says:

08:08pm | 23/04/11

Yes James, voting liberal with Tony Abbott at the wheel would be a big mistake.

That was my opinion at the last election.

Now, when I look at the big f***ing messes labor has made locally and federally over the last decade (such as MYKI, the desalination plant, traffic cameras, low range speeding enforcement on freeways, internet filter, insulation scheme, schools upgrade plan, handing out free money to prepare for the GFC (though to their credit that wasn’t a ballsup on the same scale as the others), carbon taxation, national debt spiraling out of control, the list goes on and on and on), I start to genuinely think that Tony could do a better job, or at the very least, can’t do any worse a job.

Though my fingers remain crossed that he’s replaced before the next election.

Ryan says:

05:11pm | 19/04/11

Wow all those irrational statements fall right in place with AGW alarmism. You flat earth alarmists really do live in crazyville, we are all going to die, the end is nigh!

Buckyboy says:

06:02pm | 19/04/11

Spot on….nail firmly on the head. Kearney has sold out her members. You, madam, are a disgrace to all Australian workers.

Fed up with the ALP says:

06:28am | 20/04/11

Spot on - “I am at the center of this debate”......so you know my name when I drop into a safe lower house seat like all of those who have gone before me.  Maybe you will make more of a contribution than Jenny George and do less damage than Greg Combet

Adam says:

12:01am | 20/04/11

@ Jake - So anyone who is skeptical of climate change automatically becomes shallow, selfish and greedy? That sounds like the baseless vitriol you were talking about, only you are the one spouting it, not the “right-wing”. You’d do better to spend your time refuting the factual and scientifically arguments they present, rather than resorting to meaningless ad hominem attacks that hurt your own credibility more than theirs.

jf says:

06:44am | 20/04/11

“Why can’t we all agree that the pollution released into the atmosphere is harmful to all life”

Because of the lack of evidence. And, if we all did, who would you then get to feel superior to?

Randal says:

12:21pm | 20/04/11

Because C02 is not a pollutant, it’s plant food… There is that SIMPLE enough for you!

RBarron says:

12:22pm | 20/04/11

What is UN’s Agenda 21 based upon the 1970’s Club of Rome thinking that we have to Limit Growth.
The Club of Rome
http://www.clubofrome.org

Is Australia apart of UN’s Agenda 21 program.
This is what the UN’s website states.
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/austral/inst.htm

Cooperation
Australia supported the establishment of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and has been a member of the Commission since its inception. Australia’s commitment to the principles of Agenda 21
Financing
The Federal Government recognizes the need to provide a secure funding base for initiatives addressing Australia’s environmental and ecologically sustainable development challenges. Recognizing the importance of the health of the environment to economic, social and conservation objectives, the Federal Government has decided to establish a $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust. The Natural Heritage Trust is to be largely funded by the partial sale of a publicly owned telecommunications utility. Like many governments, the Australian Government is under fiscal pressure, and in examining alternatives to taxation or borrowing, has decided that the short-term financial gains derived from the sale of a public asset should be used to establish a long term investment in Australia’s environment for current and future generations.

The Natural Heritage Trust is based on the protection, conservation and sustainable use of Australia’s natural resource base through constructive and cooperative partnerships between governments, communities and the private sector. The establishment of the Trust also marks a new era of innovative and secure environmental funding, re-orientation of environmental financing toward areas of genuine national importance, and better integration of conservation and natural resource management programs to rehabilitate and ensure the protection of the natural environment.

So that is what the UN said why we REALLY SOLD OFF PART OF OUR TELSTRA.

The same thing has happened to our Public Own Assets with Power and people you better believe it is Our Public Water Assets are next.

The Government Nationalised the power grid to introduce competion they introduce power trading to lower prices.
The risk of power trading was given in NSW as a reason to sell off Our Public owned Assets.
And our power prices are what NOW.
It is nothing more then to steal the Public Own Assets.
A Transfer of Wealth from the public to the private.
Our Governments should be charged with Treason.
The sale of Public owned Owned Infrastructure is madness, let alone the sale of ESSENTIAL Infrastructure such as (Water, Power & Gas). The sale of public owned ESSENTIAL Infrastructure goes against Common Sense & National Security. The sale of public owned Essential Infrastructure is theft, and it is the theft of the Prosperity from future generations. There has been an agenda for a while in this country and around the world and that is to strip the public of assets and to sell them off to private companies and it has been done by Gradualism.

For the masses to be controlled they have to lower our standard of living in the western countries and raise the standard of living in the 3rd world countries.
UN’s Agenda 21 covers every part of our life.
But they need something to push it upon us and the something is the unproven belief man made Co2 is causing Global warming.
What amazaes me is this talk about the Great Barrier Reef what happen when was lower and people walked to australia.

GlaDos says:

10:00am | 20/04/11

Exactly! Show me ONE warmist who can debate the science without breaking one of those rules…there isn’t any! Not a single one can debate global warming without appealing to authority. None of them understand the science, they can’t even talk about climate sensitivity or fudge factors in the models. They’ve swallowed Al Gores Inconvenient Kool-Aid and jsut won’t listen to actual FACTS. You can’t convert these people with logic because they know full well they are wrong - they are the height of disingenuousness,

James says:

11:41am | 20/04/11

And you make the mistake of thinking there is a scientific debate.

LC says:

02:14pm | 20/04/11

And you make the mistake of thinking that there isn’t one James. You may have made your mind up on the issue, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the scientific community has.

James says:

02:59pm | 20/04/11

If you call all of the world’s major scientific institutes vs a few crackpots a debate, then I think we have differing definitions of the word ‘debate’.  It is a debate in the same way Mike Tyson vs a 3 year old girl is a boxing match.

Grundel says:

08:11pm | 20/04/11

And yet the Mike Tyson (appropriate analogy as a rapist) still gets it’s arse handed to it every time there is a real debate. The IQ of the skeptics is on average 10 points higher than the Alarmists. And also, more women beleive in Global Warming than men. More women also beleive in fairies, magic and miracles than men do - see the connection?

James says:

11:16am | 21/04/11

No I do not see the connection, you have no evidence to show that more women than men believe in the supernatural, you have no evidence to suggest science deniars have higher IQs than those who have studied the science. 

The Mike Tyson analogy was about boxing prowess only.  I have never seen a single debate where the scientists have been “handed their asses” by science deniars, please provide evidence.

Next idiot please

LC says:

07:34pm | 21/04/11

“please provide evidence”

A bit rich coming from you, James.

Jimbo says:

10:25am | 20/04/11

Why do you hate africans so much?

RBarron says:

02:18pm | 20/04/11

James what are we denying?
What has been proven?
NOTHING
So what are we insuring against NOTHING.
James the Rockefellers has spend million and billions on population control.
They had a lot to do with starting the UN and Funding it.
Watch the UN Video Thanking the Rockefellers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_M1V_NefnM

David Rockefeller is so concerned about the population you should go and watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8

The Rockefeller Foundation
1913
The Foundation begins its 20-year support of the Bureau of Social Hygiene. Its mission: research and education on birth control, maternal health and sex education. The Foundation also helps establish the American Social Hygiene Association to direct the scientific study of biological and social factors that influence human sexual conduct.

World Population was estimated to be 1.8 billion people but they were studying birth control & study of biological and social factors that influence human sexual conduct.

1925
The Foundation funds a project by John Grierson to study the influence of films on public opinion. An expert on the impact of the mass media on society and later a film director, Grierson becomes famous for coining the term “documentary” for non fiction films.

1931
A grants program aimed at a better understanding of reproductive biology results in fundamental work that leads to the development of better contraceptives. The National Research Council’s Committee for Research in Problems of Sex receives more than $1 million. The Foundation grants $1 million to five universities around the US for research on reproductive endocrinology.

The World Population was estimated to be 2.1 billion.

1944
The first grant of an eventual $2 million total is made to develop Princeton’s Office of Population Research, which demonstrates connections between population and development in the developing world.

The Population was estimated to be 2.2 billion.

1953
Harvard’s School of Public Health receives the first Foundation grant for a family planning project. In 1960, Johns Hopkins receives the second.

World Population was 2.5 billion.

Rockefeller started the Population Council In 1952 and in the world there were 2.3 billion people.

This is on the history section of the Population Council Website According to Rockefeller; the reason to care about population was “to improve the quality of people’s lives, to help make it possible for individuals everywhere to develop their full potential.”
That vision has motivated the Council throughout its 56-year history, even though the circumstances facing the world have changed substantially.

This guys have spend Billion over the year on population,

There has been a long held belief for more than 100 years with a certain group of people that the world was over populated back in 1913. These people have a belief that the world can only support 500 million.

Who of you 6.4 billion are going to check out to help these guys?

That right these guy were spending their money to help all of us and mankind.

There are other funds set up Rockefeller Brotherhood Fund and many more just follow the web.

They started or funded most of the NGO to push their causes to save the human race from it’s self.
What a load of SHIT.

Their problem with the Industrial Revolution is the freedom that it has given to us all, the chance that it has given us to improve our life and lifestyle. If you have watched David Rockefeller speech on population every babies that use to die at birth that haven’t now because of the improvements and us living longer is a problem.
I hope that you or your children weren’t the one who would have otherwise died at birth and I hope it is not you or your parents that have lived longer.

They have a belief that the world is over populated, they have concerns that we are using their resources at a rate that the world can’t Sustain.

We live in the world as free men and no one is going to tell me just how many children I can have and how many children my children can have. But what they can do is setting up a condition that makes it harder to live and to care for our children.

You are being had boy.

julie says:

11:17am | 23/04/11

People don’t insure (hedge against risk) unless the cost of the insurance policy is significantly less than what they stand to lose.
In this case, the insurance policy costs far too much.

Saskia says:

01:59pm | 20/04/11

Spot on.

One of the best summaries of the REAL situation I have read.

AGW is obscure at best and a carbon tax will do utterly jack sh*t to help the planet and will just gift our jobs and money to SE Asia.

How dangerous is the ALP and the ACTU with this mad push into Marxism?

LC says:

02:47pm | 21/04/11

Your hard evidence, sir? Where is it?

PaulM says:

06:06pm | 21/04/11

For a start our environment isn’t a closed system. That is the fallacy behind the term “greenhouse gas”, our climate is influenced by some significant factors outside the system, most noteably the sun. Our climate is influenced by tides and currents which are also influenced by factors outside the system, lunar & solar cycles. A closed system is known and predictable, all inputs are static. This planet has been bombarded by interstellar wastes (metorites etc) since the planet formed, each instance has changed the balance. We live on an everchanging planet, subject to both internal and external influences and are a small part of a galactic whole that is still growing, developing, merging and changing in ways we are only just scratching the surface of understanding. We are a speck of dust in the vast desert of a dynamic & inherently chaotic universe, our climate system & the geophysical structure and actions of the crust and mantle of this planet as well are inherently chaotic, subject to influences from without.

You may think that declaring our planet a closed system is insightful & astute, good for you. I would suggest that people haven’t commented on that assertion because they think it is simplistic, stupid and/or wrong.

julie says:

11:29am | 23/04/11

The climate models are closed systems. The real world is not a closed system. For years, warmists upheld the idea that there were no negative feedbacks in the system.
Only a year ago Susan Solomon , NASSER who is a warmist discovered there is negative feedback.
Not only is the science not settled - it has hardly begun to uncover the way our world works.

ardy says:

03:47pm | 28/04/11

Excellent post - I thought I was reasonably up with this issue but you have introduced some new ideas about natural CO2 production from bush fires I have never read before.