Climate change report: A busy person’s guide

SydSteve says:

12:05pm | 23/05/11

Commission head Professor Tim Flannery told the ABC that “uninformed opinion” was to blame for ongoing scepticism about climate change:

Case and point.

Christian Watters says:

12:50pm | 23/05/11

Really Anubis, so we can continue to burn in haste what the earth has stowed away in millennium and think there will be no consequence.  What is the downside to curbs and costs being associated with fossil fuel burning and CO2 output if it is across the board. Companies will adjust very quickly and in a short space of time it will not even be noticed but for a better clean energy supply. You seem to fit the redneck majority like most Americans who think it is communist plot to stop them enjoying big V8 SUVs for the school run

Soames says:

12:53pm | 23/05/11

May I ask just who are ‘over-paid sychohpants” and what is their motive?

LeftRightOut says:

12:58pm | 23/05/11

Old mate Karoly (a zealot if one ever saw one) says the report was “independently reviewed”. I would hope so… I would also hope it wasn’t reviewed by their closed group of AGW devotees. Let someone who’s genuinely independent review it, better still, let some sceptical scientists review it, too (for balance). As much as they’d like us to believe otherwise, there’s plenty of sceptics in academia - I’m sure they’d be happy to participate (except those who are too scared stiff to voice an opposing view in public - there are quite a few “in the closet” scientists out there, who know what will happen to them if they speak out - career suicide).

Too early for me to judge, but I’m suspecting a fair bit of propaganda in this baby!

Phil says:

01:45pm | 23/05/11

The answer is simply. Nuclear Engery. We have the worlds biggest supply yet send it offshore. We could reduce our emissions by 50% as soon as we could build them.

I might be synical but why do they release this just as Gillard hits almost rock bottom in the polls.

Bruce says:

01:51pm | 23/05/11

It would not be hard to find another group of academics who could come up with a different outcome. You only have to go to your local university and talk to the different professors. I have little doubt that the mighty human race may have some tiny little part to do with climate change but certainly not as much impact as few good volcanoe eruptions. However, is putting a price on carbon dioxide the solution without grinding the average australian financial qualitiy of life on the line ? No matter what short term offset modeling the government comes up with, in the long run, the ordinary tax payer will be the looser. At this point in time I am not sure if the governments real agenda is actually political, economic or a real concern for the environment. Of course the expected answer is all 3, what other response would you expect from a political party. There is no doubt in my mind the ALP is being dragged through this process by the backward thinking greens. Economically, I am sure the ALP understand exactly what damage the impact of a carbon tax will do to the Australian economy. I am sure they will put the best spin on it they can. In the mean time, business will do their modeling to see how to reduce, eliminate, relocate or pass on any increases in costs, ask any good business analyst. If you are really concerned about the broader impact of a carbon tax talk to your accountant.

Old Bert says:

02:07pm | 23/05/11

What is your point, in regard to climate change?

Dr Mark says:

02:18pm | 23/05/11

1. World Scientific Consensus is that Climate Change is due to Human Activity. Accepting this is difficult, and acting to change is even more so. We can either Deny, Rationalise against it, or just Accept and Act. I see a lot of the former, and very little of the latter. People put out conspiracy theories etc , but really that’s just part of an emotional reaction when threatened by something that puts you out of your comfort zone and demands action.

2. The net increase in temperature, although significant, is not the only problem. As thermal energy increases in our atmosphere, net entropy, ie chaos increases.  So you get extreme cold and extreme heat, extreme weather events. If you push on a pendulum, it will swing both ways. This fact is what confuses Climate skeptics, especially the majority who have little or no scientific knowledge or critical thinking. To be fair, the scientific community have not explained this well.

simon says:

02:20pm | 23/05/11

Spot on Anubis, the government is only looking at factors that might influence the climate instead of looking at all factors that influence ocean levels. They are ignoring solar activity, undersea megathrust earthquakes, undersea volcano’s, asteroid and cometary fragments raining down that over time are increasing the mass of Earth. They seem to be cherry picking only the bits that further their argument and ignoring other factors, this is why the science is so flawed. They are also ignoring cheaper, easier, ways of reducing emissions and think that a tax is the only way. Yet Bjorn Lomberg in his famous study ranked a carbon tax as the most negative, costly and pervasive way to go about it. I am also concerned that Gillard is trying to stifle or censor anybody that disagrees with her. She is a lying dictator that must go!!!

Dr Mark says:

02:20pm | 23/05/11

1. World Scientific Consensus is that Climate Change is due to Human Activity. Accepting this is difficult, and acting to change is even more so. We can either Deny, Rationalise against it, or just Accept and Act. I see a lot of the former, and very little of the latter. People put out conspiracy theories etc , but really that’s just part of an emotional reaction when threatened by something that puts you out of your comfort zone and demands action.

2. The net increase in temperature, although significant, is not the only problem. As thermal energy increases in our atmosphere, net entropy, ie chaos increases.  So you get extreme cold and extreme heat, extreme weather events. If you push on a pendulum, it will swing both ways. This fact is what confuses Climate skeptics, especially the majority who have little or no scientific knowledge or critical thinking. To be fair, the scientific community have not explained this well.

No 1 Rosie says:

02:27pm | 23/05/11

Anubis I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the climate change committee were over-paid sycophants with their noses firmly lodged in the trough of Govt salaries and perks but a waste of taxpayer’s hard earned $$$$$$$ It is the reason we have a Parliament to discuss the good and the bad, the advantage and the disadvantage for Australia and its people.

There was no need for a climate change committee if this Minority Gillard Labor Govt was doing the job with confidence they were supposed to be doing.

Off course Australia must act quickly to cut back carbon emissions to save the planet. It is a must and including Tony Abbott it is our responsibility to do something about it. We would be stupid to ignore what we have known all along. It is not to be debated and the two major political parties have their way of dealing with it. Gillard Labor with the Greens, want a carbon tax and Tony Abbott’s coalition - direct action action. The debate is not about one party refusing to do something about climate change but about the carbon tax imposed by the Gillard Labor Govt which will not make any difference to cutting back emission but drive up the cost of our basic needs. It will also cost jobs. The debate is also about the fact that Julia Gillard lied to us when she said; “there will be no carbon tax in any Govt that I lead.” This means that Gillard has no mandate for a carbon tax. That is the debate.

Tony Abbott and the Coalition’s direct action, shouldn’t be used as justification for the Govt’s carbon tax. They shouldn’t need it, if they were so confident that a carbon tax is what they believe is the best way to go.

The good thing about Tony Abbott’s direct action was it didn’t need a paid climate change committee to convince them that their plan will get public approval.

Please Gillard and Bob Browne, have some confidence and give us some details on the carbon tax so it can debated and then for us to judge for ourselves. If you stop attacking Tony Abbott and sell us the carbon tax we might start listening again.

Adam Diver says:

02:33pm | 23/05/11

@ Dr Mark, there is no evidence of it, not that it hasn’t been explained well. Its not as though hypothesis and computer models substitute real-world evidence. The mere fact that the only solution is a tax, reeks politics.

Every prediction, and model that I have seen to date, that has given us an estimate on the effects by 2011 has been wrong and by a huge margin. When these become accurate, and when nuclear is mentioned to “de-carbonise” is when I start to listen.

Old Bert says:

02:50pm | 23/05/11

Anubis says:

  11:18am | 23/05/11

  ” Over-paid sycophants with their noses firmly lodged in the trough of Government salaries and perks.”

So, you’re a dual or even triple personality? There are several programs that might help you. Good luck there. That’s if you’re not who you think you are. Which must be a worry.

Anubis says:

03:14pm | 23/05/11

Old Bert - Are you getting confused there Old Bert. I know exactly who I am and that is not Erick. Single personality here, just one screen name.

sceptic says:

03:29pm | 23/05/11

@ Dr Mark says: 02:20pm | 23/05/11
“World Scientific Consensus is that Climate Change is due to Human Activity”.  Bold statement Mark.  Okay - but to what extent?  100%; 75%; 50% etc How about 3%?

Funny I have not seen any irrefutable evidence - only models.  My son has a PhD in Econometrics/ Statistics and so I have some idea how people like he (and you) can write code to achieve outcomes.  Also - can you please explain to me why so many highly regarded physicists, scientists, etc around the globe do not share your view.

Frank says:

04:26pm | 23/05/11

“...why so many highly regarded physicists, scientists, etc around the globe” are sceptical. Care to name any Sceptic? Especially the physicists please. Yes I want the names of the physicists who disagree with the physics of Co2 and heat retention. People dont seem to realise that the physics really is the most reliable, most concrete piece of evidence in the whole debate. The most irrefutable, irreducible point of the whole shebang. CO2 grabs energy (photons) and doesnt let it go (not easily anyway, relative to the other gases). This is why the deniers never go near the physics. Cause they got nuthin’. So go ahead Mr “my son is a statistician”, “lets focus on the models”, know it all. Give us the names.

Rachel says:

04:36pm | 23/05/11

Absolute rubbish.
1/ A scientists legacy is one of their major drivers. No scientist wants to go their grave with a history of falsifying reports and so on for a government grant FFS. PLease. Get real.
2/ The real money is in climate change denial. 97% of scientists agree that human caused climate change is real. The remaining 3% get a lot more funding from the crackpots and cashed up industries that stand to lose from reducing fossil fuel usage.

gytr says:

06:58pm | 23/05/11

@Frank - How about Henrik Svensmark? Heard of Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets theory? I thought not… To bring you up to speed, check the first results of an experiment run by CERN:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html

simon says:

08:22pm | 23/05/11

Frank, firstly just google it mate, i have, very easy to find!!!

Secondly, why is it that when they analyse soil and ice core samples going back millions of years they comes across variable CO2 concentrations.There have been periods when levels have been 10 times higher than they are today. CO2 levels are always fluctuating around, and there has never been a human marker found in any objective analysis of CO2 levels going back millions of years.

Yuri says:

09:19pm | 23/05/11

@Rachel

Thought you might find this interesting.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

75 scientists supporting AGW (out of the 3000+ scientists that responded to the survey)  is not exactly an overwhelming result in any sense.

Yuri says:

09:27pm | 23/05/11

Also, in case you haven’t heard, what about the 31000+ scientists (in the USA alone) that disagree with AGW.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I wonder how much it would cost to “fund” all these scientists as Rachel suggests?

ZSRenn says:

10:33pm | 23/05/11

At the end of the day all we can save is 0.073% of global emissions.

Is that worth it for all this bullshit!

Dr Mark says:

12:20pm | 24/05/11

@ Adam Diver, and Sceptic- you may feel there is substantial disagreement in the scientific community.. but this is not so.. a lot of politicians, journalists may think there is confusion and disagreement among climate scientists.. but that is not the case. All the world’s major industrialised national science academies agree global warming is mostly the result of human activity. Media, politicians, - the uninformed-, think there is controversy, whereas those who actually study the data have no doubt. It’s sensationalism, a media beat-up, mixed with tinges of fear, denial, rationalisation, and an inability to accept something that requires action, change and some discomfort. For a good balanced article, you could start with wikipedia and look up “global warming” and “global warming controversy”.

Super AnthonyG says:

12:38pm | 24/05/11

The so called Dr Mark is about as much a Dr as I am superman. But no doubt the scared sheep that believe in this rubbish would no doubt believe him. If you are going to make out your a Dr how about backing it up with some proof or are you afraid of putting you name to the crap you speak

Dr Mark says:

01:33pm | 24/05/11

@ “Super” AnthonyG - I am a medical practitioner. Now, there are certainly a lot of scared sheep around.. if you are faced with a threat you can stand still and bleat, attack your fellow man, or… do something about the threat. We have to act decisively… we may make mistakes as we try to solve this problem… but we have to act. We don’t want to be known as the “Lamest Generation” who did nothing. As a doctor and a father, I want my children and my grandchildren to have a bright future. What do you want?

Adam says:

04:31pm | 24/05/11

Or Dr Mark, if this carbon tax goes ahead we may simply be remembered as the generation that took a big gamble based on faulty science and not only lost everything but reduced living standards for future generations. Personally, I say we wait and do more research into the subject before going off half cocked and wasting billions we don’t have.

Super AnthonyG says:

04:58pm | 24/05/11

Gee Dr Mark. I thought that doctors where flat out working their rings off trying to keep up with the never ending flow of sick people. Didn’t think they would have time dribbling on useless debates like this. Are you sure your not the Badger helping his boss go broke from lack of, or no productivity from sitting in front of your computer waffling all day. Sorry I must go and save the world. UP UP and away.

Dr Mark says:

06:00pm | 24/05/11

@ Adam - How much more proof do you need?
@ AnthonyG - we have a sick world. Your responses are very typical and understandable for those who don’t want to hear the truth. I’ll give you an analogy, which will explain why I take no offense at what you say. I have had to tell patients they have cancer. A number of reactions can happen - initially - DENIAL- ” No it can’t be, this can’t be true. I want a second opinion! Surely all the evidence is wrong!”  - ANGER / BLAME/ GUILT ” You discovered it too late, I can’t be cured! You are just lying, you want my money - you want to use your dodgy expensive treatments” , BARGAINING/ RATIONALISATION- ” Perhaps it will go away by itself ; perhaps I could take a few vitamin pills! “-

Hopefully we will reach ACCEPTANCE - “I’ve got this cancer, I need surgery and chemo- it’s my best chance”. Well, my friends, the world has got a cancer, and we need to act now, although it may be uncomfortable and painful, if we leave it too late, we will fail.

acotrel says:

03:45am | 25/05/11

@Soames - ‘overpaid sycophants ’ - Anubis must mean all us rich deceitful scientists?

acotrel says:

03:48am | 25/05/11

@Phil -  Numcleair enumgee ain’t der ansewer

acotrel says:

04:21am | 25/05/11

@Bruce
‘It would not be hard to find another group of academics who could come up with a different outcome. You only have to go to your local university and talk to the different professors.’

What’s the point of talking to the ‘lunchtime heros’ who are never going to be held accountable for their opinions?

Jass says:

03:26pm | 25/05/11

@Dr Mark

<<World Scientific Consensus is that Climate Change is due to Human Activity. Accepting this is difficult, and acting to change is even more so.>>

Since the dawn of civilization catastophic natural events have been attributed to human activity by those who seek power and profit. Nobody in their right mind, now, believes that a flood, for instance, is punishment from the gods for
evil thoughts and acts and the only way to prevent another one is to make some sort of sacrifice (life or money); but this is exactly what is happening with the climate change/carbon tax scam proposed by the ‘World Scientific Consensus’. 

<<We can either Deny, Rationalise against it, or just Accept and Act. I see a lot of the former, and very little of the latter.>>

Thanks to the miracle of the internets and a deluge of historical facts (Greenland, etc), the sort of ‘accepting and acting’ that characterised the ignorant and downtrodden of
previous centuries is being replaced slowly by a healthy spirit of inquiry and enlightenment. Ordinary people are now doing the questioning that once drove science.

<>

‘World Scientific Consensus’ is a term that exudes conspiracy! Many credible scientists do not fall into that camp and one wonders whose ‘comfort zone’ is being
threatened?  Throwing all the money in the world at ‘man-made climate change’ will have no effect whatsoever on natural events - what good will recucing our carbon
usage do when volcanic eruptions spew out tons of the stuff? - but it will definitely ensure a very comfortable lifestyle for those promoting it for as long as they can keep
a straight face while threatening doomsday to the gullible.

By all means promote recycling, zero population growth, mitigation measures against natural climatic events and investment in clean energy, but don’t waste your time telling
us that ‘Climate Change is due to Human Activity’ because ‘World Scientific Consensus’ says so and we must make sacrifices to prevent it because such a pronouncement carries as much weight as the Evangelical Rapturists who tell us the end of the world is nigh.

P.S. Yesterday a ‘carbon accountant’ was on the radio explaining the new carbon tax (i.e. how it will provide him with a lucrative new income source) and it won’t be long, I suppose, before ‘carbon’ will be a prefix for many other professions - think police and lawyers.

Emma B says:

10:35pm | 25/05/11

@ Dr Mark. Do not pay any attention to Anthony G. He can not spell, nor can he use correct English grammar. In which case I wouldn’t trust his scientific arguments.
How awful that there might be an incentive to move from unsustainable, limited, soon to be extinguished forms of energy and look towards more environmentally friendly ways of living before we are forced to. Please people, we are wasting time with all of this debate. Who cares? Let’s just do the right thing, already!

michael p says:

04:39pm | 28/05/11

Im a sceptic and nothing here shows proof of global warming
1 how much has the temp risen
2 how much has the water risen
3 when can we expect to see results from the scientists
SHOW ME THE NUMBERS AND THAN I WILL LISTEN
show us all the numbers and we will all listen

Talented Rugby Player says:

11:49am | 23/05/11

Why should the minority dictate to the majority?

MarK says:

11:56am | 23/05/11

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No

A group of climate change zealots getting paid hundreds of thousands form a government brings out a report that says we need to act on climate change when the leader of this little sect has business interests in companies that promote and (attempt to develop with no success) alternative energy supplies.

Who would have think it?

What a laugh. What a set up. What a farce.

Who cares. Means nothing.

No one is listening anyway. It is like a deflating life jacket tossed to a drowning girl.

Some comfort for a short time and a talisman they will cling to when all looks lost.

Note that quiet sound. That is the air inexorably escaping form the floatation device.

Sounds like a high pitched fart - sort of like Flannery’s predictions.

So good of them to make this decade the decisive one after the last decade didn’t work out.

/yawn.

Ahh Canada. What a sensible place.

Vaunted says:

12:00pm | 23/05/11

Your ‘fringe dwellers’ appear to be in the majority Badger. We’ve yet to see a dire climate change ‘report’ that didn’t emanate from a source with a strong vested interest (political, academic and/or pecuniary) in sustaining the fear. Too many exaggerations and outright lies have already been outed mate. The science has been well-and-truly compromised and most of us are no longer listening.

Bobster says:

12:21pm | 23/05/11

And MarK knows this because the left controls the media, dammit, they do, they really do.

It’s all a big conspiracy. Every year, thousands of scientists gather to work out how best to fake the bleeding obvious over and over again.

L. says:

12:23pm | 23/05/11

Indeed..!!

Changing the climate 0.0001% of a degree by 2399 could be a game changer!!

The Badger says:

12:23pm | 23/05/11

Oh look, mark climbed out of his bunker pulled on his slippers and farted out some words of wisdom to the party faithful.
Spoken like a true fringe dwelling climate change is crap aficionado.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

12:28pm | 23/05/11

If climate science is so truthful, why did climate champion al gore buy a house which uses 7 times the electricity of an average American house?

I mean he was the first to come out and say if we don’t cut back we will all burn.

The Badger says:

01:03pm | 23/05/11

Geoff
I see your argument
Dole buys a big house and that is proof that climate change is crap.
Well done.

Bobster says:

01:05pm | 23/05/11

Geoff, your school teachers should be ashamed.

How does Al Gore being a hypocrite affect science?

Bruce says:

02:07pm | 23/05/11

If I plant more trees and plants on my property to help reduce CO 2, can I apply for a rebate for my efforts ?

Adam Diver says:

02:09pm | 23/05/11

I am sorry, a commission found that there is “no debate within the scientific community” and that a “pricing mechanism is neccessary”.

Call me cynical, but doesn’t that play well with the rhetoric of the people who funded the report.

Until I see a climate change report pushing nuclear I know that they are not serious. A pricing mechanism, will only work if the country tanks, great choices there.

Mattb says:

05:16pm | 23/05/11

Is anyone else getting sick of these people pushing nuclear as the magic pill to solve climate change.
NO PARTY, LABOR OR LIBERAL, are willing to touch it, the libs had 11 years, labour have had 4 and neither want to even seriously consider debating it because they know it’s only going to end in a political shitstorm.
Yes, while I personally think it should be debated, it’s NOT going to happen especially in the political climate we now find ourselves in, so
FOR F$&KS; SAKE give it up

Reggie says:

09:22pm | 23/05/11

Oh come along there MattB, now that the Japanese nuclear disaster has been rated equal in ferocity to the Chernobyl one, even Effie might have to pull her horns in. In fact it is just possible that the Japanese disaster exceeds that of Chernobyl, but who wants to be worst in this race.

I can’t help thinking that FOUR nuclear units in tatters in Japan may just be worse that the ONE in Russia. When it comes to Ustraya entering the nuclear industry, current experience suggests the need for “prudence.”

Mark Priadko says:

10:33pm | 23/05/11

Issue is not did humans cause climate change.

The issue is can humans reverse climate change.

It is the answer to the second question that is critical to this debate.
My view is that the answer is we cannot reverse climate change because we can’t agree or cooperate on a global scale.  In particular Australia could make a goose of itself trying to reverse climate change when other’s don’t.  this is not a moral issue - it is a practical one.

Therefore we should be focussed on adapting to climate change rather than waste money and time trying to reverse climate change.

ZSRenn says:

12:05am | 24/05/11

Or those like me who think that for a 0.073%  saving on global emissions it is not worth the cost to Australia.

With all the debate on all the computers re the subject we have used more than that already.

RyaN says:

12:00pm | 23/05/11

Dave-o: they are right there in the picture above, we are all going to die, the end of the world is coming if we don’t give our cash to our saviour Julia. Time is running out, the window is closing and we are all going to burn in a fiery hell. Jees it does sound familiar to the other sky fairy brigade.

Que says:

12:11pm | 23/05/11

I know. People who believe in AGW are everywhere

fairsfair says:

12:39pm | 23/05/11

I love how most of the responses from the pro climate change camp thus far is pre-empting what the “non believers” are going to say.

It says a lot about the level of debate.

The Badger says:

01:01pm | 23/05/11

That’s the point fairsfair
The science is settled, it what we do about it.
claiming the science is not settled is not part of this debate, that’s a different debate you can have over at the dolt’s blog.

LeftRightOut says:

01:09pm | 23/05/11

Eddie, you’re confusing many things there.
There’s unanimous agreement that the world has warmed over the past 100 years or so. A lot of debate as to why, and the AGW theory is a good one, especially in the absence of many others (Inter glacial etc).
On its own, it’s simply a hypothesis. Where things get clouded though, and something you mention above, is the redistribution of wealth, conspiracy etc etc, these have come about because of some of the less than desirables who have latched on to the whole AGW thing.

The greatest damage done to this theory, is the politicising of it, largely from the left. When all people see are lefty types (vast majority) talking about raising taxes to change behavior, the world is ending etc etc… then anyone who raises a sensible point, or remains unconvinced is labelled a “denier”, a “tin foil hat wearer”, or an idiot - people smell bullshit straight away.
The AGW types may be dead right, but people don’t accept what they’re hearing, simply because of who’s ramming it down their throats.

I used to just believe every story I ever read about AGW - then after hearing a few outrageous claims, then realising that it was mostly the left sending the message, I took another look. I smelt bullshit.

I’m not necessarily disputing the theory, but I have a problem with the messenger(s), they’ve lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, largely due to their outrageous claims, and vitriolic response to dissenters.

fairsfair says:

01:34pm | 23/05/11

Well why didn’t you start your comments with ideas Badger instead of saying what you did ^^ there and why did eddie say what he did?

It is pathetic on both sides, don’t try and pretend you are on the right one. If you are so against what Andrew Bold says, why do you take notice of him?

I for one think he is a twit too, but I don’t go round bad mouthing him, he has a right to his opinion. Having no opinion or a sarcastic/pot stirring one is just as bad.

Gordicans says:

01:44pm | 23/05/11

LeftRightOut, you blame the left for the politicising the debate, without mentioning that several years ago AGW was almost universally accepted by the community as real and the science was accepted. 

What changed?  Essentially what happened was the large US energy companies hired the same scientists who ran the campaign for the tobacco lobby and got them to do the same thing for AGW.  The applied the same tactics that they’d been using in their fight for tobacco and applied it to climate science.

As with tobacco, their main tactic is to claim that the ‘science is not certain’ and the campaign was successful.  The US Republicans ran with this these tactics before the last US election, as have the liberal/nationals here. 

This is why Abbott and his mob use the mantra “the science is not settled” over and over again.  And it has been very successful also.  Your claim that the politicisation here is due to the left simply doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.  The real reason is the counter attack from the pro energy companies, and the adoption of ‘the science is not settled’ tactics by Tony Abbott’s opposition for political purposes.

Sony B Goode says:

01:46pm | 23/05/11

what do you mean absence of any other theory?

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157

cant tax our way out if this theory

The Badger says:

02:08pm | 23/05/11

An idea fairsfair?
The science is settled, it what we do about it.
claiming the science is not settled is not part of this debate,

get past this statement of fact and lets debate what we do about it.
These debates are taken over by deniers who sidetrack the debate.
Bold fuels their ignorance.

fairsfair says:

02:38pm | 23/05/11

Badge I mean an idea that goes toward addressing the issue. Who gives a sh*t if people don’t think it is happening. If it is or it isn’t, the world could do with a reduction in consumption. Most people are objecting to the carbon tax, not that we should respect our planet a bit more than we currently do.

I personally am not sure, but I am willing to pay more money to reduce my personal consumption. My issue is that I don’t consume a great deal will be slogged, but this tax will do nothing to deter wealthy people and big business to reduce their consumption/emissions.

Anubis says:

03:20pm | 23/05/11

@Badger says “get past this statement of fact” Of course Badger, facts are just inconvenient truths for you lot aren’t they. So why should they even be considered in a debate???

MarK says:

05:23pm | 23/05/11

“The Badger says:

01:01pm | 23/05/11

That’s the point fairsfair
The science is settled, it what we do about it.”

Liar.

Plain and simple a liar.

LeftRightOut says:

05:49pm | 23/05/11

@Gordicans - and I thought it was the sceptics who were criticised for crackpot conspiracy theories… I forgot about the mythical “big oil” and “big tobacco”... if there ever was a call for an “lol” your post is it… really, I did laugh out loud.

Gordicans says:

07:35pm | 23/05/11

Leftrightout, I’m pleased I was able to give you a belly laugh.  Ignorance is bliss eh?

I can recommend you read “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, which details how the lessons learned by the pro tobacco lobbie were applied to the climate denial caper.  You can also hear an interview with Naomi here:
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/05/18/3220237.htm?site=conversations

Unless of course your mind is closed.

LeftRightOut says:

01:13pm | 23/05/11

I think the “response” to it is based on ones political allegiance… hence why the extreme left LOVE AGW theory. The same reason why so many people don’t accept what they hear.

dovif says:

12:07pm | 23/05/11

RJB

Do you know how much CO2 cremation creates. Human body is a fat and muscle store and when it is burned it releases CO2.

Of course there will be a tax on funerals

Blind Freddy says:

04:11pm | 23/05/11

Only if you were a fat-arse and in the top 1000 CO2 polluters as a consequence. Other forms of hot air don’t count. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your delusion.

Thomas Anderson says:

12:08pm | 23/05/11

Well, to be fair, if they decide to turn all those flat screens on, they will pay the tax on their power usage.

If you don’t turn on your air con most of the year, you will not pay the tax on using it.

We all pay for what we use. Not trying to support or oppose the proposed offset plan, just saying.

Sony B Goode says:

12:13pm | 23/05/11

I hear you, I have stopped using my aircond because of the soaring bill.
not sure what I am going to do in summer. sit around in my undies like my dad used to do

However the answer is much simpler: thorium reactors.

cue green hysteria…

ian says:

12:29pm | 23/05/11

Most of us have already changed our habits quite dramatically, due to the already rising cost of electricity, and other services.  Low and middle income earners are doing it tough.  There are so many people, families that will be sweating it out in the summer and freezing in winter,  afraid to use power.  I agree as i am sure most would with your last line fairsfair.

fairsfair says:

12:30pm | 23/05/11

yes but Thomas, they can afford to pay the tax - that is the problem. It is not a disincentive to them and other massive consumers. My power is going to continue to rise no matter what happens and even though I genuinely seek to not waste (I have a one light rule at night and catch rain water to water my plants in the wettest part of Australia), I’ll still be paying.

My argument is that if we were forced to think about how we wanted to use a set amount of power we would have less power guzzling unnecessary appliances eating into the running the fridge time. We are spoilt and now dependent. As power junkes we think we are going to die if we have some of the drugs taken away.

You are going to get slammed for that Sony!

I wanna live next door to a power station. says:

01:06pm | 23/05/11

Sony
Thorium reactors are such old technology. The few remaining ones that haven’t been phased out are soon to be replaced with newer fruitloop reactors that produce oodles of energy with a yummy smell as the only by product.

leftRightOut says:

01:15pm | 23/05/11

Services rationed? What the?

Wow, just, wow!

Thomas Anderson says:

01:27pm | 23/05/11

Yeah, I know what you mean, it’s no disincentive at all. On the other hand, one of the aims is to raise money, and high consumption households will do just that. So it can be wasted along the way to reaching it’s intended goal

I mean, we can impose limits, but I can see an even bigger outrage over that. Whatever you do, someone will moan.

fairsfair says:

01:35pm | 23/05/11

If you weren’t wasting it LRO - you’d have nothing to be afraid of.

Kevin says:

02:14pm | 23/05/11

What exactly is so bad about having to “sweat it out in summer”?  Since when does the avoidance of mild discomfort become an absolute necessity?
As SBG has observed, in his dad’s day, people sat around in their undies.  Nothing wrong with that.  Summer is supposed to be warm to hot.

fairsfair says:

02:43pm | 23/05/11

There is nothing wrong with it and I do it day in, day out in Summer. Here is it the 23rd May and it is still early 30s outside. I was not exaggerating when I said use my airconditioner twice. I used it twice and it increased my power bill by $30.

Most people I know (who live in Cairns) have the airconditioner running constantly from around October through to March/April. I think it rediculous. My neighbour was complaining the other day about her $1400 summer power bill. I flatly COULD NOT afford to pay that, but clearly there are people in this world who can and instead of focussing on the fact that she has had her dunger aircon rattling in my bedroom window day in day out for the past six months, she chose to blame the “bloody electricity company”. Apparently it is highway robbery.

That is the indemic issue within our society - we refuse to change our lifestyles and it is just as bad as Bynne and her 47 tellies.

ian says:

02:48pm | 23/05/11

yep no worries Kev, let’s go back to using a horse and cart while we are at it,  we will throw out the fridge and grab a meatsafe, grab some firewood and cook outside.  Don’t know where you live Kev but in the outback where i am ,45 plus degree day and nights are a little bit more than mild discomfort.  As attractive as it sounds sitting around in my undies isn’t gonna cut it.  The point is the only people who will change there habits are the people who can’t afford it.  Pretty sure the assylum seekers will be cool in summer and warm in winter though,  while our eldery will suffer tremendously.

Sony B Goode says:

03:18pm | 23/05/11

leftist want us to go backwards. thats why so many people object to it.

having a comfortable enviroment is progress. why should we go back to the 50s and freeze in winter and swelter in summer?

there is no shortage of anything that demands we stop progress, human ingenuity has found solutions to every problem.

Australia has enough coal to power us for another 300 years, so there is no reason that we need to switch out of coal electricity generation for maybe another 250 years.

Kevin says:

04:23pm | 23/05/11

Ian, I lived in Darwin for over 10 years and rarely used the aircon.  During the build up the temperature gets to 38 degrees with 95% humidity which is a lot worse than 45 degrees in low humidity.
I really don’t see the need for anyone to be cocooned in constant 21 degrees all year round.  I like the fact that it is warm in Summer and cooler in Winter.  Also, I prefer fresh air coming through the house.

LeftRightOut says:

05:56pm | 23/05/11

You assume I waste energy, fairsfair… maybe I do, maybe I don’t - it’s irrelevant though.
Can you spell totalitarian?
You crackpots think it’s OK to ration what I or anyone else uses, and you think sceptics are nuts?

No wonder people stopped listening to you lot, absolute control freak maniacs. People like you are what should frighten the average punter.
If my energy was rationed, I’d whack on a dirty great big diesel burning generator and run it any time I felt like it.
Want to create some new laws to stop me doing that?

Unbelievable!

fairsfair says:

06:51pm | 23/05/11

Real mature. Way to overreact to a very general comment. In case you hadn’t noticed, I am a nobody - it is never going to happen so what is your major issue?

Who the eff is my lot anyway?

RyaN says:

11:56am | 23/05/11

I can’t wait for the actual evidence of a human marker in global warming, hey Warren maybe you can win the 10k that is up for grabs!

James says:

11:57am | 23/05/11

I can’t wait for them to be dumped on a low lying island in the pacfic

Que says:

12:14pm | 23/05/11

Ok. Let me go first then,...
Bugger it. I can’t be bothered. This debate peaked a couple of years ago. No one is really interested any more.

Bobster says:

12:15pm | 23/05/11

It is though, Warren, it is.

Have you read Marx and Engels? There are several chapters calling on the proletariat to commit eco-fraud to further their desire to seize the modes of production.

Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, Castro and Stalin were all well-known for their green-agendas. That’s why, to this day, Vietnam and China have such clean air and sea.

Sony B Goode says:

12:24pm | 23/05/11

its only a conspiracy when its not public.

Martian poles warming: ignored
vapor amplification layer in upper atmosphere: not found
Oceans rising: nobody knows
Weather warming: maybe up to start of this decade, don’t know what happened then
50million climate refuges by 2011: come back next century
Taxation on the greedy and transfer to the needy: check
Legions of misty eyed do gooders: check
Solid backing of market hating socialist: check
Scientists on the public purse backing the cause: check

static says:

12:26pm | 23/05/11

Me too and watch out for tcommunist tanks rumbling down George stret,it was a furphy in the fities and sixties and it is a furphy now.Although there will still be a few nervous nellies that will check for reds under the bed or hold a seance to try to contact Bob Santamaria

Anubis says:

12:31pm | 23/05/11

James - You can’t say that. All the low lying Pacific Islands were going to be underwater by now (Tim Flannery - 2001)

Bobster says:

01:10pm | 23/05/11

Sony B Goode, I’m taking a collection. If I get five posts in support of this comment, I will open a PayPal account for the sole purpose of collecting money to buy you a house in the Maldives.

Just because the sea didn’t rise at Windsor doesn’t mean it isn’t rising. I wasn’t aware that something had to affect you directly for it to be true.

Your argument works like this: I claim Hitler killed six million jews. You say you know a few jews and you never saw Hitler killing any of them, ergo the Holocaust never occured.

Head out of arse, please.

RyaN says:

01:20pm | 23/05/11

@Anubis: the same “reputable” Tim Flannery said we would never see proper rainfall again and sent out the stupids to waste billions upon billions of our hard earned dollars on desal plants.
This “man” should be locked up for crimes against humanity.

Anubis says:

01:38pm | 23/05/11

Totally agree RyaN. Under no circumstances should he be sucking $800,000 a year from the taxpayers

Sony B Goode says:

01:54pm | 23/05/11

There is perfectly good alternate theory that isn’t geting much attention because it requires no action:

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157

unfortunately it doesn’t fit into the real green agenda of “leave no footprint”, you know just quietly die and turn the palent over to plants and animals.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Svensmark&aq=f

maybe we can tax the sun for changing our climate

B says:

06:27am | 24/05/11

It is the duty of every citizen to fight their government.  Opressive and totalitarian regimes have been introduced under the guise of safety and security.

Classic movie example is Star Wars.  Through manipulation the Galactic empire was created.  Not a Coup.

Bobster says:

12:34pm | 23/05/11

You wouldn;t know a communist if you were looking at one from the inside of a gulag.

Are you just here to demonstrate how vacuous your sides argument is? Or do you have something useful to contribute?

RyaN says:

01:09pm | 23/05/11

@Bobster: incorrect, I have lived under one.. Do tell what your experience is?
So Bobster are you just here to demonstrate how vacuous your sides argument is? Or do you have something useful to contribute? Like just maybe, just maybe you will be able to show us some direct evidence of a human marker in global warming? Didn’t think so, I guess you just discredited your own vacuous argument.
Please don’t tell me to “believe” either, if I “believed” I would also “believe” in the sky fairy and the end of the world having come on Saturday (which by the way had about as credible an argument and as much evidence as Anthropogenic Global Warming).

RyaN says:

01:11pm | 23/05/11

@Bobster: while we are at it, how about you tell us all how many degrees per year of global temperature reduction this carbon tax will achieve. I just can’t wait for that cost - benefit analysis. Oh wait, this corrupt government doesn’t do cost - benefit analysis, silly me I should have known.

Bobster says:

01:45pm | 23/05/11

Which communist regime did you live under, Ryan? Visited Vietnam once or something? Must have been a crushing weight to live under in that hotel.

And if you want to find proof of climate change you can find it yourself. Just because you choose to ignore everything that you disagree with doesn’t mean others have a responsibility to force feed you.

As for the carbon tax, I would imagine a staunch capitalist like yourself would understand the impact of price on demand.

RyaN says:

02:27pm | 23/05/11

@Bobster: Robert Gabriel Mugabe, that communist regime.
“Just because you choose to ignore everything that you disagree with doesn’t mean others have a responsibility to force feed you.” yeah nice try to cop out of that, how do I ignore something that was never there and whose evidence has never been presented. In fact there is $10k available on this very website for anyone who can prove a human marker in climate change, its still up for grabs Bobster, I wonder why that is. Could it be that you, like every other “the end is nigh” alarmist have no evidence whatsoever?
As a staunch capitalist I understand the effect of incompetent totalitarian government attempting to control of every aspect of our lives. As a staunch capitalist I, unlike you, clearly understand the difference of price on demand, hence I am already working with companies who will be shutting down operations in Australia and shifting my factories overseas at the expense of hundreds of jobs ONLY because of Juliar Gillards carbon tax.
I will be informing the workers the reason and hope that perhaps one day these companies can return operations on shore once they get a competent government that actually understands what they are doing, I will remind them of who lost them their job and hope that they weren’t stupid enough to have voted for these incompetent morons in the first place.
I will also remind them that the Labor government now owes them a green job at a much higher salary so do write directly to that liar that promised “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” but not to hold their breath since she has a history of pathological lies.

So tell me something Bobster, if I put a price on taking your trip to the loo is that price going to have an effect on your demand for the loo?
In a less extreme way, the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths are charging more than double what they should be charging for groceries and yet the demand hasn’t left them, but how can that be Bobster?

Bobster says:

03:40pm | 23/05/11

Ah yes, and Mugabe is well known for his climate change agenda. Touche.

He’s also well known as a text-book example of a managed economy and not in anyway as a murderous megolomaniac. Well done.

Bobster says:

03:56pm | 23/05/11

P.S RyaN, is one of those countries Vietnam? Nice cheap labour there - capitalists love that and you’re not going to have to worry about any carbon taxes either.

Maybe China? More communists killing business opportunities there. Never seen a staunch capitalist shy away from exploiting their cheap labour and lax EPA.

John says:

04:12pm | 23/05/11

RyaN is your head buried in the sand or stuck up a rearward facing cavity? Ignorance may be bliss but stupidity is rife in this debate and you cant teach old dogs or idiots new tricks.

1. Many studies and documentrys confirm that the polar cap is shrinking and Greenland once covered by snow and ice now has green pastures.

2. Some small pacific islands where many people used to live are now deserted because they are nearly totally submerged during king tides.

3. We have to adapt and/or change at some stage in the future because fossil fuels will be totally depleted within 50 years.

4. Nuclear power is not safe they still havent solved the problems in Japan from the recent earthquake. Radioactive contamination is a major health hazard that poses a threat for centuries after the event.

5. Thorium reactors need a huge investment to become reality and the only way to raise money to continue research is to charge or tax consumers.

6. If we switched to nuclear power the cost of electricity would increase 4-5 times what we are currently paying so a carbon tax is the cheapest option on offer.

7. Greedy companies will only spend money on R&D if it is in their best interest so the Carbon tax is needed to force change and only then will we move forward.

Power prices have increased significantly without a carbon tax and prices will continue to increase, paying a carbon tax and finding a long term solution is the only way consumers can get out of the clutches of greedy executives who get p[aid millions to rip the rest of us off.

RyaN says:

04:23pm | 23/05/11

@Bobster: actually India is the go, if you must know. I assume you are being sarcastic about Mugabe because I couldn’t really make head or tail of what you were actually trying to say in that first post.

As for your second post, what you have missed is that this is not a voluntary move for most companies and certainly not driven by cheap labor. No unfortunately the reality is that this is a compulsory move or suffer complete annihilation from cheap imports, either way the companies will be shutting their manufacturing doors on Australian soil at the cost of hundreds of jobs, not to mention the thousands of employees of smaller affected supplier companies.
Just as long as you feel better about yourself there Bobster and that you can “believe” in your unproven mythical Anthropogenic Global Warming, stuff those workers huh.
One thing that is for certain, you won’t see the Unions fighting for the workers, their future political careers in the Labor party are not worth the jobs of the affected workers.

Bobster says:

04:35pm | 23/05/11

Just keep polishing the tinfoil hat, mate. I’m sure Mugabe and Gillard have much more in common than any of we poor plebs in Australia could possibly recognise without your perspective.

RyaN says:

05:25pm | 23/05/11

@Bobster: I’ll try Bobster but its not me selling crazy remember, you AGW people are the ones selling us theories we just have to “believe” in since you have no actual direct evidence. Hell even the IPCC are saying you guys are nuts.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbnVj7E4iZ8
Lets not even get started on the BS theories you lot have spouted on, now debunked by actual scientists. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-change-rajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026

RyaN says:

06:02pm | 23/05/11

@John:  “RyaN is your head buried in the sand or stuck up a rearward facing cavity? Ignorance may be bliss but stupidity is rife in this debate and you cant teach old dogs or idiots new tricks.”
Wow, lets start with an ad-hominem attack shall we, I will ignore that for the sake of the debate and since I won’t be lowering myself to that as I intend to show you that its not me who you describe but rather yourself.

“1. Many studies and documentrys confirm that the polar cap is shrinking and Greenland once covered by snow and ice now has green pastures.”

Which studies? Besides that, correlation does not equal causation, no direct evidence of a human marker there.

“2. Some small pacific islands where many people used to live are now deserted because they are nearly totally submerged during king tides.”

Which small pacific islands, please be specific so as we can actually trust your argument. Would it be the Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia which are among those which have been shown recently to have actually grown not submerged, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment but therefore thoroughly debunking that argument of rising sea levels above the mean 1.8mm - 2.0mm per year rise that has been going on for centuries now.

“3. We have to adapt and/or change at some stage in the future because fossil fuels will be totally depleted within 50 years.”

Agreed, I too would like to see some more advanced sustainable solutions, what does this have to do with taxing carbon dioxide? If you really believe that taking more money out of peoples pockets so that they cannot afford to buy these new technologies when they come along then I am sure that is going to help the growth of said new tech.

“4. Nuclear power is not safe they still havent solved the problems in Japan from the recent earthquake. Radioactive contamination is a major health hazard that poses a threat for centuries after the event.”

Quite far off the topic I’d say but as far as nuclear power stations are concerned, there are even third world countries like South Africa who has two nuclear power stations successfully running nuclear power stations safely.

“5. Thorium reactors need a huge investment to become reality and the only way to raise money to continue research is to charge or tax consumers.”

Excuse me if I find this bizarre, aside from being off topic but you do realise that you just slammed Nuclear power and then proclaimed we needed to invest more in, Nuclear power, I don’t get it, are you for it or not?

” 6. If we switched to nuclear power the cost of electricity would increase 4-5 times what we are currently paying so a carbon tax is the cheapest option on offer.”

Evidence please, this sounds like a Gillard lie, similar to “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. I agree that some investment would need to be made up front but this would pay for itself over time, unlike the very expensive, completely inefficient and useless “green” solutions we have now.

“7. Greedy companies will only spend money on R&D if it is in their best interest so the Carbon tax is needed to force change and only then will we move forward.”

Or they can just move offshore to where they don’t have to pay a carbon dioxide tax and kill Australian jobs by the thousand. Fact is, most companies don’t have billions of dollars to spend on research into something that has absolutely nothing to do with their business.
Even worse still, this carbon tax is the perfect opportunity to move offshore, its a perfect excuse and Gillard has handed that to them on a plate.

” Power prices have increased significantly without a carbon tax and prices will continue to increase, paying a carbon tax and finding a long term solution is the only way consumers can get out of the clutches of greedy executives who get paid millions to rip the rest of us off.”

Power prices have increased significantly because of successive incompetent Labor state governments who took dividends under the guise of using the money for infrastructure.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1794530.htm  we in NSW all know this was a lie, I wonder where the money went, probably in big union donations that then donate money to the Labor party nearly the next day.

So I put it to you that I think perhaps the real scientists know what is going on, here take a listen to the IPCC scientists themselves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbnVj7E4iZ8 (IPCC’s Prof. Richard Lindzen)
or even http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6SHCL9PbE8 (Professor Ian Plimer) who deals with this.

I hate to tell you that you have been had, I am just hoping that you will open your eyes and free your mind.

Bobster says:

08:16pm | 23/05/11

You’re the one who compared the ALP to Mugabe, champ. Don’t talk to me about crazy.

Ausfire says:

11:46pm | 23/05/11

In reference to the references stating that nuclear energy is more expensive - it is not.

France has 58 nuclear power plants providing the country with 80% it’s energy. France has CO2 emissions 1/3 below the European average. Finally, France has some of the cheapest electricity prices in the world.

In the nearly 40 years France has been using nuclear power, the only nuclear accident has been a minor leak in a reprocessing plant and nothing on the scale of Russia (flaw?) or Japan (Earthquake).

Source: Reader’s Digest (March 2011, p102)

RyaN says:

10:32am | 24/05/11

@Bobster: really? definitely cannot see that above!

Bobster says:

11:31am | 24/05/11

“More lies to implement a one party communist state under Labor,” you said.

What would you know about communism, I asked, where have you experienced it?

“Robert Gabriel Mugabe, that communist regime,” you said.

And there were have it. In your view, Gillards’s climate policiesare akin to Mugabe’s regime.

RyaN says:

02:45pm | 24/05/11

@Bobster: no you liked that, not me. Do please try not to put words in my mouth.

Knemon says:

01:33pm | 23/05/11

@ Jade - Watch this video-link with an open mind…the camera work alone is breathtaking and worth watching - it is not the crock that is full of shit, more the people who are in denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1

Jade says:

02:16pm | 23/05/11

I started watching it, but I can’t sit for an hour and a half to watch it all….

Drafnel says:

12:29am | 24/05/11

Hey Jade, I’m fairly sceptical myself - mostly because of the ridiculous overstatement (“climate porn”) that the scaremongers engaged in a few years ago.

But unfortunately “almost surely” is about as good as it’s going to get without actually waiting and seeing.

When I compare our way of life to my grandmother, who recently turned 90, I have to admit that we (western world in general) have become terrifically wasteful. There’s no doubt we take energy absolutely for granted and we’re pretty much trashing what we have. No, I don’t agree with the government stepping in and trying to engineer us into being less wasteful. But frankly we’re not going to do it ourselves.

I don’t know what the solution is - though long-term I do believe it has to be nuclear (hopefully a safer variant with less or not so radioactive waste as today - there is a lot of promising research and development happening around the place). But we do have to have this debate and we will have to change.

Harquebus says:

11:58am | 24/05/11

Drafnel.
Depopulate, consume less (quotas not taxation) and plant lots and lots of trees. There is nothing else that can be done. Taxes and technology ain’t gonna do it.

Big Zacky says:

01:23pm | 23/05/11

Robbo,

In short….we don’t.

We do know the long term science, they indicate that although we are in a warming period the average temperature is actually the “lowest” of all the recent warming periods (by recent talking millions of years).

“Climate” science that the governments use refuses to present data from prior to 1900’s, because primarily the stuff before that debunks ALL of their hypothesis and predictions.

Start with this; http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Climate change politics is just a brazen attempt to increase taxes and at a greater level it is the US-led attempt of western democracies (developed countries) to put down the Chinese economic threat.

Talented Rugby Player says:

12:28pm | 23/05/11

Hey Nosworthy - you say: ‘With 2 and a half years to go to an election we have time to examine all the facts closely’ - so why push the carbon tax through so quickly?  You really are the broken record personified.

Have an important game coming up this weekend - better go.

Anubis says:

12:34pm | 23/05/11

Nossy - get it right mate - Abbott said “the science behind Climate Change is crap” he did not say climate change is crap. So he hasn’t changed his position with his most recent dribble.

David C says:

01:04pm | 23/05/11

well thats exactly the point, let the people make that choice!!!!

nossy says:

01:22pm | 23/05/11

@Talented Rugby Player   awwww just when we were getting warmed up fella - oh well - dont spill that drinks tray at half time will you !  hahahahah

LeftRightOut says:

01:23pm | 23/05/11

Actually, what he said was crap, was the supposed scientific consensus… but hey, whatever is in your speaking notes for the day eh?

simon says:

02:37pm | 23/05/11

Nossy, you might be happy with a government that tells you what to do and how to think, you should be very concerned that this Gillard government is trying to stifle debate.  Well the last time I checked we still lived in a democracy, and we can think and decide things for ourselves. Australia has overwhelmingly decided against a carbon tax already, there are other much less radical ways to reduce emissions, how about tax concessions for green energy industries to start with, how about planting trees. This Gillard government have hijacked the debate with their one dimensional solution to all this. There are many ways to achieve this without a massive new tax, it’s now clear they need this revenue to bring the budget to their wafer thin surplus and to pay for the NBN, nothing else!!

silly me says:

12:27pm | 23/05/11

sorry billy
you had a typo.
Liberals Direct action plan which will cost Tax payers 18 Billion Dollars to start..

Sony B Goode says:

12:34pm | 23/05/11

I don’t want either, really. I want government to abolish progressive taxation so leftist politicians have little money to fund socialist utopias and government can get back to basics.

Anubis says:

12:35pm | 23/05/11

None of the above - you may as well just give 11 billion dollars to the sky fairies - you will get the same result - no effect global climate

MarK says:

12:39pm | 23/05/11

We have a contender for stupid post of the week or maybe we should give it a special prize for being a special contributor to the “I don’t know what the fuck I am talking about ” category.

Either way it is an awesome bit of dumb

TCB 24 X 7 says:

12:47pm | 23/05/11

2 choices billy.
But first tell me is that information coming from the same party that said There will be no carbon tax.

Try as you may, Aussies have stopped listening.

L. says:

12:53pm | 23/05/11

Another way of looking at it Billy,

1. Labors Carbon tax which will alter the climate by 0.001 of adegree in 300 yrs

or

2. Liberals Direct action plan which alter the climate by 0.001 of adegree in 300 yrs

Which do we need..?

Richard says:

01:04pm | 23/05/11

The Liberal’ Direct Action plan.

Why?

Because I understand economics.

Labor’s plan will exacerbate the very serious problem of rising electricity prices, which will ultimately impoverish us all if its not addressed.

Furthermore, the wealth of a nation can only be properly measured in its capacity to produce and manufacture goods and products for export. Labor’s plan will negatively impact capacity of a nation to manufacture products and it will make them less competitive in the international market.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that the Liberal plan (which only costs $3.2 Billion, which will be funded from already identified savings in the budget) is vastly superior to Labor’s plan, which will drive consumers and manufacturers to the wall with inflated power prices.

Melrusk says:

01:10pm | 23/05/11

Well now you’ve done it billy.
How is a hip pocket thinker to respond to such a fiendishly, cunning dilemma?

Blake says:

01:11pm | 23/05/11

Don’t worry MarK, I think you have already taken out the honour.
You’re a shoe-in

Bobster says:

01:13pm | 23/05/11

Apparently Richard understands economics but has not heard of supply and demand’s impact on the economy or the effect of pricing on demand.

Richard got his economics degree off of the internet.

Richard says:

01:58pm | 23/05/11

Bobster I’m well aware of the impact of supply and demand in the economy and the effect of pricing on demand, but its the government’s role to interfere in the free market in such a heavy-handed way. The economist Adam Smith described the ‘invisible hand’ of the market, not the iron fist of Statist bureaucracy.

By artificially raising the price of electricity at a time when there are no substitutes available, the government is directly fixing on raising the cost of living and lowering living standards for all Australians. Did we elect a government to raise our cost of living and lower our living standards? No, we elected a government to do the opposite.

The flow on effects from pricing carbon will impact so broadly and deeply that its impossible to calculate the totality of all negative outcomes, but they will be far far worse than what we are being told to believe. Its like the chaos theory (butterfly flapping its wings in tokyo causes a tidal wave in new york) applied to economics, the outcome will be so severe and undesirable that we all must stand up and put an end to this lunacy once and for all, before its too late.

Bobster says:

02:13pm | 23/05/11

Ah yes, that invisible hand that delivers depressions and GFCs (which no one could ever have predicted).

I guess you’re right though - artificially inflating the price of electricity is best left to the private sector - companies like Enron will always be happy to help out there.

So, what you’ve basically just told me is you understand perfectly how the carbon tax will affect the market, what you’re saying is you just don’t like it because markets should be able to do whatever the like because this always produces the best outcome for all involved?

Have I hit the nail on the head there?

Coop says:

04:46pm | 23/05/11

Heard of elasticity Bobster?

Richard says:

05:36pm | 23/05/11

Bobster, you’re in waaay over your head.

Enron were actually the ones who pioneered Emissions Trading Markets. They were the original impetus behind the idea to begin with over 10 years ago. Its the Big Corporato-fascist Kleptarchies who are really pushing for Cap and Trade Carbon Trading Schemes, because they smell another opportunity to whip up a string of fraudulent derivatives and financial instruments out of thin air (literally this time) and make money for doing nothing (except “saving the planet”, HA!), and you are the sucker Bobster who’s fallen for it hook, line & sinker.

And btw, the GFC could have been predicted and WAS predicted, by about a dozen economists, all of them free market laissez-faire advocates, all of whom warn vehemently against the stupidity of a Cap and Trade carbon tax/market. They were ignored and ridiculed last time around by people like you who thought they knew better, but this time Bobster, can we please all display some common-sense and LISTEN to their warnings of the disaster we are about to walk into?

libertarian vegetarian says:

05:40pm | 23/05/11

@ Bobster - The GFC WAS predicted, as far back as 1999, when the Clinton Govt interfering in the mortgage market. 

@billy - Labors Carbox take will “raise” 11 Billion dollars, hey?? so where will it “raise” it from???  A tax IS a cost to the taxpayer. It’s not like a raffle or a charity auction. You WON’T have a choice whether to make a bid or buy a ticket. Unless you want to live in the middle of nowhere existing on what you can find and hunt, you’ll be paying.  As will all the people who will lose their jobs because their employer can no longer afford to operate. Plus all the people who those workers would ordinarily spend their money with. The local shops, hairdressers, pubs, taxis, plumbers and tradies, it just goes on and on.

Steve Putnam says:

06:45pm | 23/05/11

@Richard If, as you claim, you are an economist wouldn’t it be reasonable to cite fellow economists in support of your view? Not even Access Economics, the Coalition’s “in-house”  analysts would touch their scheme with a barge pole.                                                    Do you seriously expect us to take on board anything from an economic document prepared by the innumerate shadow treasurer? His figures haven’t added up (twice). He has demonstrated, when giving a hypothetical example about the proposed 60:40/ federal:state health funding that he had no understanding of basic percentages, and when WHK Horvath did a one page spread sheet of his rubbery figures before the last election, he falsely claimed it as a full audit.
Not much on the table is there Richard?

Bobster says:

08:15pm | 23/05/11

Of course the GFC was bloody predicted. I predicted it myself. Anyone with more than one out of five senses predicted it.

Apparently, the world’s economists have less than one out of five senses or less.

Yes, I’ve heard of elasticity - we saw it in action last time fuel hit $1.60 and everyone stopped buying V8s and V6s, and the Toyota Prius hit the market.  That’s precisely the point of the entire exercise.

As for Enron, the comparison had nothing to do with emissions trading and if you have trouble working out what I meant when I spoke about the private sector artificially inflating prices (for a single bottom line outcome as opposed to government triple bottom line objectives) then I think you had better put your economics degree back in the Cornflakes box.

Drafnel says:

12:41am | 24/05/11

Billy, how will the carbon tax “raise” 11 Bil? That money will come from the taxpayers. You’re forgetting that the gov’t merely represents us - it IS us. It doesn’t matter if the government “raises” $1 by taking it out of my pocket, or if it “costs” $1 out of my pocket. I’m still $1 poorer for it. What, you think Labor’s plan will somehow manufacture money from no-where?

The only question worth asking is what to DO with the money. Labor’s plan seems to involve “raising” money and then giving it back to us (or at least to the lower income earners) which sounds suspiciously like a money-go-around. At least the Libs have suggested some concrete things to do.

Tiger says:

01:42pm | 24/05/11

the alternative to these, if we must have one, is an emissions trading scheme. it will allow our companies to compete in the global economy, if and when other countries comply with Copenhagen, though i’m not sure why it must be up to a small economy like Australia, to lead the way…(the cynic in me thinks someone is making a name for themselves, perhaps?) i would like to see EXACTLY how the carbon tax/price is calculated. i oppose it because it is isolationist - it will shrink our economy and decrease our ability to trade globally. taxing producers in our economy means a move off shore, plain and simple (as if there hasn’t been enough “off-shoring” already). at least with an ETS there is the capacity to trade with other economies.

AnthonyG says:

09:08pm | 24/05/11

Silly Billy Your happy for labour to tax us 11 Bullion to achieve nothing but higher power bills. That make a big diferance wont it.

Dave-o says:

01:23pm | 23/05/11

Where’s One Nation based these days?

LeftRightOut says:

01:28pm | 23/05/11

All these pro AGW types have said is something like “here comes something really stupid from sceptics”.

It’s almost universal… and yet, it actually makes the “warmists” (for want of a better term) look shallow, ill-informed, and reliant on someone else’s opinion - virtually nothing contributed at all.

C’mon people, you can do better than that - for a debate that has supposedly stopped (when, noone can answer) there seems to be a lot of people [from the sceptical side] willing to debate. (a few crackpots too from both sides).

The Badger says:

01:41pm | 23/05/11

I believe that One Nation has settled in the Electoral Division of Warringah

Funny Facts says:

12:29pm | 23/05/11

I know,
What are they thinking?
CO2 levels have increased more than 30% since the start of the industrial revolution.
What are they thinking?
What are you thinking?

Talented Rugby Player says:

12:32pm | 23/05/11

I agree.  Look at the usual sycophants that have been quoted [Karoly; Flannery; ove Hoegh-Guldber]. Got produce something to substantiate their pay.

Que says:

01:10pm | 23/05/11

@ Funny Facts
Except CO2 started rising at its current rate BEFORE the industrial revolution. C02 and temps have followed each other for millennia with CO2 a TRAILING factor (i.e. not causal)
Try lots of sources including (first I could Google):

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/03/the-acquittal-of-carbon-dioxide-a-blog-post-by-jeffrey-glassman/

Facts ARE pretty funny heh?

Funny Facts says:

01:59pm | 23/05/11

why do you link me to an alternate reality sceptic site if not for it’s comedic value?
Facts are really funny. Have you got any?
PS Pls don’t link me to Bolt.
I’ve laughed enough already.

Que says:

02:45pm | 23/05/11

@ Funny Facts

I see you are not aware of the basic scientific data. You’d rather attack the site than examine the data. - attacking the man not the ball.

This graph is part of peer review if you want to use that standard. (I am a scientist btw and the concept of peer review = pure is laughable).

Try this link if you take offence to the original. It has the references of the peer reviewed data:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

or just do a bit of basic research instead of blindly believing.

Funny Facts says:

03:18pm | 23/05/11

Sorry Que
If you were a scientist, you would know the science is settled.
Perhaps you if you go back over to the Bolt blog, you would find more traction with your nonsense.

Louise says:

08:14pm | 24/05/11

Funny Facts, if you were a scientist you would know science is never “settled”.

If you were a scientist you would know there is absolutely nothing scientific about the modelling, extrapolation and conjecture that is being used by academics and politicians to support this ridiculous THEORY.

LeftRightOut says:

01:32pm | 23/05/11

CO2 tax on rocket fuel will kill the industry…

Thomas Anderson says:

02:11pm | 23/05/11

Good point. Surely, gov-t organisations like Roscosmos and NASA should be exempt under any proposed tax law.

Brizben says:

02:14pm | 23/05/11

You are totally over looking worm holes. FTL may sound great but worm holes are the future.

Thomas Anderson says:

05:00pm | 23/05/11

No! Mass Relays are the future :D

Frank says:

04:27pm | 23/05/11

You rule dude.

PTom says:

12:48pm | 23/05/11

So setting up a debate to come after a report on a issue smacks of politics, jeez when has a government or business not done this.

That is the reason reports are done so their found can be debate the conclusion of the report on what action will be taken.

Big Zacky says:

01:12pm | 23/05/11

Exactly Brett, that the report debunks the previous theory of ETS (Rudd and Howard) (see 3.3 in report). So really what the report is is a political point scoring exercise to take a shot at Rudd and Howard for ETS beliefs and try and tell us science believes in the Carbon Tax.

Politics hidden behind “science”.

Hopefully others see through it also.

waynem says:

01:38pm | 23/05/11

They wouldn’t have had to look far, considering just about all scientists consider human induced climate change a reality.

PTom says:

01:04pm | 23/05/11

So Religion doesn’t receive any government money. Crap.
Now you want the Radicals to prove to you something exist by not using the specialist in their field of science. I bet you don’t believe in seat belts or air bags either as people that suggested those where called radicals at the time and what was the conservative counter “The would cost more lives then they will save”
Who had the science backing and who was proven right?
But as typical conservative you will keep you head buried in the sand.

waynem says:

01:45pm | 23/05/11

Wrong Tron. Climate change is a conclusion of science. Science doesn’t make conclusions unless they can be disproved.

louise says:

10:00pm | 24/05/11

Wrong waynem.

Scientific process is to formulate a hypothesis and then attempt to prove the opposite (the null hypothesis - NH). If the null hypothesis is not supported, the original hypothesis is considered valid.

eg Hypothesis 1. Human activity is causing an increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

NH1: Human beings are not causing an increase in Co2 in the atmosphere - Scientific Evidence: historical data shows Co2 levels have varied over time regardless of human activity. Even climate change scientists agree that only 3% of the Co2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to human activity. The Null Hypothesis is supported.

Hypothesis 2. This increase in Co2 is causing the atmospheric and earth’s surface temperature to increase.

NH 2. The earth’s temp is not increased by increasing Co2 emissions. Supporting Evidence: Co2 emissions have risen dramatically over the last ten years but world temperatures have not. Carbon dating shows increases in atmospheric and surface temperatures cause Co2 levels to rise, not the other way around.

Hypothesis 3. (Originally) Increasing the atmospheric and surface temperature of the earth will result in hotter global temperatures, reduced snow and rainfall and rising sea levels.

NP3: Increased Co2 levels will not increase temps nor reduce rain or snowfalls. Supporting Evidence: The Northern hemisphere has had a record cold winter and record snowfalls. The Southern Hemisphere has had above average rainfall across two continents. The worlds sea levels have not changed significantly.

Hence the scientific evidence is that each of these null hypotheses is supported and human induced climate change and it’s potentially dire consequences non-scientific BS.

PTom says:

01:31pm | 23/05/11

Y2K was a real problem that was going to impact certain computer system/software. It was not what the media reported or what folks wanted to believe. Lots of companies and governments spent time and money on making sure there was little impact.

Now people like you think it was some sort of conspiracy, well what was it meant to hide exactly?

Just may be the people pushing hard on climate change are wrong, so what we spend a few billion on improving our air quality and have cleaner energy sources creating a better environment . But if they are right and instead we take your short term view you can forget any standard of living for your children or grandchildren.

Joel B1 says:

09:00pm | 23/05/11

@PTOm

Yes, billions of dollars spent.

Shame the bus ticketing in Hobart stuffed up for one whole day though.
That must have cost at least $95.

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

12:40pm | 23/05/11

Stone you crows, faaark!!!!

Mamamamamate says:

05:10pm | 23/05/11

Damn
They’ve shat all over this blog, just like I knew they would.

Even says:

05:13pm | 23/05/11

Actually they have the decade 2000 to 2010 has warmed by over 1 degree according to the dataset used by the IP2 - Gotcrut
re. the sea surface cooling, go tell that to the polar bears and greelanders.

steven says:

06:56pm | 23/05/11

Even I don’t know what IP2 Gotcrut is. And either does Google with 0 matches.

However the IPCC is the UN body on CC and they use Hadcrut. It shows it has cooled over the past decade.

The Hadley centre also have a sea surface temp dataset. It has cooled.

You are typical of someone who gets emotional about polar bears from media scare stories, and has no idea of the actual science.

Bobster says:

12:39pm | 23/05/11

No real facts - it’s a conspiracy I tells ya. It’s the communists. Everyone knows communists invented climate change. JulIAR is a communist. Barrack HUSSEIN Obama is a communist too. They want to take our money.  There are communists everywhere. Check under your beds, kids. The reds are back.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a dominos came to get too.

PTom says:

02:12pm | 23/05/11

Would not matter what people showed you or told you would carefully cherry-pick to fit your narrative.

So you have not heard of extremes weather changes before. Like having more rain fall in shorter period of time while having longer periods of no rain at all and like having hotter heat waves in summer and colder ice snaps in winter.

Charles says:

03:10pm | 23/05/11

Sounds like a description of normal weather PTom, some days are better than others, and this has been going on forever. 

Don’t forget in the interview Phil Jones of CRU fame (or should that be infamy) gave to the BBC a year or so ago, he mentioned that all the recent warming periods (1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1978-2000) were statistically all similar.  As well, there was no reason to believe that the Medieval Warming Period and the Greco-Roman Warming Period were any cooler than today and likely were warmer.

However, even though he was an IPCC love child, they seem to have left these comments out of most (all) of their literature.

No fun when your friends turn on you.

James says:

12:43pm | 23/05/11

Have you studied science?

MexicanBeemer says:

01:12pm | 23/05/11

James - I have followed the debate, both the scientific and history. This planet has always been warming or cooling.

We know from this debate that the impact on Australia will be a wetter Northern Australia and a drier Western NSW/ Northern Victoria

We also know that humans are having an impact and we do need to move towards using less emission based energy.

Just last week the History channel had a documentary that talked about New York some 20,000 years ago being covered by an ice sheet. (it might have been 200,000 years ago)

We know that 160 million years ago there were no ice sheets at all.

Of course this only highlights that the planet never stops changing and we cannot stop it but what we can do is reduce our impact on it.

James says:

01:54pm | 23/05/11

So that is a no then, so why exactly do we take your assessment of this over the best minds in the world?  Do you hand out advice to brain surgeons too?

Surely says:

02:02pm | 23/05/11

“This Earth’s climate has always been changing and will continue to change well into the future”

Why do people even bother saying this. Its not as if the scientists (or anyone) doesnt already know this.

MexicanBeemer says:

02:17pm | 23/05/11

Surely - And this is why the Scientific debate is being bogged down for we have at the top of this article a suggestion that humans are the primary cause which is emotive and incorrect and leaves the door open for the “do-nothing lot” to run the arguement that no action is needed

James - Are you a scientist for if i read your other comments correctly then we are actually both supportive of action, but as sometimes happens in these debates, some people develop tunnel vision

PTom says:

02:25pm | 23/05/11

James,

Have you studied science then? or do you just like to control other opinions.

Because you do know this is a blog/forum where people may state there opinions

Adam Diver says:

02:29pm | 23/05/11

@ James, “best minds in the world”, where did you pull that from. The greatest minds make mistakes, christ Tim Flannery has his finger prints all over the report, and his mistakes are well documented (at least where I read).

@ Surely, They say it because the debate has moved on from “global warming” to ‘climate change”, so “deniers” need to state the point, that they don’t deny the obvious claim of climate change.

Chris says:

08:14pm | 23/05/11

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

Warren says:

01:09pm | 23/05/11

So Bill, we will just ignore the hundreds of scientific peer reviewed articles on climate change published in the last thirty years? I wasn’t aware that reputable scientific organisations like the CSIRO were in league with the Labor party.

waynem says:

01:29pm | 23/05/11

Oh come on! Your pretense of objectivity is laughable, this scientific report largely conforms with just about every other scientific report from numerous other organisations around the world. It wouldn’t matter who produced this report or how much science was behind it, you would find some angle at which to besmirch its credibility.

Bill says:

02:01pm | 23/05/11

Really? Name one, that scientifically forecasts the direct link of atmospheric CO2 to degrees C of temperature increase. Find one that is consistent with the other and is tolerant and acceptable with peer scientific review. I challenge you. List them all here. I am an atmospheric scientist and all journal articles predicting change are based on simplistic modelling without the consideration of innumerate equilibrium factors, sinks and thermodynamics at work. They are simplistic models, not facts. The problem is you read this stuff in the press and believe you all possess scientific expertise to argue non-factual information. Be very clear I am not sceptical of change, but the summarised stuff that rolled out in this report this morning, is laughable, summarised non-scientific trash. It actually makes a joke of real scientific research. Look at the graph, think and ask, what is the basis of it, what model?
I am not against acting. I am against the action that is being proposed and the non-scientific trash being used to support it, from people who have bigger political fish to fry and not that of the climate.

Warren says:

02:17pm | 23/05/11

You might want to learn the difference between a scientific report and a peer reviewed paper. They are not the same.

Bill says:

04:15pm | 23/05/11

Warren, sure. A Scientifc report is a piece of written information describing, or an account of certain events given or presented to someone, based on the writer’s interpretation of the particular facts he or she has chosed to research.

Scientific journals or papers, contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal’s standards of quality, and scientific validity. The publication of the results of research is an essential part of the scientific method. If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. Each such journal article becomes part of the permanent scientific record.

This is by definition, you can look it up on the net.

The climate change report referenced in this article is the former. Written information describing, or an account of certain events given or presented to someone, based on the writer’s interpretation of the particular facts he or she has chosed to research. It is purely interpretive by the writer, so is not scientific fact and stands no scrutiny under scientific process. Really based on interpretation, you can write whatever you want and reference it to something that appears to support your argument. You could write for or against evidence of anthropogenic climate change and come up with equal credibility. Also again on scientific process, the nunber of articles means nothing, volume does not determine science, facts do. If perhaps one article against the thousands is actually correct, then the rest is meaningless. I wonder how many old articles were written about an earth centered universe, until one article arrived from Nicolaus Copernicus “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium”.

waynem says:

01:21pm | 23/05/11

Cut and paste job? It was established over a century ago that our climate is susceptible to small changes in CO2, while the volume of CO2 producing activities of humans in small overall, it has a big affect. If you actually care about the issue and aren’t simply an employee of one of these polluter lobby groups, then do some real research.

Liam says:

01:28pm | 23/05/11

are you related to Erick somehow, because that is brilliant. I invite all the lefties to respond to this if they can. Ive never seen exact numbers, but always new australia contribution to global warming is SFA

Anubis says:

01:49pm | 23/05/11

waynem - you got any links to credible references to support that statement of yours ?

Dr Mark says:

02:00pm | 23/05/11

Mmm you don’t think that the Global Science Community have reviewed all this data already! They all agree that Climate Change is due to human activity.  Just accept this and get on with it! 

The simplest explanation, is that as increasing amounts of heat are absorbed , there’s an increase in CHAOS ( entropy). It’s like a pendulum.. if you push it hard enough, it will swing violently either way, and back and forth. You get extremes in both cold and hot weather, and more extreme weather events.

Anubis says:

02:17pm | 23/05/11

Dr Mark - when you say ” Global Science Community have reviewed all this data already! They all agree” you are parrotting one of the big lies of the whole IPCC industry. NO they do not all agree, over 13,000 have signed a petition disputing the science of AGW. As for the 97% of scientists agree statement that the IPCC clings to, go to the following link to see just how they came up with this figure - http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/  Lets just summarise it for you - 10,000 scientists sent a two question survey as part of a Masters thesis, too many disagree with the hypothesis of the thesis so remove them from the survey, add a few more reasons to remove some more - get a result, out of 10,000 surveyed 77 out of 79 agree - 97% - a figure picked up by the IPCC and trotted out at every opportunity. 77 out of 10,000 is not 97% but who lets the facts stand in the way of a good scare campaign (the one run by the Global Warming brigade, not the supposed Abbott scare campaign)

Bryndal says:

02:42pm | 23/05/11

The overall temperature change as a result of our actions is a furffy. Yes the individual amount if we act is small but this part of a global exercise.
It is like water restrictions ...what can me saving 10 litres of water do in the scheme of things? It is only .000005% of the water we need to save so why bother? Because if we all act then change can happen every % adds up and over time (yes a long time) a difference might be made. So don’t crap on about ‘only .000005%’ it is about doing your part - this is also why we cant wait for everyone else we have to part of it.

Tony says:

03:14pm | 23/05/11

WayneT - here’s a clue as to why you’re so utterly wrong:  Nature doesn’t actually exist.  “She” isn’t in charge.  No one is.  Nobody automatically corrects anything.  We can certainly fuck it all up if we want to and unfortunately nobody is going to come and save us if we do.  You must appreciate: our very existance relies upon an extremely fortunate set of circumstances.  You seem to think Mother Gaia is looking out for us.  She isn’t.

WayneT says:

04:42pm | 23/05/11

Waynem - I wouldn’t call quoting 100 year old theories real research. You obviously do not understand the overall effect CO2 plays in the climate system.  And just to let you in on a secret, neither do a majority of scientists because If they did there would be undeniable and definitive proof, but there isn’t.  Site me one scientifically peer reviewed paper that show a direct link between human produced CO2 toward global warming or what ever the current name for it is these days.  On the other hand I can point to 450 papers that show doubt as far back as 2009.  (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/450_peer_reviewed_papers.pdf)
  Having a hand selected committee (volunteers where not called for), funded by the Government, come back with biased propaganda doesn’t cut it for most Australians.  And to say the science is settled flies in the face of what real science is about - continuing to better understand what is really going on.  For the PM and her lackey Flannery to call on the press and commentators to stop questioning the science is just what this pathetic minority green driven government wants.  How hard is it to prove the human link, where’s the smoking gun?  You need to look back further than 50-150 years of data, as per the CSIRO’s pathetic effort, to get a better picture of climate history.

b says:

06:39am | 24/05/11

waynem.  Well that was proven wrong, what like 10 years ago?  It is now well know that temperature rises and sea level rises lag behind CO2 levels rising by around 800 years.

So if anything the temperature causes the CO2 buildup, not the other way around.

James says:

01:04pm | 23/05/11

Are you under the age of 40 or have children?

Joel B1 says:

01:13pm | 23/05/11

@James

Is your IQ quotient under 40? What inane drivel.

James says:

01:49pm | 23/05/11

No it isn’t but I wasn’t talking to you.

Que says:

02:49pm | 23/05/11

@James.

Precious petal.

You might want to now answer Hunter’s questions instead of regressing to emotion.

James says:

03:09pm | 23/05/11

No, in when dealing with nitwits like you and your pals resorting to well deserved blasting is entirely appropriate.  Now, answer me this you banana; say I contribute 15,000 dollars tax or 0.0000005% of total tax (assuming revenue of 300 billion) should I stop paying tax?  It is such a small number after all.  Are you all happy to chip in to pay for my road use, my firebrigade, my hospital use?

Que says:

03:31pm | 23/05/11

@James

Thank you for making my point so eloquently. Emotional not factual.

Hunter is still awaiting an answer. Every avoidance by you demonstrates that you don’t know or do not want to know.

James says:

04:19pm | 23/05/11

Que do you understand…concepts? or is the world just made up of bridges and roads and cars and trees to you?

B says:

06:44am | 24/05/11

james, your insane.  I suggest you get some hlp

Bobster says:

01:18pm | 23/05/11

That’s a great argument for the illiterate Mark, problem is, as much as you’d like to pretend the opposite is true, Australia is far from acting alone here.

It is patently and willfully dishonest to prosecute this argument and well you know it.

ian says:

01:50pm | 23/05/11

Bobster,  i think Mark has a fair question,  it’s the question we need to be asking what difference will taxing people make,  seriously someone answer. You are the illiterate Bobster happy to put your hands in your pocket and throw your money away without knowing exactly how this will benefit the environment.  And how much in terms of dollars and jobs is it going to cost us?

ian says:

01:50pm | 23/05/11

Bobster,  i think Mark has a fair question,  it’s the question we need to be asking what difference will taxing people make,  seriously someone answer. You are the illiterate Bobster happy to put your hands in your pocket and throw your money away without knowing exactly how this will benefit the environment.  And how much in terms of dollars and jobs is it going to cost us?

Mark says:

02:08pm | 23/05/11

Bobster, you’ve just given a perfect example of why this whole issue is going nowhere, and will continue to do so.

Maybe re-read my post - I’m not prosecuting any argument Bobster.  I’m uninformed on the topic, I ask a question, which I think is pretty reasonable given the opening line of the article.  The immediate response I get is smacking down full of insults and assumptions about me (somebody you know nothing about).

People don’t like being insulted and spoken down to, and will quickly turn off.  That’s all anybody on either side of this argument does, hence everyone switches off, no conclusions are reached and no ground is gained in any direction.

Bobster says:

02:21pm | 23/05/11

That’s easy.

Nothing. It will force up the cost of carbon intensive energy creation, in doing so pricing it out of the market.

However, electricity remains a staple commodity and will need to remain available.

At present, it is more cost effective for major energy companies to rely on coal and carbon intensive generation, however, if the government can artificially inflate the price of carbon intensive energy generation then we increase the viability and profitability of carbon neutral generation.

This will, in turn, create new industries and new jobs.

Now, I know a lot of you like to believe the whole CC thing is a big con-job. Fair enough, you’re idiots but you can believe what you want.

In that case, try to look at it from the problem of finite resources and growing Asian markets.

There simply is not enough raw material in the world to support the energy demands that we will face as China, India and South East Asia move towards first world economies.

As such, if Australia has already moved towards an energy generation industry that is not hamstrung by finite fuel, we will be in a position to move beyond the mining boom and enter an energy boom.

There you go.

Sony B Goode says:

02:42pm | 23/05/11

In other words renewables are so unaffordable that we have to artificially inflate the price of electricity to make it less affordable than renewables so people will switch over.

The flaw in the logic is affordability; costs will flow through the system at every level. No amount of socialist inspired redistribution will shield anyone that can’t pass the hot potato. Already electricity is becoming a luxury.

Australia has over 300 years left of coal for electricity generation before we even look at alternative fossil fuels then maybe 1000 years, according to the left the electricity generators will be floating in a warm soup by then.

Adam Diver says:

02:49pm | 23/05/11

@ bobster,

Do you mind pointing out the carbon neutral power alternatives? There are two that exist currently Nuclear and Hydro, and both are going nowhere in this country.

Bobster says:

03:34pm | 23/05/11

Hence the need to influence the market.

We can safely assume that nuclear is out given the fiasco in Japan - Nuke 2.0 isn’t going to assuage the fears created by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island like some hoped.

So hydro, geo-thermal and solar are probably going to be it but, as you say, in the current environment they’re not likely to attract a lot of investment. Therefore, Australia needs to push the industry in the right direction fo rits own good.

The wealth redistribution argument is for shallow minded idealogues. There’s nothing socialist about it. It’s about setting the foundation for an industry that could be our new golden goose.

Direct action will not offer this.

B says:

06:49am | 24/05/11

Here bobster.  I just shot you down!!  Cant use Hydro Electric.  It is not Carbon Neutral.  Think of all the forests and valleys destroyed to create these.  Oh the horror of the trees   I hope that lemon tastes sour

http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/restoring-rivers/dams/background/hydropower-dams-in-an-era-of.html

“Hydropower dams can contribute to global warming pollution: When a forest is cut down to make way for a dam and reservoir, those trees are no longer available to absorb the carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels. Further, decaying vegetation beneath the reservoirs can generate emissions, which can contribute to global warming.”

Bobster says:

11:38am | 24/05/11

Way to pick a nit. Pity that was just an example while we discussed the market mechanisms. I’m happy to strike it off of the ideas list but I think I’ll leave the actual engineering to someone more qualified.

Looks like you’ve abandoned talking about the ineffectiveness of the carbon tax as a mechanism though, so I’ll take the stupid comment as proof of your lack of constructive input.

James says:

01:56pm | 23/05/11

As opposed to the actual suicide of the entire planet which is what doing nothing is a vote for?

PTom says:

01:59pm | 23/05/11

So how do you hang your clothes out to dry in the middle of winter or if you lived in blocks of flats like NYC?

Joel B1 says:

08:55pm | 23/05/11

@James “actual suicide of the entire planet” What? Is the Earth going to just up and die?

Nuts.

@PTom So like all Americans live in cities? So do I, and I still manage. Twat.

waynem says:

01:15pm | 23/05/11

Here is how politics in a capitalist society works. First, identify any threats to your profit stream. Second, fund a lobby group to spread misinformation and lies about the issue in question. Third, repeat until any rational evidence based opinion is considered borderline insane.

Tchom says:

01:20pm | 23/05/11

Alright, you go out and disprove climate change

wakeuppls says:

01:47pm | 23/05/11

Well, the sun comes up and it gets hot, and when it goes down it gets cold. Pretty hard to disprove that climate change.

James says:

01:58pm | 23/05/11

There there you are safe, the commies are not going to get you, you can climb down from your attic

James says:

01:52pm | 23/05/11

Have you seen the coalition?  More importantly, have you heard them?  You haven’t lived until you have heard Barnaby Joyce try and explain economics.

peta says:

02:02pm | 23/05/11

i know a lot of labour sheep that would be happy to buy a used car off this lot, no questions asked ,theres no way they would sell a lemon to make a buck or two haha

Seano says:

02:26pm | 23/05/11

“Attack their argument instead of resorting to ad hominems”

I can see you’re new here.

Who’d want to listen to climate scientists when we have the uninformed and largely uninterested opinion of the great unwashed….

http://www.takepart.com/news/2011/05/12/nerd-alert-climatologists-rap-about-global-warming-video

Matt says:

06:18pm | 24/05/11

Hey Tchom, how about one valid scientific fact to link human CO2 emissions to increasing temperatures, or actual scientific evidence that the overall temp of the globe has increased, or one prediction from these alarmist over the last 15 years that has actually eventuated.

When the Climate Change alarmist actually put forward an argument to support their money grabbing theory, I’ll be all ears.

Harquebus says:

12:12pm | 24/05/11

I believe the geologists. Peak oil mate, peak oil.

Anubis says:

02:21pm | 23/05/11

Sorry Bert but Anubis IS NOT EricK.

fairsfair says:

03:23pm | 23/05/11

Well said as always. I can’t work out my position on this but as someone who is actively seeking to reduce my personal consumption I am happy to wait and see. Even if our actions are having no impact I can’t see any issue in actively stopping the waste.

And a big welcome back Mr C. You were missed and on one day your absence was even mentioned by Seanr. He’ll be stoked to see you back

I take it you were aboard the Sea Shepherd again?

AdamC says:

10:54am | 24/05/11

Alas, nothing so glamorous, Fairs. I was merely on holiday in the States. It was pretty awesome, thanks for asking. And it is certainly good to be back at the Punch - if not so much good to be back at work!

Bruce says:

02:22pm | 23/05/11

Before the co2 god took over the world we were concerned about many things that were causing pollution: chemical, genetic etc etc, things that could never be undone, ever!  But that has all disappeared now.  And many of the worst polluters in these areas have jumped on the co2 band wagon - what a wonderful diversion for them to let them continue unchecked.

Melrusk says:

03:12pm | 23/05/11

Ah Yes, the God of Co2 reigns while @ 10 million tonnes of toxic chemicals will be released ” by those who profit”  into OUR environment this year.

You make a good point, apparently distraction tactics work.

James says:

02:33pm | 23/05/11

600 million tonnes or 1.5 ish %.  Now let me apply that logic to tax, say I contribute 15,000 dollars tax or 0.0000005% of total tax (assuming revenue of 300 billion) should I stop paying tax?  It is such a small number after all.  Are you all happy to chip in to pay for my road use, my firebrigade, my hospital use?

Melrusk says:

02:53pm | 23/05/11

Hmm not so sure about the Co2
However, this is how many people we have on the planet ate the moment 7,966,569,???. It fluctuates constantly
http://www.worldometers.info/

Adam Diver says:

03:00pm | 23/05/11

1.5% at status quo.

Unfortunately China’s increasing its CO2 output by many Australias per year, so If we output zero carbon dioxide, the reduction would be swallowed up in well under a year.

Makes a mockery of us going it alone.

Coop says:

05:31pm | 23/05/11

James… I think the issue is that you would be paying more tax for no reason

Sony B Goode says:

02:31pm | 23/05/11

I don’t know how its possible to have a rational debate with someone who thinks we are a “destructive infestation”.  But it does sum up the green position well.

Lapun says:

10:57pm | 23/05/11

Sonny B Goode - I guess it all depends on your point of view.  Think how you would feel if you were a cockroach!    In the bigger scheme of things we can liken ourselves to “an infestation”.  I find it much more rational to consider the problem seriously and debate it.  Please don’t liken me to the Greens.  Scary Sarie?  Yuk.

nab says:

03:04pm | 23/05/11

TAX the pllouters—- 80$/ton.

James says:

03:05pm | 23/05/11

Oh and don’t get me started on the moon landings

LeftRightOut says:

06:04pm | 23/05/11

Thanks, Dad!

Que says:

06:54pm | 23/05/11

Here here. But of course it always was about pollution but the greenies didn’t quite get the engagement from pollution guilt. Thus the need to swap to end of world guilt.
I’m a scientist as well and have slaved many a weekend to apply for grants. I always find it naive of lay people to pretend that no bias/corruption/self serving occurs in the scientific community. Bad news everyone, it does and the AGW community is the pin-up boy.

APR says:

04:10pm | 23/05/11

Apparently we are all idiots and our opinions do not count, we must do as we are told and do it quickly.  If you tell me what to do, expect resistance.  If you include me and ask for my opinion, we can work together.

Frank says:

04:33pm | 23/05/11

Great contribution. Naught.

Thomas Anderson says:

05:36pm | 23/05/11

Yeah, it will take a while to implement. That’s why we should start now instead of wasting time on windmills.

As for now, I’ve said this before, but…. compulsory solar panels for high income earners. If the government really is serious about changing power consumption patterns, surely they should not be afraid of the most powerful people in the country

Sony B Goode says:

06:48pm | 23/05/11

It certainly will not take 40years to get thorium reactors going, please provide references. I don’t know why you make this stuff up. Australia has according to one of your links 19% of the world’s thorium. Experimental thorium reactors are already in existence.

Instead of wasting time on solar and overpricing coal Australia should start digging.

Scranbag says:

07:32pm | 23/05/11

Reference alreayd provided, thanks.

India, the only current in-train development plan for major commercial thorium-based power:

“Stage two, which seeks to plug India’s energy deficit by 2050, involves using reprocessed plutonium to fuel “fast reactors” that breed further uranium-233 and plutonium from thorium and uranium.

In stage three, advanced heavy-water reactors will burn uranium-233 while converting India’s thorium reserves into further uranium in a sustainable “closed” cycle. All three stages are running parallel and each has been demonstrated on a laboratory scale.”
India: http://www.physorg.com/news205141972.html0

2050 it is then. 40 years to “to plug India’s energy deficit”. 40 years, for a major contribution by operational on-line Thorium cycle plants.

Current operational commercial plants on-line the grid anywhere? Nil.

Sony B Goode says:

07:53pm | 23/05/11

This has nothing to do with liquid fluoride thorium reactors.  That was India’s plans for Heavy Water Reactors. Nice try. Seems you are more interested in looking for ways to undermine any objection to carbon dioxide pricing, rather than finding solutions to our energy needs.

<a=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8”> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 </a>

The US has the technology mothballed. It could bring it back very quickly.
“Even a small nation could develop the technology”

Carbon dioxide penalising will not work, Alternatives like thorium reactors will provide unlimited energy at half the cost of current nuclear power and a fraction of the cost of anything green.

iansand says:

08:44pm | 23/05/11

There are currently no operating thorium reactors.  There are currently operational solar and wind generators.

I know.  Let’s put all our eggs in the technology that is not currently available and ignore currently available technology.  I suppose it makes sense to someone.

Scranbag says:

08:58pm | 23/05/11

The Indian development plan is *entirely* relevant,  to the broad range of possible commercial scale Thorium cycle plants and likely time scales. They have the -*only* commercial scale plans currently underdevelopment for PHWR using Thorium. *One* prototype near completion, and plan for major contribution to power generation by 2050. 

There are currently NO commercial scale MSR/ Liquid Fluoride power plants. Anywhere. 

One prototype under development, the Fuji consortium MSR: expected to be 20 years before they have a full scale reactor.  After that, installation at commercial scale? 10 to 20 years, probably.

There are a handful of other prototypes at various stages of development. 

From development scale prototype to full scale reactor: 2 decades. From full scale reactor to commercial scale multiple installations making significant contributions to national scale power generation: the same order,  another 10 to 20 years or more.

If MSR was a piece of cake and “on the shelf”, there’d be no need for the long-term Indian plan based on a different design.

If MSR was a piece of cake and “on the shelf”, the Japanese consortium MSR plan would be on the edge of full-scale commercial application, now.  It isn’t.

What’s more, none of them claim they are. Their plans are for development over decades. After that, commercial scale installation will take about the same. That’s looking to be 40 years.

Reflect, please. Read more widely. Think. Check facts before making unsustainable claims.

See eghttp://www.eoearth.org/article/Small_nuclear_power_reactors#Molten_Salt_Reactors

and (usual wiki cautions apply) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#cite_note-7

Scranbag says:

09:26pm | 23/05/11

Ooops - malformed link. Better:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Small_nuclear_power_reactors#Molten_Salt_Reactors

Sony B Goode says:

10:25pm | 23/05/11

Firstly you wildly underestimate the efforts of human ingenuity.

Secondly the technology could be fast tracked. Instead you are going to tax the public with no alternatives whatsoever to provide a base load electrical capability that is renewable. No amount of taxing the public will provide any renewable base load capability, the best renewable can do is provide a percentage of electricity usage in the single digits.

This strongly implies the agenda has nothing to do with switching to renewals since they can’t do the job and everything to do with the progressive agenda of redistribution.

Most people won’t even know which prices are rising for what reason, if the price of food goes up will people stop eating?

taxing carbon dioxide is a scam

Scranbag says:

12:59am | 24/05/11

The topic, of SBGs choosing,  was Thorium-cycle power development.

That may have a big part to play in time.

But SBG overstated his case: as to “simple”; on level of current development; and on likely timescale of significant power production.

His arguments were poor and his basic information in error. Not for the first time. Readily shown up from current reliable sources available to anyone with a little curiosity and patience.

To get out of that,  at this point, all SBG has to offer is to try to put words I have never said in my mouth (not for the first time either) , on matters that are irrelevant to the Thorium issue.

But the current state of effort on Thorium-cycle power and the likely cycle of development are as they are. Nothing to do with *my* opinion on that or anything else- simply the views and plans of those involved in such work.

nossy says:

04:23pm | 23/05/11

@AnthonyG - so you are advising people to steal power by bypassing their meter Anthony ? God protect us from nuts like you fella ! Poor NicoleG !

Mattb says:

06:09pm | 23/05/11

I know of a sparky who was killed at work because some greedy, ignorant scumbag did exactly what you are proposing to do here. Your a lowlife for simply suggesting you are going to do this and shouldnt even call yourself a sparky. You should lose your licence for even considering it. Your a disgrace to all tradesmen

AnthonyG says:

07:30pm | 23/05/11

Some of you losers need to get a sense of humour.

AnthonyG says:

08:32pm | 23/05/11

MattB Sorry to hear about your mate. I to had a very good friend die due to shotty work. However you cant get away from the fact that this type of thing will happen in droves due to people not being able to afford to pay for their electrical bills. Sorry for being insensitive but I think my point is valid. Now if I said to you i was going to fly to the moon in a back yard rocket. would I have to apologize to the family’ of the victims of the shuttle that blew up. If I tell the odd porky its only because I have learnt it from our Prime Minister

Sony B Goode says:

10:48pm | 23/05/11

Flannery is a palaeontologist.

Bruce says:

05:57pm | 23/05/11

Chris: Agree, NEW ELECTION, now. We were deceived ! Particularly when Juliar said “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. Considering the massive impact a carbon tax will have on everything we do, look at, touch, eat, and any other physical and non physical entity we are involved with, the carbon tax will be there. The Green-Ind-ALP has no mandate on this issue.

Jasper says:

07:44pm | 23/05/11

Na
Let’s wait 2 1/2 years and see if the sky falls in

Harry says:

06:55pm | 23/05/11

Agree.

He got 90 million dollars from Rudd as a grant and still dresses like a wino.

He is sooooooo independent and suuuuuch an expert.

Picked the Qld floods didn’t you Tim?  Make money from the scare books while you can.

AGW is a scam fad.

James says:

10:35am | 24/05/11

Good one jackass

Dan says:

07:02pm | 23/05/11

You sound angry….and fair enough too. This government is pretty useless and has done a woeful job of explaining things. The Greens are the worst of the lot, we could have already had a CPRS but they voted it down. Watermelons the lot of them.
Science on the other hand works by individuals going off and working on a problem and then all coming back together occasionally and seeing what everyone got. In this case everyone has got the same result, thus it’s a scientific consensus, not a political consensus.
The question to ask yourself is who do you trust more, a scientist or a politician?

Dan says:

06:55pm | 23/05/11

I hope all the people who don’t want a carbon price can afford it!

LC says:

08:59pm | 23/05/11

Oh don’t worry, they’ll oppose the carbon tax too when they discover that it causes the costs of their latte(s) to go up and up and up and up

That said, I still don’t see why we simply can’t lower existing taxes for environmentally friendly products (rather than increase taxation on environmentally unfriendly ones). The cost of living does not increase, local manufacturing industries don’t lose out on profits and consider moving jobs overseas, and still provides an incentive to go green.

Dan says:

07:15pm | 23/05/11

180k salary hey? How about the million dollar salaries the miners and their ‘scientists’ get who decide….wait for it….human activity isn’t warming the planet….Funnily enought many of these blokes will also tell you that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

Free Gold and Silver says:

08:25pm | 24/05/11

Really Dan? Name one. Name one of the 31,000 scientist who have signed the Petition Protest who have any financial interest in pointing out this fraud. Then name one of them who has any interest in the tobacco industry.

While you at it, why don’t you name one of the pro-climate change brigade that don’t have a financial or other interest in this scam.

However, I do have a few investments that might be of interest to you and all you have to do is send me $1,000 with your bank account details and passwords. Hope to hear from you soon.

Dan says:

07:05pm | 23/05/11

So how much do you get paid by big oil/coal per comment? Must be making a killing today, are you rich yet?

Louise says:

10:12pm | 24/05/11

Dan, how much are you getting paid to pretend that there are still some people in the general public who believe this crap.

Dan says:

07:11pm | 23/05/11

90 grand hey….sounds pretty good doesn’t it. Just think BHP made 10 billion in 6 months! It only cost them and the rest of them 20 million or so to roll Krudd. Imagine that 20 million was used for geothermal instead, or heaven forbid the 10 billion!
Nah gotta keep them fat miners happy or they might *gasp* launch another ad campaign!!!

susan Q says:

08:08pm | 23/05/11

Hey Dan, count the zeros.

It is a scam.

Sony B Goode says:

10:11pm | 23/05/11

more on the same

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088

climate change is a natural phenomena unlike the progressive agenda which is an all out assault on freedom and liberty.

LC says:

11:23pm | 23/05/11

There are only 3 cost-efficient alternatives that’ll provide a source of baseload power: nuclear, tidal and hydroelectric.

Solar cannot do so because not only less efficient than an internal combustion engine (10-15% vs 25-30%), but they generate little power on overcast days and none at night. It may find a niche in small-scale power generation (like LED speed limit signs), but that’s about it.

Wind Turbines cannot do so because they generate no power if the wind blows too slow or too fast.

The future may provide solutions for this, but otherwise sorry, Sony B Goode is right.

And even if we approve the construction of a nuclear plant, tidal power facility or hydroelectric dam tomorrow, we’d still be dependent on coal power for at least a decade while we wait for construction to be completed.

“more like Sony B Stupid”

Yeah mate, real funny. You’re a comic genius.

Sony B Goode says:

10:06pm | 23/05/11

“Solar technology, wind and tidal, geothermal are not viable base load generation,”

Correct. There is nothing in this proposal but redistribution. People won’t even know which prices going up is a result of carbon tax or not. This is progressive tax increase by stealth. labor know raising the top tax rate would be very unpopular and this way they can achieve the same aim whilst claiming to save the world.

Sony B Goode says:

10:03pm | 23/05/11

We are still having this argument because we have a tax coming that will keep the greens happy and achieve only negative outcomes for Australia.

Harquebus says:

11:52am | 24/05/11

If you really want to know what is going on, talk to the geologists. Economic eggspurts are the last people you should be talking to. Climate change is a massive smoke screen for resource depletion and overpopulation. Peak oil mate, peak oil. It will kill far more people than climate change and is happening now.
When are you going to wake up?

James says:

10:40am | 24/05/11

You “doubt” because you know as much about science as a bible bashing creationist

gytr says:

12:06am | 24/05/11

And Sony, the first expirement at CERN was conducted for CLOUD in December 2010.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html

Quantifiable results in 2-3 years.

Why can’t any ETS/Tax wait until the quantifiable results are in?

Peer Review for CLOUD by the way, for those who value it so highly:
http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

The debate is certainly NOT over

Scranbag says:

09:43am | 24/05/11

“whats this 40 year rubish”
Rubbish? Simply the Indian plan for large scale thorium-based power by *2050*.  Already comprehensively referenced.  If the Indian program doesn’t suit SBG, perhaps he might try berating the Indian authorities or the journal reporting their plans.

Turning to SBGs latest references (PopSci first, and UK Tele second).

On reading the PopSci article, it’s wholly based on the Tele piece. Says so. Nothing else. 

PopSci chose to use this headline:
“Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years”

But the Tele piece said nothing of the sort. Their lead actually said

“If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years. “

Note “sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years”.  That is, reasonbly expect to outline a plan, in 3 to 5 years. About right for a development plan. Nothing there about commercial scale actual production.

Second, among the several industry sources quoted, *not one* offered *any* sort of timetable, either for development to commercial design, not for building commercial scale thorium-cycle power production of any sort,  nor for the time likely before that would supply power in significant quantities. Not one.

Last, the Tele piece was about thorium power taking over from fossil fuels, focussing on *coal*. PopSci re-made that as “oil”.

Thorium - a potentially useful source as the basic, general Tele piece showed. Given time, as other references show.

PopSci just took the Tele piece and comprehensively distorted it. Poor. Very poor.

Denier in disguise says:

09:32am | 24/05/11

You only have to read these comments or ask Barnaby Joyce or Nick Minchin next time you see them to realise there are plenty of deniers out there.
You are very disappointing.

Murray says:

09:41am | 24/05/11

Gillard is the one doing the scare campaign to death. I think Abbotts policy of Direct Action until there is a Global Agreement makes more sence for Australia.

AnthonyG says:

12:25pm | 24/05/11

Even if this garbage was true all we would have to do is adapt. Like evolution adapt with it. bring on global warming i say. I wouldn’t mind living a little closer to the beach anyway.There is one thing that is apparent from the whole debate and that is there is a sucker born every minute. such as James, Alcotrel and the silly ageing fool that calls himself Nossy, A lot of people chose to live in areas that have earthquakes cyclones and other disasters frequently across the world its nothing new.

James says:

12:57pm | 24/05/11

Wow, you first pal

frank robb says:

02:16pm | 24/05/11

james,
in reality you are neil from the young ones arent you? save a bowl of lentil soup for me. peace man its all those horrible people doing harm to the planet whhooaaa

James says:

02:55pm | 24/05/11

Love the young ones, if I am Neil (which I am not, I don’t own brown cords or a hemp bag) then Deniars are collectively Viv crossed with Mike little men intent on trashing everything for their own enjoyment.

Scranbag says:

03:55pm | 24/05/11

The Antarctic Ozone “hole” now looks to be stabilising at last, as expected, some 20 years since agreement to withdraw CFCs, some 15 years since developed countries phased them out.

Meanwhile we’ve learnt manage the excess UV (and raised skin cancer risk) by Slip Slop Slap , eg application of high rates of SPF 30+ sunscreen,  at least in the highest risk period of summer. 

It’ll be another decade or more before recovery to normal O3 Ozone levels is likely, ultimately reducing the risk and rate of various forms of skin cancer back to pre-Ozone Hole levels.

More? See
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2009_anta.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/world_avoided.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6998489.stm

AnthonyG says:

05:37pm | 24/05/11

And what would you expect from a publication called TreeHugger.com. . And no doubt You believe the picture to. Your have obviously found some pretty potent Hydro or are you still taking trips.

Juliar says:

03:28pm | 24/05/11

@Tiger: no you don’t understand, the Global Warming we have no proof was caused by man is caused by YOU not US.