Just when you thought climate change debate couldn’t get any more hysterical, polar bears start falling out of the sky into city streets. (Warning: this may upset you if you really love polar bears.)

In the ad by climate change campaign Plane Stupid, the message after dozens of polar bears plummet to violent deaths is: “an average European flight produces over 400kg of greenhouse gases per passenger ... that’s the weight of an adult polar bear”. So the logic seems to be: belch 400kg of gas, kill one 400kg animal. Simple.

Actually it’s nonsense of course, but this kind of non sequitur has come to typify both established orthodox sides of the climate change debate in leaked email exchanges and the climax of negotiations over critical environmental laws today in Canberra.

The swathe of leaked emails revealed this week (and rather brilliantly digested here by Andrew Bolt) showing some anti-sceptic sentiment and use of “tricks” among scientists becomes conclusive evidence that climate change is a global fraud by the science community. And today in the nation’s capital, federal politicians engage in the last negotiations on a scheme designed to cap Australia’s pollution levels and charge businesses for the right to emit carbon dioxide, then invest the money collected in projects designed to help the environment. Whether you support or oppose this appears to be based on whether you think people cause climate change.

Wait, what?

To me basing support for emissions trading on the basis of whether you believe climate change is caused by people is just as nonsensically extreme as saying 400kg animals will fall from the sky when you take a flight. It doesn’t matter whether people are causing it or even, frankly, if climate change turns out to be a giant conspiracy perpetrated on humanity by the scientific community.

I don’t care any more whether the climate is actually changing or if it’s caused by Australian cows or Chinese factories or American Hummers. In fact I’m sick of the tedious circular arguments that seem to erupt at the mere mention of the subject.

The deciding factor for me in this is there does seem to be enough evidence to suggest doing nothing about emissions will result in untold catastrophe for the global economy and the environment. In the do-something column of options, some way of capping emissions, on a nation-by-nation basis including here in Australia, is sensible leadership.

Besides, isn’t putting a cap on pollution probably a soundly agreeable proposition in the first place?

The Rudd Government has done an atrocious job of communicating how deeply the effects of the ETS legislation will be felt across the economy. It’s not unlike introducing a new tax and some Coalition figures like Barnaby Joyce appear to be primarily arguing this point.

But falling-polar-bear logic is what seems to be driving other Coalition figures like Liberal Senators Cory Bernardi and Nick Minchin to so vocally oppose the ETS legislation.

They don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming or AGW, the high-falutin’ term for climate change caused by people. (I believe it was developed by the people who engage in the endless circular arguments on the topic to avoid crashing the internet.) So they oppose measures to deal with it, period.

The falling-polar-bear logic was evident in Minchin’s now-infamous appearance on Four Corners this month. “For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world,” Minchin said. “You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.”

Minchin’s position has emboldened other sceptics within the party to the bizarre extent that there could even be a leadership challenge in the partyroom over the emissions trading deal this morning. If it happens it’s highly unlikely to result in a change in a leadership but also won’t help the Coalition douse the perception that it’s too busy with its own fights to take the fight properly to the government.

Blind ideology when we are dealing with matters of science isn’t helpful to politics, science, the voting public or future generations who are relying on us to get this right. Can we lay off the Kool-Aid on both sides?

And watch out for those falling polar bears.

64 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Super D says:

      09:23am | 24/11/09

      In the face of the revelations contained in the leaked emails all debate on the ETS should be suspended.  There is compelling evidence of fraud in the form of data manipulation as well as collusion to prevent contrary views being heard.  The “peer review” system has been abused beyond repair.  The science is not “in”.  At least the Libs have some skeptics on their team.  the ALP has swallowed this fraud hook, line and sinker.  Where do they get a new leader with any sort of credibility on this issue?

    • Glenn K says:

      09:24am | 24/11/09

      You summed it up perfectly. Everyone is focused on the ‘Are people causing the warming’ instead of simply looking at it as limiting pollution.

      Remove the word CARBON from the CPRS and it becomes, Pollution reduction scheme - what politician in their right mind would vote against that! Will forcing producers of energy and products to reduce their output of all pollution cost jobs, YES. In the long term however it will force a move into new markets and the development of new technology & jobs.

      For a look at a PRS that worked look at the CFC debate of the 90’s!

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:40am | 24/11/09

      No surprise at the depths of depravity the Warmenista’s and those in the Neolithic Cheer Squad will stoop.

      How many polar bears will those attending the LegoLand Fayre in December kill?

    • Dave says:

      09:46am | 24/11/09

      @ Glenn K.

      The problem with the CPRS is not the PRS, it’s the C.  Carbon Dioxide is a clear gas.  It is not pollution.  When you see the smog hanging over our cities it is not CO2.  Vegetable growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase food production.  If CO2 is pollution then you are eating pollution infused food.  I believe that vegetables grown in CO2 enrished greenhouses can still be certified as organic.  Imagine that, free of pesticides and herbiceds but infused with carbon pollution.

      The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is just the ALP’s orwellian name for its ETS.  An ETS which will hurt productive industries, enrich bankers and do absolutely nothing for the environment.

    • DigiDave says:

      09:48am | 24/11/09

      @Glenn K says:10:24am

      That’s all fine Glenn, except CO2 isn’t a polutant.  If this was about reducing actual polutants from industry, then I would also support it.

      @Paul Colgan

      Well, this is so far the closest to a balanced blog yet about climate change this week.  But you still make the mistake of assuming the science is settled on reducing CO2 will make a difference.  Since the ETS is ONLY focused on doing this, then this will remain the argument that we are heading into a huge tax disaster for a “supposed” benefit.

      We are making massive changes based on unsettled science.  That is, and will remain, the bottom line.  Since the world has NOT warmed for the last 10 years, why not spend another 10 years trying to settle the science properly ?

      If nothing else, these nabbed emails show that scientists need to drop their pre-conceived agendas, and start working together to find the truth, or at least provide the world with ALL the analysis that has been done.

    • Joe Stephens says:

      09:51am | 24/11/09

      Im sick of climate change campaigners.. they never look at the good side of climate changing. Like, how great was that weekend in July when we could go to the beach! Thats gotta be good for the economy!

      Who cares about polar bears.. I’ve never seen one before, and if we run out.. just get a normal bear.. bleach its hair and throw it in the zoo. Bunch of whingers this lot are, seriously! Get a real job.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:03am | 24/11/09

      Don’t know why everyone is so upset about the ETS. With all the exemptions, subsidies and concessions, it’s like the government is paying people to pollute. Seriously, the scheme is so watered down that the government may as well not bother.

    • WC says:

      10:08am | 24/11/09

      Carbon isn’t pollution.  The Bill Could be called the “Plant Food Reduction Bill”  and be more accurate.

    • The Realist says:

      10:28am | 24/11/09

      I think its showing what will probably happen to the bears in the long run.

      But people it too late anyway.

      1. Climate change is happening
      2. Humans contribute to this? . how much ? is it 5% or 95%? no one can tell me

      Listening to what the experts say there is going to be a massive climate change. New data yesterday found the the polar ice caps in the antarctic on the eastern shelf is melting faster than expected. The summers are longer and hotter and there are wilder storms . Carbon emmissions are on the rise, the Government of the world dont care…. look at the feable response.  After all we need to make money and alot of it. Its happening folks dont think it aint.  1/3 of the world spieces will be extinct, ( but over time evolution will replace new species anyway.  ETS - it symbolic at best but wont make a lick of difference but everybody know this anyway.  It will just tax us more but at least it will wotn let Rudd look like a fool in Copenhagen.

    • Jim says:

      10:40am | 24/11/09

      It is funny how everyone was up in arms when howard and co wanted work choice. The ETS is bad policy especially when they are rushing to get it done before Copenhagen, why? Australians seriously need to wake up and see that rudd is only making policy to impress his international peers, not to benefit Australians. A rushed ETS policy will leave future generations with a massive burden and in the long run if India/China/Brazil don’t play ball there will be little dent in the global warming situation. Rudd is bad news and when australians figure that out then this country will be back on track.

    • David C says:

      10:46am | 24/11/09

      Digidave you are spot on, the fact is that even though the c02 has increased temps have not risen in the last 10 years.As Flannery said last night on Lateline and the hacked email suggest the scientists dont know what is going on. Why cant we wait until they do?
      The public seems to think the models are fact but they are projections only.
      As far as this polar bear is concerned it really sickened me. Hopefully it was intended for Al Gore and his mates all the flying they do.
      Glen K I am sorry but the CFC issue is not relevant here as there was minimal to zero cost to switch from CFCs, that is not the case with the CPRS. (That is actually why it is being proposed in the first place)

    • Eric says:

      10:47am | 24/11/09

      Okay ... five pro-ETS articles in two days. Only one mentions the fabricated data scandal, and that compares it to a stupid polar bear commercial.

      No articles providing a serious alternative perspective.

      No wonder the general public trusts journalists at the same level as used car salesmen and prostitutes.

    • Joe says:

      10:58am | 24/11/09

      “To me basing support for emissions trading on the basis of whether you believe climate change is caused by people is just nonsensically extreme…” Are you crazy!? If it isn’t caused by us we can’t stop it!! But we can spend billions of our dollars on futilely trying. That is the point to the opposition to the ETS!

    • Paul Colgan

      Paul Colgan says:

      11:00am | 24/11/09

      @Joe Stephens: at least nobody could accuse you of coming at this from one of the orthodox positions on this issue

    • Grumpy says:

      11:08am | 24/11/09

      This is a good post.

      Basically I agree that there might or might not be a problem, we don’t know, but if there is a problem the cost of not acting is so catastrophic that we shuld act, even if it is just in case. This should be understood by anyone who has insurance over their house, life, car, whatever.

      @ everyone who says that carbon dioxide isn’t pollution, far point, orat least it *might* be. Regardless, its a distraction from the real question. remember that talking about Carbon (or C02) is shorthand. A more precise name for the scheme might be the ‘Six Kyoto Protocol identified global warming gases pollution reduction scheme” but SKIGWG PRS would be a bit had to say in sound bites. Who cares, its just branding anyway. The scheme in the Green Paper was the right one, although it hs slid back ever since.

      @Eric - five articles in two days saying the same thing *might* be a conspiracy, but perhaps they are just correct…

    • Lenny J says:

      11:10am | 24/11/09

      One would expect no less from Mr Bolt. Especially coming up to the ETS vote and Copenhagen. He is on record as an extreme sceptic and clearly represents a particular arch conservative point of view.
      At times he is caustic, sarcastic and always pushes a political line. Not endearing nor admirable qualities in a supposed newsman. Watch to see if he moves across into politics, where he would be a better fit.
      I personally do not find him enlightening nor constructiive in most debates as he is revelling in the ego pumping role of shock jock, which is what he is paid for. Objectivity does not pay apparently.
      I would not take him seriously at all as it only encourages him but heaven help Mr Turnbull if he does not do his due diligence after this clearly provocative and fabricated information.
      Remember: All good and inspiring ideas follow the same process. Ridicule, saboutage, then acceptance.
      The Global warming debate is in the saboutage phase currently. Watch this space. It will not go away no matter how many Mr Bolts are out there, clearly benefitting from their stance for the moment.

    • Shama says:

      11:25am | 24/11/09

      As a scientist and a climate change sceptic I find all the ways in which the issue is dicussed in the public forum besmusing. For e.g. Bolt will cherry pick the lines he wants to establish that the left is bad.  Or someone will pick on another email or graph elsewhere to establish that the right is morally bankrupt. These do not do any one any good except generate column inches and a lot of noise.  In fact most people are unaware of the way science is carried out - and yes there is a great deal of politics and bad science and data massaging and nutcase theories out there.  But the whole point of science is that someone else will come around and overturn it if it is wrong - something not required of political columnists of any stripe whose past predictions rarely come back to haunt them.

      With regard to cleaner technologies, devoid of any politics, it’s the aim of most science to set uo processes that eliminate byproducts/emissions and the like.  That’s where the research should be not simply on de-industrialising.  And for my money’s worth, Minchin and Bolt are both wrong.  The whole green movement is in fact trying to move back economic, moral and political control to the West by controlling the debate - I am sure both gentlemen will be more than happy with that.

    • steve says:

      11:26am | 24/11/09

      The difference between doing nothing and doing something that will do nothing is nothing. irrespective of how much money that something wastes.

      Everybody wants to reduce polution but I have not found a single supporter of the ETS that will confirm that a tax on everything in dinky little Australia is going to effect the climate of the planet.

    • Grant says:

      11:27am | 24/11/09

      @digidave,

      You will find that amongst others, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a degree of influence on recent global temperature increases.

      No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

      Just saying it is not happening by making anecdotal statements isn’t sufficient as evidence; please provide me with a link to the scientists and organizations you are referring to that state that global warming isn’t occurring please.

      The scientific organisations that agree that it is occurring include, but are not limited to:

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
      International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
      World Meteorological Organization
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
      InterAcademy Council
      International Union for Quaternary Research
      World Federation of Public Health Associations
      World Health Organization

      American Quaternary Association
      American Geophysical Union
      American Meteorological Society
      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Society for Microbiology  
      American Medical Association
      American Public Health Association
      American Institute of Physics
      American Statistical Association
      Geological Society of America
      National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      National Research Council (US)
      U.S. Global Change Research Program
      US National Academy of Sciences:

      European Academy of Sciences and Arts
      European Science Foundation
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union

      Institute of Biology (UK)
      Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
      Polish Academy of Sciences

      Network of African Science Academies
      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

    • Carl Palmer says:

      11:27am | 24/11/09

      Cancer-Denial to Elvis Denial that’s a pretty impressive leap smothered in credibility.  In any case, my wife believes that Elvis is still alive and if she believes it to be the case, then it must be true. She’s got me convinced.

      Regarding credibility and the sort of people who are involved -

      Phil Jones, says he is “cheered” by news of the sudden death of a prominent Australian climate sceptic, John L. Daly, who died of a heart attack at his Launceston home in 2004.

      This stuff confirms what one already knew

    • soultrader says:

      11:31am | 24/11/09

      If all policy was based on cold hard facts and evidence, then we may end up getting sensible government. But hysteria and shouting and name calling does not an argument make. It just makes the sreaming person look silly.
      I just hope that hype does not influence the outcome of this “debate”.
      I for one, am for pollution reduction - and all that takes is common sense policy making from world wide governments.

    • Ben Palmer says:

      11:35am | 24/11/09

      I hope to see the Government’s ludicrously entitled “Carbon Pollution Reduction Bill” defeated or the vote delayed this week.

      As a Coalition supporter, I can’t understand why Mr Turnbull is so eager to give such a political victory to the Prime Minister by passing his bill (however amended) this week (before the Copenhagen Conference), which will not only damage the Opposition, but more importantly, the national interest.

      I think what has annoyed those of us who are vilified as “skeptics and deniers” is is that there’s been a huge propaganda effort to panic us and present certain political and economic options as moral imperatives - this leak has given a glimpse behind the scenes of that push.  I hope that the Left’s Trojan Horse is finally being recognised as such.

    • Joseph says:

      11:37am | 24/11/09

      I’d like to know what an average European flight is, and how they came up with 400kg of greenhouse gases per passenger. Sounds like bullshit to me.

    • The Realist says:

      11:39am | 24/11/09

      I love the subsidy to pay the coal stations so they can pay thier ETS bill….classic rob peter to pay paul.

      The more carbon you produce the more government will give you money, if you can falsely represent your carbon emmission but actually produce less than you claim you can actually make money and produce nothing

      Brillant

    • Terry says:

      12:00pm | 24/11/09

      Rudd should be condemned.

      The term “deniers” in a historical context has come to classify those who are in denial about the Holocaust. For Rudd to introduce this term in the context of the current climate change debate is, quite frankly, a disgrace.

    • The unrealist says:

      12:03pm | 24/11/09

      Leaving the science out of this the reaction to climate change by the worlds governments indicates to me that its not real or not as big a threat to what has been made out.  If you have a cancer you cut it out get chemo and alter your life style so that you can live. If you have a climate change induced by humans, wouldnt you alter you response immediately?

      The ETS should be scrapped or should go the whole hog, what do we achieve by a tokenistic ETS scheme. I does help the local community, the city,state, country or the planet.  I hope the opposition cut and strip the guts out of it th protect us from fundamental stupidity. or the greens actually add to it to actually derive some beneift.

    • steve says:

      12:59pm | 24/11/09

      Shama

      fully agree with you that over time the science process will work out the true picture - but by the time that happens there will be huge investments (public/ political and private) in the AGW response - and the dissenting science will be ignored.  In money and policitcs verses science, I would back the money and politics everytime

      If you think getting climate change initially talked about, and then accepted was difficult, try shifting and then knocking off the new consensus once someone has a few billion invested in wind/solar/geothermal energy.

    • xiaoecho says:

      01:20pm | 24/11/09

      Never mind climate change…....I just want to know how they made the ad

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      01:41pm | 24/11/09

      What has really got me today is all the expert commentators who continue to call this wrong. Sky news never reports on anything that could harm the climate change cause as is the case with most free to air stations. Thank god for the internet or this crap would still have been kept from us by the majority of brain washed commentators who have proven daily that they don’t really have any idea of what is happening. Talk back radio have been covering this with a much more unbiased view in recent weeks because of the input of your average joe blow.. This needs more time for some real debate with all the facts on the table not just the tainted view that our political commentators have allowed us.

    • Shama says:

      01:49pm | 24/11/09

      Steve I don’t think you would back the money and politics each time - certainly not if the science relates to smoking, asbestos and the like.  It’s not just personal health that should be of concern.

      If you note I said I am a climate sceptic. My post was because find the public discussion quite off track because there are too many vested interests in both camps (as there are amongst scientists but at least there is a corrective measure there - if the science against warming is strong enough it will eventually overturn the warming theory regardless of the politics. scramble for funding, suppression of research etc).

    • Super D says:

      01:56pm | 24/11/09

      @Grant

      Half of those organisations are completely discredited by the leaked emails. 

      Besides which contrived consensus is just a popularity contest, not proof.

      The fact that so many organisations have prostituted themselves over flawed science should be a major concern for all free thinking citizens of the world.

    • AB says:

      01:58pm | 24/11/09

      The rhetoric and false arguments on both entrenched sides depress me greatly.  It’s not an issue you bring down to the lowest common denominator and solve via bile filled web discussions or ranting by ‘journalists’ like bolt.

    • pc says:

      02:13pm | 24/11/09

      Its all terribly exciting isnt it?

      Is brown the new green?
      Is Andrew Bolt the new Pauline Hanson?
      Who is the leader of the liberal party?
      And what is black anyway?

      I cant believe how caught up in this excitment we are. Do we no how to party or what?

      Will the ets get passed?
      Will Malcolm Turnbull get ditched?
      Will the coalition split?
      Will the Ruddbott storm Copenhagen and teach it how to party?

      Like Copenhagen the passage of the ets seems a bit like an episode of mtv super sweet sixteen. You already know whats going to happen despite the spontaneity reality tv scripts. You know shes going to be spoilt. You know shes going to throw a tantrum and you know shes going to spend the whole night having various people kiss her arse in ever more demeaning ways.

      So thank goodness for the firefighters for action on climate change and the others at parliament house fighting for more ambitious targets and a voice with mining and industry. We all need to learn to party and the ets and copenhagen are a good way to start.

      Attacking the believers? Now these guys dont know how to party. And no one doesnt know how to party like a vogon doesnt know how to party.  And it is very vogon to attack the believers. The bloody minded refusal to face reality. The unsubstantiated and cowardly attacks on scientists and public servants hiding behind prissy complaints of name calling.  The best these vogons can hope for is one more year, one more drought, one more election.

      Those who are attacking the science refuse to acknowledge reality. In order to fight that reality - a reality that cannot now be hidden or ignored - they must go to war against science. It is their “war on science”. What kind of vogon goes to war against underpaid, underfunded efforts to understand the universe?

      The predictions of science may not be perfect. The predictions of the former vp of the usa and that bloke from two men and a tinnie may not be perfect, but because they cannot perfectly predict the future that doesnt mean science is junk. It doesnt mean those attacking science can provide a more accurate prediction. They cant.

      So if you have been hoaxed by your own fabrications, if you are at war with reality, if you cannot admit you are wrong AND are then forced to have a tantrum, mother REALITY is going to spank you on the @rse. Not very pc I know but then REALITY isnt a left wing conspiracy or an episode of mtv super sweet sixteen or even one of the increasingly inaccurately named trilogy of books.

    • Grant says:

      02:20pm | 24/11/09

      @ Super D

      What you have said screams of conspiracy theory.

      I need factual information, please provide me a link from a peer reviewed nationally or internationally recognised scientific organisation that states that global warming is not influenced by human activity.

    • James says:

      02:27pm | 24/11/09

      Climate deniers, here is an idea to test how much faith you have in what you are saying.  How about you invest in property less than 1 meter above sea level.  The hysterical climate change types will devalue the property so it will be cheap, and if you are right then YOU WILL MAKE MILLIONS on your water front investment.  Go on do it! I dare you!

    • Steve says:

      02:45pm | 24/11/09

      There is one severe fault in your argument:  Carbon Dioxide is, never has been and never will be a pollutant. 

      And a comment to James at 3.27pm: re buying property on the beach front….....would he be including the minister assisting Penny Wong in that list?  To all those deniers who deny the overwhelming majority of scientists who disagree with AGW as a concept….Bill Shorten (the Minister assisting Penny Wong) has just bought a very expensive multi million dollar house on the beachfront in Newcastle.  Now why do you think he did that if he actually believes the seas will rise?

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      02:46pm | 24/11/09

      To suggest that we should devise and implement a massive new taxation system that will probably result in significant loss of jobs in Australia and a lowering of living standards, just on the off-chance it might work a bit is absurd, and probably the weakest argument I have seen in support of an ETS.

      And as for the promise that the funds raised will be spent on environmental projects - are you for real? Political parties, on both sides, spend a lot of their time just redistributing wealth, and that is precisely what will happen on a vast scale with an ETS, along with a small number of people (many of whom will be ex-politicians) getting obscenely rich at our expense.

      Voting for an ETS, or just allowing this to happen, is apathy on a staggering scale.

    • jk says:

      02:52pm | 24/11/09

      How about everyone on both sides of this argument sign up to the climate change challenge. If you’re someone who makes a dollar off the debate, as say, a syndicated news columnist or a climate scientist, put your money where your mouth is and pledge to donate a sum of money equivalent to 25% of the money you’ve made either supporting or denying anthropogenic climate change - to be paid at an agreed point in the future where everyone can agree it’s real or a hoax. I’d suggest we’ll have pretty definitive evidence either way by about 2020.
      Who here has the courage of their convictions? Anyone? Anyone at all???

    • Super D says:

      03:04pm | 24/11/09

      Hey James

      As it turns out there is no sign of fear amongst property buyers.

      http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/bayside-buyers-unfazed-by-rising-sea-levels-20091122-isua.html

      Frankly we should put in a low ball bid for the Maldives….

      @ Grant - don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to this whole climategate thing but peer reviewed climate science has been discredited as a sham.  Even Monbiot acknowledges the damage that has been caused (before building himself a nice straw man)

      The whole point Grant is that the scientific community, which has held itself to be independent seekers of the truth are far from impartial.

      A good rundown of it all here

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017546/climategate-why-it-matters/

      Or just type climategate into google.  Our media has been very slow on the uptake, I have no idea why, this is perhaps the biggest story of the decade given our politicians are presently arguing about implementing policy based on this sham.

    • TimT says:

      03:18pm | 24/11/09

      This -

      “I don’t care any more whether the climate is actually changing or if it’s caused by Australian cows or Chinese factories or American Hummers. In fact I’m sick of the tedious circular arguments that seem to erupt at the mere mention of the subject.

      The deciding factor for me in this is there does seem to be enough evidence to suggest doing nothing about emissions will result in untold catastrophe for the global economy and the environment. In the do-something column of options, some way of capping emissions, on a nation-by-nation basis including here in Australia, is sensible leadership.”

      - makes no sense whatsoever. If you assume that human-caused climate change is not a problem, then clearly it would be more catastrophic for the global economy to curb carbon emissions and the burning of fossil fuels, since that is the energy source that underwrites the entire global economy.

      An irrational argument which, I think, demonstrates the woolly thinking that the climate science ‘consensus’ encourages.

    • D'oh says:

      03:25pm | 24/11/09

      @ James @ 3.27pm

      [another face palm] - see Peter Lewis’ article.

      Great argument James, how about you go look up Al Gore’s multi million dollar mansion within 20m of the ocean

      FAIL.

    • Jane says:

      03:37pm | 24/11/09

      “Besides, isn’t putting a cap on pollution probably a soundly agreeable proposition in the first place?”

      Absolutely, couldn’t agree more.  However, handing over .7% of our GDP plus undefined fines/penalties if we don’t reach arbitrary emission figures, in addition to the normal aid we send to “developing countries”, some of whom have bigger GDP than us, is just plain economic suicide.

      There is a big difference between fighting pollution/carbon emmissions and putting a tight rein on economic growth while “developing countries” are free to emit/pollute.

      Add to this, in drought ridden, water shy Australia,  vastly increased immigration and you have to wonder just what the hell, if anything, is being planned (

    • Philip says:

      03:38pm | 24/11/09

      James at 0327 challenges climate deniers to invest in properties right on the beach. James, here in Perth there are a couple of locations where the councils allow development on the beach. Those places were established decades ago and are some of the most expensive properties in Perth. The prices just keep going up and we are talking many millions each. AGW has no discernable impact on the prices no matter how settled the science. There must be a lot of rich deniers out there.
      James, what I wonder is why do these deniers have so much money? They spend more on an outdoor chair and a bottle of champagne than a CSIRO climate scientist earns in a year. How come the CSIRO scientists, who can predict the weather and the economy a hundred years from now, are so poor relative to the legions of ignorant deniers? It is a weird world.

    • Eric says:

      03:45pm | 24/11/09

      Grant, many of the groups you cite are not expert in climatology. Therefore, I can only assume that they have endorsed the theory for political reasons.

      What does the American Public Health Association know about climate science? Nothing.

    • Grant says:

      04:21pm | 24/11/09

      @ Eric

      Yes correct, experts in their respective fields, and others who are experts in climatology on that list.

      Specifically, in 2007 the American Public Health Association produced a document titled ‘Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’.

      This document detailed health outcomes due to changes in the environment that have affected global health; they played a part on the fourth report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding climate change.

      @ Super D

      Yes yes, we’ve all heard about the e-mails.  But I would trust most of these organisations and years of scientific research over someone’s opinion.

    • Eric says:

      05:00pm | 24/11/09

      You’re living in denial, Grant.

      The emails prove that “these organisations and years of scientific research” have been lying to us all along.

    • D'oh says:

      05:07pm | 24/11/09

      I am really going to have a sore forehead by the end of the day with all this face palming.

      So Grant, you’ve heard of the emails (although it does not appear as if you have read them - don’t you know you just can’t take someone’s opinion of them…).  Have you had the opportunity to also peruse the files that were also leaked?  These files contain data that these scientists have “modified” over years and years to give results that the organisations you so lovingly quoted rely on for their consensus.

      Unless the leaked data can be shown to be false (highly unlikely given statements by messers Jones, Flannery and Pitman over the last two days) your precious “years and years of scientific research” on which you so desperately cling to for solace is worthless.

      EPIC FAIL.

    • pc says:

      05:15pm | 24/11/09

      Isnt it uncurious that the people who used to deny knowledge of climate change - those people who used to say it wasnt happening - have now started to say it is happening but the ets isnt the way to global warming. They say its a “dog” of an ets. They say “its just an ets for the sake of an ets”. They want to have more “meaningful debate”, they need more “science”, science only a couple of months earlier they were saying is questionable. Now they complain that the science, like the ets is not perfect. Its like when the super sweet sixteen throws the inevitable tantrum and declares. “This is the meant to be the best day of my life and you ruined it for me. It was meant to be my perfect super sweet sixteen.” To those that say it isnt perfect, that its a work in progress, that its too kind to the polluters and not good enough for the citizens.  Grow up and get on with the business of partying. If you dont party you wont have a good time and it will be no ones fault but your own.

    • iansand says:

      05:35pm | 24/11/09

      Anyone who thinks that the emails are a problem hasn’t read them.

    • Super D says:

      07:28pm | 24/11/09

      Anyone who has read the emails and doesn’t think they are a problem has clearly thinks dishonesty and science aren’t incompatible.

      The emails are a massive problem.  They demonstrate the levels these “scientists” will sink to to maintain their influence.  They make a mockery of the peer review process and cast a pall over many well known scientific journals, not to mention the IPCC.

      Anyone who doesn’t think that is a problem as a very strange sense of morality indeed.

    • iansand says:

      07:43pm | 24/11/09

      Do they do all that?  Gosh.  We must have read different emails.

    • steve says:

      08:24pm | 24/11/09

      Hey James How about the Idiot who paid $4.5 Mill for the first floor of Fisherman’s wharf in San Fran. A bloke by the name of Al Gore paid it in 2005, do you think he believes the sea level is going to rise 23’ ? Or is he just a hypocrite

    • Liz says:

      08:15am | 25/11/09

      Hypocrite gets my vote.Can advertising get any more tasteless? Can the public be any more conned? Can scientists be as corrupt as politicians and big business?You bet!

    • mid says:

      11:08am | 25/11/09

      Geez, the way these arguments are going we might as well be arguing which religion is better, or which football team is most likely to win. It is obvious that people have picked sides and are defending them with as much zeal as they can muster. I for one am not sure if global warming is caused by humans, but I know that reigning in pollution can’t be a bad thing. Can anyone argue that?

    • DigiDave says:

      12:24pm | 25/11/09

      @mid

      No, no one can argue that reigning in pollution is bad.  But are we talking about pollution ?  Is a little excess CO2 (a naturally occurring gas required for life) regarded as pollution ?

      Because this is the ONLY thing the ETS is designed to reduce, and the ONLY thing being discussed at Copenhagen.  If this was about actual pollution and chemicals that no one disagrees are damaging, we’d all be for it.  But it isn’t.  Calling CO2 a pollution is deceptive and misleading.

    • mid says:

      01:27pm | 25/11/09

      @DigiDave

      I would hope that pollution is the crux of what we are talking about. Blaming the worlds problems on one emission, I would imagine, would be a little simplistic. But I’m not a scientist by any stretch, so have to rely on those a little more knowledgeable about it than me. Perhaps by introducing limits on CO2, we will be encouraging better means of achieving what we want to do, and thereby reducing other pollutants at the same time as a spin-off?

      Got to say though, I would imagine that even though CO2 is a naturally occurring gas you can still have too much of a ‘good’ thing yeah? I mean mercury is a naturally occurring element but I wouldn’t want to be around too much of it (I know, apples and oranges but surely there is a limit where it becomes a problem?).

    • DigiDave says:

      02:36pm | 25/11/09

      @mid

      In actual fact, my guess is that pouring research dollars and development into reducing CO2 will more likely lessen the effort to remove other chemicals that are indisputably harmful.

      Currently there is 388 ppm (parts per million) CO2 in the atmosphere, with about 15-20% of this being due to human activities, depending on who you ask.  We are adding around 1-2 ppm each year.  It becomes a health hazard at around 5000 ppm, causes drowsiness at 10000 ppm, and will cause you to pass out at >70000 ppm.  So we have > 2000 years in theory before it becomes a known health hazard to us, let alone fatal.  I don’t think any of this is disputed.  What effect it has on the environment and to what extent is definitely of interest, and this is what is being questioned.  Much more research is required to draw factual conclusions on this in my opinion.  I don’t believe spending another 10 years in research first, before committing massive amounts of money to a solution, is such a bad thing.

    • James says:

      12:47pm | 26/11/09

      I am talking about a really putting your money where your mouth is (i.e. buying just above the current waterline).  Put in that low ball bid for the Maldives, it will be cheap as chips.  If you are right you win, if not house takes all.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      03:32pm | 26/11/09

      I would like to predict that, once Labour has its CPRS passed safely and out of reach, the Australian media will suddenly have a brilliant idea, “Hey, why don’t we actually take a look at what this scheme is going to cost the taxpayer and what good, if any, it will do?”

      “Hey guys, guess what? This CPRS is going to cost heaps and deliver bugger-all benefit. Who knew?”

    • BANG says:

      12:44pm | 27/11/09

      Has Mother Nature got a bank account?
      How much money does she need to stop ‘climatechange’?
      Just another scam by the Power Elites who have governments under control.
      Dont be fooled by this Liberal leadership crap.
      It doesnt matter. We have 2 teams that follow one system, and they pander to the ‘behind the scenes big boys’.
      There is no choice, just the perception of choice.
      We have been ‘swindled’ since time began.
      Things are coming to a point and the shit is about to hit the fan people.

    • Sum Yung Gui says:

      05:22am | 04/12/09

      Paul Colgan you said : Quote
      “The deciding factor for me in this is there does seem to be enough evidence to suggest doing nothing about emissions will result in untold catastrophe for the global economy and the environment.” /quote

      You just don’t get it do you!

      The biggest & ONLY Climate Driver sits in the Sky, take a look out the window sometime, hint : it’s called the SUN, not to mention the Orbital & Solar factors.

      Man is insignificant in the grand scheme of things & to propose otherwise is just downright ignorant & arrogant.

    • Realist says:

      08:30am | 04/12/09

      How about we all agree that ‘industrial sustainability’ is the goal and get some plans in place to achieve this?

      Making Goldman Sachs et al rich(er) by turning carbon into a tradable commodity is not the answer. Taxing the life out of industry is not the answer. Going it alone when we are 1.4% of global output is not the answer because whilst we are 1.4% of ‘carbon’ output, our industries are much cleaner here than many countries so our ‘polution contribution’ is probably much lower. This said, it still makes sense to do something about it locally.

      If those in favour would stop telling me the sky is going to fall in, calling me a ‘denier’ (nice emotive link to the ‘holocaust denier’ term) because I do not worship the carbon god and am frankly unsure due to the credentials of the people that disagree, telling me I don’t care about my children if I don’t support the creation of a system which will allow billions to be made by investment banks who will create financial instruments that allow them to trade pieces of paper that refers to tonnes of ‘air’ (ETS) ... it’d probably be helpful.

      The fact that the data appears to support the sceptics right now should be cause enough for the ‘dooms dayer’s to change tack. Otherwise, they will lose the opportunity to address the real problem which is wasting resource (like coal and oil) which as someone said “are too precious to burn” ... and the issues of general sustainability and polution reduction.

      Cheers.

    • Alex says:

      08:45am | 24/03/11

      If the Gillard government and the Greens are so concerned for the enviorement in australia and taxing the amount of carbon dioxide we produce which I think is only about 1.5 to 2% of the world why are they ignoring the the coal seam gas exploration in Queensland where the bore water is now being contaminated by toxic chemicals and irreversable damage to the water table. I have family and relatives where this is going on and they tell me that they are buying bottled water because they feel that the water has been compromised and unsafe to drink. this will become the biggest and most catastrphic envioremental disaster in Australia’s history it will be another tragedy like asbestos and the only reason the government turns a blind eye is because they are making lots of money, you can’t drink money.

    • Alex says:

      09:38am | 24/03/11

      Who was the idiot that even thought up the idea of carbon tax and a tax on climate change and how is this going to change the world considering we only produce between 1.5 to 2% of carbon emissions globally. Julia Gillards statement was that if you have to pay more for it you will use less of it what a load of bullshit ! people will still use the same amount and they will just have to pay more for it most people only use as much electricity as they need to use and just because the price of petrol goes up you don’t use less of it. it just costs you more to go to work and you just cut back some where else usually in the groceries.there are a lot of pensioners and low income earners that have disconnected the power from their homes simply because they cannot offord it. and Julia Gillard says that low income earners will be exempt from the carbon tax, no we won’t we will pay more for electricity more for fuel and more for groceries. I hope Julia Gillard wears her bullet proof vest like John Howard did during the gun buy back when she tries to sell her carbon tax to the public because frankly most australians have had a gut full and are starting to wake up and realize that we are being f***ed over.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter