Prev
Next

It’s El Alamein revisited as climate war heats up

John Mikkelsen

by John Mikkelsen

30 Jan 05:45am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

73

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

47

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

184

Filed under: Australia, Climate Change, El Alamain, Ets, Politics

206 comments

Our American friends remember The Alamo, we see Gallipoli and North Africa among defining moments in national pride and self-sacrifice against seemingly insurmountable odds.

Viv Forbes, rallying the troops

These initial bloody defeats led state and nations on to ultimate victory against powerful foes.

It’s drawing a long bow to compare any of those to the political battle now being fought on global warming, but one prominent climate realist has done that, and it’s sure to grab some attention.

Federal Parliament resumes next week, an emissions trading scheme will be revisited for the third time, and a mass rally of farmers pushing for land rights in the wake of Peter Spencer’s solo “Tower of Hope” protest will converge on Canberra.

At the same time, head of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Viv Forbes, is rallying his troops with comparisons to El Alamein, the battle which proved a turning point in halting the Nazi’s World War II advance in North Africa and Europe.

Forbes, a wiry, whip-tough grazier and pastoralist, is also a qualified geologist and soil scientist who runs a stud of Sherana sheep, cattle and goats on his property at Rosevale in southeast Queensland.

He holds a mantra in common with other leading climate realists such as Professors Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and hereditary British Peer Lord Christopher Monckton, now visiting Australia on a lecture tour:

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a natural trace gas essential to all plant and animal life on earth”. They point to times in Earth’s history when concentrations of CO2 were much higher, plants thrived, coral reefs grew prolifically and polar bears survived. They do not believe man’s “greenhouse gas emissions” are a major driver of global warming.”

Forbes relentlessly churns out newsletters packed with controversial prose, such as his latest effort:

“Like the British Eighth Army in North Africa in the 1940’s, climate realists have been in continual retreat since the Climate War started.
“Led by Al Gore’s trained regiments using Nobel Prize gunpowder, backed by academic and government snipers using manipulated temperature data, financed by endless conveys carrying tax payer funds, reinforced by a steady barrage of scare forecasts from the media, and legislative carpet bombing from pliant politicians, the Green Army looked invincible.
“But suddenly the tide turned.
“What started with the Climategate scandals was followed by the defeat of the Ration-N-Tax Scheme in the Australian Senate and the defeat of the IPCC in Copenhagen. Then we had the IPCC fraud regarding Himalayan glaciers and the serial failures of the weather forecasts from the alarm-promoting British Met Office. Now data manipulation scandals are unfolding in USA, New Zealand and Australia.
“And finally, with the sound defeat of a key Obama Senate candidate in the US, we are seeing the end of the climate equivalent of the long Battles of El Alamein.
“We hope Churchill’s comment is apt today:
“Before Alamein we never saw a victory. After Alamein we never saw a defeat.
“We must not relax after these small victories. In Australia, the Rudd/Wong/Turnbull Axis will never surrender. Already there is talk that the Greens, supported by Turncoat Liberals may allow the Ration-N-Tax Scheme to pass in the Australian Senate.
“It is time to go on the offensive….”


Forbes tells his followers to alert people in politics, business, government, media and the unions they face a revolt of their supporters if they provide “uncritical support for the global warming agenda”.

“We must tell every politician who votes for any legislation based on the disgraced propaganda from the IPCC that he/she will be relentlessly punished in pre-selections, elections and fund raising. Let them know that we will actively work to replace them with more rational politicians and parties.

“There is a political sea change coming and those politicians and parties who do not switch in time will be swept out with the tide.”

He also has in his sights businesses relying on subsidies, market mandates or carbon taxes to profit from “artificial industries” such as carbon trading, carbon credits, wind farms, solar power, carbon sequestration or bio-fuels.
Union leaders must be warned they should expect a revolt from their members when hidden costs of the global warming agenda start hitting their jobs. 


“Warn those academics and bureaucrats who produce scare forecasts on demand they will be called to account for damages they have caused.

“Protest property confiscation.

“Take the lead from people like Peter Spencer and use every weapon available against those who destroy or confiscate assets with changes in coastal zoning laws, bans on development, clearing weeds and regrowth, or sterilisation of farms and grasslands with declaration of political parks and non-development areas”.


Forbes says this battle will be international and Australia, Canada and United States are key battlegrounds.

Most commented

343Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
210La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
184The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

206 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      06:27am | 30/01/10

      I found the extracts from Vic Forbes writings interesting even amusing, but they say nothing about climate change. They are just emotive clap trap.

      Forget global warming or cooling. The only question is, is mankind improving our environment or degrading it?

      I believe the later.

      Reply

    • JANET BARLOW says:

      02:14pm | 30/01/10

      Sorry, the discussion is about global warming. The question is how much does additional manmade CO2 contribute to warming? It seems to be very little if at all. The costs of trying to keep global temperatures in a hundred years time within 2 degrees ( is perhaps 200th of a degree) of what they are now by global treaties and taxes will be enormous and cruel to the third world.
      There are many environmental problems around the world. They will not be helped by this new religion that is obsessed with manmade CO2. Better to stay prosperous. I am pleased that China is building more coal fired power stations so long as they are the modern sort that capture particulates and many of them are state of the art. The smog you see there is caused largely by particulate matter from old power stations, old furnaces and open fires. The way to clean this up is to increase prosperity.
      You say that Viv’s comments are emotive clap trap. I can only thnk that you have not been listening to Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong. From them you will hear emotional and dishonest comments as well as Orwellian distortion of language. For example, they talk about “climate deniers” when these are the people who believe that the climate has always changed and always will. They promise to fix the Murray Darling by introducing subsidies for solar and wind power when solar and wind power do not save CO2 anyway when you look at their whole life history. All they do is put up the cost of energy for no environmental benefit. If Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd really believe that manmade CO2 is the cause of droughts and lack of rain they should present their scientific evidence. Under their own alarmist logic saving a miniscule amount of the trace gas CO2 will made no difference so why put our prosperity and therefore environment at risk?

    • Darryl Price says:

      03:12pm | 30/01/10

      Despite the best efforts of Al Gore and others I don’t believe that the AGW promoters have a franchise on emotive claptrap, so Vic Forbes is entitled to use it too. Some people feel the need to communicate that way. In the end it’s just another hole in the road to the critical thinkers of the world.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      05:35pm | 30/01/10

      Janet Barlow @ 1414hrs.

      The only people who say this debate is about “global warmimg” are politicians and the media. They try to simplify things for the masses, you know keep it simple, other wise they might start thinking for themselves.

      This debate is about life on this world, fewer trees, more people, fewer species, more toxics and continual growth.

      Tell us Janet, just how much is life worth, yours, mine and every other living thing?

    • Bill Heymink says:

      06:56pm | 30/01/10

      You have not studied the period from say, 1400 till 1900 when people had to burn cow dung and peat to stay warm in the mini ice age, which by the way we could well be heading for again. To answer your question mankind did improve his/her lot since

    • RobertN says:

      10:50pm | 30/01/10

      A great deal of the foregoing “discussion” is tedious ad hominem mud-slinging.  For the edification of those of you who doubt Chris Monckton’s credentials, he holds a degree in mathematics and classics from Cambridge University—one of the most prestigious universities in Britain, and indeed in the world.  He is thus well qualified to carry out complex analyses of both the data and the phenomena relied on by the IPCC to “prove” that AGW is a threat.

      Perhaps Persephone, the persistent one, would care to let us all know what credentials she relies on to make her unsubstantiated claims that AGW is a threat to the planet.  And while you are at it, perhaps you could also comment on the basic qualifications of the numerous people who claim to be “climate scientists”.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      11:39am | 31/01/10

      Stephen Barber @0135hrs.
      Tell us Stephen, why do all you people have a hang-up with global warming?
      Just what is your obsession with CO2?

      I would be very interested in Viv’s answers to the questions I posted.

    • Phil says:

      02:39pm | 31/01/10

      Persephone and John

      I have asked this questions before many times without an answer from either of you.

      Would you still be for an ETS is no compensation at all was payable, thus the amount needed to be collected from everyone would reduce substantially?

      If this as Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong say is the greatest moral dilema of our time, why would you choose to allow those who in a great deal of cases, create as much CO2 than the rest of us. It does not make sense. The ETS is simply wealth redistribution.

      How if as Kevin Rudd is quoted as previously saying “We need a big Australia” one with a polulation of 35,000,000 are we going to be able to reduce emissions without Nuclear Power. Would it not be normal to say that if we increase our population by 75% then emissions would at least rise by 35% (given that advances are working) and if so what penalties are we signing up for long term.

      Nobody wants the planet to perish. Not labor/liberal or green voters. We do not want unproven science to be used for a 12,000,000,000 tax.

    • Adam says:

      03:00pm | 31/01/10

      @ persephone There is nothing wrong with insulting a majority of Australians. The majority of Australians are stupid and lazy. The majority would not think with logic or rationale on a topic.

      I think all arguments on the punch should remove the argument “but the majority”. I want to call it Adams law and the first person to do so automatically loses the argument.

      Heres a fun fact. The average IQ score is 100. If you read the punch and have taken an IQ test there is a fair chance you and your friends have an IQ of over 100. For every point you and your friends have over 100 means there is another Australian with that amount under 100.

    • John A Neve says:

      05:57am | 01/02/10

      Phil @ 1439hrs on 31/1/10.
      You are asking the wrong person Phil, I have never said I supported the ETS. Also I have clearly stated many times I don’t care about global warming or cooling, it’s just a red herring. What I do care about is mankind degrading our world.

      Just reading makes me wonder, CO2 and Global Warming have become an obsession! Both are only a very small part of a much bigger problem. But that’s all too hard isn’t Phil?

    • persephone says:

      08:56am | 01/02/10

      Phil,
      sorry, not being impolite, but am having difficulty understanding your questions. I will answer what I think you’re asking.

      When you’re talking of compensation, you don’t say to whom.

      At present, there are two forms of compensation - the first to industries which will be adversely affected by the CPRS (particularly those producing power) and the second to households, to offset their extra costs.

      In an ideal world, neither should need compensation. Industry should smilingly take a hit on their bottom line and agree to run their business at a loss, AND spend money in the present to upgrade and improve the efficiencies of their operaton to limit the amount of greenhouse gases they emit.

      In the real world, an industry which faces a loss of income in this country because of the CPRS, without matching compensation, will simply move overseas, close down, or cut back on its spending on future (necessary) projects - winding down its operations.

      This would lead to a massive loss of jobs and potential economic catastrophe.

      Like it or not, we need coal powered power in the immediate future and it will take at least twenty years before alternatives can take over from them (if at all). We can’t afford to have the coal industry stop producing power, stop investing in upgrades of their power plants (upgrades which will make them more efficient and limit their CO2 production). ‘

      The big power companies are the ones with the infrastructure, expertise and money to invest in our future power needs. They’ll be the ones who come up with the solutions we need in the long run. It would be foolish to bankrupt them in the meantime.

      Household compensation is probably not as crucial, but any action on climate change needs to be long term and thus needs the support of the average voter.

      I’m a big one for population control, but there has to be a global approach to this as well. Just as it’s no benefit to anyone if Australia makes dramatic cuts to its emissions and no one else does, it’s no benefit to anyone if Australia restricts its population growth without a worldwide effort to limit population as a whole.

    • persephone says:

      10:04am | 01/02/10

      Stephen Barber

      NASA found that 2009 was the second hottest year on record, with 2005 the hottest - despite a decrease in the sun’s activity over this time.

      Scientists aren’t silly; they checked out (and are still checking out) whether there are other factors out there which might explain global warming. The consistent finding is that the only explanation is increased emissions by humans.

      Believe me, they’d love to think AGW wasn’t happening.

    • Stephen Barber says:

      01:35am | 31/01/10

      Mr. Neve - Viv Forbes’ excellent work is indeed about climate change, and particularly about the fact that man is not causing global warming - global temperatures are more influenced by solar activity than anything else, as all the latest research is clearly showing; also a particularly important point from Al Gore’s original movie which often goes uncorrected is his use of the chart showing similar movements in global temperature and CO2 levels - there is indeed a relationship, but not one caused by man; instead it is caused by the release of CO2 from the oceans based on the earth’s temperature which is itself the result of solar activity and the simple fact is that global CO2 concentrations are a lagging indicator of temperature, not a leading (or predictive indicator), which is itself clear from Al Gore’s chart if you choose to look closely at it - I am a scientist and have been part of the growing group of scientists trying to alert the public to the fact that the global warming lobby is a political movement aimed at using scare tactics to bring in new taxes and government regulation to the detriment of our economy and standard of living. This is not the first time science has been misused and manipulated in this way, nor will it be the last, but rest assured, the climategate scandal has clearly burst the bubble on the current global warming scam, and whether you like it or not, the people are waking up and there is emerging a gradual revolution of common sense whereby the people will no longer stomach this type of manipulation - the success of Lord Monkton’s current visit to Australia and the crowds that he is generating are proof of that, thanks to the power of the internet, which enables the interested public to get across the issues, even if the mainstream media is not doing its duty and informing them of the facts.

    • persephone says:

      10:59am | 31/01/10

      Yes, people are too afraid to accept the problem. It’s a big one, it’s very scary and it involves personal sacrifices to fix.

      It also involves accepting that our very nice lifestyles are damaging, so there’s an element of guilt there as well.

      Noone likes being told that the way they have been living has nasty consequences, it makes them feel guilty. Noone really likes change. Noone likes having to spend money on intangibles. Noone likes contemplating the kind of future that climate science tells us we are facing.

      People would much rather go on living their lives the way they have been, guilt free.

      Sites like this attract an abnormal number of denialists, which give them the comfort of believing that they’re in a majority. It has ever been thus: followers of One Nation, for example, really believed that most people thought the way they did.

      Polls said differently at the time, and were proved right; polls at present say that more people believe in AGW than believe in God.

      What this says to me is that most people have the courage to look the facts in the face and accept them.

      To suggest that believers in AGW are ‘sheep’ is insulting to the majority of your fellow Australians.

    • Forrest Gump says:

      12:26pm | 01/02/10

      My momma always said, Life was like a box of chocolates. ...


      Run Reed! RUN!

    • John Rodda says:

      02:55pm | 02/02/10

      John, he really doesn’t need to.  The evidence is readily available on the internet, and overwhelmingly indicates that the man-made global warming scare is a fraud.

    • John Rodda says:

      01:08pm | 29/04/10

      You may believe that mankind is degrading the environment, but it’s not your beliefs or greenie propoganda that matter, but the evidence.  No one anywhere has ever published any evidence to support the man-made global warming fantasy.  As to real environment concerns, sure there are some people degrading the environment, just as there are some rapists and some murderers, but there is no evidence that mankind as a whole is degrading the environment.  A single large volcanic eruption can degrade the environment far more than mankind could in a year.

    • S.L says:

      06:43am | 30/01/10

      Slowly we are seeing more and more people qualified or not questioning the legitimacy of Global Warming.
      I don’t know Viv Forbes but he has a point. His references to WW2 battles to make his point might be lost to some but he has as much right to make a claim as say they men who used to be “the next President of the United States”.
      Funny though John you are the first person I’ve read or heard in the media besides Alan Jones on 2GB in Sydney who has mentioned Christopher Monckton is out here giving lectures on his views. If Al Gore revisited it would be headlines everywhere…....

      Reply

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      07:40am | 30/01/10

      Good read John. First I have heard of this Viv Forbes but he sounds like a real down to earth kind of guy. I like the idea of punishing those in positions of power who lie for their own benefit. Great concept and I hope it catches on one day.  This is an issue that is dividing a nation. You can go back through the past 4 or so months on the Punch and see how the sentiment has began to change. Passion on both side of the argument has been running hot and out of control. I was on a plane a few years back between Australian and London. For anyone that has done it you will know it’s a bloody long flight. They were showing Al Gores ” An Inconvenient truth” and I watched it and I fell for it hook line and sinker. I am a little embarrassed to admit but during that flight I watched it 3 times and went from a skeptic to a full on, oh shit the worlds stuffed believer. I was naive enough to think what was put up on the screen was factual. I mean you couldn’t tell too many porkies as someone would catch you out, surely.  One of my human traits is an aversion to being fooled. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice then shame on me. I started to read what ever I could get my hands on about this subject. The more it went on the more I could come up with contradictions that disputed their facts. And that’s just little old me. Whats true? Who do we believe? As some would know here, I am now very much a skeptic. I can’t wait for the resumption of Federal Parliament to see how this all unfolds. This will destroy some political careers and maybe make others. Depends what side of the fence you are on.

      Reply

    • Bill Heymink says:

      07:04pm | 30/01/10

      Yes Wayne, invest in egg farms fellow, a lot of faces are going to be covered with it before long.

      Reply

    • BigBob says:

      08:46am | 30/01/10

      I like many Australians have no idea what to believe, but those Glaciers and a poles melting are a bit of a worry. Be it natural or man made can we afford to gamble our kids future? I would rather pay for a new roof before the old one falls in, and I would rather pay taxes if we must and at least have the feeling we tried. I have cut back on emissions in our household. I can at least feel I made some attempt for my 2 year old grandson, who sitting on my knee as I type this.

      Reply

    • MT Judd says:

      11:04am | 31/01/10

      IPCC have recently admitted numerous mistakes in their reports. Amongst them is that glaciers will melt by 2035. This ‘error’ was based on a World Wildlife Foundation Campaign material that was in turn based on a telephone interview by New Scientist magazine. IPCC have also published other claims masquerading as science sourced from Green Peace and other activists. 

      I endorse your precautionary sentiment in protecting our kids future and that is why, I believe, it is important that the real truth behind climate change is understood.

      Climate Change is real but it has never been scientifically shown that CO2 plays anything other than an insignificant role. In contrast many scientists believe that the sun plays a much more significant role (just look out your window). Recently published papers have provided a link between solar activity and, stratospheric water vapor and temperatures.
         
      If we understand the true science behind climate change then we may realise that mitigation strategies in accommodating climate change are much more sensible than pointlessly spending trillions of dollars in reducing CO2.

    • Eugene Gallagher says:

      02:56pm | 31/01/10

      Bob, your response is similar to the that put by the ‘climate scientists’ who say ‘I can’t prove it, but it is safer to believe it just in case’. 
      The trouble is that the actions taken such as converting to biofuels may result in, if not your 2yo gradson starving, then a lot of others 2yo grandsons because of the resultants food cost increases and shortages.

    • HairyCherry says:

      05:26pm | 31/01/10

      Hi BigBob,
      You’ve mentioned being happy to pay taxes and cutting back on your household emissions. That’s great! BUT…......what do you think all the politicians and their cornies on the ‘global warming’ band wagon are doing to cut back and set an example.
      They all fly around the country side in their private jets, are driven around in their big limos, stay at expensive hotels/motels that are constantly light up like a Christmas tree.
      They know how to talk the talk and con millions of people, BUT they don’t seem to know how to walk the walk.
      How long will we allow these scamers to ‘pull’  the wool over our eyes? (Not your sheep’s wool Viv!)
      Personally I’m sick and tired of hearing about global warming, it’s like having a square stick shoved down a round hole. It’s not fitting too good!

    • Andy says:

      11:10pm | 31/01/10

      Bullhokey.

      The glaciers claims have proven to be false. The IPCC used a student’s dissertation and a magazine article to base their claims. Read this and weep: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

      On the “precautionary principle”, there is another name for it “Paralysis By Analysis”. PBA is universally acknowledged to be a stupid form of state to enter into.

      Also, Lord Monckton said correctly that one should not only look at the cost of doing nothing, but also the cost of doing something. As the same Leftard do-gooders in the 80/90s have proven, anything these miscreants touch turns to dog turd. Anyone remember the sweatshop controversy? I wonder how many of those women they “saved” from the sweatshops ended up jobless and had to prostitute themselves, all so that a few farang can feel better about themselves.

      Do-gooders without a clue makes me sick.

    • Pete says:

      12:18pm | 01/02/10

      Yep, great idea! Lets spend billions on a problem that does not exist and lets ignore say…...Cancer, Malaria, deforestation, just to ease your engineered guilt over something that cannot be controlled. Utter Tripe! I would hope your grandson grows up with a little more sense than you appear to have!
      The IPCC report is being torn to shreds, scientists have lied to us and our governments were about to (have already been actually) steal our money, jobs and land!

      Imagine, the Australian (and UK) governments are discussing filters on the Internet to block discussion / debate and a UK minister said over the weekend that he had declared war on sceptics. The fact that this minister is head of a departments that will soon be defunct due to an election and the collapse of the con of AGW seems ironic but makes me smile.

    • Adam MacLeod says:

      01:01pm | 01/02/10

      MT Judd wrote…“it has never been scientifically shown that CO2 plays anything other than an insignificant role.” 

      You could also flip that argument and say it has never been scientifically shown that CO2 plays ONLY an insignificant role!

      BigBob is probably trying to do the right thing by the environment in his own way, and realising that the cost and sacrifices involved are very small.  For doing that, he is a champion.

    • John Rodda says:

      03:02pm | 02/02/10

      BigBob, some glaciers are melting, many are extending; and the ice at the poles is not decreasing.  If you read the newspapers, you’ll get a lot of lies.  Check the evidence which is readily available on the internet..

    • persephone says:

      08:55am | 30/01/10

      Oh, interesting.

      A quick google shows that Vic Forbes is a director of ‘Stanmore Coal’, a company which is looking at the expansion of the coal industry in the area he lives in.

      The prospectus describes him as having worked in the coal industry for 40 years.

      http://www.stanmorecoal.com.au/corporate_directors_and_management.aspx

      So very much a vested interest there!

      Like many sceptics, he’s happy to accept the word of climatologists when it comes to past climates, but doesn’t accept their advice when it comes to present and future climate changes - a very strange position, to say the least.

      And yes, the climate may have been warmer in the past (according to the same scientists that Forbes won’t listen to when they tell him that global warming is not only happening but caused by humans) , but not when human beings were filling every habitable portion of the globe.

      Reply

    • Viv Forbes says:

      11:44am | 30/01/10

      Dear Persephone
      I have never hidden the fact that I have spent my life working in unfashionable industries like exploration, coal and farming. My wife and I own a farm where we breed sheep and cattle and I hold shares in one small coal exploration company.  If this company ever gets to open a coal mine, its likely export market is China or India. Penny Wong’s Ration-N-Tax Scheme will in fact assist that company as coal-using industries will migrate to places like China and India. So it is likely that I am harming my coal interests by opposing the Ration-N-Tax Scheme .
      I also use petrol, diesel, electricity, food and transport services. The Ration-N-Tax Scheme will increase the cost of all of these items.  So I serve my interests here by opposing the Ration-N-Tax Scheme. I also have an interest in seeing new resource and farming industries contributing to the roads, hospitals and schools that we and our grandkids will use.
      I challenge you, Persephone, to point to any Australian who does NOT have a big vested interest in this debate. The question is NOT who you are, or what you do, but whether you are relying on facts, whether your arguments are logical and whether you are telling the truth as you see it.
      It is also an interesting proposition that people with deep knowledge and experience in carbon fuels and carbon foods should be prohibited from expressing their informed views on the carbon Ration-N-Tax Scheme.
      And regarding past climate, Persephone, it is not climatologists who have unravelled that – it is geologists, of which I am one. The debate so far has been confined to climatologists and model builders. It is time we heard also from geologists, astronomers and practical meteorologists, most of whom are sceptics of the computer based climate predictions we are being told to accept.
      Viv Forbes
      Rosevale

    • persephone says:

      01:21pm | 30/01/10

      Thanks for your reply, Mr Forbes.

      It’s not your fault the reporter here failed to give readers the information about your coal connections, but it is something someone assessing your statements needs to know.

      Given that the long run aim of any fight against global warming is to close down the coal industry, of course you have a vested interest.

      And of course everyone should be concerned about global warming, particularly people like you and me who come from farming areas. We can see the impacts on the environment of AGW every day of our lives.

      Slight rises - less than 1%, in the majority of cases - to the cost of living are worth paying when it comes to ensuring that our environment can be stabilised.

      Geologists are also, in the main, supporters of the AGW theory, and work with climate scientists - most of whom have backgrounds in meterorology - closely when working on projected climate changes.

      Indeed, scientists from virtually all fields of science have contributed to the theory.

      I work very closely with climate change scientists, one who has a meteorology and physics background and the other whose field of expertise is alpine ecology.  They - and every other scientist I’ve spoken to, which is quite a range! - find that the more they research, the more evidence they find to support AGW.

      Of course, as a scientist, it is open to you to contribute your opinions, supported by the available evidence, to a reputable scientific journal, where (as you know) it will be peer reveiwed for accuracy and published.

      If you - or any of your colleagues - can’t pass this simple test of scientific verification, then it means you don’t have substantiated facts to support your arguments.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:30pm | 30/01/10

      Viv Forbes @ 1144hrs.

      Tell us Viv, in your view is mankind improveing or degrading our environment?
      We all have a vested interest in this matter and I am sorry to say, most comments are issueing forth from the wrong end of the human body.
      You see Viv, I don’t believe we can have continual growth.

    • Bob says:

      03:04pm | 30/01/10

      Like many sceptics, he’s happy to accept the word of climatologists when it comes to past climates, but doesn’t accept their advice when it comes to present and future climate changes - a very strange position, to say the least.

      Persephone, I’d be very interested to see some evidence that proves for certain what the future will be! Past evidence is not the same as future speculation.

      And yes, the climate may have been warmer in the past (according to the same scientists that Forbes won’t listen to when they tell him that global warming is not only happening but caused by humans) , but not when human beings were filling every habitable portion of the globe.

      That sentence doesn’t really make sense to me, but, in general, the scientists promoting AGW for the future try to minimise past warmings. So it’s not “the same scientists”, as you claim.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      03:16pm | 30/01/10

      What I am more concerned about, Viv, is the lack of accountability of climate change sceptics such as yourself. If you are so sure of your position (and this goes for all AGW denialists) then write a paper and submit it to a respectable (e.g. Science or Nature) scientific journal for peer review and publication. It is through the process of peer review that errors in the IPCC report were picked up (although what no one points out is that the errors amounted to about a page in a 1600 page document). However, to date climate denialists have largely bypassed this process, and hence their work has not undergone the necessary scrutiny.

    • persephone says:

      04:57pm | 30/01/10

      Bob

      the same scientific methods used to determine what happened in the past (because we can’t KNOW what happened 4.7 million years ago, for example) are the same methods being used now to work out what’s happening with the climate and predict what may happen.

      When I’m talking about the past, I - like Forbes - is not talking about the past decade but about thousands, if not millions, of years ago, so that’ why you’re confused.

      So the earth was warmer in the very very distant past, back in the age of dinosaurs. And yes, the earth did fine. And the earth will do fine if it warms again.

      It’s just that we as a species won’t do terrifically well.

    • Ross Muir says:

      06:04pm | 30/01/10

      Persephone
      Firstly: you, along with all other AGW proponents, state that their publications are peer reviewed. As all true scientists know nowadays, that yardstick is so sadly tarnished that it means little. One simply chooses one’s ‘peers’ from one’s own camp and avoids publication or acknowledgement of dissenting voices. This fact has emerged from leaked e-mails from both Britain and the USA.
      Secondly: “slight rises - less than 1% in the majority of cases” Where did this figure come from? The factors that add cost to goods and services are cumulative, with each step adding administratyive costs etc. Very few specific studies have been attempted on this subject, but the practical ‘guesstimations’ are a little more disturbing.
      Thirdly: “Geologists are also IN THE MAIN, supporters of the AGW theory, and work with climate scientists - MOST OF WHOM have backgrounds in meterorology (sic) closely when working on projected climate change” I challenge the parts in upper case, and I would make the point that meteorology does not make one an expert on the myriad factors interacting in a complex way that influence climate change - or even simple climate or weather. I would suggest that a mathematician or data analyst could do a better job in many cases. For example, such a person would not selectively choose what packets of data to use to obtain the hoped-for result. He would accept all impartially.
      Fourthly: “Whose field of expertise is alpine ecology”. Possibly he may be able to explain to you why early data included stations in alpine areas, whilst later data sets excluded these stations, so giving a false rise in the avarage global temperatures.

    • Bill Heymink says:

      07:31pm | 30/01/10

      Have you heard the story of Henry Ford? He was dragged before the court for his alleged incompetence, look it up. As in regards to humans being the culprits in this (silly) debate, Me think it is presumptuous to think we are a match for the sun.

    • persephone says:

      10:26am | 31/01/10

      Ross

      For peer reviews, one does not chose, or know, who is reviewing one’s papers.

      I have a very good friend who peer reviews medical articles. He goes to extreme lengths -  changing the resolution on images, for example, to see if they have been manipulated, asking for the original computer read outs to back the figures used in tables, and so forth - to check whether the information presented is accurate.

      I know that he regularly asks that papers be re written or rejects them outright if his questions can’t be answered properly.

      The figures are those produced by Treasury, who are very good at taking into account the very factors you refer to - it’s their job.

      My comments on geologists were in direct response to a previous post, asking why the types of scientists I referred to were not involved in climate change analysis. The answer is that, yes, they are.

      You have now shifted the goal posts to include other scientists. You will be delighted to know that scientists across all disciplines are involved in research into climate change. One of Australia’s IPCC panellists, for example, has a background in physics, which lead to studies in meteorology.  And yes, mathematicians and statisticians are involved in putting together a lot of the information.

      On that, amongst the first industries to raise concerns about climate change was the insurance industry. Based on their analysis of the statistics, they could see an inexplicable rise in the incidence of climate-related extreme events, which we now know is what one would expect to see as the result of global warming.

      So one of the first indicators that something was wrong with the climate was simple statistics.

      Evidence for your fourthly? Can’t comment on something I don’t know about (but sounds very unlikely to me).

      Bill Heymick

      personal opinion is not science.

    • Louis Hissink says:

      05:32pm | 31/01/10

      Persephone,

      I am a professional geologist and editor of the Aust. Inst. of Geoscientists News, and your statement that geologists are, in the main, are supporters of AGW is based on what data?

      I am told by our membership that most don’t support AGW, most having the same opinion about it as Tony Abbott, that’s it’s a load of crap.

      The only geologists who seem to support it are the academics, but there are few in number.

      And I gather from your comments that the real game is to close the coal industry in Australia - which means that AGW is but a front.

      As for peer reviewed papers - peer review is supposed to stop scientists from plagiarising others, apart from correcting matters of fact, but in those sciences in which in-situ experiments are impossible, and in which the science becomes dominated by the deductive method, then the peer review system becomes a tool of maintaining the status quo.

      However it seems the case that the peer review system is also being used as a debate moderator, determining whose arguments get published and whose don’t , and this isn’t science although it has all the outward appearances of science.  It is actually pseudoscience where the scientific method is used to support a belief system.

    • persephone says:

      08:44am | 01/02/10

      Louis Hissick

      yes, strangely enough, it is academics who are producing scientific papers and undertaking the research - it’s their job.

      If you’re an applied scientist, your job is to undertake the task your employer gives you. It’s a rare private sector employer who allows you to undertake individual research.

      So we rely on the theoretical scientists - as we always have - to make most of the major breakthroughs (not many ‘applied scientists’ from the private sector who get Nobels, for example).

      If you’re a scientist, you know all that. If you don’t, you’re not.

      As for closing down the coal industry, I can’t see why that should be seen as the reason for introducing a CPRS. It may be a consequence of it, but it’s fairly long term (because we don’t have anything to replace it at present).

      However, burning coal and other fossil fuels is the greatest contributor to AGW, so any action on AGW must lead to a reduction over time to the use of these fuels.

      Thus companies like Mr Forbes’, which need to think in long term time scales, can’t but see that action on AGW will impact on future earnings.

      Mr Forbes rather twee-ly states that a CPRS won’t affect his company as they seek to export to India & China. Well, so does every other coal mining comany in Australia. Obviously, established companies will seek to increase their coal exports under a CPRS and thus potentially out compete Mr Forbes’.

    • P.C. says:

      10:14am | 03/02/10

      Dear Oh Dearie Me!  So poor old Mr.Forbes owns shares in a coal company!  How terrible!  Persephone, if we are going to get down to that level, we may as well point to the directorships held by the patron saint of global warming, Al Gore.  This is in line with the attackes on all those, like Viv, who dare to raise their head above the parapet.  Ed Miliband, the British Energy Secretary,  has described Lord Lawson a “climate saboteur” for questioning the accepted wisdom.  Clive Hamilton, the Greens candidate in the recent by-election for Higgins, said those who opposed climate change were akin to Holocaust deniers.  And so it goes.  You might be better, Persephone(he? she?), ro concentrate on the science - in particular the latest revelations regarding the Himalayan glaciers and the Amazon rainforest.  Don’t you realise that the whole tawdry fabric of the global warming adherents is collapsing round their ears?  Meanwhile, read Professor Ian Plimer’s book - Heaven & Earth:  The Missing Science.  No one has challenged it yet:  no one has dared to.

    • Mikko says:

      08:58am | 30/01/10

      Maybe Adolf could have done with the iPad (see Colgo’s “Hitler disappointed etc” video for a screamer. Incidentally, Viv Forbes has also produced reams of information on global warming scams in his regular Carbon Sense newsletters here at
      http://www.carbon-sense.com

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      09:06am | 30/01/10

      Not to worry. Keevin Rudd has Osama bin Laden on his side now.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      09:17am | 30/01/10

      JAN 6:27 is correct, . Likening the climate change debate to North Africa is the flip side to comparisons to Hitler. Either side that resorts to such emotive rubbish is relying on BS,  over substance.
      “Hereditary Lord” Monckton, (yes thats his qualification, ) knows that obama was / is planning a world wide commie take over. (Just dont expect too much detail as to how). He also has some very militant ideas on those with HIV,  but he is a “Lord” after all, so he must be right..
      Farmer Spencer might be fighting all the way, but that does not make him correct. BTW Punchers, I’m sure we all saw Farmer Spencer in the news yesterday, the sherrifs are going to kick him off the proprty, because he wont pay what he owes to others. Time to pass round the tin foil hat. Im sure his “Agrimates” are doing just that right now. Nothing like matching deeds with words.

      Reply

    • Geoff Brown says:

      12:44pm | 30/01/10

      You say “because he wont pay what he owes to others.”

      Think before you make stupd statements, for years the Government has tied up his land as a carbon sink and he couldn’t earn any income. He can’t sell it either because who would want to buy land that they can’t use.

      “Hereditary Lord Monckton, (yes thats his qualification)”
      He is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He is Lord Monckton.
      And yes the title is Hereditary.

    • Lawless says:

      09:15pm | 30/01/10

      T Chong
      Monckton has got it right, do some research, big deal “hereditary Lord” either he backs it up or he doesnt.
      Spencer he is just the bloke that was up the pole, agreed he should pay his sister(?) i think it is. The native vegetation is the real issue and it stinks.
      I agree 100%  “Agrimates” just a joke i try to read it once a week for a laugh. This could be the next greatest con by the looks of the content. Appears that there are some good people on there, but sheeze have a read you wont believe the lack of content

    • Joe says:

      09:44am | 30/01/10

      It is good to see that some Australians are strong enough to question, and stand up against the nonsense that the media and left trie to spoon feed us. Now that Osama Bin Laden is also enbracing the global warming scare (with todays recording), Rudd has a new partner aiming to send us back to the stone age. Soon we might all be living in caves like Osama again.

      Reply

    • Biff says:

      09:48am | 30/01/10

      Does Kevin Rudd’s ETS legislation fit under the banner of wedge politics? I thought only the other mob were capable of wedge politics. Would Kevin’s various speeches about nasties like carbon, deniers, skeptics etc fit under the banner of dog whistle politics? I thought the other mob was only ever capable of dog whistle politics.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      10:34am | 30/01/10

      Good to know Osama has been spending his cave dwelling years keeping up to date on climate science.  Perhaps he could be the next head of the IPCC?  Maybe that could be the bribe he needs to lay down his arms?

      I mean he’s not an actual climate scientist but that seems to only be necessary if you want to criticise the global warming religion.  If you want to prostelise it no qualifications are required at all, think Al Gore and the head of the IPCC as prominent non scientist warming advocates.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      01:40pm | 01/02/10

      D’oh

      Frankly, I doubt that any proof I gave you would meet your standards. I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest that you have an open mind.

      I’m sure you know and understand, since you say you’ve some science background, that few scientific theories are 100% provable, even ones which we base everyday activities on. The theory of evolution - though having the same broad consensus across scientific disciplines that climate change has - will always remain a theory.

      However, two tenets of science are important - (i) is there another explanation which fits the observable facts? (ii) is our present explanation capable of (a) dealing with all the observable facts; and (b) able to make accurate predictions about what will happen?

      Climate change theory fits the observable facts in a way no other theory does.

      Climate change theory can be (has been) used to predict changes accurately and can be used to explain observable facts.

      As a theory, the scientific consensus - that is, the vast majority of scientists, across a vast array of disciplines, as the result of thousands of individual pieces of research, all of which lead to the same conclusions - is that this theory is as provable as any of the other essential ones (gravity, for example).

      The consensus argument is only illogical if scientists have agreed to ignore or discount data which doesn’t suit the consensus view. It’s not a case of a group of scientists getting together and agreeing to believe something without an evidential basis.

      And no, there isn’t a significant portion of the technical and scientific community which has found discrepancies. There’s a handful of sceptics, so few that we all recognise their names, because they’re the only ones who can be trotted out for ‘balance’ when an article on climate change is written.

      If we go to actual science on the subject, as measured by peer reviewed papers printed in recognised scientific publications, the significant number is about zero.

    • S.L says:

      10:40am | 30/01/10

      One thing you can always count on is when a GW skeptic gets (rare) media time the GW proponents are out with the insults and denunciations as quick as a flash. If they worked as hard and fast for their respective employers they would be company directors or even CEOs in no time I bet.
      So what if Viv Forbes is involved in coal mining? So what if Lord Monckton has radical views on HIV sufferers? They are points of view nothing more. Ok I know messers Monckton and Gore aren’t on each others christmas card list but Mr Gore gets a squillion times more air play than the good Lord and Mr Forbes might be out there bellyacheing his point of view but up until this article I’d never heard of him.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      11:53am | 30/01/10

      S.J. - but when you do hear of him, he should be represented as what he is - a spruiker for the coal industry, and not as a disinterested farmer, grazier, and geologist.

      He stands to gain financially if the CPRS is discredited, yet that important fact isn’t included in this article.

      Sceptics are the first to accuse bodies such as the IPCC of withholding facts, but apparently it’s OK when they do it.

    • Geoff Brown says:

      02:35pm | 30/01/10

      Persephone,

      We all stand to gain financially if theCPRS is discredited. The useless CPRS/ETS TAX will do nothing for the atmosphere - nothing to halt any global warming. It will however cost Kevin Rudd’s working families more on their power bills, more on their petrol bills, more on their shopping bills, more, more, more!

      It will also cost employers more and make some close down, some pull back on production and some - perhaps most - move offshore.

      Access Economics has done a cost analysis and their calculations say it is going to cost each and everyone of us $4550 per annum.

      I stand to gain financially if the ETS is discredited, Viv stands to gain financially and, oh yes, persophone stands to gain financially if the ETS is discredited.

    • persephone says:

      04:43pm | 30/01/10

      Geoff Brown

      Au contraire - over 90% of families will be net gainers under the CPRS, with most receiving close to $200 in compensation above what they spend.

      As for companies moving off shore, that’s why we need a global approach to the problem.

      Yes, we’d all like to be able to wave a magic wand and have climate change go away, but it’s not going to happen. In the end, we’ll pay far more if we don’t tackle it - and an ETS is recognised as the most cost effective way of doing this.

    • Kevin Bennewith says:

      09:37am | 31/01/10

      Persephone where do you get those figures? The ALP site? Haha ha.

    • persephone says:

      10:28am | 31/01/10

      Treasury.

      You’ve got a better source? I would be pleased to hear of it.

    • Phil says:

      03:13pm | 31/01/10

      Derek

      The labor pollies are not allowed to speak out against it. Labor are a party of manipulation and thugs, heaven help if one spoke out. Mind you if a few more poll results come out showing them falling and Abbott rising, you wait for the shit fight to come along.

    • Kevin Bennewith says:

      04:58pm | 31/01/10

      So Persephone, you are going to incentivise people to change from using coal-derived electricity by compensating them?
      How does that work? I thought the rationale was that you make coal-fired electricity more expensive so that people will stop using it?
      If you compensate them, how will they be forced to change?
      Isn’t that a contradiction ?

    • Viv Forbes says:

      09:30pm | 31/01/10

      Persephone
      You need to do your homework before slandering people. The Queensland Resource Council, representing Big Coal in Queensland, strongly supports what they call a “National Carbon Plan”. This plan includes an emissions trading scheme, carbon credit offsets, and a complex of subsidies and incentives for research on reducing emissions. They also support wasting billions of dollars from tax payers and shareholders on carbon geo-sequestration. All in the name of preventing man made global warming.

      Check it out for yourself.

      I have opposed every one of these policies.

      Check that out too.

      So if I am a spruiker for the coal industry, I have badly fluffed my lines.

      Viv Forbes

    • persephone says:

      09:04am | 01/02/10

      Oh, apologies, Mr Forbes - I corect myself.

      You are not a spruiker for the coal industry, you are an altruistic idealist whose involvement in a coal company seeking to make lots of money out of mining coal in no way clouds your judgement.

      Kevin B, it’s not me, I’m not that powerful, but anyway—

      The compensation received will be separate from your power bills etc. So prices will go up, but most people will see rises in their pensions, Family payments, etc from the government at the same time.

      Whilst these payments will far outweight the extra costs, human nature means that, if you see a cost increasing, you will try and find ways of reducing it.

      Look at it this way: If I gave you a $50 note now, and said that it was to help you out with petrol prices over the next month, you’d still shop around for the cheapest petrol you could get.

      You would be unlikely to say “Well, it doesn’t matter that this petrol is 10 cents dearer than that at the petrol station down the road, I’ve got Persephone’s $50 here.”

      In the same way, being compensated for rising electricity costs doesn’t mean that people won’t seek ways to cut down their power bills.

      And they can use the extra money to help them do it!

    • T.Chong says:

      10:56am | 30/01/10

      Yes Joe 9:44, youve guessed the secret plan. Rudd and Bin Laden want everyone living in caves. Its that simple.
      Many here will tell just how hell bent those evil unionists and Labor is on destroying the rural sector. (details like how and why dont really matter)
      Plenty of space betwwen the ears of conspiracy theorists.
      Now for the truth about Roswell , The Moon Landing, and The Grassy Knoll.

      Reply

    • Mikko says:

      11:39am | 30/01/10

      To S.L. 10.40 am - not many would have heard of Forbes but he’s been firing bullets in various regional and on-line media for several years, such as this piece in our local rag today:
      The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that Australian PM Rudd was either promising poverty for his grandkids or blowing hot air.
      The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that in Copenhagen, PM Rudd advocated cutting production of carbon dioxide by at least 20% by 2050.
      He added:
      “However, back in Canberra, PM Rudd says Australia’s population will increase from 22M now to 36M by 2050.
      “A bit of simple maths shows that he thinks our grandkids can exist on just half the carbon energy per person that we use now.
      “But the PM also promises a nation building program of rail, road, and port construction. What fuels are all these new vehicles going to use? Is he expecting nuclear powered trains, solar powered trucks and wind powered bulk carriers?
      “The Copenhagen Rudd is promising a poverty stricken future for our grandkids. Or maybe the Canberra Rudd is just a lot of hot air.”
      Viv Forbes

      Reply

    • steve says:

      11:41am | 30/01/10

      I know this is from the “weather is not Climate” department but North China is seeing the heaviest sea ice in 30 years.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/ice-in-chinese-ports-exceeding-anything-experienced-in-30-years/
      As a casual observer I would have thought the best indication of Global warming was that the globe actually warmed? If this is so pronounced then why do those responsible for data houses have to manipulate and distort the original data to generate the “man made Global warming”?
      In response to the barking that goes no against the Coal Industry. The thing that provides the lifestyle for our society is Industry, jobs powered by coal. Hundreds of thousands of people owe their income to coal and a large section of the population of this planet keep the lights on with cheap coal fired power. China is building a new Coal power station every 10 days. Does anyone not realise this is why they scuttled Hopenhagen?
      Those caring sharing people in the Traffic Light Party (say they are green, but too yellow to tell you they are red) want to do is keep the third world starving and in the dark. The think there are too many people on this planet and steps should be taken to reduce the population. People are starving in third world because productive farm land is being taken to grow feed stock for the bio-fuel industry. The prices are being driven up by the Chardonnay socialist wanting to give themselves the warm fuzzies putting ethanol in their Prius. Not Evil just Wrong.

      Reply

    • John Letchford says:

      12:41pm | 30/01/10

      I have followed Viv’s articles on this climate issue for some years, and find his common-sense comments most informative.    As an Ag.Science graduate (be it over 50 years out of date!) with over 60 years practical farming & grazing experience, I find the notion that CO2 is the cause of this so-called AGW (Al Gore Warming) hard to swallow.  Why does the biggest hydroponic cucumber grower in the country pump CO2 into his greenhouses?  Because at twice the ambient level of CO2 he gets 20% extra production.        John L

      Reply

    • Sherlock says:

      12:42pm | 30/01/10

      A battle against insurmountable odds? For whom? Not the sceptics that’s for sure. If there ever was a war it’s now over and the sceptic have scored a comprehensive victory.

      Hardly a week goes by without something emerging that shows just what junk-science the alarmists case is. The IPCC report becomes more discredited every day. The world hasn’t warmed for a decade regardless of the alarmists complete inability to admit it but here’s the truth
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/trend

      As the northern hemisphere goes through yet another surprisingly cold winter people now realise they have been fooled and reject the myth of climate change. Those foolish enough to continue believing are given the same condescending smiles we give those who still insist that Y2K was a genuine threat.

      Reply

    • Kevin says:

      12:59pm | 30/01/10

      I’m in the biofuel industry, producing biodiesel from non food crop plants, and I live in one of the most polluted citys’ in the world, Jakarta. Our company receives enquiries from all over the EU asking if they can buy our “Carbon Credits”. What carbon credits? where are they? I cannot see them, feel them or even know where they are, yet people are willing to pay about Euro 15 per ton to buy them, if we knew where they are then maybe we could sell them.
      If you want to reduce “Man Made Co2” then do it at the source, stop exhaust emmissions from vehicles and industry, leave the natural Co2 alone.
      I fail to see if we have 1 ha of Jatropha curcas Linn, which the “Experts” claim will absorb 20 ton of Co2 per yer for 20 years, growing in Indonesia how that will absorb Co2 emmissions from NSW which is several thousand kilometers away. ETS is all about taxes and money, the “White Shoe Brigade” of “Dot.com” have appeared again.
      Keep up the good work Viv.

      Reply

    • 4Freedom says:

      12:59pm | 31/01/10

      Yes a future bubble in the making.  Look out when it bursts if it is allowed to blow up.  We have to burst the bubble before it expands.

    • nou says:

      01:06pm | 30/01/10

      trouble is, if we do all we can to make this planet as livable for us as long as possible..  we cant hurt anything..

      if we listen to the skeptics, and theyre wrong.. well, saying sorry just wont cut it.  id rather be wrong, and have an environment.

      but since when have we ever cared about the environment..

      Reply

    • Charles says:

      10:21am | 31/01/10

      nou, your argument assumes that everything supposedly done on behalf of the environment is supposedly good, however, nothing could be further from the truth.

      For example, use of the precautionary principle as you advocate was responsible for an unheralded rise in the cost of corn, as US growers diverted their crop into bio-fuel markets.  An unmitigated bad result not only for the population, but also for the environment.

      On another, even more egregious example, the banning of DDT after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring condemned it as an agent that endangered the enviornment.  The removal of this as malarial mosquito agent has been estimated to cost the human population from between 40 million to 100 million lives until they reintroduced it again recently.

      The reason for its ban was an unproven study that claimed it made Californian Sea eagles eggs thinner than normal, and might put at risk future population sustainability.

      If these are the good things that can happen to the planet as far as Green zealotry goes, then I don’t think your ideas are ones we want to pursue.

    • nou says:

      01:14pm | 31/01/10

      ok chuck… i cant see where i advocated growing corn for fuel, but you just keep your head in the sand, or up your whatever, and just hope everything turns out ok.

      solar power, geo thermal, wind..  etc etc.. theres a lot we can do that wont hurt the planet. but you can be selective in your arguments if you like.

      enjoy your denialist zealotry

    • persephone says:

      01:30pm | 30/01/10

      Steve

      yes, the globe is actually warmer, as any reading of any of the science on the subject will confirm for you.

      Climate change scientists were predicting over a decade ago that the first sign of climate change would be more and more extreme weather events. ‘Extreme’ can be either end of the spectrum, both hot and cold.

      The earth getting hotter in one place can lead to it getting colder in another, a fact long recognised by climate science (and the basis of the El Nino/La Nina theories, and of the North Atlantic Oscillation theories).

      Part of the problem with reaching a global solution is recognition that the developing world needs to be allowed to develop, which means greater cuts are required by those of us who already are.

      But hey, have a little faith in human ingenuity. Malthus predicted, using impeccable science, that the world would run out of food over a hundred years ago. We found better ways of producing food and thus were able to avert Malthus’ projections. Didn’t mean Malthus was wrong, just that the problem was able to be solved.

      In the same way, we have a recognised problem on the table. All economists and scientists say we can solve it, if we have the will to do so.  All seem confident that technology can tackle the issues raised by AGW.

      Just as the whole in the ozone layer and the Y2 bug were defeated once they were recognised.

      We just have to have the courage to look the problem in the face, see it for what it is and deal with it.

      (You’ll also be pleased to know that climate scientists have long recognised that denial would be one of the reactions they’d have to face).

      Reply

    • David C says:

      10:15pm | 30/01/10

      ozone is not relevant, it was relatively costless to change. Y2K was a joke.

    • Kevin Bennewith says:

      10:10am | 31/01/10

      The only way to solve this so called “problem” is to introduce Gen IV nuclear power. The Labor Government is busy promoting coal and coal exports. An ETS will therefore just be a Great Big Tax on everything because there will be no alternative source of energy.
      This tax is aimed at balancing the books since the Labor Govt has got us into $300 billion of debt in two years.
      Solar and Wind are not solutions- see this web site “Brave New Climate” by Prof Barry Brooks.
      http://www.bravenewclimate.com.au

    • Charles says:

      10:33am | 31/01/10

      Persephone, your commentary is just so bad it is impossible to ignore.  Since when has the hole in the ozone layer been fixed?  Just because our public science community has found another more economically gratifying apocalyptic scenario to indulge themselves in, doesn’t mean the old problem has gone away.

      FYI, the hole in the ozone layer actually reached an observed record size in 2005, and this year looks like it might extend that record even further.  In fact, the top 5 record holes in the ozone layer have all occurred within the last decade, long after the Montreal Protocol (1989) was introduced to rectify this problem.

      So, we have learnt a couple of things about ozone since then;

      i)  Anthropogenic produced chlorofluorocarbons make no difference to it

      ii) The refrigerant gases we used to replace them are actually worse greenhouse gases than chlorofluorocarbons.

      iii)  It was another public science failure that few of the proponents are happy to talk about today .

      However, for those who failed so badly with ozone, they find a new group of supporters among the ill-informed and ignorant like yourself who have a religious taint to the way you approach this issue as opposed to a rational and factual argument

    • Malcolm says:

      01:48pm | 30/01/10

      At last it’s possible for people to speak out against the AGW religion without being either ignored by the media or abused as ‘deniers’.  But there’s a long way to go.  At least Wong has moved back to “5% and nothing more unless the rest of the world goes with us”.  They never were with us - not with Turnbull and Rudd, anyhow.  They still want to tax us into oblivion, in the name of a non-existent ‘global warming’.

      Reply

    • Norman MacLeod says:

      01:52pm | 30/01/10

      An enjoyable article.

      As the director of an organisation that provides independent, rigorous peer review in the natural resources sciences, I must say that I find the rhetorical cant of several of the replies to the article to be similar to what we see when we are attacked after publishing a review that finds weaknesses in a study performed by researchers who have fallen away from the scientific method they are supposed to adhere to.  The approach is to attack the messenger rather than the message.

      Since late November, when several megabytes of email and data files from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) became known to the world, the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis has been rapidly unraveling.  We’ve learned that the four principle historical temperature records are severely compromised, and that the principle paleoclimatolgists have not only been committing scientific malpractice, but that they also colluded to pervert the peer review process for their own scientific discipline as well as those closely related to it.

      The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment is increasingly being demonstrated to be far less the “final word” than it has been touted to be.  The IPCC’s director, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is found to be a man with extraordinary conflicts of interest who has profited handsomely from the highly lucrative industry that depends upon AGW climate change as proven fact.

      For decades the scientists at the heart of the issue have expected the public and the policy-makers to trust them, and now they are found to have cheated at every turn.  Fortunately we have learned this shortly before their assertions were to have committed trillions of dollars to the effort to control climate . . . a King Canute effort on a much grander scale than Canute could ever have imagined.

      The CRU computer models have come into doubt . . . garbage in, gospel out.  Even Harry’s best efforts could not torture the data into complying with the necessary outcomes.

      NASA GISS had to turn over more emails in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and those are just as damning as the ones that escaped the CRU’s grasp.  There’s already a book about the CRUTape Letters.

      In the United States, the Department of Energy has issued a “litigation hold” on all communications and information between the agency and CRU.

      Mr. Forbes has long been a voice in the wilderness.  As the sun rises each day, he stands still more vindicated.

      Very well done!

      Reply

    • It's the Sun, Stupid! says:

      08:36pm | 30/01/10

      You’ve summed it up very well indeed!

      In a few days time check out the down-loadable PowerPoint slide show at http://www.climatesceptics.com.au

      I suggest wait a few days because work on the site is underway ti upgrade it and you might not be able to access immediately.

      See also my comment below .....

    • J Morrison says:

      01:57pm | 30/01/10

      Everyone is against pollution, most would prefer to use renewable energy.  The problem is that when you look at the graphs of carbon dioxide (increasing)  v. global temperture (steady and erratic) there is clearly no real correlation.  Changes in CO2 level have little or no effect on global temperature.  If the data was put forward in a financial investment plan by say Storm Financial it would be investigated and crucified by Government regulatory authorities.  Instead the Government is trying to force through legislation for political purposes, pandering to misguided environmental prejudices.  Taxing carbon and putting people out of work to make bankers and speculative carbon traders rich will be counter-productive.  There are better ways to improve the environment.

      Reply

    • Graham evans says:

      02:28pm | 30/01/10

      Hey Persphone you are one of the sheep that can’t think for your self (haven’t even got the guts to leave a real name) Viv Forbes needs a medal for the time money & effort he has put into this unjust , unproven , & should be illegal tax Rudd , Wong & co are trying to foist onto us , Good on you Viv,

      Reply

    • factsplz says:

      05:01pm | 30/01/10

      exactly how much was it going to cost you a week Graham?

    • Derek says:

      02:28pm | 30/01/10

      In the name of common sense, let us abandon all legislative action on carbon reduction, carbon tax and just wait for a few years to see what happens with the whole issue in the international arena.  Our deferment of any such legislation will make absolutely no difference to the world ‘global warming’ and will not straight-jacket the current and future generations of Australians with ill considered ‘reduction’ measures.  Come on Mr. Rudd, stop being pig-headed and listen to the evidence.  Surely to heaven there must be many Labour MPs, Senators and voters who have these doubts remain silent - shame on you!

      Reply

    • Reed Coray says:

      02:45pm | 30/01/10

      Isn’t it logical to take action against Global Warning (GW) only if the following four conditions are met?

      (1) GW is in fact occurring.  If GW is just so much “hot air” (pun intended), then GW is a nonissue—or more correctly, a nonexistent issue.

      (2) In the aggregate GW is harmful to mankind.  I know in this age of political correctness, it’s deplorable to express little or no concern for the world’s plants and animals; but I do, at least when compared to my concern for mankind.  For example, if mankind had the power to change the environment in a way that benefited all mankind but resulted in the extinction of polar bears, I’d say go for it.  After all, aren’t we doing something similar by attempting to eradicate the smallpox virus from the face of the earth?  Environmentalists can’t in good conscience make the claim: “We can’t allow polar bears to become extinct because (a) it’s immoral for man to abet the extinction of a life form, and (b) the extinction of the polar bear will hurt the environment,” unless they are willing to make a similar claim about the smallpox virus.  The smallpox virus is a living organism too; and by eradicating smallpox the number of the worst polluter (humans, according to many environmentalists) on the face of the earth will increase.  Thus, by eradicating smallpox we are destroying a life form and making a big impact to the environment. 

      (3) There is something we can do about GW.  Even if (a) GW is occurring, and (b) in the aggregate it is harmful to mankind, I’m not going to worry about it if we can’t do anything about it.  Just like I don’t lose sleep over the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera might erupt like it has in the past.  I will listen to discussions about how to adapt to GW; but if we can’t affect it, why listen to arguments on how to stop it?  This is especially true if the actions taken by mankind contribute insignificantly to disaster mitigation.  Kind of like putting paint on the bumper of your car and then parking it on the railroad tracks. 

      (4) What we do about GW is less harmful to mankind than GW itself.  Even if (a) GW is occurring, (b) in the aggregate it is harmful to mankind, and (c) there is something we can do about it, before we take action I want to be sure that the action we take doesn’t cause more harm to mankind than allowing GW to proceed unhindered.  Let’s postulate (1), (2), and (3) above are true, and throw in for good measure that man’s industrial activity is the major contributor to GW.  One way to solve the problem, at least temporarily, would be to liquidate 99% of all humans now living on the earth.  If I’m in the 1% who are allowed to live, it’s unlikely but conceivable that I’d go along with such a solution; but if I’m in the 99% who get sacrificed to the altar of Al Gore, then I’d just as soon ignore GW and let the chips fall where they may.

      When I hear GW discussed in the main-stream media, I’m pretty sure it’s just so much “feelsuperiorism” in the sense that those who advocate doing something about GW can feel superior to us skeptics because they’re onboard the glory train to save the world by stopping the scourge of GW and we’re tearing up the tracks in front of them.  The possibility that (a) the GW alarmist train doesn’t have an engine or (b) the light at the end of the tunnel is another train, not the tunnel exit, doesn’t appear to have entered the minds of GW alarmists.  As such, I have a tendency to ignore the main-stream media’s propaganda about GW, and consequently have heard only a miniscule fraction of their discussion.  However, in the portion I have heard, the four conditions above have never been discussed collectively, much less proven.

      In closing, my father often related to me what his father told him: “Son, the world is full of people who know things that aren’t true.”  It’s my perception that Al Gore, the main-stream media, and much of the western world “know GW is here, know it is harmful, and know that we can do something about it.”  In my opinion, such “knowledge” is an illustration of my grandfather’s claim.

      Reply
    • Paul Colgan

      Paul Colgan says:

      04:31pm | 30/01/10

      Polar bears are as expendable as smallpox?

      Reply

    • Leigh says:

      03:04pm | 30/01/10

      The fact that many people have not heard of Viv Forbes merely shows that most people, particulary climate change hysterics, are not interested in information other than that from the corrupt IPPC and its stooges. Viv has been around a long while, and his comments have been there to for all to see.

      I doubt that Viv would be making as much out of coal industry as Al Gore is making from the climate change lies industry.

      Reply

    • David says:

      03:07pm | 30/01/10

      Follow the money is always a good idea when analysing why anyone or group wants the people of the world to do things “their"way.
      The ETS or badly misnamed CPRS is simply a new open-ended indirect tax upon energy consumption. It is doubly attractive to politicians all around the globe because they believe the can convince at least a few gullible taxpayers that it is “the right thing to do for our grandchildren’s sake”.
      I agree with Viv Forbes. Once a scheme like this is introduced it will never be voted out by any political party. A massive bureaucracy will be used to collect these huge new revenues.

      Reply

    • linden says:

      03:17pm | 30/01/10

      Sceptic you say, how about realist, your are brain washed . I hope you and your mates like the taste of gum leaves…because at the current rate, the amount of good farmland being locked up will affect the food supply!
      You obviously believe scientific guesses of future climate change, I find that very strange!
      So what if Mr Forbes works in the coal industry!

      Reply

    • TOM L says:

      01:55am | 31/01/10

      Forget scientific guesses Linden it is a computor generated scenario, and we all know you put garbage in you get garbage out. all these arguments are going around in circles. The whole argument should concentrate on one thing. 1/ whether co2 causes global warming, Al gores famous hockey stick graph has been discredited,co2 increases follow temperature increases not the other way around.
      2/ If and I do say “IF” co2 does cause warming ( the planet has been cooling for the last decade) then the ETS or CAP & TAX will not stop it,
      It will just take more Tax from industry and the public and make everything dearer from food to utilities.

    • peter says:

      04:18pm | 30/01/10

      Put simply, climate change has been going on for 4.5 billion years - the life of the Earth.  300 years ago the Earth started to emerge from the Little Ice Age, when rivers in Europe froze over and fairs were held on them.  Temperature continues to climb as the effects of the Little Ice Age diminish.  Suddenly, temperature increase is blamed on human activities, even though 97% of global CO2 emissions are natural, and only 3% are man-made (source: NASA).  But no-one can actually say HOW the human input is causing catastrophic and devastating global warming (which doesn’t seem to be happening, anyway).  The IPCC reports came up with the fact that they had eliminated everything else, so it HAD to be man’s activities.  But then, they didn’t include water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas, because its effects were too hard to model.  So immediately their report is flawed.  Now we are more and more hearing about data that was manipulated to fit the result that scientists wanted to get.  The Himalayan glaciers is just the most recent example.  The credibility of the alarmists case is diminishing every day, because of data that had to be “fixed” and a lack of actual happenings to match the doom and gloom prophecies.
      According to Lord Monckton (he’s a Viscount), who isn’t a climate scientist but IS a mathematician, if you calculate the reduction in global temperature if every country that has promised to reduces its emissions to 1990 levels actually does so (and we know how likely that is), the temperature reduction will be less than 0.1Celsius degree, not statistically significant by today’s temperature measurement techniques.  So to achieve almost nothing, we are being told by Mr. Rudd that we must penalise our industries, especially our coal industries, which provide thousands of jobs, and each of us must pay in excess of $1000 per year in additional taxes.  Where will these taxes go?  Furthermore, if the ETS is established, there is no get-out clause.  If in five or ten years’ time we discover it really was a crock, we can’t stop it, there will be too many organisations and brokers with financial exposure and dependencies.  We will be stuck with it forever.
      Storms are not getting more frequent or severe, sea levels are rising at unspectacular rates, arctic and antarctic sea ice advance and retreat with the seasons, as they have always done, and the polar bears are doing just fine, thankyou.
      I invite someone from the group of people who believe it’s all our fault to tell me by what mechanism man’s puny contribution to global CO2 emissions is driving us over the edge.  By the way, if you say we are approaching a tipping point, please quantify it.
      Amazing, all that and I didn’t even mention the Medieval Warm Period!

      Reply

    • ChrisMcS says:

      04:33pm | 30/01/10

      I accept the climate is changing - because it always has.
      I am convinced that both sides in the AGW debate are misrepresenting “facts” - but 1st prize goes to Al Gore because he alarmed billions - though gradually the truth is emerging.
      The climate models are suspect because different variables with different parameters can be made to “fit” past data (in a process called “calibration”). 
      Based on manipulated “facts” and questionable models the world may divert trillions from effective humanitarian projects to possibly delaying a particular temperature increase by about 2 years in 100 - if the big emitters get on board (and don’t fiddle the books - as Australia has been trying to do) and if the models happen to be right (which I doubt).
      Where is the benefit/cost analysis to justify such a huge diversion of GDP?  And, if the climate decides to flip into an inevitable next cooling period, which will cause far more havoc than a temperature increase, will we have to spend the same amout again to promote CO2 emissions in a further futile attempt to control climate?
      Let’s have a Royal Commission and get this sorted out.

      Reply
    • Paul Colgan

      Paul Colgan says:

      04:36pm | 30/01/10

      Hi all - a reminder of our community agreement and to generally keep it civil. Please avoid ad hominem attacks, name-calling and unnecessary profanity.

      Cheers. It’s the weekend, after all. Punch on.

      Reply

    • just askin nicely says:

      05:05pm | 30/01/10

      well..  do you need more moderators? ( dunno why, but it seems thepunch, turns ito a limp slap on weekends, public holidays and after hours.. its like .. news and the internet isnt a 24 hour thingy? ) - if a post doesnt stick to the community agreement, why put it in? smile

    • B. Brock says:

      05:08pm | 30/01/10

      Those of you who are concerned about Rudd’s proposed ETS (officially his Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) should also worry about his proposed insidious legislation to centralise Internet filtering aka censorship, ostensibly to protect us from child porn websites. This legislation will allow the Australian government to block whatever they want, for any reason they want, and the list of sites they censor will remain secret. It will be illegal to publish the lists of censored sites or the reasons any of the sites is censored. If the reports that some 400,000 emails were sent out to politicians before last year’s Senate vote and that they had a significant effect on the final vote, the government’s concern at the power of the Internet can be understood. If the government’s proposed legislation is passed, we will join such secretive countries as Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Pakistan and Cuba.

      Here are two petition sites:
      http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442
      http://www.gopetition.com.au/online/23396.html

      Reply

    • Geoff Wilkinson says:

      04:38pm | 30/01/10

      The media can’t keep their collective heads in the sand for much longer! Severe cold weather occurances are slowly but surely beginning to be reported. The severe cold weather in southern China last winter hardly got a mention in the Australian media. The coverage I saw on SBS was simply amazing and had it have been a warming issue, no doubt there would have been saturation coverage on mainstream media. Good on you Viv Forbes for your courage and integrity in this battle to expose the greatest fraud in history!

      Reply

    • Harry Norton says:

      04:48pm | 30/01/10

      Mother Nature is supreme ! No amount of money will stop
      1. Earthquakes
      2. Hurricanes
      3. Volcanos
      4. The Weather be it hot or cold
      To claim that Co2 is a pollutant is ridiculous

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      10:41am | 31/01/10

      2,3 & 4 are exacerbated by global warming.

      It’s highly unlikely that we can undo the damage in the short term (too much CO2 already wafting around the system), but if we take action now we can prevent it getting worse in the long term.

      Mother Nature, you see, is not a person but a system. Upset systems by putting them out of balance and all sorts of things can happen. Often the impacts don’t have to be that massive to upset the balance.

    • Louis Hissink says:

      06:42pm | 31/01/10

      Persephone,

      Would you mind telling me how global warming will exacerbate volcanos?

    • virgo says:

      09:08am | 01/02/10

      Lots of differing opinions here and that’s good, that’s what democracy is about. My opinion like everyone else’s is a drop in the bucket towards making it full. I can’t see how we can take the risk that Global Warming is not happening. I know we are a country of gamblers but this gamble will affect our children’s and their children’s future. I have total respect for our farmers but they chose their profession. In a drought stricken country. We can import food but we cannot import rain. The coastal area’s from what I have read will be hit the hardest. I am not a scientist and I don’t claim to have any superior knowledge than anyone else, I am simply writing this from my heart

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      11:48am | 01/02/10

      D’oh

      It is global warming, but ‘climate change’ is used because some people have difficulty in understanding that the globe warming up does not necessarily mean that some areas can get colder.

      Thus ‘climate change’ is a better descriptor.

      I don’t have to provide the proof, there’s reams of it out there, and I’m sure The Punch editors would object violently to me now listing a couple of thousand links to help prove it to you.

      However, the fact that the majority of scientists are 99.9% sure that AGW is happening and that governments of all persuasions have also accepted this, is a big hint that the truth is out there.

    • Tony Ryan says:

      01:17pm | 01/02/10

      Mark Imisides

      Please count 17 posts up.

      I agree with you, and I think that, strategically, we should keep the message simple… KISS… CO2 is plant food, and we need more in the atmosphere not less.

      This whole AGW debate is diverting attention from the infinitely more urgent (and real) issue of oceanic pollution. Funny that. Corporate polluters buy some time and bankers profit from carbon trading.

      Nevertheless, I believe that all climate realists should pool resources and ram a simple message down the nation’s throat. Only this will counter Rupert Murdoch’s blockade of our message.

      One technique might be to add this simple message to every e-mail as a signature. Most e-mail services have this capacity. This is a free and powerful publishing technique.

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      10:14am | 01/02/10

      @persephone:

      “2,3 & 4 are exacerbated by global warming.

      It’s highly unlikely that we can undo the damage in the short term (too much CO2 already wafting around the system), but if we take action now we can prevent it getting worse in the long term.”

      Great, now just provide proof that the human contribution to global warming (I thought it had changed to climate change myself) is causing this to justify the ridiculous CPRS/ETS.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      05:11pm | 30/01/10

      I’ve been good! I got my warning….

      Reply

    • It's the Sun, Stupid! says:

      05:23pm | 30/01/10

      It’s fascinating to see the numbers of firm believers in ‘anthropogenic global warming’ tending to feel a little threatened as more and more revelations are being made about the dubious (if that’s not too strong a word) ‘science’ behind this theory.  Please note: ‘theory’!

      I notice that ‘ad hominem’ attacks are becoming frequent as ‘true believers’ play the man and not the ball.  Better to try to discredit anyone coming up with contrarian facts rather than produce any proof that those facts are wrong, and why.  (And yes!  With REAL ‘peer reviewed’ papers!  Although it’s significant that in the past most great scientific discoveries and breakthroughs have been made either WITHOUT any peer review - simply because there weren’t any peer reviewers, this being new stuff you know - or, in many notable cases, DESPITE the peer review opinion at the time which has turned out to be 100% wrong as time went on.  Check out just one famous incidence: Dr Ignaz Semmelweis. http://www.semmelweis.org/about/dr-semmelweis-biography/

      Having said that, I am writing this in defence of Viv because I have spent some considerable time in assembling a most comprehensive PowerPoint slide show that covers just about every aspect of the AGW ‘debate’.  The show includes many Internet links so you can go away and check things out for yourself.  After all, we could just be lying!  (There is even one from ‘Greenpeace’, that organisation so beloved of the AGW ‘true believers’, and now revealed as being one of the ‘peer review’ sources of ‘science’ used by the UN IPCC, together with the WWF!)

      You can download the slide show in two parts (because of file-size limitations) from http://www.climatesceptics.com/au.

      Horrors!  I can almost hear some of you thinking!  “I wouldn’t believe anything on that propaganda site!”

      So perhaps accept this as a personal challenge.  View the show; check the links; and after that please tell us - with ‘peer reviewed’ proof - where we are wrong.

      And for those of you who are suffering from angst about the future of the planet for your children and grandchildren: I think that much of the information given in the show will soothe your fears.

      Peace!

      Reply

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      06:45pm | 30/01/10

      Is your site shut down? Link fails. That Senator Conroy don’t muck around hey LOL…

    • It's the Sun, Stupid! says:

      08:15pm | 30/01/10

      Wayne,

      So sorry!  The Climate Sceptics website is undergoing a major upgrade right now and is in the hand of a computer guru (and perhaps you know that this means we are all at the guru’s mercy).  Perhaps give it a few days and try again.  On the other hand, a CD can be posted to you with the whole self-starting show.  Get in touch at michaelspencer2@bigpond.com.

      Unfortunately ‘The Climate Sceptics’ are NOT ‘in the pay of big oil, coal, or whatever’ (unlike most if not all,  of the warmers)!  This makes it a major operation to employ even one guru, let alone a team of them ....

    • It's the Sun, Stupid! says:

      11:51am | 31/01/10

      Thanks Steve!  I must have overcome by the global warming when i typed that link.

      My comment about the work being done in ‘The Climate Sceptics; website though ....

    • Mike Williamson says:

      05:24pm | 30/01/10

      As usual, whenever a challenge cannot be defeated in well considered debate, play the man and ignore the real issue is the usual tactic and on this issue that appears to be - all too often - that outcome..
      If the IPCC and their supporters can prove their point, they should - please - do so. They should take on the skeptics and deniers, like Viv Forbes and his supporters, in open and freely accessible forums with demonstrably unbiased chair persons acceptable to both parties and prove their hypothesis. The results of these debates should then be published for all to see.
      There are now apparently so many challenging the IPCC, the world community deserves this to be resolved.
      The real and only issue relating to the imminent pursuit of ETS legislation, is whether carbon based low molecular weight carbon compounds that are emitted into our atmosphere (e.g. CO2 and methane) are causing our environment to change dramatically and detrimentally. Any other industrial and manmade emissions that can be truly labelled pollutant are a completely different issue to be addressed independently.
      There are strong arguments put forth by both pro and anti IPCC camps regarding the cause of climate change these views need to be mutually respected and their differences resolved.
      Given the enormous expense being contemplated (and indeed already committed) to attempting to prevent future changes to the climate of our planet, we need now, given the challenges, to be absolutely clear that
      1)  a problem of detrimental climate change is occurring,
      2)  if man is indeed inducing climate change,
      a)  will it be as harmful as alarmists within IPCC (and Al Gore), have claimed?
      b)  will we be overall worse off given some of the advantages that the skeptics claim? 
      3)  given the enormity of the proposed expenditure to remedy that IPCC’s predicted deterioration in climate, can the desired result be reliably achieved by the proposed actions?
      The intensity and frequency of questions posed by the critics of the IPCC and the continued reliance on an unqualified, and often only abusive, rebuttal of these criticisms, demand that a new transparent debate is commenced otherwise the huge level of resources that will continue to be channelled into the climate change campaign may very well leave us without sufficient financial and industrial strength to sustain our level of civilisation and thereby help the truly needy people in this world exploding with rising population.
      Once the arguments of the deniers are disproved everyone can wholeheartedly support these huge, radical changes to our society; until then questions will continue to cause apprehension .
      Let us all forget our pride and entrenched attitudes; let us join together in achieving the best outcome for our kids and future generations. We owe it to them.

      Reply

    • Roger says:

      05:30pm | 30/01/10

      Ten signs that the warming scare is collapsing

      (link)

      Reply

    • J.McLeish says:

      05:45pm | 30/01/10

      Congratulations to Viv Forbes, he is a climate realist.
      The ClimateGate emails exposed by a hacker or whistle blower have reached a critical mass on the internet. Even though the climate conference at Copenhagen went pear shaped the media still hides this scandal.

      The intellectual corruption by highly regarded climate scientists has revealed they practised turf protection, data manipulation, and threats to destroy raw data rather than reveal the facts through Freedom of Information. Scientists from England’s Climate Research University (C.R.U.) have schemed to “hide the decline” in global temperatures and now we learn that the primary raw data that all the computer climate models are based on has been lost or destroyed.  The senders and recipients of these leaked emails do not deny they are genuine.

      Those in the know still making doomsday predictions have become the deniers. They deny that one of the most intellectual groups of scientists at the C.R.U. with a direct input to the U.N. panel on climate change has rigged their computer codes to make any data look like rapid warming. After the much heralded conference in Copenhagen, global warmers are becoming an endangered species.
       
      Global temperatures have not risen since 2001 and while the greatest scientific scandal of our times took place the media have done a darn good job of hiding it.

      At least a few journalists like Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun) will print the truth: Under the proposed CPRS in Australia we will reduce our emissions from 550 million tonnes per year to 520 million tons per year by 2020. China will take their emissions from 7 billion tons this year to 10 billion tons by 2020. The end result: China will increase emissions by 3 billion tons a year and we will reduce by 30 million tons per year at a cost of some $200 billion. How crazy is that?
      Mr Rudd desperately needs a new tax; he’s spent 60 billion dollars last year, money he had to borrow. You are living in a fool’s world if you think paying $1100 - $4600 additional tax each year will stabilise temperatures.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      10:52am | 31/01/10

      Global temperatures have not risen since 2001?

      Interesting to see the sceptics - including Bolt - busily shifting their position on this one. It used to be that global temperatures had not risen since 1998. Why has the mantra changed?

      And recent reports are that 2005 was the hottest year recorded (NASA), with 2007 & 2009 equal second. This is despite solar activity falling to its lowest levels in over a century.

      None of the money collected via the CPRS goes into government coffers, BTW - in fact, the government will need to spend more, due to the changes to the compensation package negotiated with the Liberals.

    • J.McLeish says:

      08:31pm | 31/01/10

      Persephone should realise that if the claim of 1998 is made, which is quite accurate, AGM supporters will then say thats the El Nino effect and it cant be taken into account. As for statements that 2005 was the hottest year,  2007 and 2009 equal second, obviously these are ground temperature measurements. All cities have got hotter because of the “heat island effect. ” Increase use of tar and concrete in the ever expanding suburbs will raise temperatures up to 0.8 degrees in cities. This fact can be checked out on the website"wattsupwiththat” where there are lots of photos of official temperature measuring sites within spitting distance of airconditioners hot exhaust systems.

      see: http://www.theage.com.au/national/city-set-to-button-up-for-fresh-february-20100130-n5js.html 
      Melbournes recent record temperatures have now been blamed on the “heat island effect” by the weather “experts.”

      Also if persephone checks out these seven graphs, several of them are official satellite air temperatures, thay all show what a con the global warming hype is.
      See http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/

      Once again Andrew Bolt is right: “It should make the Rudd government feel sick.”

    • persephone says:

      09:17am | 01/02/10

      J McLeish

      Interestingly, the claim that weather measurement sites were placed in hot spots has been tested.

      Apparently it’s quite the reverse; it you exclude these sites, then the warming trend is actually MORE apparent.

      I’ll look up the reference, if you really want me to; I can’t find it at present.

      Anyway, the other furphy; that it ONLY measures surface temperatures.

      I happen to live on the surface. Therefore it’s very crucial to me if the surface is getting hotter.

    • persephone says:

      09:45am | 01/02/10

      http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

      There we go.

      Scientific paper, peer reviewed, which examined the claim that the siting of weather stations in the US was distorting the data.

      Finds that, if anything, any distortion is that the admittedly poorly sited stations read cooler than they should, the precise opposite to the claims made.

      So if we eliminate these stations from the data, we find that the past few years are in fact hotter than reported.

    • J.McLeish says:

      08:40am | 02/02/10

      In reply to Persephone; Anthony Watts, who was ackowledged as a contributer to that paper said ” the Menne et al 2010 paper was based on an early version of the surfacestations.org data, at 43% of the network surveyed. The dataset that Dr. Menne used was not quality controlled, and contained errors both in station identification and rating, and was never intended for analysis.”
      I suggest you go to http://www.wattsupwiththat.com and inform update your knowledge on the global warming scam.

    • Ticken says:

      05:52pm | 30/01/10

      Thank God for Viv Forbes, Lord Munkton and others who have challenged this global warming myth with real science.  We have had enough of the fraudulent science of the “warmists”.  Some simple research of historical carbon levels is enough to convince me that even 10 times the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will not shift global average temperatures appreciably but it will promote plant growth.  Increased plant growth will help improve world food production and feed most of the world’s poorest areas.  Droughts will be reduced and animals will have plenty of feed.  Given that we are in a period of almost the lowest atmospheric carbon the world has known I can’t see the reason for the panic.  Could it be that scientists who have produced this fraud saw it as a means of getting themselves on the “gravy train” of abundant funding while chasing the phantom of global warming.

      It has been particularly pleasing to see Lord Munkton debating the warmists and shooting down their arguments with irrefutable facts and science.  It has also bee noteworthy that the press have not attended.  Could it be that the press is part of the global warming conspiracy.  They have never yet let the facts get in the way of their prejudice.

      Reply

    • Mikko says:

      06:31pm | 30/01/10

      Hey , it’s a pity that the IPCC scams revealed almost daily have reduced their idea of the scientific peer review process, or at least how it now appears, “I’ll peer review yours if you peer review mine.”
      That’s a shame for the genuine scientists out there

      Reply

    • Janette says:

      07:03pm | 30/01/10

      This is telling! People are awake to the global warming CON.

      Have a look at how Obama’s speech about global warming is received.

      The audience was in stitches laughing when he said “I know there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change….      but….    but…    but here’s the thing, even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for clean energy and efficiency is the right thing to do.”

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/a-moment-of-truth-in-the-state-of-the-union/comment-page-2/#comment-27339

      Reply

    • nigel deacon says:

      08:49pm | 30/01/10

      the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, not carbon dioxide. most physicists and chemists know this.

      comparing equal amounts, water vapour is a better absorber of infrared radiation than carbon dioxide.

      there is up to 4% water vapour in the atmosphere depending on the weather.

      the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is roughly one hundredth that of water vapour.

      given the above,ii is difficult to see how man-made carbon dioxide can affect the climate.

      Reply

    • Tony Ryan says:

      08:50pm | 30/01/10

      Tom and John and others are not seeing the big picture on AGW.

      First there were scientists who claimed the theory held water. Then along came a man named Maurice Strong, who presented David Blood and Al Gore with a plan to use these nutters to make a lot of money with carbon trading.

      At first it was thought about $3 trillion could me made with the scam, but the big bankers and the world’s top tax avoidance expert, Rupert Murdoch, were even more creative and the highest figure I have heard that will be made over the next decade is $43 trillion.

      Meanwhile, UN bureaucrats saw this as a wonderful opportunity to advance One World Governance by about two decades, and Copenhagen was the result. The political entity behind this is largely Fabian Socialism, well-known adherents of which are Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd, and Tony Blair.

      Quite apart from these scenarios are the various facets of what has become known as Agenda 21, which is a flow-on from the Eugenics Movement (another manifestation of which is today’s version of IQ tests). In this focus it is believed that 80% of the world’s population must die, in the interests of environmental sustainability. Foremost of these entities are the WWF, Greenpeace, and the hierarchies of each nation’s Green party.

      As Lord Monckton points out, what drives world population is poverty; eliminate poverty and the population increase rate plummets. Buckminster Fuller hypothesised this in the early 1960s and history proved him correct. Mindless of this, green fanatics and other eugenics/neo-nazis types believe that carbon trading and taxes will eventually destroy most of the worlds population.

      They rationalise this by saying ‘mankind is destroying the planet’ In fact, rapacious corporations, undemocratic governments, and global bankers are destroying the planet. The rest of us were never consulted.

      How to solve this? Eliminate the banker elites, re-introduce electoral consensus as the driver of government policy, and restore tariffs. Following this install flat taxes and other egalitarian reforms.

      Lord Monckton opposes these, so you’ll need to work out some reconciliation here.

      Reply

    • toby robertson says:

      09:56pm | 30/01/10

      Viv and other vocal sceptics are doing our society a great service in speaking up against the exagerated claims of climate change and the futility of trying to control climate on a global scale. It is time for all sceptics to voice their doubts and convince our ignorant politicians to look for the truth and not some political gain. Anybody not a little sceptical of the IPCC really should stop and think for themselves, rather than blindly following like sheep.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      10:51pm | 30/01/10

      That may be a reason why there are so many ‘climate change deniers’.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      12:34pm | 31/01/10

      Stephen, for some reason my reply to this comment has ended up being posted as a reply to RobertN, way back at the top of this thread.

      Moderator, could you please fix that?

      Otherwise, Stephen, you’ll have to scroll back to read it!

    • Sam Pepper says:

      11:04pm | 30/01/10

      thanks to Viv Forbes and others in Australia leading the effort to bring common sense back to government—it has been a constant struggle as well, here in the United States, especially when people claim to have it while running for various offices, including President, and do just the opposite once they arrive there—so it’s been long overdue to bring the “sword of truth” to them, and get their true opinions about matters such as AGW, to discern what they are actually up to—I can only apologize for being a US citizen like our very own, Mr. Albert Gore Jr.—but I most certainly do not apologize for having the exact opposite opinion as his, regarding AGW—his so-called facts in his presentations such as “An Inconvenient Truth” are based on falsified material, biased towards warm measurements, while “conveniently” leaving out the cool ones, which can be traced back to another US citizen of dubious reputation, Michael Mann, and his infamous “hockey stick” fairy tale—(by the way, as I am writing this, where I am geographically, in coastal Virginia near North Carolina, it rarely sees snow accumulate on the ground, there is SIX inches of it, with at least TEN more on the way!) So in closing, keep up the good work, there in beautiful Australia—I hope to pay you good folks a visit there one day!

      Reply

    • Michael Darby says:

      11:34pm | 30/01/10

      For nearly forty years I have had the privilege of knowing and admiring Viv Forbes.  He is a lifelong promoter of individual liberty, a staunch Australian patriot, a scientist, a primary producer and a devoted husband to his splendid wife Judy.  Viv is a prolific writer whose honesty, frankness and thoroughness in research are a constant embarrassment to persons whose goal is undermining the personal freedoms which do highly values.  As founder of Carbon Sense Coalition, Viv has led the way in awakening Australians to the hugely fraudulent attacks on Carbon and Carbon Dioxide made by the acolytes of the AGW cult.
      Viv, wise Australians are already very grateful to you.
      Wise Australians also appreciate and applaud the selfless work of other honest people including but by no means limited to Prof Ian Plimer, Prof Les Kemeny, Dr Phil Wood, Peter Spencer, Miranda Devine, George Fox, Martin Baker, John Smeed, Case Smid, Joanne Nova, Leon Ashby, Bill Koutalianos,  Tony Zegenhagen, Steve Truman,  Ron Kitching and Prodos.
      Specially deserving of honourable mention are broadcasters Alan Jones, Grant Goldman, Chris Smith, and Jim Ball.
      May the number and influence of wise Australians grow rapidly
      Admiring regards
      Michael Darby
      Spokesman, Australians for Clean Energy
      http://michaeldarby.net/CleanEnergy

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      12:24am | 31/01/10

      Tom says:  03:16pm | 30/01/10

      “What I am more concerned about, Viv, is the lack of accountability of climate change sceptics such as yourself. If you are so sure of your position (and this goes for all AGW denialists) then write a paper and submit it to a respectable (e.g. Science or Nature) scientific journal for peer review and publication.”

      It’s not everyone’s role to write peer-reviewed papers. Some have a valid role to “summarise and popularise” the issues. Plenty of “sceptics” have written peer reviewed papers, anyway: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      “It is through the process of peer review that errors in the IPCC report were picked up (although what no one points out is that the errors amounted to about a page in a 1600 page document).”

      Sorry, if the peer review process was properly followed the errors would not have appeared in the IPCC report in the first place. Despite the IPCC’s claims that their processes are “robust”, they relied on and quoted non-peer reviewed articles in more than one instance.

      Reply

    • Mary Mitchell says:

      11:56am | 31/01/10

      Don’t be silly, the “peers” have had tertiary education and so cannot think rationally. Anyway, I don’t care if the the world blows up but I do care about living properly in the meantime. Unrestrained socialism in Oz makes George Orwell’s works look like Sunday school stuff. Just Amend S128 in our consitution to permit CIR and then you’ll see something—even democracy.

    • haggis says:

      01:26pm | 01/02/10

      Ermmmmm, specially that one about the disappearing Amazon forest, eh?

      Reply

    • Gillespie Robertson says:

      12:50am | 31/01/10

      How good to see the support for people such as Viv who have fought so hard for a truly scientific approach to this issue.  The “consensus” scientists have lost sight of their duty to debate openly and to accept that others’ work and views should be published and valued as part of a debate in an area of science where there are absolutely massive gaps in knowledge , as anyone reading carefully the scientific background part— as opposed to the highly politicised Summary for Policymakers — of the IPCC 2007report can see. (And this is despite its lead authors’ unwillingness to cite the work of anyone whose conclusions don’t fit the AGW hypothesis.) Arguably the world’s greatest scientific brains of recent times (Edward Teller before he died, Freeman Dyson today) are/were AGW sceptics. For those whose minds are open I recommend looking up the work of Roy Spencer, who runs the best-known satellite temperature dataset at UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) and of Richard Lindzen of MIT for a start.
      Good on you, Viv. May more and more people hear of you !

      Reply

    • Mark Duchamp says:

      03:47am | 31/01/10

      Viv Forbes is a courageous man with his head on his shoulders. I hope there are enough Australians like him to save your great country from what is essentially a huge con.

      As an environmentalist, I can undestand as well as any man that we need to clean up our act. But CO2 is clean. It is simply a lie to pretend it’s a pollutant. Check your encyclopedia, review the literature : without carbon and CO2 there would be no life on earth. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was 3 to 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. When corals appeared in the seas 550 million years ago, there was 12 times more…  We actually live in a CO2-empoverished atmosphere. More CO2 would benefit crop yields and green some deserts.

      All this global warming propaganda is based on lies and on several hidden agendas : a different one for each group that supports it. For politicians, it’s more taxes (some disguised as carbon trading) and more money to be diverted into “pork barrel” politics.  For the “greens”, it’s the destruction of capitalism, which provided us with decent jobs and a decent income, in favour of a return to the socialist way - the hard kind, with Cuba-style rationing and coercion. For many scientists, it’s grant money, funding for their research into whatever - e.g. the effect of global warming on the reproduction cycle of the barramundi. For banks and “golden boys”,  it’s a chance to make mountains of commissions from carbon trading, carbon offsets, etc.  For crooks, it’s a unique opportunity to make millions from fraudulent carbon offset schemes. For some businesses close to politicians, it’s the chance to live from subsidies, i.e. from taxpayers.

      But for Australians and Westerners in general, it’s paying more for everything we consume :  for gazoline, for electricity, for food, and for just about anything, because to manufacture anything you need energy, and energy will be much more costly, thanks to uneconomic wind farms and solar plants.

      And while Australians, Europeans, and Americans become poorer, Chinese, Indians, Russians, Brazilians will become richer, emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever did. For they continue to build cheap, reliable coal-fired power plants.

      What we are really talking about is committing economic suicide. Is this what we really want ?

      Mark Duchamp
      Environmentalist
      Director, Iberica 2000
      President, Save the Eagles International

      Reply

    • Carl Palmer says:

      12:01pm | 04/02/10

      @ Mark Duchamp says:03:47am | 31/01/10

      Thank you. You are spot on.

      The only problem now is to get others to understand “the Agenda”.

    • M Btok ( Paul Revere ) says:

      03:51am | 31/01/10

      Everything in this article is absolutely correct! In Canada although we have a Conservative Government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, we are seeing talk of some form of Carbon Tax and it is based on the East Anglia fraud numbers!

      Although Stephen Harper was smart enough not to sign on to the Copenhagen Treaty, which would have caused canadian citizens to lose their Sovereignty, this government strangely enough talks of applying a Carbon Tax! Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when we know the whole Boondogle is a complete and utter fraud as ithe tax will be used to support the Globak Elite and their “One World Communist or Marxist Government,” agenda!

      Why would citizens want to pay a tax toward sometheing we’d tare down and stomp on! Let us unite in strong bond to defat and obliterate the Elitist agenda around the world!

      Reply

    • William Joiner says:

      08:55am | 31/01/10

      The whole arguement pitting believer against skeptic is bogus, neither side knows for sure as this science is incomplete and at present far too complicate for our small brains to solve. So I am definately against Rudds huge new ETS tax.  Hell, we just had a 50 billion GST introduce which has pushed up the price of everything, so we definately don’t need a ETS based on speculation.

      I believe we should be examining factors that may alter short term weather, like burning unpolished coal in China which results in ash causing Atric ice to melt, ozone out of China causing weather patterns to move further norher and south of the equator and ditto for high flying jets that leave pollution high up in the atmospher around the equator.  All countries are sending their business to China to avoid their pollution responsibilities, as anything goes in China.

      However, I am definately against the continual expansion of the use of coal.

      I sent the following em to Viv without much response.

      Dear Viv,
      I don’t believe the medium/long term future of energy lies in coal, so we should begin to move away from it as soon as possible. There is pollution and ground destruction in mining it. It’s non renewable. It’s used in processing ore with devestating pollution effects. It uses large amounts of water to mine, a valuable resource, and it can pollute ground water, its cost to mine and transport is ever increasing and finally there is no carbon capture technology that can be use everywhere, as each storage situation is different.
      Our future lies in new communities located near new clean energy sources. Base line power can be reduced to nothing using eco housing as these energy areas are all in deserts. The continual expansion of the old east coast cities is a waste of time as base line energy will never be lowered substantially. Bringing energy to these ever expanding cities is a plan that will eventually fail and quality of life will disappear. It is already.
      There has been a massive discovery of geothermal energy (hot rock) in Queensland at Millungera Basin. It is 300X50 K in size and 450 million years old. Look at the Coopers basin hot rocks in SA also.
      http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2077
      These energies will continue to run even in a neclear winter, free, curtersy of Mother Earth.

      There are also now 1GW solar thermal plants, hot ponds technologies, wave power, thin film technologies and clean Thorium neclear. And don’t forget fusion. And what ever happend to making hydrogen from grass and bacteria? The Yanks developed it and then it promptly disappeared.
      “Our”  natural gas should be used in the interum period as we move away from coal towards the clean renewables. Once these clean energies are established and the infrastructure payed for, they are free to run with no pollution or ever rising expensive fuel input.

      So, if Viv if you would like to respond with your arguements for the continual every increasing use of non renewable carbon based fuels, I am sure all the readers would be interested.

      Reply

    • Karen M says:

      09:39am | 31/01/10

      I have no intrest sad to say in the ramblings of this elderly Australian. He will not be around when the effects of climate change hit us. I for one will not take the risk for either my family or myself that Global Warming is a hoax. The Poles and The Glaciers are melting and the chaos and wars that would ensue from water rising would be horrific. Why wait till we toss the baby out with the bath water..act now and save the baby

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      10:34am | 31/01/10

      Brilliant rebuttal, there, David C.

      Particularly admired your use of data.

      The ozone issue is a good example of a problem which adversely affected one part of the globe being tackled globally. For the hole in the ozone layer to be stabilised, countries across the world had to agree to adopt the same actions.

      Y2K was not a joke; many computer scientists (and others, of course) deliberately did not change some of their computers over so they could study its effects.

      It is again an example of co ordinated action across countries resolving a problem.

      I’m very sorry for you if you have such a low opinion of human beings that you are unwilling to accept that, when they have to, they can work together. And so little respect for our scientific ingenuity that you can’t accept that we may be able to solve some of the problems connected with global warming.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      09:16pm | 31/01/10

      sorry p you are hitting me with waff, the ozone issue was an easy one because the transition was zero (or minimal cost) It was not a big issue for world co-ordination so I dont count it as a shining example of such.
      I stand by my comment, Y2K was a joke (yes I went through the whole charade).
      We wont need this great world effort you seem so keen to muster for catastrophic global warming because it will not turm out to be a world issue but a local one. Day by day we are finding the feedbacks are less than thought, end game is probably another 1/2 degree of warming to come by 2100. Not a huge deal I would have thought given we have had 0.7 already without too much fuss.
      I never said that the global communnity couldnt work together or that scientists couldnt solve problems by the way.

    • Bill M says:

      10:54am | 31/01/10

      You’re probably lucky Karen that you think you don’t have to care about the economic welfare of your children.  I’d guess you probably live in a city and have a ‘secure’ job.  Think a little about farm families whose livelihood is absolutely threatened by this mess.  Others outline the problems with the processing of climate data.  Let’s look at Australia and how just one piece of data that I know of has been skewed.  We are supposed to be one of the great carbon emitters of the world.  This has a few causes, however, one of the major causes is Methane emitted by livestock!  The problem is the model only accounted for emissions by lifestock and took no account of the fixation of CO2 in the grasses eaten by the same livestock.  The reason ‘Oh well!  The amount fixed by the grasses was too difficult to measure or estimate!’  This is the sort of bogus garbage on which serious decisions are being made. Rudd’s solution to try to shut the farmers up on this topic was to exclude Agriculture for a few years - that would make it all OK!!!! 

      Karen you can’t see that your house will be taken from you so you don’t think that farmer’s concerns about their property rights is a problem. So you don’t give a damn.  Farmer’s trees were confiscated so that the Govt would not have to pay farmers for fixing Carbon in the trading scheme!!!  Instead of recognising property rights, the Govt preferred to send carloads of ‘tree police’ with boot fulls of batons and shot guns to visit and interrogate over-stressed farm families in their homes.  Farmers rights were destroyed, livelihoods wrecked, some lost their homes….but why should you care…you’ll be alright!

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      12:43pm | 31/01/10

      The biggest threat to farming families is lack of action on climate change.

      They are the ones facing its impacts at the moment.

      I live in a farming community. Many of them have already changed their farming practices, because they realise that they can no longer farm in the way they used to - not because of government regulation, but because, as people who live on the land, they recognise that the climate is changing and they have to change with it.

      We are amongst the biggest carbon emitters in the world not because of livestock (other countries have cows, too) but because of our reliance on coal powered electricity.

      At present, climate models do not include agriculture until its impacts (and therefore possible savings) can be measured, overcoming the problems you mention. If it can’t be measured, it can’t be included.

      As for your last paragraph, you’re exaggerating just a tad. Firstly, farmers trees weren’t confiscated (quite the opposite); secondly, there aren’t any tree police, with batons or shotguns or without (most vegetation analysis is done via satellite photography), no rights were destroyed (they didn’t exist to begin with) and I know of no case where livelihoods were wrecked (my understanding is that farmers were compensated for losses in land value).

      Karen, keep on thinking about the future and about your children. If we don’t tackle this problem, then they’re going to face a lot of challenges cleaning up the mess people like Bill M want to leave them.

    • turd world says:

      11:01am | 31/01/10

      janet - you think the cost of doing something may be prohibitive..( though you dont actually say how much.. you all just say too much… sigh )  well.. I say if youre wrong, the cost of doing nothing will be a lot more.

      the majority of sceptics are probably religious nutters, never liked science to begin with.

      Reply

    • Bill M says:

      11:12am | 31/01/10

      Another revelation of faking by those supposed to be the ‘experts’ driving the agenda

      http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/

      In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.

      But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming—and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.

      Science? It must have changed a lot since i studied!

      Reply

    • Whyn Carnie says:

      12:09pm | 31/01/10

      I think there has to be a logical reason for the existence of the universe but the reason may escape mankind up to its inevitable last days on this infinitessimal part of it. I also think there is a science that may emerge about the same time on the causes of our climate.

      First we must get over the IPCC scam then get an acceptable definition of the thing we are trying to understand. Getting over the scam will be difficult. It did not just arise from a group of pseudo scientists salaries paid by UN.. It has been carefully stagemanaged by someone. And that leads me to enquire for what motives? I think I can see motives of an Indian Railway Engineer turned Economist (how about that for the ultimate oxymoron) running the IPCC side. I think I can see motives for our own special advisor (sinophile economist) to the PM and Penny trying to get alongside the government. I can see Gore’s motives.  I can see CSIRO and Met Bureau financial carrots. But I am finding it hard to backtrack from those misguided individuals to the mastermind. Someone cobbled the whole thing into such a nebulous juggernaut. None of the bit players from UN, USA, UK, Australia have the brains nor skills to have progressed the Church of Climate Change to the level it has. Every religion in history had its mythical Messiah whom the adherents could hardly wait to publicise, and expose us to the motives behind this or that religion. Where is the neo-Messiah and where are his/her commandments? Come out from hiding and come clean.

      Reply

    • Don Clark says:

      12:14pm | 31/01/10

      Thank goodness for Persephone, whose posts are consistently cool, careful, accurate and thoughtful. One of a rare few whose posts make reading The Punch worthwhile in the thicket of dross, puff, misinformation and spite.

      Reply

    • Jan says:

      02:00pm | 31/01/10

      Lord Stern’s dodgy dossier exposed

      Apart from Al Gore, NASA’s Dr James Hansen, and the soon-to-be-much-missed head of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri, no one on earth has been a more voluble and extravagantly hysterical harbinger of Man-Made Eco Doom than Lord Stern of Brentford.
      READ MORE HERE:-
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023540/lord-sterns-dodgy-dossier-exposed/
      PS Of course we won’t see this discussed in our censored newspapers in Australia. Nor on the abc or sbs no doubt!

      Reply

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      03:35pm | 31/01/10

      A big read Rachel@ 2.04pm but well worth it. It is more frighting than global warming..

    • Carl Palmer says:

      12:44pm | 04/02/10

      @Rachel says:02:04pm | 31/01/10

      Thanks Rachel, agree with Wayne,  big read but very worthwhile.

      Very scarey indeed

    • Tony Ryan says:

      02:16pm | 31/01/10

      If some people can’t think globally, and geopolitically, then go simple…

      CO2 is plant food, and we need more plants for food, good climate and oxygen, the latter of which is in decline.

      Climate change is a billion years old. CO2 was five times more evident during the Jurassic, which was this planet’s most bio-prolific period.

      The pattern of CO2 development has not changed perceptably, and if some claim it has, let’s see the proof, not to idiot scientists but to the people of each nation.

      In a democracy, the only consensus worth having is the people’s.

      Now, are there any deniers of democracy here? These people who claim that the consensus of some elite is all that matters share the philosophy of Fascists and Nazis and as far as I am concerned they are the declared enemy.

      In the meantime, keep up the great work, Viv Forbes.

      Reply

    • Lawless says:

      03:02pm | 31/01/10

      Bill M

      Correct about the loss of farmers rights on their land. Dictated to by some legislation brought in to propect environmental outcomes . What a load of hogwash. In 2000 / 2001 Qld had 4 times the amount of timber than required to meet the Kyoto protocol. “donated ” by farmers. Stopping advancement of livestock production and cropping increases in its tracks. Climate change yes , AGW hell no! What a con. Since when do $s =  changing the climate, rubbish.
      Karen think about all the food imported from countries that use chemicals that are banned here in Australia that you will consume from those countrie feeling good now about eating that rubbish? So much for the next generations birth defects etc? Do some research on China and the birth defects over there due to contminations. Thank god for Australian producers.
      The rally in Canberra on the 2nd of February is to show our Australian farmers / graziers that we support them, that us Aussies in the cities do want Australian produce on our shelves.
      Or do we want them gone?

      Reply

    • Adam says:

      03:14pm | 31/01/10

      @ persophone “Au contraire - over 90% of families will be net gainers under the CPRS, with most receiving close to $200 in compensation above what they spend.”

      Are you insane, where so you think this money comes from? We will get taxed more than payed out more in benefits. One can only assume that treasury will increase the output of money.

      Even if most people are better off where is the incentive to reduce Co2 then?

      Reply

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      03:30pm | 31/01/10

      Thanks to all for all the links (both sides of the debate). I am completely linked out but it has been some fascinating reading. As this keeps unraveling, and it is unraveling faster every minute I have to question those who are still so passionate supporters of AGW. The science being settled has been torn to shreds. A really great mate and I have argued over this for the past six months. He is very passionate (so am I) about this subject and was a very strong supporter of the Labor parties ETS. He rang me this arvo and surrendered. Can’t support it any longer. He now admits that he refused for a long time to even read an apposing view. I wonder just how many people are in the same boat.  When I first commented on the Punch it was related to AGW/ETS. It was a one sided affair and I was howled down left right and center. Funny, things seem to have changed. I really do think the skeptics are now in the majority. So does K Rudd and he would be very nervous at the moment. Does he push his ETS further or change our focus to other more acceptable things. Interesting day on Tuesday. Can’t wait!

      Reply

    • sadface says:

      09:36am | 01/02/10

      the more co2 in the atmosphere, (big warm fuzzy blanket ) the more heat that is trapped, unable to get out. planet warms up.

      simple enough? smile

      mockton? how can you take anyone who channels don knotts seriously?

    • persephone says:

      03:48pm | 31/01/10

      Randall

      yes, one would expect harsh winters as a result of climate change. Indeed, one of the greatest concerns is that climate change will disrupt the present ocean currents, which bring warm water from the tropics to Europe and Asia, resulting in much warmer climates there than they should have. If these currents are shut down, large areas of Europe and Asia may become too cold to be habitable.

      One of the more recent Ice Ages in Europe was caused by a similar warming, which resulted in massive ice melts and the dumping of large amounts of fresh water into the oceans. This effectively shut off one of the major currents which drew water from the tropics up to the Northern Seas and resulted in a snap freeze in Europe (the famous ‘mammoth killed by cold whilst still eating’ scenario).

      The importance of ocean currents in determining climate cannot be underestimated. The El Nino/La Nina cycles across the Pacific - thousands of miles - affects our climate here.

      Regardless, extremes of weather - and that means in both directions - are a predicted outcome of climate change, so the harshest weather in decades is simply confirmation of the theory.

      However, other areas have experienced extremely mild - far warmer than average - winters (Canada, southern Europe, Africa) and thus the global temperature is still on an upward trajectory, with 2009 the second warmest on record (with 2005 the warmest).

      Reply

    • sue cross says:

      04:45pm | 31/01/10

      i beleve that this climate change & global warming is 100% the normal cycle of of how she operates out there. ice age will happen again 100%. down the track. but not on the 24.12.2011 as the goons are hoping for.

      Reply

    • Andrew L. Urban says:

      05:55pm | 31/01/10

      What hope is there for ever an agreement on the existence and/or cause of the complex issue of global warming when even intelligent people (including those in the media) celebrated the turn of the millennium on December 31 1999 and the turn of the century on December 31 2009?

      Reply

    • Bob Greenelsh says:

      06:10pm | 31/01/10

      persephone claims that she has contact with many climate scientists. Can she please ask them for the references to the research that has determined the fate of carbon dioxide emitted from coal fired power stations.

      Reply

    • Kevin Bennewith says:

      06:35pm | 31/01/10

      This is what the Australian Treasury says:
      “Renewable energy will have a key role to play in reducing Australia’s energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. Initially, the primary driver of renewable energy will be the Government’s target of 20 per cent of Australia’s energy to be sourced from renewable sources by 2020.
      In the longer term, the report illustrates that renewable technologies will become increasingly competitive and production methods will switch to less emission-intensive technologies and processes. In particular, electricity generation is expected to move from conventional fossil fuel technologies to renewable sources and carbon capture and storage.
      By 2050, the report finds that the share of renewables grows to 40-51 per cent under emission pricing and the alternative energy sector is expected to be up to 30 times larger than it is today, creating significant employment opportunities.
      Australia’s wide range of low-emission technology options, including geothermal, wind, solar and wave energy could deliver large emission reductions in electricity generation over time, even if some technologies being explored do not prove commercially viable.”

      I notice they don’t mention nuclear at all, and it seems they are relying on “CCS”, which has nowhere in the world been proven to be a solution. If it does work economically, then would it not pose a hazard in its own right?
      They do admit that some renewable technologies will be “not commercially viable”. Prof Barry Brooks of Adelaide University has proven conclusively that solar and wind are totally uneconomic.

      Reply

    • S.L says:

      06:55pm | 31/01/10

      The Global Warming proponents are going to change their views as much as the Skeptics will theirs but funny thing is all you have to do is look around you at the weather! Simple as that, it’s claimed that sea levels will rise with the melting icecaps?  Well I live right on the water and have seen no rising levels in 22 years. I have experienced hotter days in the past than what we are experiencing now but apparently that doesn’t seem to matter to Global Warming proponents. The TV show Top Gear drove cars to the magnetic north pole and guess what? None of them sank! Polar bears everywhere and Ice fields to navigate. No sign of melting anywhere. One of the arguments I have against Global Warming proponents is their “evidence” is all predictions! Nothing else. There’s not a day hotter now than there was even 20 years ago and the averages a rubbish. Persephone take off your lab coat and get out and smell the roses. The British Met Office have been copping major flack in the local media over their failure to predict the freeze their region has had over the past few winters but they take their estimates of the future as gospal. As I have said before if GW proponents can give me hard evidence that doesn’t involve computer models or predictions from some Bofin with 28 letters after his name I will stand corrected.

      Reply

    • Kevin Bennewith says:

      09:40pm | 31/01/10

      From Australian Treasury again:
      “Coal’s long-term future depends on developing new technologies — most importantly, carbon capture and storage. With commercially viable technologies, coal is likely to play a major role in future national and global energy supply, and Australian production is likely to grow.”
      So CCS is the magic bullet!!
      Let’s hope it is economically and technologically viable.

      Reply

    • WA Aggie says:

      01:04am | 01/02/10

      Mikko, you’re making a difference.  Comments from alarmists are looking more and more desperate all the time, AND “deniers” are coming out of the closet.  Well done.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      09:07am | 01/02/10

      Whoops, quite right. Louis.

      Typing in haste!!

      Reply

    • What's fair says:

      10:45am | 01/02/10

      Good Morning Punchers

      First up I want to congratulate The Punch for publishing this balancing article concerning the climate change debate.  In recent times published articles here have been mostly on the the pro-anthropogenic side, but this has somewhat restored the balance.  Whether people like it or not, Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton’s Australian tour is newsworthy and relevant to this debate and should be an item of discussion.  However, this tour has been in progress for a week and it is only now that it has been mentioned in an article on The Punch.

      I had the privilege of attending the Brisbane leg of this tour.  The debate was particularly interesting.  Australian climate expert Barry Brooks certainly looked less sure of himself by the end of the debate.  Both Lord Monckton and Plimer looks satisfied that their points were well expressed although Plimer was somewhat less civil.  Unfortunately Graham had a very hard time and resorted to personal attacks which have no place in a debate nor should they have a place in the greater discussion (just look at some of the comments above).  Human nature I guess.  It is especially disappointed as it seems that Graham stepped in (for which he should be applauded) because Prof Higgins refused to participate.  Not only is this a sign of disrespect, it is an act of cowardice at worst or uncertainty and lack on convidence in one’s evidence at best.  Should a video of the whole debate become available, I would suggest that Punchers and anyone else concerned about this issue watch it.

      Unfortunately it was a blow for the pro-anthropogenic camp on several levels.  This and other recent revelations (from climategate to the AR4 report failings) are making Australia’s proposed CPRS & ETS look more and more like bad policy.

      Reply

    • Mark Imisides says:

      10:58am | 01/02/10

      Here’s an aspect of this that people seem to have missed: where do you think the wood in trees comes from? When you look at a big tall tree, what “food” did it assimilate to allow the wood to grow?
      Wood is essentially cellulose - a carbohydrate. - composed of carbon and water. And where did the carbon come from? Every molecule of carbon in every tree you see was once CO2.

      Reply

    • Adam MacLeod says:

      12:26pm | 01/02/10

      Janet, you’re right to identify the question as “how much does additional manmade CO2 contribute to warming?”  ...  However, quantifying this is impossible.

      In many instances, pollution can cause the temperature to fall because of “global dimming”.  This was first measured when temperature accross the US actually increased when planes were grounded in the days following Sept 11…..no airline contrails, you see.  We are messing with something that can only ever be partially understood.

      Anyway, the cost of addressing our pollution problems is a fraction of one percent of GDP (Not using the god-awful CPRS model, but by using other means).  That’s a pretty inexpensive way of improving the environment.

      Reply

    • Mikko says:

      01:07pm | 01/02/10

      Gee I don’t like to mention another worry for the two or three global warmers whose typing fingers must be getting tired from RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury) but how do you explain that astronomers are finding a parallel global warming on the planet Neptune. Here’s a snippet:
      “Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report…”
      (See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/ )
      Oh and here’s another worry - the climate is also changing on Mars and Venus.
      Seems like a global ETS won’t help, it has to be universal! Better call on Torchwood.

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      01:18pm | 01/02/10

      @ persephone:

      “I don’t have to provide the proof, there’s reams of it out there, and I’m sure The Punch editors would object violently to me now listing a couple of thousand links to help prove it to you.”

      I have read the links (when I get the chance) as they have been posted.  All rely on inference and as we know correlations /= causation.  Show me evidence that demonstates cleary that (excluding the effects of all other causes) human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change and I shall accept.

      “However, the fact that the majority of scientists are 99.9% sure that AGW is happening and that governments of all persuasions have also accepted this, is a big hint that the truth is out there. “

      Notwithstanding the illogical consensus argument, there is a significant portion of the technical & scientific community that have found “discrepencies” in the “99.9% sure that AGW is happening”.

      Add to that the climategate, Himalyan glaciers, Amazon rainforest, IPCC referencing of non-scientific reviewed campaign group (read Red, I mean Greenpeace & WWF), findings from the FOI review of the NASA/GISS data bombshells, carbon trading frauds, IPCC chairman conflicts of interest…................

      And you wonder why people have a hard time taking what these people are giving us as fact??

      Reply

    • Colin Polley says:

      01:33pm | 01/02/10

      There seems to be the true believers of ‘climate change’ and the alleged ‘deniers’ of climate change.

      The biggest casualty is the truth because ‘scientists’ have prostituted themselves for MONEY be it for grants, salary or positions in any number of institutions. The biggest proponents of ‘climate change’ are getting richer by the minute while politicians around the globe attempt to impose ‘tax schemes’ in the name of saving the planet on the rest of us.

      I still haven’t been able to figure out how a tax will save the planet. I already know it will make some very rich and lots more very poor. How does any politician effect climate change for the better on a planetary scale? Now that is a ponzi scheme I want to get into.

      Things are unravelling fast: ‘Climate Gate’, the Himalayan Glaciers, rising sea levels, storm frequency, etc, et. al. It appears the house of cards are falling: initially slowly, but it now appears that scientists and others are checking and double checking and the house of cards is imploding faster.

      I was taught how to think. I am not going to be told what to think by the by the Al Gores, Kevin Rudds or Penny Wongs of this world.

      Reply

    • blass 4 me says:

      02:04pm | 01/02/10

      did lord monkton tell you to say that?

    • Colin Polley says:

      08:17pm | 01/02/10

      Reply to blass 4 me

      I don’t need Monkton. All I needed was a questioning mind, being able to spot a scam a mile off, an internet connection and the time to research what interests me. That’s why it’s called a search engine.

      I’ve seen Al Gore’s epic, read Lord Sterns tome and heard Lord Mokton to name a very few. Obviously you prefer to dwell on Monkton and play the man because it suits your agenda whilst ignoring everything else.

    • persephone says:

      02:01pm | 01/02/10

      D’oh

      My attempts to answer you (two of them)  have not landed where they should have, but are studded like currants throughout this thread—so if you’re really interested in them, you’re going to have to scroll back through the whole thing.

      Reply

    • Carl Palmer says:

      02:03pm | 01/02/10

      I can’t understand why all of a sudden people are surprised by the number of errors in the IPCC reports. It’s been happening for ages. It so happens that it’s now getting a little attention and god forbid, media coverage.

      The IPCC is a discredited and deceitful mob who has no credibility. I’m stunned that anyone would seriously listen or even consider what they release. You would think that any politician who used the IPCC as a basis to support their argument would be tarnished with the discredited and misleading brush. You’d distance yourself from the IPCC because they have a piscatorial stench about their work.

      As for the ETS – it achieves nothing and as my dear dad use to say, you don’t have to jump off a cliff just because someone else did – same as the ETS, if a country was silly enough to pass that legislation then that’s their problem - silly people.

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      02:45pm | 01/02/10

      @ persephone:

      I wonder if my previous post got through, I tried to subit then got a server error.  It was quite funny though as I was enjoying a tongue in cheek comparison to the schoolwatch website issue.

      “The consensus argument is only illogical if scientists have agreed to ignore or discount data which doesn’t suit the consensus view. It’s not a case of a group of scientists getting together and agreeing to believe something without an evidential basis.”

      Cue climategate & the tampering of the GISS data.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      03:02pm | 01/02/10

      You can cue climategate all you like, it doesn’t disprove anything.

      And yes, in a report put together by a couple of thousand scientists, from a wide range of source material, you’re always going to get something dodgy turning up.

      The science as a whole, however, is strong enough to cope with a few hiccups like that (you could totally trash all of the Hadley Centre’s work and you’d still have a compelling case for climate change).

      Look at how many of the denialists have been shown up as complete fraudsters - how many times they’ve been shown to doctor the evidence - and it doesn’t seem to stop them believing whatever they want to!

      Reply

    • PresqueVu says:

      11:04am | 03/02/10

      Do you have any proof of that Persephone?  Please post it if you do.

    • D'oh says:

      03:37pm | 01/02/10

      @ persephone:

      “You can cue climategate all you like, it doesn’t disprove anything.”

      (I noticed you did not care to comment on the GISS data, and there is more to climategate than just the emails)

      Unfortunately it does.  If I am designing an irrigation system I need the correct flows and pressures to correctly size piping etc.

      If you don’t like the pressures & flows and alter them (i.e. alter the input data), the irrigation system will either not perform as required or it will be damaged if it is undersized.

      If you tamper with the design (i.e. alter the model) you get the same result.

      If you tamper with BOTH you get a complete mess.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:56pm | 01/02/10

      Where did I mention emails??

      Um, there is a lot of difference between formulating a scientific theory and putting together an irrigation system.

      A better analogy would be to say that, just because you made one mistake in your calculations in a ten kilometre pipe system doesn’t mean that water won’t flow through the pipes.

      It may not do so at the pressures you desired, but that’s a different issue.

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      12:03am | 02/02/10

      “Where did I mention emails??”

      You are correct persephone, you did not.  For the benefit of those who may not be aware, both emails and source code was leaked during the University of East Anglia “Climategate” episode.  See them all here:

      http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

      “Um, there is a lot of difference between formulating a scientific theory and putting together an irrigation system.”

      In fact there is not, the under lying principles and scientific method is the same.  Basic scientific knowledge is required (fluid dynamics) and the design of the system requires a model (computer model, sketch or otherwise) and input parameters (like temperatures, weather data, CO2 concentration etc).

      “A better analogy would be to say that, just because you made one mistake in your calculations in a ten kilometre pipe system doesn’t mean that water won’t flow through the pipes.”

      If you made a mistake on a 10km pipe it could fail at the point at which the mistake was made.  In that case the you get zero flow and it becomes evident that the design (model) and/or input data is flawed.  In this case however, it was not just a mistake.  The raw input data was meddled with so even if you got the calculations right the pipe would fail.  Furthermore the source code deliberately ignored some data.  That is like saying we know the pressures are going to be greater than X, but we are only going to perform the calculations for X.  Once again, the calculations may be correct but the pipe still fails.

      You made an earlier reference to knowledge of farming practices.  It could have been anything though: designing a structural beam, electrical cable, fill material, foundations etc.  This is probably why there are a large number of engineers (at least in my experience) that deal with models every day who are sceptical of what the IPCC has been feeding us.

      Reply

    • Vaughan Wishart says:

      04:26pm | 02/02/10

      I’m with you Viv. The ‘climate sceptics’ get hammered unfairly by our biased media. It is very hard to find reasonable balanced debate.

      Reply

    • Philip says:

      01:44pm | 03/02/10

      Good to hear someone speaking out against the ‘global warming agenda’. People are waking up to this and, as Viv Forbes says, politicians need to realize they will lose if they continue to support this.

      Reply

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      09:47pm | 03/02/10

      As a Member of the European parliament, I am delighted by the good work that climate realists in Australia are doing—and by the rejection of the proposed Cap’n'Trade Bill.  The El Alamein metaphor is apt.  The tide is turning.  The enemy is in disarray.  No one believes the Great Carbon Myth any more—and we’re not prepared to pay for it.

      Reply

    • James says:

      04:35pm | 29/04/10

      There goes the European parliament.

    • Warren.V.W says:

      02:01pm | 25/11/10

      Sorry - do anybody know - are there any really free trading signals that works?

      Reply

    • pharmacy technician says:

      05:46pm | 26/11/10

      Great site. A lot of useful information here. I’m sending it to some friends!

      Reply

    • AliciaStevenson says:

      07:47am | 01/07/11

      Some time before, I did need to buy a house for my business but I didn’t have enough cash and could not buy something. Thank heaven my fellow suggested to try to get the personal loans from reliable creditors. Thence, I did so and used to be happy with my financial loan.

      Reply

    • Lucas31JANIS says:

      03:45pm | 06/09/11

      The reality is simple. Talking about internet sites, I can state that all of them require seo packages issues that can be provided by seo service. That is the best way out!

      Reply

    • BERNADETTE30Hartman says:

      01:51pm | 15/09/11

      This would be the great favor for the buy thesis service to use your superior outcome close to this good topic for the doctoral thesis completing. So, all the people would have got a possibility to buy the high level masters thesis.

      Reply

    • WendiHester says:

      01:51pm | 15/09/11

      It can be not so simple to write famous graduate thesis more or less about this good post by yourself! My suggestion is to find the trustworthy dissertation writing services or you have an opportunity to buy thesis theme in thesis service.

      Reply

    • Angela says:

      02:29am | 24/10/11

      Nice!!! It’s really very informative article, I really appreciate your thoughts.I obviously enjoying and I also bookmarked & i will visit again in future updates.

      Logo Design

      Reply

    • bob kesto says:

      05:09am | 18/01/12

      I think you are right when you say this. Hats off man, what a superlative knowledge you have on this subject…hope to see ventolin inhaler and buy albuterol inhaler more work of yours.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:43PM

@GhostofSirJoh When are you not serious???

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:23PM

@FakePaulKeating yep. Can't see repeal of state aid, even by atheist PM. JG actually big fan of Catholic system.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:20PM

RT @Prronto: @farrm51 if diesel rebates were cut from mines already operating at a profit what would the saving be? #auspol

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 10 Feb 12 02:17PM

RT @SimonBanksHB: .@farrm51 Remember the means testing of family payments @tonyabbottmhr opposed in his Budget Reply but didn't vote against. More Noalition.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

31

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

by Anthony Sharwood

17

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

by Lucy Kippist

23

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed