It’s our fault not enough’s being done on warming

RT says:

06:10am | 23/11/09

The debate about the government’s emissions trading scheme should be whether it is any more than just tokenistic and how it could be improved. That the debate is between those who don’t believe climate change is happening, or who caused it if it is, and those who believe action is necessary, shows why it IS tokenistic.

Climate change denialism is like being in the path of a flood or a bushfire and refusing to take any action until we find out who caused it.

John A Neve says:

07:08am | 23/11/09

Many of us already know who is really at fault “it is us. The people”. I have said the same thing many times on this very site.

It is very sad that such a small population can denude such a large land mass in such a short time (250 years)!! It is even sadder that we will not acknowledge our mistakes.

Wayne Hutchins says:

07:18am | 23/11/09

Starve yourself to save the planet! How strange! I will tell you who is at fault here. It’s those that run off at the mouth about doom and gloom based on a lie that is being torn too shreds daily. Do you read anything other than what the IPCC say? Some people just need a cause I guess.

Dan Cass says:

07:21am | 23/11/09

Good one, Paul. I hope day 17 goes well for you!

Samuel says:

07:29am | 23/11/09

Science-based policy would be to keep the status quo. Stop with the alarmist nonsense. We don’t want nor need an emissions trading scheme.

Wayne Hutchins says:

07:34am | 23/11/09

Oh and Paul, It’s not my fault it’s YOURS…..

ACTOldFart says:

08:02am | 23/11/09

Just another arrogant, leftist, ‘we know what’s best for the people’ rant.  And by the way, given the scientific chicanery, fraud and stand-over tactics revealed in the recently-leaked CRU emails, it ill serves any pro-warming alarmist to throw around terms like ‘scientifically inadequate’.  Climate science is rapidly descending to level of credibility of scientology.

Toddzilla says:

08:09am | 23/11/09

Sorry Paul, but science-based policies would mean doing nothing at all, as the science can find no adequate link between carbon dioxide (or plant food) and climate change. Only lunatics like yourself think otherwise. Unfortunately there are a lot of loony-tunes people out there at the moment.

It is interesting to notice how the loopy science-denying warmenists become more and more shrill in self-reightous indignation the closer we get the Hopenchangen.

Bruce says:

08:44am | 23/11/09

Does “climate - denialist” mean NO further debate required?? I read an article in the Couries Mail last night, that emails from a number of eminate scientists in the USA have been found fabricating data about climate change. Can someone find out the truth about these emails or is this going to be burried. Got to be worth discussing !!

watty says:

08:47am | 23/11/09

Sorry mate.The game is over since the “facts “of AGW were hacked and exposed as a total fraud

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Before the “Global Warmers” rush to print it has been admitted the leaked emails are genuine.

Joel B1 says:

08:54am | 23/11/09

AGWers need to take a long hard look at themselves. They have used the “name-calling” game disgracefully. I reckon the more correct you are the less you need to use derogatory terms.

My partner has a PhD in a field where CC is generally accepted but even she says “it’s hard to believe in AGW when they resort to calling people with different ideas or interpretations all those names”

Eric says:

09:02am | 23/11/09

The biggest world news of the week was the hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit’s mail server. This revealed what appears to be collusion by scientists to misinterpret measurements, destry data, and keep dissenting views under cover.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/

It’s a huge scientific scandal, perhaps the biggest ever, and it’s still developing. Is global warming real, or was it all a hoax?

Super D says:

09:03am | 23/11/09

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. - Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change.

This statement more than any other says that the science is far from in and particularly that real observed results have not been consistent with those that the CO2 induced warming hypothesis predicted.

Under these circumstances its a case of back to the drawing board on the science I’m afraid. 

When the lead author for the IPCC concedes they don’t actually have a clue what is going on this is definitely not the time to be making bankers richer with an ETS that will do nothing for the environment anyway.

Joe says:

09:03am | 23/11/09

But climate change isnt caused by man. (that is if it is even happening at all)

Wayne Hutchins says:

09:04am | 23/11/09

Yes watty and Bruce and the silence is deafening! Does our media plan on reporting this? The IPCC is a con but you keep starving yourself there Paul. One less mouth to feed…

Sherlock says:

09:11am | 23/11/09

This is the bloke that not on a hunger strike he’s actually on a diet for climate change. As others in the comments have mentioned the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit have, at the very least, called into serious doubt the whole climate change theory.

This is brewing to become possibly the greatest scientific scandal of all time and every paper and report based on their data, which includes the IPCC reports which have become the climate change alarmists bible, into serious doubt.

The fact that the so-called environmental reporters in Australia main stream press haven’t even addressed the issue illustrates why Australians rank Journalists below Used Car Salesmen. Australians hate being lied to and only putting forward one side of the story is lying by omission.

Rob M says:

09:12am | 23/11/09

In this so-called climate change debate, it should be remembered that this planet of ours once went through an Ice Age.
It is the height of arrogance and stupidity to assume that man can influence the planet’s natural climatic patterns to such an extent that a whole new potentially catastrophic climatic event can occur.

What evidence there is - and it’s patchy because proper climate records do not go back all that long - suggests that there is a warming trend. There’s little point denying this, but I think it would be most NON-scientific to draw the conclusion that human actvities have played a significiant role in this warming trend. The sheer physical forces at play in Earth’s atmosphere are beyond man’s control.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:14am | 23/11/09

What a bunch of crap by climate change denialists. Those portions of emails were taken out of context:

Exerpt from Wired article:
“Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation.

“It’s just scientists talking about science, and they’re talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.”

Joe Stephens says:

09:20am | 23/11/09

Let’s face it, the only people who win if climate change is real.. are our great grandchildren’s grandchildren. And let’s face it, they’ll turn out to be little shits anyway so let them deal with the problem.

Australia is barely a dot on the radar of global emissions, and that which we do contribute to.. makes too much bloody money to be stopped anyway!! The truth is nobody alive now will be proven wrong anyway, so who really cares? I mean come on.. how great was the weekend? Perfect for the beach!!

John says:

09:30am | 23/11/09

Boy… talk about misguided… Jenny Craig for Climate Alarmists…

Even if the world was warming (which it’s not) and even if Carbon Dioxide was pollution (which it’s not) an economy wrecking tax is not the way to change things for the better.

These greenies will only be happy when we’re all living in caves again.

Super D says:

09:31am | 23/11/09

Shane,

Would that be the same Gavin Schmidt that is included in over 100 of the emails?

He’s hardly going to be damning of them.

The fact is that much of the climate “science” is controlled by a very small group of “scientists”.  These “scientists” are presented in the media as dispassionate seekers of truth for the good of manking and the planet.  One thing that these emails demonstrate with absolute certainty is that these “scientists”, rather than being disinterested truth seekers are proponents of a single view even though they “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”.

Steve S. says:

09:34am | 23/11/09

Is this clown joking? Rudd and Wong have both wet their panties over “global warming” but dont have the ticker to even debate the option of nuclear power. We are asked to believe the that the world is about to end, but zero carbon power is off the agenda.
Nut case lefties / greens may be taken a tad more seriously when they start to get some environmental basics right, ie cull feral animals, remove noxious weed, stop silt and rubbish from clogging up waterways.
No money or effort put into real solutions , just more left bullsh*t spin, oh and high taxes, funny that.

Socrates says:

09:38am | 23/11/09

People are a lot smarter than left wing carbonista lobby groups like GetUp and Climate Justice Fast! seem to think.

People may not have scientific degrees, but are well aware that claims that science knows everything about the climate are just plain silly.  We know that over the last hundred years a lot of people have made a very good living out of predicting a wide range of catastrophes, very few of which have happened even partially.

And it appears that some of the carbonistas might be getting their mass-rally and running-dog-capitalists rhetoric straight from the Marxist/ Maoist textbooks.  Still, while they are doing that, they’re not stuffing up something else, but it’s all a bit removed from proving that “the science is in!”.

steve says:

09:42am | 23/11/09

One would have thought a requirement for proof of Global Warming was that the globe actually warmed. If this Global Warming continues will we all freeze to death? Einstein was a bright sort of fellow, when asked why hundreds of scientists’ opinions disagreed with one of his theories he answered that he was not proved wrong by hundreds of scientific opinions, he would be proved wrong by one fact. It would appear that the Church of Climatology is the other way around.

watty says:

09:42am | 23/11/09

Good try Shane. Should be a thorough independent study on leaked emails to establish who wrote them,who sent them,who received them and are they, as admitted hacked from original documents.

Thes crazy sceptics are willing to try just about anything unlike the honest scientists being paid by the United Nations.

Maree says:

09:49am | 23/11/09

Watty, Just read this article. I hope Kevin Rudd reads this and gives his spin on this article. I bet it gets ignored or we will try to discredit the writter. Thats usually how it works.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Charles says:

09:51am | 23/11/09

My advice to Mr Connor would be to try and expand his reading list.  The restricted diet of information he has placed himself on has resulted in a severe case of mis-understanding anything and everything about the state of the climate.

He has overdosed on AGW propaganda, and needs to go away and have his brain pumped.  He may also have to take a course in ill-informed awareness, so that he may avoid such naive and gormless writings in the future.

DocBud says:

10:01am | 23/11/09

Shane,

“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation.”

This is what is commonly known as a “strawman argument”. There is, in fact, plenty in those e-mails to embarrass this small group of researchers who wield great power in the IPCC process.

RT,

A false analogy. If climate change is solely or overwhelmingly natural, then harming the global economy and condemning the poorest of the poor to stay that way, will achieve nothing, so the debate over the causes of climate change is crucial. Adaptation, i.e. what humans have always done, is a better option and more feasible with a thriving global economy unrestrained by artificial constraints.

“But how many Australians, really, are becoming climate activists, rather than remaining apathetic?” I’ve become a climate activist, Paul. I send e-mails to politicians on three continents urging them to base their decisions on what real world data are telling us. It’s rich for you to talk about votes when you are trying to blackmail the world’s politicians into taking action based on your minority views through your self-indulgent hunger strike. Such actions have no place in a democracy and will,
I’m sure, be ignored, but hey, if it gives you a sense of self-importance and feeds your need to appear a pious believer, what the hell, I won’t tell you what to do with your life, I just wish you didn’t feel such a need to interfere in mine.

Sam Chowder says:

10:28am | 23/11/09

I’m going on a low carb climate protest, can I do an article now .

Wayne Hutchins says:

10:48am | 23/11/09

Yeyyyyyyyyyyy, Its now in the news in Brisbane… This crap is now being dammed…. lies lies and more lies.

Lucas says:

10:55am | 23/11/09

Building all alternate sources to coal at the highest level we can (maybe instead of building more school halls) will do the best we can to mitigate the effects of AGW if it indeed exists.
Like Pascal’s razor, it makes sense to do it even if AGW is untrue.
Nuclear reduces emissions in the long term and provides clear baseload power.
Solar, Tidal, Thermal, Wind and Hydro provide in the very long term power for very minimal replacement and maintenance costs, without requiring the usage of “new” materials.  Indeed this is the closest you can get to “money for nothing”.
All of these forms of power require being pushed to the absolute limit with government grants, and the additional benefit of users getting rewarded with feed-in bonuses when individuals make a move to start helping and stop hurting the environment.

In 20 years time, we can be seen as the world leader or in possession of a larger inconvenient truth - we were too lazy to do something.
By then, we should have a baseload supplied by nuclear, and supplemented by a thriving renewables battery.

If AGW is then proved untrue in 100 years, then we have 400 years worth of coal to burn if we ever need it.

harry c says:

11:03am | 23/11/09

I don’t deny climate change but, this ETS is a new tax on everything and will increase the price of everything. If they proposed a quota then those that used less could sell their share. As it is, everyone pays with the poorest being hit the hardest. What’s new?

Craig Mc says:

11:08am | 23/11/09

Thanks for all your hilarious videos Paul.  They’ve been comedy gold.

mike says:

11:17am | 23/11/09

And once WE do something about this it will mean we have saved the rest of the world. And then they might learn from our example?

Al says:

11:20am | 23/11/09

@Lucas - do you mean Pascal’s Wager or Occam’s Razor (you seem to be referring to the former)?

I agree with the author of this piece - our response to climate change is a disgrace.

Why saddle the Australian taxpayer with Millions of dollars debt for a myth.

Joel B1 says:

11:58am | 23/11/09

”  Why saddle the Australian taxpayer with Millions of dollars debt for a myth”

Not so much as a debt as a tax to repay the fiscal immaturity of those first-timers Rudd and Swan.

DocBud says:

12:30pm | 23/11/09

“When the Australian people are brought to a deeper understand (sic or do I mean sick?) climate change and its risks, begin to care deeply enough and mobilize en masse to demand science-based policies, we’ll see real action.”

Actually, it is precisely because more and more people are getting a better understanding of the theory of human induced climate change and the lack of real, non-manipulated science behind it that the sort of action you demand, Paul, won’t happen. As you say, politicians are motivated by power and when the wind turns against you (ooh, metaphorical climate change), as it is doing due to the gaps in the science becoming increasingly apparent, the politicians will drop you like yesterday’s news. But cheer up, as one scare dies, there is always another one to replace it, professional doomsayers just move on. In a few years time, you’ll be having a hunger strike demanding compulsory sterilisation for the non-elite to solve population growth, or maybe the dynamiting of all mobile phone masts to protect us from having our brains fried, and again you’ll be able to arrogantly declare: “Those of us in the know must be doing everything we possibly can”.

Joel B1 says:

12:48pm | 23/11/09

DocBud (nice name BTW…)

Well worth saying twice!

David C says:

01:01pm | 23/11/09

Reading you bio (ie student) I fail to see what qualifies you to say you are “in the know”
A hunger strike is a serious statement, you are playing around with that major gift you have, your life. I think you could have hitched your “i want to be a radical uni student’ bandwagon to something a bit more concrete. Good to see you being cheered on by another resposnible member of our community our very own environ - mental consultant Dan Cass. (yes I know I am on the fringe of the fringe)

Are you really on a hunger strike or just a low carb -on diet?

natworthy says:

02:03pm | 23/11/09

Are the sceptics fools?
Australians that are actually starting to question the rhetoric. Who are the fools; the people who buy a Sham cloth in the belief that it can empty a bathtub of water because the media says so, or the people that question the hype?
There is global warming and global cooling, there is also continental drift and has been since time began. If we go back to pre Jurassic the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was 2800ppm and I have yet to see a dinosaur being dug up atop a massey ferguson tractor. Maybe too many dinosaurs were farting methane! We are now looking to achieve 450ppm.
The problem with the computer modeling that these fear mongers are basing their analysis on does not take into account sun-spots, solar flares or any other galactic phenomenon that directly effects our environmental conditions.
Australia’s weather patterns are directly affected by El Niño and La Niña neither of which is controlled by the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
Ok so how much carbon makes up our atmosphere, well its about 5%, now how much of that 5% is anthropogenic ie man made, well that’s 4% and Australia’s contribution 1.4% of the 4% of the 5% = 0.0028%
So do you really think that by Australia reducing her carbon output even by 50% will make the slightest bit of difference? No and thrice No!
By introducing an ETS the government expects to raise approx $12bn in the first year but this will not go back into our economy; under the Copenhagen agreement it goes to helping developing countries to reduce their emissions ie China, Brasil and India etc who just happen to be our competitors oh and quite a few tin-pot African countries as well.
The key environmental problem that the world faces is pollution, yes that stuff you see hovering over our cities; now that is dangerous but it is comprised of particulate matter such as heavy metals. Now that is a problem that needs to be addressed by investigating alternative energy sources.
The ETS is a TAX and will do nothing to change our environment it will however triple the cost of a steak, double electricity bills and TAX nearly every aspect of your lives and not just in Regional Australia but in Cities too.
Rising see level is also a sham During the past 2000 years, sea levels have fluctuated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6m to 1.2m above present sea level.
Not surprisingly then that an issue such as the ETS; which will cost Regional jobs, destroy our agricultural industry, regional economy and undermine food security from increased importation for no measurable environmental gain that the Nationals Party vehemently opposes such legislation.
Ok so you are not convinced of the facts and are adimant that carbon emissions are causing global warming; then let us look at the proposed solution, an ETS tax. For example as an electricity provider I produce carbon whilst generating electricity so therefore I need to purchase carbon credits at a cost of $10m. I keep producing the carbon it just costs more and in order to pay for the credits I pass the cost on to the consumer. Result, the electricity costs more to produce, the consumer pays more for the product and the net reduction in carbon emissions is nil.
I beg you not to be fooled by the hyped Rudd spin, it’s worse than the Y2K con.

Joel B1 says:

02:19pm | 23/11/09

“This simply means that when the people want change, they will get it. And that if they are not currently getting it, well, they simply don’t want it enough.”

Tell that to the Aborigines or maybe the North Koreans… it’s a simplistic idea from a simple person.

And totally and utterly wrong.

Matt says:

02:52pm | 23/11/09

Shane From Melbourne says:
09:14am | 23/11/09

“What a bunch of crap by climate change denialists.”

What a parrot. Are you likening me to holocaust denial???

Do you and have you ever had a individual thought pop into your head that doesn’t involve using emotive connotations injected into your argument as a substitute for logical debate?

Tell me how to live or tax me for how I live and there is going to be resistance amongst the community.

Shackleberry Houndog says:

03:03pm | 23/11/09

Believe NOTHING of what you hear, and only HALF of what you see! Global warming, or climate change as this hustle has been renamed,  is a myth! All these panicky Aussies and other gullible fools worlwide who believe this nonsense with their grade 3 educations, should get off this bandwagon of bullsh@t! Pff Pathetic ignorant sheep! Global warming is a myth!

Steve Smith says:

03:38pm | 23/11/09

Im confused…  which side is doing the fear mongering? The side that says we are all going to die, or the side that says price of steak is going to triple under ETS? And which side is making up facts? The side that says blah blah blah there’s climate change or blah blah blah there’s climate change but it’s ok.. look it happened when the dinosaurs were alive

John says:

03:39pm | 23/11/09

Science is not a believe system, it is information found from empirical evidence.  I am skeptic, about all things, politics, religion and climate change. The only way I can have position on climate change is to get information from the leading scientists in that field, who have done years of research, then I can make an informed judgment. If most of the world scientists have come to a consensus from their research, that climate change is the result of CO2, then I accept it. If the research shows a different cause then I accept it. No emotion is required. It’s not like following a religion or a football team.

Climate change and many of the other problems in the world are the result of one thing, POPULATION. The only theory that Rudd, Tanner, Turnball and Minchin can agree on, is that population has nothing to do with climate change. Don’t put your faith in our politicians, because you will be disappointed.

ANDIKA says:

03:42pm | 23/11/09

So what have you got to say now, Paul, given the recent hacking of computer files from, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU), which is one of the major suppliers of climate data to the IPCC, were hacked. The thousands of emails and articles show a litany of data fabrication, data manipulation and suppression, staff intimidation and removal, incestuous peer review, and pressure being applied to journals not to publish non-conforming (sceptical) papers. “To hell with the facts we have our predetermined conclusions to justify and protect.” See today’s Australian http://bit.ly/7IFC7k
Sorry mate, but you’re going hungry for the wrong reason.

Captain Planet says:

04:01pm | 23/11/09

I am sceptical of climate scepticism.

iansand says:

04:21pm | 23/11/09

Does anyone have a link to the full texts of these damning emails?  I am sceptical about selective quotation.

DocBud says:

04:28pm | 23/11/09

Don’t give up your day job, Captain.

David C says:

04:49pm | 23/11/09

iansand there is a lot of information and links to all of them on http://www.climatedepot.com

David C says:

04:58pm | 23/11/09

iansand - or you can go here

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

iansand says:

06:19pm | 23/11/09

I read some of the selective quotes in their context.  Most of the ones I read were extracted from emails in which researchers were speculating about possible causes for anomalous data.  I must say that is exactly what I would expect from proper scientists.  Brainstorming is a regular activity among researchers.

I recommend the exercise to anyone.  The “devatating” quotes are here, with links to the complete emails http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

jayts says:

06:41pm | 23/11/09

I smell a totalitarian disguised as an environmentalist. Actually they’re pretty much the same thing these days.
The whole ‘don’t worry dumb little middle Australia, we arts degree, lefty latte sippers know best vibe’ of this article is cringe-worthy.

Razor says:

07:25pm | 23/11/09

Dear Mr Connor,

If you are really so concerned and it really is global death if we don’t do something, then why don’t you do it properly like Bobby Sands?

Paul Connor says:

07:28pm | 23/11/09

Wow.

Okay, okay. Normally I consider climate deniers pretty much irrelevant. But given that you are all so attracted to my work, let me offer my two cents.

Ah hem.

The idea that every leading scientific body in the world, every world government (except..um…Poland, was it?), Shell, the US military, and even the Australian Coal Industry are all involved in an elaborate hoax is just wacky. Sorry. It’s wacky. Personally, I think I’m going to keep on being ‘brainwashed’ by peer-reviewed science, rather than the fossil-fuel funded nonsense informing most comments above.

But seeing as you’re all so excited about these ‘leaked emails’, here is a link to some rational discussion about them:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/cru-hack-time-to-hit-back-hard/

But this one comment was slightly interesting (and, wonder of wonders, relevant!):

“Tell that to the Aborigines or maybe the North Koreans… it’s a simplistic idea from a simple person.”

My point is about democracy and change within a given society. The Aborigines, I would argue, were invaded by a separate society. My point, translated to the case of Aborigines, would be that at the point of invasion, if white’s had demanded that the aborigines had been better treated, they would have been. And that nowadays, if we, the Australian people, collectively demanded that aborigines be better treated, again, they would be.

In terms of North Koreans, I have no doubt that they could win their rights through sufficient struggle. History shows us hat it can be done, despite the ever-present voice of cynics and pessimists attempting to hinder and insult those that fight for change.

So it may be a simple point, but it was the main thrust of the teachings of such leaders as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and it is still an important point to make- especially given the apathy disempowered pervading so many people’s lives today.

And no, I’m not on a ‘diet’- I’m on a hunger strike- despite the lies being spread about me (sigh)- I talked about it in a recent blog here:
http://www.climatejusticefast.com/blog/entry/lies-lies-and-more-lies/

Anyway, all the best, and thanks for reading and commenting.

Paul

Razor says:

07:29pm | 23/11/09

Lucas @ 10.55

Others have already pointed out your mixed Pascal’s Wager/Occam’s Razor.

Just one question - if you are so fond of Pascal’s Wager for climate change, do you also apply it to your spirituality?

I look forward to your response.

graham says:

07:44pm | 23/11/09

Remember Deep Thought in the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy ?

He told his creators that it would take him several million years to calculate the meaning to the answer to life, the universe, and everything ie 42 .

He then advised his creators that if they got in early on the pundit circuit and they would be made for life

The response to this comment was “now THAT’S thinking”

If our friends Gore et al have read one book it was this one

DigiDave says:

08:29pm | 23/11/09

@Paul - To think every skeptic assumes there is a scientist/government/industry conspiracy (which I don’t) and then say skeptics simply believe what the oil industry tells them is just plain hypocritical.  You completely lost credibility right there.

To then comment about peer-reviewed science, as if only one side has had these, is actually a lie.  You are a liar.  Hundreds of skeptical scientists have been peer reviewed.  More credibility lost.

This has become a religion, as you full well know that the science is not settled, but you need to move past that, and the only way to do this is to ignore the science you don’t like, and disseminate false information.

John says:

09:41pm | 23/11/09

Even if scientists were split 50/50 on climate change (which they are very far from being), the right thing to do would be to act dramatically to limit carbon emissions. Here’s why:

If Climate Change ISN’T happening, but the people of the world act on the assumption that it IS, the worst case scenario is ... the wealthiest people on the planet become slightly less wealthy.  Boo hoo.

If Climate Change IS happening, but the people of the world act on the assumption that it ISN’T, the worst case scenario is ... billions of people die, untold thousands of species of plant and animal life become extinct, and large swathes of the planet become uninhabitable.

These two worst case scenarios are so wildly, hilariously disproportional that acting to combat Climate Change in every way that is within our power is (in my opinion) the only morally responsible thing to do.

Henry says:

10:08pm | 23/11/09

Thanks Paul for your brave and powerful action - we need a lot more people like you!

The science is in, and has been for a long time, the solutions are in, it’s the politics that is missing. And politics can only be fixed when people organise and act, including changing your vote, going to rallies.

This issue is so urgent - I greatly appreciate you showing the world just how urgent it is. thanks again.

steve says:

10:10pm | 23/11/09

A Question to the gibbering masses down there at Mark Arbib’s Media Watch Office…

Please tell me does anyone actually believe that putting any tax on Carbon in dinky little Australia is going to cool the planet?

OR will it have as much effect as when Ashfield Council declaring it a nuclear free zone trying to impact on Nuclear Proliferation. I suppose they would say it did actually work as they have never attacked

Anne says:

11:04pm | 23/11/09

Thanks Paul for a clear and important article.

We need to pay attention to the scientific information: the ice core CO2 samples, the oceanographic research, the paleoclimate data, the satellite imagery, the NASA climate modelling etc etc that is in the science journals. (FYI no paper has ever been published in a mainstream scientific journal that disputes the theory of global warming).

We also have a lot to learn from the people who live on the land and who notice long term climate change. In today’s news - a Danish farmer says he is able to grow peaches when nobody previously could in Denmark, and yearly he is taking his cows out and planting maize two weeks earlier than usual.

Himalayan villages thousands of years old are now regularly inundated by sudden bursts of glacial meltwater that collect in the moraine above their villages. Pemba Dorje Sherpa, who holds the world speed record for climbing Everest, even experienced the lakes starting to burst above his village when he was a child - he is now about 25 (that is how long GW has noticably affected villagers there). This has caused a big upheaval in the village, as they no longer can grow the potatoes they used to grow due to flooding etc- hence villagers now earn their incomes from tourism rather than subsistance.

There is already too much Carbon in the atmosphere- we already have a climate that is dangerous to human life.  Every single glacier (of thousands) in the world has retreated;  (remember the Himalayan Glaciers sustain vital rivers -Ganges, Indus, Mekong, Yellow, Brahmaputra, Yangtze that supply over 2 billion people in China, India, Middle East and SE Asia with reliable water); alpine trees are growing higher and higher up mountains; <a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006122328.htm”>Arctic sea ice was at its third lowest extent<a> on record this Nth Hemisphere Summer;

We need to end our coal addiction ASAP. To de-carbonise our electricity, the best mix of renewables at the moment would be of solar-thermal, wind, solar PV and geothermal. We could decommission coal power stations (with a transition plan for the people affected) and provide 100% electricity with renewables if we had the political will- and we actually need to do this as soon as possible. One useful site is http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org

skeptical69 says:

11:37pm | 23/11/09

I’m just glad that since you’re on a hunger strike, you’re (hopefully) pumping out less harmful greenhouse gases! Thanks mate.

Hayden says:

12:35am | 24/11/09

Paul - well done for standing up for what you believe in, for standing up for the most vulnerable and for the future of the planet.

To all the climate denialists rabidly posting on this page, please leave the comforts of your airconditioned offices sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and go outside.  You’ll notice that unseasonal weather has again plauged the south east of Australia over the last few weeks.

There is simply no way to explain the unprecedented heat waves, recording breaking temperatures, floods and fires of this year other than climate change.  The conditions are off the scale of natural variability.

If you have any scrap of peer reviewed literature that can explain your theories why don’t you present it?  If your so confident how do you explain the rapid melting of the Arctic?  How do you explain the extreme weather events of this year?  And worse, how about if your wrong?  Your bizarre theories are muddying the debate and delaying solutions to one of the most dire problems facing humanity.

Take a hard look at yourself in the mirror and look your children in the eye.  It is their future you are compromising.

Super D says:

10:32am | 24/11/09

@Paul - I don’t doubt that you will keep being brainwashed by your “peer reviewed” science despite the leaked emails demonstrating that the peer reviewing concept is a complete fraud.  If I write something then get it reviewed by someone I know already agrees with what I have written how likely is it that the review will be of any value or priovide any scrutiny.

The same applies to ann who noted that “no paper has ever been published in a mainstream scientific journal that disputes the theory of global warming” which demonstrates exactly how successful these scientists have been at suppressing contrary opinions.  Again this is detailed in the leaked emails.

Climate change “science” is a sham and does not form a basis for policy making.  The IPCC has no credibility.  Emporer Rudd is naked.

Macon Paine says:

01:13pm | 24/11/09

A hunger Strike for global warming? Talk about token jestures! Here’s a few ideas that may actually make a difference.
1) How about you and all the climate change zealots go vegetarian permanently? If not why not?
2) Or perhaps you can get rid of your fancy air conditioner (i just bought one and buddy im not getting rid of it) and PC/Mac and go back to the future with a 386. 
3) What about turning off your nice big plasma/lcd TV game console etc?
4) Perhaps you can also get rid of your car (or vespa most likely in your case) and take the bus/train, this of course depends upon whether or not your state government has spent your money properly to provide you with decent public transport in the first place, for us in NSW we are out of luck buddy.
5) Maybe you can look at paying through the nose for renewable energy, i mean after all your committed right? Whats a few bob extra when you’ve got more dollars than sense?
6) You could have earth hour every day! Oh Joy!
If your not perpared to do any of these things your a fraud. It’s time for the zealots to start leading by example.The above suggestions are just off the top of my head. You offer no solutions to anything in this article, I came up with 6 and im no climate change denier, I know there is a vast body of evidence to support it. Instead of just berating Australians and our “shameful climate policies” how about you offer some solutions. I wont deny we have made some very bad decisions and have done some atrocious things to the environment which could have been prevented but we want more than some git lecturing us about our failings, we want feasible solutions. Got any?
Then you finish this up with the statement ” Those of us in the know must be doing everything we possibly can to bring this situation about.” What a staggering amount of elitism in this statement, can’t you see people hate elitists talking down to them like this. Those of us in the know? What are you one of the 12 Apostles?
Anyway one of the sticking points for me on this whole ETS thing is this. If Australia is the cause of about 1.4% of carbon emissions, and we were able to cut this to 1.05% (so basically a 25% cut in emissions) and the rest of the world followed suit (now thats pie in the sky), you admit this would not make enough difference to save the world. What then are you proposing?
And have you actually thought this through enough to realise what would be required of the people? As Carl Sagan once said, “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” The zealots would do well to ponder this.

Dan Cass says:

07:40pm | 24/11/09

Yes Anne, Beyond Zero are great.

They are leading thinkers doing the constructive work.

All the grumpy, nasty ‘skeptics’ - you should learn to relax or you won’t be alive long enough to have the last laugh eh?! Check this out, if you have a sense of humor….http://bit.ly/CrazyAl

Kathryn Blume says:

11:39pm | 24/11/09

It’s so sad that people have been taken in by this week’s climate hackers when the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, the US Army, leading executives from companies such as Levi Strauss, Nike, Starbucks, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Gap, Timberland, & McDonalds, 181 countries who signed the Kyoto Treaty, Sir Richard Branson, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and the Pope (to name a few) all know the truth that climate change is happening, humans are causing it, it’s serious, and we need to get on board with implementing solutions right now.

April H says:

02:25am | 25/11/09

Paul, good on you!!! This is really courageous.

All you skeptics, who are the real doom and gloomers here? I sense heaps of negativity from you all. Sorry you don’t want to acknowledge all of the REAL evidence right in front of you on Climate Change. If you can’t see it, ask peoples from other countries that are being directly affected. I feel so bad for them! They must be extremely frustrated by people like you from developed countries who just want to deny that anything is wrong so you can continue to live your unsustainable life styles and ruin their livelihoods while doing so.

Try finding some research by a scientist whose work IS NOT funded by Exxon Mobil (or any other fossil fuel industry for that matter).

And think before you post your nasty comments. Would you ever say what you’re typing to someone’s face? Or better yet, in front of your children? Probably not.

Steve C says:

10:23am | 25/11/09

Well RT, here is a crazy idea for ya. Why not find out what is really driving climate change, or if there is even proof its happening, before we destroy the economy by jumping on a false science bandwagon?

Marcella Brassett says:

03:40pm | 25/11/09

Climate Justice Fast!  has drawn a line in the sand.

Those who ‘choose’ to live solely for their own immediate gratification, guarding their little patches of air conditioned convinience stand on one side. Those who want to make the world a safer, happier, more equal place stand on the other. And then lets have a moral debate about whose right and whose wrong.

Lets debate on what it means to be a decent human being. Lets not hide behind leaked emails, which are so obviously an attempt at deceiving the public, that no one is talking about what they actually say. What about all the other scientific institutions, like NASA, who have proven climate change is real, and needs to be stopped.

The cruel digs made here in the comments - at people who feel so strongly about the well being of others, that they are willing to go hungry to make social change -  indicate clearly one important thing:

Paul and the other hunger strikers are causing people to confront their own inability to actually give a damn about something other than themselves - now thats very scary isn’t it?

Don’t worry, feeling afraid may just mean you are indeed human afterall.

Nick says:

09:19am | 28/11/09

Good on you Paul! Keep going buddy.

It seems a lot of people on this site have problems with the laws of thermodynamics!