It’s time for direct action. No, not the Abbott kind.

Tedd says:

07:25am | 21/07/11

You highlight a significant assumption - that the climate change that is being objectively documented will consistently result in warmer weather and constant so-called “global warming”.

Warming increases the water cycle - there will be more water evaporation and therefore more water in the atmosphere i.e. more cloud and more precipitation (rain).  The consequences of “global warming” is not necessarily consistent warming.  There will be more extremes.

Mattb says:

08:26am | 21/07/11

@ economic refuge

‘To everyone else that spends the whole day arguing with Persephone et al who are obvously Labor party hacks/stooges/goons you are wasting your time. Please spend time trying to make the swinging voter see what is right and what is wrong.’

See Erick, this is what is making this topic so boring. The constant complant from the ‘right’ claiming anyone that has a differing opinion is a ‘lefty goon’ coupled with the constant complant from the ‘left’ that anyone that has a differing opinion is a ‘liberal party hack’.

As for your rant about ‘spending time trying to make the swinging voter see what is right and what is wrong’. Oh please mr nobody, whom i dont know from a bar of soap, please do tell me how i should be voting. Does anyone on here honestly believe that what they say changes people’s opinion/voting intention?.

And you’ve got a thing for Persephone I see, why’s that?, has she comprehensively dismantled one of your arguments on here in the past, your defeated attitude is shining through in the rubbish you’ve written about her in your above post. Whilst I don’t agree with a few thing ol’ pers says, at least she provides a structured, well thought out argument usually with sources to substantiate her claims. And she does so without resorting to name calling and mud slinging. I think if you asked the longtime liberal bloggers (people like MarK, dash, erick, timb, nicoleG etc.) on the punch their thoughts on Persephone, you’d find they would have a healthy respect for her right to an opinion and enjoy the challenge of opening up an argument with her.

If you disagree with her point of view, tell her why you disagree, provide credible sources to back up your claims and leave the childish ‘aw, I don’t wannna debate Persephone, she’s a labor goon’ attitude out of it, it makes you look like a fool.

Mark G says:

08:45am | 21/07/11

Tedd,

Exactly right and this is what throws most ignorant people off. Global warming is a gradual unbalancing of the earths environment cause by more heat in the global system. More heat doesn’t just mean higher temperatures when you are on a global scale. What it does mean is massive atmospheric fluctuations (both hot and cold). The overall increase in temperature occurs globally and not on a local level. It also occurs over a long period (relative to us but not relative to the earth). Many people cant see the forest for the trees. In the last 200 years the global temperature increases have occurred faster than any other period in the last 10 million years (including the Ice ages). Some of that may be natural but certainly not all of it. Humans find it difficult to comprehend a 200 year change of a few degrees. Thus the sceptics.

ZSRenn says:

10:49am | 21/07/11

Denier or Believer

This $25,000,000,000 tax will only save 0.061% of global emissions at today’s production levels.

At 2020 Predicted CO2 production levels it will save 0.04%

This is way to big a spend for no result. This tax will do nothing to save the environment just damage the Australian economy. These supporters of the spend who will most likely make a nice little wind fall from the $25,000,000,000 are only looking after self interests by warning us of the dangers of Climate Change.

To them I say, we know, but the loss of jobs, Industry moving overseas and the $3000 + GST + Increase in Tax + purchase cost of the brown coal plants / household increase in costs is too much and will damage Australia’s economy.

Stop patronizing us, we are not Primary school children, to be taught this at school and listen to the Prime Minister Bob Brown.

Australians are smarter than this and they do not like to be patronized. ”

Tedd says:

11:00am | 21/07/11

“Humans find it difficult to comprehend a 200 year change ...”

Too true. Many have the same difficulties with comprehending changes in animal populations and sub-populations over long time periods too, hence the difficulty in comprehending evolution and its chief mechanisms natural selection, genetic drift (changes in frequency of alleles), and gene flow, resulting in Adaptation and other outcomes.

PTom says:

11:27am | 21/07/11

“I hope that we do enter 20 or 30 years of cooling “
Wait did you just admit we are warming?

Lets get this right you are up set that you beloved Liberal are not in power .

Tedd says:

11:46am | 21/07/11

ZSRenn,
The carbon tax is not just about direct saving, but shifting industry and the economy to adjust for changes in technology and focus, especially for when coal and other fossil fuels run out in coming decades.

ZSRenn says:

12:04pm | 21/07/11

@ PTom,
Don’t you get it, denier or believer, a $25,000,000,000 spend with the waste already exposed that is the problem not Climate Change.

When I quote this figure obtained from Julia Gillard

I do not add the increased cost of GST

It does not contain the multi million dollar cost of buying the Brown Coal
Plants

It does not include the increase from $23 / tonne

It also does not contain the billions of off the books spending which is not reported as it is investment.

It does not take into consideration that with the announcement of this tax and with the spend out of general taxation for many items any chance Swann had of putting the budget into surplus is long gone out the window.

It does not take into account the jobs lost overseas that will occur as overtaxed companies move off shore to save their profit margins

It does not take into account the loss of Australian Companies to overseas investors.

It is this useless tax perpetuated by the worst government in Australian history that is the problem.

ZSRenn says:

12:20pm | 21/07/11

@ Tedd. In the 70’s we had the fuel crises and we were told that we would run out of petrol in the next few decades. Here we sit 40 years later and there is still plenty of oil.

When I hear this lie that we are going to run out of coal in the next few years it feels like Déjà vu and more bullshit.

Think about it, if we are going to run out of coal in the next few decades, it would give us another reason not to have the tax. If we run out of coal, we have reached zero emissions. Goal accomplished! These large companies would be pouring billions into research, on their own accord, so that they could remain viable when the coal ran out and they would be doing it now.

It is just another lie, to support this Tax which has nothing to do with Climate Change. If implemented and it works to full effect we would still be the 8th largest polluter / capita.We would still only produce no more than 6% of China’s emissions and we would still only produce 1 % of global emissions.

We will still live in a polluted world but Australia will be a lot poorer!

Tedd says:

12:30pm | 21/07/11

” .. buying the Brown Coal Plants.” @ZSRenn

Yeah, right. As they will still be profitable for most of their currently projected life, which ones will come up for sale?

Tedd says:

12:37pm | 21/07/11

“When I hear this lie that we are going to run out of coal in the next few years ...” /rant @ZSRenn

Well, you didn’t hear it from me - I said, for coal, *decades* (perhaps centuries), and in that time would hope the carbon tax would make it more attractive to develop technologies for ongoing use of fossil fuels to be more clean-burning & efficient, thus preserving the life span of mines and the industries that use them.

James Hunter says:

12:58pm | 21/07/11

If you are in Germany Go look at the Black Forrest, whats left of it.
Industrial polution in the form of acid rain just about wiped it out.
So Maybe Germany has some experience of what polution can do and has learned from that.
Come home some time and take a trip down the Murray Malle and look at the salt flats and dead River Reds and you can see we couild take a lesson or two.
I suspect your comparrison of German and Australian education is bassed on another of your fantasies. Sorry The German system mandates English as a second language for high school so they can better take part in the European and business communities.
Has Australia thought to mandate chinese as a second language so we can better communicate with our biggest traning partner. ??

ZSRenn says:

01:15pm | 21/07/11

@ Tedd
Re: the purchase and closure of brown coal burning plants. I supply this article. This money is not being paid out of the Carbon Tax but out of general taxation and out of the “soon to be in surplus” (SIC) budget.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/brown-coal-cloud-of-doubt-hangs-over-latrobe-valley-20110710-1h8zg.html

Re: “especially for when coal and other fossil fuels run out in coming decades.” decades or centuries make up your mind. 

It is this tax and its management which is my concern but I am being constantly diverted from discussing it by mismanagement and a fear campaign as is the story above.

PTom says:

01:18pm | 21/07/11

@ZSRenn
$25,000,000,000 is rasied not spent.
This is not collect directly by each household, income earn nor by each buiness.
The reason you can’t include GST is because you can calcute how much will be raised by what people and business spend.

If you think that $25,000,000,000 rasied in business tax is bad you must real hate Direct Action becuase that is billion is raised directly from income taxpayers money being spent on buying Brown Coal powerstation too instead of being spent on Private Education or Private Hosiptal, wait we are talking about Liberal Government so that would be funding cuts from Public Education and Public Health.

Under the Labor plan it encourage NEW buiness and creates job.

I don’t care how many household in Australia you think each will pay because the majority of the impact per household does not take into the impact on business. I will stick with treasury quoted figures.
BTW Does every income earn under 80,000 get a tax cut? Yes they do.

B says:

01:21pm | 21/07/11

@Tedd

That you just stated is called the ‘Runaway greenhouse effect”.  It has been disproven, ah like about 10 years ago.

Update your fact book mate.

Tedd says:

01:47pm | 21/07/11

B,
No, I do not refer to that.  I do not see or propose *all* water evaporating. Just slightly more recycling of water via the water Cycle.

Tedd says:

01:51pm | 21/07/11

ZSRenn,
Sorry, by brown coal plants I was thinking coal mines in general, so though mindful or a few like Hazelwood, was not thinking specifically of it.

I acknowledge some like Hazelwood will be more affected.

ZSRenn says:

02:16pm | 21/07/11

@ PTom

One thing I have always noticed about business is that when their costs go up their prices go up. So when the 500 companies to be taxed have their costs raised by $25 billion they will raise their prices by $25 billion.  When prices go up so does GST. Sure not all will flow through but what about the other costs incurred.

Loss of Jobs overseas
Loss of Australian assets overseas
Loss of profits overseas.
Loss of trade through increased prices.

This tax is a disaster and does not result in any net reduction of global CO2 emissions for the added burden to Australia.

If you want the true story on Direct Action you might like to visit this site and stop listening to the GALIC governments fear campaign on it. It is a .pdf so it may take a moment to load
.

http://liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies and Media/Environment/The Coalitions Direct Action Plan Policy Web.ashx

ZSRenn says:

02:41pm | 21/07/11

@ Tedd No worries mate. i"ve done that a couple of times myself.  I think most have but it’s the true gentlemen that admit it.

it is one of the things I like about The Punch. the quality of most of the people here.

Nafe says:

04:32pm | 21/07/11

@PTom “BTW Does every income earn under 80,000 get a tax cut? Yes they do. “

FALSE

No They Dont., Remember $65K a Year with 1 child WILL BE WORSE OFF.

Dean says:

09:22pm | 21/07/11

@ Economic Refugee
you have cherry picked your facts, the US is in the middle of the worst heat wave they have every seen with hundreds of lives lost, lets not forget the tragic floods in Pakistan last year, the floods and cat 5 cyclones in Queensland, I could go on, they are extreme weather events that are getting worst and closer together, which has the LNP agreeing that we should do something about climate change.

Goldenfaber says:

10:19pm | 21/07/11

Dean says “I could go on, they are extreme weather events that are getting worst and closer together”.
Google the Worlds greatest natural disasters and to add to that think about how many people there are on this planet today. The world’s weather has not changed. You must be either very young or else living in the World’s worst card. I remember when i was young every second year donating money to India for their endless disasters and people used to say the trouble with India is that there are too many Indians. Today they would say their are too many people driving cars…...

PTom says:

11:24pm | 21/07/11

@Nafe
More lies from the loopy liberal don’t you do your own thinking.

Everyone under 80,000 gets a tax cut because of the increase in tax free threshold including the rates adjustment.
A single income familiy on $65,000 with one child between 5-7 willl recieve about $303 through tax change the same as a person without a child. Work it out yourself.
https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/

@ZSRenn
More Looney Liberal Lies.Is fear the only thing you have left.
NEW business will be created? Yes
Will every new job created will it be credit to the Carbon tax?No because looney Liberals will not reconize this, but they will whinge about every job loss.

50% of the ETS carbon reduction needs to come from Australia.
Which asset wil go oversea coal,a powerstation, a timber plantation or a farm?

Companies profit will go oversea, what a load of crap. Every company in Australia can make profit here if they wish just like all the multi-nationals that make profit here now and gets sent overseas like BHP and RIO but you don’t complain about that.

The raising dollar will have more of impact on trade then this carbon price. Companies are buying oversea carbon emission reduction is a trade. Trade definition is to exchange services or products.

Company can pays someone to reduce their carbon emission at a cheap rate instead of paying the tax. Yet you say they will instead pay the higher cost, I don’t think so I also wonder what the competition think about that.

The only goods thing about Abbott plan is I can print it out and uses as toilet paper. 
Name one more advantage Abbott ‘s socialist Direct Action has over a ETS?

Luke4 says:

07:18am | 21/07/11

Funny how Gillard is happy to enforce the Greens agenda on the electorate, but where have the Greens been since the carbon tax details have been released?
We know Bob’s out of the closet but she must have him hidden in the cupboard.

BobM says:

10:45am | 21/07/11

There is a book just released called The Greens: Policies, Reality and Consequences. This book brings together leading Australian experts who look at a wide range of the Green’s policies in detail – from Agriculture to Z00phytes – to reveal the practical consequences of these policies.

The book shows that the Greens have an uncontrollable urge to spend our money ($10billion taxpayer funded handout from Gillard for the Green’s pet projects), a mania for legislative and regulatory control of both institutions and individuals (eg. the media inquiry which may curtail freedom of the press), a disturbing and unwarranted confidence in central planning (one world government - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2802382.html) and a belief that ‘government knows best’. Underlying this is a thoroughly naïve understanding of how the real world works.

The irony is that the Greens’ policies would not only destroy our economy but actually make the environment worse. book brings together leading Australian experts who look at a wide range of their policies in detail – from Agriculture to Z00phytes – to reveal the practical consequences of these policies.

The Greens: Policies, Reality and Consequences - $22.95 : Connor Court Publishing, Australian Publisher

Joel B1 says:

12:54pm | 21/07/11

“The Greens: Policies etc” is a must read for anyone who is concerned about 10% of voters having 80% of the power.

A common thread from the experts assembled to analyse the Greens policies is that of incredulity.

They say most of the policies are “mother-craft” statements that mean nothing except feel-good, and the rest are destructive or regressive and show “no concept of the way the modern world functions”.

Oh dear, you can bet your CO2 output that Brown will be misusing his senate powers to get that one banned.

Against the Man says:

01:28pm | 21/07/11

The fact Gilltard is aiding the Greens in destroying us speaks volumes about what she truly is like as a person. The ‘real’ Juliar is more evil and corrupt than anyone can imagine!

stevem says:

01:40pm | 21/07/11

No, Harry, the author gets the impact of an ETS far better than you. Just read his bio. It proclaims him a “pioneer of the Australian carbon management industry”.
He knows exactly who’ll benefit from the $10 billion slush fund (Clean Energy Finance Corporation). He knows exactly who’ll benefit from an ETS.

He wants us to harness our “pure sunshine” - not much of that around at the moment. He wants us to harness our “strong, consistent winds” - as a sailor who’s raced many thousands of miles I’ve also spent hundreds of hours becalmed. Nobody has yet been able to explain how we can heat our homes on those cold, still winter nights.

It’s all very well to mock those who question the validity of climate science, but the carbon tax is quite another matter. It is perfectly valid to decide the negative effects of climate change are not as bad as THIS tax. Some people are so deeply embroiled in the carbon industry they can’t see that this particular tax is worese than doing nothing.

Tedd says:

07:30am | 21/07/11

Yes, the ad hominem attacks on scientists - in the then new field of climate science - as a result of the over-emphasis of the effects of Climategate have had a negative effect on the level of debate and allowed the sceptics to use that red herring to cowardly avoid engaging the real information needed to engage properly.

Mattb says:

07:38am | 21/07/11

@erick

‘this topic is becoming boring’

I’m with you on this, it’s starting to wear a little thin, but I’ve noticed this fact hasn’t stopped you from trying to be the first poster of the day on the topic though.

If you are so bored with it why did you even bother?....

James In Footscray says:

08:10am | 21/07/11

Erick et al - as a non-specialist, I’m just puzzled by something.

If AGW is so clearly wrong, why is it NASA, CSIRO, the British Royal Society etc say it’s the most likely hypothesis? Is it fraud? Are scientists just swept up in groupthink? Or what?

Cheers

Erick says:

08:33am | 21/07/11

@James in Footscray - With billions of dollars in climate research funding, is it any surprise that scientists whose income depends on climate research will promote more reasons for climate research?

The amount of money available to skeptics is but a tiny fraction of the goldmine that’s sustaining the warmists.

@Mattb - Someone has to stand up for the truth.

Michael says:

08:37am | 21/07/11

Four words.

Editor promoting her views.

James In Footscray says:

08:43am | 21/07/11

@Erick, so it’s fraud then?

Tedd says:

09:25am | 21/07/11

@ Erick,
There is likely to be money available to the sceptics from the sceptical right or organisations against the carbon tax, such as those currently advertising in the papers against the carbon tax. A few wealthy mining companies, for example, should be able to provide some funds, don’t you think?

dancan says:

09:28am | 21/07/11

@Erick – doesn’t that same theory swing both ways?  Why are people attacking those who support the notion of manmade climate change as having invested interests, when those who are the greatest opponents have invested interests many times that of the scientists?

My point being, why would you debunk a whole field of science as being tainted when the very groups your then supporting are the greediest and most tainted out of everyone?

Anubis says:

11:27am | 21/07/11

@ James In Footscray - This article got one thing wrong which, if corrected will answer your question

“There is, overwhelmingly, consensus within the scientific community that increasing volumes of greenhouse gas emissions from human industrial activity are driving climate change,”

Should read “There is, overwhelmingly, consensus within the scientific community that AGREEING THAT increasing volumes of greenhouse gas emissions from human industrial activity are driving climate change WILL DRIVE MORE GRANT FUNDS TO YOUR RESEARCH,”

bobw says:

12:58pm | 21/07/11

Erick:  “This topic is becoming boring.”

One reason might be the laughable belief of some that bare repetition of the non-word “Climategate” amounts to an argument, and a decisive one, no less.

B says:

02:54pm | 21/07/11

@bobw

You mean like the continual bleating from the other side about Lord Monckton???

Such hypocrites!!!

bobw says:

03:07pm | 21/07/11

@B:  Relevance?

Adam Diver says:

09:55am | 21/07/11

Perhaps he was referring to himself

“Every alternative theory as to what is driving this warming has, to date, been investigated and, alas, discredited.”

What utter garbage. It takes a real level of ignorance to discredit your opponent in one paragraph, and then fail your own standards of debate in the next.

PTom says:

11:35am | 21/07/11

If you don’t trust what he said.

Disprove him show one credit theory against.

Adam Diver says:

12:11pm | 21/07/11

@ PTom, its an act of god, or the spaghetti monster, or its a natural variation, or we just don’t know, or its solar activity, or its camels flatulence in the outback.

Unless “every” possible theory above has been investigated and discredited, then its a grand case of hyperbole. Its a stupid statement, and your defence of it is puerile.

PTom says:

02:10pm | 21/07/11

So are you saying you can’t and how do you know these have not already been looked at and ruled out.

Chris L says:

02:37pm | 21/07/11

@Adam - Solar activity and animal flatulence have been looked into and discounted as capable of being the primary source of climate change. As to the others, I guess you could keep making up ideas if it would put action on hold. The only benefit would be the people raking in the real cash get to keep more of it for longer.

You demonstrate the degredation of debate on this site. PTom advised you to present one of these alternative theories that has not yet been discounted, you come up with the flying spagetti monster and go on to accuse him of puerility!

B says:

02:56pm | 21/07/11

@PTom

I put it to you that he has to PROVE it is happening.  Since this has not ever been shown WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, it has never been proved.  I implore you to look up the meaning of EMPIRICAL!!!  It may shock you!!

Tom says:

08:54pm | 21/07/11

@PTom, no offence, but the burden of proof belongs entirely with your lot. There is no obligation to disprove warming or that taxing us is the solution.

74% are not convinced based on the arguments put up by those bastions of scientific excellence, Al Gore and Kate Blanchette and Michael Caton. Your lot doesn’t like Lord Monckton’s arguments. Nothing proved either way.

Enough scientists are dissenting. The science isn’t settled. Enough economists are dissenting. Nothing is settled.

So it comes down to the people of Australia, who after all have to pay, this stinking tax. They don’t want it. No taxation without representation and your lot loses.

Anything else is the rape of democracy.

PTom says:

12:20am | 22/07/11

@Tom

As I read today that a artcile published in 2004 covering between 1993 to 2003.
“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. “
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

What are you unable to find one report?

You want evidence warm is occuring then go to bom.gov.au and look at the temperature for the last centruy.

No Tom business pays the tax. If business are smart they can find ways not to pay it.

More Looney Liberal spin so we should have gone back to the polls in because of a minority failed? In 2010 ALP did get the majority of the vote and the majority of the seats supporting them. Is that not how our democracy works.

Iain says:

10:22am | 21/07/11

S.I., you may want to do some better research - Ken Ring is known scammer http://www.sillybeliefs.com/ring.html .  Also world meteorological records show the last decade as the hottest on record. Isolated weather is very different to overall global climate changes.

Anubis says:

11:45am | 21/07/11

Iain - Fail. There has been recognised evidence that the global temperatures have not risen since 1998. The Academy of Sciences in the US recently released a report that discussed the fact that temperatures had not risen between 1998 and 2008 (therefore being outside of the Climate Models the IPCC touts as accurate). The article then went on to discuss why the predicted warming hadn’t happened and alluded to possible problems with the climate models used. The big problem with this whole movement is the problems that have faced in relation to credibility.

This dates back to the 1970’s impending Ice Age scare. This was clearly wrong and it then morphed into Global Warming. Problems developed in that theory so it has now been shifted to Climate Change (a nice catch-all phrase that will cover any eventuality). Add to this Climategate, the reliance on non-scientists to sell the message (like Garnaut - an economist who is involved in two of the biggest environmental vandals around, Lihir Gold and OK Tedi), and non-climate related scientists like Timmy Flannery, an anthropologist with proven conflicts of interest through his failed “hot rocks venture (which cost the taxpayer $90 million plus, and his penchant for spouting “end of the world” predictions that ultimately fail to eventuate.

This is now compunded by Julia’s “Tax on Carbon Pollution” which is in reality a Fabianistic Socialist Wealth redistribution scheme disguised as environmental action. This previously touted revenue neutral scheme has a $4 billion dollar hole in it which will need to be drawn from the budget as well as a non-accountable $10 billion dollar gratuity fund to the Green’s, also needing to be funded outside of the revenue being raised by the “Carbon Pollution Tax”.

Treasury estimates have shown that this tax will make no impact on the environment and Australia’s emissions are expected to increase under the scheme, even mor now that the exemptions have been put in to place. If by some fluke this scheme does get put in place and, by some miracle Julia’s emission reduction levels are met, then the effect on global temperatures is expected to be in the region of one-4000th of a degree. But the emissions won’t reduce - it is anticipated that in order for the power generation industry to meet goals then they will need to purchase something like $15 billion of Crabon Credits from overseas. If they are sending the money overseas then where is the Governments income to fund the compensation coming from?

One huge Ponzi scheme destined to fail, just like the Chicago Emissions Trading that announced just two days ago that they were closing down.

Iain says:

12:47pm | 21/07/11

In response to Anubis, I have to say - Fail.  You might not like the IPCC or be still hung up on Climategate where the scientists have since been totally exonerated but there is no denying pure weather facts. eg the highly respected and credible NOAA.  Please take some time to look at the facts on the official site http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13 - for example “The year 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year since records began in 1880.”
Am really curious why in the face of all mainstream science such as every reputable university globally, CSIRO, IPCC, 97% of the scientific community why we wouldn’t want take action to insure against climate change.  Show me one peer reviewed paper in the denialist camp with any substance and the fact that most of the scientists in denial are in the pockets of oil and mining such Plimer.

ZSRenn says:

01:26pm | 21/07/11

@ Iain you can debunk every denier you want but it is my hard earned cash coming out of my pocket for a little better than 0 reductions in Global emissions that is my problem. It is leaving less money for Australians to spend on many aspects of our lives driving down purchases and driving up personal debt. Denier or Believer you have to admit that this spending Australia is entering into to achieve this has no merit at all.

Anubis says:

01:33pm | 21/07/11

@ Iain

Show me one peer reviewed paper in the warmist camp with any proof of an anthropogenic marker to climate change and the fact that most of the warmist scientists are in the pockets of government. And are they climate scientists - lets see - Garnaut (nope an economist), Flannery (nope but he does have vested interests), Gore (a failed politician), Brown (a an ex-hippy striving for a parliamentary pension), Gillard (a rapidly failing politician), who are the rest of your Australian Climate scientist experts there Iain ?

Anubis says:

01:41pm | 21/07/11

BTW @ Iain - read my first response to you. It was not denying Climate Change as you have inferred. It was discussing the battered credibility of those touting for Julia’s “Tax on Carbon Pollution”. It then went on to discuss why the Tax will have no effect on either Australia’s emissions nor will it assist with mitigating the purported effects of Climate Change.

As for the comment about the flat temperatures having not changed between 1998 and 2008 - go to the National Academy of Sciences website and you can read the abstract of the article. The National Academy is one of the expert organisations that support the theory of AGW. So why then are you intimating that I was “denying’. All the comments made were valid ones and should be addressed (or would be if a sensible debate were possible without cat-calls of denyer/warmist flying around.

Jay Santos says:

02:39pm | 21/07/11

@Iain

So many lies in one post.

LIE #1 “...The year 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year since records began in 1880…”

The only true and accurate record of global temperature is that from satellite data which began in 1979.  The satellite data proves you are wrong.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif

Bonus point: Which satellites were around in 1880? 

LIE #2 “...97% of the scientific community…”

A perennial favourite of warmists everywhere.  This lie is up there with the biggest.  So where does this ‘statistic’ come from?

Hilariously, it comes from a single academic study paper: Doran, P. T., and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3).

A survey in the paper asked 79 self-selected climatologists to answer the following question:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Not surprisingly, 76 of 79 climate scientists answered ‘risen’ to this question.  Hence the magical 97%.

For you and the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of warming proselytes to continue to cite this as some sort of global “consensus” amongst the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of scientists is deeply disingenuous and an outright lie.

LIE #3 “...Show me one peer reviewed paper in the denialist camp with any substance…”

From the repugnancy and scientific corruption of Mann’s now-thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” theory through to the “Climategate” scandal replete with its calls to “hide the decline”, the self-regulating peer review process has had it moral and ethical bankruptcy exposed for all to see.

Some of the world’s greatest scientists were not subject to “peer-review” and most would have been rejected for their challenges to the prevailing scientific orthodoxies of the time.

Laughably, ClimateGate’s pathetic attempt at “exoneration” came via an investigation done by the offenders in question’s own institution.

Friends reviewing friends hardly constitutes a ‘peer’ review and the proportion of those in the climate realm submitting to a double-blind review process in support of their academic alarmism is almost negligible.

LIE #4 “...the fact that most of the scientists in denial are in the pockets of oil and mining such(sic) Plimer…”

Unlike of course Big Climate and the carpetbagging and rentseeking amongst scientists, politicians and bureaucrats the world over milking the Shrieking AGW Cash Cow.

And I suppose if pressed you could provide proof as to the veracity of your claims?

Didn’t think so.

B says:

03:14pm | 21/07/11

@Iain

Two words:  Epic Fail.  Stick this in your pipe and smoke it.  Data from ‘The National Space Science and Technology Center”  shows differently and there is supposed to be a “consensus”.  Give me a break!

Graph: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png
DATA: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

bobw says:

03:40pm | 21/07/11

Anubis:  ” ... who are the rest of your Australian Climate scientist experts there Iain?”

Are you serious?

WayneT says:

05:00pm | 21/07/11

The phrase “97 percent of the world’s climate scientists” sounds very dramatic and overwhelming, but the truth is somewhat different.  According to the figures presented in the American Academy of Sciences paper, 90% of the scientists were from the US, including federal and state bodies, 6% from Canada and 4% from 21 countries around the world.
  We are also told that only 5% of the original sample responses were climate scientists, so if we pragmatically apply those proportions we end up with just 141 from the US, 9 from Canada and just 6 from 21 countries around the world, hardly a global consensus.
  We find that they originally contacted 10,257 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded, less than a 31% response rate. “Impending Planetary Doom” was obviously not uppermost in the minds of over two thirds of their target population. Of that number, only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduce that by half by only counting those who they classed as ‘specialists’. There is little detail of how many peer reviewed papers are needed to qualify as a specialist, it could by their definition be just two papers, one of which needs to be on climate change.  What a poor example of scientific enquiry this survey really is.
  The phrase “97 percent of the world’s climate scientists” sounds very dramatic and over-whelming, but the truth is somewhat different.  There were supposed to have been nine questions asked, but we are only ever given sight of two of them.

Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

This is quite banal and shows the desperation of those involved in this “unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.”.  Has it got warmer since pre-1800 levels? This really depends on the time period referred to. Do they mean the Little Ice Age, when disastrously cold temperatures caused massive loss of life and untold hardship? Of course temperatures are now warmer than that desperate period in climate history. Is that what they would wish to regard as normal?
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

This is the classic closed question, in that it implies mean global temperatures are being changed and someone must be responsible. The response to this question was 75 specialists out of 77, so here we have our massive 97%.

  It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.

  The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions.  However a headline of “0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?

bobw says:

05:19pm | 21/07/11

Nice cut and paste job there, WayneT.

Knemon says:

10:27pm | 21/07/11

Anubis says “Brown (a an ex-hippy striving for a parliamentary pension)”

You are full of shit Anubis…Bob Brown is a qualified doctor (GP) - what are your qualifications Anus?

PTom says:

12:39am | 22/07/11

@Jay Santos
Iain is half right the hottest years was 2010 but the other was 1998 just like the the graph provided by the BOM which goes all the way back to before 1860 that you dismiss. So tell us since 1979 which way has the satellite trend been and do you care to explain why?

PTom says:

11:46am | 21/07/11

We are now pissing away our nations economic and evirnomental adavantage because unelected whinges are to scared to of change for the better.

The Rock says:

08:51am | 21/07/11

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

“The chart above clearly shows that temperatures have gone up. They are, however, not going up in a steady curve as most people would expect. They are, instead, rising in a stair case fashion. That means they can remain flat for a few years and then suddenly jump up. Then once more they flatten out only jump up again a few years later.”

Derek says:

09:45am | 21/07/11

Temperatures started rapidly increasing in the 1990’s, and most climate change proponents rely on this data as proof of climate change, when in fact it is a flaw in the measurement and adjustment methods.

A very good discussion of this is covered in this document.  Amazing how figures can be fudged.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

If you don’t support climate change at this time it is harder to get your worked published or more accurately “funded”.  Just as it is harder to get decent funding for research into Cancer, Aids and a whole variety of REAL problems. If you don’t tow the line you loose your money.

Science is too politicised, the science in relation to climate change is too young, and at this stage we do not possess processing power to even be .0000001% accurate, the variables are too great and the relationships of the variables are exponentially greater.  We have no idea and it is likely we will have no idea for next 100 years or more.  It is just religious bullshit when people claim the science is settled.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the environment, we should, but knee jerk reactions and rallying people behind the idea that “Carbon” is the big bad meany is ludicrous and absurd, it is overly simplistic and insults the intelligence of many Australians.

Yes promote development of sustainable energy alternatives, however we must be realistic that there will not and cannot be a major shift away from carbon fuels in the short term.  All we can do is look at ways to minimise the impact of these fuels, and in fact that is naturally happening, cars are cleaner, more efficient , power stations are more efficient.  And we MUST consider Nuclear power if we are at all serious about moving from carbon based fuels. The market will also adjust based on natural pricing influences and will always be looking for cheaper and more efficient alternatives.  You cannot beat australians over the head with a Carbon Tax if there ARE NO FEASIBLE alternatives, it will not make it happen any quicker or better, in fact more likely we will be suckered into some 2nd rate technologies that will vastly decrease our standard of living.

fml says:

10:22am | 21/07/11

Derek,

What exactly is he party line on AIDS and Cancer? I would of thought it would be to cure it?

Derek says:

10:58am | 21/07/11

@FML, the point is that due to the massive amounts of money redirected into Climate Change there is less funding and resources available for research into AIDS and Cancer.  I have a number of friends that are PhD research scientists in these fields and every year they have a major fight on their hands to retain their funding because the universities get more money for Climate change research (as long as the research is to support the status quo), there are only limited labs and facilities available at these institutions and where you favour one the other goes.

One friend who lost funding for Cancer research actually got three times the money by resubmitting a grant request to include “due to the effect of Climate change” in the title of the grant request !!!  Go figure

Et al says:

11:42am | 21/07/11

@ fml

Derek is correct. I have chased research funding and I can promise you that if you aren’t on the currently fashionable bandwagon(s) in the field (and having connections doesn’t hurt either) then you will be lucky to find support for your work. Same applies to getting work published especially in the high impact journals, and when it comes to appointments, well…  anyone who imagines scientific research and opinion, including medical science, isn’t highly politicised is naive.

Bot boy says:

11:54am | 21/07/11

@ Anthony
Its called a trend. On the small time scale (individual years) there may be fluctuation up and down but over an extend period of time the ‘trend’ is for an increase. Simple statistics. So don’t believe the “but it was colder this year so you are all wrong: brigade.

PTom says:

12:45pm | 21/07/11

Based on what has happened, their will be standards that need to be met before a product is given a credit for carbon reduction into a scheme also on the number of permits/credits will be restricted. So yes there will be some trade restriction to meet standards and to maintain a reduction in emission. Then it up to each nation to either allow or not other nation in.  Australia and NZ have already agree to look at doing this. This could see Australian carbon reduction business trading in China in the near future.

As both said agree on reduction of carbon the discussion should be on whether we become a carbon Sink nation or stay as a carbon Source nation and which will benefit Australia long term. Under an ETS we can encourage NEW business to become a carbon Sink locally or international while we reduce our own carbon Sources. I can not see how Government subsides to Sources to reduce emission allows us to create new Business.

Brizben says:

05:19pm | 21/07/11

Thanks for that PTom.

Penny says:

08:34am | 21/07/11

Well said Ben in Canberra.
Your last two lines are what is troubling Australians and doing untold damage to Gillard and her minority Government.
I don’t mind because it means Gillard and crew will be chucked out at the next election for doing deals with the 11% ers’s.

Bev says:

09:06am | 21/07/11

Good comment Ben.  I may add the other trick is to call it carbon pollution. Which most equate with the black soot coming out of chimneys and know is not good.  Truth is CO2 is a colourless odorless gas but I guess that something you cannot see doesn’t make for good photo opportunities.

Brizben says:

09:08am | 21/07/11

And economists are not entitled to hold a gun to the head of our grandchildren.

fml says:

10:25am | 21/07/11

Carbon dioxide is a problem, which adds to the greenhouse effect, The major problem though is carbon monoxide.

“Carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion of organic matter due to insufficient oxygen supply to enable complete oxidation to carbon dioxide”, Are you going to tell me carbon monoxide is good for you, plants and the planet?

B says:

02:52pm | 21/07/11

@fml

Why are they taxing “Carbon Dioxide”?  According to your comment we should be making things more efficient to get rid of the Carbon Monoxide.

Is ‘Carbon Monoxide”  A greenhouse gas?  How would it be the Major problem in GreenHouse Gases when it isn’t one?

So why, tell us, are we being taxed for Carbon Dioxide, when the major problem is Carbon Monoxide?

BTW I suggest you research your facts lest you look foolish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

“Following the first report that carbon monoxide is a normal neurotransmitter in 1993,[4] as well as one of three gases that naturally modulate inflammatory responses in the body (the other two being nitric oxide and hydrogen sulfide), carbon monoxide has received a great deal of clinical attention as a biological regulator. In many tissues, all three gases are known to act as anti-inflammatories, vasodilators and promoters of neovascular growth.[5] Clinical trials of small amounts of carbon monoxide as a drug are on-going.” — Ahhh what were you saying fml????

Richard says:

07:28pm | 21/07/11

Bev, I noted you seem to consider the colour and odour of gasses a definitive indication of their potential for harrm.

I suggest that everyone who think this should come together and be sealed in an airtight building filled with some other colourless, odourless gas like oh, say, carbon monoxide.  Once they come out I promise to agree with everything they decide.

No takers?

Chris L says:

11:30pm | 21/07/11

@B - I have to admit to not knowing a great deal on this subject, so I’ll understand if you correct me.

From what I understand the carbon price will be charged on the release of carbon into our atmosphere. If this is to be charged to carbon dioxide (the stuff trees breath) then the plan must also be to extend this charge to carbon monoxide (the real deadly stuff).

The Rock says:

09:12am | 21/07/11

The science is settled.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-basic.htm

Tony H says:

09:30am | 21/07/11

Indeed 75 out of 10,257 scientists agree its settled

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

Steve Putnam says:

09:39am | 21/07/11

Your post makes no sense. The last decade was the hottest since humans have been able to accurately record temperature with June of last year the hottest month ever based on net global temperature measurements.
And what do you mean when you say: “when you start changing the theory to fit the facts it ain’t science anymore”? Are you seriously suggesting that science proceeds oblivious to fact? Your comment is an accurate description of the way the denialist thesis has unfolded however, and sums up the mass psychology of its proponents.

RyaN says:

11:03am | 21/07/11

@The Rock: quoting skepticalscience.com is like quoting GetUp. Its only you who will be convinced by the complete garbage.
Do so post us the direct evidence of a human marker in global warming mate, can’t wait for this. Give us the definitive proof of a human marker or you are a barefaced liar like Gillard when it comes to the statement that AGW science is settler.

Fact is that you are quoting “the weather” in an underhanded way to try and prove a theory through very thin correlation which to date has not been proven.
The same low tactic is employed by changing the words “global warming” to “climate change”, and you want us to believe you people aren’t trying to pull the biggest fraud on the people. The mere fact that you changed the words “global warming” to “climate change” is a damning indictment on your agenda.

The Rock says:

11:52am | 21/07/11

Tony:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hulme-IPCC-consensus.htm

Ryan:

I’m sure the I can’t hear you argument goes down a treat in the school yard.

Have a look at the graph on the link attached for evidence.

Kassandra says:

11:56am | 21/07/11

Over the last decade, other than two el nino related spikes, the global temperature records from surface recordings, satellite data and sea temperatures have shown no significant increase despite steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The trend is essentially flat at present, and some argue it is even showing an early cooling trend. So “global warming” had to become “climate change” without the warming but with more “extreme” weather - except that hasn’t happened either.

I agree with JoelB1 - when the data doesn’t fit your theory anymore you need to change your theory, otherwise it’s no longer science but dogma.

RyaN says:

01:09pm | 21/07/11

@The Rock: still waiting for that evidence of a definitive human marker in global warming. Clearly you are not telling the truth about the science being settled on anthropogenic global warming then?

PTom says:

02:45pm | 21/07/11

@Joel B1

Really not accord to the BOM it show that the trend over the last 2 two decades to be warming.

Guess the tweaking is using 1998 the highest record year and drawing a line to any other then saying looks it getting cooler. Lets ingore 1997-2007 decade or the 1999-2009 decade.
Bolt would be proud of your math skills.

Here are some figues for you Average temp between 1960-1990 was about 14 degrees.

As you can see over the last two decades we have record higher then average by.
1990   0.25
1991   0.21
1992   0.07
1993   0.10
1994   0.17
1995   0.28
1996   0.14
1997   0.35
1998   0.53
1999   0.31
2000   0.28
2001   0.41
2002   0.46
2003   0.47
2004   0.45
2005   0.48
2006   0.43
2007   0.40
2008   0.33
2009   0.44
2010   0.48

Don’t like those figures then go look at the graph at Bom.gov.au

The Rock says:

03:07pm | 21/07/11

You’ve been given a link to evidence Ryan.

If you want to be an adult then you can try challenging it rather than pretending it’s not there.

The Rock says:

03:38pm | 21/07/11

You’ve been presented with evidence. Ignoring it isn’t an adult argument.

RyaN says:

04:55pm | 21/07/11

@The Rock: sorry mate, I meant actual evidence, say a peer reviewed paper showing a definitive human marker in global warming, you know actual science.

RyaN says:

05:13pm | 21/07/11

@PTom: correlation does not equal causation.

The Rock says:

08:27pm | 21/07/11

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

“The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. “

An analysis of 928 peer reviewed papers 75% endorsing the consensus view.

I’m sorry Ryan, pretending is not an an argument.

RyaN says:

11:13pm | 22/07/11

@The Rock: “compelling” is not definitive, hell its lucky to be subjective, not even close mate, please try again!

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

08:46am | 21/07/11

Oops a stupid error in my post above which says: With the carbon tax we inflict a lot of pain on Australia to achieve only a 5% reduction of annual CO2 emission in China.” It should read:  With the carbon tax we inflict a lot of pain on Australia to achieve only a 5% reduction of annual CO2 emission in AUSTRALIA.

I

Brutus BALAN says:

09:19am | 21/07/11

Dr BS Goh, what you write is far superior to the dribble poured out by some of the journalist in Australia.  It annoys me that such articles are even printed on paper.  Like the one above by Dave Sag.

Eric I says:

11:14am | 21/07/11

I believe in direct action too. Let’s nationalise the power industry, replace all coal fired power stations with cutting edge solar baseload power stations (like the one in Spain) and fund the whole thing out of consolidated revenue by raising income taxes and death duties back to where they were in, say, 1970. Good plan, eh? Stuff the market!

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

01:39pm | 21/07/11

@ Eric
I agree with you. Some loonies in Australia are hell bent to send all of us broke in Australia.

Maybe the ideal society they want is the paradise that Adam and Eve had. They have nothing and even walk around their paradise naked, I think.

Tedd says:

09:30am | 21/07/11

Perhaps you could have a look at the carbon flux

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anthropogenic_sources

and look at the next section - Anthropogenic greenhouse gases

Bot boy says:

12:00pm | 21/07/11

@ Anne
All science it theory - gravity, evolution etc. Doesn’t mean it isn’t right. To wait until things are ‘proven’ is a huge mistake.
If I had a well supported ‘theory’ that a comet was going to hit earth you wouldn’t wait until the proof before acting as the proof will kill you.
Same applies to CC - although I am middle aged with no children so no skin off my nose if nothing happens - no major impact for 50 years maybe - if we are lucky.

No 1 Rosie says:

10:46am | 21/07/11

Morning Nosthow,

I admire your honesty but I somehow don’t believe that you are correct in saying that Abbott will dump his Direct Action policy.

Myself I am not 100% sure about climate change but am certain that some kind of effort should be made to clean up the environment and keep it clean for future generations. Abbott feels the same way and only a mug would not think along those lines. The high lead levels found in the children of Port Pirie here in SA has always bothered me and when I say clean up the environment that is what I mean. Abbott and the Coalition will have to look into renewable energy and the transition of coal power stations to cleaner, greener energy. I will leave the economics of it to the experts.

Well, we just have to wait and see but I would be hoping you will come aboard to make sure Abbott and the Coalition have something for the environment. They would stupid not to.

No 1 Rosie says:

11:32am | 21/07/11

Oh yes Nosthow I also found this paragraph puzzling when millions around the world are starving and dieing from starvation. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about this problem as a nation than Gillard’s do nothing carbon tax so as to send a shining bright message to not only the rest of the world but to the helpless millions crying out for our help.

“If we can clean up our act Down Under, not only do we send a shining bright message to the rest of the world, and re-assert ourselves as a global citizen, we also, by investing heavily now in a wide range of clean-tech clean-energy solutions, stand a very good chance of actually developing the solutions that the rest of the world, especially the developing world, critically needs.”

Further to my clean air environment wants, I want Abbott and the Coalition to reduce the amount of pollution in the cities so I can breathe in the equivalent air that of my country folks.

nossy says:

11:59am | 21/07/11

@No 1 Rosie and good morning to you too Rosie. Yes its hard to fathom what is fact and what is fiction at present with all the sledging going on. Whichever way Abbott goes Roise I just hope he has Australia’s future in mind - of course Gillard would claim she has but you couldnt trust her with a jar of jellybeans Rosie!  hahahah

Craig Mc says:

09:48am | 21/07/11

And not disclosed in the article.  Where are The Australian’s editors?  It’s their job to make sure relevant disclosures are made.

jf says:

12:34pm | 21/07/11

No doubt he’ll be at the head of the queue to get his snout into the trough when the Clean Energy Finance Corporation starts up having no doubt already pillaged the Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund and the Emerging Renewables Program.

Anna C says:

09:22am | 21/07/11

Does that include Prof. Ross Garnaut, Tim Flannery, Julia Gillard, Bob Brown, Al Gore and all the other Climate Change fundamentalists who aren’t climate change scientists?

Bot boy says:

12:14pm | 21/07/11

@ Anna
And Mr Monckton

Jason Smith says:

07:09pm | 21/07/11

all of the above

Anthony says:

09:04pm | 21/07/11

Actually, given that Monckton has achieved a level of education in climate science that gives him the ability to lecture University faculties on the intricacies of climate sensitivity, and shown in pretty much every way that he is a scientist - albeit not formally trained in any specific scientific discipline (but then, the head of the IPCC is an ex-railway engineer) - I vote him an honorary climate scientist. I mean, there isn’t actually a form qualification for it.

iansand says:

10:23am | 21/07/11

The science underpinning climate change is extremely simple.

1 Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2 Fossil fuels are largely carbon, and have been sequestrated for 10s of millions of years.
3 Burning fossil fuels is burning carbon.
4 Burning carbon produces carbon dioxide.
5 Go to proposition 1.  There is more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than there would be without burning fossil fuels.
6 The average temperature of the earth has risen.

Which one of those propositions is wrong, or even difficult?

Someone will come along and say that correlation is not causation.  We have more than correlation.  We have a well underdstood mechanism as well.

Hamish says:

10:44am | 21/07/11

iansand, climate just isn’t simple. AGW theory might be, but climate practice sure as hell isn’t. Based on your overly simplified explanation, there should be a linear relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature. There isn’t. This doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong per se, but it does mean climate science is far more complicated than you seem to think it is.

Obviously none of this has any bearing on whether Australia should have a carbon tax. A carbon tax is laughable stupidity. On that there pretty much is consensus. The politics is settled.

RyaN says:

10:54am | 21/07/11

@iansand: Just a correction there mate, you mean the theory, try to remember that to date there is zero evidence of a human marker in global warming.

iansand says:

11:13am | 21/07/11

Hamish - Where is my explanation incorrect?  Seriously, the basic mechanism is that simple.  Everything else is the degree to which that basic explanation affects things.  Anyone who says “the science isn’t settled” is talking about effect, not cause.  Assuming that they are not spreading disinformation.

A says:

11:14am | 21/07/11

An “extremely simple” question relating to points 1 and 5.

Over the course of history there have been far greater levels of carbon dioxide, and thus, by implication, greater levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere…how do these higher levels of greenhouse gases, which were NOT produced by burning fossil fuels fit with the current “extremely simple science underpinning climate change”?

iansand says:

11:33am | 21/07/11

RyaN - With which of my propositions do you disagree?

Hugo says:

11:50am | 21/07/11

iansand - that’s a nice simplistic, pre-school explanation of how a complex biological system works in theory…pity about practice. Is it too complicated to consider feed-back mechanisms and adaptation - you know, the changes that happen in the real world? What about natural CO2 emissions - how do we deal with them? Oh, and because we stop using carbon energy, does that mean that all the carbon is sequestered or might some of it escape into the atmosphere?

iansand says:

12:05pm | 21/07/11

A - There is a simple answer to that.  What do you know about things like sea level, polar ice extent or extreme weather events at those times?  If the answer is “Dunno” how can you say that the higher levels of CO2 did not generate exactly the effects predicted as a result of the current rising levels? 

There have been times in the Earth’s history when there have been no polar ice.  There have been times when the average global temperature have been much higher than the present.  I am not sure about storms, droughts and flooding rains.

One of the problems with current climate change is that migration has always been an option for dealing with changing climate.  If that strategy is adopted this time there is nowhere to go without a real prospect of conflict. 

Think about estuarine and pre-estuarine art in northern Australia.  There is a difference in art, but only because the pre-estuarine marine art is well under water.  When sea levels rose the people whose ancestors were doing the pre-estuarine art were close enough to the sea that they started doing estuarine subjects - they had migrated ahead of rising oceans.

iansand says:

12:09pm | 21/07/11

Hamish - You may have heard about the carbon cycle.  If you haven’t you should lookfor it.  But the carbon we are burning is adding CO2 at a rate faster than the carbon cycle seems able to deal with.  That is why CO2 concentrations have risen by around 30% over the last 150 years.  That is another incontrovertible fact that I should have added to the first list.

Hamish says:

12:10pm | 21/07/11

iansand, my point is that it is clearly not as simple as you assert as there is no linear relationship. There is certainly scientific consensus on that point. The real question is the extent to which carbon dioxide makes much of a difference at all. The IPCC think it makes a lot of difference although their models don’t really seem to be working out, while other scientists believe carbon dioxide may have an impact but is not really a significant factor at all. There is actually a reasonable level of debate about this even amongst ‘consensus’ scientists. Climate is extremely complex. It can’t be reduced to the level of simplicity you claim.

Anyway, as I say, regardless of whether the science is settled, the politics certainly is. The carbox tax is a dog of a policy and this government has gone from simply unpopular to highly toxic.

iansand says:

12:33pm | 21/07/11

Hamish - Can you give ma a link to “... other scientists (who) believe carbon dioxide may have an impact but is not really a significant factor at all.”  No blogs please.

Do you know what the Earth’s temperature would be without greenhouse gases?  Think in terms of life as we know it would not be viable.

A says:

12:39pm | 21/07/11

Agreed. Sea level, polar ice and occurence of extreme weather (amongst other factors) has risen, fallen, changed over billions of years. It did it because of so many factors. Without the burning of fossil fuels.

And for the merry go round to continue, to paraphrase your question, how can you say that higher levels of CO2 did generate the above fluctuations?

To go further on my consensus point the other week. I would argue there are far too many variables and inputs to emphatically, unequivocally define the main driver of climate change (or even the rate of change of climate change) as CO2 emissions from man made burning of fossil fuel.

iansand says:

01:10pm | 21/07/11

A - I can’t, but it is pretty clear that there is a well understood mechanism connecting CO2 with higher temperatures.  Higher temperatures mean less ice, which means higher sea levels.  Oh.  That seems pretty incontrovertible.

Higher temperatures also means more energy in the atmosphere which means more extreme events.  Oh.  That seems pretty incontrovertible too.

However what my point does show is that, subjected to a moment’s rational analysis, the “there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere before” stuff is no comfort at all.

RyaN says:

01:11pm | 21/07/11

@iansand:  “The science”, should rather be corrected to “the scientific theory”.

Adam Diver says:

01:44pm | 21/07/11

@ Iansand

1. Your point has been disproven, its obvioulsy not simple enough to explain to primary school children. Particularly when you us “pre-estaurine” art to explain changes. I know my local 10 year old is all over, the changing polar ice caps and migration of people throughout history.

2. Your whole argument is based on a massive assumption.

Granted Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans have been putting more Co2 in the air (sidenote as a species why are things we do not considered natural?). And lastly that there has been an increase in temperature over the last 150 years.

The link may merely be coincidence, and its certainly not possible to tell the extent that humans may have on these changes.

Humans account for 4% of Co2 emmissions, with a natural variation that far exceeds our input. How confident predictions can be made with such variability is beyond me. Added to that we have only been accurately measuring these things for (being generous) 60 years, if the last 10 year cooling was simply a natural variation, how can we be certain that the 50 years prior is not a similar variation.

Its laughable to use such a small amount of data for a process that could have cycles that far exceed the timescale.

Whats worse is that all the data currently is well within natural variations as you alluded to yourself. Certainly a noticeble change in Co2 PPM since the industrial revolution, but by no means higher than it has been previously in the history of the earth. What arbitrary figure are the scientist using to be concerned about catastrophic effects of AGW?

“Higher temperatures also means more energy in the atmosphere which means more extreme events.  Oh.  That seems pretty incontrovertible too.”

Its not incontrovertable at all. Cyclone activity has been steady over the last 60 years. Either it hasnt been higher temperatures or that is another assumption made, which is not backed up by real world data.

I am thinking you have no idea what you are talking about. You make the mistake of converting possability into certainty.

In summary, all your points here should point to a linear rise in temperature corresponding with Co2 levels. Since there is not one, then I suggest your argument is invalid, and before you post again, at least be honest and express the uncertainty behind many of the claims.

iansand says:

01:44pm | 21/07/11

No, RyaN.  Every one of my statements is incontrovertible science.  There is no theory about it (and it is clear that you do not understand what a “scientific theory” is.  Gravity is a theory.)

A says:

02:00pm | 21/07/11

Although our views diverge and are not of consensus as to AGW, surely we can agree that the climate is, has, will and always will change. That of itself so should be “no comfort at all”, but we will be long gone before the climate changes taking with it most of the global population.

I agree with the incontrovertible laws of thermodynamics. However, and this is my point, agreed by yourself just now, you can’t say that higher levels of CO2 drove the historical fluctuations in the earth’s climate. Therefore, what’s to say it is driving it now?

My issue is with the scare tactics of the scientific AGW lobby who reached a conclusion in a vacuum of thought/logic ignoring countless disciplines of science. AGW is an issue largely off the radar in the rest of the world despite the desperate shouts of Aus.

Surely we can agree, as I have earlier espoused, that in Aus there are far greater environmental problems that can be fixed or mitigated? Let’s lead the way in that!

Anubis says:

02:20pm | 21/07/11

@ iansand

the·o·ry? ?
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]  Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

Ask any Climate Scientist (or any scientist) and they will confirm that these are theories and remain theories until proven> An Anthropogenic has yet to be proven as the entire theory is based on computer modelling using a small sampling of observed data (60-70 years cherry picked out of hundreds of thousands of years). As there seems to be a great paucity of Climate predictions actually happening and being proven to be a result of Anthropogenic climate change then, yes, it remains a theory which a lot of scientists consider to be credible. Whether this will result in catastrophic consequences as snake oil salesmen like Flannery predict, well that is still open to conjecture.

Even the most strident of the climate change believing scientists have backed away from the claim that the extreme weather in Australia in the last year was a result of climate change, instead pointing to records of equally severe events over the past two centuries.

In no way is it incontrovertible as you claim and I doubt very much that you will get a single credible expert claim it is incontrovertible, The only people, other than you, that claim it is incontrovertible are politicians (who are pushing an agenda) or those like Dave Sag (the author of this article) who have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to promoting this.

iansand says:

02:47pm | 21/07/11

Anubis & Adam Diver - Which of my propositions has been controverted?  Which of them are you having trouble understanding?  Perhaps you could find a primary school child to help.

Here they are again:

1 Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2 Fossil fuels are largely carbon, and have been sequestrated for 10s of millions of years.
3 Burning fossil fuels is burning carbon.
4 Burning carbon produces carbon dioxide.
5 Go to proposition 1.  There is more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than there would be without burning fossil fuels.
6 The average temperature of the earth has risen.

I should add that atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen buy ~30% over the last 150 years (coincidentally about the same period that we have been burning fossil fuels).

Anubis says:

03:56pm | 21/07/11

@ Iansand

1. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse but it is only ranked as 11th (out of 18) most potent in radiative forcing by the IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

2. Fossil fuels are largely carbon - all fossil fuels consist mainly of hydrocarbons (compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen), which, upon complete combustion, yield carbon dioxide http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Fe-Ge/Fossil-Fuels.html

When burnt at a combustion efficiency of 75% (higher than most methods currently used) produces exhaust gases with a 5.716% of Co2 The largest constituent of the exhaust gases is usually N2 which constitutes 74.26% http://www.taftan.com/xl/fossil.htm  When burnt at a lower efficiency less Co2 is produced and more Carbon Monoxide makes up the exhaust gases.

3. See the response to 2

4. See the response to 2

5. Man made carbon dioxide represents just four percent of the 0.038% content of the carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. This is less than the fluctuation of natural carbon dioxide released in to the atmosphere through natural cycles (such as release from sea water during cool periods and overnight, release of Co2 by volcanic eruption etc)

6. The average temperature of the earth rose between 1910 and 1940 then stabilised and actually reduced. The temperature again increased from the 1970’s through to 1998, and has now been observed to have actually reduced slightly (read the recent paper by the National Academy of Sciences in which this is discussed)

Your propositions are not necessarily wrong but in no way indicate definitive proof of AGW. So yes iansand correlation is not causation. And nothing you have stated as incontrovertible is a clear indicator of catastrophic climate change or even a definitive marker proving man’s contribution to Global Warming is leading us to said catastrophic climate change.

Disraeli says:

04:24pm | 21/07/11

Carbon.  CO2.

ie CO2-equivalent.

In the climate change, global warming context, “Carbon”  and “CO2” are commonly short-hand for the whole group of man-made greenhouse gasses responsible for the AGW part of global warming.

That’s the man-made CO2, the CH4/Methane, the nitrous oxides/NOX and etc - gas levels that are rising as a result of our activities.

I wonder how many times this has been pointed out on the Punch and elsewhere.

Pretending its about soot, or “colourless odourless plant fertiliser” may have sounded good in the chain email, but that’s just pure 100% bovine flatus.

“CO2” and “Carbon” in the climate debate are commonly just shorthand for the whole manmade contribution.

Perhaps better to stick to “CO2-equivalent,” but try telling that to a journo.

CO2-equivalent. Look it up.

iansand says:

04:39pm | 21/07/11

But, Anubis, the basic science is simple.  And incontrovertible.

RyaN says:

05:03pm | 21/07/11

@iansand: ok iansand, so if the science is incontrovertible then please do post just one piece of peer reviewed evidence that shows a definitive human marker in global warming. Just one will do!

iansand says:

05:25pm | 21/07/11

No RyaN - As you now accept that the science is incontrovertible, perhaps you can explain where the connection between that science and AGW breaks down.

Josh says:

06:21pm | 21/07/11

1 Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

June 2011 - Prof. Nahle has replicated the 1909 Wood experiment which showed that the Greenhouse Effect inside a greenhouse is due to “the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment”

Nahle’s general conclusions:
“The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.

The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable.

In average, the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings causes an increase of temperature inside the greenhouses of 10.03 °C with respect to the surroundings temperature.”

http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf

iansand says:

06:54pm | 21/07/11

Josh - Well that proves everything, provided there is somewhere that convective heat transfer from Earth’s atmosphere can go.

Is there anything dafter than someone who gets excited by labels?  The deniers sound more and more like creationists every day.

Anthony says:

09:22pm | 21/07/11

Iansand - do you know what a logical fallacy is? There are many, and if you use them it means your theory is unsound. You may, for example, have heard of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” or “after this, so because of this”. Or perhaps “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” or “with this, so because of this” (also known as correlation does not prove causation). Everything in your unscientific theory boils down to these faults. It’s not even a theory, at best it’s an unworkable hypothesis. Now, the fallacy “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” distinguishes between correlation and causation. Monckton has a nice slide showing correlation between sun spots and republican senators if you need a more graphic example of how it works. However, there is an axiom that runs counter point to that fallacy. A lack of correlation directly implies a lack of causation. This is important because when we do actually study the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, particularly over the last decade, we see no correlation to global mean temperatures. This means, scientifically speaking, that there is no direct causative relationship between CO2 and global mean temperature. No correlation, no causation. This is what has scientists in a tither, and what is prompting the release of new peer reviewed papers showing that perhaps after all CAGW is not happening, and that maybe the planet is warming due to something other than CO2. And this is what it comes down to. Yes, CO2 does cause some warming, but it is only one factor of many that do. For example, various estimates from peer reviewed papers put the contribution to global temperatures from the sun at anywhere between 30% and 66%. Do you know why the graphs from the IPCC always tend to start at the Industrial revolution? It’s because when you look at the data before that time, you find that the planet was warming at about the same rate. Warming that cannot possibly be due to post-industrial revolution contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere because that revolution hadn’t happened yet. In fact, the planet was coming out of a mini-ice age, a global temperature low that caused the deaths of millions, in which the Thames river froze and could be skated on with no fear of falling through the ice. Going back a little further, to the previous global maximum, we find that the current temperatures as measured by satellite coverage 24/7, are only just reaching parity.

iansand says:

07:21am | 22/07/11

Anthony - Anubis will be along shortly to give you a lecture about linearity.  No doubt you are familiar with the paper that Mr Watts cites for his proposition that temperature has not risen since 1998.  Oddly enough, if you read the whole abstract (let alone the paper) the possible reason for that is set out in the actual paper.  I have no idea why Mr Watts does not mention that.

But, more seriously, in none of my propositions do I connect the propositions to anthropogenic change.  They are straight out, incontrovertible, statements of scientific principle.  With which of them do you disagree?  What I find quite interesting is that “sceptics” confronted with those propositions, immediately come to a conclusion that there is a human component to climate change.  I do not make the statement but they draw the conclusion.  I wonder why?

GB says:

12:33pm | 21/07/11

@Blind Freddy. “I will take the concensus of experts (based on evidence)”.
You mean experts like Tim Flannery?
I’ll be sure to remember that as I sit through another summer of record rainfall here in Queensland, a state he so direly predicted would be in a permanent state of drought and the dams would never ever fill again. Only for us to see Wivenhoe Dam at about 190% capacity in early January and needing a “controlled” release which flooded the city of Brisbane?
That expert?
I’ll look elsewhere for my expertise thanks.

Tim says:

12:39pm | 21/07/11

GB,
you do know the difference between weather and climate don’t you?

bobw says:

12:42pm | 21/07/11

@GB:  http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/debunking-the-bunkum-of-that-dopey-Monckton/#comment-549104

GB says:

01:11pm | 21/07/11

Ahh yes. The self appointed board leg humper. OK, Bobby Boy, I’ll play your game. Who is the Gillard appointed Head of the Climate Change Commission, whose role is, and I quote “to explain climate change and the need for a carbon price to the public”?. So in essence what you’re telling me is that she appointed this man to a $180K per year job to explain the above to us all, and he isn’t even an expert in the field? Mmmkay.

Blind Freddy says:

01:29pm | 21/07/11

@GB

One person does not make a concensus. So your reference to Tim Flannery is meaningless and irrelevant. Now, why aren’t I surprised?

GB says:

01:31pm | 21/07/11

@Tim. WTF are you talking about? Splitting hairs between “weather” and “climate”? Give me a break. He is the head of the Climate Change Commission and he made those doom and gloom statements and plenty of others to support his stance, which have since been proven to be wrong, not me. You bet I’m going to hold him accountable. After all, he is being paid 180K per year of OUR taxpayer dollars as an expert this Government has hitched their wagon to in terms of explaining this.

bobw says:

01:36pm | 21/07/11

GB:  “So in essence what you’re telling me ... “

No, in essence what I’m telling you is this—

“Flannery is not a primary source of mainstream climate change science.  Whatever you may think of him, the credibility of that science does not hinge on his personal credibility.”

—which, coincidentally, is exactly what I said in the linked post.

My point is that simply attacking Flannery is a pretty weak debating strategy, particularly when responding to a post that neither mentions him nor relies on his authority.

GB says:

01:49pm | 21/07/11

@Blind Freddy. So by consensus (note the spelling), you mean those scientists whose bullshit theories are yet to be proven wrong? Does this also mean we can leave Flannery, the guy who is advising our government on all “carbon pollution” related matters, off your consensus of experts then?

Tim says:

04:53pm | 21/07/11

GB,
you might notice words like may, might or possible in his comments.
Show me one comment where Flannery definitively predicted anything and you might have a point.

Adam Diver says:

01:27pm | 21/07/11

LOL, great comment.

Perhaps the author could also explain how our 80% reduction will conter-balance chinas 300% increase.

Fredrich hayek says:

02:16pm | 21/07/11

I don’t listen to people - I listen to what they are saying. Then I judge it on it’s merits I don’t consider the source - I don’t judge a book by it’s cover. A fact is a fact is a fact just as propaganda is propaganda.

Anthony says:

09:48pm | 21/07/11

... what?

Okay, Monckton is Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, and hereditary peer of the realm. Ex-advisor to multiple governments, a master of economics and mathematics, and a man who has spent the last two decades investigating and learning the real science behind our climate.

He is one of the few people exposing the frauds behind the CAGW scam, fraudulent behavior that is even now being prosecuted in criminal trials.

If the some of your understanding of the issue is contained in your post, you would do well to at least read something on the matter.

Tedd says:

12:27pm | 21/07/11

Evidence for that assertion would be good, Elise.

Elise says:

12:50pm | 21/07/11

The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated - see e.g. Petit et al., Nature 1999 - but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. This fact has also been explained in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It follows that the C0? greenhouse effect has not been important in the history and we shouldn’t expect that it will become important in the future.

Tedd says:

01:32pm | 21/07/11

Thanks, Elise,

the article talks about ” .. the strong correlation between atmospheric
greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature, as well
as the strong imprint of obliquity and precession in most of the
[past] climate time series.”

Yet, from the abstract, says -
“Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases [carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)] seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html

the end of the discussion says this -
“Finally, CO2 and CH4 concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed signi?cantly to the glacial–interglacial change. This correlation, together with the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today, is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of Earth’s climate.”
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/140/Nature_399429a0.pdf

Note this in that last sentence - ” .. the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today ... ”

Greta says:

12:48pm | 21/07/11

So let’s tax particulates not odourless invisible plant food

Joel B1 says:

01:06pm | 21/07/11

Which side? Not sure.

But I would only watch it if Julian Clary was moderator. He’d liven it up alright.

Grace says:

02:41pm | 21/07/11

Lindzen would win by himself - you should hear him on the canadian radio show the 5 O’Clock train. Brilliant man. Wouldn’t be head of dept at MIT if he wasn’t.

Chris L says:

03:45pm | 21/07/11

Yeah! It’s not like we elect governments to do anything!!1

Anubis says:

03:15pm | 21/07/11

I have yet to find a scientific paper that effectively refutes Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, findings that Mars is experiencing the same sort of climatic shift that the earth is.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

http://climaterealists.com/?id=4254  for full, translated paper

jf says:

02:45pm | 21/07/11

Now watch the alarmists attempt to discredit you because there’s now way you could possibly know that the earth was created on a Tuesday.

Blind Freddy says:

05:00pm | 21/07/11

Are the “alarmists” the supporters of the “ACC thesis” or the “world will end because of a price on CO2 pollution”?

jf says:

07:38pm | 21/07/11

Blind Freddy says: 05:00pm | 21/07/11

“Are the “alarmists” the supporters of the “ACC thesis” or the “world will end because of a price on CO2 pollution”?”

Definitely both BF. However I’ve not heard to many suggesting that the “world will end” because of the carbon tax.

I have, however, heard plenty that say that the world will end due to AGW. To those people I call gutless. Gutless that you don’t have the courage to call this tax for what it is and demand an immediate cessation of coal exports to China. Gutless because they won’t criticise Gillard for not immediately shutting all dirty coal power stations. In short, gutless because they are prepared to accept a solution that achieves nothing and not calling for immediate measures to halt all and any activity that contributes to the AGW that they believe is threatening humanity.

Cynical Octogenerian says:

02:23pm | 21/07/11

another green reveals his fascist self. When will Bob be setting up his Brown Shirts? I mean Getup! is just the Hitler Youth rebranded

Thomas says:

08:05pm | 21/07/11

Cynical Octogenerian As you are over 80, I’ll help you with progressing before you drop off the twig. Godwin’s law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Anthony says:

08:37pm | 21/07/11

Exactly right. But did you expect him to when all the evidence shows that the models are wrong, that catastrophic changes are not happening. The last person to attempt it - John Abraham (associate professor in some university of the states) produced what amounted to a combination of misleading statements and mis-attribution, and outright lies the extent of which you can see in the freely available reply from Monckton (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/response_to_john_abraham.html). To be honest, Abraham pulled a hit job, and Monckton tore it to pieces. This is what you get, and this is how you know who is telling the truth.

Ron V. says:

06:39pm | 21/07/11

Carl, you don’t want a group hug really. Go and give yourself an uppercut. That might wake you up and bring you back down to earth. We presently have approximately 200 active volcanos, either on land or under the sea. How much carbon do they produce?.
Ron V.

Richard says:

07:51pm | 21/07/11

Ron V, apparently around slightly less than 1% of the amount generated by man’s activities according to numerous reliable sources.  No need to give yourself an uppercut - just look it up before commenting next time.

Carl Palmer says:

09:27am | 22/07/11

@Ron V. says: 06:39pm | 21/07/11
What active volcanoes have in relation to the paragraph I quote is beyond me. Obviously tickled the only brain cell you had. Anyway, since its playtime - why don’t you sit on one of those active volcanoes and sequester the carbon dioxide up your backside, it’s the only meaningful contribution you’ll make. After that, no need for a group hug or even an uppercut, lie down and go to sleep – permanently. Bye Bye
@Richard says: 08:09pm | 21/07/11
You may find this interesting
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576447910279095574.html

Randy Oldman says:

04:39pm | 21/07/11

That’s the beauty of the scam - everything proves it. if the weather’s the same it’s carbon dioxides fault, if it’s hotter it’s co2’s fault , and of course if it’s colder we know who to blame. Shit we might as well start blaming volcanoes and tectonic movements on it as well. My wife says her PMS is caused by elevated C02, it elevates once a month of course though.

mel r says:

08:59pm | 21/07/11

@Michael’s just sayin’.  Pleased you did.  You’re right -  author does “fake respectful” at the start, and then he exposes himself as just another ignorant warmist/alarmist.  Pennies and pounds?? 
“the beauty of the scam”  says Randy Oldman.
No question

iansand says:

06:56pm | 21/07/11

It is probable, but not certain, that stepping out in front of a bus will cause you significant harm.  After all, the bus driver may brake in time.

stephen says:

07:13pm | 21/07/11

You confuse common intent with conservative inflection.
Let us make an experiment, shall we ?

Richard says:

08:00pm | 21/07/11

Stupid analogy Iansand, can we please just keep this debate based on science, not hysterical rhetoric about imminent doom?

James says:

11:52am | 22/07/11

Baa Baaa says the sheep

James1 says:

01:12pm | 26/07/11

You’re black says the pot

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

02:27pm | 22/07/11

Yes we see extreme corruption of Science by the activists in the environmental movement.

I am an environmental scientist and I believe such actions will bring loss of faith in true environmental actions.

For example the Dr Hammond, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission resigned in 1993 because the Main Committee was being taken over by some environmental activists and the recommendations of the Scientific Committee supported by 100% of the scientists were not accepted by the Main Committee of IWC. See a copy of his letter of resignation at:
http://www.highnorth.no/library/Management_Regimes/IWC/le-fr-th.htm.

Another example in whaling is the question of how to conserve the whales. The Blue whales were decimated from 1880 from about 230,000 to about 2,500 (see IWC Data) now. When that happened the much smaller Minke whales more than doubled and IWC data says there more than 500,000 Minke whales.

Bad luck for the Minke and Blue whales their common main food the krill has declined substantially because of global warming and the loss of ice in some areas in Antarctica and Arctic and this has been researched by K Atkinson of the British Antarctica Survey and published in Nature in 2004.

Ask any Australian farmer how to manage two competing species feeding on the same food supply when one species is in extreme danger like the Blue whales. He/she will tell you cull carefully the overpopulated species and let the decimated species a chance to recover.

If you believe this analysis you will encourage the Japanese to cull more of the Minke whales in the Antarctica. Sure we all including scientists working in this area can respect the views of anyone who is against culling of whales on Ethical grounds. If the main objective to stop the extinction of whales then we have to accept the fact that the only way we humans can help prevent the extinction of the majestic and largest whales, the Blue whales is to cull the Minke whales. Did the Greens and fellow travelers claim they want to save whales from extinction? So sad,,,for the most endangered whale species the Blue whales their so called friends are kicking them into extinction.

Ron V. says:

01:14pm | 22/07/11

Dodge you have missed the point. No one is saying that climate does not change. It is just that we don’t want to see our country go to the wall by having carbon tax introduced. And don’t forget that most of the scientific bodies who promote this carbon tax solution are on the public payroll, world over.
Ron V.

Hugo says:

02:54pm | 22/07/11

“Maybe next time I write a piece for The Punch I’ll choose a topic I know nothing about.” - it seems that you already have.

sylvie says:

03:18pm | 22/07/11

@Hugo.  Hear! hear!

melle says:

03:24pm | 22/07/11

D Sag,  Next time, leave out ‘ratbag’ and ‘nutter’ from your piece, and you might be read with a scintilla of respect.
Low-class insults don’t fit with foolish “shining bright” messages.

The game is up

PAYG says:

10:11pm | 22/07/11

Dave,

Hiding behind Malcolm’s skirt dose not excuse your ill-informed elitist outburst.  If you can only argue a point by devaluing another’s reputation, and without any facts that may rebut your opinion in the first instance, then you are nothing more than a carpetbagger.