The introduction of the CPRS Bill or the ETS, whichever you choose to call it, is a mechanism where the Government will collect in excess of $70 billion tax revenue in the first six years and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars thereafter.

Even watching this will cost you money with the ETS

The commission earned by bankers and brokers will amount to multiple billions of dollars and the financial imperative for them to support the scheme is overwhelming.

This new tax will not save the Great Barrier Reef; it is not going to end the droughts; it will neither contribute to Greenland freezing nor thawing.

It will have no effect on species extinction or any other calamity that is utilised, by those in support of the scheme, as a mechanism to advocate for its introduction.

In round about terms, the CPRS will lead to a 5 per cent reduction, on a nation that only produces 1.4 per cent of carbon emissions, from a species, humans, that are only responsible for approximately 3 per cent of emissions (the other 97% produced by natural occurrences such as volcanoes, bushfires and ocean degassing) for a substance, carbon dioxide, that is only 380 parts per million of the air we breathe.

This means the CPRS will change the air we breathe by 0.0000000978 of 1%.

The CPRS did not include all of agriculture at the start and neither will the amendments exempt agriculture.

Everything from fertilizer, to electricity, to steel, to transport, to dairy processing, to meat processing, to grain milling, will all still be in.

The National Farmers Federation has come to a remarkable philosophical point where they believe the ETS is just, as long as they are just excluded.

No doubt there are many people who agree to taxes when it excludes them.

For those not on the land, it will be a revenue collector for the Tax Commissioner.

Every food item you eat, every holiday you take, every house you build, in fact basically everything, will be affected by the tax and will increase the cost to you, the consumer.

The ETS is an insidious tax, in that you pay it in virtually every aspect of your life.

When you iron your children’s clothes, you will be paying it.

When the fridge runs through the night keeping the butter cold, you will be paying it.

When you turn on the television to watch the Saturday afternoon game, you will be paying it.

In the first week, over 11 and half thousand people have signed my online petition condemning the ETS. This is an amazing response.

From my time of lobbying on talkback radio, from 4BC, 2UE, 2GB, 3AW, 5AA, 6PR and even on the ABC, I have been overwhelmed at the resentment that this new tax has stirred in the Australian public.

The Australian Labor Party has premised the rebuttal of their argument claiming that I am a fear monger, whilst their debate comes embellished with every reference of every cataclysmic event and holding up those who dare question them as responsible for these events.

It is the Labor Party who has continued their obnoxious reference to rising sea levels, when the ETS will do nothing to affect sea levels.

One can only ponder how the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef would be remedied by a tax.

Proclamations of the extinction of species and the virtual cessation of life as we know it, is what I would call fear mongering and this is the endorsement Labor offers.

Although I am reticent to say so, for those who accuse me of being derelict because the National Party did not chapter and verse agree with their dire protestations of imminent global demise, I would say in the National Party’s defence that if you truly believe in the doomsday predictions of Al Gore and Professor Ross Garneau, then I suppose you should be supporting the Greens.

The Labor Party and Minister Wong have delivered Australia to a righteous twilight zone, where if everything they predict is right they haven’t gone far enough and so what they have delivered is of no real consequential effect, apart from the revenue raising capacity of a massive new tax.

Taxation itself is a regressive mechanism, not an inspiration mechanism. Henry Ford was not inspired by a tax; Bill Gates does not put his success down to a tax.

The only thing a new tax will inspire is tax evasion and the rest of the world will carry on precisely as it has before.

Unfortunately, the way to avoid this tax is to avoid Australia and that is what industry and opportunity will do.

I do not put much faith in the idea that once the tax is in place this philosophical prickle patch will deliver much long term comfort. Piece by piece regulatory instalments will come creeping further back into agriculture, on top of the sections already mentioned.

After five weeks of negotiation, Penny Wong has not been able to deliver one constructive pen-on-paper article of amendments.

We have had a verbal warrant that it will exempt agriculture and that there will be carbon offsets but no one can direct me to where we can read or closely examine this exemption.

With the end of Parliament drawing near, there is limited capacity for proper discussion of the amendments to the CPRS, which is one of the most major and obnoxious pieces of legislation in recent Parliamentary history. 

This does not surprise me.

Everything about the ETS process has been misleading, mischievous and duplicitous and it appears that this will remain until the bitter end.

136 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • alteria says:

      05:03am | 19/11/09

      Do what you like, Barnaby. Although over-represented in Parliament, those who believe no action is necessary on climate change are a lunatic fringe. They are likely to lose any influence over the policy debate as time wears on and evidence for action becomes even clearer to the non-blinkered.

    • Patrick says:

      06:01am | 19/11/09

      You speak of climate change fear mongering but you are very keen to engage in some fear mongering of your own. WATCHING YOUR TELEVISION WILL COST MORE!! Shock, horror! Shout the word TAX long enough and hope that people get frightened by it.

      After watching the misleading crap you have been spouting to people in rural communities on four corners you lose most of your credibility, if you hadn’t already lost it when you threw your hat in with the climate change denialist camp.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      06:07am | 19/11/09

      Bull shi* alteria, you have no idea what you are talking about. You will be pulling your foot out from your mouth not too far down the track. Have a listen to this-
      http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998
      The science is not in and more and more scientists every day are now coming out and saying this is a crock of shit. Pleas listen to the interview with Lord Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher.. This bloke is not a fool! This is some scary stuff people and I worry for our future. They have just proven that carbon escapes the atmosphere. Scientists make a lot of money out of scaring the population. Barnaby, this is starting to turn your way, contrary to what you may read here.. We are being misled by Rudd. If we sign off at Copenhagen then we are stuffed. As a skeptic of “man made climate change”  I read as much as I can about this subject and the more I read the more worried I get. Why doesn’t Rudd talk about the UN treaty that he is about to sign? Why don’t the Opposition talk about this treaty?
      NWO????????

      Come on Barnaby, get at em .

    • Matt says:

      06:11am | 19/11/09

      THE EARTH IS FLAT! THE EARTH IS FLAT!

    • iansand says:

      06:12am | 19/11/09

      So, Barnaby, what is your plan to reduce carbon emissions?

    • dan says:

      06:13am | 19/11/09

      Well said Barnaby some great points there. What are they going to do with the money anyway?

    • steve says:

      06:38am | 19/11/09

      Why on earth would they want to cut our economy’s throat with something that will have no effect on any part of the climate. Even if Australia sat in our lounge room ate gyprock and held our breath till we all died, this would make absolutely no difference to the climate. As time wears on and evidence becomes clearer that man’s influence on the weather is next to nothing

    • Kia says:

      06:38am | 19/11/09

      More tax to give labor more money to waste? Are we a nation of idiots to fall for rudd’s spin and propaganda? The answer is yes, no wonder we have no respect in the asia pacific region.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:40am | 19/11/09

      About the only thing I agree with you is the potential for bankers and investment funds to rort the system. A cap and trade system like CPRS is a quantity instrument where the overall limit of pollution is set by the government and the future value of permits traded is determined by the market volitility. An emission tax is a price instrument where the cost of polluting is set by the government instead of the overall quantity. It is said to be less efficient than CPRS since emission levels will vary according to economic activity, however the costs of emission can be factored into planning and so provides greater certainty.
      If you don’t know the difference between a cap and trade system and an emissions tax, Barnaby Joyce, as your article clearly demonstrates, what makes you qualified to vote on CPRS legislation? (apart from the fact that most MPs are ignorant and unqualified to vote on much legislation these days)

    • Old Clive says:

      06:42am | 19/11/09

      You might as well save your breath Barnaby, if the people were stupid enough to believe the scare campaign that put Rudd into office, they are going to believe anything no matter how ridiculous it is, as long as it comes from the mouth of their GOD, any sane person knows that the cavemen are responsible for air polution because they rubbed two sticks together, sure we have added to it, but the problem will not be eliminated until they stop the earth from wobbling on it’s axis and stop the magnetic drift at the same time, but then again until Rudd says it it is not true.

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      06:43am | 19/11/09

      Proponents of the CPRS et al seem to have resorted to emotional name calling, the argument must be close to over!

      MIT have just thrown a hand grenade into the debate by disproving CO2 affects retention of solar radiation on a linear basis using ACTUAL satellite data, not theoretical models. This report is currently being passed around the IPCC like a hot potato, just wait. Science is not a popularity contest.

    • Toddzilla says:

      06:51am | 19/11/09

      Am yet to hear one climate change believer present anything even close to evidence that carbon is causing climate change. In fact, none of the science even suggests it. Besides if they are truly committed to the cause, the believers, as carbon breathing organisms, would top themselves. It’s one sure fire way to increase the nation’s average IQ.

    • acker says:

      06:55am | 19/11/09

      Barnaby you mention in your article

      “The ETS is an insidious tax, in that you pay it in virtually every aspect of your life”

      if I changed one letter and swapped the places of 2 letters would you also agree that

      “The GST is an insidious tax, in that you pay it in virtually every aspect of your life”

      My personal point of view is that me, you and our fellow Australians are per head producing about 6-7 times more green house gas emissions than your average punter in China or India who make up about one third of the worlds population. I don’t mind paying my dues for the privilege.

      By the way I’m from a rural area, and we had a minimum overnight temperature of 30 degrees last night and we are expecting a top of around the mid 40’s today. And it is not summer yet.

      I think you and Nick Minchin might want to re-visit your global warming theories Barnaby.

    • WHR says:

      07:00am | 19/11/09

      An ETS is not the most effective method of reducing CO2 emissions. It is simply a massive tax which will only reduce emissions if it destroys the economy in its wake. I know some environmentalists (former socialists who have been angsty ever since the Berlin Wall fell) would love this but most of the people that matter in elections do not wish to see this.

      If you want to reduce emissions you invest in new sources of energy and efficiency improvements to improve best practice across industry.

    • Suzuki says:

      07:02am | 19/11/09

      It seems that rational debate about climate change is impossible, as the carbonistas try to shout down anybody who doesn’t share their religious fervour.

      Sensible people with no particular axe to grind, or book to talk, have noticed a couple of interesting points:

      Many carbonistas have a direct interest in the issue.  They work in some academic or financial sector which stands to get a lot of money, or they are politically motivated by the huge tax flow which will be imposed in the hysteria being generated about climate.  All these costs will come straight out of everybody’s pockets, every day.

      Also, some of the carbonistas have an appalling record of false predictions, exaggerations and outright lies.  Enough time has now passed for us to see that dire changes have not happened.  The slight variations that have been observed are well within known cycles, and with no real evidence of being linked to human activity.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      07:08am | 19/11/09

      “Matt says, THE EARTH IS FLAT! THE EARTH IS FLAT!”
      For how many years did scientists make that claim? Does nothing for your argument does it?
      “iansand says,So, Barnaby, what is your plan to reduce carbon emissions?”
      You should look a little harder at this ETS! I’m not saying it is not a good thing to reduce carbon or clean the mess up we have made on this planet. My opinion is it won’t stop global warming and more and more feel the same daily. Will this ETS achieve a cooler world? Nope! This is a UN treaty that takes control of everything. We take money from developed countries and we pass it over to developing countries who won’t have to do a thing to reduce their omissions. Why is that? I started off a true believer in carbon being the devils own work. “An inconvenient truth” had me hook line and sinker. That was when I had my blinkers on. Sorry Barnaby but I used to think you were a bit of a joke! You have proven yourself to be smarter than most of them. To refuse to sign off in this nonsense will damage the coalition no doubt. Maybe the next election will be lost but by the next one all this crap will be brought to light about this ETS. Your party will then sweep into power with an overall majority in both houses and the Labor party, its people and it’s brand will be torn to pieces by an unforgiving populace..
      Thats my Nostradamus prediction…....

    • coxie says:

      07:15am | 19/11/09

      Barnaby, you have my absolute and unequivocal support: the quintessential issue is, and something that KRudd’s lot and other bloggers totally ignore, anything that Australia does, including everything possible as a nation, will make not make one zot of difference (that is, something measurable) to the impact on the temperature of the ‘3rd rock from the sun’.

    • grumpy says:

      07:20am | 19/11/09

      This is nothing more than a pile of bollocks.

      Yes Barnaby, as @iansand asks, what is your plan to reduce emissions? Perhaps the pretty please approach?

      If you don’t believe emissions need to be reduced that is your right. Personally I think you’re mad, but I didn’t need to read this to get to that conclusion.

      If you think emissions DO need to be reduced then the CPRS, expensive as it may be, is, plain and simply, the cheapest way of getting there. Everyone who has looked at this issue in any detail in Australia has reached this same conclusion. Sure, the different political parties have had different schemes, in much the same way as a blue car is different than a red car.

      Its the best option - the States and Territories taskforce said so, your former Government said so when it got the Shergold report, Garnaut said so and now the current Government is saying so.

      Pulling agriculture out, or forcing the Government to do so, was stupid.

      Pass the thing as it is now or get out of the way.

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:22am | 19/11/09

      Anyone else notice how the AGWers don’t call sceptics “dinosaurs” anymore?

      Could it be because scientists can’t agree whether dinosaurs where cold or hot blooded? And just like AGW most people “believed” the consensus that dinos were cold-blooded reptiles. And just like AGW, this turns out to be not quite true…

      And if scientist got that wrong after centuries of study why do you believe that scientist have got AGW right after only a few decades of study?

      The answer is people need doomsayers to give their secular lives meaning.

    • AFR says:

      07:38am | 19/11/09

      Wayne, its a bit hard to take anyone seriously who uses 2gb as a source for their arguments.

    • shabangabang says:

      07:42am | 19/11/09

      Well done Barnaby for passing all responsibility for change over to your and my children. What sort of a parent are you?

    • DG says:

      07:49am | 19/11/09

      @iansand (07:12am | 19/11/09)

      I think a reasonable argument can be made that a person who states that this is all about “1.4 per cent of carbon emissions, from a species, humans, that are only responsible for approximately 3 per cent of emissions (the other 97% produced by natural occurrences such as volcanoes, bushfires and ocean degassing) for a substance, carbon dioxide, that is only 380 parts per million of the air we breathe” doesn’t think that it is a problem.

      Barnaby’s plan is to do nothing. It’s SEP*.

      @Wayne Hutchins (07:07am | 19/11/09)
      “Why doesn’t Rudd talk about the UN treaty that he is about to sign? Why don’t the Opposition talk about this treaty? “

      Now if it were only one side that wasn’t willing to talk about it I would be suspicious. Instead NEITHER side is willing to talk about it. This means that either there is nothing questionable about it at all or that both parties are looking to benefit from it. Personally I suspect the latter - if it is unsuccessful in reducing emissions, at least it will make a handy little tax benefit that can go to paying off Govt debts, improving infrastructure and services and maybe contribute to further income tax cuts (if that’s your preference).

      Basically, what is proposed is a user pays tax - if you produce product X, you pay tax. Why is everyone up in arms? I would have thought that the Libs would love it. User pays… Isn’t that their motto? If you don’t want to pay the tax don’t use the products.

      ————————————
      I agree that we are talking about a very minor change here, but we have all heard about the straw that breaks the camels back - human made C02 could be that straw.

      Will it be as disastrous as advertised? No idea.

      Would I like to keep pumping CFC’s into the atmosphere to see if the disastrous effects of a hole in the ozone layer as as bad as feared? No.

      Would I rather pay more to keep the world how it is now, than to run the risk of screwing things up? Yes.

      As above, this will be a user pays scenario, one can opt out of paying this tax by reducing their reliance on the creation of that product. Simple.

      * Somebody Else’s Problem

    • Maq says:

      08:00am | 19/11/09

      Barnaby - If the CPRS means people go back to drying clothes on their washing line, instead of in the dryer, go to a game of footy instead of watching it on television, purchase technology that uses less energy, eat locally grown food that hasn’t been transported 2000km, build houses that use less energy (through better positioning, smaller size, water efficiency, insulation, solar hot water), aren’t these good things? How else do we drive these changes, on a large scale, without disincentives for not changing?

      The tax will not be a burden to people willing to alter their habits for the good of everyone. You seem to presume that the best option is to continue living in a dream world where resources are infinite and the planet can continue supporting more and more humans.

      Here’s the reality - resources are finite, so start thinking about how we can use less. If you can come up with a way to do it outside of the taxation system, great - write an article about it, put your ideas to parliament, stand on street corners and scream your lungs out. But if you can’t be constructive and put your own ideas forward, get behind the CPRS. It may be full of holes, but it’s all we’ve got at the moment.

    • Soultrader says:

      08:04am | 19/11/09

      Insulting each other really does not inspire solutions to any problems that we may face. Senator Xenophon supposedly succeeded in getting some concessions for the Mrray for supporting that stupid stimulus package that we will pay for for generations. What has happened with the Muarray River. A BIG FAT ZERO. We can not trust the rhetoric of this government. They are long on spin and short on delivery. The CPRS / ETS is an ill-thought out proposal. The climate changes therefore we have climate change. We do not need another tax to fund jobs for their buddies - they already give their friends and relatives jobs. Wake Up Australia. Don’t be fooled by these fools. Do your own research. The earth will keep turning. The sun will rise. This country was hot, dry, flooding, windy, sparse - long before we got here and will be long after we are gone.

    • Justin Turner says:

      08:09am | 19/11/09

      To the true believers wedded to an ETS, think about this.

      The drivers of an ETS (the Government) have approved or allowed the states to ramp up exports of every greenhouse gas producing resource we have. Newcastle harbour is building an extra coal loader to make the highest volume coal exporting port in the world even bigger. Coal exploration & mining is expanding in NSW & Qld. Victoria has announced that it will export brown coal to India. BROWN COAL! THE WORST KIND! Off-shore oil & gas exploration is going gangbusters. We know oil is evil, but gas, despite the greenwash it’s had, ISN’T GREEN! Yet we have the government trumpeting new multi-billion dollar deals to sell & supply it for decades to come.

      Which ever way you look at it, that’s a government with its foot to the floor on the emissions accelerator.

      Then we have the ETS. An attempt to brush the brake pedal so that those following see your brake lights come on & will hopefully put theirs on, but if they do, aren’t they going to wonder why you’re still roaring away?

      And what about the UNs grab for 0.7% of our GDP (currently about $7 billion per year)? Over the last 30 years they’ve attempted to extract this exact amount out of Western nations under any number of different guises. Isn’t it remarkable that all the World’s problems can always be fixed by the exact same amount? Isn’t it also remarkable that they’re not still asking for this amount for those previous problems?

      There’s nothing wrong with pushing for a greener, more sustainable society, but this simply can’t deliver it. What it can deliver is more expensive just about everything.

    • Skeptical says:

      08:20am | 19/11/09

      There always has and always will be scaremongering by governments and this is most significant as it will whack us all in the hip pocket, it is just crap!I am so sick of the hypocrisy in this industry. I work with a bunch of climate change activists who bang on about climate change, and jump on a plane flying all around the globe to sprout the rot! I am jack of it. Lets hope we don’t sign off in Copenhagen or we are all stuffed!!

    • alteria says:

      08:26am | 19/11/09

      Wayne Hutchings, maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about (and I reckon, neither do you) but I have been around the internet and this CC debate to know not to be conned by someone who posts some link that they claim disproves the whole thing. I prefer to follow instead the thousands of scientific papers published every year that add more evidence to AGW theory, and the views of the established scientific institutions all around the world that support it. Apart from a few maverick scientists (who have not published any research disproving the theory) and some rabid media commentators and politicians like Sen Joyce, there is no backing for the sceptic’s view.

    • Macca says:

      08:40am | 19/11/09

      Whilst I may not agree with Barnaby, he has more conviction than anyone else in Canberra. Pleasing to see someone stand up for what they believe in, rather than pandering to the duped masses

      @iansand
      “In round about terms, the CPRS will lead to a 5 per cent reduction, on a nation that only produces 1.4 per cent of carbon emissions, from a species, humans, that are only responsible for approximately 3 per cent of emissions (the other 97% produced by natural occurrences such as volcanoes, bushfires and ocean degassing) for a substance, carbon dioxide, that is only 380 parts per million of the air we breathe.

      This means the CPRS will change the air we breathe by 0.0000000978 of 1%”.

      I’m guessing that would be Barnaby’s answer.

      I wish someone from the government would talk some sense and give us some data around the ETS, instead of crap rhetoric.

    • Charles says:

      08:50am | 19/11/09

      Keep sticking it to them Baranaby, at some stage even those (I’m starting with Rudd and Wong) who hide from reality will discover what a load of crap the AGW hoax/scam is.  What is surprising though is those idiots who truly despise those such as Big Bankers, Big Accountants and Big Lawyers are so happy to hand them over so much of our treasure to elevate them even further above us in our society for no particular reason at all.

      There must be a psychosis that has a name for when you aid and abet those you hate the most, just so you can wear a hair shirt for a non-problem.

    • hoofman says:

      08:58am | 19/11/09

      iansand - you’re question to Barnaby is a waste of time. He’s a believer that climate change is all a left wing plot and we should gamble with our future instead of taking action. dan - don’t be lazy - inform yourself - the CPRS aims to transfer money from ‘old’ carbon using power generation to renewable energy.

    • Joe says:

      09:01am | 19/11/09

      I totally agree with you Barnaby. Human Carbon Emissions are not warming the planet to its death. And if you do believe they are then Rudd is just bringing in a new tax. You would need to follow the extreme Greens recomendations to have any effect. Rudd wont save us. Keep up the good work Barnaby.

    • thatmosis says:

      09:13am | 19/11/09

      I f there is anybody out there that cannot see that the ETS or whatever it will be called is just a Tax then I feel sorry for them. We are being fed copious amounts of misinformation and lies from the likes of Wong and Krudd so they can push this onerous Tax through. There would be no safeguards on this tax and it will not do a thing for the planet but make the Government /Bankers/Accountants and Lawyers richer all at our expense. The real worry is that it in reality a duplicate GST but without the safeguards that the GST has. At any time the Government could raise the amount per whatever to whatever amount they need to fund their excesses and we the public have no say on it at all. Beware people a new Tax is just around the corner that can and will cause prices across the board to soar unless Barnaby and Co can sucessfully block it in the Senate. Time to write to your local member and remind him that he still relies on your vote to continue in office.

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:19am | 19/11/09

      “There must be a psychosis that has a name for when you aid and abet those you hate the most, just so you can wear a hair shirt for a non-problem. “

      There is it’s called being Green…

      (BTW I can out-green any of you commenters, our life-style is soylent)

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      09:32am | 19/11/09

      There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is simply a proxy for the ‘evils’ of capitalism, hence its complete, unquestioning and loud adoption by (predominantly) those of a politically left persuasion. I’m sure the aforementioned would protest that they are simply doing what’s right, protecting the earth, securing the future for our babies and looking after all the orphan puppies, but it is their own denial of ANY questioning of CO2-driven climate change that gives the game away.

      You always know when one side of a debate knows he/she is on dodgy ground when they try to characterise their opponent’s argument in an innacurate way (i.e. by saying those opposite do not believe in climate change when in fact the resistance is to the CPRS) and squirms from one argument to another in order to evade questions. This is precisely what Rudd & co are doing when they fail to present the public with clear evidence, instead just screeching away with tired old insults.

    • Bobo says:

      09:36am | 19/11/09

      So Joe and other great minds support Barnaby. Even rolling off another right wing sheep-like slogan of “extreme greens”.

      Barnaby must be an expert in climate science and on those grounds he must be able to build my house, fix my sore ankle and help program my web site.

      Using Barnaby’s logic - small amounts of anything (including CO2) can never be harmful to anyone or anything. So a little bit of arsenic is ok, a little bit of cyanide is ok, a little bit of lead is ok and a little bit of ozone destroying CFCs is ok too?

      Using his logic all medical doctors must be wrong and any ailment is never worth consulting a doctor about—as some doctors disagree with others on all sorts of topics.Visit Barnaby and his National Party mates and they will tell you the ‘truth’.

      Keep it up Barnaby - you will certainly be remembered and named in future history books. And remember, throughout the earth’s history, (and this is fact old mate) things that don’t, or can’t adapt and change die and fall into extinction. Those who call for the status quo, be it on climate change or the republic debate, always have an agenda based on denial, mythical pasts, and self interest.

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      09:52am | 19/11/09

      Some good news from Canada:
      “Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, and that means warmer weather for a perfect family holiday is right around the corner. It’s the perfect time to plan your next vacation in the new, warmer Canada!”

      More: http://tiny.cc/bQKpj

    • Bobo says:

      09:55am | 19/11/09

      And another thing.
      Sometimes I think we are living pre-1610. Barnaby is like someone who has never owned a telescope, never understood science and has probably never really looked up into the stars above, but resists Galileo Galilei’s proof that the earth is in fact not the centre of the universe.
      Barnaby is a sheep herder who is leading the sheep, who find safety in numbers, over the cliff top, whilst all the way claiming there is no cliff and if there was cliff ahead, its only a very small fall. The scientists have maps and information to prove otherwise, but the flock continues to grow in numbers and continue with their walk into oblivion. The only problem is - the sheep are taking us with them.

    • Alex says:

      09:55am | 19/11/09

      The ETS will not reduce carbon emissions.  It’s designed not to reduce emissions, but to enable them.

      Pointing this out is called “climate change denialism”.

      The ETS is a terrible idea.  Nothing but an excuse to tax individuals and use the proceeds to bribe influential polluters.  It will enable the government to claim they are fighting climate change, when in fact they are doing the opposite.  No need to do anything positive, they’ll say, like fund renewable energy or more efficient usage - we have an ETS.

      Don’t confuse opposition to the ETS, with ignorance or denial of climate science.

    • Lenny J says:

      09:56am | 19/11/09

      The beginnings of real stewardship of this planet is to recognise that there is an enormous amount of change that has been done to the planet’s biosphere already. This means the very biosphere that supports all life.

      Look at the destruction of and damage to the natural world, its plants, trees, animals, insects, rivers, streams, oceans, fish stocks, bee population threats, etc. The biosphere is being changed enormously, it does not take a rocket scientist to work that out. It is self evident. Ask the ‘informed’ farmers and others on the land if everything is hunky dory with the natural world.
      CO2 levels are only one small part of the enormous changes already occurring that need to be addressed.
      The great disservice that Barnaby and other sceptics with only a very narrow agenda is that they are trying to deny that we need to do anything at all to preserve the natural world. This is the great underlying lie that they promote for short term political gain for themselves.

      Clearly, Barbnaby does not want to understand the science or the obvious facts staring him in the face. He has a far more short sighted and selfish agenda. Open your eyes Barnaby or get out of the way. You are stopping us beginning to address many of the biosphere issues that human have most definitely created.

    • rob says:

      09:58am | 19/11/09

      Keep up the good work Barnaby…you should be our Prime Minister..i see that Patrick has his latest rant on us non believers, he is so bitter..i fear for his health…plus history has shown us that many evil dictators have started this way…try and get a life Patrick

    • iansand says:

      10:12am | 19/11/09

      Diamantina Dick Can you provide a link to that MIT CO2 study.  For some reason New Scientist has not picked this bombshell up and I would be interested to read it.

    • Don says:

      10:13am | 19/11/09

      You may want to investigate Barnaby’s article a little better Alex. He is linking his opposition to the ETS to his denial of human induced climate change. Don’t be so naive Alex. This is just Barnaby scoring political points with his pack of followers.

    • iansand says:

      10:34am | 19/11/09

      Macca@9:40 @iansand
      “In round about terms, the CPRS will lead to a 5 per cent reduction, on a nation that only produces 1.4 per cent of carbon emissions, from a species, humans, that are only responsible for approximately 3 per cent of emissions (the other 97% produced by natural occurrences such as volcanoes, bushfires and ocean degassing) for a substance, carbon dioxide, that is only 380 parts per million of the air we breathe.

      This means the CPRS will change the air we breathe by 0.0000000978 of 1%”.

      I’m guessing that would be Barnaby’s answer”.

      You have to be very careful with these numbers.  What does 97% actually mean?  There is, and has always been, a thing called the Carbon Cycle.  Things inhale and exhale.  They grow and die.  The oceans absorb and emit CO2.  Carbon is moving through the cycle all the timme, being emitted and absorbed.  Is this Barbaby’s 97%?  I think it might be.  The Carbon Cycle was largely in balance so that the amount of carbon floating around the system stayed roughly the same.  The climate stabilises around the amount of carbon in the system, and nothing much changes from century to century.

      Around 100,000,000 +/- years ago there were some pretty major chunks of vegetation and other organisms on earth (mainly made up of carbon).  They died and became buried - sequestered - and wthe carbon they containedwas taken out of the cycle.  The sequestration occurred over millions of years.  In time, those plants and other organisms were transformed and turned into coal and oil, but they remained sequestered.

      Then the industrial revolution happened.  Over the last two centuries (an impossibly short time in geological terms) we dug up the coal and sucked out the oil.  We burned it, and the waste products of fuel that has been out of the cycle for all those millions of years have been pumped into the atmosphere in 2 centuries.

      So when Barnaby says 97% ask him what he really neans, because my guess is that all the stuff in this post is too hard for him.

    • John says:

      10:47am | 19/11/09

      Based on this comment:
      Diamantina Dick says:

      07:43am | 19/11/09

      Proponents of the CPRS et al seem to have resorted to emotional name calling, the argument must be close to over!

      The debate about climate change is definitely over as that’s all the deniers have put up - name calling.

    • Sherlock says:

      10:51am | 19/11/09

      whether or not you believe in climate change is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact if you are a climate change believer you should be even more upset at the introduction of an ETS. It’s a tax on everything that will do absolutely nothing to mitigate any effects of climate change. So we will all be paying more tax while climate change just goes on exactly the same as it is now. It won’t save the barrier reef, It won’t allow you to sunbake on Bondi Beach for a single day more and it won’t save even one polar bear.

      Perhaps those of you who are willing to pay more tax while receiving absolutely no benefit at all for it may wish to explain to the rest of us why. Because frankly we think you’re insane.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:58am | 19/11/09

      Barnaby, in his article never addresses the main question; which is, is the climate changing?  Yes or No.

      If the answer is Yes, is the change for the better or the worse?  If worse.

      What impact will it have on us and how will we (the collective), address the situation?

      It seems to me the money generated by the carbon tax will go a long way to addressing our needs caused by any change in the climate.

      But Barnaby obviously does not believe the is any change taking place, or if he does? He just doesn’t care.

    • What's fair says:

      11:00am | 19/11/09

      Greeting punchers, I shall apologize in advance for the length of this post.  I shall also make the disclaimer that I am an engineer, which may help you understand my thought process as you read this post.
      Following the global warming/climate change “debate” over the last few years have been interesting and eye opening.  I would hazard a guess that after reading many blogs/posts/comments on the issue that very few people had taken the time to investigate both sides of the argument and are content to plant themselves firmly in one camp without regard for valid points raised by both sides.
      This conundrum has made me question why “the great moral dilemma of our time” has not had a publically televised debate for all to see.  Thus we are to content ourselves with what we find on the internet.
      My research has led me to read everything from Flannery to Bolt, Gore to Monckton, Wong to Minchin, Brown to Fielding and the IPCC to Lindzen.  Mind you, it is not easy to trawl through all the mudslinging and name calling to objectively get down to proper hard facts and evidence (it is also unfortunate that our very own Prime Minister has reduced himself to name calling himself in his address to the Lowy Institute recently).  It has been worth it though as both sides raise good points and serve to demonstrate each other’s flaws and misrepresentations. 
      I would encourage everyone reading this to do the same as I have done and conduct their own research!  Don’t be duped by either side, read/watch material from both sides objectively before making up your own mind.
      At the end of this process, my personal conclusion is that ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is not real and hence an ETS/CPRS and Copenhagen Agreement is futile.
      Do the research yourself; you may come to a different conclusion.

    • Toddzilla says:

      11:21am | 19/11/09

      @iansand. It really shouldn’t surprise you to see a report raising doubts over CO2’s impact on climate change not mentioned in New Scientist. In fact, it would be more surprising if it were. AGW is the great cash cow of science and scientists have allowed themselves to be prostituted in order to perpetuate a myth that has been roundly disproved by every self-respected unfunded scientist.

      @ John A Neve - the real question is if changes are occurring to the climate (as has happened all throughout history), then what is causing this? Is it carbon? Ice core records demonstrate that carbon rises in the past have lagged behind temperatures rises by several thousand years, so there is no evidence historic or scientific link to carbon (which has been around in greater quantities in the past) as the cause of temperature rises. Also, if carbon were the cause all scientists agree it would leave an imprint in the troposphere. Despite searching for years, no such imprint has been found. Also, it has been long known that CO2 can only absorb lights from a certain range of the spectrum. CO2 levels from pre-industrial times already absorbed as much of the light from those spectrums as the sun emitted. This basically means that you can pump the atmosphere with as much CO2 as you like and it will have not one iota of difference on the climate.

      It is interested that every time this topic is raised, it is highjacked by zealots who do not know the science or have a financial interest in perpetrating the myth. Not once have they presented any evidence here today that even remotely links carbon to climate change, which is understandable because there are none. Instead, they are all willing to believe an IPCC report which was based on hand-picked data and was signed off by 12 scientists (the section on AGW at least), of which 6 disagreed and the other 6 thought man might be causing this, but couldn’t be sure.

    • DG says:

      11:27am | 19/11/09

      Lenny J (10:56am | 19/11/09)

      “Look at the destruction of and damage to the natural world, its plants, trees, animals, insects, rivers, streams, oceans, fish stocks, bee population threats, etc”

      Ummm, I think with a little bit a research you’ll find that about 99% of all life that has ever been on earth is now extinct. It’s a natural process and not something that has magically happened since the rise of humans. Not to that I am suggesting that we haven’t placed our collective foot firmly on the accelerator but the implication that these things wouldn’t be happening without human interference is to ignore the fact that evolution and extinction has been the cycle for the better part of 3.5 billion years - that’s Billion with a “B” - and could reasonably be expected to continue for the next few billion years.

      @What’s fair says (12:00pm | 19/11/09)

      I agree that there is plenty of argument both ways primarily in terms of research affirming climate change and criticism of research affirming climate change (of course this is the whole basis of science, make a proposal and let everyone else try to find the flaws). There is little doubt that the CO2 levels are rising, that global warming is a reality, that sea levels will rise food production will falter and generally things will be less pleasant.

      It appears that the main remaining question is whether humans can do anything to stop it. many suggest that it has already gone too far, others claim that our contribution is so little that it would have no net effect.

      Personally, as indicated above, figure that it is worth trying to reduce carbon usage, but not in some all out prohibition. I think a tax is a perfect solution. You can continue to produce the CO2, you just have to pay for it.

      The position seems to be this: there is some concern about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can’t really prove the source, the best guess is that humans make about 3-5% of the global CO2 emissions. We can’t be certain that reducing that amount will help (because there are so many contributing factors). We do know that increased CO2 (whatever its source) may have disastrous effects - as such we are imposing a tax. You will pay a tax for every tonne of CO2 that you produce - if you do not produce this chemical you will not pay the tax.

    • Sam says:

      11:32am | 19/11/09

      Lets remember that we produce 1.4% of the worlds emissions, becuase of the minerals that we export. If we stopped selling the natural gas, uranium, nickel, aluminium, and steel to the rest of the world, we would have a lot less Carbon Emissions.
      However, would the world be a better place?

    • hamish says:

      11:36am | 19/11/09

      One thing I would really like one of the AGW proponents on this blog to explain is what is the physical process by which carbon dioxide actually causes the earth to heat up? I have never heard this explained properly. Surely this is the key issue in the debate. I hear lots about how much the world’s going to heat up, how much sea levels are going to rise, etc, but I’m never told how carbon dioxide makes the earth hotter and how at different periods in history the atmosphere contained more carbon doxide than now but the earth was significantly colder.
      No one denies that earth’s climate changes, I have just never had explained to me how carbon dioxide, especially man’s puny contribution to carbon dioxide levels, actually makes the earth any hotter/colder/more prone to disasters, etc.
      If anyone wants to explain it, I would very much appreciate it.

    • Paul says:

      11:40am | 19/11/09

      Barnaby,

      Just wondering which constituency you are representing? Is it Queensland, the farmers, the Nationals, or some other group?

      Please let us all know

    • Macca says:

      11:44am | 19/11/09

      @what’s fair, feel like running as an independant any time soon? You and Paul Howes from the AWU could start a new coalition. “objective people who don’t talk shit”. You’ve made half the bloggers here look like a bunch of infants.

      @Bobo, ur name is almost as stupid as your comments. You sound bitter about people disagreeing with you. I like this, it makes my day enjoyable. I would say the sheep would be everyone who advocates the CPRS. In fact, the greenies deserve some credit for standing up for what they believe in, rather than accepting this legislative drivel

    • Carl Palmer says:

      11:44am | 19/11/09

      Like Wayne Hutchins 07:07am | 19/11/09 and What’s fair 12:00pm | 19/11/09 - the more I read on this topic the scarier this whole this is. It seems to me to be a sham one huge scam. You are correct more and more people are coming out and challenging that what politicians are saying is nonsense. Note I said challenge this is good and it’s something we all should continue to do.

      It is estimated that PA
      The atmosphere contains         780Gt C
      The surface ocean contains         1000 Gt C
      Vegies, soils etc contain         2000 Gt C
      Intermediate and deep oceans contain               38,000 Gt C as CO2 or CO2 hydration products
      Human contribution           8 Gt C
      Humans exhale           0.6Gt C (sceptics if you are serious stop breathing – only joking : - )
      In addition
      This is no correlation between CO2 increase and global warming.
      There is a closer correlation between solar activity and global warming.
      Between 1910 and 1940 temperatures rose whilst Hydrocarbons use was almost unchanged
      Between 1940 and 1972 temperatures fell and hydrocarbons increased by 330%
      Furthermore the magnitude of the numbers and their interaction with our environment is staggering. Human / Australian contribution is minuscule. But who really benefits – banks, financial institutions?
      Could it be that CO2 is a good thing? That the world will become greener – yes plants like CO2. Therefore the ability to grow more food will help those poor countries lift themselves out of poverty and possibly feed themselves.

      If people are serious then they would be shouting from the rooftops for the only alternative source of energy that can sustain our increasing energy requirements today and yes – that is nuclear! There are no other options today. The solar, geo stuff, wind etc etc are at best – for today - fringe solutions. Of the TOP G20 nations this country is the only one not even considering nuclear power.
      I am happy to change my position provide the material I read convinces me that “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” is here, unfortunately like What’s fair 12:00pm | 19/11/09 my research and yes it is very difficult has led me to believe that AGW is not real. 

      And finally don’t get sucked into the “Climate Change” ie is “is the climate changing” debate, these are two very different debates.

    • Joel B1 says:

      11:49am | 19/11/09

      “Barnaby,

      Just wondering which constituency you are representing? Is it Queensland, the farmers, the Nationals, or some other group?”

      That’ll be the rational people who don’t believe in the biggest scam in history.

    • Sporty says:

      11:52am | 19/11/09

      I deplore the lack of honest and robust debate on this issue.  Statements are not supported with sound scientific research.  Latest analysis of ocean probes through satellite collection of data reveal that sea temperatures are cooling.  News reporting has been highly biased, concentrating on daily temperatures etc (which are part of the natural cycle). Those who raise salient points that refute the current popularist viewpoint are spurned as idiots and trouble makers. 
      If you wish to learn about the scientific data / factors relating to the global weather patterns, at least have the integrity to visit the site below as well as listening to Lord Monckton’s speech.
      http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

      Can anyone tell me why Al Gore has bought a US$ 4(?) million condominium right next to the sea in USA if he truly believes that the sea levels will rise by even 2m - part of his condo would go under! 

      What would Australia do for energy and export $ if the coal industry were to close down tomorrow?

      So many untruths ... for what purpose? Have you taken the time to read the proposed Copenhagen/UN document that we are being asked to sign.  A very interesting document, with no debate in parliament on it and no printing of it in the press.  Is this a collusion of silence?  Why the unwillingness to keep the electorate informed?

      Ah well, this country is broke financially anyway.  Queensland is carrying the greatest debt per person.  As a nation, we have lost our vision.  We have been world leaders in innovativeness, only to see it taken overseas.  Our agricultural industry can barely survive because of taxes and regulations - yet we allow importation of products from overseas that are not subjected to the same health and food quality standards. 

      At 70, I have decided that I may as well go on the pension!!!  Why bother trying to contribute to this nation that once was so great.

    • Zeta says:

      11:52am | 19/11/09

      Barnaby, did you even read the Bill?!?!?

      This is the problem, try to explain something to politicians in 30 seconds or less and they end up giving stupid arguments. It’s like the oil crisis in the 2008 Presidential Campaign - Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, how will you address the oil shortage? McCain - “Uh, let’s lift the monitorium on off shore drilling.’ Obama - “Well, these hybrid cars sure are swell.”

      Meanwhile, ignoring the fact that Oil demand is at an all time low, supply at an all time high, but over selling on the commoditites market was leading to $4 per gallon prices across the United States. Rather than regulating commodities markets better, we end up with…. hybrid cars and more drilling. It’s staggering and depressing.

      When confronted with the complexities of Carbon Trading, we get from Rudd - “Uh, if you don’t trade credit’s we’ll all drown! lolololol XD” Joyce - “If you do, you’ll miss Masterchef because you won’t have any power!!!111oneZOMG”

      This isn’t a Carbon Tax you simpering idiots. It’s the overnight creation of a commodities market at the express request of Wall Street.

      They’ve spent the last 2 decades as ‘giant vampire squids wrapped around the world, sticking their blood funnels into anything that smells like money’, only now, the money is drying up. They crashed the NASDAQ with initial public offerings, they crashed the property markets with subprime consolidated debt obligations, they crashed the oil market by trading more oil than there is actual oil, or ever will be, and now they’ve run out of markets to rape and pillage.

      So they’re creating a new one, with a guaranteed return, and they’re all in on the ground floor.

      The new carbon credit market will be no different to the commodities markets that have been exploited so far, except that the rise in prices will be government-mandated, which means the big players, who got fat off people’s misery over the last decade, won’t even need to resort to securities fraud to rig the game.

      They’ll bundle up the carbon credits any way they can, and sell them to who ever is stupid enough to want them. Then when the bottom falls out of this artificial market, we’ll be stuck footing the Bill.

      We need to take action on climate change. But handing over this many trillions of dollars to the big banks sure isn’t it.

    • alteria says:

      11:58am | 19/11/09

      hamish - in a nutshell, CO2, methane and other gases form a layer in the upper atmosphere. Solar radiation in its various wavelengths pass through but when the radiation is reflected back off the earth, some of the radiation does not pass through, and stays to warm the atmosphere. A similar effect occurs with glass which is used in greenhouses for plant growth. Hence, the ‘greenhouse effect’. Measurements in the atmosphere over time, and in the polar ice core, demonstrate an elevated level of greenhouse gases in the past 200 years or so, corresponding with modern industrialisation.

      There have been similar periods of high greenhouse gas levels and corresponding warmer average temperatures, but these occurred very long ago and the changes were far more gradual than what is being measured now.

      Climate change denial takes many forms: there is no greenhouse effect; there is no elevated level of greenhouse gas; the climate is not warming; climate change is natural; there is climate change but not man made etc etc. Unfortunately the burden of evidence is that human generation of greenhouse gases is having a dangerous and possibly irreversible effect on the earth’s atmosphere. Do we want to take a gamble on the increasingly unlikely event that the predictions based on this evidence are wrong?

    • iansand says:

      12:24pm | 19/11/09

      Hamish@12:36 That’s easy.  Radiation entering the system from the Sun is (relatively) short wavelength.  The radiation that the Earth re-radiates (to lose it from the system) is longer wavelength.  CO2 in the atmosphere allows short wavelengths to enter, but restricts the re-radiation of longer wavelengths, trapping heat and warming the atmosphere.  Exactly the way that the glass or plastic in a greenhouse traps heat, which is why it is called the Greenhouse Effect.

    • Haggis says:

      12:29pm | 19/11/09

      Nuclear fusion, anyone?

    • Huddo says:

      12:34pm | 19/11/09

      I think hamish has nailed it.  No-one has yet been able to explain to me the physical process whereby Co2 heats the atmosphere. I know originally it was assumed that there would be a heating of the upper troposphere and a positive feedback would mean it gets hotter and hotter.  However, 30 years of satellite readings have confirmed that there has been no change in the troposphere, even as CO2 levels have increased.  Also it now appears that the feedback is negative due to increased cloud formation.  The Earth originally had around 8000ppm CO2 which reduced down to about 200ppm over several billion years. It now around 350 ppm.  Can someone tell me why the planet was not continually overheating for most of its existence when CO2 levels were much higher?  Why does CO2 only have this heating effect now?
      I can recall about 30 years ago there were concerns that the slow reduction in CO2 levels would eventually lead to extinction of all life on earth as plants would not have enough CO2 to breathe in (meaning no Oxygen breathed out).  This was called Carbon Poverty.
      If someone could explain these things to me there would be one less skeptic.  Unfortunately the only response I have had when I raise these issues with the true believers is abuse and claims of a scientific consensus.  History is full of consensus science that turned out to be completely wrong….
      If “The Science” is settled, why can no-one explain it and why will the consensus scientists not debate the skeptics?  I have a hunch that some people have grabbed a Tiger by the tail and they know that if they let go they are finished.

    • iansand says:

      12:38pm | 19/11/09

      Toddzilla@12:21 If New Scientist did not report it I would be very surprised.  But why wait for a secondary source.  Someone must have a link to this groundbreaking study.  It will overturn an often tested and well understood mechanism that has been observed for over 150 years, and quantified for around 100.

    • Alex says:

      12:40pm | 19/11/09

      Don, I wasn’t defending Barnaby’s statements.  I was pointing out that anyone who opposes the ETS - for whatever reason - is accused of being a climate denialist.

      You’ve proven my point, by putting Barnaby’s words in my mouth, even though I stated the opposite.

      Opposition to an ETS is not ignorance or denial of climate science.  Supporting the ETS is not supporting the environment.  ETS is smoke and mirrors that will make things worse, not better.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      12:51pm | 19/11/09

      Hamish, carbon makes a minor difference to the earths temp. Prof Richard Lindzen and Yang-Sang Choi have, by using satellites just proven that carbon escapes the earths atmosphere and has negligible effect on the climate. If true, the entire global warming edifice crumbles. This is actual science not something based on best guess as is with the IPCC. The science was never in! If Gillard says that one more time I will be sick.
      What no one is talking about is the UN treaty. There is no get out clause here. Our democracy will be given away. The terms of this treaty override our constitution and Rudd is not talking about it. How can people be so blind to what is going on around them.

    • Don Clark says:

      12:53pm | 19/11/09

      For Hamish , 12:36, on how CO2 causes the earth to heat up. It’s called the Greenhouse effect. CO2 and “carbon” are bot shorthand for the range of contibutors. Here’s one explanation of how it all works (and regardless of where the gases came from).

      Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted
      by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and
      by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward
      to the Earth’s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the
      surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.

      Greenhouse gases are those parts of the atmosphere, both
      natural and man-made, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the
      Earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes
      the greenhouse effect. Water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous
      oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse
      gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

      Human activities result in emissions of four long-lived Greenhouse gases:
      CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and halocarbons (a group
      of gases containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Atmospheric
      concentrations of Greenhouse gases increase when emissions are larger than removal processes.

      Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of Greenhouse gases and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the
      climate system and are drivers of climate change. They affect the
      absorption, scattering and emission of radiation within the atmosphere
      and at the Earth’s surface. The resulting positive or negative
      changes in energy balance due to these factors are expressed as
      radiative forcing, which is used to compare warming or cooling
      influences on global climate.

      Source: IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

      By the way, it is really quite mischievous to pretend that the reports and conferences of the IPCC are some how a conspiracy, or a concoction by a minority. Their publicationsreflects a great many contributions, fully agreed upon before release, all fully and carefully carefully sourced, and very carefully qualified, and presented without hysterics or finger-wagging.

    • Nathan says:

      01:42pm | 19/11/09

      The only way we can reduce carbon emissions is on large scale projects that address the need to produce safe and clean energy. Wind farms, nuclear power which has been used safely in Europe for decades… They are the real things that will make a real difference.

      By why won’t the government go down these paths? One word; MONEY. The government is not willing to spend the money required to setup these projects, and are instead getting the average Australian to pay for them out of his/her own pocket. Even with at ETS, what will change? We will still continue to burn coal and oil as part of our daily lives, only we will pay more for everything.

      I’m not denying there’s a problem and it needs to be addressed, but the only way is to tackle climate change on an industrial level, and with the millions (possibily billions) of dollars required to do this, the goverment is not willing to budge.

      One example stands clear; why, if nuclear power is so evil and unsafe, are we selling uranium to other countries such as China?

      One word: MONEY.

    • ANDIKA says:

      01:52pm | 19/11/09

      Why is it that, although people seem to rely on the IPCC reports, they ignore the following from the IPCC.
      ‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’  IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774)

      Surely this quote from the climate change zealot’s very own handbook, the IPCC, proves they are all talking through their backsides.

      Climate Change is as natural as the Sun rising in the East, but if you accept the views of the pro climate change propagandists, you’d believe the Sun rises from the West.

      Notice also if you should happen to have a different opinion about climate change you are immediately branded a heretic, as Rudd so eloquently did on November 7. It’s typical Marxism behavior, whereby if you control the language you control the debate and that’s what the hordes of climate change supporters like Rudd and Wong are doing right now.
      Make no mistake; the fascists and Marxists have hijacked the climate change agenda as it provides the perfect cover for them to spread their twisted socialistic ideals to the West.

      Now to just prove that this whole climate change debate has been hijacked, read some of the more enlightened quotes from some of the zealots

      “We, in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year old children to Asian brothels.”
      - Mr. Carl Amery of the Green Party, April 1983

      “They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value - to me - than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line - about a billion years ago - we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
      - Biologist Dr. David Graber (U.S. National Park Service), 22 October 1989

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
      - Mr. Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General’s office, 1 September 1997.

      ‘Ms. Sandra Kanck, from Sustainable Population Australia said that it is critical that the world keeps CO2emissions below 450 ppm or below 2oC warming.’
      “Once we go above that we will experience positive feedbacks such as release of methane from the tundra and loss of albedo as ice melts in the Arctic. Yet if we continue with business-as-usual, and that includes continued population growth, we will head for the higher end of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projections of six degrees or more.
      That will ensure the end of civilisation as we know it.”
      - Ms. Sandra Kanck, Sustainable Population Australia, 21 April 2009

      You read the theme!
      So you see, the 1st stage is to reduce capital flows (which is precisely what and ETS will do) and next stage is to eventually put controls on the human race itself. Don’t laugh; just wait until we all are issued with our own personal CARBON quotas.

      I’m so glad there are people like Barney Joyce who are unafraid to speak about the biggest con in human history. Just like Y2K was a con, this is no different except it will hurt you and your family.

    • steves_8@hotmail.com says:

      01:55pm | 19/11/09

      Those of you who think that a carbon tax, even if it proves useless in ‘fixing’ the climate, is a good thing anyway, because our beloved (and entirely trustworthy) politicians will spend the HUUUUGE revenues thus collected on ‘worthwhile’ causes and projects.

      Now I know, without any shadow of doubt, that you lot are barking mad wink

    • Daniel says:

      02:06pm | 19/11/09

      Somebody can’t spell Ross Garnaut’s name.

      Barnaby has a good point that the ETS will have minimal impact on global warming, and it’s fair enough to put that point forward when addressing global warming is the main argument that the government advances in *favour* of the ETS.  But as much as the government knows climate change is a major political issue, it also makes the global warming argument to exploit the Coalition’s disunity.

      The fact is that the ETS is sensible economic policy because it taxes finite resources, and thereby incentivises innovation in renewable resources instead.  Barnaby doesn’t spend much time answering this except to suggest that taxes in these areas will send industries overseas.  This is a great argument because energy industries are easy to move overseas, and an Australia that has nobody left to supply its electricity is a very reasonable scenario.  The rest of Barnaby’s article is an attempt to remind everyone that we don’t like tax.  Well, this might work.  But if it’s as “insidious” as he makes it sound, then, doesn’t that mean “painless”?

    • E says:

      02:22pm | 19/11/09

      When I was a schoolboy , 20 years ago, we were taught about the terrors of global warming as fact. We were propogandised from a young age to believe that this was scientific fact.
      And I joined the Greens, and fought what I thought was the good fight.
      Then the lies started to creep through, the little inconsistancies on the part of AGW zealots. All who are willing to use lies to promote their point of view are deceivers and are acting for their own advantage, not the listeners.
      The faked hockey stick, now Gore has to fall back on AGW being a spiritual quest, because the facts arent enough to convince people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate), espessially the fact that CO2 can only contribute 40% to AGW with the rest being soot and other chemicals.

      So lets look at this ... a multi billion dollar tax on ordinary people, to siphon money into the hands of bankers. Didnt we just do that? Wasnt that the GFC? Oh ok the bankers want more?

      Al Gores wealth comes from oil, his family is an old oil family, and he is a part owner of the carbon credits trading exchanges in many countries.

      Rudd is a fool playing to political advantage. He doesnt care if CO2 is a problem, he just knows that acting like he cares might get him elected again.

      Joyce, I used to think you were a fool, but it was me. Keep going and lets stop this stupid rort before it costs us all a fortune (while doing nothing to fix a problem which may or may not exist).

    • CJ says:

      02:22pm | 19/11/09

      Barnaby Joyce Says NO!

      I for one won’t be getting my environmental science tips from you Barnaby. You talk about opportunities going offshore - that’s pretty defeatist. Surely as a smart country we can do better than that? 

      Also, what happens in 100-200 years time when the earth is so baked that NOTHING grows here. I’m sure the farmers will be so grateful that we had the chance to at least try to stop that in 2009 and did nothing.

      And you say Australia taking on the CPRS will do *effectively* nothing? What about the example we will be setting for all those other countries out there, who I’m sure have a lot more to lose than we do.

      Australia is pathetic when it comes to the international environment. We can’t constantly hide behind the facade “Were just a little south pacific country with hardly any people and we don’t do anything really bad so it’s not our responsibility”

      I don’t know about you, but i don’t want to live in a country like that, that isn’t a responsible international citizen.

    • Old Clive says:

      02:32pm | 19/11/09

      OMG, Rudd is going overseas by sailing ship next time to save the carbon output. I just heard that he is not responsible for anything, its his ministers that make all these bad decisions.

    • pc says:

      02:47pm | 19/11/09

      Alex at 10.55am Makes a really important point. “Dont confuse opposition to the ets with igorance and denial of climate change science.”

      Is it ok if I wont support black because its white?

      And some other punchmates, Whats Fair, Wayne H and Hamish , want the internet to prove what the reailty outside of it has been telling us for 25 years. Man made carbon emissions are warming the earth and we must cut them in order to prevent dangerous economic and environmental consequences. They want it demonstrated and they turn to the internet.

      And who is there?

      In a world gone eco friendly and carbon neutral, WHO can you turn to make black white, hot colder and more dry wet?

      At a time when my nemesis wants to trick you into paying more for being rich and steal your land to breed a race of vegetable tax collectors addicted to life, WHO can you trust to talk really fast on the internet?

      pc. Well me and someone else. (Sorry Someone else and I)

      So I was moaning that an ets wouldnt get passed, wishing for a double dissolution that nobody wanted. Well nobody except me and BJ (Sorry BJ and I)

      BJ is my new imaginary friend. pc and BJ. The story of a dissolute asylum seekin missile packin tax totin fruit eatin pseudonymous smart@rse that talks to itself on the internet and the fictional senator it loved.

      pc: The earth is warming
      BJ: The earth is cooling

      pc The seas are rising
      BJ The seas are falling

      pc The arctic ice is shrinking
      BJ The arctic ice is expanding

      pc The weather is getting worse, droughts are worse, water supplies are more stressed
      BJ The weather is getting better, droughts come and go, who needs water.

      pc We need to give Copenhagen every chance for succuss
      BJ We need to do everthing we can to thwart Copenhagens slim chance for succuss.

      Sounds like a sitcom to me. But no wait. I wonder if BJ had read this. Stephanie Peatling. Carbon Scheme ‘in the bag’. THE SUNDAY AGE 15/11/2009. All my hopes dashed.

      Great Merciful Bloodstained Gods

      I’m sorry I always address heaven in moments of triumph. Isnt that what Oedipus said? Anyway I know youre not scared of those fruity euro trash gods so I thought I would try to put breathless and stroppy away for a moment.

      We cannot fight over reality on the internet - or well I guess we can and some do but its pointless isnt it?  When Im in doubt I usually ask BJ,

      Will rejecting the science on climate change and opposing the ets help negotiate a better deal for rural australians? Does BJ know that agriculture wil have to change the way it works? Does he know that farmers can earn cash by selling carbon credits under the amendments proposed by his party? Is he interested in solving the problem or preventing a solution?

    • Don Clark says:

      03:04pm | 19/11/09

      Well, Andika has pulled one - that’s right, *one* -  point out of the last but one IPCC report. Each of these careful, fully documented assessments (upto No 4 now, and working on No 5) builds upon previous work.

      The IPCCs work is internationally agreed and intended to be the main, reliable summary of current work, that’s why its useful and important to keep an eye on.

      And in passing, I defy anyone to spot one jot of zealotry in anything posted by me, full stop.

      It may well be be worth looking into the actual point being made in the now outdated Report No 3. As Andika hasn’t troubled to provide a link for context, back in a sec.

    • James H says:

      03:10pm | 19/11/09

      Ok lets get a few things straight:

      Firstly Barnaby you are wrong, the planet is warming, it is largely atributable to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans.

      It doesn’t make sense to you because you do not have the back ground in basic science to understand what the data are telling us.

      The link between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the globe has been known for decades now, for a pollie with no scientific training to dispute this is just silly.

      Global temperature data was given to multiple statisticians without telling them what it was, and they all found a warming trend not a cooling one.

      Without an ETS Australia will weaken the global drive to cut emissions to a level that will avoid dangerous climate change.  That as well as the fact, we will continue to pump out the highest per capita emissions in the Western world.

      If the world, for whatever reason, does not cut GHG emissions to a level the scientists tell us will avoid dangerous climate change, we will almost certainly cop global average temperature rises above 2deg C.

      If that happens we can expect most of Australian agriculture to be wiped out and most farmers to be forced off the land.

      If we do pass an ETS farmers may be able to derive and income stream from carbon sequestration, biofuels, small energy plants etc.

      It comes down to that, either get educated or shut up.

    • RT says:

      03:21pm | 19/11/09

      To Senator Joyce and the climate change sceptics: there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers providing evidence that the atmosphere is warming as a result of greenhouse gases produced by human activity. It’s OK to be sceptical because nothing is for certain, but please point to any peer-reviewed scientific papers providing evidence to the contrary.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      03:24pm | 19/11/09

      Jayzus PC, how many times do you have to be told that, for most people, the issue is not climate change but what causes it, and what effect, if any, a CPRS will have on said climate.

      Y’know the problem with mud-wrestling with pigs is, after a while you realise that the pigs are actually enjoying it.

      Did I hear you say ‘oink’ PC?

    • Ella says:

      03:26pm | 19/11/09

      Hamish - in overly simplified terms I believe the basic concept is:
      - The earth is warmed by solar radiation ie sun light shines on the planet and heats it up. 
      - Some of this solar radiation/heat leaks back out into space and the rest is trapped by the earths atmosphere (a mix of gases). Which explains why the earth manages to stay reasonably warm at night when there is no heat from direct sunlight.
      - Some of the gases in the atmosphere (ie co2) are better at trapping heat than others, so if there is more of these gases in the atmosphere more heat will be trapped and the warmer the earth will be. 
      It is called the greenhouse effect because the gasses literally have the same effect as the glass in a green house. They let sunlight/heat in, but don’t let it out, and the thicker the layer of glass around the greenhouse, the less heat can escape and the hotter the greenhouse becomes.
      As for an emissions trading scheme - I’m kind of ambivalent but then I’ve kind of resigned myself to the fact that humanity will probably wipe itself out with in the next 100 years any way, so it doesn’t really matter.

    • Don Clark says:

      03:33pm | 19/11/09

      OK, here’s what Andika cutely obscured from view, by providing a highly selective quote from the 2001 (note!) 3rd IPCC report - “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis”

      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
      But goes on immediately to say this about future work:
      “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”
      For those who want to follow through: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/505.htm

      What does this mean? The Report is plainly a) drawing a distinction between “prediction” vs “probability”, b) pointing to the amount of work/modelling required to devise results with measures of confidence at useful scales, and c) clearly indicating that such estimates are an essential part of ongoing work.

      In short, while it is *impossible* to be *certain*, it is entirely possible to *estimate* carefully, with a sound estimate of *degree* of certainty (probability).

      Andika, in insulting terms, would like you to believe this caution to be a weakness. It is not. It is utterly the opposite - it is a virtue at the very foundation of good science and good statistical analysis - to not overstate the case and to include a good estimate of its likely probability.

      In the 6 years since 2001, more such work was indeed done, with the results seen in the various IPCC 4th series 2007 reports, which carefully stated the degree of confidence in each estimate and conclusion.

      I repeat: go to the latest IPCC reports and see for yourselves. Try starting with this exec summary:.
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
      And when they say “very likely” or “incontrovertible” , you’d do well to realise that those are fully qualified measures,  not tossed about by Fri arvo zealots.

      In short, Senator Joyce -to his shame, after two years of misleading posturing and with very considerable resource at his beck and call - has a very great deal of homework to do before he is anything like across the issue, or what to do about it.

    • Bruce says:

      03:36pm | 19/11/09

      Well said. I do not need another round of taxes after the outragious 21% INCREASE in electricity costs in NSW. Along with increases in water and coucil rates and the outragious cost of motor registration and insurance. I NEED A PAY INCREASE TO SUPPORT THESE INCREASED CHARGES AND TAXES. Surely this is inflationary? If we can find a LOW cost way for an ETS, I do not have a problem. At this stage in the proceedings I am not sure what real benefit any of us will get from an ETS except some kind of warm fuzzy feeling that we must be doing something. We (the human race) certainly have done some damage. I can not help but feel that the proposed ETS is more about a grabb for tax revenue. If we are to have an expesive ETS program, ok, but make it a CRIME, punishable by a long term jail sentence for any politician to spend the taxes on anything else but the clearly defined areas of ETS need. Like that will happen !!

    • dmac says:

      03:37pm | 19/11/09

      I find the whole argument that ‘if we do this, it will not have a big effect as we are only a minor emitter’ ridiculous. Let’s extend the argument a bit and see where we end up. As one taxpayer in the country, my input into tax revenue is really, really small. Perhaps I should stop paying tax - after all it won’t really make a difference.

    • Don Clark says:

      03:46pm | 19/11/09

      And here, to finish off for the day on a high note, is an excellent description of how that IPCC estimation work has proceeded, at finer and finer scales (and with better estimates of probability) over the series of Assessment Reports from 1990 to 2007. See page 113 in particular, for the advance between 2001 and 2007 - the very point that IPCC 3 2001 Section 14.2.2.2 was actually calling for…

      To predict with certainty: a bludgeon beloved of the dopiest shock jock or zealot.  To estimate in complexity with some measureable level of confidence: the measure of choice for cool, independent science.

      Tough luck, Andika.

    • Glen says:

      04:04pm | 19/11/09

      Barnaby, you have my absolute and unequivocal support.  I too believe that this is a completely ineffective measure that is nothing more than a tax.  I think that it will destroy the Australia that we love and many take for granted.  I do think that the climate is changing but I do not think that this is an effective method of approaching the subject.  I think that Krudd and his cronies have shut down rational debate on the subject (as they do with every subject) and Australia will pay the price.  The rest of the world (the big bit that actually means something and KRudd wants to be admired by) will go along merrily absorbing our industries as they flee our shores and dumping pollution into the atmosphere at no increased cost.  We will bear te pain fo no gain, only loss.

    • The realist says:

      04:19pm | 19/11/09

      I agree and disagree.

      If you believe the Al Gore movie or the lastest suggestions of all the leading scientists we are needing a massive change in the way human live. It is scarey stuff. But from what I have seen from all the world leaders, it doesnt indicate to me that they either dont believe it or they are so worried about the next election and they are to scared to lose thier power. I have listen to what has been said in the Australian Paliament and I am convinced that Wong and Co. are right.  In fact Im scared sh****ss.

      OK lets consider im a rational person, ( hard I know) but looking and accessing what I have been reading and is being told to me, we are on the brink of massive climate change where a large percent of humans will die from natural disasters or hunger and massive amounts animal spieces will become extinct.  But then I look at the government of the worlds response to this information and is some what limp to what I would expect. 

      Which make me think if we are not going to accept the scientific solution to the very existance to the problem why bother, why would Australia accpet a tax that makes zero difference to helping no one. It wont help us and it wont help the world, ok it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling but its purely a symbolic gesture. One thing I have noticed about humans is that greed reigns, no matter what happens we will always put dollars in front of environment and people.

      Either stand you take the the future does not look bright.

    • DG says:

      04:31pm | 19/11/09

      Realist (03:09pm | 19/11/09)

      “the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland”

      So basically what we are heading towards…

      Makes sense. The globe isn’t like a kettle that heats up in 5 minutes and then blows it’s top, the effect is gradual. The increase in CO2 has basically arrived in the past 100 years (a blip on the 15million year timeline referred to above). I seem to recall reading that the research over that time frame is accurate to within 1000 years. So it is still quite conceivable that our gasses have reached that level but the temperature is still rising - the increase in temperature is inevitable, as you’ve said the gasses are up there, it’s just a matter of waiting to reach those temperatures (First there is the cause (increased greenhouse gasses), and secondly is the effect (increased temperature) - there may be a lag of a hundred years or more before we reach those peak temperatures and effects that you speak of, but I think you’ll agree that with the melting ice sheets and so forth we are gradually moving towards that scenario that you have advertised).

      The effects are a forgone conclusion as indicated by your articles - I dare say that would be disastrous for all of the people that are living within 75-120 feet of the current sea level.

      So where is the problem again? I didn’t say that this would solve the problem. I agree that it is little more than a user pays tax - so we agree that this is a money grab. But it is true to say that the CO2 emissions contribute to global warming (no matter how minutely) unless you are suggesting that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas after all….

    • Joel B1 says:

      04:42pm | 19/11/09

      “Does he know that farmers can earn cash by selling carbon credits under the amendments proposed by his party?”

      Umm, do YOU know that all those solar panels installed under the Rudd rebate have the “carbon credits” allocated to the installer?

      You want to be green and use photovoltaic panels you sign your RECs (renewable energy credits) over to the installer.

      How very, very, very like another ill conceived Ruddonomic stuff-up or in more technical terms RORT.

    • thunderbird says:

      05:03pm | 19/11/09

      Even the CC experts cannot agree.

      Two weeks ago the seas were going to rise by 75cm (Wong’s Claim in the Senate).
      4 days ago - 1.37 metres.

      What a load of rubbish this CC is.  If Rudd finds 52% polls find CC b…t it will disappear from the agenda.

      Roll on the Double Dissolution.  Rudd is going the same way as Obama.

      Rule by the Left through puppets will implode.

    • What's fair says:

      05:18pm | 19/11/09

      @ Macca: Thanks….I think!!

      @ PC: interesting post, although with regards to internet research I think you may have misunderstood my post.  In the absence of public debate or objective reporting, some (including myself) have had to resort to using the tools left to us to make our own decision and the internet is simply one of those tools.  As for the “reality” outside, have you personally had the opportunity to travel the world for the last 25 years and methodically record the necessary measurements as evidence to support said reality.  If that is the case than fair enough but if not than I would be more comfortable using information complied over 100s of year, most of which is now readily available on the internet if you are willing to invest the time.

    • iansand says:

      05:53pm | 19/11/09

      Diamantina Dick@4:27 - I hope they are right.  But it seems to me that to give up on the basis of one, so far unexamined, paper is ... brave.

    • Jenni Downes says:

      05:54pm | 19/11/09

      It is absolutely true that the majority of gases making up the Earth’s atmosphere are naturally occurring, like water vapour, and it is these that make our planet warm enough to be habitable. CO2 is only a small proportion, but it is a very powerful small proportion with tiny changes leading to huge effects - and there have been proportionally non-tiny changes over the last century, but particularly over the last 3 decades .

      If you want to actually understand the science, rather than just parroting excuses, read these two articles:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

      Further, to say that the science is still out, or that there is no consensus, is to completely misunderstand the scientific process. There may be individual voices here and there arguing against human-induced climate change, but more often than not these people are not climate scientists, and often not even scientists at all! They include economists, politicians, public commentators, all sorts of people. And even those scientists coming out against human induced climate change have not put their position through the general scientific process which is to conduct research, have it published in a reputable scientific journal and then have it peer-reviewed by other qualified scientists. The IPCC for instance, who many claim is a political institutions has over 2,500 scientists around the world working for it. Each report takes 3 years to produce because they have all research go through a meticulous review process, including being looked at by even more scientists. In fact there is not one scientific body of international standing that disagrees with the conclusions reached by the IPCC.

      You can read about the opinion of scientists compared to non-scientists here:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

      Its true, as Mr Joyce pointed out, that the CPRS has weaknesses, among them as being the exclusion of agriculture (one of the largest sources of emissions for Australia) and the current target of 5% which is much, much too low. But what is needed, is not to scrap the whole thing, and definitely not to ignore the science and stick your head in the sand - or go around spreading misinformation, but to take steps to strengthen it!

      Many hundreds of thousands of people around the world are hoping that in a few weeks time in Copenhagen, world leaders will come together and agree to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350ppm, and to commit to a target of 40% reduction of emissions by 1990 levels - the target that is now considered by many scientists to be the level required to constrain warming within 2 degrees.

      Mr Joyce could be playing a part to strengthen Australia’s efforts to reach this target - to meet its responsibilities to the world, and particularly the world’s poorest people who are already suffering the impacts of climate change. Instead he is contributing to the scandal of climate change scepticism - one that is both illogical and dangerous.

      But then again, it is likely he won’t be around much past 2050, which means he won’t be the one to feel the consequences of his actions. I will however, and I am deeply saddened by the threat he is posing to my future.

    • Don Clark says:

      06:11pm | 19/11/09

      Could have sworn I put the link in , for this excellent description of how IPCC estimation work has proceeded, as computing power has increased,  with more and more complexity, at finer and finer scales, and with better estimates of probability, over the whole series of Assessment Reports from 1990 to 2007.  See IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
      Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
      Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
      See page 113 in particular, for the advance between 2001 and 2007 - the very point that IPCC 3 2001 Section 14.2.2.2 was actually calling for…

      Now then. As for the “tax” v cap and trade argument, its been dealt with many times, but the core is that the rise in CPI will be very small, and fully compensated to most people, particularly low income earners. And if you brush up your industry’s emissions under the cap and trade free permits, you won’t need to trade any. In the end we will all win.

      Example: walk into the meat, dairy or veg area of your favourite chain supermarket. Feel that cool? Well *that* is *all* wasted energy, and not only does it feed global warming. Right now *you* are already paying for that waste, in their prices. Sooner or later, the big chains will have to brush up their fridges act, reduce the wasteful energy use and….we *should* end up paying *less* - and they will be greener too. Clear?

      As for catastrophe, we’re talking decades here. 2200 stuff. It’ll be our great-grandchildren wo’ll be moving from the beaches. As for the difference between last week and this week, the latest annual report on the state of emissions (for 2008) is the key. Released only this week. It looks more likely than ever - and more than the 2007 report that likely was being used a week or more ago - that temp rise is tracking at the high end, close to the worst case. \More temp rise= more sea level rise. In decades to come. It isn’t too late, just yet, but it is *really* time to a) stop the slagfest b) do our homework and c) make a start here and at Copenhagen. Please.

      Time to knock off for the weekend.

    • grumblebum says:

      06:43pm | 19/11/09

      Three cheers for Barnaby, i am a Trade Unionist & an Industrial Worker , so not a political fan but good on ya & nearly all in my workplace know that AGW is a crock!
      This AGW crowd certainly are an unscientific lot though, they howl down Scepticism (the cornerstone of all scientific enquiry) yet have NOT ONE PROOF to back their hysterical claims.
      Historically no abnormal climate change has occurred but historically mankind or at least the Western Middle-classes have never been so secure, smug & safe.
      Mankind has generally had to struggle for survival & that gives man purpose.
      Now you don’t see the poor squealing about climate change, only internally fat, western middle-classes, displacing their angst onto mankind, inventing doom, and wanting it to come.
      They are like sooth-sayers looking for signs & portents of DOOM! Frightening their kids with visions of Apocalyptic floods & frying like an old testament prophet or street corner preacher!
      Shrilling - DENIER - like an Inquisitor to a Witch to any who dare ask for one tiny proof that CO2, drives the Runaway Greenhouse or Global Warming or climate Change, whatever their High-Priests call it this week!
      Eco-religion, what the silly jaded middle-class invented to replace the untrendy God!

    • Andika says:

      07:04pm | 19/11/09

      Re Don Clark.

      Buddy, Pal. We can’t even predict what the weather will be tomorrow, let alone what it will be in 50 years time. Seriously, The IPCC would know it their backsid was on fire.

      Here are some facts for you.
      1 Warm periods only make up 10% of the last 1 million years. The mild stable conditions of the last 10,000 years during which human civilization has flourished, are not typical of the last two millions years. What is also tells us we should be fearing another Ice Age rather than the climate warming up.

      2
      About 12,900 years ago, a phenomenon known as the “Younger Dryas” occurred whereby in a few decades the temperatures became frigid and forests across North America and Europe were transformed into frozen tundra of ice.

      3
      . Essentially variations in the Earth’s orbit and the tilt and wobble of its axis cause changes in the intensity of solar radiation reach the Earth’s surface and such variations caused the ice ages. It’s called the Milankovic Cycle (not the Rudd or Stern or Gore or Garnaut cycles).  Now it stands to reason that if the elliptical shape of Earth’s orbit around the sun changes, then the amount of solar radiation that will reach the Earth will also vary. In all probability, we are probably experiencing this so called “climate change” because of the Earth’s orbit around the sun is a lot closer presently. . The same action is happening right now with Earth and it’s proximity to our SUN.

      4
      Water vapour is a far more potent factor in creating the greenhouse effect as their concentration in the atmosphere has 10 times more heat absorption than that of CO2. If all the CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler. Water covers 7/10’s of our planet and water vapour causes three-quarters of the natural greenhouse effect.

      But the so called climate change Fascists and Marxists will pound you into believing we are causing climate change and this is the biggest load of BS since idiots in the mid 15th century thought the earth was flat.

      Why Not Tax Nitrogen??

      Given that 76.5% of the Earth’s atmosphere is made up from Nitrogen, why don’t we instead have a Nitrogen Pollution Reduction Scheme instead of a Carbon one? I mean, don’t we have too much Nitrogen in the atmosphere? Doh. I know, because it’s easier to tax CO2 even though it makes up no more 0.4% of the atmosphere.

      When a CO2 ‘cap’ scheme is introduced then real winners will be the speculators and hedge funds as the ‘cap’ on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year, which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time.
      The volume of this new market will be upwards of a $250 billion dollars annually, compare that to, the annual combined revenues of electricity suppliers in the Australia of $66 billion. This is big money.

      The trade in the CO2 ‘cap’ will make massive profits for speculators and hedge funds while costs for the production of one of society’s essentials – electricity - will continue to rise and rise. Some market commentators have conservatively estimated that the price of electricity could double every two and half years.

      We’ve just come out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression thanks to the market made Subprime lending crisis only now to set ourselves up for an even bigger financial crisis in the future. Make no mistake, the only thing that will go down once the ‘cap’ is introduced is our standard of living.

    • Sporty says:

      07:20pm | 19/11/09

      An attempt to explain simplistically the CO2 question.
      When the sun’s electromagnetic energy (e.m.e.) hits a surface, three things may happen: (i) reflected back
                      (ii) bent - with a change of wavelength
                      (iii) be absorbed by the medium through which it is passing (heating in the case of infrared light)
      The gases in the atmosphere will contribute to the bending and absorbtion.
      Water vapour (18 g/mol) comprises up to 80% of the atmosphere and is a significant ‘hot house gas’ (never mentioned by the advocates of global warming).  When considering the other atmospheric gases only. Carbon dioxide (44g/mol)comprises the smallest amount ( 0.03 parts per hundred).  This higher mass per mol results in greater asorption of heat - but to a less extent than water.
      As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, more is removed by natural processes.  (Don’t forget the active volcanoes -including Erebus which I believe has recently ‘settled down and probably contributed greatly to the hole in the ozone layer - a different topic)
      These natural processes include solution in water (oceans etc) where CO2 is locked away as an insoluble salt such as calcium carbonate alias limestone.  (Consider the limestone caves etc. and the large range of limestone rock, once formed in the sea depths and now been lifted /moved by geological processes above sea level. 
      CO2 increases also increase the rate of plant growth.  Cutting down old trees is not necessarily deleterious (from this aspect) as long as there is replanting.  The higher content of CO2 is absorbed in the early growth stages of the plant.  Once maturity is reached, there is less growth and hence less removal of CO2.
      Monitoring of ocean temperatures has shown that temps are decreasing NOT increasing.  These ocen temps are measured by thousands of probes which are dropped to the ocean floor, then steadily rise, recording the temps at each depth. When they reach the surface, space satellites gather the transmitted data etc, (NASA is the source of this data -??reliable?? I have no reason to believe otherwise.)
      Whilst I have already given a few references, try http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/ as well. 
      If the advocates of global warming would take up the challenge and open themselves to debate, without indulging in the tendency to sneer at those who are drawing attention to anomalies in their argument, you and I would have a chance to be informed and draw our own conclusions.  The ETS will result in millions of $ in extra taxes, little change in the iniquitous (???) CO2 levels.  We are a sovereign nation - not servants to be kept ‘under the thumb’ of scientifically ignorant beauraucrats and politicians.  [B. App Sc. (Env. Sc)]

    • Daniel says:

      07:30pm | 19/11/09

      Barnaby, If your really worried about the cost of watching TV why did you support the GST? If your so worried about costs you will join with the Greens in being happy to repeal the GST in that case? Removing the GST o public transport etc? Once again the National party is out of touch and has been proved to have double standards whe it suits itself the same as the Liberal Party?

    • pc says:

      08:11pm | 19/11/09

      joel B1, Did someone miss their nap today?

      Whats fair, so you take names on websites more seriously than the scientists. Oh of course you do. You take me seriously.

      Steve of Cornubia does too. And he’s thought of the first episode of my sitcom. pc and BJ. We’ll have a pet pig, named Steve and BJ and me (Sorry BJ and I) can chase it around and around, falling in the mud and generally having a pig of a time. (meanwhile in REALITY.)

      Malcolm Turnbull is the leader of the coalition and hes said that if his party isnt as serious as he is on climate change then he’ll quit the leadership. And what about those pigs?

    • Sporty says:

      10:04pm | 19/11/09

      Kevin Rudd’s $7b UN wrangle

      Copenhagen bound: Climate Change Minister Penny Wong will attend the UN’s climate C=change conference next month. Source: Herald Sun (This also includes comments by readers, which unfortunately doesn’t come out in red.)  [This article is being posted in two entrie due to word limits]

      NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nations deal to cut the world’s emissions - and to make Australia hand over part of its wealth

      So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty signed that he’s been appointed a “friend of the chairman” to tie up loose ends.

      So here’s the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority?

      Yes, that’s $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between.

      And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn’t like our green policies?

      It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty.

      Australia’s wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn’t the public at least been informed?

      In case you think what I’m saying is just too incredible - too far-fetched - to be true, let me quote this draft treaty.

      Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1, which has already been discussed at UN meetings involving Australian negotiators in Bangkok and now Barcelona. Brackets indicate phrases which still need final agreement:

      “By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year.”

      Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such as Australia should “compensate for damage” to the economies of poorer countries “and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity” allegedly caused by our gases.

      And here comes the bill, in paragraph 41 of annex 1 of this extortion note: “[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country parties] ... “

      In fact, deeper in the draft our bill for our “historical climate debt, including adaptation debt” climbs to at “at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]”.

      Wow. Let’s do the sums. Australia’s GDP is about $1000 billion a year. So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7 billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the United Nations.

      That’s your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governments and authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actually halted in 2001. And all funnelled through the UN, which brought us such fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.

      Never have the Third World’s demands for the First World’s cash been so brazen.

      But wait, there’s more. Because never has the Left’s mad goal of world government been so close, either.

      This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has worked, also calls for the creation of a new “board” of global warming bureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal.

      The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it will check our emissions, and could “impose financial penalties, at a minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess”.

      Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd warned two years ago we’d overshoot by 2012, we’d be up for a fine of $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd’s plan.

    • Sporty says:

      10:05pm | 19/11/09

      Second half of previous posting:
      Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose “penalties and fines on non-compliance of developed country parties” such as Australia that failed to honour “commitments to ... provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building”.

      All this gives a remote and unelected world body a huge and unprecedented say in how we run our own economy and our foreign affairs. For instance, any Australian government that decided to keep gassy coal-fired power stations running to avoid blackouts or to save Australian jobs potentially faces huge fines from foreigners.

      Likewise, if it stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to a China or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be fined again.

      But wait, there’s still more.

      You’d think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent.

      But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain.

      Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN’s human rights bodies.

      And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.

      Under this draft treaty, the new board’s biggest spending arm - the “adaptation fund” - will be managed by a “governing board comprising

      three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two members from small island developing nations and two members from the least developed countries”.

      That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could hold just one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash. Our cash.

      That’s the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That’s the billions we risk having to hand over. That’s the power we risk losing over our own affairs.

      Now ask: why hasn’t this been the subject of furious debate? Where’s the Government? Where’s the Opposition?

      Well, here’s Rudd’s one response to this threat, given only this week: “At this stage there’s no global agreement as to what long-term financing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen.”

      That’s a “trust me”, with no bottom line. In fact, Rudd is already reaching into his - your - wallet: “Australia, once a global agreement is shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share.“But how much? Seven billion dollars a year? Five? Three? Hello?

      As for Turnbull ... well, it’s tragic.

      Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: “Of course the poorest countries are going to need assistance ... (But) there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without extensive debate.”

      So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won’t be squandered and our powers handed over?

      Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an

      $82 billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board, too - so who’s applying the brakes?

      Not our politicians, for sure.

      So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better start saying so now, before it’s all too late.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      11:10pm | 19/11/09

      The lefts confabulation reaches its zenith when the normal weathers cyclical cooling arrives, and we say good bye to the period of warming and the return of common sense which is adverse to the very green nimby heated political greed. Oh for the human ability to change with the weather and not realize the trauma they are going through as tempreture fluctuations flare and temper their emotionally driven desires. But then with air conditioning the numbing sensation must be surreal.

    • Martin says:

      11:44pm | 19/11/09

      Barnaby, we need to build an economy that works with the environment, not against it. If you do not realise that by now then you are ultimately an obsolete political dinosaur. The current government (and the coalition) ran an election campaign including an ETS. Are you breaking that promise? Are you playing a political point scoring game? or are you and Mr. Fielding both idiots?

    • AL GORE IS A FRAUD AND SO IS THE ETS. says:

      12:40am | 20/11/09

      I agree “roll on the double dissolution”...
      I only hope and pray it will come to this.
      Truly I cannot believe the posters here begging to be taxed.
      Without even knowing all the details???
      HELLO?
      And then to have our hard earned tax dollars sent to the UN,
      to nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats.

      Barnaby you have given me a glimmer of hope that there will
      be a long enough pause in this frenetic push by Rudd in order
      to have the FACTS of the ENORMOUS TAX SCAM debated and
      explained to all Australians.

      The reason climate change is an easy sell by our globalist sellouts
      (aka Labor) is that it’s a feel good issue.
      People want to feel like they’re doing something warm and fuzzy
      - being part of the greater good.
      Hasn’t anyone noticed the spin and scaremongering of global
      warming is at ridiculous levels and yet there has not been
      even ONE meaningful debate.
      Hmmm why is that?

      So too bad we will be taxed, fined, legislated and regulated until
      it will be hard to live without the government controlling every
      aspect of our lives.

      But hey at least you’ll all feel good that your money
      is going offshore to be played with by the same banksters that
      just decimated the globes financial markets.

      We are all being treated like suckers
      Rah rah rah.

    • Don Clark says:

      05:55am | 20/11/09

      Andika started out with a quite deliberate distortion of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2001 report actually said. Pointless, really, as it was so easy to expose. An own goal in more than one way, as it also means there’s really no point in taking the rest of his entirely unsourced material seriously either.

      As his position is fixed, it appears from his repeated insults that he has not troubled to take his own advice: ie to at least consider the range of evidence from the other side (eg in the IPCC reports and others already referred to, with reliable links).  These clearly show the evidence that with high probability, the rate of global warming is rising, from the feedback effect of man-made greenhouse gasses.

      It’s worth pointing out that the IPCC is an *Intergovernmental* panel of scientists. It is simply not believable, on any level, to paint it as a bunch of amateur lefties who don’t know what they are talking about.  Nor is it believable to paint the the wide community of agreement on climate as some sort of lefty plot.

      Global warming from man-made greenhouse gasses is not a matter of “belief”. It is simply the message from many decades of sound science, carefully tested, by co-operation across a large number of scientists and governments around the world. If you feel unsure about it, please take the time to look at just *one* reasonable source.  For example,
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

      It doesnt’ matter to me a jot whether you agree with me or not. By the time any worst case effect occurs, I’ll be long dead. It matters not to me if you sneer at me, either - it won’t alter the material on offer one jot.

      Unless you count than taking Senator Joyce to task for sloppy work, you may notice that I’ve not lectured here. I’ve just politely and coolly put forward my view, with a range of explanatory points and sound references, so that others can make up their own minds in their own own time, free of rantings.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      06:39am | 20/11/09

      Spot on sporty, thats what I have been trying to say. You neglected one thing though. Once we sign it we can’t get out of it. Why are all sides of politics letting this one go? Start screaming from the roof tops.

    • pc says:

      06:44am | 20/11/09

      Sporty “So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won’t be squandered and our powers handed over?”
      Al Gore Blah Blah
      “People want to feel like they’re doing something warm and fuzzy
      - being part of the greater good.
      Hasn’t anyone noticed the spin and scaremongering of global
      warming is at ridiculous levels and yet there has not been
      even ONE meaningful debate.”

      So guys still a little upset with reality. Sporty I think you should have watched last nights lateline with Tony Abbot. He made a really good case for the ets. I bet Malcolm watched it and that’s why Malcolm supports the ets. Malcolm knows that if vogons from his party go out into reality to make themselves look stupid and discredit the science - or in the mad monks case - the lack of science - then reality will do all Malcolms work for him.

      So people want to be part of a ‘feel good scaremongering campaing’  This only makes sense to a vogon.

      Vogons are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldnt even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from climate change without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

      Luckily vogons are easy to spot.

    • Joel B1 says:

      08:21am | 20/11/09

      pc “joel B1, Did someone miss their nap today?”

      Wow, that’s really added a lot to the debate hasn’t it? And come on, you failed to call me some derogatory name!

    • ANDIKA says:

      09:27am | 20/11/09

      Re Don Clark (again)

      Give it up buddy. If anyone is guilty of distortion, it would be usual alarmists - IPCC, AL Gore, Rudd & Co.  The facts are the facts. The IPCC admitted they don’t know. Again here it is….

      ‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’  IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774)

      So you say I have been selective? Is this any different to the climate alarmists who constantly overplay the fear. Turn it up, Don. It’s tough I know to have it shoved back at you.
      Finally, as for saying “there’s really no point in taking the rest of his entirely unsourced material seriously either.” So are you therefore denying the “Younger Dryas” effect, “Milankovic Cycles”, The mild stable conditions of the last 10,000 years during which human civilization has flourished, are not typical of the last two millions years? Seriously pal? Add the effects of volcanism, plate tectonics, the natural carbon cycle, the planet’s magnetic field. Are these also unsourced materials too?

      Barney Joyce is right to describe the ETS as nothing more than a massive distortive tax, which by all accounts RUDD is hell bent on introducing regardless of what the end result is in Copenhagen. We don’t even know what the regulations are contained within the CRPS – why not? There hasn’t been a shred of debate about this but King Rudd expects we should just stand aside and accept his plan as gospel?

    • The Realist says:

      09:47am | 20/11/09

      DG

      Man Im just trying to cut through all the bulls***.

      Im no scientist, but I guess you could classify me as a middle income, worker. Joe Public. Not rich but not concerned about if I can feed my family. I the bloke whos the swinging voter, not stupid, but liketo think that I chose a politcal party based on policy and not PR. Although the pollies lie on the policy bit. Yes I was one of the Howard battlers and voted for Kevin 07.

      Im very frustrated at the government and opposition using this as a political tool. Which from what I can see is whats happening.

      But look at the figure and statistics being throw at the general public. We simply have no way of being able to tell whats fact and whats fiction.

      from what Wong has been say 80% of farming in NSW by 2050 will no exist. Dont tell me you aint scared by that. Why then do we give the nod to a pulp mill and still mine coal?  What I have been told by the government and what action they take dont add up. Im mean if you are told you have a tumor, typically most people stop work and get the think cut out the next day. Life stops and you do an total radical about face. Why dont we if this is really true?

      Im really, really worried about this. LIke am I thinking of moving to higher ground because of the rise in water levels.And I want some one with a bit of ticker to stand up and make an accurate choice.

    • ryan says:

      10:01am | 20/11/09

      Thanks for the extremely one sided and highly partisan response Barnaby. Your a politician and it shows (I’d expect nothing less from Labor or the Libs either).

      We all know what taxes are and hey, not may of us like paying them. We don’t like paying parking fines either, and curse when we find a ticket under our windscreen wiper. But do we like it when people park in no parking zones, in medical practictioner spots, emergency vehicle spots - no! Parking inspectors are a necessary evil - so are taxes. I hear we like clean running water to our homes, sewage systems, roads, telephone infrastructure, hospitals, education - umm where did they come from? Oh yeah taxes.

      As Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization”. You wouldn’t be getting paid Barnaby without taxes.

      So let’s get over the whole Tax scare mongering situation and actually work on a solution. I’m happy for the ETS to be torn apart, as I too think it’s ineffective, but don’t just sit their and not come up with an alternative.

    • Glen says:

      10:03am | 20/11/09

      What this proves yet again is that you cannot trust any politician on any side.  The only new bit is that (new to me) is that I have never heard of any politician, leader, king, queen, emperer, sovereign, kahn, tsar, despot, chariman, ever handing over sovereignty to a foreign body elected or unelected.  It seems to me that this is tantamount to treason if not specifically approved by the people of Australia through a referendum.  I also queston whether this comes under the new terrorism laws.  Can anyone advise?

    • DG says:

      11:52am | 20/11/09

      The Realist (10:47am | 20/11/09)

      Consider this: You know that a meteor is going to hit earth and wipe out the population in 5 years time and you are well aware that there is nothing you can do to stop it.

      What do you do?

      Well, you’re doomed either way, might as well make yourself as comfortable as possible (i.e keep your job, luxuries etc and wait). A good way to do this is to tell people about it, tell them that you have solution and that the other guy is pretending it’s not a real problem. Play the populist card, look after yourself and go for it, after all nothing you can do can change reality.

      Now consider Global Warming in the same light - the amount of ‘greenhouse’ materials in the environment is already well above the comfort level for humans - that is to say we, as a species, will not cope well with a substantial change in our environment.

      Whatever the cause it’s going to get messy - that ice sheets are melting, and that sea levels will rise is all but inevitable. Nothing we can do will change that (after all we are just particularly bald, an intelligent, apes).

      Now as to what is causing it - what does it matter the cause? We need to be working on things that will assist the human race survive when the climate does change - if that means nuclear facilities to power desalination plants to water crops… so be it.

      But for some reason people seem to ignore the reality that for most a few billion years Earth has been just as inhospitable to humans as Mars is now. Earth has, for hundreds of millions of years teemed with life and then been all but wiped out. Our time will come - rather than fighting about who’s fault it is we need to be looking at how we will respond to this change.

      Reliance on fossil fuels is a dead end - they will run out. Simple. Governments around the world realise that they NEED to encourage other development and to do that they need the support of the people. The “Peak oil” scare of the early 90’s did nothing. So the powers that be needed another big stick - queue global warming. Personally I think it’s true - I’m also certain that the production of CO2 doesn’t help matters (not that I think that reduction in the creation of CO2 would save us).

      No I am cynical - I suspect that the real purpose is to FORCE people to find sustainable sources of energy and to accept GM crops that require less water as an alternative to allowing people in “human resource rich” countries to starve. Sure there will be some ‘discomfort’ in the transitional phase, but given that our current way of life is unsustainable change is necessary.. or to quote Darwin:

      “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

      If we are to survive we must change - we must be adaptable, currently we are not. I don’t think the CPRS will prevent climate change (we are just too insignificant on a universal scale), but it MAY make the human race more adaptable and buy us a bit more time.

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:35pm | 20/11/09

      Is anyone else totally sick of the “moral high-ground” assumed by the AGWers?

      “if we are to survive” “what will you tell your children” “you’re an idiot” “you’re personally endangering my children” bleugh!

      Greenies always assume the “moral-high ground”, it’s all they have.

    • The Realist says:

      01:30pm | 20/11/09

      DG

      Thanks. So it really isnt about saving or stopping anything it about human change not climate change. The climate will change not matter what and will go on the path it goes it proabaly wont change. But on the other hand humans can alter the way we live. 

      Why doesnt the government come out and say then the the CPRS is about assisting in human change. It make far more sense. But now I understand why the various politcal parties play with it. Whilst the coalition are still debating about the science or how will we live. The ALP have accepted it as part and parcel of the planet changing and at least they can be seen to try and they are really getting us use to paying more for living. I spose you might as well let the famers make hay while the sun shine as it will alll be gone any way by 2050. Im taking the kids up to the barrier reef so they can have a look before it gone as well.

      DG. Thanks for your insight

    • The Realist says:

      01:33pm | 20/11/09

      DG

      Im ’ The Realist’  not the ‘Realist’

      for real

    • TLC says:

      01:33pm | 20/11/09

      Joyce!Joyce!Joyce!
      What is wrong with you people from Queensland,the last lunatic was John going for days, You!You!You!
      Do You have a policy at all or you just oppose it as this is all you can do?
      As for me I don’t care what will happen in 50 years.I will be long gone by then.
      But I do care about the kids.
      If we are so stupid now and too lazy to do anything to protect future of our children so be it.
      Even if there is no climate change I don’t mind to pay more to make sure that those that come after me will be able to enjoy the beauty of this planet as I did.
      I don’t know 100% if the climate is changing or not,but I know there is very big deference in weather since I was young so many years ago.
      I am sure that we all can see the it is something wrong with the nature.
      If it is due to pollution of the air, pollution of the water and soil I don’t know.
      But I know that now I can not drink water from the river , go for a swim anywhere I wanted,catch fish and eat it without getting sick.
      So there must be something wrong we do, so it must be stopped if not for the climate then for us, for our own well being.
      Nothing comes for free, at last we don’t have to die yet for our way of living.
      Our fathers, mothers and grandparents had to pay the highest price,their own lives.
      The things that we must do are not for Rudd or Labour but for Us and our children, if we love them.
      What will you say to them if we get this wrong this time, will you look them in the eye and say that it was too expensive to protect the Earth?.
      One thing is for sure that we must stop poo in our own bed.
      This is not about politics this is about what kind of future we want for our children and grandchildren.
      Chamberlain was saying that there was no danger form Hitler,he even showed us the napkin to prove it.
      Thank God for Churchill otherwise we would be speaking Japanese and German.
      Will there be another Churchill to save us this time? Obviously no Rudd or Joyce or Turnbull.

    • Don Clark says:

      04:37pm | 20/11/09

      Andika is just repeating his selective quote, as if that suddenly makes it right, when it has already been shown up as misleadingly selective by the very same IPCC paper itself, (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/505.htm) and in my summary. The IPCC went on to point to the need for more detailed estimation, rather than for prediction, two very different things. This they have since done, and done well. Andika has either not understood that point, or is deliberately misrepresenting it by carefully omitting the full passage.

      Andika then goes on to try and put words in my mouth: I am “denying Dryas…Milankovic Cycles” etc.  Nothing could further from the truth. I did not deny them at all. I simply pointed out that *he*  provided no reference at all to back up his assertions, that these cycles and etc are the cause of global warming.

      In fact they are well-known parts of the historical climate record, already taken into account in IPCC climate results.  To explain, can’t really go past this piece, already referred to and fully sourced:  “Can the warming of the 20th century be explained by natural processes? “
      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/~/media/publications/science/hot-topics-centurywarming-v2.ashx

      Andika has made assertions culled from somewhere, but poorly understood and not referenced at all. Andika has repeated a misleadingly selective quote from IPCC work to which I have tracked down the full reference, full text,  and rebuttal, posted earlier. Either he is in difficulty understanding properly presented & referenced data, or he is aiming to mislead.

      Whichever it is, repeating of the same errors will not make his assertions right, and will not make his selective distortions right either. 

      In contrast, I’ve offered a wide range of well-known and recognised sources, so others may draw their own conclusions if they choose to look beyond the rhetoric.

    • B says:

      07:58am | 21/11/09

      alteria says:09:26am
      Ok you can beleive your tripe.  Even though it was just proven by scientists at MIT that CO2 has little or no effect on the climate.  This is with REAL DATA not theoretical computer models.

      So maybe you should stop only reading research that backs your side of the story and actually read it with an open, and intelligent mind.

      Any intelligent and sane person understands that Climate Change is wrong.  Please Please, before you sound like a fool and post you support ETS actually read both sides of the story.  You will find the only reason people support Climate Change is because they either have a vested interest or because they are thje loudest group on the subject.  Being the whingers and doomsayers that they are.

    • B says:

      08:01am | 21/11/09

      hoofman says:09:58am

      Dumb comment.  Can you explain what renewable energy can replace coal as our baseload power supply?  Answer: NONE if you want to use maybe 1 light buld ONLY in every house then maybe it could be done.  But not without taking australia back to 1850’s.

    • B says:

      08:38am | 21/11/09

      Don Clark says:02:09pm

      Do you not have any reputable sources?  I said before,  IPCC and Aust. Gov websites will not sway anyone.  They both have a vested interest in this working.  Also did you know that AGW has been disproven as not being cause by climate change:
      To all you doomsayers.  Here is the CO2 is not causing global warming link: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf  Next time use google you lazy slobs,  do your own research.  It really shows how much you know about Global Warming when a pieceof evidence is presented to you and you wont even google to see if it is correct.

      Such hypocrites these “GREENIES”

    • B says:

      08:52am | 21/11/09

      Don Clark
      All of it.  All your posts are full of zealotry and fear-mongering.  Go back to communist Russia.  We dont want your socialist, climate change agenda here.  Piss off back to some SSR (U S P Z) whatever the hell letters you retarts put there.

    • Don Clark says:

      11:25am | 21/11/09

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is just that -  a major co-operative effort between national governments and professional scientists of many lands and many parties over many decades now. It is indeed a -if not *the* - reputable source. To say it “cuts no ice with anyone” is simply plain flat wrong.

      As for doing my own research, a totally empty swipe. I don’t need Google, having found my way around the reliable sources like IPCC since way back, eg from Stern/Economics of Climate Change, sitting in my bookcase, and from Garnaut (which I have as pdfs).  These, too, are both are reputable sources and are also the result of much careful work and cooperation.

      Trying to pretend that *all* these, incl Aus departmental websites, are just Leftie Commie plots, or some other dang conspiracy of self-interest is simply nonsense, not credible and gets us nowhere. Between them, these reputable sources provide ready pointers to or access to many sound online summaries for those too busy to absorb the research from scratch.

      As for checking stuff, take Andika’s cycles point. Other than to claim them as “the answer”, he has not provided *any* reliable source that supports him in his assertion. Not one reference. Still.  I *did* check his case, and in contrast - whether you like the fact its on a Departmental site or not - found a paper that gives a fully argued and fully-sourced counter to his cycles idea http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/~/media/publications/science/hot-topics-centurywarming-v2.ashx
      Fnacy some more? See Facts and Fiction:
      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/science.aspx

      As for not checking counter-evidence presented, that’s the whole point. So eg I *did* also check Andika’s IPCC snip snip sleight of hand, found the *full* story, presented it, summarised it, and provided a firm link to the whole source. All of which showed plainly that his point was quite utterly wrong and a misrepresentation. He did none of that, simply repeating his selective misrepresentation, and still without a link to source.

      As for B’s own insult-laced rant, I also checked *his* link. It’s rather weak on sources and poor on data interpretation.  It’s also worth pointing out that the credentials of the author and his collaborators are nowhere in sight in the doc provided. Unlike IPCC publications, Stern, Garnaut, or the Dept of Climate Change summaries.

      Try for example the several Temperature anomaly charts (p8 eg). They show the very same interpretation error that tripped up Senator Fielding (before he quietly abandoned it): failure to grasp the meaning of “temperature anomaly”  as the difference from a long term trend. So *any* result more than Zero shows temperature rising - and all these charts do show that, even the shortest and noisiest. That’s right, temperature increasing, though the levels are noisy in recent years and the *rate* of increase over a *very* short span shows some recent weakness.

      Perhaps B should take some of his own advice, and actually check some of the references,  both for and against, for himself before - what was it   - just Googling ‘em up. He could do worse than have a look at the latest CO2 report here: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/08/hl-full.htm

      It is simply not sensible to pretend that decades of cooperation between scientists and governments around the world are all some sort of plot.  It is simply not even remotely credible.

      Lastly, though how I vote is no-ones dashed business but mine, it isn’t Green, and B’s gratuitous and pointless insults cut no ice whatever. They serve only to show the weakness of his own poorly presented case.

    • harry says:

      11:29am | 21/11/09

      The ETS is a new tax on everything. It will increase the price of everything, especially energy and will have absolutely on effect on reversing climate change. The climate will change, get used to it. It is cheaper to live with climate change than to fight it. Stick to your guns Barnaby. More politicians should have such courage instead of pandering to populism.
      We’ll see who’s popular after the inflationary effects of the ETS start to kick in.

    • Don Clark says:

      01:31pm | 22/11/09

      It may assist Harry (and even Senator Joyce perhaps) to turn to some alternative, non-government source for a view on Climate Change and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.  Here’s one to have a bit of Sunday arvo fun with. It comes from that a well known independent source: The CPA.

      “What? The CPA? Did he just say C P A?”

      Yep, sure did. The good people at the….wait for it…..

      Certified Practising Accountants of Australia.  The CPA, a highly professional body, have quietly gone about their job to report simply and neutrally on the planned CPRS scheme. They have also and quite properly formed a view of their own on climate change and the CPRS, making these remarks in their conclusion:

      “What is CPA Australia’s position on the scheme?
      Our organisation maintains that the most appropriate response to carbon pollution reduction should be a package approach, based on the following three essential elements:
      • carbon pricing (emissions trading)
      • technology pricing
      • incentives for, and removal of, barriers to behavioural change towards emission reductions

      While the CPRS is the central policy response to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, other policy initiatives should be implemented that complement the scheme. These complementary policy initiatives should encourage the deployment of existing technology that reduces emissions and energy use, encourage investment in developing new technology and encourage behavioural change in the way business is undertaken.

      While CPA Australia’s general philosophy is that incentives should not typically be provided through the tax system, we believe that the compelling necessity of urgently reducing carbon emissions justifies the inclusion of tax measures to encourage investment in the development and deployment of new or improved low-emissions technology.”

      Very helpful to busy folks with time to do a bit of home work and make up their own minds.  More? See: “The economics of climate change” at
      http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57FECB-043E7355/cpa/hs.xsl/14131_30934_ENA_HTML.htm

      With big issues at stake, when good information is being either missed, misunderstood,  or misrepresented, and when shoddy data and shoddy argument are being put forward in reply, it is worth doing some careful, robust but polite testing and polite but firm rebuttal.  It is worth showing where sound information can be found:  simply so that you can see and make up your own mind in your own time. 

      In closing my part in this debate I do wish that, with all the very considerable resources at their disposal, Senator Joyce and Senator Minchin had taken the time to do a little bit of thoughtful, sensible research and presentation -  instead of choosing to slosh out quite misleading tosh.

    • soultrader says:

      08:27am | 23/11/09

      Don Clark - I notice that you insist on rebutting every comment made about this subject. Are you so insecure about your position or are you just a fanatic who will not tolerate an alternate point of view.
      The whole issue of climate change needs a calm clear discussion supported by evidence not theories. I defy anybody to tell the future with any certainty. Yes an educated guess is fine but to discount any other educated guess is just narrow minded and does not advance any cause.
      I still struggle with Darwin’s “Theory” of Evolution. I still await the discovery of the “missing” link, that justifies the vehement opposition to divine intervention. But again, that is a faith thing and it is up to the individual to hold opinion one way or another.

      So Don Clark - you have eloquently explained your position - for Pete’s sake, give somebody else a go.

    • Bethany says:

      10:32am | 23/11/09

      Soultrader (09:27am | 23/11/09) if you still struggling with evolution, no amount of evidence on climate change is ever going to be enough.
      The global scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real. However, no conceivable action by Australia (acting independently) will make the slightest difference. What Mr Rudd is proposing is in line with his true expertise: PR. He believes that if Australia leads on this issue, others will follow. He is misguided. In terms of global influence, Australia is a non-entity. Deep down, he knows this and resents it, hence his constant desire to act on the world stage. However, massaging our leader’s ego should not be sufficient reason to leap into an expensive and meaningless policy.

    • Joel B1 says:

      11:27am | 23/11/09

      “The global scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real”

      Umm, sorry, check out the hacked emails that clearly show “unusual” data analysis, truncating of data when it doesn’t fit the AGW ideology and the “if the FOI gets too close erase all your data”

      Funny how the people who get paid because of AGW tend to “skew” things to show that AGW is “real”

      There’s a dark moon rising on this one.

    • Bethany says:

      12:29pm | 23/11/09

      Joel (2:27pm | 23/11/09) The hacked emails you refer to indeed demonstrate that there is bias, indeed, actual fraud, going on in the scientific commmunity. I’m sure you agree that this is deplorable. It does not, however, weaken the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real, it is related to human activities, and we need to do something about it.
      Encouragingly though, while we disagree about the reality of climate change, neither of us wants Australia to sign up to this futile exercise.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      03:16pm | 23/11/09

      Don Clarke, why are nearly all your links .gov.au? Because you are a very selective person thats why! This fraud that they have attempted to push onto the Australian people has been endorsed by you over and over again. What a fool you will look like when the inevitable occurs and your myth is debunked.

    • klode's auto auction montrose co says:

      06:23am | 21/02/11

      Very informative post. Thanks for taking the time to share your view with us.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

This is the week that Craig Thomson defended himself in Parliament, Schapelle Corby got clemency and…

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter