Now is exactly the time we should take climate action

Mr. Jordon says:

06:45am | 10/01/13

Yes, almost as shameless as talking about gun control while people are killing innocent people with guns.

Tell me, did you complain about people talking about flood mitigation doing the floods of two years ago?

Daughter of Mother Earth says:

06:49am | 10/01/13

I just sit back and laugh. Nothing like a bit of hysteria amongst the young , still green behind the ears stoked up by the soothsayers,  a few hot days and the end of the world is nigh, The Mayans got it wrong and Gillard got it wrong . Gillard Carbon Tax on everything is no world thermostat. Mother Nature is ruler of earth , its place in the universe and Mother Nature will be the greater force, greater than Gillard and all world scientists.

Mick In The Hills says:

09:04am | 10/01/13

But we already have taken the prescribed action - we have implemented a carbon tax.

This grand impost was all that the global warming / climate change advocates ever wanted, and it was going to solve all our problems.

So why are we even still talking about this?

Mr. Jordon says:

09:19am | 10/01/13

Daughter of Mother Earth says: 06:49am | 10/01/13

Was Howard ETS also a money grab? I don’t recall Abbott and co complaining about it at he time.

Benzo says:

10:46am | 10/01/13

I don’t get all you brain washed climate change deniers…
It’s happening and humans are contributing, and to say it is a money grab is sickening… The climate scientists are not making it rich at our expense, how ever the fossil fuel companies are making billions. 
Plus all these big companies believe in climate change themselves anyway: http://www.theage.com.au/business/move-on-climate-bhp-billiton-urges-20100915-15cn4.html
Also what are all you Alan Jones clones arguing for anyhow? you to realise that fossil fuels will not be able to fuel our society within 100 years they are running out at a rapid rate…  Should we have wars of the last of the fossil fuels or invest in alternate energy options??
It’s not like we don’t have the brains to do it, eg fusion may only be 5-10 years off.
PS unless you flat earth/moon landing hoax types surely you believe in Nasa’s observations??
http://climate.nasa.gov/
The only conspiracy here is the one created by the like of Monkton and co who have vested interests in fossil fuels…  human stupidity never ceases to amaze me..

Hartz says:

11:57am | 10/01/13

@Benzo - “The climate scientists are not making it rich at our expense”  of course they are… they have built their entire career on this stuff, the government pays top dollar for their studies and papers that support govt positions and arguments. They have a massive vested interest in this and to say they don’t is pure ignorance…. To call anyone who questions the science “flat earth/moon landing hoax types” is ridiculous, to follow blindly because a group of government employed scientists tell you to makes no sense to me but I still respect your right to follow blindly and question nothing, I would be more likely to support the science if it wasn’t established by government funded studies with financial rewards for supporting the Climate Change industry. I would also be more considerate of the science if the government and the other climate change zealots (like you) actually allowed the opposing view to be raised without character assassinations and crazy name calling… Don’t bash us because we choose to ask questions, the fact that people don’t follow your ideology is because you deliver the message poorly - drop your rabid attacks on those who don’t follow your religion and maybe we’ll stop thinking you’re all a bunch of crazy lefties. AND if you really cared about the environment you’d endorse a plan that would actually help the environment instead of the Carbon Tax which it is universally agreed will not help the environment at all….

Mr. Jordon says:

12:32pm | 10/01/13

@ Hartz says: 11:57am | 10/01/13

Government pays top dollar for all sorts of reseach. Are there all suspect or is it just climate science?

If you go to the Andrew Bolt blog site and similar sites they are full of sceptics claims that AGW is a Left wing plot.

So the flat earth tag to perfectly warranted.

This is not 100% true but its pretty close.

Not all Right winger are AGW sceptics but all sceptics are Right wingers. Why is it that so many sceptics come from the Right side of politics?

Hartz says:

01:27pm | 10/01/13

@Mr Jordan - there are plenty of crazies on both sides of this argument, you won’t sway them regardless of evidence so why not ignore them and try to deliver the message to the centre. here is the issue: in the centre are intelligent people who can easily recognise a snow job (excuse the weather pun) when they see it. Climate Change zealots push their cause and refuse to acknowledge that the other side has any points to contribute to the discussion. They shout them down, assassinate their character, call them names and ignore their scientific arguments. The fact that the zealot’s science is funded by the government, for the government only makes people more suspicious - is the science compromised as a result, maybe not - but perception helps people form an opinion so it can’t be ignored. The government then uses their bought and paid for science in order to support a taxation policy (that masquerades as environmentalism) not to help the environment but to blatantly redistribute wealth in accordance with their long held and documented Socialist ideals - all the while, continuing to trying to silence dissenters and ignoring the vast majority of the population (who still sits in the centre).  If Climate Change science is to be taken seriously by the centre of the population then it needs to come out from behind the Govts skirt so the are not stained with the corruption and ineptitude of this govt. They need to clearly debate conflicting opinions instead of the usual hysterical name calling tactics, and they need to present a solution that actually benefits the environment instead of the useless tax we have had imposed on us - if you want to convince people look at how the message is being delivered and by whom.

ZSRenn says:

08:32am | 10/01/13

Not to mention that this is the coldest winter across all of China for 28 years. One month ago I posted that China had had it’s coldest December day in 40 years. I was yelled down by the greens on the punch for using a local weather phenomena to put down Climate Change and now this article.

Hypocritical much!

http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/news/world/7430-china-experiencing-its-coldest-winter-in-decades

http://www.weather.com/news/china-coldest-winter-20130106

james says:

09:49am | 10/01/13

Thats why Tony Abbott wants to spend 3 billion a year with a direct donation to polluters.

Yeah, climate change is expensive crap.

ZSRenn says:

11:08am | 10/01/13

@ james I think you will find that despite the fact that CO2 global warming theories are crap public opinion thinks otherwise.

The public want some kind of spending on CO2 emissions.

I think using the money to help polluters fix their problems and remain competitive in the global market is a much better idea than a Carbon Tax which icreases our electricity costs, transport costs, puts our manufacturing industries in peril and restricts our export potential!

JoniM says:

12:24pm | 10/01/13

Spot on ZSRenn !

At least Abbott’s policy puts a ceiling ($3b p.a.) on the financial waste for a no result Climate Change solution, unlike the ALP /Greens open ended financial “piss up” and economics suicide pact for its no result Climate Change solution!
These young ideologues spreading alarm amongst the ignorant, would be far better off caring for some rescue chickens ! At least some tangible benefit to their heart & soul & chicken may actually be achieved with that cause rather than this misguided Climate one !

james says:

01:44pm | 10/01/13

Spot on JoniM, liberal good labor bad!

Feel free to think for yourself one day and debate policy.

james says:

01:53pm | 10/01/13

So ZsRenn, without a price on pollution, what happens if 3BN per annum is not enough to reduce CO2 emissions by 5% as legally mandated?
You know the bi-partisan target.

ZSRenn says:

02:34pm | 10/01/13

@ James please show me a link to your claim of a legally based mandate!

At the last election there was a promise of no carbon tax and that was given the mandate which Gillard then ignored.

PS why have ago at JoniM. Are they not entitled to an opinion. I think she was debating the topic. It was you who went for the personal attack.

james says:

03:02pm | 10/01/13

Oh Renny, by ratyfing Kyoto you set a legally bound target for CO2 emission reduction.
Both parties support this.
I want to understand how and why direct action will accomplish this target with a fixed spending ceiling, when we have no detail on how they will achieve the redutions.

As for JoniM, it was not a personal attack, my comment was that there was no “real” analysis of why donating $3BN to polluters per annum was a good use of taxpayers money.

JoniM says:

03:16pm | 10/01/13

@james

“Spot on JoniM, liberal good labor bad!
Feel free to think for yourself one day and debate policy. “

Thanks for the licence to think for myself, james !
I might grant you one as well, though I suspect it may be wasted !

As for the policy debate, why bother ?
My point (all thought out by myself) was that I am totally against both major Parties’ policies in relation to Climate Change. Because I don’t believe any measures we take in Australia, any amount of money spent, any degrading of our global economic advantages, any amount of soap box screaming in forums like this, will make one iota of difference to global climate conditions !
Hence if it is mandatory to opt for one policy, my acceptance is of the least cost, least economic impact solution of the capped ($3b) solution of the Libs.
If the rest of the world decides to be part of any real global strategy, I may revise my thinking, but intil then, stop wasting our Nation’s economic future on this pointless topic. When you have a solution for harnessing the power of the Sun, or a real global committment that has any chance of success, I might start to take notice !

As for your question about meeting the 5% reduction in emissions you pose to ZSRenn, seriously ? That figure is already achieved by the destruction of our manufacturing industries and the cut back in power useage forced by the power cost increases recently imposed on all consumers ! The problem is, of course, in doing so, we have foregone our global economic advantage that keeps our economy strong, our factories going, our kids employed and standards of living so high, to achieve a miniscule cut in emissions that maks absolutely no impact on global climate conditions !
That makes no sense at all to me !
See what happens when you let me think for myself !
I feel so liberated !

ZSRenn says:

03:57pm | 10/01/13

@ James so you say!

Link please.

Supe D says:

07:17am | 10/01/13

You couldn’t make it up. In the week that Al Gore made $100 million in oil money selling a tv channel no one watches to the Qatari media network Al Jazeera. The real challenge going forward is how we rehabilitate the followers of the Goracle back into mainstream society.

Nick says:

08:01am | 10/01/13

I didn’t take that long did it Tim ?
The apostles of their new found religion are shameless.

iansand says:

10:05am | 10/01/13

You’re a funny little fella, TimmyB.  I’m flattered you think that I am some sort of guru, but I know myself well enough to suggest that it is not a particularly good idea.

Tim says:

11:18am | 10/01/13

TimB,
these kind of articles are on the same level as the stuff PJ continually posts.

You’re talking about a tiny minority of people that actually hurt the cause they’re fighting for.
You also don’t continually here about the vast majority of people who don’t make claims like this because they don’t make claims like this.

I could just as easily say everytime you have a cold day you have “skeptics” claiming that climate change must be false. See ZSRenn right above.

The idiots and people who make outlandish claims are always the ones who get the most attention in the media. Why focus on them?

ZSRenn says:

12:32pm | 10/01/13

TimB read my post again. I said CO2 global warming theory. There is a problem but I don’t think it is CO2 related.

One theory I have (that’s me so there is no link) unless you count the other times I have spoken about it is that this could be due to the break up of the ice shelf over the last 200 years by icebreakers.

I may not be correct but this theory doesn’t have to be adjusted every time there is a cold snap and may explain why the southern ice is growing whilst the northern ice is melting.

I think we need more subjectivity in the research on global warming.

We need a theory that works for all of the changes not just bits and pieces of it.

I mean how do you explain that one of the most polluted countries in the world has had a succession of cold winters using the CO2 model?

TimB says:

12:40pm | 10/01/13

‘You’re a funny little fella, TimmyB.  I’m flattered you think that I am some sort of guru, ‘

Err, what? Only iansand could read one thing and come away thinking something entirely different.

To reiterate: Despite your assertions to the contrary, these people do exist on your side of the debate. A guru you most definetly are not.

@ Tim

‘The idiots and people who make outlandish claims are always the ones who get the most attention in the media. Why focus on them? ‘

Because they’re the ones the government are listening to to form policy. They’re the ones driving the argument. Case in point: Tim Flannery.

And theyre the exact people we should not be listening to. But here we are.

iansand says:

01:09pm | 10/01/13

ZSRenn - Do some research on what the temperature of the Earth would be if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.  The CO2 “theory” is a theory in name only.  Its effect on climate has been understood for over 150 years, and quantified for over a century.

Tim says:

01:56pm | 10/01/13

“Because they’re the ones the government are listening to to form policy. They’re the ones driving the argument. Case in point: Tim Flannery. “

Are they? Really?

What are these extreme policies that the government has enacted to respond to these doom merchants?

And pretty please don’t say Carbon tax. The Carbon tax has barely caused a ripple in the economy. Most people have barely noticed it.

Note, that’s coming from someone who doesn’t support the carbon tax (without a global agreement)  or the compensation that went with it. I don’t support it but I"m fully aware that it’s effects haven’t been major.

ZSRenn says:

02:51pm | 10/01/13

@ iansand Please explain why in Ice Samples taken from areas that allow centuries and millennium to be investigated show in the past that CO2 concentrations lag behind temperature increases by 1200 years + - 700 years.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

You have also not answered my question why is the most polluted country in the world experiencing colder weather and one of the least polluted experiencing warmer temperatures at this time.

Please do not throw at me the ppl / capita figures.

iansand says:

02:52pm | 10/01/13

“Rational”, TimmyB.  A concept with which you have had only minor experience.

ramases says:

08:02am | 10/01/13

The Carbon Tax ceratinly works a treat, I’ve noticed that it has cooled planet by about nothing but swelled the coffers of this government to waste of Green schemes that will bankrupt the country.
  Free public transport, have you seen the pollution some of those buses pump out, not very Green unless of course we do the Flintstones thing and cut holes in the floor and we all run like mad.
You cany ban baked beans mate, where would we be without steak eggs and baked beans as a staple, my god man get a grip.
Free Solar power, even if every house in Australia had Free Solar panels that wouldn’t help one iota as when the sun went down we would be reduced to sitting in the dark reading books as there would be no TV or Radio unless of course we levelled South Australia and made it one big battery bank, then maybe we would have enough power to run at least half the country but the pollution involved in producing the panels and batteries would take 50 years to clean up by which time we would have had to replace the batteries at least 4 times which would add another 40 years on to that and then ad infinitum as we chased our tails. Of course if we had a Carbon Tax, oh wait we already have haven’t we and that’s a roaring success, not..

JoniM says:

01:01pm | 10/01/13

@ ramases

Gotta say, I quite like your idea of levelling South Australia for a battery bank ! Perhaps we can also level Tasmania for another battery bank supporting clean power storage to the other, productive States of Australia ? The local SA & Tas “progressives” will surely have achieved their greatest outcome for our Nation by reducing the Federation to 4 x States, 2 x Territories and 2 x Batteries , along with the bonus benefits of wiping out the local destructive impacts of humanity, flora and fauna ( obviously expected collateral damage for the greater good of the Climate Change doctrine).

D says:

10:02am | 10/01/13

babble babble babble-on
guess you’ve got lot’s of time on your hands Peta.

Louise says:

08:48am | 10/01/13

Have to agree with you James.

Also, ‘celcius’ is incorrect; the correct spelling is Celsius. This occurs twice in the article and doesn’t help its credibility!

Mr. Jordon says:

09:05am | 10/01/13

Every major scientific institution of this planet, every major scientific journal on this planet, the Australian Labour Party, the Liberal Party of Australia all say the AGW is real and must be addressed.

The only people saying it isn’t real are the Andrew Bolts of the world. How tell us hat it hasn’t warmed in 20 years. While ignoring the fact that the last 26 continuous years have all been above the average global temperature.

You can’t not point to a single event and says , that’s climate change. But you can look at tends. And he tends are, as I pointed out above a rise in average global temperatures and an increase in extreme weather events. For example, two years ago he Australia east coast was under water. To day, two years later the Australia east coast is on fire.

Oh and btw, AGW is not Green moralising. As I pointed out the Liberal Party believe it too. Abbott has even promised to shin Australia up to Kyoto2 if he is elected.

Not only that but AGW was given its international legs by Thatcher who is far from a greenie.

So maybe you should address the facts of AGW rather than launching personal attack against the authors.

James of Hong Kong says:

11:59am | 10/01/13

@Mr. Jordan “Every major scientific institution of this planet, every major scientific journal on this planet, the Australian Labour Party, the Liberal Party of Australia all say the AGW is real and must be addressed.”

Sorry, but that does sound rather hysterical and self servingly exaggerated ... “every”?!?!?! Even the most basically educated would find that claim hard to swallow. Your fervour seems to be easily recognisable by the furious fingers on the iPhone leading to all the typos. This makes you look like a convert rather than someone with qualifications in the area.

The Liberal party are not pro AGW it is politically expedient to take the position they do. Of course there are some who are believers i.e. MT but as a rule I don’t believe those within the Liberal party accept man made AGW, as for the Nationals the’re on record as not standing by it. Yes, of course that leaves you open to attack the Liberal party (not TA) but then so be it.

You speak of extreme weather events. As in my first comment, accurate records are approximately 60-70 years old and we are a continent that is roughly 5 million years old. Can you really say with certainty that these events are actually extreme and are any different to weather events before those records started, I greatly doubt it? I mean really, floods on a continent as large as Australia?!, heat and fires on a continent as large as Australia in the southern hemisphere and in the summertime?! Again, I find it difficult to believe.

Thatcher is on record in her later years as denouncing her views on AGW, she later claimed that the science was in its infancy when she first put forward her pro AGW position but the more sophisticated the science became the more it proved to her that AGW was not man made.

In regards to preaching, when AGW people put forward theories such as kill, jail, silence the sceptics, deniers, evil doers etc. blah, blah, blah, then yes, i’m afraid it’s preaching it’s not rationalised debate. I don’t think I need to say that sceptical science goes much further beyond Andrew Bolt.

Mr. Jordon says:

12:45pm | 10/01/13

@ James of Hong Kong says: 11:59am | 10/01/13

Then you should able to name plenty of scientific institution that don’t agree with the science of AGW. NASA, the Royal Society, CISRO, MET etc all agree. I would love to see your list?

Tony Abbott has promised to sign Australia up to Kyoto2. Why?

Thatcher…ten years after she was kicked out of office. And her new view has had no effect on British politics. The Tory party are just as much believers in AGW as they were under her.

AGW was not in its infancy when Thatcher promoted AGW on the back of her science degrees. It has been around for over a hundred years.

And btw, personal abuse is only used by those who are unconvinced by their own arguments.

Anubis says:

12:54pm | 10/01/13

@ Mr Jordan - try again when you say “all say the AGW is real”. None of them believe that now, that is why they dropped the term AGW and changed their script to just refer to ACC Anthropogenic Climate Change. A nioce handy little term that covers them regardless of the weather. If we see Gloabl Warming they are right, or if we see global cooling and the next ice age (as a scientific consensus in the 1970’s) they are covered. Either way the grant money and government funding keeps rolling on in.

Nostromo says:

03:29pm | 10/01/13

@MRJ: Formal logic 101 fail: CO2 levels have risen over the past 100 years, as have global temps, so there must be a correlation! Except temps levels have been up & down, as others have pointed out, and even a correlation doesn’t constitute proof.

I’m really getting quite bored of the AGW/ACC parroting most are doing in the two threads here today, without much actual thought put into it themselves. I would no more believe modern day scientists, many of who are grant/prize whores & just fabricating data, than I would politicians parroting their dubious conclusions.

Anubis says:

03:45pm | 10/01/13

@ Mr Jordan - “Thatcher promoted AGW on the back of her science degrees”

Do some reading on the issue Mr Jordan. Thatcher devised and promoted Global Warming as a means to breaking the stranglehold of the Coal miners unions by discrediting coal fired power generation and promoting the construction of nuclear power. Read her autobiography to find out the truth of it. In recent years she has expressed her regret at letting that particular genie out of the bottle.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:44am | 10/01/13

Dear cheap white trash,

“A new scientific model has revised previous figures for the next five years downwards by around a fifth.
Please Explain?”

Science never stops learning, revising or correcting itself. All science and scientific understanding continues to evolve. Science is not a set of fixed rules but an ongoing discourse.

The scientist who stands up and says “we know everything there is to know so this model will never change” is the scientist to doubt. The scientist who says “we still have much to learn, and no doubt our ideas will change as our knowledge grows” is prepared to follow the evidence.

“The global warming industry must be having palpitations over this,another money spinner down the GW CC drain.”

Two of the most compelling lines of evidence concerning the greenhouse effect come from astronomy (ie, the atmospheric chemistry of other planets) and quantum physics (such as CERN LHC) – neither of which seem to me to have any vested financial interest in maintaining an AGW scam. I cannot see how their future relies on maintaining AGW as a viable theory.

As users of science every time we turn on a light, watch TV, use a mobile phone, paint our house, buy food or eat out, rely on forensic testing, use email, etc, I believe it is incumbent upon us to understand the science we use and rely on all the time. This prevents us from denying well-established principles that we use everyday (such as the Standard Quantum Model - which is denied by people who reject the greenhouse effect, but supported by people who use a microwave oven).

Michael says:

09:50am | 10/01/13

Lisa, lets not forget or omitt the competing theories, quantum gravity, string theory, super string theory and the list goes on as do the assumptions, working from a conclusion backwards etc.

Stick to what you can prove.

Lisa Meredith says:

11:30am | 10/01/13

Dear Michael,

“Stick to what you can prove.”

This is precisely why I talked about the microwave oven!

The alternative is that the microwave oven is a fluke and did not result from our knowledge and understanding of the quantum world.

You can talk about string theory, but I am talking about the tenets of physics illustrated every day when we use our technology.

Anubis says:

12:56pm | 10/01/13

But @ Lisa Meredith - the believers have trumpeted for years now that the science is settled (just like you). Were they wrong???

Anubis says:

01:01pm | 10/01/13

@ Lisa Meredith - “The alternative is that the microwave oven is a fluke and did not result from our knowledge and understanding of the quantum world.”

The microwave oven did not come about as a result of someone trying to find a better, faster way to cook. During World War II, two scientists invented the magnetron, a tube that produces microwaves. Installing magnetrons in Britain’s radar system, the microwaves were able to spot Nazi warplanes on their way to bomb the British Isles.
By accident, several years later, it was discovered that microwaves also cook food. Called the Radar Range, the first microwave oven to go on the market was roughly as large and heavy as a refrigerator.

The idea of using microwave energy to cook food was accidentally discovered by Percy LeBaron Spencer of the Raytheon Company when he found that radar waves had melted a candy bar in his pocket. Experiments showed that microwave heating could raise the internal temperature of many foods far more rapidly than a conventional oven.

So yes @Lisa Meredith, the microwave oven was a fluke.

Lisa Meredith says:

05:32pm | 10/01/13

Dear Anubis,

This is what I say: The bits that are settled are: the greenhouse effect and the carbon isotope analysis of the atmosphere. This is the hard science: the core tenets of physics and chemistry on which our modern technology depends.

Everything else:- climate sensitivity, total time for T to peak, ultimate level of activity of the water cycle, total energy increase of the ocean/atmosphere system, and so on, are educated guesses and where the scientific dissent lies. Also, these long term projections need to know what the peak level of CO2 will be, and we won’t that until after the fact.

Regarding the microwave, when I say fluke I mean as if someone threw it together with no understanding at all. What you describe is so much more like serendipity to me. The knowledge was there to take advantage of the situation.

FlyOnTheWall says:

06:43am | 10/01/13

So basically par for the course in green agitprop, then?

True that!

Lisa Meredith says:

08:16am | 10/01/13

Dear Thephoenix,

“You also fail to say exactly what is causing climate change and in what proportion. It’s a bit hard to fix a problem if you don’t know what the problem is or know how much of that problem is manageable.”

The current theory suggests that AGW is due to an increase in the greenhouse effect primarily caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels.

The proportion is extremely difficult to quantify, as we don’t know what an AGW-free planet looks like, so we have nothing with which to compare. In the meantime we can compare our climate observations to current studies of past climate change, and observe that the current rate in energy increase in the atmosphere/ocean system is approximately 100 times faster the climate change caused by Milankovitch Cycles. Even the most extreme climate change of the past was still 10 times slower than the rate suggested by current observations.

The problem is manageable in so far as the CO2 responsible was put there by us. We can mitigate the problem by cutting our footprint, but, short of carbon sequestration or replanting forests, there not much we can do about the CO2 we have already released.

Thephoenix says:

11:47am | 10/01/13

Dear Lisa,  a “theory suggests”? Not very comprehensive there are we?

How much of total greenhouse gases is CO2?
How much of the additional CO2 that we think may be the problem, comes from the burning of fossil fuels?

You say we don’t know what an AGW free planet looks like. So the world has never been AGW free? How far back would records need to go?

If you can’t tell me how much of the CO2 which our theory suggests is responsible, was put there by us. And you can’t tell me how much of the AGW is caused by CO2 and how much is caused by something else. Then I can understand why you are also unable to say what reduction is likely to occur if any from the elimination of all, let alone some, percentage of the CO2 we can control.

You hit the nail on the head by explaining this is a theory. A theory needs to be proved and blaming everything on CO2 without looking at anything else, is just plain stupid. It does make some people a lot of money though doesn’t it? And it does give politicians an excuse to use the environment as an excuse to implement a wealth redistribution scheme.

Insurance actuaries are not modeling for AWG. Why? Because no one has been able to create a useable correlation. Why? Because we are dealing with an unproved theory.

Lisa Meredith says:

03:13pm | 10/01/13

Dear Thepheonix,

“Dear Lisa,  a “theory suggests”? Not very comprehensive there are we?”

I suggest that my answer is comprehensive enough. But given that it is a theory I felt dishonest saying otherwise.

“How much of total greenhouse gases is CO2?”

CO2 - 390.5 ppm = 390500 ppb
CH4 - 700 ppb
N2O - 270 ppb
O3   - 25 ppb

‘How much of the additional CO2 that we think may be the problem, comes from the burning of fossil fuels?’

Now pushing up around 40% increase over background levels, it is added at 3% per annum, compounded.

“You say we don’t know what an AGW free planet looks like. So the world has never been AGW free? How far back would records need to go?”

A Control is something with which we can compare empirical data. For example, if we had two identical and current Earths, one with AGW and one without, we could compare and contrast. We would see what the Earth looks like without AGW today, and how AGW influences current weather. Without this Control there is so much more educated guesswork involved.

“A theory needs to be proved and blaming everything on CO2 without looking at anything else, is just plain stupid.”

The climate scientists look at everything that determine global temps and climate. These include solar output, global albedo, our orbital eccentricity, volcanism, other GHGs and other long and short term climate cycles such as ENSO. Eg the Sunspot Cycle shows a stronger signal than AGW, so we must observe and measure this cycle.

“It does make some people a lot of money though doesn’t it?”

Some of the scientists who are responsible for the theory include astronomers and physicists. Why would they get more money due to AGW?

“And it does give politicians an excuse to use the environment as an excuse to implement a wealth redistribution scheme.”

This may be true but it doesn’t illustrate how the physics is fake. We cannot use politics to argue science.

TimB says:

06:57am | 10/01/13

‘Perhaps we would be wise to do what we can to manage the risk ? ‘

Like nuclear power?

Oh wait, you think we’re too stupid to safely run a nuclear plant.

Looks like you’re not that big on risk after all.

marley says:

08:02am | 10/01/13

I lived in India for a while, where the temperate can be plus 40 for days on end.  A billion Indians seem to manage - they adapt to the heat.  Even I did, and I come from a much cooler climate than Australia.

That’s not an argument for not doing anything about climate change or environmental pollution, but it is an argument that people can deal with a wider range of conditions than you think. Just ask anyone who lives in Coober Pedy.

OverIt says:

08:06am | 10/01/13

@KimL
“Is this the future we want to leave to our children? “

And assuming it isn’t,  what would you suggest we do to alter that?  Do you seriously believe we have any control over it?

acotrel says:

08:45am | 10/01/13

Does India have as much bush as Australia ?  Difficult to acclimatise when the flames are licking your arse.

acotrel says:

08:48am | 10/01/13

@Over it
’ Do you seriously believe we have any control over it? ‘

God’s will ? We need more prayers.

acotrel says:

08:51am | 10/01/13

‘
@marley
‘I lived in India for a while, where the temperate can be plus 40 for days on end.’

Was it cooler on Christmas Island ?

marley says:

10:22am | 10/01/13

@acotrel - grow up.

JoniM says:

01:40pm | 10/01/13

“Is this the future we want to leave to our children? “

So the solution that you would likely leave the children is to not only have them experience and adapt to a possible increase in a few degrees of temperature, but you will force them to have this environment whilst living in poverty because you have pissed up everything on vainly trying to contain the temperature increase ?
The kids are gunna love for your caring responsible strategy there !

Mr. Jordon says:

07:34am | 10/01/13

It the scientist are wrong and we do something all we loose is some money.

If the scientist are right and we do nothing we loose money and a hell of a lot more.

You talk about climate cycles over geological time. Well, once upon a time all of Sydney was under water, and no I’m not saying that AGW will cause should and event. But if that was to happen via natural means the World’s current civilisation and its power bases would be in a hell of a lot of trouble.

Lets say that AGW is BS but the warming is real. What should we do about it? At what point would you believe that the world is warming? What Sydney’s CBD is under water? Should we be taking city and infrastructure planning steps now rather than wait until it is too late? It’s cheaper to prepare for a problem than it is to fix the problem after the fact.

nihonin says:

07:54am | 10/01/13

I/m still recovering from the Ice Age of the late 1970’s, early 1980’s, we had to endue, I should have listened to my teachers and the scientists of the day. 

acotrel says:

08:40am | 10/01/13

You’ve refuted the arguments of the majority of climate scientists in one swoop with no evidence except a demeaning comment about the authors of this topic., implicitly suggesting we should disregard the risk. When Black Saturday happened it was due to one 45 degree day.  In the past week we had about four days over 40 degrees.  If there is a trend which continues in the same way for ten years, what will you be saying then?

Tbird says:

04:40pm | 10/01/13

Actroll
Black Saturday was from a build up of hot days for nearly a week and was the effect of a long draught and minimal burn off to keep the fuel levels down. So was Ash Wednesday in 1983, 1939 outer Melbourne fires ....see a pattern?
One hot day does NOT cause massive bush fires. A series of events come together to create a fire storm, like any disaster.
You talk about managing risk, but I dont think you know what you are talking about 99% of the time.

Achmed says:

09:53am | 10/01/13

and of course giving the polluters taxpayer money from the budget is a better plan than having the polluters pay.
Explain how Abbott will ensure any price rises due to the CT will be removed.
Explain how he will find the $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to give to the polluters.
Explain how he will find fund the tax cuts etc without the “income” of the CT

Anubis says:

01:10pm | 10/01/13

@ Achmed - how much is the Gillard government currently paying to the polluters to keep Whyalla from declining into an economic wasteland? How much of our money are they giving to industry across the board to “compensate” for the Carbon Tax? How much are they feeding back to the other polluters living in the welfare belts of the country (prime Labor electorates)? How much are Gillard and Swan giving to the UN to distribute to tinpot dictators in third world shit holes - 10% of the total revenue from the carbon tax scheme wasn’t it? Add it all up and it will be significantly more than the $3.5 billion dollars that you are having such a girly girly whine about.

Tim says:

01:45pm | 10/01/13

Anubis,
so because the Labor party is doing those things (which some of the Libs actually fought for), you think it’s OK for the Liberal party to give $3B to polluting companies?
Got it.

Can you provide me some links to where you’ve “added it all up” or is that just in your head?

Knemon says:

04:16pm | 10/01/13

Good questions Achmed and I notice PJ has gone missing!

ZSRenn says:

09:25am | 10/01/13

Wait for the cold air to sweep up from the south in later January and look out for flooding coming to a continent near you soon.

Just like it was when I was a young bloke!

Mouse says:

03:37pm | 10/01/13

Geez ZSRenn, was that before or after the dinosaurs disappeared?  *she says as she titters behind her hand*  lol
...and tell the young ‘uns of today that, and they doon’t believe ya!!  :o)

Dr B S Goh Australian in Asia says:

09:47am | 10/01/13

I support your second question and answer. Actions in Australia like the carbon tax is totally irrelevant in the fight against global warming simply because of our small population.

We need to help the naughty nations China and India to reduce their CO2 output. They are steaming ahead to build more coal powered stations. By 2035 the number of coal powered stations will increase by 50%

Arnold Layne says:

10:54am | 10/01/13

This response was far too considered to be posted here.  You should have attacked the writers, the government or the opposition and not proposed anything relevant to the matter.

On topic, I agree Marley.  Looking at how we are living, how we cool and heat, how we make efficient use of the water we have and so on are important for us.  Unless we make use of resources, such as solar, that are essentially infinite then we are going to run into trouble at some stage in the future.  Large cities are already feeling the effects of heavy electricity usage, by way of example.

Tim says:

11:25am | 10/01/13

Marley,
of course we should be doing local things like you suggest. There are plenty of scientists and planners working on just that.

But we also have to try and get a global agreement on measures that can be taken to lower the amount of CO2 we’re releasing into the atmosphere. Without a global agreement any effort we make is useless.

Unfortunately, too many people can’t separate this issue from their politics or their belief in some global conspiracy designed to steal all their possessions and turn us all into communists.

marley says:

12:09pm | 10/01/13

@Tim - I guess my concern is that there’s an element of putting all the eggs in the “global agreement” basket at the expense of practical mitigation.  I think the latter will deliver far more benefit than the former is ever likely to achieve (largely because, as I said,  I don’t think we’re going to get that agreement anyway). 

And I do think that mitigation can do a lot to make a more extreme climate survivable.  Scientists may be working on some of these things, but there doesn’t seem to be the broader public interest in what appears to me to be a more achievable option.  So I’d rather see the youngsters pushing that barrow than the larger one of global emissions agreements.  They would achieve a lot more, in my opinion.

Mr. Jordon says:

12:52pm | 10/01/13

Well said. I agree 100%.

All the evidence shoulda that the world is warming be it by man or by nature. The question is as you rightly point out is how do we adapt?

I think that the carbon tax/ETS approaches is misguided as I think that the CO2 horse has already bolted.

Gregg says:

01:31pm | 10/01/13

@marley,
I try to look at the issue of climate change in the simplest terms and just as I went to the beach earlier and found a delightful off water cooling breeze, so most places close enough to large bodies of water will also get some cooling at night.
Sure, we have the human activity effect and it is not just because of increased populations for you need to look at just how much of the populations of places like India and China live now and how they want to live, not to mention another few dozen countries with much smaller but still largeish populations, SBS having a new doco series that commenced last night, ” Welcome to India ” or something like that and a real eye opener, not that imagination cannot do it for you.

So what on a global scale can we do about it?
Should not Indians and Chinese and all the other two billion or so peoples not also have the rights to enjoy life as we do?
If so, then there is I suspect, little we can collectively do on using resources, manufacturing and polluting etc., though and interesting theme re recycling in India and much also happening in China and other countries whereas we in Australia just use landfill with minimum recycling because of labour costs no doubt.

I do my little bit at least, being something of a scavenger to re-use materials etc. and no air conditioner needed in our house but there is much much more that could be done.

So to your second part or question and perhaps adapting is a better term than either ameliorating or more particularly mitigating and for sure, Australia’s role in making any global change is most insignificant, it being the larger market forces more so than governments that will always drive changes though adoption by government of energy ratings for both house designs and appliances is a great effort but even more can be done.
Think of our bushfires and that they will happen, climate change or not and there are likely so many houses that get lost, probably lives too because of stupid local government by-laws restricting tree and even undergrowth clearance, the latter being a known huge problem for fueling raging wild fires and the very reason why limited burn offs are done by National Parks people in some areas.
How stupid is it that a local council can ban people clearing undergrowth along the roadside verge outside of their properties.

As for new designs, I’d rather see more older people with experience have their minds tapped into to see what sort of building materials can be developed for the future.
The article on India for instance had as a theme, a family in the plastic bottle recycling business, they making enormous inroads and even importing empty bottles into India and think of what use shredded plastic and even something like wood chips could be put to, a termite and fire resistant adhesive additive and with aerating you could perhaps have a durable insulative/strong honeycomb lightweight material for building.

Designs already exist for using natural ventilation, even in places like Darwin and if you look at how the Indians live and survive in what must be a very trying climate, part of adapting to the future might also mean a hardening up of many precious flowers.

Dr B S Goh Australian in Asia says:

01:58pm | 10/01/13

@ Mr. Jordon. My view is that the carbon tax is a big fraud imposed on Australia because it has negligible impact on global warming, which is a global problem rather than an Australian problem per se.

If we have a couple of billions of dollars to spend I rather see we spend on helping the poor people in the Himalayan mountains do something about their environment and help a bit to fight global warming.

I visited the region a few times and see the natives destroying their environment. There were a handful of solar energy panels on some roofs. We should encourage the natives from cutting the plants for firewood which produce CO2 emission and destroying their environment. Give them solar energy panels which cost a fraction of what it cost in Australia and provide energy source for cooking etc

The most effective ways for Australia to fight global warming is to work with China and India to promote nuclear energy, hydroelectric and solar energy in these countries. Australia has huge deposits of thorium which can provide a safe form of nuclear energy.

Forget about carbon tax and like in Australia to fight global warming as we are a small country people wise.

JoniM says:

03:51pm | 10/01/13

The Nigerian shysters are ecstatic with our “progressive” Carbon pricing strategies !
Those old lottery win scams were becoming so passe a bloke could barely make living ! Thanks Ms Gillard ! Here’s our BSB number ! Your CC certificate is in the mail ! You can trust those Aussie dollars will be used judiciously by our finance people ( Victor and Moses).

Nostromo says:

03:34pm | 10/01/13

What, no replies from the loony left or green goblinses?
Post of the day Anubis!

Nostromo says:

03:41pm | 10/01/13

This reminded me of a great speech that was once made on true patriotism & citizenship:

“Our revolution will do more to effect a real, inner transformation than all of modern history’s revolts taken together! . . . In no stage of our advance, in no stage of our fighting must we let chaos rule! . . . Nobody can doubt the fact that during the last year, a revolution of the most momentous character has been swelling like a storm among the youth of the West. Look at the strength of awareness of the young people today! Look at our inner unity of will, our unity of spirit and our growing community of thought! Who could compare us with the youth of yesterday? We are unanimously convinced that strength finds its expression not in an army, in tanks and heavy guns, but rather ultimately expresses itself in the common working of a people’s will! The will that is uniting our groups with the conviction that men and women must be taught the feeling of community to safeguard against the spirit of class warfare, of class hatred and of class division! . . . We are approaching a life in common, a common life of revolution! A common life to work for the revolutionary advancement of peace, spiritual prosperity and socialism! Toward a victorious renewal of life itself! . . . Our job is to wake everyone up and do away with illusions! So that when the people are finally awakened, never again will they plunge into sleep!

“The revolution will never end! It must be allowed to develop into streams of revolutions and be guided into the channel of evolution . . . History will judge the movement not according to the number of swine we have removed or imprisoned, but according to whether the revolution has succeeded in returning the power to the people and in the bridling of that power to enforce the will of the people everywhere! . . . Power to the people!”

——

Can anyone guess who wrote/spoke those word?

Nostromo says:

03:55pm | 10/01/13

Before you all applaud the contents of that speech, I doubt anyone alive now knows who actually wrote it, but the first man to make the speech - his name was Adolf Hitler, and he made his delivery of these same words at the Reichstag in 1937.

<BFG> *duck & ruuuuunnnn* ))

JustmeinT says:

10:14am | 10/01/13

Cannot agree more with your statements. Australia is the land of extreme weather variance… hot / cold wet/ dry   so when we get a 5-10 year period of moderate weather, a whole generation knows no different and screams blue murder when things return to ‘normal’ for Ozzie Land.

Colin says:

09:53am | 10/01/13

@ Albymangel

“If you don’t know how global warming works, for god’s sake there is heaps of information out there.  Inform yourselves.  How can people be so incredibly stupid?”

Oh, Alby; you’ve swallowed the whole sensationalist, watermelon barrow-pushing nonsense wholesale, haven’t you..?

Sure, the world MAY well be heating up - but to blame it all on an evil, Capitalist anthropogenic cause is sure as hell is a good way to attack Western life by those dread-locked misanthropes who would have us all live in caves, surviving in a poor agrarian, bucolic idyll where we all live to the rip old age of 35…

JoniM says:

02:10pm | 10/01/13

Alby ! You should have stuck to those corny documentaries !
Leave the farming business to those that prefer to plough without a girl on their lap !

“how hot will it be and how long will it hang around once temperatures hit 4 degrees?  “
I hope you still mean Celsius, Alby ?
Could be the difference between you having a frosty morning or a completely frozen radiator in your tractor ! Either way at 4 degrees, I wouldn’t worry about a heatwave !

JustMEinT says:

10:10am | 10/01/13

Bushfires have been part of the natural landscape of Australia as far back as science can trace them….. but ya got the greenies saying don’t back burn… for goodness sakes, lets get rid of the green scum off the pond in the next election so we can get back to being Aussies again!

nihonin says:

10:52am | 10/01/13

vox, Abbott’s idea is as you clearly state a ‘plan’.  It’s not yet implemented, whereas the CT is.  Go knock yourself out whinging about a ‘plan’, while the rest of the voting public who aren’t acolytes, wait for our government to tell us why the promised utopia the CT would bring us, and preached by all and sundry of the Labor party hasn’t made one iota of difference to the state the country (Australia) finds itself in, when compared to records kept over the course of recent history.  Call me a skeptic. 

fitter says:

12:14pm | 10/01/13

what’s your point? So its not implemented yet, so what? Abbott has stated he’s going to the election with the policy, which means it will be. As your such a skeptic, wouldn’t it be hypocritical voting for a party that doesn’t believe climate change is an issue, who’s leader has called it complete crap, yet they are implementing a 14 billion dollar tax payer funded policy to address it? As for the utopia you mentioned, what has been promised was to address carbon emissions, something all noted economists and scientists agree is best achieved through carbon pricing. Please produce an economist that has agreed that tax payers paying polluters is the best way to reduce emissions

nihonin says:

04:04pm | 10/01/13

Wow, you pooped your daks didn’t you vox.  lol

Colin says:

11:41am | 10/01/13

@ pete

Precisely. But try getting the Greens to talk about reversing population growth and see how far you get!

It is a simple fact that there are about five-billion people too many on this planet. A small, high-technology culture would live in paradise for the rest of their lives. But, hey, isn’t easier to blame the Means of Production rather than the Root Cause..?

james says:

01:51pm | 10/01/13

LNP supporters dont believe that the direct action plan will ever happen, otherwise who else would the nutters vote for?

nihonin says:

04:08pm | 10/01/13

I remember Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard hugging and kissing, never have I witnessed a more uncomfortable moment recorded by camera in Australian political history (well at least for one of the above mentioned parties).

Thunderoad says:

05:14pm | 10/01/13

I’d say Abbott’s “shit happens” interview with that channel 7 journo is easily the most uncomfortable moment in Australian political history. The one where the pent up rage very nearly caused his head to explode.