The Assembly is dead. Long live the Committee

Moo says:

12:44am | 08/10/10

Why not round it out by naming Eddie Maguire and Neil Mitchell as Co-MC;s

persephone says:

06:15am | 08/10/10

iansand

No, those guys have had all the airtime they need. They have a vested interest in maintaining their scepticism at all costs, and their followers are going to be able to perform the same leaps of logic they perform here to keep the faith alive (for the opposition to climate change, in the teeth of all the evidence, is a true religion).

I know people who still vehemently argue that bike helmets cause brain injuries and should not be compulsory, again despite all the evidence. If we had to wait for people like this to come on board before we acted, it would obviously be silly.

It’s time to leave such debates behind us and act.

We know that the climate sceptics in Parliament are a minority. Those that advocate no action on climate change at all are an even smaller group. We shouldn’t let this handful of misfits dictate the national agenda, when they can’t even win over the Coalition party room.

The majority of Parliamentarians, like the majority of Australians, believe that action should be taken on climate change. They recognise that that action needs to happen sooner rather than later.

If the Coalition members who believe in climate change and believe in action are too wimpy to put their hand up to be part of the process, that’s their problem (and one I find ironic in a party which claims to champion the rights of individuals to stand up for what they believe in).

It’s way too late for talkfests, which is why the CA (which was always just a way of filling in time and keeping the discussion going whilst we waited for a new Senate) was a bad idea.

MarK says:

07:34am | 08/10/10

What pers really means

“No, those guys have had all the airtime they need.” - We do not want any dissent on this committee. Bob Brown has told me so. Also if we have alternative view points we cannot spin the decision to tax carbon as unanimous thus shattering the protective shield of the “what else could I do they all said tax” excuse.

“They have a vested interest ” - If I accuse them of vested interests I can blame everyone else of me-too-ism when they point out the vested interests of Garnaut, Stern, The Greens, the “scientists etc etc etc

“is a true religion” - see above. When you are running a scare campaign and are part of a cult the need to deflect your obvious flaws is great. One tactic is to accuse your opposition of your worst and most obvious flaw. It is the only tactic I have left.

“I know people” - I have no proof but hell I needed an analogy so I tossed in an unverifiable tid bit to back up the “science” that doesn’t really support our position

“It’s time to leave such debates behind us and act.” - The inconvenient truth is if we actually looked at all this stuff it gives us no authority to redistribute wealth and tax. Hence we cannot have dissent. It makes our agenda harder.

“We know that the climate sceptics in Parliament are a minority. ” Again I make stuff up to help the cause

“Those that advocate no action on climate change at all are an even smaller group.” - If I am making stuff up I may as well go the whole hog and tell outright lies because I have no proof of this or any other “fact”

“We shouldn’t let this handful of misfits dictate the national agenda” - We shouldn’t let the fact that we took no policy to the election stop us from this great big new tax. Let us not discuss the fact we ruled it out and are flipflopping disgracefully. Hell - the Greens said we better or their support disappears next time around. Hate to be held to ransom by a bunch of misfits

“when they can’t even win over the Coalition party room.” - I choose to ignore the fact that Turnbull lost the leadership on this issue in a democratic vote.

“The majority of Parliamentarians, like the majority of Australians, believe that action should be taken on climate change.” If I keep repeating myself these lies might take traction

“They recognise that that action needs to happen sooner rather than later. ” - Well except the alarmist of the century Tim Flannery and places that do science like the Royal Society that explicitly said gosh….we have more time.

“If the Coalition members who believe in climate change and believe in action are too wimpy to put their hand up to be part of the process, that’s their problem” - Quick. Better play the man. Hope no one points out that the reverse could be said of Labor where the saner men and woman are too frightened to take a stand lest a Mal Coulston is done on them.

“It’s way too late for talkfests” - We can’t afford another debate. The others didn’t work. There is too much doubt. Our sociopolitical agenda of higher taxes for the wealthy and business to facilitate wealth redistribution and social restructuring is one a knife edge. If we don’t get this across the line people will start to realise that the scare campaigns which forecast Perth as a ghost town, dams dry, drought and drowning islands, millions, nay billions, of climate refugees displaced and increased massive world wide storms are overdue. In fact most should have happened.

If we don’t rubber stamp this now we will be too late because the computer models will not have come true. And then the game will be up.

All fixed for clarity.

TimB says:

07:49am | 08/10/10

“We know that the climate sceptics in Parliament are a minority. Those that advocate no action on climate change at all are an even smaller group. “

How the hell do you know that? You have no idea what every Labor MP thinks. All you know is what the party line is, (which I’m going to assume is decided by the majority and not just the senior party members).
That leaves just under half the Labor MP’s who could potentially be sceptics. Of course we have no way of knowing for sure, because if you don’t toe the Labor party line, you get kicked out.

“We shouldn’t let this handful of misfits dictate the national agenda, when they can’t even win over the Coalition party room.”

Uh…they did win over the party room. May I direct your attention to Abbott vs Turnbull? That entire spill happened because of the differing opinion on just this issue.
Now we can’t be that the MP’s voted purely along climate change lines, (some may have simply voted Turnbull to keep a stable status quo, others may have voted Abbott simply from a dislike of Turnbull). However we can look at the resulting parliament votes on the ETS for a clearer picture, which brings me to my third issue with your post:

...“and one I find ironic in a party which claims to champion the rights of individuals to stand up for what they believe”

Which is what happened in the ETS votes. There were Liberal members who crossed the floor (such as Turnbull). Two Liberal senators did the same thing. But the majority voted against.

That coupled with the elevation of Tony to the leadership, indicates to me that a majority of the Coalition is opposed to the ETS. And considering the Coalition constitutes nearly half the parliament, that’s quite a significant proportion not a “handful of misfits” as you claim.

The entire committee is a farce.

Maarten V says:

08:18am | 08/10/10

Ian sand , I tottally agree with your comments it is a load of Crap, and Julia went to the Voters with it.
And it is a total farce to now force a Climate Policy when Ms gillard committee consist only of True believer’s, this is because it is not about Climate Change it is about a new taxing system.
Today it is reported that the Govt is relying on data that is 30 years out of date in building design in relation to climate change.

Hamish says:

12:18pm | 08/10/10

Perse, what are Bolt et al’s vested interests? Are their interests more or less vested than the AGW pushers whose grants, tenures and media gigs seem dependent on promoting climate change as an issue?

Surely a plurality of views should be represented on the committee? Otherwise it’s simply a stunt to rubber-stamp an unpopular poilcy without any real purpose or legitimacy.

Ryan says:

01:24pm | 08/10/10

@Mark & Tim: you aren’t honestly expecting a response to persephones propaganda are you?

TimB says:

02:03pm | 08/10/10

@ Ryan- Dunno. Don’t really care. I’m just having fun picking holes in her posts.

I must give Perse credit though, she’s much more satisfying to debate than some of the other regular Labor supporters. Their sole means of argument appear to consist of nothing more than random insults. It’s very hard to counter that sort of thing without resorting to same.

persephone says:

02:12pm | 08/10/10

Dear moderators

I have attempted to answer MarK and Tim B’s posts twice now.

Although I accept your right not to publish them, to be consistent and fair you should either then not publish posts such as Ryan’s, or you should make it clear that I have submitted answering posts which have not been published.

regards

Persephone

MarK says:

02:51pm | 08/10/10

@Ryan - intelligent response?

Nope.

Mike T says:

10:24pm | 07/10/10

Totally agree Anon. The author makes a ridiculous point by suggesting Abbott continues to “boycott” the commitee. The LP policy prior to the election was no carbon Tax, so i would like the author to explain how he is “boycotting” a commitee whos role is to introduce a carbon Tax?? Surely it would be hipocritical for him or any member of the party to join a commitee when there policy directly opposes thier fundamental goal of such commitee…...

persephone says:

06:24am | 08/10/10

No, Abbott was against an ETS. He wants a price on carbon, and that price will be paid, under his scheme, by ordinary taxpayers.

Something paid for by ordinary taxpayers is paid for through their taxes.

The difference between his scheme and Labor’s (and I will point out that the ETS was never dumped, as the article states, but that its introduction was delayed) is that Labor’s would cost taxpayers less for a better result.

I would also point out that Gillard’s statement about a carbon tax has not been broken. She said that there was to be a price on carbon.

Given that how that price is going to be imposed has not yet been determined, then we don’t yet know if there’s going to be a ‘carbon tax’ (which is a specific term referring to a specific kind of tax, rather than referring to a price on carbon as such).

The Coalition broke a much bigger promise, to introduce an ETS, which they took to the 2007 election. They had no reason not to deliver it, even designing the legislation which went to Parliament and endorsing it in the party room.

MarK says:

08:20am | 08/10/10

“I would also point out that Gillard’s statement about a carbon tax has not been broken”

This is a lie. Not spin.

A lie.

Dash says:

09:49am | 08/10/10

This is a dirty rotten ALP lie, yet again! The ALP deserve to swing on this policy alone. A carbon tax will send power prices through the roof. It will have little if any impact on the environment. It is not a solution for global warming, it is merely another tax! And it will be inflationary in a time when we already have enough inflationary pressures on the economy. When the power bills start arriving at households and inflation kicks in, people need to remember that it is all on the head of the ALP and their alliance with the Greens. And then have the guts to vote appropriately! This is stupid economics and it’s stupid politics.

Mike T says:

10:53am | 08/10/10

@ Pers..

“Given that how that price is going to be imposed has not yet been determined, then we don’t yet know if there’s going to be a ‘carbon tax’”

Okay so a promise is not broken untill the action occurs, even when the person has said “i am going to break the promise”.

Just use some common sense mate rather then trying to justify comments from Julia by using obscure logic…...

If julia says there will be “No carbon tax” then says we must work toward a “carbon tax” and commences a commitee who’s goal is to work out how to introduce a “carbon tax”, then that makes the origional comment of “no carbon tax” a lie….

I really should not have to explain this to you, and frankly feel like i should ask you to reimburse me the 2 minutes of my life it took me to type it…

persephone says:

12:07pm | 08/10/10

Mike T & MarK

the PM has always spoken in terms of putting a price on carbon, not a carbon tax, which are two different things.

The purpose of the committee -

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/media/whats-new/climate-change-committee-first-meeting.aspx

- is to ‘investigate options for implementing a carbon price and to help build consensus on how Australia will tackle climate change’ and ‘considering all the options for a price on carbon.’

No mention of a tax there.

So no promise has been broken.

MarK says:

12:17pm | 08/10/10

“So no promise has been broken. “

Snicker.

Yah.

Hands up all those who believe her.

““There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” “

Are you seriously suggested that a price on carbon is different to a tax? And if so that those words from Julia are therefore still rock solid since

“implementing a carbon price”

is “not” a tax.

Really?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fail

Dash says:

12:31pm | 08/10/10

persephone, when is a tax not a tax? When it’s a “price” on Carbon production? Good luck selling that line to the public when their power bills come rolling in and their cost of living rises! Any way you look at it, this is an additional cost which will be passed on to the consumer. Remember that at your next ALP meeting.

And an assembly of the people has now been replaced by a committee of ALP picked yes men. “Consensus” from a pack that represent less than 50% of the population??? Typical Labor nonsense aimed at dressing Labor policy to look like the “independent” decision of an informed bunch of experts. We still haven’t had our promised “root and branch” tax reform yet? All be it just another hollow ALP promise.

At the end of the day, the impact of this will rest squarely with the ALP and their green coalition.

persephone says:

02:10pm | 08/10/10

Dash

I agree with you: Abbott’s plan to tackle Climate Change puts a price on carbon and is thus, by your definition, a tax.

Ryan says:

02:47pm | 08/10/10

@persephone: I have read some BS in my life but that ranks up there with some of the stinkiest.  “the PM has always spoken in terms of putting a price on carbon, not a carbon tax, which are two different things.”

You are joking aren’t you, I mean really you can’t think much of us if you expect us to swallow what a two year old could work out.

Mike T says:

04:47pm | 08/10/10

@ Thanks Perse…....

As long as it’s not a tax… im happy with a price, levy, duty, impost as long as it’s not a tax….....

Perse your just embarassing yourself on this one mate….....

A price on a good or service by a governement which will be passed on the consumer is called a….. DRUM ROLE PLEASE….. TAX…

acotrel says:

10:28pm | 08/10/10

I agree with Anon.  Julia Gillard is just going to have to stop dancing to Tony Abbot’s tune on every issue! She’s in imminent danger of becoming completely predictable.

Northern Steve says:

10:34pm | 08/10/10

Might be worth noting that electricity prices have risen steeply over the last couple of years at least partly because the power generators and distributors had started factoring in a price on carbon.  Looked like a certainty so they started bumping the price to take it into account
Of course, in Qld too the state (Labor) government corporatised the system, and started taking out special ‘dividends’ into general revenue, money that should have been spent on upgrades and maintenance - the distributors and generators have now had to raise their prices to cover that too.

Pers, I’m with you on the science of climate change, but you’ve got to get more realistic with your politics.  Gillard pulled a swifty on the carbon tax, whether she had her fingers crossed behind her back or not.  If you can’t admit that, you’re not going to get a ridgy-didge debate here.

Peter M says:

12:08am | 09/12/10

Don’t look now, but Gillard’s party didn’t get elected.  What was elected was a government consisting of the ALP and some others of different persuasion.  Didn’t you follow that bit?  Abbott said Gillard didn’t have a mandate—so how can he turn around and whinge about broken promises?  He doesn’t have a mandate, and hasn’t kept his promises either.  Not surprising, because he’s not in Government.

iansand says:

05:49am | 08/10/10

The EEC is talking about imposing carbon tariffs on imports from countries without a emissions reduction scheme.  If it does that, there’s your economic imperative.

MarK says:

08:27am | 08/10/10

“The EEC is talking about imposing carbon tariffs on imports “

“The EEC is talking about imposing “

“The EEC is talking”

“talking”

iansand says:

11:10am | 08/10/10

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_121679.htm

There you go MarK

Richard says:

11:24am | 08/10/10

Iansand, the EEC is insignificant as an Australian trading partner: source .  We rely on exports to China, Japan, US, Korea (and probably India too in the future) to maintain a viable economy. China are already making low-pitched but ominous growls about the effect of the MMRT on resource prices. If we slap a great big carbon tax on as well, prices will have to rise: its a fundamental economic law.

If they do rise and China starts thinking that its too costly to do business with Australia now under the rapacious Labor government, they will decide to source their raw resources from Brazil/Africa instead. And if that happens, we can all kiss goodbye that mythical surplus in 3 years time (“3 years early Mr. Speaker!’ /vomit) and say hello to British-style Austerity cuts. Ask your friends in England how well that’s going. Mine inform me that it completely sux, but I guess that’s what you’ve got to expect after any lengthily period of Labour rule :/.

MarK says:

11:35am | 08/10/10

From your link

“EU Ponders Carbon Tariff on Imports
Brussels considers a policy to charge companies that import goods into Europe for the CO2 they emitted during production”

“EU Ponders Carbon Tariff on Imports
Brussels considers a policy to charge for the CO2 they emitted “

“EU Ponders Carbon Tariff on Imports
Brussels considers “

“EU Ponders
Brussels considers “

And further on

Some EU officials have publicly opposed the proposed tariff.

France, in particular, is a supporter of the potential tariff. Both former president Jacques Chirac and current president Nicolas Sarkozy have warned that overly strict emissions regulations could hobble the competitiveness of European countries. In October, Sarkozy urged European leaders to “examine the option of taxing products imported from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol.”

Hope Julia is going to tax the bastards at our end too.

Imagine going it alone on a carbon tax and price.

Goddam that would hurt the economy.

Is Labor and the Greens supporting this too? Reintroduction of tariffs to protect local industries from the “overly strict emissions regulations could hobble the competitiveness” of Australian industries.

Just asking.

Northern Steve says:

10:25pm | 08/10/10

Mark, we wouldn’t be going it alone.  You keep stating this, and its not true.  India has introduced an ETS.  In the absence of a federal US ETS, a significant number of US states have introduced their own ETS.

persephone says:

06:30am | 08/10/10

Or go back to making more than she does at present as a lawyer.

MarK says:

08:31am | 08/10/10

Can we offer her a raise if she does piss off? It will save the country a fortune if she does.

David C says:

04:20pm | 08/10/10

Im prepared to chip in

iansand says:

05:39am | 08/10/10

Quite right.  The opposing science bit should take 10 minutes, then the grownups can move forward.

MarK says:

08:23am | 08/10/10

Agree Ian,

About 10 minutes longer than the actual “science” of the “proof” for AGW..

Then we can move forward like grown ups and look at exactly the greens 40% reduction of emisions of a naturally occurring gas will mean for the environment and the subsequent cost to the nation.

iansand says:

11:03am | 08/10/10

You are right, MarK.  The AGW presentation will not take long at all.  The science behind it is really simple. 

1 Things are getting hotter. 

2 CO2 (and other gases) are greenhouse gases. 

3 We have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 50% in the last century or so. 

4 Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases. 

5 We have been burning fossil fuel at a steadily increasing rate for the last 150 years or so.

That is really simple science.  It has been understood, and uncontroverted, for over 100 years.

MarK says:

11:41am | 08/10/10

“That is really simple science.  It has been understood, and uncontroverted, for over 100 years. “

Oh really?

Wednesday, 29 September 2010 22:09 Ben Webster, The Times

Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.

Since all of this is scientific and proven please show me the proof of rising temperatures world wide for the last 150 years. It is global so everywhere must have got hotter.

Graphs please.

World wide.

150 years worth. Or 100.

Go to it.

And while you are graphically integrated your religion please also explain the medieval warm period and how all those jousting cars the knights drove around to The Crusades and such like affected the weather.

Oh and what carbon reducing policies did the world agree to to lower the temperature at that time. I mean they managed to do it. Surely we can learn a thing or two from them eh?

Cheers.

kthxbai

iansand says:

02:10pm | 08/10/10

MarK - I doubt that the Royal Society has cast any doubt at all on the propositions I set out.

And if you read the report they say that there is uncertainty on the regional scale but not on the continental scale.  In other words they cannot predict what might happen in Upper East Woop Woop but have a pretty good handle on what will happen to Australia.

A bit of advice.  Go to the source - not the summaries provided by your fruitcake blogger pals.

persephone says:

06:57am | 08/10/10

SuperD

cheap power isn’t the problem - we have that already.

In fact, cheap power has always been the problem. Coal is such a cheap and reliable supply of power that we haven’t had to look at other technologies. Even now, it is so cheap and reliable that any other option is expensive by comparison.

And the punters do care about how clean it is.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100204 Climate Change + CPRS.pdf

According to the linked poll, taken in February, 73% of Australians believe that climate change is occurring, and 94% of those believe it’s caused by human activity.

57% believe that a CPRS is the way to deal with this. (The question wasn’t asked, but it’s fairly safe to assume that the other 16% who believe that climate change is happening want some kind of action).

I could quote other surveys - they all show the same thing.

And China is acting on climate change.

David C says:

04:00pm | 08/10/10

Pers people believe in climate change and want action but there is a limit to what they wil pay. 100 a year maybe , 500 a year forget it. These are the facts get over it and deal with it No policitcian will take on that reality.. The answer is to make the alternatives cheaper, dont argue just do it

Steve Putnam says:

05:00pm | 10/10/10

Business sees a price on carbon as inevitable and wants guidelines for its future planning. Busines knows this because it realises that the only way you can successfully moderate human behaviour on a mass scale is by putting a price on it. By any reasonable standards the numbers are out there for all to see. All Abbott and his carping loonies can do is delay the inevitable.

Dash says:

02:22pm | 08/10/10

Absolutely correct David! Perhaps we should take a closer look at whose selling the “alternative” energy sources.

And yes, make no mistake, rises in power prices and cost of living expenses are squarely on the head of the ALP and their loony green alliance.

There will be more of an impact on utility prices than there will be on the environment. Let there be an election on this very point!

persephone says:

07:06am | 08/10/10

Climate change is a world wide phenomena, so zero immigration may reduce our emissions but it doesn’t tackle the global problem.

If there are no international agreements or frameworks, then I’d have to agree with the sceptics - anything we do under those circumstances is tokenism.

And, cough, but isn’t putting money towards building clean energy sources a subsidy?

And any way you put a price on carbon will end up with accusations on evasion and rorting, because you have to work out a way of determining what to charge who for what - a process where there will be winners and losers, with the losers bitching.

MarK says:

08:29am | 08/10/10

“Climate change is a world wide phenomena”

No it is not.

That is what you “believe”

That is not factual. It is not backed up by evidence.

The advantages of if it were to occur have not been discussed and there are many.

Steely Dan says:

09:25am | 08/10/10

@ MarK

“That is not factual. It is not backed up by evidence.”
That’s right.  It just looks like it does, but that’s because the illuminati are cooking the books.  So it’s best to stay away from peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Especially those published by reptoids.

“The advantages of if it were to occur have not been discussed and there are many.”
Is this the argument that the flooding of low-lying countries will be offset by sales of Icelandic pinot noir?

MarK says:

09:55am | 08/10/10

“So it’s best to stay away from peer-reviewed scientific journals.” -

Climategate appears to have answered this.

The Royal Society appears to have answered this.

Tim Flannery appears to have answered this

“Is this the argument that the flooding of low-lying countries will be offset by sales of Icelandic pinot noir? “

Oh I see you are attempting humour.

No.

It is more about longer growing seasons for food, apparently people elsewhere are hungry. Trustori.

It is about the less usage of fossil fuels - those really nasty ones that cause all this warming when used don’t ya know - for heating.

There is just two. There are others. Look them up. Go on.

Steely Dan says:

10:41am | 08/10/10

@ MarK

“Climategate appears to have answered this.”
How?  ‘Climategate’ was an allegation that somebody was cooking the books - East Anglia and the House of Commons found that he didn’t.  Of course, that won’t stop you from claiming that they’re all in on it.
“The Royal Society appears to have answered this.”
How?  To quote their recent study:
“There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.”
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

“Tim Flannery appears to have answered this”
How?  No really, how?

“It is more about longer growing seasons for food, apparently people elsewhere are hungry.”
And this will offset the areas where climate change will negatively affect food production?

“It is about the less usage of fossil fuels - those really nasty ones that cause all this warming when used don’t ya know - for heating.”
And more for cooling.

MarK says:

11:28am | 08/10/10

“‘Climategate’ was an allegation that somebody was cooking the books - East Anglia and the House of Commons found that he didn’t.  Of course, that won’t stop you from claiming that they’re all in on it.”

They are all in on it. I love how East Anglia investigated itself.

The Royal Society

“To quote their recent study:” from your link

“The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

You really should read and understand what you link.

Here is a synopsis of it. Seems you don’t have the time to read even the first few paragraphs of the actual paper

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1617-royal-society-bows-to-climate-change-sceptics.html

“Tim Flannery”

Oh you don’t keep up on current events?

http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=6874

There he is is talking to Vizard about his new book telling us we have time before doom descends on us all.

I really like this bit

“I was in the supermarket and there was a woman there crying in the aisles with her young son in tow and she said something like, “There is no hope for us, is there?”” Tim Flannery

Tim just happened to be in the fruit aisle (organic of course) and came across this woman crying (with her child of course) that “there is no hope for us”

Let us for a moment believe this happened. He then wrote a new book because this affected him so and he now sees that we have more time to act than he thought. Besides it is a pretty good gig. Write a book saying we are all going to die horribly - then write a book that says it will happen later. The third in the trilogy will be probably this “A Guide To Creating World Wide Panic and Profiting” or by its working title, How Me and Al Cleaned Up Lol.

Please. Try an keep up with the religion preachings of your messiah. I hate having to research stuff for you.

In other words we don’t need to act NOW. Tim said so.

Personally I believe he misheard her and she was crying because there is no “soap” left for us now. She probably had to use that harsh Homebrand crap which dries out your skin. Now there is a disaster.

“And this will offset the areas where climate change will negatively affect food production?”

No it will exceed them.

“And more for cooling.”

Gosh you are clever

Have fun listening to Tim.

bobw says:

11:51am | 08/10/10

@MarK:  If you yourself had actually read the Royal Society publication that you’re so gleefully cackling about, you would probably realise that it provides no support whatsoever for your crackpot theories.

Steely Dan says:

12:05pm | 08/10/10

@ MarK

“They are all in on it.”
Of course they are.  Why didn’t I guess?

“I love how East Anglia investigated itself.”
Yes, it’s irresponsible for a university to investigate one of their academic staff when an allegation is made!  And you forgot the House of Commons investigation - oh, wait, I forgot they’re part of the conspiracy too! 

“The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”
Gasp!  Uncertainty!  Time for some Philosophy of Science 101, MarK.  The scientific method cannot provide 100% certainty - there will always be uncertainty.  This isn’t just in the realm of climate science, this applies everywhere.  If you’d read the IPCC Fourth Assessment you’d know they don’t claim that there isn’t uncertainty in any of the science.

“You really should read and understand what you link… Here is a synopsis of it. Seems you don’t have the time to read even the first few paragraphs of the actual paper”
And then you link to a think tank that ‘interprets’ the actual paper (which I linked to) for you!  I love it!

“Oh you don’t keep up on current events?”
If ‘keeping up with current events’ means going to mtr1377.com, then I’m guilty as charged.  Just saying ‘I don’t like Tim Flannery’ isn’t contributing much to the debate, MarK.

“No it will exceed them.”
Source please!

“Gosh you are clever”
It’s hard not to notice.

MarK says:

12:29pm | 08/10/10

@ bobw - right back at ya mate thanks for playing

@Steely - so you didn’t listen to Tim.

Who said I don’t like him? I don’t even know him!! Gosh you are judgemental. Still I love how you dismiss things which contradict you. Or ignore what you don’t want to believe.

Gotcha.

Thanks

Good to see recognise uncertainty which is my point.

Happy to have you on board.

You have conceded science can’t prove AGW but want to rely on it as a basis to tax the “cause” of it. I find this hard to intellectually reconcile so I will leave it for you.

““You really should read and understand what you link… Here is a synopsis of it. Seems you don’t have the time to read even the first few paragraphs of the actual paper”
And then you link to a think tank that ‘interprets’ the actual paper (which I linked to) for you!  I love it!”

This worries me. You really don’t follow links or look at stuff do you. Oh well. I also used a direct quotation from the paper you linked. Really read what you link. You have no idea. I included the summary for your benefit. Since you don’t read

I love it.

All this uncertainty to justify a new tax for wealth redistribution. Love it.

Keep going it is awesome.

Steely Dan says:

01:12pm | 08/10/10

@ MarK

“Who said I don’t like him? I don’t even know him!!”
Given the length of your past rant on him, I think it’s a fair assessment.  If you have a specific objection to something that he’s said, then state it.  If it’s another pointless rant like last time, leave it out.

“You have conceded science can’t prove AGW but want to rely on it as a basis to tax the “cause” of it. I find this hard to intellectually reconcile so I will leave it for you.”
Wow, you really don’t get it, do you?  I ‘concede’ science can’t ‘prove’ AGW, just as I ‘concede’ that science can’t ‘prove’ evolution.  Science can’t give absolute certainty for anything.  That doesn’t mean we reject science, it only means we need to reject the notion that it can give us absolute certainty.  The same issue applies in economics as well.  As the Royal Society (the actual Royal Society, not the GPWF article) said:  “Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge.”

“This worries me. You really don’t follow links or look at stuff do you.”
I did.  And I already responded to it.  Saying that there is uncertainty in a scientific issue isn’t a win for climate change denialists - it’s a given!

Shane From Melbourne says:

04:30pm | 08/10/10

@persephone- no subsidies towards clean energy. The government builds and runs clean energy sources, selling power to the gird for a profit.

carbon tariffs reverses the equation- those who do not reduce carbon emissions or impose a carbon tariff are at competitive disadvantage.

And yes there will be evasion and rorting on a carbon tax just as there is on ordinary taxes. The latest trend now is “treaty shopping” But it is a lot harder to rort and evade up front taxes than a derivatives market which is what the ETS will be.

iansand says:

07:36am | 08/10/10

Howard does have a lot to answer for.

Dash says:

01:49pm | 08/10/10

iansand, Howard can answer for:
Leaving the ALP a $20+ billion surplus to piss away on $900 handouts to dead people!
Paying off all of the ALPs debt.
Producing record levels of employment (unemployment is higher under Labor btw).
GDP growth higher than any other part of the Western world.
Delivering the financial services reform act which delivered some of the strongest banks and insurance companies in the world.
All of these things, which helped protected us from the GFC, the ALP of course, has tried to take credit for.

What does the ALP have to answer for?
Record levels of foreign debt.
An unnecessary second stimulus.
A $7.4b hole in it’s budget.
Rising interest rates.
Rising inflation.
Higher unemployment figures.
Rorts under the school halls program.
Neglect of our state health systems.
Record numbers of illegal boats.
Backflips on the promises of grocery choice, fuelwatch and the profits tax.
Lies about the carbon price, root and branch tax reform, more affordable housing and cheaper better childcare.

Sorry, but I prefer the things Howard is answerable for!

persephone says:

02:15pm | 08/10/10

Dash

and Labor can answer for:

* Clean Energy initiative introduced to accelerate development of clean energy technologies
* Renewable Energy target of 20% by 2020
* Major reform of health system, with increased health funding introduced
* Abolished WorkChoices
* Increased pensions, and overhauled pension payment system
* Raised child care rebate to 50%
* Introduced tax rebate for children’s education expenses
* Introduced free dental checks for teenagers
* Fully funded parental leave scheme
* National curriculum for schools
* My School website
* Unprecedented upgrade of school infrastructure
* Major tax cuts for those on average incomes
* Decisive action on GFC, estimated at saving 200,000 jobs and avoiding recession
* Massive increase in infrastructure spending
* Commenced roll out of National Broadband Network
* Ongoing roll out of computers in schools program
* Over 1 million homes insulated, industry regulated
* Investment in improving teacher quality, countering educational disadvantage and improving literacy and numeracy
* Abolished full fee university places, provided funding for another 11,000 tertiary places
* Reformed HECs
* Reformed Youth Allowance
* Tackling the problem of homelessness, including the building and renovation of homes for disabled and those on low incomes.
* Reduced commitment in Iraq
* Apologies to the Stolen Generation and British child migrants
* Ratified Kyoto
* Introduced alcopops tax to tackled youth binge drinking
* Simplified tax reporting for small business
* Proposes to take Japan to the International Court to stop whaling;
* Increased number of apprentices;
* Increased trade training;
* Set up trade training centres in schools;
* Underwrote banks and Australians’ savings, keeping confidence high during GFC;
* Removed TPVs and introduced other reforms to refugee treatment;
* Introduced standards for early childhood education;
* Funded cancer centres;
* Built GP super clinics;
* Increased overseas aid;
* Provided long term planning for Defence

....and all in just three years!

Northern Steve says:

11:01pm | 08/10/10

TO be honest pers, a lot of those things would make me hang my head in shame if I was a Labor supporter.
Major health reform?  please
Indigenous housing?  All 7 of them?
GP Superclinics?  both of them?
(On that, the promised superclinic in Mackay caused a GP who had spent 3 yrs planning his own large 24hr clinic to walk away, having lost large amounts of money - Mackay would have had a 24hr clinic by now.  Now?  yrs away if ever)
Insulation?  How much of it is safe or effective?
MySchool?  And I though you were a teacher.  Worst initiative I’ve seen so far.
School infrastrucutre?  Whether they wanted/needed it or not
Underwrote bank savings?  Not necessary and just caused chaos in the nonbanking sector.

I could keep going, but really.  Take off the rose coloured glasses.  Some of the stuff on the list is great, but you’ve got to become more discriminating if you want to be taken seriously here.

MarK says:

07:06am | 08/10/10

Yeh.

And Martin Ferguson is a real believer as well.

bobw says:

12:27am | 08/10/10

You’re right MarK:  the “science” is all a big con, and the real agenda is to effect wealth redistribution.  The plot was hatched in 1921 at the instigation of VI Lenin.  The apparent rise, decline and fall of the Soviet Union was all engineered so as to blind the West to its existence.  Meanwhile, Lenin, whose “death” in 1924 was faked, took charge of a crack team of Soviet scientists tasked with developing mind control techniques.  These were perfected in 1965 with inspiration derived from an episode of the television programme Get Smart.  From this point, Lenin’s team, with the assistance of the KGB, began kidnapping scientists and opinionmakers from around the globe in order to inculcate the AGW lie before returning them to their normal lives, none the wiser.  This process is ongoing.  Andrew Bolt was spared because the KGB was terrified of Bolt’s jujitsu skills.  Bolt fights on, but Lenin, now aged 140, sits in his underground lair (the modern evil genius’ residence of choice) on a throne made from the skulls of investment bankers and mining magnates, secure in the knowledge that an Australian carbon price will be a giant leap towards the fulfilment of Marx’s vision - and will also, of course, have the side-benefit of helping his old mate Albanese “shore up a few preference deals”.

Yep, it’s the commies alright, MarK.  Run for the hills.

persephone says:

07:14am | 08/10/10

So MarK uses examples of scientists’ predictions being bourne out to discredit the science? Way to go, baby!

Way back when I first got interested in the topic (early 2000s), the scientists were saying that climate change would see an increase in the severity of droughts, floods and fires.

In the last decade, Australia has seen an increase in the severity of droughts, floods and fires.

So the science did what it is supposed to do.

NSW may have had an enormous increase in utility prices but I don’t think that’s been the case elsewhere.

And there has been a change in behaviour, regardless. That’s why so many people took solar. That’s why our electrical appliances are rated for efficiency. It’s why there’s been a huge increase in the number of cars on LPG and the creation of a market for low emission vehicles.

More importantly, it’s why electricity companies who used to be dependent entirely on coal are diversifying, investing in hydro, wind and solar.

So nearly every statement you make is untrue, which means that the conclusions you draw are also flawed.

I will now wait for lots of accusations from you of spinning and lying, punctuated by bursts of insane laughter, because that’s all you ever have when you’ve been proven wrong.

TimB says:

08:19am | 08/10/10

Way to completely miss MarK’s point Perse. And yes, spin it into something it isnt.  If MarK accuses you of spinning, that’s because you are. Trying to claim any accusations of such as autmoatic proof that he must be wrong is not only desperate, but highly illogical.

You say the AGW predictions of floods and droughts coming true must mean they are right. No it doesn’t. *I* could have predicted floods and droughts 10 years ago and blamed it on aliens with weather control devices pointed at our planet. Does the fact that the prediction came true mean that my theory is right? Of course not. It’s a logical fallacy.

More to the point it’s rather easy to predict floods and droughts in this country. Observe a poem we all should know, that was first written in   1904 , long before AGW:

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains

Take special note of that last line. We’ve always had floods and droughts in this country. Always. The predictiongs of the AGW crowd are nothing more than the meteorolgical equivalent of cold reading. And you’re falling for it.

And that is MarK’s point. Predictions are being made for all kinds of weather effects that will happen regardless. Then when they happen, they’re seized on as proof of AGW. Even if the effects are completely opposite each other, like floods and droughts. It’s ridiculous logic and MarK quite rightly points it out.

MarK says:

09:05am | 08/10/10

Yes.

I use a report of science saying drought is the outcome of AGW to account for the wettest September in 100 years. Comprehension is wonderful. The juxtaposition of AGW and whatever you want to occur doesn’t appear coincidental to you then pers. Of course not. Zealotry has no shame after all.

Pers that was Victoria I was talking about with the increase in prices. Of course you don’t check. You just don’t think. You just assume and use your beliefs to cloud your thinking.

You zealots are hung up on the science. Bring a bit of proof to your own arguments.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorias-bill-sting-set-to-deepen/story-e6frf7kx-1225935131390

You offer homilies and anecdotes but no facts (as usual).

“In the last decade, Australia has seen an increase in the severity of droughts, floods and fires.” - Lacking any type of proof. But hey it is AGW so why not make stuff up. We can model that in. Use a “nature trick” or two.

Again some scientific proof would be nice.

“More importantly, it’s why electricity companies who used to be dependent entirely on coal are diversifying, investing in hydro, wind and solar.”

Really? And how successful has all this been?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/energy-bills-set-to-rise-after-solar-scheme-blowout/story-e6freuzr-1225935145850

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/home-solar-costs-25-times-more-than-ets-to-cut-gas/story-fn59niix-1225934603531

Refute away with what someone told you.

Just try to come back with something, anything of value. Please. No laughter at all. Just disdain and pity.

It seems the burden of proof has fallen back to you.

Your incessant posting in this thread is proof enough for me that the religious cause of this sham has you in its grips.

Keep it coming.

It truly is interesting to watch a cultist in action.

persephone says:

02:21pm | 08/10/10

MarK

‘Your incessant posting in this thread is proof enough for me that the religious cause of this sham has you in its grips.

Keep it coming.

It truly is interesting to watch a cultist in action. ‘

Yes it is.

At the time of writing this, there are 9 posts from me on this thread and 19 from you.

By your own criteria, you are the cultist.

Hamish says:

02:40pm | 08/10/10

Perse, I did my thesis on drought policy and the last ten years have been far from rare in Australian history. In fact based on farm production, the last ten years have been far less severe drought-wise than droughts of the 1890s and 1930s. You may notice that almost all Australian weather records which are currently being broken are from the late 1890s or 1930s. Using Australia as an example of the effects of climate change is quite silly really as the east coast of Australia has the most variable weather year-to-year of any temperate climate in the world.

I’m not necessarily saying climate change isn’t happening, but this committee is clearly an attempt to legitimise the introduction of a ‘price’ or ‘tax’ that the public clearly don’t want.

Shelly says:

01:35pm | 08/10/10

Well we need to ensure we survive the Zombie Apocolypse which may happen sometime in the next 20 to 100 years. Chances are increasing that it will occur in the future.

persephone says:

07:20am | 08/10/10

Yes, it was.

The problem was solved because of the international recognition that there was a problem and action was needed.

People acted, and the effectsof Y2K were minimised.

That it was a real threat is not denied by anyone in the IT industry. Indeed, some companies who did skimp on their Y2K compliance did experience major problems.

Some IT guys deliberately left individual computers untouched and still have these running, to demonstrate the problems Y2 would have caused.

Exactly what had been predicted would happen without intervention did happen with these ‘untreated’ machines.

So, it’s a very nice analogy for climate change: a problem has been identified, a course of action to minimise its effects has been outlined and the global community has recognised this and is working out a course of action.

MarK says:

08:35am | 08/10/10

“People acted, and the effectsof Y2K were minimised.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The cult of warming has this one in its grip.

“Some IT guys deliberately left individual computers untouched and still have these running, to demonstrate the problems Y2 would have caused.”

These guys. Show us please.

“So, it’s a very nice analogy for climate change”

I totally agree!!!!

Make up a false scare about something. Charge a fortune for “solutions”. Create panic and hysteria. Cahrge even higher prices.

Laugh all the way to the Bahamas while counting the cash.

Ryan says:

08:01am | 09/10/10

@persephone: being involved in the IT sector and having full knowledge of the impact of Y2K, other than accounting systems I can tell you that the impact was negligible, it was a money making racket and a complete and utter scam.

Steely Dan says:

11:34am | 08/10/10

Would you prefer they just made the climate change decisions in Cabinet?  Is that less Orwellian?

Dash says:

01:59pm | 08/10/10

Steely Dan, at least that way they’d take responsibility for the impact this policy is going to have on our economy and on people’s cost of living rather than just blame it on a committee!

“It’s not the ALPs fault, blame the committee. We just did what they told us.”

It seems after stuffing up nearly everything they tried to implement over the last three years (insulation fiasco, green loans fiasco, school halls rorts, ETS, East Timor, the profits tax backdown etc) the ALP now want to set up a committee to deflect policy responsibility!

It’s even more important now the ALP doesn’t have Rudd to blame everything on this time ‘round!

They are pathetic! Lets hold a committee to debate that shall we. 2020 summit anyone?

persephone says:

07:23am | 08/10/10

Yep. So now he can’t complain when the committee drafts legislation which will go through both Houses of Parliament with majority support.

He had his opportunity for input but he refused to take it. Even more damning, he refused to let individuals in his party make their own decision as to whether to participate.

It appears that the party which once proudly boasted that it allowed individuals to follow the dictates of their consciences has now turned into a dictatorship.

MarK says:

08:26am | 08/10/10

Nice spin pers.

Mal Coulston says hi from his grave.

Is that really all you have left?

Let Labor allow a conscience vote then - a secret ballot. Bring it on. Pathetic argument

MarK says:

08:24am | 08/10/10

I concur Macca. Gillard, Rudd and Brown are useless.

MarK says:

10:35am | 08/10/10

I especially loved the part where Brandt was there as an assistant to Brown.

What a laugh I got at that. I am surprised the rest of the Greens in the senate didn’t get asked to come along to make coffee and take notes and stuff.

This is awesome. Stack a committee with people that all believe in the one thing. Let them bring in assistants that, you guessed it, “believe” as well.

Yes people. This is democracy in action Green style. Secret meetings of the “believers” with a predetermined outcome.

The “letting the sun shine in” by opening the doors and windows in this new paradigm of a parliament is not looking like happening any time soon.

The report from this Raise Electricity Prices and Tax Anything That Moves Committee will be interesting. I wonder what it will say.

adam says:

12:47pm | 08/10/10

For the purposes of debate you separate the two. An ETS, while costing the taxpayer indirectly is not the same as a “tax” which explicitly and directly takes money from taxpayers and puts it in the govt’s coffers.

For the purposes of infantile whining they can be combined.

Both have a cost and depending on the conditions have different levels of ‘efficiency’ as to achieving their objective.

Ryan says:

02:51pm | 08/10/10

Well choosing B would mean you were making excuses for some serious and blatant filthy lies to the Australian people now wouldn’t it.

Just Sayin' says:

01:15pm | 08/10/10

I thought it was Oakeshott.

Peter M says:

08:42am | 09/12/10

So in the Grand Conspiracy we have morally corrupt politicians, scientists and now “computer modelling”. Which of these is running which, and why?  Plotting extends via the IFCC and the United Nations to thousands of climate scientists, hundreds of nations, and almost every single scientific association or organisation throughout the world. Nations that can’t agree on anything have come into the plot, which just proves it’s a conspiracy except that they can’t agree on how to fix it, which just proves it’s a controversy. And they can’t even agree on a massive carbon tax as yet, so the plot is weak.—except of course, where it’s strong enough to take over science. 
Now you’ve discovered warming and cooling cycles which are real enough, I’m a bit worried about the fact that these are confirmed by—wait for it—“computer modelling”. Obviously part of the fiendish plot, although who the geniuses are who are responsible for keeping a world wide plot going to this extent is not clear. Can’t be the Greens because they’re dumb.  Could be Muslims maybe? Probably aliens?

Just as well we have some brilliant stand-out minds like yours to reveal all this.

Do get plenty of rest. You’re going to need it

NEXT please, nurse !
 

Good that you’ve noticed the weather is variable. Now check the dictionary for climate. Make sure you have the idea of what “average” is.