Wild weather could help blow in the new carbon tax

Bob Croser says:

06:51am | 04/02/11

It just concerns me that it has been stated that there have been cyclones of the ferocity of Yasi in the past. Not the immediate past, but in 1918 and the late 1800’s. Come on people, was it “global warming” way back then, or was it due to dinosaurs farting? Sure, human activity is not helping the planet, but let’s not overreact to an extremely volatile, and naturally changing climate. Nothing is more certain than change, something we, as humans, find difficult to live with.

Phil says:

06:59am | 04/02/11

Cept just like the flood levy, they will bring it in so it only hits everyone earning above say $ 50,000. WTF. Does that mean everyone earning less does not use electricity or drive a car?

See I have no issue with a Carbon Tax, so long as the lefties dont use it as wealth redistribution, or have a sliding scale of payments. If everyone pays the same percent against the carbon they use then thats life, if you have the rich paying for the less well off’s emissions then that is not only inequitable it is a great big tax on the rich. After all its only paid on emissions, not on income. It might also give those earning less an incentive to work harder/smarter/longer to earn more. After all no one earning over 200K only worked 38 hours a week all their lives and took the full quota of sickies, holidays etc.

I would like to know if Australia impliments a carbon tax and the major poluters dont (India/China) how much will the world cool? At least they are trying to go nuclear.

Martin Ferguson is correct, any political party that does not debate Nuclear Power has no credability. Hey they dont have to accept that technology but to not do a correct cost benefit analysis, when we could reduce our C02 output by as much as 40% with reactors installation is kidding themselves.

Further whilst this government refuses to sell Uraniun to India but will sell brown coal which is the most poluting of substances for power generation, they again have no credibility.

By the way didnt Spain go all green. What was their unemployment rate, did I hear 20%.

As for Bob Brown, as someone said here anyone that cannot decifer the correct recepticle for the apendage should not be taken seriously. The hypocrite greens want to ban corporate donations, have no issue with the unions donating, but he will accept a payment from Dick Smith to pay his legal bills.

d says:

07:23am | 04/02/11

Yeah i have heard india is trying to make nukes out of coal…. not selling material that can be turned into WOMD to countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation treaty is a great idea!

Dont get me wrong, i am all for nucular power. but why not use our uranium for our country. The outback is massive, i am sure we could make a starage facility for waste like the french have deep in the ground.

persephone says:

07:32am | 04/02/11

Phil

individuals don’t pay the carbon tax, companies do.

These costs will obviously then be passed on to consumers via price rises for the goods and services they purchase.

Taxpayers will be compensated for these price rises through mechanisms such as increased family allowances etc.

In most cases, the compensation will be more than the price rises - indeed, lower income families will be nearly $200 a year better off.

Overflow says:

07:38am | 04/02/11

Never ever let a good catastrophe go to waste.  The shameless linking of the cyclone and floods to theoretical AGW is just another example of the Warmists attempt to tax more dollars out of us.

When China and India reduce their plans for burning coal over the next 50years I might start to look at an ETS or CO2 tax otherwise Garnaut and the other rent seekers can go whistle in the winds of Yasi

Tom says:

07:52am | 04/02/11

Well said, Phil. It seems that nanny state proponents seize on every event to push a tax down the throats of the punters. Alinski would be so proud of Mal and persephone doing their “whatever it takes” bit from within the system.

Ben says:

08:01am | 04/02/11

Phil - Most people in Spain speak Spanish. And guess what? 20% unemployment.

Come on, don’t make an accusation like green power is causative of unemployment without backing it up with actual facts. Did you know that there was a study in Sweden that conveniently showed that if the tax rate dropped below a certain number, then heart disease would be wiped out? A perfect example of causative effect!

And with your nuclear comments - have you considered the environmental effects (and greenhouse effects too - the nuclear cycle is not carbon emission free as is so conveniently spat out by nuclear supporters) of the mining, enrichment, and storage of nuclear power and waste?

C1 says:

08:04am | 04/02/11

@Pers,

You are correct regarding the process for the Carbon tax (Companies bear the costs, pass on these to customers etc etc). However you still do not dispell the concern regarding the distribution of wealth. Whilst the Government may offset the costs on the customer, it still strikes me that it will be weighted in favour of one group to another.

If you know a carbon tax is going to penalise the public, why have it in the first place?

MarK says:

08:21am | 04/02/11

“In most cases, the compensation will be more than the price rises - indeed, lower income families will be nearly $200 a year better off. “

Yah. Right.

So if they are giving out all this free cash (again) why are they slugging us for a flood tax again?

Oh and why can she find more savings in her budget to pay for Yasi?

I don’t understand. Help a brother out.

Denny Crane says:

08:28am | 04/02/11

acotrel, you are right, but lets look into a bit further.

This cyclone was not as bad as the one in the 1800’s, the definition of a cyclone has now changed, the ratings of a cyclone go on lower wind gusts, so using this, we would see more ratings 4 & 5.

If climate change is the reason, let the greens explain, the enomorous amount of snow storms the USA & Europe have received over the last 2 years.

Its all about money and there is so much tied up with the climate change, that should this be stopped many people will lose out, espically those with grants, and we remember the emails in regards to climate change all fake.

Gillard will do as she is told, as per normal, maybe we could invoke a levy in her getting a backbone

TimB says:

08:33am | 04/02/11

Sor Perse let me get this straight:

Government taxes company for carbon
Company passes on costs to consumer
Consumer gets extra money from Government to cover costs.

So what effect is this having? It’s not costing the company anything because they pass it on. It’s not costing the consumer anything because the government is footing the bill. The government gets no benefit because all the taxes they rake from the companies in go straight back to the taxpayers.

Seems kind of pointless doesn’t it?

The only way the scheme would have any kind of effect is if *someone* in the cycle loses out. It won’t be the companies, they can raise costs at will. So it’s either the government (making the scheme worse than pointless), or the consumer, thus shooting down your argument that we the people will not face increased costs.

Either way, it’s a bad idea.

persephone says:

08:34am | 04/02/11

C1

because, in the end, we’re all causing the problem.

If change doesn’t cost us, we won’t change.

The reason compensation goes more to the poor (on the recommendation of economists, who are not given to be enthusiastic about wealth redistribution) is that they are the ones who will find it harder to adjust - they don’t have the spare cash to take measures to reduce their power use.

Those who are richer not only have the means to do this but will have more incentive to do so.

Of course, those on lower incomes will have the incentive as well - their power bills and other expenses will rise, and everyone likes saving money on bills!

So increasing costs drive the incentive to change practices, whether you’re an energy producer or a consumer.

If people want to avoid paying more on their energy bills, they can change their practices and put pressure on their power companies to provide cheaper power (which will mean, with a well designed carbon price, more investment in renewables).

Increasing the cost of something has always resulted in people reducing their usage of it.

Video Killed The Radio Star says:

08:34am | 04/02/11

Extreme weather conditions have been around for centuries!! It doesn’t matter what carbon tax they bring in or whether they stop all the cows from farting - we are always going to have these events! Gee I am sure if we look back hundreds & hundreds of years - we will see the same type of weather events have happened before - & that was without the huge industrialization! The one thing that has to stop is the making & dumping of toxic materials!! That’s what is a REAL issue for the environment!!!! I am sick of the pollies & opportunists using these weather examples of a way to bring in more taxes or levies to fill the coffers!!!!

Daryl says:

08:35am | 04/02/11

Perse - Bullshit!!!! The ALP are not going to give back in “compensation” 110% of what they collect in tax. To suggest “most” people will be better off is a bloody disgraceful lie! Why collect the tax at all if they’re going to compensate for it. I thought you were smarter than that!

I have 3 children a mortgage and a dependant wife. An hour commute to work and an hour home again. 13 hours away from the house every day to try to earn a living and a decent life for my kids. Guess how much family allowance I get?? That’s right NIL!!!  Guess how much childcare rebate I get? That’s right NIL! And I’m no rich bloke living in the Eastern suburbs, I’m middle Australia. It’s a load of socialist bullshit to suggest that people will be better off, it’s just plain wrong! And it’s an ideological fraud on the electorate.

This is another excuse for the ALP to raise taxes! It’s an excuse to redistribute wealth from those who already contribute the most to those that don’t. The greens want to increase taxes on corporates and individuals, just visit their web page. This is their way of doing it. This is about wealth redistribution, not about the environment! The ALP are cutting their green election policies. They are not producing alternatives, all they want is to increase tax!

The Labor voter paying no taxes with no mortgage might be better off, but the wealth creators in this society who already pay the most in tax will get screwed by the ALP again. The flood levy is a classic point. All this crap about $1 a week!

Have you factored in the impact of interest rate rises to curb the inflationary impact of this tax? Our electricity bills and the cost of every good and service dependent on electricity will rise! The RBA will respond by hiking rates. This is bad policy, very bad policy!

The Labor party says they are for working families. That is a massive lie! Since Labor came to power, living costs have already gone through the roof! And they now want to follow a policy to make it even worse. Gillard and her green masters are determined to turn this place into the socialist capital of the world. There will be significant anger over this. The idiot independents better stand in the way of this!

Aitch B says:

08:39am | 04/02/11

@Pers

I understand what you say about compensation for price rises through increased allowances, etc. but there is a substantial percentage of the population that don’t qualify for any of these benefits. Like middled aged couples that no longer have dependents, singles, etc. Many of these people earn marginally above the average wage (what is it - around $65,000?) as a household - i.e. as a single income or combined low incomes.

Therefore if the compensation package outlined by Rudd when he was touting the tax does in fact come into being, these people who always miss out on any benefits (apart from across the board tax cuts) will be copping it in the neck once again!

Does that seem fair?

Please tell me if I’m misinterpreting the compensation plan that was previously put forward.

M says:

08:47am | 04/02/11

I fail to see what the floods or cyclone has to do with global warming. We’re in a La Nina period. They predicted this back in October. I believe the 8m+ floods in 1893 and the magnitude 5 cyclone in 1899 are also proof that the weather is not getting worse.

Dick J says:

09:24am | 04/02/11

@Pers oh companies will pay the tax. That makes it better- phew.

I understand the the concept of a company being a separate legal entity but didn’t understand they were indeed separate beings- what do they look like?

Oh and from where do they get their money to pay their tax? What happens if they can’t afford it what will the do? Will they try and get a loan or somehow recoup the money from some other source -chooks perhaps .

Ryan says:

09:46am | 04/02/11

@persephone: tell us again how many degrees in global temperature the carbon tax is going to reduce every year please. I mean the money is clearly going to go to reduce the global temperature is it not, this is Anthropogenic Global Warming. As a side note, how many degrees per year to humans contribute to global warming, an exact figure through proof would be helpful thanks!

Steely Dan says:

09:46am | 04/02/11

How do people get from ‘we’ve had cyclones in the past’ to ‘climate scientists are making it all up’?

As Mal Farr pointed out, no scientists are out there saying that we wouldn’t be having cyclones in a no-warming scenario, although it’s consistent with the type of events predicted to become more frequent as the earth (particularly the oceans) continue to warm.

Phil says:

09:47am | 04/02/11

Daryl

You are spot on. Like you I dont get any childcare/kids payments, cause I work too hard and earn too much. My Flood Levy will be about $ 30 a week, just cause the dumb QLD government doesnt have insurance. Didnt get any $ 900 cheques either.

Foolya is a fraud, lying through her teeth about a carbon tax, anything to stay in power, even if it means getting in bed with Bob Brown.

Perse. I didnt know that companies were the only ones emitting carbon. When did individuals stop creating plant food. Or do we only create plant food and those big bad companies create bad carbon.

If its a carbon tax, dont you think it will be inflationary, NO THATS RIGHT it will be a RICH TAX and you know it. If you are going to bring it in, make it flat on carbon emitted, that way everyone pays regardless of economic status based solely on usage, just like Petrol, Milk, Bread etc. BUT NO, that doesnt work in Communism 101. NO tax the rich to give to the poor. Pay Indonesia to not rip out old trees, whilst we make Australia so uncompetitive internationally that we do become the white trash of asia and there are only service or value added jobs. NO manufacturing.

Do you idiots in the labor party ever think for one minuite that companies currently making a profit will not want to continue to do so therefore they will just increase their costs to cover the cost of a carbon tax. I know my company will increase its costs, as it needs to make a return on capital to justify its survival.

persephone says:

10:08am | 04/02/11

Oh dear, this will take some time. Bear with me.

TimB

not being rude, but I think I covered those in my reply to C1.

MarK

as the CPRS wasn’t passed, this money is not being received, so obviously it can’t be paid out.

Daryl

as of now, we don’t know what the government will do.

However, under the proposed CPRS, the government was going to chip in to provide more compensation to consumers than the government was receiving from pricing carbon, so no, it’s not bullshit.

Better economists thatn I have worked out the costings. Yes, they’ve included the flow on costs, and they’ve been factored in.

And - whatever it might cost you now - as I’ve explained elsewhere, delay simply means the whole thing gets more expensive, as cuts have to be made more quickly, and that means a higher price will need to be put on carbon.

AitchB

I think you are - there were other compensatory mechanisms in place - but it really is all a bit moot at present!

M

sorry, but an individual’s personal beliefs about what the weather might or might not be doing doesn’t stack up against the conclusions of thousands of scientists who have looked at what’s been happening over thousands of years.

Dick

how about reading my post? I say that companies will pass it on. I also explain that individuals will be compensated.

Companies have the incentive to cut costs coming from two directions. Firstly, the less carbon they emit, the less they pay - a saving. Secondly, there will pressure from consumers (looking at rising power bills and wanting to save money, regardless of how much they’re compensated) for cheaper power.

Anyway, a big caveat to all of this: we know what the last carbon pricing system was going to look like. We don’t know, yet, what the next one will.

persephone says:

10:19am | 04/02/11

And now I have to play catch up with the posts that have appeared while I was posting!

Ryan

it isn’t. It will, however, reduce the continuing output of emissions by puttting a price on carbon, thus giving incentive for companies and individuals to reduce their carbon output.

The aim at the moment is to prevent a global average temperature rise of 2%. That’s hoped to be achieved by 2020 (I think!).

If we can achieve that, we should be able to stabilise the globe at whatever climatic conditions exist then, and then start looking at whether we can actually reverse the process.

And, if you actually read what I posted, you would see that I recognise that companies will pass on the costs. That’s been factored in to all modelling.

Muzz says:

10:22am | 04/02/11

@ persephone As you describe it these “companies” will be the collectors of an energy tax which will be included in our energy bills just like GST is now included in invoices for the supply of goods and services.  You then claim our great and good Labor govt will then redistribute the tax collected back to the tax payer on the basis that the better off will subsidise the lesser off so much so that the poor people will profit by it.  Have I got it right?

Jane says:

10:26am | 04/02/11

Taxpayers will be compensated for these price rises through mechanisms such as increased family allowances etc.

In most cases, the compensation will be more than the price rises - indeed, lower income families will be nearly $200 a year better off.

Fab…so that means the fact that I don’t have children means I’ll be worse off again…for choosing not to have children and work a decent job with decent money.

Ant says:

10:43am | 04/02/11

Im loving the fact none of these pollies really look at the ACTUAL data that consists of the ‘big white elephant’ thats in the room… If any one with a good connection to the internat.. might find that these topical Graphs/data flows etc etc have only existed in the last 10/20yrs…. and they do depict a sinister climate… but hey… lets not forget: CFC’s where destroying the Ozone… oh wait thats made a recovery… alebit early for some of those cash grabbing economists…. Elnino is over….ONCE AGAIN….. la nina is back… oh thats gotta be Global Warming…. hey did we not mention we live in OZ, the sunburnt country land of sweeping planes….  Lets get things back into perspective, there is eb and flow of our earths weather… its fully capable of ‘righting’ itself… because its far greater then mankind… and a Carbon Tax.

Chris says:

10:45am | 04/02/11

Do some real journalist research Malcolm, Carbon is not the cause of global warming and most people are realising this, we are in a Global cycle, we have polar shifts roughly every 6,000, that is the cause of all this weather turmoil, the only scientists that are sold on the Carbon logic are government scientists who are a part of the New World Order globalisation….....

Carbon is one of 4 key components of ALL living matter, and there have been times in the Earth’s history where Carbon in the atmosphere has far out weighed what it is today. It is other chemicals in the atmosphere that caused the hole in the Ozone, like nuclear explosions….....But don’t let the facts or the truth get in the way of this BS agenda!

Oh, by the way, the globe is cooling at a rapid rate at present, ask any private scientist worth talking to…......

Not only should that corrupt Al Gore be stripped of his Nobel Prize, he should be locked up for life for being a greedy crook just like your media backers!!

Jason A says:

11:09am | 04/02/11

I find it very interesting that all the sceptics and denialists are willing to gamble their children’s or grandchildren’s future away for the sake of a few bucks a week. What angers me more is that they are willing to gamble my child’s future away as well. She doesn’t get a choice in all this. She will bear the brunt of climate change long after I’m gone. I want to go to the grave knowing I’ve done all I can to give my little one the best chance in life. It #%$@! me off when people can look at their own children and say that they don’t care about their future.

Torkona says:

11:11am | 04/02/11

more taxes is just what we need *note the sarcasm* it is to laugh…

read this for a laugh with something funny from the recent floods.

Daryl says:

11:11am | 04/02/11

Hi Phil, OK what do we need to do to get this on the agenda? I am in exactly the same position as you. I didn’t get the $900 either because I pay too much tax!

To be honest, I am happy to pay my way with my tax and I don’t want benefits. But I do want a more equitable tax system. Particularly for those of us on the PAYG scales who can’t split our income and who dont deal in the cash economy.

The flood levy makes my blood boil because the government is targetting people like you and I. My cost will be over $30 a week. They are slugging those of us who already contribute the most in tax! And it’s fair for us to expect them to use our money wisely. When I see waste like the insulation mess and the talk of rorting under the school halls program not to mention the money wasted on the 2020 sumitt, the $21mill on fuelwatch and $13mill on grocery choice etc, I think enough’s enough. My family contributed to the flood releif and now we get stung again by a governmnet that is really quite reckless with our taxes.

And then people get on here and rattle on about only $5 a week and just expect that we should cough up again. If we don’t stand up it will continue!

The current government does not encourage hard workers to continue creating wealth. They punish those who contribute most and to make matters worse they often reward wealth destroyers or their supporters at the expense of everyone else.

I’ve had enough! What can we do? I’m an accountant so I’m going to write a letter to the PM to see if I can get some reasonable financial answers. What the ALP is doing to the PAYG taxpayers like us has to stop!

Megan says:

11:36am | 04/02/11

Global warming/cooling has happened for millennia or dinosaurs wouldn’t be extinct - how can charging us a “tax” make it go away?  I’m not sure that the climate understands the concept of money but maybe it told the boffins that it needed a better sunhat.

CB says:

11:37am | 04/02/11

Phil, I agree. Carbon emissions based taxes should be based on consumption not earnings (income). If you pollute you pay for it. Therefore this needs to be levied against energy bills and the like.

To enforce it in any other way would be firstly be inequitable and also would fail to change habits. If people of lower incomes don’t pay a carbon tax/levy then what incentives do they have to change their habits.

Long term climatic cycles certainly exists and whether the global warming is affecting these, as we have seen, can be debated til the cows come home. What is certain is that carbon emissions, water quality, water management and air quality can be improved. So maybe policy should be centred around a Sustainable Australia rather than just global warming.

Gregg says:

11:41am | 04/02/11

@ Bob Crosser,
Reckon you’d have more than a good fart coming along if a meteorite was dropping in for a visit!

MP says:

12:08pm | 04/02/11

So here is Mal Farr again!
What caused the worst Cyclones in the 1800’s?
Dinosours??
I am sorry your should be in a paddock with the rest of the crap.
You look like you have been around for awhile, how is your memory?

Phil says:

12:09pm | 04/02/11

Daryl. My money is you wont get a reply. They will brand you as Un Australian, for not wanting to help your fellow Aussies, which is bull shit.

If the QLD govmint had taken out insurance like every other state does, then no need for a flood levy. As QLD’s didnt have to pay this it should be a levy on QLD’s only even if its much more. As more voted for Bligh and this course of action than not they can only blame themselves for this impost.

I am lucky I have companies, trusts etc which help reduce my taxes but they were still well over 400K in the past 6 years. (this does not include PAYG for employees which is a further 2M. I dont think I or my fellow tax payers are getting value. Like you I dont want handouts, even when I was eligible for unemployment benefits, (could not work for 9 months) I did not claim them as I could afford to pay my own way as I had worked hard and had enough put away.

I challenge any labor voter to get the BER builders to build them something personally if they think it was good value. I dont subscribe to the theory that its only a rort if I am not involved.

Labor are inheritantly corrupt. More corruption in NSW QLD and WA has come from Labor members than the Libs. They employ their own and put them into high paying positions regardless of merit or job suitability.

Perse. Remind us how many pollies partners are employes in high paying public service jobs?

Phil says:

12:12pm | 04/02/11

CB you are onto something there. As I say, I am not pro climate change, but we need to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Unless my electricity bill and fuel bill is savage, (which it is) then I should pay no more than the next bloke per amount of plant food I create.

Unfortunately all the left wing nut jobs will never agree with this as they want the rest of us to pay for them. Its not on.

Martin G says:

12:27pm | 04/02/11

“She’ll be right mate!  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! -  ‘Global warming is a load of crap’! “

First bit of sense I’ve seen from you on this site. Congratulations are in order!

Kevin says:

12:31pm | 04/02/11

@TimB
“Government taxes company for carbon
Company passes on costs to consumer
Consumer gets extra money from Government to cover costs.

So what effect is this having? It’s not costing the company anything because they pass it on. It’s not costing the consumer anything because the government is footing the bill. The government gets no benefit because all the taxes they rake from the companies in go straight back to the taxpayers.

Seems kind of pointless doesn’t it?”

No, it’s not pointless.

Firstly, by raising the price of electricity generated by carbon polluters, the scheme would make electricity generated by other means more competitive.

Secondly, the money reimbursed to consumers by the government would not be linked to their energy consumption.  If, for example, electricity prices went up 20% after the carbon tax, a person could keep their bill at the same amount by reducing electricity consumption by 20% (eg stop running the split aircon in the McMansion when it’s not hot).  The government handout in that situation would be a nett gain to the consumer.

In either case, the need to generate electricity by carbon producing means is reduced.

Phil says:

12:39pm | 04/02/11

Kevin Jealousy is a curse. Watch out son.

TimB says:

01:22pm | 04/02/11

Perse, I’m fairly sure that whenever the issue of costs have come up on this subject before, you’ve simply said that we’ll save money because the goverment will simply give us a large rebate. No differentiation between rich & poor households.

But let’s assume I’m wrong, we’ll go with the current explanation. This is wealth distribution, plain and simple. Rich people will have to pay for their usage, the poor won’t. I have issues with that.

And even if it was a situation where they both had to pay, then the whole thing is still pointless. Again, if Australia was to shut down completely tomorrow the effect on the world’s carbon output would be negligible. It wouldn’t stave of the doom and gloom scenarios the AGW supporters predict.

You’re talking about a financial hit on the wealthy, whilst subsiding the poor, in order to eliminate a fraction of a fraction of the world’s emissions. Even if you put credence in AGW theory, the whole idea behind the tax is pointless, & at best will do nothing and at worst will cause financial stress.

@ Kevin, artificially inflating the price of coal-based electricity so it matches the more expensive forms might be considered “competitive”, but it still means at the end of the day we have to pay a lot more for electricity no matter which way you shake it. Only difference is the source.

Kevin says:

01:24pm | 04/02/11

@ Phil ??????

Ryan says:

01:32pm | 04/02/11

@persephone: but that is already happening without the carbon tax - http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Randal says:

02:19pm | 04/02/11

@Perse, you should have a word with the ALP masters that are paying you to post, they really are asking you to go beyond pale this time around with the toddle they are providing you.

Apparently they have you trying to sell the amazing fact that this will be the world’s first tax that has no impact upon its citizens… Please you must have choked on your corn flakes when they told you this was what you wanted you to post this morning.

Now the truth is that for a carbon tax to be effective it has to be punitive against carbon intensive industries, otherwise what’s the point, and as a minimum starting point carry the same monetary effect as the ill fated ETS, which was assessed as a cost to the Australian economy of the equivalent of 25% of the GST, and that was to achieve a 5% cut in emissions.

Now considering the Greens blocked the ETS, as it was not punitive enough, one just has to shudder at the thought of the price they are asking this time, but it would be fair to say that to achieve their stated aims this tax would have to kick at around 2 and a half times the GST (to be fair not even the ALP are that crazy – then again if Julia decides she needs this through the parliament before the election who knows!)

Whatever the final number it will be a lot bigger than the ETS that is a given, and applied on top of a resources tax… But you say, hey don’t worry only the rich will pay and the poor will get back $200 bucks… All good… and what a load of toddle, and ALL will pay the price.

Put simply, a carbon tax has to be a grave impost in order to be effective and drive the renewable industry. This will mean carbon reliant businesses folding, carbon exports falling, 10’s of thousands (potentially 100’s of thousands) of job losses, upwards pressure on inflation and as a result interest rates… Oh and the loss of the single point of advantage that Australia has had globally, access to low cost fossils fuels… An economic Armageddon for a 90% carbon based economy like ours.

Now surely the cost for this must be worth it, to sacrifice our global advantage, send thousands to unemployment line…

So tell us Perse, given Australia contributes less than 1% to the worlds global emissions, if we implement a carbon tax now much will the worlds emissions fall by???

Oh let me guess your ALP masters don’t want you to answer that one, well let me fill in the blanks for you. The answer is Zip, Zero, Nada not an ounce…. In fact the world emissions will continue to rise at a exponential rate won’t they perse…

And why is that perse???

Nothing from you again… well let me help, that is because none of the world’s largest emitters are coming along for the ride, the USA has shelved its trading scheme, Chine intends to increase its emissions 10 fold and as for India - well they just don’t care and will do what they dam well please.

Phil says:

02:25pm | 04/02/11

Kevin. Referring to the Rich in the McMansions using AC.

See your argument about make electricity dearer so other forms are cheaper is like saying lets make Beer $ 100 a case and Smokes $ 30 a pack. Whilst we are at it lets make Petrol $ 2.30 a litre.

See the Bob Browns of this world harp on about coal being the evil without saying how they are going to provide base load power to the masses at an affordable rate. I suspect you are the same. May I ask a question, have you converted your home to solar? Solar Hot Water, Did you have insulation before it was free? Do you own a gas guzzler. See many in your shoes want action but are not prepared to put their own money where there mouth is.

See I did I paid the $ 25,000 necessary to reduce my dependance. My guess is many others who profess that the world will end have not spent of their own cash, but will expect those who strive for a better life to pay for them. That is a true believers attitude.

Dash says:

02:37pm | 04/02/11

@Muzz, yep you got it right. That’s exactly what Perse (the ALP member)is saying! Socialism at it’s worst! This tax is about redistributing wealth. It’s a bloody disgrace. There is no incentive anymore to work hard, be successful and look after your family as Daryl and Phil outline. Those people who do are punished by the government and see their hard earned redirected to ALP and green voters!

We’ve already seen the ALP feather their own nest under the school hall rorts program. Here we go again.

The sooner we get rid of this pack of corrupt watermelons who want to punish the hardworking taxpayer the better. Jooliya is following the ideas of her Socialist Forum comrades! She lied about her intentions in order to scrape into power and now plans on unleashing her regressive system onto the hard working familes of Australia. The ALP is not content with ruining NSW, they want to bring their socialist ideology to bear on the entire population!

Kevin says:

02:54pm | 04/02/11

@Phil, you obviously have a lot of spare time on your hands and you should spend some of it in improving your comprehension and expression skills.
My original post pointed out how a carbon tax and subsidisation could provide incentives to reduction in the use of electricity that is generated using fossil fuels and therefore, contrary to TimB’s assertion, would not be a pointless exercise.
I don’t assume that the occupants of “McMansions” are necessarily rich (although, in your case, I have obviously touched a raw nerve).
The bulk of your last post in largely incomprehensible and full of unfounded assumptions.

TimB says:

03:28pm | 04/02/11

@ Kevin, you’re not subsidising anything. You’re doing the exact opposite.

You’re artificially increasing the cost of coal-generated power with a carbon tax. Until you get to the point where its more expensive than renewables, thus encouraging everyone to jump ship.

Except power is now stupidly expensive. “Great” the greenies cry! Now we can all go back to living in the stone age, and cease our sinful technological ways.
Meanwhile China, America and India laugh at us, and keep on with what they’re doing. Making the fact that we’ve now crippled ourselves in the name of Gaia completely pointless.

James of the West says:

06:28pm | 04/02/11

This article ignores the data showing that tropical cyclone accumulated energy is at a historical low comparedd to last 40 years.  They arent increasing in frequency or intensity on a global scale.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

persephone says:

10:49pm | 04/02/11

Muzz

yes, but that was the old model. We don’t know what the new carbon pricing system will look like, so I can’t really see the point of getting all emotional about it - as so many of the posters below you do - when it’s done and dusted.

That applies to Jane et al - it was a proposed tax, it’s not in operation, so I don’t really see why we should go on about it.

Ant

graphs etc on the internet tend to be only 10-20 years old because um, the internet hasn’t been around much longer than that.

Information before that time is often hard to get hold of.

If you’re talking about what the graphs show, some of them cover thousands of years.

Either way, you’re misinformed.

Chris

there is no evidence of a polar shift occuring.

Part of the reason why scientists take the ‘man made’ part seriously is that none of the usual suspects connected with climate changes in teh past are in operation at present.

Yes, there have been times when CO2 levels were far higher than they were today. But we weren’t around then. It wouldn’t have been very comfortable for us, either.

The globe will survive OK. It doesn’t really need us.

Daryl

well, aren’t you lucky you’re living in Australia now, rather than a couple of decades ago when your top rate of tax would have been over 50%?

Under Menzies, I believe.

TimB

no one absolutely has to pay this tax. In fact, the whole intention is to get people to avoid it.

They can do this by demanding greener energy and by taking measures themselves to cut emissions.

Rich people have more ability to do this - they (should) have more disposable income to spend on things like solare panels etc. This means they have more options open to them to reduce their power usage and therefore their costs.

Poorer people don’t have as much disposable income, but have even more incentive to cut costs. A wise person on a low income would use their extra dosh to make their home more efficient (and there will be - are - government programs to encourage them to do so).

The government, in the long run, doesn’t want anyone to pay these taxes, because - in the long run - the ideal is to reduce emissions to zero.

Zero emissions means zero tax on carbon.

Randal

always take it as a compliment when someone thinks I’m worth paying. But I do despair of your comprehension abilities, because I’ve told you before I’m not paid in any way.

Why don’t you make the same accusations about MarK? He seems to post here more than I do. Aren’t his posts good enough?

James, I can’t get the link you provided to work.

Try the one I’ve got below, in my response to Rexx.

It works, and it shows the opposite to what you’re saying.

acotrel says:

07:28am | 05/02/11

I’ve read a lot of argument about climate change on this forum.  My question is - DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM WHICH PRESENTS A RISK?

MarK says:

07:44am | 05/02/11

”  acotrel says:

  07:28am | 05/02/11

  I’ve read a lot of argument about climate change on this forum.  My question is - DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM WHICH PRESENTS A RISK?”

That is an easy one.

No.

No problem and no risk.

TimB says:

08:28am | 05/02/11

@ Perse that just it. There’s only so many cuts you can make before you start affecting living conditions. And the level of those cuts just won’t be enough for the green brigade.

And like I said, even if we as a nation were to shut down our carbon output tommorrow (an impossibility I’m sure you’ll agree), it won’t make a single bit of difference to the puported problem

This is where people usually start talking about other countries taxing us on our exports or whatever. Fine. Put our legislation on the books to go into effect automatically as soon as the US, India, and China implement similar legislation.

Even if you subscribe to AGW theory, there is no point doing anything without those three countries on board, and you know it.

tom h says:

08:30am | 05/02/11

EXACTLY RIGHT

NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY

vossner says:

01:43pm | 05/02/11

Global Warming means
Hot equals cold and cold equals hot.
What a load of Shite!

Emm says:

11:42pm | 05/02/11

I seem to recall something about an ice age some years back. It was quite something! Climate change is constant & completely unaffected by man. Worst QLD flood was in 1800s ...how much coal were they burning then?

Rob says:

10:52am | 06/02/11

Why is it so damn cold in Europe and the US? Is this part of the global warming deal? Wake up, global warming is utter rubbish and for the fools that continually write this crap are buffoons. Where are the global warming brigade arguing the freezing temperatures? Give us a break, another bloody tax and what will the tax do, NOTHING towards changing nature.

RF says:

11:04am | 06/02/11

Persephone, what school of economics did you graduate from? All your comments are pure fantasy. Yuo tell me why its been freezing over the other side of the world? Is it because the Earth’s axis is tilting further than years gone bye? If you are so pro for the TAX, you pay the bloody thing on your own, not one of you green dopes ever come up with a solution. The governments have reaped millions in tax for infrastructure spending for power etc.. what the hell have they done with it, absolutely nothing, so wehre is the tax going to assist in the facilities? This Tax will only line one party and thats the bloody Greens.
Pick up a wrench and go fix a powerstation you clown.

persephone says:

01:01pm | 06/02/11

Emm

yes, the climate changes.

However it doesn’t do so randomly, as in “Oh, I haven’t rained for a while. Better catch up on that.”

The changes have causes.

For past climatic changes, we have a good idea of what the causes were.

None of those are a factor now.

We do, however, have a new factor which apparenlty explains the present changes in climate, which is increased emissions of greenhouse gases due to man’s activities.

We know that there’s an increase in these gases. We know that these gases lead to heating of the atmosphere. We know that these gases are being emitted by man’s activities, so it’s all pretty clear what’s happening.

Oh, and before you go with ‘part of the natural cycle’, the same thing applies - the natural cycle has causes.

You’re right, we were meant to be cooling, given the lack of warming agents around. The fact that we have been doing the reverse shows that the usual suspects are not what’s driving the climate at the moment.

Rob

if it’s very very cold in one place the average temperature can still be high if it’s very very hot in another.

Which is exactly what we’re seeing.

2010 saw extremely cold winters in some countries. Others,however, experienced very warm winters.

When it was averaged out, 2010 was one of the two hottest years ever recorded (the other was 2005).

RF

I wish all my fantasies had so much evidence behind them!!

The earth’s axis tilted slightly due to the Chilean earthquake. This only occured last year, however, which scarcely explains the warming that occured before then (or even since; the change has been microscopic in impact).

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100303/chilean-quake-shifts-earth039s-axis-shortens-days-id-10102272.html

It is predicted that global warming will tilt the earth’s axis further:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17657-global-warming-could-change-earths-tilt.html

It’s not anticipated that these shifts - or the Chilean one - will have any effect on the earth’s climate.

So, no, no link between the very slight shift in axis and climate change.

Randal says:

10:31am | 07/02/11

Now don’t get me wrong perse I never thought that you are worth getting paid, but how else can someone explain the dribble and propaganda that you sprout on this blog.

persephone says:

06:57am | 04/02/11

Rexx

no, the scientists who, having looked at evidence from across many scientific disciplines, in thousands of studies over decades, have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening and is caused by man’s activities, do not deny the long term evidence.

You’d understand that if you’d read the article carefully,

They’re not saying that cyclones are a new phenomena. They’re saying that we can expect more extreme weather events more frequently, because exactly the same weather conditions which have created super cyclones in the past are now more occuring more often.

As for your points;

’ Total hurricane and cyclone energy around the world has decreased over the past few years. ‘

Have a read of this:

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

‘Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes. The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime. ‘

‘There has been no statistically significant warming of the oceans since 2003.’

Try:

http://www.csiro.au/news/OceansWarming.html

which says:

“We show that the rate of ocean warming from 1961 to 2003 is about 50 per cent larger than previously reported,” Dr Domingues says.,

- ‘The Bureau of Meteorology concedes there is no known link between global warming and cyclone frequency.’

Er, but it does find a link between global warming and increased intensity of cyclones. Which is exactly what this article refers to.

So you’re right - the facts do speak for themselves.

Of course, we can ignore all of this inconvenient science and just hope that nothing happens. But something is. And it’s costing us lots of money.

Economists have repeatedly told us that the longer we take to act on climate change, the more it will cost us.

People are starting to understand that increasingly severe weather events are a direct cost to themselves. Hopefully they will also come to understand that investing money to tackle climate change now will mean reduced costs in the future.

Warren says:

07:31am | 04/02/11

@Rexx please site your peer reviewed sources for the claims you make, otherwise you are merely spouting hot air.

The Securities and Exchange Commission in the US (http://www.sec.gov), a conservative, capitalist organisation of there ever was one, has stated that companies should warn investors of any serious risks that global warming might pose to their businesses. This seems rather curious. Why would they bother? Are they in a giant conspiracy with the governments of the west, with China, with climate change scientists & left wing greenie nuts? Conspiring in a secret plot to tax us more? Or do they perhaps recognise a real problem in the making? Putting your fingers in your ears closing your eyes while shouting “it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax,” fool no-one but yourself.

acotrel says:

07:31am | 04/02/11

Phil, cost benefit analyses are often unethical.  Decision analysis should include consideration of values, and risk.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:44am | 04/02/11

Dear Persephone,

I agree with your well thought out reply to Rexx.

Thankyou.

Greg says:

07:45am | 04/02/11

This is some great scientific evidence.  My friend in Kansas says he will add it to the curriculum.

simon says:

08:31am | 04/02/11

Pers, are you Gillards lap dog or something, why is it that you agree with everything she says or thinks? Think for yourself mate!!!

James says:

08:52am | 04/02/11

@ rexx if you haven’t stopped making such idiotic statements by now then there is no hope for you.

tomt says:

09:17am | 04/02/11

Mr Farr this article confirms you are a living argument that journalist need to get out more. The canberra press gallery is a very shelthered workshop and it is very obvious that you have been there way to long.

Andrew says:

09:35am | 04/02/11

Rexx, shhh. Haven’t you learned anything. You arew not allowed to question Global Warming (oops, can’t call it that sinnce the drought broke now it’s back to climate change).

Anyway, don’t disagree with the AGW brigade. If you do your a skeptic or a heretic or something else. Forget the fact that without AGW all of the AGW scientists would be out of a job. Please don’t mention vested interests or conveniently doctored data. Just follow the rest of the sheeple down the great wealth redistribution road.

If you really want a good laugh, read Perse’s post above that claims the new Carbon Price (can’t call it a tax) that Julia promised on the eve of the last election would not be considered in this term of government, will not have a negative effect on anyone. Perse also has a bridge to sell you.

persephone says:

10:27am | 04/02/11

Simon

how is referencing scientific information being a lapdog to Gillard?

You must be desperate.

Andrew

well, you obviously haven’t.

How about actually disproving what I’ve said, instead of blaming it all on conspiracy theories?

Oh, and if you’d actually read my post about the CPRS, you’d see that I do admit it will cost some people more money.

I guess you don’t read things because you’re afraid you might learn something.

Dazza says:

10:35am | 04/02/11

pers what increase?? What proof? What Rubbish!!
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
Mode;s models, models…...where is the real proof?

persephone says:

10:50am | 04/02/11

Dazza

could you at least read what I write before you criticise?

Look back at my answer to Rexx: it states that hurricanes (cyclones) are increasing in energy. This is based on studying cyclones/hurricanes across the world over decades.

Go to the link I’ve provided and have a look for yourself.

And yes, the link you refer to has a further link (which I gave yesterday) which provides further information about the expected intensity of cyclones due to climate change.

READ, people!!

Phil says:

11:22am | 04/02/11

Perse. What about the earths own C02 output. Like with volcanos etc.
How are you going to tackle that one. Do you Perse, or Julia not think that to not discuss Nuclear is silly?

Andrew says:

11:52am | 04/02/11

Perse, my problem with you is simple, if Labor opposed a carbon tax based on the same info that is out there today you would be quoting “skeptics” and “denialists” hand over fist to support your Sussex street overlords. You have no credibility because you are so one eyed.

If I see a good labor policy in the past I give it credit. I congratulate Hawke and Keating for some of their economic reforms. I am critical of some Howard government initiatives. At least i look at policies with some sort of open mind not a Labor GOOD Liberal BAD attitude. Ever read Animal Farm. I fear you are Boxer.

In relation to AGW I am skeptical on 2 counts. Vested interests and governments see the money and that makes me nervous. More particularly the earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Apart from the last 200 odd years we do not have recorded data to rely on (yes ice samples etc but I am talking actual recorded data). Leaving aside the possibility that not all the data is correct that means our science boffins with vested interests are making “models” based on less than 4 one millionths of a percent of the history of our planet. Sorry I’ve met too many half baked buffoon scientists to trust that kind of sample. Further, any person who puts up an alternate theory is labelled a heretic. It’s all too unscientific for mine. Remember it wasn’t so long ago that the vast majority of scientists thought the world was flat.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

11:59am | 04/02/11

Wow, Pers… 30 years of cyclone studies, accross the globe no less!
1961-2003 water temp… again, wow!

Even you would think that 30 years of data, when talking about climate (or the various cycles of the earth) is a pretty small sample. Why not 100 years, 1000 years, 1,000,000 years?

It’s also interesting that we see temperature data quoted (as it it’s supposed to be accurate - relative to what?) betweee 1961 and 2003?

Are these the only years we have data for? Or are this the sample that best fits the warmist narrative?

You should check the actual, unedited temperature data either globally, or even just for Australia. There is significant modification of data before it’s even used, funilly enough, this data always (after modification) tends to favour the warming theory… I don’t claim to understand the facts, or even know them all but I certainly have seen more than enough to make me skeptical… I simply do not trust these people (think Hadley CRU and their clique), they’ve certainly displayed the behaviours that would lead to a lack of trust/credibility.

I don’t beleive there is any large scale conspiracy, but I do beleive in groupthink.

Megan says:

12:03pm | 04/02/11

I would propose that the main cause of global warming (if it exists) is the fact that we’ve sucked all the insulation out of our crust and are leaving great gaping holes for the core to heat up through?  Stop chipping at our egg shell

Rob says:

12:27pm | 04/02/11

@pers Have a read of this

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Yes it has been peer reviewed before you start stamping your little feet

Steely Dan says:

02:36pm | 04/02/11

@ Rob

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
The whole site is worth a read for anyone wondering why those wacky boffins aren’t on the same page as Andrew Bolt.
Though I have to admit it is frequented by climate scientists, and as we know any person who is paid to be an expert in something must be considered corrupted and they’re expert opinions suspect.

persephone says:

04:36pm | 04/02/11

Andrew

I have nothing to do with Sussex Street.

And I was pushing for action on climate change within the Labor party long before it became part of their policy platform.

Rob

thanks for that.

That’s genuine. I wondered where some of the lines ran out by denialists came from and apparently most of them originate with the Oregon Institute you link to.

Interestingly, it appears that a lot of what they claim can’t be independently verified - the oft repeated claim that CO2 will increase plant growth, for example.

the Oregon institute, which published this information, is apparently a private operation, not a recognised University.

You say this paper was peer reviewed. Who by? Which reputable scientific journal published it?

Sorry, if you regard this as a reputable source, you really do need to buy this Harbor Bridge I’ve got going cheap…

And, as Steely Dan points out, their petition is highly sus.

Emm says:

12:08am | 06/02/11

Rexx don’t confuse the alarmists with facts, their tiny heads might just explode.

dale says:

07:15am | 04/02/11

Or we could stop growing rice there and grow crops that are less water consuming?

acotrel says:

07:37am | 04/02/11

Persephone, you’ve quoted evidence which refutes the claim that cyclonic and hurricane activity has decreased over the past few years.  Do you recognise that the claims are political, based on what that person WANTS to believe?  It’s a problem which occurs often on this forum.  Just because a statement is made, it isn’t necessarily or even often the truth!

persephone says:

07:40am | 04/02/11

Given that the Murray Darling basin plan is - at least in part - about ensuring the continuing productivity of the region, scrapping the plan would (in the long term) lead to lower food production.

Taking more water out of the system than it receives is obviously unsustainable and leads (in some cases) to poor farming practices, which in the long run leads to less production.

Using the land (and the water) more wisely means that agriculture activities will be more suitable for the region concerned, and thus in the long term more reliable.

Even during the drought, Australia exported 66% of the food it produced, so there’s plenty of time before we need to panic.

Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

08:12am | 04/02/11

@persephone..I struggle with the concept of how moving water along a long waterway evaporating along the way to support an area of South Australia with a sea barrage holding back sea water to support 700 dairy cows at Goolwa and fresh water fishing next to the sea is smart.

Once skilled irrigation people and associated services leave the Murray Darling Basin during the water buybacks, it is highly unlikely they will come back..thus the basin’s production capability will decline.
And while you are keen to point out we export food..which is good because if we do not as a nation export farm and mining primary products we don’t really need any secondary or tertiary industries and most likely the cities and jobs that surround them..coffee shops, real estate agents, shops, factories, solicitors, etc, etc…

Hopefully as a nation we are mainly exporting high value agricultural products such as beef ..you did not mention Australia also imports a lot food and in fact is a nett food importer when imports are measured against imports

But that still doesn’t mean in times like this when our tropical production is experiencing difficulties that we are assured to have enough food production if other problems arise.

As Bob Katter mentioned Australia has become a nett food importer in recent years.

@dale..good point I also think along the lines we need to find less water consuming crops in drier years..and invest more in an Australian department of Agriculture including more field staff, rather than just relying on following what the U.S department of agriculture does with grains and tweaking it a bit to suit our Australian conditions

persephone says:

08:28am | 04/02/11

Peter

you’re right, it isn’t.

The smart thing is to encourage such activities back closer to the source of water.

The failure to recognise this (so far) is one of the problems I have with the plan.

However, it doesn’t mean that the plan should therefore be scrapped, or that implementing it won’t help sort some of these problems out (make water more expensive, and cheap land which could only be sustained by irrigation becomes less attractive compared to more expensive land which doesn’t need it).

The skilled people aren’t the ones (by and large) who will leave the system. The skilled and the smart will adjust their practices so that they need less water (as they have already been doing during the drought).

The ones who are more likely to get out are those who have been struggling for years under increasing loads of debt and will never get into a position where they can repay this, let alone make a genuine profit.

btw, have you got better evidence for your assertion about food imports than Bob Katter?

M says:

08:51am | 04/02/11

Peter, the water that the murray river system gets in SA and how critical that is has nothing to do with a few cows or fresh water fishing and everything to do with 100s of km of eco system that has been in a very critical shape and this year thanks to the floods further north is looking the best it has been in over 10 years. Hurray for northern australia flooding. Hurray for the return of La Nina!

Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

09:20am | 04/02/11

@persephone ..just remember when you say grow things closer to the source of the water in the river system ~ it needs to be fairly flat as well..Narrandera, Leeton, Griffith and Hay are where the Murrumbidgee River which starts near Canberra enters a some flat country.

..skilled people are leaving the Murray Darling Basin..not so much the irrigation farmers who are selling their water to the Federal Government, but the support..such as agronomists, welders, diesel mechanics, auto electricians, plumbers, irrigation supply retailers, transport operators, contractors..de-population of the towns which also means less teachers, nurses, doctors, police, cooks, shop staff, council workers, bank staff, cleaners, builders, carpenters, student’s ..the need for the town to exist !!

If that network goes it won’t comeback

Likewise if the smaller irrigation farmer goes the most likely replacement will be a larger corporate farm company ..like a Cubbie..and that does not always mean extra water saving technology or production increase. Often the corporates buy these properties to spread their risk across a number of river basins and geographic locations, usually growing cash crops when it suits them.

This may not be compatiable with National food security needs…you can’t eat cotton

Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

09:40am | 04/02/11

@M…should Australia just agree with every Marsh the international community recognizes as a bird breeding site here, including many from nations that do not even have 2% of the Ramsar sites ..we are a sovereign nation, not every suggestion Ramsar make is in Australia’s best interest.

if farm dams and government reservoirs are getting judged on how much water they evaporate, because they are shallow water storages then so should swamps, marshes and shallow lakes..

Also the Wentworth Group is a group of like minded scientists, a lobby group basically like the rice growers association is a lobby group…for former MDBA chief Mike Taylor to employ a large number of the Wentworth Group members to create the draft plan was probably one of the most stupid bureaucratic management decisions that Australia has ever seen..right up there with pink bats

persephone says:

10:46am | 04/02/11

Peter

If we’re talking about security of food supply - rather than the continuing existence of certain towns (and I would point out that, as any reading of the history of the Basin shows, towns thriving and then dying is a common occurence) - then we may not be talking about farming as we know it at present.

If all that lovely flat land you talk about is unsustainable at lower rates of water alloation (in which case, those communities won’t survive further droughts anyway, and the sooner they relocate the better…) than it shouldn’t be farmed.

Certainly farming it would not create a secure food source.

Beef is a nice one, because it perfectly illustrates the kind of scenarios. You can farm beef on unwatered, low value land - obviously you need more land per animal - or you can farm beef in intensive feedlots, with everything the animal needs supplied artificially.

So the amount of water available simply means you produce beef in a different way.

I’m not sure whether we should run our main river system according to the whims of individual farmers. If they can’t make a profit, they shouldn’t be farming. If corporates can, then what’s wrong with that? Particularly if what’s under discussion is sustainable production of food.

Many family farms simply perpetuate poverty. Son leaves school at fifteen, goes straight to work on the farm. He doesn’t have any choice - there’s all that weight of history and expectation. He can’t get out of it later, either, because he hasn’t got enough education or other experience to find work on the farm.

So he’s trapped - when times are bad, and he lacks the knowledge base to adapt and has too much to lose in family history and honour to sell - in an increasing spiral of debt whilst waiting for the good times to arrive. If they never do, he faces a burden of debt that even selling his land won’t meet.

No wonder there is such a high suicide rate amongst farmers.

Now, if he were working for a corporation, he would be doing much the same work, but have better prospects and a guaranteed income.

Disclosure: am officially an irrigator, although I’d be the first to admit in a very limited way. But I’ve got a license.

Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

11:11am | 04/02/11

@persephone ..those of us living in the Murray Darling Basin look at the whole picture..those people living in the destructive environment of suburbia wanting to adopt a trendy Green cause in some distant area are the less sophisticated ones in this debate..

As for your following line I would like to point out Echuca, Hay, Swan Hill, Mildura, St George, Bourke, Nyngan, Griffith, Deniliquin, Narranderra, Robinvale, Hillston, Menindee, Goondawindi, Moree, Narrabri, and most others have been around for between 100-150 years

Yet you reckon they should be culled now .....!!

It is so easy to judge from a distance when you are detached

your comment (>if we’re talking about security of food supply - rather than the continuing existence of certain towns (and I would point out that, as any reading of the history of the Basin shows, towns <)

persephone says:

07:11pm | 04/02/11

Peter

I sometimes wonder why I bother replying to people who don’t read what I’ve written.

See that last line of my last post? I don’t live in suburbia. I have an irrigation license. I live in the Murray Darling basin, in a farming community.

Yes, you’re right. Those towns were there long before irrigation. They’ll be there after the plan is implemented, too.

If you can’t actually refute what I’m saying, just admit it, instead of trying to dismiss me as some suburban greenie.

Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

03:59pm | 06/02/11

@persephone….perhaps you are an irrigator, many Australians own a hose. And maybe you live in the bush or perhaps you like to be trendy and call your version of outer suburbia a hinterland hamlet ...you can look me up in the phone book, your just anonymous user behind an avatar, you could say your in the South Pole..it can’t be substantiated.

persephone says:

09:19pm | 06/02/11

Peter

again, how is any of that an answer to the points I made?

If you can’t answer the arguments, just say so.

wolf says:

07:22am | 04/02/11

Think of a carbon tax as an each way bet.
It MAY help reduce the chances of man made global warming running out of control by using price to encourage the development and use of alternative less carbon intensive energy sources.
However, even if we take the ‘global warming is crap’ argument over the research of most of the worlds climate scientists we are still looking at an energy crisis sometime soon.  Our oil reserves will not last forever.  Development of alternative energy sources is in our long term economic interests.
Assuming the funds raised are targeted towards alternative energy development and use (and not pissed up against the wall in middle class welfare) then a carbon tax is actually quite a good idea regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming.

grumpy old man says:

08:33am | 04/02/11

Hey Wolf,
I have a tunnel you may be interested in buying!
On the basis of your logic, you should pay part of your income to me, that way, I will not need to draw on the public purse in my old age, so saving you money further down the line. I promise not to piss it up against a wall!.
A carbon tax will not reduce the use of carbon fuels by a single litre. If you have a read of Labor’s plan, their intention was to tax the producers, who would raise their prices to the consumers, who would be compensated by payments from the Govt in excess of the additional costs incurred. Net position, no money left for any research, and a net deficit in the Govts coffers. The sad reality is that if Australia immediately stopped putting any carbon into the atmosphere, it would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the atmosphere.

TChong says:

06:27am | 04/02/11

“Alarmist propaganda”?
Hmmm.
Pots and kettles , YY

persephone says:

07:50am | 04/02/11

YY

Climate scientists predicted a long time ago that one of the first effects of global warming would be an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

That’s what we’re seeing.

When scientists are able to use their theories to correctly predict future outcomes, it generally means that their theories are sound.

Markus says:

08:22am | 04/02/11

What about in cases where their theories are just correctly predicting outcomes that had already been predicted? i.e. everything that has happened in Australia in the last decade.

Aitch B says:

09:01am | 04/02/11

@Pers

But on the other side of the coin haven’t there been some whacko doom and gloom predictions by some scientists that that have been totally off the mark and never eventuated?

And because of that are you not surprised that some (if not many) are sceptical about it the whole thing?

Syl says:

09:27am | 04/02/11

Persephone

While I will have to concede that recently extreme weather seems to be more prevalent (im taking your word on this, I havent done all the research).  This is not direct proof that it is caused by Man-made climate change.  All it proves is that recently more extreme weather event are prevalent.

It can, and is argued, that this recent change in climate is due to a natural cycle in climate that occurs over a very large period of time.  This is a possible scenario, nobody can refute that. Especially when you consider things like ice ages and climate shifts before human influence on the Earth.

Just because a theories predictions are realised, doesn’t mean they prove the theory.  I could postulate that pushing a cow over causes a sheep to die in the next paddock.  If a sheep does die it doesnt prove my theory, I still have to prove that the pushing of the cow caused the death.  (crazy example I know, I have a migraine and couldnt think of anything better lol)

In the end, the answer to Is man-made climate change real is
“We don’t know”. 
Its possible, maybe even probable (although im not sure on this) but it sure as shit isn’t undisputable.  To claim it is anything else is misleading.

Tony says:

09:39am | 04/02/11

Persephone, what weather events have actually increased in severity or frequency? Come on, please cite the evidence.

How often should we get Category 5 cyclones in a ‘normal’ climate? What Category would it have been without your so called ‘climate change’?

I know some expect the weather to provide 24 degree temps every day with rain only on Monday mornings between the hours of 10 and 11 but I am sorry. If we ever had ‘normal’ weather then that would indeed be evidence that the climate had actually changed!

What we are seeing is actually exactly what we have seen historically. Go check the facts.

Lee says:

09:48am | 04/02/11

Take a look at the geo thermal maps for outback QLD and NT- they show older (over thousands of years) river beds which, after a cyclone, cause flooding. Anyone can manipulate a fact or figure to prove a point and for SOME people Climate Change or Global Warming ,or whatever it is currently being called, has not conclusively proven we are either accelerating weather patterns or causing them.

@ Syl I love your example!

persephone says:

10:59am | 04/02/11

Aitch B

such as?

There have been some whacko claims in all branches of science (Isacc Newton came up with some beauties, but it doesn’t mean he was wrong about gravity).

Syl

the big one here is that this was predicted.

There are no other theories on offer at present (despite efforts over decades to find other explanations) which fit the facts.

Scientists have looked long and hard at why climatic shifts occured in the past. None of the factors which caused those past climatic shifts is in operation now, so there must be another explanation.

And the only other one which holds water is that man is emitting greenhouse gases and that that’s the problem.

Now, I’m sure you’d agree with me that there is lots of evidence that we’re doing things which release gases into the atmosphere.

And the way these gases react with the atmosphere is predictable, and what we’re seeing weather wise fits in with those predictions.

So - as much as we know anything - we know that (i) man’s activities means there are more greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere; (ii) these gases can be proven (in a laboratory, if you like) to create warming; (iii) warming of the atmosphere leads to an increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

Arc says:

11:04am | 04/02/11

The oblique paradox of Green/Labor propaganda is that the lie in the throat becomes by repetition ,the truth in the heart

Syl says:

12:16pm | 04/02/11

Persephone

The whole idea of my post is that predictions do not prove theories, evidence does.  And not all predictions of the climate-change supporters have been realised.

There are other theories, naturally occuring cyclical climate change is one, I mentioned it before.  To claim it is not a theory is false, many scientists believe it.  EVEN if there weren’t any other theories, it still doesnt make man-made climate change true by default.  There was a time that EVERYONE thought the world was flat.  There were no conflicting theories.  It doesnt mean it was correct.

To claim that the only theory to hold water is yours is false as well, there are other explanations that can explain these events, are they perfect explanations? No.  But neither is man-made climate change.

I absuloutely agree we release a lot of gases, I agree that their warming effect can, to some degree, be proven in a laboratory.  It has NOT been proven however that this warming causes extreme weather events.  You jump to this conclusion but the proof isnt there (yet?).  If the proof was undeniable and undisputable all (well except the nutters who believe in pink elephants roaming the universe) scientists would agree.  They don’t.  At best we have correlation over a small sample size, not absolute causation.

My point is we do not know whether our effect on the earth is causing these storms, there is more than one theory that can explain these events.  Until somebody produces undeniable proof we cannot claim, with absolute certainty, that man-made climate change is the culprit.

I am not denying man-made climate change, nor am I supporting it.  I, like everyone else, simply do not know.

persephone says:

07:23pm | 04/02/11

Syl

scientists say they’re not certain because they’re scientists; to them, the theory of gravity is also uncertain.

However, despite their official ruling that gravity may not exist, in practice it all works according to the current theory, so the current theory is used…although it may be disproved completely tomorrow.

That’s how science works. Nothing is ever 100% certain, but if it works in practice it’s generally accepted as true.

Scientists are as certain about climate change as they are about gravity. They’re as certain about climate change (and that it’s man’s doing) as they are about evolution.

If you’re hanging out for scientists to declare it’s 100% certain, you’re never going to believe anything is actually real.

If your doctor (a scientist) tells you that it’s 99% certain that you have cancer and 99% certain that if he operates tomorrow you’ll live but there’s a 1% chance you’ll die on the operating table, are you going to wait for a 100% guarantee of both diagnosis and survival before you act?

Particularly if any delay makes it 100% certain that you won’t?

Trev says:

06:51pm | 06/02/11

Syl
Just to add to what persephone says about the way that scientists operate. No scientist would ever say that they have “proven” something. In fact, the reverse is the case and it takes just one exception (for example a published experiment, open to repetition by others) before a generally accepted scientific paradigm is thrown out. It is this openness to correction that makes science such a powerful and reliable tool.

“Proving” a theory is the kind of thing that Hercule Pirot does, but a theory in science is something of an entirely different order. I could die happy if I had a scientific theory of the stature of Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection attached to my name. The minute that someone says “It’s only a theory” then you know that they have somehow managed to leave science out of their educational smorgasbord.

Syl says:

10:07pm | 06/02/11

Sigh

Yet you are so certain that Climate Change is real, and are unwilling to accept that their MAY be an alternative.

You can’t have it both ways, both your arguments just go to prove mine, thanks.  The answer is “We dont know”. 
To use the theory of gravity is a bit laughable truth be told.  We can test the results of gravity directly.  We know how it will act when we drop a certain object etc etc.  We can accurately and consistently predict the outcomes of gravity related experiments.  This has not been achieved with Climate Change theory yet.  Many predictions have come true, many havent.  To claim otherwise is ridiculous. 

“Scientists are as certain about climate change as they are about gravity. ”

I assume you mean man-made climate change, and no they arent.  Show me one scientist who refutes the law of gravity and can come up with an alternative explanation (peer reviewed study).  You can’t, it is a widely accepted theory (a rule). 
But you can find MANY scientists who refute man-made climate change.  It is not as accepted, stick to the facts, don’t make them up to suit your agenda.

The end game is “We don’t know”, while there are more than one theory that can explain these events (and there are) it is nowhere near being certain.

persephone says:

06:19am | 07/02/11

Syl

We do know.

But you’re just another denier pretending that you’re just hanging out for more evidence because you want to look like you’re a sceptic on reasonable grounds. Won’t hold up, sorry.

Please give specific examples of climate change theory failing to stand up to the tests you outline.

I repeat: we are as certain of climate change and its causes as we are about any theory. All theories - including gravity - have people out there who offer different explantions, which don’t stand up to testing. Rational people understand this, and dismiss these theories as the crack pottery they are.

Nothing different about climate change. Yes, people offer up different explantions to explain what’s happening, but they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Climate change does.

This is because the science underlying it is based on fundamentals.

I repeat: there is no doubt that humans are emtting greenhouse gases. There is no doubt that an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere raises temperatures (and it’s something you can test in a lab). There is no doubt that raising the temps in the atmosphere changes the climate (again, provable through historical examination of the link between CO2 levels and climate).

It’s 1+1 =2 stuff.

persephone says:

06:30am | 07/02/11

Oh, and Syl - find me a peer reviewed paper which states that climate change theory is incorrect.

BTW, do a really quick google on alternative theories to gravity. Some of them are taken quite seriously!

Syl says:

12:46pm | 07/02/11

Sigh

You just can’t handle someone with a different opinion can you?

When in doubt, label me a denier, even though i stated in an earlier post that man-made climate change was possible, even probable.  But because Im not jumping up and down stating, OMG you are so right, it’s easier to label me a denier and dismiss me.  I expected better but am not suprised.

There are differing opinions on this issue, whether you agree with them or not.  Differing proffessional, scientific opinions.  You keep denying this but it is blatantly true.

You obviously are unable to concede this simple fact, that it is not totally scientifically accepted, that the answer is not known yet.  To claim that it is as scientifically accepted as gravity is hilarious. 

I have never said it is wrong or right to believe in man-made climate change, just that it is not a certainty, if you are unwilling to accept this we will just have to agree to disagree.  There is no point in arguing with someone who is unwilling to look at an issue from both sides, or denies that both sides exist.

Joan says:

07:02am | 04/02/11

Wild weather is just that -weather. A carbon tax will not stop bad weather and Gillard with her carbon tax proposal and her levy treats Australians as gullible fools to be ripped off at every chance.

David B says:

07:40am | 04/02/11

Uunfortunately Joan, the majority of Australians have proven that they are gullible fools already, by voting in Gillard after she ousted her own leader. That, and she made promises to be a different government, when all that changed was the head.

acotrel says:

07:40am | 04/02/11

’ it just highlights how futile human action would be to try and stop naturally occurring weather events.’  So we should just slash our wrists?

Joan says:

07:49am | 04/02/11

Acotrel….. If you are that stupid go ahead ... the rest of us aren`t , we understand weather is weather and aren’t as foolish as to believe that we can control weather with a Carbon tax….. there ain’t no human created theromstat that can control the weather.

persephone says:

07:55am | 04/02/11

jupiter

it’s actually worse than that. We’ve already put enough CO2 in the system to mean that, even if we cut all emissions tomorrow, we’d still be facing at least twenty years of this kind of weather.

In fact, it might take even longer - a lot longer - for the system to rebalance itself.

What putting a price on carbon is intended to do is not to stop these weather events happening - because we can’t - but to stop it getting even worse in the future.

Reputable economists around the world, taking these scenarios into account, have repeatedly stated that the sooner we take action, the cheaper it will be for all of us.

We’re already seeing the costs that these weather events impose on us. We can expect these kind of costs to continue to be incurred for the foreseeable future, no matter what we do.

But if we want there to come a time when these events are less frequent, less severe and less costly, then we have to take action now.

Pfft says:

08:18am | 04/02/11

@Purse,System to Rebalance itself ,you idiot,

Andrew says:

09:41am | 04/02/11

Perse. please tell us how much of the carbon in the atmosphere is produced by humans. Better still why don’t you tell us how much carbon goes into the atmosphere every time a volcano erupts. I trust you don’t think we cause the eruptions.

persephone says:

10:58pm | 04/02/11

Andrew

try this for starters:

http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm

‘According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors. ’

Joan says:

06:49am | 04/02/11

The cyclones and extreme weather have gotten worse world wide since the early 1990s when some nations started intoducing carbon tax and other levis related to carbon. Carbon tax is just another rip off by clueless politicians who find easier to rip off money from its citizens and talk waffle than actually doing something like pay insurance for infrastructure… which QLD fail to do unlike NSW and Victoria do.

persephone says:

08:04am | 04/02/11

stop the carbon tax fraud:

It seems a little curious to me that people who spend a lot of money every year to insure their homes against the very small possibility that they will need to make a massive claim sometime in the next thirty years, don’t apply similar reasoning to global warming.

If someone tells you that brushing your teeth will stop decay in the future, and therefore save you money in dental bills, you brush your teeth.

If the police tell you that fitting deadlocks to your doors will reduce the risk of burglary, you fit deadlocks.

There’s no guarantee in either case that taking the actions suggested will actually stop the event happening.

It simply lessens the likelihood.

In the case of a carbon price (because it may not be a tax and doesn’t have to be) no, it won’t stop these extreme events, either now or in the near future.

But it will stop them (in the long term, alas) becoming more severe and more frequent - and thus far far more expensive.

And - like brushing your teeth, or fitting deadlocks - taking action now will thus save you money in the future.

Joan

oh, so you admit that extreme weather has become worse over the last few decades!

Good on you!

Joan says:

08:39am | 04/02/11

peresphone: laugh, got your crystal ball polished… you can tell the weather events won’t be as severe after carbon tax. Like all long range forecasters a lot of wind and no real evidence.  Dorthea Mackellars poem describes Australia, its weather perfectly…. more accurate and real than anything you write.  Weather severity comes and goes and carbon tax/levies in countries already paying didn’t change the chance of bad weather happening.

watty says:

08:51am | 04/02/11

persephone can you explain this?

It is interesting to note that two of the category 4 cyclones (at time of coast crossing) both occurred in 1918, while the other two (Ingrid and Larry) also occurred close together in time-in March 2005 and March 2006 respectively. Although this latter pairing (on its own) cannot be used to indicate a trend towards more frequent and more intense cyclones

Source: Queensland Government Cyclone Report

ps…How is the carbon trading market faring? From what I gather the “fright material” pushed by insurance companies,financial institutes and the “Green Industry” has fallen on stony ground.

Hamish says:

08:52am | 04/02/11

Perse, I seriously thought you had more intellectual credibility than to use the ‘insurance’ argument. You know AGW pushers are in trouble when they resort to this. Insurance is a risk versus cost game. The fact is the risk is too low and the cost too great to insure against global warming/cooling/disaster increases or whatever it is it’s called these days (even if other countries actually do it which of course, they’re not).

Paying craploads of money to try and alleviate something which may or may not exist to protect ourselves from something which may or may not even be a problem is not ‘insurance’ it’s just dumb.

It’s why the government doesn’t have an earthquake disaster fund (like they do in New Zealand) because it costs too much, it’s unclear if Australia will have an earthquake in the near future and even if we did, there’s not much you can do about it anyway. Just like AGW.

James says:

08:55am | 04/02/11

If you think the carbon tax is designed to stop a flood you really don’t get it, it is not designed to stop A flood it is designed to help prevent the globe heating to beyond 2 degrees above pre industrial levels, something that would be orders of magnitude worse than these floods and cyclones.

stevem says:

09:49am | 04/02/11

@persephone, The insurance analogy is the way I’ve looked at it. The problem is that If Australia goes it alone the premiums will be paid by all Australians and Australian industries. Our exports will become uncompetitive and it will cost us dearly. We will, in many ways, be paying the premiums for the entire world - something we just cannot afford to do.

Rob says:

10:15am | 04/02/11

I might remove my kids pocket money for a Boogeyman tax then, He may or may not be really hiding in the cupboard but they can hedge their bets and he miraculously may just dissapear altogether.  At any rate his appearances won’t increase due to this tax so the problem will look solved.    I predicted a 200% increase in night time visits (peer reviewed by my wife) but taking action now when these events are less frequent, less severe and less costly will lead to a good nights sleep had by all, and a tidy little beer fund for me!!

Kelly says:

12:00pm | 04/02/11

Interesting to see people stating this happened on 19xx, that happened 50 years ago… Tell you what people, those 1 in 50/100 year events are happening NOW, all around 2009 to 2011. Is that a coincidence? We’ll see. Let’s forget about this tax thing and just keep on polluting. We are already the world champion in pollution per capita, why not extending that lead?

persephone says:

07:44pm | 04/02/11

Joan

again, it would be handy if people actually read what I wrote, instead of assuming I wrote something I didn’t.

I repeat: even if we act tomorrow to reduce all emissions, we would stil experience warming for the next twenty years.

We would still experience extreme and frequent weather events.

What is believed by scientists is that the climate would then stabilise at whatever it is we’ve got then.

This would at least give us a chance to adapt to a stable situation, rather than having to constantly change our practices to try and cope with an ever worsening situation.

watty

note that you are conveniently leaving Yasi out of that little example!

So instead of two category 4 s close together, we’ve had 2 category 4s and a 5. Sort of fits in with the idea of cyclones being of increased intensity, doesn’t it?

Hamish

Interesting that those posters who accuse me of being ‘more intelligent’ than I am never agree with anything I’ve said, which sort of suggests that I’m not as clever as they believe (or they don’t think I’m intelligent to begin with, and are just indulging in pointless flattery).

(I’ve always loved the scene in West Wing when someone accuses Sam Seabourne…sigh, pause momentarily to go all dreamy eyed over Rob Lowe….of acting dumb, and he says “I never act dumb. Sometimes I act smart.”)

That’s right, sweetie. We don’t insure against earthquakes because of their low probability. So if economists are telling the government (as they are) that they should ‘insure’ against climate change, it obviously follows that it’s a higher probable risk than earthquakes.

And as we see, results in higher actual costs.

With that level of argument, I don’t think I’m going to be accusing you of being more intelligent than you are.

stevem

which is why it’s so important that the whole world acts. To do that, someone has to start (and we’re actually a bit behind).

Rob

if 99% of scientists in the bogeyman field in the world were telling you there was a 99% probability of a bogeyman being in the cupboard, this would be a sound course of action.

Bert says:

11:26pm | 04/02/11

@Pers,“It would be handy if people read what I wrote “,your not a scientist,your a propagandist,A Green/Lab Zealot without an ounce of impartiality,people dont read what you post because they know you did not author it

persephone says:

04:49pm | 05/02/11

Bert

just as well you didn’t read it, then.

acotrel says:

07:45am | 04/02/11

Joan, Insurance companies are examples of private enterprise.  How may times do you believe they should pay out for disasters arising from repeated extreme weather events?  What size do you believe the premiums should be?  Or do you want to legislate the premiums to suit your own pocket?

persephone says:

08:12am | 04/02/11

GTV

given that economists around the world agree that the longer it takes to take action, the bigger the economic impacts, then if taxpayers want to save themselves money, they should get on board as soon as possible.

We’re already seeing increased costs to the taxpayer - flood levy, anyone? - and strong arguments that these increased costs should be built into the system.

As for the cost of electricity, you’re right, that’s got a lot to do with power companies being reluctant to invest until a carbon price is set.

Again, swift action on this will lead to increased investment in power and thus reduced bills.

So you are actually arguing for a quick implementation of a carbon pricing system, although you don’t realise it.

Joseph Logan says:

08:51am | 04/02/11

Geez, people are stupid!
“Cyclones have got worse since the 1990s in Australia”
Does that refer to the one that was “ten times the size of Tracey”
Does that refer to the one that was “bigger than Katrina”
Does that refert to the one that “will”  cause loss of life?
Does that refwr to the one that flattened Townsville,wrecked Cairns?
The one that DID NOT happen!!!!
Wake up, Australians, please!!!

Kindasorta says:

09:46am | 04/02/11

persephone: If the science is dodgy behind all of this then whatever the economists believe is irrelevant.

Also your insurance and teeth brushing examples are invalid as they rely on everyone already accepting that carbon tax actually saving us money. (Affirming the consequent).

Whilst I think we should be looking after the earth better than we are, I personally don’t believe the whole thing has been thought out enough for us to be introducing. Especially Australians given the small amount of benifit it would make even if it did work as well as they think.

persephone says:

11:05pm | 04/02/11

Kindasorta

so you don’t believe the scientists and you don’t believe the economists?

Who do you go to then? Soothsayers? The zodiac?

Why do you believe your dentist when he tells you that brushing your teeth will prevent decay? I mean, he’s a scientist, how can you trust him?

Scepticism is good and healthy, up to a point. But like anything, taken to excess it’s the opposite.

James says:

09:19am | 04/02/11

You insult Socrates to pinch his name and spout such unconsidered non-sense.  Do you even understand how a signal can be extracted from “noise”, that is, the signature of climate change can be seen in “natural” events.  Live up to your name and study CC more deeply.

Tom says:

10:52am | 04/02/11

@James, “Do you even understand how a signal can be extracted from “noise”.

I just love it it. “Only a chosen few can see it and hear it but its there! Trust me.” ... lol ...

Problem James is that your noise sends me a signal. In a former life you would have been selling dispensations out of purgatory and doing nicely out of it.

James says:

11:04am | 04/02/11

Tom.

From your answer, I think we can deduce that, no, you don’t understand fourier analysis, hence your lame joke to cover that fact.

James says:

02:02pm | 04/02/11

@James, I did second year uni pure and applied maths. You and Al Gore obviously went further. Always a pleasure to deal with professors though.

Face it James, the data ain’t too flash. Then, there is the “a tax will fix it” slogan. What a hoot. I don’t believe you would be consulting a fourier series on that one to discern the message. Every scientist has a price and even the more intellectually gifted ones still have to feed themselves.

PS: I thought your comment on Socrates was pretty good. Sorry you did not like mine.

James says:

02:24pm | 04/02/11

Tom (James), no the data “isn’t too flash” and not because it isn’t good quality but because of its implications.  I suggest you put your education to good use and research just how “unflash” but good quality it is.  We can’t afford to have people with uni level maths lumping in with the knuckle draggers.

Tom says:

03:59pm | 04/02/11

James, thanks for overlooking the name grab.

In my opinion, the data integrity is weak in precision because coverage of world-wide sites goes back less than a century whereas cycles are thousands of years. I have a problem with long term extrapolation based on very short term data trends.  Even now there have been disputes about sites recently being dropped out.

I have never read an answer (let alone a robust counter) to ice-core experiments that show a correlation between CO2 and the earth’s climate where in increase in CO2 actually lags significantly (80 years? or 800?) behind warming. In my mind, this destroys the popular theory that increased CO2 causes warming. If anything, it suggests warming causes an increase in CO2.

On the so-called “scientific consens-arse”, having grown up with scientists, I know they suffer from conceit / vanity / hunger like the rest of us. After years of being treated as laboratory boffins and objects of ridicule by politicians and our media, they are at last getting some sort of profile. I don’t begrudge this except to factor that into their objectivity. Like the rest of us, they can be manipulated and intelligence of their brand does not automatically protect them from being abused (Dr Mengele?)

I see so much sloganeering and ad hominems (such as “deniers”, “knuckle draggers”) festooning your cause, that it scares me.

I have a problem with Al Gore’s house.

I don’t believe a tax will work in theory, much less in practice.

Jim says:

04:48pm | 04/02/11

OK James…you are pontificating and talking down again. I have two degrees, one in mineral science (which earns me money) and one it statistics (which doesn’t).

Throwing out the Fourier Analysis quote shows you up for the nuffy you are. Fourier series only show the harmonics of a system or function. It’s probabaly been attempted to be used by the Cult of Climate Change to fool people into believing we need to be taxed into oblivion….but reality is, the data able to be put into a Fourier series has only reliably been collected for the last 150 years…out of oooh, 3.5 billion years or so since the Earth has had an atmosphere.

It is a statistically irrelevant sample set.

Mineral depositions and, more recently, ice core sampling put us at historically the lowest average global temperatures and the lowest levels of atmospheric carbon EVER. That is an immutable fact that people like you conveniently ignore.

What does it mean? Other than being lower on both counts, it doesn’t mean much at all.

You heartlessly hijacked a thread the other day which had people worried to death about themselves and their loved ones in the cyclones path - attacked it with your holier than thou preaching on AGW. I’m sure you honestly believe your rubbish, but you lack compassion, tact, and now obviously an ability to think for yourself.

James says:

05:12pm | 04/02/11

Tom, just point something out.  What makes you suprised that warming causes CO2 variation in the past.  Isn’t it obvious that as the globe warmed and cooled due to the actual natural cycles the amont of CO2 changed as it was absorbed and released into/out of the oceans etc. different wamer water can absorb less CO2. 

The change from CO2 lagging temp, to temp lagging CO2 would only occur if lots of CO2 was released by combusting carbon and carbon compounds in the presense of oxygen in large quanties, I wonder if this occured in the last 200 years.

James says:

05:22pm | 04/02/11

Two degrees in subjects that are not very useful to you understanding climate science.  The fourier quote implys something which might be difficult for you to grasp.  What I am saying is, you can pull out distinct signals even from a system that is changing on a “natual cycle” by disgarding the natural cycle and seeing what is left I really don’t have time to spell things out for you.

You are also wrong in your assertion about ice cores.

Jim says:

05:42pm | 04/02/11

So you are admitting that statistics is no good for any form of climate analysis then James?

How can this be so? When the cult has been falling back on doctored statistical data for 20 years?

Read this - http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf - it’s pure gold. I know you’ll either not read it or come out and discredit it….but when it shows how former AGW champions are now turning against the theory (one’s quote about funding and talking frankly is great)...most sensible people change their minds.

James says:

08:46pm | 04/02/11

Statistics without knowledge of causation is only half the puzzle and often leads to an incorrect diagnosis.  You need to study more broadly, physics, chemistry, atmosphere/ocean and of course climate science interaction before you will understand why we are heating the globe.

Tom says:

10:05am | 05/02/11

James, I never said I was surprised about the lead factor in warming? Please don’t insult me (and your lot) by attempting to manipulate what I said. I am not surprised.

The mechanism has already been plausibly explained by smarter people than us that warming drives CO2 into the atmosphere in the same way as heating up soda water drives out the CO2.

Your “answer” to Jim and myself is that somehow a lead / lag phenomena shown to be occurring over millions of years has been reversed is at best a rationalisation for a flawed belief system.

Don’t insult people’s education, it smacks of secret business. Your arguments are not transparent. The so-called “deniers” are not “knuckle draggers”. Your lot is going to have to learn not to talk down to the punters (“I really don’t have time to spell things out for you”).

Try a google of “Al Gore’s house”, and tell me the man is not a complete spiv. These are not people that help your cause. They are just carpet baggers.

James says:

06:14pm | 05/02/11

Tom, seriously you have to get on top of this stuff, it is very serious.  You are going to kick yourself when it clicks that the lead/lag “switch” makes sense, do a bit more research as a uni maths student you will get it.

As to Al Gore, my god, the man did not have to stick his neck out, he was rich to begin with.  With the pounding he has taken by the howling, boneheads I’m surprised he hasn’t turned his back on all of us.  The day the sneering conspiracy nuts show 1 tenth of the courage gore showed Satan will skate to work.

Greg says:

08:58am | 04/02/11

nossy seems to struggle with the definition of EVERYONE, conveniently ignoring all the people who oppose it. But then you seem to think that remaining relevant in todays fast moving world means calling Tony Abbott a one trick pony everytime you mention his name.

simon says:

10:03am | 04/02/11

Nossy, business doesn’t care if there is a carbon tax, it wont cost them a cent, of course they would support it. We the consumers end up paying for it mate. Very, very weak argument mate!!!!

Is it possible... says:

03:07pm | 04/02/11

....that Nossy is in fact Timmy from South Park with a slight twist?

persephone says:

08:16am | 04/02/11

Pants on fire

a good moniker for you!!

Before the election, Gillard ruled out the carbon tax the Greens were proposing - which, in context, is clearly what she meant every time she was asked about a carbon tax and ruled it out.

She has still not committed to a carbon tax. She has agreed to discuss how to set a price on carbon.

The Greens, naturally, want a carbon tax back on the table. The government has yet to say whether it agrees with this proposal or not.

The time to say she’s being hypocritical on this or not is when she actually announces support for a carbon tax, which she hasn’t as yet.

Charles says:

12:27pm | 04/02/11

Dude,

She said no “Carbon Tax”.

If she was being tricky, then that is her fault.

Wayne Swan went further as he angrily rejected it.

Don’t know about anybody else, but that is extreme dishonesty. Actually, it is called lying.

If a Carbon Tax does come in, they must understand that it will be a declaration of war. Nothing less will suffice.

persephone says:

11:12pm | 04/02/11

Charles

she wasn’t being tricky. She was asked about a particular tax the Greens were proposing - a carbon tax - and said no, she wasn’t considering that.

In the same interview, she was asked about a carbon price and said that yes, one would be considered.

So - at the time - it was quite clear that she was being asked about and was talking about, two different things.

And - in the same way - she has not committed to a tax on carbon but on a price.

Video Killed The Radio Star says:

08:39am | 04/02/11

Here Here!! Well said!!!!

Dash says:

09:45am | 04/02/11

Angry Aussie, you are correct. This has nothing to do with the environment. It’s an excuse for the ALP to raise taxes. That’s it plain and simple. And it will be inflationary and impact interest rates. Where is this tax going to go? Who benefits from the tax? This is a FRAUD!

James says:

09:15am | 04/02/11

And indeed the dead bodies of people who have been killed by global warming it seems.  Global warming is not a matter of belief it is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Greg says:

10:03am | 04/02/11

@James, oh how very dramatic! Any sympathy for the dead bodies as a direct result of the ALPs insulation mess?

The government needs to present alternatives not just introduce a tax. If a company is faced with a tax and no alternative or financial means to develop one, they just pass the cost on to the consumer. Families suffer as a direct result of the Gillard governments poliy. It looks to me that this is just about the ALP raising taxes because they are not presenting a workable alternative.

Instead of pouring $43 billion into the NBN, perhaps the money would be better spent providing alternative sources of energy, like say at least looking into Nuclear. I’d be happy for the government to tax carbon if there was an alternative for corporates to turn to. Without one, it’s just another tax which has no impact on the environment.

James says:

11:12am | 04/02/11

Yes but remember it is 4 people as opposed to the 1000’s who are killed by global warming.

You have an alterative, become more energy efficient.

Aitch B says:

11:35am | 04/02/11

@James

“1000s who are killed by global warning”

More detail please…....... it’s difficult to come to terms with this statement without some evidence provided.

James says:

12:35pm | 04/02/11

Here you go Aitch B http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/12/61562 you got some proof against this?

Aitch B says:

01:00pm | 04/02/11

@James

Thank you for the link. I don’t believe my request indicated that I was going to dispute or try to disprove what you provided so let’s leave it at that.

Randal says:

03:56pm | 04/02/11

Oh James, you really are a pathetic soul, and for someone who demands scientific proof of every statement that anyone makes you disagree with this is very disappointing.

Regurgitating a wild claim with zero credibility made by the WHO and repeated by zealots the world over as part of the UN agenda to force action on climate change is the best you have got… please.

You know how the ‘study’ (and I use that term very loosely indeed) worked don’t you. The 19 scientists (well that should read environmentalists) without any evidence (and not taking into consideration any natural forces, nor those that where killed by the cold in the same year) linked the warm 2000 European summer to global warming and then counted any of those who died as victims of global warming.

Whatever happened to the weather is not climate as preached by the IPCC, I guess when you want it to add pressure to a dodgy theory there are no rules.

Next time pal actually do some research outside of the internet, then maybe you may have something worthwhile to contribute to the debate.

James says:

05:30pm | 04/02/11

Randal if you are on a swing swinging “naturally’ and I push you just a bit and you fall off and break your neck can I get off scott free?

persephone says:

08:21am | 04/02/11

Australia’s contribution of troops in both World Wars was small by international standards, too.

Are you saying that we shouldn’t have bothered sending them?

The amount of water I saved per day by observing the water restrictions was insignificant when compared to the amount of water in the dams.

Does that mean I shouldn’t have obeyed the restrictions?

And nuclear power stations would be far more expensive for you than putting a price on carbon.

Les says:

11:53am | 04/02/11

persephone - you have been brainwashed. It is a condition similiar to drug addiction - it is beyond the control of the affected person. You can pay my share of carbon tax - because I won’t.

Timmy of south park says:

12:36pm | 04/02/11

@Pers,Facts are stubborn and unrelenting—You have None!

persephone says:

11:18pm | 04/02/11

Les and Timmy

so you can’t actually fault my arguments, I take it?

Childish of you.

eddie says:

09:42am | 04/02/11

VIC,
I think its time to re-examine your medication, but dont forget your tinfoil hat when you go out to the doctor, if you can find one that isnt part of the global commie conspiracy.

persephone says:

11:28pm | 04/02/11

Notice the gaps between these events - in some cases, nearly eighty years.

Now, look at:

2003 2006 2009 major fires, Victoria

2000—2010 one of the biggest droughts

2010-  2011 major floods, Victoria, Qld, NSW

2011 - major floods, cyclones

...and that’s just off the top of my head

George Pell says:

11:38pm | 04/02/11

You can add the 79-80 cyclone the hit Casino,Lismore,Ballina,Lennox Head and Byron Bay. Houses were destroyed,trees ripped up by their roots,power lines down and businesses damaged some wiped out.. It was reported by local medias and hit the National media for a day.  There hasn’t been a cyclone since,and that’s thirty years ago. For every scientist that says one thing there is another saying the opposite. To me, climate change and the world will end sect,are gullible and naive, who never look at the other side of the argument due to their agenda.

persephone says:

04:56pm | 05/02/11

George Pell

well, at least your moniker is apt.

No, for every scientist who says climate change is true you CAN"T find one who says the opposite.

For every scientist who says it isn’t, you can find 999 that say the opposite.

The media likes to be balanced. Their idea of ‘balance’ is that both sides of the argument get equal time, even if both sides of the argument are different in quality.

If they were truly balanced, they would devote 99.9% of their column space to articles supporting climate change, rather than 50/50.

This is one of the reasons why we tend to hear the same names being trotted out to put the argument against climate change - there aren’t that many ‘anti cc’ scientists to chose from, so they have to go back to the same ones again and again.

Charles says:

08:04am | 04/02/11

You are a flat eather sir. Spewing you usubstantiated rubbish. Can you provide a guarantee that what you say is man made climate change and will be elimanted if we introduce a tax? If you can’t, then you expect me to pay and and sacrifice for the sake of your flat earth theory?
At least those explorers in the past went out and proved that the earth was not flat. You climate believers are hilarious thinking we take you on face value just because “You believe”.

Prove it beyond doubt, or stop busting balls. That’s your answer to me.

watty says:

08:37am | 04/02/11

Shane….I presume you are referring to"Global Warming experts” like economist Garnaut,climate predictor Flannery,ABC “scientist” Williams,railway engineer Pachauri and his gang at IPCC and of course Nobel Peace Prize winner Gore?

Greg says:

08:50am | 04/02/11

Thanks baby Shane for showing us your credentials. Obviously web links and reading does not consitute research to you. But then again you probably think calling someone a flat earther gives yourself credibility and saying blah blah blah does not make you a big baby.

shane says:

09:18am | 04/02/11

No, I can’t provide a guarantee regarding Climate Change and taxes, but if the worlds scientists are almost unanimously united in their belief that its a problem and that something should be done, then I’ll put my trust in them above the rantings of fringe science with is often on the payroll of vested interests. 

Almost nothing is provable beyond doubt, and invoking that argument is just an excuse to justify your objection to a global problem.

I couldn’t care less if its a carbon tax, government regulation, or voluntary action on the part of industry. Any or all of it should probably be done.

I’ll continue to ‘have faith’ in the hard work and objective evidence produced by honest hard working scientists from around the globe, whose interest in politics and vested interests is a distant runner up to the passion they have for their research.

I wonder if you’d enjoy having your life’s work written off as complete bullsh’t by a bunch of people who have absolutely no understanding of its details.

Mayday says:

03:56pm | 04/02/11

Watty don’t forget about Dim Flannery’s Gaia, she will reek havoc on us all!

blah blah says:

10:28am | 06/02/11

>“Obviously web links and reading does not consitute research to you”<
Bwahahahaha
This is the funniest thing I think I’ve ever read. Ahahahaha!!!!
OMG.
No. Research doesn’t consist of any random person looking up a website and reading whatever crap you can find on there and believing it. Research is conducted by first getting an honours degree, then a PhD….at least 8 - 10yrs or so of brain-straining at uni. Then working as a researcher, conducting experiments on your subject area, using the results of that research to gather evidence. Having your work published and challenged by other scientists.
I’m completely fed up with all you morons that think this is some kind of green conspiracy. That’s all you are. Total morons.
Where were you when science told us that the ozone hole was being caused by CFCs in the atmosphere? Were you out in force trumpeting on about how ‘nothing mankind does can affect the atmosphere’, and ‘Lord Monkton says the ozone hole was bigger in the MWP’ or ‘it’s just Labors excuse to put a great big tax on fridges’  despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary? No, you were happily accepting it, and looking at the labels on your mortine.
When evidence of the damaging consequences of taking thalidomide during pregnancy grew, did you all say ‘pfft it’s a midwife conspiracy’? No, you accepted the evidence and stopped taking it.
Your lives are completely filled with the medicine and technology scientific research gives you, that you happily accept everyday. Do you take a panadol when you get a headache? Why? Maybe it doesn’t work at all…it’s just a drug company conspiracy! How many brain cells does it take to realise that there are thousands of scientists out there that know much more about something than you do, and those ppl are basing their theories on evidence gained by doing research? Too many for most on this forum it seems….

Trev says:

12:33pm | 07/02/11

Sad but true Shane. Deniers who try to use their versions of “common sense” to argue their cases are sadly deluding themselves. It really is important to try to acquaint yourself with the basic science - such as the capacities of CO2 and H2O to absorb heat radiation.

An analogy that comes to mind is that of a person who (in the days before GPS) applies for a job driving London cabs. He feels that his common sense will get him though, but unfortunately that is far from the truth. To get the job you had to have “The Knowledge”. To make sensible contributions to any discussion of AGW you have to at least taken the trouble to find out about the basic physics. Any other course is like trying to piddle into the face of a cyclone.

persephone says:

11:31pm | 04/02/11

‘Madness’ John Howard proposed, and which was supported by Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull, those well known Laborites.

Flexo says:

08:15am | 04/02/11

The ALP has lost our surplus, hasn’t produced a surplus, is continuing to tax us and increase our cost of living, and yet they won’t dip into the NBN or the give Indonesia 1/2 billion dollar to create schools fund to help Australians. What is wrong with this picture? The levy and carbon tax is just the beginning, there will be more tax as they continue to mismanage and waste our taxpayer dollars. The very fact that introducing a levy as a first choice solution rather than balancing the books and looking for an alternate source of funds clearly shows how lazy and uncaring the Gillard government truely is.

TChong says:

08:55am | 04/02/11

So flexo, if levies are so bad, why did Howard impose 5?
Abbott didnt publicly object .
Why is that?

simon says:

09:26am | 04/02/11

Tchong, they implemented the levies because they were paying back $96 billion dollars in debt racked up by the previous Labor govt. Debt repayment was a budget priority and there was little room in the budget! I am glad you don’t look after my finances Tchong!!!!

Against the Man says:

03:32pm | 04/02/11

TChong, your reputation is in a blender. They introduced levies but MADE us money! See the difference, oh you don’t because you support the ALP and you can’t see the forest for the trees. Gillard and friends are in trouble I hope you realise that.

ps: TChong maybe you can remind me of the one key, significant thing (other than back stab Kevin) that Julia will be remember for, a positive message for the history books, that one key policy that is bang up fantastic?

Trev says:

03:47pm | 07/02/11

Simon/Against the Man
To borrow some wording from the apostle Matthew:  “What does it profit a nation if it gains a budget surplus, but leaves that nation with an infrastructure deficit of $600 BILLION dollars?” (figure from a Peter Martin Blog, 28/10/2010)

James says:

09:42am | 04/02/11

And John Howard was trained as a lawyer not a scientist and so would not be in the company of some 97% of climate scientists who, KNOW, not believe that global warming is occuring and that we are primarily responsible for it.

Aitch B says:

11:20am | 04/02/11

@James

97% of climate scientists KNOW???

So it’s now a proven FACT that global warming is occuring?

Evidence please…..
We are primarily responsible for it…. PRIMARILY???

Evidence please…...

By the way….. your “Messiah” Al Gore is not a scientist either and I think you’ll find he spends a heck of a lot more time with his investment advisors than with scientists.

Now THAT is an “inconvenient truth”!!

James says:

11:43am | 04/02/11

Read the 4th IPCC report and referenced papers you lazy Aitch B, you.

Ripa says:

12:24pm | 04/02/11

@James

The 97% ‘Consensus’ is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists.
Stop being an alarmist and put things in perspective.

James says:

12:58pm | 04/02/11

Prove it

Aitch B says:

01:15pm | 04/02/11

@James

I’m sorry but the IPCC has been shown to be a bit dodgy, what with data manipulation, vested interests and such so I’ll pass if that’s OK with you.

By the way…. I respect your right to have an opinion but it appears to me that you don’t respect the right of others to have a differing one.

Just saying…....

James says:

01:53pm | 04/02/11

Respect they can have an opinion but don’t cry to me if I question what they are saying.

Aitch B says:

03:07pm | 04/02/11

@James

My you are a belligerent soul, aren’t you?

James says:

03:49pm | 04/02/11

I take people spreading disinformation about Global Warming as serious if not more than people who tell children smoking will not cause them any harm.

Aitch B says:

06:33pm | 04/02/11

@James

And there was never any disinformation coming from the IPCC I take it?

Allow me to ask you this:

If as you say 97% of climate scientists now supposedly ‘know’ that global warming is occuring and that ‘we are primarily responsible for it’ then what is your opinion of the other 3% (after all, they too are scientists) and indeed can you speculate on the opinion that the 97% might have on the 3%?

I’m also very interested in the ‘we are primarily responsible for it’ bit. Are you (and the 97% I guess) saying that the small percentage of CO2 in the total atmosphere that is attributable to ‘man made’ sources is making that much of a difference?

If you have the time I’d be interested in you comments on this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

As an aside, last year there was some scientifically based disccusion that centred around the theory that a major contributor to global warming (bugger this softening to ‘climate change’ - we all know it’s ‘global warming’ in disguise) was flatutent cattle.

Do you put any credence to that?

Cheers

H

James says:

11:09am | 05/02/11

I would go 1 stronger and say global heating.  Aitch you link is too old hat to warrent a comment that old argument bores me.  Methane emissions via enteric fermentation come out the other end, that is, burp not fart.  You need to study further.

persephone says:

05:16pm | 05/02/11

References for the degree of consensus amongst scientists re climate change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

The most recent survey gives a figure of 97-98%.

Freeman says:

03:21pm | 06/02/11

Pers, you are SOOOOOO dodgey. the links you provide never say what you claim. the polls taken are issued with a return rate of like 30%. any consensus is on climate change including natural climate change, not Anthropological Climate change! and in some cases 1000’s of scientists were polled but the results published were concentrated on a specific group of less than 10%. You don’t do your casue any justice when you circulate info that is easily disproven.

persephone says:

03:47pm | 06/02/11

Freeman

I make the links available so people can check for themselves, unlike a lot of posters here who expect readers to take things on trust.

The poll I quoted - as I made clear - was the most recent.

Actually, 30% is an excellent response for a voluntary poll.

And the polling figures released by the anti cc brigade are based on far smaller returns.

You’re right, polls of this nature are very dodgy, because first of all, you’ve got to define who you’re polling. Is an engineer a scientist? And even if he/she is, does their opinion about cc actually count - that is, are they informed enough to have come to a valid conclusion?

The polling done thus gives wildly different results. The good ones provide break downs of who was polled and how they responded (as in X number of engineers responded Y) to help clear some of this ‘noise’.

I chose a fairly simple overview to link to because I wanted something that was straightforward and easy to grasp, rather than providing a complex analysis.

What the vast majority of polls on this question consistently show, however, is that a very large majority of scientists agree with AGW and that this number is on the increase.

You are, of course, welcome to provide data which disproves this, rather than simply criticising what I’ve found.

Bruce The Goose says:

08:23am | 04/02/11

Absolutely correct Super D
Seems the members of the climate warming/cooling/change cult only pick convenient scare tactics.
Sort of like the old prohpets & shammens from long ago used to control the peasant masses.
Me thinks they think the average punter just isn’t as smart or knowledgeable as them .
And will just follow the leed of their disciples.

eddie says:

09:51am | 04/02/11

how about when they start catching coral trout at
Port Arthur then? To me thats a fair indication that the ocean temperatures have changed, and with it the weather-and happened last year.

Z says:

11:54am | 04/02/11

Eddie - sorry mate the Port Arthur thing was me…

A couple of years ago I took a whizz in the water there which is the reason. It was one of those first up in the morning ones - really strong acidic stuff

I also think I did a fart once that blew a hole in the ozone layer…

Chris Carter says:

09:59am | 04/02/11

They are not real journalists anymore, just government mouth peices waiting for the ‘scoop’ to be delivered to them in the form of a ‘leak’.

Bit of a joke all of them really.

Gordicans says:

02:35pm | 04/02/11

Because cllmate change in the past was 1. caused mostly by changes in the earths axis/position relative to the sun rather than an increase in CO2 levels 2. happened over much larger time frames than the current event 3. all other climate change events were natural, this is the only one caused by Man

simon says:

09:20am | 04/02/11

I agree our cyclone building standards have improved dramatically, and save many lives and reduced damage as a result!!!!

MarK says:

08:33am | 04/02/11

It is a religion.

They have faith.

Thus it is without need for evidence. If required they will point to a cyclone during a La Nina event and say “lookit GAW in action”

It is sweet when the weather and climate are in constant flux that your religion tells you this.

Super D says:

08:39am | 04/02/11

You can’t attack a faith with facts.  A committed Christian will not set a simple test as to the existence of God.  A Muslim will not countenance disproving the existence of Allah.  Similarly a deep green will not countenance any measure whereby man is anything but a curse on the planet.  Rather than attempting to convert the deep greens a far better course will be to encourage a ritual mass suicide in the name of saving the planet.  I reckon we’re only a matter of years away from our first eco-suicide cult.

persephone says:

08:41am | 04/02/11

Jeremy

the predictions of climate change scientists not being borne out in reality.

Unfortunately, their predictions are being shown to be correct, so I’ll have to accept that the science is sound.

What would you accept as evidence that it isn’t?

Warren says:

09:00am | 04/02/11

@Jeremy. Thats simple to answer. Science. I want to see peer reviewed scientific papers that demonstrate global warming is a myth. With links to the relevant papers so that everyone can evaluate the evidence.

Rants about greenie conspiracies and taxes don’t count as evidence. They merely point to the political difficulties in dealing with the problem.

TimB says:

09:23am | 04/02/11

Perse it’s easy to be correct when you predict EVERYTHING.

Flannery and many others did NOT predict the recent floods. They predicted the exact opposite.

The East Anglia guys did NOT predict the blizzards in Europe. They predicted a distinct lack of snow.

But apparently someone came up with a catch-all: Any extreme weather event can now be attributed to climate change. It doesn’t matter if they sit at opposite ends of the weather scale (mild winter vs snowstorms, flood vs droughts).  It doesn’t matter that said extreme events have happened in the past. It’s been predicted by climate change! Apparently climate change is the only explanation for what we have now.

Heres a theory for you. Posting on the Punch affects your appetite.

So if you have some food today it’s because posting made you hungry. Remember I predicted it as you have your lunch
.
Of course if you don’t have anything to eat, it’s because you spent your time posting instead of getting food. So I totally predicted that too.

Man, this prediction thing is powerful stuff.

simon says:

09:28am | 04/02/11

Pers, even if it was true and we are impacting the climate, why should we do anything when the worlds largest countries/emitters aren’t. We would have no impact at the same time we would hobble our country economically.

Liberal Insider says:

01:25pm | 04/02/11

Sources within the Liberal party today have confirmed that there are now more MP’s that support action on climate change than not.

These MP’s are currently lobbying other members to force the hand of Abbott to acknowledge the reality of climate change and back the proposed carbon tax

Lisa Meredith says:

02:27pm | 04/02/11

Dear Jeremy,

- I would accept evidence from the Periodic Table and the Standard Model that shows: -
- CO2 does not absorb long wave infrared photons emitted from the earth and open water as it warms up during the day,
- which does not push an electron into a higher energy orbit,
- which does not set up an asymmetrical static electric charge in the electron cloud,
- which does not establish a magnetic dipole,
- which does not create an oscillation in the molecule,
- which does not inject extra thermal kinetic energy into each collision the said molecule is involved with in the atmospheric gas.

I would accept evidence from the Periodic Table and Standard Model that shows that the method of radiocarbon dating we use to identify the carbon emitted from fossil fuels is wrong.

Gordicans says:

02:30pm | 04/02/11

Jeremy, simple answer; scientific evidence.  There has been no overwhelming scientific evidence produced to date that supports the hypothesis “global warming is a myth”.  The overwhelming scientific evidence is for the opposite; ie that there is significant global warming going on now and it is caused by mans’ carbon emmissions.

Your name:Aussie who believes science over corpora says:

08:49am | 04/02/11

So what country are you from?

Daniel says:

11:24am | 04/02/11

Abbot tried to use it as an excuse to scrap the NBN saying it is a luxury we cannot afford despie the fact that the mining industry are willing to pay a tax on excessive returns from depleting Australias recources which the coalition won’t take, I guess we’ll just suffer cut backs instead eh? either that or higher income tax.

James says:

09:26am | 04/02/11

But humans pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmophere is, on geological time scales.  You also can’t compare cyclones in that way, the fact you do shows how little you understand science.

Lee says:

10:11am | 04/02/11

@ James but taxing for “carbon” isnt really going to change habits is it?

James says:

11:15am | 04/02/11

Then you won’t mind if it is made 200 dollars per ton then.

Les says:

11:43am | 04/02/11

No James, I won’t mind. I will just sit back and enjoy the show - because large numbers of people would be in the streets hunting greenies and generally having a good time eradicating the pestilence…

James says:

01:12pm | 04/02/11

ooooohhh i’m shaking in my boots.

persephone says:

05:31pm | 05/02/11

I hope you can provide links which prove your claims!

And what do the feelings of Joe Public have to do with whether the science is correct or not?

persephone says:

06:08pm | 05/02/11

Colin J Ely

you’re making the common mistake of thinking we have to abandon all of these things to fight climate change.

I do live in a house designed to be warm in winter and cool in summer, aligned to the north and built of materials which are natural insulators. So I don’t need or use air conditioning and burn the wood heater maybe half a dozen times a year (the wood comes from trees I’ve planted on the property - we have enough wood drop naturally each year to easily fuel the small number of fires we have).

Our cars are powered by LPG, and have been for nearly thirty years. We still do more miles than we like, though.

Try and buy locally. Living in a farming area, that’s fairly easy. We grow a lot of our own fruit and vegies and have chooks.

Recycle madly and try and buy stuff second hand.

And I haven’t flown anywhere for at least five years.

Use natural gas for most cooking and for hot water.

However, it’s perfectly easy to make significant cuts to carbon emissions and not have to do any of these things, although they obviously help.

I grew up in the 60s and 70s. I don’t remember feeling particularly deprived. We could all return to that standard of living - indeed, better, because our appliances now are far more efficient - and still live very good lives.

persephone says:

01:06pm | 06/02/11

So why did John Howard propose a similar tax?

Ooohh, don’t tell me he was a commo socialist as well!!

James says:

09:12am | 04/02/11

People in glass houses….

Dash says:

09:37am | 04/02/11

You are 100% correct Brian. This is just the ALP using the environment as an excuse to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. It’s socialist politics at its worst!

And as soon as anyone challenges them, they scream about the greatest moral challenge of our time and abuse people for being uncaruing for our planet. As I’ve said before, this is a huge FRAUD!

LC says:

09:46am | 04/02/11

James, he hasn’t thrown any stones…

James says:

11:08am | 04/02/11

Yes he has, “don’t you idiots get it?”.  A big stone that will come crashing back through his glass roof.

ClaireP says:

12:21pm | 04/02/11

Not stones, James - just the truth.

James says:

12:48pm | 04/02/11

Some how ClaireP i don’t think i’m going to agree that you are the judge of that.

Micky G says:

10:14am | 04/02/11

@ James, we arent taxing China, India and Indonesia. We are talking about taxing a country which produces a miniscule amount of CO2 on a global scale, and our percentage is getting less as these other countries continue to industrialise. How will our carbon tax create a measurable change in global temperatures?

James says:

10:33am | 04/02/11

If 100 pills were required to kill someone, India administered 29, China 40, US 30 and Australia 1, are we still ok morally speaking?  We only adminstered 1 pill but we were part of the plot that killed.  See where this principle also applies.

Likes Joining Dots says:

12:05pm | 04/02/11

@James.

Following on. Your pills kill, but what if we also had pills that saved? How many pills would be required to raise the standard of living in China and India so they enjoy the same health and benefits the western nations enjoy.

Australia and the US retain their same pill usage, perhaps even cut down a little.  India and China still need 10 times more (arbitrary figure btw) to catch up. That’s a lot of pills, but these pills are proven to save lives and surely they deserve them.

For those that are interested in the morality aspect of climate change, Peter Singer and Bjorn Lomberg present their opposing views here. Well worth the read.

http://eselinger.org/blog/?p=178

Richard says:

12:27pm | 04/02/11

Ok James, say there are 100 pills, and Australia only administers one, so we’re still guilty, right?

But say there is also a possibility to produce an antidote to that pill. That being the case, Australia could continue to administer its one measly pill, and meanwhile we could also manufacture and produce 100 antidote pills and distribute them around the world. Viola! Problem solvered.

What the hell am I talking about? Well in the excellent book “Super Freakonomics” the two authors write about some very scientific and cheap antidote’s to the problem of global warming, which have nothing to do with taxing carbon emissions! Time to think outside the square, don’t you think? Why just follow the socialist greens rhetoric when we know where that path leads too…. (A heavily polluted distopia).

James says:

12:31pm | 04/02/11

No amount of pills can save a dead person, if the pill, that “saves” has the side effect that it kills you better not to take the pill.

Likes Joining Dots says:

01:30pm | 04/02/11

@James

Perhaps I misunderstood your conclusion, I truly hope so.

An increase in the standard of living (and associated increase in carbon production, ie the pill) should be denied to the people of India and China because increased carbon consumption by them may kill?

I can’t speak for all Chinese and Indian citizens, but I suspect their views may differ somewhat to yours.

James says:

01:56pm | 04/02/11

People don’t consume carbon they consume energy, the production of which does not have to emit carbon, so what exactly is your point?

Likes Joining Dots says:

02:51pm | 04/02/11

@James, my point related to your previous comment.

‘No amount of pills can save a dead person, if the pill, that “saves” has the side effect that it kills you better not to take the pill.’

Your conclusion follows on from that.

An increase in the standard of living (which saves lives), requiring an increase in affordable energy consumption and associated CO2 emissions should be denied to the people of India and China (as an example) because increased affordable energy consumption and associated CO2 emissions may kill.

James says:

03:10pm | 04/02/11

No will kill, has killed.  Affordable energy consumption and CO2 emissions can be mutually exclusive.

Likes Joining Dots says:

05:34pm | 04/02/11

@James

How hard can it be for you to provide an answer? You stated emissions do kill.

‘If 100 pills were required to kill someone’

Then it changed to: (and I quote here)

‘No will kill, has killed.  Affordable energy consumption and CO2 emissions can be mutually exclusive.’

You still have not answered the question though- are Indian and Chinese citizens (to choose just two nationalities) entitled to the same privileges we enjoy in the west, even if it involves increased energy consumption?

James says:

08:50pm | 04/02/11

Sure provided we don’t trigger out of control global warming.

Sam says:

09:59am | 06/02/11

Micky G…..  Per head of population, Australians out-pollute many other nations, especially Americans, so we should be paying a substantial carbon tax for our sins.
A simple google search proves my point.

LC says:

07:40pm | 17/08/11

@ Mickey,

Global Warming = Global. Not Australian. GLOBAL. If Global Warming is occurring the planet certainly does not care about how many people in which political jurisdiction are emitting the most carbon, it’ll care about the emissions being made in the first place.

The top five emitters: China, The US, Russia, India, and Japan. They collectively put out in total more than twice the emissions of the next 15 top emitters combined.

Have them bring their combined emissions down to at least half of what it is now and then we’ll talk.

You only throw that statistic around because it’s the only way one that remotely justifies this socialist, not environmental, (if it was truly environmental there wouldn’t be any compensation, if it’s THAT big an issue everyone is responsible and everyone should pay) tax being introduced.

James says:

09:44am | 04/02/11

Do you understand the principle of extracting a signal from noise?  because if you don’t then that may explain your unthoughout drivel.

Sherlock says:

12:04pm | 04/02/11

Oh James, your reply was so typical it could have come straight out of the alarmists handbook.

A simple insult but not even a word to address any of the points I raised.

Wasn’t it Einstein who suggested the definition of insanity was repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The alarmists have spent decades insulting, denigrating and attempting to discredit the sceptics. All it has gotten them is a massive lift in the number of people who have joined the sceptic ranks to the point where climate change alarmists are outnumbered by the sceptics.

The public saw through the appalling tactics you employed and asked themselves if the science was so settled then why did the alarmists need to resort to such gutter tactics?

Yet here we have James repeating the same thing and expecting a different result.

See. I told you the alarmists were insane!

.

James says:

12:26pm | 04/02/11

But you don’t do you?

Hamish says:

09:35am | 04/02/11

Don’t worry PD, one day they’ll get a prediction right (I mean probability would suggest they can’t get it wrong every time) and then they’ll all be there to say ‘I told you so!’ Hopefully by then they’ll be so marginalised no one will notice.

Joseph Logan says:

10:00am | 04/02/11

Great comments Casey!!
Send a copy to Julia.

Dash says:

11:23am | 04/02/11

100% correct. This is an excuse to raise taxes! And it’s socialism at it’s very worst! Tax the wealth creators and give to the wealth destroyers!

Big Daddy says:

09:32am | 04/02/11

Don’t show your ignorance James
Y2K was a serious problem that was recognised and address.

James says:

09:47am | 04/02/11

Quite the opposite, they will ask you, why didn’t you educate yourself and do something to prevent this.  Think hard about that, it will be your legacy.

Yasmina says:

10:56am | 04/02/11

Prevent Climate Change?

Nurse - hurry, we need some medicine down here!

James says:

11:00am | 04/02/11

Nurse, forget the medicine we need an elementary physics textbook, stat.

persephone says:

06:14pm | 05/02/11

Micky G

Since several posters - including myself - have addressed this, you’ve either not read the posts or you don’t understand the arguments.

If it’s the case of the first, go back and re read the thread.

If it’s the second, none of us can help that.

Warren says:

10:36am | 04/02/11

Tell them to read a scientific paper. They will burst into tears & rely on the Daily Telegraph for the “facts” instead.

Ben81 says:

11:59am | 04/02/11

Hi. I’m not from Bolt’s blog.  Would you mind telling me just what effect an Australian carbon price will have on average world temperatures, if anything at all?

Keith Coolridge says:

12:29pm | 04/02/11

Squawk, Squawk, Squawk.

Noise pollution from the ignorant.

Problem is, you give them a few chips and they come back with their mates.
M M MMMMMaaaaate, MMMMMaaate.

Ben81 says:

11:27am | 05/02/11

Well done Keith.  Stumped me with that one.

Keith Coolridge says:

01:17pm | 05/02/11

You see ben81
I make it point not to answer stupid questions that have been answered previously.
It wastes my time and would not change your opinion one iota.

Seek and you shall find - just look for Persephone, she’s answered this about 20 times already.
or
You could continue to be a squawking seagull

Ben81 says:

02:56pm | 05/02/11

Keith without reading through all that stuff again i’m pretty sure she wasn’t able to explain exactly what real world effect our carbon tax will have on the climate.  Perhaps read my question without glossing over it and assuming “climate change denier!  Andrew Bolt lover!”
She seemed most concerned with arguing with people who think humans have nothing to do with climate change, something I don’t have a problem with.

Now, can you either tell me if you think an Australian carbon tax will change average world temperatures by any measurable amount at all, or will it not?  Is that such a stupid ignorant question, or are you just going to post something about seagulls for the fouth time?

persephone says:

06:42pm | 05/02/11

Kevin - thanks, but for Ben’s (and the planet’s) sake I’ll try again.

Ben

There’ve been lots of economic studies on how to reduce emissions in the most effective and efficient way possible.

The conclusion - in virtually all of them - is to rely on that most basic of capitalistic principles, market forces. (Which is why I’m so amused when people against the CPRS start talking about communism etc!)

(Obviously a dicatorship would be the most effective way of dealing with cc - you could just impose stringent living conditions on everybody. However, I think we can do just as well and use good ol’ capitalism and democracy to drive the process).

One of the basic ideas of economics is that, for something to be valued and controlled, you need to put a price on it (hard to have a market, otherwise).

So the first step is to put a price on carbon.

By putting a price on carbon, you drive up prices for any commodity which produces carbon, making it more expensive relative to commodities which don’t.

You thus create demand for products which don’t produce carbon emissions and reduce demand for those that do.

This leads to less carbon emissions. Less carbon emissions means less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Ben81 says:

09:48pm | 05/02/11

persephone are you confusing me with someone else?  I don’t see how any of that has anything to do with my question at all, or anything i’ve been saying here.

BigSean says:

10:40am | 04/02/11

Matt good points but factually your comment is flawed in so many ways. Everyone loses with a Carbon tax. Just for submitting your tax return and receiving a printed statement in the mail from the tax office generate a carbon tax of over $2 billion dollars. Just for the paper and printing alone. Where will that cost be passed onto ? Correct tax payers. The weather we have seen the last year has nothing to do with global warming or climate change for that matter. It is apart of a natural cycle which has been recorded over the last 400 years around the world. Alnynio and Nynio is what the cycles are called and they run for a period of up to 25 years each time the cycle changes. That is not just talk, that is scientific collected data over the last 400 years people. It might also do you well to google reduced magnetic pull between earth, the sun and saturn. You will find a scietificaly explained reason behind the changes in the earth weather patter in recent times and it has nothing to do with Co2 or humam race. If you cant find it leave a message i will post a link so we can all be better informed and watch the documentary that our famous Mr Rudd refused to watch and be briefed on when PM. many other world leaders accepted the challenged and possed questions which they received answers for immediately. Unlike the Mr Ross Garnets of our world who will only read from prepared statement and is now apart of the political world not the scientific community.

Sherlock says:

12:12pm | 04/02/11

Matt says: There is also an unprecedented heatwave in Sydney atm.

This is where the alarmists do themselves more harm than good. They are so desperate to link anything to their rapidly failing theory they will latch onto anything that will prove their case.

30 degree plus days are far from unusual in Sydney in January/February. Most of us have seen our share of 40 degrees as well.  Nor is a run of such days. In fact what is unusual is the lack of 30 degree plus days we have been seeing in the past few summers.

I actually think this summer especially has been rather mild especially in the evenings.

People see this crap and just switch off the alarmist cause. I have said many times that the alarmists do much more to drive people to scepticism than anything the sceptics themselves could do.

It’s no wonder the alarmists are losing the argument.

Matt says:

01:02pm | 04/02/11

Well, I respect all your comments.
Big Sean:
I’m not versed in the arguements as well as some others so I’m not going to start an argument about it being a natural cycle or not. What I reckon people should consider is the high amount of waste and consumerism there is. We live way beyond what we need.
I’ve been living in country NSW for the past few years (originally from Sydney) and the contrasts in lifestyle are amazing. There is high amount of consumerism in urban centres and it amazes me how products are so easily discarded.
Mobile phones for example are getting out of control. Because it’s a fashion accessory, people have owned at least 5 mobile phones. How do we account for such toxic waste and the energy required to make them/reprocess them?
I don’t think you’d argue that something needs to be done to reduce our footprint.

Sherlock:
I wouldn’t say I’m an alarmist, I was trying to highlight the latest in patterns I suppose. I do agree the summer has been very mild.
The country is pretty f’ed up after these disasters. NSW farmers are facing tougher times and QLD is just screwed.

The Badger says:

12:37pm | 04/02/11

Joseph
Firstly Joseph,
I doubt many people have heard the word Anthoprogenic unless they stumbled across it in the same Bolt blog comment, where you probably found it.
And do you know why Joseph? - Because it is not a word. That’s right, it is not a word.
anthropogenic however is a word.
The fact that you say you have followed Global Warming since it was invented, and never heard the word Anthropogenic is testament to your ignorance on this issue and no doubt to things in general.

mjr says:

04:10pm | 04/02/11

Is this all you have left ?  Arguing over word semantics ?  Anthopogenic isn’t a word, but anthropogenic is a perfectly acceptable word, used well before it was used as part of AGW.  Whether or not it’s man-made is a key point when discussing whether or not climate change exists.  Personally, I couldn’t care less about historical causes, the question should always be “is there something we can realistically do about <x>” ?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropogenic

The Badger says:

01:27pm | 04/02/11

I’m sure you can provide a link to an article quoting these claims.
You can, can’t you?

The Badger says:

02:24pm | 05/02/11

Two days and still waiting ryan
having trouble with you keyboard?

Ryan says:

09:34am | 06/02/11

@The Badger: I am not here to do your research for your trolling, besides, nothing I say would change your mind, you are clearly one of those with vested interests in bringing a new tax on air.
Here is an article by Flannery himself.. http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm
The recent events completely debunk this entire article and make this fool look exactly what he and the other climate alarmists are, complete and utter frauds. The IPCC has been shown to be complete frauds (just take a look at the Himilayan glacier icident) and the person who invented global warming (yes the same person who claimed to have invented the internet) Al Gore has been proven over and over to be a complete fraud. Now we have climate alarmists clinging to a science fiction move “The day after tomorrow” to try and scare us into beliving this junk science. Whatever next, star wars?

James says:

10:40am | 04/02/11

Not meant to, it is meant to help stop >2 degrees global warming.  You don’t seem to have the intelligence to realise that.

Ben81 says:

12:04pm | 04/02/11

James - Can you tell me with all your wisdom just how Australia is going to achieve that?
Let’s say humans and CO2 are responsible for every single degree of average world temperatures changing, you’re obviously more intelligent than us, so can you tell us by how many degrees it will change if Australia completely dissappeared right now for example? 
I await your response.

simon says:

12:14pm | 04/02/11

James you are very, very naive if you think a carbon tax will keep global warming <2 degrees. How could it anyway, when China, India, USA and many other of the worlds emitters are not implementing a carbon tax. A carbon tax will not stop emitters, they will just pass the tax onto consumers, simple!!!!

James says:

12:19pm | 04/02/11

Ben81 know what you are getting at but here are somethings to consider.

a)  If we, as a rich country per capita, don’t take action to reduce our emissions, how likely are we to convince poor per capita countries to reduce theirs? We also emit the highest level of emission per capita in the world, think of it as us farting 10 times more often than an Indian, not a good look.

b)  Australia has the ability to sequester carbon in soil, potentially earning carbon credits while improving soil productivity.

c)  Australia is uniquely positioned to capitalised on a push to renewables, far from being a drag on our economy with our solar, wind, wave resource we could be the Saudi Arabia of renewables.  We need a carbon tax to push along this transition.

Ben81 says:

12:30pm | 04/02/11

James as much as you would like us to be a leader on this issue (or a lot of things) we simply aren’t and can’t afford to play games pretending to be a leader. 
I’m aware that we use more resources than people living in poverty.  If we can ‘capture carbon’ in soil (I don’t know anything about this) then great, go for your life.  I don’t see how we can somehow provide renewable energy to the big polluters/emitters or see how us taking on those forms of power generation will actually do anything about climate change.  I also don’t see how a carbon price will possibly do that, which is kind of the issue here.

James says:

12:45pm | 04/02/11

By your logic I won’t help clean up after the flood because I can only provide the work of one person.  What happens when other people hear that is my attitude, see how this works.

Ben81 I think you are failing to see the positive here, we want the shift to renewables because we don’t have huge reserves of oil, we have coal, we have gas but we have orders of magnitude more solar, wind, wave, uranium capacity.  If we don’t get these industries going, who is the idiot?

The Badger 89 says:

12:47pm | 04/02/11

Half of the LNP wanted a price on carbon before the party of NO was formed.
Ben would just have us stick our head in the sand and pretend this wasn’t happening because it is all too difficult.

Ben81 says:

04:39pm | 04/02/11

James actually a better analogy would be you going to Queensland by yourself with a shovel and wheelbarrow, charging some obscene amount of money for your effort, and telling everyone who doesn’t want to pay that they’re ruining the place and letting it die because they’re holding you back.
Alternative power sources are already starting to be built where practical without a tax making the alternatives even more expensive, and don’t even get me started about what’s actually holding back Nuclear power in this country, which is the only true clean large scale alternative for baseload power.

And Badger, no, it’s just useless Australian carbon tax / carbon trading schemes I have a problem with.  I don’t care which political party is talking about it, this has nothing to do with tribalism crap.  John Howard was wrong about it too.

James says:

01:01pm | 04/02/11

You sound sure, are you scientifically trained?

James says:

11:37am | 04/02/11

Victoria alone emits 2 million tons per week.

Gordicans says:

02:48pm | 04/02/11

This touches on a climate denyers myth, that volanoes put out more CO2 than man.  Man puts out about 130 times more C02 than volcanoes.  It is estimated that volcanoes put out about 130-230 million tons, whereas man puts out about 27 billion tons.

Lisa Meredith says:

04:15pm | 04/02/11

Dear Stephy,

The rise in CO2 over pre-industrial levels is doubling every 40 years. So if volcanoes were to blame then wouldn’t the increase in volcanic activity also be doubling every 40 years? Perhaps you have evidence of this. If so, could you share it with me?

persephone says:

07:48am | 06/02/11

Stephy

if you’re going to link to sites, it’s a good idea to read them.

From the page you linked to:

‘Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”’

‘The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions. ‘

So human emissions are up to 300 times greater than those of all the volcanoes on earth.

Warren says:

12:17pm | 04/02/11

Unless you are living in a cave, everyone produces CO2, through driving, using hot water, farming, anything that involves using power generated by coal or oil.

The idea of the tax is to change behaviour. By making adding a price to carbon, you make using this power more expensive, encouraging people to use less or use it more efficiently.

The politics & decisions of deciding who should pay more, or be penalised for being inefficient are where the real arguments begin. The change will be painful. Not changing will be really really painful.

And Tom you might want to double check the lyrics of your national anthem.

Tom Jones says:

02:35pm | 04/02/11

Warren… LOL on the anthem.. Got a little carried away with that one

What I was meaning about the CO2, was directly. Meaning, what do people physically do to create CO2?. If somebody walks to work/catches public transport, uses 100% solar energy what can they do to reduce carbon? The indirect things cause the majority of carbon in Australia and taxing people to pay for this, isn’t going to achieve anything.

Just look how it would be structured. The no/low income earners pay nothing. Middle a little (Which is rebated) the high earners, lots (And get rebated a bit) So what it does it creates a situation where the people are dependent on the Govt to pay for anything that produces carbon. The ramifications of a carbon tax WILL blow out inflation, (Higher fuel, higher power, higher production costs etc)  hence higher interest rates. So basically we are left with people who cant afford to eat, dependent on the Govt to keep the lights and gas going, and struggle to pay the mortgage, just so Australia can move from 1% down to .95%. of world production while others move higher.

Warren says:

03:33pm | 04/02/11

The problem is Australia will not be leading the field. Compared to our economic competitors Australia is lagging behind in implementing a carbon tax. To suggest Australia is somehow leading the world & will therefore be unfairly punished economically is a furphy. We are currently one of worst polluters per head of population, as well as being one of the wealthiest countries. We can afford it, and more importantly we can’t afford not deal with the problem in a serious manner. To say other countries are much bigger & produce more carbon, therefore it is pointless Australia doing anything, is do avoid the responsibility of our own actions.

Frankly I’m not optimistic that much will be done in the next twenty years or so. Its too difficult politically. By then the s**t will start to hit the fan environmentally but my kids and grandchildren can live with the problem by then.

Daniel says:

11:29am | 04/02/11

True, they always do because they think that they are the insightful ones all the while spruking the deliberate lies of the industries that stand to loose the most from the economic reforms we need to transform to a low carbon economy. But I wouldn’t call them sceptics in the scientific sense because they won’t review any peer reviewed journals & don’t care where their sources come from as long as it agrees with them. And their hypocrisy is astounding.

malohi says:

12:40pm | 04/02/11

Empty vessels?? I thought it was “climate change” now anyway.

Due to the greenhouse effect more CO2 = more IR radiation kept on Earth. I don’t think this is debated by the “sceptics” you so righteously cut down with your ad-hominum logic.

Assuming there is an increase in CO2 going into the atmosphere. This may lead to drams for humans. In responding to this increase, the following questions should be answered.

1. How much of the Carbon is due to humans? If it was something like 90% I’m sure most would accept drastic changes.
This question has not been answered by credible science.
If it was something like 0.002 %, drastic changes may seem less savoury, as the result of making such changes may be negligible.

2. If it is the case that man made CO2 is significant. What is the best way to deal with our emissions? I would submit that accepting nuclear energy and dealing with overpopulation issues on a global scale would be the most beneficial. Or perhaps just tax everyone, that could also work just as well too (?)

3. Assuming man made CO2 emissions do make a significant impact, and taxing is the best way to deal with it, how much of these emissions are due to the people of Australia who may be slugged with a tax?
If these people are responsible for 90% of the emissions, most would accept big changes to save the planet, however the reality is that while countries like India and China are so overpopulated and polluting, Australians I would suggest account for only a few percent of CO2 emissions.

So the sound from the sceptics you hear is due to the fact that extra costs are being forced on us directly or indirectly, in already hard times, when it is quite probable that Australians account for a few percent of man made CO2, which constitutes only a few percent of total CO2 in the atmosphere, which constitutes around 70 percent of total greenhouse gasses, which may lead to climate change.

0.02 x 0.02 x 70% =  0.028%

Sure, we need an urgent tax to save the planet when we contribute so much.

Daniel says:

01:40pm | 04/02/11

@malohi, If I were to base my argument on Ad Homonym logic I would simply be saying that you are an idiot therefore what you say is wrong. That is not what I am saying, I am saying that you are wrong because the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research does not support what you say (although I’m sure you find a lot of reliable counter arguments in you Daily Telegraph). The fact that you are a idiot is simply part of the overall picture.

To respond to your well structured points;

1. Sounds like you don’t know the answer yourself but this might help your guessing to be a little more educated; Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and although these levels do vary over time, they are now the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.

2. History shows humans can be quite innovative when there is a financial incentive, it is market failure that the full costs of producing electricity with high CO2 emissions are not reflected in the price of oil & coal, a carbon price can correct this market error & provide the incentive for anyone who wants to make a buck by producing energy without high CO2 emissions.

3. Why shouldn’t we contribute our fair share to reduce this problem?

Finally you made the point that we are in hard times, well not to deny that many are but maybe you should have bought a smaller house or cheaper car if you are doing it so tough that you cant absorb a couple hundred extra a year on electricity. Thankfully your selfish attitude was not prevalent back in WWII when so many young Australians voluntarily risked & often lost their own lives (the ultimate sacrifice which by comparison makes you look like a massive whinger) all to selflessly try to make the world a better place for future generations.

Malohi says:

04:18pm | 04/02/11

You are a climate sceptic therefore you are an empty vessel. Insinuating anyone who questions the almighty climate religion is stupid and their points invalid. Sounds like an ad hominem argument to me. (That was to the Don, not to Daniel)

In retort to you responses. (Daniel)

1.Your example does not prove a percentage humans contribute to CO2. However I am not asking for you to provide proof to that effect. I acknowledge that CO2 levels are going up and this is a major issue, and I can accept that they are at their highest level in so many years. However there are other natural explanations which may substantially contribute to rising CO2 levels (along with humans). I stand by my point that the science is not settled at this point as to the exact human contribution. Although I am not so ignorant as to think humans do not have an impact.

2.The question was, what is the best way to deal with the problem if it is in fact man made CO2 causing the problem? Clearly addressing overpopulation and pollution. However as I state, this must be on a global scale to have any effect, even Australia cutting CO2 to the negative would have little effect globally. Which leads into question 3 and you have hit the nail on the head…

3.“ Why shouldn’t we contribute our fair share to reduce this problem?”
That is the point isn’t it? But my question back to you is the same as it was previously.

What is our fair share?

This is a global issue, if Australia pulls out all the stops and say, goes negative on CO2 it may cripple our economy while not even making a dent in the problem. All the while China and India are laughing at us.
Your straw-man argument is quite insulting by the way. Because I do not jump on the bandwagon of the climate change religion without asking questions, and yes, being sceptical of another rising cost. I am selfish and a massive winger, akin to a person who would not fight for his country in times of war…
Following that logic you could say, cut our CO2 for the good of future generations. Kill yourself. If not you are selfish.
Or perhaps less extreme.. Sell everything you own and use all the monies to plant trees for the future or you are selfish and a whinger.
Or what if it was even more direct and the government said “ that’s it, no more cars over 4 cylinders on our roads” Not completely unreasonable. But quite inconvenient for some. Do you think Australians would be willing to do this without question, just because Julia and the Climate Ilk say so?
It is a balance between what we contribute, the effect it will have and the inconveniences we are prepared to suffer. I do not have a problem paying my “fair share” but people should not be belittled by your ilk for not blindly following the leader under the guise of save the planet.

James says:

11:39am | 04/02/11

Climate not weather and when the climate is back to normal (global annual average temp back to 1850 levels) I’ll write you a cheque myself.

Gordicans says:

02:03pm | 04/02/11

Harris, fairly meaningless to compare deaths of an event in 1918 to now.  More were killed then so what?  They didn’t have a bureau of metorology (ie people in 1918 had no forewarning so weren’t able to escape the event)  then so why even bother bringing up the fact? Other meaningless facts in your response.  eg. no statistical warming since 2003 because 7 years is not a long enough period to provide a statistical sample set for a trend. Your fact is a non fact.  If the trend over the last 50 years for example was that the oceans were cooling then that would be an interesting fact.  I notice you climate deniars have gone very quite on the fact that 5 of the hottest years recorded have been in the last 10 years.

Ben81 says:

12:21pm | 04/02/11

Hey maybe we should keep exporting it and pretend to do something about climate change by introducing an Australian carbon tax that won’t actually do anything or have any measurable effect in the real world. 

That’s what we’re being told we simply must do to avoid climate change and what the government is proposing, right?

James of Mudgee says:

01:17pm | 04/02/11

Ben81, it looks like you might have seen through the smoke and mirrors. The only real solution is to embrace rapid technological change and work towards the creation of an economy not dependent on the old-time fossil-fuel sources of energy. It is called moving into the twenty first century

Lisa Meredith says:

04:03pm | 04/02/11

Dear Josh,

While I believe in AGW I am always looking for new information to change my point of view. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction to back up your claims.

You would need to show me how sunspot activity is the culprit (using physics to describe the process). And how man-made CO2 emissions is not. You would need to show me how the physics described by Periodic Table and the Standard Model is wrong about the greenhouse effect and radiocarbon dating by showing how the behaviour of molecules and atomic nuclei is different to that described by established science.

With regards to using weather to disprove AGW, you would need to explain how the absence of a Control as per the Scientific Method is irrelevant (I would argue that the absence of a Control renders all weather events as in no way constituting proof of AGW).

Josh Catalano says:

06:34pm | 04/02/11

Dear Lisa,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgVDugSuPOo

Please do more research for your own sake about sun activity and the earths temperature records.  Google it.

Remember what is told in the media is told by those in the Globalist system…  Look into the Rockefellers, the Bilderburg group, the Council on Foreign Relations.  They’re wanting to make you believe that CO2 is the cause so they can TAX you with a carbon tax, so they can cause their ‘green company’ initiatives to make profit and drive up their stock prices…

Everything you see in the media has to do with the corporate world in one way or another, most news stories are regurgitated press releases from corporations.  Corporations that are funded by investors such as the Rockefellers and Others.

Cheers,
Josh.

Josh Catalano says:

07:12pm | 04/02/11

This is the documentary I was looking for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Lisa Meredith says:

09:55pm | 04/02/11

Dear Josh Catalano,

Solar activity and sunspot cycles are part of the established science that describes natural climate variation and climate cycles, which are happening alongside AGW. For example, the 1998 temperature spike was influenced by the 22.2-year solar cycle in conjunction with a SOI El Nino episode. This is well documented.

Perhaps my question is ambiguous. I am asking how this cycle is responsible for the long-term (but not cyclical) trends. Solar output is increasing as the sun continues to contract, but this alone is not enough to explain the trends.

At the same time, if CO2 does not behave as established physics suggests (as predicted in the Periodic Table and the Standard Model) then I would love to see the science that shows this. Any amount of googling has so far failed to produce anything that I can find.

If the Rockefellers, the Bilderburg group, and the Council on Foreign Relations are creating fraudulent science, then this would show up as inconsistencies and unreliabilities in the relevant physics. If you know something about this could you please enlighten me?

Lisa Meredith says:

03:35pm | 04/02/11

Dear Ray,

Do you have any evidence to show how the Periodic Table and the Standard model are wrong in the way they describe the greenhouse effect and radiocarbon dating?

Micky G says:

12:48pm | 04/02/11

This is the best post in this entire discussion. Rational, fact based and pointing out the incongruity of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ being sprouted by the same people. Excellent post Randall.

James of Mudgee says:

01:23pm | 04/02/11

Randall, your “facts” are, in fact,  lies.  Sorry .

Randal says:

02:24pm | 04/02/11

No need to apologise James of Mudgee, I mean with damning facts like… You are a liar because I say so, what hope did I have against a giant intellect such as yours.

Gregg says:

01:49pm | 04/02/11

Benny, Benny, just think about how good you can feel tht we showed the way for the future of the planet, even if several billion other humans do not give a hoot and we have no power other than your cyclogen to power up the old Ham set.
But do it so discretely for the gen will create some unwanted heat and those radio waves could disturb the airflow, affecting the weather pattern.
It’ll be a great sight to see the likes of Mal, Julia and Sarah sweating on their cyclogen sets.

James of Mudgee says:

12:23pm | 04/02/11

Yes PD You are right, the discussion has moved on.  But the denialist bandwagon will still be pushed by a few media shonks because they know it gets their target audience all frothy and boosts their ratings and therefore their incomes.  Oh and a few shonky pollies figure it might get them elected too,  No names of course.

Randal says:

01:18pm | 04/02/11

I guess somebody has forgotten to tell the world of your view PD, as the last time I checked Copenhagen was a flop, the US has canned its emissions scheme, China intends to increase its energy output at the equivalency of a new coal fired power station a week, and India just does not care and refuses (along with China) to be be aligned to any global target on emissions.

Meanwhile in global warmist loving Europe has had to shut down its trading scheme because of corruption, plus the EU are way to busy propping member countries up who are straining under the high cost the green agenda.

Seems your green fantasy world is a little further away than you imagined, but hey you guys have such imagination that I am sure that the reality won’t affect your view one iota.

Kika says:

02:02pm | 04/02/11

Yes yes, more greed and money for the children! Who cares if the polar caps melt.

Lisa Meredith says:

03:45pm | 04/02/11

Dear Tommy,

The proof of AGW lies in the reliability and the accountability of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, which predicts the greenhouse effect and radiocarbon dating. If you know any published physics papers that counter these predictions by describing how the behaviour of molecules and atomic nuclei is at variance with established science, I’d love to know.

The corroborative proof lies in the 40-year trends. Again, any published data that counters this trend, coupled with any data that shows photon availability at variance with predicted trends would be greatly appreciated.

Weather events and seasonal variation is circumstantial evidence at best and not in part proof of AGW.

Jim says:

03:54pm | 04/02/11

...and leprechauns eat unicorns for brunch…WTF has the periodic table and carbon dating got to do with the AGW myth? Photon availability??

You’re either using random words from a year 9 science textbook, or there are some seriously kooky people being funded by Al Gore Pty Ltd

Lisa Meredith says:

09:10pm | 04/02/11

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your reply. I will explain. The Periodic Table and the Standard Model describes the behaviour of atoms and molecules. It rests at the core of established physics and chemistry: the same physics that predicts the behaviour of your computer, and all the technology we rely on in everyday life. To disprove AGW these axioms must be countered. For AGW they are listed below: -

1. Atoms and molecules absorb and emit photons. For example, CO2 absorbs long-wave infrared photons emitted from the earth and open water as it heats up during the day.
2. The absorbed photon pushes an electron into a higher energy orbit (the electron becomes excited) and causes an asymmetry in the static electric field of the electron cloud. This creates a magnetic dipole in the CO2 molecule.
3. This dipole causes an oscillation that injects extra kinetic energy (heat) into each collision it is involved with in the atmospheric gas.
4. The orbit of the excited electron eventually decays and falls back into its ground state, emitting a photon with the same energy as the one initially absorbed. This photon can be released downwards or sideways into the atmosphere so it can be absorbed by another molecule and the process begins all over again. This behaviour is called scattering.
5. Thus, there is no direct relationship between CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature, but is dependent on photon availability.
6. The behaviour of radioactive decay is also described, and is used to identify the carbon emitted from the burning of fossil fuels.

James says:

01:09pm | 04/02/11

And I am sick of people like you dredging up junk science from the bowels of the internet and yelling at the top of your voice.

Randal says:

01:21pm | 04/02/11

Well said Obob, but I am afraid to say the warmists will never listen, they are too busy pushing their own agenda to worry about the truth.

James says:

01:50pm | 04/02/11

Poor Randal no one wants to listen to him repeat what Alan Jones says.

Hamish says:

03:01pm | 04/02/11

James, you don’t look very clever when you refer to climate observations as ‘science’ and then dismiss an argument without actually making any yourself.

Linking climate change to weather events such as cyclones certainly is ‘junk’ science, but it’s generally the pro-AGW camp who do it, not the ‘deniers’. Although I do admit it’s not normally pro-AGW scientists who actually do the linking, more various hangers-on such as Bob Brown, Milne, Hamilton et al. Most of the scientists are clever enough not to be so stupid.

Randal says:

03:38pm | 04/02/11

Just you James, but then again the truth is always hard for a zealot to swallow.

Thanks for the compliment though, comparing me to the great AJ, you have made my day!

James says:

03:57pm | 04/02/11

@ Hamish.  Saying this cyclone proves global warming is junk science, but saying global warming had no effect on this cyclone, that is, does not make it stronger that it otherwise would have been without global warming is also junk science.  The ocean surface has on average warmed that has been measured, warm ocean surface increases the intensity of of cyclones.  If you don’t see the distinction, not only don’t you look clever you aren’t clever.

Randal says:

04:44pm | 04/02/11

@James you really are a dunce aren’t you… You are aware in this undoubted small scientific knowledge of yours that the most recent studies have shown no warming of the oceans since 2003, and in fact a cooling of the oceans since 2006.

It’s really put a spanner in the works of those climate models…

You see, a bit like your earlier post when you quoted a debunked WHO study, you have confused the warming of the waters in Australia’s north with global warming (this is what happens when you get your information from the internet), when in fact the warming is a natural forcing affect of La Nina.

Now you could try and argue that global warming is affecting the La Nina, but as you should be aware there has been no direct link between the ENSO patterns and global warming, and those scientists who have spent their lives studying this oscillation are adamant in this point.

What I will say is this, you are correct, if the oceans warm sufficiently we will see less cyclones, but more severe systems when they impact… this is not disputed and the argument is about man’s forcing affect on the atmosphere to do this, and on that point you and I would never agree.

This is not a cause of the power of Yasi, and anyone who even intimates this shows a complete lack of knowledge of the scientific principles behind AGW.

So here endeth’ the lesson, now get to the corner you dunce!

James says:

05:35pm | 04/02/11

Randal, show me the evidence big boy.

James says:

11:13am | 05/02/11

Just as I thought Randal you bellow a claim like a wounded warthog but cannot back it up with evidence you are a fraud.

Randal says:

09:51am | 07/02/11

Sorry James, a little bit busy over the weekend to respond to your childish demands, but hey if you are too lazy to do the research let me help.

Now as far as the oceans go try checking out the Argo system results, now that is 3000 buoys deployed by the warmist believers NASA, who were convinced they would see evidence of the oceans warming, but guess what happened:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Don’t believe NASA, then what about this ‘peer-reviewed’ study (we know how much you warmist love that term) from the University of Rochester:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf

Now as far as ENSO is concerned, I think it’s your turn to “Show the evidence” big boy, as there have been countless studies by warmist scientists and organisations that have all returned the same inconclusive conclusions, and let me quote Dr Cai from the latest by the CSIRO:

“While the possibility of large changes in ENSO cannot be ruled out, research conducted to date does not yet enable us to say precisely whether ENSO variability will be enhanced or moderated, or how the frequency of events will change,” Dr Cai says.

So until I see ‘peer reviewed’ evidence (see there’s that term again) that contradicts the Kirtman & Schopf (2008) findings I intend to hold my view that the minor warming that we have seen over the past century, and the moderate warming in the oceans, coupled by its recent cooling since 2003 have had no effect upon the ENSO pattern.

Now, it’s your turn James, where is this ‘evidence’ you have to prove warming oceans and changes in the southern oscillation… It’s time to put up or shut up…

Or is it as I suspect and you are nothing more than an empty vessel, sprouting the views of others that you don’t quite understand.

James says:

03:55pm | 10/02/11

Randal you are a dead set idiot if you think that paper supports your point, I see why you make the statements you do it is because you don’t have the brains to properly interpret information, so save you little brain and stick to non-thinking work.  What this paper is saying is that this experiment has not been developed enough to detect warming in the oceans that would explain the sea level rise that has been seen.

You obviously have no experience in experimental science if you draw the conclusion that there is no warming, it would be the same as saying there is no explosive at the site of an explosion because your detector hasn’t shown up anything as you walk through the first doorway, give up, you are not a scientist, you are a loud mouth, blundering around and infecting others with your lack of understanding.

I can almost hear what your response will be, the “ah ha” of someone who is to stupid to know they have got it wrong, but enough of a loud mouth to continue to make the point thinking they are right.

truth says:

11:44pm | 11/02/11

Persephone and James :
    Why do you think the warmists among Australian scientists[ CSIRO, Climate Commission, Karoly, Pitman ,Will Steffen, Flannery etc] behave as though the following research results on the most important aspects of the theory of CO2-induced global warming just don’t exist?
    And what do you think it says, when almost all of our journalists, the Greens and Labor [ as well as the warmist scientists] keep this information from the Australian people, even while seeking to alarm us about severe CO2-induced weather events etc ?
    On the Arctic melt——- 
    Drew Shindell, colleague of the Hockey Stick team of scientists at NASA , has concluded in his research [ confirmed by other peer-reviewed research on the matter], that at least 50% of the Arctic melt is caused by black carbon—-soot from China, India, the forest burning in Indonesia, Malaysia, other parts of Asia and the Amazon.
      Black carbon is not CO2, and Shindell has said that —-

  ‘black carbon is responsible for 50% or almost 1degreeC increased Arctic warming from 1890 to 2007’, and that ‘the climate-warming effects of these short-lived pollutants have largely been ignored by scientists and regulators focusing on climate policy’ —-that ‘decreasing concentrations of sulfate aerosols and increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades.’
And—-
  “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,” Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”

On sea level rise——-from the Netherlands , which has the longest record of sea level research of any country—-and a serious vested interest in getting it right——
‚In an op-ed piece in the December 11 issue of NRC/Handelsblad, Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI, writes:
“In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures. It is wise to adopt a flexible, step-by-step adaptation strategy. By all means, let us not respond precipitously.”’{ This is borne out by recent rfesearch at Tuvalu and the Maldives—-and Bangladesh]
On ocean heat content——
The very latest on ocean heat content from the world’s leading scientists in the field—-and it’s said that for global warming to be real, the oceans must be warming, but it appears they are not——
This week, there is discussion about a new paper by Knox and Douglass entitled “Recent Energy Balance of Earth”  is in press at the International Journal of Geosciences and some text is posted at WUWT, with the following overall punchline:  they find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) ocean heat content rates of change (observed from ARGO floats) are preponderantly negative, which does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.”

ABSTRACT
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993-2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003-2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001-2002. Using only 2003-2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.161 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

  On Australia’s targets for emission cuts, Professor Roger Pielke Jr, of Colorado SAate University devoted a research paper to it, and concluded:

Australia’s targets imply a level of decarbonization about that of Japan’s (in
2006) by 2020, or the equivalent level of effort to building and putting into service dozens of
new nuclear power plants or many thousands of solar thermal plants.

The paper argues that Australian carbon policy proposals present emissions reduction targets that will be all but impossible to meet without creative approaches to accounting as they would require a level of effort equivalent to the deployment of dozens of new nuclear power plants or thousands of new solar thermal plants within the next decade.

James—-OHC is the definitive measure of warming in the oceans, and the Knox and Douglass paper shows that the rate of change in ocean heat content is negative.
    How does that support the theory that the oceans are warming?

Obob says:

01:18pm | 04/02/11

Did someone mention flooding???

Here’s what the warmists were predicting for Australia until recently!
PERMANENT DROUGHT!

REMEMBER THIS??
“drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl, the Murray Darling basin”
Bob Brown, Just Before The Flooding

ALSO:
It’s Not Drought, It’s Climate Change, Say “Scientists”
Whackos!
August 30 2009

“Scientists” studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.

A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many “scientists” long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html

ALSO:
This Is What Crackpot Steffen Was Saying About Australian Flooding In 2009

With increasing temperatures virtually certain for the coming decades and a significant probability of continued low rainfall according to General Circulation Model (GCM)
projections, the Murray Darling Basin will likely experience continuing low inflows to the middle of the century and beyond.

Climate Change 2009
Faster Change & More Serious Risks
Will Steffen
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf

ALSO:
Premier Peter Beattie explained, the “likely impact of climate change” included “lower than usual rainfall” and dams would not do.

But now Brisbane’s dams are full to overflowing, and Victoria’s own $5.7 billion desal plant, also built by a government claiming “we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to”, has been delayed for months by rain.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_great_warming_scare_turns_into_a_greater_joke/

Desperate says:

01:28pm | 04/02/11

Man made climate change is false.

There is no proof whatsoever. Sure, reduce pollution and be better on the environment, but don’t use this strawman to forward a carbon tax. 2 issues entirely.

Parnasszusi says:

01:39pm | 04/02/11

Kika, I am sorry for you. How many books did you read about our planet or our solar system. What do you know about Earth. There is a very old and very true saying: Nothing under the SUN is a new phenomena. I stick to that.

MarK says:

01:42pm | 04/02/11

“Ah who cares. The more we can do for the environment the better. It’s better to be safe than sorry.”

Ohh FFS.

This is exactly the issue. Labor splashed billions around and have nothing to show for it except a deposed PM and a useless one now.

“But we can all do things ourselves, like not using so much power and gas at home, getting solar power installed, only having 1 car, buying locally and eating less meat. “

Sure. I agree. Knock yourself out.

Reordering our economy and redistributing wealth because it feels good though we can do without

Kika says:

02:00pm | 04/02/11

Well Parnasszusi I feel sorry for you. You stick under your rock and feel safe and secure there pretending as though human action on earth has no repercussions at all on the environment. BP would like to agree with you and I’m sure they’d like it if you went and helped with their defence in court once all the claims come in.

Desperate - but who is going to do anything about the environment unless they are forced? Only nut job lefty-greenies would. Life is too comfortable for us. Humans have created such a nice little comfy world for ourselves it
s probably too late to convince us all that having 2 cars is excessive and leaving your microwave on all day everyday is wasteful. Leave it on! It keeps the time!

desperate says:

02:25pm | 04/02/11

Kika,

What do you mean force???

Force works 2 ways. Nutjob lefty greenies, as you put it, will not force anything on me. If they try, I can force something onto them in exchange.

Kika says:

04:21pm | 04/02/11

Well Desperate that’s the typical attitude which got us all into this mess in the first place. Me first, the rest can deal with it later.

Yeah well Malcolm Turnbull was all for it. But HE got disposed because it’s easier to appeal to conservatives when they can be easily convinced that their bottom dollar would be affected.  And let’s be real here - Malcolm and even Joe Hockey had a MUCH better chance of winning the election outright instead of that dope Tony Abbott.  So it works both ways, don’t you think?

Hahah - I find that funny - redistribution of wealth. Ahaha please. Concerned are we?

Lisa Meredith says:

06:36pm | 04/02/11

Dear Desperate,

If AGW is false, where in the Periodic Table and the Standard Model is the evidence?

If by straw man you mean climate and weather predictions, you are correct as we don’t have a Control, as the Scientific Method requires.

How do communists run science? Are Niels Bohr and Hans Bethe, to name two scientists, whose theories contribute to the science behind AGW communist with a political agenda? If this is true, could you please provide proof, and show how they corrupted the Periodic Table and the Standard Model.

James says:

02:16pm | 04/02/11

Prove that that is that because it is the greenest state as you imply

Pro fisherman says:

03:50pm | 04/02/11

OH, and by the way,also the state that can no longer pay its bills.

James says:

05:38pm | 04/02/11

Yeah but why is that, I don’t think you actually know.

Harri says:

03:52pm | 04/02/11

The utter shame of that money wasted on white-coats and test tube jockeys could have eliminated world poverty and saved the lives of millions of kids.

And still these vain fools believe they can prove man controls the planets.

Its like looking for a leprechaun’s treasure.

Lisa Meredith says:

06:25pm | 04/02/11

Dear Obob,

This statement from Bob Carter is unscientific, as we do not have a Control, as the Scientific Method dictates, to allow us to differentiate between man-made global warming and natural climate change, both of which are happening as we speak.

It is also disingenuous, as, by the same token, no climate signal can be used to argue against AGW.

Kika says:

04:24pm | 04/02/11

Pffttt… you can care about the environment. But does anyone actually DO anything for the environment?

I wasn’t even talking about climate change in particular. I don’t necessarily agree with the science behind climate change. I’m talking about lessening the human footprint over the planet, and giving more back. We have raped the earth and eventually that will come back to us in one form or the other. We live unsustainably. The Amazon will be gone one day, but that’s not our problem. We’ll all be dead by then.

But by what everyone says about it, $$$ is all that matters and as long as they have money it doesn’t matter about their quality of life in the future. Is that what we want?

stevem says:

04:19pm | 04/02/11

Mikko, This is the beauty of AGW.

If a tax is imposed and there is no change, then the tax did it’s job.
If a tax is imposed and there is change, then the tax was too little, too late.
If no tax and a change then obviously a tax was necessary.
If no tax and no change, then it’s even more urgent to introduce one immediately as time has almost run out!

Kika says:

04:26pm | 04/02/11

And what if we don’t act now, and in 5,10 years it is clearly obvious that climate change has occurred and it’s far too late to do anything really drastic to stop it?

Peter says:

04:44pm | 04/02/11

Well said,  Mikko, but, you forgot about Neutrinos.  These little buggers are going through our planet all the time.  A natural for a tax.
It is a wonder Bob Brown has not demanded they pay for passing through the Earth and blaming them for Climate Change.

fred.firth says:

06:11pm | 04/02/11

In 10 years time, the Internet will be totally censored, so you won’t be able to discuss things like this.

Everyone will just have to accept they are on their own with their dissident thoughts. Of course we will have our own ministry of truth telling us daily how our green bond pension funds are holding the planet together.

And who will argue. More to the point, how will we argue?

Lisa Meredith says:

05:53pm | 04/02/11

Dear computer says no,

You say AGW is a hoax, is this correct? If so, when did the hoax begin, and how has it corrupted the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, the predictions of which describes and quantifies the behaviour of atomic nuclei and the properties of molecules concerning how they absorb and emit photons.

Aitch B says:

07:20pm | 04/02/11

@ Lisa

Yeah….. but you can’t deny the billions of dollars flying all over the place, the penalties, the additional beaureacracy, the salivating bankers and fraudsters.

Or can you?

There will be billions collected. And given the way governments work, it will cost half of those billions to adminster the scheme.

So while we’re all feeling warm and fuzzy about doing the right thing (if indeed we are) heaps of people will be getting fat on the vine.

Where do I sign up?

Lisa Meredith says:

09:22pm | 04/02/11

Dear Aitch B,

The politics is indeed convoluted and difficult to defend.

However it cannot be used to refute the science, this can only be done using science.

Rubby Red says:

05:54am | 05/02/11

Whilst everyone here and on most message boards can squabble about the science or lack thereof, most ignore the colossal tax and legislative changes this will bring. And they are huge. And as far as I’m concerned our western governments are big and intrusive enough.

I also don’t want the eco police knocking on my door to check my personal carbon credits. Ohh and personal carbon credits are actually on the way - this is not a conspiracy theory. In fact, NORFOLK ISLAND will introduce the world’s first trial of a personal carbon trading scheme.

The “Carbon Card” concept comes from the 1930s organization called Technocracy Inc, the idea got recycled by the Club of Rome and the Eco-socialists. You can Google ‘personal carbon credits’ and there is a host of information around. The overall plan is in the link below, read it, the context that’s been missing.:

http://www.augustforecast.com/2010/01/26/carbon-currency-a-new-beginning-for-technocracy/#

truth says:

12:55pm | 12/02/11

Lisa Meredith:
  What on earth is the point of going on about the Periodic Table, atomic nuclei and all that fundamental stuff ?
  Climate Science is a new discipline—-only around for a few decades.
    It requires research into everything about the oceans, about which very little has been known until recently—-the atmosphere likewise——wind patterns—-precipitation—-soils—-palaeontology——dendrochronology—- statistics——effects of land use changes, population changes—-temperature measurement itself—-etc etc.
    It has to take account of the reliability of records of temperatures during wars and revolutions.
  China and the Soviet Union formed a large part of the globe, and are we expected to believe that meticulous records were kept according to standards and continuity required to compare with today’s [ which are still extremely faulty anyway]—-during all the purges, famines, gulags and the mayhem of the Cultural Revolution?
    If not, there can be no coherent trend.
  Of course all of the basics of science like the Periodic Table and basic physics etc are the fundamentals on which climate science——any science—-and any calculations and conclusions rest—-that’s axiomatic.
    But they’re the rules and tools and laws that underpin a massive wide-ranging research endeavour, on which hangs the future well-being of all of us.
    It will be the scandal of the millennium, and the death of any respect and trust in science, and in politicians of the Left and in the media, if the Left are permitted to continue to use this endeavour as a propaganda tool, and a Trojan horse to achieve their political ends of global governance.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:52am | 05/02/11

Dear John Walker,

Throughout the ages the carbon cycle has been one of balance. CO2 output from volcanoes, animals, plant and animal deaths (to name a few sources), has been reabsorbed by plant photosynthesis, the main source of CO2 uptake (but there are others). This balance is never perfect and always in a state of flux and would drift very slowly over time.

In the last millennium, if not since the Industrial Revolution, we have upset that balance by pumping out extra CO2 and removing means of reabsorption through deforestation, for example. This results in a net CO2 pool that is growing at about 3% per year. So far we have increased atmospheric concentrations by at least 30%. This in itself is not necessarily a problem, but the rate of change (about 1300 times faster than historical natural increases) is unprecedented outside of catastrophic events such the Chicxulub Asteroid Impact that had devastating effects on life at the time.

I am not ready to support a carbon tax, but the alternatives listed so far do not inspire me with confidence. A tax would establish market-forces (for want of a better phrase) and change behaviour. It can be controlled so we ease into it. It seems to me, if middle class households can absorb the $10K or so they have each spent over the last decade on computers, gaming consoles, mobile phones and flat screen TVs, then perhaps we are not as poor as we think we are.

Seagull says:

10:24am | 05/02/11

Lisa, making SENSE

persephone says:

07:01pm | 05/02/11

And - as I showed via a link above - volcanoes emit 1% to man’s 99%.

Lisa Meredith says:

09:36pm | 05/02/11

Seagull, thank you.

Hey Pers, you go girl!

James says:

11:16am | 05/02/11

If only their heads were in the sand, i suspect when their heads are extracted there will be a nasty clean up job afoot.

taxed enough already says:

01:28pm | 05/02/11

@Nathan
“the results of doing too much can be as disastrous as doing too little.”

Lisa Meredith says:

12:54pm | 05/02/11

Dear John Walker,

I guess I don’t understand. What have volcanic eruptions got to do with a carbon tax? I thought the idea of a carbon tax is to curb our human carbon footprint, not the natural one.

Obob says:

10:10pm | 05/02/11

Hey worrierqueen:
“Willing to destroy their own children and grandchildren’s future “

What on earth are you on about?
Air quality is IMPROVING!

Forty Years Later And Air Quality Has Never Been Better
Read on and try not to burst out into a fit of hysterical laughter at incessant warmist scaremongering!

Professor Mark Perry skewers another alarmist, this time crackpot Ehrlich:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/40-years-later-air-quality-has-never.html

Earth Day, April 22, is only six weeks away, and I just noticed that the US EPA recently updated air quality data for 2008 and thought it was worth featuring now in anticipation of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day:

“Air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,”
Paul Ehrlich in an interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”
Life magazine, January 1970.

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,”
The New York Times editorial, April 20 1970.

The world will be “...11º colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,”
Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19 1970….

Here we are 40 years later, the US population has increased by more than 50%, traffic volume (miles driven) in the US has increased 160%, and real GDP has increased 204%; and yet air quality in the US is better than ever - nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead have all decreased between 46% and 92% between 1980 and 2008

See chart below.

Ehrlich, incidentally is the author of the wrong-wrong-wrong The Population Bomb, and is now a warming worrier.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_air_is_clearer_but_the_alarmists_move_on/

Lisa Meredith says:

10:24pm | 05/02/11

Dear worrierqueen,

Likewise, I see many people using politics/economics to argue the science. These are two separate issues.

I can’t help but notice that those who do argue the science use the inaccuracy of climate predictions to discredit the science. This is a shame, but is their fault? Perhaps the average punter does not understand science, so relies on what the media tells them.

The climategate and IPCC scandals have not helped. It is difficult for one not schooled in the science to separate the wheat from the chaff and realise the core principles of physics and chemistry, which are our evidence for AGW, have not been violated.

Nevertheless, it is disappointing to see them otherwise accepting the science, as seen in the way they use technology everyday.

If our society expects science to deliver the technology we rely on everyday, it should be incumbent on us to understand this trust we place in it.

The Mickey says:

11:13am | 06/02/11

HAHAHAHAHA
OMG
Obob provides a link to Andrew Bolt

This is so funny

Is this the same Bolt who has 12 degrees in climate sciences and dozens of peer reviewed papers?

HAHAHAHAHAH

James says:

10:04am | 06/02/11

Nurse the old cold war warrior needs his medication.

Lisa Meredith says:

10:58am | 06/02/11

Dear Bobo,

If there is a hoax, the physics that describes the greenhouse effect cannot go uncontested, surely. This was developed over at least the last 100 years, well before 1990. Niels Bohr, to name one scientist whose theories contribute to the science behind AGW lived from 1885 to 1962

Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect in 1824. The theory of AGW itself began in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius predicted that industrial CO2 output would eventually lead to a doubling in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and this would result in a temperature rise of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

Lisa Meredith says:

11:11am | 06/02/11

Dear John Walker,

Natural climate change has occurred ever since the world began, and will continue until the sun becomes a red giant and strips the planet of its atmosphere.

Real scientists do indeed understand this. They also understand that the natural rate of CO2 change in the past was about 1300 times slower than it is today.

They also recognise the culprit (us) by using radiocarbon dating to identify the CO2 derived from fossil fuel burning.

So, they understand that we have caused this unusually rapid rate of change of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This means we can do something to slow it down.

john walker says:

11:26am | 06/02/11

Dear Lisa Meredith,
You still don’t get “it”. Nothing, we do will stop a volcano from erupting, or cows from belching, you refuse to discuss this 21times contributary factor in your replies. This only adds to your lack of credibility. Methinks you work for vested interests….

Lisa Meredith says:

12:29pm | 06/02/11

Dear John Walker,

You could be right: I don’t get it. So, can I clarify your position?

The it I don’t get – do you mean (1) natural CO2 emissions such as volcanoes (Mother Nature), (2) fossil fuel emissions (human carbon footprint) or, (3) as in cows belching (your 21 times reference), the result of population growth?

I don’t believe these 3 things are the same issue. Surely item 1 cannot and should not be addressed, as AGW is all about the human carbon footprint? Population control would also reduce emissions (how do we go about that one?).

By vested interests, do you mean science, or politics/economics? My area of expertise is science (I work for no political/economic interest) and I am not completely ready to support a carbon tax.

James says:

09:55am | 06/02/11

To someone who is uneducated maybe.

The Badger says:

10:25am | 06/02/11

More amazing still is the fact that people such as yourself believe that whatever we do to this planet, whether it be the toxins we dump in our lakes, rivers and oceans, or the chemicals which spew forth from our smelters and power generators has no affect on the delicate balances that our planet depends on.
That you think we can just absorb all this shit and the motor of life will just keep turning over is what is “unbelievable’

Astro says:

11:13am | 06/02/11

@Badger.I blame the Planet,apparently it contains carbon,the Bastard

Lisa Meredith says:

11:32am | 06/02/11

Dear Ryan,

All of these articles deal with predictions of the impact of global warming. This is an imprecise science as the Scientific Method dictates the use of a Control, and we don’t have one.

The proof of global warming lies in the reliability and accountability of the core tenets of physics and chemistry (as evidenced in the technology we use everyday), which describes and quantifies the greenhouse effect. This is backed up by the 40-year temperature trends beginning in at least 1880, if not before.

It is important we separate these predictions from the proof of global warming. To confuse the two is indeed junk science.

persephone says:

01:20pm | 06/02/11

No, what is caused by global warming is an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events - something scientists have been predicting for years.

‘Extreme’ weather is just that - it switches from one to another, often very quickly.

So we have extremely hot weather and extremely cold weather, but the long term trend is that it’s all getting warmer.

Because the oceans are getting warmer, we also have effects on ocean currents. Some of these - most notably the Gulf Stream- take warm water from one area to another, thus making some areas warmer than they should be given their latitude.

This is why countries such as Britain are experiencing increasingly cold winters, because the Gulf Stream is no longer warming them.

This also accords with climate change scientists’ predictions - that climate change would affect different areas in the world in different ways, and in fact lead to some cooling.

Ryan says:

03:16pm | 06/02/11

@Lisa Meredith: which temperature trends.. The global ocean temperatures have been decreasing and the current tropospheric global temperatures are here to be seen http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
The only temperatures that remotely show any warming are the GISS temperature locations, those are the ones that have been thouroughly debunked by dodgy “scientists” putting them next to the outlets of air conditioners and the like.
What is true is that the climate changes, this there is no dispute, what is also true is that pollution is terrible and awful for the environment and our health, what is farcical is the junk science being used to control more of peoples lives and for Labor to introduce yet more taxes but have no measurable outcome for our taxes. They are so addicted to spending our money that they will not even support us when there is a natural disaster.

@persephone: this is yet another phurphy, please show us the evidence that there has been an increase in extreme weather events. What is true is that extreme weather events now affect more people than ever before, this is due to the ever increasing population inhabiting more places where these events occur.
I tell you what persephone, as a Labor pollie, why don’t you people start to act like there is an emergency and a problem, stop flying everywhere, ride a bicycle, no aircons, no electricity, all become vegitarians etc.etc. why don’t you people lead by example? I’ll tell you why, because this is nothing that a great excuse to further tax the people and pay for your Labor incompetence, the carbon tax money will not end up in green schemes, it will end up in the normal coffers being blown with nothing to show as usual.
This government has proven it cannot be trusted, we know Gillard cannot be trusted (Rudd learnt this the hard way) and we certainly cannot trust them with a cent more of our taxes.

Lisa Meredith says:

04:14pm | 06/02/11

Dear Ryan,

I find short-term trends unscientific, as we can’t exclude noise such as seasonal and decadal cycles.

Time periods of at least 40 years show the warming trend.

For example, global temp rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the 20th century.

It is important to remember that this rise in itself is not proof of AGW. All it does is validate the physics of the greenhouse effect that predicts this rise.

The proof lies in the physics itself. Any physics papers that counter the tenets of the Periodic Table or the Standard Model with respect to the radiative properties of these greenhouse molecules will change my mind.

persephone says:

04:38pm | 06/02/11

Ryan

I’m not a Labor pollie. And this issue transcends politics; it is about the future of human beings on this planet. I would argue what I’m arguing regardless.

Have a look at this article from 2002:

http://www.extremeweatherheroes.org/media/53982/cliatechangeandextremeweatheristhereaconnection.pdf

‘One of the anticipated effects of climate change is the possible increase in both frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts. The warming of the earth may fuel interactions between the ocean and atmosphere that will amplify the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.’

Oh gosh. Hurricanes. Floods. Droughts. No, haven’t seen any of those recently, have you?

‘These extreme weather events are not mutually exclusive. It is not unusual for a year to have a combination of droughts, floods and cyclones.’

Oh, so being in drought one minute and a flood the next doesn’t disprove that the globe is warming!

It’s a good article to begin with, because it discusses the various reasons why extreme weather events might be a problem of perception rather than reality, so it’s very balanced. And note, it was written in 2002.

Reports on the increase in extreme weather events since then include:

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2008/WWFPresitem9361.html

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/IAG-Climate_Change_Paper.pdf

That one’s from the Insurance Group of Australia, that well known hotbed of socialists, and reads in part:

‘Insurance Australia Group (IAG) believes that human-induced climate change is now a reality and that it must be addressed with appropriate urgency. We base this assessment on a combination of the science of climate change presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and associated modelling, work done by the re-insurance sector (Swiss re and Munich Re), and on our own modelling, research and claims experience.’

‘Increases in intensity and/or frequency of tropical cyclones, floods and bushfires caused by a projected 1.4 – 5.8 ºC global mean temperature increase by 2100, are all likely to be part of our future climate.’

So it’s clear that predications of extreme weather events linked to climate change were made (repeatedly - there’s a lot more links I could give you) quite some time ago.

So have these predictions proved themselves?

Have we seen an increase in extreme weather events?

Well, for a start, we’ve got our own observations - there’s been extreme flooding, bushfires, cyclones, heatwaves, etc over the last few years. A lot of ‘one in one hundred year’ events happening in the space of a couple of years, not a century.

This is a lovely site to poke around in, (not just the page I’m referencing here). It records global climate events on a monthly basis, and then provides overall yearly summaries like this one:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

2010 was a hell of a year.

Another good one:

http://www.greencrossaustralia.org/our-work/climate-resilience/global-severe-weather-risks-grow.aspx

There’s heaps more (I could probably find better, but am short of time), all of which show:

1. Scientists have been predicting an increase in severe weather events due to global warming on a consistent basis.

2. They have predicted that these extreme events will include extremes in both directions - that is, record rainfall/record drought; record highest temps/recored lowest temps - with an overall trend towards warmer weather;

3. Insurance claims and weather records both show an increase in the occurence and/or severity of events which fall in line with the predictions made in 1.

Ryan says:

09:34pm | 06/02/11

@persephone: please refer to my original post, predicting everything and something happening doesn’t make it true, hell I predict that tomorrow the sun is going to come up and that means that there is a new phenomenon caused by humans that is going to end us all, its called the deadly Ryan and it will cause weather and there will be rain sometimes and other times there will be sunshine and it will be hot, except when its cold and even sometimes it will be really cold. Really! You still didn’t tell me why the Labor government hasn’t started acting like there is some sort of an emergency, no pollies riding bikes and turning veggie.. and we all know why don’t we, because this high taxing Labor government just needs some other excuse to get their hands in our pockets.

@Lisa Meredith: that latest global temperatures link I sent was dated back to 1979, is that short term? I mean we could go back to the medieval warm period, yes that period you climate alarmists seem to believe never existed, the same one disgraced climate “scientist” Phil Jones had to admit was warmer than the recent warming trends pre-2000 before that hockey stick graph existed that has now been thoughroughly debunked. I guess they should just “hide the decline” to the “travesty that it has been cooling” and that cooling shows a divergence from every prediciton based on carbon dioxide. There is no more debate, climate “scientists” debunked themselves.

persephone says:

06:40am | 07/02/11

Ryan

except they didn’t predict everything. They haven’t, for example, predicted that we’ll have less extreme weather events less frequently.

What they have predicted has eventuated, which is a sign of good science.

The behaviour of Labor pollies has nothing to do with whether the science is true or not, so I’m not sure why it’s here.

By your logic, Tony Abbott riding a bike means he believes in climate change.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:29am | 07/02/11

Dear Ryan,

I do find 32 years too short a time. At least 40 years is good, the longer the better. Despite the cooling, the trend exists. AGW does not predict that each successive year or even each decade should be warmer than the last. So far it looks like a series of spikes and dips as natural climate change and cyclical variation also influence global temps.

The Medieval Warm Period shows an average temp spike of about 0.2 degrees C over 150 years (still slower than 20th century rise) and is well documented and known to science. It is generally accepted to be natural causes.

One can always ignore the Hockey Stick graph and revisit all data afresh. What do we see then?

truth says:

12:14am | 13/02/11

Persephone:
You seem to be saying that extreme events have increased in frequency and magnitude, but there’s much research to say that’s not true at all.
This website goes through in great detail, the predictions you say have proven to be true, and their conclusions, with the peer-reviewed papers as evidence, are quite different , and other scientists have done the same.
Almost no alarmist predictions have eventuated.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/toc.php
eg:  Severe weather events:
‘In considering all of the above findings, what does the future look like with respect to nearly all types of storms? Clearly, the evidentiary scale tips far, far away from climate-alarmist scenes of “weather gone wild,” as there are almost no historical data that suggest that a warmer world experiences any more severe or more frequent storms than a colder world does. In fact, real-world data seem generally to suggest just the opposite.’
Incidentally, the following link says that insurance companies do not find indications of AGW in their claims data.    http://globalclimate.epri.com/doc/0110731.pdf
And IAG are very circumspect about that in the quote you give, going with the IPCC, and not stressing their claims data—-but of course the AGW alarmists do give insurance companies a bogus justification for raising their premiums—-just as you’ll push up the prices of everything we buy and everything we do—-causing absolute chaos.
Below is the overall conclusion from CO2science.org:
‘Where in the world are our priorities? We agonize over a future hypothetical scenario—CO2-induced global warming, which many knowledgeable scientists are convinced will never occur—while billions of people suffer from a host of very real energy- and health-related hazards in the here-and-now.
Why would anyone in their right mind give the governments of the world a mandate to totally restructure human society to fight a hypothetical problem of vastly greater complexity than the very real and clearly-identified problems we currently face? Why should we not rather confront these genuine energy and health threats with all due haste and with every modern tool we have at our disposal?
Whatever the answers to these disturbing questions might be, it is clear that the current brouhaha over atmospheric CO2 emissions and imagined catastrophic global warming has relegated the very real environmental and human concerns of our day to second- and third-class status. This situation is truly regrettable; for unless the more immediate and weighty matters we have mentioned are forthrightly addressed in a timely manner, whatever earth’s climate may do in the future will be pretty much a moot point, especially for the millions of species of plants and animals that will have suffered extinction in the interim, as well as the millions of human beings who will have died prematurely as a consequence of environmental problems wholly unrelated to the air’s CO2 content that could have been solved but weren’t.
We humans, as stewards of the earth, have got to get our priorities straight. We must do all that we possibly can, in order to preserve nature by helping to feed humanity and raise living standards the world over; and to do so successfully, we have got to let the air’s CO2 content maintain its natural upward course for many decades to come. This is the prudent path we must pursue.’
There are many very reputable scientists who rebut aspect after aspect of the alarmist claims—-and they’re not into hiding their data—refusing to be open with other scientists—-trying to corrupt the peer review system taking part in sham ‘inquiries’ etc as the alarmist scientists do.
What do you think was the justification for the CSIRO in preventing Clive Spash from publishing his paper on the ETS ?
Why do you think the media have never reported US Professor Roger Pielke’s critical assessment of the ETS?

Lisa Meredith says:

03:46pm | 06/02/11

Dear John Walker,

Here are your statistics for Methane (CH4): -

Atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years.

GWP of 72 over 20 years, 25 over 100 years and 7.6 over 500 years. GWP means global warming potential. The decrease is due to degradation of methane over time to water and CO2. This means that 1 tonne of CH4 in air has the same effect as 72 tonnes CO2 over 20 years, etc.

Atmospheric concentration – increased 1045ppb from 700ppb in 1750 to 1745ppb today (parts per billion). (CO2 increased 100ppm from 280ppm in 1750 to 300ppm today).

Percentage of greenhouse gases = 14 – 17% (CO2 = 74 – 77%) (H2O <= 2%).

Radiative forcing = 0.48 Watts per m2 (CO2 = 1.46 W/m2).

Percent contribution to greenhouse effect = 4 – 9% (CO2 = 9 – 26%, H2O = 36 – 72%).

You are right about taxing not only carbon. We should be considering CO2, CH4 and N2O (nitrous oxide)

john walker says:

04:49pm | 06/02/11

Dear Lisa Meredith,
very clever, twisting my words, I, have not mentioned any new taxes, you have. What, are you going to start taxing trees and cows now lol!
Your whole argument is about tax,tax and more tax. You have blown your cover, real scientists are interested in real solutions, you’re interest is in more tax. Tell me, who do you troll for, is it GS, the Government?

john walker says:

04:57pm | 06/02/11

Dear Lisa Meredith,
Let’s see if you are interested in the “science”: Here is a link to what true scientists understand about global warming, based on scientific research and fact:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

In particular, please pay attention to when the Holocene Maximum (the hottest known period in human history)  occurred…that’s right 4000-7500 years ago BP (before present)......makes a mockery of all of your so called man made contributary global warming “facts” ....

Lisa Meredith says:

05:38pm | 06/02/11

Dear John Walker,

I was not trying to twist your words, I am sorry for the confusion. I have been sincere in my attempt to answer your questions. It could be that I still don’t understand where you are coming from. This does not make clever, naïve perhaps, and maybe slow on the uptake.

While I believe in trying to find common ground, I am really just trying to use science to debate scientific arguments.

I am not convinced a tax is the way to go. I don’t work for government, and I must confess I have no idea what GS means. Could please enlighten me?

My thing is science. This is my area of expertise. I will leave it to the economists to present a range of viable solutions, but so far there are not many that I can see.

However I do believe that any solution does require maintenance of the forests still standing, and perhaps even reforestation where possible. Trees, after all, not only fix atmospheric carbon into sugars, but they are responsible for 40% of the oxygen we breathe (the rest coming from zooplankton and algae in the oceans).

Lisa Meredith says:

06:29pm | 06/02/11

Dear John Walker,

Correction: I said …(the rest coming from zooplankton and algae in the oceans).

I meant (the rest coming from PHYTOplankton and algae in the oceans).

I would also like to add that I would like keep talking to you and I am open to persuasion using scientific arguments. I would like to hear your point of view.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:36pm | 06/02/11

Dear John Walker,

Thank you for link. I will break this comment into two posts to prevent truncation.

Some observations: -

1. I notice the graph US National Surface Temperature (48 states) 1880 to 2006 does show a warming trend, although its not the global graph.

2. The article mentions runaway greenhouse effect - I disagree. It will level out after CO2 concentrations level out.

3. The Holocene Maximum is well documented and known to science, but the rate of change shows a final 2 degree C shift over about 2000 years. This is the key. A rate of change far slower than the 0.74 degrees C shift we saw last century.

4. The graphs showing a rise in CO2 are also correct. You will notice that the pre-industrial rise was 100ppm over about 40 thousand years. Very slow compared to the post industrial rate of change of 100ppm over 260 years.

The science and data here is all correct, I agree that climate change, warming and cooling has been happening since the world began. In fact, before life evolved the atmosphere was about 25% CO2. Levels unheard of since then.

And it is still going on today.

Because we don’t have a Control, as the Scientific Method dictates, when cannot differentiate between natural climate change and AGW. A control would be an identical earth, for example, not going through AGW so we can identify and isolate the natural climate change that is still happening today. This is the crux of my argument. We cannot use weather or current climate change to prove or disprove AGW.

(…continued below)

Lisa Meredith says:

04:22pm | 06/02/11

Dear Greencon,

I believe in AGW, but I agree with what you have written here.

Blaming this or that on AGW is unscientific and counterproductive. It only serves to cloud the issue and obfuscate the science.

If you read my other posts here you will see where I am coming from.

john walker says:

08:10am | 07/02/11

Dear Lisa Meredith,
Ice core sampling has shown extremely abrupt change historically from global warming——>Ice age. Whilst one can speculate about having a control in, and measuring assumptive outcomes, the inescapable fact is that mother nature controls the weather, NOT A NEW TAX.

James says:

09:15am | 07/02/11

Tax emissions, emissions go down, emissions affect climate and therefore weather, Tax controls weather QED.

James says:

12:06pm | 07/02/11

Do you think this immature nonsense is impressive?

john walker says:

01:09pm | 07/02/11

You stated ” tax emissions, emissions will go down” .
Cows contribute, so do rotting leaves, so please, by all means, enlighten all on how to tax trees and cows please.

James says:

01:53pm | 07/02/11

You contribution to stopping global heating will be limited to: not thinking, asking stupid questions and slowing down people who are actually trying to solve this problem, so be it.  History will judge people like very harshly.

Lisa Meredith says:

02:30pm | 07/02/11

Dear John Walker,

Here are two of the extremely fast changes. For example,

- The fastest rise I can find was during the first 500 years of the Holocene Warming where temps in Antarctica Vostoc Ice Cores saw a rise from ?8–10 to ?12–13°C. One consequence of this rapid rate of change was the extinction of mammalian megafauna.

- Another very fast rise was ?8.5°C over 5000 years to the Eamian Interglacial.

Given that climate change had natural causes in the past, why can’t man-made emissions be a cause now? What precludes them?

Why can’t our present climate change be a combination of both natural and man-made causes?

Mother Nature does control the weather. Why can’t our emissions have an impact on Mother Nature?

What are the physical processes that cause the greenhouse effect? Is it molecules absorbing and emitting photons? Is it based on the physics of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model?

Did Svante Arrhenius begin the theory of AGW in 1896?

What caused the rise in CO2, N20 and CH4 since 1750?

Are these rises having an impact on the greenhouse effect?

john walker says:

03:51pm | 07/02/11

Making stupid statements like ” tax emissions, emissions go down” is idiotic and totally false, to say the least. Stop being an oxygen thief if you won’t answer pertinent questions.

James says:

07:36pm | 07/02/11

John been drinking too much of your namesake, can’t make simple connections, maybe your foolishness will be put down to too much alcohol related noggin damage, I hope so for your sake.

john walker says:

08:20pm | 07/02/11

James,  you’ve been exposed as a troll,  with propositions based on nothing. Move on.