climate policy
13 Oct 2009
At Last, Some Realistic Climate Policy Ideas
The Greens' amendments to Labor's emissions trading scheme are sensible, rational improvements to a vital piece of public policy. And they'll be ignored, writes Ben Eltham
As the climate change debate rumbles on towards a possible denouement in Copenhagen, it’s comforting that at least one of Australia’s political parties is taking the issue seriously.
No prizes for guessing who — it’s the Greens, who yesterday tabled 22 amendments to Labor’s flawed emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Commentators love to point out that the Greens simply have to be left of the ALP on climate change in order to satisfy their environmental base — and that’s true. But the science of climate change has moved so rapidly, and the climate debate in Australia is so infested with vested interests, that it is the Greens who now occupy what should be the policy mainstream in the climate change space.
This is reflected in the most important aspect of the amendments: the Greens’ headline target for carbon emissions reduction of at least 25 per cent by 2020, and 40 per cent if an agreement can be reached at Copenhagen. Labor’s target, you will remember, is a desultory 5 per cent unilaterally, up to 25 per cent if Copenhagen delivers. (When and if a coherent Coalition climate change policy emerges, we’ll let you know about it.)
Where does the Greens target come from? It’s worth remembering that realistic emissions reduction targets are not some parlour game of political one-upmanship. They’re actually based on the best available scientific predictions of the future course of global warming driven by heat-trapping gases emitted by burning fossil fuels.
Labor’s policy, which it took to the last election, was already predicated on outdated science. It postulated that atmospheric concentrations should be limited to 450 parts per million as a supposedly safe upper limit for carbon pollution. But the rapidly emerging picture from climatologists is of a global climate system far more sensitive to carbon dixoide than first appreciated.
Currently, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, at 387 parts per million and climbing, are already above what most scientists consider to be "safe". In other words, we’re already over the red-line, and need to reach carbon neutrality as quickly as possible. The Greens’ amendments recognise this frightening reality, arguing that "a safe climate requires an eventual return to 350 parts per million."
The other big facets of the amendments are merely what most sensible policy-makers have been arguing all along. Like Ross Garnaut, the Greens’ amendments argue that all pollution permits should be auctioned, and that compensation to the so-called "emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries" like aluminium smelting should be limited to "offsetting the impact created by the fact that some trading partners have not yet introduced carbon pricing policies". In other words, big carbon should be compensated for some loss of competitiveness, but not to anywhere the absurd level Labor has promised.
As for electricity generators, the Greens again agree with Garnaut that these polluters should have seen carbon pricing coming, and deserve nothing. Quite how the lights will be kept on in brown-coal dependent Victoria is a problem their amendments don’t deal with, but it’s hard to argue with the broader point that every dollar spent compensating the filthy coal-fired power generators of the Latrobe Valley is a dollar that can’t be invested in new clean-tech power generation.
An interesting aspect of the amendments is the far greater role the Greens envisage for the Productivity Commission in the economy if and when the CPRS is passed. The Greens want the hard-headed technocrats at the Productivity Commission to play the leading part in reviewing industry compensation, including mandated three-yearly reviews of industry assistance, carbon leakage and how many jobs are really being lost due to carbon pricing.
Other amendments seek to tighten up some of the anti-competitive loopholes of the CPRS, including removing the absurdly low $10 carbon permit price cap, which the Greens’ rightly argue is a market distortion, and requiring much greater transparency in carbon accounting down to the facility level (meaning corporations will not be able to bury highly polluting aspects of their operations in a company-wide emissions number).
The Greens also take aim squarely at one of the most outrageous aspects of the design of the Rudd Government’s scheme: the fact that under the current draft legislation, companies will be able to offset most of their emissions in dubious and poorly regulated overseas schemes (for instance, by preventing deforestation in Papua New Guinea). The Greens want to significantly tighten this aspect of the scheme, allowing only 20 per cent of permits to be traded in this way, and demanding that those companies which do trade permits for international offsets do so using Gold Standard Foundation-accredited carbon permits. This will go a long way towards stopping big polluters simply buying cheap and dubiously regulated carbon permits from third-world countries on the international market, rather than making an appreciable effort to actually reduce emissions.
The Greens are also trying to address one of the difficult conceptual aspects of a cap-and-trade scheme, which is that voluntary emissions reductions by consumers and small businesses in effect function as a subsidy for big polluters. To get around this, the Greens are proposing "an independent expert advisory committee to estimate the level of additional abatement for a year". Once this figure has been arrived at, the Climate Change Minister will then be required to reduce the national emissions cap by that amount. It’s an intriguing idea that, if ever implemented, would almost certainly add to hysterical levels of lobbying by big polluters.
All in all, the Greens’ amendments are sensible, rational and constructive contributions to the national public policy process — precisely the kind of thing that the Democrats were once known for.
But will Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong listen to the Greens?
No, of course not. Why would Kevin Rudd negotiate with the Greens, when merely threatening a double-dissolution election on climate change is just about tearing the Liberal Party apart? Or to put it another way, why let the little matter of the future climate of the planet get in the way of party political advantage?
On the face of it, the Government needs the support of Family First lightweight Steve Fielding — a self-confessed climate sceptic — to get the bill through, even with Nick Xenophon on board. But at the moment that’s a mere detail, a sideshow to the real action entertaining Government strategists, namely the self-destructive carnage the Coalition is currently inflicting upon itself over the issue.
Ultimately, the only way the Greens will be able to exert a significant impact on national climate policy will be by winning the Senate balance of power. That may well happen after the next election. On the basis of their contribution to developing sensible climate policy, it would be a good thing for the country.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
This article sounds like a fantastic Greens press release!
Meanwhile, in the real world, the grown up parties must end the uncertainly over the future of Australian environmental policy, this is bad for business and bad for the people of Australia. The Opposition should put forward a set of amendments which will then be voted on by the House and/or Senate. This may mean a policy before Copenhagen with Coalition amendments or no policy at all. Kevin Rudd knows that a double dissolution will result in more stubborn mule-like Greens Senators including 3-5 other Senators from micro-parties or independents. Kevin Rudd wants to run a full term and so do the people of Australia.
It is increasingly becoming apparent that Copenhagen will fail, at least it is clear that no substantive agreement will result. In addition, Waxman-Markey is having considerable trouble in the US Congress and generic Congressional polling is showing a Republican rebound which can’t rule out a Democratic loss of the House and a net loss of Democratic seats in the Senate.
You left “For Immediate Release” off the top.
What condescending piffle from rationalist. “Grown up parties” indeed!
It is this sort of jerk the chain reaction that characterises so much of our current debate. In the last 48 hours or so, Ross Garnaut and before him David Marr have pungently decried the abysmal quality of contemporary Australian discussion of issues critical to our future well-being.
The Greens offer a set of apparently well considered propositions. New Matilda takes the trouble to outline them. Immediately, “Rationalist” leaps in to switch the topic!
Mercifully perhaps, Rationalist does not yet enjoy the pontifical ascendancy of established punditry that operates through the Murdoch media empire. But dismissive failure to address the substance of serious propositions about where climate change policy should be headed is the sort of dumb-down the debate contribution that could win Rationalist a place in that corporatist’s media hierarchy.
Let us at least look carefully at what the Greens propose. If the propositions are a rational response to the grave predicament we all face, let us address what must be done to turn the debate about the propositions into a pressure point for change. One way to advance that pressure must be to pillory the policy eunuchs and Dukes of Plaza Toro who occupy office here and abroad at sufferance of not unduly disconcerting the princelings who see themselves as the guiders of our economic and other destinies.
Excellent article by Ben Eltham.
The Greens are the only significant party with a responsible climate change policy that is consonant with the individual and collective advice of top climate scientists.
Australia is a world leader in terms of annual per capital greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (10 times greater than the Developing World average of 3 tonnes CO2-e per person per year and 18 times greater if Australia’s Exported GHG pollution is considered).
However the Labor Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will mean - on the basis of clearly enunciated latest Labor Policy - an INCREASE in GHG pollution to 119% of the 2000 value by 2020 and to 173% of the 2000 value by 2050 (for details and documentation see “Climate Justice & Climate Injustice: Australia wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution 15 times greater than Developing World’s “: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-justi… ).
The climate criminal Lib-Labs are ignoring the urgent advice from top climate scientists (e.g. for a detailed compendium of such advice see “CLIMATE EMERGENCY: What Top World Scientific Experts Say ” : http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg… ) and are betraying Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere. Labor is also betraying Labor voters who want action on climate change.
Actually the Greens could go even further but are evidently wilting under the overhwelming, ignorant, greedy, “look the other way”, anti-science Australian climate denialism.
Thus top climate scientists and analysts are saying “100% renewable by 2020”: http://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ ; “cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020”: http://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/ ; and “return atmosphere CO2 from 390 to 300 ppm ASAP”: http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org–return-atmosphere-co2-… .
And in relation to the utterly flawed, dishonest and counterproductive CPRS ETS advanced by Labor and rejected as “too damaging” by the troglodyte Nationals and Libs, top climate scientists and analysts are saying that a Carbon Tax is needed and NOT a Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS): http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/carbon-tax-ne… (but very few Australians would know that because of the flawed, dishonest and irresponsible Mainstream media of Murdochcracy Australia).
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Nuclear power. Discuss…
Baz, depends. Which do you prefer? Coal or nuclear? Because on the whole, that is the choice that is available. There will be gas fired peaking power developments and perhaps a little bit of geothermal, but the vast majority of base load power can only really be generated by coal or nuclear. Renewables simply do not cut the mustard.
I am sorry but nobody with any power or influence, in addition to the vast majority of middle class mortgage belt Australia (who decide elections) know quite well that 95% cuts in the next 10 minutes are not possible and simply should not be aimed for. A gradual slide away from coal is probably rational over the next 100-200 years, mainly to nuclear.
I argue this article is a long way from a press release. It’s an analysis of a pretty meaty series of policy proposals on an important issue. I’ve addressed the pros and cons of the CPRS elsewhere, and last week I dealt with the Opposition’s climate change policy, such as it is. This week The Greens released a series of policies, and I’ve examined them here.
By the way Rationalist, I think the Senate will in fact pass Waxman-Markey, and that some kind of substantive agreement will in fact emerge at Copenhagen.
Nuclear Fission or Fusion? ITER may well prove commercial fusion by 2020.
Rather than spending money on:
… we should invest in energy efficiency, Australian R&D in solar (PV and thermal), feed-in tariffs and efficient HVDC transmission.
This is a generally good summary of the Greens’ proposals. I don’t think the cynicism is helpful though I sympathise with it. I don’t think it is the target which is the most important: it is the advocacy for a gross feed-in tariff and the consequent boost to renewables, the amendments consistent with Garnaut’s position epecially in respect of compensatory payments, auctioning of permits, reviews by the Productivity Commission, increase in the rate of decline for assistance to industry, removal of compensation for electricity generators, chnges to the export and import of permits - though encouraging other countries to reduce emissions such as by phasing out logging for planting of crops such as palm oil is important - and some of the others.
The preference that the Labor government has for negotiating with the Coalition is beyond madness. The latter’s behaviour amounts to the most outrageously irresponsible behaviour by any political party on any matter for a very long time. The government should be negotiating with the Greens.
The comments by “rationalist” are not worthy of a response except to say it would appear that we should consider the difficulties being faced by legislation in the US Congress and the possibility that there will not be a meaningful outcome in Copenhagen to be “the real world” and move on. JHC!
Increasingly it is apparent that with very few exceptions the political leaders of today are simply incapable of responsible leadership. Meaningful action is likely to come down to the local level. Unfortunately that will not be sufficient.
Ben’s Headline says it all:
The Greens’ amendments to Labor’s emissions trading scheme are sensible, rational improvements to a vital piece of public policy. And they’ll be ignored
Phew, thank goodness for that!
I think statements like:
Currently, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, at 387 parts per million and climbing, are already above what most scientists consider to be “safe”
So what was wrong when CO2 was 8000ppm Ben? Climate was much the same as today, average temps were about 14C.
And where does “most scientists” come from? What you really mean is most of the IPCC’s select group of authors from Ch 9 of AR4. But you could be wrong again as well because most of the dissenting authors comments were ignored in the final report.
As to ETS see what Goldman Sachs report on carbon credits whoch has already hit the EU: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_b… and go to Bubble #6Global Warming.
The Greens are the only ones who are basing their climate change plans on the science. Rudd just uses wishful thinking and Turnbull doesn’t have a clue anyway.
desgriffin,
What I say may be blunt and it may not be nice to hear but this is simply the realities of climate and energy policy.
Bad luck, perhaps we should be talking to the engineers and not the irrational arts students on what our energy policy should be. If you do this you get implementable solutions, not pie in the sky solutions.
icedvolvo says…
“So what was wrong when CO2 was 8000ppm Ben? Climate was much the same as today, average temps were about 14C.”
What was wrong is that the temperatures were not about the same as they are today. You are probably referring to the mid Cambrian perion when CO2 levels peaked at about 7000ppm. Average global temperatures were about 22C then and about 14C now. By the way, we are talking about more than half a BILLION years ago when the continents occupied a completely different place on the earth and I believe also that the sun may have been cooler.
…all well and good, but Bob Brown’s comments today about nuclear power (“I’m with Mr. Rudd” as I recall) are hardly helpful. I’m a greens voter, but Sen. Brown is wrong on this one. We need get over the old fears about nuclear, and start investing in alternatives to coal, including nuclear. Global warming is the bigger issue, and while nuclear power can be dangerous if done on the cheap, it is safe if done properly. The alternative is to resign ourselves to building new coal plants as the current stations reach the end of their operating lives (soon in most cases), loking us into high emissions power generation for decades to come.
Rationalist,
Dr Mark Diesendorf, Dr John Kaye and the other contributors to The Greens Safe Climate Bill are not “irrational art students” but rather highly qualified experts with decades of experience in their fields of science, engineering and policy.
Nukes are too slow to build, you need too many of them and they produce waste that has to be managed for 100,00’s of years at enormous carbon and finacial cost.
Solar thermal, biomass and wind.
Im sick of hysterical coal lobby/nuke stooges choking blogs discussing our policy response to this great ecological challenge
Sweet lets just turn off the lights in victoria!
How about we open up every uranium mine we can, export it and invest all the profits into renewables and efficency in our electrical grid.
Once we get some decent renewable energy infrasturcture running then we should try tax coal power stations out of business and not a minute before.
The Greens Safe Climate Bill is here for those who would like to read it before passing judgement
http://greensmps.org.au/the-safe-climate-bills
Ken Cooke:
Yes you are correct that at some points during the Cambrian periods (>500mya) average temps were probably 20-22C but they also fell to as low as 12C in the Paleozoic periods and at other times when CO2 was >4000ppm. Alternatively when CO2 was low temps can be high e.g. in the Carboniferous period.
It’s scary to look at the graphs isn’t it because one thing is clear: there is NO correlation between CO2 and temps! In fact for most of earth’s history (prior to the recent Ice Age cycles) the average temp was a balmy 22 (versus today’s 14) regardless of CO2 levels. But the change to 100,000 year Ice Ages seems to have changed that, why? We don’t know but probably a combination of solar dynamics/position as well as continental drift induced changes to ocean flows.
We are actually in an ice age style climate at this time but for ~10,000 years its been a warm intermission in what will almost certainly fall back into a full Ice Age. Sediments and ice cores tell us that for at least the last ~3million years interglacial periods cycle at ~100,000 years and last for about 15-20,000 years before returning to an ice climates where cities like New York are under 3km thick ice sheets. At present we are ~18,000 years into an interglacial cycle; i.e. overdue for a return to an Ice climate.
www. geocraft.com has good graphics for those interested and http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html has some of the info above.
Hi Ben
I don’t see you doing yourself or NEWMATILDA any service with insults and cynacism.
e.g.
“Family First lightweight Steve Fielding ” or
” in dubious and poorly regulated overseas schemes (for instance, by preventing deforestation in Papua New Guinea).”
A Worldwide reforestation scheme is run out of the United Nations to assist indigenous peoples. Our government should be making representation to allow our own remote communities to participate and profit.
What is to stop “Big Polluters” from buying cheap credits on the European market?
Thanks Ben, I think it’s a great article. I can’t say the same about the concept of another tax being forced upon us by a bunch of big headed politicians. Turnbullshit made the first claim to an ETS under the Howard leadership & that’s where the problem lies. He thought one up & is finding no way of backing away from that fact under liberal leadership. Krudd needs a second tax to pay for the stimulus money that the taxpayer forcibly spent & what a better way of doing it, than rubbing Turnbullshit’s nose in the political mud & have the media & the public sucker’s join in on an argument that will force it through, no matter what. After all there are a lot more simple measures of getting the pollution levels down, creating job’s & stimulating the economy at the same time. It’s called common sense & cooperation.
Krudds just using Turnbullshit’s version of Einstein’s theory. E=MC2 (ETS+GST=MONEY from CLIMATE TAX x2)
Speaking of the new energy super tax, do you know who it hits hardest? The poor who already have trouble paying even the small amount of electricity and petrol that they consume.
I thought the socialists (Greens) cared about poor people or are they simply trying to economically rape them while they are down? It obviously seems like the Greens think poor people economic rape is good.
As I have said before the scam is coming to an end. Even the doyan mouthpiece of the left the BBC is now questioning the dogma, as someone else put it it’s like the the Pope questioning the existence of God!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
This article confirms what some have been saying in these blogs for some time:
- the world’s atmosphere is cooling
- the seas are also cooling
This is in direct contrast to the predictions of the IPCC computer models
And some other follow on reporting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6300329/Scept…
There are a host of other articles questioning the dogma now appearing but the BBC is the most stunning of all.
The Hadley Centre (basically the IPCC) has finally laid it’s cards on the table and predicted huge rises in both ocean and air temps from 2010 onwards. But others using PDO and sunspots have made vastly different predictions http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3510 (download the PDF to get the full predictions)
We shall see…….
I find it funny that the same cheer squad for the ‘Masters of the Universe’ that classed CDOs as AAA will now have the gall to try to lecture scientists and others concerned with the environment that plans for protecting the earth are uneconomical and will be detrimental to society. The conservatives are showing a strong luddite streak. The only technological fix they will consider is nuclear because that will keep power generation in big centralised locations and keep the money flowing to big corporations. So much for innovation and risk taking that is supposed to be the driving force in business.
Rationalist, all schemes on the board have a adjustments built in to cushion the poor. The poor are at greater risk of inevitable price rises once everything is privatised. On the plans for this in the original Labor scheme I would have come out with adjustments valued at twice what I pay for energy now. Your claim that Greens don’t care about the poor is wrong and shows how little research you have done.
If you wanted reasons why neither Labor nor LIberal could give a rats arse about climate change this set of responses could provide a clue. As soon as a post appears anywhere suggesting that meaningful action (with a target of 350ppm in the near future) on climate change is needed now, the deniers come out in force, clutching Plimer to their bosoms, and the spivs who believe in nothing except making a buck come pushing nuclear power yet again. Based on the latest Nielsen poll both are having an impact on public opinion.
If Labor had not cynically pushed Fielding into the senate in place of a Green from Victoria they could have settled on some rational science-based aims with the Greens and we would be well on our way. But given a party with Martin Fergusons in it, and the malign influence of the CFMEU on climate change policy (and indeed any environmental issue) the outcome would probably have been no different. It is one of the curiosities of Australian politics that Labor hates its sister social democrat party more than it hates the conservatives. While that remains the case there is no hope of meaningful action on climate change, the Murray River, pump mills, uranium mines, oil spills or anything else. And coming, like a giant wave, with the encouragement of Wayne Swan, is a doubling of the population of Australia. A continent with already too many people given the damage so far caused.
Are we downhearted? Yes we are.
“pump mills” “pulp mills”, whatever.
I don’t think it’s right or realistic to auction off carbon permits to the highest bidder, thus determining the right to pollute for the wealthy only.
Permits are in themselves a bad idea, bad for business and bad for the environment.
No pain, no gain and in this case if the target is a reduction in CO2 emissions then tax credits for measured reductions would be a more positive and assertive way to encourage non polluting energy sources to be developed, with a carbon tax for those industries that don’t comply.
That said, CO2 may indeed be a heat-trapping gas, however, the heat rays have been denied their natural path to the earth’s surface by being ‘trapped’ in the atmosphere, so theoretically keeping the earth’s surface cooler.
This trapped CO2 heat energy is constantly being dissipated back into the atmosphere, (because the CO2 is cooled by the night air), and is therefore also causing a cooling effect in the earth’s atmosphere, rather than just the heating effect it has on the atmosphere during sunlight hours.
Because by redirecting the heat rays now absorbed by CO2 from directly reaching the surface of the earth and deflecting them back into the atmosphere, CO2 (like all greenhouse gases) actually helps stop our earth from over heating from the sun.
denise - none of that is correct. Read some basic literature on the subject of greenhouse gases and how they work.
Doug Evans
Eltham has written a clear and reasonable analysis of the Greens’ clear and reasonable amendments to the climatically useless and unreasonably wasteful shambles the Rudd government has presented as the centre-piece of its ‘climate policy’, the CPRS. Poor ‘Rationalist’ with his pronouncements on grown up political parties is oh so reminiscent of the odious Bolt. However he highlights a widespread and damaging perception that the Greens are somehow hamstrung by their insistence on principle and therefore cannot be taken seriously. When he touches on the nuclear option as part of Australia’s future energy mix Rationalist displays considerable ignorance of the realities. It is a depressing truth that the Greens are indeed the only Australian political party to take climate change seriously. While the Rudd government clings grimly to the past we must simply hope that the rest of the world addresses its responsibility for our collective future quickly enough and with sufficient vigour to get us through as well. Of course we will miss the economic opportunities that an early and resolute shift to a clean green economy would bring and this will probably be the lasting legacy of both the Howard and Rudd governments. Not quite what Rudd the dud had in mind.
I find it very curious that people protest that the Greens are too principled.
Given the distrust that the public has of politicians - they’re considered untrustworthy, self-interested and self-serving - doesn’t this criticism itself reek a little of self-serving hypocrisy?
If anything it appears to be jealousy: rank-and-file members of the two major parties can’t depend on the people they helped get into power to follow what they said at the preselection panel.
The only way to increase the quality of democracy in this country is to restore the faith of the public in its representatives. That involves being rational and principled. That’s why the Greens will win eventually on mitigating climate change and won’t compromise for anything less.
Back in the mid-80s I went with some friends to a public lecture at a a NSW uni by ‘Dr’ Mark Diesendorf (one of the ‘expert’ contributors to the Green emissions policy) on the dangers and evils of uranium mining and nuclear power.
In the course of his lecture Mark showed a slide of a pile of bright yellow powder at the Ranger uranium mine and then launched into a 15 minute diatribe on the irresponsibility of ERA having a pile of ‘yellow cake’ (uranium ore concentrate) out exposed to the rain and the wind.
At the end of the lecture I identified myself as an earth scientist (completing a PhD at the same uni) and pointed out to Mark and the audience that in fact ‘yellow cake’ was a dirty dark green colour, was never stockpiled in the open (for obvious reasons) and that the pile of bright yellow powder Mark had shown was in fact simply finely ground sulfur used to feed the contact process sulfuric acid plant used to make the acid to refine the as-mined ore into ‘yellow cake’.
Well, I couldn’t work out which was going to happen to Mark first - have a heart attack or rush out the door. All I know is that in the high speed mumbled dissembling that ensued he simply didn’t have the decency to admit his mistake.
Expert contributor huh!
Back in the mid-80s I went with some friends to a public lecture at a a NSW uni by ‘Dr’ Mark Diesendorf (one of the ‘expert’ contributors to the Green emissions policy) on the dangers and evils of uranium mining and nuclear power.
In the course of his lecture Mark showed a slide of a pile of bright yellow powder at the Ranger uranium mine and then launched into a 15 minute diatribe on the irresponsibility of ERA having a pile of ‘yellow cake’ (uranium ore concentrate) out exposed to the rain and the wind.
At the end of the lecture I identified myself as an earth scientist (completing a PhD at the same uni) and pointed out to Mark and the audience that in fact ‘yellow cake’ was a dirty dark green colour, was never stockpiled in the open (for obvious reasons) and that the pile of bright yellow powder Mark had shown was in fact simply finely ground sulfur used to feed the contact process sulfuric acid plant used to make the acid to refine the as-mined ore into ‘yellow cake’.
Well, I couldn’t work out which was going to happen to Mark first - have a heart attack or rush out the door. All I know is that in the high speed mumbled dissembling that ensued he simply didn’t have the decency to admit his mistake.
Expert contributor huh!
icedvolvo said
“It’s scary to look at the graphs isn’t it because one thing is clear: there is NO correlation between CO2 and temps!”
This is statistically naive. You cannot look at two variables alone and conclude whether or not they are correlated without taking into account all other variables that have may have an influence. To do so is dishonest.
That’s right Kencooke, if anyone here was up to date with climate change, they would know that the south pole is expanding with ice & the north pole is shrinking. That seems to be inline with the science that the world spins on an access like a spinning top. It wobbles in & out of balance over millennium cycles & history has identified, through scientific research, that this is the case.
icedvolvo,
Here are soms FACTS from the US National Climatic Data Centre
State of the Climate Global Analysis July 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=7&submitted…
Global Highlights
* The global ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the WARMEST ON RECORD, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998. The July ocean surface temperature departure from the long-term average equals June 2009 value, WHICH WAS ALSO A RECORD.
* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the FIFTH WARMEST ON RECORD, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).
* July 2009 was the 33rd consecutive July with an average global land and ocean surface temperature above the 20th century average. The last July with global temperatures below the 20th century average occurred in 1976.
* The global land surface temperature for July 2009 was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average of 14.3°C (57.8°F), and tied with 2003 as the ninth-warmest July on record.
* For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.3°C (57.9°F) tied with 2004 for the sixth-warmest January-through-July period on record.
* El Niño persisted across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during July 2009. Related sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies increased for the sixth consecutive month in this ENSO domain, where July SSTs were more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) above average. If El Niño conditions continue to mature, as now projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to exceed previous record highs.
Not Cooling. Cooling No. Get It?
ON RECORD?
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/CO2DrivenGlobalWarmingCl…
1. How does the recorded linear warming in the last century of 0.44 deg C/100 years, shown in the above web reference, compare with the linear warming of two centuries ago inferred from tree ring records?
2. Is the oscillating anomaly of the last century, after widespread use of fossil fuels, to be considered unusual?
3. What is the current trend in the mean global temperature anomaly?
Global cooling by 0.71 deg C from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years = 0.022 deg C/year
Global warming by 0.53 deg C from 1911 to 1944, for 33 years = 0.016 deg C/year
Global cooling by 0.48 deg C from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years = 0.015 deg C/year
Global warming by 0.67 deg C from 1976 to 1998, for 22 years = 0.030 deg C/year
Global cooling by 0.20 deg C from 1998 to 2009, for 11 years = 0.018 deg C/year
It was unfortunate that the maximum of the oscillating anomaly occurred in 1998 near the end of the last century. This was just a coincidence.
At the end of the last century, if the oscillating anomaly had been at its minimum, as in 1911 with an oscillating anomaly of -0.33 deg C, there would not have been any significant change in mean global temperature (0.44 - 0.33 = +0.11 deg C) in the last century.
The linear global warming of the 20th century was similar to that of two centuries ago during recovery (?) from the Little Ice Age.
Therefore the actual concept of an anthropogenic-CO2 driven global warming does not appear to be supported by the data.
Recording does not confer divine authority.
Correlation does not prove causation.
ecoeng, that’s all well & good with very good stats but it still doesn’t give the data that is being currently collated in the north & south poles. It does show that there is not a great deal of difference between the areas of which those statistics were taken, where ever that may be.
Atheistno1:
“ecoeng, that’s all well & good with very good stats but it still doesn’t give the data that is being currently collated in the north & south poles. It does show that there is not a great deal of difference between the areas of which those statistics were taken, where ever that may be.”
What is that densely opaque statement meant to mean?
The data I am referencing is official HADCRUT global data. Remember that the polar areas are proportionately small it is agreed they have a lower density of data locations. But if you are somehow claiming that a greater weighting of the polar areas ‘decides’ it in favour of a better correlation then you are way out on a limb completely of your very own. Indeed the southern polar areas (Antarctica) have shown much smaller trend anomaly sets since ‘recording began in the early 1900s. The longer (in time) northern (Arctic) polar data set does show a greater trend with greater decadal anomalies. No one argues about that. But nope, no case there either for a correlation with increasing CO2 if one compares with (say) Siberian or Canadian Arctic boreal tree ring data from 200 years ago.
In all this we have to remember that the atmospheric CO2 curve only started ramping up significantly from about 1900 on.
Jeremy
Isn’t mazing how we can twist “facts” when we want to prove something. It also shows why people who do not understand maths/statistics/climate should not get involved because they only show ignorance!
Saying the oceans are the warmest on record is just rubbish because we do not have ANY data on the real heat store i.e. the deep oceans. SSTs are a better indicator than atmospheric but we still have only had good data for a few years i.e. since the 1980’s
And all the other crap about 0.5C above the average: WHAT IS IT ABOUT SIMPLE AVERAGES YOU DON’T GET: THERE WILL BE “ABOVE THE LINE” POINTS BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT AVERAGES ARE! The cool period in the 1970-1980s was in the middle of the last PDO minima and also coincided with a La Nina. Whereas the late 1990s coincided with a PDO maxima and an El Nino….gee I wonder what this will mean for the “averages” during these respective periods hmmmmm …..
Jeez and what do you know the last time July was cooler was in the middle of that very same PDO minima, the coincidence is mind boggling…..well for some it is.
What is interesting is the trends of this data and the recent TREND is down! Some interesting points about the changes in press attitude (and those scientists who are now back peddling furiously on their outlandish claims) are made in these press summaries here:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3310/Losing-Their-Religion-2009-officially…
And you never have to wait long on such threads before icedvolvo and ecoeng arrive, panting, concerned there might have been some rational discussion of the post in their absence, and start pumping in misinformation even faster than their friends in the energy companies are pumping out CO2.
David Horton,
Just think of how they help us all understand what and who is really out there in what Rationalist calls “the real world,” ie. the one that should never change because it’s ‘real’ as it is. Just stay the same. Luckily, the Neanderthals thought differently.
Thanks to Ben for a great, clear wrap on the Greens’ Amendments, which was the point of the article.
And you never have to wait long on such threads before the likes of David Horton and Dr Gideon Polya arrive, panting, concerned that they may not be able to get in a good raft of ad hominems, shonky labels, dodgy smears and general all round mud throwing. However, we should be thankful that Horton doesn’t pretend to anything logical or intelligent and just keeps it short and nasty. Polya tries to drown us in pretentious loquacity.
Ah Mr Eng, I only bother with logical and intelligent when I have worthy opponents.
In your dreams, Goldilocks.
No no Eng, Father Bear, it is only you and our friends who think the planet is not too hot, not too cold, but just right.
For any rational people still on the thread, John Cook over at Skeptical Science has just produced a very succinct account of the physical (ie not biological or changes to oceans or ice cover or weather patterns) evidence for global warming - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causi…. Very useful when faced with the blathering nonsense of the dwindling band of deniers,
Or “your” friends - my old keyboard sticks and jams like the mind of a denialist.
Hi everyone, just a reminder to play nice in the comments pages ;)
We do prefer our commenters to engage with each other respectfully. Comments which are persistently discourteous will be moderated.
Thanks everyone. Ben
For icedvolvo, ecoeng, rationalist et al., I have posted some other actual data at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/#…
The claim that there has been global cooling since 1998 is nonsense, a figment of careful data selection by some (not our local protaganists I presume) who wish to mislead.
Garnaut is right – we are dealing with ‘climate change’ badly. While I accept that there may well be some effect of anthropogenic CO2 I am not convinced that the data proves it is such an urgent and catastrophic problem in the short to medium term that we need to rush into hasty but major disruptions to our society which are likely to have numerous adverse side effects. For example, I reject the biased comment by Geoff Davies above as simply green propaganda.
We need more not less intelligent and honest debate, then legislation which is good for the environment and the country. In that order.
It would be a wonderful gesture, but stupid, to unilaterally mandate 25 per CO2 emission cent cuts. The world might admire us (or at least me of their politicians - in public that is) so but not follow us. The Emissions Trading approach is a legal, practical and political minefield. It will achieve little, create numerous perverse and adverse incentives and subsidies, and slowly drown in its own filth - just like our planning and design of our health system and our telephone and Internet system.
A carbon tax is the way to go; start low to get society and business used to the idea and then increase. China is talking about a carbon tax, but are not planning a carbon trading system. They believe a carbon trading system will be too difficult for them. It is likely to be too difficult for us too. We can’t even make renewable certificates work! We should learn from the Chinese, and adopt a policy that will work.
It is astonishing that, given proven and increasing efficiency and safety of nuclear power generation overseas, we in Australia aren’t even debating the merits of it. Even more so given that we have more than a fifth of the known supplies of uranium and some of the best geology in the world for safe nuclear waste disposal.
Most of Europe has nuclear power plants that are the only base-load power option for most of the world, apart from hydro. For example, Japan has about 65 units of total capacity approximately 50 GW, and they are constructing more. The drafters of the Australian Greens policy, and the writer of this story, are the ones with their heads in the sand.
If we are serious about a serious problem – and if the thousands of millions of dollars to be made from carbon trading and taxes is fair dinkum – then everything must be considered and that MUST include the role nuclear can contribute to a sustainable energy future. Don’t give that Helen Caldicott garbage about the uranium running out. The extent of the world’s uranium reserves are not well known - and then there is thorium.
When I hear someone espousing the problem of our emissions, as well as outright rejecting nuclear power generation almost in the same breath, I am reminded that, for many, this is mostly a political or even religious, not environmental, issue.
Similarly, there are lots of practical carbon reduction actions that would be far more productive than this deformed bastard child of an ETS. A good, practical start would have been to simply sit down and say: What ARE we going to do about our coal-fired power stations?
The current policy in Canberra effectively says: Let them wither and die, but then we’ll hand out a subsidy to lessen the pain. That’s fine, but it’s really a policy vacuum, because it’s not a long-term solution. The majority of debt-stricken power stations will fall into the banks’ hands; long term maintenance will be stopped and we will face the onset of extended brownouts and blackouts and an enormous rise in power prices around the country. These problems will last for many years and will force people to erect their own generators, while also ramping up unemployment. Can you imagine the political fallout from that?
If that’s what Canberra wants to do then why not announce it? Offering some form of ETS subsidy will not be effective. If there was sufficient talent in Canberra, the politicians would actually decide what they want to do longer term. The available solutions are varied, but here are a few alternatives (in no order and the list is not comprehensive ): Let them go on and allow the market to decide; pipe coal gas down from Queensland to drive new power stations; use in situ coal gasification; make massive investments in wind, solar and yes nuclear power.
Once you have made a long term decision you can work out how you want to get to that position. You might well compensate the existing power people on the condition that they invest in the new facilities. Or you might go some other way. But you need an well-defined interim policy to prevent chaos. The Greens have not even bothered to address this core issue.
What I find amazing is that Canberra can’t even come to grips with a simple decision like that, yet they keep saying they want to run the health and broadband systems. There is just not the talent in the national capital, Greens included, to take on more responsibility, and the key issue of base load power generation is the clearest illustration of this. By the same token there is stuff-all talent in the writers on the issues of climate change for New Matilda as well.
I get frustrated with people who are not scientists; and I mean hard scientists like maths/physics not gaia promoting “environmental” scientists, because they do not understand the maths and climate science is all about physics, chemistry and maths, have been conned by massaged presentations of “data”.
1: Which was hotter: 1930 or 1990 and does it matter?
Surface Temperatures:
The real data about which was hotter (the 1930’s were in North America) will never be known. Hadley CRU have steadfastly refused to release raw data so that it can be verified independently and when pressed they now say the data has been “lost”. So in the end we will never know which was hotter on a world scale but it is true to say that it was very close thing either way with only ~0.07C difference. Some reconstructions show the Medieval warm period was hotter than either 1930 or 1998.
So what? Did the fact that it was cold in the Little Ice Age or in the 1970’s mean were were heading for an Ice Age? The same applies to the 1990s: just because it is above the average does not mean anything; just as there were periods below the average THERE WILL BE PERIODS ABOVE THE AVERAGE.
SSTs:
Since satellite measurements of SST began in 1980 the temperature has been rising (until recently). But over this 30 year period it has only risen ~0.3C (NCDC and HADSST). Almost ALL of this rise was in the North Atlantic, the tropics and Southern oceans have stayed much the same. This is exactly as you would expect because several of the large scale oscillations in the ocean (e.g. the PDO, NAO etc) were at a MINIMUM when measurements began in 1980. So the AVERAGE will be biased towards the low end. This is verified by the RATE of CHANGE (notice NOT ABSOLUTE RATE) of sea level rises. This RATE OF CHANGE has been falling constantly in the recent decades!
Deep Oceans:
The real heat bank of the earth is the deep oceans however unfortunately we have almost zero data on either temperature or the major ocean oscillations. There are now several deep ocean probes taking temp and movement measurements but we only have ~2 years of data. And if I said that the data so far indicated a cooling Pacific it would be disingenuous because the short time scale renders it meaningless.
Therefore graphs which purport to show some heat build-up in the deep oceans are NOT taken from empirical measurements but inferred from other proxies and like their predecessor, the now infamous Hockey Stick, are extremely suspect.
Within 10-20 years we will have a much better view of the deep oceans as the probes circle the deep sending back data. This will be the real determinant as to whether the earth is warming or cooling! That is providing that the CRU’s of the IPCC do not massage the data and then “lose” it again. Sounds conspiratorial you say…..ring up CSIRO and ask them if you can have access to the raw data for their deep ocean probes and put their answer back here!
2: Cooling trend in overall temps since 1998/2000
This is unequivocal, the trend has been downwards since 2000 and even the most ardent AGW scientist stalwarts (including many of the AR4 Ch 9 lead authors) are now predicting a continuation of the trend for another decade or so. Although there is some dispute for surface temp data, the satellite data is absolutely clear: the earth’s atmosphere is in a cooling trend.
But again this is meaningless: OUR CLIMATE IS ALWAYS WARMING OR COOLING!
2: Ice and Snow cover
Southern Hemisphere: the ice data has NOT decreased since satellite measurements began, in fact overall ice cover has increased slightly.
Northern Hemisphere: the ice cover has decreased since the late 1980s esp around the 1998/2000 period. This is as expected because we know the ocean oscillations were driving a warmer Atlantic.
But also we have only had full polar satellite measurements for about 30 years however we KNOW as historical FACT that the Northern Hemisphere has melted FAR worse than currently (e.g. in the 1930’s ships were able to navigate the whole straits completely unhindered by ice: THERE WAS NO ICE AT ALL!!!).
Again SO WHAT? The north pole comes and goes as climate cycles from warm periods to Ice Age. It means nothing IF it is natural part some cycle.
Ask yourself a question: what difference would we see if this were a natural event? The answer is NOTHING AT ALL
3: Is CO2 affecting our climate?
Some say it is by causing an enhanced greenhouse effect. However the models which they use to “prove” this are also provably flawed. Just as the ozone model was flawed because of incorrect data (in case you didn’t know CFCs have been shown NOT to be the main cause of O3 depletion!!) the models of atmosphere are wrong.
If we take the most sophisticated model of the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and place it in the simplest possible situation of a clear cloudless sky we can compare the measured incident radiation versus that predicted. The difference between reality and prediction (known colloquially as the “absorption anomaly”) is abut 20-30Wm^2. To put this in perspective the contribution of ALL 380ppm CO2 is about 5Wm^2. Expressed differently: the error in the best atmospheric models is about 4-5 times the contribution of ALL the CO2!
Tell me again that computer models can be used as PROOF of AGW!
4: Does this mean we have to do nothing?
NO! But what we have to do should be done carefully and based in logic, hard evidence and science rather than on some pseudo religious left wing utopian vision based on a mythical Gaia.
icedvolvo say…
“To put this in perspective the contribution of ALL 380ppm CO2 is about 5Wm^2.”
So you admit that CO2 has a greenhouse effect.
Icedvolvo lives his life attacking people that do not agree with his point of view. Jumping to assumptions that people, or persons are somehow dumb or ignorant because they don’t have a degree in science or maths, even though there are people in this world that have an intelligence that would exceed that of a mathematician & have a logical train of thought that allows them to understand equations to which you might only think you know all about.
So ecoeng & iced volvo, when are your books coming out? It might be easier than pasting the same outraged science at the end of every article on climate change.
Please be sure to include a list of the scientists we can trust and the ones we can’t, and why. And don’t skimp. I want names - thousands of them. What hope do the great unwashed like myself have otherwise?
Thanks on behalf of voters everywhere.
Mmmmmm, oh yes indeedy Pyh………
Oink, oink.
I thoroughly endorse the sensible comments of Pulpyahammer above.
Readers of this thread have a simple choice between the ignorant, unsubstantiated, irresponsible climate change denialism of uncredentialled, anonymous bloggers VERSUS the expert, authoritative opinions of a large collection of top climate scientists published recently in the top scientific journal Nature and the eminent Working Party on Coral of the prestigious UK Royal Society who both recently stated that the atmospheric CO2 cocnentration must be REDUCED from the current 390 ppm to about 300 ppm ASAP for a safe planet for all peoples and all species. [1, 2].
References:
[1]. Johan Rockström, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, III, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber *, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K. Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen ** , Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen*** & Jonathan A. Foley, “A safe operating space for humanity”, Nature, 461, 472-475, 2009: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html . (* Head, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany; **, Head, NASA’s Goddard Insitute for Space Studies; *** 1995 Chemistry Nobel Prize Laureate for work on the ozone hole).
[2]. Output of the technical working group meeting, The Royal Society, London, 6th July, 2009, “The Coral Reef Crisis: scientific justification for critical CO2 threshold levels of less than 350ppm” [Working group signatories Professor John Veron (Coral Reef Research), Dr Mary Stafford-Smith (Coral Reef Research), Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (University of Queensland) and 20 other eminent scientists including Sir David Attenborough FRS (working group co-chair)]: http://www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/The-Coral-Reef-Crisis.pdf .
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
ecoeng: My comment simply reflects what the observations show. So you “reject” the observations as “biased” and “green propaganda”.
icedvolvo: I use my real name. You can google and find me at ANU. Internationally awarded Earth scientist of 40 years’ standing. Geophysics of the Earth’s interior. Hard science, by your criterion, not climate science, though the climate scientists I know (and most, worldwide) do physics, chemistry and maths. I’m well placed and well-experienced to evaluate my colleagues’ science.
Both: yes, write something constructive for once, use your real names, see if you can get it published in a scientific journal. And don’t whinge to me about conspiracies against your views, that’s just a bullshit copout. I’ve spent my career pushing minority views - if you’ve got something worthwhile to say you do the hard slog until people get what you are saying. Or write a constructive article (even for New Matilda), see if it can withstand critical analysis (as Plimer’s does not). Stop clogging these discussions with your verbose, negative, unconstructive ramblings.
Geoff
I do not hide behind a veil of anonymity, am the owner of the domain www.ecoengineers.com and happy to identify myself.
My name is Dr. Steve Short. I have a BSc in Math and Chem., an MSc in Physical Chem, a PhD in Geochem and was a post-doctoral fellow at one of Europe’s most prestigious institutes for geochemical research. For 11 years I was an ANSTO SRS followed by 3 years with the Swiss Federal Govt (Paul Scherrer Inst.). I have a total of 37 years experience in my field (essentially chemothermodynamics and geochemistry), in heavy industry, in govt. pure research and more recently in consulting to the mining industry with a company of middle aged experts in fields ranging from chemical engineering to high temperature metallurgy (slags and coke) and in my case geochemistry and hydrometallurgy. I am the inventor of two isotope chronology techniques used widely (U-Th dating of ferricretes and Pb-Ra ageing of fish otoliths) and have published about 150 peer reviewed papers and book chapters over my career.
There are very many reputable climate scientists (which neither you nor I are) e.g. Dr. Garth Paltridge (formerly CSIRO) and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) who hold radically differing views to yourself and with whom I happen to agree (on the basis of my own reading and personal judgement). As I have stated before in NM I believe in some degree of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and heat emission and presently hold the view that the sensitivity to CO2 is likely to only be in the range 0.5 - 1.5 C - based on a whole range of considerations, including much paleothermometric (isotopic) evidence. I believe that modern climate models overestimate the CO2 sensitivity and are thermodynamically naive in several key areas.
I do not believe the records, especially the satellite records, show anything other than a weak cooling of the Earths surface since 1998 - of the order of 0.20 deg. C . and am more than happy to debate that specific issue with you.
“I get frustrated with people who are not scientists; and I mean hard scientists like maths/physics not gaia promoting “environmental” scientists, because they do not understand the maths and climate science is all about physics, chemistry and maths”. I’m guessing this is directed at me. So cards on the table for those who don’t know me, my main research career was in palaeoecology, and I have published in particular relation to major interests in extinction of the Australian megafauna and fire in the Australian environment. I have, I guess, contributed significantly to ideas about past climates and their implication for the future as our continent warms and dries as a result of greenhouse gas concentrations. Steve Short, your resume sounds impressive in relation to the mining industry as I suppose does Ian Plimer’s. In both cases your backgrounds seem to have predisposed you to be anti-conservationist and to believe that mining can’t possibly be affecting the climate of the planet. Cherry picking Lindzen out of the many thousands of scientists who have worked on climate change isn’t a good claim to credibility on this issue. Try stepping back and working from scratch. John Cook, at Skeptical Science, referred to above, has produced an excellent series of recent referenced articles summing up the evidence as it stands, and he has a set of other articles responding to the kind of denialist talking points both you and Volvo endlessly repeat on these threads. Try being skeptical about your own skepticism Steve, you might be surprised at what you find. Mr Volvo I’m afraid is a lost cause.
“your resume sounds impressive in relation to the mining industry as I suppose does Ian Plimer’s. ”
In a 37 year career I have consulted to the mining industry for only 14 years or 38% of the time. I was in government employ for 14 years also 39% and in heavy industry (pulp and paper and power generation) 9 years or 24%. I regard that as fairly balanced.
“In both cases your backgrounds seem to have predisposed you to be anti-conservationist and to believe that mining can’t possibly be affecting the climate of the planet.”
A simplistic and childish ad hominem smear.
“Cherry picking Lindzen out of the many thousands of scientists who have worked on climate change isn’t a good claim to credibility on this issue.”
I gave Garth Paltridge and Richard Lindzen as 2 reputable examples. I did not cherry pick anyone. I note that Garth had a very distinguished career in CSIRO right up to Head of Division, and now heads Australia’s Antarctic Institute i.e. a much more distinguished career in science that yours (or indeed mine). One wonders how rude you will be to him if your paths ever cross? I better warn him.
“Try stepping back and working from scratch. ”
Patronising.
“Try being skeptical about your own skepticism Steve, you might be surprised at what you find. ”
Ditto.
Quite frankly, David, yet again I find your language to be endlessly snide and offensively chock full of immature cheap innuendos and smears - that is when its not just patronising. Strip that heavy paint off and there is left very little of real substance and interesting, coherent, detailed argument in what you write. In my experience, your writings are so boringly shallow that they are simply irrelevant. Give me a competent alarmist any day.
Seems I was wrong about you being a step above Volvo ecoeng. Happy in your ignorance I see. Good luck with that as a long term strategy for life.
Climate change is about the change to the climate, but that simple fact seems to have avoided the politicians. They believe that it is all about money and that the atmosphere is just a coincidental in this sorry affair. There is lots of spin and wonder schemes to save industry and financial institutes, such as ETS and Cap-and-Trade, the operative word in both being ‘Trade’.
The stock exchange players are advertising for investors to get in early in this bountiful ‘futures market that could be worth a trillion dollars’, ignoring that a trillion dollars worth of profits is a trillion dollars worth of extra pollution as well.
They also forget that the shonky deals being offered to trade in shonky assets with shonky African and other third world leaders will do nothing for the world even if they do manage to save a few forests and direct their carbon sequestration towards a few of the richest and largest polluters. In this they forget that the forests they are selling are already sequestering the current load of carbon dioxide we are producing — and failing to meet the current load, hence the rise of this gas in our atmosphere. They will not be influenced by the amount of money being poured into private leader’s coffers to increase their sequestration abilities and grow at a greater rate, especially where the lack of water also comes into the equation.
However, there is a solution, and it is so basic that it will probably never be considered. It is simply this. If you want to decrease your pollution by 20%, mine 20% less coal! At the same time, tell all the consumers ‘your power allowance will be cut by 20% and if you want to stay in business and retain your profits, you had better find ways of becoming 20% more efficient.
Set your desired targets now and phase this reduction in over that period. And that includes exports as well!
This is the antithesis of the government’s current approach, which is simply to issue a bigger national credit card and charge the consumer higher fees, and at the same time shifting our domestic production shortfalls overseas to less conscientious contries and continue to have our economy dominated by the ever increasing export of basic resources.
One day the atmosphere itself might demand a payback and punish us very severely for not taking the necessary action when we could.
Dr. Gideon Polya
Just because someone has paperwork hanging from a wall does not necessarily make them always right
Further to flaunt that paperwork is a form of “egotism” and ego gives rise to some of the worst psychosis that man can walk down(ie Serial Killers for one)
Further just because the majority says something, does not necessarily make the minority wrong as the majority can be wrong
A good example of this is when the Diamond “Star of David” was cut with your knowledge you would be aware of one cutter went against the majority and cut it his way if they had of gone with the majority they all could have been beheaded
Thanks have a good life
from Dave
David & other readers of this thread - when faced with medical diagnosis of life-threatening disease one sensibly consults with the top medical specialists at the cutting edge of their relevant medical discipline.
Uncredentialled people who go out of their way to counsel otherwise are extremely unwise and irresponsible - and for reasonable, decent people it is almost inconceivable that this could be done connected with personal or corporate financial interests.
Ditto with man-made climate change.
Top climate scientists have been warning of the danger from man-made greenhouse gas pollution for about 2 decades both as individuals and collectively (e.g. via the US National Academy of Science, the UK Royal Society, like scientific organizations around the World , the IPCC and most recently via the Synthesis Report of the 2,500-delegate. March 2009 Copenhagen Scientific Conference on Climate Change at the University of Copenhagen; see “SUMMARY of Synthesis Report of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference “: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/synthesis-rep… ).
That expert Synthesis Report was prepared by top climate scientists from around the world and concluded: ” Inaction is inexcusable – “Society already has many tools and approaches – economic, technological, behavioural, and managerial – to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. If these tools are not widely and vigorously implemented, adaptation to the unavoidable climate change and the social transformation required to decarbonise economies will not be achieved. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to achieve effective and rapid adaptation and mitigation. These include job growth in the sustainable sector; reductions in the health, social, economic and environmental costs of climate change; and the repair of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services”.
For a clear statement about climate emergency facts and required actions see the summary provided by the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg….
Top climate scientists and the UK Royal Society say we must DECREASE atmospheric CO2 concentration from the present 390 ppm to 300-350 ppm ASAP for a safe planet for all peoples and all species.
Unfortunately, world governments and the pro-coal Australian Liberal-National Party Opposition and Labor Government (the Lib-Labs) are ignoring top scientific advice about the acute danger of the climate emergency and want to INCREASE CO2 & other greenhouse gas pollution.
Man-made global warming already significantly contributes to the demise of the 16 million people who die avoidably from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease each year on Spaceship Earth - dire estimates from Dr James Lovelock FRS suggest that the worsening climate genocide will kill 10 billion people this century (100 million avoidable deaths per year) due to unaddressed climate change (see “G8 Failure Means Climate Genocide
For Developing World “: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110709.htm ).
Ignoring of top scientific advice by the Lib-Labs in the interests of short-term political gain and in the interests of greedy and irresponsible corporations is an unforgivable betrayal of our children, grandchildren, Australia, Humanity, the Barrier Reef and the Biosphere.
Were parents to ignore medical advice about a sick child they would be held legally accountable (as indeed happened in recent tragic cases in Australia).
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Way to go Mr Grayson - scientists as serial killers. Take that ecoeng “boringly shallow”, rationalist “Greens think poor people economic rape is good” and icedvolvo “the scam is coming to an end”, you three will have to lift your game when expressing hatred of scientists and conservationists, Mr Grayson is showing you how it is done.
Incidentally I love the way that denilaits demand to know the qualifications of scientists and then, when they are provided, say things like “to flaunt that paperwork is a form of egotism”.
“denilaits” is of course a new term for “denialists”, the ones who keep expressing hatred of environmentalists.
Or a typo of course.
It’s nice to see that everyone agrees that the world needs to be cleaned up of all the pollution & regardless of all the big noting by educated dickheads with credentials for mining engineering & the rest, it would be nice to see all the cars on the road, made to run on hydrogen for starters. The more steps that are taken to address the problem of climate change within our own countries domain, the sooner all things will start to fall into place.
Gerry Mander, I agree with your statement about the “spin & the stock exchange”(16/10 11:56pm). Lennon-ism (after John Lennon) says that politicians don’t fix the world, they screw it up.
Dr Gideon Poyla
The indigenous of Australia didn’t need paperwork hanging in thier bark lean to’s to be able to tell people that it is wrong with all this pollution
The way in which we burnt the land was in itself minimumlisation of pollution and gave rise to the best chance of fresh regrowth
Who invented all this modern technology that gave rise to the pollution
Further it is not only carbon pollution from power stations cars etc a major contributing factor to the atmospheric pollution is the livestock industry
As stated by Gerry Mander easy way to get a 20% reduction is cut the supply by 20% cut the use of exports etc
Build better and more efficient public transport
There is many ways to reduce the pollution
Thanks for your time have a Good life
From Dave
Here is a vital and direct way of “tackling climate change” in Australia.
The following key pre-350 Day message is being distributed to as many households as possible in the City of Banyule, Melbourne, as a 9.5 x 21 cm flyer ($200 per 12,000 copies) by 300.org.
The fundamental position of 300.org is that “There must be a safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet and this requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to about 300 parts per million”.
300.org is urging every climate action group in Australia to copy this message (including the Electoral Act authorization statement) and to distribute it likewise with the intention of reaching every household in Australia (see: 300.org : http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org ).
FLYER MESSAGE.
300 ppm CO2
Top climate scientists & UK Royal Society say we must DECREASE atmospheric CO2 concentration from the present 390 ppm to 300-350 ppm ASAP for a safe planet for all peoples & all species.
Unfortunately, world governments and the pro-coal Australian Liberal-National Party Opposition & Labor Government (the Lib-Labs) want to INCREASE CO2 & other greenhouse gas pollution.
Australia is a world leader in per capita GHG pollution (0.3% of world population, its domestic and exported GHG pollution is 3% of world total). The Lib-Labs are betraying our Children & Planet.
300.org for 24 October 350 Day.
Authorized & printed by G.M. Polya, 29 Dwyer Street, Macleod, Victoria 3085.
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Oh Dear…do we get involved in the diversionary crap or stick to the core issues ….hmmm…surf’s crap….. nothing else to do……..
Atheistno1:
I have never “attacked” anyone. What I said I was get frustrated when people talk about things they obviously do not understand. This is rife within the environmental movement because it is so tied up with emotion and quasi religious beliefs. Combined with this the extreme left of politics have usurped the green movement because they see it as a way to gain political power and use climate change to impose socialist doctrine.
Yes there are smart people who do not have letters after their name, I know many of them. I particualrly remember a South American mathematician when I worked at CMU who although had no degree was without doubt a truly gifted genius and although self taught outshone any of the maths faculty including all the Profs! In fact he was one of the first mathematicians to prove some of the transform theories and founded many of the transforms used in modern technology including climate modelling! However the simple undeniable fact is that AGW is intrinsically tied to the computer models and in order to understand the computer models you need at least postgrad qualifications in physical chemistry/atomic physics/maths (OR some equivalent) and it shows pretty quick if you don’t understand maths. The comments in this thread about “above average” demonstrate this perfectly.
DrGideonPolya:
Wow how do I answer that diatribe, it had nothing to do with the issue and everything to do with personal vitriol. I have never asked anyone on this forum to show credentials rather I rate them on the value of their argument.
There are eminent scientists on both sides of the climate issue and your assertion otherwise is simply wrong. Members of organisations like the IPCC are chosen by POLITICIANS and POLITICIANS choose those people who reflect their views.
As a perfect example of the failure of the IPCC process the Full AR4 Report was released to the political representatives who then wrote the Summary AR4 Report. The Scientists were then forced to rewrite the Full AR4 Report to coincide with the politically charged Summary AR4 Report. Many of the scientists who opposed this view were ignored and have subsequently resigned from the IPCC expert panels. Consequently the IPCC has progressively become a closed and secretive junket for the “AGW like minded”.
Your comparison to a medical condition is obtuse but quite valid: it’s not unlike visiting one or more medical specialists for a second opinion. For starters many of the IPCC scientists refuse to debate climate change i.e. they are like the specialist who refuses to actually see the patient or talk to his other doctors! Other climate “specialists” make their diagnosis in secret with secret data and computer models they refuse to disclose. Yet another “specialist” makes their diagnosis but after initially refusing to provide supporting pathology results now tells us that the hospital has lost the originals and cannot provide any corroboration for the diagnosis. It is was me I would prefer to be diagnosed by those who are prepared to diagnose the condition openly and are not adverse discussing and if necessary even defending their conclusions before they decide to amputate a hypothetical carbon cancer.
GeoffDavies:
Yes you are fortunate that you can be open but the fact that you can and I cannot demonstrates a very real fact. Look at the new solar thermal installation just down the road and then take a look at the new supercomputer across the road. How much do you think they cost? The computer cooling tower alone cost $5m!!!! The super computer was chosen NOT because it was the best for ALL the groups but because the climate modelling group WANTED that particular computer (it’s the same as Hadley’s!). As you are well aware ANU and CSIRO are very politically savvy and the spin doctors rule: all academics in this area are well and truly legally gagged! While you can identify yourself because your views are consistent with the current funding paradigm I would be dragged before the VC/senate to explain why I was potentially damaging billions of dollars in funding. Enjoy the luxury!
As to you other comments there are extraordinary intellects and great minds on both sides of the climate debate. There are also evil and deviants on both sides, I try to ignore the latter regardless of which side.
Horton:
What’s the point, you are only interested in the politics.
Grayson:
Whilst I agree with you on some things re “paper work on a wall” you show an incredibly naive attitude to modern society and technology: you must live in a city! For example comments about livestock neglect the simple comparison that most ruminant animals from millions of Oz kangaroos to billions of African animals to American Buffalo are also “livestock”; want to kill them all off too? Who do you think grows all the food, milk, eggs etc? what happens when you cut 20% of the farmers energy budget? And as for public transport that’s only useful if you have public transport!
As a closing and final comment I had no problems with Ben’s treatment of the Greens proposals until the comment:
“All in all, the Greens’ amendments are sensible, rational and constructive contributions to the national public policy process …..”
Which they are obviously not and, as rationalist put it first, this article:
“…..sounds like a fantastic Greens press release!”
Icedvolvo
The livestock industry is a major player in the greenhouse effect
Cattle,sheep and pigs domesticated animals
You mention the kangaroos buffalo camels all are wild animals why not utilise the meat from these as well and cut down on a lot of the cattle sheep and pigs
Kangaroo and crocodile meat is far more healthier than the domestic meats as in leaner with a lot less fat
As I said a more efficient public transport system at the moment we have next to none that is efficient
Put more frieght on trains that will take a lot of the trucks from the road
That is one reason we can’t compete with the Asian markets Darwin and Perth are closer to Singapore than Sydney And Brisbane
Asia sends a 100,000 ton in a ship to those to cities we send about 150 ton by road
Thanks anyway have a good life
from Dave
PS never liked volvo trucks more into Macks and Kenworth(Smile only having a dig)