Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

climate change

Apr 28, 2011

Share

Nicholas Aberle writes: The way in which climate change is communicated has been a constant theme in the public debate about pricing carbon emissions, but this distracts from the two key topics: the urgency of our situation, and the importance of leadership in taking comprehensive action now.

The science is clear. The next 5-10 years have been identified as a critical period for action and, without significant reductions in global emissions in the very near future, we will be facing a world that it is (on average) four degrees warmer. Droughts, heatwaves, bushfires and floods will become much worse, and our ability to live well in such a world is highly uncertain. Ideally, this would not be the case, but it seems that everyone who studies this material says it is.

That we still see such outrage at something like a carbon price suggests we, as Australians, are nowhere near making the necessary changes commensurate with our per capita contribution (not to mention our imported emissions), especially within the timeframes required by the science. We have the great fortune of living in a stable democracy blessed with both strong institutions and plentiful natural wealth. The nature of a two-party democracy, however, is that if one side proposes unpopular (though valuable) measures, it is there for their opponents to take a more populist and easy route. Overwhelming public support for real action on climate change would largely remove the political slanging match from centre stage, and the bipartisan focus could shift to genuine efforts to address emission levels.

How does one gain public support for such measures, so that those who introduce them are not deposed at the next electoral opportunity? The difficulty of this is demonstrated by polls from the ANU and the CSIRO showing that public opinion on climate change is essentially going backwards.

Public debate is governed, according to cognitive scientist George Lakoff, not by the evidence but rather by how both politicians and the media present the issues, which is understandable but clearly sometimes unfortunate. Further, psychological studies suggest that no amount of evidence will change the minds of many people. Experiments reported by Feinberg & Willer in the journal Psychological Science in February support the view that “fear won’t do it”, and the authors observe a correlation between climate change denialism and the strength of one’s adherence to the “just world theory”. This refers to a belief that the world is just, orderly and stable, and anything that threatens this view (eg. climate change) is instinctively rejected in a form of emotional self-preservation, albeit at the cost of intellectual and moral integrity.

In an essay in which he draws disturbing parallels between climate denialism and both the rejection of Einstein’s theory of relativity in Weimar Germany and the ignoring of Churchill’s warnings about Hitler in the lead up to World War Two, Clive Hamilton discusses how those who reject climate change tend to be those whose cultural identity is most threatened by it. And if this weren’t enough, a major thesis of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s best-seller The Black Swan is that, for the most part, humans simply cannot conceive of the risk of catastrophic events.

Based on their studies, Feinberg & Willer conclude that less dire messaging could be more effective in helping people accept climate change, but can “less dire messaging” really achieve the urgency of action that is required? And if it can’t, what are we left with? Julia Gillard has spoken of the need for “a deep and lasting consensus” across the country. Given the apparent downward trend of community support, and psychological research suggesting we will never achieve it, we cannot afford to wait for this consensus.

The alternative path is brave leadership, with associated courage from an opposition party not to play political games with our future. In a film called Climate Refugees, which we screened at the 2010 Environmental Film Festival Melbourne, Lester Brown, author of “Plan B”, tells a story about US President Roosevelt one month after Pearl Harbour. After announcing that 45,000 tanks, 60,000 planes and 20,000 artillery guns would be needed for the war effort, Roosevelt called the captains of the car industry (who represented a large portion of the US industrial capacity at the time) to discuss how this would be achieved. The manufacturers said it would be difficult to achieve those numbers while still making their 2 or so million cars a year. Roosevelt explained: “You don’t understand. We’re going to ban the sale of private automobiles in the United States.” And so he did, and the arms goals were achieved. Speculate as you wish about the course of history had Roosevelt taken the path of least immediate resistance. While this demonstrates the power of leadership, one wonders what kind of media campaign would be brought out today by those industrialists, and how a political opponent would respond.

In the panel discussion that followed the film, it was said that the war-like mentality serves only to create an “Us-versus-Them” situation, but I submit now that what we need is not war-like in the sense of confrontation or opposition, but rather war-like in the sense of unity in a time of crisis and rallying together around a common problem.

What we urgently need is leaders who make tough choices and people who support those decisions, not because they like it but because it is in their best long-term interests. A price on carbon emissions is a critical starting point for action on climate change, but it does not end there. For example, we have the capacity now to radically change our energy sources for the better (consider the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan from the Melbourne Energy Institute), but what are we doing with it? What if every car manufacturing plant was asked to spend a year making wind turbines instead, and every television manufacturer to make photo-voltaics?

While I suspect not intended to be read specifically in this context, Waleed Aly’s dedication of his book People Like Us to his two children beautifully sums up what we face: “May your world fulfil its potential, not complete its trajectory”. In the conclusion to his Requiem for a Species, Clive Hamilton observes that “clinging to hopefulness becomes a means of forestalling the truth”, and that we will need to embrace a new vision of how we conceive of ourselves in a changed climate. The reality is that we no longer have a choice about whether our lives are transformed or not. We do, however, have a choice of futures, but only if our leaders have the courage to lead us there, and only if people have the courage to follow.

Nicholas Aberle is the Director of the Environmental Film Festival Melbourne.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from this-was-my-first-visit-and-on-account-of-this-i-wont-be-returning fuck-off-popup

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

296 comments

Leave a comment

296 thoughts on “Enough faffing about, the climate isn’t getting any cooler

  1. Flower

    Wayne – I’m waiting on delivery of Ehrman’s book. I was naïve in thinking that the bookshops in Perth’s CBD would have it on the shelves, but alas, no such luck.

    And it’s not entirely Pete50’s confirmation bias to which I’ve referred but his tricky side-step shuffling when cornered and his outrageous propaganda. This type is well known to criminal barristers who have a hell of a job proving their client’s innocence after their client’s gaseous emissions are spilled forth in the witness box. Bobbing and weaving, they’re sufficiently deluded in believing they can dodge the pertinent questions of the prosecutor or answer with evasive mumbling. These are the persons of interest who lock themselves in the lavatory when their mom asks who put the dent in the family car.

    Of course you are a patient man but you know that Pete50 cannot provide a link to the IPCC’s “fifty odd authors, editors and peers…..” by excluding all the others. Nevertheless, which “50” would be in Pete50’s selective thinking and self deception? The names are included in public documents so names please? Not bleedin’ likely.

    And who are the “quickly growing number of proper scientists, worldwide” who state that the IPCC are of little worth? “Proper scientists?” Names please, how many and in which disciplines? Not bleedin’ likely.

    All names of authors and review editors are published by the IPCC. The current total number of IPCC AR5 Authors and Review Editors (as of April 11, 2011) is 836 (plus 3 unfilled positions)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

    Pete50 (Danr?) has had ample time in which to provide reputable links to substantiate the swill he perpetuates and/or answer pertinent questions raised by others. Pete50’s information is as murky as the brown stews dumped in our oceans by the fossil fuel industry. His murk renders him guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation. That’s the reason why he’s locked himself in the lavatory and rest assured, it would take several tonnes of gelignite to get him to come out. Let’s not feed the troll.

  2. wayne robinson

    Flower,

    This week’s Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe had a great section on confirmation bias, and I try very hard to avoid making this mistake. It’s easy to look at the comments that Pete50 makes and to only see the ones that confirm that he’s a denialist, and to ignore the ones that might indicate that he isn’t.

    Admittedly, I can’t find much to confound my belief, and I think he is a denialist. Denialists probably have their own confirmation biases, although I suspect that they apply their own motives to anyone who thinks that AGW is true and serious.

    I’d be happy if Pete would list some of his “a quickly growing number of proper scientists, worldwide, are realising what the IPCC and their fifty odd authors, editors and peers are really worth. And as a bunch that’s very little” are.

    Have you read ‘Forged. Writing in the Name of God’? I thought it was great, like all of Bart Ehrman’s books (although I haven’t read his one doing in Dan Brown’s ‘the da Vinci Code’). The SGU had an interview with the author of the recently published ‘the Psychopath Test’ which sounds fascinating, dealing with confirmation bias, which I plan to start reading today.

  3. Flower

    Ullo ullo – wotsuphere? Resident troll, Pete50 and his alter egos still braying away? Still trying to putty up the ever-increasing cracks in the spin peddled by the fossil fuel cult? And deliberately avoiding the too hard questions and persisting with the rubbish that climate scientists are in it for the moolah?

    “Lord” Monckton’s fly in fly out climate change lecture cost Australian sceptics $100,000 plus a $2k per day stipend, despite all the help from “volunteers” but Monckton is now the laughing stock of Britain’s prominent sceptics and has been left fighting a rearguard action against fellow deniers. And $120 grand over 10 days is more than the salaries of senior climate scientists in a whole year.

    Now, Monckton’s being attacked by prominent sceptic Richard North on his EU Referendum blog for being too over-the-top in his claims. Dear me, his “Lordship” let slip on the BBC programme that CO2 contributes to global warming. Cringe!

    “The BBC has an unerring ability to spot the ‘swivel-eyed loon’ and build them up. The ‘mark’, usually with an over-inflated ego, is invariably flattered and falls for it every time. Monckton fitted the bill admirably, and the hatchet job proceeded apace,” said North. Goodness – them’s strong words for a comrade.

    In leaked emails circulated among climate sceptics including Lord Lawson, Christopher Booker (who verballed eminent astrophysicist, Nigel Weiss) and Andrew Montford of the Bishop Hill blog, Monckton is roundly attacked for conceding that carbon dioxide emissions cause some global warming. Oops.

    Hans Schreuder, of ‘I Love My Carbon Dioxide’, claims carbon dioxide will cause climate cooling so he laid into Monckton, saying: “Even more luke-warmers will be borne from this man’s incorrect views of reality.

    “Has he (Monckton) read the latest papers on the extra cooling that is the only logical effect that can be ascribed to atmospheric carbon dioxide?” asks Schreuder.

    Err……Mr Schreuder have you read ‘the latest papers’ on the Global surface temperatures in 2010 which tied with 2005 as the warmest on record or that the most current analysis reveals the next warmest years on record are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009? Tut tut.

    Schreuder then apparently argues that it’s Monckton’s acceptance of the basic link between CO2 and warming which makes him easy to debunk. Aw… Mr Schreuder is such a meanie to Herr Monckton.

    “Little wonder than that this man is heralded by the BBC as the ‘voice of climate scepticism’ – it suits them well as his arguments are easy pickings.” Told ya Mr Schreuder!

    Only last year, “Lord” Monckton told an adoring Australian audience, that the earth is not warming and that the activity of humans is not to blame and everyone should categorically oppose any plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Huh? Will this audience, bewitched by his “Lordship’s hubris,” demand a refund?

    Tracey Bowden of the ABC asks Mr Monckton: “What motivates you?”

    “Well, I could give you the answer that our blessed Lord gave to Pontius Pilate. He said this, (Speaks Latin), then: ”Unto this was I born, for this came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth.”

    Hmm….a creationist? “Lord” Monckton lies for Jesus too?:

    “Forged” Author: Professor Bart D. Ehrman Ph.D:

    pacificfreepress.com/news/1/8722-lying-in-the-name-of-christianity-a-review-of-forged.html

  4. PeeBee

    Well lads, the world of real science is still there

    Where exactly?

    I have not come across one peer reviewed paper that castes any doubt on AGW being a reality.

    Please provide some real science Pete – peer reviewed real science. I think you are right about voodoo science – it appears to be the science you and the rest of the crack pots follow.

    Put up or shut up.

    BTW Pete, what role would you have played on the Titanic?

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2011/3191637.htm

    My guess is that you would be the one telling the passengers that despite the overwhelming knowledge that icebergs are ahead, you would be saying they aren’t there. I’m modeler and models they are using are wrong I tell you. They are wrong, because I am right (and they are frauds and only do it for the money).

    Keep going full steam ahead there is nothing to fear.

  5. wayne robinson

    I was hoping not to have to comment again, so that this thread could eventually die … but Pete’s non-answers force me to.

    To summarize Pete’s position, he doesn’t think that AGW is true because he thinks that:

    1. Climate scientists are corrupt.

    2. Climate scientists think that CO2 is the only influence affecting climate.

    Neither are true.

    Pete thinks that climate scientists are lying about AGW to keep the funding coming for research.

    There’s a number of facts that disprove that. Climate research would be funded without the threat of AGW. A lot of science gets funded even without it producing practical results, such as the Hubble telescope and the large hadron collider. Knowing what drives climate would be of considerable value anyway. All the national science academies, which represent all scientists, not just climate scientists, agree that with the present state of knowledge, AGW is probably happening. Science research funds are limited, and if AGW wasn’t generally accepted non-climate scientists would be protesting. After all, when Obama relaxed the rules on funding of embryonic stem cell research, the first people who took his government to court were two scientists working with adult stem cells who protested that the change would make it more difficult for them to get funding. The money from research grants doesn’t go into the scientists’ pockets. People don’t go into science to become rich; they do so to achieve some sort of fame by being right, and being recognized as being right. Heroic failure isn’t something they want. If scientists were after the money, then the Templeton Prize would be much sought after, instead of being generally being looked down upon, despite the one million pound prize.

    And no, climate scientists know that CO2 isn’t the only driver of climate. That’s a straw man argument set up by denialists. Jim Hensen, for example, in ‘Storms of Our Grandchildren’ discusses why in previous periods of abrupt global warming, CO2 follows rather than precedes warming. It’s because CO2 ‘fizzes’ out of a warming ocean. Thinking that all episodes of warming have to have the same cause is just silly.

    What is currently unprecedented is the rate at which CO2 levels are increasing. If you think that AGW isn’t true, then you have to explain why increasing CO2 levels won’t cause more warming.

    I don’t have any problems with the medieval warm period. If Bill Ruddiman’s theory discussed in ‘Plows, Plagues and Petroleum’ is correct, and I think it is, then the medieval warm period (which was 1-2C lower than today) was warmer because it followed the decline in agriculture in Europe following the plague of Julian and preceded the one induced by the Black Death. Reforestation due to reduced agriculture allowed a decline in CO2 levels causing cooling. The Maunder minimum would also have played a role.

    You still haven’t explained why you think increased sunspots will cause cooling.

  6. pete50

    Ah, the Captain has put his finger on it. “. . . the time we have been spending on you.” It’s quite like the modern day missionaries at the front door. What miracle would cause you to change your mind and believe in the deity we worship? Here we are, three of us, like-minded young warmists acolytes offering you a place in the chorus of voodoo warriors who will go forth to save the poor wayward souls of the whole world from their ignorance and wickedness.

    Well lads, the world of real science is still there, and its not going away – which I suspect is why its opponents are so given to intemperate language in defense of their voodoo science and all it’s hiding, twisting and massaging the data.

    A quickly growing number of proper scientists, worldwide, are realising what the IPCC and their fifty odd authors, editors and peers are really worth. And as a bunch that’s very little.

    Just remember lads, the penicillin in the pharmacy, the radar at the airport and the mobile phone in your pocket were provided for you by real world science, not voodoo rubbish.

  7. Captain Planet

    PeeBee has a point, Pete50. If you expect to be taken seriously, you need to engage on these issues… So, what would make you change your mind?

    If you can’t provide a serious answer in good faith (no crapping repeating your discredited talking points thus far) you don’t deserve the time we have been spending on you.

  8. kd

    pete50 #287

    And to further dig your hole you furnish me with yet another pile of incoherent crap.

    4. demonstrates that your understanding of modeling is woeful.
    3. is frankly a bizarre argument that relies on mischaracterising the science, and the scientific process.
    2 is so pathetic it’s best ignored.
    1. Is false or a mischaracterisation depending on how deeply you want to take it. Seeing as your arguments are shallow to the point of Lake Eyrie in drought, I guess that’s not very deep at all.

    Pathetic really. and PeeBee’s right, you’re avoiding his/her question. Extra pathetic.

  9. PeeBee

    Pete50, you didn’t answer my question. As you say, you are open to new evidence, so what would make you change your mind again?

    This is a serious question, I mean I would change my mind that AGW wasn’t a problem if…

    1. Someone could show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
    2. If the arctic icecap size and extent started trending up
    3. The earth cooled while sunspot activity increased
    4. Extreme weather events become less frequent
    5. The Thames freezes over in winter

  10. pete50

    No kd . . .
    1) is absolutely true – the raw data is secret because Phil Jones says there are secret agreements with national governments, that he cannot brake.

    2) Lots of things don’t make sense to you and the rest of the novices of Warmistan

    3) Not incorrect – not bizzare. Its not self evident to you that fluctuations in climate parameters are not uniform across the continents. kd, the high priests might accuse you of heresy – don’t you remember that according to the warmist doctrine the Medieval warming was only a local phenomenon – you know, didn’t occur on all continents.

    4) “non sequitur” you’re right, linear models cannot ‘fit’ chaotic phenomena in anywhere near a satisfactory manner. Climate models and rising CO2 levels are like chalk and cheese – its only the warmistanis who would try to (pretend) force linear and chaotic phenomena in the same model. It;s no wonder you folk need “help (to) understand climate phenomena”

  11. kd

    [ 1) The climate people who controlled the three temperature data repositories wouldn’t allow anyone outside the team to see the data – and it’s still being kept secret. ]

    Incorrect. You’ve fallen for denialist propaganda.

    [ 2) The processed data together with the models gave linear patterns of temperature. It’s now realised that on the scale of a century, climate parameters are non-linear. ]

    Eh? This doesn’t make sense. Residual analysis certainly shows some non-linearities in the global and hemispheric climate data. However that doesn’t prevent using the general linear model to help understand climate phenomena.

    [ 3) The processed climate data, in the form of averaged world temperatures, seemingly indicated that land surface temperatures exhibited similar trends on all the continents and the polar regions, on the scale of centuries. ]

    Another bizzare statement with no self-evident conclusion. It also appears to be incorrect.

    [ 4) Weather and climate are non-linear phenomena that behave chaotically. Human produced and global atmospheric CO2 level are not chaotic. ]

    Another non sequitur. Frankly there seems to be a substantial part of your scientific education that seems deficient.

    Well with your 4 point manifesto, along with the piss poor quality of your other arguments, and uncritical acceptance of the denialist interpretation of the literature you chose to read shows that you’re just another apologist for the anti-science crowd.

    Anyway you seem to be saying that you’ve changed your mind once, and you’re implying that nothing will cause you to change your mind again.

  12. pete50

    PeeBee #279 “Can I ask you, what would it take for you to change your mind.”

    Ah, yes – changing one’s mind. I have already done that.

    I began by assuming the AGW arguments were okay. I’m not that kind of physicist and didn’t give it much thought. The points that made me sit up and think included:
    1) The climate people who controlled the three temperature data repositories wouldn’t allow anyone outside the team to see the data – and it’s still being kept secret.
    2) The processed data together with the models gave linear patterns of temperature. It’s now realised that on the scale of a century, climate parameters are non-linear.
    3) The processed climate data, in the form of averaged world temperatures, seemingly indicated that land surface temperatures exhibited similar trends on all the continents and the polar regions, on the scale of centuries.
    4) Weather and climate are non-linear phenomena that behave chaotically. Human produced and global atmospheric CO2 level are not chaotic.

    The climategate revelations, which can only be taken at face value, are consistent with the above and reinforce the conclusion that the team, their results and their urgings are not above suspicion.

  13. Flower

    I note that the floods in Namibia last month were responsible for the thousands of environmental refugees having to relocate to camps in the region. Three hundred and twenty four schools have been affected by the floods and 216 have been closed. This affects 114,075 pupils in the region. In another region of Namibia, the grazing area along the Kuiseb river has been washed away and the government is buying fodder to help livestock survive.

    Meanwhile Australia’s live export industry continues to dump animals overboard (> 2.5 million in recent decades). Terrestrial animals do not take kindly to ocean voyages to the Middle East though the meat industry boasts of only a “1%” mortality rate per ship. One percent of 100,000 critters on one journey could feed a significant number of malnourished people in poor countries.

    Slaughtering livestock in Australia and exporting chilled and frozen meats would eliminate the need to dump millions of tonnes of animal manure (including the accompanying pathogenic organisms) into fragile oceans and coastal zones which contribute to eutrophication and related problems such as algal blooms, anoxic and hypoxc events, fish kills and subsequently ocean dead zones.

    This summer saw farmers in eastern Australia take delivery of an “unprecedented” livestock buy-up from drought-ravaged Western Australia where livestock farmers trucked around one million animals east just in the final five months of 2010, due to lack of water and feed. During the same period of 2009, a modest 46,498 animals made the crossing east. You can witness the sheep cadavers in the recent crossing at the WA-South Australia border where drivers abandoned injured animals that were subsequently eaten by dogs and dingoes or hit by vehicles.

    None of this is of concern to Monsanto and its push into Australia’s agricultural lands, flogging its GM seeds to eager farmers. And recently NASAA de-certified Western Australian organic grower Steve Marsh’s accreditation after GM canola seed was discovered on his property near Kojonup. Local GM grower and Nuffield scholar Rob Warburton said the level of genetically modified canola contamination on Marsh’s organic farm is staggering. Monsanto says it will give legal support to the grower (one of 300) of Genetically Modified canola in the event of class action.

    A study published in Environmental Biosafety Research (25 March) also found GM seedlings had contaminated three traditional maize fields in Uruguay.

    Dr Preston of South Australia University said that new populations of weed resistance to the herbicide, paraquet have almost doubled WA’s documented cases which are widespread. “This discovery has major implications for farmers,” he said.

    “Paraquat is the only viable herbicide alternative to the most commonly used herbicide, glyphosate (Roundup). With more than 100 annual ryegrass populations in Australia already having developed resistance to glyphosate, the discovery of paraquat resistance means that none of the currently available knockdown herbicides can be guaranteed to control ryegrass,” Dr Preston said.

    Scientists in Caen, France evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup formulations, from 10(5) times dilutions, on three different human cell types where all Roundup formulations caused total cell death within 24 hours. This study implicates Monsanto et al in aspects of human health.

    There is a consensus among paleontologists that a sixth extinction is under way. Will the weeds inherit the Earth?

    “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” (Abba Eban – Scholar and former Israeli Statesman)

  14. kd

    wayne,

    I think it’s pre-publication because my institution only gives me access to material which has already been published, and it’s not giving me access in this case. In any case the material has been right around the science press this week, and given they’re reporting the effect size of 6% the only interesting thing that would be in the paper that’s not been reported already journalistically is what the confidence interval on that 6% might be. It’s a bit of a worry in any case, and is getting no coverage in the deniersphere.

  15. wayne robinson

    Frank (comment #272),

    If you think ‘the Windfarm Scam’ is so good, then it’s your responsibility to summarize it and indicate why it’s correct.

    Although after you had gotten Professor Anderson wrong by insisting that he’d predicted that 95% of humans would be dead by 2050, whereas what he’d actually said was that if the human population reaches 9 billion by 2050, and if global temperature rises reach 6C, then there might be 500 million surviving, I have some slight doubt about the accuracy of a book report.

    Anyway, although comments on this thread seem excessive, they won’t stop until people decide that there’s no point in continuing. I stopped commenting on Margaret Simons’ thread when I realized that Danr was just cycling through the same tired arguments, and it just died. If you want this thread to die, then stop commenting, and providing a reason to respond. I’ve got better things to do with my time (although I have learned some things I hadn’t previously known).

  16. wayne robinson

    kd,

    I think I’ll pass on the PDF. Journals charging $15 for a single article is ridiculous (medical journals are worse).

  17. kd

    wayne:

    [ Wasn’t there a recent paper claiming that the climate change we’ve already got has caused a 6% drop in food production? ]

    Yes, published this week: Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980 (check the podcast interview link on that page if you don’t have access to the pdf).

    The Americans have got away without this decline so far, as their climate seems more stable than the rest of the world’s right now. Maybe this explains some of the more widespread denialism there (although Australia is pretty bad on that score).

  18. PeeBee

    Pete50, you have obviously done a lot or research on AGW and have accepted some of what you have found and discarded the rest. From what you have accepted, you conclude there is nothing to worry about.

    Can I ask you, what would it take for you to change your mind. It is probably a good idea to do it now and write it down so there can be no creep in the goal posts down the road.

    Every thinking person should be able to change their opinion when evidence contradicts it.

    For instance, some ideas could be:

    Melbourne reaching an all time high temperature of 47 48 degrees.

    Cyclones going through Auckland Melbourne

    Flood events effecting Queensland NSW Victoria South Australia

    Food prices rising by 20 40 percent because of poor growing conditions

    Special Flood levies to pay for extreme weather event damage

    Insurance premiums rising no longer covering weather related damage.

  19. wayne robinson

    kd,

    On reflection, you’re right. I’d known that photosynthesis was an inefficient process. I’d actually read that the efficiency of conversion of light energy to sugars was less than 1%, sugar cane being better. The Wikipedia says that plants in full Sun at midday can only use a maximum of 10% of the solar energy, so that would allow for a lot of solar energy being absorbed or reflected by clouds.

    The denialists claim that the atmosphere is CO2 deficient, that CO2 is plant food and that deliberately increasing its level in the atmosphere will be beneficial ignores the other limits to plant growth, which include water and nutrients. Doubling CO2 levels in a greenhouse increase growth of C3 plants by 13%, with little or no effect on C4 plants. The C3 plants have a lower protein content with this setup. Whether it can be extrapolated to less controlled settings in open commercial farm land is another matter, particularly since doubling the atmospheric CO2 level would cause large global warming with heat stress on plants, increased evaporation and reduced hydration.

    Wasn’t there a recent paper claiming that the climate change we’ve already got has caused a 6% drop in food production? I’d be more worried that we’re overusing the agricultural land we’ve got. In Western Australia, salinity is a major problem, causing the loss of agricultural land. In China and the American Midwest, overuse of aquifers for agriculture has caused them to be severely depleted, and the wells have had to be deepened progressively. In parts of Northern China, the aquifers have been restricted to use by the cities rather than agriculture. And now China is interested in hydraulic fracturing of its gas containing slate to fill its energy requirements, running the risk of contaminating its ground water supplies due to the possible contamination by the toxic fluids used in hydraulic fracturing.

    All of this illustrates the folly of using food crops to make biofuels.

  20. kd

    wayne

    Photosynthesis works quite well outside of full sun, so I’m not sure that’s a huge issue, as it already has very low absolute efficiency at around 3-6% (PV cells perform better on this metric but do require full sun). The clouds as a strong-negative-feedback thing is a nice hypothesis. However there’s no evidence to suggest that it’s true at this stage, and I’m fairly sure that the evidence for the unequivocal hypotheisis is pretty shaky anyway.

  21. wayne robinson

    kd,

    Joanne Nova in ‘the Skeptic’s Handbook’ has a similar idea. Global warming will, she says, increase evaporation, which will increase cloudiness, which will cause cooling reducing warming. I’d always wondered about this argument, about what the reduced solar radiation at the Earth’s surface due to the increased clouds would do to photosynthesis in the oceans and on land, in particular to our agricultural crops.

  22. kd

    wayne:

    Also pete’s banking the farm on clouds having a large, long term negative feedback effect. Evidence to date is that cloud formation has both positive and negative feedback effects, and operate over short time frames. Which suggests, unless the matematical physics works out in a highly unusual way, that this is going to be no get out of jail free card.

  23. wayne robinson

    Pete,

    The two articles you cite don’t support your assertion you made in comment #188. ‘sunspot activity stimulates cloud formation’. Haven’t you got anything better?

  24. kd

    Confronting. More denialist psychological projection I think. Courtillot appears to be a a contrarian petroleum geologist, kind of like Plimer lite.

    Also the latest paper you claim supports your argument is a preprint that has nothing to say about anthropogenic climate change, apart from that it supports that much of the warming observed in the first half of the 20th century was cased by solar factors. I already knew this, having done some back of the virtual envelope data analysis myself.

    More useless denialist propaganda. What a surprise. Yawn.

  25. Frank Campbell

    Lonely Planet:
    “will you please summarise the salient points of John Etherington’s “The Windfarm Scam” for me? I am not going to buy it unless I see some indication that it has some worthwhile content.”

    Just spend the $13. Then write a review.

    Post it here- by then it will be post 896. To think that Nick Festival’s bit of Armageddon fluff is already nearing 300 comments….shades of Margaret Simons’ lightweight piece the other day…so much energy squandered by the Left when there are so many environmental crises being ignored. Not to mention Whine Swan’s budget, which stripped over a $1 billion from “climate action”…

  26. pete50

    kd and Flower don’t like the last source I quoted, and I was right about it’s being confronting for the warmists. Perhaps this reference is less confronting: A. I. Shapiro et.al. “A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing” Astronomy & Astrophysics vol 529 May 2011 Article number A67

    Poor old Flower (no pun intended) has been really disturbed by scientific reality. He seems to be more at home with the ‘science’ of the Precautionary Principle.

  27. Flower

    @ Pete50: “It’s the precautionary principle – trust us, we’ll look after you.”

    Spoken like a typical dancing boy of the biggest corporate vandals on the planet who are the biggest obstacles to progress where the future health of the planet is at
    stake. These dancing boys are the ignorant peasants who would hog all the cake at a child’s birthday party and are totally clueless of humanity’s need for the Precautionary Principle.

    These are the clones of the thugs who tried to trash the Precautionary Principle in the Basel Convention on Hazardous Waste; the Stockholm Convention on POPS; the London Convention on Ocean Dumping and who limited humanity’s ability to achieve sustainable development to protect the environment and human health.

    These are Australia’s ugly sisters who want to keep criminals in government, the offsprings of the Howard government who sought exemptions at the Stockholm Convention to continue spraying hazardous pollutants on humans’ fresh produce (and won) and internationally disgraced and former Environment Minister, Ros Kelly who gave Pasminico Metals the go-ahead to continue dumping hazardous waste products into the sea (and the Derwent River) after Australia ratified the London Convention.

    Consensus on the Precautionary Principle means nothing to these smirking chimps.

    Now it’s the pogroms and inquisitions against the science community and the waging of war on a sustainable future. These are the knuckle draggers who live in mortal fear of the Precautionary Principle and its ability to exterminate the old ‘vorld’ order of parasites who bludge off a fragile environment with impunity.

    @ Pete50: “This is (sic) presentation could be a (sic) confronting for Warmistanis.”

    Pete50 – your ignorance is hilarious.

    Vincent Courtillot favors the hypothesis that major mass extinctions are caused by massive episodes of vulcanism: that the P/T extinction that ended the Paleozoic Era was caused by the Siberian Traps eruption, and the K/T extinction that ended the Mesozoic Era was caused by the Deccan Traps vulcanism in India.

    This is also the hypothesis of paleontologist, Dewey McLean, whose paper was published in 1979 – long before public debate on CO2. Both Courtillot and McLean believe that vulcanism was responsible for the carbon perturbation that wiped out the dinosaurs and the mass of species in the Great Dying event. CO2. Get it? Duh!

  28. kd

    Oh, Courtillort’s hypotheis that climate relates to the earth’s magnetic field. Largely based on bogus correlations, and a poorly formed theory.

    Sufficiently bogus that it hasn’t got much traction in the deniersphere, as there are easier ways to sow confusion it would seem.

  29. pete50

    Re Wayne’s request, which he presumably is unable to Google for himself. The best and most recent exposition that I know of is here: http://thegryphonsedge.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/prof-dr-vincent-courtillot-presentation/

    This is presentation could be a confronting for Warmistanis.

  30. PeeBee

    Pete50 Not all computer system operators spent millions to prevent the problem. Of those that were not given preventative treatment – I heard of only one that had problems. It was a bus ticket validation system in Melbourne and guess what, some passenger’s tickets weren’t validated – for a whole day.

    You are clasping at straws. Not everyone spent millions, some did spent less and some spend nothing. They having more recently written code using the ‘yyyy’ format rather than some of the older code which used ‘yy’.

    However, if you are trying to say the Millinium bug was not a real problem, you are mistaken. I guess you are making the same mistake with AGW. Saying it is not a problem, despite what the experts are telling you.

  31. Captain Planet

    How about you, Frank?

  32. Captain Planet

    Come on, Pete50, it’s time for you to answer Wayne’s challenge, to substantiate your claim, that increased sunspots will produce increased global cloudiness and cause global cooling.

    You’ve been consistently ignoring it for about a week now.

    If you are going to engage in debate, you have to acknowledge your opponents’ points, and either rebut them, refute them, or agree with them.

    Simply ignoring a question that is asked of an assertion you have previously made, is childish.

    You’re just talking, not listening, never mind debating.

    Engage constructively or get off the page.

  33. wayne robinson

    Pete,

    You still haven’t answered the question. I’ll make it easy for you. Is the answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and the question (rewritten) is now ‘Is it the unproven and hotly disputed cosmoclimatogical hypothesis of 2007 the basis for your claim that increased sunspots will produce increased global cloudiness and cause global cooling?’. If not, the supplementary question is obviously, then what is the cause?

    And the money spent on the Y2000 bug wasn’t wasted. A lot of companies and governments invested in new hard- and software that would have been required later anyway.

    The same with AGW. Peak oil and peak gas are both facts. Phasing out coal is also a very good idea, because of its contamination with toxic trace metals such as mercury and uranium (a coal fired power plant releases as much radioactivity as a similarly sized nuclear power plant, nuclear waste aside).

    So having alternate power sources, or even just thinking where we’re going to be getting our future energy, are very useful.

  34. pete50

    PeeBee said: “And because they avoided the worst of the problems, (millennium bug) people feel that there was nothing to worry about in the first place. A very wrong conclusion.”

    Not all computer system operators spent millions to prevent the problem. Of those that were not given preventative treatment – I heard of only one that had problems. It was a bus ticket validation system in Melbourne and guess what, some passenger’s tickets weren’t validated – for a whole day.

    Warmistanis have a much better ‘fear-scam’ because there is no date for their Armageddon – it will always remain just out of reach – in the future – maybe next century. It’s the precautionary principle – trust us, we’ll look after you. Just give us more research money and we will up your power costs by another 35% next year, and we’ll build a bigger empire and appoint each other Professor of putting things on other things. Then we’ll upgrade all these tedious international trips from business to first class . . .

  35. Frank Campbell

    Skeleton goes :

    “Frank is concerned about one eagle yet denies that millions of lives could be endangered by global warming if no worldwide action is taken.”

    One eagle? The whole Tasmanian subspecies is in imminent danger of extinction. That’s what Hypocrisy Brown thinks, and he’s right. He’s also guilty. Guilty of promoting wind turbines in Tasmania in the first place and of continuing to spruik them on the mainland.

    And desist from verballing me, anonymous Skeleton: “action” worldwide on AGW over the next 30 years will not reduce global emissions. Most of the “action” taken thus far has made matters worse (eg the ALP’s junked plethora of rorts and gestures -such as domestic solar, cash for clunkers etc. Not to mention the wind turbine fiasco).

    This is why I say the worst enemy of rational AGW action is the cult itself.

  36. kd

    [ AGW belongs in the same class as millennium bugs, bird flu, pig flu, the immanent second coming ]

    Oh look, someone who doesn’t believe the millenium bug was real. And who presumably denies that large scale epidemics which have the capacity to decimate populations can occur. And who will then confound these real things with religious mythology.

    Like I said before, this person is clearly only pretending to be a climiate delusional – presenting us the worst of their arguments in order to demonstrate how poor they are.

  37. PeeBee

    AGW belongs in the same class as millennium bugs, bird flu, pig flu, the immanent second coming .

    Don’t know about ‘pig flu’ and ‘immanent coming’, but I agree that AGW is in the same class as the millennium bugs and bird flu. In both these cases the threat was based on scientific understanding of what was happening and governments and corporations took them serious. So much so that millions were spent to avoid major problems.

    And because they avoided the worst of the problems, people feel that there was nothing to worry about in the first place. A very wrong conclusion.

  38. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Also, Frank is concerned about one eagle yet denies that millions of lives could be endangered by global warming if no worldwide action is taken. In fact, he openly mocks the very concept.

    Weird.

  39. Captain Planet

    @ Frank Campbell,

    Good evening Frank, it is good to be corresponding with you again.

    You are starting to disappoint me, though.

    You are an intelligent man with a sense of humour which I find really quite amusing when you manage to rein in the ridicule to a suitable level of gentleness.

    I’d love to debate wind turbines with you, as you regularly denigrate them and you are clearly operating under a number of misconceptions. But first I need to see that you are actually willing to approach the subject with an open mind. So far when your positions are held up to the light and shown to be false, instead of acknowledging it, you run on to the next criticism.

    So far we’ve demonstrated that Wind Turbines run at exactly the Capacity factor they were designed and intended to run at, and they do produce electricity which does alleviate CO2 emissions, which (If we allow the possibility that CO2 emissions cause climate change, which any sensible person MUST allow) helps slow or prevent climate change.

    Now you are claiming that

    embodied carbon is just one aspect of the idiocy of wind turbines.

    Hang on. It has been demonstrated that embodied carbon is NOT an aspect of any form of idiocy, as the embodied energy payback period (as shown above) is less than 6 years, froma 25 year wind turbine life span.

    If you start by acknowledging this, then the discussion can progress.

    I note that you are merely skirting around this subject as the insubstantial nature of your argument becomes more transparent. Now it is about,

    appalling social and economic effects are now apparent even to low postcode politicians (except Greens, still in denial and insulting sufferers as “nimbys”

    So, in the interests of practising what I preach and keeping an open mind, what are these “appalling social and economic effects”?

    Again, in the interests of keeping an open mind, will you please summarise the salient points of John Etherington’s “The Windfarm Scam” for me? I am not going to buy it unless I see some indication that it has some worthwhile content.

  40. Flower

    Frank – Please desist from telling us that Germany has retreated to nuclear energy – it has not. Germany has placed a moratorium on nuclear power and a reversal of its decision to extend the lives of nuclear power plants currently in operation.

    Huge demonstrations the day before the election in March saw 90,000 in Berlin and over 400,000 in four major German cities, demanding an end to atomic reactors, and that is how the voters marked their ballots, awarding the Greens an unprecedented victory and the opportunity (in coalition) to promote solar power.

    Further, WA’s media reports that West Australians are signing up to sell excess power from home solar panels at such a rapid rate that there are fears they could overload the grid and cause power surges that destroy household appliances.

    State-owned electricity transmitter Western Power said it might have to limit the amount of solar power it accepted as the take-up rate soared. Almost 40,000 applications to connect solar power to residential meters have been approved in the west, against 264 three years ago. WP’s managing director, Doug Aberle said: “It’s certainly coming in very rapidly. At the moment we’re getting about 2500 applications per month for PV (photovoltaic) cell connections,”

    Any bird death at the hands of humans is tragic, including those killed by wind turbines. Unfortunately you refuse to acknowledge the comparison of bird mortalities caused by various man-made structures to wind turbines. You are also aware that the mining industry in Australia kills millions of native animals every year. The number of birds poisoned by tailings dams in this country is unknown (out of sight out of mind).

    Your reference to the eagle in Tasmania reminds me that the state of Tasmania poisons feral animals with the heinous 1080 bait but there is little information on the non-target species that are also slaughtered from scavenging poisoned carcasses.

    I have yet to hear your objections to these obscene industry practices that are wiping out our biodiversity with impunity. Therefore one can only conclude that your whinge about wind farms is illogical, unreasonable and bloody-minded.

    Hopefully the mangled link following ( National Academies Press) on bird mortalities in the US will evade moderation. Pop it in your browser Frank – once again!

    h t t p :// w w w.

    nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11935&page=71

    Climate4all – Aren’t you lucky to have us to play with? A quick perusal of your blog reveals that you have received around 3 comments in 15 months. Tsk tsk. Even the primitive racketeers in the deniers’ camp steer clear of your nonsense.

  41. PeeBee

    Pete50, did you once say you were sitting on the fence about AGW? If so you have really fallen off it. Your contribution @ 251 sounds like you are frustrated by supposed people benefiting from AWG – I don’t think that is fair. It is not a matter of all-knowing high priests trying to scare and to take advantage of others. The people who are investigating AGW are scientists who deal with facts. There are people who make various predictions, which surprisingly may not be pleasant (and definitely not the land of honey.

    I think a fairer comment would be that they are trying to get people to think about what is happening and the consequences if it continues. Messengers are often looked at in bad light, but sometimes the message is bad and by condemning the messenger can’t change that.

    Don’t get me wrong, I wish they were wrong too, but unfortunately, the balance of evidence shows we are undertaking a vast experiment with the planet and we have no idea of where it will eventually lead. The earth’s climate is very benign for humans at the moment and any change will probably mean it will be less so. That is why people want to make a change and make it early so that we can avoid the worst of the consequences.

    It will cost to reduce CO2, but doing nothing will also cost.

  42. kd

    [ See #230 where I said: “50 million refugee from the inundation of low-lying islands around the world.” ]

    Well that’s not what the 50 million figure refers to – you’ve misrepresented it. Therefore your point is invalid. Now you have to fess up and retract this part of your argument.

    Hang on, if you do that, and all the other invalid arguments and misrepresentations you’ve made, then you’re left with no argument.

  43. wayne robinson

    Pete (comment #251),

    Please do us a favor. The next time you comment, answer the question you have been ignoring; it’s quite easy.

    ‘Why do you think that increased sunspots will increase global cloudiness and cause cooling?’.

    It’s quite an easy question. I’m expecting you to quote the unproven and disputed Cosmoclimatological hypothesis of 2007.

    In other words, don’t comment again until you’re prepared to answer the question.

    My other comment was to show that the scholars at the United Nations University have a different definition of what a climate change refugee is to you; your definition is much more restricted, and hence the difference in numbers.

  44. Frank Campbell

    Speaking of my predictions vs Bernard Keane’s (yes, pathetically one-sided contest I know…)

    The Vic Libs have scrapped Brumby’s half-arsed scheme to shut down 25% of hazelwood by 2014…(this was rated the 2nd dirtiest power station in the world a couple of years ago- filthy in every sense, not just CO2)

    Reasons given are- no baseload power ready to replace it, econ damage etc.

    In fact Hazelwood should have been shut down years ago- nothing to do with CO2. Open-cut brown coal mining does irreparable harm to Gippsland…

    I don’t see why it couldn’t be converted to/replaced with gas….

    It’s quite obvious no govt. would try to replace it with solar or moronic Wind. Wind costs three times FF, apart from hopeless unreliability as adduced above.

  45. Frank Campbell

    Private Planet: “Actually, Wind Turbines very often run at 100 % of rated capacity. It all depends on the wind speed…. derrrrr.”

    I’m sure you realise I was referrrring to the annual average…

    The figures worldwide are not controversial- 20/25% for most of them. The infestation in north Germany manged just 18% in 2009 from memory…

    And embodied carbon is just one aspect of the idiocy of wind turbines. The appalling social and economic effects are now apparent even to low postcode politicians (except Greens, still in denial and insulting sufferers as “nimbys”). And just ask Hypocrisy Brown about raptor deaths…

    I suggest you read John Etherington’s “The Windfarm Scam”. He’s a UK conservationist with an engineering background. $13 (free post in Australia).

  46. pete50

    Wayne @ #232
    My comment included the definition if climate refugee. See #230 where I said: “50 million refugee from the inundation of low-lying islands around the world.”

    There are not people you meet in a bar in QLD on their way to WA – these are people who don’t exist. These sort of non-people are conjured up by the IPCC in Warmistan.

    Its all part of the voodoo that impresses politicians and others whose agendas are advanced by such stuff.

    AGW belongs in the same class as millennium bugs, bird flu, pig flu, the immanent second coming . . . Its not that they are not ‘true’, its that they are of themselves essentially harmless. The danger comes from what the ‘no so nice’ and the downright nasty make them into.

    The followers of the doctrine of CAGW are those who can be induced to tremble in fear of a wicked evil that the all-knowing high priests can save them from and lead the way to a land of honey that only they know about.

  47. wayne robinson

    Frank (comment #245),

    You’re showing all the signs of a denialist. You get what Professor Anderson said wrong. I correct you, and give the full quote. You continue on blithely, without excusing your error.

    I know I make mistakes, but when they’re pointed to me, I apologize and correct them.

    I don’t know how I can trust any statement you make …

  48. tones9

    You guys never fail to entertain!

    But Captain Planet is hysterical. I couldn’t stop laughing.

    He’s a power station manager!

    With 20% renewables!

    And every time the wind blows, he shovels less coal into those dirty generators!

    Please keep the laughs coming…

  49. Captain Planet

    Frank,

    Thanks for taking the time to reply.

    You know very well that wind turbines struggle to reach 25% of their rated capacity.

    So what?

    Actually, Wind Turbines very often run at 100 % of rated capacity. It all depends on the wind speed…. derrrrr.

    In good locations, their AVERAGE capacity factor is over 30 %. This is a fact that the owners and operators know full well, and allow for in all aspects of their economic and CO2 reduction predictions. Only somebody with an anti – wind agenda would hold up a known fact which has been allowed for in the project design, as a defect.

    I notice you are not so quick to criticise the thermal efficiency of natural gas and coal fired power stations, which struggle to achieve more than 30% to 50% thermal efficiency.

    Interesting that you have changed your statement,

    it’s about political gestures. Wind turbine are useless for anything else.

    to this,

    Billions spent to make no diffference to climate whatever.

    Is this because you have faced up to the bleeding obvious, that every time a wind turbine produces a kiloWatthour of electricity, that is a kiloWatthour of electricity which we didn’t burn fossil fuel to produce….. and there is no denying that wind turbines produce electricity, therefore your initial exaggeration is exposed?

    As for “no difference to climate whatever”, someday soon I hope you will have the grace to acknowledge that by your own logic, we must accept the possibility that CO2 is warming the planet, and that every kWhr of wind energy produced, in reducing CO2 emissions, therefore must have an impact on climate…. however small the impact may be for one little wind turbine.

    We can build more, you know.

    It’s myopic not to put these technologies in their wider economic, technological context. Sure the power goes in (irregular, unpredictable, usually when least required) but any GG savings are wiped out by that wider context you so blithely ignore. 40,000 tons of concrete went into the turbine pads at Waubra alone…

    Why do you assume (or assert) that I (or anyone else) ignores the “wider context”?

    Detailed studies have been done on the embodied energy of new windfarms, making comprehensive allowance for the concrete, steel, transport, minimal land clearing, road construction, operations and maintenance vehicle movements, parts manufacture, transport, replacement and disposal, and these studies have demonstrated that the embodied energy in any one wind turbine is completely paid back within at most 6 years of the construction.

    Given that the life of a wind turbine is at least 25 years, your unsupported claims that

    any GG savings are wiped out by that wider context

    are looking a little thin.

    Will you be reasonable and acknowledge this?

  50. kd

    I found an interesting paper from a reputable journal on this too:

    Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N.B., Deumling, D., Linares, A.C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., et al. ( 2002) Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 9266 -9271.

    Abstract:
    Sustainability requires living within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. In an attempt to measure the extent to which humanity satisfies this requirement, we use existing data to translate human demand on the environment into the area required for the production of food and other goods, together with the absorption of wastes. Our accounts indicate that human demand may well have exceeded the biosphere’s regenerative capacity since the 1980s. According to this preliminary and exploratory assessment, humanity’s load corresponded to 70% of the capacity of the global biosphere in 1961, and grew to 120% in 1999.

  51. Frank Campbell

    Wayne: “I’ll quote what Professor Anderson actually said.”

    I think you should repeat it endlessly. The more often this quote is seen, the more the Climategate hysterics look absurd.

    And yes, the Great Dying will take time. Why don’t you ask Anderson for a nice steeeeeep graph?

  52. Frank Campbell

    Cpl. Planet:

    You know very well that wind turbines struggle to reach 25% of their rated capacity. Many do far worse than that.

    Billions spent to make no diffference to climate whatever.

    It’s myopic not to put these technologies in their wider economic, technological context. Sure the power goes in (irregular, unpredictable, usually when least required) but any GG savings are wiped out by that wider context you so blithely ignore. 40,000 tons of concrete went into the turbine pads at Waubra alone…

  53. wayne robinson

    OK Frank,

    I’ll quote what Professor Anderson actually said.

    ‘For humanity it’s a matter of life and death. We will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have mass death at 4C. If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4C, 5C or 6C, you might have half a billion people surviving … The worst possible result at Copenhagen is a bad deal where the world’s leaders have to come home and say it’s a good deal when it’s rubbish’.

    Alarming? Definitely.

    Plausible? Arguable, but I think it’s plausible, even if only due to resource depletion.

    By 2050? Definitely not. Someone has misread or misheard what he said and you’ve passed it on.

    The only wriggle room you’ve got is how long such a great dying might take to happen.

  54. Captain Planet

    This isn’t about rationality- it’s about political gestures. Wind turbine are useless for anything else

    ….and so the thousands of MegaWatt hours per year I watch wind turbines producing from the power station control room, day in and day out, and the monthly reports I submit each month proving how many thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions they have saved, are all in my imagination, I assume, Frank.

  55. Frank Campbell

    “The Conservative government in Britain is still committed to a 60% decrease in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.”

    And last week the UK govt’s climate guru said this was now impossible.

    Tragically, the British Tory leadership has been colonised by the climate cult virus: Cameron, Clegg, Labour…they all want wind turbines to proliferate- even though the evidence from Denmark, German and Spain is stark: this premodern technology is a fraud- it does not reduce emissions. Hence the retreat to nuclear in UK and Germany, reversing previous policy.
    The UK is essentially broke- this may rescue it and the EU from further wasted subsidies thrown at wind, domestic solar etc- for example the abandoned 60 billion pound Severn tidal power scheme.

  56. Frank Campbell

    “I don’t know if Bob Brown has veto over wind power in Tasmania.”

    He doesn’t. The remaining eagles are plotting to carry him off, but that’s a purely political gesture. The wind carpetbaggers will build more regardless of Brown’s hypocrisy.

    The sole surviving 2010 fledgling eagle was killed by a turbine.

    Of course it’s idiotic to put wind turbines in a deindustrialised tourist-cum-welfare island like Tasmania, which has over a century of underused massive hydro dams to run their TVs off.

    This isn’t about rationality- it’s about political gestures. Wind turbine are useless for anything else. Apart from making the Karbon Krisis worse.

  57. Frank Campbell

    Wayne:
    “The most dire predictions are for catastrophe by the year 2100.”

    Wrong. As I’ve mentioned before, there are extremists who predict the end of the world in 40 years- notably “Prof” Kevin Anderson. He isn’t an anorak from Scunthorpe distraught by the closure of the local train line-he’s the boss of Tyndall climate centre, which itself is a recent creation of the University of East Bumcrack (of which Annabel Crabb is the new VC) Climategate clique. So his provenance is peccable.

    Anderson said 95% of SloMo Sapiens could well be dead by 2050. So the Katastrophe will precede 2050 by quite some years, innit?

    Actually, many climate hysterics insist that the ‘tipping point” has either passed or is just a few years away (Prince Charles: July 2017).

    If they’re right, then just lie back and enjoy the remaining few years, because there is no way CO2 emissions will be falling in the next twenty years at least. We all know why. Australian coal.

    That’s why I said Progressives are like headless chooks at the moment. What policy, when and how much? What they’ve already done has made things worse. What they now intend to do will not make things better. Possibly worse. Even if they grope through to some coherent policies which won’t be subverted at the next opportunity by the Right, we’re looking at at least 30 years before there’s any serious reduction in CO2 emissions.

  58. Captain Planet

    Grrrrr

    posted again without link, to avoid moderation.

    @ Frank Campbell,

    Hello again Frank, how are you?

    I have a few comments on some of the issues you have raised.

    The only tenable position is scepticism. No one has any idea how AGW (or GW) will work out.

    Agreed with reservations. The only tenable position from the perspective of knowledge of the absolute truth of this matter IS scepticism. But that is the same for all science. On the other hand, our course of action for the future must be chosen now. Given that many of the possible scenarios which could unfold are disastrous for human civilisation, we do not have the luxury of adopting a wait – and – see approach. This precautionary principle is at the heart of the calls for action to ameliorate the potential effects of climate change, from most thinking people. If you are as balanced and as sceptical as you claim, I fail to see how you can rationally adopt any other position.

    Gillard now knows that current renewable energy technologies are middle class subsidies and rorts which don’t reduce emissions

    Can’t agree with you there Frank…. I used to have this belief. As you are somebody who is often noticed to be characterising the Greens as a “low postcode” privileged elite, it is clear that you believe our society is stratified by socio economic geographical distribution. I suggest you check out the figures for the uptake of Grid feed, rooftop mounted Solar Panels by geographic area.

    (link deleted to avoid moderation…. look to my comment # 233, when it eventually appears, for the link)

    You will see that actually the “working class” suburbs have amongst the highest proportion of solar PV installations. As somebody who grew up in Sunshine and Altona I can tell you these are not middle class locations.

    Don’t bother calling the figures into doubt just because they are provided by the Clean Energy Council, facts are facts.

    As for your claims that renewable energy does not reduce emissions…. as the manager of a power station incorporating more than 20 % renewable technology, I can tell you that every MegaWatt Hour produced by renewable energy DOES reduce emissions. You are partially right and partially wrong in your oft – repeated assertion that wind power (for example) needs to be 100 % backed up by fossil fuel. However whenever the wind turbines are generating (which is far more often than you imply) fuel is being saved, and emissions are being reduced. Considering that 75 % of the Levelised Cost of Energy from any fossil fuel power station is fuel cost, that is how non – baseload renewables become cost effective as well as achieving emissions reductions.

  59. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    when he provided that TSI vs Temp graph from scepticalscience.

    I used the same graph the TGGWS used to prove that the main driver of climate was the sun. In 2006 deniers were falling over themselves to use this fraudulent evidence as proof of the “SCAM”. It was the “FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN!!!!”. I’m touched you’re now arguing this evidence is now irrelevant. What was I saying about deniers being unable to be held to the same standard?

  60. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    from “not much, slowly” to Armageddon tomorrow.

    Why do the deniers exaggerate?

    In reality, all scientists are skeptics. However, all the evidence tells us that the Earth is going to be warmed to a certain degree. The only question is, how much? The IPCC says between 2-6 degrees, and so far their projections have been spot on.

    The people who generally call themselves “skeptics” are deniers. They aren’t skeptical of anything that confirms their opinion. Watts is a prime example of this. Only recently he claimed that he would accept whatever the results of the BEST project were, even if he were proven wrong. Naturally, he was proven wrong, he went back on his promise and the deniers didn’t bat an eyelid. Where was the outrage?

    Why can’t the “skeptics” be skeptical about the skeptics?

    Deniers aren’t held to the same standard scientists are. If there were, they would fall apart. The deniers have yet to give us a single coherent theory about why the planet is warming if it isn’t caused by Co2.

    What really drives deniers like Frank is fear. Fear that the economy they grew up with is going to change and the world they know today won’t exist in the future. Hence they fight it using any argument and any guise. Being correct doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is stopping action any way possible.

  61. wayne robinson

    Hi Frank,

    I think you’re slightly exaggerating (I was tempted to use the word ‘hyperbole’ here, but I do know how to spell it, even if I have to think how to pronounce it) when you write that the extreme position is for climate change Armageddon tomorrow.

    The most dire predictions are for catastrophe by the year 2100.

    Which illustrates the problem with trying to see any sort of action on climate change to the population, when the costs are now and the benefits are decades in the future, perhaps at a time when many of the people alive today will be dead for perfectly natural reasons.

    Convincing people of the necessity of taking action faces 3 problems of human nature; 1. Discounting the future (mentioned above) 2. Regarding smaller losses as more significant than larger gains. 3. The tragedy of the commons, wanting others to pay the cost for one’s own personal gain.

    Trying to get people to recognize that it’s their children or grandchildren who will suffer the consequences of inaction is difficult to get across, particularly since many people have a feeling of entitlement, thinking they deserve the largest house, car, plasma screen TV …

    Calling George Monbiot a nuclear warrior is a little unfair. It’s a meaning of warrior I haven’t previously come across before … I’ll need to look at the Oxford Shorter Dictionary to see its usage … Monbiot wrote an article in last week’s Guardian, the final paragraph was quoted by ‘climate4all’, but the important part was at the beginning when he noted that according to oil experts, peak oil has already happened and peak gas is soon to occur. He asked his fellow environmentalists at the end what unpalatable course of action they’d recommend. His, of course, was for more nuclear power.

    I don’t know if Bob Brown has veto over wind power in Tasmania. Tasmania does have a lot of hydroelectricity which it is able to send across the Bass Strait to Victoria. It does also have 3 small wind farms and a small number of gas generated power stations. I think wind, except in limited areas, would have extreme difficulty in competing with a renewable energy source as hydroelectricity.

    The Liberals currently, on paper, perhaps just for show, aren’t against action on climate change. They just want a 10 billion dollar abatement program (I’m not certain whether that’s per year or over a period of years). The government’s position is also unclear. A $20 per tonne carbon tax would yield around $10 billion per year, if broadly based, so the amounts for both would be very roughly equivalent.

    The Conservative government in Britain is still committed to a 60% decrease in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.

    Regarding the Newspoll from last week giving a 60/30 split between no carbon tax/carbon tax. A reader of Crikey wrote in yesterday (you might not have seen it, it was one of the later items) noting that he was one of the people polled, and the question asked was ‘Are you in favor of a carbon tax if it results in SUBSTANTIAL increases in the price of food and power’. He said, push polling if there ever was … And was surprised that 30% would agree to such a question.

  62. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    If we look at this 2009 graph from RealClimate, the deviation is already. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look as shocking because the rest of the data is included.

    What it does show, and what Watts shows, is a warming ocean which proves global warming.

  63. Captain Planet

    Regarding Climate refugees,

    I met my first climate refugee in 2008. He was a mechanical fitter who had lived and worked all his life in sugar mills in cane growing regions in Queensland. Due to AGW induced rainfall reductions, and the subsequent long term decline in tenability of cane growing in that regions, all of the sugar cane mills in his area closed down, and he was forced to relocate to the mines of W.A. along with his family, at the age of 50.

    He didn’t have a sign around his neck saying “climate refugee” and he didn’t swim here after his island home sank, which just goes to show that the phenomenon of climate refugees is far more subtle (and probably far more pervasive) than we can visibly detect.

    To the best of my knowledge, there haven’t been any studies done in Australia to identify how many climate refugees we have right now. It’s very hard to quantify. If you asked my friend the mechanical fitter, he would have said that he moved for better employment opportunities. Only when you drill down in a conversation which is not likely to occur unless you have a reasonably close working or other form of relationship, do you discover he was actually a climate refugee.

    His kids had to move schools and he lost quite a bit of money trying to sell a home in an area with zero employment options and zero future.

    Time to re – think what a climate refugee actually is.

  64. wayne robinson

    Pete,

    I asked you in a previous comment what your definition of a climate change refugee is, and asked you whether you confine it to people having to shift country. At least now you’ve revealed your definition; it’s 50 million refugees from the inundation of low lowing islands around the world.

    The United Nations University (not the UNO itself as often reported, although it was set up by the UNO) actually uses my definition, which includes anyone who is forced to move even a few kilometres due to climate change. One of the examples they give are Inuit villages being forced to relocate from the coast due to increased coastal erosion due to decreased Summer sea ice protecting the coast from Summer storms.

    Of course, it’s difficult to quantify. How do you determine whether a third world farmer has moved to a city because of economic reasons (he wants a better life) or climate change (his land no longer supports him and his family).

    By the way. Have you forgotten I have a standing question for you? Why do you think increased sunspots are going to lead to increased global cloudiness and cooling?

  65. kd

    [ which shows their “projection” to be a joke ]

    And we’re back to climate delusional lala land. The only projection shown to be a fraudulent joke is Tisdale’s. And that unambiguously. pete50, if you really are a physical scientist as you claim, then you seem to be pretty innumerate.

    And you know, I’d like to see the source of this projection of 50 million climate refugees by 2010. Given that you haven’t shown your source, I’m unable to take it seriously, although I see lots of jumping up and down in the deniersphere. Having done some cursory research, it smacks of overreach by one of their junior researchers to me. Credit to them they pulled the misleading information, but they should have published a more detailed retraction. Failing to do so plays into the deniers hands. Mistakes happen. They should be corrected promptly. The deniers certainly don’t do this.

    Besides, you certainly won’t find any scientific literature claiming this red herring.

  66. pete50

    Despite all the ACNs from the Warmistas about proof and the rest of it, they embrace the graph referred to at #215, which shows their “projection” to be a joke. All it supports is the hopelessness of the doctrine of AGW.

    It’s not unlike their “projection” of 50 million refugee from the inundation of low-lying islands around the world. That figure was “projected” to happen last year, 2010.

    Why would any sane person, who is not trying to frighten the natives into becoming trembling wrecks, support a bunch of modern-day witch doctors of that calibre?

  67. kd

    wayne,

    I think he’s confused. TSI is not an absolute measure of solar activity, it’s a relative measure that’s inferred. As Kevin Trenberth puts it: “the satellite measurements are sufficiently stable from one year to the next, so that by measuring incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation it is possible to track changes in the net radiation”.

    Again it’s the denier’s invalid assumption that if a measure is not known with absolute accuracy it’s the equivalent of not knowing something at all.

    also:

    [ I find it fascinating that acolytes for CAGW always ask: “Show me proof” ]

    Nope, us anti-deniers are always asking “show me evidence”. And the deniers’ evidence to date is always lacking – pete50’s latest attempt being a particularly spectacular example of the piss poor standards that deniers have. Proof, with the exception of scientific laws is never possible, and anyone who claims otherwise is misleading.

    Frank’s demands for false balance are also sad, but somewhat amusing.

  68. Frank Campbell

    The last 70 or so posts here are a bizarre sight, repeated all over the blogosphere. Half a dozen wranglers demanding scientific “proof”. Each side ridiculing the other. Both sides castrated by short data sets. Both sides fiddling graphs to “prove” steep inclines or declines. The see-saw syndrome.

    For all the gouging and trumpeting, all you can do is wait to see what observational science provides in the future.

    By making this dispute a two-horse race, science is demeaned.

    The only tenable position is scepticism. No one has any idea how AGW (or GW) will work out. Hence the wide range of scenarios, from “not much, slowly” to Armageddon tomorrow.

    The whole fracas depends on policy/politics. If the Right wins, as seems likely, AGW will slide down the agenda like a rate down a drainpipe. Then the whole “debate” becomes redundant.

    There’s the rub: not only is AGW policy difficult to formulate and even harder to implement, but policy specifics depend on the urgency and severity of possible impacts. There is no agreement on that whatever. Therefore the Right exploits the intrinsic policy uncertainty. Politically, Green Left is on a hiding to nothing. They’re damned if they’re cautious and damned if they’re not.

    The chaos on the Left is not primarily due to incompetence or its latter-day integration with corporatism and consequent loss of ideological coherence (important as that is). The real problem is what policy to implement, given that predicted impacts vary so widely. The Left are headless chooks: Fukushima converts Monbiot into a nuclear warrior; Brown demands wind turbines everywhere except Tasmania (eagles wiped out); Gillard now knows that current renewable energy technologies are middle class subsidies and rorts which don’t reduce emissions; and whatever Australia does, it will continue expanding coal exports.

    The list of contradictions is endless, and leads straight to the political wilderness.

  69. wayne robinson

    David,

    What makes you claim that TSI is never used as an indicator of solar activity? Its measurements are in Watts per square metre, which is a measure of energy transferred per unit of area per unit of time. You claim that its variation is only of the order of 1% (actually the graph indicates that it’s actually less), and are probably implying that its effect is negligible. But small changes in insolation can have major effects. The very minor increase in insolation at the end of the last glaciation due to minor changes in the Earth’s orbit as a result of the Milankovich cycles resulted In kilometre thick glaciers disappearing from North America and Euroasia in a remarkably short period of time.

    PS Amber, if I’m still being moderated. Please stop. It’s not necessary.

  70. Climate4all

    I find it fascinating that acolytes for CAGW always ask:
    “Show me proof”, just so they can scoff and deny its viability and then either offer no proof to substantiate their rhetoric, or provide utter crap that means nothing.
    RUS displays this behavior, when he provided that TSI vs Temp graph from scepticalscience.

    TSI is never used as a indicator of solar activity. TSI varies little over time. The TSI data records the brilliance of the sun, and that changes but at around 1% of total illumination.

    And the Temp anomaly is a joke in that graph. What closet scepticalscience drag that out of… GISS 1988? It doesn’t prove anything. You can only hide the decline for so long before nature bites you in the proverbial arse.

    There is no science being provided by alarmists today. Just denial and more alarmism.

    MSM is calling Republicans pathological because they don’t support CAGW.
    I think Democrats/Liberals that support CAGW are the pathological and lead astray any unsuspecting fool that hasn’t been informed yet.

    How about someone here provide the ONE article that provides the foundation for CAGW and the facts to prove it.

    I just want to see the definitive proof for the foundation for CAGW.

  71. wayne robinson

    kd,

    ‘Damn we need an edit button’.

    Agreed. Another thing that might work is a 15 minute cool off period that I’ve seen on some other websites (but not recently). Proof reading is a funny thing; I’ve missed blatant errors reading something word for word, but the mistakes spring out like a sore thumb at a single glance from across the room. An author used to check his manuscripts by propping them on a mantlepiece and reading them through binoculars. It’s the familiarity of what you’ve written that causes the trouble. You know what you wanted to write, so naturally you ‘see’ it when you read it.

    I’d better read this carefully to see if I’ve avoided any errors …

  72. kd

    (damn we need an edit button): “Trying a line’s slope” should be “trying to extrapolate a line’s slope”

  73. kd

    RUS #221

    [ It would appear that all Tisdale has done is chop off the previous data to make it look like a scandalous deviation. In other words, short term cherry picking. ]

    Well by itself that’s just very very naughty from a scientific perspective – i.e. what I’ve talked about before stripping context from in order to artificially inflate the apparent uncertainty.

    However the second stage of Tisdale’s procedure is clearly scientific fraud: trying a line’s slope, but shifting the line upward, choosing the intercept deliberately to make the prediction look as bad as possible. There is no way that can be characterised as an honest mistake.

    Which is why I’ve revised my opinion of pete50. He’s a plant. In order to show how poor the deniers arguments are he regurgitates them to show how easy they are to rebut.

  74. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    That’s not the point, and neither is it statistically significant, which means it is not different from zero change.

    1. Of course it isn’t statistically significant, it’s eight years.
    2. No, “not statistically significant” is not the same as “zero change”. Deniers would like it to be, yes. But it isn’t.

  75. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    It’s amusing that Watts is allowing graphs that show the oceans clearly warming to be published, seeing as that it contradicts his main thesis that it’s all the urban heat island effect.

    It would appear that all Tisdale has done is chop off the previous data to make it look like a scandalous deviation. In other words, short term cherry picking.

    Even the deniers are unimpressed.

    Although take it to Pete50 to post proof of a warming planet and pretend it’s the opposite.

  76. wayne robinson

    kd,

    Thank you. I enjoyed reading how Bob Tisdale manipulated the data to get the graph he wanted.

    Now, if only Pete would explain why increased sunspots cause increased global cloudiness and therefore global cooling.

  77. Flower

    @ Rich Uncle Skeleton: “ What is your source for this Pete50?”

    Perhaps the source of the graph in circulation is one Bob Tisdale whose manipulated graphs have permeated just about every denier’s blog on the web. And when one of these lemmings jumps over a cliff, the others follow. This instinct is hard-wired into the obtuse lemming. It’s not something they’re capable of “thinking” about.

    Bob Tisdale (currently the favoured lemming of deniers) does not submit his opinions on graphs to a peer review to have his work published. That’s because the opinions of these parasitic denialists are 70% crap, 20% desperation and 10% perspiration? Whew!

  78. pete50

    Captain Planet, dear-oh-dear! That’s not the point, and neither is it statistically significant, which means it is not different from zero change. Its nothing to do with length of period of observation. The point is the Warmistanis haven’t got a clue about reality.

    The source is the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC). Google it and look for update OHC. The detailed data, by region etc. is not yet available.

  79. Captain Planet

    pete50

    the graph you have linked to shows consistent (though gradual) increase in the heat content of the ocean.

    This in itself is proof of continued warming, assuming the information is accurate. Just because it does not fit to one set of projections (assuming they have been accurately represented) does not destroy the entire AGW hypothesis. You must know this.

  80. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    What is your source for this Pete50?

  81. pete50

    Flower and others, who are rusted on the IPCC projections, no doubt are familiar with other projections of the CAGW gang. GISS, a part of NASA who have sold their soul to the high priests of Warmistan, projected that the ocean heat content (OHC) would increase from 2003 to 2011 so that the top 700 metres of the ocean would contain sufficient heat to melt all the Greenland ice sheet. Hahaha.

    Take a look at the real figures: http://i51.tinypic.com/20k62yq.jpg

  82. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    More.

    Senior, this is where you have a chance to admit you are not a science denier as you can clearly see from the evidence you are wrong, and that the film is wrong.

  83. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Senior, you may be amazed that I have already seen TGGWS and found it to be a pack of lies. You may be unaware that the majority of deniers have stopped citing it since it has been so roundly discredited.

    As for your point about the sun – what you don’t know is the end of the graph showing the alleged co-relation between sunspots and temperature marked “now” is actually 1970. Afterwards sun activity dove and temperatures kept on rising. TGGWS doesn’t tell you this. A child can tell you 1970 isn’t “now” and that cutting off the bit of the graph that proves you wrong is known as “fraud”.

    Did you ever stop to think that if the film’s thesis is correct, why did they lie? Why did they misrepresent the graph?

  84. Flower

    Senior – If your agenda is to dupe society into believing that humans can’t affect the climate, you should never refer readers to the discredited ragtag group of paid promoters of the fossil fuel industry – yawn. This kind of nonsense that you swallow may be politically useful but it is not scientifically defensible.

    The majority of the actors (mostly old fogeys whom you promote as “climate experts”) in the Youtube rubbish, are the covert recipients (directly or indirectly) of the highest levels of corporate funding and are at the centre of the global warming misinformation campaign.

    The current debate here reminds me of my interest in clouds – anthropogenic brown clouds. Neither you nor the band of merry climate thugs can refute the empirical evidence of these man-made clouds (unless deniers are sight impaired as well as dumb and greedy).

    ‘The major source categories of atmospheric BC (ABCs) are fossil fuel combustion (including using diesel as vehicular fuel and coal combustion for energy), biofuel combustion (for example, wood and animal waste as fuel for household heating and cooking), and open biomass burning (for example, forest and savanna fires and agricultural crop residue burning)’.

    The latest collaborative research endeavours of scientists from Japan, Switzerland, USA, Italy, India, Germany, Sth Korea, Sweden, China and a representative of the UNEP (Asia and Pacific) advise that:

    ‘The effect of ABCs on climate, hydrological cycle, glacier melting, agriculture and human health is an outstanding problem which prevents a complete understanding of climate change and its impacts, and needs to be more fully explored.

    ‘Through the studies initiated under the ABC project, scientists now have an overall view of the major sources and the global scale nature of the brown cloud problem. The recent studies show that the aerosols in ABC reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface by as much as 10 to 15%, and enhance atmospheric solar heating by as much as 50%.

    ‘Thus, ABCs, on the one hand, mask the greenhouse warming by the surface dimming, while on the other hand enhance the greenhouse warming of the atmosphere. While confirming that ABCs may have masked global warming by as much as 50% (see also IPCC, 2007), studies conducted by ABC scientists have led to new findings on regional climate changes:

    • Slowing down of the monsoon circulation and reduction in monsoon rainfall.
    • Increase strength and frequency of winter and spring time temperature inversion.
    • Enhancing the greenhouse warming of the atmosphere thus contributing to glacier melting.

    ‘Preliminary assessment of the impacts identified potential direct and indirect consequences of the haze. These impacts include:

    • Impacts on regional temperature, climate and marine and terrestrial ecosystems
    • Impacts on precipitation patterns and water budgets
    • Impacts on agriculture
    • Impacts on human health’

    In fact scientists have hypothesised that the Asian brown cloud, hovering above the north of Australia, may have contributed to the decades long drought in the south-west of WA. And researchers have made clear that there are also disturbing brown clouds elsewhere including over parts of North America, Europe, southern Africa and the Amazon Basin.

    Not so strange is the fact that climate deniers avoid any reference to these anthropogenic brown clouds. Of course the indisputable evidence of anthropogenic brown clouds completely trash the deniers’ propaganda that all carbon perturbations are the result of entirely natural events.

  85. wayne robinson

    I’m bemused that I have been placed in permanent moderation like Frank too.

  86. PeeBee

    Wayne @203, thanks for picking that up… and I see I repeated the same mistake at 201. Please note when I say THREE MONTHS I mean 3 Decades in those posts I mean three decades.

  87. wayne robinson

    Hi Pete,

    I wasn’t asking that question. I was asking why an upsurge in sunspot activity would result in increased global cloudiness and global cooling. I’m interested in reading the answer, because I love new information. Although, I suspect that it might be related to the unproven and hotly contested 2007 Cosmoclimatological hypothesis.

    Even if true, which I doubt, I wonder what increased global cloudiness would do to our agriculture. It mightn’t be a positive, even if natural.

  88. kd

    pete50

    … and this is relevant because…?

    Aah pseudo-scientific misdirection. Never mind.

  89. pete50

    Wayne @ 202: “I’m still waiting for Pete50 to reveal why the coming upsurge in sunspots (if it happens, and it has been delayed –”

    It hasn’t been delayed, Wayne. Take a look at the data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif

  90. Frank Campbell

    Amber:

    On this occasion, I reacted once to a stream of personal insults from one commenter.

    I haven’t minded the two years or so of personal insults directed at me here-they can’t help themselves. It just exposes their inadequacies.

    But I am sick of Crikey double standards.

  91. Amber Jamieson

    Also, I’d just like to point out that while the first line of my comment was aimed at Frank, the rest of it applies to everyone who comments here at Rooted. I really appreciate your engagement with Rooted, but when it descends into personal name calling, it’s not useful for anybody.

  92. Amber Jamieson

    @Frank Campbell — You’ve been put in permanent moderation, not banned, more that I want to pay closer attention to what you say.

    I am the person who does the moderation on Rooted, as I run this blog (if you weren’t already aware). And obviously things have got out of control here lately, meaning I will be paying closer attention to all of you, and am happy to spam your comments and put you on permanent moderation if you keep ignoring the code of conduct.

    And yes there often is a time delay with approving comments, apologies. We do comment moderation as one small part of our rather busy jobs. I was actually away on Friday as it was my grandmother’s 91st birthday, and that took preference over moderation. As you’re probably aware, moderation takes place during normal work hours when we are in the office. Sadly we don’t have staff 24/7, so please be patient with us.

    Thank you.

  93. wayne robinson

    Oops PeeBee (comment #196),

    There’s an error in your comment; you meant to write 3 decades not 3 months. I know Pete50 is frustrating and causes proofreading to become difficult … Anyway, we know what you mean. I wish Crikey had a method of being able to go back and correct mistakes after posting. I proofread my comments, but they still sneak through, particularly with my iPad correcting words that were absolutely correct to begin with. It doesn’t like metre insisting that it should be metro for example … Aggghh.

  94. wayne robinson

    Captain Planet,

    On the face of it, I can’t find anything wrong in what you write. I suspect that without a thermohaline circulation, ocean volumes would follow global atmosphere temperatures much more closely, as the oceans would be converted to a surface layer of very warm salty water and a deep layer of non-circulating cold less salty water. The Gulf Stream did fail in the Younger Dryas about 12,000 years ago, but that was due to Lake Agassiz collapsing releasing a large amount of freshwater into the North Atlantic. I can’t see it happening again, as there isn’t enough freshwater in the Arctic. The scenarios suggesting that it could happen again sound a little implausible to put it mildly, involving a warm Summer increasing surface less salty sea water followed by a colder Winter and Summer, leaving sea ice longer insulating the warm Gulf Stream water from the Arctic wind, so it doesn’t become denser as it should as it becomes colder and saltier due to evaporation so it doesn’t sink instead petering out all over the North Atlantic. Ocean currents (like winds) don’t flow, they suck.

    I’m still not certain how closely ocean volumes should follow global atmosphere temperatures. I suspect that the models describing it will be extremely complex, particularly since we don’t have as much knowledge of the oceans as we should (cue 3 2 1 … ‘Computer climate models are bunkum’ whichever AGW denialist who reads this).

    I’m still waiting for Pete50 to reveal why the coming upsurge in sunspots (if it happens, and it has been delayed – are we headed for another Maunder minimum?) will result in increased global cloudiness and global cooling.

    The Australian had an article this morning on the way sales of cars in China is taking off, and General Motors is rubbing its hands at the thought of the profits to be made there. It doesn’t bode well for the price of oil, with demand increasing. China has a lot of slate gas, which could replace some of the oil requirements, but releasing it entails fracturing the slate with toxic fluids running the risk of contaminating the aquifers which are already under extreme strain due to overuse for agriculture.

    The more I think about it, the more pessimistic I get. If climate change doesn’t get us, then resource depletion will, mainly energy and freshwater. New Statesman had a good article by David Attenborough in the April 25 issue concerning the real problem, global overpopulation, for which there is no solution, since even with luck the population will increase a minimum of 1 billion by 2050, for whom we have to increase food supplies by at least 14%, with a lot of arable land being degraded by overuse and the world’s fisheries being overused to the point of collapse.

  95. PeeBee

    Pete50 @ 190 You responded: PeeBee @ 186. I’m afraid your solar physics is somewhat antediluvian. Sunspot activity (SSA) is not correlated with solar irradiance, as a brief inspection of the two graphs I mentioned show. Sunspot activity is correlated with cloud formation.

    Unfortunately, you missed my point entirely, even though I spelt it out…. You CHERRY PICKED a short time scale to make a point.

    I requested you provide THREE MONTHS of solar sunspot activity to match my time scale of 3 months.

    Did you not to do so because it utterly destroys your argument? A quick look at three months would show you there were 3 sunspot cycles in that time which are more or less the same intensity and yet despite this, the earth has continued to warm.

    Conclusion, sunspot activity is not causing the earth to warm.

    I have never heard of the connection between sun spot activity and cloud formation. Could you please provide some references?

    Mind you, I would not be surprised if the ‘Merchants of doubt’ have dreamt up a new field of science to throw more doubt into the mix. After all that is the reason they are there.

  96. Captain Planet

    Gee, this thread has legs.

    Wayne Robinson, thanks for the detailed reply at #160.

    the coefficient of thermal expansion of seawater varies with temperature; for a given temperature rise, cool water expands less than warm water

    This is what I was asking about…. you just put it a whole heap more succintly. Too much time has elapsed since I sat in a lecture hall.

    The commentary about the pressure applied to water at depth neatly cancelling out the difference is fascinating, and had not occurred to me.

    One slight quibble, with global warming heat isn’t being added to the oceans, it’s just failing to be lost.

    I guess my point was the cumulative increase in heat energy contained in the ocean – assuming heat is added and lost at all times, whether the net increase is due to extra addition of heat, or less removal of heat, is pretty much a moot point. But your point is taken, I am something of a pedant for details myself at times.

    I suppose, the safest thing to say is that the heat capacity of the ocean is enormous. It takes a long time to warm and cool. So with a warming atmosphere, the oceans take longer to warm, so on that ground alone, there should be a lag period.

    Understood that it takes a long long time to warm the ocean to any appreciable degree. But what is the lag period between atmospheric warming and oceanic warming? This depends really on the efficacy of heat transfer between air and sea, and though I accept that there will be a lag in the transfer of an average increase in temperature, i would expect that the lag would be measured in years, not decades (complete wild guesstimate based on nothing better than a reasonable grasp of elementary physics and natural laws).

    Personally, I can accept that if the rate of sea level increase is decelerating at this point in time, this may well mean that the rate of increase in atmospheric warming is decelerating – at this point in time. This does not mean that the planet is not warming, nor does it not mean that the long term warming trend is not accelerating, for both atmosphere and ocean, and for sea level rise as an expression of both.

    Temperature records for the past 10 – 12 years do not show the same rapid increase as prior periods. This in no way contradicts my opinion that AGW is happening and is a very real problem – 2010 tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record, etc. I believe that when sunspot activity kicks off again (we are well overdue for a renewal of sunspots) the temperature will soar and the denialists will have to move on to another bandwagon – never lacking for the fearful and credulous to believe their soothing message that everything is fine, keep driving your V8 car.

    It is my gut feeling that ocean levels follow atmospheric temperatures fairly closely, with a fairly minimal lag. It is entirely possible that I’m wrong.

  97. kd

    did not support, just in case the hard of thinking thought that this was some typical black is white, war is peace and sex is virginity argument as beloved by the deniers.

  98. kd

    pete50

    [ blah blah blah as a brief inspection of the two graphs I mentioned show ]

    Except that we immediately established that the two graphs you mentioned did support your point in any way whatsoever being on far too short a time scale in both cases.

    The pattern appears to be a swathe of explicit denial and misdirection, followed by a decent chunk of implicit denial while you ignore the evidence and change the subject. Booooring.

  99. senior

    OMG, i can’t beleive you actually question “if” NASA is correct in informing you that the sun is warming the earth…and then yous suggest the earth will be a better place if it were ridded of co2. Here’s a pair of videos if you care to watch.

  100. wayne robinson

    Pete,

    I wrote comment #186, and my name isn’t PeeBee. I take it you mean #187, and your reading ability is impaired.

    Anyway, you’re wrong; solar irradiation does positively correlate with sunspot activity. Even the limited graphs you linked to showed that, with a small decrease in solar irradiation with a big decrease in sunspot number (the effect is about one Christmas tree light bulb per square metre, plus or minus).

    Where is your reference to your assertion that sunspot activity is correlated with cloud formation? You’re not referring to the cosmoclimatological hypothesis, which hasn’t been confirmed to be even possibly true? And anyway, where the clouds form have an uncertain variable effect on temperature, some cool, some warm, so it’s not possible to make a blanket statement that if, and I stress if, increased solar sunspot activity increases cloud cover, that this will cause global cooling.

    You haven’t linked to one of your famous graphs.

  101. pete50

    PeeBee @ 186. I’m afraid your solar physics is somewhat antediluvian. Sunspot activity (SSA) is not correlated with solar irradiance, as a brief inspection of the two graphs I mentioned show. Sunspot activity is correlated with cloud formation.

    I understand that the sun and clouds are not the strong suit of the Warmistanis. Thus SSA is consistent with recent global temperatures and the rising SSA is consistent with recent seasonal phenomena and bodes cold for the next decade or so.

  102. Flower

    Senior – It did not take you long to provide us with a link to “Gotcha” Watts, the weatherman. Psst…..Watts does not get his stuff published in the peer-reviewed literature. Watts is parasite who sucks off the teat of the works of reputable climate scientists so he can dirty things up to get free beer and pizza from the big polluters and their rent boys.

    Alas for your hero, Senior, climate sceptic and scientist, Professor Richard Muller, in his address to Congress in March (and on behalf of 10 other highly acclaimed scientists, including physicists, climatologists and statisticians), on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, has inadvertently reinforced the view that Watts is a nuisance to the human race and prawn of the decade:

    desmogblog.com/paul-krugmans-must-read-ny-times-op-ed-immoral-climate-denial

    ‘Professor Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analysed the temperature trends underlying climate science is “excellent…. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.”’

    Oh dear and the Berkeley project was partly funded by the heinous Koch brothers (the largest contributors to planet-warming greenhouse gases) who had anticipated a big bang for their buck in support of Watts’ cow dirt nonsense on temperature stations.

    Now Watts, bobbing and weaving (just like Pete50/Tones9), is faced with such comments as: “Hell hath no fury like a bunch of big girls’ blouses scorned.”

    tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/richard-muller-love-fest/

    Hopefully the day will arrive when Watts is thrown in the slammer for crimes against humanity?

    @ Pete50: “Put simply, the CAGW industry needs to frighten gullible politicians and public servants in order to keep the trough fully topped up with “research” money.”

    Oh right Pete50/Tones9 – do your histrionics extend to scientists who are climate sceptics/deniers who are keeping their troughs fully topped up with laundered money from the fossil fuel industry (and government grants)? If not, why not? And why the laundering? Is it a plot to dupe Joe Citizen and shareholders with their glowing “sustainability” reports while chewing the ar*e out of Planet Earth?

    PS: Don’t worry – I won’t be holding my breath waiting for your answer.

  103. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Put simply, the CAGW industry needs to frighten gullible politicians and public servants in order to keep the trough fully topped up with “research” money.

    How fortunate that since the CAGW industry was established by the Illumanti in 1988 global temperatures have continued to go up.

  104. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    …and rich uncle inheritance, i don’t have much time left after spending so much of it reading the brainwashed opinions of the best bunch of fruitcake greenies this non-admitting website has to offer, but a quick google search of ar4 had this in the top 5.

    So you don’t actually read the science, you rely on people who share your political opinion telling you what to think about the science. In layman’s terms, that is dumb.

  105. PeeBee

    Pete, I spoke about the last three decades and you produce a graph in 181 of solar activity for the last decade. You have cherry picked the time scale to make your argument. Please provide a graph with the last THREE DECADES of solar sunspot activity.

    And besides your time slice actually shows the opposite of what you want to prove – solar activity in the last decade was declining; yet the decade was the hottest on record.

    And this statement Thus they have to fall back on ppm of the most crucial atmospheric trace gas to all life on the planet has me wondering about your scientific credentials.

    For one, CO2 is not crucial to ALL life on earth. Putting that aside, you are implying that CO2 cannot be have any effect because it is present in small quantities. Quiet simply, it would have a very significant effect if the rest gases combined to make up 999,640 ppm have no green house effect! You should know this and a 40% increase in CO2 would enhance the greenhouse effect significantly.

    And furthermore you had better explain what you mean by It’s voodoo science . I find these cheap shots pathetic, especially coming from someone claiming a scientific background. It tells me you have run out of decent arguments so throw up your hands and say ‘It’s wrong, but I don’t know why it is wrong – it just is so must be voodoo science’.

    Have you ever applied for research money? Put simply, the CAGW industry needs to frighten gullible politicians and public servants in order to keep the trough fully topped up with “research” money. Are you claiming fraud? Where is your evidence for this? If you cannot provide any, I think you should apologise to your (I’m assuming you are a scientist) colleagues right now.

    Pete your arguements are getting more shrill by the minute. Stick to science instead of repeating imagined consipracy theories as it is destroying your credibility.

  106. wayne robinson

    Pete,

    The graph of solar irradiance does show it tracking sunspot activity. Sunspot frequency drops, solar irradiance drops.

    And how do sunspots stimulate cloud formation? According to this, we should have had fewer clouds recently. Most skeptics seem to be relying on some sort of cosmoclimatology theory to link solar activity to cloud formation, which is an unproven hypothesis. Reduction in the Sun’s magnetosphere, increases cosmic radiation reaching the Earth, which causes ionization acting as nuclei for initiation of droplets to form clouds. What it’s an unproven theory.

    And the models are variable; some are getting good at predicting what cloud cover should look like.

    Going back to one of your previous comments; there is no AGW industry, trying to panic politicians to keep the funds for research flowing. All the national science academies (which represent all scientists, not just climate scientists) have issued position statements agreeing that AGW is true. Research funds are limited. One group of scientists getting research funds means another group won’t. When President Obama liberalized funding of research funding of embryonic stem cells, the first ones to take his government to court were two scientists who research adult stem cells, claiming that the change might make it difficult for them to get funding.

  107. kd

    Yawn.

    We’ve just been through the deepest solar minimum in some time. All other things being equal we would have expected to see substantial cooling over the first decade of the 21st century. However, this is clearly not the case – at best we see steady temperatures, and significant arctic warming (as predicted by models of anthropogenic warming).

    pete50 caught talking unsupported rubbish again? well I never. I await personal abuse followed by changing of the topic now that he’s been caught out again.

    Oh yeah the graph in #183 is over too short a time period to be meaningful as it only shows the middle and end of the recent solar minimum. As well as nonsense, it’s also lazy.

  108. pete50

    Wayne – there are several solar metrics. Total solar irradiance is one of them, and if you look, you will see that it does not track sunspot activity. And neither does it reduce the power of my argument.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png

    Sun spot activity stimulates cloud formation, which of course has a major effect on reflectance and surface temperature.

    Oh, and your unsubstantiated declaration that it’s a lie that the IPCC climate models do not include clouds or solar activity weakens your argument – because it’s true. I was referring specifically to the models that the IPCC relies on for all the voodoo stuff it tries to ram down the throats of the gullible.

  109. wayne robinson

    Pete,

    Actually you’ve just destroyed your argument. Solar warming is proportional to sunspot numbers, so we should be definitely be in a cooling phase now. But global temperatures are still increasing, it’s just that the increase over the over the past 12 years isn’t statistically significant. Denialists see the ‘not statistically significant’ and think that means there has been no warming, or worse, that there has actually been cooling. It just means that you have to consider longer periods.

    It’s like having a rigged coin which always gives heads, tossing it 4 times, getting 4 heads, calculating the chance of getting 4 heads in a row to be one in sixteen, noting that that isn’t significantly (it’s above 0.05) and then concluding that it’s a fair coin.

    And no, we all don’t know that the climate models don’t include clouds or solar activity. That’s just a lie.

    And CO2 is NOT the most crucial trace gas in the atmosphere to all life on Earth. That honour goes to ozone, which has a level of around 3 ppmv, whereas CO2 has a level currently of around 400 ppmv. Without ozone to screen out ultraviolet radiation, life would be confined to subsurface oceans. More life can live without CO2 than ozone.

    If NASA is correct, and we do see an upswing in sunspot number, then we should see an upswing in warming. When NASA first noted the quiet Sun several years ago, they noted that that should lead to a cooler Earth in the short term but no permanent end to global warming.

  110. pete50

    PEEbee # 169 said: “However in the last 3 decades the solar output has been very steady and the earth has continued to heat up.”

    Now that I cannot agree with. Of the multiple solar metrics, the one most have heard off, i.e., sun spots, just in the last decade have been anything but “very Steady”. Take a look: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif

    We all know now that the climate models that the IPCC have relied upon to conjure up dire predictions, do not include solar activity or cloud dynamics. Thus they have to fall back on ppm of the most crucial atmospheric trace gas to all life on the planet – CO2. It’s voodoo science, and the zombies that are conjured out of their graves by the IPCC to frighten the natives are molecules of CO2.

    Put simply, the CAGW industry needs to frighten gullible politicians and public servants in order to keep the trough fully topped up with “research” money.

  111. PeeBee

    Senior @176, oil at $5 a barrell, where did you get it at that price? You really are out of touch aren’t you?

    I’m surprised you didn’t say it was free…. after all it is just sitting there under the ground.

  112. kd

    senior:

    btw, wuwtf is not a credible source on climate change issues. Like other climate delusionals, Watts is keen to make pronouncements, and much less keen to retract them when he’s unambiguously found to be wrong.

  113. kd

    One of the things the delusional brigade won’t accept (as indicated by senior’s latest pile of nonsense) is that the consequences of climate change are delayed by decades due to strong lags in the system.

    The problem isn’t really what’s happening now (although it seems that significant problems are starting to occur), it’s what’s going to transpire between 2050 to 2100. The sooner we act, the less these problems are going to be.

    The other thing that amuses me about the your delusional right wingers is that they don’t believe in resource limitation.

  114. wayne robinson

    Senior,

    I suppose it is possible that Ian Dunlop holds a lot of coal shares and is just trying to boost the value of coal by concealing the fact that the world is awash with oil, so customers will stop looking for supplies, and instead buy coal.

    I suppose that it is possible that his expressing worry about AGW is just a clever ploy to make people use more coal and oil.

    I suppose that it’s equally possible that Ian Dunlop is actually Elvis Prestley in disguise hiding out in Australia.

    Your argument is certainly a novel one, one that I haven’t come across before. Most denialists would be suggesting that Ian Dunlop has financial interests in a solar panel installation firm or a wind farm.

    And yes, I have seen website references to the number of non-peer reviewed publications in the IPCC report. First of all, their number are vastly exceeded by the number of publications that were peer reviewed. Secondly, peer review isn’t necessarily the gold standard of publications. All it means is that the publication has been read by the author’s peers, and no obvious errors were found, not that the publication was actually correct. The non-peer reviewed publications in fact did undergo a sort of peer review, because everything that went into the report was examined by committees and discussed and argued about in a lengthy process.

    If you think that people expressing concern about peak oil or AGW are corrupt and have personal financial interests in expressing bogus claims, don’t you think that you should also apply the same scepticism to the websites you so blithely cite?

  115. senior

    Can you guarantee Ian Dunlop does’nt hold any coal or oil resource shares? I bet he’s “very worried” about peak oil, worried that everyone will find out oil is really worth about five dollars a barrel.

    …and rich uncle inheritance, i don’t have much time left after spending so much of it reading the brainwashed opinions of the best bunch of fruitcake greenies this non-admitting website has to offer, but a quick google search of ar4 had this in the top 5.

  116. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Senior, why do you need people to “preach” to you? Why can’t you read the AR4 and think for yourself?

    Wayne, don’t worry about the oil running out

    Well that’s taken a load off my mind.

  117. wayne robinson

    Senior,

    Would you accept Ian Dunlop, engineer, previous senior executive of Shell, previous chairman of the Australian Coal Association and previous CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors as being someone from the real world. He’s currently a senior member of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, and he is very worried about both peak oil and AGW.

    Mining companies, unfortunately, generally are only concerned with the profits they can make. If they can fool people into thinking that tar sands, slate gas and coal can be made ‘clean’, then they’re even happier.

  118. PeeBee

    Senior @171 says Yeah, exactly the same thing i used to read in the 90′s and 2000′s but nothing’s changed.

    Errr except it has. The 90’s were the hottest decade recorded, and that was only superceded by the 2000’s.

    The longer we delay action to reduce C02 emissions the more it will cost to change later.

  119. wayne robinson

    Senior,

    Are you talking about the tar sands of Alberta? It’s not actually, heavy crude. It’s actually bitumen, and processing it to get usable oil takes a lot of energy. Current costs to process it are about 30 Canadian dollars per barrel (compared to 6 dollars at most for oil produced in America) so it’s not cheap. Reserves might be about 50 years. Venezuela might have larger deposits, but they’re too deep for open mining, the economical method of recovering the stuff.

    And that doesn’t even include the financial costs of environmental damage that miners are keen not to pay in full.

    And no, bitumen is not the same crude that we use now

  120. senior

    “The next 5-10 years have been identified as a critical period for action”
    Yeah, exactly the same thing i used to read in the 90’s and 2000’s but nothing’s changed. Nutjobs like this film idiot say things like “critical period” because as we all now know it will still be the same in 2020, we’ll still be pumping millions of cubic feet of emissions per hour into the atmosphere and the temp will be .2 degrees less or more than what it is now. And of course you’ll say the same thing then, “oh, but we didn’t know as much back then as we do now”, no, you were just trying to change our attitude for your own satisfaction.

    How does one gain public support for such measures ? ans; prove it’s real, or at least get someone to preach about it who isn’t a politician, greenie or film director, you know, someone from the real world.

    Wayne, don’t worry about the oil running out, they just tell you it will to keep the price (economy) up. The oil we currently draw is a very high quality product. There’s a few big companies around that are trying to work out easier ways of extracting what’s usually called sand oil, it’s the same crude we use now but it’s got a lot more tar,dirt,mud and other fossilised contaminents which make it hard to get, but at the current rate the world is consuming oil there is enough of this heavy crude to last about 4000 years. yes you read right.

  121. kd

    peebee #169

    [ However in the last 3 decades the solar output has been very steady and the earth has continued to heat up. ]

    Actually in the early ‘naughties, the solar output was substantially lower than in recent history. Given the “natural causes” hypothesis, we would expect this to result in record low temperatures. However instead we see that most of the 12 warmest years in the last century or so have been within the last 12 years.

    Stunning support for the delusionist’s hypothesis. Oh hang on no it isn’t. Cue some abuse followed by silence followed by a pathetic attempt to change the subject, again.

  122. PeeBee

    Pete50 @140 you stated the Polar ice cap is going precisely nowhere. Take a look – i’ts still there and it’s not getting smaller:

    To which I stated that the graphs you referred to didn’t support that statement… which it appears you agree with as you said in 165:

    There is no denying that climate changes and that it it is changing in the present era. That’s because the globe is coming out of the little ice age. And that PeeBee, is why the the coloured lines are not all above the black line.

    I congratulate you on graduating from level 1 denier to level 2 denier. Both Bolt and Abbott have made the same transition. (level 1 is where they deny any warming of the planet, whereas level 2 they agree the planet is warming, but it due to natural effects.)

    Now, you claim the earth is getting warmer because we are coming out of the little ice age. There was a drop in temperature during the 1700s as a result of decrease in solar activity (as measured by Carbon 14 which is produced in the atmosphere by solar activity). However in the last 3 decades the solar output has been very steady and the earth has continued to heat up.

    So we have to look for the mechanism that is causing this heating. Can you suggest one?

  123. Flower

    @ Pete50: “The reference containing the IPCC prediction that the world will be inundated by the end of the century is here:Changes in sea level, in Climate Change 2001…..”

    ‘World’ inundation Pete50? Are you suggesting that the IPCC has “predicted” that all terrestrial life on the planet will be donning flippers, snorkels and oxygen units?

    “Prediction” Pete50? The IPCC makes projections not “predictions” and verballing the authors of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report is considered infantile. Further the IPCC states (naturally) that sea level rises do not occur uniformly around the world :

    IPCC Third Assessment – 2001:

    “Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88
    metres between 1990 and 2100, for the full range of
    SRES scenarios. This is due primarily to thermal
    expansion and loss of mass from glaciers and ice caps
    (Figure 5e). The range of sea level rise presented in the
    SAR was 0.13 to 0.94 metres based on the IS92
    scenarios. Despite the higher temperature change
    projections in this assessment, the sea level projections
    are slightly lower, primarily due to the use of improved
    models, which give a smaller contribution from glaciers
    and ice sheets.”

    Can we look forward to your retraction Pete50?

    Now move along with the rest of us and access the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment.

    The tedious rounds of stupefying swill spewed by deniers, that humans and the emergence of the Oil Age are so minuscule as to be incapable of altering some of Earth’s physical and chemical cycles is supported by zero evidence.

    If humans (some 6.5 billion) are emitting 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes, science (and the Precautionary Principle) dictates we mitigate this human-induced contribution. Bacteria causes measurable changes in Earth’s atmosphere just by gasses released during their metabolic activity, therefore science dictates we analyze the anthropogenic fossil fuel gases that are being emitted with reckless abandon.

    Humans have been altering the earth’s cycles for some 8-10,000 years before the Oil Age and when land was first cleared for planting by burning and chopping. Fast forward to where each of Nelson’s Royal Navy war ships at Trafalgar (1805) required 6,000 mature oaks for its construction.

    There is 5,000 years of pollution in the Rio Tinto estuary. Mining of massive sulfide deposits in southwestern Spain extending back to the Copper and Bronze Ages has resulted in the pollution of the Rio Tinto fluvial-estuarine complex, the site of Columbus’ departure for the New World in 1492. The radiometric date (3640 YBP) shows that much of the current pollution was caused by mining in pre-Roman times.

    Such ignorance could have once been sustained but certainly not over the last 100 years where corporate rights have trumped human rights every time. In the last two decades or so, the life in many major rivers has been wiped out with joyful malice and tens of thousands of river people displaced and sickened by the mining cowboys from the West.

    Shall I name the hit and run corporate thugs operating in Australia, who have polluted and desecrated rivers in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia and Europe? These are the fragile rivers now on life support, with little hope of self-remediation under the dire threat of global warming.

    Since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometres of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed. Between 1990 and 2010, Australia lost an average of 260,000 hectares per year. Deforestation has caused plant and animal extinction, changes to climatic conditions, desertification, salinity, dieback etc. Who do you hold responsible for the destruction of the world’s forests and the forests’ massive carbon sinks? The gumnut babies?

  124. kd

    hmm to the best of my knowledge, scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming. The data analysis I did myself also strongly suggests that the long term warming observed through the 20th century is independent of natural cycles as well.

    Is there some quality scientific evidence that I’m unaware of that contradicts both the consensus position, and the evidence of my own eyes? Thought not.

    Or is this another denialist troll pushing out long discredited delusional arguments. Again. I know which one my money is on.

  125. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    That’s because the globe is coming out of the little ice age.

    How?

  126. pete50

    There is no denying that climate changes and that it it is changing in the present era. That’s because the globe is coming out of the little ice age. And that PeeBee, is why the the coloured lines are not all above the black line.

  127. kd

    wayne #162

    Quite. One of the other denier talking points makes the assumption that the observations relating to climate change should be monotonoc. There are a myriad of reasons that we would expect this not to be the case. Long lag times while heat transfers around the biosphere are one example of why this expectation can not be met.

  128. wayne robinson

    Charlto.honk (comment #152),

    At current use, oil will run out in 50 years and coal in 250 years, so yes oil and coal will both run out in 250 years. But as fuels, oil is much more valuable. You can’t run our current shipping on coal (or our planes). So we really need to be planning where we get our energy well before the oil does run out. It will be hideously expensive well before then. And anyway, oil is too valuable a resource to be just burned; it’s used to make pharmaceuticals, fertilizers etc.

    And if the permafrost in Siberia and northern Canada thaws out, it is going to release methane (due to bacterial decomposition of buried frozen plant material) regardless of whether the land is farmed or not.

  129. wayne robinson

    Charlto.honk (and Captain Planet) mainly comment #148 and 149,

    What you write sounds reasonable, and I’ve had to give it more thought. One slight quibble, with global warming heat isn’t being added to the oceans, it’s just failing to be lost. Part of the heat radiated from the ocean as IR radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and part of that is then reemitted downwards to keep the ocean warmer.

    But yes, what you write sounds quite reasonable; without the thermohaline circulation greater thermal expansion of the unmixed warmer surface water should be the same as that of very slighter warmer but enormously larger volume of all the ocean water once the very slow process of mixing due to the thermohaline circulation occurs.

    I’d assumed that it was due to the fact that the coefficient of thermal expansion of seawater varies with temperature; for a given temperature rise, cool water expands less than warm water (which is a fact). As an aside, seawater has slightly different properties to freshwater, which reaches its maximum density at 4 degrees, and then becomes less dense towards its freezing point, whereas seawater becomes more dense all the way to its freezing point.

    My assumption had been that a larger warming of unmixed surface water would result in a larger thermal expansion than a minuscule warming of a very much larger volume of all the ocean water, due to increasing coefficient of thermal expansion with increasing temperature, but on further examination that’s not quite true.

    I’d made the mistake of assuming that water is water, regardless of where it is in the ocean. But of course, in the ocean depths, it’s under enormous pressures, and water is actually compressed to a slightly smaller volume. Increasing pressure (like increasing temperature) also increases the coefficient of thermal expansion too, so very cold ocean water at 4000 metres expands as much as warm surface water at 25 degrees for the same increase in temperature.

    Calculating what would happen in the entire oceans, from the surface to the abyss, from the tropics to the poles, is beyond me. I suspect you’d need extremely complex computer models to calculate it.

    I suppose, the safest thing to say is that the heat capacity of the ocean is enormous. It takes a long time to warm and cool. So with a warming atmosphere, the oceans take longer to warm, so on that ground alone, there should be a lag period.

  130. Rohan

    c4a

    What happened? You started off pleasantly enough, with a veneer of reasonableness and self-awareness, albeit utterly contrived.

    But no, in the finest denialist tradition you’ve quickly resorted to woe-is-me moaning about ad-hominem attacks. A little too convenient really, although considering kd continues to expose what a scientific lightweight you are, I can completely understand why you do it.

  131. kd

    c4a

    Nope I’m attacking your argument, not you. You on the other hand are attacking me and not my argument. I don’t actually have to be polite about your delusional arguments, especially as I’m sick of the deniers ignoring all of the available evidence, and sticking with their long discredited talking points.

  132. PeeBee

    Pete50, @ 40 says Well, once again the facts don’t fit the warmist doctrine. Yes, CO2 is still rising and no the Polar ice cap is going precisely nowhere. Take a look – i’ts still there and it’s not getting smaller:
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

    Pete I don’t read the graph as you do. Since 2007 the sea ice extent has been consistently under the 1979 to 2006 average except for a couple of months. (ie most of the coloured lines are under the black line).

    We don’t expect world temperature to move up in lock step with the CO2 build up. There are other factors that effect the temperature and these play a part in creating noise. The CO2 is responsible for these fluctuations to be trending up.

    Same thing goes for the icecap; I don’t expect it to reduce every year. I expect some years it will be bigger than the year before, but overall the trend is that it is getting smaller.

    To use this graph as a argument that the icesheet is stable is pretty flimsy evidence and reminds of the tricks Andrew Bolt repeatedly used – show a graph that doesn’t support your argument, but just call it evidence and use it anyway. (PS I notice that even the great Andrew Bolt has stopped using this graph as evidence, perhaps you should too).

    Honestly Pete, if you want a ‘bombshell’ find me a graph where all the coloured lines are ABOVE the black line. Then I (as would the rest of the world) would sit up and listen.

    By the way, I don’t think Pete50 = Tones9. You are much more civil and I thank you for not descending to that level.

  133. Climate4all

    (God I hate my laptop)
    While you and wayne have been trolling your own hangout, dirtying the comment section with your drivel, the GMSL has dropped from 3.1 to 2.8
    So act like it don’t matter.
    Suggest it doesn’t effect anything.
    Deny that current sea levels in no way changes AGW.
    Because you know what, It does.
    You really need to get out more, I think all the name-calling and ad-hominum attacks you and wayne carry out has completely left you guys out of touch with reality.
    Because the rest of the known world uses sea levels to spew CAGW to anyone who listens.
    But the real people in denial, are the ones that squirm, name call, attack, pontificate, play 3rd grade logic tricks to confuse and intimidate others.
    Wait, is that it? You guys are still in 3rd grade.
    You hear that?
    The recess bell just rang and your teacher is calling you back into class.
    Hurry child, before you’re late and miss your nap.

  134. Climate4all

    I just love to watch alarmists squirm.
    It’s like what Pumbaa said in ‘Lion King’, about eating bugs:
    “Slimy, yet satisfying.”
    Is this what you do full time kd, or is it a hobby?
    Insulting people I mean.
    If you get paid to do so, please, keep chirping.
    I don’t want to see you homeless and clueless all at the same time.
    That could be too overwhelming with the latest news from the UC@Boulder.
    While you and waybeen trolling your own hangout, dirtying the comment section

  135. kd

    pete50

    Your delusional posturing knows no bounds. All of your idiotic talking points have been dealt with at length elsewhere, to the point where it’s clear to any thinking person that the denialist position has no merit. One good introduction to debunking many many of your delusional arguments is here.

  136. pete50

    Remember Captain that there was no human induced CO2 during 1860-1880 and it’s identical to both 1910-1940 and 1975-1998. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1998.

    Of course there is long-term warming since the little ice age, and its all natural. The pre and post human CO2 eras are identical.

    Tim, Julia and yourself can sleep at night without being frightened of the bogey man CO2 total doom.

  137. Think Big

    Climate4all @ 126

    [Personally, I don’t know if sea levels are going to accelerate above current rising levels, or continue to decelerate. All I know is that it isn’t accelerating as predicted, and I take great offense to it.]

    Ah – very topical. Misrepresentations about sea-level rise are the subject of this week’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week
    Enjoy

  138. kd

    If you do the statistics it’s quite clear that CO2 is the main factor driving warming. This switched from solar activity as the main factor around the early 1970s. Since then CO2 has accounted for 70-80% of the observed temperature anomaly. Prior to that it was accounting for about 25%.

    Or you can do the delusional idiot and just deny everything.

  139. Captain Planet

    @pete50,

    Distinguish AGW from what happens naturally in the same manner that the IPCC have made excruciatingly clear that they did.

    By the fact that the long term warming trend, of those short – term warming periods, is far more rapid and far greater in magnitude, than any period for which data is available. And the fact that the warming shown is clearly over and above any which could be accounted for naturally.

    Get it now?

  140. charlto.honk

    Also wayne:

    I like your comments, but a note on what you say at #138:

    “…And then if you add in global warming (which I think is happening) then you really have problems. Siberia and northern Canada might become warm enough to become agricultural land (assuming the soil there is fertile enough after being scoured by the 50 or so glaciations of the current ice age) to compensate for the loss of farm land elsewhere, but then you have the problem of shipping the food.”

    Only God and the oil sheikhs have any idea when the oil will really run out. If the current prices are any indication, we have passed the high point on the production graph that is Peak Oil. But I think it safe to assume that there are around 250 years of total oil and coal left at current rates of consumption.

    However as the permafrost of the Northern Hemisphere warms, the methane locked up in it will enter the atmosphere big time, and it is about 80 times stronger than CO2 in its greenhouse effect on a molecule for molecule basis. Hence for this reason alone all the schemes to unlock the agricultural potential of the Arctic will only make global warming more pronounced.

  141. pete50

    Captain Planet @ 147

    It was I who drew attention to: “the global temperature record used by the IPCC, shows that the rates of warming for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical.”

    Your little tutorial on science is only clouding the issue. Given the above statement, how can I distinguish AGW from what happens naturally?

  142. Frank Campbell

    It’s one thing to be censored permanently on Crikey- I’m used to that, and to Crikey’s inveterate hypocrisy regarding personal insult- but it looks like no one at Crikey actually reads their own blogs— comments just remain “moderated” from dawn til dusk… Others have complained about this to no avail.
    So take yourself seriously, Crikey. Maybe you could pick up some cheap Fairfax subeditors…

    let’s see how long this one takes…

  143. Captain Planet

    Should read,

    “No?

    As I understand it, there is a linear relationship between the amount of heat energy added to a given volume of ocean water, and its INCREASE IN temperature.”

    apologies.

  144. Captain Planet

    @ Wayne Robinson,

    I understand the point about thermohaline circulation, and the time lag between oceanic surface temperature and average oceanic total volume temperature.

    I am curious about the mechanism of ocean expansion, however. Perhaps you or somebody else can shed some light on this. Charlto.honk sparked a thought in my mind – surely if the surface of the ocean is the only part of the ocean warming (pretty obvious until mixing occurs) then the total amount of heat energy imparted to the surface layer (resulting in a given amount of warming for a given volume) would result in the same total amount of thermal expansion, as would occur if that same total amount of heat energy were distributed amongst the remainder of the ocean’s volume.

    No?

    As I understand it, there is a linear relationship between the amount of heat energy added to a given volume of ocean water, and its temperature.

    I am assuming (and asking for confirmation) that the relationship between the rate of increase in oceanic volume per unit of heat added, and the temperature of the water, is constant.

    The only mechanism whereby I can comprehend thermohaline circulation causing a time lag between oceanic temperature increase at the surface, and oceanic expansion due to that temperature increase, is if the amount of heat energy required to cause a given amount of expansion were to increase as the temperature of the water increased.

    Otherwise, it shouldn’t matter whether a given amount of joules of energy are added to one kilolitre of water, (causing a large temperature increase in a small amount of water) or to a hundred kilolitres of water (causing a smaller temperature increase in a larger amount of water), the total expansion due to the additional heat energy should be the same.

    Feedback please?

  145. charlto.honk

    wayne @ #146:

    I read the article (and I have great respect for Wikipedia, but nowhere in it could I find anything to justify your claim that:

    “…the entire cycle takes 1600 years, so the average temperature of the oceans always lags the surface temperature of the ocean (which as you note reflects insolation). And ocean volume depends on average temperature not the surface temperature.

    “And as a result, sea levels lag climate change. The current sea level reflects the climate in the past, not the current climate.”

    Sorry, you’ve lost me. The total oceanic volume will be increased by (1) the addition of fresh water from melting ice, and it will also (2) reflect the average temperature of the whole ocean. If the whole ocean is heating right now, its level will rise. If the surface water is heating, its level will rise. If a land glacier melts, its level will rise. If a comet drops into it, its level will rise. But of course, if a floating iceberg melts, its level will remain unchanged.

    That is why sea level right now is our best indicator of what is happening thermally to the planet right now. It cuts through the denialist fog of urban heat island effects, land rising under tidal guages etc etc and has resulted in denialists shifting their ground from ‘the planet is cooling’ to ‘the planet may be warming, but human industrial activities have nothing to do with it.’

    Please quote me the bit out of Wikipedia that contradicts this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

  146. Captain Planet

    These temperature records are science, and so far no one, including Nicholas Aberle, has pointed us to the real science that contradicts the facts that fluctuating climate is NATURAL.

    You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried, tones9.

    These temperature records are science

    No. They are data. Science involves observations, hypotheses, experimentation and conclusions. “These temperature records” are merely observations. The other parts are required before you have “science”.

    so far no one… has pointed us to the real science that contradicts the facts that fluctuating climate is NATURAL.

    That is because no real science makes such a ludicrous claim. Of course fluctuating climate is natural. Go and read the IPCC report and you will observe that all of the science which supports the AGW hypothesis acknowledges this AND MAKES ALLOWANCE FOR IT. You are attempting to insinuate that the AGW hypothesis claims that climate does not naturally fluctuate. This shows you to be either incredibly ignorant of climate science (for somebody who postures as knowing the TRUTH of the matter) or wilfully ignorant, or intentionally misleading.

    The point (as I am sure you well know) is that climate scientists, almost unanimously, have examined the evidence and concluded that, ALLOWING FOR NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS, the current rate of warming is well and truly above what can be explained by the many natural factors which affect climate – and the overwhelming probability is that the additional warming is caused by human factors including, primarily, CO2 emissions.

    There. Is that so hard to understand?

  147. pete50

    Ah, yes climate change!

    Climate changes, but not measurably so due to human activity. Tim, Julia and the rest of the inhabitants of Warmistan think it does, however,the global temperature record used by the IPCC, shows that the rates of warming for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical.

    These temperature records are science, and so far no one, including Nicholas Aberle, has pointed us to the real science that contradicts the facts that fluctuating climate is NATURAL.

  148. wayne robinson

    Charlto.honk,

    Yes, you’re wrong. Look at the Wikipedia article on the thermohaline circulation if you don’t believe me. It’s true that generally warm water floats on cold water, but warm saltier water sinks in cold less salty water, and that’s what keeps the Gulf Stream running, which is part of the thermohaline circulation (the haline part refers to ‘salt’). So there’s a continuous transfer of warm surface water to the deep ocean and cold deep ocean water to the surface, and the entire cycle takes 1600 years, so the average temperature of the oceans always lags the surface temperature of the ocean (which as you note reflects insolation). And ocean volume depends on average temperature not the surface temperature.

    And as a result, sea levels lag climate change. The current sea level reflects the climate in the past, not the current climate.

    Of course, it’s possible for the thermohaline circulation to fail. That’s one of the hypotheses for the end of Permian mass extinction 250MYA, and also the plot behind that dreadful (but special effects brilliant) film ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.

  149. charlto.honk

    wayne robinson @ #132

    “As I’ve said, sea level rises depend on thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of land based ice and snow.”

    I agree. This makes sea level the best thermometric indicator we have for the planet as a whole, IMHO.

    “Thermal expansion of the oceans depends on a healthy thermohaline circulation (the Gulf Stream is part of this) to mix warm surface water with deep cold water, and this takes 1600 years to happen.”

    Please explain?

    Different parts of the oceans will always be at different temperatures because of geographical differences in insolation of the surface and the simple fact that the density of water falls as its temperature rises, thus increasing its tendency to float. So the water layer close to the ocean bottom is colder than the top layer, and one will wait till Doomsday for the ocean water to all come to the same temperature.

    As the thermal expansion of water is approximately linear, mixed or unmixed its total heat content will be the same, making sea level our best indicator of plantary thermal change. And it is rising.

    Effect on thermohaline circulation is another matter, and I cannot for the life of me see how thermal expansion of the oceans can depend on it.

    Please enlighten me if I am wrong.

  150. Captain Planet

    pete 50 is actually tones9.

  151. Frank Campbell

    kd et al: both these graphs are short-term.

    Far too short to be drawing any conclusions.

  152. wayne robinson

    Pete,

    Two points. The graph only shows sea ice area, not volume. The sea ice area currently is tracking below average, 1 standard deviation lower.

    Also, the projection of AGW is that eventually the Arctic will become Summer sea ice free. Should it ever become Winter sea ice free, then the global temperatures will be about 20 degrees higher, and we will be really screwed.

  153. kd

    pete50

    I’m curious what you think the graph at #140 shows. To me it looks like you’re presenting short term data rather than long term trends, as showing long term trends would demonstrate that your argument is not valid. A more valid graph for understanding the long term data is here.

    Or are you claiming that climate change is a short term phenomenon that requires we look at short term data?

  154. pete50

    PeeBee # 132
    “So what if the Artic ice cap didn’t completely disappear already, it is still getting smaller and it will at current trends be gone in some time.”

    Well, once again the facts don’t fit the warmist doctrine. Yes, CO2 is still rising and no the Polar ice cap is going precisely nowhere. Take a look – i’ts still there and it’s not getting smaller:
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

    The trends in global temperatures and rising sea levels, and now Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent (read North Pole ice cap) all contradict CAGW.

    It’s not only humans that aren’t changing the climate, Nature isn’t either.

  155. wayne robinson

    OK David,

    You claim that you are being censored because you make sense. Prove it, that is prove that you’re making sense. You wrote three long posts on sea level rises when you concede that it’s irrelevant.

    You refuse to reveal your science background. You don’t have the sense to realize that 21st Century Science and Technology is not a reputable science journal (it also publishes articles advocating the use of DDT). You don’t seem to realize that not all that’s published on the Internet is true. Consensus science positions mightn’t be true but they have a much better chance of being so compared to maverick opinions. You can’t cherry pick papers to support your own beliefs.

    You seem to be an intelligent person. Please use your intelligence to examine the science rationally.

  156. kd

    c4a

    [ I’m not saying you have to agree with me. I’m just saying acknowledge me. ]

    I acknowledge that your blog is a run of the mill climate denialist blog contaminated by your political views which lead to confirmation bias. It’s more poorly written than many, but whatever floats your boat.

    [ To suggest there is no other opinion and there is no room for debate seems more like denial ]

    Denying your argument would be to suggest that it has some validity. However we can clearly see that you use the usual misleading arguments of denialists, therefore there is no need to debate you, except to point out that your argument is invalid, and not supported by the science.

    Personally I take “censorship” in my stride. If I overstep the mark it’s because I lose patience dealing with the long-discredited arguments of climate deniers like yourself.

  157. wayne robinson

    David,

    You’re still missing the point. No one says that CO2 levels is the sole driver of climate. You’re setting up a false dichotomy; either CO2 is the only influence or it has no influence. You’ve assumed that if you ‘disprove’ the idea that it’s the only influence, for example by incorrectly thinking that if it’s true then sea level rises must be accelerating and noting that that isn’t currently happening, then you’ve proved that it has no influence.

    I don’t have any trouble in discounting the ‘noise’ in the data due to other factors influencing. Pete50 provided a link to Roy Spencer’s website show recent global temperatures, and the 13-month running average still is inclining upwards.

    But anyway, you still haven’t commented on George Monbiot’s complete article. In one section, he notes that peak oil has already passed, and hence oil will inevitably become much more expensive, before it’s no longer available.

    This means, if we want to continue to depend on fossil fuels, we will need to exploit natural gas and coal much more aggressively, with all its environmental damage. These include the damage from mining tar sands in Canada, fracturing of gas containing shale with toxic fluids and the risk to ground water supplies (which is already happening in America) and use of inferior quality coal. In Victoria, a coal mining company is extremely keen to get approval to invest 2 billion dollars to convert prime agricultural land into an open pit brown coal mine (transport of the brown coal to overseas markets being made more economical by using further energy to dry it first).

    That leads me to wonder what’s going to happen to our international shipping once the oil runs out; all the ships run on diesel. Are we going to have to go back to coal fueled ships? Or are we going to have to invest heavily in coal liquefaction?

    Even if you don’t accept the truth of AGW, the looming end of cheap energy is a considerable worry. It’s going to happen regardless, and we are going to have to think about it before it hits us. I think we are going to have to use multiple strategies, some of which might not work, including conserving energy, investing in alternate energy such as wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, even nuclear, hopefully perhaps genetically engineered algae to produce fuel might be commercialized eventually.

    And then if you add in global warming (which I think is happening) then you really have problems. Siberia and northern Canada might become warm enough to become agricultural land (assuming the soil there is fertile enough after being scoured by the 50 or so glaciations of the current ice age) to compensate for the loss of farm land elsewhere, but then you have the problem of shipping the food.

  158. Climate4all

    I’ll end with this…
    Websites like Tamino and RealClimate censor me.
    Not because of my language, not because of name-calling, not because I attack them personally.
    They censor me because I make sense.

    Men like Foster and Schmidt are in no capacity to admit they are wrong and can’t afford their ‘flock’ to see common-sense or free-thinking at work.
    They abhor it.

    Tamino even went as far as removing my URL from my username. He couldn’t afford anyone that visits his site the opportunity to see what he wasn’t allowing published on his website.

    That is how far an alarmist will go to block the truth.

    I won’t include Treehugger with them though. They still let me post comments on their website. I’m not sure why though.

    Each of you here, regardless of your position on CAGW, should ask yourself this one question:

    What purpose do I serve, if I refuse to acknowledge the opinion of another?

    I’m not saying you have to agree with me. I’m just saying acknowledge me.

    I might not agree with your opinion, but you do have the right to voice your opinion.

    It is this meeting of opinions where debate uncovers reality.

    To suggest there is no other opinion and there is no room for debate seems more like denial, than pointing fingers at others and saying they are in denial.

    Up is down. Left is right. Right is wrong.

    What a crazy topsy-turvy world we live in.

  159. Climate4all

    @Pete50

    The whole premise of CAGW is global temperatures and sea level is a direct result of Co2.
    If Co2 rises, then global temperature rises and if global temperature rises, then sea level rises.
    Hence, the alarmism found in media is based in laws of falsifiability: agreeing that Co2 is rising, thus effecting global temperature rise, which in effect rises sea levels, because it can’t be proven false.
    To an alarmist, to agree with any statement that proves CAGW false, is claiming that CAGW isn’t true.
    Even if one fact contradicts CAGW, an alarmist must say, but, ‘you are not looking at the big picture’,’you are cherry-picking’, ‘you are…(input any other denial to refuse to look at facts)’
    To agree with any fact contradicting CAGW, is impossible for an alarmist.
    The alarmist MUST toe the CAGW line, even if they truly believe in CAGW, or just pay lip service to CAGW for propaganda reasons.
    Either way, an alarmist will never admit he or she is wrong.
    It defeats their purpose.
    And that purpose is to end dependence on fossil fuels, at any cost, to supplant it with other technologies, even if that means economic collapse or loss of public liberties.

    So, when a skeptic ventures into the realm of the alarmist, its best to just mention the facts and move on, because debating is a waste of time.

    Those that might still be undecided and review the facts, still have a choice, because once that choice is made to be an alarmist, there is no going back.

  160. Frank Campbell

    Skeleton, you’re anonymous and I’m not.

    You just cannot imagine someone from the Green Left resisting the force of tribalism. The air of desperation is patent- climate millenarianism is in steep decline, as you’re aware. The search for heretics is reaching a crescendo.

  161. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Like your fellow-knitters, verballing comes naturally to you

    Was it me who accused people of “crypto-fascism”? I know you work very hard at trying to present yourself as a reasonable “skeptic”, but you’re not. Boasting that AGW theory will be forgotten in 20 years is not a reasonable skeptical position to take. You are what is known as a concern troll.

    Do I believe you are a Green? No. You’re another right-wing man trying, and failing, to wedge the issue, otherwise you’d go and join the other fake environmentalists at the Climate Skeptics Party (if you haven’t already).

    Anybody can pretend to be anything on the internet, and when someone claiming to be a Green is only able to speak using right-wing talking points and right-wing memes, you can’t blame people for seeing through their lies. For someone who claims not to like Bolt you two share a lot of opinions.

    it wants to appeal to the professional classes -which are largely in thrall to the AGW hypothesis…

    Or it could just be the whole, you know, scientific consensus thing.

    Do y’all still think the carbon tax mess is down to the media?

    Obviously.

  162. kd

    c4a #128

    No I corrected my content, my grammar was mostly fine. Because I was aware of the errors. Your blog is very poorly written I am afraid, and your ability to interpret climate science is clearly dubious as well. But we’ve already covered that. Please do continue shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly.

  163. PeeBee

    Why is it that people think, when some predictions do not come true, AGW must not be happening? We haven’t stuffed up a planet before so we can expect a few specific predictions to be incorrect. However, we more or less know what an hotter planet will do in general.

    I am not sure if sea level is rising at an accelerating rate or not, but it is rising.

    So what if the Artic ice cap didn’t completely disappear already, it is still getting smaller and it will at current trends be gone in some time.

    What we should be looking at is the totality of the situation. We can experience it personally, – record rainfalls, record heat waves, record dry spells, hurricanes where you would never expect them etc. We can also see nature in response to these climatic changes. Crops growing where they have never been planted before. Crop harvesting is started months earlier than they did just thirty years ago.

    Most people know the climate is changing (even Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott agree with that). So it leaves us with the question, what is causing this to happen. Of all the mechanisms that we know that would do this, the increase of CO2 is the only one that has changed in the recent past.

    It will be painful and costly to reduce the CO2 going into the atmosphere, but as Stern said, we either pay now or we pay later. We are already paying now through the Flood levy, increased insurance premiums, loosing your flood cover if you have insurance and live in flood prone areas, increase in food prices, taxes diverted to infrastructure repair etc.

    The world can do better. The increase in the ozone hole was identified by science, as was the solution to the problem (reducing CFCs going into the atmosphere). The political will was there and countries more or less adhered to the Montreal protocol and we are now seeing the reduction in the ozone hole.

    We need a similar outcome with AGW.

  164. wayne robinson

    David,

    Whom was your comment #129 directed at?

    I assume it might be me since you write ‘Not irrelevant, inconclusive’.

    You’ve already conceded that current sea levels are irrelevant.

    As I’ve said, sea level rises depend on thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of land based ice and snow.

    Thermal expansion of the oceans depends on a healthy thermohaline circulation (the Gulf Stream is part of this) to mix warm surface water with deep cold water, and this takes 1600 years to happen.

    Melting of glaciers and the Greenland icecap also will take centuries to happen too.

    So what’s happening now is reflecting the climate of centuries ago. Melting of the Arctic sea ice won’t have any effect on sea levels, because it’s already floating.

    All you had to do was to have written a single paragraph noting that anyone who claims that AGW causes accelerating sea level rises now is wrong, and I would have agreed with you completely. It’s just obvious physics. There was no need to have written 3 long posts.

    And again, what is your science expertise? I think that it’s a fair question. Also, what is your summary of what George Monbiot wrote? Quote mining isn’t a very good method of making an argument. It’s better to summarize what the author actually wrote, provide a reference and then leave it to your reader to see if you’ve got it right and understood it. That’s what’s done in science papers in journals when the authors quote references.

  165. wayne robinson

    Well Pete,

    You’ve quoted the 2001 IPCC report. What does the 2007 report say?

    Agreed, the prediction of 60 million climate refugees by 2010 was obvious nonsense, since there’s only about 20 million refugees of all sorts in the world.

    Although, I wonder whom you’d define as being a climate refugee? Is it someone who has had to change countries? Or would a Bangladeshi farmer who has had to move 4 km because his farm land had become too salty as a result of delta water encroaching further upstream? Is a farmer moving to a city doing so because of climate change preventing him growing enough crops to survive or is he seeking a better standard of life?

    And Tim Flannery was right when he said that it will take a thousand years to return the Earth’s climate to ‘normal’ even if CO2 emissions ceased tomorrow. The choice is between bad climate change and catastrophic climate change, if we do nothing.

    There’s another thread on Crikey pointing this out.

  166. Climate4all

    Not irrelevant, inconclusive.
    Much like science. Real science uses the scientific method.
    Theory, Hypothesis, Verification, rinse, repeat.
    What most ‘hot-heads’ suggest is:
    Speculate, Pontificate, Brainwash, Ad Hominum attacks, and Name-calling.
    Is this the new Scientific Method?
    Hows that working out for ya…

  167. Climate4all

    @kd
    Grammar Nazi?
    And then you yourself having to correct your own grammar.
    Fascinating.

  168. pete50

    The reference containing the IPCC prediction that the world will be inundated by the end of the century is here:Changes in sea level, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by J. T. Houghton et al., chap. 11, pp. 639– 694,
    Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.

    In Warmistan the natives were so frightened by the prediction that the Australian Government set itself on a self-destructive course of taxation to cure what that their own “expert” Prof. Tim Flannery said would take 1000 years to fix. I bet poor old Tim can’t sleep at night.

    For those who think, like Wayne @ 121, the IPCC prediction of accelerating sea level rise only applied to some time in the unspecified future, might wonder why its concomitant prediction of 50 million refugees/migrants from low-lying islands was supposed to come about LAST YEAR.

  169. wayne robinson

    David,

    You’ve just conceded what I’ve said. The rate of sea level rise NOW is irrelevant to AGW being true, and your quote from the IPCC report confirms it. Whether some authority has claimed that accelerating sea level rise must be occurring now for AGW to be true is difficult to assess. You haven’t provided a reference.

    So actually your 3 postings on your website are irrelevant and not worth reading, although I have.

    Now if you would only provide an indication of your science expertise and your further thoughts on what George Monbiot actually wrote, instead of just quote mining what he wrote at the very end of his article in the Guardian.

  170. Climate4all

    Thanks for your rational response wayne robinson.

    In reference to the article published in 21st Century Sci & Tech, it is but one paper on the deceleration of sea level in the Maldives. It is Dr. Morners educated opinion that the Maldives is seeing a deceleration of sea level. I mean he does have 40 years expertise in the matter. If others wish to call his work dubious, so be it. It still is a expert opinion.

    As far as any IPCC statement regarding sea level claims, I’ve only used one and it comes from the Technical Report III of the IPCC, which states:

    “This report considers two simple indices of climate change, global mean temperature and sea level rise. The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change.”

    If there are others reports made by the IPCC, n regards to sea level rise, I haven’t used them. I’m not saying there aren’t any, I’m just saying I haven’t used any.

    But the statement I use in my articles is enough for the purposes of clarification. Global temperature and sea level are the two best indices for climate change.

    I also agree that sea level is rising, but at a decelerated rate.

    The thing that gets me is, most of the alarming commentary in regards to sea level rise, is that it is accelerating, and doing so without any evidence.

    Personally, I don’t know if sea levels are going to accelerate above current rising levels, or continue to decelerate. All I know is that it isn’t accelerating as predicted, and I take great offense to it.

    Like I wrote in several articles already, more research is needed in this field of study, not more alarmism.

    If you are trying to imply that sea levels will accelerate after a period of rising global temperature, I would have to agree. It would be the logical conclusion.

    But without knowing if global temperatures are going to rise, or fall, makes any statement a prediction.

  171. kd

    oops typos.

    “confirmed or strengthened” should read “confirmed or strengthened with new research”

    “not further confirmed” should be “not brought into question”.

  172. kd

    Climate4all #120

    [ You claim my articles are poorly argued and suspect, without a shred of evidence. ]

    Well aside from the fact that you need a good doing by the Grammar Nazi to make your stuff remotely readable, I already showed you what was at best an extremely poor quality argument in post #114.

    More selective blindness from a climate delusional, as is this gem:

    [ Main Stream Media has been suppressing information … for years ]

    Yes, one thing being that the fundamentals of the science have been well understood for at least 30 years. For the most part these 30-150 year old findings tend to be confirmed or strengthened. Not further confirmed as you delusional Kochsuckers would have us believe.

    But never mind, you’re free to have your own belief system, even if it isn’t based on good standards of evidence. I hope you’re right, but facts and logic are very much against you.

  173. wayne robinson

    Also David,

    I’m not certain what you’re trying to say with your quote of George Monbiot in comment #120. He actually wrote it for his column in the Guardian published on Tuesday May 5 (on page 33 if you care to read it in full, which I suggest that you do).

    Basically, he’s saying that we’re heading for disaster either because peak oil has already happened and we’re already on the downward slope, or AGW is going to do us in.

    Dealing with one, for example mining shale tar and gas and exploiting coal even more aggressively to fill the shortage of oil, or attempting to build more wind and solar PV plants to avoid worse AGW are both difficult ‘solutions’. Monbiot favors the nuclear power option.

    I personally agree with him. We are going to have to eventually decarbonise the economy, because oil and natural gas will run out, and coal (owing to its trace amounts of heavy metals is actually a very polluting power source) should be phased out too.

    So really, we should be investing in alternate energy sources (including nuclear) EVEN IF AGW is bogus, and we should be doing it NOW while we still have relatively cheap energy.

  174. wayne robinson

    David (I prefer addressing a person rather than a pseudonym such ac Climate4all),

    I think that my question was easily understandable. You’re claiming that the IPCC predicts that a sign of AGW is the rate of sea level rise to be accelerating NOW, whereas you point to a few papers, one of which is dubious published in 21st Century Science and Technology, suggesting that the rate of sea level rise is decelerating in the recent past.

    I just asked you to quote the reference in the IPCC report.

    Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if there hasn’t been much rise in sea levels, which after all depends on how much thermal expansion of the oceans has occurred and how much land based ice and snow has melted, both of which take hundreds of years to happen, so I’d expect sea level to lag considerably behind global warming.

    Anyway, a deceleration in the rate of sea level rise still means that sea levels are rising.

    Also, you haven’t revealed what your science expertise is.

  175. charlto.honk

    pete50:

    “Red herring, mate – its not the annual rate of sea level rise, it’s the rate of acceleration of the rise which is crucial to the IPCC mantra.”

    This I dispute. Global cooling (the anti-AGW position) necessitates a continuous downward trend in sea level, and at whatever rate, and with then inevitable upward spikes and ticks allowed. A small downward change in an upward trending but comprehensively chaotic system means very little: except that the planet’s atmosphere-hydrosphere system is getting hotter.

    “The rise in sea level has slowed and is slightly trending down, which is counter to CAGW. Take a look at the graph. http://wp.me/p7y4l-9Va

    Well, I followed your link. Much crowing and denialist hoo-ha about the latest downtick in an upward-trending graph (which has more of them than a dog has fleas).

    This is a bit like a gambler saying “things are improving. I only lost $500 at the races this week; last week I lost $550.”

    But then this morning came this report:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sea-levels-rising-higher-and-faster-20110504-1e8j7.html

    “Sea levels rising higher and faster
    Ben Cubby
    May 5, 2011

    “SEA levels will rise higher and faster than the United Nations predicted just four years ago, a major international study has found.

    “The new data suggests that, on average, the seas will rise by up to 1.6 metres by the year 2100 – a finding that has serious implications for Australian governments grappling with coastal planning.

    “The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, based in Norway, found that the Greenland ice sheet is melting four times as fast as it was a decade ago.

    ”’The past six years have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic,’ the authors of the report said in a statement. ‘In the future, global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 metres to 1.6 metres by 2100 and the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution.’

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sea-levels-rising-higher-and-faster-20110504-1e8j7.html

    “Data trumps dogma every time” you say. It sure does, mate. And when reality is the data it slam dunks the denialist religion.

    But then again, it is just possible that there is a chance of a hope that perhaps it could all be just be part of that great big worldwide IPCC-academic-climatological conspiracy.

  176. Climate4all

    @kd #119

    “Media’s provision of false balance?”

    I’ll say. Main Stream Media has been suppressing information from the ‘climate delusional brigade’, as you so put it, for years.

    But this is exactly the type of soapbox commentary that achieves nothing.

    You claim my articles are poorly argued and suspect, without a shred of evidence.

    No wonder George Monbiot had this to say about environmentalists tonight:

    “All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess. None of our chosen solutions break the atomising, planet-wrecking project. I hope that by laying out the problem I can encourage us to address it more logically, to abandon magical thinking and to recognise the contradictions we confront. But even that could be a tall order.”

    Because little do you know kd or anyone else, that assumes I am a shill for oil or denialist, that I was a environmentalist first. Then when the ‘alarmists’ took over, I firmly planted myself in the skeptics camp.

    When the ‘alarmist’ abandons that magical thinking error disease, known as denial, I’ll rejoin the ranks of the green movement. Until then, the ‘hot-head’ movement can keep its head stuck in the sand for all I care and stay lost.

  177. kd

    climate4all #118

    Your initial mistake is assuming that this is all a media beat up. In fact your right. The crediblity of the climate delusional brigade has been enhanced by the media’s provision of false balance. Your poorly argued, scientifically dubuious blog pieces are of course contributing to this.

  178. Climate4all

    @wayne robinson #116

    I have no affiliation with either with environmentalists or the fossil fuel industries. I have no financial considerations with any energy industry. I am just one voice among many in the current climate debate and only wish to express my opinion, just as so many others of you that are doing so here and elsewhere.
    In regards to any IPCC claim of sea level rise as a sign of AGW ‘NOW’, as you ask, seems somewhat vague.

    I don’t know if your asking me if the IPCC have any reports out now regarding sea levels as a sign of AGW or are there any reports from the IPCC that show a sign of sea level rise in the AGW now. You might want to clarify yourself better.

    But this is really beside the point we all want to know.

    The real story is…
    Is sea levels rising at an accelerated rate due to Co2 emissions, or are sea levels decelerating regardless of rise in either global temperature or in Co2 emissions?

    Some believe that AGW is real and will take at face value anything the media suggest and will back it up with IPCC claims, and if thats not enough, claims made by others, since the last report by IPCC.

    In the Technical Report III of the IPCC, it states that global temperature and sea level are the two best indices of AGW.

    Since that time, any predictions made by the IPCC and elsewhere now suggest that those predictions were lower than the predictions now being thrown around in the
    media. In some instances, 4 times greater than any IPCC prediction.

    But you would know all this and more if you bothered to read the three articles I wrote, regarding sea levels and the off topic commentary I had with Tamino.

    If your purpose here is to just pontificate, please don’t let me stop you.

    But if you’re generally concerned as to the state of ‘alarmism’ in the media, you can read my views on these matters at:

    climate4all.wordpress.com

    We can, after you read those articles, continue this exchange of views.

    The choice is yours.

    Good Day !

  179. kd

    pete50 #115

    Dr roy spencer’s credibility? Don’ make me laugh. The graph in the link you present demonstrates that the current running mean temperature anomaly is +0.3ºC.

    What was your point again. Something about misusing raw data to demonstrate confirmation bias I think.

  180. wayne robinson

    Climate4all,

    Who exactly are you and what is your expertise? I know your name is David Alan Bryant, but that doesn’t help much. What is your science background, whom do you work for, do you have any financial considerations in rejecting AGW? The questions I asked pete50 can equally be addressed to you. Please quote the sections in the IPCC report stating that a sign of AGW is an accelerating sea level rise NOW (not at some point in the future, which I think is the true position).

  181. pete50

    PeeBee @ 112

    I haven’t used the term “fraud” in respect of AGW papers, though I’m not surprised that you might.

    AGW is robust! Hmm, I’m not sure that its robustitude is standing up to actual measured facts. Take atmospheric temperatures, for example. We all remember the hockey stick prediction, but the reality is: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    The hockey stick prediction is a bit like the UN’s prediction of 50 million climate refugees/migrants by 2010.

  182. kd

    [ Some of you may or may not agree with what I write, but with the facts I present,
    one can only agree that the CAGW tide has turned. ]

    LOL. One can only agree that you cherry pick sentences or rarely paragraphs from scientific papers out of context, draw conclusions that aren’t supported by a correct reading of the evidence, then vastly overextend these incorrect conclusions in a massive exercies in conformation bias.

    Oh yeah, and your blog post is fairly poorly written as well. I’d give it a going over with the Grammar Fairy if I were you.

    This one is fairly amusing:

    [ I don’t want to say this is cherry-picking, but without stating which sites were used or not used, depending on its location or noise, how can it be verified that their choices weren’t somehow motivating. ]

    Actually they described the reasoning behind dropping gagues in the paragraph that you pasted above. Oh it’s the old “if I can’t have the unprocessed raw data, then the data is suspect beyond believability”. Yawn. Nothing to see here, move along.

  183. Climate4all

    Some of you might or might not like the information being provided by pete50, or even by me, but the information I present at my blog is factual.
    If any of you have issues with decelerations in sea level rise, you might want to view my newest article here at:

    http://climate4all.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/global-mean-sea-level/

    Some of you may or may not agree with what I write, but with the facts I present,
    one can only agree that the CAGW tide has turned.
    What side you are going to be, when this whole matter is settled, just depends on how much denial you’re in.

  184. PeeBee

    Why is it that they think every paper which strengthens the case for global warming is some kind of fraud, but every paper which they think weakens the case, is some kind of “bombshell”?

    Is it because we all hope that AGW is not happening, but some people will clutch at anything that shows that it is not, no matter how feeble it is and denegrate the vast body of evidence that shows it is, as a fraud?

    I would love to see the evidence for AGW being pathetic and drawn from sites set up by vested interests or loonies. But it doesn’t, it is robust, standing up to critical analysis and that’s what makes it so worrying.

  185. kd

    sorry 2. should be instead of:

    [ 2. They don’t have a method that can correct for ENSO and still leave any sea level rise signal in there.]

    2. They don’t have a method that can correct for ENSO and still reliably leave the sea level rise signal in there.

  186. kd

    pete50

    The australian paper is using different methodology than the American one and asking quite different research questions. As with the American paper, it does not support your argument. Its main findings are:

    1. The influences of cyclical factors over decadal time scales are strong .
    2. They don’t have a method that can correct for ENSO and still leave any sea level rise signal in there.
    3. They don’t compare their polynomial model to any other model. In order to test for the presence of acceleration properly this would be the correct thing to do. Instead this paper is about a specific research methodology on sea level rise.

    Again, I am left with the strong impression that you are presenting a paper which does not support the argument that you are trying to make.

    And I see still no retraction of your “world is cooling” falsehood despite the contrary having clearly been demonstrated.

  187. wayne robinson

    Pete50,

    You’re still making the same claims.

    Two points again; you can’t rely on AGW denialist or sceptical (whatever term you prefer) websites for non-biased information, particularly since there’s no way of ascertaining the credentials and motivations of the authors. It’s a bit rich claiming that thousands of scientists (the great majority in fact) are corrupt because they agree with the consensus position that AGW is true and serious, instead using more or less anonymous websites just because they happen to agree with your opinion (it’s only by looking at opposing opinions that you actually learn and come to decide whether what you accept is reasonable or not).

    Secondly, I still suspect that the author of the website you cite is actually setting up a straw man argument. I don’t know what’s in the IPCC report, I don’t care because I regard it to be a political document written by committees who argued for hours over which synonym should be used in various parts of the report. But I suspect that they didn’t write that one of the signs of AGW is accelerating sea level rises NOW, not in the future. Sea level rises are due to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of land based ice and snow, both of which are very slow processes taking hundreds of years to happen in both cases.

    Please provide a reference to the part of the IPCC report that states what you claim, since you’re so excited about what it says.

    And again, I don’t lie awake at night worrying about sea level rises (I’ve always wanted a beach front property, 25 metres should just about do it).

  188. pete50

    PeeBee @ 98

    The latest study of sea level in Australia tells the same story. Take a look: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

    Here’s an excerpt of the abstract:
    “These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in
    mean sea level over time. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000.”

    This should help ease those sleepless nights that plague the adherents to the doctrine of AGW.

  189. pete50

    charlto.honk @ 104

    Red herring, mate – its not the annual rate of sea level rise, it’s the rate of acceleration of the rise which is crucial to the IPCC mantra. The rise in sea level has slowed and is slightly trending down, which is counter to CAGW. Take a look at the graph. http://wp.me/p7y4l-9Va

    Data trumps dogma every time.

  190. wayne robinson

    Frank,

    So you think that it’s appropriate to resubmit a comment that Luke regarded as inappropriate for the standards of Crikey? Again, please don’t use swear words.

    And please, restrict your comments to the science and economies.

    By the way, in this morning’s Age, there’s an article on Jeremy Grantham ‘US tycoon praises carbon tax’ who says that the carbon tax is a very good idea. Grantham runs an investment firm which manages 110 billion dollars of funds.

  191. Luke Buckmaster

    Luke Buckmaster here, Crikey website editor.

    Can I please ask people to lower the tone of this discussion to something a lot less personal. It ought to go without saying that you don’t convince somebody of your opinion by attacking them.

    At Crikey we endorse the technique “play the ball and not the person.” In other words, please don’t attack each other; please focus on the issues. I have deleted a bunch of comments that were inappropriate.

    Please consult our code of conduct for more info.

  192. charlto.honk

    pete50 @ #93: Never mind tidal guages. Try the satellite altimetry data from the University of Colorado at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    According to them, sea level is rising at 3.1 +/- 0.4 mm/yr

    That’s roughly 3 cm every 10 years; 30 cm every 100 years; 300 cm per 1000 years, provided no changes in rate, which can result from positive feedbacks.

    And that is beside the effects on oceanic pH of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, which in turn has marine biologists understandably worried.

  193. Frank Campbell

    Look: 100 posts on this lightweight piece by someone who knows absolutely nothing about global warming. And there were 300 comments on Margaret Simon’s ideological climate meringue the other day- about 298 more than she usually gets. (ironically she’s often very good on her Special Subject…there’s no justice, Maggie)

    At least Crikey AGWarriors know their way around multi-decadal oscillations and can change the nappies on los ninos. They’re familiar with Roman Villa warming periods, thermafrost, urban heat islands, airconditioners, carbon incarceration, Aztec solar panels, inappropriate vulcanism, tidal purges, windfarce, voltage of the Humbolt current, hot rocks, bipolar bears, disembodied carbon, and ice rages- not to mention Karmageddon- where everyone dies happy in the arms of Prince Charles in 2017….

    In 20 years time we’ll be having Remember the Climate Cult parties…former enemies, we’ll be anzacking around half pissed, reminiscing while passers-by wonder WTF created such a bizarre bond…

  194. wayne robinson

    Frank,

    I don’t believe you’re a Greenie. That poll you mention as being right on cue was published in this morning’s Australian. Which rock have you been sleeping under to take so long to notice it?

    I suspect that the result is a reflection of the fact that people hate the thought that they might be paying more, even if compensated, similar to the public reaction to the GST, now completely accepted. And the Howard government spent tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to get it accepted at the subsequent general election.

  195. wayne robinson

    Pete50 (comment #95),

    21st Century Science and Technology being only online is a sign that it’s useless and that no one wants to pay money for a printed copy.

    I don’t lie awake at night worrying about rising sea levels. Two points. Does it really say in the IPCC report that accelerating sea level rises are predicted NOW. Please provide a link to the section in the report that claims. I’d be surprised if that was true, since rising sea levels will be due to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of land based ice and snow, both of which are incredibly slow processes, so I suspect your website is fudging the report and putting up a straw man argument to dismiss AGW. Secondly, if if your website is correct, it still doesn’t disprove AGW, since it’s only part of the theory.

    Frank (comment #97),

    You bring up the dire predictions made by Professor Anderson again; the human population of the Earth could drop to a billion by 2100.

    Do the mathematics.

    The present human population is almost 7 billion.
    Food reserves at any one time are about 50 days, and despite this 500 million are either starving or on the verge of starving.
    In medieval times, for each calorie of energy a farmer put into his crops, 2 calories of food energy was produced (barely more than subsistence). Nowadays, agriculture is much more productive, using almost all the arable land available. But it takes 10 calories of energy (including the production of fertilizers from oil and natural gas) to produce one calorie of food energy. And that doesn’t include transport and processing of the food.
    If we’re lucky, in 2050 the population may only be 8 billion. If we’re unlucky it might be 10 billion.
    So by 2050 we will need to be producing at least 14% more food, difficult enough considering than 1 billion depend on fish for animal protein, and overfishing is a serious problem already.

    So then you add the complications of:

    Peak oil, which will certainly kick in well before 2050. How are we going to grow the crops and get it to markets if oil is extremely expensive or not available? This is certainly a reason for action before the last of the oil is consumed.

    AGW. Siberia and the Canadian north might become warm enough to grow crops, but I suspect that the soil would be relatively infertile, owing to it having been scoured away by the repeated glaciations, so the ground will need a lot of fertilizer to grow decent sized crops, and again without oil, where is the fertilizer coming from?

  196. Frank Campbell

    Right on cue, there’s new poll on the “caahbun tax”, just for Nick F. Festival: 60% against , 30% for. It was 50-50 five months ago.
    Only 12% are “strongly in favour” (hmmm, very like the Greens proportion of the vote, but I’ve probably convinced many of my fellow Greens to junk it)

    That’s why I’ve been saying for months that for the ALP to make the next election a referendum on this tax is suicidal.

    Gillard will be alone in that crumbling Roman villa…

    Do y’all still think the carbon tax mess is down to the media?

  197. kd

    PeeBee

    Yes, and along with the abuse he thought that he’d throw about he’s failed to acknowledge that his “world is cooling” canard is thoroughly unsupported by the evidence. Aah well, what would we expect? Certainly nothing reasonable or intelligent.

  198. PeeBee

    Pete50,

    So you try to give the Houston and Dean article a run again. Of course you couldn’t see that extrapolating the results of 57 tidal gauges in the US to the rest of the globe may be a little bit of a stretch so kd provided you with this link:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/so-what/

    Did you read the article?

    When the deniers have something worthwhile to publish in a reputable journal, then I will take notice (and of course, there will be a noble price in it for the authors).

    Don’t get me wrong Pete50, I wish you were right and I would be very relieved if you were. But all the evidence is showing that AGW is occurring no (quality) evidence to the contrary is ever forthcoming.

  199. Frank Campbell

    Nikkkkk goes:

    “we will not get the climate policies we need. Thus, we must remove climate change as an electoral issue. What if Parliament were to create an independent body that sets our national climate policies, informed by climate scientists, and operates regardless of the outcomes of elections?”

    Your projector’s stuck Nick.

    No “benign dictatorship” you say; instead you offer a statutory authority.
    Main problem: the “solutions” are policy, not science. Therefore political. Therefore they have to be ratified by parliament. Every “climate” policy thus far has been a fiasco. That’s without even considering the clash of vested interests. “Climate policy” has delivered billions already- to middle class solar subsidy recipients ($1 billion for 0.1% of total power production) and to the most reactionary anti-Green class in Australia- owners of large areas of degraded hill country- for wind turbines. Which ruin the lives and savings of their neighbours while producing bugger all power (backed up 100% by FF powergen)

    The policy record to date has been sickening. So Nik’s august and independent Climate Change Commission (run by the corporate spiv Flannery perhaps- the same Flannery who promised Panasonic he’d ‘wave the flag” for them everywhere, including the ABC?) cannot be a magic wand.

    The second barrier is “the science”: or rather, not the science but the very wide range of predicted scenarios, from ‘not much change’ to ‘the end of the world by 2050’ (Prof kevin anderson). With that degree of doubt and uncertainty, any policy will have a hard time.

    I feel a dictator coming on, Nick….is that a gun in your pocket?

  200. Frank Campbell

    Phil goes:

    “‘ You forget that until Dopenhagen the respectable media'”

    Define “respectable media”

    ” Blaming the media is a sign of desperation…flailing around for scapegoats. ”

    “Wow, it’s a fox news news acolyte.”

    (Gillard) “What about her ear lobes, the fact that she is a woman and away from the sink? Sounds like you tune into Alan Jones too much.”

    Dearie me Phil. Where to start. You’ve cast me as a rightwing media cur and misogynist. There are plenty of those about, but you haven’t been paying attention…I’m one of the few Greens prepared to kick the shit out of climate millenarianism. The last poll (2010) suggested 13% of Green voters agreed with me. Fox News is a loathsome excretion of Citizen Kane…which reminds me of my attack today on the whining bore Gerard Henderson: my parody of Shakespeare applies just as well to Rampant Mordoch:

    “Shakespeare knew of our predicament:
    “O Teasing Death, why do you tarry so? Come hither. Clasp that babbling Papist to your bosom. ‘Twould be a mercy for Fairfax and the King”

    (“Much ado about Nothing” Act IV, Scene 556)

    As for Gillard, she is inherently and unconsciously rightwing. And excruciatingly banal.
    Really the perfect expression of an ALP which is now like a magnificent Roman villa, circa 600 AD, crumbling and inhabited by swine…Gillard rocks to and fro muttering “Edjukation, hard work, edjukation, hard ejukation, edjuwork…”

    You have to get you head around this: the Millenarian Green Left is headed for the wilderness, dragging the ALP with it. Climate millenarianism has generated absurd policies, incompetently administered. Most have now been junked. The “carbon” tax will have no effect on climate, as you know. It will cause modest economic damage. But it will be continually increased. Millenarians are the worst enemy of the real environment and of intelligent climate policy. The former is ignored and the latter made impossible because we’ll probably end up with a decade of the Naked Jesuit. Then what? Have an end-of-the-world party? Prince Charles tells us that the deadline is July (!) 2017. Jesus, Phil, we’re gunna miss the fuckin’ bus….

    oh yes, “respectable media”. Tabloid vs serious…Bolt/ the repulsive Jones vs Chris Uhlman…Until Dopenhagen, the respectable media offered only ridicule to AGW critics. The climate policy shambles since has led journos back to their native scepticism. Even Bernard Keane. There’s no questioning of AGW itself yet, but that is inevitable.
    I’ll be running the same sort of deculting courses as were de rigeur for Western Maoists when the Chairman’s infantile “book” was finally seen for what it was.

    (Reduced rate for Crikey sufferers. Book now and beat the rush)

  201. pete50

    Wayne, the IPCC forecast, on which the Govt plans to tax us all, is all about the ACCELERATION of sea level rise. Its the acceleration of rising sea level that keeps the alarmists awake at night with worrying. I thought you guys were up to speed with the science of natural climate fluctuation.

    Like Nature, 21st Century Science and Technology is a magazine; being online only is a sign of their modernity.

  202. wayne robinson

    Pete50,

    I count only two papers on the link to the AGW denialist site you provide. The first one is from 21st Century Science and Technology, which is a wholly online magazine published since 1988. It deals with AGW skepticism, promotion of DDT use and alternate atomic theories, so it’s not a particularly reputable journal. ‘Peer review’ doesn’t mean much if your peers are ga-ga.

    The second paper might be OK. I’m unable to read the full paper. The abstract seems to be referring to acceleration and deceleration in the rate of sea level rise, which isn’t the same as saying that sea levels aren’t rising.

    Pete, you really need to read other sites than Climate for all.

  203. pete50

    Oops, I omitted the URL to the three papers, all peer reviewed: http://climate4all.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/more-on-sea-levels/

  204. pete50

    Its pretty obvious to the rationalists among us that the alarmists are very worried about the IPCC predictions of doom and extinction facing the Earth. If it was true, who wouldn’t be? Well, have I got good news for the fearful alarmists. Its not as bad as it’s touted to be. It’s actually the opposite of the AGW claims.

    The two proxies for AGW are temperature rise and, even worse, sea level rise. The IPCC and the MSM tell us that sea level rise is accelerating and it’s that acceleration that gives support and the confidence in the prediction that by 2100 the oceans will just about be up to our necks.

    So in reply to PeeBee’s exhortation: “If you have any (peer reviewed published research) that disputes AGW, please share it with us.” There are three papers (all prpr) that show clearly that the rise in sea level has been slowing down (decelerating) for at least the 50 years leading up to 2000. Those three papers dispute AGW.

    So now the alarmists can sleep a little easier at night.

  205. wayne robinson

    Perhaps we should return to a discussion about the science of AGW and what should be done about it?

    Frank, I personally disagree with your statement that the Australian is schizoid about AGW. It isn’t. It’s strongly denialist. I read it, but only because I subscribe to Pressreader which gives me unlimited downloads of selected newspapers. So I take 3 (I don’t have the time to read more), the Age, the Australian and the Guardian.

  206. Frank Campbell

    Well Uncle Rich, I’ve been called deluded, crazy, bald, short, etc etc by the Knitting Circle on Crikey, but never “right wing”. Like your fellow-knitters, verballing comes naturally to you: I said above (and often before) that the Murdoch Oz is schizoid on AGW- because its natural position is denialist but it wants to appeal to the professional classes -which are largely in thrall to the AGW hypothesis…

    as for this: “attempt to reframe my argument as some kind of attack on the ABC and Fairfax.”, I’ve got no idea what you’re on about. I don’t see any “argument” from you about the ABC and Fairfax above. All I’ve said is that these two organisations are essentially “progressive” (vs tabloids and the Oz) and that they are redoubts of uncritical AGW millenarianism, though this now appears to be gradually disintegrating.

    And I’m not an ‘extremist denier’- more verballing from you. Incorrigible.

  207. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Thank you Frank for giving me the version of history as viewed through a prism of right-wing entitlement. I am very impressed with your use of the weasel-term “respectable media” – a tricky way of leaving out News Ltd who have always campaigned against Labor and any action on climate change, and who are the main source of news for the majority of the population. So kudos to you and your unsubtle, unsophisticated attempt to reframe my argument as some kind of attack on the ABC and Fairfax.

    None of the things you bring up as alleged dealbreakers matter to anybody but the extremist deniers like yourself. You are not a reliable narrator because everything you write oozes with hatred. Unlike you, I deal only in facts.

    It’s simple really – polls still say the majority of people want action on climate change, they just don’t want it to come out of their pocket. Will compensation and a fully costed plan ease worries? Very likely they will.

    Deniers like yourself, however, don’t want any action and will oppose it at all costs because it is inconvenient to your political beliefs. You are an angry man with a political axe to grind.

    And let’s be honest – it’s really only a stalling tactic. We will end up with a climate policy whether it be from a Liberal or Labor government.

    Why? This is why.

  208. wayne robinson

    Frank,

    Rundle who? I’ve read your reply to Rich Uncle Skeleton. It’s classical Frank Campbell. A lot of words to say absolutely nothing. It’s a classical rant.

  209. Frank Campbell

    Wayne: you’re confusing me with Rundle.

  210. Frank Campbell

    Uncle Rich:

    Partisanship defines the media’s role in the climate “debate” (it’s not a genuine debate- just two sides revving up their own constituents while abusing the others) …rightwing tabloids vs progressive middle class media. With a few variations, like Murdoch’s Indulgence (the Oz) which is instinctively opposed on partisan grounds to AGW but is also trying to hold/gain middle class progressive readership. A tad schizoid as a result.

    Until 2009, climate millenarianism had absolute, total sway over respectable media. They’d ignored the steady slide in AGW belief since 2006. What changed? Certainly not “the science”- that was as strong or as weak as it had been before. Nope. Confidence was shaken by Rudd’s humiliation at Copenhagen (like an egg hitting a wall), the hubristic absurdity of his huge entourage (114 paid followers). Then when Abbott mugged Turnbull, the Right didn’t crumble as the progressive tossariat expected. Nor did the Greens sweep into Higgins etc, as the funditry expected.Quite the opposite. Rudd was Macbethed by Gillard. The chaotic mess of the ALPs “climate’ policies was revealed (Green Loans, insulation etc, all now junked by Gillard).

    The looked like tumbling from power. The ALP is the natural party of the bureaucracy and the inner city. They’d had an overdose of the spiteful ideologue Howard for 11 miserable years. They looked forward to a decade of progress. But this just reward was snatched from their plump fingers- almost.

    The destabilised Green/Left movement is badly rattled, and that affects the media. The Bolts and Joneses smell blood. The respectable media struggle to understand the mess. They can’t question “the science”, so they criticise policy. For the first time, the idiotic, subsidised, class-discriminatory, self-defeating and/or climatically impotent raft of AGW policies came under scrutiny. Absolutely nothing survived even cursory scrutiny, from wind turbines to desal to domestic solar to cash for clunkers…

    The response from Gillard was to junk most of these policies and gamble all on a ‘carbon” tax. Inevitably, Extractive rage descended. And the miners have the money. The tax was a gift to the stumbling Jesuit Abbott. In the face of collapsing polls, the ALP makes concession after concession on the tax. It becomes a magic pudding. These bribes merely remove the last shreds of govt. credibility.

    Your anger, Rich, with the media is misplaced. Respectable media can’t ignore the policy drama. By finally examining “climate” policy (not the “science”-that will come later), the absurdity of each policy is exposed. Not a pretty sight.

    So don’t blame the ABC or Fairfax.

  211. wayne robinson

    Frank,

    For mind boggling banality, I think that you win the prize. You haven’t written anything concrete (as far as I know) for months. Everything you write is repeated personal attacks, mostly casual and semi-literate.

  212. Phil M

    You forget that until Dopenhagen the respectable media

    Define “respectable media”

    Blaming the media is a sign of desperation…flailing around for scapegoats.

    Wow, it’s a fox news news acolyte.

    Climate millenarianism is official orthodoxy still. It controls academies, the MSM,

    I can see why people educating themselves would gravitate towards the pro AGW side, but the MSM? Please. Last time I checked they are made of mostly of privately owned commercial identities who have profits to make, shareholders to please and manufacturing controversy and sensationalism is the breakfast, lunch and main meal of the day.

    But Gillard is in a league of her own when it comes to language and communication. Tone deaf. A tin ear. An awful nasal drone.

    What about her ear lobes, the fact that she is a woman and away from the sink? Sounds like you tune into Alan Jones too much.

    Please consider it a hangover of my past association with the Australian Skeptics, a true skeptical organisation, not a group of anti-science alarmists trying to hard to legitimise themselves with empty verbosity.

    Also, similarly at JREF. True sceptics that go searching for the answers arrive at the position where the majority of JREF members agree with the pro AGW position. Denialism as Frank pointed out, is predominantly a position of the hard right. They will not change position until their political leaders change position.

  213. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Deniers always argue the really important issues, such as how to spell “skeptic”. Please consider it a hangover of my past association with the Australian Skeptics, a true skeptical organisation, not a group of anti-science alarmists trying to hard to legitimise themselves with empty verbosity.

    To take you back to the argument you are trying hard to ignore, Frank:

    Where do you think people hear about science? Where do you think their misconceptions begin?

  214. Frank Campbell

    wayne: if it was just one banality, it would just rate a passing mention.

    But Gillard is in a league of her own when it comes to language and communication. Tone deaf. A tin ear. An awful nasal drone.

    Howard’s ghastly whine had a similar effect on me. But at least he had reasonable fluency and a reasonable vocabulary. (Sure, he was an inveterate liar, but that’s another story…)

    As for Redneck Hanson voice, it should removed on public health grounds and buried in a lead box.

  215. wayne robinson

    Frank,

    OK, I’ve googled it, and Julia Gillard did mispronounce the word ‘hyperbole’. It isn’t a hanging offense, certainly not one warranting your continual repetition. Actually, when I listened to the audio file, knowing that the word was ‘hyperbole’ the mispronunciation didn’t sound obvious (in much the same way that misspellings in written texts tend to be subconsciously corrected). I certainly found it less grating than the continual mispronunciations of ‘kilometre’ to have similar pronunciation to speedometer. The spellchecker actually wanted to alter kilometre to kilometer. It really is a storm in a teacup. Please stop mentioning it, it doesn’t add one jot to the thread.

  216. wayne robinson

    Frank,

    What? Julia Gillard SAID to ABC journalist ‘hyper bole’? If she said it, then you can’t say that she said it as two words. You should be having your go at the ABC journalist for the editing.

    And anyway, I prefer skeptic to the spelling with two C.s

  217. Frank Campbell

    Wayne: Many people now spell sceptic “skeptic”. Don’t know about Uncle Rich, but the mental colonisation is probably unconscious…

    To bring you up to date- yes “Gillardian Hyper Bole” is obscure…I didn’t bother to explain it this time: two weeks ago Gillard said to ABCTV journo Uhlman “I’ll leave the hyper bole to you, Chris”. Two words. Bole as in tree.

    She meant hyperbole of course. Just another example of the excruciating banality of Julia G.

  218. wayne robinson

    Frank,

    Perhaps Rich Uncle Skeleton is using an automatic spell checker. On my iPad, skeptical is always corrected to the American spelling and it’s not worth going back to correct it. At least everyone understands what is meant unlike your continual references to ‘Gillardian Hyper Bole’, which isn’t even English.

  219. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    You forget that until Dopenhagen the respectable media only mentioned climate scpticism (sic) or denial in order to conflate the two and ridicule both.

    That’s wrong and you know that’s wrong. The media, in their quest for faux controversy, has long given ample room to deniers.

    Blaming the media is a sign of desperation…flailing around for scapegoats.

    Where do you think people hear about science? Where do you think their misconceptions begin?

    It is collapsing not because of the media, but for the reasons I adduced above: the absurdly wide range of future scenarios and the premature/incompetent/irrelevant/botched policy responses we’ve seen thus far.

    Oh Frank. Why are you deniers always such gloating alarmists?

  220. Frank Campbell

    Rich Uncle: you’re incorrigible- a dozen “skepticals” in one post. Get a Green Card and go!

    “In reality “skepticism” is really only a byproduct of the media’s woeful climate change reportage”

    You forget that until Dopenhagen the respectable media only mentioned climate scpticism or denial in order to conflate the two and ridicule both. Things have changed a bit since then, but not much- though note that Lomborg got the top Op-ed spot in the Age on 28th April. I gather you’d be displeased about that?

    Blaming the media is a sign of desperation…flailing around for scapegoats.

    Climate millenarianism is official orthodoxy still. It controls academies, the MSM, progressive opinion everywhere. It is collapsing not because of the media, but for the reasons I adduced above: the absurdly wide range of future scenarios and the premature/incompetent/irrelevant/botched policy responses we’ve seen thus far.

  221. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    I don’t disagree with Jenny. If people and orginisations are deliberately trying to create doubt/lie about a serious issue in order to maintain their political position, power and/or wealth, that is treason.

    For instance, let’s pretend that mining companies are rich. Let’s pretend that mining companies have a stake in no action being taken on climate change by spreading myths about “uncertainties” in science which is accepted by the majority of the world’s scientific bodies and 97% of the scientists who specialise in it. Let’s pretend that these mining companies band together to create ads to fool the public so they can protect their wealth. Let’s pretend that one in particular has bought a stake in a media company so she can create television programming specifically to spread these myths to protect her wealth.

    How will this not be seen as treasonous in 100 years time?

  222. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Uncle Rich: please desist from spelling sceptic “skeptic”. You’re not a gringo.

    Misdirection noted.

    Frank, I admire the way you pontificate so much but say so little. You blame both uncertainties in the science and scientists making outright statements about the science for skepticism. You want it both ways.

    You may call yourself a skeptic, however I am quite happy to put you in the denier camp. You are very careful about framing yourself as a skeptic and you use uncertainties in the science to try to protect your political position. This is not skepticism. You recognise that public acceptance of global warming – which let’s face it, most people do, otherwise Abbott wouldn’t be tooling around with his “direct action” plan – will be detrimental to the conservative side of politics. I note you don’t have much problem with “deniers”, but why should you? They side with your political position.

    In reality “skepticism” is really only a byproduct of the media’s woeful climate change reportage, a place where the “skeptical” views of proven deniers like Plimer or Carter are presented as equal to the science. They are not.

  223. JennyG

    Frank

    Those words aren’t Fascist. I just think that people who try and destroy civilisation – by allowing runaway climate change – should be charged with treason. I’m just hanging on to civilisation, that’s all, not destroying it. As for turning the situation around. We can certainly have stationary energy carbon free within a decade or two if we applied ourselves. Peak Oil means we’ll have to get out of our (internal combustion) cars pretty soon. So ironically, we may be saved from one crisis by another.

  224. Frank Campbell

    Jenny: “I’m not Fascist, nor hysterical, just a scientist keeping up with the literature…and the New York Times.”

    just read your own words again, Jenny:

    “I am reminded of Paul Krugman’s comment in the New York Times that denialists be charged with treason. We’re not going to survive four degrees warming! Don’t you guys understand the concept of positive feedbacks? We have to act NOW to stabilise and reduce emissions! We do need to be on a war footing…”

    Your an Andersonian. That’s Prof Kevin. Director of the Tyndall Centre. 95% dead in 39 years. If you believe that, you’re beyond help. By promulgating this hysteria, you’re guaranteeing a decade of rule by the naked Jesuit.

    Political ineptitude, and we haven’t even considered the policy shambles of the past few years. Given current technogical lack of readiness, how do you propose to redeuce emissions by a climatically significant amount? Short of banning coal exports, Ayustralia is irrelevant to global emissions…so start with advice to the big emitters.

  225. Frank Campbell

    Uncle Rich: please desist from spelling sceptic “skeptic”. You’re not a gringo. (You’ll be Gillarding “Hyper Bole” next…)

    Denialism is the natural position of the hard Right. In that sense Denialism makes no political difference (we know how they’ll vote).

    It’s scepticism which will determine the “carbon” referendum. This is composed of doubts about the wide range of “climate” computer modelled scenarios- i.e. modest and long term versus sudden and catastrophic. There are three positions extant: (i) it’s already too late (ii) it will be too late soon in a decade or two (iii) it’s not too late but we’d better get off our arses.

    Is it any wonder that the public is sceptical?

    The other component of scepticism is doubt about the science. This is related again to the wide range of possible scenarios, but also to competing hypotheses, of which there are many- not relating to denial of observed warming but to the uncertain role of other variables and feedbacks.

  226. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    AGW doubt and denial have risen in the polls since 2006. Climate hysteria and Gillardian Hyper Bole is one cause of this.

    Of course, as a true skeptic you would be horrified by a rise in denial.

  227. nsaberle

    The vast majority of this comment thread has wonderfully, though frustratingly, made my point perfectly. Frank and others here have provided a microcosm of our inability to move beyond the scientifically accepted dangers. Quite why those who are not trained climate scientists feel capable of disputing the science is intriguing. You wouldn’t dispute an oncologist telling you that you have cancer, even if you have an undergraduate degree in biology. So why the violent response to climate science?

    Many people just don’t want to know about it (for reasons I discuss in the article). When presented with arguments about why people aren’t inclined to do anything about climate change, rather than addressing this issue, most have chosen to simply resort to baselessly dismissing the scientific evidence.

    Frank, you’ve also missed the fact that you and I agree on a major problem: that proposing serious action of climate change is probably political suicide in the current, er, climate. That’s the whole point. The difference is that you seem fine with this. I, however, would prefer to change this situation, so that we CAN have proper and effective emissions mitigation policies.

    You might accuse me of latent fascism, but I am merely pointing out a clear weakness in our parliamentary democracy. Not because I am advocating a benign dictatorship, but because it is not achieving the results we need. So, a possible solution:

    If elections will be won and lost on the basis of climate policies (which they potentially will be), based on current trends in popular opinion, we will not get the climate policies we need. Thus, we must remove climate change as an electoral issue. What if Parliament were to create an independent body that sets our national climate policies, informed by climate scientists, and operates regardless of the outcomes of elections? That way, we can get the emissions cuts we need, and people can vote whichever way they want based on industrial relations, health care, education, whatever else. Democracy survives, and we have a shot at avoiding runaway climate change. Win win.

    Thoughts? (Please address the issue at hand. I’m not interested in going back to the “is climate change happening” discussion; please accept that we have moved on).

    Cheers,

    Nicholas Aberle.

    PS. Frank, I hope to see you at our film festival! http://www.effm.org.au

  228. JennyG

    Frank

    I’m not Fascist, nor hysterical, just a scientist keeping up with the literature…and the New York Times. Perhaps you could do the same.

  229. Frank Campbell

    No KD, that’s not my definition of climate millenarianism. In fact your formulation sounds eminently reasonable.

  230. Frank Campbell

    Jenny GollyGee: “I am reminded of Paul Krugman’s comment in the New York Times that denialists be charged with treason. We’re not going to survive four degrees warming! Don’t you guys understand the concept of positive feedbacks? We have to act NOW to stabilise and reduce emissions! We do need to be on a war footing…”

    Sometimes the fascism isn’t latent.

    What are you going to do Jenny when the Naked Jesuit stumbles into power for a decade? Postpone Armageddon? Get the Crikey Knitting Circle to knit machine guns?

    Climate hysterics are the worst enemy of intelligent climate policy.

  231. kd

    [ Correct. Denialism is the obverse of climate millenarianism ]

    And “climate millenarianism” is a synonym used by Frank to describe something like “correct attention to the scientific evidence indicating that severe but delayed consequences will result from present inaction on greenhouse gas emissions”.

    Which isn’t as catchy, but is a lot more accurate.

  232. Frank Campbell

    charlto.honk : “denialism itself is a religion”

    Correct. Denialism is the obverse of climate millenarianism.

    Most Believers equate scepticism with Denialism. This falsehood just reduces rthe credibility of climate millenarianism itself.

    A year ago, the innumerable Millenarian articles in Crikey (and other progressive sites) attracted only the occasional Right-wing troll and migratory redneck. Now look at them. The Centre and Left are stirring, prepared to resist the Hyper Bole, policy idiocy and political suicide that climate hysteria generates.

  233. Frank Campbell

    “gjoesq
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 3:11 am

    “Overwhelming public support for real action on climate change would largely remove the political slanging match from centre stage, and the bipartisan focus could shift to genuine efforts to address emission levels.”

    True, but given the current policy shambles it’s wishful thinking. AGW doubt and denial have risen in the polls since 2006. Climate hysteria and Gillardian Hyper Bole is one cause of this.

  234. Flower

    My fellow scummies

    Here’s the best the neo-cons have. And the best they have calls himself a “climatologist?” Must he keep playing around with Monckton’s medieval pear of anguish?:

    http://

    climateprogress.org/2010/04/20/the-great-global-warming-blunder-roy-spencer-marc-morano-cure-global-warming-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-leeches/

    It seems pink pigs do fly for Tones9 too, wearing his rosy-coloured neo-con glasses:

    http://www.

    adpunch.org/images/freschello-pig_25.jpg

    Tones9 – for goodness sake, pull yourself together man. No, not that.

  235. PeeBee

    kd, thanks for the link on psychological projection, now I know what that condition is called.

    I wonder what Tones9 will be calling you for pointing that out.

  236. PeeBee

    Kd, right on que Tones9 comes back with this

    I used to think kd and peebee were deliberately stupid to sustain an argument.
    Now I’m convinced you’re mentally retarded.
    Simple reading and logic skills are too great a challenge.
    Your recurring failure to comprehend, is magnified by demands for evidence. And then reality is dismissed as irrelevant.

    Which just goes to show that my analysis of his mental state is accurate and as I predicted:

    And when challenged to provide it, they ignore the challenge, and turn into very nasty name callers. I guess there is a name for such a condition, where internally they see themselves as always right, but when provided with evidence that they are not, their brain considers the messenger as the problem and they react by (trying) to shoot them.

    And further more Tones9, I don’t think anyone will think your evidence would be irrelevant if you could provide some peer reviewed and published articles to refute AGW. Trouble is non exists and therefore cannot provide it. So what do you do… go into hyper abuse mode. Sorry, abuse is no counter argument to well conducted science.

  237. kd

    Peebee #52

    [ … when challenged to provide it, they ignore the challenge, and turn into very nasty name callers. I guess there is a name for such a condition, where internally they see themselves as always right, but when provided with evidence that they are not, their brain considers the messenger as the problem and they react by (trying) to shoot them]

    Yeah, assuming that they’re just stupid rather than stupid and/or malicious I think it’s related to psychological projection.

  238. kd

    [ It has been getting cooler for over 10 years. ]

    Hmm. So I’m delusional and retarded? I’m calling out your psychological projection again. Let’s see what the actual evidence has to say.

    Cue tones9 claiming that a statistically insignificant downward slope for two out of 11 data sets somehow proves his point. (and then we still have to ignore the broader context to assume the validity of his argument). Yawn.

  239. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    So we have the new corporatism, a form of institutionalised, Marcusian fascism- and crypto-fascism in progressive institutions, driven by the imminent collapse of “climate” policy which in turn is crumbling under the weight of technological and economic reality (NOT “the science”- that’s another story).

    Alarmist.

    Rich your lies continue.
    I have always maintained the BoM argument that 10 years is statistically sufficient to determine global warming.

    Except the BOM didn’t say that. And nowhere in the non-BOM paper you are referring to do the authors say anything of the sort. They say the “trend emerges” after ten years, not that it is statistically significant.

    Why do you lie?

  240. tones9

    I used to think kd and peebee were deliberately stupid to sustain an argument.
    Now I’m convinced you’re mentally retarded.
    Simple reading and logic skills are too great a challenge.
    Your recurring failure to comprehend, is magnified by demands for evidence. And then reality is dismissed as irrelevant.

    You guys are the crazies claiming conspiracy. It’s looney to claim the evil forces are responsible for the failure of AGW policy. And you are so arrogant as to believe the history of the greenhouse effect is evidence for AGW.

    Back to reality for Nicholas the film festival director.
    It has been getting cooler for over 10 years.

  241. PeeBee

    kd,

    What gets me is that the deniers consider AGW to be a big conspiracy, but fail to provide any proof of this big consiparcy. Yes they are very obliging with ignoring the errors and motives of the likes of Exxon, the Koch brothers, Chris Monkton etc etc

    It is as though they don’t understand what credible proof is. And when challenged to provide it, they ignore the challenge, and turn into very nasty name callers. I guess there is a name for such a condition, where internally they see themselves as always right, but when provided with evidence that they are not, their brain considers the messenger as the problem and they react by (trying) to shoot them.

  242. kd

    Your cries about a Greenhouse Mafia are delusional

    Aah, projection. So there’s this massive 150 year long conspiracy of scientific fraud to dismantle civilisation, and it’s only truth warriors active for the last 30 years since the politicing started, like you, Exxon, the Koch brothers, Chris Monkton etc etc who are preventing this threat to civilisation going ahead? Quite delusional indeed.

  243. gjoesq

    “Overwhelming public support for real action on climate change would largely remove the political slanging match from centre stage, and the bipartisan focus could shift to genuine efforts to address emission levels.” Agreed. 🙂

  244. PeeBee

    Frank, the scientific method does get things wrong, but in the end its internal ‘bullshit eliminator’ sorts out the drose and we can move forward.

    I am always open to contrary views so long as it is backed up by peer reviewed published research. If you have any that disputes AGW, please share it with us.

    Unfortunately, the denier brigade is pretty light on with evidence, and stick to petty nit picking about what people may or may not have said, backed up by unfounded accusations of corruption.

  245. PeeBee

    Tones9, In 6 separate posts it is made clear that it’s not my statement.. I’m afraid it is your statement. There are no references or quote marks. Stripped of any context from where you ripped it from and write it down as you do, it’s yours.

    Still if you wish to distance yourself from what you have written, you have every opportunity to withdraw it.

    If not, please explain what you are on about. It is not my intellect that is in question when you make no sense and refuse to explain.

  246. tones9

    No kd ‘real discourse’ from people like Frank is your problem.
    I’ve never had a problem with it, even though it rarely gets public.

    Your cries about a Greenhouse Mafia are delusional. Alarmists have always controlled the media discourse. And all of the political discourse is in unison over the need to reduce emissions.

    You can’t get it any easier than this, and you are still FAILING.

  247. kd

    tones9

    Well, there’s you’re problem, you think you’re having a “real discourse”. But what you’re in fact doing is having a discourse dictated by the astro-turf brigade – also known as the “Greenhouse Mafia” in australian political lobbying circles.

  248. tones9

    On cue kd proves the point.

    The problem is:
    People are too selfish to solve long term problems – except when everyone believed there was a problem to solve.
    It’s the media’s fault – even though they have totally controlled the media message for years.
    People are too stupid to understand complicated issues – except when they were smart enough to understand complicated issues.
    It’s the politician’s discourse – except when all the politician’s discourse was on our side.
    Real discourse is so ‘unhelpful’.

  249. kd

    tones9 #42

    So let me get this straight. A poorly handled response to a leading question, stripped of context and used in a situation of severe statistical illiteracy demonstrates your point nicely?

    I think it demonstrates something, but it’s more to do with your pointless argument.

    [ The carbon tax unpopularity just proves to them how selfish all us evil people really are. ]

    Wow, more idiocy. Why am I not surprised. Again it’s a matter of context. Selling necessary action now for something whose consequences won’t be fully realised for 90 odd years is a very hard sell in a democracy. Especially one that’s been subjugated to extraordinarily short term pressures (think 24 hour news cycle).

    Society’s dysfunctional understanding this topic as evidenced in the discourse of mainstream politics is merely reinforced by your delusional bleating.

    Frank’s rabid nagging about the “real environmental problems” and millenarianism is similarly unhelpful to the discourse, while using dashes of the climate delusional’s arguments to “prove his point” is similarly unhelpful.

  250. tones9

    Frank, the reason there will be no apology is not because they will pretend it never happened, but because they will never admit they were wrong. They have their fascist leaders directing media on how to explain each political event as ideological confirmation.

    The carbon tax unpopularity just proves to them how selfish all us evil people really are.

    Likewise Abbot/Rudd/Gillard/Elections were never given honest analysis, and the left are dumbfounded about what’s going on?

    Remember when the coaltion’s dumping of ETS was viewed by virtually all commentators as the end of the party?

    I don’t share your optimism that left/greens can liberate them. Having come from there, I know the hostility towards any counter-movement is primal and nasty. It is not within their nature to become enlightened.

    However the rest of the population is hungry for reality, so no doubt many new media opportunities will present themselves. Or await to be created.

  251. Frank Campbell

    tones: only left/greens can liberate left/greens from millenarianism. Attacks by the Right just confirm their belief.

    The only alternative is to wait for political reality to crash in, which it will probably do within a year or two anyway. A decade in the wilderness beckons.

    You wouldn’t know it from Crikey, but cracks in the facade of absolutism began immediately after Copenhagen. The respectable media gave zero space to criticism before that…then the Monckton circus came along, plus Plimer…at first they were simply pilloried and all climate criticism was equated to the Circus. That’s changed. Bits have been falling off the Great Climate Juggernaut: Bernard Keane for example is now scathing about renewables ineffeicacy and subsidies. Lomborg is given ample space. The shonky Dane had to embrace The True Religion first, but now destroys it from within the cathedral: he had the lead op-ed in The Age on 28th April, in which he stated the obvious (China is anything but Green)- but provided handy statistics…

    So what we’re seeing is a case-study in the decay of a paradigm.

    Politically, within the Left, the washup will be fascinating: the coming political collapse, the growth of doubt, heretics taking to the lifeboats, a handful of zealots threatening excommunication from the burning bridge…

    and what the fuck will Crikey do then? My guess is that Beecher is tired of it anyway by now and will sell…then, a bit like a new govt, there’ll be a serious ummm, repositioning.

    But don’t expect the slightest apology, reward, or acknowledgement of utter failure by Crikey or the Green Left generally. They’ll just try to pretend the fiasco never happened…that they always harboured doubts…that they ( privately) found the Flannerys and Hamiltons quite distasteful…

    But they’ll never forget who shafted them from the start. Traitors like Campbell…..but that’s just a measure of their mediocrity, which was never in doubt.

  252. tones9

    kd@24 “your opinion”
    Once again, it’s not my opinion.
    The statement, which was not mine, was in full and in full context.
    Anyone but a dumbass can understand that.

  253. tones9

    Yes it is pointless in terms of enlightening anyone here, but it’s so much fun to watch ignorance and logic flaws.

    Your talent could be put to better use, so I hope you’re exploring other options.

  254. kd

    tones9 #38

    Sorry, the pig ignorance and stupidity is yours. That’s because you don’t understand that stripping a statement of its context reduces its validity to the point of meaninglessness. Particularly when properly contextualising the statement in question requires a decent grasp of statistical methods and the often counter-intuitive logical basis of applied statistics.

    frank #39

    [ So why is Tyndall head honcho Kevin Anderson not interrogated in the media? ]

    Sorry, you think the media are doing a decent job on climate change reporting? I think not.

  255. Frank Campbell

    Tones: I used to write for Crikey…Black Saturday and all that. Now every comment I make is censored, except (mysteriously) on this blog. Perhaps it’s because they previously asked if I would run it. True! But I’ve attacked their editorial absolutism on climate so often – I think they pray now for a tractor accident….

  256. tones9

    Brilliant Frank.
    Perhaps you should consider submitting an article to Crikey. Intelligent Green writing would be rare but very welcome.

    Fortunately the power of a small group of people is diminishing by the day. And they have blown it for good. Never before has a campaign with virtually 100% support from every sector of society, failed so miserably.

    PeeBee also uses the commoner Hansen language “please explain?” and enjoys a similar intelect.
    In 6 separate posts it is made clear that it’s not my statement. Yet kd is incapable of this simple comprehension. Hence the pig-ignorance.
    Even after this being clearly explained, Peebee’s pea-brain still demands an explanation.

    It’s no wonder there are still a few individuals who still believe the AGW fairytale.

    When the idiot’s say IPCC projections tend towards conservative, they don’t realise the self-inflicted damage.

  257. Frank Campbell

    You’re quite right about BHP and the Fly R., Flower…corporate behaviour does depend on which jurisdiction they’re in.

    But Garnault presided over nasty pollution in PNG recently. And he intimidates anyone who tries to question him.

    You don’t seem to grasp either the corporatisation of the universities (and science) and their related politicisation. Meat and extractive interests are no different in that respect to other vested interests. The politicisation of the CSIRO is a case in point.

    And while there are always precursors, no amount of huffing and puffing can disgise the fact that climate science is still in nappies. The other babies in the creche are the plethora of renewable energy technologies.

  258. Flower

    @ Frank: “I researched BHP years ago in Whyalla and got to understand the mentality. (BHP nonetheless is a model corporate citizen compared to Garnault’s Ok Tedi and Lihir Gold…)”

    Not true Frank since Garnaut has resigned his position with Lihir Gold so he’s down a few hundred grand. BHP had already wiped out the Ok and Fly rivers by the 90s from dumping massive amounts of tailings into the watersheds. BHP was subsequently the subject of four legal actions over the Ok Tedi mine before divesting its major shareholding and doing a runner:

    http://

    bhpbillitonwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/bhpb-alt-report-2010.pdf

    Why don’t you attend BHP’s next AGM like a few of us do Frank? Take some stinky eggs with you. Come on – get out of that sagging armchair.

    “Climate is the worst example because it’s a nascent science dealing with poorly understood and chaotic systems, with very short observational datasets.”

    No Frank climate is not a “nascent” science. One Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, was on to something while studying gases in the atmosphere that might trap heat.

    In 1896 Arrhenius and Hogbom completed laborious numerical computations which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C.

    As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were “evaporating” our coal mines into the air. Callendar in the 1940s became aware that industrial emissions were already far greater than in Arrhenius’s day, an event which his predecessors had not anticipated.

    So let’s not bang on about climate uncertainties Frank. There are uncertainties in all disciplines. I mean there are uncertainties about tobacco and lung cancer since not all smokers develop the disease. However, the bulk of citizens in every enlightened nation on the planet have adopted the Precautionary Principle in the interest of self-preservation. Of course the ethics-free Liberal Party megalomaniacs salivate over the donations they receive from the tobacco industry, don’t they?

    And let’s refrain from the petty allegations about academic behaviour when the grim reapers have infiltrated all of Australia’s places of learning by dangling the resource carrot at the rock apes in parliament. Scientists in all disciplines have been reduced to accepting research grants from the biggest polluters on the planet. That also includes the heinous but influential Meat and Livestock Australia , the industry responsible for 70% of agriculture’s GHG emissions.

    Funny that Frank since our actively publishing climate scientists (and Garnaut) paint a very grim environmental picture of their corporate sponsors’ activities. What’s that nonsense you’re peddling about self-interested climate scientists on the take?

    The buzzards are circling. Screw the polluters. We are not a broken people like you FranK. And who are you to predict a carbon outcome? Nostradamus? If an established carbon price/tax fails the people, the people change government. It’s called a democracy which the pigswill polluters and rent boy Abbott have corrupted.

    “Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.”

  259. Frank Campbell

    KD: “Jones is no statistician.”

    That’s a relief.

    “the IPCC’s projections tend towards conservative.”

    They do. So why is Tyndall head honcho Kevin Anderson not interrogated in the media?

    “I’d give the conspiracy theory/anti-science stuff a rest.”:
    it’s natural for the far Right (esp. in Gringoland) to vomit up aliens, have their vital essences stolen and to froth about World Govt run by Bob Brown clones…it’s a form of mental illness.( And that’s not Hyper Bole, is it Julia? )

    Living and working in America (i.e. not NY, DC etc, which are Unamerican and relatively normal) is a parallel universe…the depth and sincerity of the insane beliefs is stunning. To be lectured in a Texas council office ( by other building contractors waiting for planning bureaucrats) about (for eg) Clinton’s huge drug import business (747s full of cocaine landing in Little Rock), the murders Bill committed to cover up various crimes…you had to be careful, because denying this crap can lead to vicious abuse or worse. Then of course there’s Creationism, alien abduction and now the Birther fantasy about Obama…these are core beliefs for much of the population.

    My warnings about the sociology and economics of science are not “conspiracy theories”. Climategate is normal academic behaviour. They all do it. I’ll say it again: science always gets there in the end, but it’s a tortured, tortuous path. Climate is the worst example because it’s a nascent science dealing with poorly understood and chaotic systems, with very short observational datasets.

  260. charlto.honk

    Nicholas, in my view you have written a very good article.

    You say inter alia: ” Further, psychological studies suggest that no amount of evidence will change the minds of many people. Experiments… support the view that ‘fear won’t do it’, and the authors observe a correlation between climate change denialism and the strength of one’s adherence to the ‘just world theory’. This refers to a belief that the world is just, orderly and stable, and anything that threatens this view (eg. climate change) is instinctively rejected in a form of emotional self-preservation, albeit at the cost of intellectual and moral integrity.”

    That “intellectual and moral integrity” will of course not be as subjectively perceived. I doubt that many of the denialist shock-jocks and Murdochian columnists will be losing much sleep over it. Notions of justice are not absolute, and vary with and depend upon tribal and religious loyalty. Moreover, denialism itself is a religion; the possiblity that the AGW camp could possibly have even the remotest hope of a chance that it might perhaps be right is not allowable under any circumstances, and for fairly obvious reasons, given the stakes.

    But as for no amount of evidence changing some minds, you need look no further than the comment stream following your article.

  261. kd

    Frank:

    Jones is no statistician. What he’s telling you about with his magical 10 years only makes sense with a good amount of assumption based on context and prior observations. However the climate delusionals remove these important factors before making their commentaries.

    And Lovelock says nothing about the sign and magnitude of the effects that we don’t understand because of the limitations of our understanding of the science. Again here the sceptics insert the implication that this causes a negative negative sign with large effect size, despite the strong evidence that the IPCC’s projections tend towards conservative.

    I’d give the conspiracy theory/anti-science stuff a rest. It makes you look like one of the consipiracy theory astro-turf wingnut climate change delusionals.

  262. Frank Campbell

    PB: all I can say is we must distinguish between science as a Weberian Ideal Type and the actual sociological and political production of science. Science gets there in the end, but it’s as nasty, confused and fractious as anything else…in the climate arena it’s far worse than usual: a small in-group of marginal (East Bumcrack) scientists depend on computer models of chaotic climate systems…this is taken up by numerous propagandists in recent years, creating a full-blown millenarian cult.

    A vast career structure has now developed around the science- there’s no conspiracy (except in the usual academic forms as revealed in Climategate) , just a common interest. The dominant paradigm has all the money and status. Opposition leads to exclusion and ridicule. Extremely nasty.

    No one knows if the AGW hypothesis will be confirmed, weakly, strongly or not at all. But I wouldn’t bet on it. The ozone hole explanation is just one of many competing theories…

  263. JennyG

    A wonderful article thanks Nicholas. When I read the denialists’ comments in response, however, I am reminded of Paul Krugman’s comment in the New York Times that denialists be charged with treason. We’re not going to survive four degrees warming! Don’t you guys understand the concept of positive feedbacks? We have to act NOW to stabilise and reduce emissions! We do need to be on a war footing as Lester Brown described in the film.

  264. Frank Campbell

    Flower:

    Your comments reflect the impossible position you’re in- not a wrong position, just impossible. Literally. Hence the rage, flailing about, hunt for heretics etc.

    Take your first point: Australian emissions are above the world average of the 214 countries. Therefore we should all ‘do our bit’. Fair’s fair.

    Trouble is (a) a handful of countries make up the bulk of emissions (b) certain countries (like Australia) supply the FF to those. That’s why Australia is the world’s most egregious “climate” hypocrite. We pump out climate moralism while exporting “pollution”.
    And the “big emitters” are doing buggerall (disregard the spin from China- a new FF power station every week or two).
    And we know Chindia etc will vastly increase emissions (and environmental destruction in other forms) for decades to come. So a 20% reduction here is meaningless. A 5% reduction here is even more meaningless.

    (b) Your “rogue industries” are the Extractives. By their very nature they have always been rogues. Rapacious. Brutal. Ruthless. I researched BHP years ago in Whyalla and got to understand the mentality. (BHP nonetheless is a model corporate citizen compared to Garnault’s Ok Tedi and Lihir Gold…)

    I’m not “protecting” them. You mention aluminium: read what I said- Alcoa should be shut immediately, for many reasons including coal mining at Anglesea.

    But overall it’s impossibility No. 2: the Australian state depends heavily on the extraction boom. Without that Oz would be in recession now. I’ve just read Robert Manne’s 2010 piece on climate Armageddon- he ends by deploring a big coal contract with China. Again, impotent rage. Likewise the idiotic contortions of Paul Howes: he demands “climate action” but subverts Gillard’s “carbon tax” in an instant (“not a single job to be lost”).

    So you are in good company.

    (c) “Compensation”- it’s “scaremongering” to say people will suffer etc. This impossibility is a cruel deception: handing the money to the losers (and/or the “emitters”) contradicts the purpose of the tax, which is to change behaviour. The tax is then either a political sham (to get relected) or a fraud (the tax will increase sharply later to have the desired effect on CO2).

    Note that the government only retreated (in stages) to “compensation” and exemption in the face of mounting criticism after announcing the tax. They’re trapped just like everyone else.

    As usual on Crikey, stating the obvious leads to castigation. The “Frank Campbells” are “duplicitous”, traitors, in league with corporate thugs etc etc. Actually the tribal division (left/right) means only the Right opposes the current ‘climate” policies. This confirms you, Crikey, the sententious Robert Manne et al in your beliefs. After all, this is what we expect from the Right. How many Green Leftists like me criticise ‘climate” policies? Hardly any- they’re either loyal, or cowed. We all know the ostracism, ridicule and discrimination which follows when someone breaks ranks. Scientists especially have to keep their mouths shut to protect their careers. Read Climategate.

    So we have the new corporatism, a form of institutionalised, Marcusian fascism- and crypto-fascism in progressive institutions, driven by the imminent collapse of “climate” policy which in turn is crumbling under the weight of technological and economic reality (NOT “the science”- that’s another story).

    The biggest Impossibility is technological: renewables R and D has been neglected for decades. We still don’t have a baseload renewable that is both proven and remotely economic. Please don’t bleat about a solar plant in Spain etc: the premature rush into wind, domestic solar etc has merely exacerbated the political mess and wasted scarce capital. A classic example of how climate millenarianism is its own worst enemy.

    That’s why the entire debate has to be recast. Start again. First principle: every policy must have multiple environmental benefits, not simply “carbon abatement”. The jury is still out on the AGW hypothesis. Second principle: expunge tribal loyalty from the debate. This would reduce latent fascism on the Left and weaken the influence of the hard Right which now controls the Opposition.

    The final political absurdity of Green/Left “climate” policy is what i’ve been warning about since Dec 2 2009: the apotheosis of the naked jesuit. How you all chortled when he knocked off Turnbull! Greens would sweep urban Liberal seats! The Libs would shatter! And how you rubbished me for denying this hubristic stupidity.

    You’re chastened now of course. But making the next election a referendum on the “carbon” tax shows nothing has been learned. Then what? A decade of Abbott?

    Just remember who put him there: you.

  265. PeeBee

    Frank, too right I do have pure faith in the scientific process and what it is showing is that the increase in CO2 emmissions is increasing the greenhouse effect and warming the planet.

    I have no faith in ‘who said what when’ type arguments, that prove f#@k all. Stick to the science and peer reviewed published papers (in reputable journals).

    The challenge for the deniers is to come up with one published paper that disputes AGW. That is when I will start to listen to what they have to say.

  266. Flower

    Dear Frank – keep protecting the grim reapers, that’s the style. After all, why should you worry about Australia’s 2009 emissions being 103 percent above the 1990 levels? And Australia emits a ‘mere’ 1.5% of the world’s CO2 so you do the sums for us would you? 214 countries emitting the balance of 98.5% of the world’s CO2 = an average of how much per country? Right. Did you get it?

    Oh so you worry about the poor people do you Frank but I am poor and it costs me a grand a year to keep Fido but I still have some over for the odd bottle of grog. Mind you none of that canned crap for my Fido. Why would I support the heinous alumina industry that’s dirtying up the air we breathe, eh? Besides, Julia intends compensating we poor people Frank so stop scaring people with the duplicitous bullsh-t old chap.

    And a couple of the rogue industries you are protecting, that would be forced to pull their heads in with a carbon tax are the major emitters of mercury – the alumina (yet again) and metals ore industries. The UN Global Mercury Assessment panel estimated that atmospheric emissions of mercury from Australian stationary combustion sources were more than 90% of all the estimated emissions from stationary combustion for the whole of North America.

    Australia’s coal industry are the third/fourth highest emitter of CH4 out of all the coal producing nations too but why should that worry the culprits when they have the Frank Campbells sabotaging actions (warts and all) to lessen climate change impacts?

    “Latent fascists?” Yeah right Frank so what do you call Australia’s multi-national hit and run mining polluters on rampage? Did Joe Citizen give these ecocidal/genocidal bastards permission to desecrate our past, present and future, set to wipe us out completely with a mining industry running amok in the boom time? Fekking fascists!

  267. Frank Campbell

    PB: CO2. “Simple”

    OMG. Pure faith. Admirable in its way, but…

    More importantly, please don’t say “going forward”. Let’s kill corpobabble…no more “put in place”, “in the (whatever) space”, “working through” , “working around” and all the other linguistic sludge we get every day…

    “at the enna thaddai we’ll work around the issues in the working famly spice…”

  268. PeeBee

    No one has a clue if the temp will now rise, fall or stay the same. Yes they do! CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more greenhouse effect, Temperature goes up. Simple. CO2 has been going up for the last 150 years and the temperature has been rising over that time. Same thing will happen going forward.

    Cue kd to illustrate the pig-ignorance. Please explain? Just add your explanation to the bottom of your deductive proof of p values for correlations or your inductive proof. That should show who is pig-ignorant.

  269. Frank Campbell

    Tones9
    ““Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to year fluctuations.” (David Jones)

    Bugger me. He did say it. And it is pure statistical crap. Translation: a trend is what I say it is.

    Anyone care to defend Jones the Statistician?

  270. tones9

    Bravo Frank.

    Cue kd to illustrate the pig-ignorance.

    The statement is not mine.
    It’s from the head of the BoMs National Climate Centre.

    Keep the bullshit coming.

  271. Frank Campbell

    tear yourselves away from the Royal genetic infusion for a minute..:

    “Funny how you don’t like alarmist’s statements when they don’t suit”

    There are many such examples: you’ll never read anything on Crikey about Prof. Kevin Anderson. He’s no fringe troll- Director of the Tyndall Climate Centre, created by the Climategate clique.

    No discussion of George Monbiot’s conversion to nuclear- it came in a flash: Fukushima.

    No discussion of the Fairfax revelation of Flannery’s promise to spruik Panasonic on the ABC and everywhere else in his role as Chief Climate Clown. No mention either of Flannery’s failed predictions of Australian armageddon (“ghost cities”, adelaide etc running out of water by 2009…)

    No discussion of Danish/British/Spanish/German emissions increasing after splurging on wind turbines.
    No mention of the reversion to nuclear this year by UK and Germany…

    No discussion of the crypto-fascist implications of sermons from the likes of Savonarola Hamilton…

    No questioning of my party whatsoever: the Greens. In fact the MSM never do- they slag off the greens, but there’s no forensic analysis of their “climate” policies (eg Brown’s demand for a moratorium on wind turbines in tasmania because they kill eagles, but promoting them in eagle habitats on the mainland)

    As I’ve said before on Crikey, none of you have a clue what real criticism is. Loyalty to your (whatever) faction cripples you. You’re trapped in your tribe. Constant bum-sniffing to check if the other dog belongs to the pack. GreenLeft Crikey is not “feisty” or “independent”- it has stricter ideological control than rancid Murdoch- it’s so much easier to use the whip with a tiny staff and a mini-mogul who’s only a coffee-cup away…

    Being attacked by the Right on “climate” (and it is only the Right who do this here-still) merely confirms the immutable correctness of the Official Line.

    It’s one thing to let loose the usual Millenarian mouths like Hamilton, Rose, Keane et al…but Crikey drags in “Film Festival Directors”, media commentators like Margaret Simons (who wouldn’t know a dendrochronologist from an orthodontist), Hunter S Thompson impersonators like Rundle (whose environmental credentials are two dead potplants), anti-smoking propagandist Simon Chapman (one live cannabis), and many others distinguished by their pig-ignorance of the subject.

    How did the Left end up in this mess?

  272. kd

    tones9 #23

    That’s a statement that if true can be proven. For a given effect size and given quantitiy of variability that is. I tell you what I’ll cut you some slack – rather than a deductive proof of p values for correlations, you can just provide me with an inductive proof.

    So go on, do it. Your failure to do so will be a clear indication that your opinions are still total worthless bullshit.

  273. tones9

    “Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to year fluctuations.”

  274. Frank Campbell

    “When the BoM’s head of the National Climate Centre David Jones publishes a paper which makes that statement, it’s as good as an official position statement.”

    he either said it or he didn’t. Which is it? Quote please.

    Jones is a notorious militant millenarian. ( His fellow welshman David Evans is the opposite.)

  275. Frank Campbell

    “Like environmentalist James Lovelock: “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.””

    And now there’s that damned Ozone Hole! Came up on the outside from nowhere to beat the great Carbine, sorry Carbon by a nose…

  276. Frank Campbell

    Rich Uncle Burqa:

    So many Liberal Men Wanting Action! Jeez, Rich, it’s like a rightwing gay nightclub in there…

    “’twas a dark and horny night…”

    As I said often on Crikey from Dec 2 2009, the Libs had to get rid of Little Napoleon because he was leading them into Rudd’s corral. They’d have been a dependency of the ALP, held by their short and curly climate credentials….bound to the very raft of idiotic “climate” policies recently junked by Gillard. Reduced to carping about details.

    What can Turnbull offer? He’s signed up reluctantly to Abbott’s ragbag of “climate” policies…Abbott is sinking Gillard even though people rightly regard him with suspicion as a naked jesuit…if Abbott can (a) remember to wear underpants and (b) control the feral Right, he leaves Turnbull with nowhere to go. All this in the context of abysmal “climate” policy failure by the ALP and a spooked electorate which is every day less enamoured of the climate cult.

    what’s your scenario?

  277. tones9

    Frank I agree with your analysis.
    But it’s so much fun to use the alarmists datasets, alarmists projections, alarmist time periods, alarmist statements and alarmist logic to demonstrate how wrong the alarmists are.

    Rich your lies continue.
    I have always maintained the BoM argument that 10 years is statistically sufficient to determine global warming.

    When the BoM’s head of the National Climate Centre David Jones publishes a paper which makes that statement, it’s as good as an official position statement. I don’t recall the BoM distancing themselves from it.

    Funny how you don’t like alarmist’s statements when they don’t suit?

    Like environmentalist James Lovelock: “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”

  278. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    It’s plausible that we’ve had modest global warming on average over the last 150 years.

    It is also plausible the sky is blue.

  279. Frank Campbell

    I’ve been outed. The Crikey Burqas now know what I look like. I’ve been accused of being short (today), bald, fat, demented, deluded and stupid…the entire range of sophisticated insults known to the crikey tossariat…

    but The Age got it right, the swine…today’s front page, in huge print…

    “a photogenic commoner with glossy dark locks, dimples and a high-voltage smile, caught stepping into his Falcon stationwagon outside Mr. Bolt’s private residence”

  280. Frank Campbell

    tonesnine: Decadal trends yes. Jesus- that’s all anyone’s got! Not much more than weather. Hence the shambles. Decent temp records are very recent. Barely a century in Australia. Not too shit-hot in Somalia either…Not to mention the paucity of sites and lack of scientific controls on them (even today- poor siting, urbanisation etc).

    Proxies are shaky at best too.

    So we’ve got 40 or so years of satellite data overlaid on this mish-mash.

    But never mind. Let’s take it at face value. Post-1800 cooling/warming periods existed. It’s plausible that we’ve had modest global warming on average over the last 150 years. The leap of faith occurs in the final warming period. It isn’t a huge anomaly- yet. Regardless of the cause. So the jury stays out. But 2000-2010 isn’t “cooling”.

  281. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Malcolm Turnbull is waiting Frank. To think that he has any other agenda than to become prime minister is delusional. Your other option is Joe Hockey, who also wants action. Take your pick. Abbott recognises the public wants action, which is why he offers his pissweak and ineffective “direct-action” plan.

    My favourite theory is 2 decades of cooling followed by a resumption of warming.

    Great. Considering last year was the equal hottest on record, and the last decade the hottest, the cooling is due to begin when exactly?

    The BoM considers 10 years sufficient to make a statement regarding the existence of global warming.

    Tones9, you know that’s a lie. The BOM as an organisation issued no such statement. You also know your previous argument was they say ten years is enough to be called statistical significant, so your shifting facts have been noted.

    But why don’t you two continuing fighting amongst yourselves. Sort out what the official denier line is and get back to me. Be sure to include “Flannery”, “climate-gate” and “UN” in the response. Extra points for “scam”.

    (Finally, Frank, better tone down the alarmism. You sound like a crazy person.)

  282. tones9

    Frank, the IPCC cherry picked 1975-2000 to falsely demonstrate accelerated global warming (by using decadal trends).
    That is despite identical rates of warming from 1860-1880 and 1910-1940.

    The BoM considers 10 years sufficient to make a statement regarding the existence of global warming.

    The Met scientists claim zero trends for 15 years would falsify climate predictions.

    Take your pick.

  283. Frank Campbell

    Runcle: I just lerv the bit about “the men behind him want action”…

  284. tones9

    That’s right Rich.
    The BoM says “about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise”.

    I’m not sure why you posted a link to a 9 year trend from GISS.
    You really should learn some statistics basics before attempting to create your own graphs.

    As for GISS since 2001, the trend is 0.05C/decade. The uncertainty intervals are also outside the IPCC projections.

  285. Frank Campbell

    Rich Uncle Predicts:

    “It’s been confirmed. Waiting decades will be too late…

    The future is a carbon tax and ETS. It’s unavoidable. Abbott will fall and the men behind him want action.”

    Gotcha. You’ve done a Flannery. Lostradamus.

  286. Frank Campbell

    Tones9:
    don’t over-egg the cake. The last decade has not seen “cooling”. It’s a plateau. 1975-2000: warming. Both are absurdly short periods for any definitive statements. No one has a clue if the temp will now rise, fall or stay the same. My favourite theory is 2 decades of cooling followed by a resumption of warming.

    It’s a Melbourne Cup field. Gorgeous women parading their hyoptheses…

    And the jockeys are are mostly sedentary propagandists: there’s the professional victim, Bolt, aboard the promiscuous mare Tabloid; The serial predictor of short-term events (always wrong), the schmoozer Flannery, riding Apocalypse, who secretly bets the field; the anguished armageddonist Glikson- his horse has , ummm, Bolted, dragging him by the foot; The staring-eyed Karoly, who thrashed his horse Fawlty to death before the start, but won’t dismount; Combet, the Minister for Hunter Valley Coal (and former coal engineer)riding Anxiety; Gillard squats on top of the sway-backed Fat Chance, which missed both the start and the finish; Rundle, who was arrested following an incident in the stables with his Shetland “Swedish Delight”; Anna Rose on Carbon Yeti- Anna missed the race because of an airline mixup in Casablanca; Tony Abbott, thrown off the course for public nudity, replaced on Say Anything by J. Hockey, who broke the scales and was replaced by Amanda Vanstone.
    First Emergency is P. Wong, on Evasion, and finally K.Rudd on Its Good to Be With You (scratched pending steward’s inquiry). Paul Howes was on Something, but entered the Stawell Gift in error. He won by 100,000 members.

  287. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Shorter Frank Campbell: Let’s faff about. Look, industry or politics haven’t done anything, so there. What’s the point. Let’s plant tress for something I don’t think is happening anyway. It’s too uncertain to do anything. Flannery. The public. Blah blah blah.

    We all know what will actually happen: the PeeBees of this world will just have to accept that observational science will take decades to confirm/disconfirm AGQ.

    It’s been confirmed. Waiting decades will be too late, and if we do we’ll still be hearing the exact same arguments – “it’s cooling”/”it’s not us”/’it’s the sun”, including all the same arguments you gave above. I take it from your scatter-gun, all-in arguments you see the writing on the wall and don’t like it.

    The future is a carbon tax and ETS. It’s unavoidable. Abbott will fall and the men behind him want action.

    So there are two options: either you believe the hysterics or you allow that Armageddon is not imminent.

    Alarmist.

  288. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    That’s funny Tones9 because you’ve previously (and wrongly) stated that ten years is enough to infer a statistically significant trend. Going by your own theory, warming!

    Keep shifting those goalposts.

  289. tones9

    What a beautifully ironic headline.

    The climate has been getting ccoler for a decade now.

    Just look at the dataset used by the IPCC. It shows no warming for over 13 years.

    The IPCC models projected 0.2C warming per decade, which is well outside the uncertainty levels.

    “The science is clear. The next 5-10 years have been identified as a critical period for action.”

    Correct. If this lack of warming continues for the next few years, it shall completely destroy the remains of any AGW myths.

  290. Frank Campbell

    Fergie: people will vote for sacrifice when they see the need. Just like in war. Bad wars like Vietnam and Iraq result in division back home- ending in a mess. Right now we have a climate mess.

    Dr F. Festival says “we cannot afford to wait for this consensus”.

    OK Fergie, you tell me what this means if not latent fascism. Don’t forget Savonarola Hamilton either- he rants about the “suspension of democracy” or words to that effect…

  291. Frank Campbell

    Glen:

    Well gollygee Hiram, aah’m all a-flutter…after two years here hammering the techno-political argument (and being abused daily by the crikey knitting circle from under their burqas), someone asks “WTF would you do then?”

    Desperation. They’ve crashed the car into a tree so they’ve turned to the backseat driver for advice.

    It’s probably politically too late, and I’ve said it all before but…

    Firstly, you mention nuclear and CCS. True, the public here won’t wear nuclear- the brief climate-cult fuelled nuclear renaissance is over. Fukushimaed. And sequestration looks like a dud. But they’re both irrelevant anyway because of the time demand put on CO2 reduction by climate hysterics.

    Second, what’s the Fillum Festival Director insisting on? 5-10 years. His black jeans must be way too tight. World emissions are soaring and the momentum will last at least a couple of decades before there’s the slightest possibility of a drop. Unless that point is grasped there’s no point in discussion- the Left will get a deserved thrashing at the polls. (The big loser will be the real environment-it’s happening now- cattle in the alpine national park, huge areas of pointless “controlled burning” of the deep bush).

    So there are two options: either you believe the hysterics or you allow that Armageddon is not imminent. The game is already over if the Savonarolas are right. So just get pissed, have more royal weddings at Fuckingham Palace and enjoy being Lords of the Flies.

    We all know what will actually happen: the PeeBees of this world will just have to accept that observational science will take decades to confirm/disconfirm AGQ. Endless computer models prove nothing. You all seem to miss the key point: that the vast range of scenarios (from buggerall to Prof. Kevin Anderson’s “95% of us dead in 39 years”) vitiates political action. The latest counter-theory is the ozone hole- AGW models fit all too well- “it has caused a great deal of the climate change” says L. Polvani of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

    Third, don’t imagine that public caution/scepticism is due to rat-faced capitalists. Of course BHP and all the unsavoury extractives will plot and threaten to keep the status quo. You’ve made it so much easier for them. But they kept fairly quiet until recently, when they could see the tide turning. ALP incompetence has much to answer for (eg introducing a mining supertax just before a risky election- if they’d slammed it on in Year 1 of Rudd, it would have shut the rats up, but now they smell blood).

    You wanna cut emissions by 30% in a hurry? Even knowing that Australia produces only 1.4% of global emissions? Knowing full well that climate will be unaffected and that no other country would give a toss? ( Minister for Anxiety Combet has already given up on Durban in Dec 2011). But OK, how would it be done? Close all coal-fired plants and switch to gas. You know it makes cents. Plenty cheap gas here. And there’s more that could be done…agriculture is ignored. Paddock-thrashers reign supreme out here. Driving across the Western District in the last few days the air has been unbreathable- not DSE pyromaniacs this time, but “farmers” burning stubble. Thousands of fires. That’s not Hyper Bole. All the windows are shut here right now. What’s going up? CO2 and a lot else. And they’re still destroying trees. Sure, the carbon cycle limits effectiveness longterm, but there are many gains possible.

    We’ve planted thousands of trees and minimised stocking rates. The result is much higher productivity. And lotsa soil carbon.

    Why are we producing aluminium at Geelong? An ageing plant (1960s) fuelled by a huge hole in National Heritage heathland at Anglesea. Yup, there’s a coal mine and power plant there. Just had the contract extended for another 50 years. By the ALP. Then climate millenarianism led to a direct attack on the groundwater of the northern Otways (the drier end). Massive extraction for Geelong. Totally superfluous. Too late now. Just like the insane, fossil-fuel guzzling desal plant…$20 billion or so wasted there. If Clown Flannery had his way, Brisbane would have had one too.

    You wonder why the public are sceptical?

  292. PeeBee

    Glenturner1, don’t hold your breath for a coherent answer from Frank. Frank’s speciality is criticising everyone for their contribution, he is not interested in sticking his head on the chopping block by providing his own solutions.

  293. GlenTurner1

    OK then Frank, having given the article both barrels, how would you reduce CO2 production by 30% or so?

    Because the time for faffing about is over. And with that thought in mind, no denial nonsense please. No one gives that the time of day anymore, because we all know the work of tobacco-style lobbyists when we see it. And let’s be realistic about what is possible, so no nuclear power (because the public won’t buy it, and with some reason) and no sequestration (because it doesn’t work today, and there’s no foreseeable date when it will).

    Let’s hear your plan.

  294. Fergie

    Frank. Let’s be just that. Buried in your erudite prose I see the very same knee jerk reaction behind the public/media/politicians’ failure to engage the conversation on this point (which, by the way, I think you missed) that is required.

    There is a difference between considering and reflecting on some of the limitations of the democratic system, particularly when it comes to highly complex and heated topics such as climate change, and advocating fascism. These limitations are becoming more apparent in Australia, the UK and (most spectacularly) in the US, when one can lift one’s head from down in the trenches for long enough to take stock. It is a sensitive topic, but one that must be addressed if we are to navigate our way through some of the more dire policy and social problems that face our society today. Unless people can openly talk about such sensitive topics, without inciting immediate and unreflective cries of ‘fascism’, we may as well just give up now and admit that solving these problems is beyond us. Which, may you forgive me, is one possible interpretation of your response. But that would signify a very low opinion of the human race, and I wouldn’t want to accuse you of being patronising.

    And on behalf of the world-renowned psychologists who produced the studies upon which this article is based, I take offence at your accusations of “pop psychologism”. If understanding the drivers of human behaviour and world view is not the true realm of psychology, I am not sure what is.

  295. Frank Campbell

    Mind-numbingly patronising. Politically self-defeating. A classic of its kind.

    What’s happened to the critical faculties of the Left?

    There’s a weird disconnect- as climate millenarianism sinks under the weight of its own contradictions (policy, not science), this messianic Hyper Bole (as Gillard pronounces it) is treated as Holy Writ. There’s an air of desperation and (shades of Savonarola Hamilton) latent Fascism:

    “Given the apparent (sic) downward trend of community support, and psychological research suggesting we will never achieve it, we cannot afford to wait for this consensus.”

    Whaddya gunna do Nick? State of Emergency? Draconian this and that? Can’t you see that shambolic “climate” policies almost cost the ALP government? And the “carbon tax” is political hemlock?

    Instead of analysing the policy morass, recalcitrant technological reality or the tangle of sociological forces, we’re fed pop psychologism. Translating this verbiage, the refusal of the masses to comply with instructions for their own survival is down to (a) gutless politicians (b) rancid media and (c) dogwhistled nonsense about the natural Toryism of the electorate (belief that “the world is just, orderly and stable”).

    Nikki Film plays nice though- he doesn’t rant about the “selfishness” or “greed’ of materialistic slobdom which blocks “reform” by stuffing the ballot box.

    But it’s the same vulgar message- decorously put.

    When a discourse has degenerated to this extent, real politics has been abandoned. It’s crash or crash through. Gillard has made the next election a referendum on a “carbon tax”. Political suicide. An unpopular Rightwing social throwback will win- no matter how magical the carbon tax pudding is made. Indeed, as each day brings new Govt. contortions as it tries to repackage the “tax”, credibility evaporates. Abbott just has to keep his clothes on and his foot out of his gob (a big ask, you might well say).

    NikFilm’s detachment from reality is best expressed by his policy of choice:

    “What if every car manufacturing plant was asked to spend a year making wind turbines instead, and every television manufacturer to make photo-voltaics?”

    Why not conscript every film festival director to work in these factories too? This is war, Nick!

    Wind turbines will never be made in Australia. Neither will PV. For the same reason manufacturing died years ago in Australia: China, India…

    And what would a brazillion turbines or PV panels achieve? $1 billion has been handed over in middle-class welfare for domestic solar already, which produces 0.1% of total power. Gillard is now dumping the massively-subsidised schemes. We’re all paying right now for those solar panels…As for wind, it’s a very expensive farce. Why do you think Germany and UK have retreated to nuclear? Wind can’t light a single bulb 24/7. Recalcitrant technology. Renewables have been neglected for decades. Scandalous- but where were you, Nick?

    The “carbon tax” will have no effect on global climate whatever. We all know that. Hence the vague moralism (“do our bit”) and fear-mongering (“we’ll be left behind”- left behind what? the sofa?). We all know the ‘carbon tax” is open-ended. It will go up. $25 a tonne will have little economic effect, but jack it up and the poor will suffer. Low postcode Greens are unmoved by this. Their callousness (the Greens are my party) is another guarantee of political death.

    High time you stopped faffing about, Nicholas.

Leave a comment