I anticipate the semantics of the game are due to change at any time; that is, just as believers changed their cause from “global warming” to “climate change”, I’m sure the cause will become “climate disruption”, which will continue to focus on man’s so-called hibitions on the atmosphere (perhaps less on carbon dioxide), as well as man’s effects on topography and hydrology. Hansen, Mann, et al, are losing credibility at an alarming rate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

See our notice of the movie showing here: http://mooretea.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/movie-date/

Question is, will truth prevail over the political-despotic maneuvers by the UN and Obama plunge America (and by extension UK) into a one-way voyage to international reparations and slavery?

The self-loathing of Al Gore and his fellow useful idiots is mind-boggling.

Are we prepared to fight to sustain some semblance of freedom … ? I surely pray that we are.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

At a rate or 0.04% of the atmosphere, with mankind’s contribution being something like 1.7% of the total input annually, it takes a real denier to think that mankind can do much about the CO2 entering the atmosphere.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

In today’s issue of the “Weekend Australian” there are no less than three major, prominently placed articles and one editorial giving voice and support to the sceptical side of the argument:

A “teaser” on the front page “Antarctic ice is more, not less”;

A major article on p8 “Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-30417,00.html ;

Editorial on p16 (back page of main section) “More heat than light: The science on global warming is certainly not settled” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25348908-16382,00.html;

1/3 page sympathetic interview with Ian Plimer “The climate of consensus is preciptitating a disaster for science” on p2 of the “Inquirer” section (based on his new book “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25348271-30417,00.html;

3/4 page article on p3 of same section “Change is a cold certainty: There is no need to panic about Antarctica” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-30417,00.html ;

and 1/4 page Christopher Pearson column based on Ian Plimer’s book on back page of “Inquirer” section “Sceptic spells doom for alarmist religion” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25348644-5013596,00.html;

It’s a shame our overseas visitors here have to rely on electronic copies of those articles; you really have to see them in their context to get the importance of this.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

With all due respect, you are confusing/conflating several issues here: Anthropogenic Global Warming is allegedly caused by CO2 from burning of fossil fuels. If one believes in that premise (I don’t), one might be excused for thinking that a CPRS or an ETS would help alleviate that in some way, although I would contend that even that is debatable. Pollution, soil salination and depletion of soil nutrients are completely different issues which have nothing to do with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and causing dangerous warming of same. Consequently, no version of any Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (don’t get me started on the fallacy of THAT terminology …) or Emissions Trading Scheme could ever be relevant as a solution.

You’ll get no argument from me re conservation and prudent management (of anything, for that matter, not just energy and the environment, but also finances) The whole AGW ‘debate’ is not about prudent conservation.

Vis a vis “constraining resource use to protect our inheritors”, I don’t really follow your arguments; you seem to contradict yourself in the last few paragraphs. By the way, “the market” is not the only instrument to govern scarcity (or perceived scarcity). As I said above, the human race has a remarkable, documented historical record of amazing resourcefulness, imagination, discovery and creativity. As far as I know we have never yet actually run out of a ‘resource’ – we have always moved on to something better before that happened. After all, according to the late Julian Simon, we are “the ultimate resource”!

Bottom line (this is from Prof. Beckermann again): “Resources are either finite, or they are not. If they are, then the only way to ensure that they last forever is to stop using them. Bringing future economic growth to a halt is not enough. Levels of consumption need to be reduced to infinitesimal levels if finite resources are to be made to last. But of course, even the most fanatical proponents of sustainability would hardly go that far and would soon sell a critical pass by confessing that, perhaps, after due reflection, with everyting taken into account, etc., etc., etc., the human race will eventually find ways of coping with the changes that take place in the balance beweeen demand and supply of resources.

In other words, one cannot have it both ways. Either resources are finite in some relevant sense, in which case even zero growth will fail to save us in the long run, or resources are not really finite in any relevant sense, in which case this argument for slowing down growth collapses.” (“A Poverty of Reason”, p.9)

Like or Dislike: 0  1

(i) The “ice cores” argument on page 5, which makes the point that is commonly make – atmospheric carbon rise laggs temperature rise – is based on [data shown in the article] CO2 levels of ~ 330 ppm – this is far less than that predicted if we keep on burning carbon.

Whilst I accept the argument that historically temperature rise leads CO2 levels what evidence do we have that rising CO2 levels are benign?

(ii) The question [what will be the impact of rising atmospheric CO2 levels?]is relevant even if one accepts that there is little or no evidence of recent warming (JoNova argues that there is no evidence – pps 1-14- pretty much thesis of whole article).

(iii)In “Cutting through the fog” page 12 the question JoNova postulates is “Can you name a single piece of evidence that higher CO2 levels means hgher temperatures today?”

Today vs in the future?

The more interesting question is “what will be the impact of rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, No2 etc, all of which are generated from the essentialy the same activities, be on future generations?”

On the basis of the JoNova article – is the case that AGW is alive and well able to be conclusively made? Maybe, maybe not. Are the AGW sceptics able to reasure folk that rising levels of those compounds labelled GHG’s will cause no impacts? I have not seen this dealt with at JoNova.

Maybe Al Gore labelled the problem as AGW – I think of it as increasing pollutants in the atmosphere / biosphere (think salination of soil or depletion of soil nutrients). In any case a verion of the CPRS or AETS is part of the solution.

With respect to Anne-Kit’s other points

I am [also] not an economist (a Vet) but I can parecieve some flaws with the free market economy model AK propounds.

AK seems to make the assetion that “scarcity will be resolved by free markets” AND that intergenerational justice needs to consider the rights of developing country generations (the question of how can a society constrain resource use to protect “our” inheritors at the possible cost to people surviving now in developing countries?).

All good in a rational space where you live on the “globe” (rather thn a local community). Most people live in little local communities – they are not “global citizens” – they do not have total mobility – they have most of their assets locally – they do not have equal access to information that a university economist has.

If we run a river sytem out of water peolple go broke (they may starve depending on where they live). If we are totally dependant on imported resources then we will pay premium prices. If we fish out the fishery we starve (or become Somalian pirates). The market is a theoretical construct.

Bottom line – we need to conserve / manage prudently our resouces…………..

On balance I still favour carbon tax (use of natural resource tax – I see it as the logical extension of forestry and mineral royalties)

Like or Dislike: 0  0