JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Climate Commission Report Debunked

Scientific audit of the Climate Commission Report

“The Critical Decade – Climate science, risks and responses”

May, 2011


Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth

PART I – INTRODUCTION, DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

For PART II – SCIENCE AUDIT see the Full PDF file of Part I & II

Also posted at Quadrant Online, May 30, 2011

INTRODUCTION

The Key Messages[1] summary of The Critical Decade[2] opens with a ringing statement of hyperbole:

Over many decades thousands of scientists have painted an unambiguous picture: the global climate is changing and humanity is almost surely the primary cause. The risks have never been clearer and the case for action has never been more urgent.

This declaration establishes two things. The first sentence signals that the report is committed to repeating the conclusions of the 4th Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)[3], conclusions that are essentially reliant on computer modelling and lack empirical support. And the second signals that the report is long on opinionated analysis and political advocacy but devoid of objective risk analysis.

These same characteristics apply to the scientific basis of four earlier Australian global warming documents, in order the Garnaut review[4], two reports by the Department of Climate Change Change[5] [6], a report by the Academy of Science[7], and finally a science briefing[8] that Professor Steffen provided to the Multi-party Committee on Climate Change in November, 2010, prior to that committee entering policy-setting mode.

DISCUSSION

The global warming debate first became politicised at a UN-convened conference in Villach, Austria in October 1985, at which invited participants reviewed the greenhouse effect, climate change and their effects on ecosystems[9]. The ensuing Conference Statement declared that past climate data, without modification, were no longer to be viewed as a reliable guide to the future; rather, computer modeling (rudimentary though it was at the time) was to be relied upon, and indicated that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases would warm the global climate significantly during the 21st century. The Villach statement was followed by a series of national and international public awareness raising conferences and events sponsored by government and non-government organisations. In culmination, in 1988 the UN established the IPCC to provide advice to governments on the enhanced greenhouse effect and its impact on climate change.

IPCC advice has been known to be politically motivated since publication of the 1995 2nd Assessment Report, in which the wording of the Summary for Policymakers was tampered with after the scientists had signed off on it. In 2001, the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report took as its leit motif a deeply flawed paper by Michael Mann and co-authors that falsely depicted Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 800-1000 years as having the shape of a horizontal hockey-stick in which the upturned blade represented alleged dramatic warming in the 20th century; this graphic was later exposed as false, and the result of statistical incompetence. Most recently, the 4th Assessment Report, published in 2007, has been subjected to a blizzard of criticism subsequent to the revelations of the Climategate affair[10].

The overall weaknesses of the IPCC have been well documented by Melbourne researcher John McLean [11], and they reflect that the IPCC represents a political advocacy organisation more than it does an impartial scientific advisory body. Relying on IPCC recommendations (as interpreted by Professor Steffen and the Department of Climate Change) as the sole source of advice for setting Australian climate policy is therefore clearly unwise. In no other major financial or medical context would such dramatic policy prescriptions be adopted without exposing the expert advice to contestability by seeking a thorough second opinion and audit.

Disturbed by the fact that alarmist IPCC advice about dangerous global warming was being used in Australia in an uncontested and uncritical fashion, over the last two years we have prepared a number of due diligence reports and audit examinations of the scientific arguments pursued by Professor Will Steffen on behalf of the IPCC and the Australian government. Our critical analyses, which are listed here[12], contain much detailed scientific discussion and argument. They lead to the conclusion, first, that the IPCC has failed to provide empirical evidence which shows that dangerous global warming is occurring, or is likely to occur. And, second, that IPCC speculations about the baleful influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide rest almost exclusively on unvalidated computer modelling that rests on unsubstantiated assumptions about the amplification effects of water vapour, clouds and other unverifiable factors[13]

The faith displayed in global climate models (GCM) by senior IPCC advisers is evidenced by the astonishing comment made at a recent meeting in Cambridge by Professor John Mitchell (Principal Research Scientist, U.K. Meteorological Office), who is reported as saying that “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical”.

The Critical Decade contains no substantial new science. Rather, the report is a reworked amalgam of many of the IPCC’s dated and alarmist assertions, and at the same time it ignores recent independent reports (for example, that of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change; NIPCC[14]) and also ignores the numerous published papers that are consistent with the null hypothesis that contemporary climate change has largely natural causes[15]. As for the IPCC reports on which it is based, The Critical Decade cites no empirical data that demonstrates that dangerous warming is occurring, let alone that human-related carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for the late 20th century phase of mild warming. Instead, the case for action to “prevent” dangerous warming put by the IPCC and the Climate Commission rests almost exclusively upon the validity of numerical computer models that are known to be incompatible with decades of detailed observations of the atmosphere.

In this regard, the lack of confidence in the ability of computer modelling to give reliable projections of future climate is dramatically evident in the disclaimer included in The Critical Decade:

While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability  of material contained in this document, the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretation, deduction, conclusion or actions in relying on the material.

We have provided detailed critiques of the GCM models, and of many other IPCC techniques and conclusions, in the due diligence papers already referred to. There is no point in repeating that detail here, and therefore we restrict our audit of The Critical Decade to succinct commentary on the four Key Messages (and their submessages) that the Climate Commission has advanced. This audit comprises PART II of this paper, and is available here: SCIENCE AUDIT [MAKE INTO LINK]

CONCLUSIONS

The scientific advice contained within The Critical Decades is an inadequate, flawed and misleading basis on which to set national policy. The report is emotive and tendentious throughout, ignores sound scientific criticism of IPCC shibboleths that has been made previously, and is shotgun in its approach and at the same time selective in its use of evidence. The arguments presented depend heavily upon unvalidated computer models the predictions of which have been wrong for the last 23 years, and which are are unremittingly and unjustifiably alarmist in nature. Further, in concentrating upon the hypothetical risk of human-caused warming, the Climate Commission has all but ignored the very real and omnipresent risks of dangerous natural climate-related events and change, which are certain to continue to occur in the future.

Notwithstanding the misassertions of the Climate Commissioners, independent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming at a rate faster than for the two major 20th century phases of natural warming; no evidence of sea level rise at a rate greater than the 20th century natural rise of ~1.7 mm/yr; no evidence of acceleration in sea-level change in either the tide gauge or satellite records; and nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets.

Regarding the often remarked need to cut carbon dioxide emissions nonetheless – as a “precautionary principle” approach to perceived dangerous warming – it must be noted that you can’t take specific precautions against an unknown future temperature path. The currently quiet sun, and the established lack of warming over the last ten years, may presage enhanced cooling over the next two decades, as indeed is predicted by some solar physicists[16]. In such circumstances, it can be argued that precautions currently need to be taken against cooling rather than warming. But in reality, and given our inability to predict even the near-term climate future, the only sensible course of action is to strengthen society’s resilience against all climate hazards, and to prepare to cope with warmings, coolings and climatic instantaneous or step events – one and all, and as they come.

In other words, the prudent and most cost-effective national policy is to prepare for all climate events and change, whether they are of certain natural or hypothetical human causation, and to adapt to such events as they occur. Prudence and careful contingency preparation are required in anticipation of both warming and cooling events, for both are certain to occur again in future.

Proceed to PART II – SCIENCE AUDIT [INSERT LINK]


REFERENCES

[1] Climate Commission, 2011. The Critical Decade: Key messages, 2 pp.

[2] Climate Commission, 2011. The Critical Decade, 72 pp.  

[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Susan Solomon et al. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.

[4] Garnaut, R., 2008. The Garnaut Climate Change Review. Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne.

[5] Steffen, W., 2009 (May). Climate Change 2009: Faster Change & More Serious Risk. Department of Climate Change, Canberra, 12 pp.

Carter, R.M., Evans, D., Franks, S. & Kininmonth, W., 2009 (August 10). Critical review of Climate Change 2009, 15 pp. http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf (see Appendix H, pp. 45-60).

[6] Department of Climate Change (Steffen, W.), 2009. Minister Wong’s Written Response to Senator Fielding’s Questions, 6 pp. http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/4-wong-steffen-response-to-questions.pdf.

Carter, R.M., Evans, D., Franks, S. & Kininmonth, W., 2009. Due Diligence Analysis of Minister Wong’s Reply to Senator Fielding’s Three Questions on Climate Change, 68 pp. (2nd ed., August 11). http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf.

[7] Australian Academy of Science, 2010 (August). The Science of Climate Change – Questions and Answers, 24 pp. .

[8] Steffen, W., 2010 (Nov. 10). Climate Change 2010: Science, Risks, Responses, briefing paper for the Multi-Party Climate Committee, Canberra, 18 pp. http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/due-diligence-reports.

Carter, R.M., Evans, D., Franks, S. & Kininmonth, W., 2011. Commentary on Steffen, W., “Climate Change 2010: Science, Risks, Responses”, 34 pp.

[9] World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) (1986) Report of the International Conference on the assessment of the role of carbon dioxide and of other greenhouse gases in climate variations and associated impacts, Villach, Austria, 9-15 October 1985, WMO No.661. http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope29/statement.html

[10] Costalla, J.P., 2010. Climategate. http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/.

Ebrahim, M., 2009. ClimateGate: 30 years in the making. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner.

Garneau, D., 2010. CLIMATEGATE 1979-2010. “Climategate is like a tsunami”. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/Climategate.htm.

Nova, J., 2010. The ClimateGate Virus. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-climategate-virus/.

Opinion Times, 2010. East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – Searchable. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php.

Poneke, Jan. 15, 2010. 13 years of Climategate emails show tawdry manipulation of science by a powerful cabal at the heart of the global warming campaign. http://poneke.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/gate/.

Sheppard, M., 2010. Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg.  American Thinker, Jan. 22, 2010.

[11] McLean, J., 2007 (August/September). An Analysis of the Review of the IPCC 4AR WG I Report. Science & Public Policy Institute.

McLean, J., 2007 (November). Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded.

McLean, J., 2009. The IPCC Can’t Count its “Expert Scientists” – Author and Reviewer Numbers are Wrong, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project. .

McLean, J., 2008. Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings. Analysis of IPCC data on chapter authors and reviewers published through the Science and Public Policy Institute. Particularly pages 16-17. .

[12] Carter, R.M., 2011. Global Warming: an essential reference. Quadrant Online, April 25, 2011. 

[13] Douglass, D.H., Christy, J.R., Pearson, B.J. & Singer, S.F., 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/doc.1651.

Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, D. A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A., 2008. On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques 53, 471-484.

Priestley, C.H.B., 1966. The limitation of temperature by evaporation in hot climates. Agricultural Meteorology 3, 241-246.

Wentz, F.J., Ricciardulli, L., Hilburn, K. & Mears, C., 2007. How much more rain will global warming bring? Science 317, 233-235.

Zhang, M.H. et al., 2005. Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: D15SO2, doi:10.1029/2004JD005021.

[14] Singer, S.F. & Idso, C., 2009. Climate Change Reconsidered. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, 880 pp. http://www.nipccreport.org/.

[15] 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm. Popular Technology – Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology. .

[16] NASA Shows Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere, 2009. PR Newswire. http://au.sys-con.com/node/1223686.

NASA Solar Cycle Prediction (updated 2011/04/04), 2011. http://sc25.com/index.php?id=300&linkbox=true&position=7.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Climate Commission Report Debunked, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/42dmqh2

152 comments to Climate Commission Report Debunked

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    May I ask, what’s new?

    May I answer my own question? Nothing.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    So, these three and undeniably eminent authorities say;

    The overall weaknesses of the IPCC have been well documented by Melbourne researcher John McLean [11], and they reflect that the IPCC represents a political advocacy organisation more than it does an impartial scientific advisory body. Relying on IPCC recommendations (as interpreted by Professor Steffen and the Department of Climate Change) as the sole source of advice for setting Australian climate policy is therefore clearly unwise. In no other major financial or medical context would such dramatic policy prescriptions be adopted without exposing the expert advice to contestability by seeking a thorough second opinion and audit.

    And that is all that any impartial and sensible person needs to know about the worth of the ‘Climate Commission Report’.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    a jones

    I cannot get the pdf link to work. It may be me, or something else.

    Kindest Regards

    00

  • #

    Good show!

    And what I particularly like is that you have 5 pages dedicated to just the references; no loose and ‘fluffy’ statements here. Excellent work in the short time they gave you to turn it around. I’ll buy you a beer next time your in Sydney!

    I’m going to print this off and have a good read on the train.

    00

  • #
    Tom

    “To assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
    That’s the UN stated objective in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – NOT to advance human knowledge of climate, as independent science sets out to do, but to try to build a case that the human race can be blamed for a changing climate, therefore opening the way for the establishment of a climate economy from which the UN may benefit. If the human race cannot be blamed for climate change, the IPCC has no purpose. Ordinary people need to know that the IPCC is not an impartial research co-ordinator, but a commissioner and publisher of research designed to prove that humans are responsible for climate change. It has been as successful as it has been, in my opinion, because scientists, in spite of their years of academic education, are more prone than others to the emotive notion that the human race is destroying the planet, whether there is evidence or not. Many are also devoid of any self-awareness about their own biases, in my opinion.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    How interesting that the government doesn’t “own” the add they’re running. Subtle soft sell acknowledgement by a woman M. Wooton. Hamilton. No mention of Federal government or Canberra. This is really end game stuff from an utterly discredited government desperately seeking traction in very wet ground!

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Sorry off topic but a significant announce from the G8 meeting reported of WUWT. For these countries to formally confirm their stance at such a meeting is important, in my view.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/29/its-all-over-kyoto-protocol-loses-four-big-nations/#more-40723

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The whole 9 yards of the Villach, Austria meeting is here. It looks like they were completely off the rails then. 1985 may have been when they decided to rely on computer models — they are, after all, much more pliable than reality — but they were certainly committed to the scare long before.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    What’s your explanation for why the planet is still getting warmer?

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend

    (You need to stay on topic) CTS

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It isn’t!

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Executive Director for Climate Alarmism in Australia, Will Steffen, is rapidly coming across as just another self-seeking, self-promoting attention-seeking scientist looking for fame via the UNIPCC grants-driven gravy train, similar to Hansen, Mann, Jones et al.

    One particular barrow he is actively pushing and very anxious to be associated with, is to have this period of climate history known as the “Anthropocene”.

    As part of this push, were you all aware that a few days ago we and the rest of humanity, apart from the elitists pushing this scam, were put on trial before 20 Nobel Laureates with Will Steffen as prosecutor? Of course, like all good kangaroo courts no defence or countermanding evidence was allowed or called for.

    Google ICECAP or http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10549/

    00

  • #

    Look at the destruction when a former chemistry professor and one economist convince a government that a carbon dioxide tax on just about everything is a sound political decision.

    00

  • #
    Gerry Ward

    Hi Jo, Love your work. It’s just a shame that there seems to be no real “debate” allowed from anyone who disagrees with the Government’s position. The ads featuring a couple of actors, most of whom seem to think that we are all stupid, are another attempt by the leftist Government to join the hoo hah that’s fed to us in a concerted attempt to control our every thought and act. And they allow CSG development on prime farming land? I just don’t understand. But then, our farmers have been screwed by successive Governments for many years. Why doesn’t someone realise that food security is paramount? But I digress. How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? So where’s the problem? Even the leftie scientists cannot tell us how much difference a Carbon Tax will make.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Here’s Dr Tim Ball talking to Alan Jones
    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9005
    great interview

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    What of course is obvious is that Steffen is not a climate scientist at all but an alarmist activist pure and simple. His expertise is in Climate Change which is built on the assumption that humanity is dangerously changing the ecology of the planet. He has some strange ideas about where mankind should fit in to Earth’s ecological framework. In other words he has a single focus and certainly should not be in a position to have his half baked job destroying ideas inflicted on Australians and their economy.

    00

  • #
    labor of sydney

    Firefox seems to be unable to display some PDFs. If you save the file it is perfectly readable anyway.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I don’t know what is more staggering… the outrageous and ineffective carbon (sic) price (sic) being thrust down our throats by acting PM Brown and his Labor Coalition, or the ridiculous commentary from retired politicians who are clearly not playing with a full deck:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-orders-carbon-tax-blitz/story-fn59niix-1226065221879

    For example, Malcolm Fraser takes a saunter down senility lane here:

    “Mr Fraser said there was a mistaken political view in Australia that other countries were not doing anything, and given their developing status, he did not think it was reasonable for India and China to take the same kinds of action as required of developed countries such as Australia.”

    Perhaps some Australians could be forgiven for not thinking many other countries are doing anything, probably because just about every country outside the EU is doing nothing, but how does he think China should not be part of his grand solution? China is the world’s largest emitter of GHGs and those emissions are on a rapid growth trajectory. Whatever we do in Australia is insignificant compared to a slight policy change in China.

    Perhaps we can put out a search team to find some of the poor old codger’s marbles …

    00

  • #

    BTW on the Say Yes Australia page I have just got banned from posting after posting simple references to the above report in answer to silly illogical comments on Co2 in the atmosphere – the crack down on real debate has started! I’ll screen capture and share..

    00

  • #

    Still on the rebound from the Little Ice Age, the annual temperature of the contiguous United States has increased about one degree F in 115 years, according to data provided by our govenment. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to know what can be seen on their own website. An average of one degree F per century could only alarm alarmists. It must be in their DNA.

    00

  • #

    See here for the screenshot. Tried it multiple times, definitely a lock out.

    Funny thing is the posts I made pointing to this report still appear to be there – so they aren’t even following their own code of conduct as regarding take downs; just silencing the debate as always and not giving any reason.

    BTW feel free to like Say NO to the Carbon Tax Australia.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bob Carter effectively debunked it on Andrew Bolt’s show yesterday, though given that it’s a little like a vampire, perhaps a few more stakes through the heart might be a good precaution.

    00

  • #

    “Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink” – The Guardian – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower

    Apparently, this will disrupt the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and lead to mass migrations and conflict.

    Oh dear.

    00

  • #

    Heh, “Carbon Cate”, please may this stick like “Hanoi Jane”.

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] Carbon Commission Report full of ..it…debunked by science audit Posted on May 30, 2011 by Tom Harley Climate Commission Report Debunked [...]

    00

  • #

    How can they get away with such gross lies (atmospheric and ocean temperatures rising, sea level rides accelerating) in that report? If they tried that in the business world, Steffen and Flannery would almost certainly be imprisoned.

    00

  • #
    pat

    thank u. will send the debunked report to everyone on my mailing list.

    00

  • #
    grumpy

    @ keith #15
    I went to the ‘say yes’ page yesterday evening and asked what date the referendum or election was being held so that I could have my opportunity to say yes. My comment remained under moderation for several hours and was still there when I went to bed at about midnight. This morning it had disappeared down the memory hole. Debate much?

    00

  • #

    [...] They refuse to allow dissenting scientific voicesto be heard above their own screeching. They do not tell you that all the so called scientific mumbo jumbo they are spouting – you know – all their facts and figures are based solely on computer modelling, which has totally disregarded empirical scientific proof. [...]

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Blimey- I had a look at your link and it was obvious even to me that it shows a cooling trend since about 2000.

    What really worries me about this sort of thing though is that I have no real idea what I am looking at. I am sure that “they” have sorted out the twentieth century nonsense whereby the world was always warmer during the northern hemisphere summer than during their winter (which first led me to scepticism anyway) but how did they do it? Do they simply weight the southern hemisphere data to compensate for the lesser number of observations or is this why they reduced the number overall? Either way it seems a little dodgy.

    The Climate Commision report is a total waste of time and money. The only reason to put out a report which only repeats, without even rehashing, (dis)information already long out there is to get a few new headlines. This reflects very poorly on its authors as scientists rather than propagandists . Am I wrong? Can anyone defend it?

    Does anyone know what is happening on the BEST project? I would be the first to admit it will be well over my head regardless and probably take forever to do properly, but I had hopes that it would at last inject some sense into the concept of “global mean temperature”.

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Blimey – this may or may not work- I didn’t want to risk losing the thread above to go chasing it (the perils of a rural internet connection- GO NBN) but looks like the same data as your link, on a larger scale. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/guardian-pay-no-attention-to-actual-temperatures/

    00

  • #

    Hi Grumpy, I suggest you post and screen capture as soon as you do that. That way if the post does get deleted or they block you in future, you have evidence of the censor action. Asking a simple question like you did is not grounds for removal of a post.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Is anyone else noticing how weird it is that many of the northern hemisphere countries which are supposed to have been seeing the catastrafarian scare come true are walking away from this rubbish, while the southern hemisphere countries like ours have leaders (and I do use that word loosely) are still trying to commit us to the scare campaign?

    Surely by now even the committed catastrafarians must be experiencing some twinge in that part of their brain which is still capable of critical thinking?

    00

  • #
    gnome

    MikeB- I like “Cate Blanche” – suitable for an airhead.

    (Yesterday there was a thread of comment on a news site [automatically generated by google when I fire up the internet, so I don't know whose] which had about 72 comments, almost entirely disparaging, about the “say yes” advertising. Interestingly, although there were more comments criticising airhead Blanchet, the comments criticising airhead Caton were fiercer in tone. I think the people expect more from some airheads than they expect from others.)

    (Also, I followed another thread there to Sarah hyphen-Young’s website asking if the folx approve of the Green’s proposal to Labor on CO2 tax- at about 1600 votes it was 3 to 1 against- on her own website! Unfortunately, if the girl learns anything from this it will be to stack her branch more thoroughly next time.)

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    cohenite

    A poll here about our Cate’s right to tell us to like a carbon tax:

    http://www.theherald.com.au/polls/?page=

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Cohenite

    That poll is an extremely misleading question – of course she has a right to speak in support of a carbon tax, and here is the semantic obfuscation our self appointed and annointed elites make so things are not what they seem to be.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Cohenite – nasty little question that one!

    As usual the newspapers who favour the climate silliness seem to tie themselves in knots to prevent anyone being able to say what they think. Except Sarah Hansen-Young, whose poll perhaps shows a slight lack of fairies in the top paddock or something.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Cohenite/Louis

    How about

    “Does Cate B. have the right to use her position to deceive the public and propagandise on behalf of vested interests and junk science?”

    That’s how I interpreted the Herald Sun poll. Tick the box marked “No Way, Bukko!”

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I originally thought of Cate B as seeing her self ( life immitating art ) as QE1 but on reflection it is really closer to Marie Antionette – “let them eat cake”

    00

  • #
    manalive

    uh-oh cohenite has beaten me to it …

    ….Blimey (9)…..

    What’s your explanation for why the planet is still getting warmer?

    ….endpoint fallacy graph.

    Human CO2 emissions were insignificant prior to c.1945, so the temperature trend prior to 1945 is irrelevant to your “hot debate”.

    In the 60+ years of rapidly rising CO2 emissions (probably human-caused), there has been only one period of sustained net warming, so on that empirical evidence it’s unlikely at this stage that the rising CO2 concentration (whatever the source) has been the overwhelming climate driving factor during that period.

    At this stage there is no need for the Australian Government to do anything except prepare for the fires, droughts, floods and storms etc.– the known climate risks.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Louis, yes I thought of that but I said no because I refused to be trapped by that form of question and anything to do with this disgusting ad should be answered in the negative. I don’t think you should over analyse this.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Speedy@34

    Yeah rationale too for voting against my principles on free speech.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    or @40

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Speedy @ 40

    The question as asked is a nonsense which is par for the course in many of these polls and in my judgment not worthy of any vote!
    Had your version been the question I’d have had NO problem!

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    Lock n Load troops!

    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? – John Cook
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    DavidA,

    I would put up a post but my handle doesn’t get past the ABC censors. The Nanny state doesn’t like independant thought, apparently.

    I find it utterly disgusting how Mr Cook has no qualms about cheapening the holocaust to make a cheap, irrelevant political point.

    Not very skeptical, of course, but hey, I never thought that pinko was ever skeptical.

    Good luck to all trying to help these guys get past their ignorance. It’s like herding cats though.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    What’s your explanation for why the planet is still getting warmer?

    Blimey;
    Increased temps in the sea of ignorance that surround the small island of knowledge
    of certain scientists that is then amplified by legions of parasites hoping to make a fortune from the stupidity of others;

    or it could be the sun.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Cohenite

    The poll is running 50% NO, 42% yes, so that will cause them some head scratching.

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    Have a crack MadJack, they aren’t too bad many skeptics get through on these articles. Just keep it civil. You don’t need to actually register either.

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Further to the excellent dissection in this post, here’s some more ammunition: an article that should be required reading in all schools and colleges and for anyone requiring a refresher in cosmic history and power. Those warmists trying to convince us that a few human-induced extra parts per million of essential trace gas CO2 will lead to runaway Catastrophic Global Warming should also educate themselves into just where we fit in the grand picture!

    Pointman says it so much better than I could ever hope to.

    “The steady-state environment delusion.” Excerpt:

    “Anytime Mother Nature decides to do so, she can reach out and snatch the life right out of you. As in individuals, so in species, planets, stars and galaxies. The forces ranged against us and all other species are massive beyond any meaningful comprehension and our climate is just another one of them. Nature is indifferent to our very existence. The idea that we have any effect on forces like these and can somehow conserve things in some ideal balanced state is not just childish, but simply ignorant beyond all belief!”

    For full article:

    http://www.thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/the-steady-state-environment-delusion/

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey DavidA, thanks for the heads up on the Drum. I visited and put my opinion. I reckon it’ll get published too. Mind you, I did stay on topic, and didn’t insult anyone, or call anyone corrupt or incompetent, or bang on about global conspiracies :-)

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see the venerable and rationally-challenged Dr Hewson is also throwing his weight (however miniscule that is) behind the “Yes” campaign:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/former-liberal-leader-calls-for-more-urgency-in-the-climate-debate/story-e6frg6xf-1226065655499

    It is interesting to see him described as “a market economist” in the article… so Dr Hewson, explain again the GST impost on a birthday cake if you will…

    Some people really should be prohibitted from running anything more important than a chook raffle. In his case I think that might even be a tad onerous for his abilities.

    Like the Cate Blanhett approach, I think employing a failed Coalition opposition leader and touting that as some sort of victory is a very naive approach to selling the CO2 tax. Does she even live in Australia these days? or does she just swan in on a big jet plance to preach the evils of “carbon”?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Oh this is gold… here’s a company I came across – Change Investment Management:

    http://www.changeim.com/

    “With an intelligent approach, proven team and focused Change Opportunities Fund, Change offers sophisticated investors unique opportunities to invest in those companies best placed globally to profit from and contribute to a changing world – Water, Waste Management, Food and Agriculture, Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Smart Grid Infrastructure.”

    Why is this of interest? Check who is on the Board:

    http://www.changeim.com/content_common/pg-board.seo

    There’s no interest like self-interest… so Johnno … about that birthday cake…

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Bulldust @ 55

    Why am I not surprised!! Perhaps John would like to add a little disclosure piece to the ad. I’m sure he wouldn’t want people to think there was some conflict of interest or a personal monetary advantage to be gained.sarc/ As they say, follow the money!

    00

  • #
    pat

    talking of polls, especially utterly dishonest ones, how’s this from ACTU’s Tony Douglas’s Essential Media? of course, SMH and AAP don’t think the public should be informed who the hell Essential is. the sooner the MSM cleans out its own stables the better:

    30 May: Sydney Morning Herald: AAP: Turnbull, Rudd preferred leaders: poll
    Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd remain the preferred leaders of the two major parties, a new poll shows.
    An Essential Media survey of 1893 people shows 32 per cent support for Mr Rudd, nine points higher than Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
    But Ms Gillard, who took over the Labor leadership a year ago this month, is preferred by 51 per cent of ALP voters compared to 31 per cent for her predecessor…
    But voters are evenly split over the opposition’s call for a fresh election based on the carbon tax, with 42 per cent in favour and against.
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/turnbull-rudd-preferred-leaders-poll-20110530-1fcfj.html

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Hey John B @ 53

    I did stay on topic, and didn’t insult anyone, or call anyone corrupt or incompetent, or bang on about global conspiracies

    Then how come you can’t do that here then?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Ross

    This is abit more related to the previous thread. Germany has just announced it will close down all 17 of its nuclear power stations ( which produce about 25% of its power) over the next 10 years. The increasing political influence of the Greens is said to be partly to “blame” for this. They say they will replace the nuclear power by reducing power consumptin by 10% and increase wind power. But I thought they had already announced earlier in the year that they were going to build more coal fired stations to give more base load for the wind power. So it looks like CO2 trumps nuclear!!! More coal fired stations on the way.

    The other option reported on BBC was to import power from France ( nuclear) or from countries on its eastern borders ( nuclear again ). Oh the hypocrisy !!

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    Nice John Brookes, it will be interesting reading that thread. The climate articles get the most comments, over 600 on a previous one. Lets see how John Cook fairs when his minions aren’t censoring the skeptical opinions off-topic agitators.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Further to my comment on the German decision , I have just looked at Bishop Hill and read this thread about predictions of less wind in the next 40yrs. Maybe the Germans will have a rethink

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/5/30/lockwood-no-wind-for-40-years.html?lastPage=true#comment13019809

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    John Brookes@53:

    I did stay on topic, and didn’t insult anyone, or call anyone corrupt or incompetent, or bang on about global conspiracies

    Wow, has someone else taken your handle there johnny boy ?- the only things I have seen you write on this blog have been insults, smears of incompetance and clear argumentativeness.

    Of course, the Mods here are much more tolerant of your freedom of speech than the abc mods.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Blimey

    gnome – skeptics like Watts used to say there was no warming since 1995, then since 1998, now from 2001. As time marches forward and the long term trend becomes evident in the data, they move their “start year” to something new.

    There are natural cycles, such as the 11 year solar cycle, that influence the surface temperature and create ups and downs in the record. Skeptics like Watts like to pick a recent high temperature moment and then claim there’s been no warming since then.

    Looking back over the past 150 years there’s been plenty of flat spots like the past 10 years, but in each case, the warming resumes and the longer term trend becomes apparent.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    allen mcmahon: – “or it could be the sun.”

    Evidence suggests otherwise, recently the sun’s been cooler, the temps have still been going upwards.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    John Brookes @ 53

    FYI – you’re still not up as yet (at 9:04pm) so I reckon you might NOT?

    I also attempted to put up my view as well (thanks to Damian Allen)

    Who knows – who cares if yours or mine gets up.

    ANY blog that censors peoples opinions is just not worth going back to – this is a country where freedom of speech is paramount to out democracy – aren’t you lucky John B?

    Cheers,

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Blimey:
    May 30th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
    ….”Looking back over the past 150 years there’s been plenty of flat spots like the past 10 years, but in each case, the warming resumes and the longer term trend becomes apparent.”

    That should be:
    Looking back over the last 272 years….
    Oh is it an inconvenient truth that the warming began long long before many of the wet chem CO2 measurements began to be ignored?

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    OFF TOPIC

    I am sure all you guys know by now that the Power Station backdrop for the Blanchet / CatON ‘Say Yes’ ad was in fact Battersea Power Station in London.

    Battersea closed in 1983.
    What idiots, to use a ‘Green’, non emitting Power Station for their ad.

    The Pink Floyd album cover for ‘Animals’ was a picture of Battersea Power Station.
    The lyrics below seem appropriate.
    “Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
    You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are.”

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Blimey: #9
    “What’s your explanation for why the planet is still getting warmer?”

    OK Blimey
    Here’s my explaination.

    China has just built a Massive Dam, in fact it is so big that it will slow the Earths rotaion speed by 0.06 microseconds.
    This of course means that each part of our planet is in the sun for longer and consequently heats up a bit more.

    So there you have it Blimey, it’s all the Dams that are causing the planet to warm.

    I will give you the opportuniy, as you have always done for others on this site, to provide one piece of empirical evidence to disprove the ‘Dam Global Warming’ theory.

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    I know an old man who did his bricklaying apprenticeship in London in the 1930′s. He told me that they used to put the water pipes along the outside of the walls of blocks of flats because it didn’t get cold enough for the pipes to freeze. I wonder if that’s how they do it today?

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Evidence suggests otherwise, recently the sun’s been cooler, the temps have still been going upwards.

    Interesting I was thinking of John Cook when musing about the ‘sea of ignorance’.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Blimey: #64
    “…they move their “start year” to something new.”

    The Department for Climate Change does that too.

    Did you know that since 2007 we have reduced our emissions by nearly 50%. (see aegis on DCC site)

    I am sad to hear, as you now inform me, that the planet is still warming. Does this mean that all our CO2-e reductions were for nothing?, that maybe reducing CO2-e emissions has no effect?.

    Any idea what else could be causing the warming Blimey?
    (Maybe it’s the Dams)

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    TrueNews:
    May 30th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
    @Blimey: #9
    “What’s your explanation for why the planet is still getting warmer?”
    …”So there you have it Blimey, it’s all the Dams that are causing the planet to warm.”

    Could be wind turbines reducing convection of heat up to be radiated away. More wind turbines more warming.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Guys,

    I wouldn’t bother feeding the Blimey troll, it is either an idiot, or a troll-bot.

    On a previous thread I asked for a reference to any paper that presented empirical evidence in support of the positive feedback effects of water vapor.

    The question was initially avoided, and then all further requests were totally ignored (which is actually not such a bad thing from my point of view).

    He/she/it is not worth the keyboard wear and tear of a response.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Continuing to push my barrow, AGW is not about the science.
    Could it be that we are now at the political end-game?
    Politically, I think that the AGW supporters have already won. This will take Australia to some dark places. The issue now for all Australians is about how we dig ourselves out of a deep dark hole.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Rod @ 22.

    Every time I read something like that I just shake my head at everyone who has their knickers in a knot about emissions. Pessimists the lot of them. Skeptics are not deniers, they just are not pessimists. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily optimists, just people who can see the utter futility of worrying about something which is a non-problem, namely climate change and the utter foolishness of trying to do something about it. All that will achieve is an enormous mess for our immediate descendants to clear up and a rush to build more coal powered generating plants as electricity supply becomes erratic. The only “green-related” jobs in the middle of this century will be the dismantling of windmills and removal of solar panels.

    If these pessimists could instead just ask the question “is there any possibility that emissions don’t matter?” and read any of the books advertised on this site they would begin to feel there is indeed a positive future in a “business as usual” world and an improvement in their health.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    incoherent rambler @ 75

    I fear you are far more correct than you imagine.

    If one traces this travesty back to its beginnings, it was never about taxes, never about power, never about “one world governments” or any of the other “theories” espoused today.

    It was always about killing people. Wholesale. By the millions, if not hundreds of millions and possibly even a couple of billion.

    We are now entering an entirely predictable and predicted 20 – 30 years of global cooling. We are doing this at a time when advances in energy generation have made it possible (to date) to support many more people than we otherwise could have. We enter it with that energy capacity now being eroded every day.

    We enter it at a time when 40% (and growing) of the world’s surplus food-growing capacity is now being diverted to the manufacture of fuel. We enter it at a time when the western nations are bankrupt, and unable to switch to the kind of massive investment in energy generation that would be required to avert disaster even if the political will to do so existed – which it doesn’t.

    It doesn’t matter whether one ascribes it all to planned conspiracy or mere stupidity – the end result is the same. The world generally is about to starve, and the refugees are going to start arriving on our door-step in their millions.

    God help our children and grandchildren.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    It doesn’t matter whether one ascribes it all to planned conspiracy or mere stupidity – the end result is the same.

    I have posted before that I think it is stupidity. But as you say the result is the same. The first test of our society will be how we react (in mass) to lack of energy and food. History tells us not to expect good things.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Ian Hill – “If these pessimists could instead just ask the question “is there any possibility that emissions don’t matter?” and read any of the books advertised on this site they would begin to feel there is indeed a positive future in a “business as usual” world and an improvement in their health.”

    There’s a remarkable difference between a science book in which the author can write whatever the hell they like vs a peer-reviewed scientific paper which undergoes greater scrutiny and continues to be part of a scientific process that either build upon the theories within or renders the paper into obscurity.

    When it comes to something this important, I’ll take the advice from the scientific process every single time.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    incoherent rambler @ 78

    One minor correction and I’ll agree with you entirely:

    “The LAST test of our society will be how we react . . . to lack of energy and food.”

    I think that about sums it up.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ 79

    So the Himalayan glaciers will all be melted by 2035?

    As claimed in the “peer-reviewed scientific papers of the IPCC”?

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    memoryvault @ 80

    I stand corrected.

    00

  • #
    Ian

    That’s some nice ‘communicating’ there. No where do you outline your scientific credentials. Communicating science and actually being a scientist are very different things. Stop misleading people with lies and deceit.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    incoherent rambler @ 82

    It truly is sad. I grew up in the sixties when what man could dream, man could achieve. Now we are going to descend into another Dark Age.

    We were so close . . . .

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    peer-reviewed scientific paper which undergoes greater scrutiny and continues to be part of a scientific process
    I hate to succumb to feeding them, I know it just attracts more of them, but for the ignorant -
    Publications up until recently, generally are expected to state what you were trying to achieve, how you did it (so others can reproduce your results) and what you think it means and how you came to that conclusion.
    Scientific journals are littered with publications where the results cannot be reproduced (e.g. the dog ate my datasets) or the conclusions are demonstrably wrong (e.g. feedbacks). The wonder of science journals is that I can read about advancements and mistakes that people made 300+ years ago. It is hard to hide from history when you get it wrong.
    “It has peer approval!” just means you get published. It does NOT mean its right.
    The moral of the story is that one must read science publications when your brain is switched on. Try it sometime.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    descend into another Dark Age

    The dark ages was when superstition and mystical beliefs ruled over rationality. A “period of intellectual darkness”.
    We are already there.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    incoherent rambler @ 84

    Fair go Rambler.

    You’re assuming blimey has a brain.
    Now that’s a stretch of the imagination.

    Let alone an ON switch.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Blimey — Brit slang an exclamation of surprise or annoyance

    I wonder which it is. But no matter; the alias tells the full story — I’ve nothing to contribute and I’ll happily give you as much of it as I can get away with.

    Blimey, if the evidence against you was snow on a mountainside it would be an avalanche that would bury you 20 feet deep (6.7 meters). skepticalscience indeed! I can get better information from the wall in the nearest public restroom.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    incoherent rambler @ 85

    They haven’t started burning us “witches and heretics” at the stake yet.
    But they are working on it.

    I’ll bet blimey just loves a good bonfire.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Well, midnight (almost) and STILL no moderated posts over on the John Cook article at The Drum.

    It will be (hopefully) an interesting read in the morning.

    ‘night all

    00

  • #

    Blimey’s post #9:

    What’s your explanation for why the planet is still getting warmer?

    He then post his misleading link.That spans the decades from 1850 to 2010.Too bad you made this attempt to bolster your AGW delusions.

    Do you realize why it was warming from the 1850′s onward?

    00

  • #

    Blimey,

    How about responding to the posted article instead? I have here a juicy quote for you that you have not responded to:

    The Critical Decade contains no substantial new science. Rather, the report is a reworked amalgam of many of the IPCC’s dated and alarmist assertions, and at the same time it ignores recent independent reports (for example, that of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change; NIPCC[14]) and also ignores the numerous published papers that are consistent with the null hypothesis that contemporary climate change has largely natural causes[15]. As for the IPCC reports on which it is based, The Critical Decade cites no empirical data that demonstrates that dangerous warming is occurring, let alone that human-related carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for the late 20th century phase of mild warming. Instead, the case for action to “prevent” dangerous warming put by the IPCC and the Climate Commission rests almost exclusively upon the validity of numerical computer models that are known to be incompatible with decades of detailed observations of the atmosphere.

    The contents of the 2007 IPCC report,has been shown to be composed of too many grey literature sources.To have confidence of their politically biased conclusions.

    When will you catch up Blimey?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Heh, “Carbon Cate”, please may this stick like “Hanoi Jane”.

    Mike Borgelt,

    Amen! I love it. I’ve never forgotten Hanoi Jane. I spent a year in Vietnam and her treachery still generates a visceral response when I’m reminded of her.

    Give Carbon Cate all the hell you can with my blessing!

    00

  • #
    Engchamp

    “The Key Messages[1] summary of The Critical Decade[2] opens with a ringing statement of hyperbole:
    Over many decades thousands of scientists have painted an unambiguous picture: the global climate is changing and humanity is almost surely the primary cause. The risks have never been clearer and the case for action has never been more urgent.”

    Let us hope fervently that, like all hyperbolic curves, this misanthropic propaganda comes crashing to the ground and is buried before so-called western democracies make us all bankrupt.

    Great article – thanks Jo.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    Rereke Whakaaro:
    “I wouldn’t bother feeding the Blimey troll, it is either an idiot, or a troll-bot.”

    I wasn’t feeeding it Rereke, I was baiting it.
    Besides, I don’t know what non carbon lifeforms eat, do you think it might like some greens?

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    TrueNews:
    May 31st, 2011 at 2:19 am
    …”Besides, I don’t know what non carbon lifeforms eat, do you think it might like some greens?”

    These parasites feed off panic energy. Seems to have gone. Perhaps after it ate the hook and left the bait, then just like a fire extinguisher puts out a fire the fire blanket of CO2 cooled it down too much to live.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Blimey:

    At #79 you say;

    When it comes to something this important, I’ll take the advice from the scientific process every single time.

    That would make sense if you had a clue as to what the scientific process is, but your posts on this blog clearly demonstrate that you don’t.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Blimey @ 79 wrote:

    When it comes to something this important, I’ll take the advice from the scientific process every single time.

    When I see one scientist saying to another “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” then I know the scientific process includes cheating. Therefore I rely on books which give one person’s interpretation of what’s going on in a language which the educated layman can understand. All I have to do is ensure that I am happy with the credentials of the author.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    “Panic Energy”

    Hmm…….

    probably more reliable than wind and maybe solar electric

    00

  • #
    Chris in Hervey Bay

    “Blimey” aka “JLous” is a troll, found on sceptical blog sites, trying to hijack threads with warmist rubbish. Look again at his first post on this thread, argumentive, looking for a fight, and contributing nothing.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Blimey, it does post a lot of waffle this blimey troll does.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Such hostility? Tsk tsk!

    (Get back on topic and stop trolling) CTS

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see Garnaut wants us to go down the track of the IPCC and EU:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-mps-in-climate-rulings-garnaut/story-fn59niix-1226065973209

    To quote:

    JULIA Gillard’s chief climate change adviser will today recommend taking politicians out of direct decision-making for setting emissions reduction targets, set long-term assistance rates for trade-exposed industries, and estimate when to include agriculture in a carbon price.

    I don’t know, but does anyone remeber seeing Ross Garnaut on any of their ballots last year? Last time I checked he had a mandate credibility… of wait a sec, rechecking … oh that’s right… ZERO.

    I guess Garnaut wants to be the carbon tsar of Australia. Remember that I saw some of the questions that were asked of state government departments when he was writing his reports. They were so naively stupid it beggered belief. This man should not be allowed to make any policy decisions, unless Australia is divesting itself of the last few shreds of democracy.

    Read the article if you have the stomach for it, but you have been warned … it contains highly contentious stuff.

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Say YES – to an ELECTION. NOW.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1mWOlmk58

    Video made the front page of Quadrant

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/

    If Carbon Cate can have her say, why can we all have our say at the ballot box?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey, I see you aren’t any better answering questions here on this thread. You are a joke. You aren’t even up to the depth of John Brookes.

    What the hell drives you?

    00

  • #
    Banana

    The issue with the so-called debate is it is generally being held on blogs on the internet.
    I would like to see a televised debate.
    We wont see one because the alarmist side “do not have time for sceptics”. They are great at talking to each other but wont allow any proper public scrutiny, as they know the argument for AGW is getting weaker by the day.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Gerry Ward:

    At #13 you ask:

    Even the leftie scientists cannot tell us how much difference a Carbon Tax will make.

    Well, I am a leftie scientist and I can.

    A Carbon Tax will
    (a) damage the economy by distorting economic activity
    and
    (b) have no discernible effect on global climate.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard S. Courtney, with a great deal of respect intended, is it possible that the Left left you a long time ago?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Sorry, replace “long time ago” with “some time ago” (I am old enough that I don’t need to be reminded about how long…..) :)

    00

  • #
    Tom

    @Blimey: You remind me of the delinquent infant who (Snipped) I’m tipping we’re also paying you Social Security/Unemployment benefits.

    CTS

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Popeye – “ANY blog that censors peoples opinions is just not worth going back to”

    Does that include this one?

    (NO) CTS

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “(Get back on topic and stop trolling) CTS”

    Please apply the same moderation to others here?

    (You are the one who habitually go off topic.You troll,by disrupting the thread with off topic posts.The reason for my warning) CTS

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Blimey:
    You don’t see others trolling … end of story.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Duh the quote is “any blog that censors PEOPLES! peoples are not trolls!

    Idiot troll…..

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey says:

    Please apply the same moderation to others here?

    You amaze and bewilder! Have you paid for any chocolate yet? http://joannenova.com.au/about/donations/ Dig deep my troll friend, the free market is, well expensive. Of course there is no guarantee that you’ll be treated any better but you could try anyway.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Mark D:

    At #108 you ask me:

    is it possible that the Left left you a long time ago?

    No, that is not possible.

    I am a card-carrying socialist of the old-fashioned British kind. And I am the Chairman of the Southern Region of a TUC-affiliated trade union having served in every elected office of my Union upto and including being the National Vice President.

    I am also an Accredited Methodist Preacher but my income throughout my adult life has been obtained by my being a practicing scientist and recently a Consultant.

    My socialist and Christian beliefs are inherent to who I am.

    But your suggestion is not new to me. For 5 years I was simultaneously the Vice President of my trade union and on the Executive Committee of the Federation of European Energy Executives. Both offices required Annual Election: in one set of elections I was attacked as being a tool of ‘big business’ while in the other set of elections I was attacked as being a left-wing looney. In reality I am neither: I am merely a seeker after truth who cares deeply for people in the human condition. Physical reality (revealed by science), politics, business, and religion affect everybody in the human condition.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    JeffT

    The poll question in the Herald was loaded.
    Of course Cate Blanchett has the right to speak, but what isn’t mentioned anywhere is that Cate Blanchett is an Al Gore trained The Climate Change presenter(connector), and has been since 2006.
    The site Mindfood – Climate Change Warriors shows the linkage.
    http://www.mindfood.com/at-climate-change-warriors-activism-blanchett-green.seo
    There is even an image panel on this page #4 – titled ‘INSPIRATION: AL GORE’

    Needles to say I was “inspired” (not)

    Some information missing from Ms Blanchett’s “inspirational” advertisement – she did not mention the UN Fast Start Financing Fund ($599million AU)and the UN Green Climate Fund (the details yet to be worked out) that Minister Combet signed at Cancun Dec 2010. The Fast Start Fund is a one off cost, but the Green Climate Fund is to be a regular “committment”, mooted to be 10% of the carbon tax collected, and eventually from the Emissions Trading Scheme in a couple of years.
    And “committments” in UN speak includes other words such as “punitive”, “restoration rate (1 payment, plus penalty 30% = 1.3)”

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Richard S Courtney: #116

    Well said.

    These people live in a two dimensional world where things are either black or white, or either left or right. There can be, in their world, no shades of grey and no middle ground. As I have said before, I feel nothing but pathos towards them.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I stumbled across some interesting information I was not previously aware of at the MCMPR (Ministerial Council on Minerals and Petroleum Resources) web site under the energy section:

    http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/facts/Pages/EnergyFacts.aspx

    There are several recent releases which contain vast amounts of data on the relative costs of different energy sources, which provide excellent ammunition when addressing the foolhardy renewables advocates. I draw your attention to the electricity generation cost fact sheet:

    http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/Documents/facts-stats-pubs/2011/AEGTC-2011-Fact-Sheet.pdf

    Even with expected increases in renewable energy technology efficiency, black coal and gas are still expected to be the cheapest sources of energy in Australia by 2030 with large scale wind maybe starting to get a look in…

    Funny how there was no fanfare about the release of these reports this year. Perhaps they contain a few too many inconvenient truths?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust,

    I guess there was no fanfare as what you mention is nothing new. Nobody thinks renewables will be cheaper than gas or coal. If they did there would be no need to price carbon.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It’s new in the sense that these types of reports generally only come out every few years or so… having an update telling us nothing significant has changed in the price relativities is important, even if it is not surprising or particularly interesting.

    As for a “need to price carbon” (dioxide), I fail to share that sense of urgency, especially given that any proposed price impost will not alter electricity generation decisions in this country. Therefore, as I have said before, the carbon (sic) price (sic) is simply a revenue raising exercise and has nothing whatsoever to do with climate science, global warming or climate disruption… or any random weather event du jour. The talk of “climate change” is simply a politically palatable pretense to get the new tax past the general populace without causing too much social unrest.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Well Garnaut’s $26 per tonne price today is said to be revenue neutral at least… since you say “the carbon (sic) price (sic) is simply a revenue raising exercise”.

    But look I actually agree. I support a carbon price that is useful enough to change the structure of the energy generation market. If the political opt out is a low carbon price that does not achieve that I’d rather no carbon price and instead targetted action at the big generators.

    That said, I’m not sure I want a carbon price that would encourage structural change in the power generation market in a political climate where nuclear power is off the table.

    A low carbon price is either (a) a useless weight on the economy that will not solve a non-existant problem, or(b) shuffling the deckchairs on the titanic.

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Well heres what I’ve got out of the hwole thing – for years you find rumours of one world govts etc and I never really took much notioce. Then I found info that put forward a theory that climate change was to be the trojan horse to unravel western civilisation using a climate “emergency” as the excuse.

    Now we see it basically happening – I notice everyone who is “anyone” in the Establishement is jumping on the bandwagon and so were seeing those public figures who support a One World Govt ( run by a UN disctorship ) basically decalring thier hand.

    I should point out, it seems the same powers that be that lurk behind the visible players, have declared effectively “war” on our civilisation and way of life.

    Many of the Eco-Nuts are in fact communists/marxists who use the eco movemenbt as “cover”. Gorbachov predicted that communism would rise, by hollwoing out western scoieties from within – so far we see many planks of communism already in place in Australiaand the west.

    The Eco-”crisis” is just the means to administer the Coup-de-grace to the neck of the western world. I also think that unless people start putting at least 2-3 KW of solar cells ( or equivelent ) on their roofs soon, they will find that when energy rationing comes ( and it will ), that unless youre effectively energy independent, you will suffer.

    Once the carbon tax comes in they will issue carbon “allowances” – translation – were going to ration your right to life. Did I mention these same people are also seem to support eugenics indirectly? Bumping off oldies by rationing how much heat they can have or by limiting how much petrol you can buy is one way of controlling your population.

    Thsi eco thing concels two things – (1) the hidden agenda to limit the populations consumption of energy which supports the theory the powers that be are earth worshipping pagans who seem to hate the rest of humanity (2) That to control a population using a mecahnism that controls every aspect of life ( Carbon Tax ) is critical to the blatant power grab of these psychopaths.

    So, energy independence at home is the way to go. Dont forget if you have a solar panels put in, to make sure you can run your house off the panels which means you need an isolator switch between the inverter and the mains so that when the mains is shut off, the panels can supply the house directly. Get the sparky to set this up when its installed.

    Artificial Crisis => Pre-prepared solution.

    Global warming => destroying economy => world wide communism => dictatorship through UN as one world govt.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    A mixed bag MattB; first you descend into grotesquery by saying: “Well Garnaut’s $26 per tonne price today is said to be revenue neutral at least”

    Are you devoid of any mathematical capacity, are you toeless and fingerless; how can anyone other than a government paid liar or witless zealot say a $26 per tonne tax will be revenue neutral? These explain why that is such a dumb conclusion:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/the-silent-giant-coal-monster/

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/113676.html

    Apart from the above amphigory your comment about nuclear suggest some vestigial intelligence.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    MattB

    One of the things you’re missing is human behaviour. Only a very few will willingly or unwillingly adopt a hairshirt existence if there is an alternative. This is one reason why Cate’s ad is such a foot shooting disaster – as Gerard Henderson points out she does not live like she means it.

    Here is my prediction of human behaviour. If retail electricity goes above 30c/kWh and petrol isn’t carbon taxed then there will be a big increase in petrol generator advertisements.

    When will the Government ban petrol generators for home use? Shortly before they ban small combined cycle wood fired steam generators.

    When I’m out riding in the bush I’ve already seen a recent increase in vehicles with chainsaws in the back. People will find a way around stupid cr*p like this carbon tax silliness legally or illegally. Even more so when they are preached to by people with huge carbon footprints. CO2 emissions will not actually fall in any meaningful way. Humans do not work like that.

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Matt B

    Considering we have no global warming, a carbon price it utterly moot anyway.

    Its just another tax, and Comrade Combet has said wit will go up every year ( and some of it will fund the communist UN directly )

    Tax goes up every year:

    http://www.news.com.au/money/tax-time/labor-government-admits-carbon-tax-will-rise-each-year/story-fn8qmzek-1226058753952

    The UN gets the money :

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/

    Can you imagine what would happen if they said the GST would go up every year?

    Riots.

    And yet people are DUMB enough to want a carbon tax. Idiots….complete ignorant fools.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I was just quoting the news report Cohenite. And it actually says “budget neutral” my apologies.

    “The Government’s key climate change adviser has recommended polluters pay a carbon price of $26 a tonne, raising $11.5 billion in the first year of a carbon tax.

    In his final climate report, Professor Ross Garnaut says 55 per cent of the revenue should go to households and 35 per cent to the polluting businesses as compensation.

    The remainder will go towards innovation and carbon farming, which will be offset by existing spending.

    The package is said to be budget-neutral.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/31/3231718.htm

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “carbon farming”; you’ve gotta love it; I can just see it; all those unemployed coal miners flitting around shopping centres with paper bags politely farming carbon from the exhalations of weary shoppers.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Isn’t “carbon farming” essentially Abbott’s direct action plan?

    00

  • #
    Banana

    Cant take anything Prof Garnaut says seriously. His involvement with Lihir Gold & their polluting of waters of New Guinea is suspiciously never mentioned by the MSM. He has gained huge wealth from his involvement with the mining industry. Thats how crazy the whole issue is getting, he is being held up as some green hero, but the people elevating him to this position either ignore or are ignorant of his past involvements in the mining industry and related episodes of direct polluting of waterways. It seems that all other concerns regarding the environment are all forgotten in the name of de-carbonisation. Is it just me or do these “environmentalists” seem to be all over the place?

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “Isn’t “carbon farming” essentially Abbott’s direct action plan?”

    Maybe it is MattB, but did you read me praising it? Do try to stay focused; I expect a superior level of trolling from you compared to that interloper who has been around recently.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Banana – if you are going to get all conspirational about our Rosco you could at least make a decent effort of it!
    http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2011_02_11_Garnaut.html

    00

  • #
    Banana

    Wow, thanks MattB.

    Its amazing what information is available.

    I was just going off the few tidbits that I already knew, but youve given me a veritble feast :D

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Matt B @ 125
    If that is what the report says then why not just collect the 10% to be alloted to innovation and carbon farming ? ( the rest is just a money go round)

    Also does that mean the Kyoto committments come out of general taxation ? ( assuming Kyoto survives, which I doubt whether it will given recent announcements)

    00

  • #
    thRealUniverse

    Well looks like somebody got that right recent data posted on iceagenow.com..
    http://iceagenow.com/Record_snowpack_spoils_Memorial_Day_plans_across_West.htm
    http://iceagenow.com/Squaw_Valley-Most_snow_in_recorded_history.htm
    and theres alot more..
    and to add colder in Australia with early snow..
    as they say..”oh dear so sad to bad never mind” its COOLING.

    00

  • #
    thRealUniverse

    My above post was supposed to be in the latest article not here…

    00

  • #
    JeffT

    MattB @ 129,
    You appear to believe what Minister Combet sprouts about the distribution of carbon tax revenue.
    But what about the commitments he signed at Cancun, with UN The Fast Start Financing Fund, only $599million over 3-4 years, but the other commitment of the UN Green Climate Fund, in the negotiation stage,but mooted to be 10% of any carbon tax and later of any ETS.

    Google both fund names for confirmation.

    00

  • #
    Robert Shaw

    How do I download part II? You did not send me the link( I do not think)
    My view is that the temp rise bewteen 1970 and 2000 was mostly natural (The PDO)and The IPCC, Climate Commission, and department of climate change are using a climate sensitivity which is at twice reality and they are using fossil fuel reserves which are at least 3 times reality. I do think that this coming decade will be critical because the climate change truth will come out. The oceans of the world prevent serious warming by latent heat cooling,radiation cooling and deep ocean heat storage.
    regrds
    Rob Shaw

    00

  • #
    hum

    “Blimey:
    May 30th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
    gnome – skeptics like Watts used to say there was no warming since 1995, then since 1998, now from 2001. As time marches forward and the long term trend becomes evident in the data, they move their “start year” to something new.

    There are natural cycles, such as the 11 year solar cycle, that influence the surface temperature and create ups and downs in the record. Skeptics like Watts like to pick a recent high temperature moment and then claim there’s been no warming since then.

    Looking back over the past 150 years there’s been plenty of flat spots like the past 10 years, but in each case, the warming resumes and the longer term trend becomes apparent.”

    Blimey it is not the people of the future we need to be concerned about with global warming, it is those poor people from the past! Do you realize with all the adjustments downwards in temperature that you warmists have made that literally millions of poor people in the past are now freezing.

    00

  • #
  • #
    David, UK

    The PDF link isn’t working for me either, I’m afraid. Mods: Maybe you could check this and also insert links in the relevant places (e.g. where it says “[MAKE INTO A LINK]“)? Thanks in advance. :)

    Anyhoo, here is a direct link to Part II:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/05/auditing-the-critical-decade-part-ii

    00

  • #

    Blimey, “skeptics like Watts used to say there was no warming since 1995, then since 1998, now from 2001.”

    There is still no warming since 1998,

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Poptech:

    Please don’t give the Blimey-bot another excuse to restart its carpet-bombing.

    You may have tried entering the Hadcrut global mean into the WFT resource. Very interesting; from 1998, the super El Nino year, the slightest upward gradient. From 2001? Well, see for yourself! Even the mass extinction of “cold” thermometers can’t hide that decline.

    00

  • #

    No need to use land temps from the CRU when the satellites show a cooling since 1998.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Poptech.

    I was thinking more in line with Jones-Harrabin interview and that the Hadley centre has been at the forefront of the big “scare”.

    00

  • #
    Romanoz

    Will the real 1 trillion ton CO2 budget stand up!
    Prof Will Steffen in his Report “The Critical Decade” claims

    ..if we wish to have a 75% chance of observing the 2°C guardrail, we can emit no more than 1000 Gt (one trillion tonnes) of CO2 in the period from 2000 to 2050.

    But one of the authors of the paper cited by Steffen – Myles Allen – says

    Industrial activity since the mid-18th century means we have already emitted 500 billion tonnes of carbon – half of the 1-trillion-tonne budget. “At some point in the last few years, we released the 500-billionth tonne of carbon,” says Allen. We can afford to dump only 250 billion tonnes more – or perhaps 500 billion tonnes, if we are willing to run the higher risk.

    So, can we dump one trillion tonnes in the period 2000-2050 with a probability of 75% of not exceeding the guardrail or 250-500 billion tonnes with a probability of not exceeding the guardrail between 75% to 50%?
    But hey, whats half a trillion tonnes between warmenistas!

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    Don Gaddes

    The real climate change story, including a ‘debunking’ of El Nino and AGW may be obtained from reading ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’(Alex S. Gaddes.1990)An updated pdf version is available free from dongaddes93@gmail.com

    00