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



Australian Speakers Agency


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

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


The simple trick to solve the impasse in the climate debate — have one (Tell the Australian govt).

For the last twenty years, the IPCC and co. have spared no expense in inundating us with full gloss, swanky adverts and catchy bumper stickers. The Rudd government spent $13.9 million on one advertising campaign “Think Climate, Think Change”. Yet the number of skeptics is growing — fully 53% of Australians are skeptical. The debate is more polarised than ever, and the “deniers” are often blamed for slowing action. So resolving the impasse, the stalemate, ought be the highest priority for the planet, right? But more advertising won’t change the trend, the issue has been marketed to death. What hasn’t been tried is the old fashioned, hard but honest way to resolve an issue — real public debate.

Tony Abbott could be the most forward-thinking scientifically-advanced world leader. He could be the first to take the bull by the horns and really tackle the climate stalemate. He might break the impasse. For the planet’s sake, we can’t afford to wait. Right?

The Australian Federal Government is seeking public consultation 

What should the Greenhouse Gas Target be? The Federal Government is seeking your input for the UNFCCC meeting in Paris, COP 21 (see ABC news). The government also wants to know what other policies will assist the “Direct Action” approach. Submissions close Friday week. They will be published on the government website.

Let’s make it easy for the Coalition government to do the right thing by the environment and the economy, and follow the evidence. The scientific debate comes first. We need a free market in science before we get a free market in “carbon”. In order for the nation as a whole to achieve low-carbon targets, we must resolve the growing impasse.

For the sake of the environment, and the debate, we also need to replicate the BoM dataset.

  • If it can’t be replicated — it isn’t science.
  • In medicine and the economy, independent audit and replication is standard.
  • It’s more funding for climate research. (How can the Greens argue with that? 😉 )

The replication must be independent (not hand-picked, private forums by the BOM). Another whitewash will harden views rather than resolve them. Replication is a mere technical exercise, it works or it doesn’t; so why not get skeptics to do the replication? Then there will be no doubts about whether the independent auditors were really independent.

We also need better study of our historic records from the late 1800s. Stevenson screens were introduced across Australia during the twenty years before the BoM was formed. Why aren’t these records used in all the cities and sites that they can be? Surely we need to understand long term Australian climate variability to be able to predict and plan for the future.

Let’s move the debate forwards — hang out the dirty washing and let the sun shine in

Australia can lead the way. If the believers want to convince skeptics, the only way is to have the full public debate, and with a level field. Both teams need enough resources to make their case. Instead of silencing the doubters, a serious government provides enough funds and a platform for them to voice their questions and get real answers.

What are the BoM and climate scientists afraid of?

If the evidence is overwhelming and the research is world’s best practice, surely they will win, and this debate can be finally had and settled. Get the facts and opposing teams out, let the public watch, and may the best team win. There are no shortcuts. This public debate is not going to happen in one hour on Channel 2. It will take months of repeat rounds and be played out in many venues. As it should. The climate is too important for anything less, right? A change to government policy in education, health, defense, or interest rates gets that sort of treatment, so should the “future of the planet”. Before we spend another $2.5 billion on Direct Action, let’s spend $20 million getting the science right, understanding the uncertainties, replicating the key research, and bringing the public along. Australia will lead the way.

No one audits the IPCC, nor the BoM — yet billions depends on their reports

If the IPCC’s claims abut the climate are correct, money spent auditing would not be wasted — because it is necessary to bring the public on board. Compare this to the 2,000 public companies on the Australian Stock Exchange, many so tiny you’ve never heard of them. Twice a year every one of them pays to have their finances audited by an outside auditor, so that everyone can have confidence in what they say.

A trial without a defence is a sham.

Business without competition is a monopoly.

Science without debate is propaganda.

As long as our national climate records are managed, studied and checked and turned into press releases by the same team, the skeptical public is right to ask questions. When that team won’t answer those questions, and can’t explain why their mystery black box produces results that are different from satellites, historic records, and simple repeated statistical analysis, the skeptical public will only grow in size. Calling the skeptics names will only make the polarization worse.

Make your submission count. Read the guidelines.

1. We need real debate.

2. We need to replicate the BOM climate data.

3. We need a better understanding of our long term climate trends so we can predict and understand the impact of climate change on Australia.


h/t Eric Worrall

How to make a submission

The Australian Government values the views of the Australian community in setting Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target.

You are invited to submit your views on Australia’s post-2020 target, including:

  • What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.
  • What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
  • Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?

Answering some or all of these questions will help the Government understand your views.

To assist you in formulating a submission, the Issues Paper outlines the context of the Government’s emissions reduction targets. You can also find a fact sheet on UNFCCC preparations for a new global climate agreement.

Lodging your submission

The Government will announce its post-2020 emissions reduction target mid-2015.

  1. Online – You can make your submission using the online portal. This is the preferred method. The form allows you to answer the questions listed above, as well as provide additional comments. You can also upload a document of supporting information.
  2. Post – You can post your submission to:UNFCCC Taskforce
    Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
    One National Circuit
    Barton ACT 2600When making a postal submission, you could consider the questions listed above. If you would like to receive email updates throughout the year, please indicate as such and provide your email address with your submission.Submissions open Saturday 28 March 2015 and close 3pm AEST  Friday 24 April 2015. All submissions will be made available on this website unless you request your submission is not made publically available.

Please note:

  • Only one document may be uploaded with online submissions.
  • Online submissions that do not meet accessibility requirements may be edited by the Department to meet these requirements.
  • For submissions made by individuals, all personal details other than your name and postcode will be removed from your submission before it is published on the Department’s website.
  • Copyright in submissions resides with the author(s), not with the Government.
  • Submissions will be placed on the PM&C website, unless they are clearly marked as in-confidence or breach the guidelines for publication.
  • Submissions will remain on our website as public documents indefinitely.
  • You may be contacted regarding your submission.

The Government will announce its post-2020 emissions reduction target mid-2015. If you would like to receive further information and updates throughout the year, please enter your contact details:

 Submissions close at 3pm AEST Friday 24 April 2015.

BACKGROUND INFO: My posts on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and on Australian Temperatures.

9.5 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

121 comments to The simple trick to solve the impasse in the climate debate — have one (Tell the Australian govt).

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    “The Federal Government is seeking your input for the UNFCCC meeting in Paris
    Any suggestions on how to pronounce that acronym?


  • #

    United Nations Fear Campaign of Climate Consensus.


    • #

      Oops that’s for Gary at #1, it’s the cleanest one I could submit.


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Now that the combined number of Sceptics and Undecided, is more than the combined number of Adherents:

      United Nations Fear of Climate Consensus Collapse


    • #

      Their keyboard has a sticking “C” key……?


      • #


        In the post-WWII Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, CCCP was the Russian language acronym for their full name.

        Freudian undertone in the green ones’ psyche?

        Just sayin’.



  • #

    i am hoping CAGW sceptics will makes submissions, but my interest continues to be pretty mundane, e.g.:

    13 April: CarbonBrief: Simon Evans: Election 2015: What the manifestos say on climate and energy
    ***In contrast to 2010, climate change has barely featured on the campaign trail so far. That’s despite – or perhaps because of – the joint climate pledge from the leaders of the three largest parties…
    The image below is a preview of the information available if you click through to the interactive online version…

    ***Simon, what about a more likely option – the Political Parties know the public is sick & tired of hearing about CAGW.

    10 April: Reuters: Nina Chestney: Clean energy investment hits lowest level for two years in first quarter
    Global clean energy investment in the first quarter of this year fell to its lowest quarterly level for two years, as large deals slowed in China, Europe and Brazil, research showed on Friday.
    Investment in renewable energy such as wind and solar power and biomass fell to $50.5 billion in January to March compared with $59.3 billion in same quarter last year, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) said in a report…
    Geographically, clean energy investment in Brazil slumped by 62 percent to $1.1 billion compared with the first quarter of last year, while investment in Europe fell by 30 percent to $9.7 billion and China investment was down 24 percent to $11 billion.
    On the other hand, clean energy investment in South Africa ***surged to $3.1 billion from almost nothing in the first quarter last year, and investment in India rose by 59 percent to $1.6 billion.

    ***love the tiny “surges”, Nina.


  • #

    note there’s no comparison with investments in “renewables” over the same period:

    11 April: Guardian: Patrick Collinson: Fossil fuel-free funds outperformed conventional ones, analysis shows
    MSCI, which runs global indices used by more than 6,000 pension and hedge funds, found that investors who divested from fossil fuel companies would have earned an average return of 13% a year since 2010, compared to the 11.8%-a-year return earned by conventional investors.
    One reason why funds without fossil fuel companies have outperformed is that the precipitous fall in the oil price that began in June last year has driven down the share price of companies such as BP and Shell…
    Matt Davis, director of Share Action, a charity campaigning for responsible investment, said: “The conventional wisdom amongst financial experts is that ‘you have to have fossil fuels in your portfolio in order to get good returns’, but these figures call that into question…
    MSCI launched the index late last year amid growing pressure from both climate-focused campaign groups such as and demands from major charitable groups and foundations with large endowments for investment funds that are free of fossil fuel companies…
    Around $7.5tn in funds globally are benchmarked against MSCI world indices, and apart from the Ex-Fossil Fuel Index, the company (which originated from Wall Street investment bank Morgan Stanley) has also launched “low carbon” indices that eliminate 70%-90% of major carbon emitters.
    It is understood that several major foundations and charitable institutions are in negotiation to switch their benchmark from the standard MSCI World Index to the ex-fossil fuel or low-carbon world indices, with announcements expected later this year. By switching benchmarks, institutions effectively divest from fossil fuels. The indices will also provide a stepping stone for pension funds to offer individual members a route to personally divest from fossil fuels…
    COMMENT BY ColinG: Yes, ironically the non-fossil index has performed better because the oil has not been left in the ground. The supply glut has reduced profits for fossil-based funds.
    If the divestment campaign achieves its goal, and oil supply is constrained by “leaving it in the ground”, then the oil price will rise and the fossil funds would perform better than non-fossil, at least in the medium term.

    12 April: Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Politics, red tape ‘turning EU clean energy into zombie industry’
    The EU’s dysfunctional political system is turning clean energy companies into a “zombie industry” of the living dead, the head of one of the bloc’s biggest green power groups has warned.
    Manuel Sanchez Ortega, chief executive of Spain’s Abengoa, said EU politicians are taking so long to decide what sort of energy mix they want, especially in the biofuels sector, that companies do not know if they should keep struggling on or shut down completely. “It’s ridiculous.”
    “It is better to be alive or to be dead, but the other state no one likes,” he said. “The EU is creating a zombie industry for clean energy” thanks to bureaucratic delays.
    “There’s a dysfunction in politics in Europe. People ask me ‘How is the bureaucracy in Latin America? How is the bureaucracy in Africa?’ I say it’s much better than Europe.”…
    A vote to limit crop-based biofuels is due in the European Parliament this week but Mr Sanchez said the long delays meant Abengoa had been forced to put plants on hold in Germany, France and the UK.
    A similar lack of clarity was damaging other sectors such as solar power, he said, affecting renewable energy investment across Europe…
    ***Mr Sanchez said the company was aiming to expand in Africa, home to many of the 1.2bn people who lack access to electricity…
    In the first quarter of this year, the country posted the strongest growth in renewables globally, with investment totalling $3.1bn from almost nothing in the same period a year earlier, according to the Bloomberg New Energy Finance research group.
    ***Clean energy companies hope the falling costs of solar power in particular will enable poorer African countries to “leapfrog” expensive traditional power grids and build smaller renewable power networks, much as some countries skipped fixed-line telecoms networks and moved straight to mobile phones.

    ***yes, it’s the old South African “leapfrog” argument yet again, but with a typical CAGW orwellian twist.
    now SA will leapfrog our “expensive traditional” power networks, but there’s no mention that they’ll be leapfrogging to the even more expensive CAGW power networks that even Germany cannot afford. nice one, Pilita. you might have invented a new “leapfrog” meme.


  • #

    The Australian Federal Government is seeking public consultation …

    What should the Greenhouse Gas Target be?

    That is a suggestive question.

    The Australian Government values the views of the Australian community in setting Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target.

    This is push polling, plain and simple.
    My answer: Australia should have no post-2020 emissions target; enough Australian wealth has been wasted on windmills and solar panels etc. already.


    • #

      Yes, the questions don’t leave a lot of room, however if we have to have a target I suggest that you put to the government that it be a responsible INCREASE in emission in line with our biospheres capacity to absorb the extra. For each 4 PPM plant productivity increases about 1% since the rise is about 2PPM per annum, Australia can afford to increase emissions by about delta PPM/4 % (currently 0.5%) per annum and have no nett increased effect. That is our increased emissions would be balanced by our increased sinking of China’s emission.

      In my submission I also strongly suggested that the government insist on a Nett emission target taking into account the CO2 fertilisation effect. The increase in CO2 is NOT coming from Australia since our emissions have not risen in 10 years, BUT we ARE sinking Gigatonnes more of the rest of the world and China’s emissions – we get NO CREDIT for doing that – we should! We are currently sinking about 2 GT more emissions than we did in 1990 and that my friends is 4 times our emissions… the rest of the world should be paying us!

      Remember it’s the Prime Ministers office doing this, make your submission bite politically, I have laid out in the complementary policies what is acceptable, eg Thorium research, more dams, reforestation, land use reform, but also what is not acceptable, eg causing fuel poverty, causing food prices to skyrocket, diverting funds from more worthy causes (almost everything), useless solar and wind, the idiocy of making the one commodity that man uses to survive bad weather (energy) more expensive, the inhumanity of denying the poor in other nations the benefit of reliable fossil power, and pointed out that mankind is dependent on 400PPM already, and they should think real hard about the consequences of lowering CO2 partial pressure to a level it was when there were only 1.2 Billion people in a world that has 7 Billion people.

      Remember this is politics, not science, make sure you make it as politically difficult to do a Paris deal as possible. To not do a deal our government needs reasons, and the best reasons are the counterproductive impacts on real PEOPLE of the measures proposed, and the fact that Australia does more than it’s share of the sequestration of other nations gasses by increasing our sequestration of foreign gasses by 4 times our emission since 1990. Moral arguments against the targets because of their inhumane outcomes should work a treat, especially given the PMs office and some of the media will read them.

      Stop our government from hurting the poor with a Paris Climate deal. Point out how the UN is inhumane and that we should take the humane moral high ground.


      • #

        Oh, and Ill talk to myself to make a final point. Make sure that in the complementary policies, you say that the 53% of the community that are Sceptics need to be heard!


        • #

          Additionally, one other VERY important item:

          BREAKING NEWS:

          The earth is currently in a CO2 starved environment and we need to INCREASE CO2 levels within the earth’s atmosphere as quickly as we can to minimise the possibility of the earth spinning into a cataclysmic spiral of CO2 starvation which WILL result in the death of ALL living things, ie animals, plants, microbes etc and thereby our “Mother Gai”.

          This direct action to increase our CO2 emissions will cost = $ZERO Billions AU/USD/EUR/Yen

          This breaking news should be broadcast on each and every nightly “popcorn” news bulletins. They could highlight it as the latest scare campaign from the IPCC!! “Increase CO2 emissions OR we will all die!!!

          Seriously though, I am so over these S/D…heads and their scare campaigns and their BS, lack of debate, ad hominems etc etc etc.

          Science is science – it/we will win out in the end.

          Go nuclear or LENR I say (and in my lifetime)! Funny how the TRUE believers won’t endorse ANY non “carbon” polluting power source – ie ones that actually work for base load power but they keep pushing windmills, solar, tidal etc as viable. They MUST be friggin joking!!



          • #
            Dave in the states

            “Science is science-it/we will win out in the end.”

            Don’t count on it. Propaganda is a powerful thing. Especially considering how pervasive scientific illiteracy is.


          • #
            A C

            How interesting, I just made my submission to the UNFCCCC… saying that very thing. Carbon sequestration by the biosphere as been just too efficient and desparately needs to be reversed.
            During the last Ice Age atmospheric CO2 reached a scary 190 ppm. It has rebounded to 400 ppm but we need a bigger buffer than that.


    • #

      Australia’s response should be made temperature contingent.
      If the average of UAH and RSS remain below the average of the IPCC model projections by 2020, clearly the only rational response is to have no target.


    • #
      Captain Dave

      More or less what I told them, no target for any number of years. Let the economy prosper and people enjoy the benefits of cheap, reliable energy, with no horrible warming.
      I am surprised that they accept Canadian comments, but I suspect mine will be discarded as irrelevant to Australians.


      • #

        I doubt anyone is listening to anything sane Canadians have to say. The only ones being heard are the scammers and fanatics such as Suzuki and May.


    • #

      Here’s Dr Judith Curry’s presentation to the US
      House of Representatives Committee of Science,
      Space and Technology re President’s UN Climate
      Pledge… ‘Policy cart leading the scientific


    • #

      When they get to this point, you realise they are desperate to keep the lie alive… we need to push the truth really hard to collapse it all.


    • #

      My response:
      Target: should be continuous improvement in terms of GDP per volume CO2.
      Impacts: good for business & economy due to improved energy efficiency.

      Makes good business sense and also provides feel-good “we are doing something”. All win, no loss.


      • #
        Peter Lang

        I agree.

        Australia’s post 2020 GHG emissions targets should be linked to the availability of cost-competitive, productivity-enhancing, economically-beneficial technologies. The USA and EU could enable this to happen. All countries, including the USA and EU, would benefit if the USA and EU removed the impediments they have imposed that are blocking progress.

        Policies that will both reduce the cost of energy and reduce emissions are achievable. However, the USA needs to lead the way. US politics and policies have inflated the cost, through regulatory ratcheting, and retarded development of low emissions energy technologies. EU is nearly as responsible as the US, but is far less capable of fixing the problem. The USA has the keys to solving the global problem.

        The current US President, Barack Obama, want’s the world to cut back on GHG emissions and is doing all he can to force other countries to make commitments that would damage their economies. Since Obama wants this, he should allow it to happen in a way that doesn’t damage other economies. The US would also benefit from the productivity increases that polices that reduce the cost of energy would delivers.

        One example that could make a substantial contribution to increasing global productivity, increasing economic growth and reducing global GHG emission would be to remove the impediments that are delaying the development of small modular nuclear power plants. The US President can lead the leading contributors and most influential members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to remove the irrational, unjustifiable impediments that are preventing the world from having low-cost nuclear power. Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity. It shouldn’t be restrained on the misinformed concerns about safety.

        The cost of electricity generated by nuclear power has been inflated by 50 years of irrational, unjustified, legislative and regulatory impediments to low cost nuclear power. Professor Bernard Cohen estimated regulatory ratcheting had increased the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four to 1990. I suspect it has probably increased the cost another factor of two since 1990 – i.e. a total increase of a factor of eight.

        Most people want reliable energy at lowest cost. If the US President demands poorer countries and smaller economies reduce their GHG emissions, the USA needs to allow innovation and competition to develop the technologies without progress being impeded by legislation and regulations that are grossly inflating the cost. The US is the world leader in nuclear power technology, has the greatest ability to unleash massive innovation, has the most influence on the other influential members of IAEA and is, in effect, the de facto world regulator or nuclear power designs. The USA can lead the world to make it economically viable to reduce global GHG emissions. The USA needs to make this possible instead of trying to inflict slow growth on the rest of the world while continually impeding economically viable ways to achieve it.


  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Had a look at the first 45 minutes or so of Professor Murray Salby’s talk posted at WUWT and that alone would be enough to turn most of the rest of the electorate skeptical. The bulk of the CO2 increase being natural renders all RETs, carbon taxes and wind farm subsidies off the planet in terms of logical response. Little wonder he was targetted so viciously.

    What an insult to one of the maverick visionaries of this country in Governor Lachlan Macquarie to have his namesake university and its members of Team CAGW down under carry on like the self serving scum of the Rum Corp and that pompous little poop Commissioner Bigge in dragging Professor Salby down.


  • #

    how can The Sunday Times justify writing rubbish like this? why the need to get quotes from Friends of the Earth? who cares what they think on every subject under the sun?
    the rest is behind a paywall:

    12 April: Sunday Times: Leaders trip up over their election trail carbon footprints
    THEY will clock up thousands of miles in their pursuit of votes but Scotland’s political leaders have been left red-faced after most admitted giving no consideration to the environmental impact of their election campaigning. Despite boasting of their green credentials in election manifestos, few of Scotland’s mainstream parties are monitoring their carbon emissions.
    The SNP said it intended to calculate the carbon emissions of Nicola Sturgeon’s campaign and that green credits would be purchased from the Swiss-based Gold Foundation, which funds projects to tackle climate change. However, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Lib Dems admitted to having no idea of the carbon footprint caused by their campaigning, prompting Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, to question their green credentials. Scottish Labour failed to provide any details…

    10 April: CBC: Margo McDiarmid: Ontario to sign cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec to cut carbon emissions
    Companies can cap their greenhouse gas emissions or buy credits from others…
    Highlights include:
    Proceeds from the carbon market will be reinvested in projects that reduce emissions. Wynne says it will be ***transparent how the money is spent…
    Under the deal with Quebec, she said, ***”proceeds from carbon market will go back into the economy to drive growth.”…
    The opposition Progressive Conservatives say cap-and-trade is a scheme that will hurt business in a province that has struggled to retain manufacturing jobs.
    “Cap and trade is a carbon tax by any other name,” said PC MPP Jim Wilson…


  • #

    Let’s end the $$$$$$$$$$$$ rent seeking rorts of carbon
    phobia based on missing hot-spots, missing feed-back data
    confirmation, missing ocean-deep-heat. Contact yr local
    Federal Member today.


  • #
    el gordo

    From the Issues Paper

    ‘Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. The Australian Government has committed to review Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and settings this year.’

    Politically pragmatic as usual, with more than a dollop of confirmation bias. I’ll decline their generous offer and won’t submit, but I’m still interested in how we might get a serious debate going.


  • #

    Can’t wait to her what Judith Curry has to say to the US House committee on science… tomorrow.

    A lukewarmer, but even so, I’m willing to hear what she has to say, unlike the catastrophists, who would prefer no discussion at all. Could this be the snowballing of the debate?


  • #

    The headline baffled me – it suggests that having an impasse is the solution!


    • #

      United Nations Founder with Climate Change Constipation – may be the headline for December’s Paris outcome!


  • #

    ***just noticed this categoric “Seven in 10 doctors are seeing effects on their patients’ health from climate change”:

    7 April: Bloomberg: Justin Sink: Google, Microsoft Join Obama to Fight Climate Health Woes
    “The challenges we face are real, and they are clear and present in people’s daily lives,” said senior presidential adviser Brian Deese in a telephone conference call with reporters on Tuesday.
    ***Seven in 10 doctors are seeing effects on their patients’ health from climate change that is “posing a threat to more people in more places,” Deese said…
    Google, based in Mountain View, California, has donated 10 million hours of high-performance computing to help scientists work to eliminate the spread of infectious disease. The Internet search company also will provide staff time to help the scientists create early warning capabilities and public disease-risk maps, according to the White House statement.
    Microsoft, the software maker based in Redmond, Washington, is developing drones that would collect mosquitoes and conduct gene-sequencing and pathogen detection, the administration said in its statement. The drones can offer early alerts to authorities about rapidly spreading disease…
    The Obama administration believes there is “an increasing awareness and acceptance” that climate change exists, Deese said. The administration has also found that highlighting the health risks poised by climate change has helped build traction on the issue.
    “One thing that we know is, the most salient arguments around climate change are associated with the health impacts and meeting people where they are,” Deese said.

    it was picked up by MSM, naturally:

    7 April: WaPo: Juliet Eilperin: Obama initiative highlights link between climate change, public health
    White House senior adviser Brian Deese cited a recent study by the American Thoracic Society finding that 7 out of 10 doctors reported climate change is contributing to more health problems among their patients…
    A coalition of deans from 30 medical, public health and nursing schools also pledged Tuesday to train their students to address climate change’s health effects. Those universities include Johns Hopkins, the University of Maryland, Harvard University and the University of Nebraska…

    to be continued…


    • #

      “Seven in 10 doctors are seeing effects on their patients’ health from climate change”

      Let’s look at that statement with a common definition of climate change inserted instead:

      “Seven in 10 doctors are seeing effects on their patients’ health from a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards”.

      Anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge can see how preposterous that statement is.


    • #

      “Seven in 10 doctors ”
      not patients.

      Maybe it’s saying more about the doctors.


  • #

    the “7 out of 10 doctors” meme comes from this study!!??

    from the funding to the authors (e.g. lead author Mona Sarfaty, director at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia)…
    from the questions (about “climate change” not AGW of course), to the references (e.g. Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication)…
    this could, at best, be characterised as a psyop:

    PDF: 5 pages: American Thoracic Society Member Survey on Climate Change and Health
    Supported by funding from George Mason University Foundation & the New York University National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center of Excellence grant ES00260 (G.D.T.)

    there’s a caveat on page 5, (not mentioned in MSM reports of course), stating “This survey does not prove that the specific health impacts reported by the survey respondents are climate related, BUT….further research is needed, etc.

    from a HuffPo piece on the study:
    Having doctors engaged and concerned about climate change could help drive public opinion as well, Sarfaty said. “Not too many people personally know a climate scientist,” she pointed out. “But they do know physicians, and physicians are well thought of.”
    “Doctors who are treating patients for a living believe they are seeing health effects in patients they are treating today. That brings home the message,” said Gary Ewart, director of government relations at the American Thoracic Society. “Instead of a drowning polar bear issue, it turns into a kitchen-table issue, with real patient care starting to drive the discussion.”…
    She (Sarfaty) noted that many medical organizations are not currently providing information on climate to their members.
    Ewart said his group is hoping to change that. “There are a growing [number] of members in my society, and I suspect other societies, that are trying to elevate this as an issue.”…

    how do you fight memes? that is the question.


    • #
      Bill Burrows

      As Statistics 101 tells us and advertising executives know “7 out of 10 doctors” seeing effects is no different to “7 out of 100 or 1000” seeing effects – but if “7 out of EVERY 10 doctors” (i.e 70%)were seeing effects then that should concentrate the mind.


      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        You beat me to it.

        I was just about to point out that a common political survey technique, is to find X number of people, who agree with a proposition, in the way it is presented, and then find Y number of people who disagree with the same proposition, such that, Y < X, and Y + X equals a multiple of 10. The higher the multiple of 10, you can afford to canvass, the higher the sense of veracity is given to the survey.

        You bring the smoke, and I will provide the mirrors.


        • #


          It appears that something went wrong in Rereke’s comment and the tag wasn’t closed.

          The entire page following that is now slanted



          • #
          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Indeed, the offending code has been caught:

            such that, <strong><em>Y</em> &lt; <em>X</em></strong><em>, and

            It’s just so courteous and supportive of Rereke to want to place emphasis on all of our replies. 🙂


            • #

              Andrew McRae,

              Sent e-mail with that over twelve hours ago. No reply to e-mail either. Maybe Jo’s just busy with something more pressing.

              Interesting why the parser on Jo’s end (wordpress) didn’t substitute the ‘less than’ with the appropriate entity. 😮

              Also, fairly recently, a commenter here forgot to close the ‘strong’ attribute, but the bolding only persisted until the end of the their comment and not ‘ad infinitum’.



              • #

                Sorry, Jo was away from the office most of this week. Back now. The offending “less than” sign has been edited to “< “. Solved. Apologies about the silence and delays. Short holiday again.


        • #

          I wonder if this fixes it.



  • #

    and how can u argue with a meme delivered by such a cool guy, as described by NYT heavyweights, Coral and Julie?

    9 April: NYT: Obama Adviser During Recession Is Given New Challenge: Climate Change
    Brian Deese’s first job at the White House included churning out economic doomsday scenarios, like how many communities might see unemployment rates hit 25 percent in the event of cascading bankruptcies across the Midwest….
    These days the crisis atmosphere is gone and unemployment is at 5.5 percent, but Mr. Deese is still running the economic numbers at the White House on a different kind of crisis that is preoccupying the president. Mr. Deese’s job as Mr. Obama’s senior adviser in charge of climate policy is to push the president’s ambitious environmental agenda to governors, industry executives and international negotiators — ***while under daily political attacks from Congress and the coal industry.
    “It’s not the harrowing urgency of the economy falling off the cliff,” Mr. Deese, 37, said of his new job during a recent interview in his West Wing office, just steps down the hall from Mr. Obama’s. “But it’s the urgency of, ‘We have a limited amount of time left to change the trajectory on a really urgent crisis.’ ”
    Mr. Deese, who has a stuffed snowy owl on a shelf in his office and a sparse beard that gives him the look of a Vermont hipster, is in some ways an unlikely person to lead the effort. He has never held a job in environmental policy, has never participated in an international negotiations and has nothing approaching the years of knowledge of John D. Podesta, who ran the president’s climate change agenda until he stepped down in January as counselor to Mr. Obama…
    “With no business experience at all, he plunged into the auto thing with us and really figured it out,” said Steven Rattner, the financial adviser who led Mr. Obama’s auto bailout team. “He added an unbelievable amount of value with the way he thinks things through. I could totally trust his judgment.”
    Instead of making the case for fighting global warming in the language of an environmental activist, Mr. Deese argues from the perspective of an economist, just as he did during the darkest days of the recession.
    Known for pacing while he talks on the telephone and sometimes going without shoes in the office, Mr. Deese appears at his most animated when plunging headlong into the wonkery of an issue.
    “This is somebody whose greatest joy is that swift arc up the learning curve,” said Gene Sperling, the president’s former national economics adviser. “He has both this amazing policy I.Q. that he can bring to any issue as well as the humility to reach out and find and listen to every expert on the planet on that issue.”
    Mr. Deese is now on a very steep learning curve. In January, he flew to New Delhi with the president and was in the room as Mr. Obama urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India to cut his nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
    In March, Mr. Deese was in Kentucky, where anger against Mr. Obama’s climate change plan runs deep. The plan requires states to cut carbon emissions, effectively forcing them to change their energy supply from fossil fuels to renewable sources — a tough sell in a coal-mining state like Kentucky. There Mr. Deese appeared with Governor Steven L. Beshear, a Democrat, at an event promoting a federal program to help coal communities and then spoke with him for an hour afterward about the climate change plan.
    But Mr. Deese has hardly assuaged the anger over the plan, particularly among Republicans who see it as either a war on coal or a vast overreach through the E.P.A. regulations of Mr. Obama’s executive authority…
    Raised in Belmont, Mass., a Boston suburb, Mr. Deese grew up hiking, sailing and fishing in a home ***where the environment was important. (His mother is an engineer who works in renewable energy, and his father is a political science professor at Boston College.) He graduated in 2000 from Middlebury College in Vermont, went to Washington to work in international aid and was soon hired as a policy analyst by Mr. Sperling, who was then at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization…
    Mr. Deese, ***who has a young daughter, arrives in the West Wing at 6:45 a.m. after a two-mile run to work, showers, then slings his yellow backpack on the hook on the back of his office door. He knows he does not have much time: The president and his allies fear that if the climate plan is not locked in place before Mr. Obama leaves office, a Republican president could undo it…

    MSM is the problem.


  • #

    from the abstract at the Study link posted earlier, an email was sent from the ATS President to 5,500 randomly-selected members, with a link to an online survey; four followup emails were sent to non-respondents. the response rate was 17%.
    here’s a summary:

    American Thoracic Society: ATS Membership Survey on Climate Change
    The survey results, published in the February issue of the Annals of the ATS, found that a large majority of our members believe that climate change is occurring and that it adversely affects human health in a number of ways.
    To help promote the survey, last week the ATS hosted Congressional briefings to share with members of Congress and their staff the survey results. ATS members George Thurston, ScD and Mary Rice, MD briefed Congressional staff on its key points which included:

    89% of respondents believe climate change is happening

    ***68% believe climate change is being driven entirely or mostly by human activity

    65% believe climate change is relevant to direct patient care (either a great deal or a moderate amount)

    Free text responses indicate physicians believe they are seeing climate change health effects in patients today
    The ATS survey polled 5,500 U.S. ATS members and asked a series of questions about climate change and its impact on patients.
    ***The survey had a response rate of 17% and received responses from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

    ***68% believe climate change is being driven entirely or mostly by human activity!!!


  • #
    Bill Burrows

    Slightly off topic. But here is a comment I made in response to Graham Lloyds column on “Direct Action” in today’s Australian newspaper (see that paper’s website for the original).

    “A large slice of the Government’s huge outlay on Direct Action carbon storage targets potential carbon sinks in the landscape (both in Australia and overseas). When liquid or gaseous fuel is bought or sold the volume is measured as it passes through an accurately calibrated metering device. Likewise solid fuels are accurately weighed when the containing vessel passes over a calibrated scale (weighbridge). This enables the buyer and seller to be confident that they are not being deceived in the transaction as to the amount of product (and for this discussion its’ carbon content) involved. However when it comes to measuring carbon in vegetation and soil we can only estimate the quantity present and its flux (change) over time. This problem increases greatly when the areas being sampled are at a paddock, property or landscape scale. Of course estimating change in carbon stocks also requires at least two sets of repeat measurements (sampling).

    Carbon in vegetation and soil is part of a continuum.It is meaningless to estimate the flux in one component without taking account of the flux in the other. Thus carbon accumulating in above ground vegetation could be more than lost (gains offset) as a result of fire in the litter layer or erosion of this same layer and/or the soil beneath it.

    As part of my PhD studies in the 1970’s I recorded soil organic carbon (SOC) to 1 m depth in a mature mulga forest (Charleville, Qld), mature mallee and 15 year old mallee regrowth (Rankins Springs, NSW). The levels of SOC to 1 m were 88, 88 and 85 t/ha respectively. For convenience, say we have c. 100t/ha over the rooting depth. Importantly in semi-arid soils organic carbon builds up within the root zone and beneath tree canopies, requiring stratified sampling to determine its’ per ha content. Anyone claiming less than 5-10% measurement error would have to be sampling very small plots – certainly nothing relevant to the paddock, property or landscape scale. So our error is 5-10 tonnes/ha (likely much more) for each time we sample. Meanwhile carbon fluxes in tree biomass will be no more than 1-2 t/ha/yr – commonly less when average rainfall is under 750mm. No scientific auditor could honestly sign off on a carbon flux when the quantum of the error of measurement of the carbon pool in the system exceeds the quantum of the flux claimed!

    But this is only a start to the problems associated with accurately accounting for carbon fluxes in rural landscapes. Here are a few ways for landholders to ‘game’ the system if they (or their measurement contractors) so choose:

    To avoid the problem of statistical analysis just use the mean value of the carbon pool at time two, minus the mean value at time one.

    Ensure sample sites are placed in more favourable locations during second and later samplings relative to the “baseline” samples.

    If repeat ‘fixed’ sample positions are sited in the landscape surreptitiously ‘fertilise’ the site (enhance plant growth) between sampling periods (the bush is a big lonely place to continuously monitor).

    Plan your “baseline” sampling to commence in a drought year (i.e. in a season of minimal growth and minimal root mass. You will get a ‘free ride’ by subsequently measuring carbon ‘gain’ at the conclusion of an above average rainfall year).

    Sell the soil carbon before it is stored – an initial measurement, a simulation model and a promise of an action like livestock de-stocking might be all that’s required.{Any soil carbon model can give you any answer you want with judicious manipulation of model parameters and assumptions}. This is germane to a bigger problem of course – If taxpayer dollars are going to be funneled to compensate landholders for carbon stored in vegetation, how is “permanence” going to be gauged and guaranteed (over 20, 50 or 100 years)?

    I am aware of at least 20 more ways the measurement system might be ‘gamed’ under Direct Action programs applied to carbon fluxes claimed in vegetation systems. This may appear a quite cynical position to adopt, but the size of the potential pool of taxpayers’ funds on offer will surely attract more than its share of rorters and scammers – especially given the nature of the commodity and its origins as a colourless, odourless, invisible gas in the atmosphere? Certainly one would have to treat any claims of carbon stored in overseas landscapes as part of Australia’s Direct Action contribution with the utmost suspicion!

    Finally, it has been suggested that carbon fluxes claimed in landscapes will be conservatively discounted to minimise overpayment and incorrect claims of carbon storage. If this is the case why bother measuring any flux in the field at all? Conservatively guess it (presumably based on computer modelling?) and simply send a government cheque to every landholder in Australia (if they satisfy “Direct Action” criteria) based on the modelled outputs. A de facto approach to Quantitaive Easing (boosting the economy) for the RBA?”


    • #

      Bill Burrows,

      A large slice of the Government’s huge outlay on Direct Action carbon storage targets potential carbon sinks in the landscape (both in Australia and overseas).

      Here are a few ways for landholders to ‘game’ the system if they (or their measurement contractors) so choose:

      This may appear a quite cynical position to adopt, but the size of the potential pool of taxpayers’ funds on offer will surely attract more than its share of rorters and scammers . . .

      It’s obvious that you’ve put a lot of thought into this comment and I agree with your assessment of a potential problem with people tyring to ‘game’ the system. Being a cynical skeptic myself, it appears to me that it’s possible that you may not have been cynical enough. Let me explain.

      Landowners applying for credits under the Australian governments Direct Action plan are, after all, human beings but so are the government employees involved at every step of the process, from legislation to administration and supervision. Just as landowners may be tempted to ‘game’ the system, government employees may be tempted to ‘game’ the system in the opposite direction. They may try to prevent landowners from succeding and thereby forfeiting part or all of the claimed credits in the projects they’re implementing. A tug of war so to speak.

      I’m sure that if you put your mind to it you can come up with an equivalent number of ways in which the government can also ‘game’ the system in the way I’ve described.

      Because of the propensity of some (many?) human beings to act in this way, my cynicism leads me to conclude that unless the taxpayers get involved in the process of developing the strategies and mechanisms for implementing the post-2020 emissions reduction target, (the subject of this blog-post) it’s the government that may win the ‘tug-of-war’.

      As it is, I’m sure you’ll agree (as well as many others), that democratic governments throughout the world have grown so large (monolithic) over the last fifty or more years that they have come to believe that the taxpayers money is not ours but theirs.

      And let’s remember that there’s also the possibility that people on both sides (landowners and government) may attempt to ‘game’ the system together.

      Under these circumstances I would suggest that as many people as possible get involved in order to even out the playing field as much as possible.

      Thoughts anyone?



      • #
        Bill Burrows

        Fair comment JAG. The reality is that the bureaucrats of the day will tend to provide info that supports the policies of the government of the day [It has been my experience that all levels of government in this country have moved further and further away from expecting their bureaucracy to give them independent advice through the years – based on my personal observations over 40 years as a public servant].

        The key to ensuring that Direct Action reporting (claims)for land based carbon storage schemes are honest and soundly based is to subject them to independent scientific audit. [If it does occur I bet it will be a rare and not uniformly applied Government funded activity]. Would you buy produce at a supermarket based on estimates of each item’s weight and/or volume provided by the check out chick? Do the sellers of our coal and gas give estimates of the quantity bought to our Chinese buyers or do the latter pay only on actually measured (regularly calibrated) amounts received?


    • #

      Bill Burrows,

      Jo said (quoting the gov’t. in the OP):
      Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?

      You said:
      I am aware of at least 20 more ways the measurement system might be ‘gamed’ under Direct Action programs applied to carbon fluxes claimed in vegetation systems.

      Not being an Australian but wanting to make suggestions that others might want to submit to the current post-2020 target, I decided to investigate what ‘Direct Action’ is so that anything I might come up with would be ‘complementary’, otherwise the suggestion would turn out to be a waste of time. If the suggestion is already in the Direct Action Program then it wouldn’t fit the criteria.

      I found a pdf called Reforestation: draft explanatory statement. on the Australian Government web-site.

      Seems to be a well prepared document and one can see from the details that both sides of the ‘credit transaction’ had a hand in preparing it. This was the primary reason for suggesting that people get involved in the process.

      You may have already read the pdf but I linked to it anyway just in case. There may be others interested also. It’s kind of long so ppl might want to just download it or even print it out.



      • #
        el gordo

        The whole Direct Action policy might just be a sleight of hand, let’s hope so.

        Essentially appeasing the UN and putting government money into the pockets of struggling farmers at the mercy of weather.

        Here is a leftoid point of view.

        ‘And the two biggest policy documents released by the government in the last few weeks – its discussion paper on future emissions targets, and the energy white paper – make no mention of the 2°C global warming target, only the scenario that allows for more fossil fuel burning and a catastrophic 4°C warming result.

        ‘It reminds some of the Hans Christian Andersen story about the emperor who commissioned clothes so magnificent that only the stupid and the incompetent could not see. And in modern Australia, no one in the Abbott entourage will admit that they cannot see a climate policy, even when it is patently obvious that none exists.’

        Giles Parkinson / RE Neweconomy


        • #

          el gordo,

          I can’t seem to find it now but pat recently posted a comment where Russia is using their vast forests as carbon sequestration to offset CO2 production (emission). If it’s good for the goose it’s even better for the gander. 🙂

          Especially if it irritates the green ones. 😉



          • #

            This is a link to the Energy White Paper referenced by el gordo.



            • #
              el gordo


              You might be right about their intention of going the sequestration route and thanks for the White Paper link.

              The government has a market driven agenda, relying on growth and competition to reduce energy prices, which is the only sensible way to go.


            • #


              thanks for this link.



              • #


                You’re welcome. I was very surprised that the White Paper did’nt even mention Thorium considering it’s relevance. Just brushed off all nuclear as not-actionable per two statutes in the law.

                BTW, back during the hurricane I had asked you what you’re take was on Thorium reactors in general since I had read somewhere that research was being undertaken in Oz. (you may have missed it because of the storm-effects).

                Finally, I noticed that the gov’t is against the early replacement of the ageing coal plants because they feel it would’nt be cost-effective and they’d rather let ‘market forces’ determine if and when the upgrade to more advanced coal burning tech should be undertaken.

                You recently commented that replacing all those plants would yield a net decrease of 15% CO2 release relative to today’s levels. Wouldn’t that be an excellent submission on your part to the current request for complementary options?



      • #
        Bill Burrows

        Hi again JAG
        Thanks for the link. I try to be an active retiree these days and stay away from the sins of my (allometric)youth. But when Blog posts or newspaper columnists stray into my ‘old’ patch I guess I can’t help myself from making an input.

        Now having quickly scanned your linked 62 page document I’m more convinced than ever that the best approach to estimating carbon sinks, resulting from Direct Action, is to follow my final para edict (see #16 above). If one is going to ignore soil organic carbon and “conservatively” not account for the myriad C sources and sinks in a ‘forest’ that are too variable or too difficult to measure (Table 2 pp. 34-38 of your link)this whole C accounting measure – on which serious taxpayers’ funds are to be outlaid – is a horrible joke. [And the same criticism would apply to Labor’s CFI as the LNP’s Direct Action].

        What government is going to properly fund scientific audits of allometric relationships developed for each Direct Action site? Auditing will essentially require duplication of the field measurements made by the assessment contractors. For example, who is going to check that the root bole samples at the final harvest are thoroughly washed relative to the initial root bole samples (soil and rock makes a nice little weight i.e.”C” source – sarc).

        What is the point of the whole exercise if the C store is not in place in 100 years? Do all landholders know the shape of a tree growth curve? Who is going to be responsible for accounting for the negligible growth and even decline of tree biomass (carbon store) in the final years of “permanence”? [Mind you Marx gave us all a great philosophy to follow didn’t he – “Why we should we be worried about the future generations (Direct Action farmers in the present case), what have they done for us?” (Groucho not Karl of course)].

        Yes JAG there are at least another 20 ways of rorting the Direct Action system. But I’m not going to detail them here[the eyes of the world peruse Jo’s site!]. But here is one piece of advice the landholder with his/her Direct Action plot would do well to heed. As soon as you can – after your second accounting inventory – SELL the land and the trees thereon. There will be no one on the planet willing to document your C sinks once the exponential growth phase has peaked. Because if you have no C increment they know they will have little chance of getting paid.


    • #
      Robert O

      Bill, I would agree that an increase in the organic matter content in a soil is a good thing and results in greater microbiological activity. But as to giving carbon credits to farmers for letting the vegetation grow without grazing presents a few risks, particularly with bushfire when any woody material is consumed and converted back to atmospheric CO2.

      Well managed plantation forests (not Ponzi schemes which abound) will sequestrate a lot of CO2, and it can be taken out of the equation by converting it into solid wood products. People are still recycling Oregon beams that came to Aust. in the 1800’s.

      A well sited plantation will give an average yield of about 20 m3/ha/.an. for a 20-30-40 year rotation. This translates to approx. 20 tonnes of which half is water and a quarter is carbon. So this means that about 5 tonnes of carbon is sequestrated per ha. per an., and if if this harvested and used as timber it stays out of the system until it is oxidised (fire, rot). And as I have mentioned a lot of old timbers are often recycled, and most furniture will last for ages.

      I know governments like wasting money on many projects that return nothing much, at least with a decent forestry scheme you will certainly sequestrate lots of carbon and at the same time get some value for your expenditure. I believe we are still importers of timber, why not grow more here.


      • #
        Bill Burrows

        Fair enough Robert – I have no argument with your comments on good forestry practice applied in environments with good soils and more than 1000 mm MAR. Unfortunately the spruikers are also operating in the mallee and the mulga, inter alia, where the soils and climate are much more variable and problematic. Meanwhile both sides of politics are desperate to obtain credit for locking up CO2 and helping to save the world. Frankly in the aforementioned rangeland situations I can only see disaster looming for taxpayers’ funds and for those landholders who are being conned into chasing them, at the expense of livestock carrying capacity.

        And there are unstated side effects as well. If ‘agroforestry’ (Direct Action)is to make any meaningful contribution to carbon storage in Australia it will need to cover millions of hectares. This must impact on other (existing and future) agricultural activities. The flow-on effect (in reduced stream flows and ground water depletion) will also be significant. In South Australia the South East Natural Resource Management Board has mandated that if you want to plant trees, you have to purchase a water entitlement as part of the process of getting approval to do so. The forestry industry isn’t at all happy about this. And many readers are probably aware that the WA Water Corporation has been clearing the pine forest (very scrawny though it be) off the Gnangara mound to enhance Perth’s water supplies. Quo vadis?


  • #
    Peter Miller

    Extremely well written article – I note it scared off the usual trolls.

    This is 2015 and the Paris climate conference is at the end of the year, so for the next few months alarmist rhetoric is going to be hysterical. The amount of alarmist BS is going to be unbelievable.

    It would be hilarious, if it weren’t so dangerous. We are going to formally embrace policies of unreliable, expensive energy and discard those of reliable, cheap energy. The cost to the western world is going to be incredible and the benefit to be derived will be absolutely nothing.

    Australia should grasp the opportunity of showing that at least somewhere in the western world, common sense on climate is prevailing.


  • #
    Ken Stewart

    I’m all booked for Denial 101 starting 28 April- can’t wait! (The teaser videos are typical alarmist fare- very entertaining.)


  • #

    On a similar topic, Dr Karl, the fast-talking climate salesman, after agreeing to do the ads for the Intergenerational Report without reading the report (he admitted this), has turned around and criticised the report for not devoting a whole chapter to Climate Change scariness.

    I’m sure some people think that fast-talking is a sign of intelligence. All I see is a dodgy salesman.


    • #

      “Dr” Karl has several degrees but there is not one doctorate amongst them.


    • #

      A dodgy salesman selling a dodgy idea for Australia’s future or demise depending on your grasp of reality, when an apparent “genius” is driven by personal politics to throw out the very basis of learning they were obviously not a genius to begin with.


    • #
      James Bradley


      Dr Kalphabet now says he did not read the report before accepting the job to promote it… racca racca racca, but he must have looked like copping some flack from the Klimate Khange Kartel for that one, I’d say

      Still eneded up the same way it always does for anything Climate Corrupted “Grab the money first – justify it later”.


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is not fast talking that is the problem. It is slow thinking, that is the problem.

      I worked, for a time, with a brilliant American Scientist and Engineer (double PhD), who just happened to come from South Carolina.

      In meetings, he would sometimes stop people who were trying to “make a sell”, by saying, “Yo …. hear … how … fast … I’m … a’talkin’? … Well … that’s … how … fast … I’m … a’thinking”. That slowed down the presenter enough for the rest of us to keep up with the presentation, and reach the same conclusions that he had reached several minutes earlier.


      • #

        Wierd – I have the opposite problem. I am a fast talker but think more quickly, and tend to get bored waiting for the words to get out. I have to fight the urge to finish other peoples’ sentences, or words if they are from the US South like your mate. I used to have people coming up to me in pubs (in Kalgoorlie) asking me for some of what I was on when I was younger… which was beer at the time. It was suggested to me that it might be something to do with ATP (Adenosine TriPhosphate) – something to do with metabolic regulation in the body, or somesuch, but I digress…

        I find the Dr Karl criticisms ironic. He criticises the Fed Gov report as being politicised – the IPCC Summary for policymakers is the most warped representation of science out there, and bears almost no resemblance to the underlying science. Cognitive dissonance much?


  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What should the Greenhouse Gas Target be?

    That’s too tempting a question to pass up answering.


    Put it up in big ten foot high red neon letters in front of Parliament House in Canberra.


    • #
      el gordo

      There is a consensus here for Zero Reduction, so maybe we could do a group thingy.

      With a mini ice age approaching we would be mad not to increase emissions at every opportunity.


      • #

        No No, as someone suggested above, we need more CO2. I think our target should be a 10% increase.


      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        And reintroduce CO2 fire extinguishers, for use in general office areas, because they are far less toxic than their current replacements, are reusable, and make the office plants grow.


        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Have CO2 fire extinguishers really been banned? How close to the silly farm can they take this crusade to save the planet? Apparently all the way. Amazing. 🙁

          The amount of CO2 exhaled by just one person over the course of a couple of days is competitive with the amount of CO2 in one fire extinguisher.

          They strain at the gnat but swallow the camel.


  • #

    Forgive me for being a tad cynical, but this is a typical government bureaucratic (of any pursuasion) sleight of hand aimed at justifying a pre-conceived outcome by way of “community consultation”. Who (organisations and names of who is drafting out the non-conforming submissions collating submissions would be help with some transparency). It assumes the “science” and the hypothesis of AGW is valid, so it’s already “settled”, so it underpins the policy of “direct action”. If not, the policy is invald. And that’s the real problem; that have not considered a way to ease out of the corner they have painted themselves in to. Meanwhile public has moved on and become more sceptical (realistic) and are getting a bit tired of government largesse with their money.

    If it really was serious about the integrity of the process, it would not assume, a priori, that the assertions (and that’s all they are) claimed by the IPCC models and all the rent seekers intent on keeping the lucrative [snip] afloat drip flowing, it would first establish where the truth really lies. The knowledge base on how the climate system functions has expanded and moved on considerably from what it was a decade or two ago. And the generally uniformed (brainwashed) public are continuing to tire and wake up. Though there will always be many who are always asleep at the wheel.

    Answering the critical questions: is there really anything to be concerned about with a changing climate; and in reality (not unsupported assertions) is there really ANY “climate action” that will actually change anything outside normal variablity? (we are after all, still emerging from an Ice age, and might take even a dip into it again) This would provide a proper basis for a subsequent meaningful debate to occur, not just a show-trial “debate” responding to an out-dated policy formulated to counter the CAGW meme of the Rudd-Gillard doctrine that has been shown by empirical evidence to be invalid.

    Two invalid policies don’t make the right framework from which to develop a cohesive policy that actually fits the circumstances. A well informed, structured, transparent and accountable process (why not under oath?) that either validated or discarded the hypothesis (and therefore the whole argument of AGW) would be an essential pre-cursor to asking any questions, as serve as a cohesive basis from which to formulate policy. Now that would be a real show of leadership, to be forthright and insightful, and heaven forbid, even honest, not just a re-hash and looking to validate a policy that’s well past its use by date.


    • #

      Yes, but its the Prime Ministers bureaucratic wonks that are doing this – the important outcome is to give the Pam a taste of real public opinion on this topic. As I said before because of CO2 fertilisation over the last 10 years which is NOT due to Australia, we can afford up to 2 GT of emissions before we reach the Nett CO2 situation we had in 1990. However ignoring that 1/2 to 1% INCREASE per annum keps us below the CO2 fertilisation curve. Australia needs to do NOTHING because we are one of, if not the largest Nett carbon sinks in the world.


  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Oh god, J, you know how that headline sounds

    Read how a mom from Perth discovered this one simple trick that slashes your tax bills, boosts your national credit score, and reverses Direct Actions in under 90 days! Experts hate her! And now her fat cats have never looked slimmer. Donate to the chocolate jar to learn the secret that Big Climate doesn’t want you to know. The answer… will shock you.


    That’s all in jest, you understand.

    But seriously… there are few amongst the warmist crowd who pretend saving the planet from Thermageddon can be done with no cost or sacrifice. They all know it requires expensive changes. They are not going to find the general public browsing the peer reviewed climate science literature at ScienceDirect for $29 a paper. The public is out here, on the TV, on blog sites, on the couch, in lecture halls, and yes in the pub too. How many water cooler and pub conversations are there going to be about global warming if anyone who doubts it fears “Climate-Dnr” ostracism (you know the forbidden word). The well has been poisoned thoroughly by militant dupes.

    If the warmist crowd wants the public to make sacrifices in lifestyle and pay costs of “fighting climate change” (chortle) then there is absolutely a duty by those agitators to hold a sustained public debate out here in public whereby people can be educated about the facts, then weigh up the subjective value of the alternatives. Even those who downplay or ignore the costs of “fighting climate change” (hahaha, but bear with me just a second longer, gentle reader) are absolutely adamant their vision of Business-as-Usual is not to be preferred, which also implies some elicitation of people’s preferences and fears and the tangible basis for those fears should occur.
    Because if we’re all going to pay, we should all be on the same page about this, right? We’re not all on the same page. So they have to un-poison the well and agree on exactly what proposition is being debated. Part of the debate is defining how to decide when the debate is over. Only when the hypothetical global warming disaster is quantified is it possible to know what evidence we would need to see to change our minds on the issue – one way or the other. That is the essence of skepticism.

    Politically a debate shouldn’t be a showstopper. Ex Labor senator John Faulkner was talking about the ALP when he said this (my emphasis):

    His lecture described the decline in party membership as ”shocking”; the report he co-wrote declared it was ”alarming” and ”a crisis”. This was a result of the ”meaningless” role of party members, which he likened to ”an arid plain of tedium”. It was also a reflection of the stifling of debate within the party, which stemmed from ”our desperation to avoid bad headlines”.

    This approach was flawed, Faulkner said. ”Debate is diversity”, not disunity, he said. The ALP should ”restore real membership rights” and ”deliver new ones as well”, he added, pointing to the options outlined in the report.

    If advice like that was good enough for the ALP it ought to be good enough for the LNP. That’s the carrot.

    The stick, in my humble inexpert opinion, is that Leyonhjelm’s LDP will be eating the LNP’s lunch if they don’t get real smart real fast.


  • #

    A debate is a mighty resource,
    Keeping climate science on course,
    To win public support,
    With no need to resort,
    To name-calling, insults or force.


  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    Others call it manipulation.
    ‘Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution.

    It makes peoble think that a solution is needed, without questioning if there is a problem at all. Dont fix what is not broken.


    • #
      A C

      I, too, choked on this right from the start.

      As a geologist, I say that we have an on-going, 3.5 billion year long, experiment that tells us that climate change is not a problem for the biosphere.


  • #

    So the Australian government wants your views ready for Paris.
    Nice to see a government ready to work with the ‘will of the people’, and also, maybe, give more than the impression of being willing to act on it.
    Most governments will do only just enough real action to get, or keep, the majority of the public onside. Will this be any different? Will the government’s minions cull from submissions enough information to act, or just give the appearance of action on the bare minimum that the public would want? Will this turn out to be little more than a publicity stunt designed to keep the public on a green message and the government only appearing to be active on this topic.
    I surely hope not, but there is big money and power at stake here.

    Then there is the double edged sword of –

    “• Submissions will be placed on the PM&C website, unless they are clearly marked as in-confidence or breach the guidelines for publication.
    • Submissions will remain on our website as public documents indefinitely.
    • You may be contacted regarding your submission.”

    Your submissions will be subjected to public and the green activists gaze and scrutiny — no problem there then. And the government could keep contacting you, and keep contacting you, and keep contacting you…
    Nothing to worry about there, just understand before you submit what the consequences might be.

    However remember that without the courage of your convictions, things will not change and probably will get a whole lot worse. A whole lot more like the arrogant, intrusive Green’s proposals.

    As I said it’s nice to see a government ready to work with the ‘will of the people’, I also hope that the government is ready to do more than give the impression that they are willing to act on it.


  • #

    April 13, Greg Hunt tweets:

    “We also want a strong agreement in Paris as part of our commitment to limit global climate change temp increases to below 2 degrees.”
    ~ ~ ~
    Install smart meters to cut power costs, Macfarlane tells households (the conversation)

    Bill shock: Smart meter charges set to cost most Victorians more in 2015 (heraldsun)

    SMH: Australia’s renewable energy investment grinds to a halt
    . . .
    What a bunch of mixed messages.

    One thing is for certain.

    The infrastructure for a carbon constrained future is still being installed at a furious rate.
    “Grinding to a halt” does not mean stopped. It is still ‘grinding’. Maybe a little slower.

    Greg Hunt does not sound like someone prepared to entertain the thought of debate on any ‘settled science’.

    > Pigeon hole me as ‘cynical’.


    • #

      Whilst submissions for doomsday happen, there is taxpayer money to filched now:

      “Farmers and landfill owners are expected to dominate the first auctions under the Abbott government’s much-criticised $2.55 billion plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which will be held this week.

      The initial auctions will occur on Wednesday and Thursday and mark the beginning of the Abbott government’s emissions reduction fund, its replacement for the carbon tax, which it dumped. ”

      SMH April 14, 2015: Auctions mark beginning of Abbott government’s emissions reduction fund


  • #

    To summarise my views now

    1. mankind cannot change the CO2 levels. This is the Suess effect, named in the 1950s. CO2 levels are determined within 2% by ocean temperatures. The half life of any fossil fuel CO2 is 12 years, not the 80 years quoted by the IPCC. This can be proven absolutely from C14 levels. (no, not C13). Simple physics of radio carbon dating.
    2. The hypothetical greenhouse gas effect amplified by increaes in water vapour is undetectable as shown by the failure of the planet to warm at all in the last 20 years.
    3. the oceans are not ‘acidifying’, they are alkali and will remain alkali and at most becoming slightly more neutral. This poses no threat to anyone or shellfish or corals or anything else. Apart from salt, the oceans are near neutral, slightly alkali fresh water.

    Mankind has no ability to alter CO2 levels in the air, so why even talk about man made Global Warming or its poor cousin, inexplicable but man made Climate Change, a prediction of the same failed computer models which predicted the warming.

    We have no control of our planet. It is a Greenist fantasy to get political power.

    No, I am not a sceptic. Not an agnostic. It is all lies. Man made CO2 levels is a lie and a political weapon and massive money generator. There is no basis in science, any more than the Rapture or Scientology. Tom Cruise is not a Thetan either.


    • #

      I have written to Lord Monckton to support Willie Soon in response to what amount to defamation by his political opponents.
      I will prepare a submission for this committee. The increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years is simply a coincidence with the industrial revolution and a period of slight ocean warming. People are confusing cause with effect. All gas levels are controlled by equilibrium with the 98% of CO2 which is dissolved in the massive oceans (Henry’s Law), 345x as heavy as the atmosphere and which contain much more gas than the thin layer of air above. (That is how fish, lobsters, crabs breathe)


    • #

      Well said!

      Mankind can no more change atmospheric CO2 levels than they can govern the direction of the wind, or global humidity.

      As for ‘acidifying’ the oceans, BS!, and a gross underestimation of how the natural world regulates itself through its many feedback mechanisms. Also note rain has always been (well while humans have been on the planet) acidic but the oceans are not. Now alarmists go figure!


  • #

    What would the impact of that target be on Australia?

    The impact is split into two parts – costs and benefits. The costs are the actual policy costs to the Australian people. The “benefits” are in the reduction in future climate catastrophe.
    Australia should recognize that it produces around 2% of global emissions. That share is falling as global emissions grow faster than Australia’s. So one thing everybody should agree upon as a minimum. Policy will fail unless the every major country in the world stops increasing their emissions and most reduce their per capita emissions by between 50% (e.g. India) and 90% (Australia and USA) then it will not work. But there are no country-by-country targets, as most countries would not send any delegates to the fancy conferences if the general public realized what they were signing up to. Further, “successful” policy requires countries as diverse as the Australia, USA, China, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Germany and the UK all doing their bit and monitoring each other. I estimated the scale of what countries will be asked to commit to in Paris this year here.
    Whatever your beliefs about future human-caused climate catastrophe, the lowest cost policy is no mitigation policy at all. The policy logic fails whichever way you look at it. If people believe there is a genuine problem, they need to develop more refined long-term forecasting of the precise forms that will take, rather than whinging about the uncertainty monster.


    • #

      Not true Kevin, there are policies that mitigate carbon dioxide at a profit, for example banana production, thorium nuclear power given australia has huge thorium reserves, uranium, and even things like building a NQ deep water port, or national electric rail. I think building a network of telecommuting centres based on the NBN could produce economic benefits while still reducing CO2. The answer to this is to pick measures with the greatest economic benefit over the mitigation benefit.

      Think for example if we built a straight 4 lane road from Perth to Sydney, or Brisbane to Darwin, what’s the economic benefit – does it have CO2 benefits ( undoubtedly it would probably halve the CO2 per Sydney to Perth or Brisbane to Darwin journey) – this way we can do some nation building and satisfy the Wonks in the UN.

      An example, lets take the Northern Australia Development policy, are there CO2 benefits to moving industry north, well yes, it’s a shorter distance to import and export markets. Is it something we want to do? Well yes…


      • #
        el gordo

        So a continental bullet train network (Maglevs) would reduce emissions overall?


      • #

        You examples might be right in mitigating at a profit, but they are special cases. What the UNIPCC is proposing is by the end of the century to all but eliminate greenhouse gas emissions – including from land use changes.
        The only large scale one is thorium nuclear reactors. It is still at the development stage and will not (at least initially) be cheaper than coal. Even if available, there will only be a swift switch from coal to nuclear if the total costs of nuclear (capital plus operating) are less than the operating costs of coal.
        You also need to keep in mind that this is a meant to be a global problem. Proponents of policy forget the obvious implication – mitigation policy must also be global. This is the second reason for dropping the term “Global Warming”


        • #

          Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter),

          Throughout recorded history there have been ‘scams’ of all shapes and sizes. They all colapsed eventually. So too with the current one. The pipe dream of the IPCC to reduce the release of CO2 to zero will never come true. It cannot. People can only be pushed ‘just so far’ and no further. The sooner the general public understands this, the sooner the ‘scam’ will fail.

          And so, what to do until the inevitable colapse comes?

          On the one hand, you play by the rules. Which means go ahead with mitigation/sequestration with two provisions:

          a) that it brings economic growth.
          b) that it doesn’t bring economic hardship to anyone.

          There’s so many ways to this it’s a joke.

          And on the other hand, you continue to educate people about the total absurdity of the claims coming from Climate Change Productions, Inc.*

          *Production companies produce films. In other words, “It’s all staged”.
          The letters are backwards because they think they can control the weather but the reverse is true.


  • #

    14 April: BBC: Dutch government taken to court on climate change
    Campaigners in the Netherlands are taking the government to court for allegedly failing to protect its citizens from climate change.
    The class action lawsuit, involving almost 900 citizens, aims to force the government to cut emissions faster.
    The first hearing opened in the Hague on Tuesday…
    The campaigners, led by the Urgenda Foundation, want the judges to compel the Dutch government to reduce its carbon emissions to 40% below 1990s levels by 2020…
    ***Among the plaintiffs is Joos Ockels, wife of the late astronaut Wubbo Ockels, along with DJ Gregor Salto and Nasa climate scientist Prof James Hansen…


  • #

    Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
    Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
    University of Queensland: Starts 28 April 2015
    Enroll Now
    7 weeks, 1-2 hrs pr week
    Price: Free
    Add a Verified Certificate for $100
    John Cook, Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, etc et


  • #

    Just testing if I can turn italics off

    Just testing if I can turn italics off

    Italics if the new black

    btw… is an impasse solvable? Another headline question… which is better, “Do fat people have less Alzheimers” or, “does a smaller percentage of fat people have Alzheimers”?


  • #

    it seems this will be never-ending. first the Christians, then the Physicians, now the Broadcast Meteorologists – who is next?

    14 April: WaPo: Jason Samenow: Broadcast meteorologists increasingly convinced manmade climate change is happening
    TV weathercasters are more convinced than ever climate change is happening and that human activities are a major contributor suggest the results of a new report.
    More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial Findings”, from the George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication.
    These numbers represent about a 10 percent increase from survey results published by GMU in 2011 when 82 percent of respondents agreed global warming was happening and, of those, about 65 percent felt human activity was at least half to blame.
    “The current findings do suggest a higher level of engagement in climate change among members of the broadcast meteorology community,” said Ed Maibach, lead author of the report…
    ***Changes in survey wording, however, make it impossible to say how significant the changes in views are. “We don’t know if the community has changed, or if we are now merely asking better questions,” Maibach said.
    The 2011 survey used the terminology “global warming” whereas the 2015 survey uses “climate change” based on the American Meteorological Society definition. The use of different terms introduces some uncertainty when making direct comparisons between surveys.

    George Mason Uni Center for Climate Change Communication: The Climate Change In The American Mind Series – Spring 2015
    These reports are based on findings from a nationally representative survey – Climate Change in the American Mind– conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Interview dates: February 27- March 10, 2015. Interviews: 1,263 Adults (18+). Average margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The research was funded by the 11th Hour Project, the Energy Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, and the V.K. Rasmussen Foundation…
    Climate Change in the American Christian Mind
    This is the first report from our Climate Change in the American Mind, Spring 2015 national survey…

    so far the only link i have found for the Meteorologist study is broken. however, Yale recognises another opportunity for propaganda:

    Yale Project on Climate Change Communication: Making the Global Local: TV Weathercasters as Climate Change Educators
    TV meteorologists are optimally positioned to help Americans better understand the relationship between the changing global climate and regional — and in some cases, local — impacts. TV meteorologists are closely followed by local TV audiences, who depend on them for credible information about the weather and extreme events. This project is constructing a national network, tools, and trainings to help broadcast meteorologists inform their viewers about the earth’s changing climate. A partnership with George Mason and Cornell Universities, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, the National Weather Association, the American Association of State Climatologists, the American Geophysical Union, Climate Central, and the National Environmental Education Foundation.


  • #

    since collecting the following, i notice Eric Worrall has just put up a Guest Post on WUWT on the HuffPo article:

    14 April: HuffPo: Till Bruckner: Economic Collapse Will Limit Climate Change, Predicts Climate Scientist
    If you think your doctor is hard to understand, try talking to a climate scientist.
    In late 2014, the World Bank published a remarkable document that should have shaken the international business world. Titled “Turn Down the Heat: Confronting the New Climate Normal”, it drew on 1,300 publications to explore the impacts of a world four degrees centigrade warmer – the world our grandchildren seem likely to inherit before the end of this century.
    Authored by climate scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the report’s three hundred plus pages are densely written and often hard for non-experts to understand…
    As I’ve got no idea what that actually means, I jumped at the chance to talk with climate scientist Christopher Reyer, one of the co-authors of the study, on the edge of a public event organized by the World Bank in Morocco last week…
    To wrap up the interview, I asked Christopher Reyer how much hotter he thought the planet would be by the year 2100. “I’m not sure,” he replied, “I’m not an expert on the ***policy side.” I persisted, asking him not for an official projection, just for his best personal guess, a single number. He visibly relaxed…
    “I guess it should be between three and four degrees hotter. We used to think that we were headed for +8°C, but that will never happen. We are not even on track for +6°C because economies will be collapsing long before we get there. We know that after +2°C, dangerous things start happening, and we start passing crucial tipping points, like the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse, which has reportedly already begun.” …
    Oh, so that’s what the climate scientist was trying to say all along: We face an avalanche of global disasters during our lifetime, and unless we slam the brakes on carbon pollution fast, the global economy will collapse to boot…
    And, be warned, there will be 5-sigma heat events too.
    Disclaimer: This blog was written in a private capacity, and exclusively reflects the author’s own personal views. Neither the World Bank nor the Potsdam Institute reviewed, let alone endorsed, this post prior to publication.

    Till is with Transparify:

    Transprify: Our Team
    We are part of the On Think Tanks Labs, a collection of innovative ventures in policy research
    from About Transparency: Our project is funded entirely by the Think Tank Fund of the Open Society Foundations (George Soros), and has a total volume of $39,834.

    not a lot of money, but amusing nonetheless given:

    2014: Washington Free Beacon: Soros-Funded Study Ranks Soros Last in Transparency
    Liberal billionaire George Soros’ foundation is among the most opaque think tanks in the country, according to a study funded by that foundation.
    The study, by a group called Transparify, ranked 35 U.S. think tanks based on the amount of financial information that they make publicly available.
    Soros’ Open Society Foundations rank dead last, earning zero stars out of a possible five.


  • #


    13 April: RTCC: Ed King: France to invest two billion euros of climate-linked finance in India
    Leaders make joint pledge to ensure Paris climate summit later this year is a success, as countries deepen clean energy ties
    Speaking at a press conference with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, Hollande said French support was vital ahead of a proposed UN climate change pact, due to be finalised in Paris this December.
    “We have discussed these issues ahead of the upcoming conference and once again we are perfectly in step when it comes to desire and analysis,” Hollande said.
    “We need India for the conference to be successful. We need its commitment.
    “It is very important to reach a fruitful agreement and in order to have a good solid agreement we need contributions from all countries to combat climate change.” …
    In a joint statement the two premiers emphasised the “vital importance” of tackling climate change, Modi extending his “full support” to Hollande…
    India is the world’s fourth largest source of greenhouse gases behind China, the US and the European Union, and has declined to reveal what level of contribution to a UN deal it would accept.
    Its emissions are projected to soar by 2030 as millions gain access to electricity and the country maintains its high levels of economic growth.
    In a speech at UNESCO headquarters last week Modi repeated his warning that he would not tolerate carbon cuts being imposed on India, which he said had a right to develop.
    But he said that with 175 gigawatts of clean energy already planned by the early 2020s, the Delhi government was committed to moving away from fossil fuels if there was “global action.”

    14 April: Reuters: Japan’s CO2 emissions hit second-highest on record
    Japan’s greenhouse-gas emissions rose to the second-highest on record in the year ended March 2014, revised government figures showed on Tuesday, reflecting a rise in coal-fired power after the indefinite closure of nuclear power plants.
    Emissions rose 1.2 percent to 1.408 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent from a year earlier, according to the revised data published by the Ministry of Environment. That was up 0.8 percent from 2005 and up 10.8 percent from 1990.
    That compares with record emissions of 1.412 billion metric tonnes in 2007, the data showed…


  • #

    14 April: Guardian: Hunter Lovins: Life after divestment: how to spend the money saved from fossil fuel investments
    As more US colleges divest from fossil fuel companies, a new question arises: what to do with all that cash?
    Option 1: invest in energy efficiency
    This January, Swarthmore asked a group of experts – including myself; environmental educator David Orr; former JP Morgan managing director John Fullerton; Nikki Silvestri, executive director at nonprofit Green for All; and green building experts Bill Browning, Kevin Hydes and Greg Kats – to help the college figure out the best way to move forward…
    Option 2: invest in renewables
    Investments in renewables grew 12% globally last year, according to a report released in January by the ***Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis…

    ***from IEEFA website:
    Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis:
    We gratefully acknowledge our funders, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, Energy Foundation, Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, Moxie Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Growald Family Fund, Flora Family Fund, Wallace Global Fund, and V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation.

    Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis is Rockefeller, & the mission is to kill coal:

    Rockefeller Family Fund: Environment
    Since 2006, RFF has focused its Environment program almost exclusively on climate change…
    National Coal Campaign
    When the coal industry announced plans to build more than 150 plants across the country in 2005, RFF recognized that the construction of even one new plant would commit the U.S. to long-term, high levels of carbon dioxide emissions, effectively preventing the nation from reaching future climate goals. The National Coal Campaign was first launched to help stop this coal rush. Its scope was later expanded to address the entire coal life cycle including mining, transporting, and disposal of coal…
    In addition to engaging national and local anti-coal advocates on the ground, RFF assembled a team of financial experts to analyze –and expose the flaws in–the financing behind the construction of new plants and coal-related activities. This pilot project started at RFF in 2007 and has since become its own non-profit organization, the ***Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. The Institute’s reports, which have prompted federal and state investigations of coal activities, and its training sessions for advocates have added a new dimension to the fight against coal…


  • #

    ***time to forget the past and the promises?

    13 April: Reuters: Alister Doyle: China to surpass U.S. as top cause of modern global warming
    In a U.N. principle laid down in 1992, rich nations are meant to lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions because their wealth is based on burning coal, oil and natural gas since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century.
    Emerging nations, meanwhile, can burn more fossil fuels to catch up and end poverty. But the rapid economic rise of China, India, Brazil and many other emerging nations is straining the traditional divide between rich and poor.
    “All countries now have responsibility. It’s not just a story about China — it’s a story about the whole world,” said Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-chair of a U.N. climate report last year…
    Beijing says the best yardstick for historical responsibility is per capita emissions since the 18th century, by which measure its emissions are less than a tenth those of the United States.
    ***But stretching liability so far back is complicated.
    Should heat-trapping methane gas emitted by rice paddies in Asia in the 19th century, now omitted, count alongside industrial carbon emissions by Europe? Should Britain be responsible for India’s emissions before independence in 1947?
    Lawyers say it is difficult to blame people living today for emissions by ancestors who had no inkling that greenhouse gases might damage the climate.
    “I feel very uneasy about going back more than a generation in terms of historic responsibility,” said Farber, arguing that Berlin could hardly be blamed if someone died by setting off a rusting German World War One landmine in France…
    The U.N. panel of climate scientists estimated last year that humankind had emitted 1.9 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide since the late 19th century and can only emit a trillion more before rising temperatures breach a U.N. ceiling of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.
    Any fair formula for sharing out that trillion tonnes, or roughly 30 years of emissions at current rates, inevitably has to consider what each country has done in the past, said Myles Allen, a scientist at Oxford University.
    “Until people start thinking about blame and responsibility they are not taking the problem seriously,” he said.


  • #

    ***hurt the poor to help the poor!

    14 April: Guardian: Larry Elliott: Scrap fossil fuel subsidies now and bring in carbon tax, says World Bank chief
    Jim Yong Kim calls for five-point plan to deliver low-carbon growth, including removal of incentives to exploit oil, gas and coal
    Poor countries are feeling “the boot of climate change on their neck”, the president of the World Bank has said, as he called for a carbon tax and the immediate scrapping of subsidies for fossil fuels to hold back global warming.
    Jim Yong Kim said awareness of the impact of extreme weather events that have been linked to rising temperatures was more marked in developing nations than in rich western countries, and backed for the adoption of a five-point plan to deliver low-carbon growth…
    Speaking to the Guardian ahead of this week’s half-yearly meeting of the World Bank in Washington DC, Kim said he had been impressed by the energy of the divestment campaigns on university campuses in the US, aimed at persuading investors to remove their funds from fossil fuel companies.
    “We have a whole new generation that is interested in climate change”, he said as he predicted that putting taxes on the use of carbon would trigger a wave of clean technology which would lift people out of poverty in the developing world while preventing the global temperature from rising by more than 2C above pre-industrial levels…

    ***Kim insisted that the recent fall in energy prices meant there had never been a better time to reduce the payments made by governments to help people with their fuel bills…

    “When I meet business leaders from the very carbon-intensive industries, their openness to a carbon price is striking. They say, ‘let’s do it’.”…
    Kim said he wanted to see the talks result in a collective agreement binding the international community to a zero-carbon world by the end of the century; individual countries coming up with their own plans; a financing package that by 2020 would provide poor countries with $100bn (£68bn) to help them adapt to climate change and mitigate its effects and a stronger role for the private sector to use its innovative skills to find ways of reducing emissions.
    “New technology is going to be spurred on by putting a price on carbon”, Kim said. “It will be an extremely important incentive for innovation.”


  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    Jo, OT but someone like you needs to write about Dr Karl’s predicament. Having accepted a job as the “face” for the government’s future directions paper, he has been subjected to a high level of Alinskian bullying by his former cohort. It has got to be worth a write up.


    • #

      His greatest predicament is his entrenched scientific dogma that CAGW ‘Climate Change’ is real and occurring this very moment, the ABC ran this story on how Dr Karl is backing away from the IGR citing climate change and politics as main reasons, yeah go the post modern scientific method consensus.


      • #
        Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

        He’s backing away because he has been frozen out, per Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, by the Green-Left crowd he used to get to hang out with for being a mouthpiece for the Abbott Government. Simple as that.


    • #
      James Bradley

      Dr K seems to be the victim of and by the very same climate propoganda and carbon zealots he supports against those that question the ‘settled science’.

      More than a little poetic.


  • #

    No one audits the IPCC, nor the BoM — yet billions depends on their reports

    No audit considered necessary. Why? Because the UN IPCC definition of ‘climate change‘ is not the same as the definition of the meaning of the words in English.

    Consequently having a debate about the magnitude of purported direct and indirect anthropogenic influences or effects upon the climate in which causality is subsumed merely begs the question.

    How about starting from a debating position that refrains from the use of politically spun axiomatic terminology? How about full disclosure of data and adjustment methodologies?

    All very unlikely…as it is to separate any proxy debate about ideology that uses climate as the stalking horse.


  • #
    Robert O

    I will think a little about putting in small submission. However, my personal experience with Commonwealth public servants is not good due to what I believe as plagiarism on their part. Ideas are “borrowed” and turn-up in interesting places as someone else’s.


    • #

      Robert O,

      From the gov’t (quoted in OP)
      All submissions will be made available on this website unless you request your submission is not made publically available.

      You might also want to keep a copy for yourself. 😉



  • #
    Steve McDonald

    Local member Peter Dutton will get a visit from me.
    It seems he has an interesting mind.
    He offered me a mars bar when I was handing for Cheryl Kernot at Straphine Qld.


  • #

    15 April: ABC The World Today: Carbon credits under the hammer as Government’s climate change centrepiece goes live
    The Federal Government’s direct action climate change policy begins today, with a reverse-auction for carbon credits.
    Around 250 projects, designed to capture and store carbon, started going under the proverbial hammer this morning.
    The Government will purchase the cheapest carbon credits on offer from these projects, using part of the $2.5 billion from the Emissions Reduction Fund.
    Peter Yench is a grazier from the Cobar District in western New South Wales.
    He’s set aside 7000 hectares of native forest on his sheep property Peter Yench, and is offering up 50,000 carbon credits as part of today’s auction.
    PETER YENCH: It gives that extra string to your bow, you’ve sort of got the opportunity to make a little bit more money.
    ***JESSICA KIDD: But making money isn’t his only motivation.
    PETER YENCH: I’ve got four little grandsons and they’re little beauties, and I don’t want to think of them in 40-50 years time going to work like they are in China wearing bloody masks.
    ***I think if we don’t do something now about the environment we’re going to lose it.
    JESSICA KIDD: James Schultz is managing Mr Yench’s bid, along with the bids of dozens more farmers.
    His company, Green Collar, handles the grunt work that comes with putting these carbon credit projects to market…
    The price per tonne of carbon paid to individual projects will remain confidential.
    But the Clean Energy Regulator will release a benchmark or average price paid, as well as the volume of carbon purchased, about a week after the auction closes…
    Anthony Fitzgerald’s company Carbon Conscious Limited manages around 17,000 hectares of mallee eucalypts in Western Australia’s wheat belt…
    JESSICA KIDD: The price per tonne of carbon will be critical to the success of Direct Action.
    Farmers won’t sacrifice their land if the price is too low.
    But Anthony Fitzgerald says farmers also need certainty that the policy has a long term future.
    ANTHONY FITZGERALD: You know, farmers will look at their land and say well I might have an alternative use…
    JESSICA KIDD: The operators of carbon sink projects will only receive their money when they have delivered 100 per cent of the project and passed a final audit.
    They’ll know whether their bid has been successful next Thursday.

    from About Green Collar Based in Sydney, GreenCollar Group includes natural resource and environmental services advisory GCS, environmental markets and natural resource management investor TerraCarbon, and carbon market fund Climate Fund.

    Green Collar staff:
    James Schultz is the CEO of GCS. He has extensive experience advising governments, international development and financing organisations and the private sector in the development and implementation of climate change adaptation/mitigation strategies and environment and natural resource management investment programs. Prior to joining GCS, James worked for the World Bank, the African Union and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization…
    David Viner has a Bachelor of Arts Degree majoring in Political Science and Environmental Policy from the University of Queensland, as well as a Graduate Bachelor of Education from the University of Canberra…
    Jonathan Schultz has been the Financial and Operations Manager for GCS since 2011 and is currently studying Environmental Management and Geography at Macquarie University…

    3 pages: 5 April: Farm Weekly: Ken Wilson: Mukinbudin farmer cashes in on carbon
    CARBON farming is regarded by many farmers as a proverbial pie-in-the-sky.
    But WA-based company ***Carbon Conscious is gaining traction with the concept as part of a world-wide push to offset carbon emissions by sequestering carbon.
    By the end of last year, the company had planted more than 22 million mallee trees in 18,000 hectare on 30 properties through the WA Wheatbelt.
    And in 2013 it became the first company to be granted Australian Carbon Credits (ACCUs) from a WA reforestation project…
    Last week, Mukinbudin farmer Stephen Sprigg, who was the first farmer in WA to enter into a share farm agreement with Carbon Conscious, received his first cheque from the company, placing a tangible value on carbon sequestration.
    He was paid $23 a metric tonne, which is the Federal Government’s fixed price under the previous Labor Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative.
    Mr Sprigg has a 450ha oil mallee share farm plantation yielding more than 7t/ha of sequestered carbon and quick maths shows a return of more than $18,000 a year (25 per cent share)…
    While their remains speculation about the Federal Government’s intentions on carbon farming, particularly as it moves to axe the carbon tax, industry players are confident Australia will be involved in an emissions trading scheme.
    Europe has been operating an emissions trading scheme for the past 15 years and the US and Chinese governments are keen proponents, with China already holding trials…
    Carbon Conscious commercial manager Anthony Fitzgerald, said his company was comfortable there would be a price for carbon into the future.
    “We already have 15 year carbon capture contracts with BP and Origin Energy, and a number of businesses, including City of Perth, RAC(WA), and Homeloans, which buy the rights to an allocation of trees planted in a carbon-capture forest,” he said.
    “ACCUs are delivered to BP and Origin and we also sell into the open market.
    “After July this year, the Federal Government is likely to become a customer via the Emissions Reduction Scheme.”…


  • #
    Peter Lang

    I’ve just been pointed to this thread from a comment by Beththeserf on Climate Etc. Her’s my preliminary thoughts:

    The simple trick to solve the impasse in the climate debate — have one (Tell the Australian govt).

    1. Commit to participate in a legally binding and verifiable international agreement that ensures no carbon leakage and that Australia’s industries are not disadvantaged by the agreement.

    2. Countries like USA commit to reducing the cost of technologies essential to reducing global GHG emissions – e.g. small modular nuclear power plants and low-emission transport fuels produced from seawater and cheap electricity (from nuclear power plants).

    3. Emissions reductions to be economically beneficial, not a cost. This can be done, but the US and EU are preventing it.


  • #

    what has changed since 2011, i wonder?

    2011: ABC: Eliza Borrello: From parking fees to planting trees
    The City of Perth planted 85,000 trees in Kojonup in 2009 and a further 85,000 trees will be planted this year in Koorda to offset the collective carbon footprint of Perth commuters…
    Mr Forster says the council is paying carbon offset firm Carbon Conscious $180,000 to undertake the project, which is largely being paid for from revenue from the City of Perth’s car parks.
    Carbon Conscious Chief Executive Peter Balsarini said the trees they plant will live for up to 100 years and sequester a significant amount of carbon over a long term period.
    “So the 85 thousand trees that we’re doing for the City of Perth, we expect would trap 15,600 tonnes of CO2 over their lifetime,” he said…
    Big business
    Carbon offsetting is big business.
    Resource companies have been paying carbon offset firms to plant trees for several years.
    And in 2009, Origin Energy signed a $28 million deal with Carbon Conscious to plant more than six million trees…
    WA Farmers Federation President Mike Norton is cautious about the arrival of the carbon offset industry in rural areas.
    He says he does not want companies coming in and buying whole farms…
    Mr Norton says he doesn’t want to see a repeat of the financial devastation farmers experienced when the Managed Investment Schemes behind thousands of hectares of blue gum plantations collapsed.
    “If you try and go into direct competition you will invariably have a bad outcome for that local community as happened with the MIS plantations in the southern part of the state,” Mr Norton said…
    Despite the City of Perth’s commitment to the tree planting scheme, Mr Forster says the council doesn’t want commuters getting too comfortable in the knowledge their carbon emissions are being offset.
    He says the council remains committed to encouraging cleaner forms of transport.
    “Well we certainly believe that there are better and sustainable forms of transportation,” he said.
    Mr Forster said the council may consider trading carbon credits in the future and planted trees could assist in this.
    “It will give us a carbon product to sell, if the city wanted to do that, it gives us a potential source of biofuel, which is a non-polluting fuel or we can simply leave the trees there to suck up the carbon emissions put out by cars coming to and from the city.”…

    15 April: The Conversation: Farming carbon can be a win for wildlife, if the price is right
    by –
    Megan Evans, PhD Candidate in Environmental Policy & Economics at Australian National University
    Anna Renwick, Research ecologist at The University of Queensland
    Josie Carwardine, Research Scientist, Ecosystem Sciences at CSIRO
    Tara Martin, Senior Research Scientist at CSIRO
    Disclosure Statement
    Megan Evans is funded by an Australian Postgraduate Award and a CSIRO top-up scholarship.
    Anna Renwick is funded through the University of Queensland ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions and the National Environmental Research Program.
    Josie Carwardine and Tara Martin do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.
    In our recent paper (LINK), we found that it is possible to identify where growing forests could provide win-wins for both carbon and biodiversity.
    For example, the top 25% of priority areas for environmental plantings could sequester 132 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually, which is almost a quarter of Australia’s annual emissions (excluding those caused by land-use change)…
    It will generally be more expensive to grow carbon forests that also provide benefits for biodiversity…
    In our analysis, we found that with a price on carbon equivalent to A$5 per tonne, it would not be profitable to restore threatened ecosystems up to 30% of their original extent…
    However, a higher price of A$20 per tonne, reflecting Australia’s 2011-2013 carbon price, could allow up to half of the heavily cleared vegetation types to be restored up to 30% without any additional funding for biodiversity itself. At this A$20 price, we also found that it made more economic sense to farm carbon than the existing land use, in over 1.2 million hectares in Queensland…


  • #

    the simple trick of causing fuel poverty & then claiming u will solve the problem!

    14 April: LeftFootForwardUK: Ruby Stockham: The Greens are right to focus on fuel poverty
    Launching the Green Party manifesto today, party leader Natalie Bennett called out the other parties for failing to mention the phrase ‘climate change’ at the leaders’ debates.
    Unlike the NHS, the economy, or business, sustainability has not been prioritised, debated, or even used as a mouthpiece in Cameron and Miliband’s sniping…
    Bennett and Caroline Lucas are right to say that hesitation during the recession was not the right strategy; tackling climate change cannot wait for better times.
    Yet the national mood is still wrong. Last week the discovery of up to 100 billion barrels of oil under an area of Surrey prompted delight from investors. Shares in UKOG, the main exploration company involved in the find, shot up by 300 per cent in early trading and closed at 164 per cent up for the day. Clearly, the economy of the energy market has not changed enough…
    Last year the government’s Committee on Climate Change warned that the UK was on track to miss its future emissions targets. The statutory advisers on climate change found that the coalition’s Green Deal had not been a sufficient incentive for people to properly insulate their homes as a way of reducing energy use and expenditure; the number (p.32) of cavity wall insulations, for example, fell by two-thirds. The CCC were very clear: ‘current policies will not be sufficient’…
    What the Greens understand, apparently better than anyone else, is that sustainability impacts everything, and they have done a good job in making it relevant by focusing on the issue of fuel poverty.
    Fuel poverty is a national scandal – latest government estimates suggest that over two million households are classified as fuel poor. This means the UK has the highest level of fuel poverty in western Europe. In 2013 there were over 30,000 excess winter deaths, and the World Health Organisation said that around 30 – 50 per cent of these could be attributed to cold indoor temperatures. An average of 65 people a day died that winter because their homes were too cold…
    The chief medical officer of the Marmot Review team has estimated that the annual cost to the NHS of treating winter-related disease caused by cold private housing is £859 million, and that every £1 invested in keeping homes warm could save the NHS 42 pence in health costs…
    The Greens are pledging to end fuel poverty by:
    Investing massively in renewable generation
    Reducing the amount of energy we need by improving energy efficiency
    Reorganising the energy industry to break the dominance of the Big Six
    Creating thousands of jobs, getting carbon emissions down
    The party’s manifesto sets out plans to provide a free nationwide retrofit insulation programme, concentrated in areas where fuel poverty is most common. It is designed to insulate 9 million homes, and take 2 million out of fuel poverty. This programme, the Greens say, will cost about £45 billion over the course of the parliament and will create 100,000 jobs…
    The cost of replacing Trident – which the Greens won’t do – is usually estimated to be around £100 bn.
    In addition, the party wants to give tenants the right to require their landlords to make these improvements to homes, and want all houses to be built to Passivhaus standards.
    Fuel poverty is something we can all relate to – no one likes opening bills. In making tackling it a key part of their manifesto, the Greens have provided people with a real incentive to ditch dirty fuel and look for cleaner, renewable alternatives…


  • #

    UKIP Manifesto: Policies for People
    – UKIP will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy £18bn a year.
    – UKIP supports a diverse energy market including coal, nuclear, shale gas, geo-thermal, tidal, solar, conventional gas and oil.
    – We will scrap the Large Combustion Plant Directive and encourage the re-development of British power stations, as well as industrial units providing on-site power generation.
    – UKIP supports the development of shale gas with proper safeguards for the local environment. Community Improvement Levy money from the development of shale gas fields will be earmarked for lower council taxes or community projects within the local authority being developed.
    – There will be no new subsidies for wind farms and solar arrays.
    – UKIP will abolish green taxes and charges in order to reduce fuel bills.

    15 April: The Hill: Timothy Cama: Obama’s climate change plan faces crucial test
    Regulations at the center of President Obama’s climate change initiative face a crucial test this week when opponents will attempt to block them before they’re even made final.
    A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., will hear oral arguments Thursday in a high-stakes legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed emissions limits for existing power plants.
    Murray Energy Corp., a major coal mining company, is asking the court to do something that it admits is extraordinary: block the EPA from completing the work on its regulation and making the rule final, which it plans to do this summer.
    The company, which is leading the case on behalf of multiple energy companies, expects that the climate rule would harm its business by dramatically reducing the use of coal for power generation…


  • #

    Australia should not even be acknowledging that the manufactured CO2 fear is even an issue. A genuinely independent investigation into the BOM should be all that is needed to bring down the house of cards.


  • #
    Peter Lang

    The practicality is that there is a UN climate meeting in France in December 2015. Obama and EU are putting pressure on other countries to commit to reductions in their GHG emissions. The US and EU demands would severely damage these countries’ economies and slow global growth. That means keeping people in poverty longer.

    The Australian Government has requested citizens contribute their suggestions on what GHG emissions targets the Australian Government should offer to commit to beyond 2020.

    It’s pointless making a silly suggestion because it will just be rejected. So, I am trying to make a constructive suggestion. I’d appreciate constructive, pragmatic feedback.

    The request for submission states:

    The Australian Government values your views. You are invited to make a submission on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target, and in particular on the following issues:

    • What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.

    • What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.

    • Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why? You can make a submission at Submissions close 3pm AEST on Friday 24 April 2015.

    This sentence is important and significant (the term “carbon leakage” is key):

    A strong and effective global agreement, that addresses carbon leakage and delivers environmental benefit, is in Australia’s national interest.

    Yes. The agreement must be able to:

    • deliver measureable and verifiable environmental benefit, and

    • prevent carbon leakage or compensate for it

    India’s policy is pragmatics and we could consider adopting a modified form of it (I expand below)

    “(Bloomberg) — India, the world’s third-biggest polluter, is considering a sharper cut in emissions if rich nations cough up money and technology.”

    Australia could follow this example and also tie its targets to the availability of cost competitive technologies – technologies that the USA and EU could make available to the world if they removed the ideologically driven blocks that are blocking progress.

    My suggested approach:

    1. Commit to participate in a legally binding and verifiable international agreement that ensures no carbon leakage and that Australia’s industries are not disadvantaged by the agreement.

    2. Emissions reductions to be economically beneficial, not a cost. This can be done, but the US and EU are preventing it.

    3. Countries like USA commit to reducing the cost of technologies essential to reducing global GHG emissions – e.g. small modular nuclear power plants.

    4. Remove legislated and regulatory distortions to the energy markets, e.g. the renewable energy target, carbon pricing and all regulatory and other impediments which are preventing the world form having access to low-cost low-emissions energy (such as nuclear power).

    5. Allow Direct Action to do what it is designed to do and remove all other government interventions in the market (such as the RET).

    6. I propose Australia should follow China’s lead and commit to reducing energy intensity (relative to GDP and per capita), and the rate of reduction will be related to the cost and availability of low emissions technologies to substitute for fossil fuel electricity generation and transport fuels. The rate will be tied to the rate at which USA and EU reduce the cost of these technologies and make them available to the world.


  • #
    Doug  Cotton

    My submission will be along these lines …


    I’ve shown below, using the AGW conjecture, that we should expect some areas on Earth to reach temperatures of over 100°C when the flux from the atmosphere is added to the Solar flux in Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) calculations. Hence the whole concept that such flux can be added is obviously false, and so too are the rest of the energy budget diagrams (K-T, NASA, IPCC etc) and of course the computer models.

    It is obvious that in climatology physics courses they brainwash students who end up like Joel Shore and Roy Spencer being adamant that we must add the back radiation to the solar radiation. That is shown to be wrong in my March 2012 paper and also by a professor of applied mathematics in Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation written towards the end of that year.

    Let me explain it simply:

    The AGW proponents correctly estimate the mean solar radiation being absorbed by the surface as 168W/m^2. They then add 324W/m^2 of back radiation and deduct 102W/m^2 to allow for the simultaneous losses by evaporative cooling and conduction, convection etc. This gives them the “right” 390W/m^2 that coincides with 288K that they claim is the mean surface temperature. (Personally I think it’s closer to 10°C than 15°C.)

    Now we need to understand that this 168W/m^2 of solar radiation is a 24-hour annual mean for an average location at a latitude of 45°(S or N) that is half way between the Equator and the relevant Pole. Even that location will receive a mean of twice that in 12 hours of average daylight with average cloud cover. Locations such as this in the far south of New Zealand have mean annual temperatures around 9°C or 10°C.

    You need to remember that we start with the solar constant of 1360W/m^2 which is what the one location on Earth where the Sun is directly overhead would receive if there were no atmosphere. But, again on average, there is about 30% reflection and 20% absorption which reduces that to about half. So, on an average day with average cloud cover at noon where the Sun is directly overhead, that location would receive half of that 1360W/m^2, namely 680W/m^2. But on a clear day there is only about 10% reflection, not 30% because two-thirds of the albedo is due to clouds. So that location receives about 70% of 1360W/m^2, namely about 950W/m^2.

    However, the AGW proponents claim that an average location at 288K receives back from the atmosphere 83% (324/390) of the radiation it emits. I don’t dispute that. But the electro-magnetic energy in that radiation from a cooler source is not converted to thermal energy in the surface. The AGW proponents say it is. Hence they add it to the solar radiation in S-B calculations.

    Now, the solar radiation does not achieve the S-B temperature we might expect for two reasons, the first being that there is simultaneous energy loss by non-radiative processes and the second reason is because there may not be enough time in the day for the solar radiation to reach the maximum temperature. However, if we deduct 200W/m^2 from that 950W/m^2 as a reasonable estimate for losses by non radiative processes (that are only half that amount at 288K) the resulting 750W/m^2 does explain the observed temperatures which have been recorded in the forties and fifties °C. But let’s just use 600W/m^2 (which has a blackbody temperature of 48°C that is realistic) thus making an allowance for the limited time in the day.

    But, if we were to now add 83% back radiation (that is, 83% of something like 600W/m^2 that would be emitted by regions like this on clear days) we get about 1100W/m^2 which of course gives ridiculously high temperatures in the vicinity of 100°C.

    Hence it is obviously wrong to add back radiative flux to solar flux and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. And so the whole GH radiative forcing paradigm is wrong, as are those models, and that’s why you need to consider the totally different 21st century paradigm here that is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


  • #

    Not unique to Australia, nearly every country is having the same problem; no debate, just screaming from the fanatics.


  • #

    Perhaps the UN should invest in Tulip futures?