The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Garnaut Reviews’ errors and material omissions > Comments

The Garnaut Reviews’ errors and material omissions : Comments

By Tim Curtin, published 25/3/2011

If the Garnaut report were governed by corporations law no-one would be prepared to sign it.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Ross Garnaut fits the description of an "Economic Hit man" as portrayed in John Perkin's book,'Confessions of an Economic Hit man'.
Garnaut and his ilk will destroy the economy and fabric of our country with their carbon taxes.He was the chief political advisor to Hawke and Keating to herald in a era of rationalisation.They sold off our most precious assets ie our Govt Banks.We can now never escape from debt to private banks,nor will we ever have enough money for infrastructure or basic services such as medical or education.

Privatise the creation of your money and you are forever in debt.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 25 March 2011 6:18:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice one. It's obvious that the AGW alarmists are sticking to their own quarantined (but steadily shrinking) group of 'experts' whom they can rely on to support the Cause. But -- to nitpick -- it should be 'Review's' in the title.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 25 March 2011 6:23:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim Curtin, your blurb says;

Journalist, economist and advisor, living in Canberra where he is an unpaid associate on Asia-Pacific programmes of the Australian National University.

Something just doesn't add up, Tim.

Are you the same "Tim Curtin" who has his own thread here?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php

If so, methinks you protest too much.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 25 March 2011 7:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a scientist. I have to try to order my thoughts carefully before jumping in with a comment. It's not easy here. So far as I can tell, the article makes two main points: that the water produced by combustion of fossil fuels has been forgotten by Garnaut et al; and an analysis by 'econometricians' finds that the slope of the trend line for the last 30 years or so of global temperature measurements does not accord with the IPCC projections for temperature rise out to 2100.

On the first, it is of course true that water is produced by the combustion reaction (and nitrogen, as the chemical equation also shows, passes through more or less unchanged, though why on earth this matters is not made clear). Is this trying to tell us that there is a consequent change in atmospheric water concentration (also known as humidity) that will affect climate? In view of all the other sources of water vapour around the place, this has to be nonsense.

On the second, of course a linear extrapolation of the temperature trend line over the last 30 years will not give the IPCC projection out to 2100 because the latter is based on an (undisputed) increasing rate of emissions, increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and hence an increasing slope.

Climate sceptics need to remind themselves that the influence of carbon dioxide on climate is classic school textbook chemistry and physics. The chemistry text (Partington, if you want to know) I used in high school said as far back as 1934 that burning fuels might affect climate; the evidence shows that in all likelihood it does. This article does nothing to challenge that solid basis for concern about greenhouse gas emissions.
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 25 March 2011 7:32:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You shot yourself in the foot by using a reference from Lavoisier which caused me to cease reading the rest of your article.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 25 March 2011 8:08:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Articles that attempt to expose some scientific flaw in the concensus view formed by the IPCC and other scientific bodies are best processed through the accepted scientific process which requires peer review and validation of a paper. Once a scientific body of some repute validates the thinking then I will take notice - until then such articles are incomprehensible to the layman and serve to confuse. This raises an interesting point - how many scientific bodies (as opposed to individual self nominated experts) support the IPCC consensus versus how many do not? I suspect the answer is a lot and none.
A simple common sense take on the overall issue would be based on the following facts:
1. We are putting a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (through burning fossil fuels) that wouldn't otherwise be there.
2. This has resulted in the % of CO2 in the atmosphere steadily increasing year on year.
3. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that this has caused and will continue to cause global average temperatures to rise, weather patterns to change and sea levels to rise.
4. The above effects will be bad for humans and other living creatures and should be avoided.
5. A large part of the solution is to move as quickly as possible away from fossil fuel use to renewable, carbon free sources of energy of which thankfully there are plenty.

It is really that simple, so lets just get on with it eh?
Posted by Rich2, Friday, 25 March 2011 9:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy