"In agreement with Lord Deben, we should do much more to lower greenhouse gas emissions. After all, as the world's population grows and more industry output results, it makes sense for all societies to encourage greater efficiency and innovation in terms of energy use."

Sure: now explain what the second sentence has to do with the first.

But this kind of boilerplate forelock-tugging to the AGW theory is actually a good thing; like the 'Welcome to Country' in school ceremonies, it keeps the radicals quiet and allows ordinary people to get on with their business unmolested.

Some people will become extremely rich in trading on nothing but thin air.

The rest of us mugs will be the ones helping them become rich.

"Prime Minister Gillard and others may delude themselves that Australia's carbon tax will make an important difference. "

Really? But people who oppose it are "extremists" and "deniers" aren't they? I can't see the reason for you to include the "extremists" comment, unless it's to underline your intolerance of fellow Australians?

This is justification for Tony Abbot to be lobbied to become an activist, which he will not do of course, but he is a politician and will make the right noises so as not to cruel his chances.

Are you concerned that without Tony becoming an alarmist and CO2 activist, that whole sections of the community (>50% now and growing) have an anchor to harness their support to?

Whether you respect the people who protested or not, the point is they have that right .. while the world is stunned that a political activist group, who claim to be independent, actually had a gathering demanding a tax .. you can't call that a protest can you?

Calling them names will alienate them, but then again they are heretics and it's difficult for a believer to control themselves when confronted by non believers isn't it?

Let's face it, the populace will pay the tax if it comes in and then refuse to do anything else for the environment, because the government has declared they will fix the environment with a tax and wealth redistribution. So why should we lift a finger to do any more

That's the real issue that activists are staring to realize is important. I know a couple of activists (who incidentally deplore my love of motor car sport) who now realize what the natural reaction is to this big new tax, because that's all you're going to get by forcing people to pay it, by paying your propagandists a fortune to sell it .. people resent they have to pay another tax while the government clearly goes on wasting our country's future.

amicus,

I am all for all Australians putting their points forward. I want an extensive debate until the next election where the Australian people can decide the fate of the carbon tax.

Main focus of article, however, was to argue that carbon tax by itself will achieve very little as gains made in wealthy naitons from cuts to emissions will be more than offset by higher emissions in developing nations.

While not necessarily agreeing with your conclusions, Chris, I think that you have have made a useful contribution to the debate by introducing new data related to "offshoring" of energy consumption.

To extend this data, I refer OLO-ers to the US Energy Information Administration's "International Energy Outlook 2010 - Highlights" (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html). Fig. 11 in this document displays 1990-2035 global economic output, population, CO2 emissions, carbon intensity and energy intensity (of economic output).

While much of the world population are low-contributors to emissions, the "economically participating" population is increasing, mainly due to China and India- probably at a rate similar to world population growth.

The graph illustrates the dilemma: While industry is becoming more efficient (thanks to capital intensification, technological change and learning), the "efficiency dividends" are being spent on increased consumption- both by existing economic participants and by an increasing number of new economic entrants. It's akin to spending the part of one's salary that is saved by lowered mortgage interest rates on a new 50-inch plasma- and then complaining that one's bank-balance is not increasing. The "new TV" is part of our increased standard of living brought about by consuming our efficiency savings. That's how we got here.

So I fear that both Abbott and Gillard's (and the rest of the world's) policies will not work to reduce CO2 levels, unless they withdraw from circulation part of the efficiency dividend- this means increased taxes to achieve budget surpluses. Robert Solow showed that the annual ED is about 2% (half from getting smarter, half from improved technology). 1% would stabilise CO2 outputs. Obviously this wouldn't be popular.

Simply improving the efficiency of present energy generators or consumers or sequestering some of the carbon will not achieve anything if the gains are immediately spent- in fact it may be counterproductive if these measures only serve to shift the carbon use- as Chris has pointed out- from one part of the value chain to another- which in our global economy amounts to "offshoring" the carbon use. China is significantly improving its energy intensity, but re-investing it just as quickly.

Chris I get that, many people though feel exploited by the attempts to use the CO2 scare tactics to beat them into submission on other things, when it is quite clear that emerging countries have no intention of joining the richer nations technology and lifestyle guilt.

We have no choice but to adapt, CO2 activists are wasting an opportunity to move to adapting.

Though it is weakening, the greens failed miserably in NSW, if people REALLY wanted a CO2 tax and an end to Coalition skepticism, then they surely would have all voted green across all of NSW, but they didn't .. the people do not care for the government's message.

There is nothing we can do about people in other countries wanting what we have, and if we give them money, they will get there sooner.

On a debate, no there will be no debate .. the ALP make it quite clear and they are on their favored turf, justifying a tax, this is familiar and comfortable territory, add a fear and scare campaign, and they are in their element. They are loving this, it gives them focus and they love berating the coalition.

It's a folly, but they cannot turn away since it is bred intot hem to oppose the coalition, regardless of reason.

Jedimaster,

great link you have provided. Just the sort of article I should have used via a link to support my points.

>> We have no choice but to adapt, CO2 activists are wasting an opportunity to move to adapting. <<

Like in your other postings, Amicus.

Terrific, but you have no idea how to adapt, let alone fund it.

All we get from naysayers is just that - negativity, opposition and delay ... ii other words, business as usual.

bonmot .. I just offer an opinion, why do I have to offer solutions?

That's your straw man argument, you don't like the message, so then raise the straw man, that I have offered no solution and attack that .. I'm surprised I have to explain your own logic to you, but I guess in your passion and anger, you have trouble seeing this.

Don't worry, most intolerant fanatics exhibit similar characteristics, so you're not alone.

Chris Lewis is trying to start a debate .. he says so, and I note you have not castigated him for not offering solutions, why is that?

Or is it only opinions that differ that attract our bile?

Hey, here's a thought, simple and off the cuff though it is .. use the billions of $ spent trying to prove CO2 is bad for us and all the money spent on propaganda by activist groups and governments.

So simple really .. occams razor.

If a Party bows to pressure from the minority Greens and

Contractor Garnaut's messianic advice that party will be voted out next election.

Pete

Reality has demonstrated that a lot of nonsense is talked about greenhouse gases.

The criminal activity in the AGW debate is the attempted demonising of carbon dioxide.

There is no justification for talk about “lowering emissions”. This is puerile nonsense.

If we need to pay attention to carbon dioxide it is to increase its proportion of the atmosphere, not lower it.

Millions of acres of sand, previously desert, are now green and productive, because CO2 not only boosts plant growth, but has the effect that plants need less water.

Why lower emissions?

The increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last century has not resulted in a warming of the globe. There is no evidence that warming, if it occurred is other than beneficial.

Ban Kimoon’s apocalyptic talk at the Bali hot air fest was not evidence of any danger of global warming, but evidence of his pathetic mendacity. Al Gore is now recognised as a liar and a fraud.

During the past 15 years there has been no warming. There may have been cooling, but if so, the fraudulent activities of the Climategate group of IPCC scientists have disguised it.

This constant refrain of “lowering emissions”, has no justification. The only emissions which should be lowered are the emissions of pro AGW fraud hot air.

An article like this, Chris, should start with an acknowledgement that AGW is a pernicious myth.

bonmot, the fraudbackers are the naysayers, denying that the cycles of warming and cooling are natural cycles, unaffected in any but a negligible way by human emissions. You have been invited numerous times to produce any science which says otherwise, and you fail to do so.

Ok Amicus, let me put it this way: Chris says the

"Main focus of article, however, was to argue that carbon tax by itself will achieve very little as gains made in wealthy naitons from cuts to emissions will be more than offset by higher emissions in developing nations."

This is what the UNFCCC has been 'debating' for yonks, it is not new (although you and Chris may argue otherwise). All countries know there is a need to adapt to a changing climate, and most also want to pursue a mix of alternative energy sources - but adapting and mitigating comes at a cost.

This is where the ugly side of politics (especially in western democracies) encroaches, as we have seen here and in the US.

So sure, let's have a 'debate'. However, it is extremely difficult to have a rational debate when there is a concerted effort by ideologues to maintain the status quo, no matter what the long term consequences of that may be.

bonmot,

I am all for the planet reducing greehouse gas emissions. This is made quite clear in article.

However, let us not kid ourselves that Gillard and co are on top of issues through their mere focus on the carbon tax.

Truth is that industries staying here may indeed be a better solution than moving offshore, a reality that may be forced on them by higher domestic costs.

The author has, perhaps not deliberately, highlighted the immense problems involved in any attempt to reduce CO2 world-wide.

He points to reductions in the emission levels in Britain. Quite right. If you read the reports for the Kyoto Protocol and the Europen ETS, you will see that the redution was due to Britain switching its power industry mainly to gas.

Reductions in overall emission levels in Europe were mainly the result of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which eventually resulted in the collapse of the inefficient Eastern bloc industries, and their rebuilding in more efficient forms.

It is, in fact, very difficult to point to any effort to reduce emissions on a national basis that has actually succeeded in any other country, apart from doing the obvious such as switching the power industry to gas. All a carbon tax might do, as the author points out, is to shift polluting industries offshore (although it may help switch power stations to gas, that can always be done by other means).

Then there is China. The Chinese government announced this supposed "crackdown" but did any of it actually happen and were the plants going to be closed any way? for that matter, were they operating in the first place? In any case, what did any of it mean; are 22 plants significant? Statements made by the US or Australian governments can be checked. the Chinese government can say anything and have the statement believed by activists who want to push their own government into action.

bonmot "However, it is extremely difficult to have a rational debate when there is a concerted effort by ideologues to maintain the status quo, no matter what the long term consequences of that may be."

You need to let go off this attitude that unless the debate is action, or action, then it cannot be a debate - many people see no reason for change at all, and indeed that warming of the earth is natural and should not be fooled with by amateurs trying to find the optimum position of the imaginary thermostat.

What is wrong with any part of the community stating they want no change, and that being a valid point of view? They are still Australians and entitled to their view, regardless of your intolerance.

It is, in many people's opinion, difficult to have a rational debate when there is a concerted effort by ideologues to maintain the chant of "do something", no matter what the long term consequences of that may be.

There, fixed .. see, it depends on where you stand on this what makes sense.

Your view appears to be the same as Senator Milne's, that you can only join the debate if you commit to action, and the debate is about the size of the action ..

It begs the question, are you Senator Milne? There appears to be much similarity in your approach and tolerance to differing POVs.

Look the whole thing is just too ridiculous for words.

The entire argument in favour of AGW is "the government told me so". The governments of the world having paid out $80 billion to find a crisis, their interested dependants have duly done so. The chain of reasoning, from climatology, to ecological crisis, to the presumption of government's selfless indispensability at managing the economy *and* the ecology - is so long, so tenuous and so full of uncertainty and downright dubiosity (like that? new word) at every stage, that to reason that this chain of reasoning proves an urgent and important priority over people's voluntary choices is fatuous nonsense.

Even if we disregarded the vested interests and corruption, the only thing we can rationally conclude from the entire global warming hoo-haa is that the people in government have *far* too much time on their hands.

Yet all the argument from the warmists boils down to this "You couldn't possibly have the knowledge, or the good faith, to question your overlords who know better."

Taking warmist calculations at their face value, if all Australia were shut down, the result would be a reduction in warming of .015 of a degree. And Tim Flannery has recently said that the positive results of reducing carbon emissions would not be felt for 1000 years.

It's like, what are these guys smoking? What reason is there to think that government, of all people, would be capable of
a) identifying, and
b) rationalising
the problem of directing resources to the most urgent or important needs, which the carbon tax pretends to do? The proposition is laughable.

Talk of a carbon tax is offensive to the productive people who are to be parasitised to pay for this vain and corrupt religious lunacy.

"It begs the question, are you Senator Milne?"

hahaha

You obviously haven't understood my pro-nuclear POV

Peter Hume sums it up beautifully

'And Tim Flannery has recently said that the positive results of reducing carbon emissions would not be felt for 1000 years. '

What sort of Government with any credibility will force pensioners to be cold because these fools want us to swallow their ideologies. Thankfully the people of NSW have spoken. The Greens/Labour are a disgrace. Tony Abbott should stop being so gutless and call man made climate change c_ap like he knows it is.

Peter: Flannery is right.

However, you fail to understand (as Bolt does) the aim is to LIMIT the warming to 2 degrees C.

Pouring 1000's of millions (giga) of tonnes of a long lived GHG into the atmosphere won't help.

To Peter Hume

"Talk of a carbon tax is offensive to the productive people who are to be parasitised to pay for this vain and corrupt religious lunacy."

I am offended by the corrupt religious lunatics who insist on
increasing the world population.

I am offended by the politicians in the democratic countries who subsidize religions to get the votes.

It is too late to stop global warming ,even if it is man made, but
to consume ALL our fossil fuels before other energy supplies are
ready is stupid.

Carbon tax will reduce consumption of carbon.
How will we power the air conditioners that we will need if we burn all the carbon fuel?.

Once again, the perennial OLO-ers- Amicus, Leo Lane, Runner, Plantagenet and Peter Hume have demonstrated their disrespect for both OLO and its authors with their repetitious bad-mouthing of anyone with whom they disagree. Curmudgeon also bad-mouths, but seems to be trying to use verified information to support his views.

Chris Lewis has made a commendable effort to broaden the debate: will protectionism help mitigate carbon use? It is as though Chris, and other authors (including Curmudgeon) are attempting to improve our "intellectual infrastructure" through their efforts as stimulating authors. But, to the aforesaid gang, this infrastructure is just another road for them to hoon around on, or a building to graffiti or a water supply to pollute. They add no value- and worse, seem to assume that we are Alzheimers sufferers who have forgotten that they said the same unedifying stuff last week and the week before.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinions- but not to your own facts- as scarce as they are in your diatribes.

Chris, like many of us, is trying to find his way through this complex issue and has made a commendable effort to be coherent and thoughtful- and only then has used his conjecture into the unknown. He also thanks people who add to his store of knowledge.

Do you guys actually have an agenda, or is OLO a substitute for kicking your dog? Your contributions add nothing, and take much, from OLO, its authors and the Australian ethos of a "fair go".

I presently have a somewhat different point of view on these matters than Chris- but it isn't fixed. It's amenable to change and Chris's efforts may modify it.

As Keynes said: "I change my mind when the facts change- what do you do?"

Jedimaster - excuse me but my comments have always been parliamentary. To call someone a "liar" is unparliamentary, but to say "these facts, which you knew, completely contradicts what you just said", is being parliamentary and within the rules of the debate (although you'd better justify it). I have never called anyone a liar on this site, incidentally, or implied it.

In your response, you commit all the sins which you are attribute to myself and others of pointless abuse. If you wish to defend the article and its author then what is your defence to the points raised? Where is your rebuttal?

In any case, I did not actually abuse the author. Instead I pointed out, with reasons, that his article cuts out the heart of the case for a carbon tax. The only two ways known to be effective in reducing emissions is to either destroy the economy, or switch the power industry to gas. (Or "recalculate" emissions by adding in an allowance for foresty use.) Norway, for example, has been trying for years to reduce emissions from a lower per capita base than us, without success.

If you can think of some example where a country has reduced its emissions through policy choices then I'm happy to hear of it - all in the spirit of robust debate, of course.

Oh dear yet another Anti-science postfest on OLO. Hands up those who think having an extra 110 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect?
Hands up those who think having 0.7 ppm of ozone in the atmosphere has no effect?

The fact if if the Libs have of won the 2nd to last election then we would have a CTS, simply as that Tony is in oppersition so he can walk on the other side of the road so make sure all the grey nomands that Shock Jocks bussed in last week vote for him and not one nation.

Kenny, 'another anti scientist debate'.

The only problem is scientists have been shown to be wrong in the past.

So to accept socalled 'scientific findings' as being accurate, correct and reliable, is to be naive and frankly some what dumb.

Science is merely a tool, that is used to try and explain or understand things. The accuracy of Scientific predictions haas a very high failure rate.

To my worthy interlocutor Curmudgeon (and others who aren't brassed off by side-squabbles): First, I was questioning the pointless abuse of others and asked whether they had an agenda. I despair at the way they are bringing down OLO.

Secondly, I was commenting on the continual derogatory remarks that you make to "the left", not to authors- unless you identify them with the left.

In the limited space of one message, I commended the author, added more (highly verified) data, provided a brief analysis of the dilemma and proposed a solution, based on Nobel Prize winning economics (Robert Solow). Not bad for 250 words.

Then in came "the gang".

There is a strategy in marketing called "shelf crowding", which is like "shell-game" or "needle in the haystack"- the idea is to generate so much "noise" that the signal is obscured. In this case, the effect of the "gang" (intentional or otherwise) is to dilute the debate to the extent that sincere partipants turn away.

Back to my point, Curmudgeon- the economy doesn't have to be destroyed- but we have to look harder at how we are getting an increased s.o.l- we do it by having more "energy slaves" (more energy), smarter energy slaves (better technology), smarter instructions to the slaves (learning) or slaves that come from another planet (or sun).

Off-shoring, taxing or protecting won't solve anything as these strategies just shift the slaves around (off-shoring, taxing), or make them lazy (protecting). That leaves us with smarter, fewer and alien slaves. At present, the latter are either still too dumb (solar), or tend to glow in the dark (nuclear).

'As Keynes said: "I change my mind when the facts change- what do you do?"

Exactly Jedimaster. When the alarmist could come up with some facts we would not be having this discussion. Thank God for the scientist who insist on a few facts unlike the pseudo 'scientist' who insist everyone accept their religous dogma.

Jedimaster
It is not lowering OLO to criticize and lampoon as unreasonable the pretensions of statists to micro-manage the world for a baseless non-problem arising entirely out of government funding of activities that shouldn’t be government-funded in the first place.

“will protectionism help mitigate carbon use?”
It is not legitimate to ASSUME, as you do, that carbon presents any kind of problem which policy can improve, without proving it, which no-one has done.

undidly
“I am offended by the corrupt religious lunatics who insist on
increasing the world population.”

The world population isn’t increasing because of government policy favouring corrupt religious lunatics, it’s increasing because people make love and love their families.

Obviously the warmists think human beings are a problem and yet have the gall to resent being called anti-human!

“I am offended by the politicians in the democratic countries who subsidize religions to get the votes.”

Me too; but that’s no argument in favour of this baseless fret-fest and state-worship.

“It is too late to stop global warming ,even if it is man made”

Prove it. Make sure you don’t rely on any vested interests as your authority.

“ but
to consume ALL our fossil fuels before other energy supplies are
ready is stupid.”

No it’s not, for two reasons. “We” ie the whole world’s population including everyone who disagrees with you – is not a decision-making entity. The relevant decisions are not, and cannot be made at the collective level. People are not a monolithic lump, or herds of cattle owned by government. Governments do NOT know what’s better for the people, than the people know for themselves; and the pretensions of government to stand for some kind of higher knowledge or morality are utterly false, being based on nothing but a monopoly of aggressive force.

Governments confiscate all their revenue from private producers. They have little or no incentive to avoid waste, nor to allocate scarce resources to satisfy the most urgent or important human needs. They are therefore COMPLETELY UNQUALIFIED to achieve the explicit purpose of AGW policy.

By contrast, the actual productive class who pay involuntarily for all government action have to take care to economise their resources to as to minimise waste. It makes sense to use the resources first which are most economical to use. If you’re camping, you get your firewood from the nearest source; you don’t deliberately waste hours walking 20 km past the best firewood to gather worse wood from somewhere more distant and carry it back. There is no sense in developing less economical sources of fuel now, BECAUSE they’re less economical.

What the entire argument for AGW policy asserts is this: “We, the elite minority who comprise the state, who live at other people’s expense, know better how to allocate scarce resources to satisfy the most urgent and important needs, than everyone else in the world put together; even though we have been completely unable to show any reason why anyone would think we have the knowledge, the capacity, or the virtue, to centrally direcdt the economy and the ecology of the world.”

“Carbon tax will reduce consumption of carbon.”

You and Jedimaster still haven’t proved
a) that carbon is causing global warming
b) if it is, that this will cause greater negative than positive consequences
c) if it is, that government would be capable of improving the situation, considering the negative consequences of governmental action.

“How will we power the air conditioners that we will need if we burn all the carbon fuel?.”
Thankfully that is a problem that does not have to be solved by you deciding on behalf of everyone else in the world against their will.

Jedimaster - after reading your first post, I went back and read your second. All I could see was abuse. I could not see any solution or additional evidence you mention. However, you are probably right about it being 250 words.

But never mind, you make suggestions in the second post which sound good on the surface and in fact are being done, just not on the scale you would hope for.

You seem certain that greater efficiencies ect can be done on the scale required to result in noticeable cuts in emissions. So where does this certainty come from? Considering that no-one else has been able to do it, how do you know we can?

Now in saying before you had to switch to gas or destroy the economy to get noticeable cuts, I forgot about Denmark. That country may be a partial exception, although I'm not aware of the Danes boasting of overall cuts. The reason is that they can store the immense amounts of wind energy they generate by exporting it to Sweden and Norway where it is used to pump water up into the many scandanivan dams. The hydro power can then be reimported when they need it.

This has been achieved at immense cost and, as an energy strategy, is diffiuclt for Australia to adopt. We don't have much in the way of dams - the snowy scheme barely counts, nor do the dams in Tasmania.

Substantial cuts in emsissions (aside from switching to gas), without real economic pain, are just an activist fantasy. It just isn't going to happen.

JM, if you want an example of what you call "shelf crowding" read the comment thread on the bottom of this article http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45670.html. I've checked the comments thread here and I think it is fairly civil. There just happen to be more people who disagree with the carbon tax and the need for it than agree. Nothing wrong with that. I come across threads on this issue on this site where the opposite is true.

Curmudgeon: Is your statement:

"...the Chinese government can say anything and have the statement believed by activists who want to push their own government into action."...

...directed into a vacuum, or is it a snide (Wiktionary:disparaging or derisive in an insinuative way)remark intended for moi, or someone else? Hmmm... reds still under the beds?

Aside from that (and many previous similar comments), the pattern that I detect in your arguments is that you draw general inferences from from specific instances, and sometimes only part of an instance. For example, your reference to Denmark "free riding" off Norway through pumped storage. Certainly not entirely untrue, but Wikipedia (got a better reference?) says "..but it is not envisaged that this would apply to a large proportion of wind energy generated" and besides, the 25% cost increase can be offset by higher time-of-use charges.

And another dot that I've joined is your previous reference to Chinese wind-generators not being connected to the grid. True again, but is it a significant proportion of the 42 GW of Chinese wind generators? And for how long will they remain disconnected? (They seem to be pretty ruthless with under-performers).

And so on.

Can you demonstrate, even on the back of an envelope (or less than 250 words) that the economy would have to be wrecked to achieve carbon reductions? Or is this another dot?

GrahamY: I demonstrated my concerns about the ABC's slackness in a previous thread. To argue that OLO is not as bad looks like a race to the bottom.

I understand (from Wiktionary) that a shelf-crowder on the internet is called a troll. It is also a mythical Danish, Swedish or Norwegian ogre- perhaps now living in their pumped storage dams? Or maybe both.

I've maxed my ration on this thread until 10 am Tuesday.

I think the view that Australian man-made carbon dioxide emmisions are causing a significant increase in global warming is just utter c.ap.

“Bad mouthing” are we Jedimaster?

Unlike you we start from the basic facts. There is no basis for the assertion that CO2 emissions should be reduced.

Warming releases CO2. CO2 does not cause warming. The assertion that it does is why Gore now has a dedicated crowd to chant “Liar” and “Fraud” whenever he appears in public.

If CO2 did cause warming, on what basis should we not wish the Earth to warm? There is no basis to assert that warming should be avoided, or that it is other than beneficial. The world warmed a little during the last century as it, thankfully, came out of the Little Ice Age.

It warmed a little over half of one degree.

These are facts, Jedimaster. You give facts about CO2 emissions, and proceed with no basis whatsoever to talk about reduction of these beneficial emissions.

Would it not make more sense to talk about how they might be increased?

Give one reason, with a scientific backing, as to why emissions should be reduced. Your proceeding on the basis that this can be taken for granted, a typical AGW backer’s ploy, and criticising sensible reasonable people, for relying on facts, is unacceptable.

There is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Your presumption of such an effect, despite having no basis for the presumption, is an attempt to get past this initial barrier to the whole AGW myth. Your adverse remarks about other OLO contributors, show your aversion to losing, and simply underline the fact that your position is unsupported and unjustifiable.

And so apparently do most of the NSW former Labor voters who didn't vote green but voted Liberal instead.

Ocean on this planet produces over 50 percent of world oxygen so there is a question that deserves an answer in any fair dinkum debate about Climate Change and carbon pricing.

Has ocean algae vegetable matter been measured and taken into account in Anthropogenic Global Warming science?

I think there is more alive and dead algae vegetable matter in the ocean than there is alive and dead vegetable matter on land.

Algae is matter. Sunlight warms algae during photosynthesis. Ocean currents move warmed algae matter from one place to another in a similar way to a small heater moving air that warms a big room. See satellite photo at:
http://agmates.ning.com/profiles/blogs/algae-killing-and-heating#comments

Surely the question should be answered. Does anybody disagree?

jf, oh no, I don't disagree. You deserve an answer.

So, what was the question again?

Does algae need or create CO2 ?

I'm not sure where you are going, but do you reckon we should tax folks to reduce CO2?

Do you think we should go to an election immediately to decide whether CO2 is a problem at all in Australian citizen's minds? This seems reasonable, since this is what the MOS, John Howard did when faced with the big question.. will the ALB have the agates you ask .. who knows?

Or do you think we'll all be bored to death by then by pompous hysterics who think anyone who disagrees should be silenced?

Mind you I think shocked silence normally follows such outbursts of sheer bad manners and rudeness when clearly they have not considered or even read the previous posts, just read who posted them and went immediately into the "zone of doom", (yet again)

But I digress .. are we narrowing down the options you were looking for?

rpg,

I am looking for fair dinkum debate and that must include impact of ocean algae vegetable matter linked to photosynthesis and warmth in turn linked to increased sewage nutrient pollution likely increasing proliferation of ocean algae.

There are solutions as the situation I understand indicates. I suggest those solutions involve development of new industry and business and employment reducing the nutrient load and regenerating the marine environment.

Stimulus for existing economies and not new tax is the way to go.

jf .. who would do this and where would the profits come from - you mention a new industry, doing what regenerating nutrients, which is nice - but can we get energy or food from the system?

if it is just extracting nutrients at no profit, then i can't see it getting off the ground .. is that what you are saying, that it should be down as a charitable industry

As I understand it, this debate went to the next level with a challenge to Ross Garnaut from Malcolm Roberts on March 22, 2011. It would appear that this was accompanied by “Legal Notice is hereby given” in relation to possible “contempt of parliament”

What I find truly astonishing is that I have found no mention of this in our media? We know they have it, why are they sitting on it?

Every statement we have heard in justification of the CO2 Tax is challenged in this document. For those who support AGW and the CO2 Tax, could we ask for your responses?

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/GarnautMarch2011.pdf

Challenge sent to Ross Garnaut, Registered Post (with Delivery Confirmation)

Copies to:

The Hon Greg Combet, MP, Minister for Climate Change
The Hon Tony Abbott, MP, Leader of the Opposition
The Hon Greg Hunt, MP, Opposition spokesman for Climate Action
The Hon Kim Carr, MP, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
The Hon Robert McClellan, MP, Attorney-General
Mr. Alex Chernov, University of Melbourne Chancellor
Professor Glyn Davis, University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor

ABC Board
Mr. Maurice Newman, ABC Chairman
Mr. Mark Scott, ABC Managing Director Head of ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs

Electronically to:
Federal Members of Parliament
Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne
Interested scientists, select journalists and interested citizens.

Spindoc,

the link (Amazon) at end of page 2 does not work. Indicates does not match any results on amazon site.

I would like to read summary of IPCC findings.

Do you, or anyone else, have another link to IPCC report.

spindoc that is a great letter.

The whole thing reminds me of the ancient Roman general Cincinattus. He was virtuously ploughing his field when he was called to command the Roman army to defend against an invasion. Having successfully led them to defeat it, he returned to ploughing his field.

The productive class work not only for themselves but for the coerced support of the entire political class. The latter have managed to fritter away billions on baseless climate alarmism and moral grandstanding. But it is far worse than that, for while the world faces food shortages, these shamans will literally kill millions of people if their wholesale global attacks on productive activity are not stopped. So, like Cincinnatus, the productive have to stop their works producing things people actually need, to beat off the alarums and attacks of the anti-civilisation re-distributionists. For if the warmists had their way, what aspect of life would not be regulated out of existence? They pubicly dream of a golden age in which billions just disappear off the face of the earth. We are already at the stage of enforced dim lighting in our homes. We have enforced nobbling of our wood-heater specifically so it doesn't work properly, as a sacrific to placate the sky-god - (we have to get up in the middle of the night to feed it - performing self-defeating rituals of humliation to our green overlords). Now they want to tax us for presuming to use the government's air! People's businesses and livelihoods are destroyed wholesale so the "let them eat cake" mob can amuse themselves with expensive energy toys that are laughably inadequate to human needs. I pass the wind farm near Canberra occasionally, and they remind me of Coleridge's words "as idle as a painted ship, upon a painted ocean". If only the greens would pay for any of their schemes voluntarily!

Jedimaster -

No the reference to wind power in Denmark was correct. The exact proportions are in various reports, but as I understand it they problem has gotten to the stage where they will be required to pay Norway and Sweden to take the power. Access to pumped storage systems (dams)is a common theme in arguements over wind energy - see some of the arguments they've had in Britain over that issue.

The reference in Wikipedia is typical of the activist bible - they acknowledge the problem but downplay it. Wikipedia cannot be used as an authorative reference in these matters, although you can follow the soruces it cites and use those.

Wind in China. You are quite right to say that nothing has said about the numbers of wind towers connected. In fact there is very little, reliable third party information about the issue. But the most likely answer is very few or none at all. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, to you or someone else, the generators in China are leaglly required to build wind towers, but the grids and distributors are not legally required to connect them or use the output, so why would they? Wind is hard enough to manage on far more developed western grids, where they have sophisticated arrangements for adjusting the overall power on the grid to suit wind (grids have to be continaully balanced for voltage and frequency). Connecting them to a Chinese grid is probably just asking for trouble.

In Australia, fortunately, the legal obligation is on the distributors, so the Australian Energy Market Operator (the manager of the Eastern Australian grid) can opt not to accept wind power if it will destabilise the network, which avoids a lot of problems. In Germany and Denmark the authorites must accept wind before all other forms of power which, again as I understand a few references, leads to some anxious moments for the grid operator ("white knuckle ride" was one comment).

As you can see, you shouldn't set me off about wind.

Chris .. try this link .. the link on page 2 seems to be an old search term.

http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301359609&sr=8-1

This nails the repeated error of most alarmists since their entire understanding of the CO2 "issue" is underpinned by this reliance on an incorrect theory, which has been disproven so many times it is ridiculous.

Honestly, you'd think people could over their denial of new facts

What do you do when the facts change .. hellooooooo

spindoc .. thanks, great letter, though I await the usual crew of alarmists and their personal attacks based on their religious adherence to what can only be described sometimes as Climate Scientology

Jedimaster has given us object lessons in the techniques of promoting the AGW fraud.

1. The false implied premise. Where there is no possible justification for the basis upon which the activist wishes to proceed, he goes ahead as if it has been established, and his assertions take it for granted. There is no justification for lowering of emissions so JM wades in with facts about emissions, their quantities, where they come from and how they should be reduced.
2. Taking the pseudo high moral ground. This is where, having pulled the scurrilous trick of the implied premise, he accuses the people on OLO, who have had the temerity to tell the truth, that their actions are dragging the standards of OLO down. Activists think this is so clever. They do the wrong thing and then attack the people who have done the right thing, by talking down to them.

I thought that the standards of OLO had been raised, over the last few years. We are not swamped now with the warmists. There is a reasonable proportion of subscribers who tell the truth about AGW, and a few less who play games in their attempts to support AGW. Perhaps JM is feeling isolated, but there are plenty of sites for people like him.

Realclimate, is a site run by the Climategate miscreants. Skeptical Science is not about honest science, it is misleadingly named to hook people to read the claptrap posted there on the pretence that it is science. Wikipedia, where they actively promote nonsense like the consensus that never was.

Behave yourself JM, in a manner befitting OLO, or go to places that deserve you.

Curmudgeon

As usual, you make a range of assertions but do not provide even one solid reference (and please, don't quote newspapers, particularly the colour supplements).

And with regards to Wikipedia: In a previous thread (March 14) you said:

"There is also "Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources" 2009, Gabriel Alvarez, King Juan Carlos University in Spain(its avilable in English). Yes, I know the activist sites have since claimed (on thin evidence) that its discredited....."

Wikipedia refers to this study and also to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) refutation of it (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf.).

If you can blow off NREL as a bunch of activists, then I suppose we will have to rely on the colour supplement to the Saturday OZ as our ultimate authority. When I was working with guys from NREL, they were all recruited from Los Alamos Laboratories- They are heavy lifters.

And of course power companies are reluctant to take on renewables. Why should they? Anything that varies is anathema to them.

Amicus and your "Dragon":

Do you know enough physics to know whether these authors know what they are talking about? It didn't take me long on Google to find Judith Curry's blogsite (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/), where a range of physicists have tried to discuss the misconceptions in the book with the authors. More than 1200 posts on that site testify to the problem: Authors with half-baked ideas because they don't seem to know how scientific theories are tested. It reminded me of my time in a previous half-life when part of my job was to meet with perpetual motion machine "inventors". A PhD in physics an appeals to 150 years of thermodynamics were useless in the face of such obsession.

Writing an un-refereed book is pretty easy these days. You only have to find a market of like-minded followers to buy it. And putting reviews on Amazon is even easier.

The hard bit is getting your ideas to work in practice and establishing a thread of empirical reasoning.

.... which is not required in coloured supplements of weekend newspapers.

Chris Lewis, not sure if you wanted the actual IPCC reports or detailed critiques of them?

Both the reports and critical analysis can be found from the following home page. The work by Dr. Vincent Gray, a UN IPCC expert reviewer is particularly illuminating. The summary of findings is also provided. Hope this helps.

http://www.conscious.com.au/

Amicus, it will be interesting to see if Garnaut or Karoly respond and more importantly, how long it takes the media to break this story? Maybe a member of the “warmertariat” on OLO will have a crack at it?

Curmudgeon, I’ve posted the following extract before about the Danish wind farms. Hope this doesn’t give you flatulence?

“Supporters of wind power chant a mantra that Denmark proves that wind power works. BWEA says it now gets 20% of its electricity from wind turbines….” This is a cynically deliberate confusion of production with consumption. The 29% is of production and applies only to West Denmark which has most of the turbines. For the whole of the country the percentage is c.13% from wind.”

“More to the point, much of this electricity has perforce been exported to adjacent countries because it was produced when it is not needed. In some years over four fifths of the annual production has been exported, sometimes at zero income, thus costing the Danish public about DKK 1 Billion (about A$130m) per year though more recent estimates put annual losses at or above DKK 1.5 billion (A$220m per annum)”

Source “The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington

ok, thanks. Will read as i am eager to understand why there are such strong views against the global warming debate.

Jedimaster
"And of course power companies are reluctant to take on renewables."

Why don't you and everyone who agrees with you? With your own money?

Having said i will read the IPCC report and responses, it looks rather daunting and will take much reading and time.

JM, you can't complain about other people's aggression if you are going to be aggressive yourself. You don't need a PhD in anything to understand that wind power destroys national income. It's simple economics. It costs far more than the alternatives to produce miniscule amounts of energy. The same amount of money invested in conventional power will get you a better return.

The NREL report is a doozy. It talks about "traditional" ways of measuring renewable energy job generation, which, surprise surprise, relies on "sophisticated" modelling, unlike the Spanish who essentially measure return on investment as a proxy for job generation. Plenty of room to hide and tweak with the models, but nowhere to hide with a straight statement of principle which can be empircally shown to be correct.

In fact, there is no way to empirically test the economic models. Deja vue! The Spanish are right. The Yanks are involved in sophisticated, modelled economic casuistry and special pleading.

jm "Amicus and your "Dragon""

it's not my dragon .. read the posts, I was helpng Chris with a broken link .. you really MUST try to pay attention.

I haven't read that book, but have read other material on the "greenhouse" theory .. and why yes, I do have the physics to understand it, thank you for asking.

jm, on the internet, if you look hard enough you can find anything you want, which is why I don't bother to play link wars, it really is pointless.

Google seems to be the backbone of authority for "your" posts, let me ask .. do YOU have the physics to understand it, without google that is .. ?

Perpetual motion machine inventors, that just seems so apt .. you had to meet with such for a job?

Couldn't cut it in industry huh?

GrahamY

Have you ever heard of economic spillovers and externalities? They can make a big difference- they even kept the Dutch East India Company going for more than 100 years after- by your criterion- it was broke. Never let let a sophisticated analysis get in the way of a simplistic mantra.

And to Amicus- my last point: I developed and managed a $10M R&D support program- being a government agency, we were obliged to respond couteously to everyone- even perpetual motion machine nutters. I didn't realise how handy that experience would become.

I can see OLO drifting- nay- rushing into denialist solipsism. Perhaps it was to be expected, all things considered.

I'm not Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee or Steven Seagal- I'm just a humble Jedimaster, where even the film's director weighs in on behalf of the Evil Empire, who have me surrounded. One light-sabre against all those forces of darkness....

Help me Obi-Wan Kanobi- you're my only hope.

(Exits left stage)

(Credits roll, lights go up to reveal all of the remaining audience for this cosmic farce are sitting on the far right of the theatre).

Jedimaster is at it again. Feet planted firmly in mid air, he makes puerile and pointless references to weekend supplements, then gives us a discredited site like Wikipedia as his reference.

NREL are not just activists JM, they are clowns. There is no renewable energy or sustainable energy that is viable. When there is, we will know it because it will be announced by real people and not by paid fools. You understand; the opposite of Tim Flannery, and NREL.

You have adopted the only strategy available to you, in ignoring my posts. Anyone that asks you for scientific backing for your baseless stance is best ignored, since you have no answer for them. You might look pathetic, but it is more palatable to someone like you than showing beyond doubt that you are clueless

Stick to answering the people who accept the game playing, evasion, weasel words and nonsense that is essential to the AGW fraud backer.

If there were any science to back the assertion that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate the leaders of the scam, the IPCC do not know about it. Their pathetic effort is to say that it is "very likely". About 60 scientists back this opinion. Of those, 5 are unconflicted. Of the rest, taking their opinion is like taking the opinion of the Climategate miscreants.

A petition to the US Senate asking that no action be taken on AGW until there is a scientific basis for it, is signed by 32,000 scientists.

Climate is governed by natural cycles, which have been around since before humans were on the Earth and will be around long after. Our input makes no difference to climate.

Jedimaster,

I would not worry about whether you feel you are up against a biased crowd.

The main thing is that you have a view and argue your case.

As in all debates, some will be on the winning side, some on the losing side.

If it is worth anything, i do agree we should do more to reduce greenhouse house gas emissions. However, I question whether Labor's approach will be any more effective than the Coalition's.

I certainly feel that no government, after stating a certain stance, should renege without going to the people again.

I spoke to several global warming skeptics at the Lord Deben address, and they indicated they would accept the people's decision.

So let us have the debate, and stick to your guns. I am sure that plenty of people may share your view that read OLO, although they may be less willing to get into the debate.

"And to Amicus- my last point: I developed and managed a $10M R&D support program- being a government agency, we were obliged to respond couteously to everyone- even perpetual motion machine nutters. I didn't realise how handy that experience would become"

All very nice and very droll .. but you don't answer the question, that I asked, even though I answered yours.

Do you have the physics?

I actually doubt it you know, which is why all the references to non scientific but alarmist friendly sources, and the sneering references to Sunday Magazines which you alone seem to be familiar with.

Your knowledge appears Google borne, and you bounce from site to site trying to appear knowing, the longer you post the more obvious it is you are very shallow, though you claim otherwise with lofty barbs and poisonous words .. mortals are below you, then off into a film fantasy world where once again, you are a Jedimaster, looking for a force to be with.

Fantasy suits you.

alas, I'll probably be reported now, oh well, it won't be the first time, will it?

Being an administrator is not like being a practitioner, but you know that surely?

BTW a $10M R&D budget .. is that all? Clearly you were not in the climate science business.

JM, I have only the faintest idea what you are talking about. The Dutch East India Company is an exampe of mercantilism which leads to slower economic growth, and can actually, but not necessarily, send a country broke if the misallocation of resources is bad enough.

It is an example of the sort of behaviour Spain has been engaged in with wind generation. Not really helpful to your case at all.

Interesting how you link opposition to wind power to "denialism". That would be news to Barry Brooke, for example.

Jedimaster
As you have done nothing but assume what is in issue and appeal to vested interests or absent authority, you are on the losing side.

You are only making a disgrace of yourself on the one hand boasting of your intellectual credentials, and an the other falling in with this mendacious intellectual method.

Chris Lewis
"I certainly feel that no government, after stating a certain stance, should renege without going to the people again. I spoke to several global warming skeptics at the Lord Deben address, and they indicated they would accept the people's decision."

Uh-huh? This is straight from the might-is-right school of thought. So if a majority think we should adopt policies that violate large numbers of people, or deprive them of food or their livelihood, based on government-sponsored falsehoods and fraud, then that's what we should do?

Sheesh, are you guys actually reading what you're writing? It's like a throw-back to the dark ages.

First, Amicus and Hume (seeing you asked): I have a PhD in solid state physics, a degree in library science (they call it knowledge management these days), and more than 40 years experience in many aspects of solar energy. I have researched and lectured in innovation theory and practice at Master's level (full semester) at 4 universities. I also worked as a senior executive in an economic developemnt agency for 20 years where I engaged in countless numbers of practical discussions on development strategies with economists.

As for your snide comment, Amicus, on $10M/yr research budgets- which we generally leveraged to $60-$100M/yr. About half was mining R&D. You can get a lot of R&D for that- we were paying researchers, not mining company executives. And what have you done recently to enrich the lives of your fellow Australians?

I believe I have the skills to discern fact from conjecture and fantasy.

GrahamY- the point about the DEIC was the object lesson in public infrastructure. It generally runs at a loss- its the "spillovers" that make the money. And what kind of analysis would you have made of computers 40 years ago?

Curmudgeon is aware of the colour supplement references- he used it as evidence against the viability of wind energy in China. I use Wikipedia as a starting point- not as an authoritative source per se- researchers cross-check their references.

Chris Lewis- sorry- I made a mistake getting involved with OLO. My friends warned me when they said it was more of a venue for sharpening prejudice than informed discourse. I'll leave you with it.

Vale.

Jedimaster

About the only source of Chinese wind efforts are newspaper reports. So to complain about references to newspaper reports which cast some insider light on the topic, simply because you don't like what they say, is unreasonable.

I'm well aware of the various rebuttals to the Spanish report on wind and there is some point to them. What they don't deny is the telling figure that wind costs three times more than conventional power wholesale. As I pointed out to you, you can't use Wikipedia, but you can use the sources, which you finally did.

Now I can see that your remarks are becoming wilder and nastier - you are not a person to take defeat with good grace it seems. So I'll leave it at that.

Jedimaster, your remark “I believe I have the skills to discern fact from conjecture and fantasy.” is not apposite to the discussion, it is just another evasion.

You need the skill to separate fact from spin and lies. You obviously do not have this, because if you do, it would mean that you have chosen to back the spin and lies.

OLO is a venue where you are pressed for the truth. You should not describe a requirement of truth as a prejudice. What is it a prejudice against? Liars?

If you are not prepared to admit that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any significance in climate, then you are no better than the IPCC, the mendacious puppet of the UN. But even they simply assert that it is “very likely”.

The IPCC said it would be confirmed when the “hot spot” in the troposphere, which would be the “signature” for AGW, was shown to exist. Their estimates were far too high, so no hot spot was found. Studies of climate cycles show that there is little room for any assertion of a contribution to global warming by human activity.

So what do the IPCC say? They still say it is “very likely”, and wonder why there is a growing public perception that they are wrong, and dishonest.

If you are looking for prejudice, then you can observe a prejudice against the truth in that parasitic body.

If you ever wish to show a tolerance for the truth, you will regard OLO very differently

Jedimaster
Your high academic learning should have taught you not to argue by way of
- assuming what is in issue
- appeal to absent authority, and
- personal argument.

But that is all you have offered here. Not only is it not scientific method, it doesn't even meet the minimum threshold for logical thought.

"I believe I have the skills to discern fact from conjecture and fantasy."

Unfortunately, the evidence shows that's just another unfalsifiable and therefore belief on your part.

Spindoc has posted a link to a letter asking questions which UTTERLY DISPROVE you. Spare us the tedium of your ignorance or dishonesty, and be so good as to answer them without further evasion will you?

Your failure to answer them, or further answer by way of logical fallacy, will be taken as an admission that you concede the general issue, and are COMPLETELY UNABLE to maintain any rational basis for your BELIEF that the people of the world face catastrophic man-made global warming which policy can improve.

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the warmists is scarifyingly disgraceful. You guys belong in a mediaeval monkery now ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

How about somebody answer whether ocean algae has been quantified and taken into account in AGW and IPCC science.

JF Aus,

“In the 1980s, oceanographer John Martin gathered these facts in his "iron hypothesis," which proposed that by fertilizing plankton growth with iron, global warming could be offset. Iron fertilization can indeed cause plankton "blooms" in HNLC waters, as several expeditions including Soiree (the Southern Ocean Iron Enrichment Experiment) in February 1999 and SOFeX (the Southern Ocean Iron [Fe] Experiment) in January and February 2002 have proved by pouring dissolved iron into HNLC areas in the Southern Hemisphere.”

There’s lots more research out there on this topic, I’ll leave you to follow up on it.

Chris Lewis.

I was very happy to hear that you will take the opportunity to “read the IPCC reports and responses, it looks rather daunting and will take much reading and time” and that you are “eager to understand why there are such strong views against the global warming debate”.

Three points if I may. Firstly are you suggesting that you have not already read the IPCC reports or the contrary scientific opinions?

Secondly, in relation to “such strong views against the global warming debate”, those who very much wish to have this debate are skeptical of the current orthodoxy, those who wish us to accept the current orthodoxy, do not want this debate.

Thirdly, when you have reviewed the analysis of the IPCC reports, could you please get back to us and advise of what understanding you got from these?

Spindoc,

Thank you for reply and that very true answer. I will have to re-phrase my question. How about answering this.

Considering ocean produces over 50 percent of world oxygen, has increased sewage nutrient pollution proliferated living and dead ocean algae been taken into account in AGW, Climate Change and carbon tax science?

I would appreciate you suggestion to improve wording of the question if you know what I mean literally.

JM, I am still struggling. The Dutch East India Company was not a supplier of infrastructure, it was the owner of a monopoly licence to exploit the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and became a de facto colonialist as a result. I hope you're not advancing this as a good model of economic development.

But if you're not, what externalities are you referring to?

I'd have to say that I'm always suspicious when people start talking about "externalities". While they do exist they can be both negative and positive, are generally impossible to quantify, and are often raised as a reason for doing something when the business case doesn't stack up.

I'm disappointed that you've chosen to leave the forum. I've tried my best to keep you involved, but ultimately here we are having an argument about facts, and if you're not prepared to have that argument, then I guess there really is nothing left to be said.

As a general note on this thread. I'm finding a number of the comments sailing pretty close to abuse. Instead of name calling can we focus on the issues? I will remove the next comment that involves name calling, no matter how erudite the rest of it might be.

jm .. you certainly appear to have a solid background, I'm surprised you are not very successful as a communicator on OLO, no offense intended, you just seem to be so abrasive in your dealings that people tend to respond in kind.

The same people you "always" have problems with, seem to be quite pedestrian when treated with some respect .. name calling has most often started with yourself.

To ascribe your treatment to some particular OLO "faction" is to ignore the cause of your communications issues.

I'd be very interested in any responses to spindocs letter, though I'm guessing if it gets any attention at all it will be chopped into little pieces which will be individually attacked, out of context.

If the science is solid, it should be child's play, surely, to deal with?

Jedimaster, I for one would be very disappointed if you leave OLO. You clearly have the academic background and the “process” knowledge from your R&D background to contribute to this debate.

I suspect you have a passionate following on OLO because of your qualifications and the case you make. It adds absolutely no value to this debate if you go to other forums where you are simply debating with the “converted”. In addition there will be many on OLO that might rightly feel disappointed if you fail to respond to the contents of this open letter.

The debate on this thread, as I suggested earlier, has now gone to the next level. By this I mean that the open letter from Professor Malcolm Roberts to policy makers has now distilled the entire debate down to a set of fundamentally crucial issues. This presents for the first time in this debate, the opportunity for both sides to focus on responding to these issues. No more “link wars”, no more “my science versus your science”, no more media, no more advocates, no more commercial opportunists and no more “consensus”.

It is now about the assertions made publicly by policy makers and the concise challenges against these statements. These are the lowest common denominators, a summation of the entire basis for AGW.

All you have to do is use the “Empirical, Real World” evidence to which Professor Roberts refers, to refute each of the challenges made by him.

They are just questions for goodness sake. Why would you respond with a “Ricky Ponting” and take your wickets home?

JF Aus,

As far as my feeble mind can understand, Algae is one of our planets’ many ways of providing food and dealing with CO2 absorption. Other than that I don’t know where you are going with this and sorry, but I don’t do science.

Bye the way it was not “my true answer”, I just researched it as you should do. Or you could let us all know where you are going with this?

Spin Doc,

No, i have enever read the IPCC report, although I have listended and read a lot through secondary resources (oncluding on OLO).

You have to excuse me for this as I have a very full work load and only get to write my OLO articles in my own spare time. I also have other interests (inlcuding a 2 year old daughter).

My relative ignorance about greenhouse gas emissions is a major reason why i do now write much about the carbon or similar taxes; I do not feel I am informed enough to make a commitment one way or the other.

While at this stage I am not against the carbon tax, I would like a thorough debate about a policy that may dramatically alter the Australian economy at a time when many are struggling with higher living costs.

Hence, i offered my article as an expression of my view and limited expertise.

oh jeez .."My relative ignorance about greenhouse gas emissions"

Chris, mate, this is the heart of the matter, if you didn't know about the business of greenhouse gases and the various arguments, then why do you post such comments as you do about people who are skeptical being deniers and extremists?

I suspect that you are like many people, happy to go with the carbon tax because it fits in with your general "we should stop polluting" umbrella activism. A general eco/green/environmento wish to make the earth a better place, which is fine and your right to do in your own way.

You may have even swallowed the general alarmist claim that anyone who is skeptical about CO2 contributing to warming, must be an anti green polluting monster who will do anything to increase their carbon footprint, propaganda to split society and give followers a target to point at.

The problem is that while I happily agree as many people do that we could pollute less, taxing carbon will do nothing and does not address the issue of "pollution" anyway. If I pay a tax, then why should I lift a finger to do anything else, will be the catch cry of the community, surely?

It's a broad tax targeting wealthy people and industries, if you are going to compensate lower income groups, then where is their incentive to do anything at all?

The income from the tax firstly goes to pay the salaries of the government department set up to administer it, and the investigators who will be on the street poking into first, businesses and then your home to manage your energy use. Then to compensate low income groups, then there will be ALP mates businesses, special circumstances and on it will go.(mainly into consolidated revenue)

The effect on climate? Apart from all feeling sanctimonious about paying what is ultimately an indulgence .. nothing.

Chris - Monday, 28 March 2011 10:46:05 AM

I am aware of that, I agree and I agree.

Been away and now see so much more bile in the comments to your article. This is unfortunate.

I see spindoc has directed you to a "Professor Malcolm Roberts" blog-site, and letter. I wish you well

The problem we face here is this:

1. the warmists' intellectual method is to assume something for which they are unable to find any real-world evidence. When challenged, they at best merely refer to government-funded sources which have assumed the same thing.

That's it. That's the entire case for policy on catastrophic man-made global warming.

However even if the climatology were conceded, which it isn't, there would be two major impediments before any policy could be justified.

2. The climatology would only show, at best, a trend to increasing temperatures. But what needs to be made out, is what has been claimed: more droughts, more storms, more bushfires, widespread extinctions of species, famine - the whole catastrophe. But the real-world evidence is the reverse. Life thrives on carbon and on warmth. It is sterile at the poles, and teeming at the tropics. Variations in global temperature of a few degrees are normal and harmless, whatever the cause.

Ecology, like climate science, deals with enormous complexity, variability, and uncertainty. Species comprise their individual members. Ecologists simply *do not know* what determines the distribution and abundance of species and communities, even for one valley. To pretend to prognosticate doom for entire continents on the basis of a few-degree temperature rise is simply a false pretence of knowledge.

3. Even if all the issues of *natural* science were conceded, it would provide no justification whatsoever for the assumption that government, of all institutions, can order human society so as to make an improvement on the original problems, when all the negative consequences are taken into account, which they never are. Mere general aggregatie studies are not good enough. How can *one* death deliberately caused be justified? Science does not supply value judgments, remember?

Now could all supporters of AGW policy please answer Malcolm Roberts' questions? :http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/GarnautMarch2011.pdf

Spindoc

I see you have conferred on Malcolm Roberts a "professorship" - why?

"Professor" Malcolm Roberts (OLO tag malrob) silence now will be deafening.

An absent authority perhaps, or dressed in puppet's clothes?

Malrob's followers want answers to his letter. Personally, I would find it difficult to reply/address such an emotionally charged letter in OLO sound-bites, but that is just me.

It has been covered in the literature. If some so called 'post-normal scientist' wants to pursue a scientific debate by not utilising the internet's resources (e.g. linking) then sobeit - a contradiction and hypocisy in itself.

If I was to reply to this "absent authority" directly I would have to work through his emotions and delusions - the former apparent in his latest letter, the latter in his linked letter - both to real professors. For example:

>> In recent years, as well as learning more about climate I have been learning more about true forgiveness ...

Associated with the power of forgiveness, the work of Marshall Rosenberg and my own personal experience shows that knowing one's needs and identifying another person's needs enables both to find ways to fulfill their real needs ...

After understanding your needs I'm confident I will be able to assist you in meeting your needs. <<

And so on.

No spindoc, I'll give it a miss.

Incidentally, what are you trying to imply by:

"It would appear that this (malrob's letter) was accompanied by “Legal Notice is hereby given” in relation to possible “contempt of parliament” ?

Can you be more precise in this assertion?

Peter Hume
Don't be so crass, it's "Professor Malcolm Roberts".

Dear Chris, this is sensational news. I doubt we have ever had on OLO, the opportunity for a contributor to enter the debate with a clean slate on both the IPCC reports and the contrary scientific analysis now available to you.

By way of context as you begin to read these contrary opinions, it must be noted that there is only one entity in the world that has the authority for policy formulation, recommendation and governance, the UN IPCC. It has a “single” orthodoxy which is AGW and only the science which supports that single orthodoxy is used. There has never been a single contrary scientific paper included in any of the IPCC’s AR reports, see for yourself.

A single body of governance, a single orthodoxy and a single (partial) scientific source?

Perhaps you may begin to understand that the “assumption close” that CO2 has to be mitigated at all, is giving way to the public challenge of why?

Enjoy your reading but please get back to us with your conclusions.

bonmot, actually the reference is to an open letter to a wide range of public figures and policy makers, I don’t understand why the source blog-site has any relevance? Would it make you happier if Greg Combet made public what he has just received?

I seem to recall you being invited to respond to these questions previously and that your response was “why should I?” to which we might say “why not?’

Predictably you are upset by anyone reading contrary science and you telegraph this to Chris by trying to trash what you see as that threat.

You have the opportunity to impress Chris by answering the challenges. You might save him much reading.

Chris must be wondering why so many AGW advocates on OLO are refusing or incapable of responding, he may just regard your “warning off” as justification for much more reading on this topic.

Amicus,

With all respect, i do not refer to anyone in this article as a denier or extremist. If such words are used in this article, they refer to someone else such terms.

Am I not able to also report the debate?

I've just read Malcolm Roberts' piece. Not helpful, although some of his points are correct. It is couched in such emotional language that no-one who isn't already across the issues is going to take it seriously, and even then with some difficulty.

He's right that Garnaut wildly exaggerates, but wrong to couch his criticism in such terms.

spindoc @ Wednesday, 30 March 2011 12:50:11 PM

I am aware of your “open letter”, you referenced/linked to it.

You obviously saw some relevance to “Legal Notice is hereby given” in relation to possible “contempt of parliament”.
I didn’t so asked you to clarify, you haven’t.

If you don’t understand why Malcolm Roberts’ blog-site has any relevance, why link to it?

You could have just as easily linked to AR4, the primary source, which is relevant.

As to the Greg Combet quip: there is a due process to lodge and review submissions, spindoc. You/malrob seem to want to subvert it.

I am not “upset by anyone reading contrary science” (despite your assertion) – I do it all the time. And no spindoc, I did not deter Chris from visiting malrob’s blog-site – in fact, I wished him well.

Ok, you invited me to “respond to these (malrob’s) questions previously and that your (my) response was “why should I?” to which we (spindoc et al) might say “why not?”

I gave my reasons then, and now above. You may understand Graham’s reply better.

Spindoc, I don’t need to impress Chris. I am certainly not going to appeal to an “absent authority’s” open letter.

Anyway, I am sure Chris has the capacity and the ability to make up his own mind – notwithstanding he hadn’t gone direct to the primary source.

To conclude, spindoc:
You confer, refer and defer to a “Professor Malcolm Roberts” (aka malrob) – numerous times.

Why?

Graham, it is unfortunate that Roberts’ contribution does not read as a scientific document.

There is a point of view that the important aspect is to have it published and quickly, but that is the view of the Climategate miscreants, and was expressed in relation to a refutation of a study, in respect of the well settled science on climate cycles, which did not suit the AGW agenda.

They wished to publish a refutation, and they wished to publish it quickly. They made an improper approach to the president of the body which published the Journal in which they wished their unsustainable study to appear, little realising that the email crowing about it would be released for the world to see.

“Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28"

A reviewer of Foster’s paper, said that it was couched in very unscientific language. This was even after they had “toned down the rhetoric”

It gave the AGW pushers a temporary advantage because publication of the comment in reply which showed the Foster study to be of no substance was stalled, by the new Editor of the Journal.

This sort of writing and behaviour is, no doubt, instrumental in the AGW scam falling apart.

I find Malcolm Roberts’ effort quite helpful in his organising so many relevant items together. His temperament is no doubt Feeler, and if the document were edited, abbreviated and rephrased by a Thinker, I believe that it would be quite valuable.

bonmot, I hope you realise that by continually returning with nothing of substance to advance, and indulging in petty irrelevant nitpicking, you underline the absence of any basis for the AGW assertion. I repeat the invitation to you, extended many times before, to supply any scientific basis for the AGW proposition, or perhaps explain why you continue to believe an unsubstantiated myth.

Almost forgot, spindoc to Chris Lewis (author):

>> By way of context as you begin to read these contrary opinions, it must be noted that there is only one entity in the world that has the authority for policy formulation, recommendation and governance, the UN IPCC. It has a “single” orthodoxy which is AGW and only the science which supports that single orthodoxy is used. <<

You have left out the UNFCCC.

>> There has never been a single contrary scientific paper included in any of the IPCC’s AR reports, see for yourself. <<

Wrong, you obviously haven't read the references, let alone the papers cited in the reports.

Leo
I have explained, many times. You always ignore it and repeat the same old meme, on OLO and elsewhere.

bonmot, "Leo
I have explained, many times. You always ignore it and repeat the same old meme, on OLO and elsewhere."

I must have missed it as well, could you point to where you have previously explained, please?

bonmot has given an explanation rpg. He says he does not want to, and he does not see why he should.

I was not looking for an explanation, I was looking for the answer to a perfectly reasonable question I asked him.

He has evaded and ignored it, but feels entitled to show up and make peripheral remarks.

He does not put forward anything substantive, so feels he is justified.

I know the answer: there is no science to back the assertion of AGW despite the outlay of an estimated $90 billion in a desperate attempt to produce what does not exist. The only result has been the corruption of science as evidenced in the Climategate emails.

I just want bonmot to say it without further evasion and nonsense.

I suppose that is the equivalent to saying that I want him to stop acting like an AGW fraud supporter.

While I will read the IPCC report and responses (in time), I feel obliged to further explain why i do support cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, at least thus far. This is despite my own disdain for those who portray absolute certainty of their orthodoxy without challenge.

My view has been shaped by my own thoughts and observation of secondary source (including statements by experts on both sides).

I look at cities in China where oil seeps from the leaves of trees and think that can hardly be a good thing. While I have no idea about how many parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere becomes catastrophic to life, I feel now is as good a time for societies should be addressing the problem with new ways of production and efficiency.

As I am a gambler (small scale), I am not prepared to take a risk, just in case the fears about global warming prove correct. This is despite recognition of my own hypocrisy, although I do my best to conserve energy (also to reduce bills).

why can't we make a difference? It was only a few decades ago that we did something about our air pollution on the basis that science proved that air pollution was not conducive to good health. And remember, how much has been gained by our cars becoming smaller and more efficient in energy use. small changes make a difference.

I do have an open mind on the question of global warming, but I do fear the future from what I observe about the destruction of the world's forest and oceans.

Spindoc,

Algae when natural is as you say but now increased algae can be observed, such as invasive blooms smothering and killing coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Algae is also killing estuary and bay seagrass on which food-web baitfish such as pilchards, herring and anchovy depend. Penguins and seabirds and most ocean animals including whales and depend on those baitfish, so do many island people. However unprecedented (low population) mass starvation of seabirds is coinciding with a 67 percent increase in maternal mortality amongs seafood dependent island people. So much for MDG's.

Producing an underwater film led to developing my understanding of the real state of the ocean environment. Now I observe emissions and CO2 being claimed as the cause of GBR damage, and I understand incorrect diagnosis is often fatal. There is dire urgent need to see the real cause in order to understand and implement solutions, especially solutions to various impact and consequences involved. Damage is causing damage so think what might be occurring, such as collapse of world food sustainability and peace in the SW Pacific. There are also opportunities from solutions, such as increased business and employment and government revenue infrastructure development involving repair of damage to the water environment.

Research involves asking intellectuals on this site if increased sewage nutrient pollution proliferated (increased) ocean algae has been taken into account in AGW and IPCC science. Even someone not doing science can understand dead algae sediment can harbour anaerobic bacteria that produces methane that on contact with oxygen forms CO2. There is now so much algae it is causing dead zones in oceans and waterways. So has this source of methane and CO2 been taken into account with AGW science or is CO2 being attributed to emissions as convenient reason for an ETS/carbon tax/carbon price?

Establishing beyond reasonable doubt there is a cause other than emissions warming and killing the ocean food web, would expose grounds to dismiss CO2. If Tony Abbott was to be the judge of the case in question then people would see he is no idiot.

Chris, I do not see how reading the IPCC Reports will help you.

There is no science which supports the AGW hypothesis, and after spending an estimated $90 billion dollars in efforts to come up with such science and failing, you would expect there would be quite a bit to wade through.

It would be more productive to look at how the AGW assertion has been given so much traction with no science to support it. False demonisation of carbon dioxide as pollution would be one factor.

The IPCC was formed to look at the effect of human emissions on climate. It is clear that there is no significant effect on climate and there is no reason for the IPCC to exist.

The nonsense of making predictions on climate using computer modelling was introduced by the IPCC. It is dishonest to pretend that this is viable, and the failure has been borne out by observation in the real world. Ban Kimoon at the Bali lie fest where 12,000 journalist were wined, dined and lied to, and given prepackaged press releases, based his address on 2003 predictions, already proven wrong, when he made the address in 2007, by real world observations.

In reality there has been a little over one half of a degree of warming over the last 110 years, not surprising when we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, and not in any way significant.

It does not make sense to be talking about reducing emissions when there is no scientific basis to justify such reduction.

We are just as likely to be facing cooling as warming, and it would have ill effects, while there is no basis for the assertion that warming will have any ill effects. In the past it seems to have had only beneficial effects.

So do you gamble, with a 50% chance of being wrong, and with no science to justify the gamble, or do you do the sensible thing and wait.

Leo Lane,

Probably won't. It may indeed be organised guess work as far as predictions are concerned.

Nevertheless, as voters we have to make our decisions to the best of our rationality.

I don't think it gets any better than democratic outcomes, decided by which party wins the most seats, although one could argue that this is distorted by the influence of minor parties in imperfect systems.

France ditches carbon tax as social protests mount:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7507015/France-ditches-carbon-tax-as-social-protests-mount.html

So much for other countries also being involved.

Leo it is nonsense to say that there is no science to support the proposition that man is having an effect on climate. The issue is to what degree, and no-one has an accurate answer to that, and what, if anything, to do about it. And it is ridiculous to dismiss the whole IPCC report out of hand.

The problem with the IPCC reports from where I stand is that the summaries are written as works of persuasion, and in some cases, such as the supposed increase in hurricane intensity, contradict the material on which they are supposed to be based. And some, but I'd suggest not most, of their source material is rubbish too.

I'm not sure that I'd encourage Chris to read the whole report because I think the salient issues on the science come down to a few basic propositions, the most fundamental of which is how sensitive to a change in temperature the rest of the climate system is, and whether that leads to positive feedbacks and some sort of runaway greenhouse effect. This in turn comes back to the question of what water does when it is in the atmosphere and whether it traps more heat radiated from the earth than it reflects light radiated by the sun. Because water vapour is the major positive feedback.

Without a positive feedback, doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels results in around a 2 degree increase in temperature, all other things being equal, which in the scheme of things is quite manageable and probably beneficial, particularly as the increased heat should happen closer to the polls so increasing the percentage of the earth that is habitable

OK, Graham, I should have said CAGW. Human emissions have not been shown to have any significant effect. I would not put it as strongly as “nonsense”, because there is strong support for the statement that human emissions have a negligible effect on climate.

It was not my intention to dismiss the whole IPCC report. I simply suggested it would not help Chris in assessing the AGW situation. I think his reading time would be better invested in Robert Carter’s excellent summary “Climate: the Counter Consensus”

It is settled science that natural cycles govern climate, and it is yet to be shown that human emissions have any measurable effect.

The best estimate seems to be that 95% of the CO2 in the carbon cycle comes from natural sources, leaving 5% from human activities. As there is a 10% variation in the volume of CO2, it is difficult to see how 5% matters. The natural cycle is big enough to process it without any noticeable effect.

The summaries have been shown to be political documents, and it is to the summaries that most people refer. The 95% “very likely” estimate put forward by the IPCC has not changed, despite the science predicted by the IPCC, to support it, turning out to be non existent.

Leo Lane, you say:

>> Petty irrelevant nit-picking <<

Calling someone a “Professor” knowing full well he is not a Professor is a deliberate attempt to distort and misrepresent the truth. Spindoc (m.i.a.) is appealing to an “absent authority” (in more ways than one) yet falsely accuses others of doing the thing he himself engages in.

No Leo, this is not petty, it is not irrelevant, nor is it a nit-pick – it’s a big one.

So is this, Leo: you continually blow your trumpet about AGW this, AGW that – ad nauseam. Now you tell us (well, Graham actually) you meant CATASTROPHIC–AGW.

You expect scientists to dot ‘i’s and cross ‘t’s and then have the audacity to complain when they nit-pick?

Yet you, dearest Leo, can’t be bothered to add CATASTROPHIC when you meant CATASTROPHIC all along?

Here’s the buzz Leo, listen up – the vast majority of scientists don’t believe in CAGW. They do believe AGW is significant enough for the policy makers to take some serious action. How the policy makers do that is up to them - Hint: that's what we should be debating, Leo.
.

GrahamY (Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:37:21 PM)

Your comments make perfect sense, thanks.

If I do have a nit-pick :) The technical summary provides a much better synopsis than the Summaries for Policy Makers - about which there is so much angst.

This thread has been toxic. Only your intervention softened the blows and exorcised the bile, I think.

Was it worth it? Probably – thanks Chris.
Will I be back? Probably not - no thanks to the you-know-whos'
.

Rpg
You missed it? Open your eyes and look again, please.

bonmot,

I hope you do not quit the site. There will be future articles on OLO about the environment where your feedback would be appreciated.

You do not need to respond to comments you do not want to.

Chris

I am not quitting the site (OLO is one of the best we have got) - I am quitting this thread.

Agree, you do not need to respond to comments you do not want to. Therein lies a dilemma, this I am sure everyone understands.

bonmot

1. A simple humiliating admission of defeat would do, but looks like the best expedient your desperation can come up with is merely repeating your tactic of evasion.

2. Of course it's catastrophic warming you fool. The globe warms whenever the sun shines on it, and varies in termperature all the time. Ordinary or unproblematic warming has never been in issue. The issue is whether we face global warming so bad that it's going to lead to ecological catastrophe and a world "unsafe for my grandchildren".

3. Unlike the claim that we face catastrophic global warming, which has NO REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE to support it, and rests entirely on appeal to absent authority such as you have kept displaying all along, on the other hand, reference to Malcolm Roberts does not represent appeal to absent authority at all because the relevance of his questions does not rest on his authority; they rest on the fact that YOU AND ALL OTHER WARMISTS ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO ANSWER THEM. Your retreating suggestion that we are involved in appeal to absent authority is a mere back-bite - you assume everyone else shares the same unscientific method that you do.

4. Now. Got that real-world evidence of catastrophic global warming there yet, fellah?

Any response from you by way of appeal to absent authority (e.g. "the evidence is on the internet somewhere") is just the warmists' stnadard dishonest way of conceding everything that is in issue.

"Rpg
You missed it? Open your eyes and look again, please."

No, I don't miss much .. I'll just put you down as a serial dodger

That's fine, it's what you are, no problem

Chris

The technical summary can be found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Bye
bonmot

Bonmot,

Ok, thanks.

I’ve only been away for a short time and I seem to have missed much of the action on this thread.

My apologies for wrongly stating that Malcolm Roberts was a “Professor”. My error and apologies for any controversy I have caused. His qualifications are:

Malcolm Roberts BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA,Aust)

Graham Young,

There are many Australian’s who are very keen to have a voice in relation to the AGW topic. Many feel they are being denied this or are denigrated for wanting to ask questions. They face a hostile media, ridicule and abusive comments from government politicians, a severe “talking to” from academics, outrageous exaggeration from NGO’s, and an endless stream of “partisan science” from technical advocates.

Those of us who feel this way don’t really care how the message is sent or by whom, we just want to have a voice and we would like these questions answered. If this happens to be from Malcolm Roberts, if it happens to be “couched in such emotional language” or that it is “not going to be taken seriously”, is not the issue, we will take what we can get.

Are you suggesting that the AGW case has not been “couched in emotional language”?

If on the other hand, you have some suggestions as to what questions to ask, who should ask them, to whom they should be sent and how they should be framed, I’m sure we would love to hear from you.

How about you get some of your media colleagues to sit in a room long enough to actually ” listen” to these questions rather than suggesting that these questions are “not helpful”?

I am personally grateful to Malcolm Roberts for making the effort to formulate and to present his challenges and for the many others doing the same. I doubt that we will get a hearing, let alone a response but at the very least they have been tabled for us.

Eventually, those not listening will pay the same price as the NSW ALP.

Spindoc,
I have asked a question but I have no media colleagues. Australian media is suppressing all to do with actual devastation of the marine environment, impact, consequences and solutions. Search UN World Environment Day 2004 - Seas and Ocean - wanted dead or alive. You will not find any record of that focus in any Australian government or major media. Whale stranding autopsy results are not revealed. Fish has been removed from the CPI. Value of total fish product imported into Australia is not totalled and is getting more confusing, hiding the real situation.

Now ocean devastation is under a smokescreen called AGW, climate change, ETS, carbon tax, carbon pricing. The nation should have a truthful leader. Anyway, to condense all involved into a few words to perhaps inspire real solutions, there is that basic and clear question.

Has unprecedented sewage nutrient pollution proliferated ocean algae been taken into account in AGW and IPCC science?

We are given examples of the EU that we are supposed to be following.

The EU has 500 million people and emits more than 10x as much, so why then will a new carbon tax, if set at $25 a tonne, will raise more tax from liable Australian companies in its first three months than the European Union's emissions trading scheme has generated since its launch more than six years ago?

Why will Australia be paying the highest carbon price in the world?

CO2 debate is wasting precious time. There may be another cause of climate change.

There is a catastrophe even more pressing than unusual weather events.

Let us see whether Mr Abbott is capable of handling the following real problems. Then we might be able to more easily find if he has qualities expected of a leader.

We all have a right to safety. And that includes a right to complete and up to date information in Australian media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/science/03meltdown.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110316/NEWS08/110316027/1969/NEWS/Group-warns-EPA-ready-increase-radioactive-release-guidelines-?odyssey=nav%7Chead

Why will Australia be paying the highest carbon price in the world? Possibly because Australians create more carbon emissions per capita than anybody else in the world.

Reduce your emissions and pay less tax. Simple really. And that's not even taking into account the compensation measures that Shadow Minister fails to mention.

Got that real-world evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming there yet fellahs? Don't forget to take out any that consists of
- appeal to vest interests (that should narrow it down a bit)
- assuming it in the first place and then trying to find some evidence, any evidence, to support the hypothesis
- computer models and statistical operations that are guesses, not science.

Threat of world catastrophe comes with the emissions propaganda that has been spun around AGW, The real impact of warmer areas of the ocean anbd associated extreme weather event affects people and insurance companies. Economically it is important vested interests understand the consequences will continue because an ETS and CO2 tax/pricing will not reduce ocean algae, algae, dead zones or the increased warmth retention associated with increased ocean algae photosynthesis.

Is it hypothetical there is an unprecedented world human population and sewage nutrient pollution being dumped or draining into the ocean, or that increased nutrients proliferate and increase ocean algae? Some people may consider the situation hypothetical but other people see and touch the hard evidence, including empirical evidence. It is quite amazing how so called science avoids finding the evidence.

"Leo Lane" and "Peter Hume" (and a few others):

I know it is unlikely either (or any) will reading this post, for this issue has been extensively thrashed and trashed already, beyond all recognition; but here goes!

It has been said "even the greatest fool can pose a question which even the greatest minds cannot answer".

Such is my considered response to your "denial" that there may be any legitimacy to arguments that:
i) There is a "greenhouse effect", and it is this effect which a) enables the planet to remain warmer, and b) to be protected from destructive levels of cosmic radiation,
ii) That there are gasses which contribute to the "greenhouse effect", and these have been identified by science, individually and in concentration level,
iii) That human activity has contributed to higher concentrations of many of these gasses, causing a measurable increase in the intensity of the greenhouse effect,
iv) That some greenhouse gasses cause destruction of the ozone layer - which layer provides significant protection to the earth from harmful radiation,
v) That action to reduce, if not eliminate, chlorofluorocarbon emissions from human activity (eg Freon gas, spray cans), has enabled slow repair of the ozone layer, and reduced the intensity of the greenhouse effect,
vi) That the earth's ice-caps and glaciers have been receding in recent history at what has been described as "at an alarming rate",
vii) That increases in sea temperatures, and in the level of carbonic acid (from dissolved CO2) in the earth's oceans, are now (not years hence) threatening the ability of various marine species to propagate, and hence survive, at threat to the whole ecosystem,

You may pontificate that you have not seen "absolute proof", that 'we' didn't do it, that it isn't really "significant'. But protest as you may, and argue as you will as to whether it is all "natural" or man-made, it is there, it is happening, and you ignore it at your peril.

God willing, it will be at your peril and no-one else's.

Saltpetre,

You post this:
"vii) That increases in sea temperatures, and in the level of carbonic acid (from dissolved CO2) in the earth's oceans, are now (not years hence) threatening the ability of various marine species to propagate, and hence survive, at threat to the whole ecosystem,".

Increased sea temperature and CO2 and carbonic acid levels appear to me to involve ETS and carbon tax and carbon price propaganda. I agree climate is being changed by human activity but I do not agree the cause is CO2.

It's good to see you still on this thread and perhaps you might help draw attention of Tony Abbott to find a straight answer to the following question. His response or not may show leadership potential.

As ocean of this planet produces over 50 percent of oxygen, has natural ocean algae and sewage nutrient pollution proliferated ocean algae been measured and taken into account in AGW, IPCC and sea temperature increase science?

As for marine species failing to propagate, I find starvation is the most likely cause. Whale calf abandonment and unprecedented (low population) mass mortality of sea birds is occurring. Mammals are known to abandon their youg due to starvation. Fish stocks are failing to regenerate once fishing has stopped. Estuary seagrass food web nurseries are devastated or destroyed due to sewage nutrient pollution proliferated algae smothering seagrass.

Even worse is occurring. Indigenous seafood dependent island people are experiencing protein deficiency malnutrition and disease and early death including a 69 percent increase in anaemia related maternal mortality, not due to CO2.

Yet PM's and opposition leaders appear obsessed with CO2 revenue 'debate' while sewage nutrient pollution and impact and consequences seem to be un-noticed.

JF Aus,

I'm not peddling the carbon tax and ETS. I don't believe either would do anything for the climate or the environment. I think it's just Labor spin-doctoring to stay in power - a tax-grab to enable them to redistribute some of industries' wealth. It's just a push for votes.

I'm hoping sense will prevail, that the Oz public will wake up to Labor's BS and give them a sound thrashing at the next Fed election. I just hope we won't have been lumbered with these ridiculous taxes in the meantime.

You are right about ocean pollution and fertiliser run-off being major concerns. The algal phytoplankton is the foundation of life in the oceans, and the lungs of the earth, producing far more oxygen than all on-shore photosynthesis. It is also the food source of the zoo-plankton, which feeds a huge portion of marine life, including the great whales.

What I was getting at is CO2 is also polluting the ocean, and the carbonic acid levels and measured rise in ocean temperatures are threatening the viability of the zoo-plankton, and thus virtually all marine life. Can you imagine the impact also if the lungs of the earth are compromised? I believe you do.

Hence, we have a double dilemma - pollution and global greenhouse. Increasing demand for food is driving increased fertiliser use, causing pollution of both the oceans and the atmosphere.

Of course, as you have pointed out, it is not just the oceans, but all the bays, estuaries, mangroves and inland waterways. These in- and on-shore waterways are the breeding grounds for vast numbers of aquatic and marine species, and of course are a major food source.

We ignore these factors at risk of life on earth as we know it. You said it. I hope someone is listening.

Carbon tax, ETS, will do nothing. We need new govt, particularly as The Greens have forgotten their primary role - which is to tend to the environment.

>> Carbon tax, ETS, will do nothing. We need new govt, particularly as The Greens have forgotten their primary role - which is to tend to the environment. <<

Corollary: An even more right-wing neo-conservative Liberal government will do a better job for the environment - even more under their 'tea-partyish' leadership team.

Yeah, right.

Saltpetre
You are three steps away from a logically competent argument, for the following reasons.

1.
I asked for real-world evidence, and you have neither provided nor referred to any.
You have merely *repeated* the original orthodox belief system which is in issue. So the deep structure of your “proof” is this: “It is because it is.”

That is a logical fallacy.

To talk of my “denial” assumes you have proved your case, and I am denying it. But you haven’t proved your case in the first place. Assuming what is in issue: the same logical fallacy repeated.

I’m not asking for “absolute” proof, I’m asking for real-world evidence proving your theory. But all you’ve got is *assuming* it, and then relying for this unevidenced *belief* on vested interests who claim to prove it by computer models (guesses) which assume the same thing.

The same logical fallacy again.

It’s not just you doing it. The entire global warming orthodoxy uses exactly the same intellectual method, and that’s the problem. It’s not only not scientific, it’s not even logical.

2.
You have again ASSUMED, not proved that the negative consequences of any warming would outweigh the positive consequences.

The mere fact that something may adversely affect “marine species” is no proof. A farmer ploughing his field adversely affects other species, who are rivals for the same resources. So what? The fact that the natural world always changes doesn’t mean we face a crisis, nor that the negative consequences outweigh the positive.

3.
Even if you had shown negative consequences on balance, which you haven’t, you haven’t shown how government is going to be able to be an improvement *when all positive and negative consequences are taken into account*.

And be honest. You wouldn’t have the faintest idea what the positive and negative consequences are in terms of ecological changes, from a few degrees, for entire continents, nor even how you could know.

When asked for evidence and reason, you and the entire global warming orthodoxy have nothing to respond with but a) circular and b) ad hominem argument.

That's it!