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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Garnaut abandons professionalism for politics > Comments

Garnaut abandons professionalism for politics : Comments

By Des Moore, published 6/6/2011

Ross Garnaut's past record of advice to government is good, but his climate change work abandons sound practice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I listened to Garnaut, and I must admit I was disappointed in his lack of restraint. He could have remained professional simply by failing to make pronouncements on issues where he had no evidence only opinion.

For example, when questioned on one of the most pertinent issues, i.e. what lead him to believe that Australia's implementation of a carbon tax would influence other countries around the globe, his response was:

"I would like to believe that Australia is not a piss ant country."

Really, with 1% of the world's GDP Australia is far from having significant influence on world policy, and Garnaut's comment is simply wishful thinking.

This simply comment shows that he has sullied his supposed "analysis" with partisan politics, and as such has simply become yet another talking head pushing his opinion.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 6 June 2011 10:09:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It passes comprehension how carbon dioxide is being treated as a pollutant. The IPCC has no evidence of research that comes to this conclusion.
Hydroponic vegetables are grown in greenhouses where carbon dioxide is introduced to 1,000ppm. In submarines and spacecraft, carbon dioxide is introduced to 5,000ppm.
Does anyone have any report of deaths due to carbon dioxide at these levels? If so, why has WorkSafe not closed them down?
Stupidity and greed dictates that CO2 is a pollutant;
Stupidity in believing MSM reports based upon reports from scientists who need Government funding for research - without question.
Greed in that vast fortunes are being made, both legally and illegally, in European carbon trading.
Australia has to be congratulated on producing so much carbon dioxide per capita. It contributes to increased crop growth.
Posted by phoenix94, Monday, 6 June 2011 10:41:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Des, we have all seen in the past, the left of politics are so well known for a change in direction, at the whim of political opportunity.

Garnaut is simply following the path of so many before him....

in this case, he is not (as many of the left do) promoting change just change for the sake of change

but

promoting change for the sake of power and vested interest as well as in the name of economic leveling.

I have heard that when Julia and the other socialists go on TV, the TV company have to spend alot more time on them in the makeup room.....

not because they are that much more hideous than the right but simply because each has two faces requiring a thorough makeover
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 6 June 2011 10:56:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent! But, Des Moore, while noting that Garnaut emulates the scaremongering of the Club of Rome back in 1972, overlooks that Garnaut's first review actually specifically endorsed the Club of Rome, and merely pushed forward its ludicrous dates for "exhaustion" of various metals, minerals and "fossil" fuels (table 3.3, p.71). For example, we will have exhausted reserves of nickel by 2047, zinc 2024, lead 2029, tin 2027, gas 2067, oil 2047 (at the production rates of 2007). Given the latter dates for gas and oil, why do we need a carbon tax, as there will quite soon be no oil or gas "polluting" the atmosphere?

Coal reserves will last until 2146, according to Garnaut 2008, but Garnaut last week accepted W.S. Jevons' 1862 claim that Britain would run out of coal by 1880! Clearly Margaret Thatcher was deluded when she tackled striking coal miners in 1982, they were actually lemon growers.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Monday, 6 June 2011 11:03:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unlike the author or any of his supporters I really care about what kind of a world is going to be left for my grandchildren. It really appears that in this country the lunatics are running the asylum.
Posted by Gorufus, Monday, 6 June 2011 11:20:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Des Moore should have led with his strongest card, the fact that the hands of anyone who really wants to reduce emissions here are tied by Australia’s policy banning nuclear power. Instead he leads with his weakest suit, the ‘Garnaut is not a scientist’ accusation. The result? Well, ‘Des Moore who is not a scientist’ stringing together the usual set of criticisms of climate science and proposing that the real climate scientists have somehow overlooked them. Of course Des hasn’t, because he is smarter than that.

This just won’t do. Before posting this I took yet another look at the five main sets of global temperature data and their three year rolling averages. Frankly you’d have to be puffin muffins to assert that there is now a downward trend. How about the climate deniers getting together and running a book on the global average surface and near-surface temperature being less than now in say 20 years time? That should sort them out. Based on the form guide, no punter would put a zac on it.

This is all a pity. There is much to criticise in Garnaut’s recommendations. Henry Ergas did a great job. Des Moore can do it too but he tarnishes his arguments by starting out denying the simple physics. Not good enough.
Posted by Tombee, Monday, 6 June 2011 11:24:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a disappointment Des Moore's article and the majority of the responses has been.

Unlike Mr Moore, I have downloaded and read the Garnaut Report. Unlike Mr Moore, I am not writing from a perspective of preconceived notions about its content and an apparent personal antipathy towards Professor Garnaut.

Unlike Mr Moore, I do not demand that Mr Garnaut obtain qualifications in each discipline on which he comments, but note that the short CV of the author at the foot of the article suggests a background in the chalk-and-talk game. By his own criteria, Mr Moore should keep his opinion to himself!

Basic scientific principles about CO2 as a grenhouse gas were established well over a century ago. From the 1970's to the present, successive science-based predictions regarding the effects of fossil fuelled climate change have been shown to be true. Consistently, not only have they been correct, but repeatedly, the natural conservatism of scientists has been demonstrated when the observed changes have been measured at the upper end of the range of expectations.

I suggest that Moore do a bit of self-education. Start with James Hoggan "Climate Cover-up", then progress through George Monbiot's "Heat, Naomi Oreskis' "Merchants of Doubt", Massimo Pigliucci's "Nonsense on Stilts - How to Tell Science From Bunk" and conclude with Gwynne Dyer's "Cimate Wars".

This subject is far too important for the debate to be led by know-nothings like Moore.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 6 June 2011 11:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gorofus "Unlike the author or any of his supporters I really care about what kind of a world is going to be left for my grandchildren. It really appears that in this country the lunatics are running the asylum."

How caring Gorofus

I do recall only 20 years ago, the free west prevailed over the despotic collectivists of USSR and their fettered satellites

Here, we seem to be fighting that same battle again, oh the excuse "Global Warming" has changed but the subtext remains the same -

So I too, consider what sort of world should my grandson (I only have one so far) will inherit -

and would prefer a "free" one


and not a world where previously free men and women are hogtied to stupid leveling regulations and the ordained dictates of despotic watermelon politicians and their flunkies.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 6 June 2011 12:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee: the 4 sets of surface data are essentially one and the same, to 95% according to Phil Jones author of Hadley-CRU and Climategate. The two satellite data sets UAH and RSS show no significant trend since 1979 for the USA, and much less than Gistemp, NCDC and clones, and HadleyCRU for the globe. Ocean heat has been declining since 2003 when the Argos system came into full coverage.

Linear regression of climate variables and CO2 shows that the physics is quantitatively insignificant in the real world, see the great paper by Tim Curtin (!) up at Lavoisier.com.au
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Monday, 6 June 2011 12:34:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And who is Tim Curtin?

He is Tom Tiddler of course!
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 6 June 2011 12:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'ts becoming more and more obvious that if climate change deniers live see their children floating about in floods that are rising up to the rooves of their houses, they still will not give up their denial.
Posted by john kosci, Monday, 6 June 2011 1:23:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JohnBennetts
Ah, you've read the original Garnaut report.. good stuff.. then I have a question. I was trying to make sense of it last night. How does Garnaut manage to work the sums to make it worthwhile to reduce carbon emissions?

His chapter on costs versus benefits seems to be a commentary on the various models. But the only one who managed to make the economic case add up to taking action, UK's Nicholas Stern, had to make extreme assumptions concerning storms and the rediscount rate (works out to investment rate of return) to make his case. Everyone else.. such as Nordhaus, couldn't make the sums add up at all, or come anywhere close.

I'm told that Garnaaut makes an assumption about effective emissions-reduction technolgy becoming available in mid-century to make the sums work. Ther is a reference in the chapter I was looking at but it is far from clear.. can you comment?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 6 June 2011 1:36:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gorofus: seriously now, who do you think is going to do a better job spending YOUR money to 'protect' YOU from 'global warming' -- a) you and your family; b) a government which depends on lies and propaganda to whip up hysteria about a non-problem?

Sea levels up by a metre in a century? Oo-er! For the innumerate, this requires about one layer of bricks added to the top of the seawall every decade. Not such a big ask, really -- even if we had any reason to think it was actually occurring.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 6 June 2011 1:37:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Tiddler
I guess economists and scientists look at graphs differently, and one of them is wrong. To start with, we scientists try really hard to compare like with like, not trends for the USA with trends for the globe. And if you insist that the UAH and RSS global temperatures (I'm looking at them right now) show no upward trend since 1979 then you are simply being mischievous. I have just printed off the UAH graph (and Roy Spencer at UAH is certainly no climate alarmist - quite the contrary) and put my trusty ruler on, which is the kind of thing I used to do for a living. Not quite linear, but a slope of +0.15C per decade characterises it pretty well.

As I said previously, there is plenty to criticise in the work of Garnaut, and there may also be plenty to be cautious about in the projections of climate models. But anyone who starts on the basis of spouting nonsense about simple facts is putting their credibility on the line for everything they say. It's simply not a smart tactic.
Posted by Tombee, Monday, 6 June 2011 2:06:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee: well, UAH at 0.15 per decade projects only 1.5 oC to 2110, less than half the core IPCC projection. And the absence of trend in any series for the USA since 1979 certainly falsifies the claim that AW is "global" - USA is a big place.

You say you are a scientist. Do you know the formulae for combustion of a typical hydrocarbon and for photosynthesis? In case not, here they are:

C3H8 + 5O2 → Heat + 3CO2 + 4H2O …(1)
2CO2 + 2 H2O + photons → 2CH2O + 2O2 ...(2)
In words, (2) is carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen

Can you spot how the RHS of (1) matches the LHS of (2)?

Why do you want to reduce the growth of rain in (1) and food in (2)? The Garnaut tax is as much as tax on rain as it is on CO2. The quantities are not trivial: in (1) the outputs are 30.6 GtCO2 p.a. of which 56% contributes to additional photosynthesis , and 18 GtH2O p.a.
If the former is catastrophic so must be the latter, given water vapour's higher radiative forcing (according to Tyndall, Arrhenius, and the IPCC), while the water vapour emitted during the cooling of steam power generators is over 300 GtH20 p.a.

Wind and solar power contribute nothing to rainfall and crop production, but hydrocarbon combustion has the enormous benefits indicated by (1) and (2), which is why the IPCC never has nor ever will show (1) and (2). Tim Curtin's paper gives the sources for all those numbers (!).
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Monday, 6 June 2011 2:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"USA is a big place."

Yep, about 2% by area.

"Tim Curtin's paper gives the sources for all those numbers (!)"

Fess up, Tom Tiddler is your sock-puppet, Tim!
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 6 June 2011 2:47:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Tiddler, this is just silly. I'm not going to discuss combustion, photosynthesis and the whole garbled nonsense about carbon dioxide, water, rain etc here (though of course combustion is broadly the reverse of photosynthesis, but not quite as you have written). In the present context you might as well tell me that hospitals insisting that flowers not be kept near the patients says something useful about global warming. But seeing as your posting seems more to be questioning my credentials, let me just mention for your other readers that I have a PhD in Agricultural Science, have had a long research career in minerals and energy, and am a Fellow of three professional bodies in science and technology fields. I don't for one moment say that this makes me right. It merely puts into perspective the kind of attack Tom Tiddler, who others say is economist Tim Curtin, needs to mount so as to divert attention from the issue being debated.
Posted by Tombee, Monday, 6 June 2011 3:50:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the IPCC and Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Tim Flannery
should be made to return all the money they have received to prove
AGW. The climate commission report, that the PM stakes her science on
has a disclaimer on page 2. Garnaut wouldn't know a cow pat from a cloud. He has not dismissed agriculture from being taxed too. Oh,
methane emissions. He did say farmers should farm kangaroos instead of
beef and sheep. (There goes our dairy and wool industries). Have you ever tried to shear or milk a kangaroo Ross? Just Google him and see
what he has to say on methane emissions. EU carbon trading is failing
(See the World Bank they're in it too. They reckon if it fails (oh dear heaps of people will lose their pensions, etc), the world temps will go up 3 - 4 c. I have a report from the past NSW minister for climate and he sent me a report saying sea levels will rise 177mm by 2050. Thats 6.93 inches. Whose panicking. People are so naive and gullible. Don't they do their own research, easy now with the Internet. Obviously those in Government don't. Sorry folks, but Australia isn't here to bolster the EU carbon market or the UN Climate change fund. Wake up the planet's cooling. And carbon tax will do nothing to stop polluting it or cutting emissions.

This is the equivalent of a South Sea bubble in the 18th century, but
should be called the Carbon bubble. Sustainability and cleaning up our environment in the big cities, we are OK here in the country. Don't tax us any more, we pay more for fuel and electricity and goods
than city slickers, and where do all our resources come from, not
Pitt Street.
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 6 June 2011 4:17:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is very sad to see Garnaut, once a rationalist and professional economist, turn away from his profession to become a spruiker for the alarmist global warming cause. He will be remembered in history for his political correctness.
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 6 June 2011 10:18:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee. Wow, you claim to have credentials, but given your anonymity I cannot check if they are real. I doubt they are as my use of exclamation marks (twice) clearly showed what has been known here for long that Tom Tiddler is indeed Tim Curtin. Just show your credentials are valid by rebutting my paper (available at www.lavoisier.com.au as well as at my own website www.timcurtin.com).

I look forward to hearing from you, preferably under your real name.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Monday, 6 June 2011 11:25:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garnaut was always the economic hit man.He advised Hawke and Keating on the sale of our Govt banks and the lowering of tarrifs.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 12:00:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re-capping:

Tom Tiddler, retired economist, says:

“Linear regression of climate variables and CO2 shows that the physics is quantitatively insignificant in the real world, see the great paper by Tim Curtin (!) up at Lavoisier.com.au (Monday, 6 June 2011 12:34:29 pm)

And follows 2 hours later with:

“Tim Curtin's paper gives the sources for all those numbers (!)”

And late evening to Tombee:

“Wow, you claim to have credentials, but given your anonymity I cannot check if they are real. I doubt they are as my use of exclamation marks (twice) clearly showed what has been known here for long that Tom Tiddler is indeed Tim Curtin. Just show your credentials are valid by rebutting my paper (available at www.lavoisier.com.au as well as at my own website www.timcurtin.com).

I look forward to hearing from you, preferably under your real name.”

So we get a retired economist writing a “paper” on complex climate science, submitting it for review by ideological peers, and getting it published on a right-wing Australian think-tank's web site.

One cannot help but draw the analogy with the real professor, subject of the article, and laugh one's head off.

Wait, there's more: TimTom has the audacity to not only spam his "paper", but “reviews” it as an OLO sock-puppet!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_%28internet%29

The funniest bit? TimTom’s use of exclamation marks … twice!!
ROFLMHO
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 12:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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