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 > Flannery and the Climate Commission. > Comments

Flannery and the Climate Commission. : Comments

By Anthony Cox, published 22/8/2012

For a non-political body the Climate Commission makes a lot of political statements.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. 24
  10. All
Interpret this as you will but I think Flannery is as relevant to the Australian climate debate as Al Gore is to the US. In his latest speech he enthuses about the uptake of new renewable energy. He fails to mention for example the cost of CO2 avoided by solar PV is over $400 per tonne nor is it much good in the low or no light conditions that can prevail about 80% of the hours in a year.

Flannery seems careful not to upset his political masters. Therefore nary a word about the hypocrisy of coal exports nor the potential of nuclear to replace coal. Via carbon tax I think we will achieve very modest emissions cuts through price deterrents and slight displacement of fossil fuel. However real climate scientists want big cuts immediately. A decade from now we will still have petrol cars and most if not all of the big coal fired power stations. Flannery's recent enthusings will then seem short sighted and deferential.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 7:20:43 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
Alright Anthony, the message being presented by Flannery and the Climate Commission may be a bit compromised and made to look overly positive in the way that the world is dealing with AGW or in the way that Australia’s efforts are conforming with efforts in various other countries.

But that’s about it. You are not suggesting that AGW is not real, that we shouldn’t be striving to do something about addressing it or that we shouldn’t have a climate commission.

It just seems to me that the point of your article doesn’t amount to much. You haven’t taken it on to any significant end.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 7:55:21 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
I’d make two very significant points about the Climate Commission:

Firstly, it should absolutely be considering the threat of peak oil or of changing oil economics as it becomes a lot more expensive as we move into more sources that are harder to extract. This is surely a much more tangible motivation for the development of renewable energy than AGW!

And secondly and even more importantly, it should be a Sustainability Commission and not just a Climate or Energy Commission!

If the taxpayer is going to fund something like this, then it should be a body which looks at our future in a holistic manner, rather than just dealing with one part of our future energy supply issues. It should be looking at the ever-increasing demand for energy, both in Australia and the world and having a lot to say about how this demand can be stabilised if not reduced, rather than apparently only dealing with energy supply problems and mechanisms.

We need to look at both the supply and demand sides of the energy equation and strive to balance them in a way that can be maintained in an ongoing manner. That’s what the commission should be about, surely!

The continuously rapidly increasing demand for energy in Australia sits in stark contradiction to efforts to reduce emissions.

Flannery has been good on sustainability. But it would appear that he is currently only dealing with part of the energy supply side of the equation, and is therefore effectively helping to facilitate continuous expansionism in this country, which really is taking us strongly away from a sustainable future.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 7:58:21 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
Ludwig. You say: "You are not suggesting that AGW is not real, that we shouldn’t be striving to do something about addressing it."

If it were me, that is exactly what I would be saying. Where is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous problem to mankind? Where is the evidence that the feedbacks to increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions are strongly positive? Where is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the main contributor to observed climate change, and natural cycles and land-use factors are minor?

Do some of your own research rather than accept the propaganda being purveyed by those in authority.

PS. The Climate Commission NEVER answers any of the tough questions. They just regurgitate all the alarmist stuff from the rent-seekers.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 8:45:47 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
Ludwig, you say this:

"You are not suggesting that AGW is not real, that we shouldn’t be striving to do something about addressing it or that we shouldn’t have a climate commission."

AGW has a LOT of evidence against it:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

The THS is ESSENTIAL for AGW, yet it has been disproved; where does that leave AGW?

As for Flannery; he is hopeless; he was advocating the Steig paper on the warming of the Antarctic; and his predictions make him look foolish.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 9:16:47 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’s the hypocrisy of many proponents of AGW that feeds skepticism. Just lately we’ve had Tim Flannery bemoaning that some are “play[ing] the man and not the ball”. Yet wasn't Flannery who went around like some old testament prophet making apocalyptic predictions about dams drying up? Flannerly should perhaps consider himself lucky since in past ages prophets who got their predictions wrong faced much harsher judgment.

And it’s the exponents of AGW who have made “ play[ing] the man and not the ball”. We have this gem from Andy Pittman (UNSW Climate Change Research Centre)“ whereas the climate scientists have day jobs … the skeptics are being funded to put out full scale misinformation campaigns…”
And one comes away from Naomi Oreskes’s much revered "Merchants of Doubt" believing that all sources who challenge the official version of AGW are in the pay big tobacco or big oil, or both. And witness the personal attacks Ian Pilmer, Christopher Monckton, Robert Carter, in fact anyone who dares to challenge any aspect of the AGW orthodoxy.
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 9:50:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. 24
  10. All

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