More mumbo-jumbo and gizzard-lore from the modern superstitious.

The only reason they are ever able to assert that AGW policy would result in net benefits is because they keep assuming it in their premises. This is not economics. It's magic pudding. It's blind irrational worship of the state-god.

"At present the voice of the people is drowned out", no it's not, it's being heard loud and clear by the politicians in this and other countries .. no new big tax. You assume everyone thinks like you do, they don't you are in a minority.

Your whole article is based on the assumption that it is only "vested interest" companies that are opposed to AGW taxes and pie in the sky green dreams of replacement industries.

"noisy squeals of protest from present vested interests", the only noisy squeals we hear, constantly are from the eco and green types all demanding the cessation of fossil fuel use. With weird and expensive replacement technologies, that clearly do not work.

if you could replace fossil fuels, we would, the fact that we do not, is not controlled by vested interests, those same vested interests would change tack in a heartbeat if there was a buck in it.

They don't because all the renewables, don't work yet sufficiently to replace our base load requirement or our transportation requirements.

Those requirements will not change because a bunch of people keep chanting and whining that "something must be done", about something most people don't believe is going to be as bad as all the scientific "forecasts", future casting, predictions whatever are saying. Here's the thing, all through time vested interest groups, like you Geoff, have relied on doomsaying, only to fail when your predictions do not eventuate. This is really what people believe, not the hysterics of the world ending.

now if you put up nuclear power plants to replace coal fired power plants, you have my interest. Mind you there is currently a 15 year wait for work to start since so many countries are now planning to build Nuc plants, that there is a lack of skilled companies to build them, blame the Caldicotts for that.

An article with foundations in reality; not one to be well received by those who lobby on behalf of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.

If all Government subsidies (including the hidden ones) were to cease immediately, there is a fair chance that Solar, in just a few years, will reach parity in energy costs with coal for electricity production. A level playing field on that basis has been a stated preference by some of those working in the renewables field.

As for nuclear – if it is so viable, then it will be a worthwhile investment (if permitted on political grounds) by private enterprise alone.

The article sets out the situation quite reasonably – the political parties are not representing the voters. Instead, they represent the most influential (non-voting) lobby groups.

Big business pretends it is against carbon taxes but quite the reverse is true.They want the price on carbon to push up the price on fossil fuels and then use carbon derivatives in the share market to screw us again.

There is a better way if you think carbon is the problem.Reward people for using clean alternatives.I bet the Gillard Govt would not introduce a carbon tax if all of it was to go int clean energy alternatives.It is all about the oligarchs who serve the wishes of the big end of town.

Repeat nightly television news scenes of melting summer ice and a blanketing of doomsayer innuendos across the entire spectrum of our media are not achieving the outcomes this author desires.
Citizens of fossil fuel based societies have the ultimate vested interest and are therefore the ultimate targets of this author's views. Exactly how does he expect our energy usage to decline, when despite all our best efforts, it is increasing?
The Vostok ice cores tell us increases in atmospheric CO2 follow natural warming by approximately 800 years. I haven't seen that on the nightly news. I guess 'Truth' in itself is also vested interest.

The greenhouse hullabaloo and propaganda from rent-seekers is the real obstacle – to common sense.

Geoff, I have to agree; we have prospective Prime Ministers who are suited to running the world's coal mine and are more influenced by behind closed doors lobbying than by either public concerns or scientific ones for our nation and world's long term prosperity. What's most disturbing to me is that to get policy that reflects the real science on climate we have to go to a fringe party. From mainstream politics we've had 2 full decades of delay and still our future energy demands are apparently to be met by more coal fired power stations that won't have carbon capture, won't be paying any carbon price towards funding the necessary transition to low emissions technology and won't be built with any serious intention of them closing down before the end of their multidecade working life, far beyond when emissions targets suitable for avoiding catastrophic climate change are passed. Any low emissions projects offered as solutions by Labor or LibNats are to be greenwash ones for show, tinkering on the edges of an energy grid primarily based on technologies that fail to address emissions reductions in any meaningful way.

[Deleted for abuse].

Where has the author and some of the posters been the past few years? Hasn't legislation been passed mandating that 20 per cent of the nation's power has to come from renewable sources by 2020? Wasn't this legislation, which requires a massive overhaul of the network and multi-billions of dollars worth of investment, all to be paid for by consumers, passed with virtually no opposition or did I miss something? The story is even more bizarre due to recent changes so that small scale domestic systems can make up some of the 20 per cent.
Instead the author has chosen to concentrate on the CPRS which had all sorts of problems including a known, major design flaw - it allowed emitters to buy carbon credits from overseas.
Also, as has been pointed out many times, but apparently missed by the author in his exentive researchers, the CPRS was dumped because the electorate at large realised that they would have to pay for it. The major parties run focus groups all the time, and the CPRS got bad vibes in Labor Party focus groups, hence the dumping. Big energy obviously had nothing to do with it. This is well recognised by anyone who has bothered to read newsapeprs in recent months.
The author is entitled to his predjudices but why inflict them on us, particularly as they are so obviously contrary to what is know to be happening?

Hasbeen,

Truer words were never written. I don't know why you call yourself 'Hasbeen'. You have a lot of sense left in you.

Dear Geoff, it really is time this blame game stopped. The real obstacle to AGW action is the “AGW movement”.

The main three groups are the Politicians, the public and the “AGW movement”.

The AGW movement comprises mostly the UN’s IPCC, CRU, London Met Office, Pen. State University’s Michael Mann, Some NGO’s, many advocacy scientists, some in the intelligencia/academia and some in the compliant media.

The media is “compliant” because it failed to inform the public. The reason for this is that journalists no longer disseminate, analyze, interrogate and present news and current affairs, they peddle opinion. Many now realize that they don’t have the intellectual horsepower to formulate their own opinion, or they are just lazy. So they just go with the flow and have become the propaganda organ for the “movement”.

This advocacy block has, for the past 15 or 20 years, built up a head of steam within the public domain, which I agree, is still strong enough to provide a political mandate for action.

You must ask yourself this. If you’re right and the science is settled, we have scientific consensus, and the official bodies are so “exonerated”, why is this debate so contentious and divisive?

The answer is that there is a body of scientific opinion that has so far been excluded from your science, by your movement. There are many in the public domain that remains unhappy about this situation and your movement has failed to address it.

The advocacy block survives for only one reason, and it isn’t science, its political sponsorship.

The movement has “wedged” politicians. They depend upon electoral support and are threatened by the movements’ head of steam within the public domain. This is why politicians are maintaining their “sponsorship”, but only by talking the talk.

By denying all scientists getting together with all available research and all opinions, there will be no scientific conclusion which the public can trust. The movement of course will never let this happen because you well know it isn’t science, its advocacy.

Continued;

Continued;

The politicians know it is advocacy and not science, but they have a problem as we have already seen in Australia; there is still wide public support for action. There is clearly a lag between political pragmatism and public opinion.

The sting is the surveys that show that of the majority of the public support it, even more say they do not understand it and want more information.

This tells Politicians that no legislation will go through unless the public gets to scrutinize the science, or they can bypass that scrutiny. (The Citizens Assembly is a bypass mechanism).

So Politicians will maintain a sponsorship “stance” whilst ever the polls indicate strong support for action but put on hold many major new policy initiatives. The movement of course, must at all costs keep pressure on their political sponsorship. “What do we want? Action! When do we want it? Now!”

We have also seen a sharp increase in the urgency and doom from advocacy science; this is because it believes there is still hope of getting it through on the nod, without having to explain to the public.

The movement will do anything and everything to prevent any reconciliation between dissenting scientific opinions. Because you know “your” advocacy science will not survive this.

Over time the current public mandate for action will decay, at which point the politicians will no longer be wedged and your sponsorship will by withdrawn.

Geoff, in Australia we have just seen two Liberal Leaders chopped because they promoted action. Yet incredibly, we have seen Mr. Rudd get chopped, partially for shelving action and our current PM take a flogging for delaying action. What is it about these huge contradictions you are not getting?

The movement has wedged and is holding our politicians to ransom, you are asking our politicians to drink from the poisoned chalice and they are not going to do it because the public will now demand explanations to justify policy.

Your scientific community must embrace official dialogue with the contrary science.

Good article, Geoff. However, I wonder why you did not mention the Australian Greens, whose energy policies align with yours.

Bob Brown seems to be the only politician with real vision in this country, and he is feared by the vested interests.

I hope the Greens do really well in this election as they are the only force in this country with the integrity and guts to stand up to those (in)vested interests.

Well Leigh, it would appear that what to you & I is simple truth, is to some others, abuse. Pity about that.

Still I have heard that even the truth can be costly to a publisher, so I suppose they have to be careful.

It never seems to occur to the self-appointed born-to-rule mob, who presume to know better than everyone else in the world put together, that the vested interests are vested because the multitudes don't like to freeze in the dark.

The real obstacle to greenhouse action is ... that Global Warming is a grand and expensive delusion which is being used by vested interests to further their careers and pad their pockets with our Carbon Taxes.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will pay through the nose just to keep warm in winter, while our excess dollars will go into the pockets of those who have investment in the scheme.

I bet Bob Brown won't go cold, even in Tasmania.

The real argument is about corruption and waste. When fuel prices started to hike it was revealed that the biggest take of a litre of fuel was tax. All other sectors have had to take a cut in the name of efficiencies or scale of economy while government has grown. So to grow the pork barrel taxes are increased. As we produce less and less with our wasteful corrupt system, the wealth of the nation goes down the gurgler. Twisting and screwing and hot air does not get the required heart change. In a democracy such as Australia, justice is ensuring the views of the majority form the values and laws of the land, while protecting the right of minority groups, to freedom of religion, lifestyle and speech, providing such freedoms do not override the predominant culture and view of the majority. When minority views hijack justice, corruption becomes the norm and loss of freedoms follow for no gain. All the increased taxes and cost burdens the greens wish to load on to the majority does nothing for the enviroment but continues the culture of greed and corruption. No amount of blame and guilt will fix the problem, just shift the peoples focus from corrupt practices of the minority as they impose their will on the silent majority.

The carbon tax, to tax carbon is taxing diamond rings afterall diamond rings are nothing but carbon.

People like Al Gore and Malcolm Turnbull will the big winners, out of carbon trading will be able to afford to by more carbon in the form of diamond rings.

Basically under any scheme there will be a few big winners as their net wealth will increase and an extremely large number of us will be much worse off.

It totally impossible to reduce Australia carbon dioxide emissions, whilst at the same time increasing population. The sums do not work.

Thanks to those who appreciated the sentiments of this article. Of course the Greens have the most sensible policy, I was just focussed on the elephant in the room that mainstream commentary consistently ignores. I note that Paul Krugman of NYT did get some minor coverage for making a very similar observation about US climate politics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html

For the rest, it's a little disappointing, if not exactly surprising, to encounter exactly the same attitudes, and anonymous characters, as before, after a little time away from OLO. Regarding "AGW":

The hacked UEA emails business was a concocted storm in a teacup, never relevant to the main scientific findings, as I pointed out on OLO more than once. As Rodney Tiffen observes, the unsensational conclusions of investigations get very little media (or blog?) attention:
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100725-10qev.html

Someone recycled the tired old claim that because warming led CO2 in the ice ages that proves CO2 can't be causing warming now. It does not prove that, and the reason can be found here: http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/co2-lag-during-ice-ages/

Otherwise, you choose your conspiracies and I'll choose mine. Mine's better documented. I wonder how anyone can claim Al Gore and Malcolm Turnbull are only in it for the money while not seeing any problem with ExxonMobil's motives in funding denialist disinformation. They don't even hide it: "Doubt is our product".

Oh, and so far 2010 is, not unexpectedly, the hottest year on record:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/global-cooling-over/
So is anyone ready to recant on "global cooling since 1998"? Senator Fielding perhaps?

When government-funded scientists 'adjust' the raw data so as to increase warming trends by 66%, it does tend to show an increase in warming, yes.

JamesH: "It (sic) totally impossible to reduce Australia carbon dioxide emissions, whilst at the same time increasing population. The sums do not work."

It's easy:
-solar power
-wind power
-increased PT usage
-car pooling
-smaller dwelling size
-efficient light globes
-reduced packaging (e.g toy packaging is ridiculous) saves carbon emissions in manufacture and destruction
- more pollution controls in industry
- etc
- etc
- etc

The sums work if the people do.

And I fail to see what Malcolm Turnbull or anyone has to gain from any of the above.

If we need a carbon price to encourage the above activity, it is because present generations don't give a crap about future generations.

Geoff Davies,

“after a little time away from OLO”

I can only guess, Geoff, that you must have been far out to either not had the urge, or else, not been able to access OLO!
I mean in this day and age almost everywhere has the internet!

And your talk about seeing elephants in your room only serves to confirm my suspicions!

And it explains another thing too–why you are so far behind the times with regard to the AGW debate.But look, I’ve done you a favour, I‘ve attached a link here where you can read all the latest

I particularly liked this bit : “A study of Arctic cooling cycles suggest warming is linked to solar activity.”
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4431

And here’s the counter from the believers side –an argument for immediate action-- this will really give you a belly laugh!

"So just imagine, if you like, you're in a car, travelling fast and in two seconds you're about to hit a 50-tonne truck. You do three things; first you call a meeting of all those who may be affected and gather their thoughts, secondly you consult all the authorities who may be interested (the lawyers, insurers, officials) and get their reactions too, and thirdly you can choose to reject the physics. It is a post-modern world. Reject gravity and Newton's laws. Have a nice crash"
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2965350.htm

<And I fail to see what Malcolm Turnbull or anyone has to gain from any of the above.

If we need a carbon price to encourage the above activity, it is because present generations don't give a crap about future generations.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 4:45:53 PM
>

Somebody has to run the carbon market and more than likely it will The Macquarie bank, carbon trading will be the biggest money earner without any actual productivity.