So this character is arguing that while there's no tax it's costing money "to reduce emissions". How? It doesn't cost me a cent because I haven't bought the crappy argument that there is a need to cut emissions.

And, he says, when you have a carbon tax in place, you either pay the tax or you don't use energy (and thus "save" money).

As a philosopher, this guy ought to know the word SOPHISTRY.

No Ken, Sophistry is using rhetoric to "oppose" all solutions just because their sugar daddies will lose their cash cows.
"Direct action" is poli-speak just like Fox News is "fair and balanced".
Just months ago all the Liberal power brokers publicly backed the line that "Climate Change is cr*p".
Why have they changed this tune?
Because the rest of the world is not in thrall of the misinformation campaign that the west has been subjected to, and our pollies, even the conservatives, realise they look like ignorant hicks by continuing the "GW is a myth" rubbish.
When the US military takes it seriously, as does all big business with more than a 10 year planning horizon, as does the leading national experts in *every major country*...yes, only bloggers and industry marketeers can pretend that "GW is cr*p" now.
It's a bit like the moon landing "hoax". Millions still believe it, but hundreds of engineers, amateur astronomers and ham radio operators around the world *know* it can't be faked.
It seems that no matter how much knowledge is out there, some folks will always find is advantageous to spruik for ignorance.
The Libs (and Labour these days) will spout whatever their paymasters want them to. Pretty obvious that a highly profitable energy industry wants the rest of us to pay for their industry to be modernised...Can't blame them for trying but, like bankers, they don't deserve $M handouts.

You must have an odd dictionary, Ozandy. Mine defines sophistry as 'a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning; a false argument'.

Which is pretty much exactly what KenH - accurately - identified Michael's opening argument as. If anything, reducing emissions currently saves the consumer money, as the only mechanism to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption, hence reducing spending.

It is entirely plausible to argue that the reverse of Michael's argument is true: with a carbon tax, the consumer will lose money no matter whether they reduce emissions or not. If there is a tax, someone has to pay it: any other argument is truly 'voodoo economics'. Of course, you will argue, the 'big polluters' (presumably electricity generators, etc.) will pay the tax - and they *won't* pass on the cost to their consumers? Spare me.

I had a good chortle at your assertion that the US military believes in it, therefore it MUST be true. Just like the Domino Theory, hey? The US military sure believed in that. Or 'psychic warfare', perhaps? The US military certainly investigated it (however briefly), therefore, as the woo-woo believers assert, it MUST be real.

Ozandy, I suggest you save yourself some future embarrassment and, like many previously hardcore AGW spruikers, and even some recent writers on OLO (like Steven Meyer) and join the climb-down from the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption (feel free to use whatever is the currently fashionable terminology) bandwagon. The longer you stay aboard, loudly tooting your vuvuzela, the sillier you'll look when everyone else has slunk away in shamefaced silence.

Clownfish. Perhaps I should have said "the rhetoric being used amounts to sophistry". Either way I know which side of the argument is using sophistry in it's tactics.
Fair cop on the US military...I wouldn't usually use them as an example of wisdom...but they are not always totally insane. I think it was more a high level strategy group that suggested that GW was more of a threat than terrorists.
I will not be "climbing down" anytime soon because I'm working very close the data and the scientists...I see too much real data to suddenly dis-believe my eyes and brain. In the South Pacific the warming signal is pretty strong and the locals are busy trying to adapt. As I see and hear about the implications every day, and it agrees with the rigorous science results (which by their nature are based on data a few years old), I see no reason to doubt the folks I work with. Unlike banking, basic science usually an inherently honest profession as there is little to gain by lying and getting caught.
I agree that some of the proposed solutions are silly...there is a lot of over hyped rubbish from the "sky is falling" brigade. But to argue that GW is not happening is just ignorant flat earth stuff.

Michael Rowan's (philosopher) grasp of economics and the coalition's policy are laughable.

The coalition has ruled out a carbon price until at least Australia's trading partners are implementing something similar, and are until then focusing on improving efficiency, and developing technology.

As for the economics, energy is already a considerable cost for most businesses, and nearly everyone already goes out of their way to conserve. A carbon tax increases the price of power, which for most businesses, industry and farming is one of many cost inputs. The demand for power is very inelastic in the short term, in that no one is going to sell their car, or rebuild their businesses because of a 20% increase in fuel or electricity costs.

The additional costs of business will simply be passed onto the consumer, or the business will close in favour of business in a country like China with no carbon tax. The result is a negligible change in pollution, just shifting production (and pollution overseas)

Sophistry is a good term to use for this article. Philosophically good, but technically vapid.

In December, 2009 Mr Turnbull wrote an article for The Times of London, calling Mr Abbott a ''colourfully self-confessed climate sceptic''. He warned that any policy announced by the Coalition would be ''a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing''.

That is precisely what Coalition policy climate change has proved to be. What little it proposes to do will be, as one would expect from conservatives, a cost to taxpayers, weather or not they have any involvement in carbon emissions and irrespective of the magnitude of their emissions. Those who escape paying anything are the largest polluters.

Non-scalability of Coalition policy is an important point made by Professor Rowan since the policy would be hard pressed in achieving the nominal bi-partisan target of reducing CO2 emissions by 5% below 2000 levels. If, as is likely, the Australian government comes to its senses and introduces a national reduction target of 25%, Coalition policy would be shown as being unable to deliver and nothing more than a sham.

What else could one expect from a Coalition which comprises the National Party which believes the climate is cooling, that no action is necessary and takes its advice from that known denier of global warming, Ian Plimer. The larger Coalition members is of course the Liberal Party led by Tony Abbott who (in)famously described global warming as “a load of crap” and rather likes the ideas of that fruit-cake Chris Monckton.

The only surprise is that the Coalition has managed to cobble together a collection of disparate ideas which satisfies a majority of its elected members. However the electorate is under no illusions that it represents a serious, cogent and effective policy. It is no such thing.

Micfhael Rowan's arguments are flawed.

He criticises the Liberals for endorsing government action in wanting and supporting 'direct action' initiatives. Yet he blindly criticises them for not supporting the Government proposed and sponsered 'market mechanisim ' of a carbon tax.

That's really very amusing. I hope he hasn't a straight face.

Adam Smith would say: Let the market determine whether there needs be a price on carbon. End of story. If the market determines there is no need of a price on carbon then let it be and don't legislate the need for one.

The Liberals position given the amount of deception in the media is probably being applauded by Smith... as most responsible, logical and reasonable.

I know he would be totally rejecting all of the rubbish put out by and the inordinate amount of meddling proposed by the current crop of Australian socialist and communist politicians, their spin merchants and supporting cast of freeloading academics.

All the Coalition has to do is wait... the Republican midterm landslide in the US has fatally wounded the AGW movement there, the Canadian Senate have just killed their carbon trading bill, the Chicago Carbon Exchange has shut down, and France is dismantling their mega-enviro-ministry. One by one the dominoes are starting to fall, and all Tony Abbott has to do is wait and see whether Julia is nimble enough to skip out of the way when the local ones go over. Just wait, and keep Turnbull out of the drivers' seat.

What is the cause of all the water in the driest continent on the planet where it is never going to rain again because we have to much Co2. Lets put a charge on Co2 that will fix it. Any more fairy tales.

Well, Ozandy, it seems as though we're approaching some common ground.

I may be over-optimistic, but I hope that 'climategate' has had a sobering effect on both sides, separating the true, wild-eyed deniers from the more sober skeptics, and giving some of the more sober believers a bit of a reality check on just how some of their leading brethren were indeed behaving badly.

As Judith Curry writes: 'When I first started reading the CRU emails, my reaction was a visceral one. While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the “science hadn’t changed,” ... I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field.'

Speaking of Judith Curry, her recent blog post is perhaps pertinent: http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/14/what-we-know-with-confidence/

You're right, of course, there are some extremely silly proposals being floated and even sillier claims of imminent disaster. And, yes only a true denier would deny that climate changes, although there is reasonable ground to question 'Global Warming', in the sense of an inexorable, human-created warming continuing relentlessly over the course of the next centuries. That there have been multi-decadal periods of warming over the last century is reasonably certain.

Your statement that 'basic science usually an inherently honest profession' is certainly true: science is above all self-correcting. But one may ask, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, does that apply to 'post-normal science'? Putting policy considerations ahead of strict truth-telling, as Mike Hulme urges, seems dangerously divorced from honest science.

That 'there is little to gain by lying and getting caught' is more questionable. The Golden Tsunami of research funding and the associated prestige that inundated proponents of Global Warming suggests otherwise. To quote Judith Curry again, 'at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC.'

I think keith is on to something: what, indeed, would Adam Smith do? (WWASD? :) )

I very much doubt he would, as Michael Rowan urges, support the state meddling in the marketplace in order to engender 'correct behaviour' in its citizens.

Nor do I think he would have much truck in the state taxing the bejesus out of the marketplace, in order to fund and promote a lacklustre product ('renewable energy') that just happens to be favoured by the regime of the day.

I am fairly certain that Adam Smith would argue that the new product, renewable energy, should simply be left to compete on its own merit against the existing product, fossil fuel energy. If the new product has merit, the market will ensure that it prevails.

After all, the motor car didn't win out over the horse and cart because the state introduced a Horse-Poo Tax in order to fund the development of the internal combustion engine. And, believe me, horse poo was indeed a huge (literally) and seemingly ineradicable environmental problem in the 19th century. Ever wondered why New York's famous brownstones have such high stoops?

Clownfish: I will agree that there will be a minority of science with a bias towards what the researchers believe to be true...these are humans after all. However the thing about peer reviewed science is that it *must* be transparent and when played properly, the game is self correcting. Science is after all the *only* human invention that has been shown by history to improve human knowledge over time. Name another method of arriving at the truth without transparency, full disclosure and repeatable methods?
This article describes the sceptics movement well: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41292.html
Basically large pay packets, ideology, and complete lack of accountability and peer-review characterise the sceptical "scientists". They are attack dogs, not true sceptics.
I agree with you regarding carbon tax and to some extent subsidising renewables...so long as the polluting industries start paying their true costs so that renewables can play on a level playing field. Given that everyone but the coal industry pays for coal pollution, how can they say there are so cheap? Nuclear is even more expensive but proponents ignore the true cost, which has traditionally been hidden by black military budgets.
So let renewables compete sure...but also let fossil fuels pay their true costs...and take into account the infrustructure that was subsidised by our parents and grandparents to get them to a profitable stage of development.
Remember it was science and engineering that gave us the gift of cheap energy. The anti-science movement is basically killing off solution options for the next generations by maintaining the current rent-seeker's rights to make massive profits.

As I said, Ozandy, if you want to follow the money trail, you'll find that the amount of money directed towards skepticism is paltry compared with the money spent on alarmism.

So Exxon-Mobil spent $23,000,000? And not all of that on climate skepticism, either. Meanwhile, Phil Jones alone received almost that much funding.

The US government has meanwhile spent some $79,000,000,000 funding climate change policies. The UK is set to spend an astonishing $28,000,000,000 on Ed Milliband's Climate Change Act - the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through the British parliament.

In the meantime, the value of carbon trading in 2008 was $126,000,000,000.

Cui Bono? Certainly not the skeptics.

Does anyone expect the Coalition to have a genuine commitment to emissions reduction? Abbott won his leadership largely on his climate non-policy. Not that I think Labor is all that serious about anything but holding power and if that requires appearing to be serious they will make an effort to appear to be serious. Real, serious action awaits across the board agreement that the problem matters enough and I suppose that waits on the extreme and damaging events that can overwhelm the complacency and narrow short-term focus of many Australians.

We've had drought breaking rains in the East that ease, perhaps for an electoral cycle or two, the worries of a long term drying trend. The risks of catastrophic fires are temporarily eased as well. Climate change doesn't seem so close and personal at the moment. Temporary of course; there will be drought and heatwaves that make what we've had to date seem mild but present conditions allow the public the illusion it may not happen.

The voices of Denial, Doubt and Delay appear to be having lots of success at undermining public confidence in the conclusions of leading scientists and institutions that study climate. Their successes are to our long term detriment.

Labor will be as painfully slow and reluctant to commit to policy as they can without totally alienating the Greens and the Coalition will believe their no-action stance is an election winner and continue to avoid aligning themselves with the best available scientific advice. What we'll get - it looks most likely to me - is much too little much too late.

So, Ken, let us imagine that Australia somehow magically reduces its emissions to zero, tomorrow (we can conveniently ignore the economic and social consequences of doing so, although a most entertaining vision of 'Mad Max' currently springs to mind).

Exactly how much difference to global temperatures will this make?

The policies of the world's biggest exporter of coal is irrelevant to climate change? We can't do it all so don't bother? I think we (Australia) should be doing the most we are capable of rather than the least we can get away with.

In which Ken conveniently avoids giving an actual answer ...

Ken
Please answer the question: how much difference to global temperatures will it make if Australia reduces its emissions to zero? Show your workings.

If you can't do it, please admit that you can't do it.

CO2 emissions increased by 3% in 2010 (mostly by China) which is twice what Australia emits in total.

If Australia commits itself to the extreme Greens' target of a 25% reduction by 2020, this massive disruption to the economy will compensate for 6 weeks growth by the developing world.

Please tell me what the purpose is of Australia going it alone?

People are waking up to all the alarmism that has been pushed regarding man made global warming. The only people who will gain by having a carbon tax are the likes of Al Gore and his cohorts.
Electricity has already increased to a point where people cannot afford to use it. Adding a carbon tax will increase this again and place electricity out of the reach of those who most need it.

It is time that Australians woke up to the big con that has been dreamed up to transfer the wealth to others.

I'm using this site to express my opinions - which are in accord with the science from the world's leading scientific bodies. Anyone who uses convenient misunderstandings between the technical term 'statistical significance' and the more widely used word 'significance' to put the conclusion that there's been no warming for 15yrs into the mouth of someone who's work clearly shows warming over that period isn't someone who is informed or honest. The world really is warming and multiple independent measures and indicators show it clearly. If people won't accept science that's endorsed by every peak science body why would I even imagine anything I say would change that? I will continue to trust that the world's leading scientific bodies know better and are more honest than the popular high priests of the cult of climate science disbelief who aim to tell their followers what they want to hear.

The long term impacts look very likely to cost and hurt us very dearly; hoping or pretending there will be no adverse impacts is denial of what's now known about our climate. It is dangerously irresponsible and I will continue to point that out.

Australia, as a major supplier of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming, contributing by it's exports far more GHG's than it emits locally - yet despite being well informed of the impacts on climate and well endowed with potential to make low emissions energy it's failing to introduce effective policy to bring on that necessary transition. Global action will only be hindered by Australians insisting we should do no more than the least any other nation does. We are not inconsequential. Nor are we going it alone. We should be doing as much as we are capable of - not angling to do the least we can get away with.