Its well documented that the carbon tax probably wont have any real
positive effect on CO2 a bit like putting solar cells on houses.
Good FLUFFY politics with low out comes.

The EU has not seen any positive benefits from CO2 tax and are reveiwing policy.

Can we trust government to ADMINISTER the policy effectively and are
the government institutions capable of doing the job.
As weve seen in past they seem to be lacking in some skills.

Were never going to be able to get ridd of CO2 we like to burn stuff
to much and its the whole bases of western civilization.

But we can implemeant smart policy like smart electrical networks
that can reduce co2 by 10%.

Do we trust other counties who will take our co2 dollars and use them
to make the world a better place.

Carrot and stick is not the way to move forward.
Target the 5 biggest polluters and assist them.

Lets not demonise them...lets nurture them.

A few comments on Des Moores article which seems to create a Climate of Discontent through misinformation.

• Tony Abbott, like Des Moore, seeks to leave the impression that the Carbon Tax is a direct tax on every individual tax payer (A Great Big New Tax) when both know it is a direct tax to be levied only on the top 1,000 companies responsible for the largest greenhouse gas emissions.

• Des Moore writes “Abbott might even dare to describe global warming science as a scam” In fact Abbott has already done so, declaring it to be “crap” despite the clearest evidence of its reality and, increasingly, its effects.

• Moore complains that Gillard has given no explanation as to why Australia should take a leading roll by acting on its own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – yet another fallacy which ignores the fact that many developed countries, notably in Europe but including Japan and many of the United States have acted to price carbon in order to reduce emissions, making far larger reductions than the 5% proposed by Australia.

• He complains that government has given no substantive reason for introducing a price on carbon when in fact is has repeatedly justified its decision by stating that (unlike Des Moore) it accepts the science of climate change, it recognizes the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions, it accepts advice that the most effective way of doing so is by pricing carbon emissions and that the most efficient way of doing this is by putting an ETS in place. It has opted for a carbon tax as an interim measure until it has completed the design and gained popular understanding of an ETS.

• Des Moore writes that “a carbon tax of any size in Australia would expose businesses to serious international competition” and that the government fails to recognize this. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gillard has repeatedly made it clear that revenue raised by the tax will be used to compensate households, trade exposed industry and to stimulate development and use of clean technology.

• His concluding advice: Price carbon so low that it has no effect on business or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Makes as much sense as the rest of his article.

Des Moore is Director of the Institute of Private Enterprise which he established in 1996 to promote the cause of private enterprise and argue for a reduction in the role of government. Understandably, he is more concerned with protecting vested interests and their short-term profits.

However, the longer term effects of global warming will certainly damage and probably destroy those interests if we and other countries adopt the “Business As Usual” approach he advocates. Such myopia!

Agnostic, what is this “science of climate change” which you mention.

The only available science is that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate.

The IPCC accepts this by default, when it says that it is “very likely”. At the time that it made this unsubstantiated claim, it foreshadowed that proof would be demonstrated when the “hotspot” in the troposphere was shown to exist, which would be “ the signature” for AGW.

It is clear now that there is no such hotspot, so the IPCC, instead of retracting their failed claim have elected to keep looking for the “hotspot”. They also hope to find a unicorn.

Natural CO2 comprises 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Human emissions are said to be 3%. There is a natural variation of 10% in the CO2 cycle, so the 3% is not noticeable in the natural cycle and cannot be shown to have any effect.

The settled science is that warming occurs in natural cycles, and human input has not been shown to have any effect. It is highly unlikely that it will be shown to have any effect.

Probably why 32,000 scientists have signed a petition to Congress that no action be taken on AGW until a scientific basis is produced.

All the alarmist support seems to come from a small group of scientists associated with the IPCC. You have no doubt heard of them. They are the authors of the disgraceful Climategate emails, which disclose their underhand methods of promoting the scam.

AoM, as has been said;

Don't waste your knowledge, intelligence, wisdom or words of advice on answering those who are too ignorant or naive to appreciate it.

In other words, don't cast the pearls - they will get lost in the mud where the intransigents wallow.

Yes, Agnostic, bonmot believes that any demolition of the AGW fraud should not be answered.

Of course there is no answer to it. bonmot's ploy is to say that he does not want to answer it, and he does not see why he should.He thinks that his answer somehow disguises the fact that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any effect on climate.

He also beieves in the ad hominem attack, the first refuge of fraud backers when they have no basis in science.

I would like to know the basis he has for belief in "knowledge, intelligence, wisdom or words of advice" that have never been evidenced by him in any post on On Line Opinion. Perhaps they have an existence of some sort in his dreams, but he needs to understand that he must distinguish reality, where there is no such thing as a scientific basis for AGW.

What is a joy to see is Juliar swinging in the wind like a Pinnata.

Another few months of this and I can see Greg Combet as PM.

Rudd, Juliar, Combet .. yep, a parade of clowns, all we need to do is issue the long floppy shoes and red noses and our government would be complete.

You'd think the comedians would be having a festival with the antics of this mob, must be killing them not being able to laugh at their own ..

The author is enlightening in his analysis.

Sadly, it is taking a long time for voters to wake up to the fact that the AGW promotion by the ABC, SBS, Fairfax Press and politicians, is propaganda.

Even now, Wayne Swan is trying to con people by claiming that the carbon tax would not impact them as it would be levied only on the big polluters. Instead, if he were to exercise his duty of care, he would need to point out that the carbon tax is an indirect tax that would affect adversely every industry in Australia, except the inefficient, unreliable, high-cost renewable energy industry which would be assisted effectively by being subsidised by the efficient, reliable, low-cost, coal-fired power generators.

If the Government were to exercise its duty of care, it would need to explain that implementation of the carbon tax would be a pointless exercise, as it would impose substantial cost on Australia, but not achieve any reduction in average global temperature.

A question to all those climate alarmists.

Define Climate.

Any reasonable definition makes your alarmism stupid.

I'm sorry to say this Leo but "the science has been settled" in that every reputable scientist has had their reputation harmed by;

1. Climate gate - how do you determine who to believe now
2. Skepticism - How dare the scientics question the politicians

Don't worry about global warming or cooling we have a bigger problem global misrepresentation.

This is a sad time in the Earth's history.
I predict a new dark age.. starting now

Massey, no reputable scientist has had their reputation harmed by Climategate.

It has harmed the reputation of the Climategate miscreants, but if they were reputable , they did not deserve to be.

It has enhanced the reputation of many scientists who have pointed out that the AGW assertion is, at best, questionable, starting with the 32,000 scientists who signed a petition to Congress for delay of any action on AGW until a scientific basis had been established.

The only settled science at the moment is that natural cycles govern climate and there is no detectable effect on climate from human activity.

"The only available science is that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate" says Leo Lane. It is clear from L Lanes's other posts that he or she is probably not susceptible to reason or evidence, and that he or she is remarkably gullible - for example, quoting the utterly discredited hoax petition of thirty-one (or -two, or whatever) thousand "scientists", known as the Oregon Petition. However the statement that human emissions have no measurable effect is simply wrong. There are some more or less reputable climate scientists (eg Spencer, Christy) who assert that human emissions have a trifling effect on climate. Their arguments are not well supported within the climate science community. But there are hundreds if not thousands of research papers, published in reputable journals, which lay out the evidence for the effects of human emissions on climate. This research has been going on for decades, long before the establishment of the IPCC, and quite independent of the UN. See for example the hundred or so papers in Greenhouse: Planning for Climate Change, ed. GI Pearman, which were presented at a conference at Monash University in 1987. If L Lane really believes that there is no evidence, and has evidence to back this view, he or she could certainly achieve fame by publishing his or her research results and so refuting mainstream science.

Thanks for your comment nicco.

It is dishonest claims such as yours, that the Oregon Petition has been “discredited”, that make the alarmist claims so suspect.

Added to that is your claim:”But there are hundreds if not thousands of research papers, published in reputable journals, which lay out the evidence for the effects of human emissions on climate”.

There are papers which set out effects of global warming, but no evidence that it is caused by human activity. It is generally acknowledged that human emissions have an effect. What I asserted is that the science shows no measurable effect. Human emissions have not been shown to have any significance in any effect they have on climate.

Just give us one paper, nicco, which sets out such evidence.

It will be news to the IPCC, too, as the best that they have come up with is that it is “very likely”.

If you can do that nicco, and have evidence to back your view, you could certainly achieve fame by publishing the research results and so refuting the settled science, that natural cycles continue to govern climate, as they have always done, leaving no room for the asserted effect of human emissions.

Leo Lane again wants a single scientific paper, again showing that he (or she) simply doesn’t understand how science operates. There have been hundreds upon hundreds of papers, addressing aspects of the evidence for human influence on climate change, published in the past few decades. Go to Google Scholar and do your own homework.

At the same time there has been no refutation of the theory by any reputable climate scientist. There is active and robust debate about How much? When? Where? – but the debate, insofar as it is a debate, comes from another quarter. It comes from individual and organisations with a political or economic agenda.

There’s no reason of course why people should not have a political or economic agenda, but to dispute the science because (for example) one doesn’t like a tax shows a failure to appreciate the logic of the situation. Dispute the science on scientific grounds, dispute the doings of government on political grounds. But before telling the government what to do, it is as well to try to understand the science.

As for L Lane’s other views: to call the Oregon Petition “discredited” is putting it mildly. Again, Google it and do your own homework. It’s a hoax. It’s a purely political document, masquerading as something with scientific credibility.

And (like evolution, or relativity) it’s the Theory of human influenced climate change. It’s a scientific theory, and researchers have been working to prove (or disprove) it for decades. What they have stated is that, based on the observed and measured evidence, it is “very likely” true.

They define “very likely” as more than 90%.

And yes, researchers have taken into account solar variation, orbital variation, cosmic rays, and all the other factors which might have some influence on the real observed warming.

"There have been hundreds upon hundreds of papers, addressing aspects of the evidence for human influence on climate change,"

No nicco, there are not - there are hundreds of papers on the effects of climate change ..

You misunderstand effect for cause, a typical refuge of alarmists.

Just because the paper mentions "climate change" does not mean it is about attribution to human activity, but i'm sure it is warm and comfortable in that space.

Leo is correct and you are like so many others, not getting the point of the debate, you think it is about masses of paper which contain the words "climate change"

A comment by a real scientist may assist:

“It seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.”

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

Worldwide expenditure in the order US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, has failed to distinguish any human input into climate.

This is because 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, with 3% produced by human activity. With a natural variation of 10%, it is not surprising that the human contribution cannot be distinguished, and its effect is negligible.

You should consider what you are saying nicco, and stop repeating silly mantras, like ”hundreds upon hundreds of papers”, when there is not one paper which upholds your incorrect assertions.

The IPCC is a political organisation, and its summaries are political documents, full of misrepresentations. It does not have science to back its assertions on climate, nicco, and neither do you.

There were 7 independent scientists who backed the IPCC’s assertion of “very likely”, but 2 later withdrew their endorsement, leaving 5. There were 55 conflicted scientists who backed it, the equivalent of being backed by the Climategate gang.

It is a pity that every time there is mention of carbon tax we get into a debate about global warming.

I wish we could just address greenhouse gas emissions, as a start point. This at least is something which can be, and has been, measured empirically over time. Studies of ice cores have apparently shown significant fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels, coinciding with climate movement to and from ice-age events, and correlated with geological evidence of such events by carbon dating, particularly of sites of earlier human activity. Humans have after all been active on this planet for at least a million years (if you believe in evolution and in carbon dating), and we are told that the last ice-age ended only 10 thousand years ago.

A recent ice-core study made a conclusion that, were it not for human activity, the earth should now be in an ice-age. That is of course based on previous cycles measured over several million years of earth's history, as revealed in ice-core studies. The inter-glacials were found to coincide with increased CO2 levels in the ice-cores, and vice-versa. Can it really be sensible to dispute ice-core records dating back thousands and millions of years?

Whether current CO2 levels are due to human or other activity is a distraction from the primary considerations:
i) Are current CO2 levels (with other greenhouse gasses) within acceptable limits, or are there already signs of harm to the environment? And ii) If the answer to i) is that levels are too high, then, what could or should be done to reduce those levels to acceptable limits?

In partial answer it appears that current levels of CO2 dissolved in the earth's oceans are reaching a point where the ocean ecosystem is at risk of compromise, with potentially substantial detriment to our food and oxygen supplies.

The answer to ii) is greatly dependent on whether humanity can objectively assess i), but I doubt that a carbon tax is the answer.

I think the article also give us cause to question our government's approach in this matter.

Comments on climate change from a “real scientist”, says Leo Lane. This really gives the game away. The “real scientist” he refers to is mining geologist (not climate scientist) Bob Carter, and Carter’s words are in the form of an address to the US Heartland Institute. This has very little to do with real science – it’s not even Australian politics! – it’s the voice of the US mining and fossil fuel lobby, funded by inter alia ExxonMobil and Philip Morris.

rpg, I can only suggest that you take the time to actually look. Climate science has been studied for decades, both the causes and the effects. Below are a couple of references, from the large number freely available, starting with the statement by the Geological Society of London. This is a position paper, not a research paper, but it has copious references at the end.

Meanwhile, LL avoids the issue of probability. Climate change is real, the global temperature is measurably rising, and all the major scientific institutions of the world say that there is at least a 90% probability that this is due to measurable human activity.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/20/0806318105.full.pdf

Sorry, nicco, I should have realised that someone who would consider the ridiculous “debunking” of the Oregon Petition to have any validity, would not know what a climate scientist is. nicco has taken the usual warmecile approach to a competent and respected scientist by sliming him with false misrepresentations

“Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.

Bob Carter has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.'s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth".

He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.”

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

As for previously reputable scientific bodies giving weasel worded statements about human emissions, this is what a scientist, Hal Lewis said when he resigned from the American Physical Society….” the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist”.

Human activity has a local effect, but has not been shown to have a global effect on climate.

Look at reality. If CO2 caused warming as asserted by the alarmists, why has the world not warmed for the past 15 years while CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing? When the temperature shows a trend again it is equally likely that the globe will cool, as it is that it will warm.

As entertaining as it is to see the jousting back and forth on the GW debate, using science reports and raconteurs as missiles, I am forming the opinion that you can argue the case until worms mutate into egg-laying wombats, and you still won't find the answer.

I will be repeating myself, but the current issue is not GW. It is in fact CO2 and other greenhouse gas emission levels, and whether a carbon tax is warranted or offers any real promise of reducing emission levels.

You may dismiss the environmental scientists who are warning that increased levels of CO2 dissolved in the world's oceans is threatening the marine ecosystem, and thus placing at risk a substantial portion of our food and oxygen supplies. I do not dismiss them.

Increasing sea temperatures are increasing CO2 absorption and decreasing dissolved Oxygen levels. The inevitable consequences of this are massive reductions in marine productivity and mass destruction of the phytoplankton which provide not only the base of the food chain for almost all other marine life but also provide the bulk of the world's oxygen. With the current rate of loss of the world's forests we are also increasingly reliant on the phytoplankton for our survival.

Maybe it's time to realise that the development of alternative energy sources is not optional but essential. The only real concern is how best to change, with least destruction to our economic future.

Given that Oz is a minor producer of greenhouse gasses, the burning question is therefore how to change the world. As Oz is also the world's largest producer of wood chips, maybe that would be a good place for us to start. We are also not very good at conserving our forests (or our environment) or at investing in reforestation. We are also not very good at helping others to conserve their forests - viz Indonesia or South America.

Why should we have a carbon tax, when there is so much else we could do more easily and which would have greater immediate and long term effect? Beats me!

soltpeter, I see your point .. but you never mention the obvious energy source which does not produce CO2, which is Nuclear, why is that?

Wind, solar and the other hobby energy producers are still in their infancy and as they are now will not supply base power for domestic or industry reliability. Maybe in another 100 years they might be more energy efficient, and actually return more than it takes to make them in the first place. Regardless of what they produce, the energy used to produce a solar cell or wind turbine is still out of balance with what it finally does and the eco payback period .. but this is ignored by the alarmists and eco wackos in the rush to be fashionable.

Why do any conversations in this area end up in GW discussions, because that's the regular stick taken to anyone who dares doubt, who dares be skeptical about the justification for the big new tax.

nicco, groan .. did you look at the papers at the end of the dscussion paper? Jeez, mate, only a few relate to establishing the cause of GW .. go look.

also nicco, probability is not a sound basis for this science, when we are being asked to give up our future and current lifestyles. The probability of it being wrong and the wrong assumption is being used by the IPCC is very high .. have a look at this paper since you're sending me off reading http://www.informath.org/media/a42.htm this is a discussion paper, the technical details are here http://www.informath.org/media/a41/b8.pdf

many others do the same thing, use authority and probability and statistics to try to gain a foothold on scientific truth. Clearly for some climate scientists and all alarmists, suspension of scientific method an truth is required to make 1+1=2, the rest of us remain skeptical.

Interesting piece in the WSJ, but hardly convincing. To those of us whose heads are not full of conspiracy theories, the IPCC is a body set up by the UN to draw together current scientific knowledge and theory on the important subject of climate change. However, if you think that the UN is a socialist plot, or that the IPCC is part of a movement to impose world government, then let's leave the IPCC out of the conversation. (I don't agree with you, but that's OK. You can leave Al Gore out too, if you want.) There is so much material from outside the IPCC, or before the IPCC, which is hard to dismiss or ignore.

Bob Carter, for instance. LL says that I am guilty of "sliming him with false misrepresentations", when in fact I pointed out, correctly, that Bob Carter is not a climate scientist, and that Carter has a very public and acknowledged political stance, as exemplified by the public appearances which LL enumerates. Surely this is obvious? Even to LL? And he thinks this is "sliming"?

As for LL's assertion that the world has NOT warmed, it is simply incorrect. See: An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, Murphy et al, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtm

rpg, you seem to miss the point about probability. Indeed you seem to be asserting that there is a high probability of the high probability noted by climate scientists being wrong. Bizarre

Re: Carbon tax. Have a listen to Philip Adams interview with Geoff Carmody on the 30/03/11. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/03/lnl_20110330.mp3 Its make sense to me. We the mug punter will pay directly or indirectly via the goods and services we buy. I prefer a direct tax as there is less chance of parasites inflating things and bludging off the producers.

When the GFC was at its peak carbon emissions dropped. The clue here is less economic activity, less CO2. Less parasites equals reduced requirement for economic activity.

Corporate government will not solve the issue as they are a reflection of our society. The only individual on the planet that will solve the issue is reflected in your mirror. Perhaps you can do something after the footy? We need more independents in our parliaments. I believe from chaos comes order.

It’s better to drink Ethanol than Methanol. One kills you, the other you die from!
Gas is better than coal! One kills the planet the other causes the planet to die!

Can there be anything so stupid as to deny mankind's contribution and effect upon climate change ... will be a sad day if and when finally (no doubt too late)skeptics have to say "Oh well, we all make mistakes", just as I will if I actually Do front up to the Pearly Gates .. only difference is that my skepticism will not hurt others, indeed mankind's very existence!

Why does this debate continue ... what IS the point given the consequences of being wrong if indeed, the 97% of science specifically involved in the science of climate change ARE right!

As for a carbon tax and as for compensating households ... nonsense ... it is households of the western world in particular that are responsible for consuming the energy of fossil fuels, of choosing CH4 producing products etc that cause ghg emissions to be approaching runaway unstoppable levels.

The answer is ... cut consumption drastically at household levels, in so doing reduce your cost of living but you will need to suffer the consequences of the economic dip the country, indeed all of western society in particular needs to suffer to achieve this end.

At the same time, demand electricity generators go renewable and major polluters such as mining companies either raise the price of their product or reduce their extraordinary profit margins and pay for clean energy and water they gobble up like free entry pigs at the trough while 97% of the worlds people pay the price for this gluttony!

Is it possible to change the settings so that you don't see certain people's posts? There's a lot of gumph here and it obscures the interesting stuff.

"Can there be anything so stupid as to deny mankind's contribution and effect upon climate change"

Sure, if that were true .. no one denies that we change the climate, what with land clearing and all, just for starters.

But it really is stupid, incredibly stupid to think we're going to fix it all by taxing CO2, using a scheme that does not even stop people at some levels of society backing off, in fact they are cheering for a tax, since the government has told them they will be better off! Go figure.

So, demand suppliers go renewable, like Nuclear? Or the really stupid renewables that don't work at night or when the wind is not blowing.

Somedays you can smell the stupid on AGW and it's minions.

nicco, I give up, you don't see it or want to .. the article was printed in the WSJ because these days you cannot get a decent peer review if you don't subscribe to AGW .. get it? Probability is not "scientific" reasoning for effect OK, it is interesting, but does not in itself become "proof" of anything. If you want to gamble, go to a casino, don't gamble with my or our future if you don't mind. The IPCC is playing silly buggers is the point I was making. You want probability here, but not there is that it? So probability is OK to beat me around the ears, but it doesn't apply to the IPCC? What?

The response by certain well-informed critics to the Government's recent misadvised claims in support of AGW, make interesting reading. See

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/government-misadvised/page:printable

That is a very serious allegation from rpg: that "these days you cannot get a decent peer-review unless you subscribe to AGW". This is suggesting that the whole scientific literature has been nobbled, an improbable possibility. Or else, a more likely possibility, the theory of human-influenced climate change has been so widely accepted, by so many branches of science,that a research paper refuting it or some element of it has become a very rare thing indeed. Perhaps rpg is aware of such research?

It's not just climatologists who broadly accept the theory: it's biologists, geologists (see the Geological Society of London for their position statement), phenologists, physicists, and on and on.

A small political rump of the Royal Society led by Lord Lawson objected, so that body changed its position statement, sightly, but their view still supports the general scientific consensus. The recent RS statement concludes: "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems."

Other major scientific institutions have also had (a very few) "sceptics" making public statements, but there is no scientific institution which does not support the theory. As for raycom's "well-informed critics" we're back with the same little group of politically-motivated non-climatologists, led by Bob Carter, publishing in Quadrant. Hardly a credible team ...

And rpg, I echo your statement: don't gamble with our future. If there's a 90% probability - or even a 50% probability - that our activities can lead to unwanted climatic effects, that's good enough odds for me to say that we should take appropriate steps - the first one being to try and understand the science.

The "group of politically-motivated non-climatologists" ( as Nicco describes them), methodically has applied scientific method to review all the literature on AGW, and found that it contains no scientific evidence to prove the AGW hypothesis.

It is the politically-motivated climate scientists and science bodies that continue to promote the AGW ideology and act contrary to national and international interests

nicco, I set out clearly Carter’s background. Carter is a leading climate scientist. You cannot be as ignorant as you pretend.

Your assertion that “whole scientific literature has been nobbled, an improbable possibility”. Read the Climategate emails, and see the reality.

McLean et al prepared a paper which showed that climate was governed by natural cycles.

It took McLean a year to have his paper published in the Journal of Geological Research. It is not new science, but emphasised that climate follows natural cycles, leaving little room for the proposition that human activity affects climate.

The Climategate emails show the concern of the miscreants that this Journal published such material. Removal of the editor was proposed. (The editor who published McLean’s paper was in fact, subsequently removed.). This is the sort of influence that these people have been able to wield. Three spurious “enquiries" into Climategate, each purporting to “clear” the conspirators, show their influence has not waned.

The Climategate gang put together a “refutation” by Grant Foster et al, which was apparently embarrassing in its composition, considering that it was supposed to be a scientific document. One reviewer said as much, but the paper was expeditiously published in JGR. The improper obtaining of this treatment is evidenced in this email:

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. 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, 2009.

McLean et al promptly submitted a dismissal of the criticism and submitted it to the JGR. The new editor refused to publish it. This was unprecedented conduct and eventually was reversed, so that the refutation was in fact published after a considerable delay.

This is one example of the scurrilous dealings of the Climategate miscreants, evidenced by emails.

Raycom says: "It is the politically-motivated climate scientists and science bodies that continue to promote the AGW ideology and act contrary to national and international interests." This seems to me to put the finger on the problem. If you believe in conspiracy theories, world government, socialist plots and all the rest, it is possible (just) to see the major scientific institutions around the world as being "politically-motivated". If, on the other hand, you take a more objective view, it is simply not possible to deduce the political leanings of any scientist just from the papers that they have had published in journals such as Nature, Science, PNAS, JGR, EOS, and so on. The scientists may have strong political views, but these views are not reflected in their peer-reviewed publications.

Conversely, if individuals associate themselves with (for example) the IPA in Australia, or the Heartland Institute or the Cato Institute in the USA, it is reasonable to conclude that they are politically motivated - these are political institutions after all.

Personally, I am much more inclined to accept the scientific credibility of individuals who have no overt political connections, and the scientific credibility of the major institutions and academies who also have no overt political connections. I do not believe that the Australian Academy, or CSIRO, or BoM, are corrupt.

Raycom gives away his/her own position, once again, by referring to climate science as an "ideology". It isn't. It's a scientific theory, with overwhelming evidence (observed and measured) in its favour.

Leo Lane continues to live in a fantasy land, and it is not worth anyone's time to respond to his farrago of discredited misinformation.

If individuals associate themselves with (for example) the IPCC, the UN, Al Gore, nicco, it is reasonable to conclude that they are politically motivated.

James Hansen, the father of the AGW scam is Al Gore’s adviser. Hansen is a scientist at NASA where he constantly adjusts the global temperature data, and any adjustment constantly favours alarmist assertions.

Hansen is a statistician (is that a climate scientist, nicco?) and he constantly has to make objective judgements. They have ceased to be objective, because his association with Gore, an acknowledged liar and fraud, prevents him from being scientifically objective. He is corrupted by politics. The data at NASA is corrupted by politics, so is NASA not corrupted by politics?

You say: ”I do not believe that the Australian Academy, or CSIRO, or BoM, are corrupt.”

Why, then , have they put forward corrupt information? For example:
“Bureau of Meteorology senior climatologist Andrew Watkins said that monitoring at Australia's Antarctic bases since the 1950s indicated temperatures were rising.” In fact they were falling, and Watson refused to release information, which showed the truth, when requested.

http://tinyurl.com/3vk9ng4

I have put forward facts and evidence in my posts.

nicco considers these facts and evidence to be fantasy. She gives no factual basis for any of her wild assertions.

You are an incredibly silly girl, nicco.

Oh for goodness sake! The Weekend Australian (not an unbiased source!) reported and interpreted an ongoing dispute between two researchers, neither of whom doubted global climate change, but who were both involved in Antarctic research. Even The Weekend Australian noted that the BoM researcher was reluctant to disclose data to them "because it had still to be fully analysed". Corrupt? Or merely cautious, after an unhappy experience with a journalist.

Antarctic weather and climate are extremely complex, but have significant effects on global climate. Antarctic land ice is decreasing (melting) while Antarctic sea ice is increasing. The gains and losses are also different across the Antarctic continent because of local wind and weather and increased precipitation. But the sum total is that the Antarctic continent is losing mass. See http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

And no, it is not reasonable to conclude that individuals associated with the IPCC or the UN are politically motivated. They may or may not be (that's their business), but it is not self-evident, as it is in the case of individuals who are publicly associated with overtly political bodies such as the IPA or the Heartland Institute.

And why this obsessive fixation with Al Gore (a retired politician, of little interest to anyone in Australia)?

If you believe renewable cannot provide continuous power generation on a national grid basis you need to look further. You could start here http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/03/05/worlds-7-biggest-solar-energy-plants/

So far as Nuclear, if there had been a military use for nuclear fusion then it would have been developed as quickly as nuclear Fission was (just 20 years after splitting the atom. In about double that time, slow progress on a process which has no dangerous aspects of the fission kinds, continues with the first plant due not before 2020. Had just a reasonable chunk of the resources applied to exploration of space which have given little more than fantastic new knowledge, we would have such clean and prolific generators already generating rendering fossil fuel history.(As if corporate America-Britain-Europe would have let that happen!)

Condemn nuclear Fission every way you can, but don't put Nuclear Fusion in the same anti-nuclear power station argument, it has no validity!

Carbon Tax? I agree, not at all required, just determination to live without producing so much of it JUST IN CASE IT WILL DESTROY ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET .... DER!

It simply does not require a carbon tax which has proven only that production of all the unnecessary stuff we (mostly "we" as in we western societies)think we NEED to live happy and fulfilling lives!

Warmists constantly make false assertions about the antarctic, which has not warmed for 35 years, and Watkins was caught out. He withdrew his assertion. It was not, as you falsely claim, nicco, a difference between researchers. You are simply dishonest in asserting that

William Kininmonth was formerly head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation. He is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-science Publishing, 2004)(Is he a climate scientist nicco?). He sums it up:
“The suggestion that future hazardous climate events could in any way be mitigated by the control of carbon dioxide emissions is absurdity in the extreme.”

Is he corrupt, nicco?

Gore, in case you have forgotten won a joint Nobel prize with the IPCC for lying about global warming. Al (35 lies in 90 minutes) Gore gave this AGW nonsense a big start with his misleading 90 minute film. He wrought damage in Australia as well as elsewhere in the world. His own country woke up to him.

Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist of the CSIRO, says the organisation cannot be trusted:
"Sadly, over the last decade, CSIRO has transformed itself from a once-respected research institute into a highly centralised, government enterprise (oxymoron?), replete with intersecting layers of expensive management, focused on continual reorganisation. Scientific independence has been lost…"

Thanks for clarifying, nicco, that if someone tells the scientific truth about AGW, but have political affiliations, their science is political, but if it is a lie about AGW, issued by the IPCC, then it is not up to us to judge that it is political. That is what your post says.

I was under the impression that if a scientist issued a scientific paper published in a scientific journal then it was science, unless it emanated from Climategate miscreants associated with the IPCC, and can be shown by their own emails to be corrupt, in which case I would classify it as political. I gave an example of this in my post above.

Perhaps, nicco, you are simply beyond help.

Leo Lane, you are, to put it politely, being thick. I will spell it out (again). (1) There are certain organisations, such as the IPA and the Heartland Institute, which are overtly and publicly political. (2) There are other organisations, including for example the Australian Academy of Science, the US Academies of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Royal Society, and many more, which are not overtly political, though being generally "establishment" they tend to be fairly conservative.
(3) Science which is associated with the first group is ipso facto associated with a particular view.
(4) Science associated with the second group has no obvious political association.

Clear?

For Antarctic warming, see:
Steig EJ, Schneider DP, Rutherford SD, Mann ME, Comiso JC, Shindell DT. Warming of the Antarctic ice sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year. Nature 457, p 459-462 (January 22, 2009).

" There are other organisations, including for example the Australian Academy of Science, the US Academies of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Royal Society, and many more, which are not overtly political, though being generally "establishment" they tend to be fairly conservative. " Nicco needs to be enlightened about the political games they play.

An enlightening account is given in Chapter 7: Noble Cause Corruption in Robert M Carter's book, "Climate: The Counter Consensus", published by Stacey International in 2010.

For instance, Carter describes how the Royal Society president, Lord Robert May (a politically-motivated high-profile former government adviser), in 2001 helped organise a statement (entitled "17 National Academies Endorse Kyoto") published in Science magazine that there was a scientific consensus on the danger of human-caused global warming. In 2006, the Royal Society wrote an intimidatory letter to Esso (UK) in an effort to suppress Esso's funding for organisations that opposed the alarmist view on climate change.

He describes how the US National Academy of Sciences has been infiltrated by environmental activist scientists, who were assisted in bypassing the conventional entry vetting procedure. Those elected to the NAS via this route included Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and Susan Solomon.

Congratulations guys - so much dedication and conviction is to be admired.

Now, if only we could come up with a cheap efficient green way to power our homes and office buildings, and to power our cars, life would be beautiful. I guess the Third World's idea of poo-power (methane converting compost digesters) wouldn't go down too well in Oz, but maybe on a grand scale it should not be dismissed. (I mean, Oz is just as full of it as anywhere else, and now most of it goes into the sea, along with a whole lot of other not so friendly stuff.)

Given that, in spite of any deficiencies in the AGW science, we are likely to be heading down the renewables path, the burning question becomes who is offering the best way forward - our PM and a carbon tax and ETS, or Tony Abbott and direct investment. Either way the taxpayer and the consumer will pay, but direct investment seems a lot less messy than the ETS ring-around-rosie. Plebiscite time. Where goes the bet?

Anyhow, I'd like to go green, if I could afford it, and I'd like a portion of mining royalties to go to the research and development of green energy alternatives - though I'm not in favour of a super profits tax, because I don't like the idea of singling out certain industries for "special treatment". If they need to increase the royalties on certain commodities, Ok, as long as it's not overdone.

Green Energy - hydro, geo, solar, bio and wind - I say bring it on!

Saltpetre

Agree with many of the points you raise. Although am concerned about how serious an Abbott lead government is in direct investment into renewables - more inclined to believe Turnbull. Neither party has a clear policy or set of procedures on just how we transition to sustainable technologies.

Raycomm

As for scientific organistions playings political games - that is what humans do from class rooms through to working life. The distinction is that multi-national industries have more clout in the political game than does say the BoM or even the CSIRO.

Big business needs to contribute as well, unfortunately those most threatened by the advent of successful renewable energy (oil, coal, gas and despite 'green' claims, nuclear) have been and are successfully blocking attempts towards the obvious rationality of cleaner renewable energy.

My comment to Saltpetre is that the above mentioned already have made themselves "special cases" - they actually have the dollars to invest in their own renewables, thus saving oil etc for limited use as we require. Unlike tobacco for which there is no alternative and the resultant campaign of lies put forth by the tobacco industry, BP, Exxon, et al have technology which could be better utilised to the benefit of all. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon without some form of incentive.

Saltpetre, your ideas are correct, but it seems to me that we should be able to deal with climate change by choosing to do so, rather than as a by-product of changing to sustainable energy production - even if the result, an excellent result, is the same in the long run.

Meanwhile Raycom's views verge on the paranoid, ascribing dark deeds and conspiratorial motives to the whole scientific establishment. The Royal Society did indeed write a letter to Esso (UK), requesting that ExxonMobil desist from funding organisations which "have misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." Hardly intimidatory - simply attempting to keep the debate within the bounds of scientific rationality. And Carter is not a credible witness on the subject of climate. He is not a climate scientist, and he has publicly aligned himself with overtly political denialist organisations.

@saltpetre

"SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.—April 6, 2011—The solar photovoltaic (PV) project order backlog for the United States market has now soared past 12 gigawatts (GW), according to the latest edition of the Solarbuzz United States Deal Tracker report"...

"Utility-scale projects under development are found in 29 states, but four states account for 80% of this total, measured in terms of MW. This segment is increasingly being serviced by specialist project developers, but also directly by major cell and module manufacturers acting in that role. The top 10 developers account for 57% of the utility pipeline in MW terms. “The non-residential segment has traditionally been driven by corporate and government customers,” Craig Stevens, president of Solarbuzz. “As Renewable Portfolio Standards take effect, utilities have become a key driver of medium term market growth.”

So saltpetre don't worry the US is leaving Australia behind in use of renewables despite protestations from contributors such as LL who are spokespersons for the vested interests in Oz that obfuscate on every issue to ensure their profits.

We "fiddle while Rome burns"...tragic given we have arguably the world's largest supplies of renewable energy while even European countries such as Germany have more deployments than us and it rains most of the time over there!

@saltpetre

further to the solar energy issue Germany has a power capability from wind of 25.8GW as of last year with more coming on line. This is about 10% of Australia's power consumption AND is used for base load production. (Had to qualify that as no doubt there will be a stream of invective from the team that you can't generate base load power with renewables).

oh well at least China will keep buying our coal to keep LL and co in comfort :)

Pity we just don't get it at government levels but I guess the politics is impossible; if or when the Libs are returned we can be consigned to the bottom of the energy heap for a very long time.

Peter King,

I'm not sure the Libs could ignore the growing push within the Oz community for action on greenhouse as a matter of considerable priority. Hopefully the next election run-up will shed more light. Meanwhile, Labor's nervous "rush" to take action, however questionable (C tax), is a worry. Labor looks to this issue as a last ditch "Lazarus" to renew flagging support as the house crumbles - NBN problems, Pink Batts lingering, budget etc.

My perceptions are such that I can only hope Labor will do just enough to send its credentials finally down the tubes, and give us an early election, but without too much irreparable damage. Some Independent light is showing.

It's a pity though when a "fresh" government gets in after years in waiting that it feels driven to embark on some "grand" schemes. Gough revisited by Kevin, exacerbated by Julia. Collective delusion.

Thanks for the update on alternatives action elsewhere. The more that's done, the more hope we have. Home solar PV/HWS makes a lot of sense in Oz - but Labor saw handouts and school halls (and Pink Batts) as more important. Elementary, dear Watson?

And what happened to low-cost housing? Wha', wha' what's that you say?? (This is Kev/Jul speaking - what planet are you from?)

Wind is good, but I like hydro (and maybe water diversion from the north could thus be more cost-justifiable). Alternative fuel is a great priority - shale oil?, gas, methane conversion?

Base load - my preference is still solar (for Oz), with hydro dam storage (pump water up, hydro water down), or molten magma storage and steam-driven generators.

By the way, who or what is LL?

Ammonite, my money is still with Abbott, mostly because I don't see a chance of a reversal to Malcolm. Not all that keen on Malcolm anyway. Personal preference. Though Tony ain't prrrfect.

nicco, I agree it has to be a choice, particularly as Oz is a small emitter, but our economy needs bolstering anyway and green jobs is better than no jobs. And we'd be doing our bit.

@Saltpetre

LL == Leo Lane, Grand Inquisitor (Exxon title perhaps?) :)

Why are we paranoid about super taxing mining or resource based industries? What does it do, it ensures when commodity prices are high we also benefit and it is not just the corporations and their shareholders who benefit from depleting the resources involved. Nobody should deny good returns on risk capital but the same industries gain considerable concessions from the owners of those resources, both in the establishment of infrastructure and ongoing. For example, from where do the iron miners get their water (depleting perhaps our most valuable resource). How much do they pay for their huge energy consumption compared to ordinary citizens. How much do they contribute to the education of our own young people instead of allowing them to fulfill their needs with those they bring into Australia as tradesmen etc., to to share our other resources provided by us such as health care, education of their future children etc.

While they ingratiatingly state that they recognise that they must pay more, they do not accept the prospect of super profit taxes. Why? Surely this is a great option, low average tax when things are not so good, high average tax when things are booming. Could it be that they just don't want to share good times with the owners of the resource!

Yet their is no reason why they should be singled out for super profit taxes. Why shouldn't all super profits be subject to stepped increases in tax?

It is just another form of sliding scale taxation which is entirely applicable, especially when the benefits of scale to bottom line profit are taken into account, and the steps taken to more rapidly deplete our resources resulting also in fewer,albeit more highly paid, jobs (resulting in lower wages/tonne produced)and sending our dollar through the roof (resulting in a lower price per tonne in $A terms - but why would this matter to a multi-national dealing predominantly in $US).

A very complex scenario which I can hardly believe is not manipulated to the benefit of shareholders regardless of the effect upon the owners of the resources.

Teddy Bear,

This is a complex issue, and you have covered the spectrum well.

Our tax system certainly seems in need of revision, and I was hoping the Henry Tax Review would provide some reasoned and reasonable options.
I haven't seen any outcome, and I don't trust our Fed government to get it right.

My preference for the mining sector is to correctly price royalties - but these are a State tax, and yet another reason why I despair at our multi-layered system of government. My reasoning is firstly that royalties are direct, and could be agreed as an average world price percentile - thus giving reasonable assurance for the life of a mine. Secondly it weeds out smaller, non-efficient mining projects which would never be going to pay any tax. (The latter seems harsh, but I favour efficiency, and would also prefer if all our mines were locally owned - non-level field, but who else complies?)
Big miners may not provide as many jobs, but are more efficient, reliable and productive - including in contribution to revenue. Royalties don't differentiate between developmental phase, boom phase, and scale-down phase.

The other part of the equation is company tax, set at a reasonable rate irrespective of industry, and if necessary with a higher top-end rate. Julia and Co were talking of reducing company tax as a concession on the introduction of super profits tax - some sort of redistribution scheme? Bit like carbon tax offsets? Phooey.

We may have only three levels of government, and some would point to the US with its multiplicity, but do we really need State governments? GST and income tax redistribution - bargaining - and the States spend the money however they like, and they still have State taxes - land tax, stamp duty, payroll tax? and royalties. At local level some councils charge exorbitant development and infrastructure fees, while others don't charge enough and have to seek increases in council rates to offset. Standardisation? There is none.

We need some reviews, and some clear thinking.

It is ironic that warmists deride skeptics as behaving politically, when the warmist case is politically based.

Human-caused dangerous global warming has been promoted by government and NGO activists since the 1985 UN-sponsored Villach conference. After much expensive searching, there is still no compelling evidence of a link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.

Yet the absence of scientific justification does not stop the Government from proceeding with a carbon tax. In her internal sales script, Julia Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons, a claim that would make even a snake oil salesman blush.

It's an odd perspective which sees climate science as inherently political. Of course, politicians will seize the opportunity - that's their job. Politicians as diverse as Bush, Howard, Thatcher, Rudd, have all quoted climate change as a threat. But the science has been going on, under the political radar, for a long time: ever since the Royal Navy instructed ships to record ocean temperatures and winds, two centuries ago. In Australia CSIRO was doing climate research in the 1960s, and Graeme Pearman used QANTAS pilots in the early 1970s to collect samples of atmospheric CO2 at different levels, which led to Australia gaining international support to establish the Cape Grim 'global baseline' air archive. As for the link between CO2 and global temperature: it's basic physics, and has been understood for a century or more.

Raycom,

I think nicco has said just about all that can be said to demonstrate that the real science is not politically driven, and that a real case exists for concern and for action. The who and how of appropriate action is very much dependent on a consensus of both national and international constituencies - which of course is also very much dependent on a consensus as to the why, what if, and what if not.

Some other nations have embarked on a course of direct action. Our government should be examining the methods used by those nations to take action, evaluate what may best serve our situation, and involve the nation in consideration of the findings. Ms G is attempting to bypass a lot of that necessary groundwork and hoodwink the Oz public with a grandiose and ultimately futile approach.

Ross Garnaut's reports all seem to be various attempts to provide an economic model which will satisfy Labor's wish to be able to convince the Oz public to adopt and accept an ETS, the details of which they will then be able to adjust and modify by regulation. The scheme thus far revealed is a grand slight-of-hand, with no direct impact on CO2 emissions. It is therefore devoid of merit and deserves to be soundly rejected.

Saltpetre
If you scan the scientific literature on AGW, you will find that it does not contain scientific evidence to prove the AGW hypothesis. Warmists use the term 'real science' when they mean assertion (or to be kind, unproved theory).

The arch-proponent of AGW is the IPCC, a UN political body. The best it can do is assert. It uses invalid climate science models to make alarmist projections about global warming. It contrives to produce political reports to influence politicians at Conference of Parties meetings. In 1995, the IPCC allowed a single activist scientist, Ben Santer, to rewrite parts of the key Chapter 8 (Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Climate Change) of its Second Assessment Report in alarmist terms. The IPCC fostered the hockey stick scandal. Links exist between the IPCC and activists, activist organisations, and activist scientists.

Government instrumentalities and scientists have a vested interest in being aligned with the IPCC, so as to benefit from ongoing research funding.

Pro-AGW learned bodies are dictated by politically-motivated management boards.

There is no scientific or economic justification, nor international pressure, for politicians to enact CO2 emission reduction legislation

Raycom,

I believe what you have said is valid. There is a lot of confusion about the "science".

I admit I have taken a "broad brush" approach to reach my conclusion that science supports action being taken to reduce greenhouse emissions. My "real" science is not some specific report however, but an accumulation of earth science data describing current changes in earth climate systems, and possible cause and ramifications. I have attempted to review this data objectively.

Do I think it mandatory that Oz act now to make dramatic immediate reduction in emissions? No. Do I think it responsible to introduce measures to reduce our emissions long term? Yes. Do I think the proposed carbon trading and ETS scheme is the best way forward and should be adopted? No - because it does not guarantee any reduction in emissions, provides no real direction for development of reduced-emission energy systems, and is an attempt by slight-of-hand to avoid the cost of alternatives being shared - all Oz has benefited from existing systems, all must participate and share in the development and cost of change.

The earth science data I referred to is:
Glacial melts and retreat; reductions in sea ice extent and duration, with longer polar summers and shorter winters, and reduced polar ice cover; sea level rise; sea temperature rise; increased dissolved CO2 and reduced dissolved O2 in the world's oceans; ice-core analysis demonstrating significant increases in atmospheric CO2 levels currently; ice-core analysis demonstrating correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and major climate events - ice-ages and inter-glacial periods.

Anthropogenic contribution? versus "natural" emissions. One ice-core study concluded that, if it were not for large scale burning by humans dating from 10,000 years ago, the earth should, according to natural cycles, be now in an ice age. We have burned a lot of coal, oil and gas since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and produced a lot of other greenhouse gas emissions in chemical manufacture, fridges, Styrofoam, propellant gasses, and agriculture - more than ever before in earth history. Should we take some responsibility? Yes.

What an amazing compilation of conspiracy theory and arrant nonsense from Raycom! Clearly, there’s no point in attempting a rational argument with someone who sees the whole of climate science as a Great Big New Plot.

Raycom simply ignores the facts, that climate was being researched in Australia and elsewhere, long before the IPCC was formed; that the IPCC was formed as a co-ordinating body to report to all member governments on the state of climate science; that member governments (including the oil producers such as Saudi Arabia) signed off on the IPCC’s conclusions; that climate science is still being carried out, around the world, and that reference to the IPCC is simply not part of the argument; that research funding has nothing to do with the IPCC; that the major scientific institutions around the world, without any reference to the IPCC, have concluded that human activities have almost certainly affected global climate … and on and on.

There is of course considerable debate in the scientific community about the details and extent and consequences of climate change, and that’s where we should be looking. Dealing with wilfully deluded denialists is a great waste of time.