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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Shipping pollution is not a solution > Comments

Shipping pollution is not a solution : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 28/6/2011

China emits 50 per cent more carbon to produce similar products to the West - that's why a carbon tax is currently a bad idea.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Hi Chris,

Global warming, settled climate science and the negative effects of human CO2 emmissions is just a giant load of crap.

The 2010-2011 northern hemisphere winter was the coldest on record for 100 years. In the UK it's the coldest since met office records began.

We in Australia are experiencing a very cold begining of winter and the earliest snows since the 80's... 30 years.

If this is the result of Carbon Dioxide emissions, to be consistant the alarmists will have to say CO2 emmissions also cause cooling.

How will that affect their claim of 'settled science'?

I don't understand why the media last year highlighted isolated extreme weather events and supported the alarmists claims they were caused by global warming, how they supported the alarmists claims of our drought dominated future and this year they and the alarmists are silent about and are completely ignoring the most significant and widespread extreme cold weather event in years.

Yep the evidence we are all seeing is that the climate ois indeed changing, but apparently it is cooling.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 8:10:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Chris, I sometimes wonder if those who write articles for OLO actually read the responses and discussions.

Some of us on OLO have long ago staked our colors to the mast by suggesting that in response to critical analysis, the “warmertariat” would react with more of the same, more urgency, more disaster, bigger disaster, more vilification of the opposition, more angles, more often, more obfuscation, more spin and more and more ideological proselytizing.

We suggested this might happen because the case is so thin that the “warmertariat” is left without a sustainable empirical case and has no choice other than to continue its tactical ideological defense.

We also suggested that so intent is the “warmertariat” in its pursuit of what it has left to fight with, that it would continue to promote that which is getting it into more trouble and yet is unable to see this. This is evidenced by the continuing nose dive in public support for the cause.

We are fortunate that this is indeed the case and I for one wish the ‘warmertariat” god speed on its decent into self inflicted oblivion and public disgrace
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 9:36:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now back to the topic at hand. Measures to reduce carbon emissions are all about economics and technology. And exporting emissions is an important issue because it makes one country look better while doing nothing for the planet. So it’s a pity that Chris Lewis presents the topic with such a confusing mixture of statistical material.

The crucial measures are the quantity of energy needed per unit of production (energy intensity, or its more revealing inverse, energy productivity) and the associated emissions, which simply depend on the energy source. Two aluminium smelters, for example, might need identical amounts of energy per kg aluminium but if one uses brown coal power and the other hydroelectricity then the emissions per kg will be very different.

Energy intensity data at the national level are important because they can give a rough measure of how efficiently an economy uses its energy. They can also be used ‘forensically’ to detect whether a country has fudged its performance by shutting down some industries and causing them to move elsewhere – which might be fine for emissions if the ‘elsewhere’ used only hydroelectricity or nuclear power.

However, the actual data Chris Lewis quotes from Forbes are mysterious. The International Energy Agency publishes annual energy intensity data. For the three countries Chris Lewis mentions, Japan, USA and China, the energy intensity figures for 2007 were, respectively, 5.9, 8.5, and 8.1 megajoules per dollar. For comparison, Australia was 7.8 and the world average was 8.2. These are standardised US dollars, year 2000. Japan has shut down some of its energy intensive industries and the data reflect this.

It is the similarity of these energy intensities that is striking, not the differences. Basically they show that no economy has found a way to decouple energy usage from GDP. Of course emissions intensity is what counts here, and that’s what a carbon price is mainly meant to influence. As Chris Lewis is trying to point out, carbon pricing so far has had little measurable impact and the figures give little guidance as to who, if anyone, does it best.
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 9:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting and thoughtful article highlighting a couple of aspects that don't get hardly any attention at the moment, namely the amount of CO2 Australia effectively exports as coal, and the amount of CO2 Australia (and other nations) imports as goods from China and elsewhere.

I question a couple of the comments and assumptions in the article.

Firstly, as Australians I believe we should be embarassed by out total CO2 emissions. Not only do we domestically have one of the highest CO2 contributions per head of population (far higher than France or Japan for example), but if you take into account the CO2 on exported coal then our per head contribution must worsen considerably.

Secondly, in tackling a massive problem it is surely better to make a start than do nothing and wait for others to act or do nothing until the perfect solution can be devised. A carbon price is a good start. Its effectiveness can be improved over time by ramping up the dollar amount, converting to an emissions trading scheme and even penalising imports from countries that don't have a carbon price. In the meantime a carbon price in Australia will encourage innovation and give Australia a chance to develop and gain experience in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

For imajulianutter and spindoc the consensus of experts is that climate change caused by humans is both real and poses a serious risk for the future. It's a nasty unpleasant reality - we just need to accept it and work out what to do about it
Posted by Rich2, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 10:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Rich2 and Tombee. Your statements about the carbon intensity of Australia's industry compared to China are simply wrong Chris.

For example, aluminium smelted in Victoria with electricity generated from brown coal (emission factor 1.4 comared to gas 0.6) is the 'dirtiest' in the world. Aluminium smelting alone accounts for over 5% of our total emissions(google The Australia Institute website for article on this). That's why Garnaut is right that it's essential electricity generation is NOT given any exemptions from paying the carbon price.

If you look up figures from the BCSE on electricity emissions factors you'll see that Australia and China are similar; in the 5 worst in the world.

Re a carbon tax vs tradig scheme, remember they are both taxes but the former gives more certainty - predictability - does not fluctuate like a trading price. It is therefore the best option for industry and the best option for progress towards decarbonizing our economy.

We are the second worst carbon emitters in the world (28 tonnes per head); only one oil burning Arabcountry is worse. That's the issue and that's why we need a carbon price now; it has worked in Europe and it will work here; we can't continue to be among the laggards like the US; need to follow the progressives. Fixing the carbon problem will only get more expensive the longer it is delayed.
Posted by Roses1, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 10:22:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the comments, both positive and critical.

If i have wrong data from certain sources, I need to do more research and check all claims. I apologise for that.

However, I will stick by what I believe are the major points.

First, our reliance on free trade and china is doign nothing for the global environment. Global emmissions continue to rise, and china is increasigly using a greater proportion of the world's coal, despite its other measures.

Second, Australia is kidding itself is it thinks lowering its own emmissions compensates for our growing relince on the export of fuels to china and elsewhere. All of Aust's contributions must be counted.

In other words, these key points should be part of the debate, not feel good statements about us taking the lead when the facts of growing global emmissions speak for themselves.

If I am going to be questioned about my data, let the debate include all of the facts to inform the public.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 10:55:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rich2,

Many thanks for you’re spinning contribution to the decline in interest in the house of carbon.

<< consensus of experts is that climate change caused by humans is both real and poses a serious risk for the future>>

This is excellent, you’re only problem now is that this statement is “unbelievable” as evidenced by public opinion.

The reason it is unbelievable is because we now know it is untrue. I’m surprised you didn’t add the old “90% agree”.

What the public now knows is that of the advocacy scientists, there is consensus and they may represent 90%. If you chose to ignore, trivialize or deny the existence of (and I’m sure you will) thousands of scientists who have publicly documented not only their opposition but the basis for their opposition to your orthodoxy, then we have to conclude that the sum total of your case is almost non existent.

That’s your problem and I wish you luck. Once the spin cycle becomes a spin spiral it is doomed. The only possibility of recovery lies in empirical scientific evidence. Sorry, but the spin cycle is over
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 11:08:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Measures to reduce carbon emissions are all about economics and technology."

This is correct. However, the justification for reducing CO2 emissions has to be evidence-based, not based on the consensus of environmentalist-ideology/pseudo-science appreciation society members.

There is no compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change. Consequently, there is no scientific/technological justification for reducing CO2 emissions.

If there had been technological or economic reasons for replacing coal-fired with renewable energy, it would have happened by now. It is pointless and nonsensical to do this while renewable energy is at least three times as expensive in the case of unreliable/inefficient wind energy and at least ten times in the case of unreliable/inefficient solar energy.

If only Julia Gillard were not so deceptive and stubborn.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 11:56:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

You are pinning all your hopes on dogma triumphing over science. I will stick to the science .....

I find it interesting that someone who names themselves spindoc criticises others for what they see as spinning. Can we take it for granted that this is a sign of hypocrisy and represents a desire to to perform the very act that is being condemmed?
Posted by Rich2, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 12:07:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the record, and given debate on oast posts, I do take the side of those wanting to address rising greenhouse gas emisisons. While i am not 100%, who can be, I take the side of those who do not want to gamble with the world's future. I look at env degrdation all around me, and I cannot belive there is no link to human activity.

However, I am also not about supporting a policy without a popular mandate, nor am i one to kid that carbon taxes alone by Western nations will make much difference, especially at a time when less pluralistic societies are gaining a much greater share of world GDP.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 12:19:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rich2, thank you, you make my point most eloquently.

Firstly, your response totally ignored the issue of “consensus” and the “90% of scientists”. Well done.

Secondly, your attention was drawn to the issue of spin versus the absence of empirical evidence. Your response was to tell us that my skepticism was “dogma” and that your “spin” is real science.

Thirdly, you suggest that I’m “pinning my hopes” on my dogma over science. Such a telling comment. As a skeptic of course, I cannot have a dogma because I have made no “decision”, that’s what makes me a skeptic, get it?

Your assistance in promoting the lack of substance in the AGW phenomena is appreciated by the Australian electorate, keep up the good work.

Has it occurred to you that once the credibility of your phenomena is lost, you have absolutely nothing left to get is back? If you have empirical evidence to support your case, now is definitely the time, otherwise, as Paul Keating suggested, you will be done slowly.

Chris Lewis, by appearing to sit on the fence you will end up splitting your difference. Stop trying to have a “bob each way” it is wearing very thin.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 1:12:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc, I am not betting each way.

From a national and international point of view, i am arguing that the carbon tax by one or a few nations will make little differenceto global emmissions given current policy trends.

I was just letting readers know my view on global warming. Surely I can do that and still offer an argument.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 2:08:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article I cited for BTU's for Japan and China was

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/03/energy-efficiency-china-biz-energy_cx_bw_0707efficiency_china.htm
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 3:59:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Lewis, absolutely, you can let us know your view on global warming, and we appreciate it.

My point was that having a view on global warming and a CO2 tax is about the assumption that we actually do need to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. The ambiguity is still in the box.

If we do need to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions, then that assumes it is a problem. If on the other hand you wish to debate whether or not carbon emissions are a problem, then that is an entirely different issue. Which do you wish to discuss?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 4:22:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris - this point..
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain.. have some form of carbon tax?

Sorry, not right. I think if you go back and look at your material you'll find all those taxes are partial.. Denmark and Finaland might be the closest from your list, but true carbon taxes are quite rare.

As for CO2 intensity, one of the reasons Aus ranks so highly is that we don't have nuclear generation (France, Germany, Britain, although Germany is getting out it says) and very little is hydroelectricity, unlike Norway or Sweden..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 4:53:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Lewis:
<it would be naive to suggest that an authoritarian nation will give the same consideration to environmental issues as Western nations>.

Apart from the fact that this statement needs qualification--since popular democracy has proved itself an abject failure in addressing AGW, and an authoritarian oligarchy is much less likely to prevaricate in the same way--the implicit assertion, that we in the West "have" "ever" given adequate "consideration to environmental issues", is a nonsense.
The modern West since the industrial Revolution, despite many distinguished environmentalists, presents as a dark history of environmental indifference and devastation. We are hardly in a position to wax sanctimonious at China!

Nevertheless I agree with your overall position and I've tried myself to invoke the notion of "world-system", for instance, as a much better model of global capitalism and its effects than "globalisation".
As you imply, it's disingenuous to claim kudos for whatever modest concessions we make, within our borders, while we continue to export coal etc., and import the cheap commodities produced by its polluting combustion off shore.
Whether we like it or not, this is one world, a goldfish bowl, and our national borders are or should be irrelevant to the emissions that we initiate.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 5:06:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I look at env degrdation all around me..."

Where, exactly, Chris? Apart from regurgitated press releases from environmental activists appearing in the mass media, of course. What 'env degrdation' can you see from your window, say?
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 5:20:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'For imajulianutter and spindoc the consensus of experts is that climate change caused by humans is both real and poses a serious risk for the future. It's a nasty unpleasant reality - we just need to accept it and work out what to do about it.'

Now that is typical of you warming alarmists.

Denial.

You have totally ignored my comments on the fact of the coldest northern hemisphere winter for 100 years.

How do your consensus scientists explain it? You can't. You're typically sticking to dogma.

They don't. They, like you are in denial of the facts and refuse to comment on the overwhelmingly obvious extreme weather event we've seen for years simply because it doesn't fit with their science and your assertions.

The rest of us (65% at latest count) are actually taking notice of weather events and everyone(Without exception) laughs when the odd larconic joker tells them to be thankful it's only this cold because it would be much colder without global warming.

The only nasty unpleasantry is that the weather isn't conforming to your ideas or your consensus scientists theories, and no amount of consensual spin will change what is bloody obvious to everyone ... what is obvious, even to you holocaust-like deniers.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 5:26:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

it's not really worth the bother, but to require global warming to follow a constant trend pattern is naive in the extreme, but great ammo for the inveterate minimididianist. Climate is a complex system and no one pretends to understand its myriad complexity utterly. The accumulation of carbon, however, released by humans from the Earth's ancient chthonion vaults, is an easy phenomenon to measure. And whatever equivocations are indulged about the growing concentrations in the atmosphere--it's "plant food" and all that--the effects in the world's natural carbon sinks, the oceans, are unequivocal.
However, you and your brethren are not interested in reality, are you? and wilful ignorance is a far more potent weapon than consideration.
Don't consider, just deny.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 6:19:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter - I'm happy to address your comments about 'the coldest northern hemisphere winter for 100 years'. This is quite consistent with global warming models - the increasing amount of fresh meltwater water from the polar icecap and Greenland slows and/or pushes south the gulf stream, so its warming influence over western Europe is diminished. Heaps about via Google if you want to see it explained in detail.

Chris your article makes me wonder if any carbon price should be on embedded carbon rather than carbon emissions. Everything we buy has a quantifiable amount of carbon arising from its production, transport etc. Goods produced with high carbon energy sources (such as coal fired power stations) have higher embedded carbon than the same goods produced with, say, hydroelectricity. Goods shipped round the world have higher embedded carbon that the same good made locally. If we taxed embedded carbon, a clear price signal would be included in all goods from everywhere, with local production given an advantage, and local producers and consumers given an incentive to demand lower carbon energy supplies. It would discourage us from exporting our emissions, as we do now, and pave the way for a return to local manufacturing and food production, which will become more necessary as oil prices rise through the century. It seems a much better way to actually do something meaningful about carbon emissions.
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 6:26:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The discussion about whether global warming is happening is over.
It is time to talk about what you can do about reducing your effect on the planet. Don't worry about China, they are more advanced in this than most know about.
Get off oil, generate your own power, solar hot water, big rewards for fuel solutions. [maybe steam power ]
To be negative is to be a loser.
Posted by a597, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 7:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'it's not really worth the bother, but to require global warming to follow a constant trend pattern is naive in the extreme'

But isn't this exactly what your settled science requires?

'the inveterate minimididianist'

let's see 'invetertate' = firmly established by long continuance, as a disease, habit, practice, feeling, etc.; chronic.

That describes you much rather than me.

I've an open mind and look at weather and climate as always changing, possibly both warming and cooling. You don't! You look as climate as only possibly warming.

What the hell is a 'minimididianist' is this just another fiction made up to support global warming in the midst of freezing temperatures?

You should leave the word invention to the experts ... like Shakespeare..

You really do need to read Diogenes.

My favourite quote from him is when he spent a short time walking backwards and people were derogratory towards him .

"You are laughing at me walking just a little distance backwards while you all lead your entire lives arse-about."

"And what's more," he asked, "can you change your way of living as easily as this?"

He then turned and walked off in normal fashion.

And please do tell me that lighting a fire cools things. hahahahah
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 8:42:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"China emits 50 per cent more carbon to produce similar products to the West" should actually read "China emits 50 per cent more carbon to produce similar products ON BEHALF OF the West".

China is a vast factory pumping out goods on our behalf and wearing the carbon cost that we would be producing if manufacturing was done on-shore.

If we were really sincere about reducing China's carbon output we should bring all our manufacturing back into Australia and produce the same goods but using a lower carbon output.

Anybody willing to put their money where their mouth is and pay extra for the same goods?

I suspect not.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 11:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd pay more for goods that would last longer. In fact I already do, with clothes, easily done if you put quality over fashion. Its in my genes - my father died last year at 96, still wearing shoes made for him in the 1930s and a suit from the 1950s. Anyway, my point about taxing embedded carbon was that it would give an edge to locally produced goods which could partially offset the added cost of paying people a decent wage to make them. Don't some people call our passion for cheap stuff produced in sweatshops a form of outsourced slavery?
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 12:54:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

sorry about the misspelling above; it should have been "minimifidianist". I felt denialists deserved a more impressive title to cover for their unimpressive credentials.
I'm a big fan of Diogenes btw, I even have an illustrated and annotated edition of his anecdotes, signed by the artist/compiler. But since Diogenes delighted in mocking human folly, I doubt he'd agree to be the patron saint of minimifidianists. Indeed, Diogenes was much more akin to the modern Greenie, advocating a return to nature and renunciation of material goods. He was also the first cosmopolitan, seeing national borders as the abstractions they are--which serve at the current juncture to preserve inequalities, to "export" emissions, and to forestall action on anthropogenic environmental devastation.
Indeed, I might claim Diogenes for "my" patron saint; like him, I see fault on all sides.
Diogenes had the unpalatable solution to our current ills: the renunciation of worldly things. Or in current parlance: cutting consumption.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 8:05:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly Diogenes would reject you and mock you.

Diogenes main point was he didn't claim to know all the answers and that he always kept an open mind. He was a cynic and he never really settled on or held onto any great opinion except that he could always change his position.

Can you in the face of the mounting evidence against your warmist creed?

You see I've always believed there was global warming. I always believed it was as a result of natural cycles and events. But you see I also always believed there could come a period of global cooling. As I believe there will also be another warming in the future.

So I like Diogenes can easily reverse my position without losing any credibility or suffering the ignomany of having to admit to the wrongness of my opinions when not borne out by the displayed facts.

You are so welded to the faith of global warming your world will crumble as you discover that climate changes are naturally occurring events quite beyond the control of man.

Do you really think Diogenes wouldn't utterly mock your belief you can change the climate? He'd have a complete field day at your expense.

You'd be aware he reckoned if ever he woke up in a palace while everybody else was living in bathtubs, he'd be really worried.

You making him a Saint would utterly frighten the c..p out of him!

Minimifidianist still leaves me scratching my head ... is something frozen? ... have another go.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 1:58:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,
everything I said about Diogenes is valid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope Look at the philosophy heading. Though I have no interest in patron saints.

You say:

<You see I've always believed there was global warming. I always believed it was as a result of natural cycles and events. But you see I also always believed there could come a period of global cooling. As I believe there will also be another warming in the future>

I, on the other hand, have no truck with belief whatsoever and mistrust even my most intuitive ideas.
For me, however, there is no need to nit-pick or agonise over the extent that climate change is anthropogenic. A warming planet due to greenhouse gas emissions is only one instance of the ongoing devastation caused by humans. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and all the other finite resources we consume so voraciously, whether their profligate use causes global warming or not. For me there are ample ethical reasons for humanity to take stock (as only the human animal can) of its mad career and mend its ways. The fact that, like other species, we're also threatened, ought to be redundant; but if pragmatics is all the mean-minded minimifidianists can understand, that ought to suffice on its own.
But puerile prevarication--like a seasoned alcoholic feigning dignity, rationalising his contemptible excuses endlessly, even in high dudgeon!--is all the minimifidianist has.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 3:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As previous link does not work,

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/03/energy-efficiency-china-biz-energy_cx_bw_0707efficiency_china.html

It states "China lags far behind Western industrialized countries when it comes to energy efficiency. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the energy intensity of China in 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, was 35,766 British thermal units per U.S. dollar. In the U.S., the Btu/dollar ratio was 9,113. In the U.K. and Japan, the figures were even lower, 6,145 and 4,519 respectively".
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 5:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide, yes I think you make very some good points.

Whether they come to fruition remains to be seen, but I hardly think we can keep going the way we are as today's policy tokenism must give way in time to sensible policies that transcend a number of policy domains, albeit how we achieve the right balance to appease all nations in this competitive world remains to be seen.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 6:00:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

lowbrow abuse is quite typical of bad manners when losing a debate.

It is very common among the warming alarmist community or I should say the denialist alarmist 'rump' that remains.

'minimifidianists' . In the faith of global warming I don't believe it means anything.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:43:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iamajulianutter

First you say:
"Global warming, settled climate science and the negative effects of human CO2 emmissions is just a giant load of crap."

Then you fill the rest of the discussion with statements about how open minded you are. Your assertions against AGW fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence which no reputable scientific organisation in the world rejects. Studies have shown time and time again that the majority of scientists agree with the science.

True, it may turn out that the science is wrong, although this seems incredibly unlikely. The risk, however, of ignoring the scientific advice and inaction are far too great.

But you claim that the science is definitely, 100%, without a doubt wrong, i.e. "a giant load of crap".

Open minded? Your mind is barely ajar
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 30 June 2011 11:27:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey trashcanman,

Can you explain the current extremely cold winter?

None of your 'warmist rump' mates nor your 'thousands' of consensual scientists appears to want to do that. In fact you and they are all busily avoiding even talking about it.

And that's a fact. And you say I've a closed mind! hahahah

Oh and don't misquote me. I don't think the science is 100% wrong. I'm on the public record as agreeing the climate has been warming. It's where you and your consensual scientists maintain it's never going to cool again that I think is 100% wrong.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:29:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter:

<Can you explain the current extremely cold winter?>

As Squeers says above, <to require global warming to follow a constant trend pattern is naive in the extreme>.
Nevertheless, Candide has offered you one excellent explanation for seemingly anomolous weather. I'm afraid climate science, like most complex science, is often counter intuitive.
In fact your "common sense" isn't worth a cracker.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:43:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter,

Global warming gives rise to volatile and unusual weather events - not to distinctly "warmer" weather.

You appear to be displaying poor form, even for a nutter, striding around OLO claiming offence, while behaving in a provocative manner yourself....100% lowbrow.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:44:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nutter

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12254#211545

You really are becoming quite obnoxious.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:10:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Global warming gives rise to volatile and unusual weather events - not to distinctly "warmer" weather. "

Just what hard evidence can the brainwashed/warmists produce to support this AGW weather variability claim, when even the IPCC does not give credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events?
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Just what hard evidence can the brainwashed/warmists produce to support this AGW weather variability claim, when even the IPCC does not give credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events?"

A statement from a person who obviously hasn't read or understood AR4.

Expect more of the same, if not more, when AR5 is released.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While China's role in the big picture complicates things, it doesn't preclude action on our behalf. We can only do what we can do at any point in time, and we should do it out of obligation to those who are to inherit our legacy.

After all, China's offical environmental policy is more progressive than Australia's in many respects. Being autocratic means less compromise when writing policy. It also makes it easier to make unpopular decisions (we know the Chinese are good at that!) which are in the national and global interest (something Australian governments have trouble doing).

The problem is in the implementation of the policy when you have greedy bureaucrats corrupting the system. They have systems in place, but unfortunately it's too easy for corporations to pay their way around them.

In reality China has the right intention, it just needs to get around it's own internal barriers (population size, corruption etc) which is going to take some time.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 30 June 2011 4:44:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

These BTU/$GDP are really unenlightening. Unless related to source mix, hence to CO2, and adjusted for domestic, non-GDP production, they only indicate overall energy consumption. Interesting, yes, but not particularly relevant in this context - given the population disparities involved. Similarly, China's use of nitrogen fertilisers could be misleading - since nitrogen is only part of the nutrient requirements for plant growth, and may be accounted simply by nitrogen-poor soils. What about phosphorous or potash use, lime, molybdenum or sulphur? Still, I think we get the picture - of massive consumption and relative inefficiency.

Squeers is in fine form, but I'm afraid his wisdom is falling on deaf ears - there are none so blind, as those who will not see. Still, the truly open-minded amongst us get the message.

Solution? Candide made a good, logical suggestion, but how to enact? Is Oz trying to rush around with a fire bucket whilst others are rushing about lighting forest fires? Reduce consumerism? Where/how to start? Non-fossil energy? Same problem. An Oz carbon tax and ETS - there's that bucket, and it has a hole in it requiring the Oz public to take turns sticking their fingers in it to patch the ever-increasing leak.

My poor, overly-simplistic suggestion is to scale back energy-intensive production (including scaling-back of the NBN in Oz), develop the best available low-emission technology irrespective of cost, promote low-footprint agriculture in Africa and South America, cease exploitation of old-growth forests worldwide and embark on a massive re-forestation program, and develop carbon capture and conversion technologies.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 30 June 2011 4:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Radio National had an item about extreme weather and climate science this morning. ABC>Radio National>Breakfast 01.07.11 - click on the relevant item to listen.
Posted by Candide, Friday, 1 July 2011 11:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pirot and Bonmot

Oh I can easily understand how my challenging opinions cause you to denigrate mr personally.

Like your opinions I find that really very amusing.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 1 July 2011 7:37:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I am unable to relocate the early-2011 reference about the IPCC not giving credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events, I will retract mention of it.

AR4 is a political report of the political body, the IPCC. AR4 states that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and ‘most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations’. This is assertion, not hard scientific evidence.

The IPCC has form when it comes to misrepresenting the facts. Ben Santer was involved in one such exercise in 1995, which is worth recounting.

S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery, in their book 'Unstoppable Global Warming' published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2007, give the following account (see pp 120-121):
(Start of quote)
"The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The 'Summary for Policy Makers' was approved in December, and the full report , including Chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in Chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

"There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. (IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 412)
(cont.in next post)
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 1 July 2011 10:17:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Previous post cont.)
The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. "( IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 439)

Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data -- an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is, "We do not know."

Santer single-handedly reversed the "climate science " of the whole IPCC report -- and with it the global warming political process. The "discernible human influence" supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the "stopper" in millions of debates between non-scientists.

The journal Nature mildly chided the IPCC for redoing chapter 8 to "ensure that it conformed" to the report's politically correct Summary for Policy Makers. In an editorial, Nature favoured the Kyoto treaty.
(cont. next post)
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 1 July 2011 10:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Previous post cont.)

The Wall Street Journal, which did not favour Kyoto, was outraged . Its condemning editorial, "Coverup in the Greenhouse, " appeared 11 June 1996. The following day, Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, detailed the illegitimate rewrite in the Journal in a commentary titled, "Major Deception on Global Warming."
(End of quote)
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 1 July 2011 10:29:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,

This year is 2011, not 1995/6. This strikes me as the weakest of weak "evidence", that is in any event 15 years old.

Given that you are so confident in your assertions about how IPCC misrepresents facts surely you must have current evidence that is much more compelling that this?

If you can't produce a basis for your assertions then all you are contributing is an unsubstantiated opinion best kept to yourself.
Posted by Rich2, Saturday, 2 July 2011 2:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rich2

Nothing has changed since Santer's deception.

You should be familiar with more recent misrepresentations, such as : the 'hockey stick' scandal; alarmist outcomes generated with unvalidated IPCC climate models ; the Climategate scandal; IPCC claims re Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035, destruction of 40 percent of the Amazonian rain forest, halving of African agricultural production.

The IPCC continues to rely on assertion, which it effectively uses to con politicians et al into believing in the dangerous AGW hypothesis. It has not been able to produce any compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming.
Posted by Raycom, Saturday, 2 July 2011 9:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,
I can understand that in the reams of detailed, comprehensive scientific literature that the IPCC has put out, drawn from hundreds of scientists from all over the world, then subject to numerous editing processes some mistakes slip through. But to then say that the discovery of these somehow renders the basic conclusions wrong seems to me ridiculous. A view no doubt shared by all the national science academies around the world that continue to endorse the IPCC conclusions. Applying the same standards to the work of Pilmer and Monckton for example, quickly generates infinitely more errors that do cause their conclusions to be shown as wrong.
I cannot for the life of me see why you cling so tenaciously to your conclusions about AGW in the face of such overwhelming evidence and based on the flimsiest of so called evidence. The only way to understand your position is to look beyond the rational and to delve into the world of psychology.
Posted by Rich2, Sunday, 3 July 2011 12:09:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rich2
The simple fact is that the IPCC has failed to prove the dangerous AGW hypothesis. Given the IPCC's failure to do so after more than US$100 billion of research expenditure worldwide since 1990, there is no point asking you to provide compelling scientific evidence to prove your convictions. History will prove you all wrong.

Despite its inability to substantiate the existence of dangerous AGW, the IPCC has been able to con millions of people including politicians, scientists and socalled scientific societies, of the political correctness of AGW -- which can be regarded a psyhcological success .

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Posted by Raycom, Sunday, 3 July 2011 11:03:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,

Well we are obviously not going to agree. I do note that you do seem a bit out of date with your "evidence" and the people you quote - another example - Richard Feynham may have been anti AGW but he died in 1988.

Coincidentally I was watching a re-run of that English TV series "Yes Prime Minister". In it was set out the standard 4 part Foreign Office response to a crisis:
1. Say that nothing is going to happen.
2. Say that something may happen but we should do nothing about it.
3. Say maybe we should do something, but there is nothing we can do, and
4. Say maybe something we could have done, but it is too late now.
Apparently works every time!

I'd say amongst the non science followers many have moved from 1 to 2, but even getting to 4 is not going to help is it Raycom?
Posted by Rich2, Monday, 4 July 2011 12:27:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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