Oh hello Cinders, I wondered when you would pop up. Tasmania does not have a sustainable forest industry. If it were a solid wood producing industry I agree it would store carbon; I don't think anyone will argue against that point. Unfortunately, the past 30 years has seen a massive move from timber production to fibre and in particular, paper pulp wood. Until recently, that fibre was made up from 96% of the total harvest from native forests, while only 4% was harvested for timber. Plantation trees for fibre is also not a real option because 10 - 25 years is hardly carbon sequestration, especially when forests that held 5-times the carbon of any other on earth were destroyed to create them.

Hemp is a multi use plant and grows quickly, as opposed to trees. Hemp seed is 24% protein and has the 8 essential amino acids required by humans to build body cells. Meat has the same but at much lower levels. Soya has only 7 of the amino and cannot be properly digested by humans.

Hemp seed oil is almost engine ready as a bio-diesel and bio-ethonal can be made, using pyrolysis from the plant stems. Hemp oil is also a good source of food. It contains omega 3, 6 and 9 oils.Hemp seed jewel in the crown because food manufacturing from hemp seed has created thousands of jobs in EU countries.

Hemp fibres are the strongest natural fibre known to man and will produce 4.1-times the paper that trees will. The herd fibres, when mixed with lime and a little water, will cause a chemical reaction, which petrifies the mix and turns it to stone. Buildings from Hempcrete are natural carbon sinks. They can be erected much quicker and cheaper than any other method, are good thermally and therefore energy efficient.

The is a food source that can remove our dependance on meat, a fibre source that will stop us trashing trees and building material that will help us combat carbon emissions and a good earner for farmers and downline jobs for Australians. http://issuu.com/ecobard

David, did you watch the Monckton/Denniss debate at the Press Club yesterday? That partly explains why so many of us are becoming more sceptical.

We saw a government representative give a very unconvincing account, failing to address any of the science, other than to endorse consensus. On the other hand Monckton gave a very impressive set of facts and discussion. Particularly interesting (and important) were the points he made about climate sensitivity.

Of course Denniss had no response. And the quality of the press questions was appalling.

The reality is that the Australian public are not stupid. But they do resent being taken as stupid. Monckton is right. It is time that the AGW advocates lifted their game.

David

Why did none of those '2500 scientists from 179 countries (who) are not wrong.' predict last summers extreme wet in the southern hemisphere, the coldest winter with the heaviest snows for over 100 years in the northern hemisp[here, the coldest autumn with the earliest snows in fifty years in the southern hemisphere this year, the non rise in average surface temperatures between 1998 and 2008?

Tell me why none of your 2500 scientists will dispute these facts and their reducing effects on average surface temperatures?

Tell me why none of your 2500 scientists will write and publish any peer reviewed literature attributing the cooling effects of these events to anything other than historically periodic naturally occuring geographical variations in ocean currents?

When you've answered these, you might be able to claim your scientists are not wrong but you'd definately and justifiably be laughed at.

Peter Mac, I’m glad we agree on some points at least. Yes, the chart on my article states exactly those figures you suggest. Nobody is saying we are responsible for all global emissions but the case is a lot stronger than the mere 1.6% of global emissions that the climate change sceptics hang their collective hats on. Remember, we are a nation of just 22-million people and yet our carbon footprint is higher than that number would suggest.

Yes, I will continue to save trees in Tassie because without them and other forests around the globe our emissions would overpower us.

The overwhelming response to my article has been one of scepticism and yet as research has shown, the world has moved on from the debate as to whether climate change exists and even that it is man-made. What the rest of the world is doing is setting strong emissions targets. Canada and the US have a 20% emissions cut by 2020 on 2006 levels, (could be better)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=EAF552A3-D287-4AC0-ACB8-A6FEA697ACD6

The EU has a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 levels and has already achieved more than half those levels and has pushed to increase the target to 30%. The EU does admit that part of that achievement was due to the economic downturn, which enforces the point that climate change is man-made. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10225937

Beijing said it would aim to reduce its "carbon intensity" by 40-45% by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels.

Carbon intensity, China's preferred measurement, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of GDP. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8380106.stm

Even Russia has set higher targets than Australia. The Russians have raised their targets to 22 – 25% by 2020 on 1990 levels http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1801129/medvedev-toughens-russias-2020-emissions-target

These are countries with strong business sectors that are getting on with the job instead of arguing. I rest my case.

And... For the last comment on why the 2500 scientists did not predict the higher snowfall in Australia and the colder winters in Europe, they are not psychics, they are scientists and base there arguments on their findings. What they did say is that the whole planet can expect more extreme weather events; that means hotter summers, colder winters, heavier rain events, more frequent winds and storms and at much higher intensities. Look around you. Last year Queensland had 60% of its landmass under water. At the same time Victoria had the worse fire season on record. Last winter, every train and bus in the London Transport fleet was inactive for nearly two weeks, due to freezing conditions. The lifts on the Eiffel Tower froze at the same time. This year 75% of Queensland was under water, the East Coast has been subjected to severe rain events for most of the year and they are still happening. The USA is suffering hot temperatures never experienced before, killing people due to heat stress. China has floods to half the country and drought in the rest.

The main reason for Europe's winter woes could be because of the cold, fresh water leaching into the Gulf Stream from the Greenland ice melt. I could go on but would be wasting my breath because the big end of town are only interested in short-term gain for their shareholders and feel that money will buy them immunity from climate change... Well they're wrong.

The only way Scotland will convert to 100 % renewable is to turn the Scottish economic and living standards back to the time prior to the French Revolution, which seems to be the objective of the leveling greens:

reduce everyone to equality in poverty.

I am inclined to suggest, before writing this essay, David Leigh went on a binge, smoking too much of the topic of his previous thread

I agree with hasbeen…. The fairies are running amok

As for the cost of inaction,. I would rather devote my efforts to things which produce a benefit than pee effort up against the wall in a pointless exercise of pretending human activity will change whatever course the planet is headed (so much of this CAGW rubbish is all too arrogant for words)

David Leigh “The debate as to whether climate change exists or not is a non-event; 2500 scientists from 179 countries are not wrong.”

The world is in a state constant climate flux, always has been since
the beginning of time.

Because some fraudulent shysters claim doom and gloom, proved with hockey stick graphs, is forthcoming does not make it so.

And “the running cost jobs” – they will disappear because of
1 newer, better technology develops more durable wind farm constructions

Or more likely

2 wind farms are abandoned because they are found to be permanently sub-economic and incapable of producing what is wanted when it is needed.

I recall TR Malthus, who happened to come from Scotland (maybe it has something to do with living in bad weather 12 months of the year and existing on Porridge and Haggis, enough to bring the pessimist out in anyone), predicted the end would happen over 150 years ago….

Yet he failed to consider the inventive genius of individuals.

That spark of inventive genius which burns bright in some but not at all in the sort of mindless sheep who sign up for the CAWG and other Green theories.

Fact: If you want solutions,

Look to libertarian capitalists to find them

and forget the doom-laden levelers of the green left