I think the value of the carbon tax will be firstly to encourage some voluntary efficiency gains and secondly as a wedge against relapses. I agree it will make no palpable difference to renewable energy (contrary to Treasury modelling) which is why subsidies and targets have been retained. Electricity price increases of 2-3c per kwh may force people to reduce appliance use somewhat. However pensioners are not going to buy six star energy rating fridges they will just keep the old rattlers going. Some targeted help may be needed in such areas, just don't make the electricity cheaper.

The carbon tax may have put an end to the building of new new coal fired power stations. Since nuclear is prohibited in Australia that means new baseload must be combined cycle gas. However that is already expensive and likely to become increasingly so within a decade or two. For example natural gas in Victoria costs many times the price of brown coal per unit of energy so it is unlikely to be adopted on a large scale.

In my opinion we should allow all technologies including nuclear while continuing with demand management in the form of carbon pricing. If large scale wind and solar prove economic without subsidies then that's what we'll get. If that approach fails then we were in trouble anyway since oil is running out and coal is changing the climate.

So pricing carbon will have no impact on emissions at the current price of $23/tonne? I would disagree but if it is the case, the price will just need to grow gradually higher, with compensatory measures all round, until it does have an impact.

Does it follow that pricing carbon will destroy the economy, simply because the "...dream that the Sun can displace carbon-based energy will not likely outlast the 25 years Akhenaten's Sun City survived after his death before its total collapse and decay."? Where in the carbon pricing world is this happening so far?

If the author is convinced emissions have nothing to do with warming, "there is NO statistically significant relationship between the undoubted rising level of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the very slight observed rises in global or regional temperatures...", then he should put up his argument in a scientific journal for peer review instead of trying it on as an opinion piece here.

Broadening the tax base by taxing carbon, the energy basis of our economy, is a desirable reform of the tax system in its own right. It is also the best way towards emissions reductions and an orderly shift away from fossil fuels as they inevitably run out, so let's get started.

Business investment in innovation is the key driver of change in our economy. Establishing a price for carbon no matter how small creates an additional incentive for business investment aimed at lowering carbon emissions. It is frequently surprising what enterprising people can do. Providing a financial incentive for carbon reduction across Australia's carbon emissions is far more likely to succeed than funding a few select projects whose proponents have the knack of attracting government funds. No business will invest in carbon reduction measures that do not have a chance of realising a commercial return, this is not true for government funded projects.

The final point is that a carbon tax is an efficient tax. As it costs less to collect than many other taxes, it can replace less efficient taxes to net benefit for Australia.

Luciferase and Services Economist

Look both of you show some sign of training in economics, but perhaps not enough. As Tim points out the carbon tax is simply set too low to affect any real change. About all it will really do is raise taxes. Whether its an efficient tax or not is completely beside the point. Do we want to raise taxes, given that we are not Greece or Italy and have nothing like their government debts? If so do we want to raise taxes this way?

Another point that Tim does not mention is that a carbon tax only makes sense if it is part of an strict, enforceable, comprehensive international agreement on limiting emissions. Nothing remotely like that is forthcoming, or likely in the foreseeable future. At best we have a few limited efforts by advanced countries and token efforts by developing countries.

In fact the tax only makes sense as a political move to keep the greens with the Gillard government. To suggest that it might actually be of use in reducing global emissions by anything other than trivial amounts is absurd.

It is clearly a piece of nonsense and should be labelled as such.

People have been cutting down on their electricity usage due to the GFC, rising electricity tariffs and the availablity of more efficient appliances. When electricity prices rise more than 20% in a few years, people take notice!! I know I have - we've made use of the state government programs to make us more water and energy efficient. Plus the doubling of petrol prices over the last 5 or so years has made me very conscious of how I use my car.

All this has happened during a time of huge economic turmoil,(not caused by a lefty/green carbon tax, but poor market regulation) and our economy hasn't (yet) suffered a catastrophic blow. I don't know why people are jumping up and down about a relatively small carbon tax. It's so much smaller compared to the price rises that we have already had and will continue to experience, purely due to market forces.

The plus side to the carbon tax is that it will be used to make necessary changes for the national good, not go to ever inflating corporate salaries and dividends for a few.

Curmudgeon,

"About all it will really do is raise taxes".

Hardly. What it does is shift and reweight the tax base so in order to dodge tax people and companies will make greener decisions. The price will rise from $23 to create a growing incentive to be a tax dodger until one day you will look around and see the world has changed.

"In fact the tax only makes sense as a political move to keep the greens with the Gillard government."

If you think JG is not 100% behind this reform you have misread her resolve, Curmy. She is a hard nut and will take the CT and MT all the way, as well as an offshore solution on boat people and the NBN.

Will Labor get wiped out as a consequence? Not, JG is betting, if there is enough time for the impact of the reforms to be judged before the next election. John Howard survived introducing the GST. That's why the Coalition will do all it can to delay and obfuscate along the way, as is its right but, hey, what else can it do in the face of overwhelming logic against it if it wants to win gov't?

Interesting days ahead.

There is absolutely no point in having an election to get rid of carbon tax. That's because each person's vote is too small too make a difference.

I agree that a carbon tax of $23 likely won't have much effect in terms of reducing emissions in Australia. That's what my research shows too (http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1111.htm). But the Australian government is planning on two things:

1. Their renewable energy target and other complementary measures, which raises the real cost of climate policy but would reduces the remaining emissions that need to be cut.

2. That most of the reductions will be met by forestry schemes in Indonesia etc.

Luciferase

No, its a straight waste of time and money. As Tim Curtain points out, it is simply too small to make any real difference.. all it will do is add to costs without changing behaviour. I don't care whether Gillard believes in the tax or not, but if she does all that proves is that she's totally deluded.

And that reminds me. Tim Curtain pointed to various problems with costs in green power, but he forgot about overall costs. As has been shown elsewhere, because green power is intermmittent, even over wide areas, all of the conventional power plants have to be kept operational (if not actually operating - although most would). In other words, all the green power plants would duplicate existing conventional plants. This adds far more to costs than the carbon tax.

As the only plants that can be powered up or down at short notice without serious penalties to make up for shortfalls in green power generation is gas, a great deal of new plant would have to be gas. Thus existing requirements to generate 20 per cent of power from green sources by 2020 will have a far greater affect than the tax.

Then there is a whole other layer of absurdity.. If it has an effect on emissions so what? Australian emissions count for nothing and ther is no global-wide attack on carbon.

The whole concept is absurd nonsense.

I worry about any article purporting to be serious yet beginning by referring to Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan with sarcasm. Rather demeans the data that proceeds.

But even if the economic data did show - and I do not for one second accept that it does - that the Carbon Tax will have no impact on emmissions, it seems that all its opponents conveniently forget the tremendous psychological and political effect its introduction will have.

Not here in Australia, but around the world.

Finally, Australia, the world's worst per capita polluter will be taking action. It will resound in Washington, because we are a close ally, and one of the few who give comfort to the extreme Right's antagonism to any kind of environmental action, e.g. the Republican party's determination to utterly defang the EPA.

When our Carabon Tax policy was first announced, it was all over the US poltical blogs and website.

Oh yes, it will matter, alright.

But think on this, Oh Naysayer, what happens if all other countrie that do not have a serious CO2 abatement strategy hang back and we all continue on as we are?

We can get a clue to the answer from today's headlines that new German data unequivably shows that arctic sea ice will be gone withing three decades( The Age 13/9). The researchers assert that it is beyond doubt that this is the result of human action.

The fact is that neither you nor I can say with absolute certainty whether or not the Carbon Tax will be a resounding success.

But one thing I am certain of. We urgently and desperately need to act, and act now.

The Carbon Tax is a good start.

Curmudgeon,

"($23/tonne)...it is simply too small to make any real difference.. all it will do is add to costs without changing behaviour."

Then the amount will gradually rise, with compensatory measures, until behaviour responds.

Gas will supercede coal on the way to where we're going, that is when the rising cost of diminishing fossil fuels interesects with the tax avoidance incentive I previously described. The aim of pricing carbon is to bring on a cleaner future sooner than inevitability (depletion of fossil fuels) will force upon us.

We can continue to export fossil fuels to countries that are not as far along this path as we. In the end, whether we burn them or others do, they will be consumed at an increasingly faster rate to keep economies growing, until they are gone. By then, Australia can be well on the path towards an alternative future if we set the foundations now.

"Then there is a whole other layer of absurdity.. If it has an effect on emissions so what? Australian emissions count for nothing and ther is no global-wide attack on carbon."

A world-wide attack does exist, and will strengthen in the face of the problems we face. To argue that relative minnows should share no responsibility in an attempt at solution is an immature position and can only weaken the attack needed.

Curmy, if it as simple to you as there is no problem and "The whole concept is absurd nonsense", then you must be comfortable about leaving our kids to a forseeable, knee-jerk future. If that is not so, would you please put up your proposal to avoid this?

Tim/Tom

So, you're still at it after this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12137#209312

Oh dear, the woolly headed pro labor carbon tax mob are at it again. A carbon tax wouldn't be so bad if it targeted the ultimate consumer instead of providing compensation to them. That would not be very electorally popular. The present scheme is just designed to make the rest of the world look at Australia and think that we are doing something, when in reality it won't do anything. I might also remind you that at the end of the day, the government is going to buy carbon credits from other countries and then claim that they have met their target. That is the ultimate spin which this mob seems to be very good at.

David

The carbon tax will work.

By closing down manufacturing jobs,and by making everyone poorer it will reduce the emissions in Australia.

It will not however, reduce the global emissions, as the polluting businesses such as steel will simply be replaced with overseas non taxed industry.

Bob Brown will get his wish and Australia will become like Tasmania, economically backward, and industrially barren.

There's spin and there's spin. With a comment like that, you don't understand the purpose of a carbon tax. What has taxing the end user got to do with reducing carbon. The ones that can control carbon is the manufactures and power producers.

579 and others that are illiterate with regards to power generation, there are a few home truths that need to be grasped to understand the idiocy of the present version of the carbon tax.

Truth No 1.

A power plant is designed to use a particular fuel in a particular configuration. For example the brown coal generation plants in the La Trobe valley burnt brown coal to generate power. For every MWhr they use a proportionate quantity of coal, and the only way they can generate less CO2 is by generating less power.

Truth No 2.

Power generated by brown coal (the most emission intensive fuel) will with the carbon tax, still be the cheapest source of electrical power, and this is unlikely to change before the carbon price reaches $40. So there is no incentive to change the means of generation.

Truth No 3.

Given the first 2 truths, is that the cost of power and every business activity will increase to some degree, and the only way to reduce emissions in the short to medium term is by reducing the consumption of electricity and reducing (or closing) production, which essentially means winding back the economy.

The alternative is to simply pass the costs to the consumer in and endless churn of money, boosting inflation.

Luciferase
one last go to make you see sense.

"A world-wide attack does exist.."

This is an example of the unreal world in which activists exist. There is no such attack, and it is a complete denial of reality to claim otherwise. Every time examples have been cited I have looked at the example, to find it is limited and partial. The US, for example, has a few states involved in a mild version of an ETS. There are no plans to extend it, and the US president did not even try to introduce anything more comprehensive into Congress. The list goes on - you can work out where china is yourself - yet you still have activists who insist, in the teeth of all evidence - that there is an effective, world-wide push. Time to face reality. Its over.

As for the business about fossil fuels running out, or whatever, weren't price signals meant to deal with that? The price signals should swamp any cabon tax pricing. In any case you do realise that the gas industry has been completely turned upside down in recent years.. gas reserve estimates have gone into the stratosphere in the US (somewhat different story here with, but still more gas than we know what to do with).. so the price signals may well be trending in the opposite direction to your carbon tax for some time to come.. You may impose the tax and find gas, at least, becomes cheaper. Coal prices are well up of course, but what happens in China goes bust.. The point is price singals will completely swamp your tax..

There is a lot more I could say, but I hope you get the general idea. The carbon tax will just add to consumer misery without affecting any change.. Its a complete waste of time.. forget it..

579 there are 22 million Australians using electricity. If the carbon tax made their electricity dearer, they would at least attempt to use less of it. Unfortunately, the government has decided that it will make the power generators pay the tax and compensate the 22 million consumers. Under this regime there is absolutely no incentive for them to reduce their electricity consumption, therefore the tax will not have the slightest effect in reducing carbon emissions.

David

funny how the Liberals are often been accused of being 'born to rule'or the ruling class. Here we have a bunch of left leaning pseudo intellectuals who have maqnipiulated data, censored debate, know the vast majority of the population don't want this tax, know it will cost jobs and yet still intend to impose this tax after blantanly lying to the electorate. On top of this we had the PM tell the PM she stabbed in the back to drop or delay this tax. Only those whose hate for Abbott blinds them of any reason could possibly think this tax is a good thing.

The only thing about Australia anyone overseas will notice is our incredible level of stupidity, blind faith and ego, and our desire to be taxed (oh please tax us more! It's like members of a religious sect demanding to be punished for their "sins" .. oh wait)

No one else on the planet actually begs for and even protests to be taxed. Australians actually marched, organized by a lobby group paid for by nebulous sources and of course, government, demanding more tax for all - we're a freak show, that's why we get world wide media attention, not because they think we're so wonderful.

The world is not waiting daily to see what would the Australians do? Geez, get over yourselves!

If you think anyone overseas is going to emulate our idiocy, you really are stupid.

hey, I could be wrong, tell me how many countries are lining up to do what we're doing, at the level we are .. influenced by us doing it first.

Mind you, if you are looking to do a bit of economical migration, clearly we have more money than sense .. another pull factor at work.

Curmudgeon, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax (go to the "Implementation" heading) and read about who is in and who is out on carbon pricing. The momentum is in my direction, not yours. China and India are in and America will follow when it sorts itself out, I predict.

Re price signals, is your point that there is no need to set the foundations for an less carbon-based economy until the price signals (on gas, particularly) arrive? If so You are not getting my last post. Also, emissions in the meantime (ie until said price signals arrive)don't seem to register with you, because the climate science is wrong anyway, right? I'm sure this is the fundamental point at which we disagree.

A $23/tonne introductory price will not move mountains, but it's a start. Legislation needs to be in place now followed by a longer term shift towards higher pricing. A somewhat higher price intersecting rising price signals will change behaviour in Australia and thereby shift us away from a carbon based economy in timely readiness for a future without fossil fuels. We get a better tax system as a bonus, not more taxation as some here just keep insisting.

That future will arrive much faster than you think because of compounding increase in consumption of fossil fuels per capita coupled with a compounding increase in world population.

I see no censorship here, runner, or people running dodgy numbers. The latest poll I saw was that the majority want something done on climate change and I note that Mr Abbott says he wants to do it, just differently to what is going to be done. How is a pseudo-intellectual different to a real one, and are they all lefties? Just asking.

Tim, you have stated in your introductory and concluding paragraphs that you are a global warming sceptic, working from the premise that it's unneccessary to do anything about it. Hence you are using statistics to (I believe unsuccessfully) 'prove' your argument against a carbon price. Nevertheless I thank you for putting it.

It is not reasonable to use 'high cost scenarios' for RE's when clearly costs are coming down rapidly and and cost efficient wind, biomass and to a lesser extent solar generation are already being constructed in Australia(and I'm not trying to say that rooftop solar is cost efficient yet).

That is due in large part to the Renewable Energy Certificates which at about $38/ MWh (1 MWh coal fired = about 1t CO2e). So when RECs are added to the carbon price of $23/t this comes to an effective carbon price of over $60/ tonne. You should apply this figure to the low cost scenarios when discussing the economics of renewables Tim. Australia has plenty of 'world's best' wind and solar resources within economic distances from our main cities so it's not right to infer that our power stations will be built at 'high cost'. (Though I realise it's convenient for to compare 'high with high' when high for coal - a mature tehchnology - is not much higher than low, if you get my drift).

'Energy price inelasticity' is one of your main arguments Tim. Thanks Taswegian, Luciferase and Bjelly for your counter comments on price elasticity, and also the fact that the carbon price will rise until sufficient renewable energy is produced. I add that vehicle fleet emissions in Europe are less than 2/3 those of Australia's (DIT,2010'Light Vehicle CO2 emissions for Australia discussion paper,). To suggest this has nothing to do with their fuel taxes being at least 100% higher than ours would be absurd.

To give a simple calculation....." if the world slowly got here by the gases changing and permitting all life to excel, it gives reason that if we change the gases ratio....well you work it out.

Humans are changing the worlds gases.

There will be a slow price to pay for it, mark my words.

cactus

Should this post really be in the under economics? It's fairly basic economics that increasing the price of something decreases demand.

grantnw "It's fairly basic economics that increasing the price of something decreases demand." (this is the Garnault gambit I assume you're alluding to?)

really?

So how do you explain the housing market in Australia, cigarette smokers, petrol users, private schools, SUVs .. motor cars generally, airfares, public transport prices?

So merely increasing the price of something .. makes it go away, become unpopular, people will change their behavior?

How simplistic, no other factors?

..like choice? You can choose, to adapt .. like you can choose to adapt to the changing climate, unfortunately for us, we have a nanny state where the government has decided to hold the world's temperature where it is, from a room in Canberra .. folly.

Nothing put aside for adaption, everything on 17 Black, roll for the CO2 reduction to hold the temperature.

This is why economists should stay out of science, and don't get me started on human nature!

"If the author is convinced emissions have nothing to do with warming, "there is NO statistically significant relationship between the undoubted rising level of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the very slight observed rises in global or regional temperatures...", then he should put up his argument in a scientific journal for peer review instead of trying it on as an opinion piece here."

Luciferase, it is up to the proponents of the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming to prove their case. To date no one has tabled a scientific paper that contains compelling scientific evidence that proves that such emissions have caused measurable global warming.

Luciferase
Its for you to go back to your own reference and look at the material and follow up the bits and pieces they cite with an open mind. Clearly it isn't happening. Lets take China. There has been a report it may impose a carbon tax in 2012. This is a proposal in a country where, until recently, it was possible to operate illegial coal mines. If they ever did impose such a tax it would be simply seen as a way for officials to line their own pockets.
Note the entry for the US in the piece of agit-prop you cite. Even it admits there is widespread opposition to the tax.
India has imposed a token per-tonne tax on coal (called a carbon tax) to raise revenue for a green fund. So what?

None of that even begins to add-up to a global attack on carbon, nor is there any sign of those countries going any further. Yet activists still cite this half-baked nonsense as definite proof of a trend.

As for the price signals, you are the one who did not understand. Prepare for the big switch to gas. Google the term "fracking" (fracture cracking) and start reading. A carbon tax will not affect any of it. In this area, in particular, the activists have shown themselves to be entirely divorced from reality.

Now that's it. Leave it with you.

I am grateful for the 26 responses so far to my piece “The Sun God of the Carbon Tax”. Here are my responses to the first few, more later.
Taswegian: I agree with most of what you said (13th at 9.14 am) but not when you disregard the importance of cheap energy, which has been the necessary condition for all economic growth worldwide since 1750. Moreover there is no evidence that “oil is running out” – if it was there would be no need for the carbon dioxide tax! The latest BP Energy Statistics shows that proved oil reserves actually increased once again in 2010, such that even if not a single barrel is found ever again, these reserves would last until 2057 at the 2010 level of consumption.
Luciferase: That brings me to your comment on my verified statement "there is NO statistically significant relationship between the undoubted rising level of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the very slight observed rises in global or regional temperatures...", that I “should put up his argument in a scientific journal for peer review instead of trying it on as an opinion piece here”. I have done just that, but still await acceptance or rejection, the full version of the paper as presented at the Economic Society of Australia Conference at ANU last July is at my website www.timcurtin.com and also at the Conference site (www.ace2011.org.au).

Also I don’t think you are right when you say that taxing carbon as the energy base of our economy is a desirable tax reform, as it makes no sense at all. Coal mines and power stations already pay myriad taxes, including royalties (coal mines) and company tax (privatised power generators).
Services Economist: You said – “Establishing a price for carbon no matter how small creates an additional incentive for business investment aimed at lowering carbon emissions.”

There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide emissions as they are a valuable addition to the rather limited atmospheric CO2 feedstock for the photosynthesis that is the essential sine qua non for all food production

Services Economist also said “The final point is that a carbon tax is an efficient tax. As it costs less to collect than many other taxes, it can replace less efficient taxes to net benefit for Australia.” Really? That remains to be seen. My prediction is that it will require an even larger army of collectors and inspectors than the ATO, read the legislation.

Curmudgeon said “In fact the tax only makes sense as a political move to keep the greens with the Gillard government. To suggest that it might actually be of use in reducing global emissions by anything other than trivial amounts is absurd”. Spot on!

BJelly at 12:14:48 PM said “The plus side to the carbon tax is that it will be used to make necessary changes for the national good, not go to ever inflating corporate salaries and dividends for a few.” Hardly – it does involve a shift in income distribution from the 10-20% of households who will not benefit from the changes to the tax and benefit system to the 80-90% who will, and also from the former to the armies of public servants and academics who will administer the total package, no wonder they are all salivating!

Luciferase again (13 September 2011 12:38) asks “Will Labor get wiped out as a consequence?” No, the implication of my article is that as the tax will be passed on to consumers who will almost all be more than compensated through the tax-benefit system, it will have minimal effects on voting intentions in 2013. If the tax was really meant to shift energy supply from coal to renewables, it would have to be at least $76 as I showed, and only then might voters get cross. That is why the tax is only $23 to start with.

sterndavidi, (13 September 2011 1:06 PM) said “I agree that a carbon tax of $23 likely won't have much effect in terms of reducing emissions in Australia. That's what my research shows too (http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1111.htm). But the Australian government is planning on two things:

1. Their renewable energy target and other complementary measures, which raises the real cost of climate policy but would reduce the remaining emissions that need to be cut.

2. That most of the reductions will be met by forestry schemes in Indonesia etc.”

I am not sure about the efficacy in practice of Stern’s (1), both economically and electorally. As the hidden subsidies of the renewable energy target (RET, eg roof panels) will probably raise energy prices more than the carbon dioxide tax does, and these increases are not included in the compensation package, they are more likely than the tax itself to generate voter backlash. The RET is unlikely to be achieved as coal stations have to be kept running and emitting to cover for the inability of the renewables to provide base load on windless days and sunfree nights.

As for his (2), the AusAid REDD schemes in Indonesia are inherently dishonest theory and wholly fraudulent in practice, as the whole of AusAid’s budget (and Norway’s) would not be enough to compensate Indonesian farmers and foresters for desisting from oil palm and forestry.

There's power generators, there's power providers, and there's power consumers. When the requirement is for providers to supply a percentage from renewables, and rising as more come online. Won't that convince the coal burners it is time to change, or go broke.
The carbon price will even the costings between the coal burners and renewables. Solar is going in at a fantastic rate, every kwh created will further put the squeese on coal burning.
I am sure coal burners will be investing in renewables to cover their bottom. line.

579

"The carbon price will even the costings between the coal burners and renewables. Solar is going in at a fantastic rate, every kwh created will further put the squeese on coal burning. I am sure coal burners will be investing in renewables to cover their bottom. line "
People choosing to have solar panels installed have been encouraged by unrealistically high tariffs (since lowered by awakened State Govts) for electricity they sell back to the electricity networks/providers. This has forced the providers to increase retail electricity prices generally, so as to recover those high charges.

Given that solar power electricity is about 10 times more costly than coal-fired to produce, the proposed carbon tax will not provide much stimulus to electricity providers to invest in unreliable solar power.
There is no scientific, economic or international justification to introduce a carbon tax. The only certainty is that the proposed carbon tax will raise electricity prices by at least 10% and reduce Australia's comparative advantage, but have no impact on climate change. The Government is being disingenuous in suggesting otherwise

All the advocates of a carbon tax have been disproved over and over and over and over again, and each time, they just go silent, slink off, and return re-running the same superstitious beliefs.

Let’s go over this again shall we:
- cite a peer-reviewed article showing *temperature* measurements proving the existence of the alleged trophospheric hot spot on which the entire greenhouse/global warming belief system depends
- show how you have accounted for the upsides as well as the downsides of global warming, now and in the future – make sure you don’t rely on vested interests, appeal to absent authority, assuming what is in issue, or ad hominem arguments – that should narrow it down a bit for you
- justify your assumption that – in order to achieve your purpose of “balancing” all the oxidation and reduction reactions in the whole world for all the people now and in the future - a modest proposal - government has the necessary knowledge of all the relevant climatic, ecological and economic quantities, flows, costs and benefits
- prove how you know that the upsides of policy action will outweigh the downsides. Show your working. What discount, if any, have you applied for the value of a human life now and into futurity? Why?
- What if you are wrong? What if government doesn’t have the capacity and selflessness that you attribute to it? Show what account you have taken of the possibility that you will kill large numbers of people.

What gets me is that people in the world are already going hungry, while these anti-human religious zealots are intent on destroying as much capital as they can, by diverting it into less urgent and important uses as decided by all the people of the world whom the warmists regard as a form of cancer, or a plague of bacteria. Yet if we ask, how many people will be killed as a result of your policy action
a) they don’t know and have never considered the question, and
b) have the gall to feel offended by it!

CARBON CON

Note also that Australia will have to pay about $60 billion annually to unidentified foreign entities by 2050 merely for the right to burn its own coal and to keep the nation’s lights on, and a cumulative $650 billion up to that date.

The government's clean energy rhetoric is designed to deflect deeper scrutiny of the country's future international carbon (dioxide) permit purchase obligations, a key element of its carbon (dioxide) emissions “reduction” strategy from 2015, when the domestic carbon price will be set by the market.

How did we get to this point? When did "climate change" become the dodgy rationale for wealth transfer on such an unprecedented scale from the developed world (haves) to the developing world (have-nots)?

The answer: ever since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change codified notions of “dangerous” climate change, “climate debt” and “precautionary” action, UN bureaucracies have been moving slowly – but inevitably - towards today’s highly politicised end-game.

When an accurate history of the UN’s long pas de deux with climate change alarmism is written, it will be clearer just how eagerly – and prematurely - the developing world (and other players) embraced it, years before the IPCC and its researchers ruled the science was “settled”. It will be a case study in the politicisation of science on a grand scale. It will reveal how (and why) the promise of treasure at the end of the atmospheric rainbow ensured too many so-called “facts” became “theory-laden” with anthropogenic global warming, carbonorexia nervosa and so on.

Alice (in Warmerland)

I found Peter Hume's rant quite interesting, almost enjoyable even. Made people like me sound like monsters. I felt positively dangerous after I read it.
Then he pleads for no ad hominum attacks... Go figure.
Like most thoughtful people who recognise the now incontrovertible science behind Global Warming forecasts, I just sit back and smile.
Because the argument - and history - is coming to us.
One by one, reputable scientists are coming out to demand urgent action on climate change; one by one countries are getting on board and acting. Every national academy of science - or equivalent - is firmly behind global warming science; NASA is... Need I go on?
Just give it another year or two, and this whole debate will have gone away.
That's the great thing about being patient. Common sense invariably prevails - eventually.
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.a

Tell me Anthony, are you on the gravy train, or just admiring it from a far?

You obviously only read the stuff that reinforces your chosen position, which does make holding those like yours much easier.

Hi Hasbeen,
Certainly not on the gravy train. Actually a self funded early retiree, ex-international corporate executive and ex-military.

Actually I read widely and I seek out opposing views. I've read arguments on both sides and have thought about this issue, (Global Warming) at length and am convinced that it's a fact.

What motivates me to act are my granddaughters, (5 & 7). I will do everything I can to ensure that they do not inherit a world in worse shape than the one I've enjoyed a long life in.

If I were to set aside my own analysis, weak as it might be, here's the choice I would be confronted with.

Either Global Warming is real, or there is a massive conspiracy involving virtually every scientific body in the world, virtually all the climate scientists.
And then I read as I did in yesterday's The Age of new research published by highly reputable German scientists showing that the disappearance of Arctic sea ice is accelerating and within three decades, three decades, there will be no Arctic sea ice; and that they are convinced that this is directly as a result of human activity.
Now, put yourself in my position. That such a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of respected scientists is in place or global warming is real. Occam's Razer really does apply, wouldn't you at least grant me that much.
So, in suymmary, I am simply and genuinely convinced, by the weight of evidence for, and the weight of respected scientist for, and by the sheer unlikelhood of the conspiracy that would have to exist for the alternative to be right.
I do hope that helps to explain my position.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Antony
Firstly your reply consists of *nothing but* reliance on vested interests, appeal to absent authority, assuming what is in issue, or ad hominem arguments. That really says it all, doesn’t it?

Secondly, there is no need for to a conspiracy theory to explain what’s happening.

For example, I know a guy who is a very highly educated and senior scientist. He told me that he believes AGW because a very highly educated friend of his had assured him about it, and had referred to a scientific paper that purported to show that the water level of Fremantle harbour was rising, with which he challenged me. When I pointed out it would have to rise everywhere else to confirm the theory, he had nothing to say. In other words, his technique was assuming it’s true and seeking to affirm, rather than to disprove it – the religious, not the scientific method.

All that is necessary to account for the entire belief system is to understand that those climate scientists are people too and *might be using the same intellectual technique that you are*! Merely doing what you have done - assuming what is in issue, reposing faith in authority, and seeking to prove rather than disprove it, will explain the result. But that is not science. It’s groupthink, credulity, orthodoxy, reliance on authority – the OPPOSITE of science.

Thirdly, discussion of AGW is not as a mere speculation on climatology, divorced from any question of policy or government funding. The very nature of the discussion is that AGW presents us with the need for urgent political action, else the question would raise no more political issue than do the proceedings of the entomological society.

Yet you regard the vested interests of an entire industry and empire of government funded climate scientists, and the prospect of an enormous expansion in their budgets, as ENTIRELY UNPROBLEMATIC relative to the knowledge in issue.

Fourthly science does not supply value judgments, while policy requires them. So even if the positive science proved AGW, it is a *complete non sequitur*, and therefore unscientific, to reason therefore that *any policy action whatsoever* is indicated.

Fifthly, no-one ever rationally justifies the process of reasoning by which we go from the alleged physical problem, to government being ASSUMED to have the knowledge, the capacity and the selflessness to make things better than worse.

Sixthly, the difference between your ad hominem and mine is that the warmists’ ad hom is the *foundation* of their argument – that and begging the question and appeal to absent authority – without which the entire edifice collapses. Mine is the *conclusion* of an argument rationally and irrefutably disproving the whole religious belief system multiple times.

Got that citation of a single peer-reviewed paper showing evidence of temperature measurements (not surrogate measurements) proving the existence of a supposed tropospheric hot spot, on which the entire hoo-haa depends, yet fellah?

And just to clear up any possibility of evasion on your part:
- how have you accounted for the upsides as well as the downsides of global warming, now and in the future?
- prove how you know that the upsides of policy action will outweigh the downsides. How have you figured in the value of a human life now and into the future, including those whose sacrifice would be required by your policies? Show your working.
- prove that government has the necessary knowledge of all the relevant climatic, ecological and economic quantities, flows, costs and benefits
- What if you are wrong? What if government doesn’t have the capacity and selflessness that you attribute to it? Show what account you have taken of the possibility that you will kill large numbers of people.

BTW, try this experiment. Take out all the scientific vested interests from your analysis, and then see what a difference it makes to the landscape of opinion! Sorry to tell you this, but your belief system is credulous and you have been conned.

Anthony is seriously at fault when he says: "Either Global Warming is real, or there is a massive conspiracy involving virtually every scientific body in the world, virtually all the climate scientists".

Actually there is no conspiracy, only the massive incompetence of ALL climate "scientists", including ALL at CSIRO and BoM, all the authors of AAS (2010) and all at Will Steffen's Climate Change Institute shamefully hosted by ANU for the sole purpose of milking the DCCEE for millions of dollars from DCCEE (2011) with their combined inabilty to read trends into data series of GMT, atmospheric CO2 (aka [CO2]), etc etc., magnified also by their complete inability to perform regressions (LSR) on data on GMT as a function of human changes in [CO2] and non-human changes (for the most part) in atmospheric water vapour (aka [H2O]) (see my paper Econometrics of Climate Science,under peer review) at www.timcurtin.co

The actual addresses for my paper are www.timcurtin.com and www.ace2011.org.au

Appeal to absent authority, ho hum.

Okay, let's put aside your evasions and cut to the chase.
1. admit that you're arguing that science supplies value judgments
2. show how you accounted for the upsides as well as the downside of global warming
3. show how you've accounted for the downsides as well as the upsides of policy action
4. show how you've accounted for the value of a human life now and into futurity.
5. let us have your estimate of the cost in human lives of your policies. Show your workings.

Hey Tom, got that peer reviewed article showing *temperature* measurements proving the existence of the tropospheric hot spot yet? A simple humiliating admission that you're wrong will do.

Hi Peter,
Interesting response.
I can see that you're really comitted to your beliefs.
Just a couple of teeeeny, weeeeny points.
You accuse me of appealing to absent authority, and then proceed to tell me about a guy who knows a guy...
Elegantly inconsistent, I must give you that.
And then you go ahead and make some extraordinary, highly generalised, and impossible to prove assertions about all climate scientists.
Big call, wouldn'tchasay?
Anyway, as I said in my first post, the great thing about my side of the debate, is that I can afford to smile and be patient and watch as the argument and history come to me.
So, Occam and I wish you well.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au
PS There's no need to shout; (capitals). I get your points. I don't agree with them but I do get them.

Tom,
Loved your reply.
Oh dear, all these incompetent scientists.
Must be a nerve wracking experience for you to go to a hospital. And do you fly? Whole bunch of science right there. Or is it only climate scientists who are "all incompetent"?
I really admire how you've been able to see through their nefarious behaviour.
Quite eye opening really.
Anyway, time will tell.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

The point which both sides of the AGW debate seem to have missed, is that the bill(s) currently before the Federal Parliament will have precisely no effect on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that Australia produces. Firstly, the wrong people are being targeted and secondly, the population is increasing at too fast a rate as well. Brown coal will continue to be out cheapest source of power into the next century. We will need all of that to offset the times when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine.

David

Anthony,
That's a false dilemma you raised back there - there are other possibilities than 'big con job' and 'bang on the money'. I'm of the view that global warming is real, but that its causes are more complex than a mere over-abundance of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and that curtailing their emission will therefore be of limited effect in controlling the climate. Other geo-engineering solutions may be warranted if controlling the climate is the goal - but I'm not entirely convinced that climate change is the herald of the end times that some folk would have us believe it is.

Climate change is a natural process. There is no scientific paper that presents compelling scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. It is fanciful to think that governments or any other agencies can materially influence climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Australian Government is being undemocratic to legislate a carbon tax for which it has no election mandate -- particularly a carbon tax that has poison pills planted in it, that will make it very expensive to reverse. For further details see today's Australian Henry Ergas article "Labor Plants Poison Pills in Carbon Tax" at
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/labor-plants-poison-pills-in-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226138227483

Anthonyve:>> that the Carbon Tax will have no impact on emmissions, it seems that all its opponents conveniently forget the tremendous psychological and political effect its introduction will have.
Not here in Australia, but around the world.
When our Carabon Tax policy was first announced, it was all over the US poltical blogs and website.
Oh yes, it will matter, alright.<<

Anthony you are not addressing the local Greens Party meeting, many on this forum do not buy the sort of fact less speculative statements you are making. Let’s just take the above dribble and dissect it.

Re the psychological effect you refer to it has started, look at our domestic economy, people too freaked out to spend, plebs saving rate has quadrupled in the past year, NINETEEN new taxes to date all from the WORKING FAMILIES friends Rudd and Gillard, and as soon as Gillard said “there WILL be a Carbon tax under the government I lead” everything stopped in the domestic economy and it’s not even been legislated yet. Re the psychological effect on the average Yank or European, do you know how many of them out of a hundred could identify where Australia was on the globe, I do, under 20%, you delude yourself.

Re the U.S. political blogs and web sites catching FIRE as the news of our new tax hit them, almost immediately after we told the world that we would introduce a new tax the Obama administration said NO CARBON TAX FOR THE USA. If you think the American government (either side) who went to war so they can buy petrol at 70 cents a liter would introduce a tax on their people and send BILLIONS to the U.N to do with as they see fit, your dreamin, you don’t have a clue.

Anthony I had a look at your web site and find it is full of the same naive and mis directed comment on the subject of Climate Change as you have exhibited here, but I did find the little stories you use to tie your prose together amusing on your other comments.

Your logic is we insure houses on the one in a zillion chances that they burn down, but we will not insure ourselves against Climate Change by implementing a tax, brilliant argument, where can you go from there, killer logic.

Explain to me how a Carbon Tax on the first world who right now only manufacture 23% of the globes products is going to stop China and India’s expansive growth and consumption of energy, how will it make a measureable difference? It won’t. So why do we have first world lefty governments fleecing their constituents of cash and sending it to the U.N. to then send to some African despot who happens to have Carbon sink forests, he makes money the SX makes money (the banks and brokers), but the environment has nil gain. How does that stop pollution? It doesn’t, it simply sends money from the middle to the top and with no result.

Have you considered why the original green movement focused on the polluter and fifty years later the modern green movement focuses on the consumer, it is because the “MONEY” infiltrated the Green movement and moved the focus to user pay rather than polluter clean up, it was a planned outcome and free thinkers such as yourself are marching to the polluters tune not the environments.

Hi SonofGloin,
Do I detect a fellow Lord of the Rings fan?
Thanks for taking a look at my blog.
You may be right, and I guess time will tell.
But it seems to me that so many of the anti global warming arguments boil down to one of three things.
Either all these climate scientists are hopelessly incompetent; that there is some kind of conspiracy going on to defraud the free world; or some combination of the two.
All are possible, I suppose. But to me they just seem a tad unlikely.
Something I learned in the military is that when confronted with the choice between a snafu and a conspiracy, bet on a snafu everytime.
Oddly enough, I find myself arguing a case that I desperately hope is wrong. Nothing would make me happier than to know that there is nothing in global warming to worry about. it would be a giant wipe of the brows and a Whew!!
My fear though is that by the time we know for sure one way or the other, it might be too late.
Anyway, have a great weekend.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony

Thank you for openly confirming that the whole belief system supporting a carbon tax not only has no basis in science, but no basis in logic.

The idea that “the science” justifies your conclusion has got so many holes in it, it’s not funny.

Even if there were no issue as to the climatology, you are at least four complete and fatal refutations away from beginning to rationally justify your belieft.

There is no need to assume a “conspiracy”, nor even necessarily incompetence as a matter of climate science, for a number of reasons. Governments have paid billions and billions and billions of dollars to find evidence of global warming, and have actively marginalised non-conforming views; and all of the science in favour coincides with a massive vested interest. The “science” concerns statistical operations of enormous variability, complexity and contention. But even at best, all your case would amount to is a series of temperature measurements. They are incapable of making the conclusion that you are contending for. But you take no cognizance of that and your only way of dealing with it is to reiterate open-ended credulity, and pretend that the refutations of your beliefs aren’t happening.

Scientists are not objective in their capacity as policy advisors. But you pretend that their policy advice is objective as science.

The problems in the climate science are as nothing compared to the fatal defects as a matter of social science. Your theory of value does not even begin to cope with the problem you blithely skip over, as if the whole thing were a mere technical problem to be solved by vesting more and more power in government.

Governments do not and cannot have the relevant knowledge of human values that they would need in order to know whether the upsides of global warming outweighed the downsides; all their pretensions otherwise are demonstrably false.

And even if they did, they do not and cannot know whether the upsides of any given policy action outweigh the downsides.

That’s why you can’t answer my questions which entirely disprove your argument.

(cont.)

“I can see that you're really comitted to your beliefs.”

Personal argument, mind-reading, irrelevance.

Since you haven’t been able to provide a rational justification of a carbon tax, you are not in a position to judge whether I would be against it if you could.

First fallacy in your latest post.

“You accuse me of appealing to absent authority, and then proceed to tell me about a guy who knows a guy...”

I did not refer to those absent persons as authority for the proposition I’m contending for – that the carbon tax is unjustified – and expect you just to rely on their word, and for that to settle the issue, did I?

But that’s what you’re doing.

And even if I had made the same error as you, your rejoinder could only amount to saying that two wrongs must make a right - that my alleged fallacy had justified you using what you yourself identified as a fallacy.

So just in your last response you are three fallacies deep, all of which I had identified and asked you to avoid before you made that response.

“And then you go ahead and make some extraordinary, highly generalised, and impossible to prove assertions about all climate scientists.”

You don’t say what those assertions are, but I presume you mean my saying that “climate scientists are people too and *might be using the same intellectual technique that you are*! … assuming what is in issue, reposing faith in authority, and seeking to prove rather than disprove it”

*Do you deny* that they are people too and might be using the same intellectual technique that you are?

If so, you need to prove it, because that’s what’s in issue. The fact that you haven’t, but just assumed what is yours to prove, begs the question so… fourth fallacy in the one short post.

So what’s happening is, I’m saying all the arguments for a carbon tax are based on fallacies, and all you’re saying to defend them is based on fallacies.

“I can afford to smile and be patient and watch as the argument and history come to me.”

Assumes what’s in issue – fifth fallacy.

“Occam and I wish you well.”

Assumes what’s in issue - seventh.

And *why* do you assume that yours in the most parsimonious explanation?

Because you believe what the establishment is saying – appeal to absent authority – eighth count, even though the climate science does not establish normative propositions – ninth.

Your entire argument boils down to “It must be true, because the government says it’s true. I can’t even begin to imagine any other possibility.”

But
a) you have not taken into account my argument showing why “conspiracy” theory is not necessary
b) it is for you to prove that your argument makes logical sense in the first place, not for others to prove a negative
c) there is in any event abundant evidence of high-level, well-funded, long-term international political commitment to use alleged catastrophic global warming as the basis of a thoroughgoing push for increasing political take-over of more and more aspects of individual liberty and private property, replacing them with governmental planning and bureaucratic action, and the socialization of the means of production; so those decrying a blank warrant for big government are not paranoidally imagining things.
d) you have not cited a peer-reviewed paper proving the alleged tropospheric hot-spot by *temperature* measurements, on which the whole greenhouse belief system depends, thus you are not in a position to assert even the climatological basis for your entire argument
e) you simply ignore that the climate science is riddled with the epistemological problems of vested interests; the destruction, suppression and facile re-writing of data sets; corruption and blatant fraud; to which your only response is open-ended credulity
f) but even if there were no issue as to climatology – and it is absurd or dishonest to suggest that is the case - you haven’t begun to cognise, let alone deal with the problems of value theory which provide at least two COMPLETE AND TOTAL refutations of your argument.

Both Tom Tiddler and Anthony have demonstrated what I said in my first post. The warmists have nothing but fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy. When challenged to rationally defend their belief, they either go silent, or come back with another welter and tangle of the same fallacies.

Note that Tom did not explicitly concede what he was unable to explicitly defend.

And Anthony’s own method is a resilient *commitment* to credulity and fallacious methodology.

And this is what we always get *every single time* we chase the warmists’ assumptions down to evidence and reason.

Then when I ask how they justify shutting down food production and smashing people’s livelihoods, all the reply I get is a gnostic smirk of self-righteousness.

Anthony,

You seem to see things in very black-and-white terms: either the scientists are entirely right, or they're 'hopelessly incompetent', or they're lying. We'll deal with the latter first: I regard it as a fiction. The notion that entire field of climatology is part of some lefty conspiracy to de-industrialise the west (or whatever these conspiracy theory nutters believe) is an extraordinary claim with sod all evidence to support it.

Which, as far as you're concerned, leaves hopelessly incompetent or completely correct. The former seems highly improbable; surely they can't all be buffoons. But the latter is even less probable; they are almost certainly wrong. All scientific knowledge is provisional; it changes constantly. There's a great quote from a speech made by Lord Kelvin in 1900, only a few years before Einstein massively altered our understanding of physics with the theory of special relativity: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

It irks me when I see letters in my morning paper trotting out the beloved hippy cliché "the science is settled". No it bloody isn't, and if it is, it's not really science - it's just dogma in a labcoat. The policy may be settled (obviously, policy must be based on current scientific knowledge and logically cannot be based on as yet to be developed theories), but the science never can be. And so climatologists are not completely correct - but it's doubtful that they're completely wrong, either. They're somewhere in between - in that middle ground you seem to dislike. And for the record, they can be completely competent and still be wrong. Science is funny like that.

Hi Acolyte Riza,
No, I wasn't saying that scientists are hopelessly incompetent, at least that wasn't my intent.
What I was doing was quoting the deniers assertions all through these comments that this is the case. it's their way of explaining away how 98 out of every 100 climate scientists say that teh science is settled.
But, like I keep on saying, I'll patiently wait for the argument and history to come to me.
See, here's the thing. No matter how much we yell at each other, sooner or later reality will assert itself. (I would argue that it already is).
And, of course, that's precisely what I'm worried about.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

"Both Tom Tiddler and Anthony have demonstrated what I said in my first post. The warmists have nothing but fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy. When challenged to rationally defend their belief, they either go silent, or come back with another welter and tangle of the same fallacies."

Ummm, Peter ... Tom Tiddler is in fact the author (Tim Curtin) of this article.

Going by your own fallacies, you (like he) are a legend in your own mind.

Anthony,

What did I just say in my last post about science never being settled? And yet you go on to spout nonsense like this: "98 out of every 100 climate scientists say that teh science is settled". Bollocks. You may lack even an elementary understanding of scientific methodology and the philosophy of science, but climatologists are (thankfully) not so poorly educated. That's why you won't find the scientists uttering such rubbish, only halfwits claiming to speak for the scientists like Greenpeace, politicians and yourself. But I'd really appreciate it, and I'm sure they would too, if you'd stop putting erroneous words into their mouths.

You might find climatologists saying that that the policy implications are settled. It's possible that you've accidentally conflated the two, but take it from somebody who knows a little bit about scientific methodology: this is not the same thing as saying the science is settled.

And if, as you claim, that 98% of climatologists do say the science is settled, the logical implication is not that the science actually is settled and climatological theories stand alone in the field of science as perfectly formulated theories, watertight and unassailable. The logical implication is that that 98% of the climatologists simply do not understand the nature of their job. Which I suppose would make them incompetent. But as I said above, I don't think this is the case - I think they're being misrepresented by the sort of jackasses who wouldn't recognise the scientific method if it jumped up and bit them on the arse, and who would do well to educate themselves before uttering foolish statements.

Hi Acolyte Rizla,
Wow, you managed to be quite insulting.
I don't mean to criticize, but is that really necessary?
Millions of people agree with you and millions agree with me.
Your reply prompted me to go back over these comments, and I noticed an interesting thing.
The rude responses are all from those who oppose the notion of global warming. Comments supporting global warming are not at all insulting.
Why is that, do you suppose?
Anyway, as I've said before, you may be right and I may be wrong. I can make room for both possibilities. In fact, I hope you are right and we all have nothiing to worry about.
But I have to point out, making insulting assumptions about me, e.g. my level of scientific understanding, doesn't really help your case.
Probably prejudices it if anything.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve

These are the concluding remarks of The Royal Society’s ‘Climate Change – a summary of the science’.

>> 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.

It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.

Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.

Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area. <<

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

Obviously, both 'alarmists' and 'naysayers' alike have taken “the science is settled” meme out of context to suit their own ideological agenda. Science is never settled and it is certainly not absolute. That is why I find it extraordinary that 'naysayers' (e.g. US Republicans and Tea Party adherents) want to pull the plug that will further refine the certainties (and uncertainties) or drive the world to more sustainable energy use.

Bonmot
Can you see how the Royal Society quote does not answer any of the issues raised here, and repeats all the defects of methodology that I have remarked?

1. Climatology

“There is strong evidence….”
It’s just that no-one can cite a peer-reviewed paper showing temperature measurements proving the existence of the tropospheric hotspot, on which the whole belief system depends?

Besides, there is no evidence that the current gentle warm era is unusual or harmful. There have been warmer periods in the past and all have seen a profusion of animal and plant life.

But even taken at its worst, all it says is that temperatures have been going up, and this *may* have serious consequences. So what? It *may* not, and it may have serious *positive* consequences. The RS quote is no authority for any conclusion favourable to your argument.

2. Knowledge of upsides versus downsides of AGW
“Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.”

And that is to speak only of the uncertainties of *fact*. But there’s an even bigger problem as to the *values* attached to such facts.

Nothing in the RS excerpt pretends even to begin to know the upsides versus downsides of AGW, nor how the RS could know them.

But the raw factual data of such a study would be *judgments of value* subjective to billions of people dispersed throughout the world, universally discounted for futurity, and changing all the time. The warmists appear unaware of the great chasm between the knowledge set they presume to have, and the knowledge set they would need to have for their argument to be minimally valid.

“Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge.”

This sentence is ambiguous. It could mean that *if* policy choices are to be made at all, they must be in the absence of perfect knowlege. Or it could mean policy choices have to be made, and in the absence of perfect knowledge.

(cont.)

But it seems to be saying that policy choices have to be made about climate change in the absence of perfect knowledge, doesn’t it? It’s not obviously countenancing taking *no* policy action, is it? (Therefore it assumes what’s in issue and is therefore illogical and unscientific).

But here's the rub. So far, we are still waiting for any advocate of AGW policy action to come up with any rational justification of the proposition that there should be policy action in the first place. Your methodology is to assume it, and then when asked to show reason, you show *authority* who themselves have patently *assumed* it!

“However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.”
But hang on. The RS authority you quote has not begun to establish that the seriously bad consequences outweigh the seriously good. Nothing he said has even begun to address that issue, let alone shown reason to conclude in favour of policy action.

But it gets worse, and even less rational. Just because there are important decisions to be be made, does *not* mean that they should be made by the state on the basis of admittedly imperfect data and evaluations, rather than by all the affected people
a) whose total knowledge set is astronomically greater than that of the state, and
b) who have the critical data set that the state is entirely missing, namely knowledge of their own subjective values and time preferences.

But the issue is *whether* there should be policy action. So in that last sentence, the RS shows that it is assuming there should be! Thus you are only proving my point - this circular, uncritical, fallacious methodology is riddled throughout the warmist movement even at the highest levels. Being illogical, it’s not “science” – it’s groupthink, and self-interested groupthink at that, as they then go on to prove.

“Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.”

Translation: don’t stop channeling confiscated money into our pockets – and we won’t stop putting the frighteners on you!

Now we see why the whole meme just happens to be government-funded. They don’t produce goods that people are willing to pay for. They produce bads for which the payments on which they depend must extorted.

“'naysayers' … want to pull the plug”

I presume you mean cut off further tax funding. But cutting funding wouldn’t mean discontinuing climate science obviously. Because you, and Anthony, and everyone else who agrees with you as to the the value and importance of climate science would supply the funding *voluntarily*, wouldn’t you?

Bonmot? You *would* fund it voluntarily wouldn’t you?

Oh you mean it *is* about the money after all!

3. Knowledge of upsides versus downsides of policy action
“[proposed policy or funding] that will further … drive the world to more sustainable energy use.”

And here we come to the warmists’ third pons asinorum.

Given that the raw data set for the critical questions - of human value - comprise the constantly-changing and subjective value judgments and time preferences of billions of dispersed human beings, how would you rationally demonstrate that the upsides of a given policy outweigh the downsides?

How do you know that any given policy to promote “more sustainable energy use” will not have unintended negative consequences worse than the original problem - even considered from the standpoint of the advocates of such policies - after all upsides and downsides both ways are taken into account?

Explain how you are going to know that? Show your workings.

“Ummm, Peter ... Tom Tiddler is in fact the author (Tim Curtin) of this article.
Going by your own fallacies, you (like he) are a legend in your own mind.”

So when we ask the advocates of a carbon tax how they justify cutting food production when millions of people are going hungry, after all their circularity is dismissed the last-ditch argument they can come up with, is that I called someone Tom when I should have said Tim.

That’s it.

Anthony
You remark that the opponents insult you, however you’re advocating actually physically threatening people with unprovoked aggression to get what you want, so their mere insults should be the least of your worries.

What account have you taken of the possible, or probable human suffering as a consequence of the policies you advocate? Does it concern you that people may die – possibly in large numbers – as a result of the policies you advocate?

Peter Hume, I was addressing Anthonyve. Whilst your apparent paranoia is telling, it's not about you, really.

Despite your latest 4-post rant ... you confused the author of this article (a number of times) with a so called "warmist" when he obviously is not.

Btw, the so called 'hot-spot' you keep banging on about is NOT a signature of AGW, it is a signature of global warming - and it is there, again contrary to your assertions. Ergo, you should refrain from getting your 'science' from the blogosphere.

"you’re advocating actually physically threatening people with unprovoked aggression"

Hello Peter,
Re the quote above from your last post.
How extraordinary!
At no point have I advocated anything of the kind.
Throughout this discussion, I have been as polite as possible.
I'm at a loss to understand why you would make such an unfounded acccusation.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
At any rate, I do hope that the rest of your assertions throughout are more factually based.
Moreover, the only policy I have advocated is to take action on climate change. To depart from that and to arrive at your suggestion that "my policies" will lead to large numbers of people dying, is... well, frankly, quite difficult to take seriously.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony: what makes you think that reducing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from today's 390 ppm to Hansen's 350 or less will have no impact on global food production, given that that is 100% dependent on photosynthesis of atmospheric CO2, which when at 350 ppm barely supported a global population of c. 5 billion?

I suspect that you are one of those Greens who secretly desire elimination of all the blacks,browns,and yellows who would be the first to starve to death as a result of reduction of atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm or less.

Anthony,

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, you poor little dear. But I'm the sort of bloke that likes to call a spade a spade - and an idiot an idiot. And it's fair to say that I don't suffer fools gladly. There are many fine educational institutions in this country, from your local school to our most prestigious universities, and many opportunities for distance education. As such, there is no excuse for ignorance save laziness.

I suggest you go back and read those comments again with more than one eye. You've already stated you found my previous post rude, but I don't oppose the theory of global warming - I just recognise that it is imperfect (as all scientific theories are). What I oppose is the falsehood peddled by irresponsible idiots that the climate scientists are absolutely correct and that the science is settled. Bonmot gets it - presumably (s)he is blessed with an IQ larger than his shoe size. So the rude responses aren't all from those who oppose the notion of global warming. And I can only speak for myself, but my rudeness stems from a)your wilful ignorance; b)your overbearing smugness; c)your failure to address sound criticisms of your arguments with anything other than a repetitious assterion that you are right and that 'tis only matter of time before everybody else is proven wrong; and d)my strong sense of community spirit - it's possible you've never realised that you're an idiot before. But now you know, and can take steps to remedy it. Pointing out other folk's idiocy to them is one of the ways I give back to society.

TBC

continued from above

Since you don't seem to be sufficiently intelligent to fully comprehend my arguments, let's just assume I'm right. Why would that mean we have nothing to worry about? The fact that the science is unsettled has no bearing whatsoever on negative outcomes from global warming. And the only way you could conclude that my being right means that global warming is of no concern is if you had paid absolutely no heed to what I've actually been arguing - if you just saw that I had a contrary position to you, made some foolish assumptions and leapt to some absurd conclusions, and then argued against said assumptions and conclusions rather than my actual criticisms. Very poor form, old chap. And you wonder why I belittle your intellect?*

You're probably right that my brusque manner is detrimental to my case. But it's a lot less damaging than your idiocy is to your case, so I'm not too worried.

*It's because your intellect is little.

Hi Peter and Acolyte Rizla,
:) :)
And with that smile for each of you, I depart the debate, as this thread never was educational and has now ceased to be amusing.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony
You’re not proposing a voluntary scheme, are you? You want a policy – an enforced scheme. And how will the policy be enforced without the use or threat of unprovoked aggression? Or hadn’t you thought about that?

All science can say is that it’s warming. Climate change may be causing serious problems. But it may not. It may be causing serious benefits. Science cannot and does not claim to know the upsides versus the downsides. And even if it were known, government cannot know whether any given policy would be an improvement, or would worsen the situation.

That being so, the best course of action is to leave people free to choose. This will bring into action a much larger and more accurate knowledge set, and a much larger and more accurate value set. And it will avoid the moral hazard of a massive corrupt empire of political redistributions from the world’s poorest and the world’s most productive to the world’s political parasites now rushing to get their snouts in the trough. Can’t you see it?

So you have demonstrably misapprehended the scientific, economic or political issues and that’s why you have you have the opinion you have.

You mistakenly believe science supplies value judgments. You mistakenly presume governments can allocate scarce resources to their most valued uses. And you mistakenly believe that policy does not involve the use or threats of violence.

You’ve just swallowed a load of government propaganda hook, line and sinker.

All your argument amounts to is “Because there might be a problem, therefore governments should collectivise decision-making - based on force – no matter what the negative consequences”.

Bonmot

So that’s the argument, is it?
1. “there is”, and
2. Peter Hume is “paranoid”.

There you have it folks. You’re looking at the ultimate argument for policy action on AGW.

All
That is why I originally called the belief in AGW policy action a “superstition”. It is a circular belief in a superbeing, that is completely unable to withstand critical scrutiny; and when this is pointed out, its adherent obstinately cling to their previous beliefs for emotional reasons.

Thanks to Anthony and bonmot for demonstrating it so clearly.

Anthony,

Just 'coz you've managed to make a fool of yourself, that's no reason to take your bat and go home. It's not big and it's not clever - just immensely childish. There is no shame being to be wrong about stuff: that's one of the ways we learn (assuming you do actually learn).