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 > What carbon price is right to bite into, not bark at, climate change? > Comments

What carbon price is right to bite into, not bark at, climate change? : Comments

By Ted Christie, published 3/2/2012

Twenty-one dollars a tonne is too timid a carbon price to make any impact

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Popnperish: You say "Herbert, the evidence is out there for climate change and its effects - you just have to read the literature. What is very evident is that we are heading for 4 degrees of warming which will be devastating for the planet."

Actually Popnperish, the problem is that I HAVE read the literature. But across the board. I have read the sceptical literature attacking the propaganda of the IPCC, Tim Flannery, Will Steffen, CSIRO, David Karoly and all the rest. If you actually read the literature, you find that there is a great deal that we don't know about climate.

It is clear that natural cycles are important (Medieval warming, LIA), but also land-use factors are important too (think Californian dustbowl, deforestation). We don't know much about the role of the oceans.

Most skeptics accept that the physics show that doubling of CO2 could lead to around 1 deg C warming. However, the real issue lies with feedbacks. My challenge to you is to show the evidence that there are positive feedbacks that would deliver 3.5 deg C warming as IPCC says. The fact is that these are ASSUMPTIONS put in place to push an agenda. The analysis of reality (just look at CO2 v temperature over the past 15 years) shows feedbacks are neutral or maybe negative.

So. Help me out. Specific chapter and verse please as to where I am wrong. Maybe you can provide the answers that the "Independent" Climate Commission doesn't bother to. You've notice that Tim and Will have been very quiet lately, haven't you?
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Friday, 3 February 2012 3:23:04 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
Tombee

Had a look at the European ExternE Project stuff you're talking about.. you've got quite the wrong end of the stick on that one. They're talking about envionment and health costs not CO2 and global warming, and it seems to be the wildest nonsense which is probably why no one seems to have taken them seriously, not even Stern, whether its under the EU banner or not. In any case the figure of 19 Euros, taking the 2005 values, which you mention is so so low that they are effectively saying there is no problem. Great! But I think you've messed something up there.

The arguements about global warming and emissions are quite different. Search on the time value of money and Stern if you want a taste of the discussions they've been having in this area. Also check out statements by very distinquished economists William Nordhaus (Nobel Prize winner) and Robert Mendelsohn (professor at Yale)

None of the analyses work at all for Austealia if we go alone.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 4:52:13 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
Sorry Curmudgeon, but it is you who have the wrong end of the stick. ExternE most certainly did examine the costs of climate change, as well as a host of other environmental and health costs associated with energy production, conversion and use. I have written a report for one of the learned academies on the relevance of the European work to Australia so I think I should be given some credence in the matter. It might, as you say, all be the ‘wildest nonsense’, and I have no doubt that there were politicised agendas at work in such a project. But if you seriously wish to throw out the whole of ExternE then you need to do a lot more work. Nordhaus did indeed critique Stern and his wise words regarding Stern are worth remembering: “The (Stern) Review’s radical revision of the economics of climate change does not arise from any new economics, science, or modelling. Rather, it depends decisively on the assumption of a near-zero time discount rate combined with a specific utility function. The Review’s unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are more consistent with today’s marketplace real interest rates and savings rates. Hence, the central questions about global-warming policy – how much, how fast, and how costly – remain open.” Pretty much what I said earlier, really.
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 3 February 2012 6:46:51 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
Squawk! Squawk! The sky is falling.

You need to worry more about being dead from World War 3 because it could start much sooner and kill you much faster than global warming.

Australia is only responsible for a small percentage of global warming anyway, I thought I read 1.5% somewhere recently. Until some of the big polluters, which are usually the countries with mega populations come to the party on global warming you might as well not get your knickers in a knot over it, because what Australia does won't make a whole lot of difference

Go and smoke a pipe with John Pilger he's got just about as much grasp on reality as the global warming deaths are imminent, mob.
Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 3 February 2012 8:09:50 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
"You need to worry more about being dead from World War 3 because it could start much sooner and kill you much faster than global warming."

Absolutely! Thats why most (if not all) of the world's military has put climate change on their agenda.

That's why the United Nations Security Council has also put climate change on their agenda.

Why?

Because of the direct threats to food, water and energy security as a consequence of a warmer and wetter world, and the very real risks that imposes, Cherful ... you knew that, eh Cherful, your a realist after all.

Btw, the troposphere has no borders ... but you knew that too, right?
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 3 February 2012 8:47:18 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
Monckton has a new post on WUWT comparing the costs of carbon 'mitigation' with the costs of doing nothing, even assuming AGW is occurring. The bottom line is that 'carbon mitigation' policies cost between 7 and 22 times as much as allowing growth and development to continue as normal.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/huhne-is-no-loss/

(The title derives from the fact that Chris Huhne, UK Minister for Climate Change and a rabid warmist, has now resigned after an attempt to mislead the police on a driving charge. If only we could get rid of Greg Combet the same way!)

But since AGW isn't occurring anyway, and hasn't been for fifteen years, these vast sums of money are being spent on nothing whatsoever.
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 4 February 2012 7:55:49 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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