As always, these apocalyptic 'studies' are based on models which have been shown to be unable to either predict or retrodict events in the real world. There is no reason to think Queensland natural gas CO2 'emissions' will have any more effect than the other CO2 emissions accumulating during the last fifteen years -- none of which so far have managed to raise the global temperature one iota.

Really, isn't it time the AGW nonsense was tested in a court of law? There must be millions of people by now who are measurably worse off due to this voodoo cult.

Yes, it would be interesting indeed for those concerned about anthropogenic CO2 to just show us how much of the observed warming (that happened last century) was due to anthropogenic CO2 as opposed to natural cycles and land-use factors.

All of the evidence suggests that a) the physics show a likely warming of around 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2, b) that the sensitivities/feedbacks are neutral or negative compared with the IPCC assumptions that make the warming for a doubling of CO2 around 3.5 deg C.

The evidence also show that natural cycles are important, and also that land-use effects affect local and regional climate in many places. If CO2 is a problem, history shows us that it must be a relatively minor problem.

Nobody yet has provided any convincing proof that anthropogenic CO2 is actually a major problem. Yet here we are, throwing our economy into disarry. Why?

What would the noalition do without a national treasure like Clive Palmer behind them, Financing the push behind the carbon pricing.
He wants more of the share, and willing to spend up big to get it.
A 1 degree rise in ocean temp is all it has taken so far, and we have some of the worst storms circulating the globe in history.
Another 1 degree in 15 years and the world will be tearing itself apart.

'Worst storms in history?' 579? Do you even bother to check the historical record?

http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

"...mortality and morbidity from extreme weather events peaked decades ago..."

I follow the CO2 debate with interest, but I don't claim to know
the answers about long term effects etc, so stay open minded.

What did interest me over the weekend, was an article about what
is happening in China. It seems that the Chinese have been watching
the furious development of the US shale gas industry and are
investigating their own reserves of shale gas. They've come to
the conclusion that they have 27 trillion cubic metres of reserves,
which they could access using the US developed technology. That
would be enough to supply China for 200 years. If this is correct,
it will have a dramatic effect on Australian gas prices and on global
CO2 levels. Our little bit of CO2 simply won't matter.

Yes Yabby, I think anyone investing in the wests offshore gas, or Queensland's coal seam gas would be well advised to keep their powder dry for a while.

We may be lucky, & for some time as with our coal, China will find it cheaper to buy & transport our gas, than to harvest & transport their own. However this may be a very short time indeed, considering the infrastructure investment involved in developing & exporting the stuff.

So Rebecca & Matthew, you may be luck, & your barely concealed wish that the gas companies go broke, even while their contributions to government coffers continue to help our government invest our taxes in their windmill stupidity.

Meanwhile it is interesting to read an article by a couple of activists, who have read nothing but their own propaganda for quite some time.

Every little bit of co2 does matter. Unless you are a hasbeen of course.
No good getting left behind, the transition will not be as cheap as it is today.
Every time the price of oil rises it never comes back to where it started from.
Gas is a far better option than coal or oil. The quicker oil becomes unbyable the better.

*China will find it cheaper to buy & transport our gas, than to harvest & transport their own. *

I don't think so, Hasbeen. US shale gas is selling for around
$2.50, which is half the price of our gas. Given that the Chinese
can do things cheaper, mining their own will be the way to go for
them. Our gas is very expensive to harvest. Our gas industry
workers apparently earn double what they would, in the US.

So if the Chinese crank up their shale gas, watch our gas prices
drop to the point where companies here are doing dough.

This is a timely and important article and deserves wider readership. A lot of us were lulled into a false sense of complacency thinking that, as oil declined, gas would tide us over until we moved a low carbon economy based on renewable technology. Now we find it is unacceptable in climate terms. Nevertheless, it may be necessary to stop economic collapse as oil starts its inevitable decline. Whether or not China goes down this path of producing its own gas from shale oil, we would be wise to limit our exports for the sake of intergenerational equity if nothing else. We Australians will need some kind of fuel until we can get the renewables in place.

The article's analysis has huge problems. Although the IEA report has some relevence world wide, and in the US, it has none in Australia.

I dunno if the authors have noticed but we have no nuclear power plants in Australia, and the proportion of renewables is set by legislation, so prices don't really enter into it. Cheaper gas should not make any difference to renewables and none at all to nuclear power, as there isn't any in Aus.

Here the question is whether gas will supplant coal for base load plants (gas is now used for peaking plants that can be switched on and off quickly).

The autors contend that switching to gas does not save much in emissions. I have no comment to make on that point, but it is still difficult to see what harm it could do for gas to take more of coal's market share.

There is no carbon particles in gas. besides co2 what ever else it contains is invisible. Got to be far better than oil or coal.
Some old timers that can not get their head around, the need for renewable forms of energy.
Abbott has reneged on a low carbon future. He is taking orders from Palmer, and he is sticking by it.

I agree Curmudgeon, it sure makes sense to harvest much of the energy from this coal, without the disruption of having to dig up vast swaths of the country.

Still it is annoying to read that some fools expect to run a modern society, any time seen on what can be harvested from renewables, with any existing technology. The promotion of much of this stuff is approaching criminal, in the harm it is causing, & will cause to so many.

Really, 579: 'Every time the price of oil rises it never comes back to where it started from'? That will come as a surprise to the economists who compiled this chart:

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

After your spectacular own goal regarding Bob Carr I would have expected you to be a little less gung ho in future, but evidently I was wrong. Still, when even self-proclaimed 'ethicists' are prepared to lie, steal and probably forge documents for the AGW 'cause', how can we expect the humble foot soldiers to know any better?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120119_Temperature.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html

Once again it is time to alert the AGW deniers/sceptics to some real evidence. Don't just look at the shape of the graphs, read the explanations too. There are many things effecting temperature change and at the moment some of those effects which drive temperature down are tending to predominate, but the overall trend is upward and this mad push to exploit coal seam gas will certainly help to push temperatures higher.

The other problem with CSG is the pollution of the air in the vicinity of the wells where known carcinogens such as Benzene, and other aromatics found. This problem is already becoming known in areas of the USA, where CSG is being exploited.

David

David, can you explain what caused the Medieval Warm Period? Or the Roman Warm Period? Assuming you can't, what makes you think the current warm period -- which appears to be rapidly drawing to a close -- is caused by anything other than those unknown but natural factors which caused the previous two?

If you don't know why it happened before, what makes you so sure you know why it's happening now?

Just come back in another ten years or so time and then tell me who is right and who is wrong. I am prepared to wait.

David

Some facts about CO2 that you might not have known.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/03/07/natural-vs-human-generated-co2-the-salby-slides/

Cattalaxy Files - Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog - Rafe Champion - 'Lord' Christopher Monckton ...

Yep, the plot thickens.