I have a suggestion, Andrew; since the biggest obstacle to the AGW mitigation policies put forward by Labor and its comrades on the left is the absence of any recorded global warming for eighteen years, how about rallying the troops for a concerted effort? Burn truckloads of oil, cut down forests, anything.. it's a hell of a sacrifice, but if that's what it takes to get temperatures rising and convince those wicked sceptics, it will all have been worth it.

Or something.

Dear Andrew,

According to Treasury figures, the net cost of the ETS would be $1,345 billion cumulative to 2050? Roughly, the cost is about 12 times the projected benefit. But the projected benefit almost certainly would not be realised.

It's explained here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/

I hope you will urge your colleagues to back away from Labors ideological pursuit of carbon pricing, and focus on issues that are of far greater importance for Australia and also for human well being globally.

The justification for AGW scare is over

The justification for the catastrophic/dangerous climate change scare campaign is over. The public have recognised it. Now there are just a decreasing number of extremists clinging to their doomsday dogma.

This chart shows the media interest in CAGW over the past 5 years: http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline . Even the release of IPCC AR5 caused only a minor blip in the trend of decreasing media interest. It’s fair to conclude the scare campaign has lost its effect.

Why is that? There are many reasons, but largely because of the exaggeration and perceived dishonesty/unreliability of the main climate science activists.

We now understand that:

1. IPCC AR5, WG1, Chapter 12, Table 12.4 effectively takes the ‘catastrophic’ out of AGW http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf

2. The lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperatures over the past 500 million years does not support the alarmists’ claims about catastrophic global warming
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

3. Global warming would be net beneficial up to about 2.2 C from now (3C from pre-industrial):
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
http://copenhagenconsensus.com/projects/how-much-have-global-problems-cost-world

4. Recent findings that climate sensitivity is lower than in the previous IPCC reports and in the modelling used for the projections, means the likelihood of such temperature increases is reduced.

5. Carbon pricing will have no effect on the climate but will have enormous costs.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtnUovGY_9Q

Like a child clinging to a comforting teddy bear, those who believe we can change the climate by modifying carbon dioxide emissions show little regard for physics or the fundamental laws of heat exchange. They cling to a myth. The trace gas, carbon dioxide, is essential to life on this planet, but it does not control the climate. Perhaps economists should study Henry's Law. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by the temperature of the ocean which is not heated from above, but from sub-sea volcanic activity. My old friend, Jock McPoet, summed it up:
'If you want to heat some water, would you wave a heater fan
Over it, or would you thoughta, using heat beneath the pan?'
This climate change scam has cost us dearly. About time we got on with the job of building our prosperity and defences against whatever Nature throws at us.

this from the party that could not export enough coal, coal, coal.

not saying we should not export coal, but I am saying supposed academics should stop bs'ing.

I am probably asking too much

Labour preaching on climate action is the same as them preaching on illegal immigration ( we are allowed to say that now). The no carbon tax under my Government to the blatant lie, to Rudd then reversing it after previously running from the greatest 'moral dilema. Can't Labour just 'shut up'. No one is listening to you. If you appoint the failed prophet Flannery to scare the kids it shows how shallow your arguements are.

The most dangerous thing about the now defunct climate change theory was it gave clowns like Andrew an excuse to rip billions of honest taxpayers, & redistribute it to their chosen cause.

Obviously he would have loved the billions poured into academia to fund any dubious research that could include "Climate Change" in it's mission statement.

I wonder how many submissions for research grants by Andrew just happened to mention climate change.

Dear Andrew,

Following the “climategate” revelations on November 19th 2009, you had the same opportunity as everyone else to reassess your thinking. You had three choices, to bail out immediately, to formulate an exit plan or to grimly hang on to the “faith” saying quietly to yourself, “please god let me be right”.

Unfortunately you are left with only the latter now and things are going to get a whole lot worse for you.

There was once a global emissions protocol, Kyoto. There was once a thriving global renewable energy industry, several emissions trading markets, a global finance industry willing to invest in renewable energy, electricity generators willing to accommodate renewable energy, many nations willing to subsidize solar and wind generation.

It may have escaped your attention but since 2009 these have all gone.

If the science you support is not good enough to sustain the global infrastructure that was created for it, why should it be good enough for us?

In Europe, austerity has just collided with the high costs of energy. Their Industries are departing for low energy cost destinations, old king coal is back in business, Germany has already increased coal imports by 17% and the dirtiest coal on the planet Lignite, is now producing 29% of Germany’s power. Japan is building 17 new coal/gas power stations, 16 of which will be on stream by late 2014.

The USA has a 60% gas price advantage over the EU. The Czech Republic and Poland have now officially withdrawn from renewable generation and of the 194 Nations signed up with the UNFCCC, only 34 now has any CO2 legislation and 24 of these are in the EU.

What is it about “this is all over Rover’ you don’t quite get?

You are destined to go down with the ship along with the colors you so naively nailed to the mast. Like so many other politicians, advocates, activists, NGO’s, media outlets and industrial opportunists, it is now too late for you. You political legacy will be ridicule.

Andrew, this is just another normal Sydney summer. Some are hot, some are wet, some are dry. But no matter what they are, the Church of Climatology will claim that it is caused by carbon.

Bushfires have been around forever too, Andrew. The only difference being that in the past there were no stupid greenies doing their best to stop burn offs so yesterday's bushfires were usually less intense.

We'll all be rooned said Hanrahan, unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

Andrew it is only Governments who are given mandates ... to govern. There is no such thing as a mandate to oppose. There is only opposition. I know you lefties struggle with the concepts of democracy but I think the voters don't. So oppose the wishes of the majority as much as you want ... it's just that while you claim mandate for your policy you'll be at odds with the majority and will always only get to oppose. And I think that is a good thing too.

Lol keep up the grand work your attitude will ensure we will have an Abbott led Government with a mandate for years to come.

The argument that human produced co2 is causing the warming has never been substantiated ... and the majority seem to understand that.

whilst I do believe in "climate change" I am pretty sceptical that it is anything to get to worked up about. Its the words "on record" that I trip over. How far back do the records go? If at least a few thousand years then yes, maybe I will start digging my dooms day shelter.
As too the climate change creating worse fire risk...a fire has three elements that act as a triangle. At one point each there is "HEAT", "OXYGEN" and "FUEL" Without all three the triangle collapses. Outdoors we always have oxygen, and yes heat is a major contributor to the process, the more of it there is, the worse the risk. However without fuel there is no fire. So while half of the Greens are jumping up and down that climate change is going to increase the risk of fire the other half go jump up and down because a farmer wants to eliminate the neck deep (and NO I'm NOT exaggerating) grass surrounding his property. Doesn't make sense to me. By all means jump up and down about what you believe in but don't try and feed me my own BullS&#t.

"Australians just experienced a winter of discontent; the hottest on record. We are bracing ourselves for a shocking summer. It has been too hot in NSW to even continue property-saving hazard reduction. Climate change is a clear and present danger to the nation."

The author's comments are characteristic of the simplistic thinking of many Labor MPs.

With the exception of skiers and those catering for skiers, Australians generally enjoyed the warmer winter temperatures, particularly fewer frosts and lower heating bills.

Indeed, many Australians could be in for a shocking summer , because of the lack of hazard reduction burning this year, attributable to the misinformed opposition of Labor's Green colleagues. As a result, there will be more severe fires, many houses will be burned down and many thousand hectares of bushland and national parks needlessly destroyed.

His inference that climate change is man-caused and can be controlled, is as unfounded as the AGW propaganda spruiked by his Labor colleagues.

Australia is in shock from being hit with massive energy price rises and loss of comparative national advantage resulting from draconian government actions taken to allegedly control climate. Such actions cannot be justified on scientific or economic grounds, and nor will they be environmentally effective. There is no empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Nor is there scientific or economic justification for spending loads of money on Direct Action. Turnbull is correct for once in stating that Direct Action has the “virtue” of being easily terminated. The sooner Direct Action is terminated, the more cost effective it will be

Thanks Raycom

Well said. But the doomsday bunch are stepping up propagation of their propaganda, and this week the 7.30 Report on the ABC has featured two doozies. Monday night the presenter Annabel Crabb gave air space to two pathetic proponents of the disprovable theory of man-made climate change to scare the children and frighten the horses. They also gave oxygen to influence gullible voters into believing we can change the climate (and stop bushfires) by taxing a trace gas in the atmosphere. And last night (Wednesday) we were given the softest interview ever of an old apologist for, and proponent of, the greatest hoax in history, the theory that man can change the climate by taxing or regulating carbon dioxide. Al Gore is a shocker. He created the so-called 'Al's Army' to come over to Australia to influence people into supporting the KRudd campaign to gain power to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The campaign was successful and the first thing KRudd did after gaining power was to sign this commitment to the great hoax. This has cost this country dearly in increased power costs, failed companies, transfer of assets overseas, and hardship for everyday citizens. Yet on the cringe-worthy 7.30 Report last night, he was treated as a hero while with a straight face he said he didn't want to interfere with Australian politics. In The Australian (13 June 2009) at least he was more honest 'I don't want to interfere with Australian affairs - or at least I don't want to be caught doing it'.

Andrew said ".... are bracing ourselves for a shocking summer. It has been too hot in NSW to even continue property-saving hazard reduction. Climate change is a clear and present danger to the nation."

Never heard of chain saws, bull-dozers and graders Andrew?

"whilst I do believe in "climate change" I am pretty sceptical that it is anything to get to worked up about. "

That's unfortunate. There's a plethora of quality Science to explain the difficulties to be faced in the future. eg Likely 4 degrees global average in 2100 will be 6 - 12 in Sydney for example, much lower rainfall on the East Coast and SW Coast of Aus (thus the current uproar over bushfire climate change link, it will get drier and the winters much shorter and warmer, summers much hotter etc), 50% decrease in the MDB's ability to supply food etc

"Its the words "on record" that I trip over. How far back do the records go?

The Science is based on observation and paleoclimatic record. The Ice core information is temporally (time) accurate but only goes back about 800,000 years. This means accurate readings of the gas from the the cores can be tied to a specific period of time. There is also much older paleoclimatic information going back several hundred million years but not as temporarily accurate ie information harder to tie to a time eg can be off a thousand years either way. Some of this is used to produce the infamous Hockey Stick Chart from Mann etal (the same study that been re-examined several times and still stands)

This is an interesting lecture from Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Climate Centre that might help. I find his lecture very compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U

As to the AGW pause nonsense in the first post, rather then listen to what some random internet person has to say, lets here what the Climate Scientists have to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=047vmL6Q_4g

The thing here is not to get caught up in what you "believe" but see what the Science, the facts and the guys who study this have to say on the matter.

Thanks for your response Valley Guy. As you can properly tell I am not very well read on this topic, but it is one that is becoming more and more of interest to me. I will follow your links tomorrow while the kids are at school and I can concentrate properly.
My biggest concern is how to change peoples habits, humans seem to have a pretty bad mob mentality and it is hard to get them to change much...however the past has proven it can be done. It seems to me that the only options that are been presented to reduce emissions and the like are ones that will make someone plenty of money. I would be looking at fuel companies...there have been many inventions over the years to make very efficient vehicles, and yet they seem to disappear. The other thing that concerns me is that fingers seem to point at soft targets, rather then taking on the true problem that would require much more effort.