Gosh. How can you publish this stuff? The promoters of the hoax that we can influence the climate by taxing or otherwise regulating a trace gas in the atmosphere are pushing an agenda which is wasting huge resources which should be better used. Perhaps scientists should study Henry's Law and understand that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regulated by water temperatures in the oceans where the waters literally breathe carbon dioxide in and out. Our coral reefs and immense limestone deposits result from this wonderful relationship. The term 'fossil fuels' should be corrected to the more generic term, 'carbon fuels' as naturally occurring methane is the source of much of the carbon fuels available to mankind, and there is no indication we will ever run out of this resource - new and better ways of finding access to the energy we need to live on this abundant planet will emerge long before we even scratch the surface of the so-called fossil fuels. Read Thomas Gold 'The Deep Hot Biosphere'.

Hells bells John, give up the complete claptrap, will you!

John McRobert, that is.

Excellent article, John Coulter.

This article is a disgrace; for instance:

"The only safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere that we know of lies between 180 and 300 ppm, the levels between which CO2 fluctuated during the whole 6 million years of human evolution from our last common ancestor"

This is b.....t! According to Sage plant growth sufficient for human agriculture cannot occur below 270 ppm:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00009.x/abstract

It is a proven fact that CO2 levels above the current level of 400ppm are beneficial to crop production:

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/

And general plant production; the world is actually greening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/14/a-must-watch-greening-the-planet-dr-matt-ridley/

How could it be otherwise when plants eat CO2?

The article's attempts to substantiate claims that extra CO2 will be bad are ludicrous and show no understanding of climate sensitivity [CS] which is the alleged response of the climate system to temperature. Even AR5 has lowered its estimation for CS.

The article ignores the ongoing debate about whether the current level of CO2 is the highest in recent geological time [it probably isn't].

The article also ignores the issue of whether human emissions are even responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The article ignores the fact that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over any time period and that CO2 movements follow temperature at best.

In short the article is devoid of fact and is merely another in the chorus line of despicable comments by Greens and other alarmists since the bushfires commenced.

For a real analysis of the bushfires and the scam of AGW see:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/is-there-no-end-to-bushfire-bastards.html

Thirty years of warning? Prof Flannery said that it was likely that it would never rain in Brisbane again. Well they had floods not once but twice.
The dear Prof learned quickly and he is now in the retrospective forecasting game. It floods - global warming, oops sorry climate change! Drought climate change, big wind climate change and no wind climate change.
This nice little earner for the corruption game of academics and all the usual suspects just goes on and on.
All my life I have been told (Shrilly) we are all going to die because nuclear war, a new ice age, y2k bug. For goodness sake give it a rest!
What I want to see is a really savage attack on the pensions and wages of these clowns. Perhaps the writer would like too sacrifice his academic and his political pension for the good of humanity?

John Coulter - sorry but the global warming industry doesn't agree with you. If you look at the summary for policy makers released a few weeks ago it says only that it is "likely" that bushfires and extreme weather events can be linked to climate change.. no certainty at all.. although I haven't looked at the full report I am under the impression that in the full report the panel retreats from any link between global warming and storms.. if anyone has the full report and can expand/correct that impression, then feel free.. and please quote the passage and relevant sections

Certainly scientists have argued at length over whether there has been any overall trend in storms in recent decades.

While this article is essentially about climate change rather than bushfires per se, it nevertheless builds on the plethora of academic and media commentary over recent weeks which can largely be described as implying that climate change is the primary cause of heightened bushfire threat.

What has been massively disappointing about this has been the lack of input from people who actually know about bushfires and the array of other factors, principally related to land and fire management, that have increased bushfire threat and severity over the past several decades. These non-climate change factors include:

1. Substantial changes to public land management associated with the transfer of State forest formerly managed by foresters (who pioneered preventative cool burning) to the conservation reserve network where fire management is not as actively practiced.
2. Also associated with this, is the substantial loss of timber industies whose experienced men and their machines were traditionally at the forefront of bushfire fights, and the consequent loss of fire expertise from the Govt agencies themselves.
3. This has impacted on how fires are fought, and on the capability do do preventative burning to arrest fuel build-ups.
4. The demographic shift of the community into bushland areas which also makes it harder to do preventative burning and has itself forced changes in how bushfires are fought, such as greater requirement for aerial water bombing.
5. The emergence of an 'emergency industry' that reflects the greater need to protect people living in dangerous places, but which thrives on costly new toys that skew the budget further away from fire prevention activities.
6. The dramatic increase in arson associated with a larger population living in closer proximity to the bush.

These factors are to a large extent fuelling the perceptions that climate change is wholly responsible for greater bushfire severity and threat when in fact it is just one of a range of factors that are arguably mostly of greater importance.

Excellent article John. It attracted the usual ratbags who cherry pick the data to their heart's content and refuse to look at the overall scientific evidence.

There is no denying the fact, however, that we have to get off the fossil fuel treadmill if our grandchildren are to have any future whatsoever. That is why the current Government's policies are so deeply depressing. Denialism lies at the core of the carbon repeal legislation and it will make Australia a laughing stock as the rest of the world comes on board to reduce emissions and decarbonise the economy.

As you have written, a top priority HAS to be to stop further exploration for fossil fuels.

cohenite....the lawyer (ie, not a climate scientist)

Here's some more.....

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/bushfire-information/

Ah Fenner Conference, will you never end? Ha.

http://www.population.org.au/articles/2013-10-11/declaration-fenner-conference-2013

No mention of your real aim John. Population reduction. It's first cab off the rank for your mob.

"The recently announced expanded exploration for oil in the Great Australian Bight or for gas in the Cooper basin is not only a foreseeable crime, both represent an enormous waste of financial and material resources that should be directed elsewhere. Those who pursue this exploration and governments that allow it, encourage it or licence it, are guilty of a serious crime against their fellow humans. Those who have lost homes and loved ones in recent fires take note!"

John, are you suggesting, in a fairly long and convoluted chain of logic, that mining companies (don't forget property developers and the Murdoch press) are complicit in a crime because they're digging it up and selling it? Are you suggesting the bereft and aggrieved should target their anger at Oz Minerals et al for fires in NSW?

This is about as barking mad as it gets. Know I know why the Stable Population Party got less than 9000 votes across Australia.

Here's a little piece on Australia's "Environment Minister" using Wikipedia to source his climate information.

https://theconversation.com/on-the-hunt-for-credible-information-citation-needed-19521

Ailie Gallant

Poirot, are you applying to become a member of the BBC:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/bushfire-bastards-club-new-members.html

If not I'm sure you can nominate some of the vultures who have been creeping around using the bushfires to preach their religion. The author of this rubbish is definitely on the list. Make your suggestions.

I slipped in my previous post.. the IPCC doesn't saying anything about bushfires in its summary for policy makers.. it only says that droughts are "likely" connected with climate change.. it doesn't say aything about bushfires..

For bushfires you need both rain (so bush will grow) and dry spells.. so the link, if there is one, would be complex..

So does anyone know what the full report says??

Curmudgeon.

"For bushfires you need both rain (so bush will grow) and dry spells....."

Yes.

?

Poirot - didn't understand you post. Your point was too deep for me. Since looked at the full report. Doesn't add anything.I have seen Aus scientists claim that there is a link between a bushfire index and temperature changes to date, but without any specifics. Forecasting any trends, considering that bushfire prevalence depends on both warmth and rainfall patterns, would be nearly impossible.

Climate people have been trying to convince us of the link between drought and higher temperatures, and now they want to add bushfires to the fix. They should make up their minds.

A good article John Coulter but wasted on most people.
I wonder when the anti AGW trolls will give up and stop coming out of the woodwork at the drop of a hat to try and spread their message of BAU.
It really will not work you know because time is against you. Every day there is another AGW effect that proves that you are all either on the payroll of big vested interests or just barking.
It will not stop just because you cannot face the facts.
You would be far better to try and prepare yourselves for the inevitable.

MWPOYNTER'

If we went by you, the only safe way to survive would be to clear fell all forest and bushland. Then maybe there are some that would like to see that happen.
Maybe we should just concrete over everything?
This nonsense about burn offs is a red herring the "hate the greenies" always pull out of the hat.
The fire officer at the scene of the Blue Mountain fires said on the news that "some of the trees being burnt were new growth and that they had fought a fire in the same spot a few years ago". This does not say a lot for "cool burn offs" which has to be an oxymoron.
It has also been the subject of trials in the US and it was found that where there had been burn offs and then there was a fire a few years later, the fires burned hotter due to the moisture being dried out in the previous fire.

Curmudgeon,

What's happened?

Significant rainfall, followed by warm dry weather, low soil moisture, etc.

Warmest September on record in the warmest decade on record.

So we get firestorms in mid October.

The season is extended.

Even John Howard recognises reality when he sees it.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/scorchedearth/pm-expect-extreme-weather/2006/12/13/1165685752372.html

There are two interlocking religions being peddled fervently which can be summarised as the following pieces of urgent advice:

1. Stop climate change.
2. Stop the population explosion.

Stopping climate change is supposed to be achieved by stopping CO2 emission. Even if the hysterical predictions from untested[1] computer models were valid, “action on climate change” won’t change the climate outcome. This has been demonstrated by simple, non-speculative calculation[2].

The interests behind challenges to the call for “action on climate change” are said to be Big Oil and Big Coal. It is just as plausible (indeed a lot more so) that the interests behind the “action on climate change” hysteria are Big Uranium [3].

For a measured, unhysterical approach to Australian bush fires see Don Aitkin [4].

As for population, social measures that will (and demonstrably do) reduce population, without the global mega-cull residing unspoken at the back of the most zealous Malthusians’ minds, are those related to the liberation of human volition – especially that of women.

[1] Science tests models (like AGW) by observations of the effect of independent variables (like CO2 emission) on dependent variables (like climate). Correlations are not effects, nor can either correlations or effects in unknown multivariate systems be observed in the future for validation of models into the future.

[2] http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

[3] http://www.dcbureau.org/201204097128/national-security-news-service/united-states-circumvented-laws-to-help-japan-accumulate-tons-of-plutonium.html

[4] http://donaitkin.com/the-bushfire-problem

As soon as someone mentions WeUseWishfulThinking then you know their comment is meaningless, as is that web site it has no credibility and only supports total deniers (of climate change) and what papers it publish get demolished, it is also supported by the fuel industry.

As usual the deniers are out in force with no evidence to support their wild mythical claims.

Well written John.

You're such a nuisance Poirot. The BOM record does show this September as the hottest, by miles:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=09&ave_yr=T

UAH doesn't, although it shows it as hot:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/search?updated-max=2013-10-23T08:01:00%2B11:00&max-results=7&start=5&by-date=false

The same with the 2012-2013 Summer; BOM:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=1202&ave_yr=T

But look at UAH in the top graph; the Summer was only the 11th warmest in the last 29 years:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/search?updated-max=2013-10-23T08:01:00%2B11:00&max-results=7&start=5&by-date=false

But don't let that worry you Poirot; all grist for the mill for the converted

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there really were no such phenomena as global warming and climate change? We would be living in a world where 7 billion of us (and counting) could continue to acquire ever more stuff while burning ever more fuel, where frakked gas did not pollute the aquifers, where the removal of the islands from the mouth of the Mississippi so the super-tankers could access the Gulf of Mexico from the refineries upriver did not grant Katrina easy landfall, where there was an ashtray on every restaurant table and it was still "filter, flavour, flip-top box".
But global warming and climate change are proving one thing above all else. We as a species really, really do not like bad news. Our brains are not geared to deal with change that fundamentally threatens the status quo, and so we hide our heads in the sand and say it's not happening. It can't be. It just ain't so.

Poirot - oh I see what you're saying. Oh sure after three years or rain and warm temperatures we should expect firestorms. the trouble is, if the IPCC is to be believed, we shouldn't have had the rain. It should be getting drier.

And where did this talk of bushfires come from? The latest IPCC report doesn't mention them at all. (Can you find a reference, I can't?)You have to pick a disaster story and stick to it. You can't fit them all into one story..

Anyone who puts faith in the Aust Bom is a fool. It's staff are all climate change nuttercases and amateurs. Lately (last five years) their predictions about cyclones (numbers and strengths) and floods (numbers and river heights) have been wildly inaccurate. Their predictions of devastation have never been realised. They have never been caled to account for their gross inaccuracy of their forecasts yet they continue to make them and are reported and quoted as authorities.They often miss simple forecasts of weather events a notable one was the Toowoomba and Grantham floods. Another waz their failure to predict the massive rainfall over the catchment of Wivenhoe and their omision of imforming the operators of a fairly common weather event that led to the rainfall that caused the Brisbane floods a couple of years ago. Also their predictions of flood levels during that event were massively overstated.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Aww Haz, isn’t it time to gave up your completely illogical complete denialism of human-induced global warming?

<< …when we are just sweeping the last bits of rubbish from the failed fraud out the door of history… >>

MMMmmm, sure. Just the opposite is happening.

The mad denialist brigade, who can’t deny AGW because they just completely can’t know that it is not real, are on their last legs…. soon to be swept away…. as were the flat-earthers all those years ago.

Splutter splutter pfft pfft tfff..... zzzz.

Yoo hoo, John Coulter.

Antarctic ice sheets have now reached their maximum extent since photo reconnaissance satellites first measured them in 1969.

Please explain?

Extraordinary !
Now the warming proponents are becoming deniers !

The author of this piece is denying the IPCC's finding that they have
low confidence that co2 is causing extraordinary weather events.

As I have said earlier I don't !know! that co2 causes global warming
or does not but it certainly has all the atmosphere of a campaign.
Now the IPCC seems to be having second thoughts.

Dear Hasbeen

As always, playing the man and not the ball. I can assure you John Coulter retained his integrity when he entered the Senate as an Australian Democrat and is an intellectual force today, even in his eighties. This article is evidence. He has great depth of knowledge on sustainability issues including resources and climate change. John Coulter, more than just about anyone in this country, has a holistic approach - he can see the interconnections between the major challenges confronting us: overpopulation, biodiversity loss, resource scarcity and climate change.

Trouble is, he's too good for this Forum...

Again, an article in support of Climate Change from someone who is not a climate scientist. Where are all the climate scientists? Keeping their mouths shut of course, they know all this is unsubstantiated but say nothing because they benefit from it.

John,

It’s hard to imagine that intelligent people could follow such a flawed mantra. The IPCC’s politicization of climate change should be enough for most people to be cautious.

As a non scientist I find it hard to follow either the science or the pseudo-science promoted by those who likewise are non scientists.

It has always intrigued me that if this is indeed a monumental fraud, how could IPCC actually achieve this?

The following from one of the IPCC’s own expert reviewers throws much light on the IPCC’s processes.

“Dr Gray has been an expert reviewer of all five ARs, and leaves no one in any doubt about their misrepresentations and worthlessness”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/13/ipcc-in-a-stew-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-books/3/

Robert LePage; why aren't you running the country mate? Your clear headed reasoning is like a glass of cool fresh water, in a baked desert, taken at midday, when the sun is at its zenith.
I see the Yanks have seen the light and stopped using fire in California, to reduce hazardous fuel loads.
Instead, they've started using goats, easily moved electric fences and grazing as a means to reduce fuel loads.
I'm not sure how well that works in say comparison to Alpacas, who have, like their camel cousins, soft pads instead of hooves.
Our kangaroos might do better, inasmuch as they graze right down to the dirt, and produce no methane in the belch gas.
You are inherently right, inasmuch as repeated burning simply bakes the topsoil, all while sending tons of irreplaceable essential nutrient skyward.
Given less rain can penetrate baked soil, the usual effect, as you rightly point out, hotter fires and progressive desertification?
Well, how else would you explain how a country like ours, once covered coast to coast in verdant forest, is now largely arid desert, with a shrinking green fringe.
Whether any of it is down to climate change? Possible?
Nonetheless, it's immaterial!
We need to change the way we manage regrowth and hazardous fuel reduction, least we simply compound our problems, in a warmer wetter world!
Hooves and very short term intensive cell grazing would, 1/ reduce the fuel load, 2/ allow more moisture to permeate through broken topsoil.
More moisture penetration would produce more verdant greener growth less susceptible to fire. Dung beetles would assist in keeping the topsoil open, friable and nutrient loaded, and as a side benefit, quite massive fly reduction!
And given greener growth evaporates more moisture, more precipitation follows, further compounding the positive outcomes of different more rational land management practices!
Rhrosty.

Lego, ice volume is just as significant as ice extent. http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/p/arctic-sea-ice-extent-and-volume.html

Rhosty, what animals are you thinking might intensively graze leaf litter and fallen branches in a eucalypt forest? The only natural way that can be diminished (fire aside) is breakdown by insects, fungi, bacteria etc, which best happens in a moist environment, and which is why fires are less intense where the ground is less dry.

Goats and electric fences?

In the eucalypt forests of the Great Divide?

In yer dreams!

If we return to selective logging, we will open up some space in our eucalypti forest for some grass growth.
Native peoples have been selectively logging their own old growth native forests for millennium, without either harm to flora or fauna, but much positive benefit! Such as occurs, when a forest giant falls of its own accord.
And increased moisture penetration will assist the biological breakdown of the inedible forest floor trash, as will the introduction of organic waste, dung beetles and assisting bacteria. And with the trash trampled, gone or damper, less likely to add to the fuel load!
Small clearings, will encourage grass growth and native marsupials, and or selected herbivores, to graze, but particularly if we add some critical watering points, which will also serve in fighting any fire outbreaks.
Selective logging requires roads, which also serve as fire breaks/escape routes. And more legitimate activity in our forests, (logging, summer grazing) reduces the prospects for illegal activity, such as arson! Wild fire, does more harm in minutes, than years of summer grazing ever did!
With fire removed as a management element, non-fire tolerant species, will be free to flourish, and where that occurs on a broad enough scale, rain forest will follow, as will increased rain.
And no it won't happen overnight, but if we persist, it will happen in some of our children's life times! And where that occurs, dry forests and forest fires, will retreat!
Rhrosty.

For LEGO, http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high-doesnt-refute-global-warming/

For the last 800,000 years, according to ice core data, CO2 and temperature have been closely coupled. See Figure 3 at http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

Denialists grasp at anything to convince us that this coupling is now over (eg the noise they've made over the recent pause) and warmists say the coupling will take us 4 degrees higher than today by 2100 AD. I know where I'm putting my money.

The rise in surface air temperature over the last 150 years has occurred over what normally takes thousands of years. There have been very abrupt climate changes in the past (see Figure 5) so there is the distinct possibility that any current divergence in the coupling may correct quite sharply when it comes, and come it will.

The wise thing for mankind would be to decarbonize ASAP.

Abbott's strident views in AGW's involvement in the frequency of natural disasters http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/tony-abbott-should-never-say-never-about-climate-change-bushfire-link-20131025-2w5pt.html belies a denialist position and the path Australia will follow under his gov't. "Direct Action" will not deliver even a 5% reduction in emissions let alone what is required for Australia's part in decarbonizing globally. Carbon pricing will always be a necessary part of the remedy, and Labor should oppose its removal.

Oz breaks the record for warmest 12-month period - again.

Second consecutive month.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

Much of the criticism of my article comes from those who hold pre-Darwinian views of humanity’s dominance of Nature. It is unfortunately true that a large section of humanity still arrogantly or ignorantly cling to the view that humanity is somehow outside the rest of the natural world, both physical and biological, and not dependent on it. The hubris shown by those respondents who believe that humanity can, within the space of a few short years, take the level of CO2 in the atmosphere right outside those levels which obtained throughout the whole of human evolution and the co-evolution of all the other species with which we share the planet is frightening.
Their attitude reminds me of the American economist who, observing that agriculture only contributed 3% to US GDP, said that the investment would be better spent in other sectors. I’m also reminded of the politician who, when told that what he proposed was not possible because it ran counter to the second law of thermodynamics said, ‘Well, we’ll change the law’.
It’s certainly true that I’m not a climate scientist but I am a scientist who can draw irrefutable mathematically correct conclusions from a given set of facts. Thus, those who like me accept that CO2 in the atmosphere has risen due to human activity and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that warming of the atmosphere will lead to climate shifts, including more frequent and extreme events, that there are limits to the extent to which we can perturb CO2 levels without serious consequences for human and other life on the planet, will be forced to confront the inevitable conclusions.

See continued comment below

Continued from above
Some criticism has been personal rather than aimed at the argument in the article and some, such as the comment from Malcolm King wander into areas that are not dealt with in the article at all, such as population. Contrary to your assertion Malcolm, my article was not aimed at population reduction. Also contrary to your position on population Malcolm, I cannot think of a faster way of drastically reducing population than pursuing the ‘Business As Usual’ (BAU) course you extol. Come to think of it, I should be on your side urging BAU if I really wanted to see the global population down to perhaps one billion by the end of the century. But I would prefer to avoid, if possible, the intense and widespread suffering that this will entail.
But of your comments on my writings and the position of SPA more generally, I’m reminded of an excellent article by Nobel Prize winning biologist, George Wald, that appeared in the New York Times in 1976. Wald opposed the use of nuclear energy (yes, so do I) and at the height of the nuclear debate posed the question, ‘Who can the public believe?’ He pointed out that those who support nuclear energy are themselves supported by all the main centres of power in society. A few weeks before his article the NYT had carried a full page pro-nuclear advertisement signed by a number of scientists many of whom had strong connections to the nuclear industry. On the other side, opposition to nuclear energy brought those who opposed into conflict with these same centres of power and influence, frequently attracting criticism and abuse. Wald drew the conclusion that if putting an argument cost the person something in standing and prestige then it made their claim more believable than the claims of those who benefitted from their position.
Malcolm, you have identified yourself as a pen for hire. You trenchantly and persistently assert the BAU position. Will you reveal who your clients are?

Yes Malcolm. Reveal who your clients are. Property developers? Migration agents? Real estate agents? Gina Rinehart?

Pre-Darwinian? That would be Malthuse. Here's the inside news.

When ever you hear the SPA come out and talk about the global warming, dig deep because they have NO environmental credentials at all. This is the global population control movement at work and I will say more about them later.

I was twice a senior media adviser to Democrat leaders and the first time, the more progressive members of the party were at logger heads with JC and his anti-immigration faction. Now they have wandered off in to some post modernist apocalyptic future, which is where they always belonged.

I support the use of nuclear power.

As being a pen for hire, I'm hanging out my shingle now.

I was very disappointed to see Christiane Amanpour spouting similar one sided clap trap on CNN. She was essentially blaming Tony Abbott for the bushfires because he wants to scrap the carbon tax. Well Christian wake up, do your homework. Tony Abbott's whole campaign was based on scrapping the carbon tax and the people of Australia voted him in because we want it scrapped. Only 12.5% of all the carbon in the atmosphere is 'man-made'. Of the 12.5% Australia only produces 1.5% or 0.0001875. There is nothing anyone in Australia can do that will change the climate, even if you still believe the whole problem is manmade. Its not our job or responsibility to take the lead, but maybe that is exactly what we are doing and that scares the Believers.

Short of halting all industry and banning cars how to the Believers propose to reverse the trend? Oh I forgot the answer is to redistribute the wealth and squeeze the middle class out of existence. The so called climate experts are calling for extreme action but they never actually say what that entails because they don't actually have a workable or practical plan.

Did any of you Believers notice the part of the latest IPCC report that mentioned the warming increases are below the predicted forecast and that the increase is within the liveable range and will in fact contibute to increased food production in northern areas? Mankind has only flourished during the relatively brief warm spells on our planet.

SBR180 ". Tony Abbott's whole campaign was based on scrapping the carbon tax and the people of Australia voted him in because we want it scrapped."

Really?
I think the people of Australia voted the Libs in because they were slightly less awful than the other lot!

Most people don't want extra taxes like the carbon tax, which is fair enough.
But most intelligent people know that the majority of the scientific facts we have, point to a problem with carbon and climate change in our world today.

Hmmm...let me see. Do I believe the scientists, or do I believe the others who once supported a flat earth?

Tony has gone missing in action down at the bush fire front these last few days, when he should be doing his PM job and telling us exactly what his government ARE doing about problems caused by climate change (regardless of WHAT actually caused it!) instead of a carbon tax?

But Mark,

we already know who backs the SPA and what's left of the SPP.

NumbersUSA

How much does foreign hire pay to attack Australia's immigration system?

Amazing the claptrap and personal insults allowed under cover of pseudonyms. Perhaps if posts were made in the real name of the respondent, and confined to facts about the argument, people wouldn't write so much uninformed rubbish to waste other people's time in wading through so much trash to find the odd nuggets of gold.
Fact 1: Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Planet Earth
Fact 2: It is a trace gas which is insignificant in the other factors which control the climate of this planet.
Fact 3: No tax or other attempt to regulate this important gas will have any significant effect on the climate.
Fact 4: Any taxes imposed will seriously affect the prosperity needed to build defences against flood, fire, famine, drought, flood, plague, real pollution, storm, earthquake, volcanic eruption, asteroid/meteor impact.
Fact 5: The climate has always changed under the influence of solar cycles, volcanic/earthquake activity, and impact from the odd errant asteroid or meteor.
Fact 6: Henry's Law, the latent heat of evaporation, the reflectivity of cloud cover and water vapour in the atmosphere, and underwater volcanic activity which controls the temperature of the oceans and hence the amount of CO2 on the atmosphere, and solar cycles are the controllers of climate. Those who pretend otherwise are the real deniers.

I welcome any refutation of what I believe to be the facts of the matter, but under your real name please.

John McRobert,

Following on in the same vein of obvious expertise, we shouldn't leave out our noble PM's observation regarding the issue of carbon pricing:

"It's a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one."

A bit like the Prime Minister himself.....he's full of invisible substance.

Hercule Poirot

Malcolm/Paddy King

Sorry to disappoint you but SPA just organised the highly successful Fenner Conference on Environment on behalf of the Academy of Science called "Population, Resources and climate Change - implications for Australia's near future" . SPA is very mindful of the fact that carrying capacity is affected by resource scarcity and climate change and if you refer to newsletters from the last two or three years you will see constant reference to other matters such as climate change. The Academy of Science seemed satisfied with SPA's scientific and environmental credentials, even if you are not.

As for being supported by NumbersUSA, where's the evidence? It's nonsense.

[Deleted. Defamatory.]

[Deleted. Breach of forum rules in seeking to argue moderation on the forum.]

[Deleted for arguing moderation.]

"if putting an argument cost the person something in standing and prestige then it made their claim more believable than the claims of those who benefitted from their position."

That's a ludicrous philosophy, effectively discounting most expert opinion (since it's pretty hard to gain expertise in an area without working for a long time in it). It's the sort of meta-argument that has led to the climate debate's hopeless morass. Is it really so hard to simply evaluate claims on their merits, rather than who is voicing them?

And even if the line quoted above were true, it cuts both ways; indeed the tables have now been turned. Anti-nuclear has been green orthodoxy for decades. Accordingly, anyone in the environmental movement who voices support for nuclear energy immediately 'attracts criticism and abuse' and loses plenty in standing and prestige. By the logic above, their argument can instantly be taken as more believable. Conversely, the statements of activists such as Jim Green and Dave Sweeney who have staked pretty much their entire careers on the anti-nuclear cause should be entirely disregarded!

Continuing opposition to nuclear energy in the face of all rational risk assessment completely destroys the credibility of everything else said about the urgency of climate change.

Malcolm,
Your silence as to your clients is convincing evidence that you work for those whose interests are served by a continuation of Business as Usual (BAU). George Wald's claim as to who is most believable still stands. Supporting BAU pays your way, provides you encouragement, kudos with the existing centres of power and influence in our society.
SPA and many other conservation organisations point to BAU threatening the ability of a damged Nature to support even the present global population, much less a larger one.
Our position opposing BAU brings us into conflict with these centres of power and influence (of which your continuing attacks are just a small part.
All we have to gain from taking this position is our share of the common good.
Any fair-minded person would see that this makes our position more believable.
John Coulter

The author's alignment in his mind with those battling the man, the "existing centres of power and influence in our society" is grotesque and can be classified as no more than the utterances of some hippie remnant.

The Green movement in all its forms is the establishment, from the UN down to all the Western governments who promulgate AGW pseudo-science and invest in renewable energy scams.

After all isn't the consensus the default position for those who support AGW and who dribble their personal nightmare, end of the world scenarios in public as justification for AGW being real and for pursuing the ridiculous and meaningless concept of sustainability?

The money invested in and supporting AGW and renewables is vast, trillions, yet we still get this demonstrably unreal David vs Goliath junk argument by those believers in AGW.

Like the article and most of everything else written by the author his comment is delusional. Good on him for supporting nuclear though.

Dear Cohenite

Please don't waste our time. Read the literature including the latest IPCC Report. The conclusion of the IPCC is that only if substantial and sustained reductions in emissions are made, can we avoid potentially dangerous consequences of climate change. The IPCC are the people that do the research; they are the ones that know. There are too many of them to lie and get away with it. They are the world's top climate scientists. We must take heed of their warnings.

The commentariat seems to have completely missed the major thrust of the article.

While it is true that we should be discontinuing our dependence on fossil fuels, the author, as is usual for his ilk, fails to mention any practical alternatives. I mean really practical alternatives that will give us a 24 hour a day supply of energy without stuffing up the atmosphere. As an example, I would first suggest nuclear energy based on thorium, but there are other continuous sources of power such as tidal flows and geothermal energy.

Unfortunately, governments seem unable to bite the bullet and provide significant funds for research into these, instead, squandering money on expensive household solar schemes.

David

VK3AUU: You seem to have missed the boat on this.
There are for starters over a million rooftop photovoltaic installations and more going up rapidly as more people realise that if they do not act now they will be at the mercy of the power companies and power will become unaffordable for them.
There a few (but nowhere nearly enough) wind farms that produce a fair amount of power.
I know, this is where the old "but they cannot provide base load power" gets trotted out.
And that is baloney. If they are combined with rooftop solar AND there was a real push to install concentrated thermal solar with boiling salt system added, this would provide all of our needs.
Add a safe guard there is also the option of having localised gas turbine power stations running on natural gas, IF we could persuade the oil companies to sell it to Australia instead of exporting it all abroad.
As for costs, let us not forget the enormous subsidies that coal power station receive from the government.

Le Page, a new record for the number of statements in a comment which are complete rubbish; none of your assertions have a shred of truth about them; wind and solar cannot and will not, ever, be able to supply power in any meaningful sense for purposes of a modern society.

Pop, your faith in the IPCC is as touching as it is utterly ridiculous; "The IPCC are the people that do the research; they are the ones that know. There are too many of them to lie and get away with it. They are the world's top climate scientists. We must take heed of their warnings." That's insane.

It is pointless attempting to converse with people like you.

Dear Cohenite

Yes, it's impossible to communicate with you because you're not up to date with the scientific literature on climate change and what's happening in renewable energy. Subscribe to the daily emails from http://reneweconomy.com.au/ and you'll get information on where solar and wind are at the moment. It's very encouraging.

"It is pointless attempting to converse with people like you."

Then why do you continue to take up bandwidth with all of your rubbish. Give up, no one is listening to you.. From now on please ignore my posts then I will not have to waste my energy with you.

Further to my original article those who are not ideologically averse to having an open mind on the facts might care to look at the Lateline program as under. Ian Dunlop, a former senior resources executive and John Howard advisor who is seeking a seat on the BHP Billiton board says if the company fails to plan for climate change it could lead to the ultimate destruction of the organisastion.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3889681.htm
In this segment, Ian repeats (as he did at the Fenner conference) that a 4 degree warmer world is one of one billion people, not seven billion. His position is strongly supported in the program by several large investors in Australia and the US as well as a spokeperson from an international climate change think tank. All these sources are in line with my original article.
John

Robert LePage what are these subsidies that keep being trotted out for coal fired power stations? My memory was that Joh Bjelke Peteresen ran Queensland on the revenue from the coal trains that were State owned. I am puzzled, please enlighten me?

JBowyer:
here is a start, take your pick.

http://sydneypeakoil.com/downloads/CR_2003_paper.pdf
http://www.acfonline.org.au/be-informed/climate-change/fossil-fuel-subsidies
http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/releases/australia-spends-11-billion-more-encouraging-pollution-cleaning-it
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/03/our-carbon-addict-tax-system-is-stronger-than-a-carbon-price/
http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Government_subsidies_for_fossil_fuel_use_in_Australia

Robert Le Page I read your greenie links and as I thought there are no subsidies on "Fossil fuels".
In fact a massive amount of tax is collected from petrol. No coal subsidy but where the Government allows costs these idiots say subsidy. The irony is that Don Henry and all his little mates get big fat fringe benefits but not in pay. So they avoid their fair payment of tax.
Get rid of the Fringe Benefits altogether.
The greenies want to take everyone else's money but not even attempt to pay their fair share.
The money we have wasted on dopey solar and wind power would have cleared Australia's debt.

There is one thing science cannot do in the real world:
That is to predict the future with any reliability by extrapolating the past.

These IPCC-promoted scare stories are necessarily based on assertions about the tweaks to the extrapolation models that are supposed to deliver the truth about what will happen many years hence on the basis of what has happened in the past.

Predictions can be made only on the principle of induction, which in turn depends on all the relevant data and relationships remaining constant for extended time out of reach of externally and unpredictably imposed adjustments.

Even assuming the latest speculative predictions summarised by the IPCC hold true (which doesn't look promising when considering the apparent pause in warming within time periods we CAN measure), it has been convincingly demonstrated[1] that "tackling climate change" by cutting CO2 emissions even based on the prognostications of the IPCC won't make a detectable difference to global temperatures.

[1] http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

What can, however, be confidently predicted is that reduction of CO2 emission beyond a certain level will cause such mass human poverty, and misery and death as to please no-one but the most misanthropic of social engineers

JBowyer:

You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is an attack on the Greens which is your real motive for your post.