Surely the author never believed that politicians ever take anything but a political view of everything?

Hmmm... I find myself essentially agreeing with what I take it is the author's central argument ie. that government needs to be financially encouraging R&D in the energy and commodities industries. It's a shame that it is backed up by such a hodge podge of half truths and non sequiturs.

Yes, the science surrounding climate change is complex (though perhaps not quite as divided as the author and her employer imply), and yes, this complexity is perhaps not fully documented in a feature length documentary aimed at a lay audience. Surely this is an unrealistic bar to set though!

The pertinent facts in a social and political sense are that:

1. A significant majority of the scientific community believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming.
2. To quote what others have pointed out, if even half the predictions made by many scientists are correct, this warming will have civilization-changing effects.
3. There are political steps available to us which would help reduce our carbon emissions, and hopefully help avoid the worst outcomes of global warming.

How anyone could argue that we not play the odds on this issue is beyond me - and this does not even take into account the fact that, as a highly educated, developed nation, Australia is in a position to make key breakthroughs in clean energy technology, setting ourselves up financially while at the same time helping other nations to reduce their emisssions.

Yes, R&D is vital to this, but that carrot will not be fully effective without some kind of stick, and a carbon pricing scheme is that stick.

The science is, as the author points out, complex; the politics is, by comparison, simple!

Can't see the pollution for the cars. Can't see the climate debate for the political spin. Can't see the negative consequences for the immediate gains.

Science is very exacting and it is a spin doctor trick to find a minor detail that is debatable to attack a whole argument and discredit the scientist.

So, if you want some down to earth evidence re: climate change, just go for a walk beside Gympie Road and take a deep breath. If you don't pass out, you might get my point. There is a lot of emmissions going into the air and you don't have to be a climate scientist to see that the Earth's ability to absorb these huge amounts must have a threshold.

It very hard to prove some things beyond all doubt and the politicians, especially those who work in the interests of corporations,take advantage of this for their clients ends. Nevertheless, it is clear that that haze over Brisbane and other cities every day, along with deforestation, must be causing damage to the Earth.

Let's hope future generations don't have a saying like: Never seen a forest because they buggered the earth; can't see a future for the past.

The author's job as a policy coordinator for a professional body is reflected in this post. As such Ms Sardor has to satisfy, presumeably, the Australasian Mining & Metallurgy publications committee, democratically selected from all sectors of such a body - the heroes and villains you might say, then given a suitably job promotional title. Hence the call for more engineers and metalurgists to deal only in evidence not Al Gore style rhetoric. At least it does not read like a fence-sitting exercise, but I just hope more of the 'heroes' or should it be 'villains' get on the institutes's publications committee so that Ms Sardor's next post can report all shoulders to the wheel.

A very good and timely article. There is however, a fourth major consideration which is, timeliness. Greenhouse emission abatement science is very much in it's infancy and in all such cases the current cost of any solution is entire orders of magnitude greater than is likely to be the case in a decade or two.

The "CO2 Flux Clan" is attempting to rush us all into a set of very expensive options without full and proper consideration of all the options on the basis of supposedly "civilisation changing" impacts.

They are asking the equivalent of us going into debt for a $4 million 1960's style mainframe that needs a whole room for half a meg of tape drive. Yet, just a few decades later we can get 400 gig of hard drive in a $1000 lap top that can do a much better job, on the actual problem, faster and at a fraction of the cost.

Clearly, the latter option will best serve the interests of future generations.

Congratulations on an excellent summary, Monika.

Chris_B's comments are revealing.

He says that the pertinent facts are:

"1. A significant majority of the scientific community believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming."

Politics is about votes, science is about correctness.

"2. ..... if even half the predictions made by many scientists are correct, this warming will have civilization-changing effects."

None, never mind half, of the human-caused dangerous warming predictions shows any sign of being correct when tested against empirical evidence to date.

What is certain, however, is that natural climate change, both warmings and coolings, will continue, and from time to time will indeed have "civilization-changing effects", as has occurred in the past.

That is precisely why the global warming alarmism is so socially dangerous. It distracts from the real task of climate policy, which is to prepare contingency plans for coping with extreme weather events (such as last year's Qld. cyclone, and the current drought) and for future longer term climate change in either direction. Attempting to mitigate climate change by squandering money on ineffectual attempts to control CO2 emissions is an exercise in utter futility.

"3. There are political steps available to us which would help reduce our carbon emissions, and hopefully help avoid the worst outcomes of global warming."

If the temperature stasis that has lasted since 1998 turns into cooling, as many climate scientists expect, then probably the worst thing that we could do would be to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Finally, Chris adds:

"How anyone could argue that we not play the odds on this issue is beyond me".

That is because you are backing the wrong horse. The most likely climate eventuality in the near future is cooling, not warming.

Cathy

I guess someone from the AIM&M would say all this. Fancy picking on Al Gore for mentioning his son's death - the very thing that alerted him to the value of life ! He was not presenting a scientific paper but trying successfully to make the evidence relevant and accessible. Fortunately no rigid little rules exist on how this is best done. I sense that she resents the fact that it was accesible and successful. Incidentally, the Newcastle student did not file his lawsuit under the influence of Al Gore. She may be surprised to know that a portion of the population did actually have some knowledge of the problems before Al Gore's film reached us. She should also know that Orson Wells (not Welles) was writing fiction pure and simple when he penned War of the Worlds, not trying to tell "a compelling and alarmist story."

Well, reading through the article I said to myself "I wonder who is funding this writer" - nobody would hold such a jaundiced industry agenda without having some sort of vested interest in the issue. Then I read her credentials. Say no more.

jup, Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:27:30 AM
kang, Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:51:17 AM
gecko, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:00:19 PM

Hmm only 3 out of 8 posts concentrating on a ad hominem attack. Thats pretty good debateing ethics.

Lets see if fyurther posts can argue logically with evidence about any flaws in the substance of her argument, which I though was pretty cogent for the most part.

No doubt recent media focus on global warming has been induced by the combination of unseasonable heat, persistent drought and dwindling water supplies. This month I expect some inland areas of NSW to post record high average maximum temperatures, and possibly record low rainfall. The town of Bathurst, for example, is averaging a staggering 5°C above the long term average maximum, generating weather conditions more like December than October. This graph shows the quite dramatic warming in global mean temperature over the past 10 years http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi . However, not consistent with the greenhouse global warming theory, in which radiative cooling is inhibited, is that recently in SE Australia we have experienced numerous record low minimum temperatures, while the tropical north has been cooler than normal.

The global weather system is indeed immensely complex, making it difficult to predict the impact of increasing concentrations of so called greenhouse gases. It is therefore more likely that Australia’s recent drought and warmth is due to natural variability, but we cannot discount human influence either. Because of this uncertainty, the importance of a stable and predictable climate and that our reliance on fossil fuels for energy is not sustainable anyway, we should be taking action now as individuals to reduce energy consumption, use renewable energy sources and harvest rainwater. If each household did something, the sum would be all the greater. This is where the government needs to show leadership. Howard has been very slow on the uptake, fooling around emulating his friend Bush, but at last there are signs he is starting to act on renewables. Perhaps because his mate Ziggy Switkowski told him nuclear power will never be economically viable here without a carbon tax. I therefore call upon John Howard to substantially increase subsidies for solar energy (both h/w and grid connected photovoltaic cells). Why not make it 100%, or more, tax deductible? I am sure the up front cost now will pay us back many times more in the future.

'"1. A significant majority of the scientific community believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming."

Politics is about votes, science is about correctness.'

Science is indeed about correctness, ie scientists comparing the theories with observations.

For lay people, who are in no postion (skills or time-wise) to read all the scientific papers and perform their own experiments and analyses, who want to decide which scientists to believe the majority rule is reasonable. Specially if it is an overwhelming majority.

Occasionaly it takes some time for a Copernicus or Darwin to convince their peers but if we took every scientists word as gospel we would be building cold fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines.

Before you put you faith in computer models I suggest that you try some
simple modelling. I suggest that you make a start with geoelectrical
sounding. Basically this consists of trying to determine the thicknesses
and resistivities of the soil and rock layers underlying a site. The only
presumption, which is generally reasonable, is that the soil and rock layers
are areally extensive relative to their thickness. You start with apparent
resistivities determined with various spacings of a horizontal array of
electrodes. As the theory and the mathematics are proven you do not have to
worry about that part of it. Given various layer thicknesses and
resistivities the apparent resistivity distribution on the ground surface
can be readily determined. However the reverse does not apply except in the
two layer case. With increasing numbers of layers the problem of
equivalence rears its ugly head. A given distribution of apparent
resistivity on the surface does not give rise to a unique solution in terms
of layer thicknesses and resistivities. This is the problem of equivalence.
I suggest that climate models with numerous parameters, the mathematics of
which relationships are only guessed at, imply problems of equivalence which
are insuperable. Furthermore the body of temperature and other data simply
does not extend long enough in time to calibrate any model that can be
devised.

Spin doctor's spin, how do these people sleep at night! The tobacco companies never found it hard to find lawyers willing to argue that smoking wasn’t bad for you. It seems oil companies and the like don’t have trouble finding lawyer to argue about GW.

Chris B, mate, agree with you that though the author wants encouragement in R&D research to combat possible global warming, in the latter portion she could be going for a dollar each way. Science and engineering, which apparently she philosophises in, is also related to arguments against global warming

The old dollar each way doctrine is also so common to politics, and certainly what a foxy John Howard is on about with his Solar Energy plan.

Naturally not that little Johnny would have that that sort of engineering brain. Yet it takes somone with national power like him to get things moving. In any case, as Tony Jones was saying on LateLine, with the projected plant able to power sixty five thousand dwellings, plants should be set up all over Australia for the time when fossil fuels like coal and oil run out.

But the real distress about this rather negative just-in-case view is now being felt by one who in his long retirement has learnt to take a philosophical view - and right now gone a bit spiritual. My departed wife, who was an artist was also a natural greenie. Always worried on the farm about over-clearing. Not surprising then that Marjorie also had a kind of spiritual feeling about the avante-guarde, the futuristic thinkers whom so many of our OLO’s regard as left-wing loonies or fruitcakes.

So along with a rough bush nature, one has also acquired over the years, a concern about what we are doing to this earth. Possibly more like a Socrates than a Sanctifier, but - sorry - the feeling is there

I read about global warming and believe the news; I don’t care if it’s fact or fiction.
It forces us to look at how we use our planet, Any industry/corporation that exist in the future should have to prove it’s worth for the vast majority of people and biodiversity of this amazing planet. If that industry/Building/factory, can not show that it benefits the “LONG TERM” sustainability of this planet then it should be squeezed out of existence along with it’s share holders just the same way they are destroy the quality of our air, food, water and forests for profit who knows R&D may save it. (I know Strong opinion).
My wife and I have two small children, I look at the earth through their eyes and their children’s and so on, All I see is a planet that will be destroyed for profit with the short term benefits being distributed amongst a greedy few who will always try to make environmental issues go away, brushed under the carpet, discredited and made to look as though it will cost us or life savings, jobs interest rate hikes ect, ect. It is plainly simple to see that how we live and how the rest of the third world wishes to live will be our undoing. We need to discover that our existence is only possible with clean air, fresh water and social justice, I can already hear all the criticism and you know what I don’t care!

"Finally, Chris adds:

"How anyone could argue that we not play the odds on this issue is beyond me".

That is because you are backing the wrong horse. The most likely climate eventuality in the near future is cooling, not warming.

Cathy"

Cathy, if I'm backing the wrong horse, then the worst outcome is less pollution and a possible financial windfall, as Australian technology is adopted around the world. If base policy on your beliefs, and you turn out to be wrong, then clearly we are in a great deal of trouble.

Another commenter has noted the "dollar each way" nature of many global warming sceptics. It's certainly an apt description for your position in arguing that climate change is natural, but will soon begin cooling, so we shouldn't reduce our emissions (why would that make any difference, if human emissions have no effect?

Unbelievable!

In less than a fortnight, Online Opinion publishes two articles from the global warming disbelievers.

This is despite the following:

‘Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science,’ Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief, Science.

What next, fascinating articles questioning the link between smoking and illness. Let's move on and stop giving so much breathing space to the noisy Flat earthers. Particularly those with such a clear vested interest. Sorry, but I won't have an arts/law graduate employed by miners telling me about climate science.

As a member of the small group of anti-smoking activists that won smoke free planes, buses, trains, offices etc and got the tobacco adverts off TV and the billboards away from school yards, and as one who had B.U.G.A.U.P'd his fair share of billboards in the 1980's, I find it really offensive that all sorts of low life are now trying to claim that greenhouse scepticism is on par with tobacco industry spin. What a load of bovine faeces.

I was there fellas. It is chalk and cheese. The people drowning in their own lung fluid were not the product of some sort of abstract modelling, they were real live victims. The cause and effects were far beyond speculation and far beyond Al Gore's sleazy political spin.

So could you kindly crawl back under whatever rock you came from and stick your ignorant mctheories into an appropriate cavity.

Monika, I am afraid the scientists will not find in our favour.

Extractive metallurgists and miners ought to know, above all others, about the laws of natural abundance and diminishing returns. But do we have the courage to face the truth if it compromises our personal comfort?

It's like Peter Costello announcing one day that economics was just a swindle all along. He won't do it, because he doesn't have that sort of moral courage - and he's still a winner - for now.

I operated a really good, modern gold plant. The SAG-mill motor alone consumed more power than the whole of the nearby town. Yet the efficiency of the mill was only 4% on a good day. That's still about as good as it gets for SAG-mills. 96% of all that free, compact, fossil sunshine straight back up in smoke - for nothing.

We never gave it a thought, because electricity was cheap and abundant. We thought it would last forever. I should have known better, but hey, life felt good!

In sum, I spent years turning truckloads of diesel and coal into thimblefuls of gold - and was paid very well to do it. I had the market prices of these commodities for my yardstick, so the operation gave the illusion of being profitable.

The trouble is that "price" is an illusion - a human confection.

- and there's the rub. There's our blind spot. It'll be the death of us.

The old Feral Metallurgist discovered too late, that he had consumed his grandchildren's share.

Oh no! Perseus is back! He’s crawled out from under his rock….. and promptly told anyone with any commonsense to crawl back under theirs!

What an extraordinary contradiction – someone who cares deeply about the harmful effects of smoking, and rejects the entire notion of anthropogenically-induced climate change!

Wow! As bad as smoking is, I wonder which of these two scourges will end up having the biggest impact on us humans? And by several orders of magnitude.

Da mind boggles!

Chris

1. "If (we) base policy on your beliefs, and you turn out to be wrong, then clearly we are in a great deal of trouble."

You haven't read what I said. My only belief about climate is that it will CHANGE. We do not know with any certainty whether it will warm or cool, therefore we need to be prepared for BOTH. If you base policy on preparing to respond to either warming or cooling, then you'll be fine either way.

Your "policy" seems to be to try to stop an assumed warming (it hasn't warmed since 1998) using an untested mechanism (reducing human greenhouse emissions) in order to mitigate an imaginary ill (that if it occurs, warming will be harmful).

Trying to "stop climate change" in this fashion is no more sensible than trying to stop the clouds scudding across the sky. It is futile.

2. "Another commenter has noted the "dollar each way" nature of many global warming sceptics. It's certainly an apt description for your position in arguing that climate change is natural, but will soon begin cooling, so we shouldn't reduce our emissions?"

First, as a scientist it is my job to be sceptical, and especially so regarding strong beliefs espoused in the absence of strong evidence.

More specifically, however, I am not a GW sceptic in the sense that you use the term. Rather, I am agnostic as to whether the human influence on climate is dangerous, for the simple reason that the evidence for that hypothesis - such as it is - is weak, circumstantial and ambiguous. It follows that the correct null hypothesis is to assume that the climate changes that we experience are natural, UNTIL there is evidence otherwise.

Second, human greenhouse emissions having only a marginal (and so far unmeasurable) effect on climate, they are largely irrelevant to policy. Given (i) that there's a fair chance that cooling is going to occur, and (ii) that human emissions probably have a mild warming effect, the precautionary principle implies that for the moment we not moderate their production.

Cathy

Cathy,
you give the appearance of being intelligent.

I would have a little more willingness to believe your (somewhat distorted, to me) view if you had not twice now stated 'temperature stasis that has lasted since 1998' in suport of your claims.

Can you please explain to me how this is accurate given that 2005 was the year of highest global average temperature the world has ever recorded?

I would also point out that the six year appearance of a 'levelling out' is a levelling at the highest level since accurate statitics have been collected over the last 130 years (a short time in geological and climate terms admittedly but significant in that this century seems to be the hottest ever).

It may also just be a coincidence that this 'levelling' is occurring at a time when we are taking the first steps towards reducing our emissions?

Brain Drain,

1. "Please explain to me how "a temperature stasis that has lasted since 1998" can be the case, given that 2005 was the year of highest global average temperature the world has ever recorded?"

Sure. There are 5 major, largely independent records of global average temperature. 3 are different versions of the historic ground-level thermometer data since about 1860. The 4th is the weather balloon radiosonde data since the 1950's, and the last is the satellite MSU data since the late 1970s.

Four of these datasets show year-2005 to be about the same as or cooler than years-2001-03, and a full 0.4-deg-C-cooler than 1998. The exceptional record - which is favoured by Al Gore and which comes from Jim Hansen's NASA group - shows 2005 warmer than 1998. It is unlikely to be a coicidence that this conflicting, outlier result comes from the camp of the high priest of GW alarmism; it has little credibility.

2. "This stasis is a levelling at the highest level since accurate statitics have been collected over the last 130 years (a short time in geological and climate terms admittedly but significant in that this century seems to be the hottest ever)."

You have provided your own answer. You cannot make comparative judgements about climate on the basis of the trivially-short, 150-yr-long thermometer temperature record, much less on the 25-year-long satellite record. The late 20th century warming (which as yet has not continued into this century) is unusual in neither rate nor magnitude compared with previous natural climate changes.

3. "Can it be just be a coincidence that this 'levelling' is occurring at a time when we are taking the first steps towards reducing our emissions?"

Yes, it can and it is. If Kyoto were fully implemented (which it won't be), the theoretical result is a lowering of temperature of 0.02 deg. C by 2050. That's unmeasurable against natural climate noise.

Cathy

Good on you, Ludwig, mate, keep on the way you are. Having a rotten drought up Dally way this year. But Dally is a big district and straight up the line, Wubin-Buntine way, it's even worse. Only thing really saving us though is that because most of our land is West of the line, it also takes in quite a lot of the good light country which can grow a good crop with less rain. Used to be good wildflower country too, which you most likely know about.

Cheers, George C.

A "not bad" article, although I did wonder how the Mediaeval Warm Period (also called a "Maunder Maximum" I believe) could end in 1300 yet the Little Ice Age started in 1280. Seems odd two diametrically opposed climate regimes could overlap...

One aspect of climate change Monika noted was that accurate climate records go back only a century or so. She made no mention though about the Weather Bureau and its efforts in climate monitoring, in a political climate where funding is effectively being reduced so that climate monitoring abilities are lessened, not increased.

Cathy,

Thank you for providing some useful info. I do take exception to one statement though: 'Four of these datasets show year-2005 to be about the same as or cooler than years-2001-03, and a full 0.4-deg-C-cooler than 1998'.

Non of the graphs i have researched show such a huge difference in any year from that of it's close neighbours. A global temp diff of 0.4 represents roughly 60 years of consecutive warming in our current 130+ year trend and has not been realised from 1998 levels since more than 30 years previous? Did you mean 0.04 deg perhaps?

Could you possibly give me your personal hypothesis of what our current rate of increase in levels of atmospheric CO2 and Methane mean in relation to GW in light of the long term information shown in the last graph on this page?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html

The relationship between greehouse gases and global temperature is undeniable and our curent levels of these gases are significantly higher (and still growing) now than at any time in the last 160,000 years. Global darkening is one possible explanation as to why temperatures are currently not where these levels would predict but certainly human pollution is a balancing act that needs very careful observation and adjustment. Agreed?

BrainDrain,

The temperature records that I describe are not plotted in terms of absolute (averaged) measured temperature. Rather they are plotted as excursions ("anomalies") from the average temperature over an agreed preceding, 30-yr-long ("climate normal") period, either 1950-1980 or 1960-1990. Therefore, the magnitudes of the relative peaks that I cite are correct. See, for example:

<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/>

Regarding the CO2 and T figures from the ice cores over the last full glacial/interglacial cycle, two things. First, there is a general correlation between them. Second, close analysis shows that the changes in temperature PRECEDE by many hundred to a couple of thousand years the parallel changes in CO2; therefore CO2 cannot be the primary cause of the temperature changes at the scale of these climate cycles. (The same is true, incidentally, at the annual scale today: seasonal changes in temperature precede the parallel changes in CO2 by about 6 months).

And third, relating to your other question, because the samples come from a thickness of ice deposited over many years to decades, the figures represent averages, and do not capture annual peaks and lows. Therefore it is not true that the highest interglacial CO2 figure over the last several hundred thousand years is 280 ppm. Rather, the 280 ppm measurements in the ice cores each represents an average of numbers both above and below this level. Studies of plant stomata, an alternative way of measuring ancient CO2 but with higher temporal resolution, suggest that the peaks during recent interglacial intervals attained at least 380 ppm, i.e. the same as today.

None of this is to gainsay that atmospheric CO2 today is high and steadily increasing at least in part because of human additions. But any further warming that this may cause is likely to be minor, and more likely beneficial than harmful.

Cathy

Cathy,

Having not done the research myself, I won't engage with the statistical aspects of your arguments - in fact, I will grant that it sounds for the most part like you are making a reasonable, scientific argument. Which is why the mind boggles that you would finish it with such an unscientific claim as, "any further warming that this may cause is likely to be minor, <i>and more likely beneficial than harmful</i>."

This claim seems to be based on the idea that we are about to go into a significant cooling phase, and yet the evidence for this seems far less than overwhelming.

Even if we accept that the scientific community is strongly divided on this subject (a claim that i do not accept other than for the sake of this argument), the fact that the most knowledgeable people cannot agree would surely indicate a general lack of knowledge - and if we don't know what effect our CO2 emissions are having on the planet, then let's do what we can to stop it, eh?

Chris_b,

You worry about my opinion that "any further warming than this is likely to be minor, and more likely beneficial than harmful", and infer that "This claim seems to be based on the idea that we are about to go into a significant cooling phase, and yet the evidence for this seems far less than overwhelming".

Actually, that is not my reasoning, though the empirical evidence that the earth will next enter a cooling cycle is certainly stronger than the evidence for further warming (alarmist public claims about warming this effect are largely not based on evidence, but on unvalidated computer models).

Two reasons why increased CO2 will be beneficial are (i) should cooling occur, as is likely, then a small amount of it (a few tenths of a degree) will be offset by CO2-induced warming; and (ii) increased CO2 acts as an aerial plant fertilizer, increasing most cereal crop yields and also improving plant evaporo-transpiration efficiency, i.e. saving water.

A third, socio-economic, reason is, now that I think about it, that lifting the underprivileged of the world out of poverty requires cheap energy, which at the moment is best generated from hydrocarbon or nuclear sources.

This argument may make you feel uncomfortable, but then again neither you nor I belong to a malnourished peasant family living in a mud hut somewhere. We therefore have to be very careful not to allow indulge our guilt complexes in a way that will restrict the opportunities of other needy persons to lead a more comfortable life.

Cathy

Shame on you Monika

You well know the impact that your industry has on the health of citizens and the environment as a result of governments' vested interest in refusing to regulate the capping of emissions.

I really don't intend to debate the science of climate change or global warming or whatever. The facts are very clear indeed - pollutant industries are emitting uncontrolled greenhouse gases and carcinogenic chemicals.

One needs to consider the impact of the enormous emissions of ozone damaging CFC's which emit from nuclear reactors; the equally enormous emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from uranium mining and the emissions of CO which elevates methane and ozone before oxidising to CO2. I would require much more space to mention all the other health and environmentally damaging, catalytic chemicals emitted by industry which is not even required to monitor for some of the extremely dangerous chemicals emanating from its operations.

And for the many "armchair critics" I advise that in recent years, the Minister for the Environment upheld part of my appeal against a pollutant company which was making life unbearable for citizens living in close proximity.

The Minister instructed the company to reduce its particulates. Generally an emission was around 700mg/m3. The resultant emissions came down to around 8mg/m3. Simple as that! And the company continued to operate profitably with the exception of a relatively small expense on pollutant prevention control.

As for other carbon based chemicals where the Minister approved a request for reductions, well the Department of Environment simply ignored that instruction and allowed the company to continue with excessive emissions!

So you can bang on all you like about future scientific measures to reduce CO2, Monika, but NOW is the time for your industry and it's bedfellows to take some responsibility for the health of citizens and the extremely damaging impact it is having on OUR environment. I have become exceedingly irritated by all the inane flyers spewed out by your industry assuring communities of its good corporate governance whilst privatising and polluting our fresh air!

Cathy,

Hmmm, I am at a loss as to how a person who sounds like she is talking sense can make such provably innaccurate statements? (Chris B SOMEONE needs to engage with Cathy's statistical aspects from what i have detected!)

Although not a climatologist or meteorologist i am reasonably fair at gathering and interpreting data and reading graphs. I have been making my comments on the basis of two independent graphs showing average surface temperatures over the last three century's (19, 20 and 21st), one anomaly averaged over 1961 - 90 and one 1971 - 2000 neither of these showed 1998 to be 0.4 degrees greater than the years 2001 - 03 or 2005 (which was very close to 1998) as you claimed. Both graphs show all these years to be anomalies around 0.4 degrees above the used 30 year database average. Perhaps this is where you are making your mistake - for you are certainly mistaken in that 1998 claim.

I am also curious as to why you would show a graph which distinctly disproves your argument - the latest year shown (2004? 05?) is clearly the highest on the graph and therefore the hottest year in recorded history and shows no sign of 'cooling', proving my initial claim that 2005 (last year) was the hottest on record but lo and behold it is from the Goddard Institute - the one you claim has little credibility - so just why are you using it's graph as evidence of your own argument?? ( doubly so when it disproves it?)

GISS's graphs show 1998 to be less than 0.3 degrees different to the years either side and less than 0.1 of a degree different to most years this century. Please explain how you derive the 0.4 degree difference you claim (we are both looking at the same type of graphs and data btw)
(cont.)

from before...

Your argument concerning CO2 Averages over the last 160 000 years: On the page previously referred to by me it is clearly shown that the average CO2 over the last two hundred years of industrial activity (a period easily identified in 11,000 feet of icefall over millenia) exceeds 300 ppm - a figure never previously seen over such a prolonged period in history and which shows no sign of reversing - nor will it while we permit ever increasing use of fossil fuels while destroying CO2 consuming rainforest.

As for your recent claim, the graph i provided in my last post when analysed actually shows that CO2 and more obviously Methane PRECEDES tempreature increase (copy the graph into a graphic program and magnify then draw vertical lines through them). Please provide evidence from which i can check your claim that ice records and current data show the reverse to be true. Perhaps you could also explain how you come to have the belief you have when the text accompanying the graph says that no-one knows which precedes the other? Are the scientists quoted merely simple and incapable of doing any research? Maybe they should have asked you?

Perhaps Sir Nicholas Stern should also have asked you your opinion before he produced his expensive report warning the world to take action to reverse our activity in relation to adding to the problem in the next 10 to 15 years?

I am sure the people of river deltas and entire island nations who will shortly have no land not under seawater if GW predictions are accurate will be most relieved to hear of your opinion (apparently held almost uniquely by you) and will ask the world to continue heating the planet up for as long as they like.

Me? I am very glad i live on land more than 6 m above the current sea level and will not be moving anywhere lower anytime soon.

What a wealth of climate-concious RightThinkers we have all of a sudden on Online Opinion, all paddling hard away from the responsibility waterfall that all economic fundamentalists deserve to plunge off.

After decades of ridicule, stalling, lying, 'astro-turf' grass roots funding and general barstadry, now that not even J.Howard can pretend its not happening, all the parasitic media flacks retained by planet f**kers nationwide are out flogging their new green colours. Revolting is too tame a word.

Whatsa matter, worried Big Carbon will go the way of Big Tobacco and you'll have to subsist on only 10x the median wage? Bring back hanging, say I.

The real question in all this debate is how do we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

It seems that what Monika is arguing is that we need to have a massive increase in Rand D spending and make greater use of market mechanisms

As an economist I agree with her. However, she, along with most other businsess representatives only pay lip service to market forces when it suits their arguments.

Essentially there is no charge for using the atmosphere as a free waste disposal site. Unfortunately the costs of doing this are global warming - borne by us all, including the vast majority of the worlds inhabitants who share no benefit from the products that these companies make. The environmental damage is not refelected in the price we all pay for energy

Why would companies invest in R and D when energy is effectiveley subsidised? If you want to create incentives for increased investment introduce a carbon tax!! This does not mean a tax rise because the revenue could be used to slash payroll taxes. Research from the OECD, World Bank and EU all shows this can be done and would probably create jobs and reduce global warming.

Putting a proper price on carbon emissions will encourage renewable energy, as their product becomes relatively cheaper, encourage energy effiency and will encourage research and development to avoid taxes in the future.

In the UK and Europe political parties are fighting over how to use the tax system to tackle global warming. Whats wrong with australia?

YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SCIENCE?
This blog site is useful for airing a few thoughts on issues like global warming – but not the place to determine fact from fiction in such a complex area. Complex in science, economics and government policy.

‘Due process’ may sound a bit vague but it is what we need to follow now. Let me explain.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the ultimate agreement to deal with this issue. So Monica’s reference to the Asia Pacific Forum is a side issue.

And the International Panel on Climate Change is the agreed body of hundreds of experts in the various disciplines, which determines the distilled and accepted balance of views.

If anybody has a view differing to that of the IPCC they should take it up with the IPCC. The IPCC’s latest report is the best conventional wisdom we have – agreed to by experts of all hues from all over the world. There are plenty of opportunities to input to the IPCC review process.

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in Dec 1997 under the UNFCCC. Monica, your trite comment that “this measure will deliver no more than one per cent of global abatement worldwide” is disingenuous and detrimental to a sensible appraisal of how to deal with this challenging issue. [though my reading is that Kyoto should delivers around a 2.5% reduction from 1990 to 2012]

KYOTO ADDRESSES TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
The most laudable thing about Kyoto is that those who signed up in Annex B were agreeing to measures which would hurt their economies (in the short term) yet were necessary as a means to protect the Global Commons. This was the most exemplary measure of altruism and social unity to overcome ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’. It is the first small step that we must continue to take for the rest of this century. Moreover, we need to reduce the world’s emissions by around 1% every year! So Monica, a responsible person would surely say,

“Well, we have agreed to reduce emissions by around 1% [or 2.5% or whatever] but this is just the beginning and we don’t have Annex A countries committed to reductions yet. Hence we must all work hard, including the USA and Australia, to ensure the 2008 – 2012 first commitment period works well. We can show that a cap and trade mechanism under Kyoto provides the most efficient means to reduce emissions. In future commitment periods, the Annex A countries should come on board. They will have to get allocations clearly above their expected growth needs. They will then be able to sell their excesses (like current Russian ‘hot air’) and gain extra foreign revenue from the sale of their allocated emissions. This means that the carbon price is felt throughout their economies and the market encourages them to improve their efficiency.”

Kyoto and the market in capped carbon emission permits is the key to getting the economic settings right. In each country, governments may care to take a ‘we know best’ approach. Dithering around like the current Australian Government, handing out grants to this and that disparate project with no clear policy or program to address the issue, with little or no economic context is at best blind ignorance. But it really seems like disgraceful shillyshallying to avoid facing reality and providing desperately needed leadership.

BrainDrain

I suggest you read my earlier message more carefully.

The reason that I directed you to the GISS site was precisely so that you could see that the result there for 2005 is out of line with the other graphs for average global temperature. The comments that you make about the amount of discrepancy on that graph are therefore right.

But I specifically cautioned you that that was the one record that does not seem reliable, because it conflicts with all the others. You can access these directly from their home base, or from one or the other of the three following links:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/temperatures/temps.jsp
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease2may2006.htm
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/

By all means pay attention to the detail of these records, and compare them to my comments. But I suspect we are just at cross purposes, and that you may be looking at an annually averaged plot where I am looking at a monthly one. Re-examing the CRU monthly-plotted graph, I see that the difference between the high of 1998 and lows of 2000 or 2001 is probably closer to 0.5 deg than to 0.4. But this may be a misleading way to treat the data, and if your prefer instead to use a 2-yr moving average of the data, then the difference reduces to about 0.2 deg.

Either way, don't lose sight of the main point, which is that four out of the five accepted databases recording average global temperature show no increase since 1998.

Regarding CO2/T timing relationships. The caption you refer to is wrong, or at least sloppy. There is no dispute amongst geologists or climatologists that T change precedes CO2 change at both the climatic cycle and annual scales. The two key papers are:

Mudelsee, M. 2001 The phase relations among atmospheric CO2
content, temperature & global ice volume over the past 420
ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 583-589.

Kuo, C., Lindberg, C.& Thomson, D.J. 1990 Coherence established
between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.
Nature 343, 709-713.

And a p.s. for AlanHopkins. Alan, try reading some of the earlier posts. Your indignation is misplaced: what global warming?

Cathy

Cathy,

Congratulations - your deception almost sucked me in. (because you’ve convinced yourself of the superiority of your own intelligence perhaps?)
I had been challenging your argument that the world has not been warming since 1998 - when it is in fact, even using your own logic, a ludicrous one.

What you and I both agree on is that 1998 is just ONE year of data (out of more than 130 of recorded temperatures and up to 400,000 years of ice records) and is a significantly different higher anomaly to any year in the last 2 decades and is therefore statistically 'unreliable' and not able to be used by any intelligent person as the sole basis for an argument of global average YEARLY (why monthly - subject to seasonal variance??) temperature trends.

I have no problem reading the (extreme) minority view you propound. You clearly state (for no justifiable reason in my opinion - unless you consider that he challenges the Bush administration's self-interest in this vital matter, which you seem more aligned with) that Jim Henson's Goddard Institute data has little credibility in your previous post and then in a subsequent one you state:

'Therefore, the magnitudes of the relative peaks that I cite are correct. See, for example:

<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/> '

You provide as an example (of your argument) only the data you earlier chose to deride. Rather than me reading you more carefully i suggest it is you who needs to write to us more carefully. In your initial posts you quoted YEARly data. At no point in them did you refer to monthly (or 3 monthly) average anomalies.

I reiterate - ALL available datasets (of annual anomalies) confirm that your earlier statement is wrong. (and i have not referred to GISS data as you assume - you introduced that item - I referred to non-Goddard data and media reports that stated 2005 was the hottest year on record - for both Australia and elsewhere on the globe)
http://www.physorg.com/preview9137.html.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1532198.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record

Cont.

(cont.)

There is NOT a 0.4 degree difference between 1998 and the years 2001-03 Let me state specifically: The anomaly in 1998 was 0.56 of a deg(annual). The anomaly's for years 2001-03 are in the region of 0.45 deg. This is a difference of approximately 0.1 not 0.4! ie. in this instance you were clearly W R O N G ! - live with it. Five year moving averages (a much more reliable way of determining global temperature trends) show that the Earth is currently still warming and has not stopped since 1998. You are misrepresenting the true state of the planet by reiterating your unprovable 'main point' claim that four out of five databases show 'no' increase since 1998. They all show a continuing increasing temperature trend. 1998 is clearly an anomaly of anomalies. It is entirely illogical to use it as a basis for argument. You should know better,if you want people to believe anything you say.

Another area in which you are absolutely wrong is in making future assumptions on the basis of data prior to the last 200 years of human interference in the global temperature and atmospheric composition data. Up until the early 1800's atmospheric composition and temperature were only affected significantly by 'natural' factors: sunlight, plant and plankton growth, volcanoes, lightening strikes and bushfires, reflective ice layers, etc. Since the industrial revolution and massive population expansion of the 1900's, human activity has had an unprecedented effect on our climate, in competition for the very first time, with natural climate change. This is irrefutable and is acknowledged by the vast majority of climate scientists. It also shows no sign of decreasing, only increasing, as underdeveloped countries comprisiing more than half of the world's total population try to catch up to the pollution making ability of the West.

To assume that because things varied in the past that we should do nothing to prevent our current negative interference with the global climate is unbelievably short-sighted and pure folly. We need to appreciate and better understand the problem facing us and begin to develop countermeasures immediately.

THE RESPONSIBLE SOLUTION FOR AUSTRALIA IS SIMPLE.
Ratify Kyoto. Then auction emission permits – for CO2 in the first instance, probably ‘back out’ the emissions of the other 5 GHGs from the 1990 base data and also only allow a much smaller sink for land use change (ie, land clearing) for 2008 – 2012 than in 1990.

And allow Australia’s emission permits to be tradeable (fungible) with those in ETS (European Trading Scheme). Then we’ll see a responsible response from all to the world carbon price.

Oh, and the high carbon industries? Well, I for one don’t want my taxes subsidising Australian aluminium smelters running on coal based electricity. Aluminium is economically made with low carbon electricity; eg, in countries with nuclear or hydro power. But not mainland Australia – until we get nuclear power.

Sure, there is an issue for high carbon industries selling against low carbon competitors, which could make them uncompetitive. Like the Button car plan, government can plan the phase down period, where the situation is dire. Ie, it might offer temporary subsidy/protection but with an agreed wind down period over years til there is no subsidy. Industry, like all of us, can then plan for the future with the carbon prices on the board. This is the economically responsible way to get least cost solutions and manage the change.

Oh yes, problems from competing imports from Annex A countries, which currently don’t have carbon restraint? Well, maybe we impose an imputed carbon tax where the embedded carbon is significant, eg, cement, aluminium and some other metals. This would be for a limited period – and again, would be planned to wind down over time. No permanent subsidies – just a safety net to allow industries time to wind down or adapt. Yes, this is efficient and responsible

FROM DUE PROCESS TO PM’S FIAT
Unfortunately, we don’t have any leaders to manage the issue responsibly. In 1999 the Government published four excellent booklets on emissions trading. At that stage, it was following due process. It was working through the problem in a credible way. However due process was abandoned in following years to be substituted with Prime Ministerial fiat. Statements like “we won’t ratify Kyoto because it will hurt some sectors of the economy”. Hello? What sort of trite and fatuous statement is that? All the modelling studies show that it will hurt some sectors of the economy – as noted above. So why avoid the truth?
But real leaders wouldn’t shy from the obvious. They would explain that as an unfortunate, yet unavoidable effect of the changes necessary for us to live within the limits of the planet’s ecosystems. They would note there will be many winners too.

Our frugal forebears impressed on us the need to live within our means. Similarly with the planet’s ecosystem already suffering from human induced warming we must responsibly address this complex issue honestly, responsibly and resolutely.

Wake up Australia! The clever country? Well certainly not a clever or responsible Commonwealth Government.

Monika, the Great and the Good and their hypothesis of a stable and benign pre-industrial climate, disturbed only now by people burning fossil fuels, will be put to the test. The Mainstream project just more and more warming - NO cold periods - unless CO2 emissions are urgently and drastically curtailed. But we may not need to go nuclear as early as Al Gore implies (but doesn't say). The dominant paradigm of a people-driven climate MUST mean continued warming, because 99% of growth in consumption of carbon-rich coal over 1990-2005 was in China/India - and their use will keep on growing. Sceptics like me say ours is not an autonomous Earth, with a self-contained climate. Climate is externally driven - and onset of the next Little Ice Age cold period will be obvious well before 2020; and it will be fully developed by 2030. Please don't outlaw coal until this real-life test is decided - one way or the other.

The Kyoto Protocol is a system of quotas. It is a system that was, in most part, designed by europeans who have demonstrated an uncontested mastery of manipulating quotas for their own benefit at the expense of their competitors.

The best example is the treatment of wood products. Europe is a major importer of wood and paper products, mostly from the third world. And under IPCC rules the emissions from these products are deemed to take place when the tree is cut, in the country it is cut. This is at variance with coal and petroleum for which the emission takes palce when the stuff is actually consumed.

And surprise, surprise, this allows the europeans a huge commercial advantage as their entire packaging, and much of their building sectors, are insulated from greenhouse abatement measures. Yet, for wood exporting nations like Australia, with self sufficient building sectors, there is a major penalty under the Kyoto rules.

Furthermore, Kyoto incorporates THE worst flaw that any quota system can have, ie., a single year (1990) cut-off. This penalises Australia because 1989-90 was an above average year for native vegetation growth rates and this means that any subsequent normal year, or even worse, a drought year, will leave us with a reduced rate of vegetation growth (carbon absorption) that will translate into a need to reduce other emissions by more than our fair share.

Kyoto also conveniently precludes us from claiming credits for our vegetation thickenning and the carbon that is absorbed by our territorial waters. Funny how a bunch of landlocked and oceanically challenged nations could manage to overlook such an important issue, don't you think?

I am getting VERY tired (F'n angry even) of JH saying he is meeting his targets under the Kyoto protocol (which he won't ratify depite being a signatory to the UN - Kyoto is a UNFCCC agreement) like he is some kind of ecologically green God.

JH and Perseus FAIL to mention that, unlike every other devloped nation, Kyoto lets us INCREASE our emissions by 8.2% over 1990 levels - our target is to pollute the world more - not less! How proud we must all be that JH is ensuring we continue to meet those targets while other countries try but fail (to cut emissions - for which they are to be punished still more harshly if they don't achieve the reduction levels chosen by UN members (not European decree) by 2012.

2002 data places Australia 14th in the world in terms of total CO2 emissions produced (it's emissions Kyoto limits) - not bad for a nation of just over 20 million from a world pop of 6,000 million (one third of one percent) - just behind Iran with three times our numbers and who America and JH want to ensure cannot use nuclear power while claiming it is the way we need to go forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

And in similar vein, it would be nice if JH could tell Australians the truth - that it is his rich mates in the coal and Uranium industry's he does not wish to betray - not the advantages Australia has in terms of Sunshine, wind and water, not to mention geothermal, power resources which he is happy to let other countries take advantage of over our own ability to develop and export the technologies while at the same time planning to import nuclear ones at massive public cost.

Perseus.
"fair share" Surely we are beyond this? This is a moral debate and Australia should have greater interest in that, given our stance on other moral debates?
In the Washington post this morning "Nuclear Cleanup Site Has Cities Cleaning Up Financially" Already has cost billions and are perhaps looking forward to an ongoing program of cleanup costing yet more billions. Ok this is an enrichment site cleanup and the cleanup can be expected to cost more than the cleanup of a disused power plant, but I see no recognition by JH of the cost be added to his proposed nuclear power stations.
I'm "jack" of obfuscation, we once lead in alternative power science, thanks to this govt, we are now well down the list for our science was again taken up by other countries who are, and will make a great industry we need.
Let Australia be a leader again and to hell with coal and nuclear.
fluff
PS I have to pay to take trash to the local tip, surely someone should pay to pollute the atmosphere?

Shhhh Fluff!

We can't go telling the truth about ALL the costs of the Nuclear Industry to Australia and the planet we live on - or Little Johhny won't be able to play with us anymore! and his great friend George might not like us - and you know what happens to countries without powerful friends that George doesn't like.

Ronnie and Saddam were once bestest bud's too remember! Or does America usually sell arms to despotic dictators bent on promoting world terrorism? (Silly question!)

Brain Drain exposes his virulent anti-Americanism and leftist leanings. He admits he is not a climatologist or meteorologist, but yet has the temerity to lecture us about climate change.
The debate is certainly not over.
See these comments by Dr Mike Hulme who is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in this article from Auntie BBC:
“I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.
It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns.”
This is not all he says.
Please read the link before getting swept up in the hysteria.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

and this:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/canadianPMletter06.html
and this:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz
and this:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
and this:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_real_climate_change_catastrophe&ns=PaulDriessen&dt=10/21/2006&page=full&comments=true

Froggie - shouldn't you be extinct by now like a lot of your breed? : )

Be careful with those labels chum - they may come back to bite you on the bum. (I'm not anti-american - I AM anti-anyhypocrisy. As for being leftist, I hate the Chinese government's repression, North Korea's dictatorship and Stalin's murderous oppression of his people - but i've never lived in those places so excuse me if i attack my own government's record while it still has the right of reply and the chance to show me it can do better)

I need a day or two to digest the website avalanche... watch this space.