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.