Let's start by shifting this debate into the centre, rather than a frustrating battle between extreme points of view. Both the Libreral and Labor agree and accept the IPPC report, so it seems pointless and boring to let that (again) be the focus of discussion.

It would be good to mention that Western Europe survives very well on half the per capital carbon emissions that Australia and the US does. We are not preparing a recipie to become a impoverished nation.

The main difficulty I have with this article is couching climate change in terms like: " Australians need to expand their sense of global citizenship" and "we can no longer design climate policy out of self-interest alone". I think this gives a misleading impression. Australians are good global citizens and our real self-interest is also unmet.

Global warming is an example of self-interest and environmental conserns being in total concert. Reducing CO2 emmissions:
- improves business efficiency
- saves money, reduces waste
- improves energy security
- good for jobs
- good for innovation (an Australian strength)
- good for agriculture
- good for human health (clean air, exercise)
- good for local shops and small towns
- AND helps the environment

Even the coal industry could benefit. The cost of coal could be set higher giving greater profits. Sources of coal will last longer if exploited less rapidly.

Questions for Climate Change Modellers:

1. Do the models predict a linear response of increased global temperature against calendar year?
2. If linear is there an upper limit built in to the models or do they go on and on to the end of time?
3. On a previous post I learnt that that the temperature response to CO2 levels was logarithmic. Therefore from the shape of the log curve the incremental change at a level of 379ppm would less then at 50ppm (say). Is this factored into any of the models?
4. What is the methodology employed by the modellers to determine the proportion of atmospheric CO2 that is of anthropomorphic origin, compared to natural origin, including volcanic action and forest fires (due to lightening strikes of course) and so on?
5. Are other Green house gases, including water vapour factored, into the models?
6. What positive and/or negative feed back mechanisms are factored into the models?
7. Is there any empirical evidence outside of the models that a lowering of atmosphere CO2 level will alleviate Global Warming?
8. Based on the precautionary principle is it not reasonable to argue as follows: a) the models are uncertain; b) the deleterious effects predicted by the modellers may not be too severe, some may even be beneficial; therefore should we not be restrained in our response to the IPCC report and the doomsday predictions of Friends of the Earth

anti-green who cares about nitpicking the climate modelling numbers.

There has been more science expended on climate change than there has been expended on forestry or mining.

The truth is that the earth is warming, The CSIRO climate predictions for NSW are
- This will make many towns in inland Australia too hot to live in in 50 years. Most of western Sydney will be too hot to live in.
= agriculture will be unsustainable with a 3 degree rise in temperate

Other sources predict
- that extra CO2 in the oceans will make them more acidic eroding the coral structures in the Great Barrier Reef

We are watching the fastest degradation of the earth any one has ever seen. What sort of world do you want your great grandchildren to be living in?

The response to the 4th IPCC Report is premature. The Summary for Policymakers is primarily prepared by policymakers not scientists and in previous reports there has been a significant discrepancy between what is said in the summary and what the scientific conclusions support. Furthermore, when the IPCC chief express his hope that the report will "shock people", it makes the IPCC look more like a partisan advocacy group than objective scientists. More damning still is the expulsion of dissenting scientists from the IPCC in the past (see Christopher Landsea, Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter etc). The IPCC report proper is not gospel and neither is its contorted summary.

Spot on, MonashL.
We need to deal with Global Warming, not Gullible Warming.

Lets get one thing clear. Australians are constantly being told that their per capita emissions are 27.5 tonnes CO2 each year. But what we are not told is that our 12 million Km2 of territorial oceans absorb 5.54 tonnes of carbon or 20 tonnes of CO2 from each Km2, each year.

And we are also prevented, by corrupt Kyoto rules, from claiming credits for the 90 million tonnes of CO2 that is absorbed by our open woodlands each year. They also count tree stumps that will not lose their carbon for 50 years as an emission in the year the tree was cut and this overstates our emissions by another 20 million tonnes.

All up, that is 350 million tonnes of CO2 sequestration that the IPCC refuses to give us credit for. It works out at 17.5 tonnes for each of us and when this is deducted from our emissions we get a net amount of only 10 tonnes of CO2 each.

...and if you stop breathing altogether Perseus you might even do the environment a favour.

Did anyone see last night's program on global warming? Lots of scientific content so perhaps not everyone's cup of tea. The gist of it was we might consider planning long-term strategies fairly soon, rather than waiting on an as-yet undeveloped technology to lessen the amount of crap we emit into the air. Listening to our new silver-tongued environment minister it's clear we won't be first to put their toes in the water.

MosashL there were a couple of scientists in a Perth courthouse last week denying AIDS was a virus. As you well know, 'scientist' does not = 'science' (and what is it with Perth anyway?)

Politically, I wonder if this boils down to do we go nuclear or not ?

This seems to me the likely battleground in 2007 with the Coalition going nuclear and Labor not. Both appear to concede that energy will cost more regardless of who does what.

Labor need to win seats in Queensland which produces lots of coal, ergo Labor should favour "clean coal" solutions.

Anti Green

Your questions are very clever and spot on.
May I add.
In all the hysteria and hype we would do well to remember that the projections for temp and rainfall etc, are still the result of computer based models that could not possibly properly reflect the complexity of the earths system. Even the SPM basically says this.

Some little reminders that the models still cant get the way clouds behave right, or properly model the effect of aerosols.

Then there is the embarrassment that the Antarctic wont do what they want it to do.

The fact that the modellers can run multiple ensembles and multiple model types on multiple machines of ever increasing computational power does not increase the accuracy one jot. The old adage of garbage in and garbage out still applies, and ipso facto the bigger the machine the bigger the pile of garbage out

bennie,

I understand your point that you can find a hack scientist to dispute just about anything; however, I don't think this applies to the people I mentioned. Richard Lindzen is a professor of meteorology at MIT and was previously teaching at Harvard and the University of Chicago. Christopher Landsea is a lead scientist at the National Hurrican Centre. Paul Reiter is at the Pasteur Institute. Their qualifications aside, the most telling fact is that they were all invited to contribute to the IPCC reports at one state or another and all were either dismissed or left because their research didn't fit the IPCC agenda. Furthermore, they all complained that the summary documents (such as the one released last week) frequently misrepresent or distort the findings of the scientists.

As someone who likes to read views from all sides of an issue, I'm becoming increasingly disturbed by the rhetoric coming from those who accept the anthropogenic explanation of global warming. They frequently use emotive language and ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with them. Your comparison between global warming skeptics and HIV-AIDS skeptics is a prime example. Those who question the conventional wisdom are often bombarded with accusations that they are betraying their grandchildren and they will one day be tried for crimes against humanity. Those who level these charges then accuse their opponents of ignoring the science.

Contrary to what many say, the debate is not over and this is still a scientific issue not a moral one.

Yes, the debate will continue, regardless of what eventually does happen to the climate. I would be less unsettled if those disputing the majority concensus among scientists (and we're never going to get anything better) ceased niggling about the minutiae of a single finding by this set of scientists, or a report issued by that set of economists. I think the latest IPCC report is the most definitive we're about to get until another comes along. No-one here questions the concensus on AIDS, nor will they until a better theory comes along. Why is that?

If you saw last night's program on this you would realise the amount of research done on just this. You still might not agree with why some things are happening, but you would realise we novices are only toying at the edges. I happen to agree with them; it's simply my luck the IPCC and about 95% of the world's scientific community on 'my' side. The head of the IPCC is perfectly entitled to express his opinion and not be cast as a false prophet, since he's doing what we do - expressing an opinion. Thing is, he knows a little more than us.

It's my view much of this debate boils down to political/economic ideologies. Green is leftwing/bad for the economy/we're all gonna be unemployed/the economy is more important than the planet/science is bunkum.

Too much politics. Not enough affinity for what really sustains us.

I find it interesting that there is so much discussion in this forum about scientific objectivity, and yet anti-green apparently has no problem demonstrating his/her outright hostility towards environmentalism. Quite apart from how this undermines your argument, I am, as always, perplexed by this attitude. Environmentalists are not your enemies, we are people who want the same things as you, but without large-scale destruction of the natural world and everything sustained by it. With this definition, you would no doubt count as a greenie too - anyone who doesn’t want this would seem to have somewhat suicidal tendencies. And unlike many in politics and industry, environmentalists generally don’t have vested interests. If we advocate a course of action, it is not likely that we are profitting financially from it. Surely this should give greenies credence over those whose arguments are very clearly motivated by self-interest.
anti-green, if you have so many questions about the methodology of the IPCC reports, why not spend some time reading them, rather than diverting this forum from a real discussion about the implications of their findings.
As to the validity of those findings, and the reliability of climate models, I direct you to these graphs (from the previous IPCC report in 2001): http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.18.jpg
They demonstrate just how closely the observed temperature rise correlates with the climate models that factor in human influences. Whereas the models based on no human impact OR no natural (non-human) impact do not match observed data anywhere near as well. In other words, the models accurately predicted and verified what the scientists have been saying.
Nevertheless bigmal, you will always be able to find instances of scientific models failing. This is part of the scientific process: science learns by testing out hypotheses and continually refining models so they better predict outcomes. There will always be error in this learning process, but the level of accuracy tends to keep improving over time.

(continued) It is inconsistent to revere scientific objectivity on the one hand, and then attack the scientific process when it fails. The important thing is that the incredibly rigorous IPCC peer review process (unparalleled by any other, as far as I’m aware) means we are getting the best scientific minds brought to bear on the subject, and the science will keep being tested and improved. Peer review minimises individual bias (and, as the article points out, also produces quite conservative estimates). What more can we expect than that? If we believe in science, then we are obliged to listen to what it tells us, whether we like the answers or not.
It is also unfair (and to my mind, quite unscientific) to represent Friends of the Earth as doomsayers, when their comments are backed up by what is now absolutely mainstream science. We have had scientists from the Government-funded CSIRO telling us how serious this is, we have had a former World Bank economist declare the scale of the problem compares to both world wars and the depression combined. We even have some of Australia’s largest companies saying we need to take urgent action. You can no longer marginalise those ringing the alarm bells as hysterics or extremists. (Though this sort of emotive language is frequently used against environmentalists in just the way that MonashLibertarian claims is done in reverse.)
As David Latimer points out, we have much to gain by taking action to address climate change. We will see many other benefits. It is basically common sense. Do you doubters really dispute that?
I return to my earlier point, that whether we identify as green or anti-green, I think most of us ultimately want the same things: a safe, secure world, with good jobs and a healthy balance between the needs of humans and all other species.
So why don’t we just pull together and get on with it?

julowi

The only reason why the models correlate so well with the observed temperatures is because they are made to do so. Because the models themselves are only approxiamations of what is happening in reality, as evidenced by the many variables they cant and dont represent, then to make alarmist and politically motivated calls on the basis of something like this is irresponsible.

It is the fundamental dishonesty of this position that makes people dislike/distrust the green movement and elements of the scientifc community. The greeny/alarmists dont bother to explain the subtlety of the difference between projections and a predictions, and dont bother to elaborate upon the limitations of their work, including the fact that models help one better understand the processes involved.That is about as far as anyone could take it,thats if they were being truthful.

But the greenies and their scientific bed mates have never let facts get in the way of good beat up.

If you have any doubt why not read the editorial in todays Australian

Also your time might better served by attempting to make intelligent answers to all the points raised by anti green above.

A numbere of folk have argued that there is no scientific consensus on global warning, or alternately (in Bigmal's words) that "greenies and their scientific bed mates have never let facts get in the way of good beat up".

So I thought I would find out what Australia's preeminent scientific bodies have to say on the matter.

CSIRO: "The concept of global warming is becoming more of a reality every day." http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/observedchange.html

Australian Academy of Science: "‘This intensive review ... was undertaken by hundreds of scientists worldwide and confirms what we already know. We have now lost five years that could have been used in implementing remedial actions." http://www.science.org.au/media/2february07.htm

Bureau of Meteorology "I expect climate change to affect all Australians." Dr. Geoff Love, Director of Meteorology http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

Anybody see a pattern there?

Bigmal, perhaps you might like to point me in the direction of any serious Australian science that contradicts this stuff. Preferably not from a site run by former mining engineers.

I would be very impressed if the sceptics could point to evidence for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being globally synchronous events.

I have a specific question for julowi and billie. Do you advocate the position taken by the famous American biologist the late Stephen J Goud? That is, there is the magisteria of science and the magisteria of religion. The two magistera do not overlap.

If Global warming belongs to the magisteria of science then it is legitimate to ask questions about methodology, the confidence that should be placed on the data fed into the computer model. It is in order to request the authors of the models to explain in simple terms how they work? List the assumptions implicit in the model etc.

On the other hand if Green environmentalism is, as many claim, a quasi religion. Then greenhouse theory and global warming are to be regarded as doctrine handed down by the high priests. It is characteristic of a doctrinal belief that it is accepted on authority and anybody asking questions runs the risk of being labelled as a heretic.

This suggests a test for Stephanie Long and her colleagues at FOE. Provide a succinct critic of Climate models that a lay person can understand, and which satisfies the traditional requirements of scientific peer review. This should help as decide if we are in the field of science and/or technology or dealing with the belief system of a quasi-religion?

I feel compelled to draw your attention to a potential heresy put to air by Michael Duffy in an ABC counterpoint program of 5th Feb. The program seriously questions the findings of the Stern Review and the Global Warming doctrine as advanced by IPCC.

Billie you ask about my great grandchildren, well I can not answer that one. But I do look forward to my grand children electing to follow useful and profitable careers in the nuclear industry.

I thank bigmal for his interesting comments and support.

bennie,

There is a fallacy in your logic that Richard Lindzen has already addressed: "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"

As for your implication that global warming skeptics are "novices toying at the edges" who are just "niggling about the minutiae", I must disagree. Many of the skeptics are questioning the fundamental causal relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Centre has researched the possbility of variations of solar irradiation and its effect upon cosmic rays entering te Earth's atmosphere causing the vast majority of the observed change in temperature. NASA scientist William Feldman has observed significant temperature changes on Mars notwithstanding the fact it has no "greenhouse" or industry to contribute to one. Astrophysicist Nir Shariv is of the opinion that the intense solar activity of the last half of the 20th Century accounts for all the increase in temperature and man's emissions may have actually had a cooling effect.

One final point I would like to make is the "value" of the environment. We cannot judge any of our interactions with the environment as good or bad in a vacuum. We cut down trees to make building for shelter and clear land food. We mine for materials that enable us to have telephones, computers and cars. We "take" from the environment to substantially improve our quality of life. We must weigh this considerations against adverse effect on the environment.

Stephen Gould? A great intellect. Glad you brought this up, anti-green.

“I appreciate that we cannot win this battle to save species and environments without forging an emotional bond between ourselves and nature as well—for we will not fight to save what we do not love So let them all continue—the films, the books, the television programs, the zoos, the little half acre of ecological preserve in any community, the primary school lessons, the museum demonstrations…Let them continue and expand because we must have visceral contact in order to love. We really must make room for nature in our hearts.”
Stephen J Gould, 1993.

So what’s your gut feeling, anti-green? That all science is bunkum, or only the bits to do with the climate? If someone did manage to provide you with a “succinct critic of Climate models that a lay person can understand” would that change your view? If I fail to provide a full schematic for the Apollo 11 rocket would you claim man never landed on the moon? And if I did would it make a difference? Get real.

There’s no doubt you won’t care losing what you don’t care having. Are you committed to your environment? Is the current debate a result of genuine concern for our future, or more an opportunity to score a point over those who believe in something other than what you do? The vigour with which ‘greenies’ embrace the latest prognosis on the climate is as much out of relief that this issue has finally made the front page, as it is out of frustration that so many people have been - and still are - willing to ignore what to them is bleeding obvious.

Environmental science or science in any field has a definite edge over the ethereal. “Quasi-religion” might actually be an apt description - you can be both rational and spiritual about the environment, without having your head in the clouds.

The otherr major element of the green beat-up is the notion that we must all be making sacrifices now to solve any problems when they actually arrive. This is bollocks because the solutions will be devised and implemented by a small number of dedicated people who are actually working on practical solutions, not political outcomes.

We have already had Flannery confirming the role of sulfur emissions in off-setting CO2 warming but, being a mere observer, rather than a doer, he is unable to comprehend how quickly a breakthrough could come or how easily, and cheaply, it could be delivered.

Somewhere, right now, there is a team that is, or is likely to be looking, at a range of substances that work even better and are cheaper than sulfur for off-setting CO2 warming. Such substances could be added to coal and petroleum products so they are delivered to the atmosphere in the same way, and in the required proportions, as existing emissions.

This sort of technology, combined with clean coal and other innovations have their own time lines. They have the potential to produce the desired results with only a fraction of the cost. So any policy that forces ordinary people to make huge and disproportionate sacrifices to meet political targets is based on an ignorance of the practicalities required.

The Brown/Rudd solutions are like the 1950's computer that occupied a whole room and cost $8 million but could do less than what a $1000 PC can do today in a fraction of the time. And the kids will certainly not be impressed by inheriting the big old monster and it's debt burden.

Johnj,

Try this lot for starters

http://www.tp4.rub.de/~kls/scherer-etal-2007SSR.pdf

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/wejwldecn/249.htm

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=783

In light of all the serious doubts raised by these, and many other publications, any policy maker/politician who gives the Treasury to the Gullible Warming Fraternity will earn the eternal enmity of those who will have to both pay the bills, and suffer the ensuing economic consequences of their idiocies.

But to do so on the primary basis of projections produced by artificial computer models is laughable.

Your previous reference to the IPCC 2001 ducuments that shows graphs of how models replicate the natural and anthroprogenic inputs up to 2001 does not establish the veracity of the models at all.That is only one part better than curve fitting, which any one can do.

Projecting these on for another 100 years and betting the farm on the outcome is cuckoo land stuff. To call that science is also laughable.

As for your gibe about not wanting material out of the mining industry, that comment might be credible if your own position wasn’t solely backed by those on the public purse, and whose own vested interest was as equally dubious. Did I notice a pattern? Yes I sure did, that was one of them.

it really is quite interesting reading the 'arguments' for not doing anything about global warming from some of these sceptics. this kind of reasoning is a kin to not getting house insurance because you believe you can predict each and every risk imaginable and have decided there is none.

the true doomsayers (those who say it will cost too much to do anything) love to tell us that there is no problem, and in the same breath propose mind-numbingly stupid ideas such as the one mentioned by Perseus (it wouldnt take many models to predict dire knock-on consequences elsewhere) or talk endlessly about untested, non-existent technologies like clean coal. Ockhams razor is obviously something sceptics dont understand.

the fact that the renewables industry employs more people in Germany than the nuclear, coal and oil industries combined, or that our best scientists in these fields are forced offshore is also something never mentioned when 'Jobs' are touted as a reason we cannot do anything.

instead, there are fringe model arguments, extremist-name calling and now charges of green-religion being thrown by ever-shrinking members of the sceptics, who always fail to mention their industrial-sized conflicts of interest. because i guess THAT would indeed get in the way of a good beat up.

julatron,

Regarding your comment made previously, namely,

"the fact that the renewables industry employs more people in Germany than the nuclear, coal and oil industries combined"

Please provide your evidence in support of this claim

What will the weather be like in a month's time? Not sure. What will the global climate be like in 100 years time? Ah, that we can tell you!

Bigmal, I will ignore for the moment the fact that I actually asked for Australian science.

I had a look at your links:

1st link: "processes relevant for an influence on climate are unclear. Nonetheless, the evidence for the cosmic ray forcing is increasing as is the understanding of its physical principles.... The detailed chain of processes connecting the variable cosmic ray flux with the terrestrial climate (i.e. via cloud formation) has still to be identified."

2nd link: "In the judgement of the authors of the Dual Critique, the Stern Review mishandles data; gives too little attention to actual observation and evidence, as distinct from the results of model-based exercises; and takes no account of the failures of due disclosure, and the chronic limitations of peer reviewing" (but I can't access the full report unless I pay US$20)

3rd link: "Globally-averaged measurements of atmospheric temperatures from satellite data since 1979 show an increase of 0.04°C to 0.20°C per decade over this period, at the low end of the IPCC estimate of future warming. Globally-averaged temperature data collected at the surface show an increase from 1900 to 1940 and again from 1979 to the present."

So, the first link says cosmic ray flux may (through unknown processes) influence climate, the second critiques the Stern Report (which hasn't otherwise been raised on this thread) and the third agrees that global warming is happening (though at the lower end of IPCC estimates). I'm glad that this has convinced you that global warming is "cuckoo land stuff", but I don't really find they add much to your argument.

Are you suggesting that all research funded by the "public purse" is of no value? Or only research whose findings you disagree with?

That is what averages are for Faustino. Weather forecasting involves probability, so any forecast reflects this. For some places you may be able to make an excellent estimate of the probable annual rainfall, but be unable to accurately forecast on what days of the year you will get the rain. Not that yourself or any other sceptic should feel less compelled to repeat this or other stuff like “Hey, Mars is having global warming too!” adnauseum, simply on the basis of it being misleading drivel. Go for it!

As for CO2 not being a cause of global warming, it may not be. But would all the sceptics clutching at alternatives mind explaining why one should give credence to ideas which are either not supported by observation or untested. Some sceptics might not like the idea of CO2 being the cause of global warming, but so far it is the only valid explanation.

I cannot let David Latimers little venture into fairy land go by without comment. All the usual generalisations but nothing specific.

How does reducing CO2 improve efficiency when every alternative energy source, including nuclear, is more expensive?
How does it save money? note the above.
How does it improve energy security, and for whom, certainly not the poor who cannot afford current energy prices.
How is it good for (all) farms when some farms will get more rain and some will get less.

You guys forget that you have tried this crap on before. Remember all those eco-tourism jobs that were supposed to re-employ timber workers? They, like greenies at a bush fire, never showed up. And now the forests are nothing but cinders, we know damned well they never will show up.

The biggest joke is the way the FOE et al keep trotting out this same old transparent BS and react with mock surprise that people don't take them seriously. Get this straight folks, we will never do business with spivs and parasites, it only makes us want to scratch.

MonashL,

Is the IPCC recommending jellybeans? Their latest report is the largest single effort by the world’s community of scientists - and governments, including ours - to pin down the likely outcome of changes to our environment. No-one disputes it’s changing, and very few dispute the cause. Even our PM has recanted on this one.

Your references are no doubt knowledgeable in the field, more so than you or me. How does their research tally with the findings of other researchers? I won’t dispute here the belief that CO2 emissions are actually cooling the planet though this would be a revelation on the scale of, oh, the second coming. Such research can be evaluated in the appropriate forum. I have to say I’d love to know the outcome. Many sceptics maintain all sorts of things in the face of overwhelming evidence, no matter what’s put in front of them. Everyone is entitled to pick holes in scientific findings - by definition it’s what scientists do, and what reports are for. Many dispute the fundamental findings of the IPCC; my view is they should put their theories forward and let others duplicate them. Today there is a 90% likelihood they will ultimately resemble those of the IPCC. Are you waiting for absolute certainty? I suspect you know better.

My references to quibbling over the minutiae are in response to one post pointing out ‘Australian territorial waters’ and our woodlands are capable of sucking up such-and-such amounts of CO2. Well and good, but how does this change the overall picture? Are these figures constant or might a warming pacific ocean or deforestation lessen this capacity? As I see it this is missing the wood for the trees. Caught a plane recently? Cycled to work instead of drove your car? Forgot to turn off the aircon or subscribed to green power or written a letter to the paper complaining about how ugly windfarms are or might you have dreams of being a coalminer? It isn’t just the government that needs to come to the party

Bennie;
The problem is too much gut feeling not enough hard evidence.

Johnj wrote

"(but I can't access the full report unless I pay US$20)"

Well Johnj, you can get it for free here, and it still isn't worth the read.

http://www.katewerk.com/temp/sda_WE.pdf

Perseus is correct in saying that coal generated electricity is currently the cheapest, but that is more due to it being an advanced technology rather than a lack of potential in the alternatives. One corporation claims to be able to produce continuous electricity from a solar thermal plant for 3.5 cents US per kilowatt hour. As well, the plant produces 40 litres of desalinated water (< 30 ppm salt) per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. And all this without advances in technology.

http://www.trecers.net/downloads/GCREADER.pdf

Anti-green, contrary to billies whine“anti-green who cares about nitpicking the climate modelling numbers.”

You are right to question the validity of the modeling.

Billie when a 1/10th of one percent error will influence the world economic by billions of dollars and over the course of decades not only trillions of dollars but more importantly, the entire lifestyle of people “nit-picking” the model is not only essential it is culpably negligent not to do so.

Well said MonashLibertarian

Bennie, your contribution is lamentable, predictable but lamentable.

Fester, nice of you to introduce the occurrence of an ice ages. I would note these past events occurred presumably without significant human influence and their causation have not diminished. I guess when someone really understands and can accurately model the cycle of their occurrence we might worry less about global warming and more about cooling. In other words, we can not rely on either unproven scientific theory to predict when the next ice age will come and we should not rely on unproven scientific theory (in the form of untested models) to predict the future of global warming.

anti-green “Bennie; The problem is too much gut feeling not enough hard evidence. “

And is wholly dependent upon if one chose the not-so-fresh prawns with ones green salad, for dinner last night.

Oh and footnote - if all the alternative energy sources were so good, they would not have a problem finding investors to support their development. The problem is more, they too are trying to latch onto the public teat for subsidy.

Johnj

1.The first link was to show that there is another hypothesis that has been developing, namely the effect of CRF on the formation and the effect of clouds, which the current GCMs do not handle. This alone negates any credibility one could possibly attach to 100-year forward projections. Add in aerosols and it becomes farcical.

2.The second link was to show that there is considerable doubt raised on a whole number of fronts by very credible people.

3.Perhaps you might like to ponder the quote on p170, namely: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states in not possible.”

Funny about that, because it was actually the IPCC TAR document that said it. But it still doesn’t stop all the gullible warmers and their neophytes engaging in exaggeration and beat ups.

4.The Fraser Institute, which obviously is of some fascination to you, presents yet another critique of the IPCC claims, and which again casts doubt on the folly of making horrendously expensive public policy decisions based upon the projections derived from flawed computer models.

5.Your own quotes from the Fraser document are only for measurements of known historical temperature values. I note that you avoid venturing into the domain of the projections.

6.Of course I don’t object to publicly funded research, I was only pointing out the double standards of those like yourself, who point to vested interests being involved when in fact it is all vested interest. The CSIRO and Exxon are two sides of the same coin.

7. The difference is that those on the public purse have had access to vastly larger amounts of funds than the paltry amounts talked about as coming from the Exxons. Hence the public pursers need to keep the gravy train rolling. All those sites referenced by you are on that gravy train.

Finally dont you google the paper by Garth Paltridge to Quadrant in October 2004. You might learn something.

Bigmal, my original question was whether global warming was real (ie is the world getting warmer). I didn't ask about AGW, models, aerosols, cosmic rays etc etc. It was a simple question, to which the answer would seem to be a cautious "yes".

I find your notion that the "CSIRO and Exxon are two sides of the same coin" is completely preposterous. Exxon is a corporation, dedicated to maximising returns to shareholders by exploiting resources. CSIRO is a research organisation, which works closely with business and government. Exxon is a profit-driven oganisation, CSIRO is a science-driven organisation. You might not regard the CSIRO, Australian Academy of Science or Bureau of Meteorology as credible, but I think you'll find yourself in the minority. And what's all this bitterness about public funding of research?

As for the Fraser Institute, I don't see why I should accept a libertarian think-tank as an unbiased source of information. Likewise the Lavoisier Group/Institute for Public Affairs/HR Nicholls Society/Bennelong Society. I don't take Green/Left Weekly or FoE seriously, so why should I take any more notice of ideology-driven organisations like these? Or don't you consider libertarianism an ideology?

Regarding the "gravy train" of research grants, both my brother and brother-in-law have been research scientists, existing on grants. Both got sick of living hand-to-mouth and one now works in a pathology lab, while the other is a maths teacher. The only scientist I know who's still on the "gravy train" is the geophysicist who works for a mining company....

Johnj

Well if your family members are scientists, and now maths teacher, you shoudnt have any difficulty comprehending the absurdity of projecting an inadequate model 100 years into the future, and then lobbying all and sundry with their innumerable press releases spraying their alarmist nonesense that we are all in some sort of trouble.

The CSIRO is of this moment selling its idiot forward projections in Reports to State governments, based upon GCMs that have a spatial resolution of 400kms. Tell me that they are not being both political and self serving... as well as incompetent.

And spare me any crap about scientists and scientific organisations being altruistic who only want to do their job. If only that was even remotely true.

David Hendersons comment on this forum about "unwarranted trust" with the IPCC is also indicative, and pertinent. Follow that up with a read of Garth Paltridges paper referred to previously and you might lose that rose coloured tint from your eyes

I dont have a problem with good information coming from anywhere, and right wing think tanks provide a foil to the other side of the vested interest coin. I certainly do have a problem with people who only point to the vested interests of the EXXONs etc, and are not aware of the same vested interest in the publicly funded sphere.

Not to recognise this is just naive.

Why has Graham Y editted my post of the 9th of January removing the part where I said that CSIRO predicts that inland NSW will see a doubling in the number of days where temperatures are greater than 35 degrees by 2030?

bennie,

I repeated Lindzen's jelly bean analogy in response to your assertion that we must accept the IPCC until something better comes along. If the current explanation is unsatisfactory, you don't accept because you don't have a satisfactory one. It's better to say we don't know. You're assertion that there is 90% likelihood the IPCC report is correct is nonsense. You've confused their self-appraisal for actual probability.

My skepticism about anthropogenic global warming arises from the sketpics making far mor convincing arguments than the believers. Although in the minority, many skeptics provide compelling arguments that CO2 ommissions couldn't be the cause of the warming and solar irradiation or solar spots and cosmic rays provide a better explanation. Conversely, I haven't read anything written by a climate change believer that adaquately explains away solar irradition or solar spots whilst making a strong case for anthropogenic warming. I don't just count the scientists and make a decision based on that; I read what they have to say and think about it critically.

PART 1:

This diatribe is so full of scientific inaccuracies it would be funny if it were not so serious!

"The IPCC continue to assess the rate of warming ... greater than at any period in the past 10,000yrs ... rate between 1995 to 2005 faster than any period in previous 200yrs."

WRONG! The rate was greater between 1910 and 1930! But must be serious stuff: forget the last 3 BILLION years! But of course you have to deal with the Mediaeval warm period don't we! Bugger when the facts get in the way of a good FUD isn't it!!

"One of the major advances of 4AR from the previous Third Assessment Report (TAR) (published in 2001) is the certainty of future climate projections."

This is utter rubbish! For a start nobody except a few politicians have seen the 4AR! What has been seen is the SUMMARY politicians report. Even the biased summary report has slashed every prediction by 1/3 from previous report.

"Sea level rise and anthropogenic warming is projected to continue for centuries.</i>

The predicted sea level rises is less than 3 mm/year. The last time the seas rose about 120m in 10,000 years or about 12 mm per year all by natural causes! People like Stephanie Long who want to cause fear and panic in the population are far more of a menace to society than any sea level rise so far predicted by the IPCC.

"Current ... emissions estimated to be 90 per cent likely to result in greater climatic change this century ..... rise in sea level ...tropical drought ... potential increased intensity of extreme weather events is dangerous."

This statement is the reason why the senior scientist related to weather prediction refused to sign his name to the IPCC report and resigned in protest: "I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”

cont'd

cont'd from above

"These unavoidable climate changes are a consequence of positive feedback in the carbon cycle and lag time of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere."

Stephanie do you understand the first thing about intego/differential equations or the technology behind the GCM models which are used to predict climate?

"The gross imbalance in consumption levels and pollution levels across the world ..... means Australians need to expand their sense of global citizenship."

And FINALLY we have the real agenda of climate change! It is not about the climate, it's about implementing social and political change: climate change is the ultimate tool of the socialist revolution!

jon

BigMal:
"the fact that the renewables industry employs more people in Germany than the nuclear, coal and oil industries combined

Please provide your evidence in support of this claim"

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/london/03560.pdf
page 4.
its not the only document that points this fact out.

your reference to the frazer institute would be laughable if there werent so many gullible people who dont know who the frazer institute is, what it stands for and who's backing it.

Col Rouge:
"Oh and footnote - if all the alternative energy sources were so good, they would not have a problem finding investors to support their development. The problem is more, they too are trying to latch onto the public teat for subsidy."

well lets establish a level playing field and start scrapping the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for the australian coal industry or provide similar levels of boosting to the australian renewables sector. watch the costs plummet with uptake to the point of being more competitive. a federal government hostile to renewable energy is going to have a lot to say about the investment environment. nuclear on the other hand will never be cost competitive without billions in government bonds and subsidies, so why is it being discussed as the energy cure-all?

Response to Perseus who asks:

"How does reducing CO2 improve efficiency when every alternative energy source, including nuclear, is more expensive?"
"How does it save money?"
"How does it improve energy security, and for whom, certainly not the poor who cannot afford current energy prices."
"How is it good for (all) farms when some farms will get more rain and some will get less."

The answers are: the free-market; the free-market; the free-market; the free-market.

Economics is about the most efficient allocation of resources. An efficient marketplace considers the true cost of activity. Greenhouse gas emissions are free, even though they come at a price. Economists call this an externality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality).

Coal is priced based upon the cost of extraction and transport, but not in terms of its waste. This is economically inefficient. When John Howard says he is protecting coalminers, it suggests a type of socialism, where government favours industries above market decisions.

Energy intensive processes are at an advantage to labour intensive processes. For example it often not worth it for a business to look for energy wastage. The wage costs in maintaining such a program may not be recovered by the problems resolved. It’s similar with water, so agriculure is also paying.

Solar is entirely asset driven. The cost of solar is the purification of silicon. Once they are in place, solar assets produce power during daytime for decades. But silicon can be recycled repeatedly. Hence the long-term cost of solar must be less than coal. I use “long-term” the same as we say climate change is a “long-term” problem.

Perseus worries about the price of energy for the poor. A fair point. The poor are taxed for working, taxed for consumption. Social security is set by the government. How the poor are affected entirely depends upon how the government adjusts these levers. Taxes provide a double disadvantage to reducing poverty.

Unlike many environmental sceptics and unlike many environmentalists, I think the free market provides a balanced answer to climate change. I also think government should not tax employment to a greater extent than it taxes externalities.

I expect that different editors have different takes on Global Warming/Climate Change and the IPCC's data.
Here is an extract from one editorial: " The IPCC's efforts are creating a bedrock of scientific certainty, but don't expect this to silence the sceptics. With one or two exceptions, they are masters of spin rather than science. They have no alternative narrative for the state of the climate, and merely hop from one perceived uncertainty to the next --." "Whatever the future direction of the IPCC, we now know enough to make climate change the challenge of the 21st century. One of the most corrosive contributions of climate sceptics has been to promote any uncertainty as an an excuse for inaction. In truth, the remaining uncertainties should be making us redouble our efforts to mitigate climate change. It's a fair bet that much of what we do not yet know for sure will turn out to be scarier than most of us like to imagine."
That was from the weekly news magazine (10 Feb 2007 edition) from Reed Business Information magazine's "New Scientist". Quite possibly what this editor edits might be different from that of OLO's.

Every industry creates pollution.So,pollution check should have to be done in each industry under compulsion by law.Accounting mast show how much money has been spent in control of pollution out of total expenditure.Impact of such accounting by profit thereby.If loss show in accounting,viability should have to be considered by calculation of social loss and profit.Greenhouse gas emission can not be tolerated if it crosses to a limit even taken all measures of safety indicative for non-viability of such industry.Research should have to be encouraged for extraction of greenhouse gases from atmosphere.

Julatron's link to the german solar industry is informative but not for the reasons he thinks. The costings on the household solar systems readily explain why there might be some jobs involved but don't, for a moment, think it has anything to do with David Latimers free market.

These household solar systems get a guaranteed price of 53 Eurocents per Kwt hour which, at current exchange rates of 0.60Euro to A1$, is 83 cents/Kwt compared to 8.3 cents/Kwt for off-peak on my last bill. That is ten times the price of coal powered electricity.

I use 1900Kwt each quarter which would put my bill at $1577 or $6300 each year. And you people have the gall to talk about subsidised coal and free markets delivering lower prices. The German solar industry is nothing more than a sexier form of subsidised welfare. They just use silicon cows.

Perseus

Julatrons link is indeed interesting because it leads to others that show that the renewables employment figures vis a vis coal are distorted by the fact that Germany now imports most of its coal from third party countries.

Julatrons silly comments about the Fraser Institute are put in context by David Latimers view on free markets,which many would share.

But back to main theme, I notice that no one has answered anti greens highly relevant questions earlier in the piece

I find it laughable when people talk about subsidies to the renewables industry, and compare the cost of renewables to coal. If subsidies really concern you, check out this short paper summarising the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, estimated at $6.5 BILLION each year: http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/Subsidies.pdf
The day renewables see anything like this sort of investment and support from the Government, don't be surprised to see pigs taking to the skies - and the cost of renewables plummeting. Wind power is already competitive with coal in progressive countries that have actively supported its development.
But to think that supporting growth in renewables means a lifelong relationship to the purse strings (such as the fossil fuels enjoy), is mistaken. The German solar feed-in rebate that you refer to is reduced by 5% each year – so that as costs decrease with R&D, the market will eventually become self-sufficient. And contrary to Perseus’ alarmist claims, it has increased power costs to householders by an insignificant amount: 12 euros per household in 2003. (See http://www.epia.org/documents/SG3.pdf) It is very much a tool of market forces, and has been staggeringly successful. Germany, with a solar resource only half as good as Australia’s, is leading the world in installation of solar energy systems. What a shame our Government refuses to take up the opportunities for similar growth in such a fast-growing export industry.
Again to Perseus, who apparently can’t imagine how reducing electricity usage might save money, I direct you to this report http://theclimategroup.org/assets/Carbon_Down_Profit_Up.pdf which documents the hundreds of millions of dollars being saved by some of the world’s largest corporations, cities, regions and countries, as a direct result of substantial emissions reductions.
You sceptics are not just up against greenies and the global community of top scientists. You are completely out of the loop on what is becoming standard good business practice in leading corporations and governments worldwide.
As I pointed out before, we have nothing to fear from making these changes and so much gain: new industries, new jobs, export growth, increased profits.
And yes, this message was brought to you by a greenie.

Julowi, which part of "83 cents/Kwt" do you not understand? You keep showing links to what are essentially marketing brochures for the solar industry. Have you noticed that your source material on employment numbers only deals in round 10,000's, not 9,855 or some other number that would indicate that an actual tally has taken place. This is the best indicator of all that the writer simply plucked numbers out of his backside.

But it looks plausible to the gullible, and that is all propaganda ever seeks to achieve. And that is why we call it Gullible Warming.

I am providing links to publications which document what has actually happened (as oppposed to your personal speculations and miscalculations). The figures can all be independently verified, but given your determination to dismiss any evidence that challenges your view, bothering to do so would be a waste of time.
While sceptics absorb themselves in endless attempts to undermine the arguments that are leading to real change, the rest of the world is facing up to the realities of climate change and the opportunities it brings. What are you offering in return?

It would be interesting to know how Perseus can justify such a mind blowingly paradoxical (hypocritical?) love of free markets and in the same paragraph have a problem with a proposed level playing field between solar and coal industries. Such is the garbage spouted by the conservative, IPA types who can somehow manage to convince themselves that a unregulated market will somehow reduce the over-consumption, waste and inefficiency that is at the root of much of these problems.
The non-existent technological fix is constantly worshipped by the right as a solution to all of our problems, yet the most technologically equipped/advanced countries are actually the most wasteful, resource hungry CO2 emitters of all.

Thankfully, for all the obfuscation and flawed arguments for doing nothing coming out of the right, the public at large can see through the empty rhetoric, bamboozling junk-science and vested interests. The right constantly fail to to provide a non-hysterical, plausible 'hidden agenda' or motive that 'greenies' have behind their concern for seeing emissions reduced. Pathetic insults akin to 'putting us back in caves' just shows how marginalised and out-of-touch they are.

Julowi, bennie etc - save your breath, reason and logic dont work on these guys.

Jon “And FINALLY we have the real agenda of climate change! It is not about the climate, it's about implementing social and political change: climate change is the ultimate tool of the socialist revolution!”

I suspect you are right. Having failed on the economic argument the “soft underbelly” of society is the science of environment, and modeling of same, with models which lack the reliability which comes from honing accuracy over time.
It started with the green movement and has polluted the broader thinking to now infect the “universalists”.

Julatron “well lets establish a level playing field and start scrapping the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for the australian coal industry”

I would agree, scrap all subsidies and leave consumers to make up their own mind how they would spend what is presently stolen in unjustified taxes. Not only the coal industry but public transport too.

I'd like to put this very important and useful discussion about prices in context.

1. Many parts of the world pay a lot more for their electricity than someone in an Australian capital city. Norkfolk island has electricity prices of 0.44 AUD/kWh based upon diesel. There are markets for solar power as diesel fuel increases in price.

2. Historical prices are interesting. I found a article on the US electricty industry (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/chg_stru_update/appa.html). It says that in nominal terms (unadjusted for inflation) the price for electicity in the US was as follows:
- 1882 24c/kWh (the very start of utility companies)
- 1900 17c/kWh
- 1930 5.6 c/kWh
- 1942 3.73 c/kWh

Adjusting for inflation the decreases would be far more impressive.

3. The price for electricity is not constant and this is hidden from domestic and small commercial accounts. In Australia, medium sized commerical PEAK retail costs are 20c/kWh. The average wholesale* price of power is 3 to 4c/kWh, but during peak times it regularly gets above 12c/kWh. When serious problems occur with the grid, the price goes up to $10/kWh. These are absorbed by the electricty retailers. (http://www.nemmco.com.au)

(*by wholesale, I mean the market price of generation at the power station. Transmission and admin is a larger percentage of the retail price in most cases.)

From the DRUDGE REPORT:

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later

“Ultimate tool of the socialist revolution”? Is this getting out of hand or what?

Julatron I’m taking a holiday from this thread, last refuge for a fading minority of barely-aware uber-sceptics and leftie-baiters. Their complaining about dealing with today’s realities is a bit like complaining about the weather. Let ‘em.