David, I think that the stated consequences of not greatly reducing carbon emissions need to be entirely repackaged from how they are presented in this article.

The problem is that the consequences are too big, too distant and too uncertain for most people to properly grasp. And with China and India going full steam ahead, most ordinary people who give this issue any thought see futility for climate change and strong negativity for the economy in heavy impositions being imposed on emitters in Australia, when we are responsible for only some 2% of world emissions.

We need to concentrate on peak oil, or ever-rising oil-fuel prices and the effects that this is likely to have on our everyday lives, in the very near future. The issue needs to be brought down to the grassroots level.

“In the end, climate is not an economic question”

Yes it is. Carbon emissions need to be seen in an economic, social and personal context. The best way in Australia to deal with it is to emphasise the effects that a continued reliance on oil will have on us all at the personal economic level in the immediate future, if we don’t act decisively now.

In other words; put climate change in the background and concentrate on peak oil / the energy crunch / the effects of rising fuel prices….and overall sustainability.

continued

Make it about the maintenance of our society, which is under great threat of suffering a massive upheaval long before any significant effects of climate change kick in, about rising prices of food and just about all other goods and services that are accompanying rising fuel prices, about unemployment and rising interest rates, about renewable energy sources on every scale from personal to national, about self-sufficiency and about the necessity of bringing the continuous human expansion paradigm to an end with immigration being brought down to net zero and the baby bonus being abolished.

This is the sort of approach that we need, to engage the community, so that the actions of politicians get fully supported….and we don’t run into great upheaval with a change of government at the next election due to lack of community support, or a constant niggling opposition from the community and/or business sector.

Let’s concentrate on peak oil and sustainability, not climate change.

Thanks David for your clear articulation of the situation. It all makes such common sense and yet common sense is unfortunately not so common!

We seem to be so rusted on to the ideals of maintaining status quo in it's specific current forms (coal plant jobs, petrol-driven cars, etc). The question for me is: How do we sell the idea of 'apparently' LETTING GO of the things that no longer serve us in order to RE-CREATE an even better world that as you indicate, does not need to be without the mod cons?

It's a tough message to sell to individuals unless they have personally undergone such transformation in their own lives.

'It is not a question of how much more we can “safely” emit, but whether we can rapidly stop emissions and produce a cooling ...'

Apparently temperatures have been falling since 1998 ... while emmissions have been increasing.

So why do we need to decrease emissions to produce a cooling. It's already occuring?

Ah yes...look at this graph
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/04/350-most-brain-dead-campaign-of-your.html

and then tell me why we should cause untold suffering and starvation (which has already started thanks to the stupid biofuels push), to deal with a non-existent problem?

CO2 has never driven our temperature. Massive uncertainties in the forcing effects of natural causes mean that computer models are useless, as any statistician should know. Bad science makes for bad policy.

Of course, even assuming the climate change scaremongers are correct, it is pointless for Australia to spend huge amounts of money, throwing even more people into poverty, whilst China and India continue to drastically ramp up their CO2 production. Even if Australia cut every last iota of CO2 production (and impossibility with living creatures), China's increases would completely replace that reduction in a couple of months. Pointless, absolutely pointless.

as ludwig says, it is an economic question. everything is, really: this society is driven by money.

i believe that effective policies can not be imposed on oz, simply because the political system doesn't allow it. parliamentary societies were developed by the aristocracy to ensure they remained on top. there was not much need for change in their view, as right people were already in charge. the notion of allowing the unwashed to direct society for the benefit of ordinary people never crossed their minds.

the aristocracy has been supplanted by the plutocracy, and their hired hands, the politician's guild. but change remains anathema: "we got rich under the present conditions, what could possibly need to be changed?"

oz will not respond effectively to changing environmental challenges, for the ordinary people who would benefit have no power to change things, the rich are protecting their status, and politicians can not see beyond the next election. too bad for oz, and ozzians. you're toast, guys.

David, on radio you used the term "tipping point" which comes exclusively from James E Hansen Ph.D. Director
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Like most Americans he has a hidden agenda. He's an raving Evangelical who with other leading Evangelicals signed this statement on January 17, 2007:
"We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative. It addresses without
discrimination the interests of all humanity as well as the value of the non-human world. It requires a new moral
awakening to a compelling demand, clearly articulated in Scripture and supported by science, that we must
steward the natural world in order to preserve for ourselves and future generations a beautiful, rich, and
healthful environment. For many of us, this is a religious obligation, rooted in our sense of gratitude for Creation
and reverence for its Creator.
We declare that every sector of our nation’s leadership—religious, scientific, business, political, and
educational—must act now to work toward the fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies
required to address these worsening problems before it is too late. There is no excuse for further delays.
Business as usual cannot continue yet one more day. We pledge to work together at every level to lead our
nation toward a responsible care for creation, and we call with one voice to our scientific and evangelical
colleagues, and to all others, to join us in these efforts."

the man's a nutcase as is his science!

"Apparently temperatures have been falling since 1998 ... while emissions have been increasing."

yet

"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990". Straight from NASA Goddard Institute.
When records are used correctly you will see that the warming trend continues. This despite the sun being at a minimum after solar cycle 23 (Cycle 24 is still waiting for the morning coffee to kick in.). As well as the Southern Oscillation Index going from slightly negative to positive 20 in the last 12 months.

the Tom Nelson blog is a laugh. "But it warmed in the past". Why yes, yes it did. Congratulations for noticing.
Gray has a point about causing suffering. Making biofuels from crops is a stupid idea; Worthy of George Bush. Any plan where you want to have your cake and eat it too just won't work.

These sort of repetitious arguments are a breeding ground for ennui.

Even if you vehemently hate the thought that humans could have any sort of effect on global temperatures; you can't deny that there is a global push for renewables. Watch out for South Korea, they're gearing up to push the Germans to the back of the pack for Solar technology.
Little old Australia will still be arguing internally about "Economically realistic solutions" so that "Working Families" can buy another plasma TV.

Brendan Nelson will not be a leader effective until he acts like one.

The thing about Peter Costello is that he knows his maths and maybe revising his policies in a way that could economically help us move forward, through "honest" and intelligent "debate" rather than pledge us backwards.

Mr Nelson, you may want to consider the geo-history of Mars, a planet that oxydised, hence the red soils, the end of a livable earthly environment. Or imagine a more complex math, economically, the conflicts of those previous tribes living on Easter Island.... why did their own extinction occur? Is this not a trace left of a food-climate-mobility dynamic pointing to a political fate of interlating forces current on the macro view, in modern geo-Australiasia?

Wake up Mr Nelson. Your leadership is full of mischief, it has no substance. Ie: As a business man is it not true, that real "planning" is 80% of a good business market plan?

While it is good to see your shift (as a former Defense Minister) to a Global perspective through Climate Change, you still appear to have no understanding of the role Australia plays in the Pacific, the political need for Australia to play a role in the Pacific, and the politics of Climate Change.

For real, I suggest you speak to Mr Tim Fisher, our former National Party - Federal Trade Minister who was able to balance the need of "good" leadership with political solutions that assist ALL by helping to educate and match the promotion of possible resource transferances, in a co-operative and productive way.

As a doctor, Mr Neson, you need to speak (in person) to the civilians of the Small Island Pacific. Tell them they are not in our National frame. Tell them we will not do anything until the leaders of China and India do something "too"!

As All Australians, we need some authentic common ground.

The problem is greater enough without the satire.

As the author David Spratt wisely says "foresight or capacity", and I advocate a political-economic process that needs both.

http://www.miacat.com/

T.Set - with all due respect your figures are incorrect. Thanks to the work of Steven McIntyre (the guy who also proved the hockey stick curve to be incorrect) the NASA figures have since been revised and most of the hottest temps are now attributed to the 1930s. Not only have the global temps been dropping since 1998 the oceans have been cooling in a similar fashion.
It is not surprising that countries like Germany and South Korea would be leading the charge in renewable energy systems as neither country has any natural coal, gas or oil - unlike Australia.

"There’s one iron law of global warming one can’t avoid: if we keep burning fossils fuels and pouring carbon emissions into the sky for long enough, eventually the climate will run away from the human capacity to control its trajectory. Then life will become unliveable for most people and most species."

This is a most extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Evidence, please?

Janama

A point well made. I was under the impression that the relevant changes due to Steven McIntyre effected "warmest on record" years for the United States only. Do you have any information about this? I am coming up with not much and my man on the ground at ANU is uncontactable.

Also an excellent point regarding existing natural resources. However Australia is abundant in solar and "hot rock". Unlike South Korea and Germany, yet they still persue these areas.

Thank you Jamama.

'... eventually the climate will run away from the human capacity to control its trajectory.'

How outlandish is that statement?

Since when have humans ever had the capacity to control the trajectory of climate?

T. Sett, Your impression is correct: the changes in the GISS record prompted by Steven McIntyre's identification of errors affected the US data but the changes to the global numbers were insignificant. There are other potential problems with the global data, but the current GISS numbers have not significantly changed since the release of the NASA Goddard Institute release that you quoted. Janama's statement that temperatures have been falling since 1998 is also incorrect - all of the generally-quoted series show little change during the past decade.

Surprisingly, the Garnaut Draft Report states on p. 1 that "The dissent took a curious turn in Australia in 2008, with much prominence being given to assertions that a warming trend had ended over the last decade.' There is nothing curious about such statements: they are substantially correct, and are consistent with the results of the study by two ANU experts that was commissioned by the Review.

What IS curious is the flat statement that "Global warming is accelerating" that opened the joint statement that emerged from the climate change conference at Manning Clark House in Canberra on 12 June. This statement was signed by many leading Australian scientists, including six of the seven experts whom James Hansen commended to the Australian Prime Minister in his letter of of 28 March. It is not supported by any of the leading measures of the trend in global temperatures.

T.Sett

I guess some people still think the contiguous US is the whole globe. It would help if these people looked at the temperature records over the border to Canada or even in Alaska - but they don't because it would dump on their argument.

Here’s some info from my man on the ground, in statistical analysis anyway.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before-and-after/

Did you know that China has overtaken Germany as the front-runners in solar energy research and application? A shame most of our solar-cell experts had to go overseas to make a living.

I continue to be amazed at the bilge that is put out on this subject.

1. Not a word on the need to constrain world population growth.

Simple arithmetic here. The more people, the less energy available for each. The population of the first world has stabilised. If that of the third world doubles over the next 30 years, we are all doomed, as the problem will then be solved by the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

2. Not a word on the benefit nuclear power could be to alleviate the problem.

3. Not a word about the Rudd goverment's obligation to keep the price of petrol low.

It is all about guilt! I don't have any guilt! The whole third world can go to hell in a handbasket for all I care! What I am concerned about is ensuring a good environment in Australia, as far as possible.

All this tosh about Australia being the biggest emitter per capita is simply a method of arousing guilt! The religions used to do the same with sex. Everyone engaged in it, and most felt guilty, giving power to the religions in remitting it. What a lot of tosh!

We have an atmosphere over Australia, which comprises a certain number of cubic kilometres of air. What matters is the pollution per cubic kilometre, and our level is about the world's lowest. That is why our air is clear.

Always remember that 89% of the world's population live in the northern hemisphere, and 96% of the pollution is generated there.

The important thing is to devise a solution that does not involve more taxation. Perhaps a good way would be to ration energy, with people being able to sell part of their ration on the open market. This could lead to the abolition of all welfare payments.

There is no iron law as David mentions. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere could be doubled with little consequence. Man cannot control the climate and it is hubris to think otherwise.

Keep up the good work, Ludwig, for though us cockies will be the first worst hit with Climate Change it seems with dwindling bush population these days we've only meagre voting strength.

Could reckon the only future one's great grandkids can now look forward to, is one with the quarry economy.

Pitstock Politics as it is also called by academics, but who are called Left Wing Loonies by the bulk of our group, because they dare to mention it.

Best Regards, BB, Buntine.

Thanks Bushbred.

By way of clarification of my posts of 8 July, I believe anthropogenic global warming is very real and needs to be dealt with with great urgency. But if we package the battle in the way that I outlined, by addressing peak oil and sustainability, we will actually be addressing climate change much more effectively than if we just target it as the first priority…..if we can spur the necessary grassroots action and support, by bringing the issue right down to the personal level, rather than some quite ethereal, uncertain and distant changes like sea level rise, reductions in rainfall, acidification of the oceans, etc.

I know that you realise this Bushbred, but others may have thought that I was an AGW sceptic.