Julien
The globe is not warming.

Though carbon emissions have increased, the globe has not warmed since 1998. The government-funded computer modelling on which the entire hysteria is based can't even predict the present, let alone 100 years into the future.

Guessing for entire continents the outcome for micro-climate in every kilometre, and the distribution and abundance of species, including the 99 percent of species that are microscopic, would be laughable if the purpose – total government control of any aspect of human life that might affect ‘the environment’, ie everything - were not so evil.

Furthermore, it’s all very well to talk of reducing productive activity but you conveniently ignore the fact that such production is now keeping large numbers of people alive. When confronted with the fact that the global warming alarmists are advocating measures to reduce activities that keep people alive, polite speak for killing people on the basis of a Grand Plan (sound familiar?), all they have to answer is the pious hope that the deficit in energy will be made up by renewable resources.

But firstly, these renewables don’t actually exist in anything like the scale that is necessary to stop the reduction in the use of fuels from resulting in major economic destruction with consequential loss of life.

And secondly, the reason they don’t exist is because it costs much more to produce a given unit of energy by these alternative methods than by fuels. You assume that we can get the necessary inputs from a moonbeam, by government simply passing a law. In fact, the greater costs of the alternatives you are advocating is just another way of saying that they use *more* natural resources than current energy options.

In other words, the proposals that the alarmists are putting forward actually make the situation worse *when considered from their own standpoint * and it is only their profound economic ignorance that blinds them to this fact.

What concerns me most about the new puritan fascists is that they don’t even seem to understand the issues, which are fully thirteen layers deep in bulsliht.

Senator Steve Fielding is now doubting the popular hysterical 'warming' caused by humans theory after a trip to the U.S.

Why had had to go there to come to the conclusion that we are being lied to and mislead is anyone's guess,but the useless and costly legislation proposed by the Government might be in for a rocky road in the Senate.

I have six grand children. I read extensively on this subject. I believe that if we continue on our present track to maintain the economy, there won't be any economy at all for them!

Great piece Julien. It is clear that immediate action on climate change is required on all fronts, at all levels of society, and a fundamentally flawed market instrument like the current CPRS is only going to hinder any such efforts. The actions laid out in Plan B are no-brainers, and critical elements to achieving a low-carbon, truly sustainable future - emissions trading or no. So well done to the groups involved in putting Plan B forward!

Wing Ah Ling - perhaps consider some basic research before using the pseudo-statistics of the climate sceptics, whose profound (or simply contrived) environmental and scientific ignorance blinds them to the realities of climate change:

"1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed."

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

The two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses, the NASA GISS and the CRU direct surface temperature analyses, amongst other indicators, unequivocally indicate that the earth is most definitely warming.

thanks julien.
two points in response to wingahling :

It's suggested that "such production is now keeping large numbers of people alive" but I really feel that it's our planet that's keeping us alive : rampant overconsumption of the earth's resources is now keeping small numbers of people unnaturally wealthy.

I think it's wrong to suggest that clean energy advocates 'speak for killing people on the basis of a Grand Plan' : did you notice the recent bushfires, not to mention the heatwave that preceeded, in Victoria? Have you heard of our island neighbours whose homes are being lost to rising sea levels? I want to see a rapid adoption of the renewable energy alternatives as an important step to reducing the deadly impacts of global climate change.

I don't accept the claim that 'renewables don’t actually exist in anything like the scale that is necessary'. I see renewable energy all around me : most rooftops in my city have solar hot water; our tip produces grid power from a small methane plant for biomass waste; a number of nearby communities are powered by arrays of sun-tracking solar dishes with battery storage. And I've read about the world's largest solar concentrator plant being built to provide baseload power in Mildura; and the world's largest solar thermal plant being built to provide continuous power in Whyalla, based on an ammonia storage system.

These renewable energy alternatives are not only inevitable; they're here, they're working, and in a carbon constrained economy, they're not merely viable, but increasingly competitive. Fuel costs are zero, and the potential for Australia to grow jobs and an export industry on the back of home grown technologies, and our abundance of renewable resources, is too good to ignore.

Justin
Then in that case, there will be no need for any compulsion in order to force everyone else to comply with your opinions, will there?

By the way, have you stopped your own unnaturally wealthy overconsumption?

Poddy
Then why don't you stop consuming at over the level that you consider sustainable? What are you doing using fossil fuels to type your opinions on the internet?

Tee
The argument you cite merely shows that professional climatologists themselves dispute the statistical significance of the distinction between weather and climate.

Let us control for government-funded bodies that have an interest in the climate panic industry, and see what a different landscape of opinion emerges!

But in any event statistics, and any other positive science, do not supply value judgments, remember? Even if all you are contending for were conceded, which it's not, you still haven't got to square one in justifying *any* kind of policy action whatsoever. And you don't even seem to understand that.

The nations of the western world are lurching towards fascism and a repeat of the ideology of total government control of every aspect of human freedom that failed so miserably in the twentieth century.

Yet we have the cheerleading neo-fascists of the environmental movement urging the same destructive delusion of central planning of everything, based on exactly the same the same errors and fallacies. Truly socialism is the religion of self-deification. "Everything would be fine" they seem to say "if only I had the power to decide what everyone should be forced to do. Such a pity everyone else isn't as clever, and as good, as I am."

Why not simply have opt-in measures? That way those who believe we face a catastrophe justifying force, could voluntarily cut down on their own over-consumption, and those who didn't, would prove thereby that they don't agree. What's wrong with that as a policy position?

Admit it. This is not about climate. It's about your desire for a power-trip based on fake moral superiority and a belief in violence and threats as the basis of social co-operation.

If you think global warming stopped in 1998 have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&feature=channel

Sadly, since the tipping point evidenced by the dramatic melting of the Arctic summer ice in 2007 (50-100 years ahead of IPCC worst case scenarios), the scientific debate has moved on from "is it happening?" to "is it already to late to avoid a rise of five degrees C, mass extinctions, climate wars and deaths of a large proportion of humankind?" and "if we overshoot and then reduce emissions to around zero will the the earth cool, or will the results of over shooting be irreversible?".

We have no choice but to do everything we can to reach zero emissions as fast as we can.

Not only is the technology available, it is rapidly being commercialised at low cost overseas. 'Quarry Vision' (Guy Pearce) blinds the 'Labourils' to the stupidity of continuing to export our green economy innovations off shore. Who will be buying our coal when low cost high efficiency paint on solar panels are available in a year or two, solar hot water systems costing $200 can be purchased from China and low cost air powered cars from India?

PS Anyone with questions about the science - particularly any who have difficulty with following the idea of a trend line - should check with http://www.realclimate.org/ where climate scientists effortlessly demolish the lies of the fossil fuel funded sceptics.

What concerns me most about disciples of 'Austrian' economics is that they don’t even seem to understand the basic science concerning climate change, and are fully thirteen layers deep in bulsliht.

Especially when climate scientists are warning that we only have a few years in which to make major cuts in emissions.

Hmmmm something not quite right here, greenpeace guy being clearly one sided, suspect spin and misdirection .. oh, there it is ..

Especially when SOME climate scientists are warning that we MIGHT only have a few years in which to make major cuts in emissions.

fixed ..

Yes, 8 years since anything that could even be spun as warming.

Yes, The arctic ice is back to the average since satallites gave us a true picture of what was there, & the bull S team who went boating to "prove" the lack of ice, had to be rescued, because of excessive cold.

The entire con is comming apart & its promoters are spweing forth even more radical bull to try to cover the failure

Greenpeace are liars without shame, who have already demonstrated that they are quite content to let people in developing countries starve, to satisfy their misanthropic deep-green agenda.

Your position is untenable , you need to somehow become more rational .
Why don't you concentrate on one issue at a time .

You and I both know that the capacity of Car , Ute and Truck engines need to be limited back to basic requirements .
What is a Prime Mover doing with a 700 HP engine ? Answer providing the driver with a sports car experience , get rid of the city 4WD's by taxing tyres and increasing Sales Tax . Modified Cars cop the Car Club rego ( not sure what happens ? I think so many outings per year Club events only) ; goodbye lunatics . Limit acceleration and top speed by ignition drop out system .
and RPM limited to 7000 all cars turbocharged and aftercooled. Make passing on Freeways illegal.
Insert whatever else that will reduce energy consumption .
Limit weight of all vehicles to encourage intelligence in design reward with Rego discounts eg; if IQ design can reduce fuel consumption by 50% current Reg. fees pay for 18 months .
Treble freeway fees peak hour discount for full cars etc etc etc.

What car with 1100 cc engine and a gear ratio of 26 MPH per 1000 RPM can beat 3 and 4 liter cars including V8's around Au ?

Clownfish Hsbeen and Wing Ah Ling, please don't post any more of your untruths about declining global temperatures until you have watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&feature=channel.

I'm not sure if you have been fooled or whether you are attempting to fool others. Either way this brief outline of the science will soon set you straight.

Strange thing is that the typical sceptic on these sites does not respond to anything anyone else says to undermine their arguements. Do they just go from site to site pasting in random insults? I'll be amazed if i get a sensible reply from any of you. It would be vaguely amusing if the issue were not so serious.

I don't know how your consciences allow you to do what you do. Do you ever stop to think about what you are doing? What if we were too late to avoid the deaths of millions of people and mass extinctions? And you had contributed to the delay??

JaneM "I don't know how your consciences allow you to do what you do."

Not everyone lives with your guilt.

"I'm not sure if you have been fooled or whether you are attempting to fool others. Either way this brief outline of the science will soon set you straight."

YouTube videos are not science, they are entertainment.

"..where climate scientists effortlessly demolish the lies of the fossil fuel funded sceptics."

Not all sceptics are funded by fossil fuel industry. Do you struggle to believe that anyone can have a contrary view to yourself without it being a conspiracy? There is a multitude of sites with differing views, you've chosen that one as beholding the "truth!", mind you don't become religious with your adherence to one line of thought.

JaneM, most sceptics are normal people from the community who have seen other predictions of disaster pass away without comment. In a community are a range of views, that's a democracy and free society, you can't force everyone to think the way you do. Conciliation rather than coercion may be the way to approach and convince people, battering them just p*sses them off.

Hi Julien,

great peace, I mean piece.

Whilst I agree that the CPRS should not pass as it is, I'd like to add your reasons.

The CPRS sets a target, for a minimum amount of CO2 reduction, yet it's main flaw is that IT SETS A FLOOR, below which emmisions can't fall.

Regardless of the rest of the details, the fact is, IF THE TARGET WAS ADEQUATE, THE SCHEME WOULD WORK, and be a great step forward, a price on carbon!

Thanks for the great article, the skeptics are welcome to their opinion, and we are welcome to cease to reply to a conversation that ended some time ago.

However, 2 points -

1.

Population X Affluence X Technology = Impact

We can't talk about climate change, without listing consumption and population growth as the major factors.

We can have all the wind turbines we like, but the planet cannot support the lifestyle of the west, neither for the current west, or for the rest.

Any serious solution must suggest we drastically cut our consumption and limit our global population growth.

2. Peak Oil

Solve climate change? If we are to do it with technology, then we don't have long. Oil Production has peaked. Any techno-fix without plastic and oil in its production is almost impossible. We must face these two problems simultaneously (Climate Change and Peak Oil) as the planet will not survive our withdrawl from oil, without thorough prior planning. Cheap, abundant energy is a thing of the past, we must use our remaining oil, to build the renewable energy infrastructure for tomorrow, today.

So whilst I much enjoyed your piece, it missed the opportunity to intertwine the solution to peak oil into it, and failed to address the two main contributing causes of climate change.

PLAN C - (third time lucky)

Non-violence will not solve this crisis, as the Dalai Lama says, 'non-violence is not enough.'

We must learn to understand one another, to act, not to please the 'little me' that is our ego, but the 'big me' that is our collective global consciousness.

Cheers

Hey Wing-aling,

Fascism hey? It's easy to call names, but you're just sounding hysterical. Were western nations fascist when they legislated against using lead in petrol, or asbestos, or ozone destroying CFC’s? What about when they declare no developers will bulldoze a new National Park? Do we still have a functioning democracy after these “fascist” interventions in the “holy of holies”, the marketplace? Dear oh dear, how ever did the market — indeed, our very democracy — survive these outrages? (Oh, that’s right, we HAVE governments to make these laws for the public good... I nearly forgot this fact in the face of your impeccable logic. ;-)

The reality is that global warming science is CLEAR IN THE PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE of those who MATTER in this field. I don't get my car serviced by my dentist, and I don't get my legal advice from my baker. You might choose to, but I prefer to go by the professionals in their respective fields. So if you want to know about climate science, don't bother with geologist climate wannabe's like Plimer. Read the real climatologists!

And now, here's my usual piece for sceptics.

As it is, you've said nothing to disprove the REAL physics behind global warming. Be careful, because if you DO disprove the physics behind global warming, you might just "disprove" our microwave ovens and the internet as well (and then they'll disappear in a puff of logic). You'd basically have to disprove everything we know about Spectrometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrometer
Or try this:
Co2 = "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

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

The Radiative Forcing Equation counts how much extra energy there is in the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

The rest is counting other forcings in the climate, and that’s it!