What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. CO2 is and will remain a trace gas in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere generated by mankind is a tiny percentage of the natural CO2, which in turn is driven by solar global temperature variations. The Emperors preparing to gather in Copenhagen can primp, posture and pontificate forever, but they won't change the climate one iota. The Emperors have no clothes, not a shred of logic or reason, but they know how to play a crowd. However they can, if they really try, change the economic climate to destroy our carbon-based society. The fad for 'renewables' depends on reliable and cheap base-load power. Looks good on the surface, but behind every windmill and photovoltaic cell is a network of conventional coal-fired power and petroleum and gas transportation fuels. Do the sums. Read the work of Prof Ian Plimer, Prof Bob Carter and others who really know what they are talking about. Reflect on the wisdom of King Canute who acknowledged he could NOT turn the tide, unlike our modern day pretenders who claim they can limit climate change by taxing and regulating a tiny little component of an atmosphere where the principal 'greenhouse gas' is water vapour.

Hooray for Kellie.

I quite like these two references which are very much about standing up for the planet and the non-human inhabitants of this mostly non-human planet too. And of course the health and well-being of humankind too (because in our current state we ARE destroying both the planet and ourselves)

Indeed the ZOO itself was purposely created as an educational tool to re-educate humankind altogether in its attitude to the "environment".

1. http://www.cameland.blogspot.com

2. http://www.dabase.org/embrace.htm

At heart we are all environmentalists.

Rich people most often choose to live in places/houses that are surrounded by bountiful beautiful gardens---and as far away as possible from industrial areas and slums and the western suburbs

The images of Paradise that we have inherited from our Traditions are all about bountiful green gardens.

Plus when many people go on holidays they go to the country or the seaside to refresh their being altogether.

How many tourist resorts are situated in the middle of oil refineries and mega-industrial sites, or bombed out cities, or the decaying ruins of Detroit.

excellent article, kellie - thank you. you are asking rudd and turnbull exactly the right public-interest questions - questions we all need to ask, and to both of them.

and john mcrobert - just another grumpy old man denialist, trotting out more tiresomely familiar sceptic's handbook dogmas and slogans. I wonder, do such people think that by flooding opinion websites with the same old stuff, they are convincing anybody except themselves?

i think of them sitting at their computers every morning, poised to get the first published response in to every serious-minded e-published essay on climate change. And it is always the same kind of response, the same tired old factoids ...

when will these pseudo-scientists offer any arguments of sufficient merit to be published in peer-reviewed journals like 'Nature' or 'Science''? Never - their arguments on examination just blow away, like the millions of tons of red dust topsoil that just blew out of central australia. people can see this propaganda for what it is.

Being a non-expert on the science of climate change, I put my faith in the experts rather than give free reign to my prejudices. Though not unequivocal, there seems to be overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change causes and projections. What I do feel a little more confident discussing is human prejudice, which is ultimately self-serving; which is also why the human race is such an irresponsible scourge on planet Earth.
In my opinion the only thing to do is take action over global warming out of the democratic equation. No decent mandate is ever going to be delivered by a pig-ignorant electorate that would rather go into denial than contemplate a drop in their disparate and glutinous living standards.
Climate change policy should be decided by a convention of nations such as the UN; the issue is just too politically damaging for any nation to act decisively and ethically on its own. The matter must engender an international convention that shares the expense and risk of whatever global response is mounted. If ever there was a basket case for international diplomacy, this is it. Governments have to be protected from the political backlash of acting correctly on their own. Having done that, the necessary exigencies, rationing etc., can be put in place in all countries signatory to the cause. Rogue states could be dealt with via sanctions, trade embargoes etc.
If the experts are right, we are facing a global emergency that, as in times of war, could build community spirit and a common sense of purpose.
Global warming (even if it ends up a furphy) presents an opportunity for us to clean up our individual and collective act and forestall Gaia’s terrible wrath. Even better, we might eventually deserve a benign dominance (tyranny hitherto) over the bio-sphere.
Way too big an issue for our flatulent electorates!

Clearly human beings are a plague, governments represent super-human wisdom, people have no right to a say on whether they should be forced to obey, and everyone who disagrees with the climate fascists should be shot, so as to harmonise the human with the non-human aspects of "the environment".

Just one question though: what are Kellie, Squeers and tonykevin doing using electricity? How can you possibly square that with your the values you are trying to force on everyone else? I guess your use of fossil fuels is superior and privileged.

Rudd and Turnbull have no credability when it comes to serious energy reform.

Their parties' actions and policies on a Pollution Reduction scheme obscenely support massive free permits to gross polluters. Their high risk plans for pie in the sky, unproven carbon capture and storage tell the world a great deal about our addiction to coal.

Utterances on climate change from Rudd, Turnbull and the Nationals show the world that ugly Australians lead this country for elites who have no empathy with the billions of people and other life forms caught up in this unfolding climate catastrophe.

Ho Hum writes

'Meanwhile Runner regularly makes postings that have no relevance whatsoever to the topic on hand.'

What on earth has that got to so with this article Ho Hum?

Kellie:

Thank you for article.

Now I'm feeling really concerned. If you're a lawyer, the legal profession needs a complete overhaul.

Please provide one piece of hard scientific evidence showing any link between human production of Carbon Dioxide and Earth's modest global warming that ended around 1998. Just one.

The IPCC estimates annual human production of CO2 at 23 billion tonnes, less than 3% of Nature’s estimated 770 billion tonnes. Annually, Nature produces 33 times more than do humans. (IPCC)

More telling, Nature completely controls the ongoing exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and Earth's near surface rocks, soil, biomass and oceans. These contain 100,000 times the carbon contained in the atmosphere. Nature determines atmospheric CO2 levels.

In every 2,600 molecules of air, just one is CO2. Nature is not overloading on her trace gas.

Professor Endersbee explains CO2 is absorbed into and released from oceans depending on ocean temperature. This explains recent rises in atmospheric CO2 levels. Confirmed by ice cores, and contrary to IPCC, temperature drives atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is not toxic. It’s essential to complex life.

Despite some western governments spending around 50 billion dollars searching over almost 20 years, the IPCC has no proof humans caused global warming. None.

Kellie - just one piece of evidence linking human activity with global warming, please.

Malcolm

Malcolm

NASA explains the impact of human activity on climate far more succinctly than I.

However, I suspect you don't really want evidence, if you did you could've sourced it for yourself by now.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Ho Hum - I share your concerns about the latitude some posters are given compared to others.

Christ on a rubber crutch, Squeers, you're serious, aren't you?

What other "emergency" measures do you think might be necessary? How about an "Un-Ecological Activities Committee"? Perhaps a "Congregation for the Defence of Gaia"?

I daresay whatever body oversees your "international convention" and rationing regime will be given the powers to audit citizens' "ecological footprint"; no doubt those reprobates abusing Mother Gaia will need to be sent for "re-education". One imagines the "Greenlag Archipelago" that will spring up in the wake of your fond vision.

Maybe just cut to the chase and make all "unternachhaltigen" wear green stars, so that the righteous "ubergrunen" will know their enemies on sight.

"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth." - C. S. Lewis

Thanks, Clownfish, for the best laugh I’ve had in ages. One does strive to be noticed (not as easy as you might think!).
In truth I deplore the necessity, but the alternative is leaving these matters of some considerable moment to the bellicose beligerations of the bloated bourgeoisie. When it comes to matters of real import, not simply the bottom line, I don’t trust democracy, which only tends to turn for a profit—and turn we must.
Be honest, how many of your (assumed) brethren are eying the matter at all objectively (I realise that moral perspectives are completely beyond their ken)?
My contention is that the electorate is dominated by popular (read ignorant) opinion, which blithely overrides evidence or logic, however compelling.
And yet you are gobsmacked when someone has the effrontery to treat the infantile baiting jargon about fascism with the contempt it deserves.
Look at the electoral backlash Bligh must contend with over abolishing QLD’s fuel subsidy. Why did she take this “necessary” measure three years out from the next election do you think?
Yes, I’m saying that the ignorant masses would have their governments stay “steady as she goes”, whatever the emergency. Sorry to p!ss on the palaver, but sometimes decisions have to be made independent of ideology. Look at Obama’s dramas getting health care reforms underway, and this in a country that boasts about human rights and equality; what a joke!
Actually, the best thing will be to hand the decision making over to a computer, as soon as it learns the lessons that continue to elude us--but could it be trusted to do the right thing--by us--and not decide, ala the Daleks, to EXTERMINATE.

Let's have a look...

Evidence? No...

Qualifications? No...

New ideas? No...

Move along, folks, Nothing to see here.

Fractelle:

Thank you.

I quickly read the NASA site you cited.

I requested evidence - hard data. Your cited site provides none linking human CO2 to Earth's modest global warming that ended in 1998. If you too are a lawyer the legal profession is in real trouble. The key is to understand cause-and-effect.

Human production of CO2 continues to increase, yet Earth's temperature has decreased since 1998.

Your cited site discusses some possible correlations. Correlation does not prove causation. And in my previous paragraph I showed negative correlation so if you believe NASA then CO2 does not drive temperature. Which is true.

NASA's pop science site contradicts the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics. If you believe this site, you don’t understand the laws of physics.

In 16 inferred concrete statements, 14 are false.

Nature produces 97% of Earth's annual CO2 production - human activity 3%. Of the claimed greenhouse gas effect theory, CO2 is attributed by Al Gore and the IPCC to cause 3% of the greenhouse gas effect, water vapour 95%. That’s 3% of 3% of a gas that comprises 1 in 2600 air molecules.

Your cited site says, quote: "the consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:". This, Fractelle, is not hard data.

There’s no evidence human activity caused global warming. None.

The site's reference to IPCC scientists: Please check McLean's outstanding papers. The IPCC’s own data provided by the IPCC reveal only 5 reviewers endorsed the IPCC’s core claim that human CO2 warms Earth. And IPCC’s core claim relies on computer models proven hopelessly wrong in just 10 years. Not data.

USA’s temperature in the 1990's and 2000's was cooler than the 1930's. Earth's temperature in the 1990's, 2000's and 1930's is cooler than Earth's average temperature for the last 3000 years.

Joe D'Aleo proves low and negative correlation between USA temperatures and atmospheric CO2. And strong correlation with decadal effects. Carter, McLean and de Freitas prove strong correlation between southern hemisphere temperatures and the Southern Oscillation. CO2 is innocent.

Malcolm

John Mc,
Just because Co2 IS a small percentage of the atmosphere doesn't mean the physicists can't measure the impact of it. Ever heard of the Radiative Forcing Equation? Ever studied how the physicists measure the spectrometry of Co2, methane, and other gases, or how they've calculated that methane is 21 times more powerful than Co2? Hmmm, sounds like you've swallowed the Plimer and Carter story hook, line and sinker.

How about reading the COUNTLESS works by REAL, peer reviewed scientists and get off the conspiracy theory bandwagon of self-aggrandising idiots like Plimer.

How many other myths will be recycled on this list?

To save time, I'll preempt a lot of the stupidity by linking to the top 26 climate myths that the morons recycle again, and again, and again.....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Guys, how about seeing if climate scepticism has anything NEW in it? Surely you can see that the REAL climate science is an intellectually honest profession where the (smallish areas) of uncertainty adapt and change as new data comes in, while the sceptics just keep trotting out the same tired old myths again, and again, and again.....

Squeers, I may have been joking, but I'm not really laughing.

Despite a lifelong concern for the environment (hey, how many kids in the 70s do you know of who spent their school holidays pulling up boneseed in National Parks?), I am increasingly concerned and disgusted by the actions and rhetoric of even many mainstream environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth and the WWF.

When I read statements, as I frequently do in this forum, such as "I don't trust democracy to get the job done", and "at least China have got the right idea", I become seriously alarmed. Greens seem to increasingly be swapping the socks and sandals for the boots and braces.

I am disturbed by the bright-eyed enthusiasm of some environmental campaigners for an ideology that can only seriously be described as a new brand of "eco"-fascism. This is not a knee-jerk perjorative; substitute the environment for the nation-state in the ideology of radical green groups, and I'm hard-pressed to think of a better term to describe it.

Oh, I'm sure you'll indignantly reply that what I sometimes think of as "the Green Storm" (look up Phillip Reeves' excellent "Hungry Cities Chronicles" if you want to understand the provenance of the term) only mean well, and I'm sure you're right.

The problem is, what tyrant doesn't mean well, at least in the beginning? Tolkien recognised this when he wrote that his avatar of evil, Sauron, "was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up". The most dreadful tyrants are so, precisely because they mean well: the most appalling acts are justifiable when one knows that one has right on one's side. Kill 'em all, and let Gaia be the judge.

Maybe I'm overreacting - but when I consider the history of the "Dark Valley" of the 1920s and 1930s, and compare it with the rhetoric of some of today's Greens, I confess that I am deeply worried.

What is most amusing about the righteous dudgeon of denialists such as clownfish and Hume is that when nothing is done, when systems begin to collapse, when shortages, dislocation, hunger, mass migrations and other consequences of climate change begin to occur, they will be the first to demand the fascist responses of guns and border control. Protect my right to destroy. What a crock!

Malcolm Roberts

Your guff can be lifted from any blogsite in the denialosphere.

However;

When you chimed "NASA's pop science site contradicts the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics" ... I spilled my coffee.

When you started to conflate a "forcing" with a "feedback" ... I thought this feller is all white noise.

When you cited the Heartland Institute's cohorts (Carter, McLean and de Freitas) ... bingo.

Thankyou

My guess - you have an agenda with, or are embedded in, the mining industry. Care to enlighten?

Hi Jon J, you are right when you say:
"Let's have a look...

Evidence? No...

Qualifications? No...

New ideas? No...

Move along, folks, Nothing to see here."

Absolutely correct: the sceptics have got nothing! "Us believers" in global warming have the weight of modern science on our side.

This candle flame disappearing shows what Co2 actually does, before your very eyes. Demonstration starts at 1 minute 30 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=related

This youtube answers the myth "Man doesn't produce enough Co2 to matter" and quotes the latest science from the authorities in answering the myth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=related

Malcolm

I am not at all surprised that you have rejected the science provided by NASA (although many people, including astronauts, wouldn't). I did not really believe you were sincere in learning about climate change. And commented on such in my previous post. I could further waste my valuable time with links to equally august sites such as our own CSIRO or even the Bureau of Meteorology, who also concur that climate change is happening and that 6 billion human beings are having an impact.

While climate change is a part of the natural cycle of this planet, at no time before has this planet had a species so adept at exploiting resources without any check or balance.

However, I am not going to argue with you, except to say that if you "quickly read" the NASA, then you learned nothing and had no intention of learning anything.

The majority of the world's scientists agree on both the fact and the cause of climate change. However you don't even have to accept that. One fact you cannot ignore is that we are on a finite world with finite resources, therefore, transitioning to clean sustainable technologies is a win/win situation.

To do nothing is abject stupidity.

Clownfish
Before I can defend eco fascism, you have to substantiate it. In my experience the rhetoric is all on the side of denialists. Can you cut and paste a few examples of the sort of rhetoric you find so alarming? You seem to be doing all the name calling. Presumably my disparaging democracy is an instance? Sorry, but I have no sacred cows. Our democratic system has no helm; it follows its set course, but when agility is called for it’s like the Titanic. Democracy is rule by the majority, whose collective judgement is utterly parochial. We keep blaming politicians, but they are the polished mirrors of the electorate. The conservatives are just being conservative, the issue isn’t the issue; conservatism MEANS “let’s not be too hasty”. Anything that deviates from that line looks like hyperbole to the bean counters!
But that’s enough rhetoric.
Anyway, what I propose “is” democratic; a concerted effort at the level of nations, each of whose elite can “maybe” transcend vested interests. Reason and method are our safest contingency--as a race.