I like most people assume that the labour party will lose the next election. Personally I will not be voting for the Liberals, because of their failure to come to terms, with the single most important issue facing mankind, and that is climate change. I am disgusted at the Liberal's parties plan to remove the carbon tax. Here is a policy which actually works, and they want to scrap it, and replace it with something called "The direct action plan" which looks like it was designed to fail. It seems that the scheme was a product of the Clayton factory you know the climate plan you have when you don't have a plan. Good luck if you can find it on the net it seems to have disappeared.

If the Liberals do manage to remove the carbon tax it will go down in history as the biggest mistake ever made by an Australian government and taint the liberals as the party of fools in years to come.

Victory is the only thing Liberals can be relied on , to do.
They threaten the carbon tax/committed to turn to a free market price on emissions.
Tell us they intend to harm our relation ship with neighboring country's by sending the boats back.
Intention to dump the school kids bonus, to reduce pensions, and give high income workers more to have a child.
All these faults, and Tony Abbott, yet my ALP sits waiting to surrender power .
Rather than tell power brokers, power blocks, fools, to return Rudd what chance do we have?
A party committed to its own destruction rather than say we got it wrong!

Warmair>> the single most important issue facing mankind, and that is climate change<<

Warmair would you explain where the carbon tax goes to and what the tax does to aleviate global warming?

warmair

Many people are under the delusion that the 'carbon tax' will mitigate global warming - you appear to be under this delusion as well.

The carbon tax was never intended to mitigate global warming - it can't.

It is silly to directly or indirectly link the two - you did it and so did SOG - it's a strawman.

Australia's carbon tax (then an ETS) was only ever meant to help transition Australia to a lower fossil fuel economy.

That is good - but it won't happen any time soon - under Labor, Conservative or Green.

It is not good to subsidise the fossil fuel industry just to get their support - no leader/party has got the proverbial balls

Qanda would you explain where the carbon tax goes to and what the tax does to alleviate global warming?

I was asking Warmair, but he hasn't replied yet. Given you know more than Warmair and I, tell me. After it leaves the Reserve where do our taxes go and what do they achieve.

Please be more specific than "helping the transition" to lower carbon emissions.

Carbon tax will actually help in the effort to stop climate change.
It and the price on emissions has already focused us on the inevitable.
We if only for reasons of availability must change to cleaner available energy.
Much of the world, now including America is confronting that.
I ask those in my party, the ALP to consider this, a Liberal party government, is committed to destroy this and much of our efforts.
Yet Gillards chances of defeating them are nil.
So why do you sit and watch?
PS Abbott tells us,no evidence he believes it, his reduction target is the same.
IF he can work out how to grow trees on the sea and 4 deep on land it may help.
Yet this may yet lead to his fall, his intention is to put us in reverse, and let the world drive past us,that may be his end.

SOG,

The explanation of "where the carbon tax goes to" is easily found on the internet if you are really interested - it's not that difficult to look it up yourself.

The carbon tax (moving into an ETS) will help reduce Australia’s GHG emissions, but not for the simplistic reason of reducing global temperatures. Stabilisation and reduction in GHG emissions won’t happen for decades but societies across the world (including Australia) really do need to move towards more environmentally sustainable energy sources (including renewables and 4th Gen nuclear, imho) and advanced management practices. That is not the same as saying the oil, coal and gas (fossil fuels) industry will collapse as was asserted before the tax.

The Australian government (not sure about the Opposition under Tony ‘it’s crap’ Abbott) and most (if not all) member states of the UNFCCC, and all scientific academies and institutions on the planet, and the vast majority of scientists that understand the science – have made their position on climate change known ... we have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world.

The aim underpinning the carbon tax is to help limit average global warming to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100. The aim is NOT to reduce global warming (we can’t) as both you and warmair seem to think. It is a nuanced distinction both you and he seem to have difficulty in understanding, exemplified in his first post and continued with your subsequent reply/s.

I don't always agree with Belly, but in this respect I do.

AGW is not the worse problem the world is facing.
First, there has been no warming for 17 years, (IPCC).
Second, how will we feed 7 + billion people on a decreasing energy regime ?
Those that shout "Alternative Energy", meaning wind & solar have no
idea of the scale of the problem.

Fix this problem, and you won't have to worry about AGW anyway.

It is my opinion that all the global issues facing mankind center around the need for sustainability of the world population. Unless we come to terms with population growth there is no chance for the vast majority to enjoy anything like a reasonable life.
The following site explains the whole argument.

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

Sonofgloin
To the best of my knowledge the carbon tax has been responsible for a reduction of over 8% in CO2 emissions since its introduction.
The point is not what effect that small reduction will have on global temperatures it is the fact that we have to start now, to get emissions down by 90% by the year 2050, which is generally agreed to be the deadline. The longer we delay the more expensive it will be to make the transition to a low carbon economy.

Qanda
The point I was trying to make was that the liberals want to remove the carbon tax and go back to business as usual. Their direct action plan is nothing more than a sop to the conservationists. I am well aware of the fact that the carbon tax has some serious flaws in it, but a least is a start, and is actually working, we really can not afford to waste any more time prognosticating.
If I gave the impression that I thought the carbon tax would reduce global temperatures now it was not my intention or belief.

Well well, the vice chancellors have finally realised the lefties are gone. They are getting worried about a sensible government, & what it might do to the cash cow of global warming money.

So the word has gone out to all those who depend on that immoral flow of tax payer cash for their grants, or the crumbs of those grants funding their mostly useless lives, to get out there & push the fraud, harder & longer.

I sure hope Tony does the right thing by the people of Oz, & gets all these gravy train riders off our backs, & into some productive work for a change.

Hell, I've even got some old picks & shovels I'll donate to the cause of getting these people into a line of work more suited to their talents.

First it was Global warming but now it is Climate Change? That says it all, the name/scare will change again as all the hangers on, hang on! Climate changes over hundreds of years but politicians (especially the global warming drones) look at the now. They always create a "We are all going to die" scare, was it ever any different.
I am 65 years old not scared, voting Lib go Tony Abbott!

Hasbeen,

I believe a certain Mao Zedong had the same idea.

Why am I not surprised that you would endorse it.

(in fact I believe he used your last line verbatim when he first mooted the idea:)

JBowyer,

I'll just knock that little furphy on the head - if you don't mind.

It was yer Republican acolyte and Bush administration strategist, Frank Luntz who came up with reframing "global warming" to "climate change" change because: "...it sounded less severe."

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

Next.....

I seem to have given you too much "change" in my last post.

Never mind, you can keep it :)

<< It was yer Republican acolyte and Bush administration strategist, Frank Luntz who came up with reframing "global warming" to "climate change" change because: "...it sounded less severe.">>

SUUUUURE! Poirot, all the little lefty news outlets/blogs/posters are going to toe-the-line because GW said so!

Let’s face it “climate change “ is so much easier to sell, since it's so much more nebulous -- climate *changes* all the time.So every time it’s a little too wet or too dry, too warm or too cold – it’s that dastardly climate change again.

YABBY! WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?
Report back to OLO ASAP!

We desperately need you to keep your fellow WestOzralian in check!

SPQR,

Come off it, mate....

"Skeptics" don't have scientific veracity on their side. the only thing they have is strategy. That, my dear, is ALL they have.

Get a load of the latest bunkum from Lord "expert reviewer" Monckton. This guy, who leads the "skeptic" chorus, appears to be almost completely dotty.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/monckton-accuses-tony-press-uni-tasmania-of-fraud-and-deception/

Get another load of his hanky panky with emulating the House of Lord's seal with his own viscount brand (note the shonky coat of arms at the top of his spoutings)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/05/monckton-caught-making-things/

He's a joke - and the fact that "skeptics" laud such a "Lord" does nothing for their cause.

Holy mackerel!

Why is it that every time someone points out a flaw in your reasoning pertaining to an AGW issue –and believe me, there are heaps of 'em (flaws that is)--you go off on a tangent and start lashing poor ol’ Monckton –what is it with you and Monckton?

The issue here is: Do most sources refer to it as “climate change” because GW said so –is that credible?

YABBY--front and centre RIGHT NOW!

Er...sorry, SPQR, but Monckton leads the charge for you lot.

He's extolled up and down the "skeptic" blogosphere.

If climate scientists were represented by an upper-crust pixie with delusions of grandeur and a talent for emulating snake-oil salesman, I'd expect a gentle critique from the denialist wings.

Why wouldn't I criticize someone like Monckton - with his degree in classical architecture and his constant stream of pure bunkum, laced with conspiracy.

You guys want to be taken seriously led by a potty viscount -

Strange but true.

Poirot,

<<Er...sorry, SPQR, but Monckton leads the charge for you lot>>
Er, sorry, No.There is no (monolithic) “you lot”.

Monckton is just one of many voices –some more informed than others– saying: “Hey, this doesn’t add up” or “Hey, there is more to this than meets the eye”.

And your propensity to duck and weave whenever someone challenges you on a point --a habit which is quite widespread amongst AGW true believers (qanta is an expert at it)-- only adds to the suspicion.

qanda wrote:"The aim underpinning the carbon tax is to help limit average global warming to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100."

Elsewhere qanda linked to a graph showing temps since 1980 (no cherry-pick there, eh) from the 5 major record centres. On average these showed a rise of around 0.12 deg C per decade ie about 1.2 deg C per decade or around 1 deg C between now and 2100.

so it seems that we have already achieved the aim of limiting "average global warming to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100." without the need for a CO2 tax. Hurrah...next problem please.

warmair wrote: "To the best of my knowledge the carbon tax has been responsible for a reduction of over 8% in CO2 emissions since its introduction."

I would LOVE to see where you got that piece of fiction. Are you sure you're not confusing total emissions with emission intensity?

Hazy, no cherrypick at all, that's when satellites started monitoring temps.

Even Roy Spencer knows this.

qanda,

So what if that's when RSS started. Its not like we can't have a graph where one of the datasets starts half way along the period.

It just so happens that, for most datasets, the 30 yrs trend (ie 1980 -2010) provides the highest temp rise trend. So its rather convenient to use 1979 as the start point if you are interested in perceptions rather than honest investigation.

Satellite data (not just RSS) started to be collected about 30 years ago.

The period and time frame you and your pin-up-spindoc have been ranting on about in that other place:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5643#156673

People of your ilk cherry pick all the time, not understanding real scientists (unlike pretenders and wannabes) need to separate the signal (e.g. AGW) from the noise (e.g. natural variability).

Honest investigations (of global warming)? That's my day job, what is yours?

Look hazy, if you want to keep demonstrating your utter ignorance and complete stupidity about global warming, climate change, whatever ... continue by all means, you are doing a fine job.

SPQR,

"Monckton is one of many voices - some more informed than others- saying "Hey, this doesn't add up" or Hey, there is more to this than meets the eye.""

The problem is that Monckton is not only championed as a "guy who knows his science" by skeptics, but that his science is massively flawed.

As in:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

And when he (or "skeptic-thought" in general) is challenged by scientists who explain their challenge by demonstrating where he gets it wrong - what do "skeptics" do? They "deny. They ignore and then they raise conspiracy.

That is how climate "skeptics" deal with scientific veracity - and it's why they're considered denialists.

So "ducking and weaving" is only part of their performance with straight out denialism being the principal dancer in their skeptical ballet.

It's all so well rehearsed. Take their "it hasn't warmed for 15/16/17/20 years" spiel. It makes no difference to them that warming has plateaued at record levels - and that in the long-term trend, warming plateaus at record levels for a number of years before continuing up to the next plateau (each one higher than the one before)...none of that matters at all to "skeptics" because the short-term cherry-pick is their template for argument - and the Monckton's of the movement are hero-worshipped for spouting their ignorance.

Poiret I am fascinated that higher temperatures "Plateu"? Wow when were we advised this would happen? It seems you know everything but only after it has happened. I am still not convinced this is right and will be euphoric when Tony humbly takes the reins of Australia with a quiet thoughtful acceptance speech. Unlike your mate Keating's gloat.

qanda,

"Satellite data (not just RSS) started to be collected about 30 years ago."

Well that rather was my point when I mentioned 1979. If you get a calculator you might see that its been roughly 30 yrs since then. So thanks for the info but I beat you to it, old boy.

"The period and time frame you and your pin-up-spindoc have been ranting on about in that other place:..."

1. Actually that time frame in that other thread was 17 yrs which, again, if you use a calculator, you'll see isn't the same as 30 yrs.
2. I haven't commented on anything spindoc has written here or, from memory, anywhere else. So the pin-up comment is mere childish foot stamping.

"People of your ilk.."
You mean bearded Victorians?

"..cherry pick all the time"
So your response to my suggestion that your time frame might have been just a tad selective it to just say people like me to that too. We used to play that "i know you are" game too, when I was about 6 yrs old.

" real scientists (unlike pretenders and wannabes) need to separate the signal (e.g. AGW) from the noise (e.g. natural variability)."

I'm just fascinated with the way you work. Throwing out these motherhood statements, completely devoid of supportive data or context, but just hoping that it'll make you appear learned and intimidate others. I know it impresses Poirot but I wonder if many others are suckered.
So, pray tell, how does selecting a 30yrs trend instead of a 50 or 100 or 200 yr trend, help 'real' scientists separate signal from noise?

"Look hazy, if you want to keep demonstrating your utter ignorance and complete stupidity about global warming, climate change, whatever ... continue by all means, you are doing a fine job"

I've always assumed, given your rather limited understanding of the issue, that your assertions that you are a climate scientist is more pretend than real. But with so many content-free ad hominems you could fit right in with the Hockey Team. Maybe you really are a climate scientist.

mhaze,

Check out the animated graph here for a demonstration of filtering the signal from the noise - it's not rocket science (but it is climate science:)

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

JBowyer,

If Abbott takes the reins, it will have to be a quiet thoughtful acceptance speech. We all know what happens when he gets excited or caught unawares and comments off the cuff - disaster in the shape of foot-in-mouth.

Can't wait to see this mediocre pollie in action on the international stage.

I asked a simple question Q, where does the carbon tax go?

Qanda >> The explanation of "where the carbon tax goes to" is easily found on the internet if you are really interested - it's not that difficult to look it up yourself.<<

I know what Gillard said, some will go into an international “green climate fund and the rest will be given back to workers as tax cuts, household energy efficiency measures, welfare payments and to support jobs and help industry transition.
Pretty airy fairy stuff, I have not seen any of that, ,so tell me what happens to that money…and who controls it, I can’t find that on the net.

What Gillard did not tell us about is the raft of “carbon equivalency” taxes foisted on industries who are not power providers or large carbon emitters. I use an aerosol with a non flammable propellant which cost me $15 a can in Sept 2012.

In Dec 2012 the price went to $35 per can along with a load of sundry products I use. The supplier said that the non flammable propellant went up by $29,000 per ton, and most of the other products were affected by "equivilency taxes",and I pass on that cost to my client who passes it to you.

The price to re gas air conditioners is one third of a new unit and almost everything we purchase has seen a subtle adjustment up in pricing, but it’s not the carbon tax.

Whatever I am paying for I can’t see so tell me about something I can see as a return for the tax impost. Do you know where it really goes or are you taking Gillard’s word that the things she bleated on about is happening, if so tell me.

Perhaps Gillard has pocketed the lot, it wouldn't surprise me.

Mhaze

warmair wrote: "To the best of my knowledge the carbon tax has been responsible for a reduction of over 8% in CO2 emissions since its introduction."
Mhaze wrote:"I would LOVE to see where you got that piece of fiction. Are you sure you're not confusing total emissions with emission intensity?

Quoted from the Australian so it must be right.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/emissions-drop-signals-fall-in-carbon-tax-take/story-e6frg6xf-1226559632995

"While the government believes the 8.6 per cent fall in carbon emissions shows its policies are working, it also means it will collect less from the tax than the $4 billion it anticipated this year."

Poirot>> Can't wait to see this mediocre pollie in action on the international stage<<

We don't know what sort of fool Abbott may be, but we know what sort of fool Swan is.

Swan never achieved a surplus.
Swan has presided over three extensions of the Commonwealths borrowing limit.
Swan has accumulated a record deficit for the Australian people.

On the back of that the imbecile went to Europe and told the worlds finance ministers where they were going wrong, he was a laughing stock. A mate in the UN told me what a pompous joke he was viewed as and that he received no informal invitations to speak, we purchased his time in front of the world and they just laughed.

No one can be that full of themselves that they could believe the world’s best treasurer bullsheiser with absolutely nothing but failures and negatives in their resume, excepting the self inflating cretin Swan.

P, I aint shooting Abbott until he falls down, but shoot I will.

warmair,

That data is for electricity only and excludes WA.

This shows emissions falling by .2% in the Sept 12 quarter...
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/climate-change/emissions/2012-09/QuarterlyUpdateofAustraliasNationalGreenhouseGasInventorySeptember2012.pdf

The climate change issue is losing traction from an electorate point of view. This will please the coalition. I'm sure there are some genuine skeptics amongst them but the majority are aware of the problem but prefer to comfort their cowardice and irresponsibility with the hope that someone someday will deal with it. Similar to other graphs that record statistics,weather records also have a 'staircase' appearance. The general trend over decades is upwards.Liberal voters,whether they be ignorant or understanding,delight in pointing out the fewer lower points on a graph,that scientist and researchers have recorded. Then ridicule the very same people for suggesting an overall upward trend. If you have difficulty understanding the data or the politicians,your left with a simple choice. (A) you can believe the research of over 95% of scientists,NASA and the CSIRO......or (B) you can believe Tony Abbott,a variety of right wing shock jocks and Angry Anderson.

Whatsit2yu>> ,your left with a simple choice. (A) you can believe the research of over 95% of scientists,NASA and the CSIRO......or (B) you can believe Tony Abbott,a variety of right wing shock jocks and Angry Anderson.<<

Watsit, if the IPCC are a credible organisation why did their two top scientific acolytes Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Bradley generate the lie of the “hockey stick of horror.” These fee taking liars admitted….eventually ….that no matter what numbers were entered into the model you get an expediential warming of the earth in the end.

Real scientists, Professor Ross McKitrick and Professor of Applied Mathematics Christopher Essex tore the model apart. Mann and Bradley had to admit they lied, and they did.

So you believe what NASA and the CSIRO feed you. They feed you that opinion (and it is only opinion) because it attracts government funds.

Watsit, forget about global warming, we have an issue with the degradation of our soils, atmosphere and water table due to pollution from both industrial and domestic waste. While we fight each other over “climate change” the multinational polluters and the legislators who allow them to meet minimum “cost effect” capture and containment protocols make more money than ever before and have deftly shifted the guilt and the costs onto us.

Consider that “us” who are 90% of the globes population only own 15% of its resources, we are not prospering from pollution, we are just the cogs that make it work and the consumers of its product. We could have a immensely cleaner environment if some of the 85% of the money we 90% don’t own went to state of the art emission control and cleaner technology.

You gotta put the blame at the people that can change it but don’t, and if you haven’t recognized who they are then you are just playing environmentalist until something else comes along.

sonofgloin,

Could please provide a link to where Michael Mann has "admitted that he lied" about the hockey stick graph?

...because I don't believe you.

http://www.desmogblog.com/review-michael-manns-exoneration

And bollocks to your assertion that scientists from NASA and CSIRO offer only "opinion".

Would you same the same thing to a Professor of endocrinology giving you advice just after you'd been diagnosed with diabetes? Why is it that "skeptics" single out "climate" scientists for this treatment?

(Well actually I do know why. It's because they've bought the conspiracy spiel of big business, and now act as their humble acolytes in pervading ignorance)

"Opinion" indeed.....

Yes I am guilty, strongly so.
I blame only my self, I get too deep in to subjects, wish my few School days saw the same yearning to learn I now have.
My sin?
Based on the science I believe man plays the biggest roll in Global Warming.
Now some, fools on both sides manufacture evidence to prove their view is true.
Look at this mornings papers, say the SMH, its last blanket size before its Tabloid starts tommorow.
See the story about sharks never seen here before, being caught well south of their known habitat.
See the floods, remember the heat, of just two months ago, watch the reports of extreme weather from around the world.
Rusty may not be our last cyclone this year.
And yet another one, maybe two east coast low may swamp us yet again.
We are, in all probability, too late to change much.
Unless we can take the politics out of science.

Belly have a read of "Water into Gold" written in the 1960's. That describes Australian extreme weather events for the first half of the 20th century. You will see plenty of events that today the ABC would hype to the heavens.This is not extreme, it is how it has always been and will remain.
I thought even the IPCC had admitted no warming for many years? These people are earning far more money than the average man to ferment a danger to enrich themselves.
As for sharks I have been fishing for over 50 years and honestly they get every where. I was born in England and there were sharks all around the coast. Sharks are adaptable creatures mainly because it is a case for all living things to either adapt of die out.

Poirot wrote:"Check out the animated graph here for a demonstration of filtering the signal from the noise - it's not rocket science (but it is climate science:)"

Errr, yes but that is entirely beside the point. I wasn't asking qanda how to separate noise and signal, I was asking him to justify his suggestion that an analysis of a 30yr trend was better for this purpose than a 50yr trend or a 100yr trend. (Although in reality he wasn't even doing that but instead just throwing out entirely unconnected assertions to try to make his post seem learned).

Poirot, you do this so often (misunderstanding the simple written word) that I wonder if English is perhaps not your native language in which case I should cut you some slack. Otherwise........

mhaze,

You're rather fond of casting aspersions on poster's intellectual and/or linguistic capacities - as one of your strategies. I suppose it makes up for the flaws in your argument.

(never mind - I'm cutting you some slack:)

As I said, it's the "skeptics" who revel in the short-term cherry-pick. Qanda was referring to the satellite data available on Arctic ice loss....(although, nice pedantic cherry-pick to try and punch a hole in his argument).

Here's what you normally get from climate scientists regarding long-term trends and changes.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

Belly,
I did read the story about the Mandarin Dogfish and noted they also inhabit waters around Japan and New Zealand, neither of which you could class as tropical. The article did not say they were newcomers to these countries either, so maybe they have always been in some Aussie waters too.

Don't forget that a few years ago the science was predicting 'permanent' drought and even if it did rain there would not be enough to fill dams. Most capital cities were going to run out of water. Now the government is flowting the idea of increasing the capacity of Warragamba dam which was one that was going to run out.A dramatic change from when all state Labor governments were spending billions on desalination plants.

For all the "skeptics" - a comprehensive (yet easily digestible) run down of the state of the climate:

http://theconversation.edu.au/hot-summer-yes-the-hottest-12505

Errr, no mhaze.

‘Sceptics’ have recently been ranting like a raving banshee about periods of the last 17, 18, 19 or 23 years (take your pick) claiming that scientific establishments (and real scientists) have said there has been no global warming.

All I did was show the generally accepted statistical time series of 30 years to be of substantive significance (which coincides almost to the beginning of satellite temperature monitoring).

Go back 50, 500, 5000, 50000,500000 years if you want to. Point is, there is a marked trend since about the 1850’s and more so since the latter 1900’s.

.

Poirot,

I was linking to the 5 best known ‘satellite’ temperature monitoring data sets, not arctic sea ice loss (although that is significant)

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5temp.jpg

Plotting the 5 series on the one graph helps put 'sceptic' shill claims in perspective.

: ) thanks for your link to the article by the BoM authors.

Poirot wrote:"As I said, it's the "skeptics" who revel in the short-term cherry-pick. Qanda was referring to the satellite data available on Arctic ice loss....(although, nice pedantic cherry-pick to try and punch a hole in his argument)."

that's not even close to true. Indeed you are the first to even mention the word "Arctic" in this thread.

Its pretty funny, the way Poirot just dismisses anything that confronts her beliefs as a "cherry-pick". Still it does allow her to avoid all that pesky thinking.

Here's the thing. If you look at the last 100 or so years and look at temp trends over that period you'll find that the 30 yrs trend from around 1980 to around 2010 provides the highest temp trend rates. Depending on the dataset used, the next highest is the 50yr trend, then the 20yr, 70yr, 100yr, 15yr, and 10yr. the difference is substantial with the 100yr trend being less than 1 deg C but the 30 yr being close to 2 deg C / century.

Consequently, warmists are happy to use the 30 yr trend rate since it most favours their arguments. But there is nothing magical about 30 yrs as opposed to, say, 100yrs. And I was simply pointing this out to qanda.

Now as the climate continues to not warm, the 30yr trend rate will decline and we will arrive at a point around 2020 when the 50yr trend rate will be the highest. I suspect that around that time, warmists, if they still exist, will magically decide that 50yrs is a far better measure than 30 yrs...and its just cherry-picking by those naughty sceptics to use the 30yr trend.

the more things change.....

Mhaze,
<< Its pretty funny, the way Poirot just dismisses anything that confronts her beliefs as a "cherry-pick". Still it does allow her to avoid all that pesky thinking>>

So you noticed that too, eh!

And what makes it even funnier and ironic is, she’s won the Oscar for Best Cherry Picker of the year at the OLO Academy Awards for 10 years in a row (and it was always a battle for second between Warmair and Qanda)

Yes, sorry about the "Arctic" reference, qanda and mhaze...(that's what happens when there are three climate threads going, together with some other stuff I've been looking at)

SPQR,

Talking about "thinking" - you should try it sometime.

It might assist in curbing your desire to link to sites like that of Randy Mann (a most unfortunate name:) and Cliff Harris.

Weird stuff.....

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/toxic-legacies-malcolm-roberts-his-csiroh-report-and-the-anti-semitic-roots-of-the-international-bankers-conspiracy-theory/

The mind boggles!

Reminds me of this:

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/GarnautMarch2011.pdf

Weirder and weirder.

To all you skeptics out there,the half-wits,the dim-wits,the ignorant,the simple and the stubborn. Im going to put forward a very plain and crude interpretation of the issue. If you can't get your head around it,please refrain from commenting further because the rest of us start to pass judgement on the capacity you have to learn and understand. The same way that we judge the learning capacity and lack of understanding from Tony Abbott ,etc..etc..you know the type.
OK,ready....?
1. Do you believe millions of tonnes of coal has been extracted from the earth.
2. Do you believe millions of tonnes (litres) of oil has also been extracted from the earth.
3. Do you believe all these units of carbon are burnt for the release of its energy.
4. (A) Do you believe burning all this carbon makes the earth smell like perfume and flowers.......OR
4. (B) Do you believe we are.......STINKING UP THE JOINT !!

@Poirot,

Talking of thinking, Poirot, have you ever THOUGHT to checked the CVs of some of the persons behind your favourite source: www.skepticalscience.com?

First off, let us remind everyone what you have told us *REPEATEDLY* about how important it was/is/will always be that any source/authority commenting on THE SCIENCE be a fully paid up member of the “climate scientist” fraternity. That after all was why (you said) Pilmer being a geologist and Randy Mann a mere Meteorologist couldn’t possibly have anything worthwhile to add!

HOWEVER, when we read YOUR Skepticalscience.com site we see IMPRESSIVE credentials like this:


BaerbelW: “lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo” [Yup! I'll bet she learnt a lot about climate science as a volunteer at her local zoo]

James Wight: “ a Science student with Macquarie University…*INTENDING* to major in climate science” [A Wannabe!]

Doug_Bostrom: “1958 model, background in broadcast engineering and management, wireless telemetry, software architecture and authorship with a focus on embedded systems, TCP/IP network engineering, systems integration.” [Not relevant!]

John Mason: “graduated in geology from Aberystwyth University” [Nah! Geology is no good, remember Pilmer!]

Daniel Bailey: “ completed science degrees in Earth Science, Cartography and Remote Sensing at Central Michigan University in the United States” [Not relevant!]

Rob Painting: “Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, IN AN AMATEUR CAPACITY(!), for 4 years. [Hobby scientist!]

Mind you (to limit your wiggle room) I am not saying they all are like this –but a goodly number are!

But of course that’s Ok ‘cause they’re on your side!

The IPCC now admits that there has been no warming for 17yrs.It is a grand lie.Extreme weather does not = warming.This is the definition of cognitive dissonance.The satellite data confirms this.

Our humanity has lost all ability to dissern fact from fiction.The greens and their paedophile logic priests lust for righteous power in the name of their dogma.How are they different from the Catholic Church,Muslims of the Jews?

Nice try, SPQR,

Here's the run down - holds up well I think.

http://skepticalscience.com/team.php

Next.....

Whatsittoyah What you say is not to be argued with BUT you do not understand how the world works. Yes carbon Dioxide out but then all through the sunny periods around the Earth plants absorb it. They turn it into, well plants. This was pointed out very early on the piece when they pumped 10 times the amount of carbon dioxide into a greenhouse (sealed). The plants just absorbed it all in, win win!
I was a kiddy in London in the 1950's where coal was burned. The smog was horrendous and a killer but once they changed the fuel everything cleaned up pretty fast.
Please do not take this personally and start SHOUTING at me. I am just trying to be helpful.

Carbon tax will actually help in the effort to stop climate change.
Belly,
You're losing it mate. 8 million Australians paying Carbon Tax will change the world's climate ? What planet are you from. Ah yes the planet Labor where they think of themselves more great the more they ruin it for all.

Arjay, you say:

>> The IPCC now admits that there has been no warming for 17yrs.
It is a grand lie.
Extreme weather does not = warming.
This is the definition of cognitive dissonance.
The satellite data confirms this. <<

Ross,

The following are plots (NOT conspiracies) of satellite and remote sensing data covering the last 17 years.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5temp.jpg

Where is your cognition?

Ross, you go on to say:

>> Our humanity has lost all ability to dissern fact from fiction.
The greens and their paedophile logic priests lust for righteous power in the name of their dogma.
How are they different from the Catholic Church, Muslims of (sic) the Jews? <<

No, Ross ... YOU have lost all ability to dissern fact from fiction.

Disclaimer: I am not green nor a pedophile priest (Catholic or otherwise).

Okay...

Arjay wins the "Religious Jargon" award for this section of thread.

Keep up the good work, "skeptics".

Poirot>> Could please provide a link to where Michael Mann has "admitted that he lied" about the hockey stick graph?<<

P, I retract that statement unreservedly as an extension of my own making. Mann has never admitted he lied.

But in the pursuit of establishing credibility I offer you this on behalf of Prof Mann:

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/
>>Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner.<<

>> Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.<<

>> Wikipedia is hurriedly re-writing their biography of the climate con artist within 24 hours of Tom Richard obtaining confirmation from the Nobel Committee that Mann had lied in his sworn affidavit filed last week in the District of Columbia Court<<

He inflates the numbers and himself it seems.

Whatsit2ya>> To all you skeptics out there,the half-wits,the dim-wits,the ignorant,the simple and the stubborn<<

You tell em mate.

Whatsit2ya>>
1. Do you believe millions of tonnes of coal has been extracted from the earth.
2. Do you believe millions of tonnes (litres) of oil has also been extracted from the earth.
3. Do you believe all these units of carbon are burnt for the release of its energy.
4. (A) Do you believe burning all this carbon makes the earth smell like perfume and flowers.......OR
4. (B) Do you believe we are.......STINKING UP THE JOINT !! <<

Whatsit, what are you doing about Coal Seam Gas….subject not big enough for you?

Or do you only band wagon Popularist ideas such as CGW?

I am relieved that you did not include hypocrite to your list of “half-wits,the dim-wits,the ignorant,the simple and the stubborn” realists that don’t believe what proven liars say.

Hypocrite is a term for yourself and any CGW proponent who have not written to their MP about the filth that is CSG.

Have you written sport?

Oi, sonofgloin,

John O'Sullivan appears to be somewhat on the dodgy side.

http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan

Big deal - On Mann's bio page his term "shared...with other authors" is altered to "..contributed with other authors to..."

Well whacky-doo!

It just goes to show how academic thinking (if thinking is what it can be called) goes off in the opposite direction of sense. They introduce the Carbon Tax. I thought the purpose was to reduce global warming ? How can you reduce this when you don't reduce it ? The Carbon Tax should really be a benefit for people who reduce their output by not driving a car or not using Lawnmowers etc. That way people would take it serious. Why cut back when it cost you more ? Pretty stupid if you ask me. Oh and yes, the handful of Australians will really impact heavily on reducing emission over the whole planet. All the pollution will stay in Asia where our unions forced our manufacturing industries to.
Is this federal Government trying to win the political Darwin Award ? I think the Greens might beat them to it.

To: NASA
From: SPQR

Hi Guys
Great work with Curiosity :http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16687.html

Been following closely. If you find a rock that is so dense lasers cannot penetrate. So entrenched it be cannot moved –suggest the name Poirotite.

Cheers

Poirot>> John O'Sullivan appears to be somewhat on the dodgy side.<<

He certainly does from that link.

In a backhanded way it defines the debate...P there are shonks aplently on both sides of the fence pushing their own agenda's and we read their words and their data and try to rationalize an answer.

Do you recall my Fort Dennison tide thread? It showed no change in the high tide mark in Sydney harbour in the past ten years. Why wouldn’t I gather info that I can qualify as reliable and make a value judgment rather than the feed from the two academic camps?

But I still stand by the mathematicians that proved the "hockey stick" was sheisser because like physics there are absolutes that defy opinions.

individual
They introduce the Carbon Tax. I thought the purpose was to reduce global warming ? How can you reduce this when you don't reduce it ?
______________________________________________________________________

The point of the carbon tax is not to repair the damage we have already done, but not to make the problem worse. It s like sticking your hand in a flame the sooner you remove it the less damage you are going to do yourself.

The Carbon tax has definitely helped to lower our emissions of CO2 from electricity production which declined by 2.9% over the first quarter since it was introduced, also emissions from industry declined by some 5% over the last 12 months ending September 2012. The tax is doing exactly what is meant to do.

So what is Abbott going to do about the tax and pensioner compensation which has been and will be handed out. I am sure the pensioners will be thrilled when they learn that their pensioners are going to be reduced by some $500 a year. Personally the carbon tax has had no impact on my electric bills, my gas bill has gone up by $1 a week, food Etc has possibly increase by $1.50 a week but my compensation has gone up by about $10 a week. I am ahead on the tax and CO2 emissions have been reduced. Looks like a win win to me, but liberals want to scrap this and replace it with a lose lose proposition. The sooner the public wakes up to the fact that removing the tax is a dumb idea the better.

Warmair>> also emissions from industry declined by some 5% over the last 12 months ending September 2012.<<

To be fair you can't claim that as a result of the carbon tax....Labors other policies have also helped wind down business.

warmair,
Again I shall ask the question I have asked so many times here, what difference will a reduced Australian emission make on a global scale ? I'm not arguing about repairing the past or the future, I'm simply offering a very basic mathematic view. 22 million vs 6.8 billion.

sonofgloin has hit the nail on the head with the apparent recent decline in emission here.
If Labor had not increased the public service numbers to such insane levels the Liberals wouldn't have to deal with so much incompetent bureaucrats either when they take office.
The Labor orientated cronies will be the Liberals heaviest millstone around their economic neck. No matter which angle one chooses to look at the situation all the woes now invariably all fall back into the lap of Labor management. The sad part is that 50% of Australians are obviously in favour of that. How would these people feel if the manufacturing plants in Asia producing our goods were to suddenly ship the manufacturing waste/pollution back to Australia with the goods ?

qanda,

<<The Australian government (not sure about the Opposition under Tony ‘it’s crap’ Abbott) and most (if not all) member states of the UNFCCC, and all scientific academies and institutions on the planet, and the vast majority of scientists that understand the science – have made their position on climate change known ... we have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world>>.

“The Australian government”? Would this be the same Australian government that is now proposing to close the Department of Climate Change?

“Opposition under Tony ‘it’s crap’ Abbott”? Would this be the same Tony Abbott that will scrap the CO2 tax and close/merge a number of Climate Change and Green departments in addition to taking back whatever is left of the $10 billion renewables fund?

“Most (if not all) member states of the UNFCCC”? Would these be the same 117 member states that declined to sign up for and extension to Kyoto to prevent it from lapsing on December 31, 2012?

“All scientific academies and institutions on the planet, and the vast majority of scientists that understand the science”?

Would these by any chance include The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), The RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values). Rajendra Pashauri, IPCC no warming for 17 years, Professor Phil Jones CRU, IPCC’s climate “science” panel has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years, London Met Office admits no warming for 17 years and James Hansen, NASA’s GISS who is in agreement Hadley Centre/CRU findings?

It seems that if you want to fix global warming you might need a global agreement like Kyoto, you might need global emissions trading markets and you might need a viable global renewables industry because you will have to reduce fossil fuel use.

How about this for an idea, why don’t you get all your best science, scientists and institutions together and get them to convince governments to replace all the things you once had to save the world?

Just a thought?

Individual quote
Again I shall ask the question I have asked so many times here, what difference will a reduced Australian emission make on a global scale ? I'm not arguing about repairing the past or the future, I'm simply offering a very basic mathematic view. 22 million vs 6.8 billion.
_____________________________________________________________________

First of all the average emissions per Australian is a staggering 24.4 tonnes as compared to a world wide average of around 7.2 tonnes per person. For A country like Germany that has a high standard of living the figure is less than 10 tones per person. This suggests we are one of the biggest wasters when it comes to emissions, so I would suggest that maybe it would not be a bad thing simply for the economic point of view to get our emissions down.

From the point of the climate just because others are polluting does not mean that we should therefore go all out to see if we can pollute even faster than others. As for our efforts at this stage having no measurable effect I would agree, but every journey starts with a single step, and the sooner we get started the better, because it will cost us much more in the future if we don't get a move on. Anyway it is not a valid argument that just because others are helping to create a problem that we should not bother to stop. How are supposed to get other nations on board trying to reduce emissions if we are not prepared to put in an effort in ourselves?

24.4 tonnes
warmair,
wow, that is indeed staggering when you consider Germany's 10 tonnes includes huge winter-heating & other cold winter related emission.
with what does Australia's emission go so high ? It is no secret that Australians are a petrol-head people but 24 tonnes is crazy. are you sure that's correct ? which is our highest polluting industry ? I'm convinced that the large scale desalination plants will become obsolete once sense makes a comeback in Australia. that should reduce emission by a large degree. If only our excess water were harvested & more hydro-power would also reduce emission. If we can explain to a Greenie that a waterfall produces no emission in comparison to a diesel generator or a coal burner then we're half-way to continue regaining sense in Australia. I think we need to let Abbott know & he'll be all ears, excuse the pun.

JOHN HOWARD IS A CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC.

A comprehensive run down of Lord Monckton's strategies to "lock up the climate scientists".....

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/03/02/lord-monckton-threatens-climate-scientists-again

Nutty?

Yes

Farcical?

Yes

Go "skeptics" - you'll have all the climate scientists dying from laughter (and then you can take over the world...)

: )

JOHN HOWARD IS A CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC.
Mr Opinion,
let's deal with relevance please. Abbott is a new generation unlike goner Rudd.
what people call skeptics are really people who don't get caught up in yuppy hype.
There's no denying that changes are occurring but we can't be certain if our emissions are the actual cause or if they're merely an accelerant to a natural cycle. One thing that is certain is that the Carbon Tax will have no effect on the climatic changes.
The only way to slow down man made impact is to reduce the numbers of man. Let's see how many proponents or denialists we can get on that proposition.

Individual
I have had a closer look at the statistics for emissions just to clear up a few points, emissions are given either as direct CO2 emissions or Co2 equivalent IE all greenhouse gas emissions. The figures I quoted for Australia was 24.4 tones which was the most up to date figure I could find but it was for Co2 equivalent not simply Co2. The equivalent figure for Germany was about 11.5 tonnes per capita.

On Co2 alone the figures for 2008-2012 were Australia 18.02 and Germany 9 tonnes per capita.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC/countries/1W-AU-DE?display=graph

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_greenhouse_emissions.htm

http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/images/stories/Archive/emissionschart1.png

The prime reason for our high emissions are the use of brown coal which has a low heat value and is wet. It is such a poor fuel that it is uneconomic to transport any distance this means that the power station has to be where the mine is but this increases the distance that the electricity has to be sent to the customer thus incurring further loses which have to made up for by burning more fuel.

http://environmentvictoria.org.au/index.php?q=content/problem-brown-coal

In the case of desalination plants I believe that it is was unnecessary for Victoria Sydney and the Gold Coast but I can see no other option was available to Perth or South Australia . I have often wondered why we don't operate desalination plants with the old style windmills (which are basically water pumps) it does not matter if it does not blow for a few days as there is no problem storing the water.

warmair,
irrigation is the most viable & energy efficient & clean option even for WA. Many Kilometres of pipe are no technical obstacle these days. pumping can be achieved by both solar & wind.
The Bradfield scheme was a hundred years ahead of our modern engineers in proposing water form the Great Dividing range being diverted inland. I can see it being looked at again before long as it is the ONLY alternative. Irrigation is the answer to both drought & flooding & climate in general.
Ask anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated by Australian Universities.

warmair, I have only just opened thus thread, so sorry fir any delay.

I find it funny how when the labor party is being flogged, the old mud has to be dug up, in a desperate attempt to make some stick.

The reality that you and all labor lovers simply have to accept, is that your beloved bunch of no hopers are gone for all money, as not even John Huston himself could loose this election.

But at least once this mob are gone, a real government can go about attacking climate change as one of the global contributors we are, not the stand out heroes labor want us to be.

Btw, come September 14, you can stay in bed mate, cause your vote, or non vote won't make a scerik of difference.

Ar I love self destruction, but if only Julia has accepted defeat, gracefully last time, her fall from grace would not have been such a hard fall.

Perhaps Anna may be able to write her CV.

Quote rehctub

Btw, come September 14, you can stay in bed mate, cause your vote, or non vote won't make a scerik of difference.
________________________________________________________________________________________

I am not a huge fan of the labour government but yet if every body stays in bed, based on the view that the result is a foregone conclusion, nobody will get elected.Where my vote will make a difference is in the senate

@ Spindoctor Sunday, 3 March 2013 9:55:24 AM

1. Yes.
Do you not think we have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, they have about 1 month left to sign up.

4. Is where your spin is turbo-charged guff. You could read this, to the bottom:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

You have previously acknowledged that inherent in UNFCCC policy making is political, sociocultural and religious complexities. Policy making decisions are not always made as best and as quickly as we would like, but decisions they are. It’s not easy.

One thing the politicians, economists and religious extremists can’t do is change the science.

Just because politicians, economists and religious extremists don’t want to take timely action to live in a more environmentally, ecologically and economically sustainable way does not make the science wrong - they base their inaction on extraneous reasons. For example; Budget Gillard, Crap Abbott and NoNuke Milne.

Think about it.

qanda,

If you don’t mind, I’ll answer any questions on my own thanks. I don’t actually need you to both pose the question and then insert an answer on my behalf.

<< You have previously acknowledged that inherent in UNFCCC policy making is political, sociocultural and religious complexities>>.

Actually no, what I said was socio-political and religious, meaning that ideological mantra’s do no require cognitive skills. A perspective that you and your friends demonstrate without much help from me.

You say << Just because politicians, economists and religious extremists don’t want to take timely action to live in a more environmentally, ecologically and economically sustainable way does not make the science wrong - they base their inaction on extraneous reasons >>

Oh yeh! You mean those who refuse to accept your alarmism, failed predictions and flawed science that even your own side now say isn’t valid?

What do you want from us? To help you convince our political “extremists” that there really is some good CAGW science? Do you want us to have a chat with the “religious extremists” who disagree with you? Do you want us to provide an economic case to the economic extremists who consistently refute your case?

It’s always the same isn’t it, if we don’t agree with you we are all “extremists? Isn’t it time you reviewed your own scientific proposition and asked yourself why your science is no longer credible enough to convince the Kyoto signatories, the renewable energy investors and the emission trading markets to divvy up some more public funds to stop the egg on face heading your way?

I once respected your passion for your cause, but the more pressure to which you are subjected, the more infantile your responses.

Grow up and get another life qanda

You directed your post at me and asked the questions, I answered.

Just because you don't like my answers you resort to ad-hom - that's infantile.

spindoc,

Hey, hey, Boo Boo (As Yogi would say:)..here's a "skeptical" fella who asks questions - and then when the person they are directed to answers them he says:

"If you don't mind, I'll answer the questions on my own thanks.I don't actually need you to both pose the question and then answer on my behalf."

Um...you're the one who asked questions and is complaining because someone answered them.

You're the one who seems to want to pose them and answer them too.

Talk about an infantile response.

See if you can answer this:

Australia is getting warmer and wetter while Europe and North America are getting concurrently cooler and icier.

Are these indicators that the earth is entering another glacial period?

Yeah, Mr Opinion,

The earth is entering another glacial period.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/glacial-decrease.gif

One of sharply declining volume.

http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png

Mr Opinion;

"Europe and North America are getting concurrently cooler and icier"

Is it your opinion?

If it is not your opinion, can you please provide a link to who has that opinion, or who has said it?

Alternatively, if you believe it is fact, can you please link to a site that says so?

Yes, the world is entering another glacial, in about 30,000 years (plus or minus a few) - a lot can happen in the interim.

- a lot can happen in the interim.
qanda,
such as ? are you referring to the Carbon Tax putting a stop to this glacial ?

Indy:

"such as?"

You decide the answer you want, you decide if it is the right answer.

"are you referring to the Carbon Tax putting a stop to this glacial?"

No, that is just silly.

No, that is just silly.
qanda,
not as silly as the tax though eh ?

Oh, really indy?

This guy and most economists think different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

Oh wait - politics and some pollies just get sillier and sillier.

qanda,
any moron can find selective clips on youtube showing interviews out of context ?
The bottom line remains the same. The Carbon Tax is stupid & audacious & does absolutely, definitively nothing to prevent climate change. ask anyone who hasn't been educated beyond their comprehension.
If we really want to change the climate for the better then we're definitely having ourselves on.
Are you actually saying we should go against nature twice ? First by ruining much of the atmosphere & then by trying to prevent the natural cycle of icing ?
You really need to make up your mind, you've only got ten thousand years, at least that's what the cycles are purported to have been according to scientists of course.

individual,

It takes a special kind of arrogance to insinuate - as you do - every second post that anybody who holds an opinion contrary to your own is some kind of uneducated moron.

That appears to be your sole argument in just about every debate you enter.

http://skepticalscience.com/china-leading-role-solutions.html

I was talking to someone the other day about Singapore taxing car use to such an extent that it became too expensive for the average person (thus saving the environment). To make up for it they have state-of-the-art pubic transport. Yep, it's a small country, but it demonstrates the usefulness of scaling back consumption - or directing it to a more eco-friendly model - in order to protect the environment.

Any moron, indy? The 'denialosphere' have created a cult in selective cherry-picking.

Point is, indy - Tony Abbott said what he said (and went to great lengths afterwards to justify it).

You might not remember indy but John Howard and Senator Hill had a much better strategy response than Labor had to combat global warming. It was only when the Labor Party took over 'ownership' did Tony 'it's crap' Abbott start to play shenanigan politics.

Fwiw, I've been saying for quite some time that the tax won't mitigate global warming (it can't) and there are many papers out there that back that up. I could reference them but you wouldn't go there, they're written by real climate scientists (not anti-science bloggers).

What you and your fellow travellers seem to close your eyes and block your ears to is that the tax is/was always meant to begin the transition of Oz to a lower fossil fuel economy - it has to start sometime - even Abbott acknowledges that.

to begin the transition of Oz to a lower fossil fuel economy
qanda,
they didn't say that at first but I still maintain it (The Tax) does nothing but fill the superannuation of those who least deserve it. If they were serious about reducing emission than surely it'd make more sense to reduce tax for every bit of emission reduced rather than charge tax & maintain the emission ? After all isn't a reduction that is the key argument ?

Poirot,
the usefulness of scaling back consumption - or directing it to a more eco-friendly model - in order to protect the environment.
Isn't that what I have been promoting to here all along & now you're hitting out at me for doing so. How many times have I posted in favour of reducing waste in transport by proposing a mono rail system but no, none of it ever makes sense to those who want a perfect climate but forfeit neither money, nor conditions why, not even dispose of some of the non-sense they're so heavily burdened with by choice & not by genetic inheritance.

Unfortunately Poirot, you have to follow things to their logical conclusion to find the truth.

Please explain just why you want to deprive people of the most fuel effective transport option in Oz. Is it because you hate people, or because of some fool ideology. Neither a very good reason, if you are rational.

As public transport in Oz costs more fuel, & therefor CO2 per passenger mile than the use of the private motor vehicle, I have often wondered why smelly buses, & inefficient trains are so favoured by the fringe people, such as greens. You should be demanding a reduction in polluting public transport in Oz, not a reduction, if carbon dioxide is your worry.

We do understand the problem with academics. They are horrified that a smart plumber can make more than most, not very smart, but much exalted university professor. This they would love to stop. Of course they can not say this out loud in public, so come on side of some rabid notion that CO2 is a pollutant.

I wonder how much longer we have to wait for our own cultural revolution, so we can put these people to work in something more suited to their intellect.

Re: “to begin the transition of Oz to a lower fossil fuel economy”

Indy:

>> they didn't say that at first <<

Yes they did, it was a major policy announcement. It irked media shock-jocks so much that the likes of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones twisted and distorted it by spruiking “the tax” will have no impact on reducing global temperatures. Well of course it wouldn’t, the government never said it would, scientists never said it would.

What the government did say (amongst other things) was it would help limit the increase in global temperatures (in the long term) by moving towards an economy less reliant on fossil fuels (it will take decades to do this, but you have to start sometime).

>> If they were serious about reducing emission than surely it'd make more sense to reduce tax for every bit of emission reduced rather than charge tax & maintain the emission ? After all isn't a reduction that is the key argument ? <<

Indy, the tax on the big emitters is reduced by them lowering their emmissions.

Did you not get/read the information pack in your letter box?

This may help:

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/top-10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-carbon-price/

What irks me is that the government has to subsidise the 'fossil fuel industry' to the tune of one billion dollars per year just to have them support the 'tax' - hypocritical from both sides.

individual,

I was criticising your habit of labelling your opponents as uneducated or morons.

Hasbeen,

Just about everything you spout, I find either irksome or grotesque.

Here's a reasonable article on carbon tax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/breaking-the-logjam/2013/03/02/5ba20090-81ed-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html

With ideas from this:

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop11.pdf

I was criticising your habit of labelling your opponents as uneducated or morons.
Poirot,
I don't see them as opponents, I see them as a huge handicap to Australia's future.
i.e. people who think they know but they don't so therefore anyone who does have some inkling, particularly from experience rather than mere education, is treated as a village idiot.
You have to accept that education, particularly in Australia, is not what it's made out to be.
It leaves a hell of a lot to be desired as it has a very long way to catch to practical sense.

qanda,
If you believe what's in that link then you'll believe anything.

Ok indy, I'm wasting my time - I wish you well.

Ok indy, I'm wasting my time
qanda,
only today the PM argued how Abbott will pay for for for social services if he removed the Carbon Tax. I can't quite read a real focus on reducing emission in that.

Poirot let me assure you, the feeling is entirely mutual.

Originally I thought you were intelligent, just lacking in understanding on a few things. However the more I see of your posts, the more I realise that information or knowledge will have no effect on your thinking.

Your references give no logical reason to tax carbon, just their ideas on how to spend the revenue. This is typical lefty thinking. You & your lefty mates believe you can spend our money better than us.

Well you have demonstrated you can throw it away on crazy schemes, quicker than any drunken sailor, but not that you have any idea worth having.

I have told you that public transport is inefficient, & produces more CO2, [not pollution] than the private car. Obviously you tried & failed to find an argument against this fact, so you call me irksome or grotesque. I guess it is hard to see your long term faith trashed, but that's what happens when you hang your hat on dogma.

Try coming out into the real world, where theories have to stack up against the facts to be believed.

Just to spoil your day a little more, look at what the left leaning mainstream media in Germany is finally saying about the global warming scam. It is even headed for an outlet near you, some time very soon. I hope you enjoy.

Germany is finally saying about the global warming scam
Hasbeen,
Our lefties are on average ten years behind the rest of the world so we'll still have a whole decade to tolerate the mutts. Hopefully the next federal Government will make an effort to get them to make an effort because I for one am fed up with seeing my tax dollar first wasted & then claimed back as well. I think a Coalition Government would be well advised to demote many senior public servants & promote the more competent younger ones if they can be found.

Hasbeen,

I find the sentiments expressed in your posts regularly irksome and often grotesque.

I'm not interested in your small-minded take on modern transport. It's a finite paradigm - and certainly not sustainable. Urban sprawl and centralisation of goods and services will eventually have to reverse. Perhaps then, common sense will prevail.

"I have told you that public transport is inefficient, blah blah..."

I couldn't give a hoot what "you've told me".

In any case, Germany is way ahead of the US and its mimickers in sustainable models of transport.

You haven't spoiled my day raising Germany at all. It's always a pleasure to peruse European ideas on such subjects.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2009/04/16-germany-transportation-buehler

(btw, you get today's prize for inserting religious jargon [as in "faith" and "dogma"] in your post - congrats:)

Thank you Poirot. Bluster is the surest sign of defeat a lefty can give.

Hasbeen,

"Bluster is the surest sign of defeat...."

Well you should know - you're full of it.

: )

Now boys & girls. lets not get too het up.
The governments' proposals of the eastern extension of the M4 to the
Sydney CBD is just nonsense. Fancy making it easier to get more cars into the city !
Public transport is where the money we have should be spent.
I cannot agree with Hasbeen that individual transport is better for
fuel use than public transport.
Eventually, in a zero growth economy we will have a problem maintaining
the infrastructure that we now have.

For those who think zero growth economies are a figment of my
imagination I suggest that you do a little reading on the subject.
Most European countries are either in a contraction economy or a low
growth situation.

It is for that reason that the Very Fast Train Melbourne to Brisbane
is simply out of the question. The cost is so high that we do not have
the money or the credit. What we need is a fast enough rail link
interstate.
Speeds such as the UKs London to Edinburgh service is achievable for us.
That would give a Sydney Melbourne time of 5 to 6 hours instead of 11 hours.

Most "western" countries have reduced their energy consumption by
increasing the cost of electricity or buying smaller cars. This trend
has occurred because most people believe the petrol cost will only
rise in the future. The well head cost for all new sources is now
about US$90 a barrel and as that new oil is mixed with the old declining
US$30 a barrel so the various refinery outputs will get dearer.
With our refineries closing we are now importing petrol and diesel.
Instead of being 50% dependant on imports we will be 100% dependant
on imports in the near future. That is a very risky situation to be in.

Politicians are out of touch with the reality of energy.

What we need is a fast enough rail link
interstate.
Bazz,
Reliability is even more crucial than speed. I maintain that a mono rail system is the most cost effective, the most environmentally friendly & least costly to build & maintain. No bridges, no flooding/washouts, no wide corridors of forest destroyed, it literally is a win, win, win system.

You don't have to agree with me Bazz, it is a tested fact. A number of studies, have been disappeared very quickly due to finding that public transport uses more fuel per passenger mile than the private car.

It is no point arguing with me about it, argue with the lefty universities who could not get a different result to their studies, no matter how hard they tried.

I personally prefer the train, to all other form of commute travel. I used to leave my car at work [in Sydney city], & catch the train to & from work to home in Cronulla. Not too sure if I would have felt the same, if had not been able to get a seat. I only drove in Monday morning, & home Friday arvo.

This does not work for a vast number of parents who have to take kids to child care or school, as part of their commute. Public transport is absolutely useless for this type of travel.

As I have often promoted, I'd shut down the CBD in cities, & move the office towers out to medium to fringe suburbs, to eliminate the peak hour crush.

Hasbeen, don't remember commenting on your statement about public transport.
Looked back but could not find it.
A 1/4 full bus might be marginal, but then bus companies around here
use those small about 20 seater buses for short local runs to/from the
railway station.
Preschool & schools are usually near home so many mums drop the kids
off and park at the station. Thats what my daughter in law did until
she changed to a school in a remoter area. She is a teacher.

A near empty train would not be efficient either, although they do use
shorter trains out of peak time, in some but not all cases.

As far as multistorey office buildings are concerned, eventually they
will become untenable anyway. Their maintenance will become impossible
and the masses of cubicle screen jockies will be a thing of our past times.
The long commutes by car will be unaffordable. I calculated some while
back that someone living at Seven Hills and working at Mascot would
be paying about $130 per week for tolls and petrol, and that is after tax money.
I can't imagine what it is now.
No, as I have said before everything will become local.

I'm so late getting on this thread no-one will be interested, but a few observed misconceptions, if I may.

Hasbeen, just because our current public transport system is inefficient is no reason to trash it in favour of more cars - no matter how efficient you make those cars. Where would Tokyo be without an efficient rail service? No, the answer is to make our public transport more efficient - more and better rail services and fewer buses, less frequent services and pack them in, instead of leaving them half or three-parts empty; we need to stop spoiling people, and stop wasting resources on inefficient services.
Rail freight would also be more efficient than road, if we only had the foresight to make the necessary infrastructure facilities available at both transit ends.

(And Bazz, high speed rail can make sense if it can be efficient and cost-effective - ie with full capacity - by reducing airline services between major centres, which would have to be much less efficient, wouldn't you say?)

Also, re agricultural or forestry absorption of increased CO2 output, this equation can only balance if we could increase these absorptive capacities in unison with increased emissions (which will increase with population increase forecasts - unless we make people eat less, do less, consume less totally, and stay at home) UNLESS industry, power generation and domestic consumption could all become very much more efficient - as arable land is finite, is already over-exploited, soil fertility (and output) is declining and fertiliser cost rising and availability declining. Forests are declining, and being replaced by marginal agriculture. Sure, we need more productive, more efficient plant species, but where from? GM? Or should we envisage a 'green' planet arising from massive permanent algal bloom - which would certainly absorb CO2, but also end all viable fisheries?

Whatsit2ya has a point - millions of years of fossil fuel generation being 'burned' in a few hundred years? Do the math. (All those believing in a 6,000 year old Earth, please leave the room.)

Saltpetre,

"....million of years of fossil fuel generation has been "burned" in a few hundred years..."

Well yes....

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/hockey-stick-graph-now-even-more-stickish

As for the Carbon Tax: The ringaroundrosie of pinch peter to pay paul is really a joke, a smoke and mirrors game. Our emissions may have reduced because some industry has become more efficient (or less wasteful, or shut down altogether) and domestic consumers may have tightened their belts (less aircon and heating, solar power and solar hot water, fewer and shorter showers - anything to save a buck) but it's small change. And, the ETS is a sham, with the shysters rubbing their hands and saying 'bring it on'!

No, the only incentive for industry to become more efficient is to remain cost-effective in international markets. If our domestic production is more expensive than an import, then our industry is dead. Hence, productive efficiency has certainly to be improved, but our electricity dependent industries desperately need power generation to be more efficient and less expensive, or end of story.

Hence, merely charging electricity producers for emissions, but allowing them to fully pass on that impost, achieves nothing. Whereas, charging them for not reducing emissions (to a cap), while at the same time forbidding them to pass that cost on to consumers would get them hot and bothered but also working seriously on emissions-reduction technological development (and emissions capture and conversion).

Similarly, propping up high energy consumption industry (with 'subsidies' from C tax revenue) is only delaying the inevitable - unless power cost is actually reduced by the provider, AND the industry becomes more energy-efficient itself.

As for why bother: So many nations are taking Climate Change seriously, it may only be a matter of move voluntarily now, or face sanctions (or a huge get up to speed) later. No longer a 'choice'. (TBC>)

(Cont'd>)
Alternative efficient energy strategies are a development opportunity, but only industry can move on this, of its own accord, and will only do so if the incentives and the certainties are in place. What incentives and certainties? 'Geared' introduction of permanent emissions 'Caps' tied to productive outputs, with heavy (and scaling) penalties attached, and fixed electricity pricing. 'Prizes' for innovation may also enervate, and some R&D Grant 'seeding'. With no 'buck' to be made or saved over the long haul, there is no incentive.

It's either that, or big subsidies for domestic and even industrial scale solar or wind installations and set, and substantial, grid input guarantees from the relevant mains energy providers direct to the consumer, and with a small corresponding reimbursement tariff to the government. Push-me, pull-you.

I think Tony Abbott has some such 'direct action' strategy in mind, and, if so, is bang on the money, IMHO. (Fixed electricity pricing, plus emissions caps, penalties and incentives = no need for subsidies to consumers = no need for the C tax or for an ETS.)

In the longer term, we had better get used to the idea of a nuclear power plant in a paddock near any of us, unless our government gets off its butt and invests in an industrial scale pilot solar thermal array in the outer precincts of one of our capital cities, or gets possibly working on a remote fully self-contained satellite city in the back-blocks, to which major industrial production may be relocated. We await with baited breath.

Saltpetre,

An analysis of Tony Abbott's Direct Action plan:

http://theconversation.edu.au/will-the-oppositions-direct-action-plan-work-12309

From Tony Abbott: "The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger."

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2808321.htm

Doesn't sound like his heart is in it, you reckon?

Well, Poirot, thanks for those links, and from the outline of Tony Abbott's 2010 direct action plan I have to agree it won't do the job.
However, I am also confident that the Carbon Tax arrangements and subsequent ETS won't do the job either.
There are massive pitfalls in both propositions - soil sequestration and tree planting is limited in potential scope and maintenance, and some industry incentive payments could not make up the difference.
ETS will be open to such rorts it will be a money sieve, and make no discernible difference to global CO2 - because it relies on re-forestation of land currently cleared for agriculture, or on the same limited soil carbon sequestration proposed by Abbott.
Demand for food production is only going to grow, not diminish (even if the West is far less wasteful), and though increasing soil sequestration should increase fertility and consequent productive outputs, it is still subject to finite limits which will have no chance of keeping pace with emissions growth resultant from population growth demands and the ever increasing movement of developing world populations to a more affluent and urban lifestyle.

No, it has to be genuine alternative high-efficiency energy production (including new-age gas/coal base-load, wind, solar, hydro, wave, geothermal, biomass and algal aquaculture), plus emissions capture and conversion (because burying CO2 can't work), and nuclear - together with much more energy-efficient industrial production technology, transportation, building construction and food production. Either that, or back to the horse and cart, pushbikes, push-mowers, and home gardens.
(Or we can adapt to climate change, restrict global population, ban plasma TVs and ducted air conditioning, severely limit air travel, go back to sail powered ocean transport, say good-bye to polar bears and many other species, and start building our underground living quarters and food storage facilities.)

Industry won't move without incentive, and that incentive can only come from direct threat to the bottom line, nothing less. So, fingers crossed.

Saltpetre, I notice that you are circling around the problem but not
quite landing on the knub of the problem.
We have a declining amount of energy available, sure it bumps up and
down a bit, but it is unwaveringly ready to accelerate its decline.
Recently some of those studying coal are suggesting that peak coal is
more likely to be earlier in 2020.

We have a situation of increasing demand for food.
We will have a decreasing supply of energy.
We have an increasing cost of energy.
We have an urgent need to build alternative energy systems.
We will need to devote as much energy and resources to build energy systems as possible.
We have a falling GDP throughout the world.
Lower GDP means less money for infrastructure and the most important
infrastructure is alternative energy.

The AGW proposal for alternative energy is too long term.
The need is completion in 20 years not 50 years.
Indeed some say 5 years before we have an energy crisis.
Trouble is no one knows for sure whether it is too late now to devote
our available resources to building that infrastructure.

Those wasting their time worrying about how to have an ETS I would ask
if you know how come the Russian Oligarchy became so rich so they
could buy Russia.
They did it by buying decrepit Russian factories for scrap and telling
the Europeans that they were closing them and sold them the CO2 credits.
I presume they are waiting to strip our ETS system.

I have been told since the early 1950's that I and the rest of the human race is going to hell in a hand basket lol. I have survived nuclear armageddon and the Y2000 bug, guys I am ten foot tall and bullet proof lol.
The west wastes half the food it grows and the East loses half to pests. We will not starve. Plenty of energy and we may have to pay a little more for it.
Read 1984 these green scum politicians think by frightening people we will be more compliant. I won't! I will call it for what it is, a fraud to enrich these green scum. The irony is they will put it in place and the ogliarchs will take it over because the Greens and Gillard are by nature dumb as canine odure.

Dear JBowyer,

Don't worry, when the end comes there will still be plenty of cannibals left!

JBowyer,

You may be ten foot tall and bullet proof, but face it, you and I won't be around when it really hits the fan (if it's going to hit the fan), we'll be long gone. And fossil fuels might be available for quite some time yet - with increasingly hazardous deep-sea drilling, environmentally destructive CSG capture, tar sands and shale extraction - but what then? Sure, they'll just have to grow masses of oil-rich algae, use more agricultural land for palm oil, or go back to hunting whales for their blubber. A self-destructive spiral in the making.

Are we so self-centered and so short sighted, so arrogant as to think that we can just go ahead and despoil the whole of the Eco-sphere just so that we can go on for a little bit longer with 'business as usual'? That's what happened with the Easter Islanders and the Aztecs, and look how that turned out. Talk about head in sand.

In any visionary undertaking, one at least tests the viability of the alternatives, and does not simply rely of 'possibilities'. That is vanity, if not sheer arrogance. Pride and 'cockiness' come before a fall, and in this instance it may be a very hard fall indeed. Where's caution, question of possibilities, and judicious prudence?

What world to leave, what heritage for future generations? No future but what we make. Are we to be tested and found wanting? I'd like to think we can leave this planet in good shape, for all its inhabitants. It is in our hands, whether we like it or not. Must it always be only a concerned few who strive to preserve and protect the likes of the Tarquine, the Amazon, the Great Barrier Reef, the polar bears, and our agricultural and aquatic heritage, or can humanity ever wake up as a whole, and as a single voice cry out for sanity to prevail? (Before the 'tipping point' that is.)

When did the naysayers ever discover, ever invent, ever create, anything?

Dear Saltpetre,

Unfortunately, the human race has become an infestation on the planet Earth. Humans are multiplying uncontrollably and devouring everything in their path. But there will be survivors - it just won't be the human race.

I think Jesus was right when he said "The meek shall inherit the Earth". Problem for us is that he wasn't refering to members of the human race. Sad, isn't it?

People who spend their entire life with in spitting distance of a CBD somewhere, are bound to have no idea at all, of the huge great empty world out there.

That is probably why we have so many stupid people, & greenies.

Hey naysayer people like me keep going. They so not sit around whining and saying we are all going to die, give me money, like Flannery.
Mate I have been in Melbourne since 1974 and have always paid taxes. Put my record against Brown who has just taken taken and stopped things and I think I am well in front!
We can get over all this nonsense. Started as global warming now its a far more ephemeral "Climate change" that's anything. Especially if you are able to change the records. Shades of 1984, he who controls the present, controls the past and the future. Again why has Flannery bought waterfront land. This is a rhetorical question because it is such a good investment and because he is making just sooooo much money, from my taxes.

What I was suggesting is not a green agenda, far from it.
One possible alternative energy is nuclear but the time it takes to
build nuclear power stations, especially when you need about 20 of them, means they will be too late.
Australia will soon import 100% of our oil use.

No there is not plenty of oil available.
Even Alan Kohler and the others on Business Insiders today don't have a clue.
They were quite sure that the US has self sufficiency in oil.
Fact, the US despite shale oil still imports 40% of the oil they use.
Shale oil production is about to start declining. Individual wells
decline at 40% to 70% a year. It requires constant drilling with
increasing money input and reducing initial output.
Also the net production is falling as the best areas are used up.

The government knows how serious the problem is, as they suppressed
the ABRE report. It echos the US govt Energy Dept report which was
hidden on a govt site but was found by a high school hacking club.
It is known as the Hirsch report, google it.

Hasbeen,

I live in the great outdoors, and in my experience all that empty space you refer to is either productive agricultural land or forests, or else is uninhabited by choice or is national parks, reserves and such. Do you suggest it should all be polluted with people?

It appears you may have no concern for the preservation of what remains of the Amazon or of the forests of Indonesia, Malaysia or the Congo/Rwanda. So, no concern for elephants, rhinos, Asiatic rhinos, orangutans or gorillas, polar bears, the Tassie Devil, koala, whales, and so very many other species with which we share this planet - or indeed for retention of the agricultural land needed to feed the world.

Boy, I'm glad I don't live in your distorted world.

Salty, I believe that anyone who refers to people as pollution should top them selves immediately, if not sooner.

I don't know how you can put up with living in that pile of pollution we would call a body. Please feel free to abandon it ASAP.

Hasbeen,

A plant in the wrong place, where it reduces or interferes with natural or organised productivity, is a Weed.
An organism which damages the vitality and health of an essential host is a Pathogen or a Pest.

Humanity in the wrong place qualifies to be categorised as one such fundamentally deleterious pathogenic lifeform.
Realistically, humanity is rapidly reaching pathogenic proportions, if not already at or beyond qualifying for this categorisation.

If everyone of sane mind genuinely concerned about the extraordinary damage being caused to the biosphere by humankind (and being caused for no truly worthwhile purpose, and only for self-aggrandizement) were to 'top' themselves, then there would be no hope for reform, no chance to haul humankind back from inevitable mindless chaos.
The mindless never realise their folly until it's too late, and will grasp for worldly riches even as they descend beneath the waves of the torrent of their own making - too late to bargain, to late to seek redemption, too late to 'wake up' from their delusional fantasy, their egotistical blundering.

You might be right salty, but there would be a few less ratbags, & a lot less inner city Chardonnay socialists.