The Abbott Lib government has turned it’s back on AGW and is dismantling any measures taken to reduce CO2 emissions in Australia.
One lib MP said recently ,”Global warming is a big hoax as bad as the Y2K hoax”.
This is the true position of the coalition.
The only action taken is the suspect “Direct Action Plan” which is basically a bribe to the big polluters with taxpayers money to reduce emissions.
They claim that the “Carbon Tax” is a big financial burden on the country and is unnecessary.
In fact figures from the US show that the cost of not taking action is calamitous .
It will cost Australia far more in the long term to not keep the so called carbon tax or it’s replacement with an emissions trading scheme, in the long term. This will of course be passed on to the people of Australia.
The main reason for the coalition for denying AGW is that their corporation benefactors are only interested in maximum profits and anything that reduces them is to be denigrated.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/papers/smith-and-katz-2013.pdf
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/papers/200686ams1.2nlfree.pdf
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr200301/tr2003-01.pdf

what the free lunch=over?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-12-04/australia-s-10-billion-climate-fund-fights-to-stay-in-business

go..get your free lunch elsewhere
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

there are real/problems
http://www.blacklistednews.com/How_to_commit_fraud_and_get_away_with_it%3A_A_Guide_for_CEOs/30966/0/38/38/Y/M.html
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/12/105-scientists-slam-gmo-rat-study.html
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_on_the_pathology_of_the_rich_20131206

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-deadly-impacts-of-gmo-and-biotechnology/

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_07/Genetic-mutated-plants-kill-people-3039/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OU9AGUv4lk&feature=player_embedded

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-fukushima-coverup-biggest-industrial-catastrophe-in-the-history-of-mankind/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/amend-the-federal-reserve-we-need-a-central-bank-that-serves-main-street/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrJ1B46q7PE

Stop making a fool of yourself Robert.

We shoved that gravy train into a siding & took the wheels off it. No amount of yabber is going to get the wheels back on.

You'll have to come up with a new scam to get another running, & you just might find that a bit hard right now. It is going to be much harder to con the public out of it's hard earned now, than it was before this one.

I suppose the report that the carbon tax had little to no effect on emission reductions would indicate that a price on carbon is not the way to go either?

Dear Robert,

One only has to check with the ABS and "Fact Check,"
on the spin by the Coalition about the so called "Carbon Tax."
To get the real facts. Mr Abbott's insistance that
he has a "Mandate" on getting rid of the "carbon tax."
is also misleading. Mandates are not enforceable legal
concepts. They're political whacking sticks used to advantage
one political position over another.

Plus, there is no legal obligation for any party to support
the policy position of its opponent simply because that
opponent won the power to govern.

Was that mandate or mandrake. Abbott's mandate is to quit putting his foot in his mouth.
The carbon tax is responsible for the downturn in grid power. This has opened a whole new opportunity of renewable power. And never before have so many left the grid to go it alone. Huge battery power is now on the market and people are putting all their generation into the battery.
You do not even have to buy the solar panels they are for rent.
The weather is certainly getting more intense, and you have no idea where it is coming from next.
Abbott says it's crap and he knows all about it.

Sleet, ice, deep-freeze hit large swath of US
http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/1001/20131208/md0622.htm

A powerful storm system that spread hazardous snow, sleet and freezing rain widely across the nation's midsection rumbled toward the densely populated Eastern seaboard on Sunday, promising more of the same.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/california-cold_n_4401549.html

Forecasters said the potent system already blamed for numerous power outages and thousands of weekend flight cancellations elsewhere, has Virginia and other Mid-Atlantic states in its icy sights before the Northeast is up next.

Icy conditions were expected to last through the rest of the weekend
Al Gore’s ‘polarbeargate’ scientist forced to retire
http://theinternetpost.net/2013/12/07/al-gores-polarbeargate-scientist-forced-to-retire/

An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has retired as part of a settlement with a federal agency. Charles Monnett was briefly suspended in 2011 from his work with the U.S.

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/nytimes-unprecedented-concentration-of-sea-creatures-near-shore-in-california-experts-baffled-longtime-residents-astounded-video#sthash.tpnBVDof.dpbs

massive storms, increased volcanic activity, dinosaurs dying, mammoth dying sea levels rising 100 metres etc.
It all happened without a Carbon Tax. So, what or how will a Carbon Tax prevent the next of Earth's evolutionary cycle ?

Australian Prime Minister Abbott should answer whether AGW - Kyoto science has measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae proliferated by sewage and other nutrient pollution.

The leader of government should get to understand AGW science is very incomplete, so as not to go ahead with yet another cost burden and waste of time associated with CO2 non-sense.

Using extreme weather events to drum up public interest in a direct action scheme is not good enough.

Plant matter in animal cud has been measured and assessed in AGW science so why not ocean algae plant matter?

Algae is even so dense in some areas it is causing anoxia in unprecedented modern day ocean dead zones.

There is clear proof algae has not been measured and assessed, especially in the Arctic where ice is reported melting more than usual. Unprecedented blooms of algae have only recently been found there.

Quote, "The finding reveals a new consequence of the Arctic's warming climate and provides an important clue to understanding the impacts of a changing climate and environment on the Arctic Ocean and its ecology."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ocean-bloom.htm

An "l" is missing in the link. Sorry. Try here:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ocean-bloom.html

Perhaps put it this way.

What could be the possible cost of ongoing extreme weather events if the actual cause of ocean warming is not being addressed?

Then include cost of ongoing CO2 tax, or any direct action or other ETS-type costs?

No wonder the economy is in a mess and going downhill, GM and others perhaps leaving, Qantas business stalling, fuel refinery moves offshore, cost of electricity and water increasing even more.

The cost is not just for weather event damage.

"The high cost of extreme weather events" could only have been written by someone who gleans most of their "knowledge"(sic) from the ABC.

It implies that if Oz holds fast to its pre-LNP emission reduction pledges it will stop climate change dead in its tracks. But, even supposing the IPCC linking of recent "extreme" (?) weather and CO2 is sound, Oz cutting emissions by 5% --or 100% for that matter --will not alter anything unless the rest of the world follows suit, and it is not looking even remotely like that will happen: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/japan-sets-new-emissions-target-in-setback-to-un-treaty-talks.html

Further, it is doubtful whether Robert is really concerned about costs anyway, for if he were he wouldn't be spruiking an IPCC program which includes multi-trillion dollar payola's to the underdeveloped world in the guise of climate reparations-- THAT IS WHERE THE REAL COSTS WILL BE.

So, in view of this, the article might have been better titled : "The High Cost of Toadying up to the IPCC"

Dear Robert,

It seems you and your friends live in a world where no news gets to you. Rather than getting bogged down in your science, I was wondering if you or your colleagues could possibly answer this question?

“ if your science is so strong, consensus is so solid and 97% of scientists agree, why has that “science” failed to convince the entire global infrastructure that was created to support CAGW in the first place?”

The comments from Guenther Oettinger, the EU Energy Commissioner have put the final nails in the coffin of any hope of a replacement for Kyoto in 2015.

Add to this the collapse of the RENIXX global renewable energy index, the closing of the Chicago Climate exchange, the collapse of the EU emissions trading market, Siemens in Germany closing its solar industry with 1Bn Euro in debts, all Barrack Obama’s public funded renewable startups are now collapsing (12 have filed for bankruptcy, the remaining 8 have defaulted on loans) at a public loss of $12Bn, wind turbine orders in the USA, the worlds largest turbine market are down 70% and still no Kyoto replacement?

China and India amended clause 2b in a final act of sabotage in Warsaw to exclude the biggest emitters from any obligations at all.

Britain has signed off on another two new nuclear power stations (total planned now 8),

Germany is building 12 new coal fired power stations, three of these to burn lignite. Their coal use for energy has increased by 17.5%, European “green capital funding” mechanisms have collapsed.

CAGW seems to be going really, really well.

Any comment?

For those who are still arguing , and my comment on a recent post, see below.

http://www.marketbusinessnews.com/extreme-weather-events-warning-europe/6312
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/13/1581351/the-188-billion-price-tag-from-us-extreme-weather-from-2011-to-2012/
http://www.eesi.org/insurance-industry-perspectives-extreme-weather-events-14-dec-2012
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-weather-whiplash-accounts-for-billions-in-losses-16055
http://www.wri.org/blog/new-report-connects-2012-extreme-weather-events-human-caused-climate-change
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/04/five-insurance-companies-debunk-fox-on-extreme/196734

Hi Robert but no thanks,

Just wondering if you had an informed opinion or an answer of your own. You know, something you have formed as a result of critical thinking rather than borrowing the opinions of someone else or starting a “link war”.

Anyway, if you do get time to answer the question that would indicate you have given it some thought. If you can’t answer the question, don’t worry too much as none of your fellow travelers can either.

When you conveniently remove the rigor upon which topics are analyzed, absent yourself from the discipline of “is it true?” backed up with the harsher discipline of “does it work?” there is only rhetoric

There are 2 things being mixed together here, as usual. One is the Carbon Tax, the other is Climate Change.

My view, based on my own interpretation of the peer reviewed and public domain science that I have read to date is that quite clearly there is a consensus in the scientific community that climate change and global warming are very real and that there will be increasing consequences as a result.

However, whilst I am of the view that it is already too hot, I have no particular anxst about this as the reality of climate change will force the need to address it all of its own accord even though this may come at both great cost and hardship.

As for the carbon tax though, I am opposed to it. There are better ways.

And this brings me to another mistruth being propagated by some of the more ignorant members of the community which is that even if we did act our contribution would have little impact globally anyway, so why bother?

The reality of course is that one aspect of climate change is how it manifests on a local level and something of a "direct action" nature is extremely important i.e lots more trees and plants, something other than black roads etc etc.

All this talk of democracy, free markets, a fair go and a fair days pay for a fair days work is largely b.s. The reality of most countries, is that the vast majority of the wealth is controlled by a very small minority and it is they who are making the decisions.

Unfortunately, as they care for little other their own and getting their own way, things are unlikely to change in any significant way until it starts to hurt them in the hip pocket.

If we take the 'broad brush approach' of the incumbent federal govt, either it didn't happen, act of god or just wrong place wrong time.

Write all you want. But the denial of everything climate related by the incumbent federal govt for the sake of their own political gain, to be different and keep the fossil fuel lobby happy is a sad day for our once proud nation.

Tony says "stand on one leg" The blue tie set stand on one leg, the rest of look on in amazement and dismay!!

@ DreamOn, "There are 2 things being mixed together here, as usual. One is the Carbon Tax, the other is Climate Change."

At present ABC focus is on climate change with little or no mention of CO2. No doubt they are cooking up the direct action ETS spin.

I wonder if ABC news editors actually know that those tapered chimney structures with the white stuff coming out are steam cooling towers.

Why don't they show us what one tonne of CO2 looks like. Then we might understand the size of one million tonnes of CO2?

I think we all have a right to know everything about this CO2 non-sense. It is even impacting viability of our national flag carrier, Qantas.

*JF AUS*

my view is that the ABC is an absolute joke. It is to me not a public broadcaster, but rather a guvment propaganda channel funded by the public and there is a distinct difference between the two.

That is not to say that it could not be good, as there is the occasional "nugger" amongst it all and clearly a depth of potential journalistic talent however ...

Seriously, you go from 21 to 24 and whether it is LateLine, 7:30 or otherwise, and all you find is the same handful of shallow crap going round and round and round.

As for the revelations of how much these chicken heads are being paid, one can only conclude that they are being over fed to keep them placid and compliant.

No, what needs to happen is that the ABC Board needs to be sacked in its entirety, change out the current head, reduce their wages and conditions by a half to a third, hire more staff, buy more equipment and do some serious journalism with a strong element of local content.

As for appropriate and balanced reporting re CO2, I recall meeting an interesting academic character whilst at the Human Rights conference in Geneva in 2000 who had done a thesis on the so called "Dumbing of America" effect.

Regrettabley, the media in Australia are a significant part of the delivery mechanism of something similar here.

Under pinning that of course are a class of "Dead Beats" (as Keating puts it)who neither wish to compete nor to be held to account.

DremOn,

While reading your post as above I noticed I was nodding in agreement to everything you say there.

The present situation is a pity because the ABC is in a position to encourage the spirit of the people to make the nation thrive.

ABC, Academic Bi-sexual Club.
Dream-on, you're so right with the same going round'n round. It's nauseating & on top of that you get those incessant promos. If that's the best they can do we're better off without them.

To my way of thinking, even a good thing (for want of another way to put it) can be bad if it is applied in the wrong way and or at the wrong time.

So, the carbon tax comes out as it has, the so called big polluters are required to pay it, but the loop that was not closed in this equation allows them to pass it on to a consumer base who is already overly financially stressed, due in no small part to the insanely hyper inflated property market.

And of course, for the carbon tax to achieve its goals and bring about a situation where it is cheaper to buy green energy by making dirty coal energy more expensive it needs to go further up and up an up.

Thus, even if for a moment we consider that the carbon tax is well intended, when you apply it in the economy as it is, it becomes a very bad thing.

Thus, to make it a good thing would require making a whole range of additional economic adjustments such that those already doing it hard are not made to do it harder.

Here again though, if we were to just say, no more coal and it stays in the ground, what would be the social cost of this?

No doubt, bankruptcy through loss of employment, loss of home and perhaps in the stress family break down etc thus the Greens really need to address the antecedents to this problem by identifying in explicit detail how people can be migrated off to new employment in explicit detail so the electorate have a clear choice.

Then, as climate change and global warming start to take an ever increasing toll, more and more people will gravitate of their own volition to their side.

However, it may be already be too late for them in which case they can expect to be relegated to a small niche party of little significance, evidencing the fact that the carbon tax in its current form was always meant to be a "poison chalice."

DreamOn,

What if CO2 is not the cause of warming of the oceans and climate change?
What if unprecedented sewage and land use nutrient pollution is proliferating increased algae plant matter that is absorbing extra solar energy/warmth?

How is it possible that AGW and Kyoto and IPCC science has not measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean and lake algae plant matter but has measured and assessed plant matter in animal cud?

What if it is the logical thing, that place where all our warmth comes from, the sun?

Haven't you read anything about what has been going on in the sun for a few years now.

I guess those who only get their news from the ABC, & lefty publications wouldn't know, those publications avoid anything that might not be CO2, unless it's methane.

I understand a big solar flare happens very quickly like from an atomic bomb, so the radiation is only momentary.

Surely impact of such bursts of warmth would show up obviously in data.

Re warmth in algae, even if increased warmth from a solar flare occurs as well as regular sunlight, surely all should have been measured and assessed in AGW science.

I think i absolutely extraordinary all this tax and CO2 nonsense is underway, based on incomplete and perhaps incorrect science.

Actually JF AUS it is the slowing down & reduction on sunspots, which is matching the current cooling of the planet that I am talking about. The sunspot count is looking remarkably like the maunder minimum, which precipitated the little ice age.

If the planet continues to cool, as it is now, then watch out for extreme weather. The tropics will not cool much, it is the high latitudes which cool most, causing extreme weather to transfer tropical heat to the poles.

solar flare happens very quickly like from an atomic bomb, so the radiation is only momentary.
JF Aus,
I recall a few years ago when solar flares caused a lot of damage. I still remember as if it was yesterday when suddenly all my GPS went on the blink for nearly an hour as did other peoples'. Upon checking I learnt that it was due to solar flare activity.
I believe this occurs not infrequently.
Perhaps someone with way more knowledge can enlighten us here.