Where is the big picture?
Posted
We are the sunniest country in the world and one of the windiest - where better to develop renewable technology? (Desert Knowledge Australia)
The Business Council of Australia recently released a controversial report on the Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The report advocates addressing climate change while in the same breadth proposes to rip the guts out of the Government's emissions trading scheme, rendering it an ineffective tool to reduce emissions and significantly reducing the scope for Australian business to capitalise on the burgeoning green global economy.
We want to be able to enjoy a climate similar to that of our parents, grandparents and generations of human beings before them - the climate that has allowed humanity to thrive and prosper. Two degrees Celsius of global warming is often cited in the scientific literature as a threshold beyond which we can expect to witness global climate disaster. Two degrees will cause catastrophic impacts on natural systems that support human life, for instance a 40 per cent drop in Australia's agricultural capacity. We should aim far, far below this threshold.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to give us a 50 per cent chance of staying below 2 degrees global warming we must stabilise greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm). This requires a minimum reduction in Australia's emissions of 40 per cent by 2020 and over 90 per cent by 2050. However, if you think that a 50 per chance - a flip of a coin - is not great odds, we would need even stronger reduction targets.
In contrast, the BCA advocates a greenhouse gas reduction target of no higher than 10 per cent by 2020. Such an inadequate target makes a mockery of the science and effectively accepts global warming of over 2 degrees and its devastating impacts. It also suggests a failure to appreciate the substantial consequences for many Australian businesses, particularly in agriculture and tourism, if we fail to take adequate action.
Finding fair solutions
Say I'd been dumping the rubbish from my business in the local tip for years. It's been great for me, increasing my profitability. However after some years the tip starts to smell rancid, it is affecting the health of children at a nearby school and the community can no longer use the creek behind it for fishing or swimming. The council decides that they will take action and lets everyone know about it. For 20 years there are consultations and discussions and I am particularly vocal. They then announce that in a further two years they will impose a cost on dumping in the tip. I am outraged and demand compensation from the community. I argue that as I have had a free ride for so long I should continue to have it. What would you say to me?
Similarly generators of coal-fired electricity have used the atmosphere as a dumping ground for greenhouse pollution for years. They have been artificially profitable because they have not had to pay for the climate change consequences of their actions. Now, despite knowing about climate change and the likelihood of an emissions trading scheme for many years, the BCA advocates that these generators continue their free ride by receiving a substantial amount of free emission permits. Why should the rest of the community - households, other businesses and government - have to pay for their poor planning?
As the BCA notes, some industries that rely on international trade and cannot pass their costs onto consumers may require some assistance. However, this does not mean these companies should be "compensated". Any assistance should be carefully tied to push companies to transition into the clean energy economy and to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The quantity of this assistance must be carefully weighed up as it will increase the burden on the rest of the economy. Every dollar given to polluters is a dollar that is not used to help households adjust.
Economic opportunities
The BCA report fails to highlight the wealth of opportunities for economic growth, innovation and job creation from implementing a robust emissions trading scheme. In Germany the government has created a regulatory regime favourable to reducing emissions and participated in the European emissions trading scheme, which has enabled their green economy to boom. Cloudy Germany is now is a world leader in renewable energy exporting their technology to the world. Businesses have capitalised on the new regulatory environment with turnover in the renewable energy industry increasing nearly four fold since 2000 and jobs doubling between 2004 and 2007. Jobs in renewable energy in Germany are expected to increase from 250,000 to 710,000 by 2030.
With a favourable regulatory environment Australian companies can also begin to reap the rewards of this growing global green economy. We are the sunniest country in the world and one of the windiest - where better to develop renewable technology? However Australia must move quickly as Germany, Spain, China, the US are all leaving us in their wake. It is in Australia's interests to be creating and exporting the solutions to climate change, rather than waiting and having to import them from the rest of the world.
Report lacks rigour
What is most disappointing about the BCA's report is that it lacks academic rigour and impartiality. The report is moulded to achieve a certain political outcome rather than to contribute productively to the Australian policy debate. For instance, the report assumes a carbon price of double what is expected in an Australian scheme and hand picks 14 unidentified, relatively strongly affected companies as its reference point. It is a shame that some valid points in the report have been undermined by the poor quality of the whole.
Climate change is desperately urgent. Melting is occurring so rapidly in the Arctic that we can now expect that there will be no summer ice by 2013, 100 years earlier than scientists had previously predicted - we have already changed the map of the world. At this time we need quality impartial research which seeks to provide an objective and informative assessment of the best policy to solve this crisis in the interests of us all.
In contrast, this report demonstrates the worst of narrow self-interest, seeking to capitalise on the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the debate on emissions trading. To remain relevant to business in the 21st century, the BCA must adapt to the reality of climate change and the rapidly emerging green global economy. Rather than holding us back, the BCA should propel us forward - assisting Australian businesses to shoulder their fair share of the burden, as well as to capitalise on the vast array of opportunities emerging.
Amanda McKenzie completed her honours thesis in climate law at Monash University in 2007 and is the national coordinator of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, a partnership between youth organisations across Australia.
Search for news
Comments (110)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Jim:
26 Aug 2008 9:35:11am
Quote:
"...to give us a 50 per cent chance of staying below 2 degrees global warming we must stabilise greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm). "
50% is no better than a wild guess. Should policies that could destroy the national economy be based on a speculative postulation? It would be better to spend the budget on preparing for a warmer world than to try and turn back the tide. The warmer world is virtually guaranteed. Anyone who thinks that we can reverse or even stabilise global warming is in serious denial.
Quote:
"This requires a minimum reduction in Australia's emissions of 40 per cent by 2020 and over 90 per cent by 2050. "
This is not correct. It requires a reduction in WORLDWIDE emissions. Australian emissions can be reduced to zero (if we all hold our breath for a minute) and it will have no effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at all. None.
Frankly I'm amazed that the ABC publishes this specious nonsense.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
DeepFritz:
26 Aug 2008 9:58:54am
Ok let's do the what if they climate change people are right question first?
Then clearly we are doing the right thing if we reduce emissions.
If they are wrong, then we have nothing to lose in reducing our output in CO2. Surely a drop in consumption is not a bad thing - unless you are lobbying for a big polluting industry!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bertrand:
26 Aug 2008 10:05:42am
Since we all survive through making things and performing services for other people then yes, a drop in consumption is a bad thing. The production of goods and services does not necessarily have to be highly polluting, but consumption has to continue. Nor does consumption have to be bad. Every time you go to the opera or the art gallery, or the football or a farmers market, you are consuming.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Sam Guest:
26 Aug 2008 1:08:23pm
I took it to mean more efficient consumption which would be okay because we're talking changing the method of delivery not curtailing the consumption itself. You would concede at the very least there are plentiful examples of wasteful consumption all over ie packaging, transport etc
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ricki:
26 Aug 2008 1:46:41pm
In the last 100 years or so, the worlds average temperature has increased about 0.8 deg C.
In the last ten years or so, it has paused. This year it will be about 0.01 deg C down on last year. Hardly what anyone could call a significant change in direction!
All the ney-sayers are mis-representing the information. It is clear there is a long term trend and it has been linked to the increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that we have put into the atmosphere.
The BCA has to take a good hard look at what they want. A future for their children that includes sandy beaches or a high carbon economy with rising sea levels and millions of displaced and very unhappy people just to our north.
We cannot convince the big polluters (and potential ones like India, etc) to set low targets if we do not show that we can do it (and are doing it) too.
I can see there is bound to be a difficult period for the economy as we try to move to low fossil fuel consumption, but we have to do it and the earlier we start the better is the future.
I don't think we can wait for another 20 years for the big changes to become apparent to everyone. We have to start now.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Odge:
26 Aug 2008 1:35:08pm
Consuming more expensive electricity and products made from clean energy should stimulate cashflow and economy?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
RuAlright:
26 Aug 2008 10:10:31am
Not if, but when they are PROVEN WRONG we would have ALL put in a LOT of money into something for nothing. Money that can be better spent on a whole range of other issues.
Roads, Schools, Hospitals, and the list goes on and on and onAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
26 Aug 2008 10:49:42am
Its not for nothing
The world will eventually be forced to shift away from non-renewable energy as resources become depleted.
Action on climate change will just force this shit in this century rather than the nextAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 10:18:56am
There's not a skerrick of evidence that carbon dioxidde has any measurable influence on temperature.
The IPCC notably failed to demonstrate any quantitative statement but relied only on theory and assumption. The CSIRO and department of climate change have done likewise.
- There is no evidence
- There is no demonstrable consensus (as if that mattered!)
(Yes, I have researched both questions very thoroughly.)
It's all based on a correlation, which any decent scientist will tell you doesn't prove a thing, and the output of climate models that are loaded with assumptions because many aspects of climate are poorly understood.
It's people with vested interests - money, ego, ideology, philosophy - that are bleating about climate change.
The global average temperatures have dropped in the last 18 months, most likely due to a shift from near El Nino into La Nina.
What is the obstacle to understanding that if there is ANY human influence on temperature then it must be very small compared to natural forces?
The costs of an ETS seem very likely to outweigh the very tiny (if any) benefits.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Skewer:
26 Aug 2008 10:37:57am
Denialist hot air John.
By the way Exxon admitted a few weeks ago that it was funding lobby groups and online commentators to deliberately lie and mislead on global warming.
Google "smh exxon smokescreen" for the story.
Are you still getting your cheques?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 11:39:21am
Rubbish skewer. Everything I've said is accurate, as a reading of the relevant documentation or analysis of the relevant data will show you.
Did Exxon say that it had funded research or that it paid to get certain results? There's a gulf of difference.
If you consider the latter is correct then you brand every scientist everywhere as being open to the highest bidder, even those who are on the gravy-train of man-made warming. Is this what you mean to say?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
26 Aug 2008 12:40:14pm
So 150 years of proven science on the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect are myth and legend. Mate you are living on the wrong planet or you never been properly educated.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 1:59:22pm
The principal grenhouse gas is water vapour.
Can you prove that atmospheric carbon dioxide has caused most of the increas ein temperatures since 1950? The IPCC says it has but can't prove it. Can you ?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Joe:
26 Aug 2008 11:50:14am
These arguments are so tiring. What makes you so much smarter than the majority of scientists? What is this bleating about there being more money in climate change advocacy that in the continued burning of cheap fossil fuels.
Grow up people. The ones with the ego are the denialists who just seem to want to disagree with everything no matter how carefully the arguments are put.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 2:01:16pm
Try abouit $50 billion over the last 10 years for research assuming a human influence and less than $50 million for other climate research.
What majority of scientists? Have you polled them all?
If you there's a majority then prove it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jim Bendfeldt:
26 Aug 2008 12:46:23pm
It doesn't matter John, whether the planet is warming or cooling, Australia abounds in great potential FREE sources of energy, that we should be taking advantage of.
On the other hand, burning coal and oil generates millions of tonnes of smoke which is also bad for our health.
Do you honestly expect your grandchildren to eventually have to live in a Beijing-style pea soup environment?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 2:02:04pm
Well, I can't see the "millions of tonnes of smoke" from burning over the last several thousand years.
Can you?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Mike:
26 Aug 2008 10:22:47am
The klimate kult worships the weather with $$$ money
Very sad to find science deniers brrr its getting kold and their temperature gauges denied and yet they must be-lie-ve its warm and there be-lies the problem !
The IPCC changed there report rules for Australia's hard wood (read dense heavy carbon trees) and refused to count the trees under 10 metres whilst allowing others to count above 2 metres tall trees, then they scaled back the volume of carbon found in the same heavy timbers.
NOW that our national uni ANU has released a study into just 50% of the forests of South east Australia called "Green Carbon" they found just half the trees in south east australia consumes 60% of our NATION's co2 emmissions each year x 2 =120% were NET CONSUMERS OF CO2 AND ARE NOT COUNTING ALL OUR TREES..
WHEN THE LAST TREE IS COUNTED WERE OWED BIG TIME CARBON CREDITS FOR SAVING AND PLANTING TREEES..
GO FETCH MY KARBON KREDITS KEVvIE X 21 MILLION
greenhouse garnaut (the economist $) your report is deadAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
simon:
26 Aug 2008 1:41:06pm
So we don't need to panic, the trees will just soak it all up for us?
Yeah, right.
*That's* obviously been working a treat for the past century or so.
(And why are so many people on the list kicking against development of renewable energy? Do we really *want* to be tied to means of energy production which, even if they're not totally stuffing up the biosphere, are going to run out within a matter of decades?)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
chalkie:
26 Aug 2008 11:40:27am
ROWO - rest of world overtake,
the unit of measure that describes how many days (or even hours) the rest of the world's increasing CO2 emissions would take to exceed the amount of CO2 not produced in Australia.
eg. lower Australia's CO2 emissions by 10% (some 60m tonnes) = about 2 weeks ROWO. We have delayed the ecological impact of our CO2 by a few days, at huge cost.
So while our efforts won't be completely useless, at least we can measure how next to useless thay are.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ploppy the Jailer:
26 Aug 2008 1:03:46pm
Jim is right, the arguments put forward here are backed up by specious rubbish and it is poorly argued and simplistic.
Unfortunately, the business council's arguments are the same level of rubbish.
I am in no doubt that we need to do this thing, and do it right, and not to do it will bequeath a bad earth to those that follow us.
I believe that we have the right government-including the right Senate-in place, who is taking the time to ensure it is done as right as possible, even if ulterior political motives are one of its reasons for doing so. The previous government would, if it had done anything after doing nothing effective for a decade, given us a planned on a napkin proposal that addressed nothing and was wholistically defined through political expediency and corporate gratuity.
Perhaps we couldAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Odge:
26 Aug 2008 1:32:49pm
Jim, as I understand it the whole economy is based on "speculative postulation". Isn't that what the whole boardroom, AGM, shareholder relationship is about? Like a big night out in Vegas!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Think Climate Think Strange:
26 Aug 2008 9:36:07am
Oh how tiring this debate is becoming. For the record, CO2 does NOT drive temp change. Scientific literature is uniform on this. Ice core samples confirm it. The real issue of course, is that global warming has become an industry of immense scale, power and prestige. In the last three years the U.S. government spent over $15.7 billion on global warming issues. The mind boggles at how this money could have been better spent on real problems not imagined ones.
With such vast sums of money on offer, a corruption of seduction occurs - the next grant is assured provided the research findings agree with the preordained dogma. The borrower becomes the slave of the lender. The scientist must abandon the very foundational principles of his discipline in order to justify a weak scientific position by ignoring any contrary voice or data.
I concluded my comments with those of Dr. Chris Landsea who resigned from the "minstry of truth" the IPCC:"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Joe:
26 Aug 2008 11:52:08am
And you think Exxon and Co aren't offering more money to prove that climate change is a myth? Think for half a second and you'll see your whole argument is a load of it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Mike:
26 Aug 2008 9:37:30am
Now we have a climate lawyer urghhh
What ?
yes a climate lawyer...
Get 'real' the globe isn't warming as we use MORE co2 its getting colder 2008 looks like it will be the coldest year since 1998 and temperatures are trending v DOWN v
And we have more TREES than we need (read "Green Carbon" by A.N.U.) just counting half the trees in South East Australia they found 60% of our annual co2 emmissions are stored since they only counted half x 2 = 120% and were over budget buddy, we need to collect our credits or start the chainsaw grrrgrrr
Someone tell the climate lawyer to use a calculator and go fetch our credits from another country thats overpopulated and UNDER vegetated...
We have over 200 billion acres with 44.7% tree cover its not hard to work out what were owed, GO FETCHAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Skewer:
26 Aug 2008 10:26:41am
Snore. The usual chorus of internet deniers is underway.
Incidentally where did this figure of 44% tree cover throughout Australia come from? Are you talking about spinifex in the Simpson desert? Or the mallee scrub (at about one tree per hundred metres) that covers most of the arid west?
Have a look at a sat pic of Australia mate.
Most of what's out there is sand - the stuff you've got your head buried in.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
kredits please klimate kontrol:
26 Aug 2008 11:21:12am
Present Structural Vegetation Types of Australia (reference: 1)
Type Area (sq km) Percentage
CLOSED FOREST (>70% foliage cover)
(rainforest etc.) [profile]
36 000 km2
0.4 %
OPEN FOREST (30-70% foliage cover)
(mostly eucalypt forest) [profile] [profile] [profile]
359 000 km2
4.6 %
WOODLANDS (10-30% foliage cover)
(mostly eucalypt and acacia) [profile] [profile]
1 066 000 km2
13.9 %
OPEN WOODLANDS (<10% foliage cover)
(eucalypt, acacia + cleared grazing land) [profile] [profile]
1 985 000 km2
25.8 %
TALL SHRUBLANDS (shrubs >2m)
(mallee, mulga, arid acacias) [profile]
2 392 000 km2
31.1 %
add up the above maaaateeeeeeee + + + and thats just the trees over 2m tall ALL of these trees counted means Im owed carbon credits x 21 million also read 'green carbon' anu report hot off the press earlier this month, these 2 reports this graph right here..and green carbon kills greenhouse garnauts carbon tax TAX dea d rip
LOW SHRUBLANDS (shrubs <2m)
(heath, arid chenopods, alpine) [profile] [profile] [profile]
484 000
6.2 %
HUMMOCK GRASSLAND
(spinifex 'grass steppe') [profile]
45 000
0.6 %
TUFTED GRASSES/GRAMINOIDS
(Mitchell grass etc) [profile] [profile]
714 000
9.2 %
OTHER HERBACEOUS PLANTS
(mostly pastures)
495 000
6.4 %
LITTORAL COMPLEX
(mangroves etc) [profile]
22 000
0.3 %
OTHER
(urban, intensive cropping, no veg, etc)
110 000
1.5 %
See profiles of more vegetation types at NLWRA web site
References
(1) Anonymous (1990). Atlas of Australian Resources - Vegetation. AUSLIG, Commonwealth of Australia.
(2) Beadle, N C W (1981). The Vegetation of Australia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
(3) Anonymous (1993). Census of Australian Vascular Plants (CAVP) Computer Database (June 1993). IBIS data network, Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe:
26 Aug 2008 11:54:21am
Yes, Australia has a lot of trees. We have already taken carbon credits for land clearing we did not do (in the agricultural regions). We cannot claim more carbon credits now, the only thing we can do is not incur a carbon debit by clearing more.
The CO2 is locked up in these vast woodlands - yes. But they are not absorbing significantly more now, because they are in equilibrium.
Easy to pick a fact to support your argument, but not put it in context. Typical climate change denialist you might say.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
pete:
26 Aug 2008 12:06:39pm
so mate you also know that trees, growing over the same distribution they have since settlement, do not sequester further CO2, only what they always have. you may also want to considered the fact that we have cleared over 70% of the vegetation in southwestern Australia, south eastern australia and the east coast seaboard.
so want carbon credits? then i would suggest you start planting your trees in the areas where we have cleared them, this and only this would result in a net CO2 sequestration.
i also hope you are against further agricultural development in the north, as you must be aware that this will result in large scale clearing of tropical woodlands and savanna!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
26 Aug 2008 1:03:44pm
Just to add a little sanity - the latest data from Dept of Environment : (not 15-30 years out of date)
"Over 17 million ha of woody vegetation were cleared continent-wide between 1972 and 2004. Of this, one and a half million hectares were cleared between 2000 and 2004. The area revegetated between 1972 and 2004 was 9.4 million ha. This leaves a net area cleared between 1972 and 2004 of 7.6 million hectares."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Geoffrey-Chaucer:
26 Aug 2008 10:51:12am
You are right Mike, 2008 was a cold year.
But didn't you know that, according to the gurus, cold temperature is the result of climate change, as are warm, temperature, excessive rain, moderate rain, drought, sunshine, clouds, cool breezes, gusty wind, tropical storms, cyclones, beautiful weather, foul weather, and anything else you might find every morning.
And there you were, thinking all along that these things were natural events.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
kredits please klimate kontrol:
26 Aug 2008 11:23:52am
what it gets kold at nite
and warm during the day
quick put some more coins in the climate cult church plate so we can heat up next winter brrrrAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Sam Guest:
26 Aug 2008 1:58:25pm
You'd prefer those coins in the pockets of big business in the fossil fuel industry? So who do you work for I wonder?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
bob:
26 Aug 2008 9:44:09am
The Business Council of Australia appear to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 10:21:57am
Do us all a favour bob, prove that there is a problem.
No recycling of opinions and no relying on unproven computer software.
If you think there's a problem then give us a list of scientific papers that describe and quantify every action that carbon dioxide has on climate.
You'll be doing the IPCC a big favour because after 20 years it has not produced that definitive statement.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
26 Aug 2008 10:55:04am
Why is it that the climate change deniers are happy to accept the output of computer calculations in almost every facet of their lives (i.e. healthcare, manufacturing, financial services, education) - but when it comes to climate modelling - computers are useless?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter O:
26 Aug 2008 11:26:58am
Wishful thinking, or perhaps in their selfish greed, they consider that this will be another generations' problem.
I'm 66 and I can assure you deniers that over the last 50 years there has been a marked change in the Australian weather,
the rivers no longer flood several times a year, the climate is warmer, the colder winter this year is probably an aberration and it certainly has not been as cold as it was 40 years ago.
Roses are blooming in late winter, the May Bushes are in full bloom late winter.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
RuAlright:
26 Aug 2008 11:44:35am
Because all of the above are not trying to predict the future of unpredictable elements.
Unlike climate change models, which are biased due to the fact that not all variables can be considered and/or included at any given time. Thus leaving gaps for too many what ifs and if only's.
As we all know assumption is the mother of all F*&^ ups.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
26 Aug 2008 12:03:47pm
The assumptions included in climate models must be justified by environmental observations derived through field research.
Climate change is no different than any other science - we have a theory that has yet to be proven incorrect by scientific observation.
The application of all science if based on the application of a theory that has yet to be disprovenAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 11:46:55am
Because no one has ever shown that the computer software is (a) complete or (b) accurate. Frankly there's far too much riding on the claims to say "near enough".
Are you aware that a network of climate modellers wrote the crucial chapter of the IPCC report? There's been no INDEPENDENT verification of their claims about the accuracy of their models.
They calim that to match historical temperature patterns they need to introduce an additional climate force - they use one based on CO2 emissions but could probably have used global or urban population and got comparable results.
Their proof is no proof at all, just an assumption.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bob:
26 Aug 2008 12:11:07pm
Here's more from Garnaut's report (again page 1).....
"There is no doubt about the position of most reputed specialists in climate science, in Australia and abroad, on the risks of climate change (see Chapter 3). There is strong support for the mainstream science from the leaders of the relevant science academies in all of the major countries. The outsider to climate science has no rational choice but to accept that, on a balance of probabilities, the mainstream science is right."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Joe:
26 Aug 2008 11:56:11am
John, prove that there is not a problem by actually producing an argument against the science in Stern, Gaurnat or IPCC.
No recycling of opinions or relying on spin and facts out of context please.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
yabbie:
26 Aug 2008 1:10:37pm
Hi John. Have a search at the IUCN site or look for some papers using Science Direct or get down to a Uni Library that has a repuitable school of Geography and Environmental studies (May I suggest the University of Tasmania). Look at papers regarding ecology, protected area management , species endangerment, climate... cast your net wide and be objective with your research.
I cant believe people still argue this point!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Bertrand:
26 Aug 2008 9:55:53am
Amanda has forgotten to mention that the world has cooled .8 of a degree over the last two years. Also, it had remained steady or slightly cooled for the previous decade. Also, that the sourthern hemisphere is cooling significantly faster than the northern hemisphere.
Her research also would have shown, although again, through mere oversight i am sure, she has forgotten to mention, that humanity does demonstrably worse when the climate is cooler, and demonstrably better when the client is warmer.
Also, the earth has been warmer then it is now, to the point where in the centuries preceeding the common era, grapes were grown in scandinavia. The proceeding cooling resulted in the fall of the Roman Empire.
Periods of global warming pulled Europe out of the drak ages, and preceeded the agricultural revolution, which led to the industrial revolution. golbal warming is a good thing, and is unlikely to be caused solely or primarily by Greenhouse gases.
People will whinge and complain and tell me i am wrong, but if i am wrong, why is the world cooling now, and why has it been doing so for the last 10 years? THose facts are incontrovertible, the only thing to discuss is why this is happening.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bob:
26 Aug 2008 10:22:09am
A lot of people seem to claim there is a consensus that the earth is cooling rather then warming. Garnaut addresses this question on the first page of his report with the following response .....
"There are prominent dissenters on this matter, gathered under the rubric of sceptic. For the most part sceptic is a misnomer for their position, because these dissenters hold strongly to the belief that the mainstream science is wrong. I exclude from this generalisation a small number of climate scientists of professional repute, who accept the theory of the warming effects of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, but hold the view that these warming effects are relatively or even trivially small in comparison with many other causes of climate variations that are beyond the control of humans.
The dissent took a curious turn in Australia in 2008, with much prominence being given to assertions that a warming trend had ended over the last decade. This is a question that is amenable to statistical analysis, and we asked econometricians with expertise in analysis of time series to examine it. Their response, that the temperatures recorded in most of the last decade lie above the confidence level produced by any model that does not allow for a warming trend, is reported in Chapter 5 (Box 5.1)."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
26 Aug 2008 10:57:01am
Long terms temperature rises have been supported by studies using a range of methods including ice cores, tree rings and lake/ocean sediments. See link
http://www.desmogblog.com/this-is-not-a-hockey-stickAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 11:48:54am
... And the answer from Garnaut's experts was they could NOT determine if the variation was natural or man-made.
Why quote Garnaut anyway? He didn't produce one scntilla of scientific evidence but just assumed that the hole-riddled theories of the IPCC were good enough.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Odge:
26 Aug 2008 1:53:30pm
Thats why its called Climate Change. "Global" warming creates unpredicatble changes to the localised climate patterns. This does not necessarily mean it gets hotter or colder.
Consider you're driving home on a dirt road from the pub after a few too many, you get it a little sideways on one corner and before you know it, you've over steered and fishtailed that HR ute up the road into a tree.
It means the local weather can switch from either heating or cooling state, chaotically, in order to help the plantet reach an equilibrium. Kind of like a super El Nino. Where over three years you cant get a crop for drought, then two years they get washed away in floods, then back to the drought pattern. It wouldn't take much to our current chaotic pattern in overdrive.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Dr Sam:
26 Aug 2008 10:02:24am
Think Climate Think Strange wrote: "For the record, CO2 does NOT drive temp change. Scientific literature is uniform on this."
I don't know what "scientific literature" you are referring to (perhaps it can be found on the Flat Earth Society website?), but if you look at peer-reviewed climate science journals such as Climatic Change, whose abstracts available online for free, then you will see that the scientific jury came in a long time ago on human-caused climate change, through CO2 emissions. In fact, it was flagged as a potential problem as far back as the 80s.
It has also come to light that large fossil fuel corporations are funding people to pollute the debate with dubious papers and articles, and blog entries, that attempt to generate what is knows as a 'manufactured' or 'artificial' debate, in a effort to hold off measures such as emissions trading for as long as possible by generate doubt and confusion. The tobacco industry did the same kind of thing, and so are the pokies industries at the moment.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 10:34:32am
Peer-reviewed? You are sadly deluded. The peer-review process is incredibly easy to corrupt.
What does it really mean anyway when virtually all the funding is given to research that assumes or seeks to investigate a human influence on climate? Starving a certain area of research fudning is a great way to choke off the production of papers on that subject.
There is no "scientific jury", there's not even a demonstrable consensus. The Oreskes study was like looking in Sydney papers for teh expression "Melbourne is the better city" and then saying that the absence of such claims proves that Melbourne isn't.
If you think that fossil fuel companies pay people to pollute the debate then please DEMONSTRATE where such funding has determined the outcome of research, nor merely facilitated an investigation. In other words "Put up or shut up " .. and be aware that you accuse every scientist on every subject as willing to adjust their results to the highest bidder. (And why don't you honestly say that the trough of money for research that assumes a human-influence is over a thousand times greater?)
By the way, why shouldn't the tobacco companies have funded research into lung cancer if the mechanism by which lung cancer starts was unknown? It would have seemed plausible that cancer was stress-related and many people smoke to relieve stress. Alternatively it may have been that people prone to lung cancer were also independently prone to cancer. These are (or were) legitimate avenues of research. Even today the claims about second-hand smoke are rather dubious because the temperature at which the gases reach the lungs may be important and second hand smoke is at a lower temperature.
Try applying some objectivity to the situation rather than your ideology and subjectivity.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
26 Aug 2008 10:59:45am
John, the peer review process may not be perfect - but it is the best system we have to evaluate the output of scientific research and has underpinned all of the scientific advances of recent centuries.
Why is it that the peer review process if perfectly acceptable for medical research but completely corrupt when it comes to climate research?
There is plenty of money to be made in the health care sectorAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
kredits please klimate kontrol:
26 Aug 2008 11:35:46am
why pee-r review aint allowed in the carbon cult ?
because theyd pee on the co2 fire
and stop the carbon church taxing the stupids that actually make thingsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Think Climate Think Strange:
26 Aug 2008 11:45:15am
The point is R, that the peer review process regardless of what industry you are talking about, can be manipulated to achieve the desired outcome. The issue here is that when you are trying to convince the public of something for which there is no hard, empirical evidence, you resort to deception alarmism and half-truths. This is the same for any industry trying to achieve a dishonest objective.
Exxon corrupted the peer review process after the big oil spill in Alaska.
The IPCC has corrupted the peer review process by ensuring that those who reviewed the literature agree with the assumptions.
In the USA the medical peer review process has seen the rise of "sham peer reviews" in the construction of the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Many scientists are speaking out against the IPCC at risk of their credibility and standing. Are all these dissenters funded by oil companies too? I think not.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
26 Aug 2008 12:08:16pm
The IPCC report is based on scientific research papers that were published in peer reviewed academic journals. It is totally unrealistic to claim that every review panel for every climate science journal is part of a global conspiracy to push a myth that climate change is real when it is not.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 11:52:25am
So you are saying that it was okay for the peer review process to accept the recent Korean research - cloning? genetic engineering? - as accurate when it was subsequently shown to be totally bogus?
Get real. Peer review in medicine is as dodgy as peer review in any subject - and that's very dodgy.
It's really nothing more than a tool to allow editors to avoid making fools of themselves by publishing nonsense in fields that they don't understand. The fact that it can suppress quality research that refutes the reviewer's work or can falsely boost the reviewer's work seems to have escaped you.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R:
26 Aug 2008 12:09:33pm
The Korean publication of reserach on stem cells was exposed through the peer review process when independent scientists sought to replicate the experiments
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
L:
26 Aug 2008 11:17:21am
"Try applying some objectivity to the situation rather than your ideology and subjectivity."
Funny how smokers are more sickly than non-smokers isn't it? I think it's pretty safe to state that the tobacco industry didn't contribute positively to the issue (in terms of people's ability to live on this planet). It was pretty obvious that smoking's not good for you.
So now the climate change deniers are calling into question the scientific method are you? The work done into climate science shows that things are going pear shaped. The rapidly shrinking arctic ise, the increasing frequency amd severity of extreme weather, the changing habits stressing biodiversity is like noticing that smokers get sick more than non-smokers.
Are you really suggesting that digging up a so much carbon rich matter from an inert state underground and redistributing it into the atmosphere will have no effect? To use your analogy, it's as if the planet has to give up smoking.
Of course there will be some industries and businesses that the adaptation to decarbonised economies will hurt. Electricity hurt the candlemaking industry, automobiles hurt the carriage making industry, it's just the way it goes.
Of course industries that will be negatively impacted will try and delay this public policy direction because it's in their financial interest to do so. They've bought themselves a few years but it looks as if their time's running out. I don't know the details of all the transactions that took place. There are teams of lawyers to make that difficult. Here's a DEMONSTRATION for you;
http://cei.org/pages/co2.cfmAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
John:
26 Aug 2008 11:53:59am
Please prove that your examples of warming are proof of MAN-MADE warming.
There's a world of difference.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
kredits please klimate kontrol:
26 Aug 2008 11:39:49am
turn around and walk backwards around the carbon cult fire 3 times ...then pee-r on the fire pihshhh
Now say after me
'Now Im deprogrammed i will look at the cold weather too so i know when its being cooling for the last ten years its not man made global warming anymore'
take 3 big breaths
ahhhhhhhAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
26 Aug 2008 1:11:59pm
Latest from NASA
"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
So does we believe you or NASA! Nuf saidAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Joe:
26 Aug 2008 12:00:18pm
John, you keep asking people to produce evidence of climate change, but yet cannot actually produce any decent argument against any of the facts presented by Garnaut, Stern or IPCC.
I think it is you who needs to be objective, rather than subjective and ideological.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bertrand:
26 Aug 2008 12:55:20pm
Didnt you watch "The great global warming swindle" Joe. As someone as informed and objective as you clearly are, i would have thought it would be automatically assumed that you have.
You would of course no that while "an inconvenient truth" was shown in the british courts to be too innacurrate to be classed as a documentary, "the great global warming swindle" under the same amount of scrutiny, was found to be accurate.
My understanding is that this program clearly refuted all the points made by the IPCC, stern and the rest.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe :
26 Aug 2008 1:32:52pm
I did watch the Swindle, and Tony Jones' excellent expose following it.
I'm not refering to either the Incovenient Truth, which was only ever meant to be an opinion piece with a scientific grounding, or to the Swindle, which pretended to be journalism but was clearly junk propaganda - and yes there is a difference between an opinion peice and a propaganda piece. It can be subtle, but it is all about the way that information is presented.
Your claims about the accuracy of the Swindle are highly dubious, I'd really like to see some substantaition of that. The doctored graph of sunspots Vs temp was a highlight for me. Until they showed how it had been doctored, it was almost convincing - pure propaganda.
What I am refering to is the work done by emminent thinkers and a large number of objective scientists, IPCC, Gaurnat etc. I'm afraid I trust their views over those of arm-couch observers on this blog.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
26 Aug 2008 1:54:41pm
Bertrand you state
"the great global warming swindle" under the same amount of scrutiny, was found to be accurate.
refer to this from National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
"Most of the expert commentators appearing in the documentary are well known climate sceptics. One of the key scientists interviewed for the original documentary, Professor Carl Wunsch, Chair of Physical Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has publicly stated
1 that he was completely misrepresented in the documentary. Indeed, much of the documentarys shortening to 60 minutes for the ABC (about 15 minutes shorter than the original) is a result of heavy editing of Professor Wunschs contribution to the original version. His removal leaves the documentary with four climate experts: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer and John Christy. To the best of our knowledge, none of these interviewees has published a credible alternative to the scientific consensus on global warming provided in the IPCC reports. They present intentionally or otherwise through selective editing, grossly simplified and often disingenuous and counter-factual arguments and quotes.
In summary the documentary is not scientifically sound and presents a flawed and very misleading interpretation of the science. While giving the impression of being based on peer-reviewed science, much of the material presented is either out-of-date, already discredited or of uncertain origin."
or the following from Dr Wursch himself:
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in which one can be
misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some
of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be. At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
tired:
26 Aug 2008 11:21:23am
Oh Please! Show me the money! I totally disagree with you and I'd love to get payed to express my opinion!
As John has stated quite eloquently, you cannot rely on information published in the 'Climate Change Journal' as being without bias.
Even respected scientific researchers who have been influenced by the IPCC cannot seem to give a clear answer... note the following (Australian) website (http://www.csiro.au/ozclim/presets.do?) where you may chose the type of climate result you would like the computer model to produce.... Mmm, wet and hot, or dry and cold?
Please choose carefully, the results COULD be catastrophic!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Think Climate Think Strange:
26 Aug 2008 11:24:56am
Dr Sam, if you think the "peer review" process somehow guarantees accuracy and objectivity you are sadly mistaken. This process can be easily manipulated to produce the desired outcome. My quote from a scientists who quit the IPCC because of their unprincipled agenda illustrates this well. Anthropogenic warming (not climate change), was flagged in the 80's as a hypothesis. But you conveniently omit the fact that there have been several global warming and cooling scares throughout the 1900's. In fact, during the 1970's the consensus was we were heading into an ice age.
To claim that those who question this hypothesis are funded by petroleum companies is sheer nonsense. I am interested in this debate and have read widely from both sides of the argument. After considering the issue, I am not convinced the hypothesis is correct. The reality is, the facts will ultimately stand any rigorous assessment including healthy democratic debate. Unless of course there is something to hide.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Andrew:
26 Aug 2008 10:10:16am
To continue with the author's analogy, how does charging for using the tip reduce the smell, or make the creek more swimmable?
Are we going to buy air freshener, or move the tip to somewhere that we can't smell it? Perhaps some rose coloured glasses?
The truth about charging is that someone will pay. No points for guessing who, the question is how much direct and indirectly we will all pay (charges now and losses from superannuation investment - a silent crime). The follow on question is where will the money really go in terms of addressing the (real or percieved) problem.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Wendy Bunce:
26 Aug 2008 1:51:40pm
Likely Andrew, it just encourages the tip dumper to take the tip rubbish further out into some isolated part of the world, only to be thrown out somewhere else, well away from prying eyes! And as for the creek, well certainly in this arid country at least, if we foolishly continue to condone using fresh water for highly unsustainable activities like flood irrigation for very thirsty cash crops, well soon there won't be any water left in the creeks to worry about, let alone anything left to drink or to swim in! The government is desperately trying to deny the truth of their & our ongoing unsustainable demands & expectations upon all our natural resources. So rather than admit this fact, they now propose to make money out of their own remiss governance.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
David:
26 Aug 2008 10:18:50am
Oh dear. We already have, out of the 4 people who've commented, 3 who've swallowed the climate change deniers' Kool-Aid.
Even if every country in the world cuts emmissions to zero by 2050, we still have an unacceptably high risk of devestating climate change (change which will destroy our ability to feed ourselves), and these lackwits are still worried that any attempt at abatement will wreck our economy.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
klimate kontrol:
26 Aug 2008 10:37:05am
think klimate kult think tax
T A X
look up they want to t a x you for being the worlds biggest co2 consumers ..
thats right you consume ALL your Co2 and then start chewing up other nations co2 because you are 0.003% of the worlds population with over OVER 200 billion acres
then read a vegetation survey and find only 8.5% of australia is affected by mans footprint ( arable ploughable land is 7% and 1.5% is urbanised) and this 8.5% has trees too
then 44.7 % is covered with trees over 2m tall
these trees store carbon better than lighter softwoods
Ive got 10 trees in my yard in suburbia and can see millions of trees just in my limited horizon..... its called the blue mountainsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Skewer:
26 Aug 2008 11:07:02am
Rubbish KK.
You forgot grazing. You know... sheep and cows mate.
Around two-thirds of land in Australia has been modified for human uses, primarily grazing of natural vegetation.
The loss of native vegetation and habitat is a major threat to Australias environment. Clearing of native vegetation continues to occur for agriculture, plantation forestry, and urban development.
Google "ABS land grazing" for some facts mate.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
tired:
26 Aug 2008 11:43:35am
Not entirely true! Where I live, I can barely see the sheep for the trees and it's one of the best wool producing areas in NSW! In fact, the locals mostly have log fires (yes, that will get you going!)and we never even have to cut down a tree in order to get the wood becuse there is so much dead wood lying around on the ground. Prime grazing country and the freshest air around. Mmmmmm. I'm lovin' it!
Agree (0)
-
-
-