Australia Needs a National Climate Policy

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model of dangerous, human-caused climate change has failed. Independent science relevant to supposed human-caused global warming is clear, and can be summarised in four briefpoints.

First, global temperature warmed slightly in the late 20th century and has been cooling since 2002. Neither the warming nor the cooling were of unusual rate or magnitude.

Second, humans have an effect on local climate but, despite the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($70 billion) looking for it since 1990, no globally summed human effect has ever been measured. Therefore, any human signal must lie buried in the variability of the natural climate system.

Third, we live on a dynamic planet; change occurs in Earth’s geosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and oceans all the time and all over the world. No substantive evidence exists that modern rates of global environmental change (ice volume; sea level) lie outside historic natural bounds.

Last, cutting carbon dioxide emissions, be it in Australia or worldwide, will likely result in no measurable change in future climate, because extra increments of atmospheric CO2 cause diminishing warming for each unit of increase; at most, a few tenths of a degree of extra warming would result from a completion of doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times.

These facts notwithstanding, the [Australian] Rudd Government is poised to introduce a CO2 taxation bill on doubly spurious grounds. It presumes, first, that dangerous warming caused by human emissions is occurring, or will shortly occur. And, second, that cuts to emissions will prevent significant amounts of future warming.

There is, therefore, now a dramatic disjunction between scientific reality and the stranglehold that global warming alarmism has on planned Australian climate policy.

Today’s public views about climate change are based upon 20 years of promulgation of dangerous global warming by what has become a hugely powerful coalition of self-interested groups and agencies.

Beneficiaries of warming alarmism include individual scientists, managers of research centres, morally pretentious environmental non-government organisations, prestigious science academies and societies, bureaucrats from government greenhouse and climate agencies, big businesses poised for carbon trading (think Enron and Lehman Brothers), alternative energy providers, those in the media who remorselessly promulgate environmental alarm stories, and, last but not least, those uninformed politicians who seek political advantage from cynical exploitation of the public’s fear of global warming.

The Australian Government does not possess a national climate policy; instead, it has an imaginary global warming policy, based on sub-prime science, sub-prime economics and sub-prime politics.

In dealing with the certainties and uncertainties of real climate change, the key issues are prudent risk assessment and adaptive response. As is the case for other unpredictable and unpreventable natural planetary hazards, policy to deal with climate change should be based on adaptation to change as it happens, including the appropriate mitigation of undesirable socioeconomic and environmental effects.

We therefore need, first, to monitor climate change accurately in an ongoing way; and, second, to respond and adapt to any changes — including long-term warmings, the likely more damaging coolings, and severe weather or climatic events such as cyclones — in the same way that government and voluntary disaster services now deal with hazardous natural events such as bushfires, droughts and floods.

The main certainty is that natural climate change and variation are going to continue, and that some manifestations — droughts, storms and sea-level change, for example — will be expensive to adapt to.
Adaptation will not be aided by imprudent restructuring of Australia’s energy economy in pursuit of the chimera of “stopping” an alleged dangerous human-caused global warming that can neither be demonstrated nor measured. In reality, too, our lack of understanding of all the climatic feedback loops is such that cutting CO2 emissions is as likely to “harm” as to “help” future climate.

New Zealand already has a national monitoring and response system in place for earthquake, volcanic and flood disasters (GeoNet). This is linked, appropriately, to a parallel compensation and insurance system that recompenses victims of natural disaster (the Earthquake Commission).

Even if generous funding were to be provided in Australia towards a similar preparation for climatic disasters (of which drought and flood relief are part), the net cost would still be orders of magnitude less than will be engendered by a fundamentally misconceived emissions trading scheme. To boot, contingent damage to the economy, the standard of living and the world food supply would be avoided.

Attempting to “stop global warming” by limiting CO2 emissions is simply an arcadian fantasy, since making deep cuts to Australia’s emissions would at best help to avert or delay warming by about a miniscule one-thousandth of a degree.

Australia needs a national climate policy that is rooted in sound science, sensible precaution, prudent risk assessment, and efficient and effective disaster relief. Lacking all such elements, the Australian Government’s global warming policy fails the basic test of duty to care for the citizenry.

Bob Carter is an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University, Townsville, and studies ancient climate change.

Republished from today’s The Australian with permission from Professor Carter.

Photograph of Professor Carter taken by Jennifer Marohasy in Brisbane in October 2008.

92 Responses to Australia Needs a National Climate Policy

  1. janama December 19, 2008 at 6:12 pm #

    I’m afraid all this is becoming tedious. I have no doubt that Luke et al will come on here and rubbish Dr Carter just as they have been all day over at Deltoid. Andrew’s team have been cheering Bob all day. Poor old Miranda copped several serves this morning in the SMH over her article yesterday and life goes on and nothing of value is achieved other than making journalists more cautious in future.

    Again I say we need a Royal Commission into Climate Change where all these CSIRO types and the Flannery Lamberts Carter etc plus our leading scientists are all stood up on oath and asked serious questions by serious questioners – religious answers will not be tolerated.

    Perhaps then Australia might be able to create a plausible environment climate policy.. even lead the world in doing so. We do lead the world in scepticism I gather.

  2. Catherine Verngreen December 19, 2008 at 7:17 pm #

    Janama is obviously unaware that Bob Carter – and others, such as the scientists within the NZ Climate Science Coalition – has been calling for a Royal Commission into the global warming issue for many years.

    It hasn’t happened, and won’t, because the last thing wanted by the persons whom Janama views as Australia’s leading climate scientists is to be “stood up on oath and asked serious questions by serious questioners”. Goodness me, no, they have far too much to lose.

    It also doesn’t help that there are so many categories of persons with special interests, as listed in Carter’s article, all of whom desperately want to avoid an independent enquiry too. And especially so the climate alarmist politicians of all parties, who simply cannot bear to contemplate the loss of face that they would endure should the truth about climate change be allowed to finally emerge.

    Finally, is Janama really arguing that Carter is wrong to assert that Australia needs a real climate change policy rather than an imaginary global warming one?

    Cathy

  3. Louis Hissink December 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm #

    janama

    Don’t give up – AGW is a smokescreen for a more fundamental agenda.

    The problem with a Royal Commission is that they are only called on when the conclusion has been determined, sort of a Whitehall White Wash, to paraphrase the Brits.

    The history of science has shown, time and time again, that pseudoscience always loses out, and so will this latest one.

    There is no need for any climate policy – though given political reality it is necessary for sceptics to have one to counter the ALP and Green one. There is no point in countering one policy with a non policy, no matter how sensible it might be now.

    I have not read Bob Carter’s latest salvo subject to this thread, and won’t until Christmas since other matters distract, but be sure of one thing, there is method to the madness.

  4. Luke December 19, 2008 at 7:57 pm #

    Well we’ve got a policy – hope Bob got his comments in here …. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/publications/draft-framework.html about

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/publications/pubs/consultation-draft.pdf

    Threshold test to see if we get any intelligent comments. Probably a lot to ask here…

    Perhaps Bob could spare us the political points and tell us here what “an alternative” policy might look like (with some details) ?

  5. Louis Hissink December 19, 2008 at 8:42 pm #

    Lamprey

    So what is the policy.

    Most of us won’t comment until we hear it. Look at it.

    Scratched your KRUDD bottom?

  6. Cathy December 19, 2008 at 10:45 pm #

    Yes, Luke, it seems that Bob did comment on the draft policy document to which you refer.

    His submission is posted as item 98 at his website, at

    And Carter’s view as to what would constitute an adequate national climate policy is encapsulated by the following extract from that submission, viz:

    ” Real (i.e. natural) climate change is now no more and no less a threat to Australia than it was at the time of the Federation drought, or during some of the flood events of the 1970s. The Australian continent has its own peculiar set of natural climatic problems, and adapting to extreme or potentially dangerous climate events and trends as they happen should be an important part of a needed (but currently lacking) National Climate Policy. Planning for adaptation to natural change will not be aided by fashioning new research programmes around the mythical environmental scare of dangerous human-caused global warming. ”

    Cathy

  7. Luke December 19, 2008 at 11:13 pm #

    Well Cathy – it’s hardly a useful contribution – the usual tirade against the IPCC and grizzling about climate science in general.

    Seems to lack any serious ideas except don’t worry about it ….

    Pure political paff …. no wonder they don’t bother listening.

  8. david December 20, 2008 at 7:09 am #

    Bob has never published a peer reviewed climate change paper relevant to AGW – though he has published extensively on geology. I wouldn’t take his climate science too seriously.

  9. Cathy December 20, 2008 at 7:31 am #

    David,

    Amongst many other similar papers, what’s this if it isn’t original climate change research?

    CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662 (supporting online material).

    Cathy

  10. ianl December 20, 2008 at 7:37 am #

    ” … making deep cuts to Australia’s emissions would at best help to avert or delay warming by about a miniscule one-thousandth of a degree”

    El Luko dipstick: how is that policy helpful ? Just answer the question

    david: have you read Wegman’s Congressional evidence on peer review in “climate” science ? Just answer the question

  11. Malcolm Hill December 20, 2008 at 7:39 am #

    The document you two refer to and engage in a bit of mutual onanism about is not a policy document at all –it is an Exposure Draft about a National Framework that canvasses all the issue that may become part of a policy. The word policy is hardly mentioned–but the word Exposure Draft is on every page.

    Its as much about developing the argument for spending more money on Super Computing power so that they can play in the same patch as the bigger boys.

    No mention of truth and integrity, or value for money, and not much on better managment arrangements to ensure that there are no more political farces.

    One comment at the end of the Exec Summary is hilarious:

    — “ensuring that the science delivers what decision makers need”

    I wonder what the ETS announced this week was based upon then. It certainly wasnt sound science and good policy.

    What a bumbling bunch of rank amateurs.

  12. Michelle December 20, 2008 at 7:51 am #

    $50 billion US on chasing the CO2 made by man is bad for us theory!?

    Just imagine what could have been done for people around the world in adjusting for the effects of climate change with even a fraction of that money!

    Sea water inundation is one event which is being linked by AGW proponents to increased CO2 levels. Refer Solomon Star newspaper articles Giant Waves Hit Atolls http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5475&change=71&changeown=78&Itemid=26
    and Tidal Waves Displace 75,000 people. http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5466&change=71&changeown=78&Itemid=26

    Living close to these areas, I doubt that these are Tidal Waves in the sense of tsunamis, rather unusually high tidal surges with waves at the top of the tide which are covering more land than has ever been experienced before.

    Regardless of what is causing these effects, these people need help. The nature of the help depends on whether the sea water inundation is going to be ongoing seasonally, or whether it is a one off freak event. Once an answer to that is known, part of the AGW billions could be redirected to providing short or long term relief.

    For those who aren’t familiar with life in the areas described in these newspaper articles, the people affected are semi-subsistence farmers. Their staple foods are grown in their home and community gardens. Drinking water is often obtained from coastal streams. Both the gardens and the streams are being covered with sea water, killing their crops and making their drinking water brackish.

    I’m with Professor Carter, let’s put some practicality into climate discussions and policies so that governments can help people deal with the realities of life.

  13. janama December 20, 2008 at 7:56 am #

    he’s not alone.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm

  14. Rossko December 20, 2008 at 7:57 am #

    David

    You say:

    – “Bob has never published a peer reviewed climate change paper relevant to AGW – though he has published extensively on geology. I wouldn’t take his climate science too seriously.”

    Rudd & Wong et al have certainly never published a peer reviewed climate change paper relevant to AGW, so I wouldn’t take them too seriously either.

  15. david December 20, 2008 at 8:02 am #

    >CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662

    This paper has nothing to do with AGW. Its a commentary on a data drilling program…. ie geology.

  16. janama December 20, 2008 at 8:40 am #

    the David Evan’s debate is continuing with David Evans involved online here

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/12/19/david-evans-greenhouse-sceptic-debates-his-views-on-troppo/#comment-337303

  17. Luke December 20, 2008 at 9:10 am #

    Lots of goofy comments from the denialist drones – but as usual nothing of any substance just bile.

    For example any thoughts on STR research?

    Really you lot are just clueless whingers….

  18. janama December 20, 2008 at 9:14 am #

    Really you lot are just clueless whingers….

    so why hang around – surely you have better things to do?

  19. janama December 20, 2008 at 9:17 am #

    All I’ve managed to acertain about you is that you are Michael Luke Walker, have a PhD in philosophy and spend most of your time offering 3 hr lectures to undergraduate students.

    I’m probably wrong but if the shoe fits as they say.

  20. Cathy December 20, 2008 at 9:18 am #

    David,

    Dear oh me, how your slip is showing.

    Most of what we know about the patterns of climate change through time comes from geological study. The entire meteorological record is ~150 years long, which – being 5 climate data points – is trivial as information about climate change.

    On the other hand, most of what we know about weather and climate processes comes from meteorological and related studies.

    In reality, neither of these two discipline groupings is more important than the other, and an integrated understanding of both is a prerequisite for making intelligent public comment on the global warming issue. Some of the posters at this blog display that understanding; others don’t.

    Cathy

  21. SJT December 20, 2008 at 9:21 am #

    Flannery, like Gore, is a not a scientific expert on AGW. They are both people who believe they can do what the scientists can’t, get the mass population to sit down and listen to what the science is. There is no point having them at a royal comission.

    You want to have a royal comission, have one. It will only find out what the scientists have been saying, and you will accuse it of being part of the conspiracy. In fact, it will just confirm to you the power of the conspiracy, and how evil it is.

  22. Gordon Robertson December 20, 2008 at 9:35 am #

    david “Bob has never published a peer reviewed climate change paper relevant to AGW..”

    Ah…another peer review groupie emerges. Ever tried looking at the science instead of someone else’s opinion about it?

  23. Luke December 20, 2008 at 10:36 am #

    Meanwhile we’re still clueless about Bob’s climate “policy”.

    Interesting though, as he implies we perhaps should have an insurance fund against drought and flood? Why – I thought he was saying that it’s just all “natural” and events thus far are not extraordinary – so why support? Just let it rip?

    Wouldn’t be having a bet each way perhaps?

    So Bob has penned a nice little bit of populism – it seems the “science’ of the future is that anyone in a university with an arts degree can suddenly decide to get into climate science?

    Step right up folks – anyone can have a go – doesn’t matter if it’s a wank.

    But as for any serious policy or research needs – we’re left hanging ….

  24. SJT December 20, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    “Rudd & Wong et al have certainly never published a peer reviewed climate change paper relevant to AGW, so I wouldn’t take them too seriously either.”

    Of course they haven’t. That is why they are relying on the experts. Carter is quite happy use his authority as a scientist, from James Cook Uni, but not do what a scientist should be doing.

  25. Jennifer December 20, 2008 at 11:49 am #

    Just because misinformation is continuously repeated, doesn’t make it true.

    A couple of points of fact:

    1. Professor Bob Carter is well qualified to comment on climate change issues and has published extensively on this issue, including in the best peer-reviewed journals.

    2. Professor Bob Carter has repeated explained in his popular writings that we must adapt to climate change – natural climate change being a natural hazard. This would be a first policy solution – the need to adapt to climate change – to underpin his proposed National Climate Policy.

    I believe that David, SJT and Luke have been being disingenous in their commentary so far.

  26. spangled drongo December 20, 2008 at 11:57 am #

    janama,
    Thanks for those links.
    Good to get to the fundamentals instead of the usual hot air and sandshoes.

  27. spangled drongo December 20, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    janama,
    re club troppo;looks like deltoid Tim doesn’t think that the AGW signature includes a tropical tropospheric hot spot.

  28. Luke December 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

    Jen – too true – “Just because misinformation is continuously repeated, doesn’t make it true. ” – we couldn’t agree more !!!!!

    What has Bob contributed to matters meteorological exactly?

    What exactly is his alternative climate policy?

    What is his alternative climate research programme proposal?

    How do we “adapt” to climate change exactly? More Exceptional Circumstances bail out? Move to the Kimberley? Seasonal forecasting perhaps – but the climate science is ratshit according to you guys so we can’t use that.

    We’ll treat your philosophical position as serious when you guys lay out some CONCRETE suggestions?

    What oceanographic priorities do you have? Satellite systems? What’s your priorities regarding SAM, STR, ENSO, MJO. Should we spend all our money on cosmic rays and sunspots. Perhaps ouija boards are the go? What’s your positioning on monitoring systems. Do you support any GCM research – if so -what aspects? Do you support a greater AWS network?

    Do you recommend a climate related reef monitoring programme and if so what exactly?

    Come on – let’s see some concrete proposals for once !!!!

  29. SJT December 20, 2008 at 2:01 pm #

    If you want to see disingenuous, Jennifer, watch Bob himself in action.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU

    The interviewer asks a very good question, right from the start. Bob Carter, in his most reasonable tone of voice, then completely ignores the question and answers his own question. Straight out of the politics cookbook, but it’s nothing to do with science.

    I also think you are being disingenuous, Jennifer.

    What has Bob Carter published on the current global warming? Papers on past climate change in geological history don’t count. I want to see a paper on the current climate change, because that is what he is talking about.

  30. janama December 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

    It’s really hotting up now :)

    http://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=24385

  31. janama December 20, 2008 at 4:05 pm #

    and this will really put the cat amongst the pigeons – hehe :)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm

  32. DavidK December 20, 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    Dear Bobert
    You should really be writing something like this to all the governments of the world – they too are introducing policies to adapt AND mitigate against AGW. I’m sure they will listen to you.

    Jenifer
    Misinformation gushes from your blog groupies and you won’t pull them up.
    This tells me you yourself are disingenuous (or hypocritical), you don’t really understand the science, you have a hidden agenda, or its Socratic irony again.

    SJT
    Carter is very well published e.g. in shock-jock media columns, group hug-meets, and the denialosphere.

  33. DHMO December 20, 2008 at 4:20 pm #

    Jennifer

    Sorry I cannot accept “disingenuous” as a description. Fundamentalist, stupid, religious zeal are the words that come to mind. They believe in AGW and that no change is permissible. I have asked many times what is an optimal temperature without a reply. The WMO has just said that 2008 was the tenth warmest year. What does that mean? It means when you look at data that 2008 was cooler than 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998 and 1997. This means the trend is towards cooler since 1998 (the so-called anomaly has dropped by 30%), Bob Carter was being generous. I think no one really knows if 2009 will be cooler again but it is likely. Cooler weather events are being reported everywhere. I have just seen a CNN report rubbishing the whole religion, Poznan was a disaster as was Rudd’s ETS the measures will not change anything other than costing the public some money. I think the new religion feels itself being backed into a corner. So again the question to the evangelists Luke, SJT and David. You think humans can change the world temperature so what is the optimal temperature with reasons why? If you do not know there is no damned point to anything you say.

  34. MAGB December 20, 2008 at 4:29 pm #

    Luke asks: How do we “adapt” to climate change exactly?

    The answer is: the same way we did before AGW vested interests started diverting valuable time and money to their little hobbies, and their left-wing social engineering aims.

  35. SJT December 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm #

    “The answer is: the same way we did before AGW vested interests started diverting valuable time and money to their little hobbies, and their left-wing social engineering aims.”

    I am always curious. Why is adaptation so easy, yet prevention so hard? Why is adaptation a plausible course of action, but prevention futile?

  36. DHMO December 20, 2008 at 5:17 pm #

    SJT

    “I am always curious. Why is adaptation so easy, yet prevention so hard? Why is adaptation a plausible course of action, but prevention futile?”

    There there don’t strain your brain you can’t help being totally stupid.

  37. Luke December 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm #

    Yes guys we get the drift – but now we’re waiting for YOUR climate policy and “adaptation” agenda.

    Now you’d have a clue wouldn’t yo’all? I don’t think saying “like we have done before” cuts it somehow given you haven’t adapted – unless you call retreat, being blown away, or relying on taxpayer subsidies to get through….

    So here’s the big opportunity folks – step right up. Let’s hear the alternative policies and research proposal?

    Or are we just talking platitudes here?

  38. Louis Hissink December 20, 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    SJT,

    Preventing something that is not happening is indeed futile – as for the observed warming, what do you expect when you are coming out of an ice age, little that it is.

    The danger we face are ice ages because these events are also associated with mass specie extinctions and we really don’t understand how the past ice ages occurred.

    Incidentally do your GCM’s include code for simulating an ice age as well? They need to do that in order to come even partially towards mimicking the earth’s climate.

  39. Louis Hissink December 20, 2008 at 7:07 pm #

    Luke,

    We don’t have a climate policy because it is a non problem and the procedure for dealing with a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

  40. Malcolm Hill December 20, 2008 at 7:59 pm #

    The proponents, and those supposedly in charge, certainly dont have a policy, if this is anything to go by.

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/publications/pubs/consultation-draft.pdf

    This is a self serving, unverifiable, unauditable grab for more money, because if you dont give it to us we will predict even more dire consequences, and BTW we need a new super computer as well so that we can stay up with the pack.

    How else does one interpret statements that say, at this late stage :

    — “We need to know better what future climate Australians must respond and adapt to.

    and,

    _ “Ensuring that the science delivers what decision makers need ”

    Got me beat –makes one wonder what story was spun to the pollies before the commitment to an ETS was made.

  41. cohenite December 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm #

    luke’s link to the National Framework for Climate Change Science is one of his most disturbing for some time; it is a farrago; it asserts that “6 Australian scientists, representing 4% of the authorship were lead authors”; this is a blatant lie as this shows;

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553

    What is really disturbing is Box 2 on p 12 of this recipe for social control; it states; “Furthermore, few IAMs (integrated assessment models) at the moment attempt to deal with social dynamics”; the Orwellian junk then happily goes on to predict that the new models will be forecasting a coupling of social and economic systems with climate. So there you have it folks; the GCMs are now going to go in the business of social predictions; and you’d better watch out if the data doesn’t match the simulations.

  42. Luke December 20, 2008 at 9:34 pm #

    And on and on they rant with still no alternative proposal …. clueless – totally clueless.

    If you lot were in charge all you’d get would be a bitch-fest. So busy bitching that any positive contribution escapes them.

    Not a single specific useful idea among all the denialists.

    Well Louis if climate is such a non-problem why do we keep having problems with it. Why have we shelled out 100s of millions in drought aid for decades? Funny that so much money has been spent on such a non-problem.

    You clown !

  43. Marcus December 20, 2008 at 9:36 pm #

    Off topic but a gem, well in my opinion anyway!

    regarding some windmills in Indonesia

    “Head of Nusa Penida district Wayan Sumarta acknowledged that the seven wind plants have never been operational.
    It is truly regrettable that a major project like this was not been managed appropriately. Now, they are nothing more than monuments. We expect the government to pay serious attention to them,” he said.

    An Indonesian power company spokesman rejects the claims: “If their turbines do not move, they are storing the energy. It doesn’t mean they are not functioning.”

    via Tim Blair
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

  44. Marcus December 20, 2008 at 9:45 pm #

    luke,

    “shelled out 100s of millions in drought aid for decades?”

    When did drought aid start, in general?
    You make it sound that it has only happened in the last few decades.

  45. SJT December 20, 2008 at 9:49 pm #

    “Yes guys we get the drift – but now we’re waiting for YOUR climate policy and “adaptation” agenda.”

    The magic invisible hand will make it all better.

  46. sod December 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm #

    First, global temperature warmed slightly in the late 20th century and has been cooling since 2002. Neither the warming nor the cooling were of unusual rate or magnitude.

    this comparison alone complete disqualifies Bob.

    1. Professor Bob Carter is well qualified to comment on climate change issues and has published extensively on this issue, including in the best peer-reviewed journals.

    it is “Adjunct Research Professor”.

    i can t find his published papers on the issue on AGW in his list of publications. please point them out to me!

    http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm

    ————————-

    “adaption” is a code word for doing nothing” or at least everyone for himself”. it s simply a plot to prevent action.

    while CO2 reduction will benefit all, “adaption” is totally selective.

    a person who believes in global warmer (as Bob says he does) and and a “adaptive response” As Bob does would currently be busy, planning and financially supporting big “adaptive” projects in third world countries, as they are the ones hit first and hardest.

    i bet Bob doesn t.

  47. Marcus December 20, 2008 at 10:01 pm #

    sjt

    you are faint echo of luke and a general nuisance,
    I used to ignore you but for once I make an exception.

    What part of this

    “the procedure for dealing with a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing.” don’t you understand?

    If YOU see a problem YOU have to provide a solution!

  48. SJT December 20, 2008 at 10:44 pm #

    ““the procedure for dealing with a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing.” don’t you understand?”

    I wish you deniers could get your story straight. Is nothing happening? Then why talk of adaption? Something is happening? OK, so we have to adapt. Has anyone told the rest of the natural world they had better plan for adapting. Do they have the free enterprise systems that adapt so wonderfully to anything?

  49. Luke December 20, 2008 at 11:02 pm #

    Golly Cohenite you’re right – it’s actually 8 Aussies out of 147.

    Jeez mate you must be utterly desperate to be quoting Harris & McLean as source.

    Marcus I don’t know when drought aid started exactly but in February 1992, the Australian Agricultural Council agreed that a National Drought Policy would be based on the principles of self reliance, risk management and recognition of drought as a natural feature of the climate. Drought was removed from Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements after the introduction of the new policy.

    We’ve adapted so well since then …. especially by shelling out vast amounts of funds for support.

    Here’s some numbers since

    National drought relief expenditure 1992-1999 $698,600,000 – Table 6
    http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/theme-reports/atmosphere/atmosphere02-14.html

    Australian Government expenditure on drought assistance in the five years to June 2006 is more than $1.2 billion. $430 million in additional drought assistance – 17 September 2007. Here’s the media releases …

    http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/media/media_releases

    Despite historic $12.9bn to save River Murray

    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23957464-5006301,00.html

    13 May 2008
    DAFF08/057B
    Farmers will continue to receive assistance from the effects of drought after the Rudd Government announced it is maintaining Exceptional Circumstances (EC) support in 2008-09.
    Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke said $760.9 million had been committed for EC assistance in the 2008-09 financial year.

    See Louis is right – why do we need a climate policy. No problems at all. LOL !

    Wonder what Bob’s advice is?

  50. sod December 21, 2008 at 12:40 am #

    ouch. i just forced myself to look at “Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for
    Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?”.

    check page 199. the Loehle graph and a long term look at greenland, from a paper from 1993.

    so two graphs, that BOTH do not contain the most recent global warming. used to show, that temperature was higher in the past than in recent years (the ones, that are not on the graphs..)

    Bob, i hope you can do better than that?!?

    http://www.eap-journal.com/download.php?file=671

  51. WJP December 21, 2008 at 12:42 am #

    Seems like farmers are not the only recipients of Government largesse. A certain $8,700,000,000.00 just so happens to spring to mind!

    http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/cash-stimulus-needed-to-protect-jobsrudd/1380714.aspx

    And Kev-o-sev wouldn’t take us for mugs by any chance?

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24498193-5000117,00.html

  52. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 1:11 am #

    “……because extra increments of atmospheric CO2 cause diminishing warming for each unit of increase; at most, a few tenths of a degree of extra warming would result from a completion of doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times……”

    We don’t know that. So we ought not be saying that. But just going with the title. Surely the idea is NOT to have a national climate policy. Surely the idea is to sack every lunatic that has pushed for this cap and kill sytem. For Kyoto. For carbon taxes and so forth. That would be my national climate policy. Make sure we get a lot of energy production going, and make sure that anyone who has advocated this carbon tax is banished from the public sector. That way many failed analysts are culled and we save a bunch of money also.

  53. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 1:16 am #

    “Mr Rudd has urged recipients to spend the cash handouts in the run-up to Christmas to give the flagging economy a much needed boost in the face of a global economic downturn.”

    When will this tyranny of anti-economics end? Well getting rid of CO2-bedwetters will help. There is surely a one to one matchup with CO2-bedwetters and Keynesians. Both these tendencies must surely derive from the same sorts of mental deficiencies.

  54. John F. Pittman December 21, 2008 at 1:55 am #

    SJT said “”What has Bob Carter published on the current global warming? Papers on past climate change in geological history don’t count. I want to see a paper on the current climate change, because that is what he is talking about.””

    FROM:

    What Should We Do for the Prediction by Arrhenius More than 100 Years Ago ?
    More than 100 years ago, lectures and discussions at the Stockholm Physics Society moved Arrhenius (1859-1927) to undertake a major investigation of the influence of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the air on the temperature on the ground. This was because Arrhenius first had the idea that changes in CO2 may have caused the variations in climate that could explain glacial epochs. The prediction showed the mean global warming of 6.DEG.C. for doubling of CO2.

    Thanks for throwing out all the original basis for AGW, SJT!!! Obviously, your whole “science” has been laid low with your comment, and getting rid of that “quack” Arrhenius. Again, thanks!

    Luke said “”Yes guys we get the drift – but now we’re waiting for YOUR climate policy and “adaptation” agenda.””

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

    I include just this one link as not to invoke the link gremlin. The problem is that you AGW alarmists keep giving flawed studies for the economic rankings. In order to do risk prevention correctly, pros and cons, and reasonable costs for each action, OR inaction has to be stated correctly. Such that the risk versus cost factor for the decision to mitigate or adapt can be made. This is the fundamental goal of risk management and is the product that is bought by the expenditures. From the complaints of the IPCC, the Stern Report, and the Scandanavian conference, the benefits of warming are continually being downplayed. This not only skews the ranking; it is also fundamentally fraudulent. The product is claimed $X for Y mitigation. However, with skewed rankings it is by defintion (and known by the proponents) not $X for Y mitigation.

    You keep asking skeptics to step up to the plate. Well, get your IPCC and others to actually include the positives of global warming, and then you would be justified in demanding a good counter.

    Oh! That’s right, we just threw out Arrhenius. Never mind!

  55. david December 21, 2008 at 7:12 am #

    >1. Professor Bob Carter is well qualified to comment on climate change issues and has published extensively on this issue, including in the best peer-reviewed journals.

    This is not the case. I recently asked him why he has published extensively on geology but not climate change – if scientific peer review is important why apply it to just one field?

    Perhaps you could do the same Jen and we can compare responses.

    BTW has Bob provided feedback to the Australian Climate Change Science Framework http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/publications/pubs/consultation-draft.pdf .

  56. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 7:20 am #

    Peer review is an anti-scientific notion. So it is not important. What is important is evidence. And the global warming science-fraud has no evidence. Have you any evidence david? No you haven’t. Nor have you seen any.

  57. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 7:30 am #

    “BTW has Bob provided feedback to the Australian Climate Change Science Framework http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/publications/pubs/consultation-draft.pdf

    I don’t know whether he has or has not BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO. Since its just more evidence-free lies. Get it through your thick head David that this is science-fraud without any basis for it whatsoever.

    How long is it going to take for you to wake up to this? If you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming, or for the idea that a little bit of human warming is a bad thing during a brutal and pulverising ice-age, then how long is it going to be before you own up to the undeniable fact that this is a fraudulent racket???

    Why choose STUPIDITY as a guiding principle? Why not choose science and reason?

  58. Malcolm Hill December 21, 2008 at 7:35 am #

    We/I could put together a team of people that could write a very good policy. But there would be a problem.

    We would need to get funding and given the biased and incompetent nature of funding of anything to do with AGW in this country, the probability of anyone not part of the Central Command getting that, would be zero.

    Part of that problem stems from the fact that none of the people interested have any vested interest in either political party, or any of the climate mafia,such as Flannery, Garbaut, et al or the rag tag bunch of professional agitaters like the Climate Institute, WWF and ACF.

    We could probably even employ Luke as a research officer, one of serveral of course. He is good at ferreting out material- that he doesnt read.

    We would need two Independant Verifiers, one for the Science and another for the Economics, to ensure that the processes and logic are above reproach, and that all conflicts of interest have been declared and neutralised, and all material matters have been properly considered, and those parts of published science that have NOT been considered are identifed and declared.

    Now all that would be novel.

  59. david December 21, 2008 at 7:56 am #

    Welcome back Graeme. The climate types I know welcome your input more than you can imagine.

    BTW, any chance of bringing back Rau and The Word?

  60. sod December 21, 2008 at 8:06 am #

    Peer review is an anti-scientific notion.

    this is simply false.

    the Loehle paper that Bob relies on for example, would have had a hard time passing peer review, with its initial errors.
    the basis on which Bob is building his claims, didn t even pass the most basic test..

    And the global warming science-fraud has no evidence.

    if there was no evidence for “global warming”, Bob wouldn t have to stick to nonsense, like the “cooling since 2002″ claim.

    We would need two Independant Verifiers, one for the Science and another for the Economics, to ensure that the processes and logic are above reproach, and that all conflicts of interest have been declared and neutralised, and all material matters have been properly considered, and those parts of published science that have NOT been considered are identifed and declared.

    may i introduce to you the IPCC? the US and China were sitting at the table as well. going over the text, line for line.

  61. SJT December 21, 2008 at 8:12 am #

    “Thanks for throwing out all the original basis for AGW, SJT!!! Obviously, your whole “science” has been laid low with your comment, and getting rid of that “quack” Arrhenius. Again, thanks!”

    Arrhenius is not the basis for the current understanding of AGW. He was the first person to realise CO2 is a GHG, and speculated on the implications of that. The science has moved on a lot since then. You should read Weart’s history of CO2. It appears you are missing out on a lot of history of the topic.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

  62. Malcolm Hill December 21, 2008 at 8:20 am #

    Sod

    I am talking about doing a climate policy for Australia- not a rerun of the IPCC, for heavens sake.

    BTW USA and China may have been at the table but how much of what they said and wanted changed/added was actually honoured, and how much of that was reflected in the SPM. Not very much according to McLeans assessment.

  63. Louis Hissink December 21, 2008 at 8:59 am #

    SJT

    You plainly do not understand the history of science – Arrhenius’s hypothesis was that reducing atmospheric CO2 caused ice ages – he never proved it, and demanded others to refute him. This is what AGW is based on, not your mindless parroting of the AGW litany.

  64. Luke December 21, 2008 at 9:33 am #

    Well David and SJT – it’s telling isn’t it – still no ideas from Jen, Bob, Malcolm, Cohers, Sinkers, DHMO, janama, et al on an Australian climate policy. Just grizzles…..

    We just magically “adapt” and “bail out” anyone who has a problem. Drought – no wuckers – just “ADAPT” and stop whinging. Blown away or washed away – just “ADAPT”.

    Telling stuff guys …

    Of course perhaps Australia’s greatest climate analyst – Dr J McLean could tell us. A policy paper piece in E&E perhaps?

    And strangely Bill Kininmonth should know after all that time in BoM. Although truth being stranger than fiction that we note “data availability” appears to have increased by an order of magnitude under David’s leadership.

    You would think that the Lavoisier ratpack would have an alternative policy on their web site?

    Perhaps Mottsa has one on the back of his envelope?

    Cohenite might have the 10 wost climate policies of all time – but not A SINGLE ALTERNATIVE

    But there you have it – our ever so critical sceptics have come up empty.

    Perhaps the alternative is the comedic anarchy of Birdy?

    Piss weak guys !

  65. John F. Pittman December 21, 2008 at 10:44 am #

    No, SJT; it is you who have forgotten. With a maximum of five, 30 year cycles (defined by IPCC RealClimate, etc.) with decent, accepted (?) temperatures and over nine parameters which can effect temperature that need explanation, you are at least 5 degrees of freedom short of doing science. Now why would the IPCC of all people need the geologic information (Hint: Even Al Gore needs the geologic information). Let’s count them CO2, water vapor, ozone, aerosols, adiabatic lapse assumptions, land influences, ocean influences, solar. Oh wait, there are more. The Hockey Stick is discredited. Temperatures are falling. No tropical hot spot. Refusal to account for the benefits of global warming. GCM’s either unskillfull or invalidated. Geologic records of CO2 indicate that by definition the unknown natural forcing has to be just a little bit more than CO2 natural forcing. Dang, that is 10 (unknown natural forcing) and 11 (natural CO2 forcing and causes). Looks like you are 7 degrees short. Better quit counting.

    Speaking of quitting counting, Luke, as long as IPCC shoots blanks (won’t count the benefits of warming), it is not that skeptics have come up empty. The IPCC and others have. Piss weak…great description of not properly accounting. Oh sorry, not accounting properly is a property of the UN (IPCC) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/international/europe/09fraud.html?pagewanted=print&position= I would include others, but you can google it.

  66. Malcolm Hill December 21, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    You are such an obsessive fraud walker and so full of your own importance you are too dopey to comprehend some basics.

    Its up to Central Command to produce the policy for public scrutiny, and in a way that is above reproach and is credible in all respects. It is Central Command that has control of the funding for the agencies of government. It is Central Command that will put out the brief for the study.

    I would have thought a brown noser like you would have comprehended that simple matter.

    Why dont you and your offsiders, “The Cretinous Collective”, show us how good you are and get $5m and a well written brief, and I will get you your policy in a flash. Its not hard.

    Mind you a screw ball like you might not like it but it would be more credible than anything emanating from the Central Command nobs, or the Cretinuous Collective.

    A National Framework– te he he he!!- what a self serving piece of rubbish that is.

  67. janama December 21, 2008 at 10:47 am #

    Luke – the people who you think seem to need a climate policy i.e those affected by the drought, the people on the land, really don’t care for a policy because they’ve seen it all before and don’t actually believe the current policy.

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/bush-v-city-the-great-climate-divide-20081220-72pe.html

    The farmers around me are no different from the Victorian farmers in the above survey. I ask the local farmers, the local store owners etc whether the climate has changed and they all shake their heads and smile – we’ve had hotter, we’ve had colder, we’ve had wetter, we’ve had dryer – that’s Australia mate, it changes all the time.

    I didn’t call for a royal commission to create a climate policy – I wanted a commission to stop the bs climate policy created by wankers like you who want to ram your fantasy policy down everyone’s throat.

  68. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 11:34 am #

    “BTW, any chance of bringing back Rau and The Word?”

    I always suspected these were Joe Cambria. I’m not on good terms with him since I consider him a CO2-bedwetter. And like yourself he too cannot come up with any evidence to justify this. Your fraudulent religion is really like that paranormal gyp of the 70’s that included Uri Geller. We patiently try again and again to see if the thing is real. But after doing our best for a few years it has to be accepted that you guys are all charlatans and that you aren’t coming up with a damn thing.

    You could change this all right now. You could either do a really mighty spoon-bending act. Or you could submit the evidence required. Or you could do both and justify both movements from different decades.

    But you aren’t going to do either. Because you are a fraud and need to be separated from your parasitical government job.

  69. Luke December 21, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    Well Janama – if they have seen it all before (and most studies indicate people really don’t have a clue about their real climate) WHY oh WHY do we need drought aid. Surely if you’ve SEEN IT ALL BEFORE – you’d be prepared.

    Have a Royal Commission – a no holds barred discussion with denialists will expose what utter shonks they are. BRING IT ON ! Get Birdy in for your star witness – hahahahahaha……

    And anyway – you have the floor – still waiting – your alternative proposal is ? ………..

    Malcolm – clueless – no ideas ! Just bile. Have another chadonnay bozo. Of course you might tell us what a better policy is. Clearly mate you couldn’t organise a chook raffle.

  70. Malcolm Hill December 21, 2008 at 11:47 am #

    Wanker Walker – there is no one on this blog who can exceed our output of pure bile, b/s and absolute obsessive behaviour. It seems that when you get it back you cant handle it.

    Just go and get the money- $5m shouldnt be too hard.

  71. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm #

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU

    About one minute and 50 seconds into this talk Bob says the following.

    “… If you calculate, and this is not a disputed figure…. Both the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the United Nations body… and independent physicists agree…. that if you DOUBLE, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere …. from pre-industrial times…. the amount of warming will be about a degree ……”

    Look I don’t think we ought to be saying this. I don’t think anyone has come up with evidence for this and all the simplifying assumptions reasonable and all the inferences real sound. It may be nice to look for agreement where the other side isn’t lying outright or being totally irrational. But though this may be one area where they aren’t lying flat out or being drooling irrational zombies, I still don’t think this claim ought to be made without a clear and full explanation that can be audited.

  72. janama December 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm #

    “WHY oh WHY do we need drought aid. ”

    we don’t anymore than we need to bail out car manufacturers. If farmers can’t make it they have the same options as anyone else – the dole!

    And anyway – you have the floor – still waiting – your alternative proposal is ? ………..

    you really don’t listen do you – I said we don’t need a climate policy, especially your flawed one!

  73. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    List of blogs that Dr Marohasy reads.

    “Andrew Bolt
    Anthony Watts
    Chthoniid
    Graham Young
    Joseph D’Aleo
    Kerry Miller
    Libertarian Bloggers
    Lubos Motl
    Marc Morano
    Matt Briggs
    Neil Hewett
    Paul Biggs
    Polar Bear Alley
    Steve McIntyre
    Tim Blair
    Warwick Hughes
    Australia Needs a National Climate Policy”

    Clearly I’m insulted. Shucks Dr Marohasy. I read your blog. You are missing out on a sound education in economics and other matters.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/

  74. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm #

    I SEZ:

    Peer review is an anti-scientific notion.

    AND IDIOT CALLED SOD SEZ:

    this is simply false.

    SO I SEZ:

    No sod. You are an idiot. All of us need the input of intelligent people who can check for mistakes and offer a conceptual audit.

    But this is not anything to do with the modern anti-scientific doctrine of peer review, though it might on the surface sound like it. This modern notion is anti-scientific. Its an attempt to bring dark ages priesthood theology into science. Science ends where the theology of peer review begins.

  75. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 2:17 pm #

    I think we need an individual climate policy. My individual climate policy is to advise all of you that your next real estate investment ought to be in North Queensland.

    We simply have to get serious about what the AUTHENTIC scientific evidence is telling us.

  76. SJT December 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm #

    “CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation: millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304, 1659-1662 (supporting online material).”

    I think the point you are missing is “millenial scale”. AGW is happening much quicker than millenial scale.

  77. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm #

    You are lying. Its not happening at all. When is the lying going to stop? Only when you are sacked.

  78. sod December 21, 2008 at 6:24 pm #

    BTW USA and China may have been at the table but how much of what they said and wanted changed/added was actually honoured, and how much of that was reflected in the SPM. Not very much according to McLeans assessment.

    wouldn t it be good, if you knew the BASICS, before you complain about something?

    and there is a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of about 15 pages which is written by these senior authors, but then considered line-by-line by the full IPCC Panel in Plenary.

    The SPM is chewed over for some days (and sometimes nights) by the panel; and it is this process that has sometimes brought criticism from a few scientists who have questioned how much this government involvement alters the meaning of the scientists’ conclusions.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7082088.stm

    so actually (the representatives of) the USA and China did a line by line governmental review. and the procedure calls for “line by line discussion and “agreement”.

    there is nothing in the summary, that was NOT agreed on by them!

  79. sod December 21, 2008 at 6:30 pm #

    But this is not anything to do with the modern anti-scientific doctrine of peer review, though it might on the surface sound like it. This modern notion is anti-scientific. Its an attempt to bring dark ages priesthood theology into science. Science ends where the theology of peer review begins.

    peer review seriously came up in the 18th century. we all know the dark age of science, that we have experienced since then.
    i am really happy, that Graeme is around, to lead us to new enlightenment…

    sarcasm off.

    You are lying. Its not happening at all. When is the lying going to stop? Only when you are sacked.

    why not start with sacking Bob Carter? is it too much to ask, that you denialists figure out among yourself, whether warming is happening or not? before you keep shouting your inconsistent nonsense, all over the world?

  80. Malcolm Hill December 21, 2008 at 7:10 pm #

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

    Pity about the piece by Prof Christy on the same subject, which was included in the BBC article.

    What was that about Basics then?

    Obviously it doesnt include reading and comprehension on your part.

  81. Luke December 21, 2008 at 7:25 pm #

    Oh well Banana Pyamas – aka Janama – has called it – well that’s that then – NO CLIMATE POLICY !!

    So delete all ENSO research.
    Shut down the met station network.
    Turn the satellite obs off – a few planes might run into some storms – but hey WTF eh?
    No more meteorological studies
    No more oceanography
    No more cyclone research

    And when you run out of water, are flooded or blown away, well Uncle Bob will come along and bail you out.

    Building a water storage – bugger it – just take a guess mate !!

    Of course no need for any any paleo-climate studies either. Anyway Bob can retire happy.

    Fucking brilliant Janama. I reckon the Aussie populace is up for it. Get Bozo Bird to run it for you at the next election.

  82. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 8:01 pm #

    That would save us a great deal of money and cut off a source of propaganda. But the thing is that if you cut other spending enough that science spending would come back under private auspices. The idea is to slash spending more generally to get more resources for authentic science rather than stolen money science.

    You can make scientists a non-taxable profession. That would be better than government financing.

  83. amused December 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm #

    It is interesting that the IPCC has so many scientists. 2000 or more!

    But would it be any better if there were 10000? Probably not. Why?

    Because the hypothesis is impossible to test. No one one earth can answer this question.

  84. Graeme Bird December 21, 2008 at 8:08 pm #

    Warming isn’t happening sod. You are just going to have to stop lying about it. The bizzare philosophy of peer review wasn’t even around all that many years ago as far as I can see. Peer review as an anti-science ideology is not just the act of publishing in specialist journals. Matters go further than that. Its an alternate epistemology. It puts publication ahead of reason and logic. It says that if the sentiment of worrying about warming is evident in publications, then this over-rides the reality of evidence and regular glaciation disasters. Its really just more voodoo.

  85. sod December 21, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

    Pity about the piece by Prof Christy on the same subject, which was included in the BBC article.

    sorry, but Christy does not deny, what i wrote above. and he is fundamentally wrong in that article, for example when talking about models.

    Warming isn’t happening sod.

    you are denying reality. it makes more sense, when i continue this discussion with my cat or my chair.

    The farmers around me are no different from the Victorian farmers in the above survey. I ask the local farmers, the local store owners etc whether the climate has changed and they all shake their heads and smile – we’ve had hotter, we’ve had colder, we’ve had wetter, we’ve had dryer – that’s Australia mate, it changes all the time.

    well, i guess those who commited suicide saw this differently.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448677,00.html

    how is rice production doing?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17warm.html?pagewanted=print

  86. Luke December 21, 2008 at 9:19 pm #

    Sod – interesting point. The stoicism, persistence and resilience of the Aussie farmer if well known. But also the source of major problems in a changing climate.

    Best action is to sell early in a big drought and not invest more good money into a pointless cycle. Shut down and wait for the better seasons is the key – but holding onto too many animals will get you into expensive drought feeding and send you broke.

    So “optimal intelligent stoicism” is what is needed.

    But given the guys here are opting for no Australian climate policy at all – well they won’t be needing any advice/more information. They’ve “seen it all before”.

  87. Malcolm Hill December 22, 2008 at 7:15 am #

    “But given the guys here are opting for no Australian climate policy at all ”

    Not so Walker Bsc (Hons). No one as far as I can tell has said that, and if so, they are wrong.

    You just go get the money, $5m will do it with ease, and we/I will write your policy.

    Its a no brainer, I am surprised a know-all like you hasnt yet produced it off your own bat, and save the tax payers the money.

    Have raised lots more than that, but getting money from the Kruddite Fraternity to do something that may expose the warmanistas is not something I would waste time on. Too many vested interests at play from the likes of Flannery, Henry et al, and government funded sheltered workshops.

  88. Luke December 22, 2008 at 7:35 am #

    $5M to write a policy – WTF !!! Wow !!! You’re a riot Malcolm.

    Well Banana Pyjamas doesn’t think we need a policy …. “the people who you think seem to need a climate policy i.e those affected by the drought, the people on the land, really don’t care for a policy because they’ve seen it all before”…..

    Reality Malyponse is that you denialist drongos can’t muster a single idea between you all. After years and years of whining that’s all you’re good at.

    Surely you’d know some of the key elements. Can we have a widdle peek at your policy. Surely in the Lavoisier secret treasure chest there might be a few policies. LOL ROTFL and LMAO

  89. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 8:26 am #

    “It is interesting that the IPCC has so many scientists. 2000 or more!
    But would it be any better if there were 10000? Probably not. Why?
    Because the hypothesis is impossible to test. No one one earth can answer this question.”

    No thats rubbish. Its a very simple question really. If you go with the scientific evidence and not the dumb-science-worker sentiment its an easy thing to sort out.

    What we are seeing here is a slipperier repeat of what happened in the 70’s with Uri Geller and the sort of explosion of superstition that guys like the Amazing Randi had to lassoo and hog-tie.

    Every alarmist on this blog or anywhere else is basically trying on the same JIVE that this Gung-Kung-Fu expert was trying to get away with on this here TV program.

    Same JIVE different decades is all:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

  90. Hasbeen December 22, 2008 at 2:25 pm #

    Luke we most definitely don’t need a climate policy. It’s just a bit of pretentious grandstanding, really.

    However we do need the bureau, & it’s forcasts.

    Without it, TV would not only have an extra 15 minutes daily to fill, but it would loose it’s most successful comedy skit.

  91. janama December 22, 2008 at 5:53 pm #

    “Well Banana Pyjamas doesn’t think we need a policy”

    what I said was we don’t need YOUR policy, as David aptly put it –

    “sub-prime science, sub-prime economics and sub-prime politics.”

    Of course we still need scientific research and a Met office etc – who ever said we didn’t??
    Talk about strawmen!! pathetic.

  92. Luke December 23, 2008 at 7:55 am #

    Well Banana Pyjamas – with what policy framework would you like them to operate in. Researching what themes with what equipment?

    The recent policy document I’ve tabled is about a wide array of climate research from the researchers suggested ideas

    You guys say it’s CRAP.

    But as for ANY concrete alternative offerings from you lot – NONE – why coz you’re all dumb arses who don’t have a clue. 91 comments and not ONE single idea.

    LMAO !!! Typical septic sceptics… frigging useless. Beyond useless …. Ultra useless. Perhaps even hyper useless.

Website by 46digital