jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

December 2008
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

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.

Advertisement

92 Responses to “Australia Needs a National Climate Policy”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: WJP


    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

  2. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “……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.

  3. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “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.

  4. Comment from: John F. Pittman


    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!

  5. Comment from: david


    >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 .

  6. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    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.

  7. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “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?

  8. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    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.

  9. Comment from: david


    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?

  10. Comment from: sod


    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.

  11. Comment from: SJT


    “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

  12. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    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.

  13. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    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.

  14. Comment from: Luke


    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 !

  15. Comment from: John F. Pittman


    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.

  16. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    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.

  17. Comment from: janama


    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.

  18. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “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.

  19. Comment from: Luke


    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.

  20. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    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.

  21. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    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.

  22. Comment from: janama


    “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!

  23. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    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/

  24. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    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.

  25. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    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.

  26. Comment from: SJT


    “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.

  27. Comment from: Graeme Bird


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

  28. Comment from: sod


    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!

  29. Comment from: sod


    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?

  30. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    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.

  31. Comment from: Luke


    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.

  32. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    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.

  33. Comment from: amused


    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.

  34. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    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.

  35. Comment from: sod


    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

  36. Comment from: Luke


    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”.

  37. Comment from: Malcolm Hill


    “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.

  38. Comment from: Luke


    $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

  39. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “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

  40. Comment from: Hasbeen


    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.

  41. Comment from: janama


    “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.

  42. Comment from: Luke


    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.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All