- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


July 2009
« Jun   Aug »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


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

Due Diligence on Science Underpinning Carbon Trade

YOU will have heard on the news over the last three weeks of the activities of Senator Steve Fielding in Australia. Steve is an independent cross-bench senator who holds a casting vote over the passage of the Australian ETS (termed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme).

After attending the Heartland-3 climate conference in Washington in early June this year, Steve returned to Australia and asked Climate Minister Penny Wong three simple questions about climate change. The Minister replied, first in a meeting at which her Chief Scientist (Penny Sackett) and departmental science adviser (Will Steffen) presented a briefing paper, and secondly in writing. Senator Fielding then asked his advisory scientists – Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kinimonth – to perform an audit of the Minister’s replies to his questions.

Copies of Senator Fielding’s original questions, Minister Wong’s written reply, and other papers relevant to the matter are available for download from:

Senator Fielding’s summary of the results of his discussions with Minister Wong can be found here:

The Due Diligence Paper has now been released publicly by Senator Fielding’s office (July 3, 2009):

It shows, first, that the Minister and her Department have largely been unable to answer the questions that they were asked. And, second, that the Australian Department of Climate Change has little capacity to assess the science of global warming in an expert, knowledgeable and independent way.

We believe that this is the first time recently that a member of a western parliament has released a public document that makes an independent science assessment of the danger of human-caused global warming (as promulgated by the IPCC), thereby demonstrating (i) the lack of empirical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are damaging to the environment, and (ii) that ETS are unnecessary.

However, though raising the issue in parliamentary context may be new, our general conclusions are most certainly not, for many other qualified scientists have reached them too; for example, the two independent assessments that have been provided recently by Craig Idso and Fred Singer (NIPCC), and Alan Carlin (EPA):  and

Given the large costs and the industrial and social disruption that established ETS are already causing – for example in Europe, and which will be added to greatly should similar bills pass parliament in Canada, Australia, N.Z., USA and elsewhere – we ask for your help in giving our Due Diligence document wide promulgation.

Kind regards,

Bob Carter, Townsville, Australia 


Notes and Links


73 Responses to “Due Diligence on Science Underpinning Carbon Trade”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    “…what the hell is “carbon farming”?”

    Something that needs to be stopped for the sake of the biosphere is what it is.

    Its not just that this movement is stupid dishonest and wrong. Its just HOW stupid dishonest and wrong it is that knocks me out.

    Imagine thinking that robbing the biosphere of CO2 is somehow helping nature???????

    You just could not make up lunacy on that level.

  2. Comment from: spangled drongo

    With 200 million bikkies in that trough these pros will be making up as much lunacy as possible.

    What a slush fund!

    And that’s just a small contribution from Australia. How big is the US and the ROW?

    No wonder it’s the fastest growing religion. I could believe too, for a slice of that.

    And we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet!

    And these gummy snouts have the hide to criticise the peanuts that sceptical scientists occasionally get to present the other side of the “debate”.

  3. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    carbon farming is a euphemism for rent seeking or milking the taxpayers.

  4. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    It’s called institutionalized science prostrating itself at the feet of the ALP Mammon.

    It’s how the Fabians implement wealth distribution – instead of directly stealing from us, they call it “grants”.

    Luke and his useful idiots don’t really understand how they are being manipulated, hence the pejorative “lumpen masses”

  5. Comment from: Malcolm Hill

    If crap science doesnt get your dander up, then what about the crap legislation now voted in by members of USA Congress, who admit they havnt read the Bill before them.

    Here is 50 reasons why its a disaster

    With the dopey yanks doing this, whats the bet the morons in Canberra will do something similar.

  6. Comment from: janama

    “…what the hell is “carbon farming”?”

    good question

    according to Flannery if you take wheat stubble and convert it to charcoal you can save the planet. Of course it takes energy to create charcoal but that doesn’t seem to count. “Charcoal is pure carbon!” Flannery was heard to say on lateline last week, bury it in the ground and you are offsetting emissions. Note the offsetting, not the cutting.

    But Tim – we are still burning fossil fuels and this will balance it?? Well yes says Tim because the stubble would have decayed in the ground producing green house gasses.

    It get funnier every day.

  7. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Louis, maybe Luke has his proboscis in there too.

    Malcolm, be optimistic. Our senators may save us both.

  8. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    We ought not refer to “Luke” since there is no such person. You ought to cut and paste the following when referring to Luke:


    If you cut and paste that every-time you refer to these irresponsible money-wasting clowns then sooner or later someone will get around to firing them.

  9. Comment from: sod

    Scientific facts are not dependent on how they are agued – they are self evident. Wong’s reply, in its various versions, is simply dialectic obfuscation. The real problem is that her advisors actually believe this, as does Sod.

    Wong destroyed the fielding arguments. this is a fact.

    even Fielding had to admit on question 3:

    1.1. It is indeed clearly the case that individual GCM model runs simulate natural variability in a way which includes the depiction of periods of several years to a decade or so of cooling within a temperature projection that nonetheless progressively rises.

    and this is completely contradicting the question:

    Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the
    period 1990-2008
    , whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years
    of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?

    case closed on the fielding questions. they are rubbish.


    I read the Tamino post. It’s the same old same old. Which boils down to this: “If it looks like the warming rate has slowed down, easy fix, increase the number of years of smoothing.”

    you did not understand what Tamino said. try some basic statistics. tamino can SHOW with statistic methods, that a short term trend is unreliable. if you are arguing against this, you are arguing against facts.

  10. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    No her advisors are all liars and incompetents and ought to be sacked. Now sod why don’t you just stop lying and present your evidence for the likelihood of castastrophic warming or otherwise refrain from this pathetic lying.

  11. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    So your evidence sod is ………………………………………………………… what?

    We are all waiting.


  12. Comment from: Luke

    Oh the appalling disgraceful piggy ignorance of the Bird – you utter foolish art graduate – soil carbon comes from the atmosphere as a result of plant growth and is released again through decay or organic matter over time – are you that dense? There are very good reasons to build up soil carbon in various pools – microbial, fungal and long term as charcoal. Infiltration by water, water holding capacity, cation exchange, soil structure and perhaps as a carbon store.

    Soil carbon is just about as much as soil health as carbon sequestration.

    The terra preta story says it all:

    Yes it takes some energy to make charcoal – but it’s a matter of nett though isn’t it !

  13. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    I’m a commerce graduate who majored in economics. Which is a more difficult subject then anything you guys are posing at. After all Keynes, Abe Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton and others were genius level characters and never came to grips with the subject.

    I’ll ignore the-government-department-calling-itself-LUKES’ evidence-filibuster for the moment and take Senator Fieldings coterie to task.

    In their conclusions they claim:

    “At the moment the planet is no longer warming; only time will tell whether the stasis and minor cooling trend will deepen significantly or will instead be succeeded by resumed warming. BOTH ARE EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE………..”

    But this is not true. Both are not EQUALLY plausible. The evidence says that the cooling will deepen. If the evidence turns out to be pointing us in the wrong direction, nonetheless thats where the evidence is pointing. And as a matter of fact the chances that we will see sustained resumed warming short of mid-century are really very remote.

    The climate will continue to cool. And though one would not normally want to place bets, we can all be very sure that the 2030′s (for example) will be a great deal colder than the 90′s were. It will be disastrously cold and by that time dry as well one would expect. And it will be CATASTROPHICALLY-so, if we have not got our nuclear and synthetic-diesel industries running full blast.

    Now all Senator Fieldings people would have known that the evidence dictates that powerful cooling is more plausible than resumed warming on the basis of the work of solar scientists. They would have all known this.

    Great job that these guys did otherwise. But they ought not have backed off on that point. There is nothing to be gained by allowing the weight of this lunacy to bend oneself even one centimetre away from what the evidence is saying.

  14. Comment from: Cathy


    You may view it as splitting hairs, but the Fielding Four said that warming or cooling were equally plausible, not that they were equally likely.

    The first wording implies that either MIGHT happen whereas the latter wording implies that there is an EQUAL CHANCE each will happen. These are not the same thing.


  15. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    They aren’t equally plausible. At this point, and at least up to mid-century, any serious warming is entirely implausible. If that was to happen, then it would be because of evidence that is entirely unavailable to us right now. There is just nothing to suggest it.

    We cannot put a probability on these things. Since if we get serious warming it will be because of something currently not known. Its not like everything is so well known we can put odds on it. Rather all the evidence points to cooling, and if it warms it will be as a result of some sort of factor so far unknown. Like the rewriting of the way we look at the geological record. Something pretty implausible. The weather report is for nasty cooling. And all of these guys would know it.

    Maybe they think the truth is just a little bit too much to soon for the public. Maybe even our best people are swayed by the constant propagandizing.

  16. Comment from: Find Luke


    Really? It’s a government department? Like a bunch of overpaid public servants types wasting taxpayer money and posting stuff over the web all day?

    Fellas if we ever find out where it comes from, I copy everything you’ve said at this site and send it to the government auditor to figure out how much time you’ve wasted.

  17. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    Right. Four years of it. Or so it would seem. And gloating about it after the fact. But if not you are a compulsive liar. Here is a good website to do with the actual science as opposed to the tax-eater lying:

    Here is one of the fathers of this global warming movement back in 1972, despite there being cooling fears at that time, talking up his anti-industrial, and centralization views. Later he was going to become a bigshot warming liar. Its the anti-industrialism and globalism that remains the same and that has nothing to do with any weather forecast and never did. Reducing CO2 means destroying or taking control of industrial activity. Thats the entire motive for this and there is nothing more to it.

    Which is why none of the compulsive liars care about coming back day after day after day without any evidence. Either they are goose-stepping morons or they are motivated by these other goals. All of which of course are treasonous. Although people in the public sector have lost any sense of what treason is. Its a social faux pas now to even mention such a quaint concept. The-government-department-calling-itself-LUKE is essentially motivated by goals that must ‘on a technical level’ (since no-one can seem to get animated by the concept anymore) be considered treasonous. Which is why the total dearth of evidence does not matter.

    Anyone who is behind this must be sacked. If not for malice, and working AGAINST the public interest, then otherwise for incompetence. There isn’t a warmer left in 2009 that is not a self-selected failed analyst. It really doesn’t matter what his specialty is. He has to be presumed to be getting in the way. Removing such people would slow our accumulation of debt and make the public sector less ineffective overall. We could turn this whole despicable subject into an advantage since its an acid test to decide the failed analysts from those who we might shortlist to stay on in a much more streamlined public sector.

  18. Comment from: sod

    So your evidence sod is ………………………………………………………… what?

    We are all waiting.


    bird, i know you are a little bit slow, but even you should spot the contradiction:

    Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008


    It is indeed clearly the case that individual GCM model runs simulate natural variability in a way which includes the depiction of periods of several years to a decade or so of cooling

    both this sentences are from the fielding “team”.

    please educate me. is that “decade of COOLING” part of the “steady INCREASE” that ALLL models show?

  19. Comment from: Luke

    “I’m a commerce graduate who majored in economics. ” – how tragic – a trumped accountant who took the soft option – arts crap – turned political freak (now unelectable swill) who is PIG IGNORANT of basic science. Get off the blog clown.

  20. Comment from: DavidK

    “Anti-scientific claim,” Bird? This coming from a “commerce graduate who majored in economics” failed wanabe politician?

    Do yourself everyone a favour, go back to science primary school.

  21. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    Of course the GCM models predict warming. Thats the way they were programmed you idiot. We really are dealing with morons here. CONCEPTUAL AUDIT FAIL for you sod you twit.

  22. Comment from: sod

    Of course the GCM models predict warming. Thats the way they were programmed you idiot. We really are dealing with morons here. CONCEPTUAL AUDIT FAIL for you sod you twit.

    your reading comprehension is seriously limited.

    look at the pink line, that is the highest on in the mid-90s

    it ends up as the LOWEST one around 2008. that model did NOT predict warming over that period!!!!

  23. Comment from: Graeme Bird

    But its all irrelevant. I wanted some evidence. I didn’t ask for you to program a computer that says that CO2 will warm things up you stupid stupid low dog. Nor did I ask for you to refer to such computers.


    Evidence moron.


    Either get the evidence or admit that you are wrong. Thats what we used to do in the old days prior to the global warming fraud.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All