Gone Fishing
Posted by jennifer, August 5th, 2012 - under News.
Tags: Murray River
I am going to take some time out from this blog to try and complete a couple of projects that I’ve started, but am having trouble finishing. So there may be no new posts here for a while.
In the meantime you can subscribe for my irregular email updates here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/subscribe/
And check the ‘Community Home’ page for updates from other readers with their nature photographs and more here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/category/community/
And here’s a picture I took of a fisher, a darter cormorant, in Kakadu National Park a few years ago. 
Interestingly according to one account of life in the Lower Murray in South Australia one hundred years ago there was a bounty on cormorants (that are closely related to darters), with 34,000 taken in one year ostensibly because they ate too many fish [1].
*********
[1] Travels in Australasia, by Wandandian see page 301
26th July 1909 at Caurnamont, near Mannum
‘Birds were very scarce, though we saw one fine old spoonbill wading round the swamp and swinging his head from side to side in the peculiar fashion these birds have while feeding.
On the latter day, while out shooting, I picked up a freshly decapitated turtle of the kind called by the natives “emys,” and on meeting a fisherman enquired of him whether he had caught many, and why it was without a head.
He replied that the turtles were so destructive of fish spawn, that a scalp fee of one penny was paid on the head of each by the Government, and that he caught a good many from time to time.
On further enquiry, I found that in the past year the South Australian Government had paid over £600 in scalping fees to various people for 116,000 turtles and 34,000 cormorants, thus satisfactorily explaining why the cormorants are so shy, and look upon every man with suspicion; for when one contemplates what a hunting they must have in the course of the year to furnish such an enormous “bag,” it would be decidedly strange if they were at all otherwise. In spite of all this I saw hundreds of them on the Murray and lake waters, so that I am sure many must pour in from outside to take the place of those that are shot, and should this be the case it will be many years before their numbers are at all reduced, or the Government get anything like the full value for their money, or even justify its expenditure.’
[Back then Murray cod were plentiful despite the turtles and the cormorant though now there are no Murray cod in that stretch of river below Lock 1.]
Advertisement
3,962 Responses to “Gone Fishing”
Pages: « 1 … 58 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 68 … 80 » Show All
Pages: « 1 … 58 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 68 … 80 » Show All
GM; “Can we really infer something useful from a detailed instrumental record…”
I say yes but first, lets know how much you really understand about what’s possible before going on to “my personal beef as I say is the misrepresentation of events to the public” and “Is it reasonable to use Sandy as an example”.
Mate; I spent a great deal of my time trying to keep up with technical developments after WW2. Being a metal worker before playing with scientific instruments and industrial automation systems full time I had to prove a long term interest in areo/space type research and extremes in physics. In the 1960′s my tutors came from, railways, navy ships and aircraft instruments. In the 70′s some of us were lucky enough to have a guy who designed, built then maintained unique weapons guidance systems for our defense forces then a short career in transitioning global electronic manufacturing for the digital age. Not so much a teacher but an expert in solid state electronic development. Even so I had to sprint often enough after being left behind. Some times it’s enough to have faith in other folk and observe.
Ebay has a message todaycabout communication problems down the east coast in the US. People were caught in the middle of their online transactions without a word in response. How foolish is that”. I had a few packages off to the US by air on the eve of 9/11. That took months to settle and we still have communications then. The true measure of Sandy will go on for a while yet. Observation must be on going too.
Tomorrow I hope to catch up with youngsters working through the digital age, project design and management, system building for future data mining. I’m curious about our mutual obligations too but know just enough not to expect any forecasts. How much do we need to be wise before the event?
My advice to them remains constant. Keep 20% of client budget up sleeve for contingencies and obtain a complete set of propriety spares before commissioning.
I should add, what older folk think about AGW and many other things doesn’t really count, as it’s the young doing their turn that matters.
OK… so clearly you don’t want to offer your personal opinion on the case for sandy as evidence for AGW as has been put forward by several climate science luminaries, our climate commissioner and any number of articles in the MSM. This is clear from your rambling responses that are remarkably thin on content.
Now. “lets know how much you really understand about what’s possible before going on to”
The simple answer is ‘nothing at all’. I am a very average Joe Blow with no science background to speak of. What I do have is an ability to see larger patterns and a certain understanding of human nature. While my view of AGW is sceptical, I don’t discount the very real possibility that the scientific ‘concensus’ is spot on.
Where my alarm bells sound is when I see such a concentrated effort to sell AGW – especially when that effort involves a massive re-education of the public perception around what is climate, weather and acceptable or normal risk.
Science should not be advocacy in my view. Perhaps I am wrong there. But increasingly I interpret climate science as advocacy by those with an inherent sense that the modern world is a fallen paradise.
So my simple contribution here now is not to argue the merits of observation (my comment on which you so clearly misinterpreted) but to pose the question to someone who has hitherto offered good arguments for his point of view. Can you in all good conscience agree with the alarmist position that Sandy was exacerbated by AGW and that we have indeed entered a new era of climate extremes? Are you willing to actually answer that question and explain your reasoning?
GM if you’re looking for an argument using logic and reason I don’t think you’ll get much satisfaction from Gav.
You’ll get a lot of the historical contents of Gav’s tool box and quickie measurements and observations here, there and everywhere decades ago, but very little that is relevant to the con and fraud of AGW mitigation. Yes it is a real con and fraud, easily explained using simple maths.
If you want to understand Sandy and its place in history then I think Pielke jnr is as good a source as anyone.
BTW the Bolter has some real fair dinkum BS for the Combet idiot to absorb and it all comes from Combet’s side of politics.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_real_bulls_is_what_combet_is_standing_on/#commentsmore
Graeme, ya gotta get with it today. It’s like quantum physics, you know, schroedinger’s cat.
All things to all people. It’s systemic. The system is the cause.
No direct evidence, mind you, but that’s not an argument any more.
All part of gav’s razor-sharp reasoning:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/sandy-climate-change_b_2042871.html
Heh, yes I read that lakoff stuff at Judith Curry’s. I have to admit to struggling with the concepts but I suspect it’s a semantical game that leads to a very slippery slope of reasoning.
As to Gav, well… I’m not trying to be a smartarse. But the whole Hurricane Sandy as evidence for AGW thing does make my blood boil. I understand that Gav isn’t necessarily making that argument but he is suggesting that those who disagree are misinformed.
I just won
whoops, blasted dog just jumped into my lap!
I meant to finish that comment with
“I just wondered what Gav’s view re the Hurricane Sandy thing really is and what he thinks of the efforts to paint it as evidence for AGW. “
The big stunt is to use terms like “record”, “ever”, “unprecedented” etc, which are referential to past events and conditions, but at the same time to blur and minimise history, till those terms become a kind of emotional code, wilfully disconnected from a factual base. Like all stunts, it will work for a while.
Nobody ever says there is an era when climate was stable – the trick is to imply it without saying it. What existed once is to be seen as normal and natural, what is happening now is mechanistic, dominated by “drivers”, “forcings” and “triggers”. Even a loose but useful set of observations like PDO or ENSO is perceived as a kind of Big Lever or master mechanism. No wonder it’s the left who love all this climate crud!
In reality, if you even take a cursory look at climate in history, everything old is new again.
I covered the history of Mildura temp and rainfall in the Sunraysia Daily many years ago. But the clueless Karoly “scientist” still can’t get it right. But does this fool ever get anything correct?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/overheating_in_mildura_detected/#commentsmore
Just another reason why the Bolter is worth reading every single day. He doesn’t miss a trick.
Gav opines,
“I should add, what older folk think about AGW and many other things doesn’t really count, as it’s the young doing their turn that matters.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one Neville.
If Alan Jones said this, ACMA would have him in for re-education.
BTW, I just heard our first Brush Cuckoo of spring this am. He’s running about a month late.
Global cooling, gav?
But I have to say that gav is much more polite and lovable than some others of the green faith:
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/11/polite-discourse-with-professional-climate-alarmist-david-suzuki/
I agree SD that tiny error was just minor by the super busy and very accurate Jones. He also understood straight away that he had made a mistake and apologised to his audience.
Karoly’s mistakes are mind bogling when you consider he’s supposed to be one of our top climate scientists.
BTW the Bolter seems to be hinting at a new development in the Gillard/Wilson slush fund scandal.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_scandal_labor_starts_to_fret/#commentsmore
Talking of AB did you read his transcript of Abbot’s interview with Lisa Wilkinson? It read like a Brian Clark/John Dawe skit. I like Abbot but honestly think they are squandering their high ground. They’ve allowed Labor to frame the AbbotAbbotAbbot public debate and now have nothing useful to offer but the same tired rhetoric. Sad but there it is. just watch Labor claw back the lead.
And Hurricane Sandy is just the tonic for the climate change catastrophists I reckon.
Gav, I know you don’t like to see your heroes being made look foolish but ignore that part [as well as the messenger] and just check some of the historic data on past cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons including our Mahina and then tell us where AGW comes into the equation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/09/bill-mckibbens-tabloid-climatology-claims-are-easily-debunked/#more-73981
Karoly is clearly an ‘advocate’ first and any other qual comes after that.
His claim with NO EVIDENCE that people in Mildura just ‘know’ that it is getting drier/hotter is proof that attention to ‘science’ is taking a back seat to ‘advocacy’.
Those MDB wastrels should orta know by now, Deb. More than the rest of Aus, they have been browbeaten by the best green hypocrites this govt can afford.
And they can afford the most expensive there is.
Here’s another side of Sandy that equates well with AGW that gav would like.
Debbie, if you could organise some wildlife like this for the MDB and the MIA, the green bleaters might give you all a break:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226091/Sandy-memes-Sharks-post-Sandy-spoof-pictures-flooded-neighborhoods.html
GM; there have been occasions when I contact a contributor off the blog to say what I am thinking behind what I write and I recently offered SD a shoot out in RL with old but trusty thermometers by the hip. I even told one or two why I hang about and it’s not because I’m otherwise idle. Btw; I’m just as concerned as others here about process.
Extracting agreements across the board is quite difficult and so I have to bleed every one slowly by pricking and prodding their blind side. After failing English Expression repeatedly I realized I could not campaign directly in the right fields to assist with making change. One of our remedial class mates at tech night school was a layout artist for a major newspaper. She and one or two others hijacked the instructor’s agenda and turned it into politics re socially structured poverty after reading the first Henderson Report as a class subject for all to devour.
I used that mottle mob of adult students to fast track my environment addenda after working for several pulp & paper manufacturers. Sowing seeds with a guy from the teachers union on town hall steps got us snapped by two men in grey suits who then melted as quickly as they appeared. UNESCO listings for our remaining wilderness areas then became a race against the powerful, but gee I was motivated to go on.
Working in Canberra after failing in the bush was a more or less a final step in the learning curve for me. Intruding into other folks lives in my quest for alternative policy and process, also the impact of campaign fatalities, broken relationships or shattered careers has forced an ongoing tactical review. We should not meddle with other people’s assets or opportunities by dragging them into our arguments unnecessarily.
The fact is I have asked people involved with policy and it’s implementation to watch these debates and so hone their rhetoric for a wider audience.
Footnote; Re Heros -My town hall steps collegue gave me the chance to interview Dr R Jones from Hobart as the potential “new party” candidate with a chance. A hasty flight and a long chat while his bewildered family went to bed for an early rise Monday morning got us this remarkable man on a hand shake. Dick and Hobart friends did the rest, named and framed their party UTG.
http://www.rjml.org.au/
Cobbling liberal reform and the late 60′s Australia Party Vic was as simple, the other guy went to AP HQ and I primed the only constituent I knew from Don Chipp’s electorate, my sister in law to do that interview. We were rolling then.
On the other hand a public servant can’t be openly political and that’s my problem today in retirement, I know they each fear a sacking if an acquaintance like me says anything that could embarrass their department or minister. Only a minister should know in advance what their department is leading to.
Saying nothing becomes a habit even for the retired. I had a job helping those, helping those. If Canberra is 1/3 NBN, nobody knows that and my job telling you the world IS going AGW it probably fell off a truck
I’m sorry Gav but I’m not sure what you’re writing or what you’re trying to say. Little wonder you can’t understand a wordsmith like Bolt who just cuts to the chase and provides facts, logic and reason to reinforce his arguments.
But I’ll admit so many on the left just don’t make any sense, particularly now that they are always trying to show how much they care.
You know all that seeming rather than doing. Of course it’s all total BS just like the clueless Gillard govt trying to convince everyone that they are the ones who care about AGW and reducing co2 emissions. But that’s only reducing our tiny emissions in OZ for a guanteed zero change to climate and temp.
Then in the next instance they are trying to increase co2 emissions by exporting as much coal, gas and iron ore etc to anyone who wants it.
If they didn’t the country would be broke and we’ll never ever be able to pay back our debt and perhaps one day get back to a genuine surplus.
But unfortunately creating a real surplus will require a change of govt and then a duration of at least three terms or ten years. That’s all a very big ask.
Nic Lewis is trying to understand the full code used by some of the alarmist scientists to prove AGW.
So far he’s identified some serious errors but he still requires access to the proper software to check the code, or write the code into R.
A lot of this info has already been used in other studies and will be used in IPCC’s AR5 report as well.
These people like Steve and Nic are true heroes.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/08/statistical-errors-in-the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study/#comments
I want my five minutes back!
Two for reading it in the first place and an other three for trying to figure out what it means?
Gave up at that point.
I do follow (sort of) what Gav’s saying tho it doesn’t answer my question, an interesting thing in itself. But it offers me an insight I hadn’t picked up from my sketchy browsing of this blog. I do read the comments here but often just by skimming and sometimes I go several days between visits.
That leads me to pose a question to the few regulars left here.
If you were the government, what would you do about the threat of climate change?
My answer is simple – whatever I could within reason. As a government, I would be irresponsible in the extreme if I ignored the agreed science. Government must base policy on a broad foundation of interests, issues, impacts and outcomes and with climate change it is clear that the experts in the field are confident that we are facing substantial risk.
Why would I ignore the advice of experts?
Personally of course I am a skeptic but I don’t find our government at fault for wanting to tackle climate change. I do however find fault with the climate change ‘industry’ which ranges from profiteering to evangelism. Some interesting bedfellows in that mix indeed.
And my personal hobbyhorse is the misrepresentation of history and the events of the present to paint an inaccurate picture of weather, climate and man’s influence.
But back to the question. Honestly, what action would you take as Australia’s government bearing in mind the scope of your responsibility?
Well GM here’s the facts and forecast to 2035 for human co2 emissions. So tell us why you would want to introduce a co2 tax?
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
Adaptation is the answer and we must spend our scarce borrowed money on R&D and new technology.
Then when the next drought, flood, bushfire etc strikes you have put the country in the best position to respond.
Why waste billions on a co2 tax that can’t the climate or temp by a whisker. Just look at the graph and simple maths from the EIA. A 6% increase from the OECD and a whopping 73% from the non OECD until 2035. Couldn’t be easier to understand.
That’s a fair point Nev, and I don’t disagree. The CO2 tax I don’t personally agree with, I’d rather we took a more pragmatic stance and took up taxes/ETS policies once the big ‘polluders’ have led the way. That said, my reading of the broader political climate suggests that in time governments will implement a variety of policies/schemes/strategies to reduce emissions, increase reliance on renewables, and encourage innovation within industry. We may be in early days yet but that is highly likely I’d suggest. If only for the reason that the young people coming through will be as Gav suggests more open to that kind of more socially responsible government.
My question though is more general than that and all I am really highlighting is that as a government it would be irresponsible to ignore the advice of experts so in that sense I don’t disagree with government developing policy to respond to that risk. I do have doubts about some of the policy responses but not with the intent.
I wondered who here actually thinks that government should ignore the advice (the consensus)? And if so why?
If CAGW was real, and connected with the emission, by humans, of minor GHGs (water vapour being the only major one), then there would be no choice but to risk war and social disintegration by implementing rationing and restrictions on a massive scale.
It goes without saying that all exports of coal, gas and mineral ores will have to cease NOW. Agriculture will have to be intensive, unsentimental and super-efficient, so land can revert to biomass. This biomass will have to be protected from fire by an enormously expensive and intrusive policing. Unless a scientific miracle occurs and better ways are found to store and transfer energy, all wasteful and fetishistic “alternatives” will be banned immediately. Solar hot water and legitimate off-grid needs will be looked at for exemption. Coal and gas will only be allowed as a express transition to nukes, which will be a primary focus. The Franklin-Gordon project might go ahead.
Such things as severe power restrictions, the centralisation and limitation of transport, will become a part of life. Because the current proposals for emissions reduction are obviously just ludicrous socialist flummery, no money at all will flow offshore to the UN, GIM, Goldman Sachs etc. We will ally ourselves, as in time of war, only with like minded nations, and hope for peace. Trough swillers like Gore and Flannery will be prosecuted, where possible; arch-polluters like Garnaut will cop it. In time of national and global emergency, such profiteers and profligates can’t be tolerated.
Off course, I’m talking nonsense. I’m assuming that people really believe in a climate emergency. It is clear that NOBODY believes. That is why CO2 emissions are soaring, and Australian coal and gas exports are soaring, and waste and debt have continued unabated after the GFC.
Earth Hour and Rio and Cancun? Opportunities to party while feeling sanctified. A Borgia pope would understand.
By the way, since Germany dismantled its nukes and converted back to coal (the brown!) we will have to regard that as an act of war. Also, it’s clear that China and India are hostile powers…
Of course, I’m kidding. But our Green Betters want it both ways. On the one hand, they want to be extreme in preaching global emergency and catastrophe. On the other hand they propose vaporous “solutions” that are just an intricate game of money and politics, socialist flavoured, corporate friendly, involving massive waste and high debt. Talk like it’s Armageddon, party like it’s 2007.
Remember conservation? Where did that go?
Graeme M
When you ask that question Graeme, I think you are starting out from a different position from the rest of us.
First you say you are a sceptic and I have no reason to doubt it, but then you refer to “the consensus”
Reading what you write I’m sure you know that science does not work on consensus.
Yes the government must take advice from experts, very few if any in gov. are experts on anything really, but it comes down to what the government wants to achieve?
If you start out with the desire to introduce a new tax you will ask the experts most likely to give the advice you want.
I’m cynical enough to believe the politicians will say anything to garner votes, I’d be very surprised indeed if more than a few politicians were actually convinced of dangerous AGW, but as long as lot of voters do they go along with it.
Why do you think T Abbott is silent on the warming itself?
He may be a lot of things but stupid he ain’t.
There are just as many good scientist on the sceptic’s side as on the other, and their argument is just as strong, unfortunately not as loud and widely disseminated due to media bias and other vested interests.
Point is, government should listen to both sides and not pick one or the other, but when you start off from an ideological point of view it is not going to happen.
We should strive for renewable energy sources by all means but do it logically and without destroying our economy or standard of living.
Giving those rich enough to be able to afford solar panels a subsidy to buy them and to TOP it up with the buy-back scheme is not the right way to go.
We could reduce the emissions from power stations by using only black coal for instance and there are many other practical solutions.
Wind mills will never produce enough and reliable power. Solar is questionable on the grounds of the max available solar power/sqM.
If we are willing to live with and prepared to pay for covering the area required so be it.
But then don’t complain if we can’t afford to use it due to cost.
My solution would be to go nuclear!
“I wondered who here actually thinks that government should ignore the advice (the consensus)? And if so why?”
Graeme, do you mean accepting the “scientific consensus” on catastrophic, man made global warming and that we should be prepared to do all in our power to become carbon neutral as quickly as possible?
Is that what you mean?
Please confirm because there are many shades and nuances around this.
Interesting story on today’s ABC Landline on RM Williams’ Henbury Station which our clever fed govt recently contributed nearly 10 million of our hard-earned for the purposes of a carbon sink and have just discovered won’t work in this country.
Qantas were supposed to use it to salve another 10 mill’s worth of carbon conscience money.
Now surrounding graziers are calling it for what it is and the whole dodgy scheme is in doubt.
Tony Abbott needs to ask Greg Combet how he considers this compares with his ideas of BS:
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3630155.htm
What we are all waiting for [apart from greenhouse, that is] is for the first govt carbon investment scheme to honestly stack up so that we can go to bed at night happy, knowing that our invested super is in the very best of hands.
GM please tell me you understand simple maths and understand a simple graph? If you do then it’s not only irresponsible to introduce a co2 tax but it’s also a complete waste of time and money.
BTW when pressed by Bolt even Flannery admitted that if the entire world stopped emitting co2 today we wouldn’t see a change in temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.
Guess what the entire world isn’t going to stop emitting co2 for a very long time, so we can presume that the 1000 years of Tim’s would blow out to a much longer period of time.
But lets look at all the models as used by everyone for SLR for the next 300 years, or until 2300.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html
Here we see 99% of the planet’s ice locked up in Antarctica (89%) and Greenland (10%). So where is dangerous SLR coming from do you think?
Don’t forget all the models show Antarctica is negative for SLR for the next 300 years.
When you can see and understand this evidence above why would anyone then want to follow the scientists over a cliff? And certainly all for a guaranteed zero change in the climate and temp. Just ask Flannery who is the Gillard govt’s Chief climate commissioner.
All we need is simple maths and simple logic and reason to understand why we shouldn’t waste our time and borrowed money on this stupidity.
Then again the main urgers about dangerous SLR are Flannery + CSIRO and Gore + Hansen etc and both of them have just bought properties right on the sea shore. Why would they do this do you think?
JW going nuclear is not an answer for the mitigation of AGW. See Christy’s answer to a lot of the warmist’s alarmism. He covers a lot of the extremist’s nonsense.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/christy-attention-brought-by-climate-change-views-almost-a-drug/
His 1000 nuclear power stations wouldn’t reduce the temp at all unless the non OECD stopped using fossil fuels.
But then only by 0.15C at a cost of trillions $. Do you know of any group of say 50 very wealthy countries who could each build 20 new stations?
If they could borrow the funds and started today it would take many decades into the future to even begin to make a difference. But nothing like a reduction of 0.15C so why do it?
Neville
I suppose I should’ve prefaced it with, “if we MUST do something” for the sake of doing it, then go nuke.
I personally see no reason to do anything drastic, other than watch and prepare in case.
I would go that way not because of AGW or CO2 mitigation but because it’s a sensible way, for the time being at least, to produce electricity for a lot of nations, that are short of fossil fuels.
For us maybe not so much, I’m happy with coal, specially if we build modern, clean power plants..
BTW here’s the temp and rainfall from the Mildura P.O. 1887 to 1946. Mean max 24.5c and mean min 10.4c and average rainfall 268mm p.a.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_076077.shtml
Here’s the mean max temp from the airport— 23.8c and mean min 10.3c. Also average rainfall of 292 mm p.a.
So how can Karoly claim that Mildura is warmer and drier today than it was in the earlier record? Absolutely clueless.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_076031.shtml
Remember this bloke is one of our top climate scientists and is a lead author for the IPCC reports. Just incredible.
Nev, I think we’re talking about a hypothetical, not about the real-world desirability of nukes. IF CAGW were real, then there would be no choice but to radically re-fashion the whole world. We would have to implement all kinds of desperate measures, including absurdly expensive nuclear energy programs. We would have to act immediately and unilaterally, while pressuring and, if necessary, forcing other nations. There would be no choice. But none of this will or should happen, because CAGW is one steaming heap of [Combet expletive].
Alarmists insist that very recent emissions are the cause of very recent global climate disruption and warming. Since those emissions are continuing to soar, except in lo-carb boutiques like Tasmania, it would be reasonable to assume that only the most immediate and radical action to deal with the situation is acceptable. Instead, they propose merely shifting money through the same international usurers, trough-swillers and spivs who brought us the GFC. Australia is to fund this exercise in self-harm with coal exports, while good coal is burnt to manufacture toy technologies that are supposed to supplant coal.
These people talk a very strong game when it comes to raising the alarm. As far as the solution goes, they are very relaxed indeed. It seems that the buying and selling of indulgences in exchange for various levels of salvation is solidly back in style. Why did we both with that whole European Enlightenment thing?
Graeme,
The ‘consensus’ is basically a misanthropic argument pretending it is altruist.
It is also fraught with political advocacy that has no real interest in looking at long term & practical/responsible investment in solid infrastructure.
Short term, fast buck & theoretical ‘modelled’ solutions that can only really take ‘snapshots in time’ are the order of the day.
While possibly seen as a worthwhile and even well meaning experiment, it is translating very poorly in practice & not solving the ‘stated’ problems or achieving the desired outcomes.
People like Gore & Flannery & even Dick Smith are arguing that no one else should be allowed access to the very things that have made them successful members of human society.
Consensus… I follow quite well the tired sceptic argument regarding consensus. Of course consesnsus in itself is not truth as such. But very clearly it represents the generally agreed position of the scientific community. And by and large, the agreed position IS the science. Very little of science is fully settled, there are always new wrinkles or finer details to address.
When it comes to climate change the science is clear and relatively simple. You all know how the GHE works and what an increase in CO2 is understood to do. Now, you can argue that there are alternatives but for now it is pretty much accepted within mainstream science. It it were not, we would certainly hear more dissent. I don’t disagree that a very big part of the consensus is the pressure of conformity – science certainly looks to me like an extremely conservative profession.
Nonetheless it is also clear what advice government will be given. And it is that advice, that science, upon which policy must rest. I agree with the views of most of you regarding such things as the CO2 tax, but I don’t disagree with the ethics of seeking suitable policy. Robert’s hyperbolistic comments above ignore the very real matter of competing priorities, impacts and expectations of the community, business and worldwide political interests. We cannot completely alter the entire direction of civilisation overnight.
I cant speak for those involved but I suspect it is true that the more outlandish predictions are regarded with a very large grain of salt. But the fact that the scientific community, the experts, predict broad social and material impacts means that various measures must be sought to reduce those impacts.
The question of the extent to which the process of assembling policy has been highjacked is a separate one. Or so it seems to me.
SD asked “do you mean accepting the “scientific consensus” on catastrophic, man made global warming and that we should be prepared to do all in our power to become carbon neutral as quickly as possible?”
Largely yes. I understand the consensus view to mean that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere must lead to a rise in average global temperatures. The catastrophic impact contained within CAGW is probably open to debate even within mainstream science and I suspect that the lack of confirmatory evidence to date has led to some mitigation of the fears/expectations. But I think that scientists and environmental advocates agree that AGW is true, is increasingly likely to affect future climate, and the social and material impact will be large.
In other wards, increased CO2 > higher global average temps > changes in weather and climate patterns > unknown impacts but likely to include those which are detrimental > mitigation strategies are needed.
Thank you for your reply Graeme.
Thanks Graeme. I think the consensus could be right but there is uncertainty. AGW, if it exists, is certainly very slight and because of the mass of the oceans, cannot be quantified. What is nat var and what is AGW [particularly when UHI is taken into account] is probably around 50 – 50 but unlikely no worse. And I can’t help but believe that feedbacks from clouds, humidity, evaporation etc are definitely negative thus ruling out CAGW.
The fact that there is no discernable, physical SLR over the last half century also supports that.
The possiblity of AGW, to me, is worth keeping in mind when we are considering our best energy options but it isn’t worth bankrupting the country over.
Neville, for Karoly to make that statement based on this study shows him for what he is:
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/mildura-fire-risk-not-hot-off-press-not.html
‘…the experts, predict broad social and material impacts means that various measures must be sought to reduce those impacts.’
Global cooling is coming and will have serious impact on the food supply.
Graeme, Greame, Greame?
The one from the land of the maple leaf (canuck) by any chance?
Yes EG, that is the other side of the coin and historically has a better chance than AGW.
Graeme and we need to be aware that any warming may not only NOT be a bad thing, it may be all that saves our bacon, population numbers being what they are.
You can’t help but think that we are really putting our weights up by indulging in these notions and inviting the opposite catastrophe.
Graeme, the hyperbole is theirs – and possibly yours. The retreat to a moderate, gradualist position on responses implies a moderate problem. If the problem is as postulated, a degrading of our economic base and standard of living is justified. Far more severe measures than that would be justified – and needed.
The tepidness and indirection of all proposed solutions, along with the colossal waste of money and resources, makes very clear that those who preach alarm are not alarmed. These people are selling the idea that an increase in human generated GHGs, especially since the early eighties, has already brought about radical and deleterious changes to climate. You are probably aware what my typical “tired” skeptical attitude to that is, but the people who make the claims are not unaware that these “polluting” GHGs are increasing rapidly. By their own reasoning, there can be no time to lose. Yet they are more than willing to lose not only time but bags and bags of other people’s money.
Graeme, I do appreciate your civility, but I think you have very civilly reiterated and skilfully reinforced most of the alarmist claims most skeptic here have long ago rejected. You have simply reduced some of the urgency and pushed back the dates, while placing very radical positions in a discreet and moderate light. If the effect of this moderation was that Australia improved the efficiency of its coal power (30% possible), made use of its own uranium and thorium, came up with practical plans for increased biomass (I grow bamboo) etc etc – you might make a friend of this conservationist!
Scientific community, the experts? Say what? Experts in what in paricular?
My observation is. . . NOT MUCH(bold) other than their own extremely narrow fields of theoretical study.
Those people you are calling experts are merely well educated employees filling their job descriptions.
They are very well educated in their field but they are NOT (bold) qualified to inform social policy. They categorically have NO (bold) expertise in social policy or what makes a society tick. . . NONE(bold)
Sorry Graeme, but not buying that one. . . too much water already gone under the bridge (my apologies for mixing metaphors).
And over the barrages!
Robert, I agree that we haven’t seen as active a response as you’d imagine if the fear really were that we face inevitable catastrophe. I guess I was making the point that the government is confronted by a knotty problem. How much change can reasonably be made to help stave off disaster in the face of competing business and strategic priorities, bearing in mind the limitations of a system in which you can be voted out of power within a few years if your choices are too onerous, and with the obvious complexities of the international political landscape?
That said, I am definitely a sceptic. My own position is that I doubt the GHE as postulated even applies. Rather, I lean towards the ideas put forward by people like Nicolai & Zeller (see Tallbloke’s Workshop) or Harry Huffman, largely through the application of Occam’s razor. The idea that the atmospheric temperature profile is largely set by the pressure profile and that the GHE operates to manage the disposition of heat throughout the atmosphere seems a simpler proposition. But is that right? Dunno.
I was simply suggesting that it’s not reasonable to suggest we shouldn’t respond to the advice of experts. And I wondered if others here agree or disagree with that position.
JW no, I’m not Canadian. I’m an Aussie through and through and I vote Liberal but come from a staunchly pro Labour family background.
With respect Debbie, I have to disagree. it isn’t just a small subset of ‘well educated employees’ saying that climate change is likely. It is mainstream science. And it is mainstream science that informs a whole lot of technical innovation and development, progress in industry and the development of government policy.
The sceptical view has gained traction, but not enough to change mainstream science. Until then, governments must act on what is accepted as the effects of AGW. And as I opined earlier, Hurricane Sandy is an absolute windfall (sorry!) for the alarmist position…
Graeme M says:
“You all know how the GHE works and what an increase in CO2 is understood to do.”
The short answer is yes and yes; unfortunately the evidence is contradictory:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/
Graeme I’ve given you my answer reinforced by simple maths. The mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and I can’t help you if you don’t understand the increase in co2 emissions over the last 22 years. Particularly soaring record emissions from the non OECD.
In 1990 total human emissions of co2 p.a. totalled 21.6 bn tonnes, 11.6 from the OECD and 10 bn tonnes from the non OECD.
By 2010 the OECD had increased to just 13 bn tonnes p.a. and the non OECD increased to 18.8 bn tonnes p.a or a combined total of 31.8 bn tonnes p.a.
If 2011 and 2012 increased by the same tonnage as 2010 in the non OECD then we have probably equalled the total human 1990 emissions of 21.6 bn tonnes p.a in just 22 years.
But from that’s just from the non OECD, while the OECD will nearly flatline now until 2035.
What is it you don’t understand about these simple numbers? We could ( OECD) literally live in caves forever and it wouldn’t reduce co2 emissions back to 350ppmv.
The mitigation of AGW has to be the most easily understood con and fraud in history, so what is it you don’t understand?