Fielding the Hard Questions on Climate Change
Posted by jennifer, June 8th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Carbon Trading, Climate & Climate Change
THE Australian Government has committed itself to an emissions trading scheme (known as ‘cap and trade’ in the US) in its fight against climate change.
The legislation passed the lower house last week but is expecting to be defeated in the Senate on June 15th. The government, however, is likely to take the legislation back to the Senate in late September or October and has threatened a double dissolution if it doesn’t get its way. This could mean an election with a focus on the issue of climate change.
A few independents hold the balance of power in the Senate and the government has said it is keen to negotiate with them. Just last week one independent Senator, Steve Fielding, indicated that there had so far been no debate on the science of climate change in Australia.
In today’s ‘The Australian’ newspaper he has repeated this concern that there has been no debate on this important issue and says he is keen to talk with the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, about the science.
Senator Fielding writes:
“IT seems every Australian has an opinion on the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Green groups have been calling for stronger emissions targets while businesses have been pushing for more assistance to be granted to affected industries. Others simply argue that Australia should be waiting until Copenhagen before rushing ahead with any scheme. The one question, however, that no one seems to be asking, is whether or not we even need an emissions trading scheme at all?
Only 500 years ago, people believed Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Anyone who dared challenge this idea was denounced as a heretic and punished by imprisonment, torture or in some cases even death. Public debate on this issue was strictly prohibited. It is only on account of people such as Copernicus and Galileo, who dared question the “indisputable science”, that we now know these assertions to be false. For me, these events are in many ways reminiscent of the present debate on climate change. Though thankfully we do not persecute those arguing against the idea of human-induced global warming, a blind acceptance of only one perspective has meant that proper debate on this issue has essentially been stifled. Opponents of the popular opinion that global warming is a direct result of carbon emissions, a group that includes many notable and distinguished scientists, are often derided and quickly dismissed.
It is for this reason that I headed to Washington this week on a self-funded trip to look at the science and facts behind global warming. I am neither a climate sceptic nor a climate extremist. What I am, however, is open-minded.
As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities.
Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive. At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government’s set of “facts”. Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis. The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media. The question of whether global warming is a new phenomenon or something that is just part of the naturally occurring 1500-year climate cycle was never raised in any of the discussions I have had with the Rudd government. Has the government considered these questions, or has it just accepted the one scientific explanation for climate change at face value?
These are the sorts of questions that I believe need to be answered before any emissions trading scheme can be properly considered.
I plan to put some of these questions to Penny Wong and her advisers when we next sit down to discuss the carbon pollution reduction scheme bill, just as I did when I spoke to climate change experts in President Barack Obama’s administration this week. I want to know why she is confident carbon emissions are driving global temperatures when during the past decade carbon emissions have been increasing rapidly but according to some scientists global temperatures have not been rising. Can the Minister explain why through the past 100 years, global temperatures have not changed in proportion to the changes in carbon emissions? Has the Minister seen modelling which shows that solar radiation is highly correlated to global temperature changes, and if so, why can this not be a plausible alternative explanation for global warming?
Perhaps CO2 is not the bogeyman of the climate world as many would have us believe.
It seems even the parliamentary library, an independent resource for politicians, has become caught up in the carbon craze. Only recently, the library produced a 13,000-word manifesto on the case for carbon-related climate change. Strangely enough, however, no accompanying research paper was provided exploring any alternative views. Why are these opposing arguments treated with such disdain and, in fact, largely ignored?
I raise these questions not because I am wholly convinced of the merits of these arguments. Rather, because I believe that only by having a healthy debate on the issues and not shirking from these confronting facts can we expect to arrive at the proper conclusion, whatever that may be.
I have been criticised by some for raising these questions. However, I firmly believe that a fear of doing something unpopular should never get in the way of the responsibility to do what is right.
Several weeks ago the then parliamentary secretary for climate change, Greg Combet, correctly declared that the carbon pollution reduction scheme was one of the most significant environmental and economic reforms in the history of the nation. He could not be more correct. It is a scheme that will unquestionably lead to thousands of Australians losing their jobs, more than 23,000 in the mining industry alone. It is a scheme that will send the cost of basic goods and services upwards at a time when we can least afford it and will leave state governments $5.5 billion worse off by 2020. As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct. Unlike the Greens, who with alarmist rhetoric and extreme ideology have painted themselves into a corner, I am willing to engage in this debate so that the best outcome for all Australians can be achieved.”
****************
Notes and Links
The above comment from Mr Fielding is republished from The Australian: I kept an open mind on the road to Washington, Steve Fielding | June 08, 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25601203-7583,00.html
Steve Fielding represents ‘Family First’ in the Senate. The above photograph shows Mr Fielding speaking in the Australian Senate and is from his website at http://www.stevefielding.com.au/
Fielding duped over solar flare theory, Bonny Symons-Brown, June 8, 2009 – 6:29PM , http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/fielding-duped-over-solar-flare-theory-20090608-c0ef.html and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25605159-12377,00.html
Read about the conference Senator Fielding attended in Washington during this week at Quadrant Online. Part 1 here: Part 1: The Waxmen-Turkey Bill, by Bob Carter, June 8, 2009, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/06/part-1-the-waxmen-turkey-bill
Oppose the ETS: Send your Senators a message from here http://www.listentous.org.au/
I thought Jen would have vanquished AGW by now….plenty of assetions flying around, but not much being disproven.
Shorter drongo: if it wasn’t the data demonstrating AGW, there’d be no AGW.
Michael,
just one of many:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/fossil-fuels-fail-to-explain-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels/
Jen, the rest had better be a whole lot better than that – a quite dubious suggestion that there is an unexplained source of ‘natural’ C02.
Is this ‘disproof by irrelevent citation’?
Wakey, wakey to you Hanrahan Luke.
For as long as I have been reading this blogg you have been claiming some association between the Murray Darling Basin drought and AGW.
Seemingly oblivious to the historical facts that this drought is only mirroring a number of similar dry periods since 1788.
Well, guess what?
As predicted about a month ago the drought is now over!
You heard it here first.
Total storage in the MDB is similar to this time last year but importantly just double the same time in 2007.
More importantly, daily inflows have been rising for the last 3 months.
All catchments are now moist for the first time in years and it will only take a decent rain band to bring dams back to a usefull level.
I am well aware of recent press releases claiming doom and gloom. Just more and sadly predicitably misinformation.
Could we move back into dryer times this year?
Of course we could. It is called climate and largely unpredicitable.
Even by you and other scare mongers, Luke.
However I have seen this patern of change from drought to above average precipitation a number of times and am confident that we will see flooding in the system within the next 12 months.
Most experts and all the scaremongers will as usual be proved wrong.
Care for a wager, Luke.
Pikey.
“if it wasn’t the data demonstrating AGW, there’d be no AGW.”
Exactly!! One is as dodgy as the other.
Well I’m not talking MDB – I’m talking the Murray and always have been. I’m not scarmongering pike-so-saurus- I’m just telling you what you’ve got in the real world. Maybe it will rain this season let’s hope so – but the Pacific also has El Nino pre-cursor signs.
I suspect this might become a religious experience for Fielding.
Here he is, challenging AGW like a David with a sling, yet if he only held the same concern for his religious views he might kill two birds with one stone.
God’s not dead, only religion is dying.
I don’t know the guy but an Australian friend of mine sent me the following:
“Unfortunately Steve Fielding is a Christian Zealot nut case who is running the Family First party.
So far, everything he has voted for or against has damaged family lifestyle….
blocked the alcopops tax designed to restrict youth drinking problems, causing the government to repay millions of dollars to distillers and lowering the price of “alcopops”. Young girls love him, they can get more drunk now for the same money spent.
blocked a Medicare levy increase to benefit lower income earners, that would increase private health by about $20.00 per year, yet save low income families around $400.00 per year.
provided a “public funded tax rebate of $3000.00″ for farmers and tour operators “who are doing it tough” when they purchase a car over $53,000.00, yet normal people who want to buy a car over $53,000 pay “prestige vehicle tax” whether they are doing it tough or not.
This is the same man, who in February, spoke at a senate committee hearing, claiming that “divorced couples” are to blame for environmental climate change as they now need two of everything.
This is the same man who left the Liberal Party (was not offered re-selection by them) and opened his own party when he suggested that the Liberals should pass a law that only “Christians” should be allowed to vote.
He won his seat due to Labor preferences. His own vote during the elections was only 1.3% and without preferences he would never have been seen again.
So, unfortunately, even if he comes back with new ideas about climate change, he has no political credibility and no-one will listen to him because he is an idiot.”
Of course it doesn’t change my appreciation for his sensible opinion on this subject.
Luke,
Every stream in the MDB flows into the Murray.
They are all part of your Murray.
How about that wager?
Pikey.
Somehow dude – the Murray headwaters…. Murray inflows – sheesh -
AGAIN – this is the analysis – http://www.mdba.gov.au/system/files/MDBA_Drought_Update_April_2009.pdf perhaps you might try not being thick and read it.
and the climate science explains why the bottom bit of Australia is missing out on rain.
reported as http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25302085-2682,00.html
As for wagers – hmmmm – not likely in a time of possible El Nino formation. But hey – if you want to impress me – don’t do a sample size of one season. You right you rules down for forecasting and show us how good you are over the last 120 years.
And I have said continually – it will rain again at some point. But that’s not the issue – it’s how many years in 10 you’re in drought. The next drought is always around the corner. As grandad used to say – water saving starts when the tank stops overflowing.
duh – “write your rules”
Murray Basin suffers ninth consecutive dry autumn
10/06/2009 4:05:00 PM
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/murray-basin-suffers-ninth-consecutive-dry-autumn/1537260.aspx?src=enews
The Murray-Darling Basin has experienced its ninth consecutive autumn with below average rainfall, with just 90 gigalitres of water flowing into the system, according to the latest Murray-Darling Basin Authority Drought Update.
Water Minister Senator Penny Wong has latched on to the latest inflow figures as evidence of the need for further action on climate change and water “reform” in the Basin.
The latest Murray-Darling Basin Authority Drought Update reports that Murray system inflows for May were only 90 gigalitres, slightly above the record low of 75GL in 1902, but well below the long term average of 390GL.
MDBA chief executive Rob Freeman said that for the June 2008 to May 2009 water year, Murray system inflows were the third driest in 118 years of records.
“This follows the seventh driest year in 2007-08 and the driest on record in 2006-07,” Mr Freeman said.
“Murray system inflows have been below average for nine out of the last ten years.
“Autumn is a critical time for wetting of the catchment before winter rainfall, but unfortunately, this did not eventuate.
“The prospects for irrigation allocations in 2009-10 will be highly dependent on future rainfall and system inflows.
“Overall, the outlook for the 2009-10 water year remains grim, and is similar to the previous two years.”
The Bureau of Meteorology’s recent June to August rainfall outlook for south-eastern Australia indicated a 50:50 chance of above average rainfall, but also an increased risk of an El Niño developing during winter and spring.
Senator Wong said the “disturbing statistics” confirm the need to take action to tackle the impacts of climate change and help Basin communities and irrigators prepare for a future with less water.
“Our $12.9 billion Water for the Future plan includes a comprehensive strategy to restore the Murray-Darling Basin to health – including $3.7 billion already committed to specific projects nominated by the States to make irrigation infrastructure more efficient,” Senator Wong said.
“We have also committed $3.1 billion towards buying water to return to the Basin’s stressed rivers and wetlands – recently announcing the biggest environmental water purchase in Australia’s history of some 240 gigalitres of water entitlements from Twynam Agricultural Group.”
MDBA active (useable water) storage for the Murray system at the end of May 2009 was 11 per cent of capacity (980GL), which was well below the May long term average of 4670GL.
The total volume of water in all Basin storages managed by the MDBA or by State governments, was about 3,940 GL, or 17 per cent of capacity.
Mr Freeman said the northern Basin had received some rain in May which resulted in only a small streamflow response and very little of that water was expected to reach Menindee Lakes.
He said the prolonged and severe dry period continued to severely impact on wetlands and floodplain ecosystems across the southern half of the Basin.
“Small amounts of environmental water were made available during autumn to avoid critical loss of threatened species, reduce the risks of irretrievable damage and provide drought refuges at certain sites,” he said.
Luke,
When are you going to realise that the ability to “Google” information is not a passport to knowledge or understanding of a topic.
But I have no explanation for why the new MDB Authority are just as prone to sensationalist media releases as their predecisors.
In relation to the above:
1: As explained on this site previously. There were no dams on the MDB in 1902. Nor were there any stream flow records prior to the 1970s. The claims made are at best wild assumptions.
2:I have been monitoring inflows to the dams in the MDB for some years and the claim that only 90 gigalitres flowed into dams in May IS FALSE.
Just to list 3 dams.
Dartmouth 16,000 megalitres.
Hume 78,000 megalitres.
Eildon 18,000megalitres.
Total: 120,000 megalitres. That is 120 gigalitres from just 3 dams.
I do not have time to list all of the balance but it adds up to nearly double what is claimed in your reference.
3: Of more interest is the claims made elsewhere that supply of water for human consumption on the Murray is critically low.
Fact. There are approximately 1.4 million people that rely on the Murray for domestic and industrial water. ( does not include agriculture or mining).
These, people require 2,900 megalitres of water per week, plus about 300 megalitres for stream losses.
Total: 3,200 megalitres per week.
Present weekly inflow into Dartmouth, Hume and Eildon is, 28,500 megalitres per week. That is 9 times the weekly requirement.
Presently the total water stored in these 3 storages is, 1,548,360 megalitres.
If all runin ceased
tomorrow there would be sufficient water for human consumption and industry for over 9 years.
Sadly thereis no topic of National discussion that has been so falsified as the MDB issue.
More sadly is the fact that while all of this misinformation is being widly disseminated the real disaster of the MDB is being totally neglicted.
Bob Brown, Tim Flannery, Paul Sinclare, Penny Wong and blind followers like you Luke will be condemned by history for blindly following a perceived problem while overlooking the real invironmental disaster.
Pikey.
I stopped reading here “There were no dams on the MDB in 1902. Nor were there any stream flow records prior to the 1970s. The claims made are at best WILD assumptions.”
I’ve spoken to them and know how they do their calcs. You’re just PIG ignorant and it’s not worth discussing if that your level of intelligence.
Record low rainfall in the last catchment produces rapid low inflows in a drought without precedent. Possible causes AGW interaction with SAM and STR.
If you fancy yourself as a player email the CEO and tell’em we’re they’re wrong – hahahahahhahahahahahaha
I have.
I have also communicated with Penny Wong, who looks like being the most idiologically driven and incompetent minister since Jim Cairns of the Whitlam gov.
And while your musing about this, have you ever considered why we no longer hear about ” dead and dying red gums.”
It is because that was also a lie and we have finally been able to expose that fact.
Luke, personal abuse does not destroy FACTS.
Seems that abuse and an inability to accept reason are your only qualities.
Pikey.
Even more pathetic – you haven’t bothered to engage the science behind the report. Indeed you’ve confounded the Snowy supplementation in your “figures”. Give it away Pikey – it’s obvious you don’t read anything that doesn’t suit.