Why? There’s been much evidence presented here that the CO2 caused AGW conjecture is just plain wrong. What would convince you? Do you even have the training and intellectual tools to evaluate the evidence? Many here have training in Earth and/or physical sciences and have expressed their doubts. What makes you so sure people like Lindzen, Plimer and Paltridge are wrong? There isn’t any huge unique warming signal and we know warms periods have occurred before in this interglacial

If you don’t know enough to evaluate the evidence then ask yourself which side is concealing scientific data and methods, uses dodgy statistics to bolster its case and ignores real world data in favour of computer model outputs. Even an arts and social work graduate should be able to figure that one out.

You might also ask yourself why you have this urge to want to tell others how to live their lives.

I may be biased , but my bias is based on lots of reading, rather than believing politicians and media and the IPCC….and my own conclusion is an ETS will not change temperature and I can t find anybody actually prepared to say that it will! There is no doubt an ETS will force up the price of energy and result in economic damage and job losses, it is naive to think otherwise.
Renewables as currently promoted will lower our living standards by raising energy prices and causing black outs….all without actually lowering co2.

It beggars belief that politicians so desire to be voted into power that they either naively gush nonsense associated with AGW …or openly lie to promote their own green credentials.

Andrew you may not like my morals and ethics, but I suggest they are a damned sight better than most politicians, and the prospect of being forced to become a vegetarian ( because some fool in power wants to thrust their own morals and ethics on me) to be able to afford to eat is not going to satisfy me.
Perhaps if the democrats asked for evidence of the cost/ benefit analysis on an ETS ( they have done one surely!!??), and used this to persuade us, they might actually be able to demonstrate some relevance? Fielding has certainly achieved this, many non religous people will be voting for him simply because he has dared to ask some difficult questions that have been given very poor answers. Answers that infact indicate conclusively that we should be doing nothing yet.
Andrew “we sceptics” can no longer vote liberal, can clearly not vote labour or green…thats a lot of votes going……….

“Cohenite, I don’t “quibble” with that assessment – I disagree with it completely. The atmosphere doesn’t distinguish between ‘old carbon’ and ‘contemporary carbon’, and neither should an ETS. But if that assertion was scientifically credible, it wouldn’t really matter what I think. If it could be honestly demonstrated that there is zero net GHG emissions from livestock, then an ETS would have zero impact”

First the naivety; do you honestly believe that the ETS or any proposed measure to deal with AGW has scientific merit? And that the ETS won’t affect things [such as CO2 neutral cows] which don’t contribute to AGW, if it existed? The ETS is a tax on energy designed to make the expensive [and unproven] ‘green’ energies commercially viable with the cheap [and proven] and ‘dirty’ fossil fuels; with energy dearer there will be a cascading effect throughout the economy; every aspect of economic activity will be dearer [Frontier Economic modeling for the NSW gov't showed that a minimalist ETS reducing emissions by 5% referable to 2000 would cost $2 trillion in extra costs by 2050]; there will be no capacity to choose unless you choose to live under a rock.

Secondly, the [scientific] confusion; the issue is not about old or new CO2, it is about additional CO2; plants sequester CO2; the cow eats the plant and the sequestering is now in the cow; the cow has effectively taken CO2 out of the atmosphere; the cow emits the CO2 and CO2 equivalent and puts back what it has [by plant proxy] taken out of the atmosphere. Cows do not contribute any additional CO2 to the atmospheric concentration.

Let me ask you this Andrew; do you think ACO2 is the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

You comment at 9.46 is the best.

Am I right in assuming that the standard of proof that you are describing is what applies in the medical area already, particularly with the testing the effectiveness of new drugs etc.

One wanders why the same standards dont apply with AGW and the models etc.

Sorry thats dopey, I do know why …if they did apply, AGW wouldnt have any legs at all

Jimmock, I don’t pretend that the ETS would have no negative economic impacts. I know politicians like to convey this impression, but politicians of all stripes tend to avoid telling people things they don’t want to hear (including those who argue the opposite case).

But for those who believe that a credible case has been made that there is a significant risk of rapid and major climate change occuring in the near future, it is reasonable to argue that under virtually every scenario, the economic impacts (let alone the human & environmental impacts) of that would be far greater that an ETS will have. A bigger impact on “real jobs, livelihoods and futures.” Real lives in fact.

And I don’t see what’s wrong with genuine green jobs – it is an area of growth both in employment and economic output. A job producing solar panels or capping irrigation channels, etc is just as valid a job as any other. Just because a government might use the term as a marketing excercise doesnt mean that there is no such thing as a green job. There’s plenty of government announcements about all sorts of things that are hollow once you look at the detail – that just means they’re engaging in spin, not that such things don’t exist.

Cohenite, I don’t “quibble” with that assessment – I disagree with it completely. The atmosphere doesn’t distinguish between ‘old carbon’ and ‘contemporary carbon’, and neither should an ETS. But if that assertion was scientifically credible, it wouldn’t really matter what I think. If it could be honestly demonstrated that there is zero net GHG emissions from livestock, then an ETS would have zero impact, so if you’re so confident that you’re right you really shouldn’t have any concern, and you should get on to Senator Joyce and tell him he doesn’t need to worry either.

Jennifer, assuming an ETS is properly structured and that in the future it includes agriculture (which is far from certain), than it should mean fewer livestock. I am not sure whether it will mean lots more trees, although given that the bulk of land clearing is linked to livestock, it would probably mean that anyway, regardless of carbon pricing and measuring.

Assuming a more cohesive carbon pricing occurs internationally (which is also far from certain, but I can’t see how agriculture would get included in an Australian ETS until there is greater international cohesnion on such things), then it would depend on a mixture of factors, especially (a) whether there is a significant shift in global dietry trends, which would mean lower demand for red meat and a higher demand for other food types, and (b) exactly how carbon credits/values for trees ends up being worked out.

I expect it would be a mix of the two, but certainly there’s no chance of even coming close to reaching the greenhouse emissions reduction targets that are being considered around the globe unless there is a levelling off in consumption of products from livestock.

Fewer livestock in Australia would also reduce overall demand on water consumption, but that’s a different matter.

So counter them this way.

We want to continue with a high carbon economy, thank you very much.

High carbon = wealth
Low carbon = poverty

We want proper jobs, not wishy washy nonproductive green jobs.

Lets get some politicians who will stand up and attack Labor and the Greens on their dangerous and stupid belief system. So far we have the Nationals who are doing a good job.

Proper jobs = wealth also Energy = Wealth
Green jobs = poverty Green = Poverty

We need more cheap energy not less.
Promote the Coal and Gas industries for electric power generation.
Stop the useless development of windfarms and expensive “Green Power”

OK, it’s just a tax that takes out a few percent at the margins of the economy. That’s like saying a bombing that took out a mere fifty thousand Sydneysiders, wouldn’t hurt the survivors. We are talking about extinguishing real jobs, livelihoods and futures here.

And don’t give me any of that Mark Arbib jive about green jobs.