The Queensland Conservation Council and Mackay Conservation Group objected to the expansion of a coal mine in central Queensland, in particular they claimed that there would be an adverse environmental impact unless conditions were imposed such that it was to, “… avoid, reduce or offset the emissions of greenhouse gases that are likely to result from the mining, transport and use of the coal from the mine.”
The objection was brought in the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal with The Decision handed down last Thursday.
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe AO was an expert witness and indicated the over the life of the mine it would contribute to the cumulative impacts of global warming to the extent that it would add the equivalent of 0.24 percent to current annual global emissions.
The President of the Tribunal, Mr Koppenol, suggested it more appropriate to compare annual global emissions with annual output of the mine and that the figure was thus 0.001098 percent and that Professor Lowe’s figure was 218 times too high.
The other expert witness for the environment groups Mr Jon Norling relied heavily on the finding of the British Government’s 2006 ‘Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’ and also the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The President of the Tribunal again found evidence of exaggeration noting in the judgment that Mr Norling converted Sir Nicholas Stern’s ‘if’ to ‘when’ with reference to sea level rise.
Interestingly, the President, took it upon himself to read up not only on the Stern Review but also the latest IPCC summary, and also avail himself of the recent published critique of ‘The Stern Review: A Dual Critique’ * by Professor Robert Carter et al and Proessor Sir Ian Byatt et al.
President Koppenol noted in his decision that the Carter-Byatt critique of the Stern Review concluded that it was scientifically flawed and a vehicle of speculative alarmism and not a basis for informed or responsible policies.
In defending his decision to make reference to these documents, President Koppenol noted that the Tribunal is empowered by statute to inform itself of anything in the way it considers appropriate and that having become aware of these papers and regarding them as relevant, “it would have been in appropriate for me to have just ignored them”.
The final recommendation in The Decision by President Koppenol was for the expansion of the Xstrata coal mine to go ahead without any of the conditions sought by the environmental groups.
How refreshing it is to read a document from someone in a position of authority and to see that all the evidence has been considered.
—————-
* Update: It has been suggested to me by email that this link does not work and that a better link to the critique is here
http://www.katewerk.com/temp/sda_WE.pdf .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This entire effort looks like an attempt to baffle greenies with facts. Unfortunately, it works. They are, indeed, baffled by facts. Someone should try something else on them.
The rest of us will just have to make do in the factual world as best we can.
” A vehicle for speculative alarmism”
Wow! It doesn’t get much blunter than that.
It seems cicumstantial evidence and consensus is not enough in a court of law.
The posted link for the Carter-Byatt critique isn’t working for me. Another link to the same paper is here (see “full text” sublink):
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm
Cathy
Cathy,
Circumstantial evidence and consensus is also not science.
Empirically CO2 induced atmospheric warming – the climate sensitivity equation – has never been experimentally verified. Many guesses have been made at its value but that is not science.
And the proponents of AGW have to provide the experimental evidence backing their claim.
As Tim Ball puts it, AGW is the biggest fraud perpretated on humanity.
The political left’s argument is that “there is no argument” and they have just proved that point in court.
Can’t argue with that rog
Excuse me, Louis?
Where did you get the idea that I might support any of the four assertions that you take issue with?
Did you mean to address your comments to Ender?
Cathy
Well it has been experimentally verified actually Louis but it requires your ability to read. (aqs for Tim Ball & frauds – something about his degree – giggle).
Back to the coal mine – was the decision ever in doubt?
Certainly the greens didn’t help themselves going down the sea level line. Should have a least had a go on water supply and drought. And tried for some offsets.
Anyway – all the more problems for someone to deal with eventually.
The “Dual Critique” is pretty sneaky in it’s argument.
“In its last Assessment Report, the IPCC still rated the “level of scientific understanding” of nine out of twelve identified climate forcings as “low” or “very low”,5 highlighted the limitations and short history of climate models,6 and recognised large uncertainties about how clouds react to climate forcing.7 Since then, major scientific papers have claimed, among other things, that the forcing of methane has been underestimated by almost half,8 that half the warming over the twentieth century might be explained by solar changes,9 that cosmic rays could have a large effect on climate,10 and that the role of aerosols is more important than that of greenhouse gases.11 Generally speaking, none of these suggestions is included in current climate models though, as mentioned later, aerosols
are used, without any proper or rigorous basis, to cancel greenhouse warming which would otherwise be far in excess of what we have experienced.”
The reference to only understanding 9 out of twelve forcings is sheer, outright, deception. All the forcings are not understood that well, but the most important ones are.
The basic science of greenhouse gases is understood. Radiation from the sun arrives, and is trapped in the atmosphere, warming the earth. The models are not perfect, but they are the best chance we have to try to work out what will happen when the earth warms. You don’t have to be a scientist to know that cold areas will get warmer, so ice and snow will melt. To go on endlessly that we can’t predict the exact rate these changes will happen at is pig headed stupidity. It’s already happening, we know it is happening, and, if anything, it looks like the estimates, (that are conservative, scientists hate to be wrong), are too conservative.
All the deniers are saying is that since we don’t know exactly what will happen, let’s not worry at all. Blissful ignorance is not a recognised risk management method.
The court found the deception lay with the environmental groups.
On the one hand we have all these activists saying ‘bring it to court’ ‘natural justice’ ‘international law’ and then when it does go to court and the decision is against them they defame the court by saying ‘deception’
People get tired of this.
Cathy,
I just remarked on your comments, not one or the other way.
How you infer from those innocous statements I was pointing to Ender has to be one of the more mysterious aspects in climate debate here.
Luke,
you are a liar.
Climate sensitivity has not been experimentally proven, otherwise you and your mates would be howling from the roofs of your kennels,
Bow wow then !
“Empirically CO2 induced atmospheric warming ” has been demonstrated Louis but as I said – it requires reading ability (you old coot!).
“Ender”?? – Louis you’re in a time warp? Try to stay focussed pls.
Luke!
Ender is currently pestering us at A Bolt’s blog.
We all really wish he would come back here.
As to Mr Hissink, are’nt you just a bit jealous that he has a proper scientific background and speaks sense, while you have to relay on secondhand info from the net, which you would not have a clue of being correct or not, to save your life?
Well yes Mike – Louis’s grasp of the subject is most encompassing indeed, he definitely knows his subjects determined by his first principals, and is never one to pointedly Google. Well spotted. I dare suggest Louis is one of Australia’s most interesting scientific minds.
Ender must be driving poor Andrew to distraction. What a brute Ender is.
Mike I even believe that a wind blowing through a junk yard could build a 747.
The comments by Louis above to Cathy have to be one of the high points in his attempts to respond intelligently. Speaks sense? That was enough for me to book a one-way ticket to Saturn on that 747.
SJT, if you believe what you have typed and cut and pasted above, how can you possibly believe in the models???
“The reference to only understanding 9 out of twelve forcings is sheer, outright, deception. All the forcings are not understood that well, but the most important ones are.” The paragraph above that emphasises how little we know………..and yet we are supposed to believe the models? How do we know we understand ‘the most important’ forcings?
Is it possible that there are other influences on our climate that we do not comprehend?
It seems reasonable to assume humans are influencing the climate…….but is the evidence really all that strong?
“Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe AO was an expert witness and indicated the over the life of the mine it would contribute to the cumulative impacts of global warming to the extent that it would add the equivalent of 0.24 percent to current annual global emissions.”
If I only contribute 1% to the litter on my street, then I should just litter away, should I?. Same argument.
Mr Ian Lowe only exaggerated 214 fold, or 21400%. Given some of his other statements, he must be getting cautious in his dotage.
And given his history of elected office bearer of the ACF, Xstrata’s legal team should have applied to have his testimony excluded on the basis that he could not be an unbiased servant of the court, as is required of all expert witnesses.
But luckily the President of the Tribunal saw through his BS anyway. Sometimes the cruelest thing one can do to the village idiot is to let him have his say.
The tribunal was quite happy to believe everything it wanted to from other witnesses.
How could the Tribunal arrive at any other decision? The activities associated with mining the coal plus the CO2 which will result from the use of the mine’s product,coal, will have a miniscule impact on the welfare of the residents of Queensland.
For sure 100+ new coalmines in Queensland may have an adverse impact on the welfare of Queenslanders through global warming but
1. the AGW modellers cannot show the impact at a local level of the output of one mine on the welfare of Queensland residents or the world for that matter and
2The process simply does not allow for looking at the aggregate impact of the opening of more than one mine on the welfare of Queenslanders.
Global AGW defies all previous moral/ethical views re pollution. We are confronting the possible decline in welfare of generations unborn, unless the industrial activities of emerging nations eg India and China who are big-time emitters of C02 are forced to reduce their carbon emitting activities as they strive to increase their standards of living or:
alternatively the wealthy industrial nations curtail their economic/carbon using activities to acknowledge the “right” of China and India to attain the standards of living we have.
The anology with littering a street is inappropriate; in this instance we a dealing with local pollution with a measured impact on the welfare of local residents. Throwing beer cans in my street has no impact on the welfare of the residents of Paris.
Blair
Friends, Hecklers,
As it turns out, Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe–the author of the “218 times too high” mistake–is on the greenie payroll.
Check out his credentials at http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=486&c=202735
where he would certainly brag a bit. After all, he’s the President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and that’s their website. Being a modest man, he boasts only awards, eschewing references to his education or to his research.
Under his Presidency, the activist group has turned in very sound financial returns.
Check out their latest report:
“It is pleasing to report another solid performance for ACF in 2005-2006. Significant expenditure on new fundraising capacity in recent years has continued to underpin the financial performance of ACF. Environmental Program expenditure increased by $478,577, or 13%, compared with 2005 to $4,252,967, primarily due to the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change and the Kimberley Appropriate Economics Roundtable. Total revenue increased by $1,122,968 or 16% compared with 2005 to $7,969,480 due to the generous support of Earthvoice ($393,579) and individual donors (over $250,000). Income from bequests also increased (over $328,000).
This is from http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_financialreport0506.pdf
Doubtless, Luke will come up with an extremely interesting and intricate theory about how a witness before the tribunal with no detectable education but a spectacular track record at fundraising could swear to the truth of such an excruciatingly erroneous statement.
Bought and paid for, Luke. The ACF is paid and it delivers.
Gee Schiller we never knew any of that? Is that so. It’s interesting that sepos like to lecture us about our own country. Ian Lowe has been an environmental academic for as long as most of us can remember. He’s simply spent his whole life doing it.
As for “excruciatingly erroneous statement” Schiller you can talk after your unbelievely stupid comments of late on CO2 concentrations. Well I should thnak you as the quotes are posted all over a few local notice boards as among the silliest of comments made by neocons in the last 20 years.
What was said was according to Jen above”
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe AO was an expert witness and indicated the over the life of the mine it would contribute to the cumulative impacts of global warming to the extent that it would add the equivalent of 0.24 percent to current annual global emissions.
The President of the Tribunal, Mr Koppenol, suggested it more appropriate to compare annual global emissions with annual output of the mine and that the figure was thus 0.001098 percent and that Professor Lowe’s figure was 218 times too high. ”
He did not say Lowe was wrong – he simply did not like the “appropriateness” of the comparison according to Jen. And Jen being the great denialist that she is would take great delight in reporting such.
I’m amused how rabidly excited you all are on the subject. Desperate in fact.
And yep he’s committed to raising money for a cause – is that lllegal – perhaps we should shut all church groups, charities, unions and girl guides down too?
Those that have forked out some hard earned (I haven’t personally) for the ACF would hope they would deliver (including their El Presidente). I imagine they’ll be hacked off losing this one. And interestingly on this case John Quiggin has had a good go at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/02/19/another-own-goal-for-the-denialists/ with some discussion about trial by internet and “well it’s not a real court anyway”. All good theatre.
Global atmosphere doesn’t care about legal systems much though. Tribunals may come and go.
The CO2 just keeps going up. If that’s what we prefer well that’s what we get. More coal anyone?
P.S. Schiller – only $4.3M hey – they’ll have to get cracking – poor effort. How much does it take to elect one of your presidents again Schillsy?
Luke,
Are we now on a level playing field? You have ranked the AGW alarmists with “church groups, charities, unions and girl guides.”
No, it’s not level. But this overpaid, undereducated “expert” proposes to guide Australia’s path to the future?
I’m glad you agree that pouring enough money into politics can even elect a US President who can’t pronounce words in the basic English vocabulary.
Now it’s time for you to equally concede that the greenies can buy influence and questionable credentials.
Luke, let’s shake hands on that. We’ll talk later about how $4.3M is more innocent than $10K.
Ranking – alarmists with girl guides – no that’s a try-on. I’m simply saying lots of groups raise money for causes.
Well Ian Lowe has plenty of education – maybe his problem – but we Aussies don’t get too excited about this sort of thing “Thanks for your two bobs worth Ian – now bugger off” is often the response. We don’t necessarily take all these guys that seriously. Certainly the tribunal head didn’t here. (“bob” ~= dime)
Yes greenies use their monies for their campaigns. They should. Otherwise why be there? They probably don’t need to buy influence though as an endless number of celebrities, movie stars and academics love to appear in front of inquiries.
But yea – let’s shake on that !
Luke,
Thanks for the clarification. Now we know AGW is a ’cause.’ Some had suggested earlier that it was a fact of frightening proportions.
I’m glad to hear that Ian Lowe has ‘plenty of’ education. You, like he, fail to mention any of it.
And it’s good of you to admit greenies spend money for influence, and to conflate that with the efforts of celebrities and movie stars. You are dead-on accurate.
(shakes)
OK Schiller (and any others) – perhaps close to a philosophical breakthrough:
In AGW we have a potent mixture of politics, idealism, vested interests, economics, egos and science.
What I’ve been trying to do (poorly) is defend what I see as fairly good science informing us on a serious risk management issue involving the whole world. There are probabilities attached as being wrong, right, middle of the road or extreme.
I believe that the science has been conservative more than anything. Perhaps the actually climate effects may be more rapid and profound that we think. Anyway IMO.
People may not like the political ramifications, economic implications, or policy implementation of the response to AGW. But does that therefore imply an out and out unrestrained attack on the science is a logical response. If the proposed solutions are unpalatable economically or socially well we should be happy to stick with that objection. Why is it then logical to attempt to adjust the science to minimise our cognitive dissonance.
Also pro-AGW does not necessarily make you anti-nuclear or pro-Kyoto. I think the only solution that will be palatable for western society is to tech our way out of it. So if Howard is really serious about AP6 (the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate)then this approach with an outsider on nuclear fusion long term is our best bet. I think renewables could do with more research assistance.
As well as adaptation measures which require supported ongoing climate research to appropriately target.
Western society will not vote for austerity in the long run. It’s not gonna happen.
Furthermore I think it may even be for an accident of history that AGW ended up being a left wing aligned item anyway.
So do have any empathy for splitting the science and policy i.e social and economic issues?
What a grovel, Luke. Lowe is guilty of serial gross misrepresentation of fact. He was still quoting the area of clearing permits, rather than actual cleared area, years after it was made abundantly clear that farmers routinely apply for wider permit area than they actually have funds to clear.
If he really was an expert he should have known the difference and ensured that the debate was properly informed. But he didn’t. He also, conspicuously, never, ever, conceded that any part of the QLD clearing data was not “pristine old growth forest”. And this, in the face of data that showed 50% of all clearing to be non-forest and much of the remainder to be regrowth since 1990.
And you have the incredible gall to suggest that his 218 fold exaggeration was just an “inappropriate projection” rather than a gross misrepresentation of fact.
There are sufficient grounds to investigate whether Lowe has deliberately set out to mislead a judicial proceeding.
What this makes very clear to all of us on this blog is that you appear, by your membership of common organisations, to operate in an intellectual millieu where a 21800% error margin is excusable, provided the culprit shares your objectives.
And you want me to trust your climate models? Fat chance, Shonko.
Ian,
Let not your mettle and your fervor interfere with a man’s willingness to meet on the battlefield and offer peace, if not agreement.
What is well-fought on both sides can also be well-won besides. Amid strife, there can still be honor regardless of the cause, and it behooves a gentleman to see it so.
Ian – you’re just an abusive redneck non-representative industry apologist skilled in the art of misrepresenting facts when it suits. Ian Lowe at least has more substance than is demonstrated by your continual displays of petulant egotisical behaviour.
The 1988-1991 clearing data show there is a huge pent-up demand for clearing if the economic and climatic situation suits. So your pathetic bleating excuse is ignored for the blatant sophistry which it is. If conditions had been right 1991-95 they would have been right into it but it was a drought period.
What’s wrong with what Lowe said – he’s saying that the life of the mine adds a considerable amount to the global CO2 levels and he made a comparison. The President being of an independent mind didn’t like it and did an annual pro-rata. In 20-30 years Lowe will have been shown to be correct. It will have added that amount to the levels.
And as I have said before Ian – I am not a member of, nor a beneficiary to, any NGO or political party and my views represent my own as a citizen.
Just admit it – Lowe is a class enemy of the browns and it’s important to touch him up at every excuse as a diversion from the serious issues.
As for trusting climate models – well you don’t and never have so don’t bung that one on – you love to play the CO2 game both ways – on the one hand worrying about timber under your house counting as a credit yet disputing any need to worry about CO2. One minute you’re planting trees, next minute you’re worried about hydrology and albedo. Which one is it? Your entire philosophical position is intellectually and morally bankrupt. At least try consistency.
“People may not like the political ramifications, economic implications, or policy implementation of the response to AGW. But does that therefore imply an out and out unrestrained attack on the science is a logical response.”
You’ve got that arse about Luke.
It’s BECAUSE the ramifications and implications are so serious and/or expensive that skeptics ( I’ve decided to opt out of the whole believer/non-believer , convert/denialist/creationist, other religious descriptors etc) want to be as sure as possible about the science.
And AGW proponents AND skeptics who refuse to acknowledge ANY evidence or theory which is inconsistent with their belief don’t appear to be too scientifically inclined at all.
So Luke, you have a problem with me looking at an issue from a number of angles, do you? Yeah, that would be right.
I will pursue every aspect of this issue that has a bearing on my interests. Get used to it.
And if I pursue things with a lot more vigour than most it is because I have 5,000 tonnes of carbon on my property that was not there in 1942. And when I go to sell that carbon, in good order and stable, to someone else I will most probably be taxed at $40-$50/tonne ($200,000 to $250,000 in total) for carbon that has only been sequestered because my family chose to let trees grow in the places my grandfather was forced to clear as a condition of title.
And because we started absorbing carbon before 1990 we will get no credits for any growth that takes place after 1990 but will still pay carbon tax when those newly grown trees are harvested under some sort of “business as usual” euphemism for gross injustice.
Meanwhile people like Luke, who owns no trees and who pats himself on the back and takes a high moral tone for reducing his per capita emissions from 27.5 tonnes CO2 (7.65tC) down to 18 tonnes CO2 (5.0tC) will only pay $200 to $250 a year in carbon tax.
One of us is an actual stakeholder while the other is a day tripper in search of cheap thrills.
Well you should have said so. I can relate to you being worried about your carbon values. Even though you are a cranky old codger that would drive any stakeholder process nuts.
So that gets to what I said above. Are you unhappy with the science and the possible policy implementation of a solution. Or mainly just the policy implied solutions.
Do you really think a government introducing mass austerity measures will stay in power or be voted into oblivion ?
(Incidentally which makes this blog interesting as you give can each other heaps but keep still keep going).. Jen swallows another valium and rolls eyes .. ..
The coal mine was never in doubt? Are your trees really under threat? Do you think I want to see your inheritance annexed – nope. Probably be most interesting to see what you’ve done. Wish my farming heritage had not been sold from under me – something about options to first sons not seconds. So lucky you Ian to have all that carbon from car exahust and profilgate electricity consumption.
P.S. Schiller thanks for your commentary and cordial behaviour on the battle field. Tips hat.
“The anology with littering a street is inappropriate; in this instance we a dealing with local pollution with a measured impact on the welfare of local residents. Throwing beer cans in my street has no impact on the welfare of the residents of Paris.” [sic]
I case it was too hard for you to work out, the houses in the street represent the countries of the world.
Funny, I don’t recall authorising Schiller to negotiate peace deals on my behalf. Must be a yank thing but I will refrain from national stereotypes. I will even hold off on the put-down he deserves for compound boorishness because of who he is.
Luke, it is not a case of either/or, I am disgusted by the lot. The depth of the ignorance displayed by the process, the bluntness of the instruments being wielded, the lack of precision in it’s targeting, the capacity of participants to believe that they have mastered the brief, and the scale of the oversights, leaves me room for only one conclusion. That is if they can get just a comparatively simple field as forestry so wrong then the chances of them getting anything else right is zero.
No matter what sort of rationale is provided, the current IPCC methodology will apply a carbon tax on my family’s pre and post 1990 carbon sequestration. The refusal to recognise the anthropogenic nature of our past forest growth means that we are treated quite differently to every other industry.
Put simply, one cannot have an emission without there first being a stock of carbon to be emitted. And if the IPCC continues to deny recognition for our earlier sequestration while taxing us at harvest time, then they are, in effect, applying a carbon tax today, on the clearing we were forced to do by government back in 1927.
And the consequences of this is that my children will need to sell their timber in a market where prices are defined by post 1990 plantations that will get the credit for their sequestration that will offset their carbon tax at harvest time. But as my kids will only get the tax, they will have to discount their price by the amount of the tax.
And as only a third of the total tree volume is actually sold as sawn timber, the tax will be close to the royalty value of the timber.
My kids will be pauperised by madmen with their hands over their hearts and claiming they act for future generations.
By the way, folks, can anyone confirm whether the Qld Conservation Foundation is still sponsored by Qld Rail?
Your kids will be pauperised – jeez Ian – are they incapable of earning an income? Do you know that you’ll be paying a carbon tax on your old forestry ? Ian you’ve demonstrated a bad habit of not checking your facts and shooting from the hip once too often. The following as an example:
So meanwhile back at a sensible debate http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/bad_science_from_queenslands_l.php#more
Tim has given the rounds of the kichen to Koppenol for bad science although poor ol’ Prof Lowe doesn’t escape a touch-up either.
The point is that Koppenol appears to have confused his numbers and is a factor of 15 out.
Nevertheless the effect on global warming is trivial.
So for all those that lined up for the 218 times roasting of Lowe pls table your apologies for rabbiting below.
Other errors made by Koppenol are tabled in Deltoid’s blog.
Anyway the answer is quite simple – all this biological carbon stuff is too complex – so the net result of failed negotiation will be to wipe it off the agenda. No carbon for farmers.
Dear Sam
Silly dumb me; I thought you were talking about ethical and legal arguments against littering …yes we have laws against littering in Queensland although bugger all persons get charged with littering.
So I guess it never occurred to me that greenhouse gas emissions from country A which may effect the welfare of countries B,C,D etc is somehow similar to local littering unless of course there is some international law against emitting greenhouse gases.
Blair
The argument of greenhouse gasses, greenhouse effect, insolation and temperature is being conducted in an environment of misunderstanding of the reality of the earth’s heat budget.
Insolation is not the primary means of heating the earth. If it was, how is it that the temperature at the centre of the earth is about 5000 degrees? The primary sources of heat for the earth are natural radioactive decay and gravitational differentiation (there are other terms used for this mechanism). The sun contributes only about 10 percent of the earth’s heat budget.
The temperature ranges that are used in the AGW arguments, the Celsius scale, is a synthetic temperature scale. The true temperature scale to use is the absolute scale. Zero degrees absolute equates to about minus 273 degrees celsius.
So we have a temperature gradient where temperature at the centre of the earth is about 5000 deg, at the underside of the crust is about 1400 deg, at the surface of the crust (sea level) about 288 deg, and in space zero deg. This means a massive, continuous, outflow of energy from inside the earth to outer space. This outflow varies, due to a number of factors, and hence its effect on atmospheric temperature varies.
Any assessment of AGW must include an accurate understanding and measurement of this variation in heat flow.
Lambert provided this classic piece of bollocks when he said, “If, for example, the mine were to operate for just 5 years and produce the same amount of coal, the total emissions and the effect on the environment would be the same, but the annual emissions and the result of Koppenol’s calculation would be three times as high”.
The only problem with this argument is that it has absolutely no basis in reality. The expected life of the mine is 15 years so there is absolutely no justification for introducing specious crap about 5 year mine life.
Once again, it betrays Lambert’s willingness to dream up any sort of silly extrapolation to support his position.
The same goes for the moronic attempt at suggesting the mine’s emissions should only be considered against the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. This conveniently ignores the fact that all emissions must first go into the atmosphere from where they are then absorbed by the biosphere and oceans. Does Lambert have some new evidence that trees don’t absorb mine site emissions? How can he tell?
But yes, the Judge appears to have understated his calcs by a factor of 15, but he is a judge. Lowe claims to be an expert and his overstatement is also by a factor of 15.
Luke, you only blow your own credibility by quoting this clown.
You make a timely point, Dan. My understanding is that the climate models do not include any transferance of heat from atmosphere and oceans to the crust itself. I gather the rationale was that land surface only accounts for 30% of surface area so can be ignored.
But the crust also includes the ocean bed and while the crust does not circulate heat as well as oceans and atmosphere, a warming of oceans and atmosphere must, eventually produce a net warming of crust. And this warming must take place down to the point where it matches the heat from below.
And as it takes much more heat to warm a solid than it does for a liquid or gas, then it would take a lesser volume of crust to match a volume of warmed ocean.
The warming of crust would also lag the warming of oceans, by centuries, so the short term ocean and atmospheric data would show an exaggerated reponse.
So we have climate models that predict the melting of permafrost but do not appear to recognise that same warming of crust as part of planetary heat budget. And if all warming is limited to gases and liquids then obviously the model will overstate the extent of that warming.
And that means that any extrapolations from that short term data are even less reliable.
No Ian – you’ve got your maths wrong and roasted Lowe on it – apology pls. Pants are down around your ankles.
And so the earth is now heating up more internally is it. Jeez ! Think about a thing called equilibrium. I wonder why the surface cools down so much at night.
Ian – forget “your understanding” – stop being intellectually lazy and shooting from the hip.
Ian,
they aren’t “our” climate models. The models are created by independent research centres around the world. They are independently tested, reviewed and improved.
One thing you can’t argue with. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more of it will raise the temperature.
So why didn’t Lowe or Lambert consider the probability that the new mine was replacing an existing mine that is running down? This would merely continue the existing rate of emissions, would it not?
Or are we all to pretend that old mines just keep on going in perpetuity?
As mentioned on the other thread, that noise you all heard, folks, was Luke, Lowe and Lambert’s error rate zooming through the stratosphere, en route to the planet Gonzon.
Just to confirm for the record that the new mine does replace the existing open cut mine that is winding down due to increased costs of removing overburden. So even if there were grounds for including the emissions from the coal itself, which there is not, then these emissions would be offset by corresponding credits from the reduction in output from the old open cut mine which was operating prior to 1990.
Not only is Lowe and Saddler’s maths of an unprofessional standard but their consideration of the emissions issue is demonstrably one sided.
Just to confirm for the record that the new mine does replace the existing open cut mine that is winding down due to increased costs of removing overburden. So even if there were grounds for including the emissions from the coal itself, which there is not, then these emissions would be offset by corresponding credits from the reduction in output from the old open cut mine which was operating prior to 1990.
Not only is Lowe and Saddler’s maths of an unprofessional standard but their consideration of the emissions issue is demonstrably one sided.