MONDAY’S tax cut announcement by the Coalition means the election campaign is off to a good start. Economic policy has been moved to the top of the political agenda, as it should be.
At the end of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2012, New Zealanders will owe about NZ$4.2 billion – or about NZ$1000 per person. So, in a nutshell, the main effect of Kyoto will be for New Zealand taxpayers to subsidise bad economic policies by politicians in the former Soviet Union. Does Kevin Rudd have similar plans for Australia? History suggests Labor has a strong record of reducing greenhouse emissions. The only prime minister who has managed to do it was Paul Keating in the early 1990s, when he engineered “the recession we had to have” and our emissions levels plummeted. Perhaps this is exactly what Rudd has in mind.
Read the entire article entitled ‘Committing to Kyoto would come at cost’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Strange really as NZ has more deniliasts than sheep. The sheep are the better looking ones.
Yeah Paul, tax cuts is quality economic policy, especially when essential services have been run in to the ground and we face inflationary pressure from every angle. Yep, quality alright.
Australia has spent over $6b on drought relief and political adds since 1996 so $4.2b looks like a drop in the ocean for smart risk management.
Pity the NZ and Aust govts didn’t receive a letter like in the article below.
60 scientists doubt Kyoto
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta
That statement brings up many scary images of you Luke LMAO!
Anthony spot on – interesting how poms in mild climates like to tell Aussies about climate management – the biggest drought is when the pub runs out of beer and the temperature gets over 75. Also as usual more denialist fabrication – Keating didn’t engineer a recession – he described it. You might have noticed it was global and we came out of it quicker than elsewhere. So as usual we have paternalistic poms interfering in our own politics. So bugger off. Is the Scientific Alliance some front for the neo-con fascist right now.
Jayney – that’s 60 denialist unqualified treasonous pseudo scientists. Howard has all this stuff pinned on his wall. Soon as the election is over he’ll go back to doing nothing again on the issue.
Yep Luke,it’s alllll an evil conspiracy.
You and NZ sheep,eh?
Luke,you said: “-that’s 60 denialist unqualified treasonous pseudo scientists.”
An interesting opinion, presumably based on your own superior expertise. However, gratutious opinions offered without supporting evidence or qualification tend to reveal more of their source than of their subject.
Some elaboration on the evidence and your own qualifications would assist greatly in evaluating the credibility of what you say.
Discussions been done before Jayney in many forums. Perhaps you might start by examining the number of climate scientists in the letter, whether they’re actively working and in what field – any quantitative climate modellers?? Come on – do I need to tell you how to be discriminating and read between the lines.
Yes it actually is an evil conspiracy to discredit the science effort and spread a message of uncertainty. Uncertainty means little happens.
Erratum – middle bit above is for Walter. The reality Walter is that most of these people are not domain experts at all. Google Scholar them and see for yourself.
I recently had friends over from NZ – they were amazed at the UK’s govt/media obsession with the ‘carbon footprint.’
Lucky New Zealanders aren’t bombarded with carbon propaganda.
Oops sorry Luke,I was outside all day enjoying this warm sunshine,watching my extensive vegie garden flourish and the chooks revel in the warm weather.
Alas,my observations on the weather and its effects are all for nought as I lack a suitable qualification.
Wanna carrot Luke? LOL
Well Jayney – indeed ! Many gardeners and farmers have noticed warmer autumns and less frost over long periods. Don’t think this might tell you something? Don’t forget to see as well as observe.
Less frost ?
LMBAO you’ve got to be kidding!?
The frost-burnt lettuces from a few weeks back tell me different.
Yesterday’s dew fall was so heavy that at 5.45am it was running into the water tanks like a gentle stream.
The greatest change the neighbours and I have noted is the early migration of Rainbow Lorikeets,Galahs and Cockatoos to our area,in June instead of September/October.
Which calls into question the lack of young this season,as none have been observed(or seen,for you Luke) with the mature birds.
Now,as this is no doubt due to the drought and lack of food sources and,as the drought was proven to have nothing whatsoever to do with GW,these native birds are not victims of AGW.
Ergo Kyoto,in this case, is a waste of time and our money.
Gotta go fill up the bird feeders,ta-ra!
Yes less frost – I didn’t say every year or this year, but yep very marked decline in parts of Qld over decades. LMBORF at your single datum view of life.
For example, in Emerald, in Central Queensland, there are around three weeks each year of frost, compared with the 10 weeks experienced each year in the 1900s
Stone, R., N. Nicholls, and G. Hammer, 1996b: Frost in NE Australia: trends and
influence of phases of the Southern Oscillation. Journal of Climate, 9, 1896-1909.
“drought was proven” by who? you?
No Luke,it was proven by a study performed by the CSIRO ,the results were released waaay back in December last year.
Article
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1818741.htm
Go on,shoot holes in the credibility of yet another scientist who’s findings don’t agree with your views LOL.
Single datum? LMAO I didn’t want to overwhelm you with too much info,I know how you get without your early morning fibre 😛
You really should eat your carrots -it’ll help your tunnel vision no end!
Jayney Jayney Jayney
You’re such a nice girl too.
Like most things we’ve already discussed it.
No Jayney poos – Hunt “used to” work for CSIRO, he’s reporting on some work he did when he was there, he’s heavily into the liberal party so it seems fortuitous that it appeared when it did, wonder what he’d say now it’s kept going another year, and gee he seemed to backpeddle here when asked for some more info here:
Barrie later on the 29/12/2006 said:
AUSTRALIANS should not stop being concerned about climate change when the drought eventually breaks, a retired climate scientist has warned.
Barrie Hunt, the former head of the CSIRO’s climate modelling program, said there seemed to be widespread confusion about the causes of the drought sapping south-eastern Australia, with some people convinced it was entirely due to global warming.
Using climate models to try to replicate how weather might change over 10,000 years, Mr Hunt has concluded that the drought is part of a naturally occurring cycle of dry and wet periods in Australia.
But he said there were also clear signs that climate change was making the drought worse, with a run of record hot weather in recent years contributing to drier ground and record low run-off of rain.
“The temperature signals we’re getting are very clear, distinct greenhouse signals,” he said. “The warming over the past 10 years, you can’t explain that. There isn’t any great variability from year to year; it’s going up and up and up. If it was natural variability you would be having years of below-average temperature.”
But he said that judging the effects of climate change on rainfall patterns was much more complex. It could take another 20 to 30 years for a clear trend to emerge.
Mr Hunt said if people believed the drought was entirely caused by climate change, they might think it was no longer an issue once better rain returned.
“So it’s very important to feed into the public consciousness the fact that there is a lot of climatic variability going on, with which the greenhouse effect is interacting.”
Mr Hunt said it appeared likely that south-eastern Australia would become drier, with climate change increasingly responsible.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rain-wont-end-our-problems-climate-expert/2006/12/28/1166895421393.html
Come on Jayney you’ll have to do better than that !
Check the archives here – we debated it extensively. The point is that it’s very difficult to really know, there’s nothing stopping a bit of both natural and greenhouse is there?, and there’s some stuff like Southern Annular Mode stuff that CSIRO are only just starting to sort out. Anyway yadda yadda I’ve said it all before. Boring etc.
As my friend in BoM said the other day – you’d think people would at least be a bit more curious about some of this stuff.
ROTF in pain. The tedium. Oh the tedium.
P.S. Some LMAO after all – Barrie’s work was based on a long term model run looking at internal variability – and you guys don’t believe models and now you’re using it to support your cause. ROTFL to the nth power. And some of these things Bazza didn’t have in his model. get with the new generation like our mate Wenju at least
http://www.csiro.au/news/AustralianRainfallFuture.html
Now go and have a herbal tea Jayney.
“proven” heheheheheeeeee …. ooo it hurts so good.
No environment, no economy.
Ewww herbal tea???
The drought is not caused by GW.
Nice to see you’re at least consistent Lukey-poppet-petal(I am so not dancing with you at the school formal).
SJT we have no environment for farmers to grow produce in now,courtesy of poor water management and
multiple MIS spawning everywhere.
That is not due to GW.
“The drought is not caused by GW.” Listen Jayney – you might a school formal hottie but this is an evidence based blog. Defend your biased opinionated position. You were just “owned” on the Hunt story.
Here are three relevent questions from Jonathan Lowe and his blog spot “Gust of Hot Air”
Three Questions to the CSIRO
1. The CSIRO claim that we have seen an increased frequency in hot nights and a decreased frequency in cold nights. This is based on the statistic minimum temperature. Considering that the minimum temperature will generally occur after sunrise, can you explain why you choose to use the statistic minimum temperature to talk about temperatures at night, when in the minimum generally doesn’t even occur at night?
2. Can you please explain the predictions of increased drought and flooding, coupled with a decrease in rainfall when you consider that the second half of the 20th century had a 9.5% increase in rainfall compared to the first half of the 20th century (an increase in every state), and that the number of very wet days and not significantly increased or decreased, neither has the number of days of no rainfall?
3. As Kerplunk puts it “If ‘the science is settled’ then why does the United Nations’ IPCC need 17 climate models when just one should do?”
If readers go to:
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com
and scroll down they will see BOM graphs of great interest.
Interesting comments made by Dr Scott Power as well.
Anyway lets see if the CSIRO can respond to the questions raised by Jonothan Lowe.
Geez paul, if we had a choice of trusting the Kiwi’s or the Poms on anything its not much of a choice really?
That’s a bit naughty Malcolm, you know that Luke has ruled those rainfall graphs out of order. Everyone knows there is a dought caused by AGW happening. Those graphs are just a smear campaign.
BTW, best comment award goes to Anthony, who told me that “sorry paul, I was going along with you ok there until you said that warming stopped in 1998. If you can’t get over that, then you can never understand AGW”. Can’t disagree with that. I would understand global warming so much better if it was really getting warmer.
Luke it’s late,I’m tired and crabby.
I’ve given you many links that disprove the theory of AGW,many of which you cherry pick and poke holes in to suit your own views.
Be a good boy and rub two sticks together to boil the kettle for a cuppa while I have my nana-nap 😛
“I’ve given you many links that disprove the theory of AGW” – WTF – are you delusional. ! (seriously. I can’t rub my hands and I’ve busted one punching out my monitor due to Rog.
No Paul not a smear campaign – let’s try what we call “thinking” – ummmm hurts – if we divide the poplulation of Australia by the area we get about 2.7 odd people per sq km (check me as I’m no good at maths). Seems a little sparse doesn’t it. Think about that – it may help !! I wonder if the rainfall is evenly distributed.
As for min temperatures being after dawn – yes good point – scientists have noticed high night temperatures normally plummet about 10 C a few minutes after dawn. Yes well known effect.
17 models – gee maybe they don’t know what they’re doing or perhaps they might want to see how different formulations of the same principles change the outcomes. Boy if you were really smart (which we aren’t) you could even try to do what’s called “reading” and answer this question.
No wonder there’s earthquakes? Do you know why there’s earthquakes Malcolm? I have a theory.
Like, I think you are getting the Pauls confused. It’s so hard to tell denialists apart and I know it’s more confusing when you have multiple personalities yourself, but try and pass the the information on to Anthony, SJT, and Phil if he’s still alive.
The Paul who posts lots of items and has his picture at the top is Paul BIGGS.
I used to post as Paul Williams, but a nom de plume is so much more stylish.
I would have gone with ‘not the Pom Paul’ – but there you go, thanks not paul Biggs.
Do you need it to be getting warmer year by year PW? warmer with exact correlation to CO2? what would you need to see?
How do you know I’m not a pom too, Anthony?
I already answered your question on the science thread. Try engaging in debate rather than feeding your prejudices.
In 1998, future temperatures could have gone up, stayed the same or gone down. Prediction was for them to go up. They pretty much stayed the same.
Does this prove AGW wrong? Of course not. Does it prove AGW right? Of course not. Does it support the theory of AGW? Not really.
Future temperatures could go up, down or stay the same. They are predicted to go up. 2050 is a date that gets mentioned a lot. The implication is that themperatures will increase gradually, not in one jump in 2049. So each year that temperatures refuse to go up makes it less likely that AGW is correct.
So Paul W – have a look at the last 30 years – any up and down wiggles in the old temp graph ?? And if we’re solar cooling the anomalies have to go all the way back down to 1900 values – a little ways to go yet perhaps??
Meanwhile check these numbers !!
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1366/RMSystem_Drought_Update10_October07.pdf
Yes Luke, the temperature appears to go up and down. As I said, the longer temperatures don’t go up, the less likely that AGW is correct (assuming CO2 continues to rise). Is that too simple to understand?
Paul, i’m going to work with your logic here.
Lets say temp jumps in 2008 and its a new record year. Then from that year it flattens out for another 9 years, no more records, but in general, hotter than the previous decade. 2018 sets a new record before temps flatten out….this pattern could conceivably go on for ever and you would be saying – Oh but, it hasn’t warmed since the last record year, AGW is incorrect. Meanwhile, the 30, 60, 90, 150 yr trend is for warming.
How hot would it have to get and how much CO2 would have to be pumped out before you were convinced there is a problem we have to deal with?
Paul, i’m going to work with your logic here.
Lets say temp jumps in 2008 and its a new record year. Then from that year it flattens out for another 9 years, no more records, but in general, hotter than the previous decade. 2018 sets a new record before temps flatten out….this pattern could conceivably go on for ever and you would be saying – Oh but, it hasn’t warmed since the last record year, AGW is incorrect. Meanwhile, the 30, 60, 90, 150 yr trend is for warming.
How hot would it have to get and how much CO2 would have to be pumped out before you were convinced there is a problem we have to deal with?
Anthony, you certainly went to work on that logic. It’s now completely unrecognisable. Words fail me.
I was trying to point out that actual data is important, and currently the data is not really supporting AGW. You have reframed the scenario and assigned to me an opinion that is entirely from the depths of your own mind.
Paul, your logic is – pick the most recent record year as your starting point then measure warming from then on. if its not going up with CO2, then CO2 is not causing warming.
All I did was extend this logic to a hypothetical scenario.
Implicit in your logic is that temperatures increases, if caused by CO2, should increase as CO2 increases. This implies that CO2 is the only variable affecting temperatures. Is that what you think?
The warming stopped in 1998 argument has been chewed up and spat out so many times it is beyond recognition. Yet you insist on regurgitating it again and again.
Well no, I don’t think that CO2 is the only variable affecting temperature. I actually think it is quite a minor factor.
If it is a major factor, then logically temperature should rise as CO2 rises. That’s not saying it should rise in lockstep, or that other factors don’t apply. Just that temperatures not rising for what is it, nine years now, is not really supportive of AGW, unless some other factors are in play. I asked you what other factors might be involved before, but you didn’t reply.
Why is 98 your starting point PW? is 9 years the best time frame to analyse the effect of CO2 on global temp? Seems a strange methodology…
So what other factors are at play…hmmm… let me think…i have it! maybe 1998 was a really hot year! that would mean we actually are getting warming, but just not relative to one of the hottest years in our planets recent history!!!
So there you have it PW, i think the main factor which has caused cooling since 1998 is that it is a stupid year to start calculating warming from. Amazing I know. What do you think?
so if we are not getting warming as measured by a global average temperature since 1998, is everything a ok? Does it matter how temperature change is distributed?
Well, I could start in say, 1940. How’s that correlation. But really all I’m saying is that just now temperatures aren’t following the script. They may start to do so in future. I don’t think they will, but it can’t be ruled out.
Climate change used to be called global warming. If it ain’t warming, it’s not global warming. The whole climate change scenario is based on warming. Temperature distribution changes with a steady overall temperature isn’t warming, it’s redistribution.
Fair dinkum, it’s ok to acknowledge the actual temperatures, the sky won’t fall.