In his Interim Climate Change Review for the Australian government Professor Ross Garnaut is looking to the world stabilising emission levels at year 2000 levels “soon after 2020”. Following this he sees a need for halving them by 2050 and reducing them to a quarter of 2000 levels by 2100.
He also considers that emissions must be based on some level of equality on a per capita basis. Realistically he recognises that there would need to be a phase to this and that population trends would need to be taken into consideration.
But, notwithstanding the cheer squad who were able to comment on detail about the report as soon as it was released, Garnaut barely scratches the surface in recognising the enormity of the task. Throw away lines like stabilisation at a uniform per capita level mask economic turmoil.
Australia’s emissions per capita are presently 16 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Largely because much of the OECD has (unlike Australia) outsourced its heavy energy intensive industries, the OECD average is 11.5 tonnes. The world average is 4.5 tonnes. Given population growth, that would have to fall to under 4 tonnes by 2030 to get to stabilisation.
In other words, to meet the level that Garnaut sees as necessary, Australia would be emitting only one quarter of its present level of CO2.
That degree of self discipline is possible only by accepting returning the economy to living standards similar to those currently experienced in the developing world. Nobody purposefully emits CO2 (though until a few years ago it was not a concern). The simple fact is that its emission is a by-product of earning income. We know of no other way to enrich ourselves and raise living standards of the poorest countries than to do so using energy and that means carboniferous sources.
As Garnaut acknowledges, easy gains in emission reductions have been made, especially with the dismantling of the command economies of the Soviet bloc and China. Those countries’ CO2 intensities have now stopped falling, in fact are rising. Indeed, China ahs already surpassed the magic 4 tonnes per capita and has only pulled a fifth of its population out of poverty. It is a pipe dream to think that Indonesia and PNG could become vast sinks to offset other countries’ emission levels. Only by foregoing the use of oil, gas and coal is it possible to reduce CO2 emissions.
For Australia this is even more difficult. Our economy is built on low cost coal based energy. Coal is also one of our most important exports. Even if we were to restructure our electricity industry so that it became fundamentally nuclear based (forget the fairies at the bottom of the garden calling for solar) we would still be twice the 4 tonnes per capita level.
And in moving to that position the corollary must be a vast jump in prices. There is no other way of ensuring the constricted use of the energy. Already in Australia with what to the environmental lobby is seen as totally inadequate measures at mitigation, prices of electricity are rising. Anticipating the measures foreshadowed the wholesale price of electricity for delivery in the first half of 2011 in Victoria and NSW is 50 per cent above present levels. And we have seen nothing yet.
Garnaut is surely correct in those of his recommendations that council gradualism and further study. He is also correct that the Kyoto agreement that all signatories including Australia have found it impossible to meet without cheating is only the start. But achieving the goal, even with the loathed nuclear future, is Mission Impossible unless some totally unexpected technical breakthrough comes along.
Alan Moran
Melbourne
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“forget the fairies at the bottom of the garden calling for solar”
A number of people phoned in to ABC radio yesterday on the issue of proposed ACT Gov subsidies for home generation. Some apparently either had solar panels or were installing a system as they spoke. One lady had an 8$ electricity bill another family was totally solar. Schools too are considering co generation.
An interesting question was, why don’t we pay for a solar farm instead of bothering with old roofs everywhere.
http://www.ata.org.au/feedintariffs/take-action-act/
This proposal is based on the most successful Euro program
The Australian Government should legislate for a compliance requirement within its Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. This would hold manufacturers, suppliers and users accountable under the principle of ‘polluter pays’. Prices would skyrocket to their correct amounts and Australia’s greatest environmental liability would be addressed.
Whilst it might be OK for some ACT householders to install solar power it is not affordable for most of our population. I would indeed like to do the same but the cost of doing so is prohibitive.
I also suspect that the housholder claiming an electricity bill of $8.00 has not factored the cost of their own solar array and installation into the figure. Proponents of solar must start honestly describing the real costs of intalling and operating such a system.
The irony is that local and state governments everywhere have moved to halt all further creation of acreage blocks and rural residential blocks. And these are the one form of housing development where the economics of household solar systems are already very favourable.
It can cost up to $20,000 to extend mains power supply over a distance as small as 200 metres and that leaves an awful lot of spare change for a solar system.
This is also the housing type that has always supplied its own water with household tanks but not only are our wise and thoughtful leaders discouraging this option, they actually pay significantly lower tank subsidies to these dwellings. Go figure.
Ian! are you a born again greenie or something? Thats about as wise as I’ve read you!
Garnaut’s recorded comments made yesterday ie “…evidence is worst than we thought” and “.. near tipping points” etc.. Haven’t we heard this hysteria before every time a new ‘report’ needs media attention. All these rent-seekers are living a parallel world as the real one defies their predictions of doom. My question is what evidence is he talking about? Where in his report is this new ‘dire’ scientific evidence? Who compiled this data, what methods were utilised in its gathering, what are the tolerances of this measuring equipment, what analysis method was used in its interpretation etc..? What other factors may be at play? I know many submissions were sent to Garnaut indicating the science of AGW is without any foundation. Hence I really would like to know what rigorous scientific data he was presented by promoters of AGW that is so conclusive! However there has been a myriad of scientific data /experiments which are all reproducible, that suggests an increase in CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere as plants grow better and more efficiently utilize water and nutrients.
Anyway, I thought he was supposed to look at the effects of a CO2 emission pricing to meet arbitrary CO2 targets (read non-scientific) on the Australian economy. He was not there to spout idiotic emission target numbers himself!
There is no valid science to determine if CO2 (man-made or natural) has any detrimental climatic effects for Australia or globally. For Garnaut’s (Final) Report to have any economic validity he would need to show how a measured reduction in Australian CO2 would have a measured change in our climatic conditions over any timeframe, and, that this supposed climate change is beneficial or non-beneficial. If it has a non-beneficial cost, what would the best way to mitigate it and who pays. Since this is indeterminable, as there is no valid science to support the hypothesis of AGW, and other countries CO2 emissions are rising, how would this course of actions (target caps and emissions pricing) pass a rigorous economic cost-benefit analysis! IT IS ALL COST AND NO BENEFIT!
Hence the case of doing nothing at all is the only ’correct economic target‘, as it produce the best economic outcome for the nation. China, India, Brazil and many other countries have already rationally come to this conclusion. The AGW rent-seekers want to make our energy costs spiral out of control, hurt the poor and ‘working families’, export our competitive industries to financially support uneconomic boondoggles (wind farms etc..) and spiv carbon-dioxide traders and offset scammers.
So far Garnaut’s comments indicate much hysteria based junk-science supporting his junk-economics.
Meanwhile over at ” Gust of Hot Air” he has calculated that even if we did achieve these targets, it would make 0.000043 degrees difference to the global temperatures.
What a joke.
I spent 8 years living with my own generated power. It is a pain in the butt.
Its ok while everything is new, but by year 3, or 4, when batteries are getting tired, & electrical connections developing some faults FORGET IT.
My cousin is still on home power, being $80,000 off the grid. He’s trying to save the money to connect.
He has one Array for his satllite phone, & internet link, & another for the house. He has 48 heavy duty batteries all up.
His system is now 8 years old, & replacement batteries alone are running at $1500 a year, & a few panels have all ready required replacement.
As I said, FORGET IT.
I am an engineer, he is a mechanic. I was, & he is heartily sick of running around, every few days, with a multi meter, & a hydrometer, chasing falts. If you can’t service your own car, FORGET IT, the call out costs, for tradesmen will keep you broke, before you buy the replacement bits.
God I hate the rose coloured glasses these damn fools wear, while they have the hide to advise others. So for all you normal people, who expect, & require the power to come on, at the flick of a switch, FORGET IT, you could not handle the hassel.
The bleeding heart brigade, are all ready running around, bleating about subsidies for low incone earners, & the disadvanteaged, to offset higher power prices. Good on them, I’m just poor enough to get a part prnsion, yippee.
The idea is a bit of a waste realy. If this tomfoolery goes ahead, it won’t be long before 90% of the population will qualify in the disadvantaged group.
Ian: A caller on talkback yesterday had to spend $34,000 on one pole and a mains transformer.
Another guy who was employed in the roof biz said don’t contemplate using an existing roof.
I reckon we should start with the shopping malls.
Sure, the ACT gets more sun than most places and that’s why it gets as dry as chips.
Anthony, I have been a practical ecologist since I first helped my father plant a (native) windbreak as a four year old in 1959. The problem is that 20 years later a bunch of aliens from an entirely different planet (Glebe & Balmain) decided that they were the sole voice of nature and they needed to protect all forests from the people who actually planted and regenerated them.
One of my rental houses has been all solar for more than a decade. We have the finest mountain rock pools this side of Lamington. My regenerated native forest on previously cleared land, of the full suite of original species, and of local genotypes, absorbs more than 500 tonnes of CO2 each year but it could do a lot more if we were governed by people I could trust.
We have a queue of people who want to live in our valley but our renters stay put and the “Green Dominated” council is busy handing out megabuck development approvals to urban spivs while my neighbours can’t even build a legal cabin for their grown up kids.
But what would I know, I’m just an ignorant right wing hillbilly pig on the oil companies payroll, aren’t I?
Hasbeen – “God I hate the rose coloured glasses these damn fools wear, while they have the hide to advise others. So for all you normal people, who expect, & require the power to come on, at the flick of a switch, FORGET IT, you could not handle the hassel.”
So thats it is it? Your experience is the model for ALL installations of solar power? Have you ever considered that perhaps your system was not properly installed and/or sized.
This guy at Mt Best instead of whinging like you designed a fridge that use 0.1kW/hr per day thereby preserving his batteries –
http://mtbest.net/index.html
Perhaps he is just a better engineer than you.
The other thing is that it is unlikely that individual houses with batteries and panels will be the model for the future grid. It is much more likely to be large scale solar, wind geothermal, biomass, wave, and tidal with utility grade storage of both heat and electricity. Your rooftop panels will feed into the grid and it will always be available for backup. Additionally for most people your batteries will be in your car providing CO2 free personal transportation and battery backup for when the grid is not available. The latest batteries have a capacity of thousands of cycles unlike the lead acid ones you have with a cycle life of about 500.
“God I hate the rose coloured glasses these damn fools wear”
Yes and I hate the black blinkers that you wear. The ones that filter out innovation and optimism and only leave 1890s technology and bitterness.
“they actually pay significantly lower tank subsidies to these dwellings”
i agree with what you are saying ian.
But if you are interested in hearing the policy wonk’s argument for doing it that way:
The government is probably trying not to spend taxpayer’s money on paying people to do something (install a raintank on a remote property) that they would do regardless of whether or not they get the rebate. The rebate is to save water, not help people own a raintank, and the govt can’t say it is saving additional water by paying people to do what they would do anyway.
Its thrifty-with-taxpayer-money vs. equality. I lean towards equality myself, but i’m a bit soft.
Ender, if I thought you had, & used, a brain of your own, I’d talk to you.
You are simply a fool, parroting what you heard the big scientist saying.
You are like a trusting little child, being led by the hand, down the garden path.
Steve, my taxes have biult the dams that supply Brisbane water, not Brisbane rate payers, as happened elsewhere.
The people of Boonah paid for the pipe line that was used to take their irrigators water, & pump it to Swanbank power station. These Irrigators have been paying $24,000 access fee, a year, for 4 years, with not one drop of water supplied. Your need was greater than theirs, so it appears, but perhaps you could give them back enough to pay for a tank.
Every time you see some government type out here, you grab your hammer, & start nailing everything down. You know they are only here to steel something else.
Never mind, I realise you need all the money for Briabane, it was small minded of me to expect any thing in return. You keep your tank subbsidy, & we’ll just keep on paying for it for you.
Hasbeen,
Ender is just one those guys who never made it.
Ender, you need to turn your life around, chasing cyber windmills and saying that GWB is a monkey is a zero gain activity, all this crap tends to flow backwards. If you want to to be taken seriously at preaching – buy a dog collar. Who knows – you might get a few bob in the plate.
It has to be noted that whilst Ender monotonously advocates these greenie measures he has yet to embrace them.
Jan. This is more about my search today on thermal inertia. Solar passive building design has long been an interest of mine with folks involved in the concrete and construction industries. Anyone who is serious about energy use at home should have a good look.
http://www.ecospecifier.org/knowledge_base/technical_guides/thermal_mass_building_comfort_energy_efficiency#Urban%20Heat%20Island%20Effects
http://www.netspeed.com.au/abeccs/thurgoona/thurgoona%20building%20design.htm
http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Surrey_Hills_house
Mission NOT impossible!
Be aware of the fact that “Ender” and “Steve” might be interchangeable.
Of course we might have many “Steves” but only one “Ender”.
OH and Ender, I would be interested finding out how bitumen, tar, could be created from biomass using the techniques you advocate.
A thermodynamic exposition of how this happens would also be nice to get.
Cheers 🙂
Well the reason Garnaut (despite having a bad hair-do) is getting a run is because the Australian denialist/septic and contrarian movement isn’t very good. Sorry but you guys just aren’t credible.
I did a quick survey and chicks think Garnaut is hot for an old bloke.
So it’s ALL your fault. In comparison, you guys are bolshy, abusive and aggressive. Poorly dressed, too old, boorish and not smooth at all. You’ve failed to get your point across.
You haven’t engaged the science community, you’ve been too long in secret societies, redneck blogs and funny clubs. You need media training.
Guys you’re gonna have to move up market. Get Motty off the screen and into a comfy Director’s chair. Get Louis out the back making some sangers for the crew.
Get some hot young metrosexual presenters to pump out the message. Charm the public – don’t keep going on like rabid goannas. Sure it’s selling out – but do want to win or what?
But I wouldn’t get too wound up. Ruddster has already backed off. The public haven’t worked out doing anything might cost some money. The electorate is yet to be tested.
Nothing is going to happen real quick. So chill out dudes (well it is cooling isn’t it).
And Luke, once again, writes much but says little.
It’s called messenger shooting Luke, and and admission you have lost the debate.
Yeah, right, we’ll take advice on campaigning from the enemy, from a departmental planet plodder, given with the utmost best intentions and support for our cause, of course. Give us a break, clown.
Still, thanks for the feedback. I always know when I am really hitting the mark when all sorts of opponents start dishing out gratuitous and supposedly subtle advice about how our side would be better off without me.
And still no defence of Garnaut’s bogus justification for his use of the A1F1 scarenario in the face of overwhelming evidence of its outrageous overstatements.
Still not a peep about the way Garnaut just happened to leave out the 86 Chinese nuclear power plants already committed for 2011-2015 alone.(1 every 3 weeks) And no explanation of how you fit a Los Angeles emission footprint (and gass guzzler) in a Shanghai highrise.
Guess we can tell why the boys over at the “millionaires factory” were not falling over themselves to bring Garnaut and his ‘expertise’ in-house. If he had put that stuff in a prospectus he would be in the Long Bay Hilton by now, rubbing his butt and singing “I ain’t mamas little girl no more”.
Hasbeen – “Ender, if I thought you had, & used, a brain of your own, I’d talk to you.
You are simply a fool, parroting what you heard the big scientist saying.
You are like a trusting little child, being led by the hand, down the garden path.”
An incompetent’s stock in trade – abuse. Which of course is our friend’s rog’s only form of argument as he is not even close to making it.
Louis – “OH and Ender, I would be interested finding out how bitumen, tar, could be created from biomass using the techniques you advocate.”
Sure – just research the literature and you will find the answer or am I suddenly your unpaid research assistant now. Now where are those needles to stick in my eyes ……….
Well there you go again Ian – “the enemy” – that’s not very nice – and I didn’t say get rid of you. I just said you off the screen and into a nice comfy Director’s chair. You you guys need an image makeover. You guys have FAILED to make an impact on the debate. Your thesis even if 100% correct is essentially not well received. Garnaut dismissed you as rabble.
So it’s the sceptics fault.
As for your tedious little wank on emission intensity – it’s not worth 2 knobs of goat poop unless you inform us how the said scenario will be used and was developed – is it his scenario of choice and how was it constructed. Sounds to me that you’re just having a bit of a sook.
Ian … man, you’re making my head explode trying to keep up … 34 Chinese reactors yesterday (Garnaut Confirms Need to Cut Emissions by 60 Percent) and now 86 Chinese reactors today. God only knows how many you’ll be telling us about tomorrow. Where on earth do they all come from ?? If you say they’re to be plucked from the President’s arse I might just believe you … because that many sure as f**k won’t be coming from anywhere else !!
Yes Chris, Ian has a habit of using interchangeable figures to suit his argument. Sad really that he is actually so very stupid.
Ian said:
>I’m just an ignorant right wing hillbilly pig on the oil companies payroll, aren’t I?
To use a comment by Anthony:
>Thats about as wise as I’ve read you!
Oh look, here comes the abuse….
Speaking of which, Rog, do you ever actually contribute anything here except snide remarks (the level and number concerning Ender indicate some jealousy thing going on) or useless quips? And Louis, get back under the house where you belong and constantly run to when challenged and caught out.
Really, you old withered boys need a new hobby, and a new image.
gavin,
Due to a network problem I’ve only just managed to post, unfortunately at the ususal point where topics descend into personal critisism – ah well!
I’m an ACT resident and have been watching the progress of the feed-in tariff (FiT) proposals with interest and I kinda support Alan’s ‘fairies’ comment.
THE ACT Government Discussion Paper on the subject (1) has a scenario that assumes an uptake of 10% of homes installing 1.75kW systems. The problems with this are (from the Paper):
It will provide less than 2% of the ACT’s electricity
It will offset a mere 1% of the ACT’s carbon emmissions
It will cost taxpayers and ACT electricity consumers over $300 million
And this assumes that the PV industry can install 13,000 systems in a reasonable time! An (il)logical extension of this scenario would see an installation on every rooftop (at $3 billion) but would leave nobody to pay for ongoing infrastructure and the considerable power shortfall. I’m not even convinced the emissions savings are there as I don’t believe, with a cut of 2%, a power station in Yallourn will get turned down a bit just because it’s dawn in the ACT.
The FiT Discussion Paper also points out that, at $200 per tonne of carbon saved, PV is twice as expensive as solar hot water.
As far as the call-backs to the ABC are concerned, I would imagine that the installation that supplied all its own electricity would be stand alone, as the typical 1kW grid connect install can’t even boil a kettle without extra power from the grid. And I guess they have some power storage or else go to bed early.
I know of someone in the ACT who installed a 6kW system (maybe the person with the $8 bill?). The installation cost was $70,000. That’s a seven with 4 zeros! I don’t think it can be called equitable for the FiT to pay for such a system (that’s its aim) out of the pockets of less well-heeled citizens.
There are a bunch of reasons why the FiT may be bad policy – cost, effectiveness, equity being just some of them. I believe the ACT FiT is a distraction from the main game of moving us away from fossil fuels. I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept of photovoltaics but I think they’re a very long way from solving our power problems.
I also share your view that solar passive housing is still not done well in Canberra in spite of our compulsory energy star rating. Maybe this is where the money should be spent, negotiating A/Cs out of our homes.
Concerning solar farms, at one of the FiT information evenings the concept of a solar farm in the ACT was suggested but was quickly dismissed with comments about transmission line losses. This in spite of the fact that losses are directly proportional to distance and to compare losses from a farm at, say, Symonston verses those from a generation plant in Victoria is disingenous to say the least. We already run two biomass generators at the landfills – no-one complains about losses from their lines. However, I think the real reason for sticking PVs on roofs is – what else can you do with roofs?
(1) (http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2044/feed-in_tariff.pdf)
Jennifer,
Have you ever considered putting out a restraining order against the cyber stalkers that seem to have nothing more to do with their lives than to lurk around this site awaiting your next posting.
What I would really like to see from any of these stalking Warmists is what they use as EMPIRICAL evidence that any of us should be concerned in any manner about CO2 emissions. I’m so sick and tired of seeing so many people start with that as a basic assumption in their arguments. When you look at the long term history of the planet, our current CO2 levels are very paltry and not much above where plant life would go into stasis (200 ppm).
This is really getting very ridiculous. Please, Warmists, where’s the beef. Don’t tell us about models or point to stupid anecdotal things like ice melting, etc. Where is this overwhelming proof you talk incessantly of? Why should anyone give any of you the time of day?
CO2 is a minor trace gas and there is nothing that shows anything should be done about it, other than the Trojan Horse socialism all of you are really about.
Where is your proof? I ask this over and over again and all I ever get is name calling and refusal to address the question.
Again, Jennifer, I would seriously think about that restraining order. These people are very dangerous and shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Chris et al, if you had kept up to speed on the thread above this one you would have noted that the figure of 86 new Chinese nuclear power stations was more recent information direct from the World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
It relates solely to the 2011-2015 five year plan, to projects that are already committed. Note also that these projects are all for 1mW stations but with the potential to modify them to 1.4mW capacity. The only reason more are not in the planning stage is the fact that they don’t need to plan that far ahead, yet.
For Garnaut to rely on a projection that ignores existing relevant facts and then assume that this level of new nuclear station construction will not continue into the 2016-2020 five year plan is a prima facie case of serious professional negligence.
So nice try at another personnal attack, Luke, Chris and Travis, but as usual, you are totally lacking in substance. But are you man enough to apologise for your ill-informed slur, Chris?
And readers will have noted how Luke is so completely out of his depth that all he can contribute is gratuitous advice on campaign strategy. But to whom? Does he seriously think there is some sort of conservative, sceptic “high command” that makes critical staffing decisions?
There may well be a few mediocrities who can be duped into thinking the tone of a campaign message is the key to success but they don’t have any influence anyway because they lack the traction, the strategic vision and simply don’t do the hard yards.
Firstly you NEED to state what scenarios Garnaut is using and the derivation. You don’t know !!!! We know they only wheel you out for a bit of disinformation.
Stop being a 5th columnist and get fair dinkum.
As I was saying for all your ranting Motty you’re just having a bit a sook on some backwater blog – effect on the national policy debate = 0.0 (as usual)
Spot on, Sam. I have advised Jennifer in the past that there is a very easy way to bring these people into line but she sometimes fails to retain what is being said.
Most of the offenders on this blog operate under a pseudonym to conduct cowardly defamatory attacks, like the ones above, on people who use their real name. All she needs to do is to advise any of the less than a dozen repeat offenders that they have abused their right to anonymity and can no longer post on the blog until they forward certified copy of their Drivers License (or equivalent) and provide other, verifiable, evidence (like ISP invoices)that links their URL to their true identity. This information would then be available in the event that any “real” person may pursue their lawful remedies in defamation.
This shambles can be cleaned up quickly and cheaply but it needs the blog moderators (indeed, all blog moderators) to pull their damned finger out and restore the proper professional standards that our laws have always demanded. What do others think?
Luke knows perfectly well that I am refering to Garnaut’s adoption of the gonzo A1F1 “Scarenario” of the IPCC that assumes the Chinese, Indians, Indonesians and, wait for it, Pakistanis, will all adopt the USA’s emission footprint during this century.
Yes, can’t you just picture it folks. Two large gas guzzling SUVs for each family in a Shanghai high rise?
And if this blog is having no influence then why is he so eager to get me off the screen? He and his mates had a relatively easy run here while I was away in January and they would like to keep it that way. But rest assured, boy wonder, it will be tough times ahead for a while yet.
I’m afraid Hasbeen is right about the reliability of solar power systems. This is something quite a few middle class fools will learn over the next few years.
My mother had a solar hot water system installed nearly 20 years ago. Paid for mainly by a government subsidy, (NSW I think). Worked well for about 2-3 months and then stopped. Since my mother lives on a farm, 500 miles from Sydney, the cost of getting a technician to look at it was riduculous – the NSW government did not subsidise maintenance, only installation.
The critter has sat on the roof smiling at the sun ever since.
I give up. – Have the thread and go for it.
So here we go – it’s NOW Motty’s blog.
“I have advised Jennifer in the past that there is a very easy way to bring these people into line but she sometimes fails to retain what is being said”
I had to actually read that twice. WOW !
And YOU have decided who the “OFFENDERS” are. Judge, jury and executioner eh? Now that’s about what we expect from jackboot tactics.
You would not be an “offender” yourself would you. Of course not. Coz your votes are worth 10X everybody else’s.
And how typical – now the resident blog biff-ologist wants to pull out the legal card and shutdown the debate – that’s pathetic given the vile slurs and baits you throw about.
Back to it – have you actually read the INTERIM Garnaut report. Apparently not. No all you’ve done is publicly ridicule his personal style. Motty that’s really really low and I’m stunned the blog management didn’t cut it out as totally foul and put you in the sin bin.
Firstly he’s canvassed 3 scenarios – A1F1, A1B and B1. So what’s wrong with that as an interim in covering a range. Does A1F1 purely depend on China?? We await your comprehensive detailed analysis of the A1F! globally.
He has left the door open in the text for further input. Which nobody has mentioned and I quote
“The Review takes the work of the IPCC as its starting point for analysis of the
impact of climate change and the costs and benefits of mitigation. Again, the Review
has made this choice on a balance of probabilities, and not as a matter of faith.
Concerns have been raised regarding some elements of the IPCC approach
including the objectivity of the IPCC process, apparent influence by political
considerations (House of Lords, 2005), and the misrepresentation of climate science
by individuals invoking the authority of the IPCC (Landsea, 2005).
The IPCC’s view that climate change is happening, and in the absence of effective
mitigation has the potential to impose huge costs on human society, is supported by
the large majority of scientific opinion. The IPCC has demonstrated that the possible
costs of the outcomes are large enough to justify action to avoid or reduce the risks.
It would be imprudent beyond the normal limits of human incaution to choose to do
nothing in the hope that the problem will go away.
Without in any way diminishing the value of the IPCC’s work, the Review considers
that there is value in expanding the global scientific effort, and in ensuring that it is
open to alternative perspectives beyond the IPCC. In the full reports, the Review will
make suggestions on expanding and strengthening the pluralist character of the
Australian research efforts in climate change science.”
Did you read
“it is open to alternative perspectives beyond the IPCC”!!
So carrying on like you have publicly insulting the chair of the review is highly unlikely to get a good response to any material you submit !
So professional blog standards – now involves – “comb-overs”, “bullocky’s daughters”, smacking out government staff. Yes Ian we note your past examples. Only too well. So please don’t lecture on debate standards.
Now go for it mate – it’s all yours !!
Luke, Jennifer already has sufficient information on myself to enable her to forward sufficient details to facilitate any action for defamation that I might cause. I am merely proposing that, ultimately, a level playing field is the only option for those, like yourself, who repeatedly abuse their anonymity.
And there is not the slightest doubt that a poll of regular readers would include you on that list. No judge, no jury and no excecutioner, merely an administrative decision on the moderators part that certain people have abused their anonymity. Any judging would depend on the actual legal merits of your (their) subsequent posts. It would leave you entirely in control of your destiny.
And your suggestion that I have made nothing but a personal attack on Garnauts appearance belies the very content posted above. It has taken you three days before posting even the bare bones of an on-topic response. And all you did was cut and paste a paragraph of weasel words.
Slurs Ian ? You mean like ‘The turkey’ and ‘standard, Garnaut, made-to-order bollocks’ and ‘some sad poop with a comb-over’, ‘clown’ etc. I make a light-hearted jape about your seeming exponential growth of Chinese reactors and you get all precious … seems a bit thin skinned to me. In any event, I don’t give a rats arse about the stuff you post and couldn’t really be bothered with researching any rebuttals to flaccid CO2 denialist shite like Sam wrote above (he could easily find it himself). When it comes to AGW I’ll just listen to the IPCC, climate scientists, and every authoritative national scientific body on the planet. Garnaut (or rather his interim report) is just one of the many tools in the shed for trying to come to grips with economic management of the problem.
“It has taken you three days before posting even the bare bones of an on-topic response.”
Maybe Luke has better things to do with his time than post comments here every minute of the day Ian. You certainly have nothing better to do.
“But rest assured, boy wonder, it will be tough times ahead for a while yet.”
Everyone knows you get told off for being a jerk and you go and sulk for a while, then you come back out of your hole again and nothing has changed. You never learn Ian. It’s one set of rules for you and your mates, and another set of rules for anyone you don’t like or agree with. You are obnoxious and insulting and frequently post false claims. You are a hypocrite, like Chris has accurately pointed out above. If you want a vote Ian, get a life and leave us here in peace.
Right, so the real issue is how to control the debate?
So Chris, if you lack the dignity to admit you were dead wrong, that I did not make up the 86 new Chinese nuclear power stations in the 2011-2015 period alone, and you “don’t give a rats arse about the stuff you post and couldn’t really be bothered with researching any rebuttals to flaccid CO2 denialist shite”, why are you here at all? Don’t they have “one handed” web sites for people like you?
Readers will notice how the anonymity abusers come out of the woodwork when their second rate science and third rate analysis gets the hammering it deserves. We even flushed out Winston so the email calls for help must be going far and wide.
Ian … stop it now … you’re confusing me for someone who cares what you think. Just go back to your flailing around trying to debunk ‘second rate’ AGW science. That’s going real well for you is it ? No, don’t bother with a response it was a rhetorical question.
Ian I doubt any blog can require such extensive identity checks.
Ian you can not require driver license checks.
Ian I doubt any blog can require such extensive identity checks.
There’s always credit card checks.
So make a donation;-)
They may not be able to require such checks as an initial condition of entry but where there is suffient evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person may post defamatory material, and thereby cause another person some entirely foreseeable harm, there is a very strong case that the publisher of the blog has a duty of care to take all reasonably practical steps to prevent that harm, and to assist those who actually suffer harm.
Note that ISP provider Bigpond has recognised its liability in this respect by applying an “acceptable use policy” that applies to any web site or blog that operates on its system. That definition of acceptable use clearly allows them to close down any blog that carries defamatory material.
So what is the “acceptable use policy” of the organisation that hosts this blog?
And it would seem entirely reasonable that requiring proper identification of a small number of abusers, a number that would obviously get a lot smaller once the policy was in place, is both a reasonable step and a practical one.
For the moment, the entire blogoshpere is operating well outside community standards but to describe this as an “emerging culture” is to ignore the fact that community standards will eventually catch up with this little band of frontier desperados who think they are free to make the law up as they go along.
In fact, it would make a very interesting, and I think very socially contributive, test case to determine whether a blog host’s continued reluctance to establish simple but effective systems for properly identifying repeat offenders would amount to contributary negligence in an action for damages in defamation.
What a pity that some here can’t honestly practice what they preach and accept responsibility for what they write, yet seem to be totally clueless as to their own behaviour.
Ian,
enough threats, why don’t you get yourself a pen name or find somewhere else to post?
i guess there is a third more time consuming option, could we delete all comments that make reference to you by name?
then again, there is a fourth option, we could just have a blog with no comments?
PS Ian, following on from your comment above, which is the best blog hosted by bigpond, that covers the issues readers of this blog might be interested in? I shall recommend it to you and others who don’t like the rules at this blog. and for sure bigpond would have more resources for more regulation than us, or National Forum, the group who hosts this blog … all on a shoe string to give people like you a forum… because we believe in freedom of expression and diversity of ideas… and emerging technologies.
So now I’m making threats, am I Jen? And not showing enough gratitude for the “freedom of expression and diversity of ideas… and emerging technologies” you provide? Then I most sincerely apologise.
I think it should have been sinking in by now, Jen, that I have no problem with the rules, just the way they appear to be applied selectively, and some of the time and ignored at other times.
No-one can get a letter to the editor published in any newspaper without full address and phone details that can be, and are, verified. And one must have a very good reason for hiding behind a pseudonym.
Talkback radio have instant means for identifying the caller and also use delayed broadcast to enable them to flick the switch if needed.
These are reasonable and practical steps made by broadcasters and publishers to comply with community expectations. The rules of print do not apply to radio so each can meet their obligations in the most practical manner. No-one is suggesting that these rules should be cut and paste to the blogosphere.
And I did make it quite clear that I regarded this problem as one that applies to the whole blogosphere not just to this one.
Yet, Jennifer continues to respond as if I am proposing some major bureaucratic work load, the cost of which to be borne by herself. When all that is involved is to send the same email to about dozen people (exceptions to the rule) that she should already be able to identify and ask them to send in some detail and a signed statement to the effect that they are the person using a particular user name and a particular pseudonym.
And as I have said before, she already has that detail on myself. Yet she continues with this farce where a jibe or insult to a pseudonym is given the same weight as unambiguous defamatory material about a real person. And she continues to go by the notion that the delivery of one insult to one pseudonym is sufficient justification for multiple, co-ordinated, and serial defamatory statements about a real person.
To this I simply state, without any hint of threat, that the community and the law think otherwise.
If the ‘the blogsphere’ is forced to go the way of newspapers and radio stations I guess this blog will have to close down … because we don’t have an operating budget. You will then be left with the blogs at places like the Courier Mail.
An alternative perhaps, would be to make everyone use pen names?
I have just recieved an email from the person who made the above post in my (Ian Mott) name. He also posted on this same thread this morning as “Paul Howard”. I am indebted for this small example of “identity fraud” because he did so to demonstrate that someone can log in using someone else’s proper name, indeed, any name.
It demonstrates how a number of people could (can)be posting on this blog under the one pseudonym and, in fact, also be using a couple of pseudonyms in concert to give an entirely false and misleading perception of general sentiment in this this “blog culture”.
We know that a person, or one of the people, using the pseudonym of “Luke” had spent a week posting as “Errol” before he was exposed for using identical statements that he had made quite a few months earlier.
We have also seen how this person has tried to counter any measures that would at least enable the blog moderators to confirm who he was by seeking to imply, on a number of times, that “I thought I owned the blog”, an obvious, self serving attempt to provoke a “wounded pride, we’ll show him” type response from Jennifer and Paul.
I simply have not had the time to methodically go back over the whole threads of all the archives to see if anyone has posted offensive material using my name. But what I have seen is a number of instances where pseudonyms have commenced an extended insult directed at me by refering to some non-existent, or grossly exaggerated transgression by me.
And I can state that I have seen this MO before. I have seen it tried on myself and I have seen it done by departmental officers in concert with Ministerial staff, to undermine a properly elected leader of an industry organisation, on three seperate occasions. And it would be entirely true to this MO for there to have been a campaign of deliberate back channel communication to Jen, Paul and others on lines like, “I really like your blog but Ian Mott is such a turn off”.
The last time this number was tried on me it was subsequently revealed that the person making the statement was a former workmate of a departmental officer with very close links to the Sunshine Coast Environmental Council, and the statements had been organised and directed by his supervisor.
The person posting under my name above is correct. This blog is clearly under attack. And it is under attack for the very fact of its effectiveness in presenting information and perspectives that vested interests do not like or want the public to be aware of. They would not be doing this if the blog had no traction.
As an example of this, it is worth noting that this morning’s Sunday TV journals were already showing signs of distancing themselves from Garnaut and his lurid “report”.
It seems Jen removed the false post from me while I was writing the above. Why?
Ian, I removed it because it was obviously ‘false’. You may not think we monitor enough … but Neil, Paul and I do try.
I know you are all trying, Jen, but this was evidence of an underlying potential for identity theft, and it has now been removed.
The blog is clearly not under attack. How fanciful.
It’s simply individuals reacting to each other’s rudeness and abuse. It’s really as simple as that.
There are no denial of service attacks, flooding, spamming or conspiring.
There are some emotional outbursts, taking of the piss, return fire and gratuitous abuse – simply a few barneys going on.
Probably what you’d expect in a robust environmental debate.
If we all want an improvement though, laying off the gingering up and heavy abuse would be a start.
Of course that’s not likely if your blood is up is it?
Then you won’t have any problem with identifying yourself, Luke? If you really are re-inventing yourself as some sort of statesman then this would be a very appropriate gesture.
Yeah, right, it was all just a misunderstanding. And pure coincidence that it all conformed to standard departmental MO.
From today’s Crikey.com.au email, on pen names:
“Today we take great pleasure in introducing Crikey’s new resident at the Canberra press gallery. His name is Bernard Keane.
His approved biographical note reads: “Bernard Keane tried being an historian before moving to Canberra and becoming a Commonwealth public servant in the 1990s. After stints in transport policy and as a speechwriter he moved into communications policy, where he obtained extensive experience in the dark arts of Australian media regulation. An occasional blogger, he began contributing to Crikey as David MacCormack in mid-2007.”
So there you are, think of this not so much as losing an alias as gaining a correspondent.”
I wonder how many thought/knew/suspected David MacCormack was an alias?
I’m confused Jennifer. On the Saturn thread you wrote that any further comments regarding pseudonyms would be deleted, yet there has been considerable discussion here by Ian Mott regardless. These mixed messages don’t really help…
Ian wrote:
>I think it should have been sinking in by now, Jen, that I have no problem with the rules, just the way they appear to be applied selectively, and some of the time and ignored at other times.
Yep, that’s the way it’s always been here- things applied selectively in favour of a certain individual, yet he continues to whinge like a spoilt brat. A paranoid delusional one that has no idea of his actions and is always blaming others.
I wonder why Bernard Keane chose David MacCormack for a name.
So where is the post by me that has supposedly justified this latest personal attack by Travis? There is none, as usual. And as usual, Jen does nothing about it.
It is interesting reading this thread to observe that nobody making posts here seems to have any idea about the living standards of people in developing countries whose ecological footprint, or carbon dioxide production, is at the levels proposed for Australia by Garnaut and others.
I am living in one of these environments now, and I am certain that few Australians could tolerate it. Hot, no air conditioning, high population densities, high noise levels, small houses, few electrical equipments chewing energy, the list goes on. Yet these countries have a lot to teach us about living in a low emissions world, and how to use earth resources very efficiently.
As for Luke’s derisive comments about denialists not being glamorous, the fact is that more than half of all Austalians do not believe that manmade emissions are making the earth heat up, or are causing global warming. An interesting observation.
PP
When you are pointing the finger at the human race and blaming them for something it is not surprising many are not going to believe it. People dont like being told they have stuffed up. If it were something good it would be a different story.
PP: Most have lost touch with a news paper in the dunny out the back, rusty rain water tanks, a clattering wind mill out past the stables and all that scratched earth in the chook pens.