Some of the personalities regularly featured on this blog will be on Australian television this Sunday morning talking with journalist Adam Shand about global warming.
The feature story on the Channel 9 Sunday Program will include comment from Tim Flannery, Robyn Williams, Don Aitkin and myself.
I gather the story could be on anytime from 7.30am – the program runs for a couple of hours.
Update June 28
From the Sunday Program website:
Questioning Science
Reporter: Adam Shand
The theory of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming has become an unchallengeable fact, a piece of black letter law almost unique in the world of science.
Proponents of the theory say the time for scientific debate is over. It would irresponsible to fund any further research into counter views on the relationship between elevated levels of carbon dioxide and a rise in temperatures since the mid-1970s.
It’s regarded as career suicide for scientists to advocate any counter view of the causes of global warming, let alone deny the orthodox consensus view as adopted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, there is a school of thought that our knowledge of climate systems is as yet insufficient to be so conclusive on the causes of global warming.
Today Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced.
Skeptics point to the gaps in the knowledge base and the flaws in the measurement of vital climate and weather data upon which the consensus is based.
Social researchers also highlight the dangers of conducting science as a form of religion, divided into believers and deniers.
They warn that as governments prepare to make expensive policy decisions, such as carbon emissions trading schemes, this consensus may not reflect the best science.
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2493.asp
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Good luck, Jennifer
Robyn Williams has a modus operandi of rudely talking over the top of stuff he doesn’t like in a very loud voice to consume time and prevent contrary information being disseminated (I’ve met him on two separate occasions and both times this happened). Likely you will know this already much better than I.
Be gentle with Tim – he’s a nutter, but he has been a good geologist.
Good luck Jen,
It should be a lively debate given your post at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002973.html
Of course the ABC has some informative media on Global Warming such as that created by Inventor’s panelist Bernie Hobbs and known as Planet Slayer where you can determine when you will die if you don’t make ethical investments or if you emit too much carbon dioxide. The calculator can be accessed through the NSW government web site on sustainable schools at http://www.sustainableschools.nsw.edu.au/Default.aspx?tabid=198&&TID=42
Jennifer
You might try asking someone why the Southern Hemisphere is pretty well the same temperature as 30 years ago.
Don’t expect a sensible answer!
Best wishes
Watch out it is possibly a setup so that they can pick on a doubter. I wish you well and hope it works. Robyn Williams says the the sea level will rise 100 metres in a hundred years. So why didn’t it rise 1 metre last year?
Yes, watch out for Williams, Jennifer, he’s a typical ABC type AGW idelogue, and can be quite nasty about it!
By the way, did anyone see the disgusting performance by Kyoto Kev and his Ag. Minister Bourke in Parliament a couple of days back? Kakadu and the GBR will be finished… Weeds pestilence and plague will abound…Malaria will sweep south, and Brisbane will become the Dengue Fever Capital. (Maybe that’s why Jen fled Brisbane for the Blue Mountains!). All because of rising temps. and rising sea-levels, caused by us evil industrialised humans.
And the had the temerity to accuse the Opposition of “scare tactics” over fuel prices.
And where did this nonsense come from? None other then the ‘New Guinea Witch Doctors’ and ‘Injun Medicen Men’ that pose as scientists at the CSIRO these days.
Good luck Jennifer,
Never before has a topic been so in need of having some reality and balance applied to it.
“And where did this nonsense come from? None other then the ‘New Guinea Witch Doctors’ and ‘Injun Medicen Men’ that pose as scientists at the CSIRO these days. ”
Steady, Sid.
These witch doctors and medicine men have a long and successful track record over centuries – based on observation and adaptation to nature. To compare them to the morons in CSIRO who would have you believe that you can change nature is really being unfair to the New Guineans!
Jennifer,
As your makeover consultant may I recommend a pair of black rimmed swish spectacles.
Also you may need a Don’s cape covered in chalk dust.
But whatever you do dont wear a helicopter beanie.
Good luck with the gig Jen.
Good luck Jen,
If you get the chance ask them why Australia should corrupt its economy when the contribution we will make to reducing the Global temperature will be so miniscule, and thats accepting as fact that it will be 1.5c to +3c by 2050 and Rudd’s emmissions targets are met.( see Johnathan Loweds calcs which anyone with high school maths and a calculator from Coles can do).
By my calcs Garnuats Cost/Benefit approaches infinity.
Why are we doing this ?
“And they had the temerity to accuse the Opposition of “scare tactics” over fuel prices.”
These things have a way of working themselves out in the long run. Krudd and his bunch took the mallet to previous numbskulls for persisting with their “Work Choices” ideological baggage – even though it was clear to Blind Freddy that they were backing a loser.
History is repeating itself. The present numbskulls are locked into their own “Carbon Choices” ideological baggage. Krudd is approaching John Howard’s level of arrogance with each passing day – unfortunately he is past the point of no return in abandoning this garbage.
Come 2010, Krudd will be the only national ‘leader’ anywhere in the world pushing a carbon tax income redistribution scheme, and – like Ken Livingstone – will be judged accordingly.
This is a prime opportunity to inject some fact and sense into the debate.
Global temperatures have been falling over the past ten years, and are now predicted to fall for the next ten. But the GCMs all predicted steadily rising temperatures. How can Tim have any confidence that the models are so right 100 years ahead when they are so wrong now?
If you are getting a pounding, it may be worthwhile to ask the protagonist if he/she can prove that there is such a phenomenon as the greenhouse effect, as nobody else has been able to do it so far. If he/she can not, how can he/she believe that the models based on this principle be considered sound?
Gaawd, Fairydust and Fruitloop, who with anthropocentric grandeur want to be accorded the high priest privilege of being the weather maker for planet earth. LOL
I would ask Fairydust why when it comes to honest science reporting our national broadcaster the ABC prefers theology and propaganda pieces with an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy. i.e. Why is there no specific role for investigative science journalism which seems dead and buried? What has been his role in this outcome?
I would ask Fruitloop why the obvious major drop in carbon emissions during the depression years had NO effect at all on rising atmospheric CO2 and ZILCH effect on rising temperatures.
Of course it would be interesting to get facts on why these two arrogantly promote a bizarre, anti life bias. i.e. Why there is NO comprehension that carbon is life? Why this absolute fact shouldn’t induce just a modicum of humility because isn’t this the reason for our very existence?
Whatever you do Jen, don’t let them read this blog first, otherwise you will never be taken seriously with these groupies! Should be interesting – an entomologist and a palaeontologist talking about global warming.
Very good Travis; and what is Williams? Anyway, from memory, Hansen is an astrophysicist.
Jennifer; since everyone is putting in requests (as if you don’t have enough on your plate); ask Flannery about sulphur; and ask Williams about CO2 saturation and the logarithmic decline limitation to CO2 heating; if that is deemed unacceptably difficult for the hoi polloi (ie Williams), then ask him about “Planetslayer”, the game, and whether it is evidence of misanthropy within ‘our’ ABC.
Jen
Make sure you point out that the whole solar system has “warmed” but whether our asthmatic reaction to the irrationalities of Travis and his pubescent teenage mates might actually be the cause of parental temper warming, remains to be tested.
Any warming Louis is likely to be the result of smelly old farts like yourself! LOL!
Lordy me – I just watched “The Invasion” science fiction movie.
Think we need some rabies shots for those of you obviously infected. Blog comments make for fascinating reading. Travis and SJT – wouldn’t get to close – looks very nasty.
Anyway all good theatre and ratings fodder for Nine. Will anyone change their mind though.
The main reason people would not change their mind is the style of the denialist debate exemplified by the rabid comments we see here. Really really scary stuff. The ferocity of the frothing looks like a big predictable case of right wing denial.
But Jen is pretty sophisticated and understands these things. So debate will be decided on who looks most unreasonable and who looks the most sensible. Perception is reality.
Don’t take Hill, Reynolds and Hissink with you or you’re sunk ! Wouldn’t want to be damaged by “friendly” fire.
“Lordy me – I just watched “The Invasion” science fiction movie.”
Watching science fiction as well as living it ?
I guess that explains something.
Lordy me – I just clicked on Ivan – memo to self – buy more fly spray and rabies vaccine – he has an ARTICLE by the astrologer Theodor Landscheidt – hahahahahahahahha No wonder there are earthquakes. Who ever designed your site was on a bad acid trip Ivanski.
OK two more goes – I click on Citizen plea and find “David Bellamy” – hahahahahaha again
Last go …
So we give “the Sun, the Sun” a whirl
and we find In “Stephen Wilde’s sixth and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com” and the “The Death Blow to AGW by Stephen Wilde” – keeerchrist ! Would make Lief go onto apoplexy…
“exclusive eh”
gurgle …..
Best of luck, Jennifer. Not that you’ll be in wont of luck, favoring the prepared mind as it does. I’m sure you’ll steal the show.
I am curious, though, why you would put up with us rabble of underemployed, self-important scribblers, a few of us lower life forms than entomologists usually must tolerate…
Ivan, your website rocks, man. Keep up the good work!
I particularly enjoyed your spectacular photos of the Greenland icecap. Very cool.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/Greenland_ice_cap.html
Borrow a stab-proof vest. (metaphorically)
If “science communicator” Williams persists in interrupting then it may be sound to remind him that communication is 99% listening.
Good luck Jennifer… Don’t forget to remind them that the Tropical Troposphere hasn’t warmed the 1.5 degrees C that the models predicted that 100ppm extra CO2 would contribute.
…. Knock ’em dead.
ask -identify the scientific paper that says”reduce co2 and you reduce air temperaure across the globe’
and then 2) if they persist what “temp” drop” do they actually expect and over how long a period?
they wont because no such paper exists
the second greatlie
after of course the first great lie-global warming /climate change
or is that global change/climate warming
gee i am so cornfused….
Luke – astrology has a new name – ‘climate modelling’ – “you will be visited by a tall, dark handsome stranger under 7m water in 2100 (or 5100).”
Did Channel 9 invite any economists to tell us about climate science? I guess Ross Garnaut is too busy with his big second house:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23673745-11949,00.html
Garnaut ….. Do you know who I am stuff? Where have we heard threats like that recently?
Garnaut is an economist/banker who recognises that the control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. i.e. Make money out of thin air.
This issue about his house demonstrates clearly the monumental foolishness of giving jokers like Garnaut a platform as if there is automatically, out of the blue a degree of credibility, wisdom and intelligence to be inferred. Frankly, this Garnaut is as I believe a nasty piece of work.
Jennifer I some times wonder if a better way to approach this is not by attack but by agreement. To do this you go with the argument and say things the alarmists do not want the public to know. For instance the UK petrol price is $2.80 they are not lessening their CO2 so it must be priced more here, lets try $3.50 for a start. Coal exports must be stopped. Lets ban A/c and population growth. Lets adopt the Somali life style and so on.
Ivan I second what Wes George said about your site I do find it hard to understand what all the white stuff is though. I thought it had been all eaten by the “crown of thorns” sorry getting my myths crossed that was the Oz Great Barrier Reef. So as it is a balmy -5 summer temperature in you neck of the woods and all the ice has melted due to a change in the laws of physics when are you starting to plant palm trees? You could then compete with tropical holiday resorts!
Guys — it’s not “my” website, any more than “ipcc.ch” is Luke’s website.
But it’s good to see that someone has checked it out at last!
“Garnaut ….. Do you know who I am stuff?”
Strictly speaking, that should probably be: “Why don’t you know who I am, you insignificant little turd?”
There’s an interesting background article on him at: http://newmatilda.com/2008/02/25/who-ross-garnaut%3F
Interesting the connections with Lihir Gold and Exxon. Still, I guess it’s not that unusual for some people to embrace religious fundamentalism in later life.
Best of luck Jennifer and if you run out of something to talk about mention the dreaded PDO.
A not-so-wild card here is the Federal by-election today (Saturday) in Victoria.
Fuel ~$1.80/litre
Electorate centred on an area with lignite (brown coal) deposits and captive power stations that supply over 80% of Melbourne’s power plus the Portland smelter (which was deliberately built to extract some export value from La Trobe’s lignite deposits)
Bob Carr et al now touting nuclear power as an alternative
Rudderless’ C tax looming (likely petrol will be excluded until after the next election)
Rudderless’ Cabinet already demonstrating its’ ability to leak damaging detail when he stuffs up
No State ALP Govt prepared to relinquish the caps on the domestic retail price of electricity
Gaia preparing giant brown toads to come and eat my grandchildren, or at least strike Brisbane down with dengue fever
A truly entertaining hearts-and-minds power struggle
“So why didn’t it rise 1 metre last year?”
Better yet, why didn’t it raise 1mm last year.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-global-sea-level.html
And don’t forget to mention that the global temp has stayed flat for 11 years.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html
Click to enlarge.
And it looks like cryosphere today has Antarctia racing up to record highs.
“Better yet, why didn’t it raise 1mm last year.”
Tilo – where do you get all this stuff from??
That can’t be right. The headline on the front page of Melbbourne’s “Alarmist Age” this morning bleats out: “Beach house prices under threat”.
It then rambles on about how the state government’s “Coast Strategy” has been reworked to designate vast new coastal areas as flood prone, thereby stifling development.
What is interesting is that they are now linking the “findings” of the IPCC -AND- the CSIRO as their “scientific” basis for this new policy.
I guess the good thing about this is when it finally becomes obvious that AGW and sea-level rise is total bull$shit, there will now be a local entity to hold accountable for the commercial damages – namely the CSIRO. Pity that the only thing that will eventually put a stop to these CSIRO morons is bankruptcy.
Gee boys what devastating rebuttal. Here’s Tilo bunging it on about last week’s measurement. And Ivan an intellectual giant with his comprehensive analysis based on a full study of the literature. Knuckles dragging on the ground, hairy palms, loping gait. “Duh – I don’t like it” “Duh der-four it’s bullsheet”
Hi Everyone,
I probably should have explained that it is not a panel discussion – more a documentary. Adam Shand spent some time with me a few weeks ago in the Blue Mountains. We chatted ‘on camera’ on the edge of a cliff overlooking the Jamieson Valley.
The Details of the Cover Story are now posted on the Sunday Program’s web site, I think from memory the cover story is first up! (but don’t quote me). The Story intro is “Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced”.
The nice people at Nine also have a poll that you can vote upon:
“Are you prepared to pay the economic costs of cleaning up emissions?”
The poll at channel nine shows that like the poms and kiwis the good ol Aussies are starting to wake up.
Asking whether they are prepared to pay to clean up all those GHG’s 95% say NO.
Not to many flukeys and unders out there thank heavens, because at the end of the day most Aussies know BS when they see it.
Neville apparently there is an email going around getting denialists to hit the “no” button a gazillion times.
But anyway – what would you expect. Everyone wants things improved for free. Who likes paying tax? DId they ask how much you’d be prepared to pay? Did they want their government to move more to soalr power or nuclear power?
And why do you think I would have voted Yes anyway?
So as usual it’s impossible for denialists to separate the science from the possible policy responses.
“.. apparently there is an email going around getting denialists to hit the “no” button a gazillion times.”
Actually – it’s an email going around getting Alarmists to TRY and hit the “Yes” button a gazillion times. That’s because only Alarmists are stupid enough to believe that this is possible – facts not being important in the Alarmists’ world.
On the other hand, Denialists (being people who understand how things actually work) realise that you have to delete your cookies before you can hit the “No” button a second time…
But I guess that’s what happens when you just make $hit up.
Luke I think you’ve got it all wrong, people just don’t like their hard earned being flushed down the toilet for zero return.
Just remember what you’re asking here, you want people to believe that by spending billions of dollars you will dial up a better climate.
Just a few problems with that, the area across southern Australia has been drying out for at least 5,000 years- see Professor De Decker Catalyst 15-2-07.
So by changing a trace gas from .038 ppm to .028ppm as it was in 1800 you can guarantee we’ll suddenly get a vast improvement in our rainfall? Remember at present this is less than four one hundreths of one percent and reducing it by this miniscule ammount will suddenly fix everything?
Believe that and you are capable of believing anything and everything.
I don’t believe that co2 is that impressive a driver and I want my taxes to be spent on health care , education, dams, roads and just about anything else before it is wasted on this nonsense.
Luke:
“So as usual it’s impossible for denialists to separate the science from the possible policy responses”.
So Luke does separate the science from the possible policy responses, and thus limits himself to policy per se, unconnected with any science.
Which is the issue in the first place – Climate Change Policy isn’t connected to any science, hence the stupidity of its goals, and the total stupidity of its adherents – Stupid Socialists.
A great result for the coalition in the Gippsland by election with a 6.3% swing to the Nats and in the state by election a 12% swing against labor.
Can’t wait for the labor numbskulls to bring on the ETS.
Yes, a great result, and the second poll where the people have rejected the “global warming” nonsense.
First was when they kicked ‘Red Ted’ out in London.
And now Kyoto Kev’s policies have been rejected in Gippsland.
Yea yes – and all you have to do is let the right wing carry on to it’s usual excess and Labor will be back again before long. I’m stunned that you guys haven’t worked out that governments do change hands. But given you have the born to rule gene it’s never occurred to you. So are you saying the people are stupid half the time? The electorate tire of administrations quickly.
Simply parroting on about “AGW” nonsense and “trace gases” is not a science argument. Indeed it’s pure illogical crap. Just makes you feel good to mouth off on it doesn’t it. To suggest that all the science we have is bunkum does start to beg the credibility of those here. It’s a pretty slick con job that all those hundreds of papers are all wrong. Wouldn’t be that you guys are just a bunch of dumb hicks would it?
Having said that and had a bit of a spit – the evidence for AGW is strong but not perfect. The policy response of a carbon taxes is unpalatable. Who wants to pay more tax. So if Rudd guns it on the carbon tax issue he won’t be in office long. It’s just human nature. Need to move to other technology in a different way. Solar. nuclear, more efficient vehicles, better building design etc.
Oh and by the way Neville – perhaps I don’t want any of my taxes spent on drought aid, bush infrastructure, bush roads, bush hospitals, bush education, bush communications or any more bush subsidies. Tired of you guys capitalising gains and socialising losses. Tired of all that economically inefficient nonsense. Time to grow up. Most voters win OK – called democracy mate. But gee that would be mean wouldn’t it?
BTW the new London goofball is in trouble all ready. One term wonder?
Gippsland has nothing to do with Kyoto – it’s simply petrol prices and interest rates. Which Labor is powerless to do anything about in reality. And Gippsland – come on ! Redneck heaven. You can hear the banjo music.
You should realise Neville I always check.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm
His last comment was:
Professor Patrick De Deckker (note the spelling said): Towards the end of a cycle but it may still last decades or so, and we have to be prepared for that, and then the unknown is, what is the greenhouse effect?
http://ems.anu.edu.au/display_doc.php?init=src1tsphf&page=index
Never the less, Nevilles main point remains entirely valid:
” Luke I think you’ve got it all wrong, people just don’t like their hard earned being flushed down the toilet for zero return.
Just remember what you’re asking here, you want people to believe that by spending billions of dollars you will dial up a better climate.”
The numbers are not hard to work. One can use Johnathan Lowes approach or any other, the effect we will have on the global temperature is miniscule, and in the range of 3/100ths of degree c to even smaller.
But then all this is not really what this is about is it?.
Garnauts a clown conjuring up some feel good economics for no worthwile outcome just to suit a political agenda.
Krudd and his mates are guaranteeing that they will be one turn wonders..and it wont stop there either.
” the evidence for AGW is strong but not perfect ..”
This is the AGW case? Repeat bull$hit over and over again – brainwashing, if you like?
Where is one single piece of evidence that AGW is “real”.
– Temperatures going up ? Don’t think so.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
– Sea levels rising ? Where?
– Ice caps melting? Don’t think so.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg
Call this ‘strong’? Weak as pi$$, I’d say.
Even the WMO has hung you out to dry. In their Info Note #44, which attempted to white-wash the “temporary cooling”, said in conclusion that:
“WMO is to release its next El Niño/La Niña Update in early May.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/info_notes/info_44_en.html
Well — guess what. At last we have the update, in late June — some two months late.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html
No talk of “Temporary La Niña’s cooling effect does not stall global warming” in this news release. No big fanfare this time – no prepping of BBC reporters. No “emerging truth” blogs.
Think maybe the WMO knows something that the rest of the AGW ranters are too dumb to pick up on?
I repeat southern Australia has been drying out for at least 5,000 years, right or wrong, DUH?
Hi Jen
I watched the ‘Sunday’ segment and enjoyed it. Robyn didn’t get much of a showing.
Did I really hear the Gore acolyte say ‘we can’t use reason…’?
His presentation sounded very much like a sermon. The crowd was standing at the end, I was expecting a hymm.
Flannery talked in snappy analogies. If the analogy is irrellevant, what does it prove?
Yep agree Malcolm Hill – me too with hard earned – turning Australia off at the wall would affect little – without a global agreement and way to introduce new technology it’s a high risk strategy that may leave us quite exposed in the short term. However – you’ll be able to remove Labor from office quite quickly if you don’t like it.
But as I keep saying – the science might be highly likely to be broadly right – however the policy response is much more complex.
However – and to Neville’s point – decisions on infrastructure and water allocation need to made somehow. Should we use the latest science in that analysis or not? (This doesn’t involve a carbon tax). Alas Ivan is bored with the MDB issue and so we probably shouldn’t mention it.
But back to Labor and Garnaut like they’re considering electricity but nor petrol to me.
Neville – well who knows – got something better than a TV grabline? Dried or is drying ongoing ??
If so it’s not in the current policy thinking and the end of life as we know it ! Might as well give it all away now then.
You will have noticed De Deckker’s comment that greenhouse may be an unknown additional factor. Right or wrong DUH?
Have you read the latest science on what is changing and why. Right or wrong. DUH?
The most interesting comment came from Don Watson, who pointed out that as he voiced his growing scepticism (fuelled by the guilt rhetoric of the circus tent evangelists), his job was threatened.
Gee, why am I not surprised ?
Well after “Sunday program” are we any the wiser. Don’t think it will change anyone’s mind. And alas they only just touched the issue ever so briefly.
Yep didn’t like the evangelist – and smack on Channel 9’s wrist for testing the Flannery analogy summer/winter with a one-off volcanic event. Sounds like 9 have gone over to the “dark side” of the force. Probably balance out the ABC influence for the 0.0001% of the population who watch both.
You’d need a 3 hour debate (which nobody would watch) to get serious on the issue.
Well done Jen.. a good performance.
Must admit to be surprised at the lack of science. Simply disagreeing doesn’t stack up – you need some evidence.
Don provided none and Bill provided none.
BTW the quote ‘we can’t use reason…’ was clearly out of context – it was clearly indicating that you have to provide a contextual framework, not just facts and figures..
The reference to the year without a summer was also wrong – winter in that year was far colder than summer. Anyone got an idea where this nonsense came from, as Tim was clearly set up.
Shame that they didn’t think to ask a climate scientists to be on the show.
Jennifer – OK you have 2 things to post here.
1. A graph of global average temperatures showing the data from 1870 till today, with a running average, that supports your statement on the program that global average temperatures are plateuing or have been constant or declining for the last 10 years.
2. The clip or transcript from “An Inconvenient Truth” where Al Gore says that hurricanes will increase in number and intensity.
You need to called on this – so show us the information. I bet your inability to supply this will not make it onto the Sunday program.
Along with this the program read like Coby’s “How to talk to a GW Skeptic” with all the debunked tired arguments getting a recycling with no climate scientists to point it out.
BTW I have the segment of the program if anyone want it.
Excellent piece, Jennifer!
I hope this is the beginning of more public education on this topic.
Congratulations Jennifer you looked good and made a lot of sense.
But didn’t 100 metres Robyn look the full PC elitist smart arse, in fact he went over like a lead balloon.
Luke De Deckker said GHG’s MAY be assisting that’s all and yes I’ve read plenty on Sunspot cycles 23 and 24 and the decades long Pacific Decadel Oscillation which could be on the turn.
A lot of food for thought in those two topics alone.
BTW De Deckker’s comments on GHG’s or CC are what’s known as a PC rider ( an obligatory tack on) perhaps to preserve future funding. ( referenced on channel nine this morning.)
And sorry PC Rider isn’t a song from a new C&W album.
Marvellous. I think Channel 9 must have read this blog and wanted to mimic it. No science, no substance, and certainly no style – fancy filming our Jennifer with wind blasted hair and eyes squinting into the sun. Tsk. I fancy that channel nine is trying a different approach to their poor ratings, as channel 7 is very environmentally friendly and the red-necks would be a good audience to try and hook into.
For those Watermelons still clinging to the “Gippsland is full of ignorant rednecks” delusion –
1) La Trobe Valley in the electorate contains four (4) lignite-fired power stations. These stations are captive to the lignite deposits (the coal is so high in moisture that power stations need to be specifically designed to burn it) and currently supply over 80% of Melbourne’s power together with power for the Portland export smelter
2) the lignite deposits have been exploited for power generation purposes for over 100 years. The “rednecks” are acutely aware of the ultimate source of their incomes. The unions involved have many times held their hands on the “blackout” lever in industrial negotiations (one of the primary reasons Kennett sold them off)
3) said lignite deposits still run along strike for many tens of kilometres, with billions of tonnes in-situ up to 100m thick in places with a cover generally less than 20m or so. The “rednecks” are those who operated the drilling rigs to prove this up, so they actually do know the results
Rudderless now knows that they know. We now look forward to his hard, costed, detailed, accountable policy response
“as channel 7 is very environmentally friendly”
Yeah, I suppose they off-setted Mel’s recent trip to Armenia.
Jennifer
I thought the program was very poorly produced – almost no science, lots of rhetoric, and hardly addressed the “stifling debate” label.
You were wrong about the temperature plateauing – it has been falling rapidly for two years. Another two years like the past couple, and the debate really might be over.
The program had the usual limitations one expects with television. As someone who has published on this topic, I thought there were points mised that could have been made and some points slightly off-track or off target. I’d like to make a couple oof comments on posts.
David:
‘Anyone got an idea where this nonsense came from, as Tim was clearly set up.’
I think Tim does a perfectly good job of setting himself up! This is partly because of his readiness to pontificate on matters far beyond his expertise (climate, water policy), though I know good mammologists (non-Big Oil-funded, ALP supporting scientists who do fieldwork) who think he does much the same within his area of expertise.
David:
‘Shame that they didn’t think to ask a climate scientists to be on the show.’
I’m intrigued as to what counts as a ‘climate scientist’, especially as there has been no such discipline in universities until the recent past for ‘climate scientists’ to gain qulaifications in. Many leading ‘climate scientists’ (Graeme Pearman, Will Steffen, etc) have qualifications in areas like carbon cycle chemistry. So what makes them ‘climate scientists’ and trained meterologist Bill Kininmonth NOT a climate scientist? And who is biologist Robyn Williams to arbitrate Kininmonth’s statements? Why did Williams have to innoculate his audience against Don Aitken, but not do so with his interview of Mark Lynas, a journalist with an honours degree in history (whose main contribution too debate was to hit Lomborg with a cream pie in an Oxford bookshop)? All disciplines have something to contribute, but I’d rather listen to a meteorologist on climate than a biologist.
One of the interesting things in environmental science is our willingness to accept statements from those speaking outside their expertise, and Flannery is probably the worst. His statement that Perth might become the first ghost metropolis is one of the most ill-informed statements on the public record. Perth has managed its water supply and demand better than any other Australian capital city: in addition to catchment storages, it has groundwater, good demand management policies, the Kwinana industrial re-use plant and is now building a desal plant. And if it wanted it could thin catchment vegetation it has allowed to thicken for environmental reasons and increase catchment yields significantly.
Ender demands of Jennifer:
‘The clip or transcript from “An Inconvenient Truth” where Al Gore says that hurricanes will increase in number and intensity.’
Ender, one doesn’t have to go past the poster: a hurricane coming out of a smokestack makes a pretty powerful statement (even if he gets the direction of circulation wrong and depicts a southern hemisphere storm).
Doug Lavers:
I think most agree that it’s the smooothed curve that matters – but if the graph doesn’t turn up in a couple of years, we could be in for some interesting politics. Let me suggest a scenario:
Recent short-term cooling persists until 2010, giving the smooothed curve a downward tilt. (Pick your cause from recent possibilities: PDO phase reversal; weak and delayed solar cycle; tropospheric ozone decline; mitigation of carbon soot; decline in positive feedback from water vapour….) PM Rudd continues to press ahead with his promise to introduce emissions trading in 2010, an election year: not a tax or the hybrid McKibbin-Wilcoxen system that allow for a price signal to be introduced, but acknowledge the inhherent uncertainty, and allow to price to be changed, but a cap-and-trade system that depends upon knowing what the cap should be.
Politics will be interesting, to say the least.
Congratulations Jennifer, it was a good opportunity to participate in a TV report that asked the question should the theory of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming be an unchallengeable fact, or should the theory be subject to debate and further testing.
The story was followed by an interview with the green politician Brown who claims that he is “Chairing the Balance of Power” in the new Senate after 1 July 2008. Whilst I am sure this will be news to the rest of the Senators, I was more interested that he was first asked what he thought of the story on the appropriateness to question the AGW theory, his response could become known as the “Wikipedia” response.
The politician said: “there it was talking about the winter in summer of 1816 and we didn’t know the cause of that. We do – it was the biggest volcanic explosion in 1600 years which took place in Indonesia and it sent ash into the atmosphere and produced extraordinary weather.”
For the Year without a summer (1816) Wikipedia states: It is now generally thought that the aberrations occurred because of …volcanic eruptions …the world’s largest eruption in over 1600 years, on the island in the Dutch East Indies (modern-day Indonesia).
Perhaps the Senator was allowed a “phone a friend” or perhaps a sneak peak at the question to research and “workshop” the answer.
Aynsley,
Your advice please.
I cannot fathom the logic of any of this.I know I (and others) have said it on a number of previous occasions, that if our ability to affect the global temperature is so miniscule,why on Gods earth are we even bothering. This is accepting everything regarding the science and the scenarios etc are the absolute gospel, and Rudd’s goals are achieved, of a reduction of 60% by 2050 etc, as all gospel. But when this results in a reduction contribution by us of some thing between 0.003C and 0.00004C pa, it is a complete idiocy.
If economics is about the rational/efficient allocation of resources to achieve the best outcome, why are we corrupting our economy to achieve so little, when there are so many other things that need to be invested in, or corected.
One would have thought that unless and until the biggest emmitters are part of the mix there is absolutely no point in Australia doing anything, and certainly anything as draconian as ETS and Carbon Taxes.
The should solve the diplomatic/ international problem first, if that is issue.
Invest in creating new technologies that are more efficient if there is a case, but corrupting the whole economy for a zero result has to be a first rate lunacy.
Where is this line of thought wrong.?
Aynsley
If the whole AGW hysteria was right, your line of thought would not be wrong – Australia could make no material contribution to the outcome – and there are much more urgent environmental issues that are being ignored due to the obsession with reducing CO2 as a “silver bullet” that will “save the planet”. As hardly a week passes without a new study/report of empirical data making the AGW hypothesis more shakey, your second last sentence really sums things up
Malcom, Roger:
You both might be correct, but I’m a political scientist and policy analyst. While personally I think the science is exaggerated, and the worst scenarios are highly improbable, I accept there is SOME anthropogenic influence on climate (including, as Pielke Sr would insist, from land-use change). But I think the Hansen Alternative Scenario is the best way of proceding: carbon soot, troposhperic ozone, etc can be mitigated technically more easily and at lower cost (or with co-benefits) — but also all the ‘no-regrets’ measures and then low-hanging fruit in terms of conservation, renewables, etc.
(I think much less of most of Hansen’s other pronouncements, and he set the tone with his Congressional testimony in 1988 that we have ‘celebrated’ recently: orchestrated by Friends of the Earth, delayed from Fall until mid-summer, the day chosen from long-range forecasts to be likely to be hot, the windows opened by a Deomcratic staffer and the air conditioning turned off — all to produce images of sweating Congressmen to support the message. How can we complain about Al Gore’s movie poster, when scientists conduct themselves like this?)
Regardless of what we believe, the policy-makers have a problem they must respond to. Given that, I’d much rather they got the problem definition and policy instruments more right than wrong. The problem is inherently one of uncertainty, so the policy approach should probably be a tax or a permit system where the price can be managed to reflect changing knowledge. The tax might be very low at first, to put a signal of the risk in the market: that would spur the no-regrets and least-cost responses without too much impact on welfare, and can be dropped if the problem turns out to be a furphy in the longer run.
It’s not my place to say what level the tax should be set at – that’s a call for our democratically-elected representatives. But I do know the instrument being adopted is wrong. I’ve met Ross Garnaut and told him this, and he knows of Warwick Mckibbin’s proposal, but he and the government are chosing cap-and-trade.
As I say, could be interesting in 2010. I wouldn’t like to be explaining the publiic why their energy prices should still rise substantially when, for example, temperatures have declined and model projections of warming are different, now that they’ve been retuned to account for discontinuities in the ‘bucket’ record!
Aynsley,
Hansen and Gore and all the others may be right, even though I agree with you, that it is being quite over stated…the guts of the issue for us however, is that we are a pimple on the backside of the earth, and there is nothing we can do that will change that,or ameliorate in cost effective way the damage that may be caused now, or in the future by others who can do something about it.
Put it another way, all the doom and gloom predictions put out by the CSIRO for the individual states is done as though we ourselves are to blame… and we will fry in hell if we dont amend our ways.
The truth is that the harm being done and will be done to Australia is a consequence of the accumulated build up of Co2 gases by others. We are not the cause of the predicted harm, and we are so small there is bugger all we can do about it.
The harm will still occur with or without the ETS and Carbon Taxes, if the other more substantial emitters are not part of the same regime.
Arguing about the nature of the tax in Australia is irrelevant,even silly, if it still not going to solve the problem.
Good day all,
I saw the nine piece. I thought the sceptics got a chance to speak as reason.
Tim Flannery and the fellow from ABC and whoever the high Priest of AGorophobia is, came across as fear mongers.
Jen wise woman of the Mountains. Teach, that’s the best chance you have ever had to make your point of view.
Credit to the producers to actually use specialists and to point out the issues about the various technologists.
For a change it was more than fair to sceptics and put a bit of blow torch under the apostles of the apocalypse for a change.
The Govenor General might be a shit hot soldier, but his backing of Flannery and ilk was bad for business and the economy and it is all high risk and especially for Australia in particular. Nine went out of their way to show the patron.
Aynsley – “Ender, one doesn’t have to go past the poster: a hurricane coming out of a smokestack makes a pretty powerful statement (even if he gets the direction of circulation wrong and depicts a southern hemisphere storm).”
I guess this is what passes for evidence in skeptic world. That and cherry picked graphs starting at 1998 are good enough to make such statements.
Ender,
Are you suggesting that the Nobel-winning theology graduate wasn’t suggesting a link between hurricanes and emissions? I have no intention of enduring his particular version of Death By Powerpoint in search of the fine detail (though I do recall it was one of the points the learned judge in the UK found he erred on). I thought Al was more convincing when he and Tipper were campaigning for a ban on risqué lyrics on rock albums back in the ’80s.
I’m not aware of anyone on this thread ‘cherry-picking graphs starting at 1998’, least of all me, so I’ll return to my standard position of not engaging with mendacious anonymous trolls.
Bye, Ender.
>The truth is that the harm being done and will be done to Australia is a consequence of the accumulated build up of Co2 gases by others. We are not the cause of the predicted harm, and we are so small there is bugger all we can do about it.
Depends if you buy products made in China. Outsourcing of heavy-polluting industry to China by countries such as the US and Australia means that China can not soley be to blame for these emissions.
Aynsley seems to have Louis-syndrome and gone off in a huff. Is it a hurricane or a cyclone? Seems not even Aynsley knows.
Heavens, even when I am not here I get heaps of Google hits.
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose.
Everyone,
You can now watch the program on the internet as parts 1 and 2:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&tab=m165&mediaid=196324&from=39&vid=E2663785-70DD-42D4-942D-AAB04728F95C&playlist=videoByTag:mk:en-AU:vs:0:tag:aunews_ausunday:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&tab=m165&mediaid=196326&from=39&vid=FBCB4CEF-1FD9-4235-890F-75D939209A49&playlist=videoByTag:mk:en-AU:vs:0:tag:aunews_ausunday:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A
Aynsley,
You probably noted that I continue to be influenced by your writing – in particular my mention of ‘virtual science’ in the program.
[I recomment Aynsley’s latest book ‘Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Public-Policy-Corruption-Environmental/dp/1847204708 ]
Ender,
It seems I might have to go and buy/hire ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ the DVD and watch the movie for a fourth time. I watched the movie three times when it first came out and it is my recollection that Al Gore shows a chart with a plot of hurricane number and/or intensity that began in 1975. I blogged something related on the issue in 2006:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001800.html
December 19, 2006, No Anthropogenic Signal in Tropical Cyclone Record: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 5)
No Travis, it’s just a little rule of thumb I have: don’t bother engaging with anonymous trolls. I find that people who are not prepared to put their name to their comments usually do so for a reason that their comments themselves attest to – as do yours.
By, Travis. (And don’t even bother, Luke)
Thanks for the plug Jennifer!
I learned from my old Prof (Jim Flynn of the Flynn effect – mentione din the preface) that ideological debate is primarily for the benefit of the audience, because you can never expect to win over your opponent. On a quick CBA, I’d say watching Gore’s Death By Powerpoint (including computer enhanced styrofoam ice sheets borrowed form The Day After Tomorrow) is a sacrifice your audience will not require of you to accept the point!
Aynsley
“Rudderless now knows that they know. We now look forward to his hard, costed, detailed, accountable policy response”
So my prediction (no, not a what-if scenario) is that there will now be no substantive policy response until after the 2010 election. That seems to me the most likely outcome from the Gippsland by-election.
I agree that the politicisation of environmental science has corrupted science – now it’s about power. This is genuinely my last illusion shattered; any others went years ago.
I had always believed that science was self-correcting over time (eg. an Indian Geology Professor who was eventually and convincingly fingered for deliberately placing fake fossil finds of his in the geological database … the real problem was that he’d done it for so long that no one knew which parts of the database to trust).
Now we are being told that there is no time left to debate or test the AGW hypothesis, but data is still deliberately hidden from view (no jousting with jesters) if it doesn’t fit properly. People who ask pointed questions are traduced as “scum”; Hansen wants to jail CEO’s of mining companies for telling lies (!!) … yes, like Don Watson this worries me greatly. I can almost hear Torquemada’s laughter.
Interesting summary Aynsley –
Could you elaborate on: “decline in positive feedback from water vapour” – did you actually mean decline.
and
“not a tax or the hybrid McKibbin-Wilcoxen system”
My view is that Rudd mightlose government introducing a carbon tax in current circumstances.
Ianl
I’m still working on the explanation for the 1999 Arctic volcanims and the El Nino event. (I sorted the software problem Friday morning only to cop an unexpected request an hour later to incorporate a large number of geotech holes for the proposed decline – so I was “distracted”).
I downloaded the sunspot number database and trying to get it into a sensible graph. (the 11 year cycle is an avergage, with considerable variation between sunspot highs).
But on my preliminary study of the data, both the El Nino and the 1999 eruption under the Arctic can be attributed to the electrical surge of current to both the sun and earth.
Confirmation of this should be looked for at observations of Jupiter and other planets, including Mars where the diagnostic test would be dust storms.
It is essentially a muse, and if sufficient data are available to make it an hypothesis, then so be it.
So can we all agree that CO2 is a GHG? Can you hear me Louis, Jennifer says it is.
So, Jennifer, when are you going to go out and learn some climate science before you go no these shows?
SJT,
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas based on the evidence from ice core data.
I therefore disagree with Jennifer.
You want to prove your point, come up with evidence to support your assertion.
Sorry Luke – poorly expressed. I meant the possibility that the rising water vapour assumed in the models turned out to be less than expected.
While emissions trading is generally preferred by economists, CO2 is different from SO2: long residence time, so is problem of ‘stocks’ not ‘flows’ (accumulation over 100 years, rather than annual emissions). Added to the inherent uncertainty of the science (both climate and climate impacts) and the logarithmic nature for forcing, it’s very difficult to set a cap, especially internationally – not to mention the compliance and verification problems with international trading. The McKibbin-Wilcoxen proposal seeks to deal with many of these problems, allowing international trading only at the government level and and with issuing or withdrawing permits to moderate prices.
Not my fault you don’t know anyone by the name of Travis, Aynsley. You did write you weren’t sure what the poster was trying to depict, but I see you have learnt some humility towards Luke.
The tactic of drawing attention to one’s name, pseudonym and email address on this blog has always been a source of great amusement. A name/title/label is overlooked as long as you agree with what they write, but if you do not, it becomes one of the most important aspects of the discussion. This indignation also seems to be generated only by those from a certain side of the debate. Odd.
“I therefore disagree with Jennifer.”
You and most of the deniers on this blog.
The point continues to escape you Travis: I’m perfectly happy to carry out a sensible discussion, anonymity or not, but I will not engage with those who hide behind anonymity to undertake ad hominem attacks on those who do (or other forms of abuse). Luke raised soem questions, I answered them. It’s not humility – it’s reciprocal civility. Try it..
Thank you Aynsley, the point does escape me. As I wrote to Louis:
> ‘so a troll using their full name is ok, a poster using a pseudonym with who you are in agreement with is ok? A poster using their full name with who you are not in agreement with is not ok but you can’t draw attention to their name, and a troll who uses a pseudonym is definitely a no-no? What if the poster uses a full name and it is not actually their real name? Does that upset the hum of one’s universe? The discussion of pseudonyms was raised here many moons ago. Perhaps it is time it comes about again. People choose to use their real identity or not for a variety of reasons. They are their reasons. We live in a democracy (remember?), and it is quite legal to use a pseudonym. I’ve had a few accusations of ‘hiding behind a pseudonym’ of late. It is a source of constant mirth. If I wrote my full name you would still not know who I am. If I only use my first name, it is not a pseudonym. Does it say more about someone who uses a pseudonym, or the person doing the complaining because they can’t debate the real argument? Who is doing the ‘hiding’?’
Thanks for engaging though.
>David: ‘Shame that they didn’t think to ask a climate scientists to be on the show.’
>I’m intrigued as to what counts as a ‘climate scientist’, especially as there has been no such discipline in universities until the recent past for ‘climate scientists’ to gain qulaifications in.
You could start with someone who has published on climate change in a peer reviewed journal. Some formal training in climate dynamics and physics would also be helpful – you can get such a degree from Monash and Melbourne University, and have been able to do so for more than 20 years. I’m tipping that counts Bill, Don, Jen and you out.
BTW do you really think the journo got that dodige (demonstratably wrong) line about 1816 having a warmer winter than summer himself. First its wrong, and second I don’t believe he would have come up with that himself.
>David: ‘Shame that they didn’t think to ask a climate scientists to be on the show.’
>I’m intrigued as to what counts as a ‘climate scientist’, especially as there has been no such discipline in universities until the recent past for ‘climate scientists’ to gain qulaifications in.
You could start with someone who has published on climate change in a peer reviewed journal. Some formal training in climate dynamics and physics would also be helpful – you can get such a degree from Monash and Melbourne University, and have been able to do so for more than 20 years.
BTW do you really think the journo got that dodige (demonstratably wrong) line about 1816 having a warmer winter than summer himself. First its wrong, and second I don’t believe he would have come up with that himself.
Aynsley – “Ender,
Are you suggesting that the Nobel-winning theology graduate wasn’t suggesting a link between hurricanes and emissions?”
Jennifer asserted on the program that Gore said that there was a link between global warming and the number AND intensity of hurricanes.
I would like to see the evidence for this assertion. Gore used Emmanuals work for this that suggests that hurricanes might increase in intensity however nowhere did he suggest that there would be more of them.
Again if you make statements on National TV I would suggest that you have the evidence to back them up.
“I’m not aware of anyone on this thread ‘cherry-picking graphs starting at 1998’, least of all me,”
Really so perhaps I can refresh you memory with this from a few weeks ago:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002922.html#comments
“so I’ll return to my standard position of not engaging with mendacious anonymous trolls.”
And I will do exactly the same – bye
Jennifer – “Ender,
It seems I might have to go and buy/hire ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ the DVD and watch the movie for a fourth time”
Don’t you think as the credible scientist you were made out to be on the program that you would do this BEFORE making the statement not after?
As well, you have not, and did not produce any graph or peer reviewed scientific work to support your statement that global temperatures have not risen over the last 10 years.
“”I’m not aware of anyone on this thread ‘cherry-picking graphs starting at 1998’, least of all me,””
I noticed the irony in that, too. Amazing. And the transcript of what Gore said is available online.
What I do find amazing is that the report accepted without question everything the deniers had to say, but questioned everything the AGW side had to say.
“Ocean Temperature and Storms
Now I’m going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004. The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile. And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you’ll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane’s eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.”
http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/
I was watching that hurricane, too, and it was amazing how quickly it spun up from a nearly spent CAT 1, from crossing Florida, to a massive CAT5.
SJT – “I noticed the irony in that, too. Amazing. And the transcript of what Gore said is available online.”
Thanks for that. Perhaps Jennifer can go through it and find where Gore says what she said he did or contact the Sunday program to get them to run a retraction.
Perhaps I should be contacting Media Watch.
Travis,
Perhaps objection to use of pseudonyms coming almost entirely from AGW sceptics may have something to do with the fact that only the most vociferous proponents of AGW seem to use them. Might it be that they are institutionally based and don’t wish to reveal how they spend much of their taxpayer funded time?
Walter,
>the fact that only the most vociferous proponents of AGW seem to use them.
Hmmm…well, I have never really made my position on AGW clear here but readily been accused of using a pseudonym and being an AGW alarmist/supporter. And what of Cohenite, Ianl, cinders, Roger, DHMO, Eyrie, spangled drongo…?
‘Perhaps I should be contacting Media Watch’
Perhaps you should Ender – it would be a novelty to see an alternative view get an airing on the ABC.
Wait a minute though, didn’t Media Watch have an item some time ago where a photograph of polar bears (or penguins – can’t remember which) taken by an Australian was used out of context to spin AGW in a French newspaper?
Well Walter, as a gentleman of leisure, and connoisseur of the sustainable natural resources debates, think what great value for money you’re getting compared to your contracted denialist shills – mate the AGW crowd is working 24 x 7 on the job !
Must say Travis is falling down on the job – he only listed 20% of the sceptic crowd non de plumes. Travis we’ll have to talk to the CSIRO CEO about your paid performance here if you’re going to keep slacking on the job.
SJT’s quote from AIT:
‘Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.’
Seems quite clear that he is suggesting BOTH increased intensity and increased frequency.
‘I was watching that hurricane, too, and it was amazing how quickly it spun up from a nearly spent CAT 1, from crossing Florida, to a massive CAT5.’
– yes but it had spun down to a CAT3 when it hit New Orleans, as I recall. This was not about intensity, but about vulnerability.
Aynsley – “Seems quite clear that he is suggesting BOTH increased intensity and increased frequency.”
No sorry he does not mention that AGW will cause more hurricanes, he simply notes that Japan had an all time record. So try again and find where Gore specifically states AGW will cause hurricane numbers and intensity to increase.
More importantly – what did Gore’s audience take home – a message that hurricanes/typhoons/tropical cyclones may be more of a threat in a greenhouse world. Why the boffins might tell us – more intense, longer life times, greater ability to track polewards, and many more people and associated infrastructure being located in harms way. Pity we didn’t script it for him – he could have made a much stronger case.
Ender,
Just a point of clarification: in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ did Al Gore present a graph on hurricanes with an x-axis beginning in 1975?
And further more, what did Mr Gore say when he pointed to that graph?
Jennifer – “Just a point of clarification: in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ did Al Gore present a graph on hurricanes with an x-axis beginning in 1975?
And further more, what did Mr Gore say when he pointed to that graph?”
I have no idea and I did not say on national television anything about this. You cannot deflect this one.
Well Ender, I think my recollection is correct then … that Al Gore pointed to a graph of the hurricane record since 1975 and claimed this represented an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes.
So to summarize, in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Al Gore claimed, with reference to a graph of the hurricane record since 1975, that there has been an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes?
Bikerider; yes, it was a photo of polar bears that Media Watch took the Sunday Telegraph to task over their ‘Planet on the Edge’ feature (4/2/07).
Not often the ABC runs an anti AGW story.
The ‘heartstrings tugging’ photo was not taken by ‘Canadian Envirionmentalists’, but by an Australian Marine Biology student, Amanda Byrd, on a research cruise in the Arctic in the summer, (August) of 2004. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0706_byrd.pdf-Microsoft Internet Explorer
The photo became famous around the world, being relentlessly used by the AGW mafia as proof of how “Global Warming” was threatening the bears. Even big Al used it in AIT.
Bikerider; yes, it was a photo of polar bears that Media Watch took the Sunday Telegraph to task over their ‘Planet on the Edge’ feature (4/2/07).
Not often the ABC runs an anti AGW story.
The ‘heartstrings tugging’ photo was not taken by ‘Canadian Envirionmentalists’, but by an Australian Marine Biology student, Amanda Byrd, on a research cruise in the Arctic in the summer, (August) of 2004. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0706_byrd.pdf-Microsoft Internet Explorer
The photo became famous around the world, being relentlessly used by the AGW mafia as proof of how “Global Warming” was threatening the bears. Even big Al used it in AIT.
Bikerider; yes, it was a photo of polar bears that Media Watch took the Sunday Telegraph to task over their ‘Planet on the Edge’ feature (4/2/07).
Not often the ABC runs an anti AGW story.
The ‘heartstrings tugging’ photo was not taken by ‘Canadian Envirionmentalists’, but by an Australian Marine Biology student, Amanda Byrd, on a research cruise in the Arctic in the summer, (August) of 2004. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0706_byrd.pdf-Microsoft Internet Explorer
The photo became famous around the world, being relentlessly used by the AGW mafia as proof of how “Global Warming” was threatening the bears. Even big Al used it in AIT.
Sorry, don’t know why it repeated twice!
OK Ender, enough of your silly little-boy antics. You’re taking up space again.
The British High Court judgement in October last year nails Gore on this. There are over 20 Google pages (I gave up counting) reporting this judgement.
Now do answer my exact points on the Gippsland by-election. Remember that Melbourne is a manufacturing city (including the Toyota factory) 80% dependent on lignite-fired power supplies and that the Portland smelter is a critical export earner. Show us some courage.
Why do the Watermelons not have the courage to say outright:
“You all must take a significant drop in your standard of living”
Perhaps because they fear a 6%+ swing against them
Good ol’ Tim had an airing on CNN today (actually saw some of it) where he once again advocated dispersing atmospheric SOx from jet planes. Much cheaper and more effective to burn coal with 2-5% sulphur – billions and billions of tonnes of that, by the way.
So sorry Luke, I have been working, but over on the Arctic fire thread. I have been attempting to reveal Schiller Thurkettle’s desire to post absolute bulldust and discredit this blog and mock its readers. In the end Schiller has admitted that he made up a heap of lies and posted them here for his own devious devices. He doesn’t rely on a pseudonym, or a vertically challenged resider of overpasses. He relies on the gullibility of the blog’s audience and the lack of scrutiny and factual foundation (a topic we appear to be discussing here).
Jennifer – “Well Ender, I think my recollection is correct then … ”
So your professional scientific opinion, expressed on national television, is based on a recollection? I guess I will have to review the movie myself and check.
Do you do your other scientific work based on recollections?
Ianl – “OK Ender, enough of your silly little-boy antics. You’re taking up space again.”
I do agree it is pretty silly getting a person from the skeptic side to back up their opinions with factual work, however I do try.
Jennifer – BTW while concentrating on Mr Gore I have forgotton the graph of temperatures that you need to back up your other statement. Did you manage to find it?
Ender,
Good to know you are now going to watch the movie you have been defending for so long. 😉
And as regards, temperature records, we have had that argument many times before and I have come to the conclusion that you simply choose to be ignorant when it comes to this issue.
“Ianl – “OK Ender, enough of your silly little-boy antics. You’re taking up space again.”
I do agree it is pretty silly getting a person from the skeptic side to back up their opinions with factual work, however I do try.”
QED.
Jennifer – “And as regards, temperature records, we have had that argument many times before and I have come to the conclusion that you simply choose to be ignorant when it comes to this issue.”
No I haven’t as you failed to post such a graph the last time we talked about it. As you seem to think that you have posted it already then it should be a simple matter for you to post it now.
Jennifer – “Good to know you are now going to watch the movie you have been defending for so long. ;-)”
I am not defending the movie at all. If you think that this is what about then you are completely wrong. This is about you backing up your statements, whatever they are, with supporting evidence.
You made two statements that I thought could not be supported by facts that were known to me. You have so far failed to back up either of them and have been pretty evasive when, as you seem so sure that they are true, it should be an easy matter to provide the data or evidence that supports what you said.
So far I have only got a recollection and a dismissal that you have already given me the information.
Ender, You are now displaying a high level of apparently deliberate ignorance on both issues.
“I am not defending the movie at all. If you think that this is what about then you are completely wrong. This is about you backing up your statements, whatever they are, with supporting evidence.”
Neither am I. If you are going to attack Gore, do it on the basis of the evidence.
As for that court case, people get a weird view of what actually happened. The judge agreed that Gore was fundamentally right in his case, but that out of the numerous claims made, (my estimate is about 100), nine were wrong.
“Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore’s central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.”
People seem to forget that inconvenient judgement, Gore was basically right, and the judge agreed that AGW theory is sound.
Jennifer – “Ender, You are now displaying a high level of apparently deliberate ignorance on both issues.”
And you are displaying a similar level of deception and evasion. Is this is the actions of a responsible scientist?
Oh, Ender – you forgot this one:
“Now do answer my exact points on the Gippsland by-election. Remember that Melbourne is a manufacturing city (including the Toyota factory) 80% dependent on lignite-fired power supplies and that the Portland smelter is a critical export earner. Show us some courage.”
Perhaps it’s too hard for you. But we wouldn’t display a “level of deception and evasion”, would we ?
Ianl- “”Now do answer my exact points on the Gippsland by-election. Remember that Melbourne is a manufacturing city (including the Toyota factory) 80% dependent on lignite-fired power supplies and that the Portland smelter is a critical export earner. Show us some courage.””
Forgive me Ianl was I recently on national television as an authorative scientist making statements? I think not.
I have nothing to answer – Jennifer does.
Just posting this here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/channel_nines_sunday_summer_wa.php
And also filing this here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_priests_defocked_on_sunday
And just found this too: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/marohasy_makes_it_up.php
Jennifer – thanks for posting these links however do you have the answers yet?
Ender you’re wasting your time – this is the Berlin Bunker for the dead-enders in the complete science denial Wolverine pack.
Jennifer – here are some of the recognised temperature series:
1. The MSU data. Ch TLT is the lower troposphere. ch TMT is the upper troposphere
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series
2. HADCRUT
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
3. NASA GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Perhaps you can find the data you want here. However all the plots show a steady warming trend from 1998 to the present.
“Ender you’re wasting your time – this is the Berlin Bunker for the dead-enders in the complete science denial Wolverine pack.”
And what purpose would a Wolverine serve in Hitler’s bunker? It seems your history is worse than your science. You wouldn’t want to pursue this analogy too far either, since we could compare Hansen, etc. to Soviet soldiers helping themselves to dead German soliders’ wives and mothers which is ridiculous even for yourself.
Is that your shoe in your mouth BTW?
Wolverines are also known as gluttons. Perhaps anyone posting here is a glutton for punishment (deal with Schiller Thurkettle the serial pester poster for one). But then how many times are environmentalists referred to here by the other side as eco-Nazis? How many times have they been compared to Hitler? Numerous, so change feet.
Jennifer
I only discovered this topic of global warming recently so I’m more or less just a lurker on the GW blogs right now, but I have to post to say yours is one of the blogs I keep coming back to.
I must shamefacedly admit though one of the main reasons I do is because I enjoy your trolls. Seriously, you’ve got the best trolls. They’re so committed. They would no doubt say they need to be, and I would agree with them hehe…
Boy this particular thread sure has them pulling their hair out under the bridge. I don’t know what you did here, but keep up the good work.
BTW…where to those guys find the time to monitor these sites with such dedication. It’s like they just sit in front of the computer screen all day with their hands on the button waiting for the next post.
“But then how many times are environmentalists referred to here by the other side as eco-Nazis?”
Finally Godwins law is upheld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
“But then how many times are environmentalists referred to here by the other side as eco-Nazis?”
Finally Godwins law is upheld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
“BTW…where to those guys find the time to monitor these sites with such dedication.”
Sites? I don’t think so. This and one other is about it for me.
It was irony to see Jennifer telling people to go out and get a degree and learn about AGW, when her degree has nothing to with the science of AGW.
Yowzas! The deniers/skeptics/eco-haters have moved into the 21st century. Hitler is out and Mugabe is in. Well done SJT for being bestowed such a moniker by none other than the modern man Ian Mott! Have to admit though, an eco-Mugabe, Mugabiesque, Mugabeism, Mugabe green goon or even Mugabe greenie bimo Barbie don’t have the same ring as the Reich. Sigh.
“The ‘science’ of AGW”. Really, SJT, that is a laugh. Ha ha ha. More like the politics of AGW.
Anyway, Jennifer has far more credentials to speak on the subject then Tinny Tim and Big Al.
Maybe you could enlighten us as to just what this “science” is, and perhaps post a list of scientists who are qualified to speak on it. I’m sure its not a very long list.
I see, after a day of watching, Jennifer still hasn’t bothered to answer Ender’s question.
For completeness, this is the closest Gore gets to mentioning this, when saying something entirely uncontroversial:
“When the ocean gets warmer that causes stronger storms.”
More oceanic heat, more energy to dissipate.
AIT made no reference to 1975. There was no on-screen plot of hurricane intensity or frequency time series. Just someone looking awfully foolish on National TV by trusting her faulty memory – and in doing so, misleading a couple of million Australian viewers.
Are you going to state this and retract, Jennifer, or will you continue to mislead?
“Anyway, Jennifer has far more credentials to speak on the subject then Tinny Tim and Big Al.”
I’ll agree on that. A report on AGW, but not a research scientist in sight? Very poor reporting.
Just filing this here:
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2008/07/jennifer-marohasy-lamberted.html
And has anyone watched the movie yet and found the chart of hurricanes that Al Gore points to?
Ender, have your sat down and watched ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ yet?
I’m driving to Wagga today … but plan to get the video out this weekend.
Well Jennifer, Could it be that our dear ol “Ender” is in fact Tim ‘tell porkies’ Lambert?
Or maybe just Lambert’s puppet.
gee ender, don’t publish the satellite links, they might not agree support your confirmation bias, stick with Hansen’s GISS series and the secretive HadCrut series because they support your arguement.
Have a look at how these data series diverge.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.146/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.238
Or why not look at the lack of trend difference over 11 years http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:121/offset:-0.146/plot/uah/last:121/plot/rss/last:121/plot/gistemp/last:121/offset:-0.238
and why not mention that unlike the others in the series GISS has an estimate for the Arctic which does seem to be .. errr.. melting
Luke, is the Arctic melting?
Where is the data?
That is real world actual data … Not virtual reality world, dreamtime data.
Why not take a look at NOAA’s cam shots of the real situation.
Jennifer – “Ender, have your sat down and watched ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ yet?”
The whole point is that you cannot verify what you said. I simply asked for your references for the statements that you made that you should have been able to supply without delay.
As a responsible scientist BEFORE saying anything like you did, you should have had documentary support. Scrabbling around after looking for the references for the things that you said is not responsible.
You have said now on numerous occasions that global temperatures have stalled over that last 10 years and have not as yet provided the dataset that you drew this conclusion from.
Please provide the data or at least stop saying this until you can provide the data.
I am not so concerned about the AIT thing as this can be just a mistake however the 10 years of no temperature rises is important.
Julian – “gee ender, don’t publish the satellite links,”
I did post the MSU satellite data.
What an amazing pile of bullshyte Ender.
An entire section of AIT was devoted to the topic.
Your dishonesty is breathtaking most of the time. This time you are going for a gold medal.
8:53min “And, of course, when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms.
“We have seen in the last couple of years a lot of big hurricanes.
[Shows satellite imagery of each hurricane]
“Hurricane Jeanne and Frances and Ivan were among them.
“And the same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes in the United States.
“Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all-time record for typhoons.
[Shows string of satellite images of typhoons]
“Previous record was seven.
“Here are all 10 of the ones they had in 2004.
“The science textbooks have had to be re-written because they say that it’s impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic.
“But the same year the first one ever hit Brazil.
“Summer of 2005 has been one for the books.
“The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan.
“Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry.
“This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through.
[Shows collapsed oil rig]
“This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile.
“And then, of course, came Katrina.
Paul Borg – “Your dishonesty is breathtaking most of the time. This time you are going for a gold medal.”
Not really sure where you are here. Please highlight or clip out the text where Gore said that AGW will cause an increase of hurricane intensity and number.
He does say that 2004 had a record number of storms but he did not say anywhere that AGW will cause in increase in the number of storms. Saying that certain years had a record number of storms is not the same thing.
BTW Jennifer has produced none of this so if I am going for the gold medal for dishonesty she must be in line for the platinum.
Posted by a commenter at rwdb:
“I’m someone that accepts the mainstream consensus on global warming, so I probably wouldn’t agree with your conclusions in general on global warming matters.
I have to say, though, that after watching A.I.T. yesterday, Gore does attempt to convey to his audience that there has been an increase in hurricane activity.
28:53min “And, of course, when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms.
“We have seen in the last couple of years a lot of big hurricanes.
[Shows satellite imagery of each hurricane]
“Hurricane Jeanne and Frances and Ivan were among them.
“And the same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes in the United States.
“Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all-time record for typhoons.
[Shows string of satellite images of typhoons]
“Previous record was seven.
“Here are all 10 of the ones they had in 2004.
“The science textbooks have had to be re-written because they say that it’s impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic.
“But the same year the first one ever hit Brazil.
“Summer of 2005 has been one for the books.
“The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan.
“Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry.
“This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through.
[Shows collapsed oil rig]
“This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile.
“And then, of course, came Katrina.
“I think it’s clear that he is using anecdotal evidence and powerful rhetoric (including emotive visual imagery) to convince his audience that the world is seeing a dramatic increase in storm activity in recent years. He is using anecdotal evidence to try to prove a statistical point.”
I agree with his conclusions (that man made global warming is a reality and it is crucial that we confront it immediately) but I do not agree with his methods. I’m not sure how you convince the public of the correct view of a complex scientific issue, but it’s clear to me that Al Gore has concluded that you use the rhetoric of a politician.”
Is there a bigger idiot on the planet than Tim Lambert when he says:
“For example, he agrees with Jennifer Marohasy, who claims:
“Global temperatures over the past ten years have stalled.”
This is, of course, not true.”
Now you know there is a problem when the evidence about the PAST TEN YEARS that Lambert brings to bear on this argument is a 127 YEAR CHART. Thereby reducing the period in question to less than one 12th of his tiny chart. And of course he uses the only set of station data that still shows warming over the past 10 years, the GISS data, which is based on the NCDC data.
He ignores the HadCrut3, RSS, UAH data that all agree very well with each other, and instead makes his absurd claim on the diverging GISS data.
Then morons like Barton chime in with their yearly data that is missing five month of good evidence.
And of course we have the usual crowd of brain dead alarmists that claim it’s all because of the 98 El Nino, when in reality the La Nina that immediately followed that El Nino was much longer and had much more of an impact on the trend line.
Here is the real data. The past 11 years have had absolutely no warming, no matter how much the anti-science alarmists try to say otherwise.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html
“Is there a bigger idiot on the planet than Tim Lambert…”
I tried, but I couldn’t resist:
Tilo Reber comes to mind.
“Is there a bigger idiot on the planet than Tim Lambert”
OK, I can’t resist. The answer is…
Tilo Reber, for one.
I have only been drawn to this site after watching one of the poorest examples of journalism I have seen in a long time on the Sunday show last weekend. Yes, consensus does make it difficult for a small minority to make a case against the large majority of opinion. There is however the inconvenient existence of large numbers of independent bodies around the world with extensive research to back their claims. Has anyone reading this site ever read any form of scientific evidence at all regarding global warming? – Let alone the Stern Review which clearly outlines the economic advantages of acting on climate change now rather than when it is too late? I only dread the response this post will receive, but considering you are all here just to reaffirm your existing opinions of what is obviously a bit hard for you to believe I will not get too upset. I would find it interesting though if it could be explained to me wether we humans were around when CO2 levels were as high as Jennifer explained in the interview. And please, please, please develop some form of open mind to others opinions, rather than burning as many pollutants as you can until you find the irrefutable proof you need.
“I have only been drawn to this site after watching one of the poorest examples of journalism I have seen in a long time on the Sunday show last weekend.”
Yeah, but it’s scepticism, and any scepticism is good.
Andrew,
Sorry to disappoint you, but your faith in the Stern Review is misplaced. The hint might lie in the fact that fully half the costs he uses to justify very costly action now occur after 2800.
How does he do it? Easy, using techniques used long ago by the HEC in Tasmania. First, escalate costs over very long periods of time at 2% real. The HEC did it with coal costs, but at least carried it forward only 60 years. Stern does it with the real costs of extreme weather events over hundreds of years. As the leading authority on this question, Roger Pielke Jr, has shown this is a highly speculative and unlikely assumption (and certainly not supported by historical evidence of damage during past warming, which has been steady in real terms).
Then, he discounts future streams of costs and benefits an extremely low rate – not easy to determine, but thought by some to be as low as 0.1%. To put that in perspective, most economists would recommend a social rate of discount of 2-5%. Nordhaus uses a lower rate because of the long-term nature of the problem: 3%. In addition to Nordhaus, similar critiques in the peer-reviewed literature came from Sir Partha Dasgupta, Richard Tol, David Henderson, etc. Dasgupta pointed out that the rate of tme preference used means that the UK should be saving about 97% of current income for the future, whereas it saves about 16%.
Stern produced a report for Brown to justify higher taxes and has been rewarded with a peerage. His report is very poorly regarded by economists; it is adored by those who like its message but have not subjected it to critical scrutiny.
If you want good economic analysis, try Nordhaus – distinguished Yale economist with (unlike Stern) a long track record on the economics of climate change. Garnaut is equally new to the area (though a very good economist); Warwick McKibbin is the leading Australian expert (with an international reputation).
I will check out Nordhaus etc, thanks
I do agree scepticism is good, but I would think it is nearly common sense to understand that there will be environmental consequenses to massive scale pollution, don’t you?
I am definitely no ‘greeny’ but to argue that because there is not definitve proof of exactly what changes will occur that no action should be taken. We will find out soon enough i beleive.
First reactions to Garnaut Daft Report
Tim Curtin
4 July 2008
1. This Report is serially dishonest. Its deceptions include the claims that without drastic mitigation there will by 2100 be major declines in GDP across the globe. This is a claim that will never be verifiable by anyone alive today, and it is a claim based on no empirical evidence, for the good reason that there is none. After a fairly cool period from 1945 to the mid-1970s, we have since had thirty years of gently rising global temperatures, reaching a peak in 1998, and averaging from 1998 to the present, slightly above the average from 1978 to 1990. The whole period since 1978 has seen the fastest economic growth across almost the whole globe (Sub-Saharan Africa and Japan are partial exceptions) that has ever been recorded. If such growth has been achieved despite the onset of global warming in 1978, what basis is there for the Garnaut prediction of catastrophic declines in world GDP starting now?
2. Garnaut does not attempt to justify Australia embarking on emission reductions via the ETS as early as 2010 when it is already broadly fulfilling its Kyoto target of keeping total emissions to 108 percent of the 1990 level.
3. The Draft report’s Chapter 4 reproduces the false analysis of Garnaut, Howes, and Jotzo (2008) in emphasizing the more rapid growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2005 than previously projected by Stern (2007) and IPCC (2007). This assessment produces the misleading conclusion that “we have less time than previously understood to stem the growth of global emissions, if we are to avoid high risks of dangerous climate change” (p.13).
4. However, although the Draft Report correctly notes in the introduction to its Chapter 3 (p.47) that “stabilization of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere requires the rate of greenhouse emissions to fall to the rate of natural sequestration”, it never states what that rate is, namely 55 percent on average since 1958, nor that then emissions need only be reduced 45 per cent at most, not the 60 per cent that is the Australian government’s arbitrary target. Indeed, the Garnaut Report is deceptive in failing to report that despite the more rapid growth of emissions this century than last, the rate of increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has NOT increased at all – it was in fact lower in both 2006 (0.47%) and 2007 (0.55%) than in 2005 (0.68%). The inconvenient truth that condemns the Garnaut Report is its failure to admit that the global biosphere continues to absorb around 55 percent of total emissions and that therefore absorptions grow at much the same rate as emissions.
5. The very sketchy outline of the Emission Trading Scheme in the Draft Report does at least reveal what may well be the main motivation of the Government, the ALP, and the Greens, that it is the “rich” (those with household income of $100,000 and above) who will have to pay for climate change mitigation. All firms will seek to pass on the costs of their emission permits by raising their selling prices. The “poor”, those on less than $100,000 p.a., will receive at least a third of annual total receipts of the sale of emission permits by the Garnaut Bank. These may well amount to $16 billion initially, although declining over time in line with the target for emission reductions, so poor households can expect to receive around $5 billion a year from 2010 with small declines thereafter. Assuming that 80 per cent of households have income of less than $100,000 (the government’s usual means test cut-off), then around 5 million households will qualify for payouts of $3,000 each, comfortably enough to cover their total annual spending on electricity, and with enough left over for higher petrol costs, say $1000 a year if petrol rises from $1.70 a litre to $2 because of the emissions charge passed on by Caltex et al. This means that over 5 million Australian households will have no reason at all to reduce their consumption of carbon intensive fuels like electricity and petrol/diesel. No wonder the Rudd government is so pleased about the ETS, it buys votes the same way Mugabe uses international food aid to reward loyal supporters.
6. Garnaut then goes on to discuss the problem of choice of discount rates for assessing such costs and benefits when as ever the costs are upfront and the benefits if any only accrue down the track, perhaps not for 100 years. But like Stern and almost all economists engaged in climate change policy (Richard Tol 2007 is a shining exception), Garnaut has forgotten, if he ever knew, that the primary purpose of the discount rate is to measure any project’s net benefit against the opportunity cost of the funds used to finance the project. It is absurd for an economist of Garnaut’s standing to argue that since at a real discount rate of 4 per cent, a dollar in 50 years’ time is worth just 13 cents today (or just 36 cents at the real rate on US Treasuries of 2 per cent). Therefore he argues (43-44) we should not use such market rates, since to do so would mean we “are comfortable about living for [our] moment” instead of that of future generations. That is the language of the politician that Garnaut has become.
7. Real economists know about opportunity cost, and the cost of mitigating emissions that Garnaut’s ETS will impose on Australia’s enterprises will impact on their profits and on their financing capability for their future investments. None of his modeling ever confronts this feature of an ETS. The benchmark discount rate for most industrial and other enterprises listed on the stock exchange is usually around 15 percent nominal, or about 11 per cent in real terms. For example, at the sort of price mentioned by Garnaut of $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide, a firm like Caltex would have to outlay $1.4 billion annually to obtain its initial permits for the total emissions from its production and on-sold petrol and diesel (Caltex Submission to Garnaut Emissions Trading Discussion Paper, April 2008). Of course in practice Caltex would eventually recover its permit costs by raising the ex-refinery price of its products, but the large up-front cash flow effects would not be trivial.
8. Garnaut’s discounting like Stern’s at less than 2 per cent, which is far below the actual cost of funds to a firm like Caltex, makes such cash flow effects really seem trivial against the supposed benefits to Caltex in 100 years’ time from avoided climate change. But invested now at its test discount rate of 15 percent, the initial forgone earnings from its ETS payments are $210 million per annum for 30 years (the likely life of a refinery) on its first year permits, and the same sum again every year for thirty years on its next year’s permits. By 2040 Caltex would be forgoing net income of $6.4 BILLION a year, for no discernible benefit from avoided climate change. This calculation explains why the Garnaut Report studiously avoids such an exercise.
9. Like Garnaut, I am freely able to make predictions for 2100 knowing I will suffer no redress if I am proved wrong. My prediction is that by 2100 the Garnaut Report will assuredly take it place alongside Malthus (1799) and the Club of Rome (1972) for being spectacularly wrong with all its and their fanciful predictions including the latter’s that there would be total resources depletion by 2000 and concomitant global famine. For there is no likelihood either that the drastic global emission reductions sought by Garnaut will be achieved, or that there will be any of his predicted adverse effects from the absence of such reductions on economic growth.
1. EMISSIONS IN THE PLATINUM AGE:
THE IMPLICATIONS OF RAPID DEVELOPMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
Ross Garnaut, Stephen Howes, Frank Jotzo and Peter Sheehan, April 2008
Tim Curtin points out that the Garnaut Daft Report says that without “drastic mitigation there will by 2100 be major declines in GDP across the globe. This is a claim that will never be verifiable by anyone alive today, and it is a claim based on no empirical evidence, for the good reason that there is none.”
Which, to quote Thomas Knutson, “recalls the question of Ellsaesser: “Should we trust models or observations?” In reply we note that if we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time.”,
Besides which given Tim’s age, it does indeed appear unlikely he will live until 2100 so why this is an indictment of the report is one of those mysteries.
However, it is important to know that the critics of the Stern Report have effectively done a u-turn, .
Tim Curtin claims the Garnaut Daft Report says that without “drastic mitigation there will by 2100 be major declines in GDP across the globe.”
Tim Curtin is grossly misrepresenting the Garnaut report. Garnaut says no such thing.
Garnaut actually says: “The global modelling (GIAM) suggests that world GDP is likely to fall by around 7 per cent by 2100, RELATIVE TO A REFERENCE CASE WITH NO CLIMATE CHANGE.” (my caps)
In other words, GDP will grow but just not as fast as it would have without climate change.
Example: if world GDP grew by 4.000% per annum for the next 92 years it would be 7% lower than it would have been if it had grown at 4.002% over the same 92 years. Growth one 500th of 1% slower is not a “drastic decline”.
Or maybe it is on whatever planet Tim’s on.
No-one says GDP will be actually lower in 2100 than it is now.
Tim’s point 2 is plainly false as well. Read the report. Section 2.1 for starters.
And I can’t resist this: “Garnaut has forgotten, if he ever knew, that the primary purpose of the discount rate is to measure any project’s net benefit against the opportunity cost of the funds used to finance the project”
If he ever knew? Oh, please. Garnaut’s discussion of the discount rate is lucid and well-informed, as you’d expect from an economist of his stature.
Section 2.7 of his draft report is a concise statement of the issues involved.
Tim’s critisism’s of Garnaut’s draft report seem to be based on the assumption that no-one reading this blog will bother downloading the report and reading it for themselves to check whether Tim’s version of it is correct.
where to buy cd shop Adobe Acrobat 6 professional software