The Australian Government Green Paper completely ignores the main question – should Canberra try to control the weather, or is it better to foster a strong Australia able to cope with whatever climate change brings us?
The Government also justifies the need for action on completely worthless long term forecasts of Australia’s weather.
Not even the IPCC claims an ability to forecast the weather beyond a few days, but the CSIRO has sullied its reputation by pretending they can project temperature and rainfall 30 years into the future. Why have they not revealed the calculations for these predictions? In the corporate world, anyone making such wild unsubstantiated claims would be quickly disciplined by the regulators. Public figures who repeat and embellish these scaremongering prophecies lack common sense and should also be called to account.
The only credible weather forecast for such a long period is “It will Fluctuate”.
Minister Wong obviously believes that if we give her enough powers to tax and regulate, she can change the world’s weather.
This belief is as silly as the CSIRO weather forecasts out to 2040. Man has never been able to control the weather and there is no credible evidence that his activities have caused unusual weather. In fact, despite all the hot air about carbon emissions, the world has not warmed since 1998 and has been cooling for the last 6 years. Moreover, we have had extreme droughts, floods, ice ages and global warming long before man started using coal and oil.
Minister Wong should make sure Australia has the industrial ability and economic strength to cope with any adverse weather that occurs, be it floods, fires, droughts, snow, heat, cyclones or tsunamis.
Poor people cannot cope with Climate Change and the Rudd/Garnaut/Wong carbon taxes will make every Australian poorer.
This Deep Green Paper should be recycled and replaced by an enlightened White Paper outlining how to make Australia strong and prosperous. This will provide the best insurance for our children against any climate change.
Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Viv needs to remember that this is not about survival, this is about the high moral ground.
You know, the place where we are all going to be buried.
“Dis train am bound for glory, dis train”.
As I’ve pointed out before, there may be a glorious prospect from the moral high ground, but there is often a bad smell hanging about.
I don’t think the Green Paper is the Sermon on the Mount, far from it. But the only thing being sullied here is this blog, in posting such egregious (deliberately or ignorantly, not sure which is worse) confusion between weather and climate.
“should Canberra try to control the weather,” As long as people have such a shallow understanding of the issue, I know it is safe to completely ignore them.
I would repeat call I heard here before, “we need more scepticism”, because pretty well everything I read here is ignorance.
SJT: “because pretty well everything I read here is ignorance.”
To which you are a fairly major contributor.
Glad to see that SJT has joined the sceptics.
Duuuuuufer, you’re the only one confused. Climate is made of many quadrillions of weather data points. Logically, if you imagine you can control the most complex nonlinear system in the Solar System, i.e. Gaia, then the weather is a piece of cake. If not, then what is the point?
The AGW camp has long dominated the narrative by hijacking the language to define, then oppress the debate. So it isn’t surprising that warministas get their back up when the sceptics wield language for sting as well. Of course, it’s hypocrisy, but what did you expect?
Come off it, Wes. Your ‘logic’ would have it that if you can heat a cup of water to 83.2 degrees precisely, that means you can specify the trajectory of every molecule of H2O in the cup.
“Come off it, Wes. Your ‘logic’ would have it that if you can heat a cup of water to 83.2 degrees precisely, that means you can specify the trajectory of every molecule of H2O in the cup.”
You seem to be a newcomer, duffer. You can point out their errors, and you will be ignored. You can join in their repartee, and you will be attacked. You can point out what idiots some people are, and you will be censored, unless you agree with the anti-science stance of this place.