In order to take precautions, you have to know what you are taking them against. Some computer models project that the global temperature in ten years time will be warmer than today’s. Other computer models project that global temperature will be cooler ten years hence. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
One reason why the Nationals are opposed to it is because the Liberals themselves are not too different from the ALP philosophically – they cannot be too different because they know come election time that the ALP will implement it’s socialist agenda that becomes increasingly harder to dismantle as time goes by.
Like it or not, we have to plunge into the socialist system to understand why it doesn’t work.
We are living in interesting times.
Great article.
From a Systems Science perspective, we need to estimate the net costs of:
1. doing nothing to prepare for future climate change–in either direction–that’s almost certain to happen;
2. preparing for future global warming that fails to materialize;
3. preparing for a continuation of our current global COOLING trend, only to find that it peters out within a few years.
Yes, the planet’s surface is not cooling uniformly. Take Australia. The Winter in Queensland was warmer than average, while the Winter in Perth was considerably cooler and wetter than usual. But the average land temperatures on our fair planet have been in a declining trend since the peak of the latest warming cycle in 1998. Preliminary results from the Argo buoys also show a cooling trend in the oceans since the system was activated in 2003.
It’s only after taking stock that we should commit scarce tax dollars to climate change action. If climate change is something that we need to be concerned about, then we need to choose between the tilting-at-windmills approach advocated by the IPCC, and the adaptation approach. If push comes to shove, I favor the latter.
We should also search for no-regrets approaches that make sense for either type of climate change. That would be analogous to the straddle approach favored by some investors. Example: more research into year-long weather forecasts. If reasonably accurate, they could be far more helpful to farmers than the useless, politically motivated projections made by the IPCC.
“Giving Earth the benefit of the doubt” is a mindless slogan. Why? Because “Earth environment” is a multidimensional concept. It comprises air pollution, commercial fisheries, endangered species, forestry, hydroelectric power generation, outdoor recreation, range management, soil management, water resources management, etc.
Two problems. Individual environmental goals are not always 100% compatible with each other. Example: hydro power and fisheries on rivers. Second: We don’t have infinite resources to devote to environmental objectives. We need to prioritize. If that means putting price tags on sacred cows, then so be it.
We need to outgrow the warm-and-fuzzy memes, and to do some hard thinking for a change.
It is no surprise, and a credit to our parliament, that the Senate has rejected this bill once, for the estimate of the first-up extra direct costs it will engender is about $3,000/family/yr. The “benefit” – get this! – is a theoretical reduction of temperature of no more than one-ten-thousandth of a degree in 2100.
The taxes I pay each year – get this! – add about one-ten-thousandth of a percent to the total tax take every year. I shouldn’t be paying any tax.
“The taxes I pay each year – get this! – add about one-ten-thousandth of a percent to the total tax take every year. I shouldn’t be paying any tax.”
SJT, your logic never fails to astound! If it was dynamite, as they say, it wouldn’t part your hair.
If we did not have taxes the country would go broke and our way of life would cease to function.
If we all did not have a CPRS it would not only make little difference to ACO2 but we would be better off with more jobs and cleaner industry plus a better SOL.