Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

What to Listen to, Read, and Action This Week

By

“THE Gillard government’s chief promoter of the climate change debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1000 years… 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/no-fast-result-in-cuts-flannery/story-e6frg6xf-1226028366173

“JULIA Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons.   MPs have also been instructed to warn constituents that unchecked climate change would lead to people in northern NSW experiencing a climate like that of Cairns, in far north Queensland…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mps-told-to-warn-of-climate-mayhem/story-fn59niix-1226028368404

“UNTIL now, the Productivity Commission has been excluded from Australia’s climate change debate. Now he has been let in, Gary Banks has thrown a hand grenade into Julia Gillard’s rush to bed down a carbon tax by mid next year.   
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/productivity-commission-chief-turns-up-the-heat-on-carbon-tax-debate/story-e6frg9p6-1226028337294

Consider this an open thread.  Let other readers of this blog know what you are watching, listening to, and reading, this week by way of a comment.

*******
Cartoon via Bishop Hill
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/more-flannel-josh-88.html

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Neville says

    Let’s hope Luke backs Timmy on the 1000 lag before we may see a reduction of temp, scores of generations passing the baton to spend countless trillions until 3011.

    Gee I can just see that happening, but seriously it won’t last more than the next federal election when hopefully these mad fools and liars will be tossed out on their backside.

    BTW at Tim’s Geelong meeting all sorts of lies and exaggerations were thrown about like confetti, scientists ? telling the audience that the GBR could be reduced to an algaecidic mess and hell like temps unless Oz took up Juliar’s mad co2 tax.

  3. terry says

    To try and do a king canute and hold back the tide of climate cycles. To even think you can change natures cycles. Like genetic manipulation of life and the planets box of chocolates, you never know what your going to end up with. Build a wall, find a higher spot and move would all be cheaper ways civilisation has dealt with it in the past.

  4. val majkus says

    I’ve made this comment on Jo’s blog but relevant here too
    this is my favourite article on the Canberra rally (yes I know it’s the ABC) but read the article and you’ll be surprised:
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45518.html

    just my favourite bits:
    …To be honest, I had no idea these people were extremists until advised over the radio by Labor backbencher Nick Champion who was doing a doorstop interview at our destination. As soon as the information came through the radio speakers, I began to take notes just in case you, dear reader, should ever find yourself with one in your midst.
    …
    Despite a vastly inaccurate report from AAP that the crowd was 1,000, I can confirm that the extremists stretched back from the stage for about 80 metres down the lawn – easily 4,000 strong, probably more
    …
    the biggest surprise of the day. This honour belonged to the occasion – later – when an older lady suffered heat stroke and Angry asked whether a doctor was present. The bloke dressed in drag as Julia with a pinocchio nose immediately shed his costume and came forward
    …
    There were chants, mainly “No Carbon Tax” “Liar, liar…” and at one point, yes “Ditch the Witch”. Perhaps most disturbingly of all for the Prime Minister, thousands of extremists chanted “Election, election… “
    …
    When it ended the Federal police stood in a line in front of Parliament House with their trousers tucked into their steel capped boots just so. A man in a Hawaiian shirt went up to the tallest one and tried to get him to join the revolution. While the Feds were distracted, several extremists with cardigans and fold-up chairs slipped through the cordon and headed towards the gift shop to buy snow domes.
    …
    Back at the bus station in Sydney I saw a woman talking to someone I took to be her daughter and a grandchild of about five.
    She told her daughter, “They called us extremists!”

    Finally my own thoughts – I’m not embarassed by any sign at the Canberra rally, in fact I’m proud

  5. Bh says

    So if it will take a thousand years for the effects of lower carbon dioxide to be felt, presumably it will also take 1000 years for the opposite. so, what was it 1000 years ago that caused this current supposed warming?

  8. val majkus says

    Just to show how different eyes can view the same event
    after all my promoting of Gavin Atkins ABC article the ABC have come up with this article by Mungo McCullam
    It’s the same group of ‘extremists’ that Gavin accompanied on the bus to Canberra (to which I referred in my comment above but here’s the column by Mungo M
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45688.html
    and what different eyes to Gavin’s

    …
    here’s just one para
    …
    that Tony Abbott is raving ratbag, a ranting bigot whose ignorance of science is matched only by his lack of manners.

    The howling mob who surrounded him at the mini-rally outside Parliament House last Wednesday undoubtedly included some who were genuinely concerned about the impact a carbon tax might have on their household budgets and the wider economy, but the ones making the noise – including the majority of the speakers – came straight from la-la land.’

    that’s the end of the quote; all I can say is ‘what’s he smoking?’ What Mungo’s talking about bears no resemblance to what Gavin is reporting

  9. crosspatch says

    “THE Gillard government’s chief promoter of the climate change debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1000 years”

    Considering that nobody has actually showed through empirical evidence that CO2 has had any significant influence on global temperatures to begin with, that “1000” years statement would be just as accurate if it said “10 minutes”. It is nonsense based on a “belief” in model forecasts that have not been verified by actual data.

    The onus is on them to actually show an increase in global temperatures that is outside the bounds of normal historical natural variation. I do not believe anyone has shown that to be the case. Nobody doubts that temperatures have warmed since the mid 1970’s but climate is *always* changing. It is almost always different this year than last and different now than 40 years ago. The key is to show that the magnitude of change and the rate of change are somehow extraordinary. That has not been shown (at least to my satisfaction) to be the case. The entire conversation is ridiculous until something is shown to be amiss that doesn’t rely on “torturing the data until they tell the truth” as seems to be the current process.

  11. Neville says

    Here’s the letter Flannery sent to the Australian proving what a liar he is, but he also states that stopping every kilogram of co2 entering the atmosphere is so important.

    Then why do we behave in such a bi-polar fashion and increase exports of coal? In fact we are striving to open new mines and export more coal to any country willing to buy.

    This is what Abbott has to hammer them on, do they really believe their science or not.

    Do they really care, of course they don’t?

    Is this the most important moral challenge in our lifetimes? Of course that’s BS as well.

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/2011/03/28/letter-to-the-editor-of-the-weekend-australian/

  13. debbie says

    Neville,
    It is good to see that the MSM is finally starting to question the validity of AGW and CO2 climate change and the Government’s proposed ‘action’.
    I’m not sure that the trading of insults between Gillard and Abbot will help.
    It’s almost as silly as trading our CO2 responsibilities off shore. I think it was you who pointed out the bi polar nature of this policy.
    Reduce our own emissions in Australia (at considerable cost) but merrily increase our coal exports overseas?
    Like that makes sense?
    It would be much better if the MSM actually focused on why this carbon tax can’t help or hinder global CO2 emissions.
    It would also be good if they spotted the tactics that have been used and highlighted those.
    Tugging at peoples’ heartstrings and using those emotions to justify a tax.
    Painting the industries that put food on our tables, supply reliable power to our homes etc as evil environmental rapists and therefore justifying the need to tax them.
    It seems the real motive is to somehow justify TAX. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Personal attacks just make people defensive and uncooperative.

  14. Denis Webb says

    The answer Flannery refused to give: just 0.00005 degrees
    Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 29, 11 (12:03 am)
    Remember how Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery refused to answer my very basic question?
    Bolt: On our own, cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, what will that lower the world’s temperatures by?
    Flannery: See, that’s a bogus question because nothing is in isolation…
    Bolt: Everyone understands that that is the argument But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences – about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?
    Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.
    Bolt: Have you got a number? ….
    Flannery: I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
    Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact… I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.
    Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.
    Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.
    Flannery: Sorry, I can’t ….
    Bolt: … Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?
    Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
    Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal…
    But don’t despair! Lord Monckton has been kind enough to give me the straight answer that Flannery et al will not – and his answer explains exactly Flannery’s embarrassed silence:
    Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?
    Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…
    So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years (that’s the real meaning of Flannery’s 1000-year point, and it doesn’t do him any favours).

    So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

    Answer b) . Mutatis mutandis, we do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

    2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln[(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions. Whom the gods would destroy …

    If you'd like chapter and verse from the IPCC's documents and from the peer-reviewed for every step of this calculation, which takes full account of and distils down the various complexities and probabilities Flannery flannelled about, you'll find it in this paper…

    A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.

  15. Neville says

    Amazing the fraud and corruption you can uncover when you actually look for the real numbers of Australia’s coal production and exports from 2000 to 2009.

    In 2000/01 Australia mined a total of 258 million tonnes of coal and exported 193 M tonnes, but in just 9 years this had risen to 487m tonnes mined and 261m tonnes exported.

    Therefore in just nine years Australia’s coal exports increased by 68 million tonnes per year.
    Australia currently exports 75% of the coal mined per year, but how does that fit with the nonsense promoted by the Rudd and Gillard govts.

    Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Wong, Combet, Gore, Suzuki etc etc have all told us AGW is the most important moral challenge of our lives. Yet we continue to mine and export more coal every year and 75% of that is sent overseas for profit and to produce more co2 emissions.

    If this really wasn’t a CON why wouldn’t they be demanding we stop all exports and only mine 25% of that total to service Australia’s needs?

    Of course it’s a con, when they say they believe the science they are either fraudsters and liars or stupid fools.

    But so far we are the only ones who will suffer the penalty of a co2 tax while the importers of that 75% of our coal can do as they please, no questions asked.

    When Flannery and his mob of liars and fraudsters comes to your town and claim that we must have a co2 tax to fix the climate you are entitled to stand up and ask how this can possibly be accomplished?

    Simple primary school maths proves that their argument is a total fraudulent lie.

    If this isn’t a corrupt fraud or a severe bi-polar disorder then what is it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Major_export_markets_for_Australian_coal

  16. crosspatch says

    “JULIA Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts”

    When added to “that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree.”

    So just exactly how much of a delta in rainfall can we expect from a 0.00005 C temperature change?

    I don’t know about in Australia, but here in the continental US, temperatures have been falling quite rapidly since 1998. One might say “the Continental US isn’t the globe” but it does represent a fairly significant sample of 1/4 of it (Northern half of the Western Hemisphere).

  19. gavin says

    Guys; where did I find this

    “There is a simple way to tell the difference between propagandists and scientists. If scientists have a theory they search diligently for data that might actually contradict the theory so that they can fully test its validity or refine it. Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it”

    Lets see when the boot fits hey

  21. el gordo says

    “Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it.”

    Yeah, that’s AGW theory, with the backing of the MSM the propaganda is pumped to the masses.

  22. toby robertson says

    Yes Gavin, and when facts contradict the theory you either start again or you modify it.

    So lack of hot spot= false theory
    declining ocean temps= false theory
    declining rate of increase in ocean levels= false theory
    No statistically significant warming for 15 years= false theory
    warmer or as warm 1000, 2000 and 4000 years ago= false theory
    Vast majority of models exagerate the changes we have seen= false theory

    and the list goes on.
    In fact with AGW what we see is inconvenient facts brushed under the carpet, rather than an acknowledgement that the theory is either wrong or needs to be modified.
    That is why those of us able to think for ourselves do not place much faith in the hypothesis of CAGW.

  23. Faustino says

    I sent the following to The Australian after Flannery’s initial comments:

    “In the last 1,000 years, we have had the Medieval Warming Period, during which grapes grew in Greenland, and the Little Ice Age, from which we are still recovering. Yet Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery says, in regard to emissions cuts, the average temperature of the planet will not drop “for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years (“No fast result in cuts: Flannery,” 26-27/3).

    “Given the great natural variation in temperatures over the last millennia, Flannery’s comment shows that human efforts to change temperatures are meaningless.”

    The Aus didn’t print it (though they do print one or two letters from me most weeks), but have since printed some similar comments from other letter writers. In today’s paper, Peter van Onselen, Contributing Editor, essentially says we should forget about emissions reduction and deal with any effects of warming – a big step from their editorial line. (From memory, I’ve binned the Business section.)

  26. Faustino says

    No sign of my earlier post, so I’ll in part repeat. My letter to The Aus on Flannery’s initial comment:

    “In the last 1,000 years, we have had the Medieval Warming Period, during which grapes grew in Greenland, and the Little Ice Age, from which we are still recovering. Yet Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery says, in regard to emissions cuts, the average temperature of the planet will not drop “for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years (“No fast result in cuts: Flannery,” 26-27/3).

    “Given the great natural variation in temperatures over the last millennia, Flannery’s comment shows that human efforts to change temperatures are meaningless.”

    In The Australian’s Business section today, contributing editor Peter van Onselen says that we should forget about resisting climate change and learn to deal with it – very different from the usual editorial line. PVO says that development of the undeveloped world “means coal and iron ore will continue to be extensively used, and attempts to curb human-induced climate change will become more frivolous … there is no foreseeable point in time at which wind or solar power will be able … to support global cities … We should support policies and funding structures that enable research and innovation. That means a competitive tax system that backs entrepreneurialism … and government interference in the private sector kept to a minimum.”

    He concludes “Facing up to this reality is the surest way we can grow while planning for any negative environmental effects that follow.” Right on, I’ve been arguing this for years.

  30. el gordo says

    There has been a turning point in the debate, with Clarke and Dawe talking about coal, nuclear and the alternative.

    A number of times they emphasized that wind, solar and waves can’t carry the ‘base load’. All good clean fun and the viewers know that many a true word is said in jest. So the gig is up!

    No link as yet.

  31. Rayvic says

    I sent the following letter to the editor of the Australian on 28 March:

    Had the terms of reference included a review of the scientific evidence proving the hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming, the Productivity Commission would have reported that no such evidence exists and consequently that there is no case for a carbon tax (‘Experts undermine government’s climate policy’ 25/03).

    However, the Commission is being asked to act dysfunctionally by having to recommend measures that would assist inefficient renewable energy production, but reduce the productivity of all other industries by forcing up their costs, for the overriding objective of solving a hypothetical problem.

    In these circumstances, if the Commission is to act in the national interest, its only choice is to recommend that no carbon taxing measures be adopted.