“AN outcome from the anthropogenic global warming alarmism has been the implementation of government policies that can only reduce community resilience to the natural hazards of climate. The enormous research expenditure directed toward computer modelling and potential impacts has been at the expense of better understanding of the climate system and improved early warning of known hazardous events. None of the expenditure on climate change research over the past three decades has improved our ability to better understand and predict the onset and duration of drought, of tropical cyclones, conditions conducive to fire, or the extent of flooding. Yet each of these has been experienced across parts of Australia over the past 12 months, with significant loss of life, enormous private and public infrastructure destruction, and diminution of productivity.
“Proposed Government actions to make energy more expensive, or raise barriers that deny community access to existing energy forms, will further reduce community resilience to the hazards of climate. Today’s broad-acre farming is an outcome of mechanised production and transport based on fossil fuels; rural infrastructure is implemented and maintained with equipment driven by fossil fuels. From an economist’s perspective, rural industries are a diminishing percentage of GDP and of declining importance to national welfare. This jaundiced view fails to understand Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: we self-actualise (ie, expand the national GDP) only after satisfying our basic wants of food and shelter. A community that neglects what underpins the resilience of basic food production and infrastructure becomes more vulnerable to climate variability and extremes… an extract from ‘Community resilience and the hazards of climate’, by William Kininmonth
Read more here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11986&page=0
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
When “garbage in” has not improved much [and will not while it is mostly a belief system instead of science] “garbage out” has gotta be the result.
‘it is mostly a belief system instead of science’
Well put spangled drongo!
There isn’t much wrong with most of the collection of raw data (not all).
The interpretation and use of the information is the highly questionable part.
We will never ever see a quick fix to a better ? climate by trying to reduce co2 emissions, it is a total waste of time and money, all for a zero return.
We must carefully spend our scarce funds on R&D, new inventions/technology , and adaptation to droughts, floods, fires or whatever.
What rot from William. So we’re supposed to listen to this guy who has no climate change publication. Unreal. So we have a low quality quasi-philosophical rant on about climate politics.
He has summarily ignored a whole decade of climate science on Australian drought. Ignored the recent cyclone work of Power et al. Ignored that the cyclones are these days well tracked and monitored.
And the paleo data well demonstrates a CO2 sensitivity of 3C. What a load of nonsense from our William.
At least days you can get some data out of the National Climate Centre.
Luke,
You’re like a Prairie Dog on look-out.
Shout first.
Can’t define a problem but I’ll shout again anyway just in case.
Pikey.
Sea levels still going nowhere, about 3.1mm year or 2.8mm year, you can take your pick.
Just means that at that rate by 2111 it would be 300mm or 1 foot higher than now.
Also means it would take another 500 years or 2511 until it reached the level it was around Australia 4,000 years ago.
But I suppose our resident bedwetter won’t be happy with this result and will find all sorts of delusional nonsense to whine about.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#more-39359
Pikey – we don’t have Prairie Dogs in Aussie but we do have lots of old coots.
A cool PDO in play since 2002?
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/ColoradoUniDiff.jpg
WRT this – check out
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/30/reality-leaves-a-lot-to-the-imagination/#comments
and follow the comments of
“ferd berple says:
April 30, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Here is how you create a false result in machine learning models, including climate models. Say you want to achieve a CO2 sensitivity of 3C per doubling of CO2:”
and follow the others down the thread
Luke doesn’t see himself as a Prarie Dog. More as a hungry feral dingo on Fraser Is.
Improving that [once upon a time] great asset by devouring all the native wildlife.
Deb,
And when they wont even let you communicate with their belief system in case you want to criticise or inject a bit of logic………
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/06/top-secret-noforn-restricted-access-climate-model-results/#more-39387
They wonder why we’re sceptical.
Good luck today Jennifer and please remember to hit the bi-polar idiots hard with the rule of the two ratios.
This rule is unbeatable and proves with a certainty of 100% that there is zero we can do to change the weather by going down this path of illogicality and unreason.
Oh and of course all done by the use of primary school sums, a real hard job. GEEEZZZ.
You could throw in a reference to delusional Tim’s 1000 year projection as well and throw in “Robyn 100 metres Williams”, just for a giggle.
Sorry to keep hammering Luke’s hero Timmy but Jen could also make use of another reference to this numbat.
Just tell the crowd that Gillard’s Chief Commissioner sent to explain the carbon tax and climate change to we the great unwashed has another brilliant prediction.
He says we are reaching a time when GAIA could develop a brain and a nervous system and we humans could take on the duty of ANTS, just helping to run planet earth.
Of course Hitler and the nazis were GREEN dreamers as well and we have some of their nature worship shown in movies made in the 1930’s.
Just thought I’d throw that in just to show Labor and Tim’s connection to their beloved totalitarianism. What’s that about “birds of a feather.”
Yes by all means spray the Greens and Nazis stories or even eugenics and don’t forget neomarxism – nothing better than to look like a raving nut case – and froth and spit as well – Zig Heil Zig Heil. We’ll be taking the video for later.
Spanglers – What does a dingo have for breakfast “a piss and a good look around”.
Gee, reminds me of the 17th century when everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth, and I see Cardinal Luke is in his usual proscriptive form.
Paraphrasing Oliver Cromwell, Luke, have you ever considered the POSSIBILITY that climate science might have the physics wrong? Any science with a track record of 50/50 for prediction/forecasting etc, like climate science, probably has the scientific fundamentals wrong.
Yes, best of success for the rally, Jen.
Yep, that’s right Luke, they can live on one bleached bone a week but when you’ve got a thousand of them starving they tend to vacuum up any ground dwellers that might be around.
Why can’t we get it out of our heads that they are “native” dogs?
Sinkers – I listen patiently to your eccentricity and on instinct do exactly the opposite. More interestingly have you ever considered that you might be wrong. Yes I could be wrong but you can only undertake risk management in life. The AGW story stacks up very well when you get away from the silliness of celebrities, deniers, crowds and media.
Spanglers – however the native mammals do seem to do better when dingos are around as they get up the foxes (relatively speaking).
“Spanglers – however the native mammals do seem to do better when dingos are around as they get up the foxes (relatively speaking).”
Luke, that’s the spiel of National Parks “experts”. A fox will play a dingo “off a break” and can go where dingoes can’t [like up some trees and steep cliffs]. I’ve got both here and the foxes outnumber the “dogs” 3 : 1. I’m not aware of the fox situation on Fraser but I suspect they were too smart to hang out there in the first place.
On the mainland they both move on when food gets scarce but on Fraser, when you see skinny, starving dingoes you know there is not much left to eat.
After being presented with a list of wildlife for Fraser Is, I checked where it came from and was told that a lot of it was from the bones found in dingo faeces.
Does that type of science remind you of anything?
Luke,
The AGW theory only stacks up in your computerised virtual reality, not physical reality. As whether my physics might be wrong, well, it’s similar to Piers Corbyn’s and as long as he gets a success rate of 85% plus, I’ll keep using it. BTW your science is wonderfully predictive (NOT) as Warwick Hughes has recently demonstrated comparing the BOM forecasts with actuals.
Luke,
The AGW science may or may not stack up well. I can see evidence that proves and disproves both sides of that debate.
It leads me to conclude that it ‘might’ be a risk in the future and we ‘might’ need to have strategies in place to handle a risk like that….if it indeed eventuates as some believe it will.
It is your core belief about the way it needs to be addressed that I find worrying.
“you can only undertake risk management in life.”
As smart and intelligent as that sounds….
How do you believe that should be done?
Personally, I believe giving that responsibility to a centralised bureaucratic machine is about the worst way of all to handle ‘risk management’.
Therefore, I seriously question the options we have been given so far because they do not facilitate or encourage human ingenuity or progress.
They are also advocating the removal of productive resources.
I don’t think that will mitigate risk at all.
I think that it will actually expose Australia to far greater and more immediate risks.
Debbie please don’t ask Luke for a solution, he’ll just yell abuse.
I’ve tried here for years and he hasn’t got the testicles to even have a go. Sure he now says that a carbon tax isn’t the answer, so then tell us what it is?
The only answer is adaptation, R&D, new inventions and new technology. Money spent on these will always return the best dividend on our investment and as a by product could probably reduce our use of fossil fuels as well.
Of course the last thing you would try is the introduction of any type of carbon tax because it will be a disaster. We must retain our base load power generation until we come up with something better. Besides a carbon tax is based on totally fraudulent maths and is easily exposed.
Nuclear seems the only provable option at the moment but perhaps geo thermal may work in time who knows. Some countries have hydro electric power but we haven’t much but we do have coal, so that’s what we must use until another option is found.
Here’s a good reason why we’re not any wiser after climate modelling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/06/stanford-claims-farmers-dodged-impacts-of-global-warming-in-the-usa-but-you-have-to-find-it-first/
Fair enough Neville,
It is nonetheless a gaping black hole right in the middle of the “save us all from AGW climate change” political argument.
Their solution is actually worse than the perceived problem!
I’m still a huge fan of hydro power and the possibilities for utilising it in Australia.
We also seriously need to upgrade the one we have (SHL). There is now technology available to produce twice as much power with half as much water.
We should at least be doing that!
SHL has definitely passed its use by date.
There are also some excellent plans to have more hydro power and more water availability gathering dust in the archives of every State Govt.
Because of rather irrational ‘environmental’ arguments, and our signing of some regressive international treaties (like Ramsar and Kyoto) there is no political will to shake off the dust and re examine the proposals in the light of new technology and new engineering techniques.
We also know how to implement these projects with minimal impact on the environment.
To argue there will be no impact is ridiculous.
Every action or indeed every inaction will have impacts on the environment.
Geo thermal will also have impacts, as will nuclear and indeed whatever we decide to come up with as alternatives.
It’s all about risk management after all isn’t it Luke?
I think Neville is right though….it is really quite stupid to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’ or maybe even this old homespun homily rings true as well…..
We are killing the goose that lays the golden egg!
spangled,
Gotta love this comment from your link
You WISH, Lobell. You show your true colours. No true scientist would claim that scepticism is misguided. Only a self-interested crook would make such a ludicrous anti-scientific statement. To be against scepticism is to be against freedom of thought. You must be very disappointed by the lack of famine, disasters, general catastrophe – and the lack of warming – in the USA.
and this one:
As far as I tell from a quick search on the interweb, there is a whole lot more than temperature that affects wheat production. Just like there is a whole lot more than a trace gas that affects the climate, I guess.
and this one:
More post-normal nonsense. It reminds me of our liar politicians. They’ll spend $2 billion more than the previous but will tell you they cut $.4 billion in spending when all they really did was reduce what they ‘expected’ to spend, say from $4 billion to $3.6 billion. So what is actully a $1.6 billion increase in spending is spun by the liar politicians as a spending cut of $.4 billion. Now we have scientists “divining” what they think reality should have been (from models) and any variance is a man made fingerprint. Post-normal science at its finest.
Thanks for that link, it’s definitely worth a read.
Very good article in todays Australian by Jo Nova. Another take on wasting money on AGW.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/on-climate-change-the-wrong-choice-kills-people-either-way/#comments
Piers Corbyn – what bullshit – so he tells you – show us the cross validation data and independent validation. What utter crap. He gets more wrong than right.
You’d have to a rampant moron or right wing nutcase not believe the overwhelming AGW evidence. Only deniers and antediluvian knuckle draggers would think otherwise.
The answer Neville in an INTERNATIONAL carbon trading system (not a unilateral Aussie one) and massive investment in new nuclear and solar. But hey in a democracy you can reject this and listen to the denialists and so off to adapting (or not) we go, whistling as we waltz.
So as time changes the ratio of good and bad years in the MDB – just don’t me to bail them out with my taxes thank you. They’ve pissed away billions in drought aid and subsidy already. But you know national party types – agrarian socialists who love to capitalise gains and socialise losses.
Debbie
“Geo thermal will also have impacts, as will nuclear and indeed whatever we decide to come up with as alternatives.
They certainly do!
The Swiss have suspended operations near Basel, due to the process causing earth tremors.
You can’t just expect to extract meaningful-useful ie. huge amounts of energy and think it will have no effect!
Spanglers – http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/05/04/2560220.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00250.x/abstract
Thanks Luke,
You continue to shoot yourself in the foot with your ad hominems.
As for Piers’ forecasts, no need for validation – he gets it right 85% of the time because he has the physics right – heaven’s Luke, the BOM can’t predict weather 3 months in advance as Warwick Hughes shows, and their track record is about 50%.
Debbie your 12.49 post raises points that i/we were discussing with luke at this blog 5 years ago. The debate hasnt changed much although he does now accept a carbon tax is futile and stupid which is considerable progress. the facts remain irrespective of the science which is iffy, without new technology there is nothing that we do that will actually make a difference.
Luke,
As a public servant you actually don’t pay any taxes – you might think you are but we in the private sector pay you with our taxes.
Where’s the evidence Piers gets anything right Sinkers – He doesn’t get 85% correct – what utter bunkum. What on your assurance or “I read it on a blog somewhere” – hahahahahahahahahahahaha
What a hoot. If he did he’d be playing the derivatives and rich (i.e. not talking to you)
What’s wrong with consulting for a living Sinkers? Sinkers you do pay any taxes yourself or do you dodge it all in dubious minimisation schemes. Just asking?
Toby I have never supported a unilateral Aussie carbon tax – you just assumed I did or didn’t ask.
If you build a model of something, you need to have fairly complete information about it. Before there was sufficient information about the geography and even shape of the earth, the earth was nonetheless modelled by scholars in different ways. Some were flat-earthers and so were hopelessly wrong, others, like Crates, were merely wrong. But all were wrong. They had to be wrong, because their information was obviously inadequate. Centuries of maths, astronomy and navigation brought the information.
To the modellers: how complete is your information on this fantastically complex, vast and variable subject?
Luke,
I do pay tax, and no I don’t use dubious minimisation schemes either – but thanks for asking.
And consulting, who mentioned consulting? Mind you some here might suggest that we pay taxes to be insulted by you, making you an insultant.
And I see you have developed non sequiturism as well. Sad, must be the effect of working in the QLD climate department.
ROFL – of course – how silly of me – that explains the caravan and no fixed address. And I’m amazed anybody would pay you for advice on anything … of course maybe they don’t pay?
Great quote Luke: ‘But you know national party types – agrarian socialists who love to capitalise gains and socialise losses.’
It deserves a post of its own.
Luke,
Thanks for those links and they may be right about the dingo seeing off cats and foxes thereby protecting small mammals however that is in flat, open [possibly treeless] country where the bigger predator is boss.
I say “may” because often, predators, like dogs, cats and foxes, ignore each other if there are plenty of “predatees” and declare some sort of “truce”. However in some situations the feral “dog” [of all breeds] could possibly do some good.
In my [mountainous, forested] NOTW, however, the native rats [fuscipes and lutreolus] are flat out surviving because of cats and foxes which the dingo [or any feral dog for that matter] is not controlling.
But the bigger ground dwellers such as forest wallabies, bettongs, pottoroos, bandicoots etc are being murdered by dogs and foxes alike.
Well thanks Luke for giving us your climate fix, but will it work and how much will it reduce the temp and over what time scale?
Of course we all know it won’t happen and Christy shows that building 1000 new nuclear power stations will reduce the temp in 2100 by sweet FA.
What type of solar are you talking about and how can it really be base load power and at what cost? At the moment it is at least 5+ times more expensive than coal.
But really your remedy is just a super expensive messy wet dream and thankfully will never see the light of day.
How ill it work – well Neville there’s this idea for a thing on the wall called “a power switch”….. LOL !
What’s that – Christy is into AGW – WTF ! He wouldn’t know – he can go back to fixing his satellite errors.
So you’re just going have to be a lightly fried denialist Neville. As you fail to adapt.
Anyway Mark thinks you’re just an antediluvian knuckle dragger http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11956
Learn to speak Chinese Neville – will help when the sub-tropical drying periods bite.
Luke,
In any case I don’t think you have explained why, after decades of climate modelling, you lot still can’t get it right. My scepical stance is to question the theory behind the modelling, that the physics is basically wrong. All you can do is throw verbal abuse at me.
And no I will not be offering a paper to the peer reviewed journals since it won’t get past the gate-keepers, but will, since I’ve been requested, publish elsewhere.
Now that I mentioned it, I am somewhat bemused I haven’t received too many pro AGW articles to AIG News recently – the last one I published was accompanied by a letter demanding my sacking as editor, and guess what, I am still editor. Do you AGW adherents believe we sceptics practice the same editorial censorship your journals do? That is, to not publish papers discordant with the consensus? And is this another cause of your ‘problem’?
And yes I am paid for my advice but not to the extent consultants to government are paid. And yes I do own my own home, mobile that it be, (Trailstar Constellation) but no fixed address? Handy situation when the likelyhood of you sending your trade union bruvvers out to correct my opinions is considered.
luke
“thing on the wall called “a power switch”….. LOL !”
So we finally know what Luke has in mind for us, Do without you mugs!
Luke,
“However, detailed computer simulations, backed up with actual experience with wind power overseas, show that the scoffers are wrong.”
This is a quick paste from the online opinion piece you linked – baseload requires 365/365 capacity 24 hours per day. In a global sense we might pose the possibility that wind power and solar generation, if connected globally into a world-wide grid, might be able to supply a baseload continously to the electric grid, so that countries in the night zones can rely on electrical energy being produced by the countries illuminated by sunlight during the day.
There is a slight technical problem for Australia in that when this continent moves into the night shadow, when sunlight is absent, and wind power, er, problematical, that having an electrical connection to countries in the daylight zone via a power grid, demands a rather innovative means of routing electrical energy from the daylight zones, to the night zones.
We are in the southern hemisphere, and in our hemisphere there are no other continents that might be in sunlight when we are in darklight.
Luke, you really are an idiot.
Louis
“And yes I do own my own home, mobile that it be, (Trailstar Constellation) but no fixed address?”
How many home owners can move their homes where they want to?
And if you come to think about, it most of the value of a fixed house rests in the land.
At any rate it was a cheap shot from Luke, but what can you expect from a second rate gun for hire?
Well Louis there may be no hope for antediluvian knuckle draggers.
Anyway mate – keep going – if you didn’t exist we’d have to invent you. I envy your life on the road.
Luke – Louis is a practicing scientist – he’s out on the road searching for minerals worthy of mining.
You, on the other hand, are an academic living on the academic teat.
I know where my bet lies.
Gee John is that right. You know so much – go twirl your knobs and adjust the signal to noise.
Luke,
You must be somewhat lonely – I’ve just realised no one supports your views here.
You, fighting a rear-guard action against the evil sceptical forces, all alone as well. Flag flying, bombardons phaffing ineffectually, cavalry charging straw-troops, and yet, bravely, you continue.
All somewhat yesterday’s empire-like defense, what ??
Luke I’ve just read that silly delusional garbage you linked too, what a load of crap.
The one magic ingredient that is never mentioned to get solar and wind established is the total underwriting and subsidy of these mad schemes by the taxpayer.
Take that start up capital away and further funding and the whole mess falls in a heap and can’t proceed. GEEZZ are you that naturally balmy and stupid or do you have to work at it?
Just ponder the idiocy of you people, you expect us to use energy that costs 3 to 5 times as much as coal at home but at the same time export cheap coal and gas for our competitors to produce cheaper goods to undercut us in the global market?
Goodbye aluminium industry, goodbye Blue scope Steel, manufacturing industries etc, etc.
You must be a green or labor voter when you believe such stupidity, you are beyond any hope. I know kids of five who have more common sense.
And the climate won’t be induced to change in the slightest by this madness, other than at nature’s behest.
O/T, but Intel has produced the new 3D transistor, it seems that Moore’s law still holds for now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/06/intels-new-revolutionary-tri-gate-3d-transistors/#more-39399
Neville confidently dismisses any climate change and is cock sure of adapting – denier !
No Luke I believe in natural CC or as I said at nature’s behest. Your CC religion only started after Hansen’s appearance in Washington in 1988, just 23 years ago.
Of course my CC allows for the Sahara to be a lush area only 6,000 years ago with hippos, crocs and elephants and a sizable human population.
Hippos swam in the Thames and the Rhine only 130,000 years ago during the much warmer Eemian interglacial and all of this without the need for reference to human use of fossil fuels.
But just in my lifetime I’ve seen the MDB change from a much dryer condition to much wetter until the recent drought, then we’ve just had the highest rainfall ever recorded in 2010.
,
So I can honestly say that nobody believes in historical CC more than I do and I wouldn’t adjust my understanding to conform to Hansen’s 1988 human induced timeline.
And speaking of history –
you’d also believe that humans came close to extinction from climate, Medieval evil mega-droughts, the PETM, the abundant evidence for CO2 sensitivity in the geological record,
the great history of denialism in the anti-AGW crowd with good training in tobacco denialism
You’d also know that you’re SOOOOOOOOOOO well adapted to climate variation that you well know about (so you assure me) that you’ve had billions over decades in drought aid and now billions in flood aid. That’s great adaptation.
And from history – you’d also know that Hansen is a single player in a big field.
You don’t and you’re just another religiously devoted denier. A denier who is not even curious and knew the answer before he started.
LUKE!!!!!
“The answer Neville in an INTERNATIONAL carbon trading system (not a unilateral Aussie one) and massive investment in new nuclear and solar. But hey in a democracy you can reject this and listen to the denialists and so off to adapting (or not) we go, whistling as we waltz.”
THE ANSWER IS MOST DEFINITLEY NOT NOT NOT in an international carbon tax! Nor in a centralised ETS!!!
CRIPES!
Do you believe in some fairy tale where an all benevolent, all seeing, all knowing, centralised government based somewhere in the northern hemisphere could make sensible decisions about Australia??????
It ain’t happening Luke, no such centralised, benevolent government could ever exist.
Check your history.
Centralised governments are all about maintaining the status quo and frightening the masses into believing that they can be saved from an impending disaster ONLY IF they ONLY listen to their all seeing, all benevolent, ruling body.
Your solution would tip us straight back into the dark ages.
A centralised government does not have progress and ingenuity as a core belief, they are actually opposed to individual human ingenuity.
They want to keep everything the same and maintain their centralised machine and will do so at all cost.
For Fox ache Luke, why in hell would we expose Australia to that?
What is the benefit to Australia to hand over taxation power to a centralised government in the Northern Hemisphere somewhere?
How would they know what’s best for Australia? Why would they even care?
Well Debs – it’s either mitigate or adapt. Good luck adapting – your industry is hopeless at it. Billions of dollars to support agrarian socialists running unsustainable outfits who can’t agree (your words) what they even want as an objective.
Does some centralised government ruin and inhibit the sale of other commodities – no – it’s called the stock market – market capitalism Debs. Wake up !
Don’t tell me you’ve swallowed the world government bullshit sceptic meme. For trucks sake. The UN can’t organise a chook raffle.
Darks ages indeed – what moronic tripe. You mean enlightened new era. Perhaps you’d like to go back to pulling the plough yourself.
Democracy is not perfect but it is the only governence model we have that does at least allow for progres and human ingenuity.
It also allows space for us to fix up bad mistakes.
A centralised bureaucracy, by its own nature will cover up mistakes and then when exposed will come up with solutions that further centalise their power….not necessarily fix the mistake.
Sound familiar?
MARKET CAPITALISM?
WHAT?
You must have misunderstood the theory behind an ETS. It will have sweet FA to do with free trade and market capitalism.
It will definitely be managed and controlled by a centralised body (most probably the UN and the WTO) who will control all the movement of the emissions, where they go, how they will be accounted for in tonnage and all the rules that apply to the trade. (They will even have ways to control the price because of their control over all other aspects of emissions definition, emissions calculations and emissions movement)
They will take advice from government sponsored scientists, economists & environmentalists.
The three pests of free trade will also be involved, the 3 Bs…bureaucrats, brokers and bankers.
Of course the powerful fossil fuel monopolies will also benefit from this scheme, because they will have the opportunity to abrogate their responsibilities re pollution (not CO2 pollution BTW, although that gets abrogated as well, otherwise they’ve lost their reason for doing it)
They are in the process of creating an artificial market for carbon that will be sponsored by tax payers’ money. It will be run by a system of international treaties that are designed to centralise decision making power. (Its fashionable title is Deliberative Global Governance)
All the rules about this particular trade will be controlled by a centralised bureaucracy because they are being marketed as the all seeing, all knowing, benevolent body that will save us all from an impending, catastrophic, climate disaster and in the process apparently, bring a benevolent democracy to the world.
Who are you kidding? You think that is Market Capitalism?
ROTFL
Fairy land Luke….you’re living in a fairy tale.
Your solution is actually worse than the perceived problem….especially for Australia.
No one said that the UN can organise a chook raffle.
The problem is that they try.
Debbie – the threat from AGW is considerable. But it’s a democracy – so as sceptics do – make stuff up – cavort with shonks – spread disinformation and Vote it down. Don’t say you haven’t been told.
If carbon was a tradeable international commodity and the scheme simple and rules are clearly defined – new technology will emerge quickly. That’s what is required.
But hey – knowing better you can adapt my dear. Good luck. Just don’t expect talented scientists to support bullshit sceptic positions. Buy your own yes men and install them and get what you deserve.
Your logic is utterly stupefying – change doesn’t have to catastrophic – just move the boundaries enough and profitable industries will become marginal. But this time don’t ask for a handout or bail-out !
…’the threat from AGW is considerable.’ That’s a moot point.
Luke,
If you AGWers are right why do your “talented scientists” refuse to produce their data?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=950
This and many other instances.
Luke,
What you are advocating is a planned economy with a veneer of market based appearances – these have never worked – and never will. As far as the science is concerned, you have backed the wrong horse fella, the AGW hypothesis is false, and has been falsified time over time and only a person of supreme intellectual denseness would deny it.
You are simply the latest incarnation of the religious nutter holding his “the end of the world is nigh” placard.
You are simply barking mad.
One rather thought that the belief in big levers and central mechanisms would have been diminished by the experiences of the last century.
But no. Let’s try it one more time. This time, however, we’ll talk about using market forces and all that capitalist, businessy stuff. And we’ll get the heads of banks and major corporations to shill for it. It will be a superb collaboration between boffins who can’t be sacked, and those who stay rich or get even richer if they are sacked. This insulation of the elites, known previously as “dacha effect”, eliminates short-term approaches and counteracts the narrow bourgeois bias so fatal to all great systems.
All economies are planned to some extent- see fiscal policy and Reserve Bank. Get real. Fuel is taxed already. Electricity get GST – has the sky fallen in? All this central planning guff is merely sceptic meme talking points to bulldust and confuse.
If you think the AGW science is false its simply cause you’re in denial and a mining industry devotee.
Luke,
Aaah, so the reason I reckon the AGW science is false is because I am in denial and a mining industry devotee?? So it’s not the science then, but which industrial class I belong to, and some sort of pyschologial trait you imagine I might have.
So it’s class warfare after all, and not about science.
Maybe it’s difficult for AGW believers to perceive degree. If some regulation or taxation is necessary, much more is justified.
It’s even there in their language. “Tripe” is not strong enough, so it has to be “moronic tripe”. And no matter how strong any adjective, it can always do with an “utterly” in front of it.
Mind you, it’s nice to be called a mining industry devotee.
Robert,
Yes, a mining industry devotee – has a nice ring to it as well, 🙂
Why would carbon become an international traded commodity?
It would have to have a market value wouldn’t it?
Who is creating the value?
It has no value other than the one that is being artificially created.
That artificial market will be underpinned by tax dollars.
WTF????
As Louis and Robert has pointed out, that has been tried before.
It has never, never, ever worked!
Check your history Luke. Also check your political science history.
Also, what possible benefit would any of this have for poor old Oz siting down here in the southern hemisphere?
Aren’t we allowed to have a go at solving our own problems?
Despite your rather negative spin on adaptability, we’re actually not too bad at it you know.
Mind you, if you only ever listened to the MSM you would be forgiven for believing we’re a third world country on the brink of economic disaster.
Our record compared to the rest of the world, is actually rather good.
Not perfect, but I doubt that we’ll ever be perfect.
I can’t see the benefit, or the wisdom, in giving the power to others who don’t have a record as good as ours.
Also Luke there is a massive difference between fiscal policy ‘in country’ and what you appear to be advocating.
It is most definitely not comparable to creating a an artificial global market for CO2.
Luke,
That “all economies are planned to some extent” and the mess each and every economy is in at present is enough evidence to conclude that this policy doesn’t work.
Reminds me of Einstein’s observation of lunacy, the repetition of a specific activity in the expectation of producing different results.
“Despite your rather negative spin on adaptability, we’re actually not too bad at it you know.” not after you’ve had a big feed of drought aid or flood aid. What bunkum. Billions and billions.
Farming = agrarian socialism.
Sorry Debs taxes on pollution do work and very quickly. Acid rain = gone-sky. CFCs – substituted. Air pollution in cars – dramatic improvement. Lead in cars – gone.
“It has no value other than the one that is being artificially created.” Spoken by the war on science mob who have a vested interest in not believing the science on impacts.
Louis won’t bite the hand that feeds him.
More climate modelling wisdom:
http://i54.tinypic.com/o8b4.jpg
Luke,
Your so called billions and bilions were one off, emergency funding for exceptional circumstances.
Those funds are no longer necessary and no longer being paid out for drought and they’ve already been mostly earmarked & signed off for flood relief.
Once the ‘event’ is over and we have recovered, we don’t need and don’t expect further funding.
In actual fact, if you care to investigate, Govt funding for Agricultural research has been increasingly cut back.
The majority of Ag funding available at the moment has a ‘climate change’ tag attached to it and also requires Ag groups to stipulate ways to ‘cut back’ or ‘shut down’.
Compared to the ever increasing climate science budget (that seems to be growing exponentially) they pale into insignificance.
Compared to the ever increasing need to fund extra centralised bureaucratic departments, they pale into insignificance.
Compared to the ever increasing need to prove that we are a ‘global citizen’ that can deliver on international treaties, it pales into insignificance.
Even compared to the NBN budget, it pales into insignificance.
All these things are relative.
Also, are you suggesting that taxing carbon will alleviate the need for exceptional circumstances funding?
I’m guessing probably not, but I am questioning what you think the long term benefits actually are in relation to the funding for exceptional circumstances?
You seem to be inferring that one will alleviate the need for the other?
How would that work?
Also, the examples of acid rain, CFCs and leaded petrol that you are using were done in Australia with an ‘in country’ focus and there were sensible, affordable alternatives available before industry was pressured by taxation to change.
This one, with a global ETS attached, is very, very different. To play in this particular game, our Federal Government will be required to expose Australia to unnecessary risk.
You also seem to forget that I have nothing against genuine science or against climate research….I actually support both and believe in the need for both.
As always, I am objecting to the inappropriate use of this research.
I actually loathe the fact that genuine researchers are inadvertantly dumped into the same basket as the politicians, bureaucrats, greens etc who are hijacking the research for purposes which they were not intended.
I hope you also understand that your comment about ‘biting the hand that feeds’ works both ways?
It will be fascinating to watch those simple schemes with clearly defined rules come into force. Sadly, some of the pioneers of carbon trading, such as Enron and Lehman Bros, won’t be available to advise on simplicity and clear rules. But when you’re trading in a mere fragment of thin air, imagination will be a factor, as well as an ability to reduce vast and shifting matters to straight equations. I think I know just the man!
Oh Debbie – how long is your nose – we’re talking about 20 years worth dearie – wake up.
One off my foot !
That would be the exceptional circumstances that keeps being exceptional . Which is why the government eventually canned it. But don’t worry Debs – you guys know all about climate and are fully adapted – you won’t need any further assistance.
If those 2 comments were made to try and distract me from the point of this thread, it was unsuccessful.
I thought we were discussing the wisdom of current government policy and in particular mooted government policy in relation to implementing a carbon tax, engaging in a global ETS, shutting down large tracts of productive agricultural land, denying Australians access to productive resources and numerous other legislative manouvres?
The further point is that our government is using climate science and in particular AGW as its excuse for doing this.
I was pointing out the relativity (or lack thereof) of your previous comment to try and steer you back to the point of the thread.
Apparently I was also unsuccessful?
Yeah Luke,
Taxes on pollution work but what’s that got to do with CO2?
Mind you, it often helps if you’re confused:
http://www.thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/2963-breakthrough-new-coupled-climate-model-results.html
Also on topic is this article posted today at Quadrant Online
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/05/how-to-kill-agariculture
No Debs – just pointing your “high” level of adaptation helped with a few spare billion.
Deb,
They can’t understand that a lot less of what goes in one end comes out the other.
That it’s carbon sequestration by any measure.
Luke as usual thinks it is always better to waste taxpayer funds on completely non-productive recipients.