Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Calliope]

The journalism was so bad that even senior staff at News Limited couldn't stomach it.

Never mind basilio. You don't have to read The Australian, unless you are interested in balance. The Guardian and the Pravda on the Yarra are more your style.

 

[bellenuit]

Actually the story was on the front page of The Australian in Feb 2010. Check out the following link .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915

The journalism was so bad that even senior staff at News Limited couldn't stomach it.



http://www.themonthly.com.au/power-...ed-states-chris-mitchell-sally-neighbour-3589

Actually, IMO, that article doesn't in any way give me the impression of deliberate bias. The heading is very much warmist propaganda: "Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches", suggesting the beach could erode by "hundreds of metres". The comment from the surfer could hardly be seen as The Australian using an authoritative source to counter Wong's claims. It was used purely in the context of how locals see the situation and was probably factually correct in regards to the past 30 years. It then used an authoritative source who gave factual information about measurements to date globally, which indicate 1.6mm pa. That is 4.8cm over 30 years and would also corroborate the gut feel of the local.

If you call that article bias, then you ain't read the stuff the government has been putting out.

 

[Ruby]

I think the most extreme example was having a story from a Bondi surfer who opinioned that because he couldn't see any difference in the climate as a surfer then there really couldn't be any climate change worth considering. (Much like own elder statesman on this forum of course ..)

Basilio, no-one on this forum has denied that our climate is changing! The earth's climate has always changed. You have been making some pretty wild claims in the last couple of weeks.

 

[basilio]

Actually, IMO, that article doesn't in any way give me the impression of deliberate bias. The heading is very much warmist propaganda: "Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches", suggesting the beach could erode by "hundreds of metres". The comment from the surfer could hardly be seen as The Australian using an authoritative source to counter Wong's claims. It was used purely in the context of how locals see the situation and was probably factually correct in regards to the past 30 years. It then used an authoritative source who gave factual information about measurements to date globally, which indicate 1.6mm pa. That is 4.8cm over 30 years and would also corroborate the gut feel of the local.

If you call that article bias, then you ain't read the stuff the government has been putting out.

It's your opinion Bellenuit and like every other person on this forum your welcome to it.
A few clarifications

1) It was the Tony Wilkins the manager of Environmental and Climate Change at News Ltd who thought this was the worst piece of journalism he had seen.

2) Penny Wong was basing her statements on the advice of IPPC climate scientists. I understand that in this forum the research and analysis of 99% of climate scientists who see a serious problem is basically derided. But Penny Wong does need to recognise and follow the advice of what is the overwhelmingly majority of the current science.

3) The Australian chose to contrast the views of hundreds of climate scientists against a 63 year old surfer who says he can't see any changes.

4) Professor Carter offers a view of the last 100 years of water level rises which he then projects into the future. He rejects all the evidence of climate scientist on rising ocean levels based on warming of the oceans (which will cause water expansion) and melting of glaciers and Greenland icecaps (both clearly documented and expanding exponentially)

 

[sails]

Here's something that's NOT from the Australian - that should please Basilio...

The Sunday Age has been looking for reader questions on climate and here is the winning question:

"The very point of Australia's carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5% of Australia's around 1.5% contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by? If the amount is negligible (which it is), then given the present economic turbulence, what is the probability of Australia's carbon tax inspiring major emitters like USA, China and India to make ACTUAL cuts to their C02 emissions (as opposed to mere carbon intensity) and economic growth? - -Jason Fong,"

and the answer (bold is mine):

"Victoria University climate scientist Professor Roger Jones has calculated that if the rest of the world did not act and Australia reduced emissions until 2020, then did nothing else, Australia's policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100."

So, even IF AGW is for real, there is little Australia can do about it. No point arguing AGW any further unless the entire world will do something. Even then I doubt that we can change co2 significantly with a tax. And major emitting countries are simply not interested.

Relevent links to the quotes above:

http://oursay.org/the-sunday-age/th...will-reducing-5-of-australia-039-s-around-1-5

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html#ixzz1WuyY7La6

 

[ghotib]

Basilio, no-one on this forum has denied that our climate is changing! The earth's climate has always changed. You have been making some pretty wild claims in the last couple of weeks.

Ruby, Look at GG's post 6 above your own. Is GG no one?

 

[explod]

Here's something that's NOT from the Australian - that should please Basilio...

The Sunday Age has been looking for reader questions on climate and here is the winning question:



and the answer (bold is mine):



So, even IF AGW is for real, there is little Australia can do about it. No point arguing AGW any further unless the entire world will do something. Even then I doubt that we can change co2 significantly with a tax. And major emitting countries are simply not interested.

Relevent links to the quotes above:

http://oursay.org/the-sunday-age/th...will-reducing-5-of-australia-039-s-around-1-5

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html#ixzz1WuyY7La6

It may be only a grain in the sand and it may in fact not be the way to go, but it is a start

There are a number of other countries around the world taking this first step too.

Effect very little at this stage. It is about changing sentiment getting industry to research cleaners ways and will bring with it new technologies that among them some will be breathtaking. Great problems in the past have been overcome in similar ways.

Sitting on the fence and pretending there is not a problem does not help.

 

[sails]

It may be only a grain in the sand and it may in fact not be the way to go, but it is a start

There are a number of other countries around the world taking this first step too.

Effect very little at this stage. It is about changing sentiment getting industry to research cleaners ways and will bring with it new technologies that among them some will be breathtaking. Great problems in the past have been overcome in similar ways.

Sitting on the fence and pretending there is not a problem does not help.

And neither does risking the vandalising of our economy. That is a far greater risk to Australia than a tiny 0.0038% of a rising temperature.

The political "cure" is very likely to be far worse than the initial problem, imo. Much like pulling your whole house down to find something you've lost. Big overkill.

And, some of these other minor emitting countries have alternative baseload power such as hydro or nuclear. We have neither. Pretty stupid to put our main power at risk to prevent a tiny 0.0038% of rising temperature over the next 90 years...

 

[sails]

Ruby, Look at GG's post 6 above your own. Is GG no one?

Pretty stupid to call AGW "climate change" because the climate has always changed. No argument there. There have always been long and short term warming and cooling cycles.

However, the controversial AGW "science" is not settled.

 

[explod]

And neither does risking the vandalising of our economy. That is a far greater risk to Australia than a tiny 0.0038% of a rising temperature.

The political "cure" is very likely to be far worse than the initial problem, imo. Much like pulling your whole house down to find something you've lost. Big overkill.

And, some of these other minor emitting countries have alternative baseload power such as hydro or nuclear. We have neither. Pretty stupid to put our main power at risk to prevent a tiny 0.0038% of rising temperature over the next 90 years...

Maybe the eonomomy would benefit more by the stimulation creating new technologies.

And also if this new scheme is seen to be bringing down the economy then Governments will be forced to alter the direction of the ways to battle climate change.

But we do not really know yet. Some branches of business and industry are welcoming the change.

However as I said, sitting on our hands is a solution to nought.

 

[Smurf1976]

All these notions of taking action to reduce CO2 have one fatal flaw, an escape route for the major polluters who are pretty certain to use it.

"Free trade" is what stops us cutting emissions unless every country on earth agrees to do the same thing at the same time.

If we're going to have a carbon tax then it needs to be the same rate in Australia, China, Brazil, USA, South Africa, Qatar, Russia and many others. Either that or we close the escape door and slap tariffs on goods from any country with a lower rate of tax than us. But then that gives us a trade war, which isn't likely to be a good situation either.

For as long as I've had an interest in this issue, and that goes back to well before it was mainstream, trade has always been the thing that prevents effective action to reduce emissions. If we tax production here or otherwise force it to clean up then it simply moves offshore, meaning that nothing gets done to reduce emissions whilst throwing Australians out of work.

If Australia wants to actually reduce emissions then we're faced with the reality of needing to impose laws such that steel (for example) used in Australia has to be made in Australia or some other country with an equal (or greater) price on carbon. That is, a ban or tax on steel imports from most countries on earth. Likewise every other energy-intensive material and product made from it. In practice, that amounts to a return to protectionism and that's a fairly serious step with broader consequences.

We can debate CO2 forever but as it stands there is no means of actually bringing about a cut in emissions from energy-intensive materials production and manufacturing generally. Either we let it continue, or we move it offshore and it continues there instead. As long as there's this obsession with "free" trade and competition, we don't have the option to force domestic industry to do something that isn't being done internationally.

Could it be done? Of course it could. But it's not likely to actually happen.

 

[sails]

...But we do not really know yet. Some branches of business and industry are welcoming the change.

However as I said, sitting on our hands is a solution to nought.

Exoplod, exactly...we do not know and it is a huge gamble in these economic times.

Of course, business that are likely to profit will welcome the change. Banks must be rubbing their hands together at so much forced trade where they can make a motza from bid/ask spreads. I assume you know what that means, Explod? It can be a painful thing when trading Aussie options but unlikely to be understood by Aussie share traders.

And sitting on our hands doing nothing is a whole lot better than risking the bulldozing of the Australian economy. I find it difficult to understand that you would rather have your grandkids living in a climate that might be 0.0038% less rise in temperature than having good career and life style opportunities. Our Australian way of life is far more important to me for my grandkids than MAYBE preventing an 0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time.

I have no problem with research and development into alternative power sources, however, they are not sufficiently established at this point in time to tax the hell out of our current baseload power.

 

[explod]

Exoplod, exactly...we do not know and it is a huge gamble in these economic times.

Of course, business that are likely to profit will welcome the change. Banks must be rubbing their hands together at so much forced trade where they can make a motza from bid/ask spreads. I assume you know what that means, Explod? It can be a painful thing when trading Aussie options but unlikely to be understood by Aussie share traders.

And sitting on our hands doing nothing is a whole lot better than risking the bulldozing of the Australian economy. I find it difficult to understand that you would rather have your grandkids living in a climate that might be 0.0038% less rise in temperature than having good career and life style opportunities. Our Australian way of life is far more important to me for my grandkids than MAYBE preventing an 0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time.

I have no problem with research and development into alternative power sources, however, they are not sufficiently established at this point in time to tax the hell out of our current baseload power.

You still miss my point.

It is the mindset that will increase this 0.0038% gradually into a meanigfull number that will make a difference, economically and on the environment.

 

[sails]

You still miss my point.

It is the mindset that will increase this 0.0038% gradually into a meanigfull number that will make a difference, economically and on the environment.

We might have to agree to disagree, Explod...

You are focused on the tiny reduction and I am more concerned about our future economy for my grandkids. I don't trust treasury's modelling - they were a laughing stock over the mining tax and there's absolutely no guarantee that they have got their numbers right on pricing carbon.

While this link is from last year, it doesn't inspire one with confidence at the ability of treasury to get these big taxes right: Treasury tarnished by turn of events over mining super tax

 

[Julia]

You still miss my point.

It is the mindset that will increase this 0.0038% gradually into a meanigfull number that will make a difference, economically and on the environment.

Explod, I doubt very much that Sails is missing your point.
She is simply overriding the romantic wishful thinking of it with some objective and absolutely rational arguments.

 

[Calliope]

I think the most extreme example was having a story from a Bondi surfer who opinioned that because he couldn't see any difference in the climate as a surfer then there really couldn't be any climate change worth considering. (Much like own elder statesman on this forum of course ..)

(My bolds)

I think an elderly surfer is more in tune with climate change than your 99% of IPPC climate scientists living and working in splendid isolation, mucking around with modelling.

And who is this "elder statesman" you are sneering at? Don't forget that your chief admirer on this thread, explod, is no spring chicken.

 

[sptrawler]

It may be only a grain in the sand and it may in fact not be the way to go, but it is a start

There are a number of other countries around the world taking this first step too.

Effect very little at this stage. It is about changing sentiment getting industry to research cleaners ways and will bring with it new technologies that among them some will be breathtaking. Great problems in the past have been overcome in similar ways.

Sitting on the fence and pretending there is not a problem does not help.

If the government was interested in changing pollution levels they could do so by giving industries targets that they must attain within certain timeframes.
For example they could tell the car industry that they must change to l.p.g and diesel power only by 2015 and l.p.g electric only by 2020. This would be achievable as the technology and infrastructure is already there to support it.
The down side is the government don't get extra tax from the carbon tax and also loose tax from the petrol excise tax. They are just full of crap, it has nothing to do with cleaning up the atmosphere it is all to do with an easy tax grab. More money that they can waste, as they have been doing.

 

[explod]

If the government was interested in changing pollution levels they could do so by giving industries targets that they must attain within certain timeframes.
For example they could tell the car industry that they must change to l.p.g and diesel power only by 2015 and l.p.g electric only by 2020. This would be achievable as the technology and infrastructure is already there to support it.
The down side is the government don't get extra tax from the carbon tax and also loose tax from the petrol excise tax. They are just full of crap, it has nothing to do with cleaning up the atmosphere it is all to do with an easy tax grab. More money that they can waste, as they have been doing.

I agree, in my view the approach is crap too.

My argument is about sentiment and it is bringing it to the surface. This thread is evidence enough of that.

There is no doubt that the weight of numbers will find a much better way in due course.

 

[Calliope]

There is no doubt that the weight of numbers will find a much better way in due course.

If you mean the "weight of numbers" of the warmist alarmists you will be sadly disillusioned. They are not interested in a better way. They are rusted on to the punitive taxation model.

 

[explod]

If you mean the "weight of numbers" of the warmist alarmists you will be sadly disillusioned. They are not interested in a better way. They are rusted on to the punitive taxation model.

Who knows which direction the weight of numbers will take us, but the starting gun has sounded.

..."sadly dissilusioned"... bit of passion there ole Pal, ..."alarmists"..., very touchy.