Dear Senator

Take away the clunking rhetoric, poor grammar, mixed metaphors, mis-spelling (last para), and the original error where you posited that Nokia came from Norway (not Finland) and there is almost nothing left of any substance in this tirade.

How can you argue for the development of high technology when you can hardly string a coherent message together?

Take the second sentence in paragraph 3 --- no matter how I read this, it does make any grammatical or common sense.

And what about "Developing nations must ... develop". Develop what? Farms? Poverty? New religions? More crime? Cars?

You say that Australia, via Wong and Rudd, will be ignored by the world because we represent only 1.5% of global GDP. You then say that waht a disaster it will be that we are setting a terrible economic example to the world and we will become an economic basket case. Pick one. Are we to be ignored, or are we a really bad economic example to the world? Can't be both.

You are increasingly coming across as a desperate blowhard, I have to say. I was in the bush camping with some Tory-voting fellow dads and kids from our local school in Sydney on the weekend, and your name came up while discussing the various personalities. "He sounded pretty pragmatic and sensible a couple of years ago when the coalition ruled. Now he sounds like a bullshit artist cow cocky" said one dad, a small business owner. The consensus is that 'relevance deprivation syndrome had kicked in.

Another dad reckons it is common knowledge that your campaign backing and support comes from the cotton growers and that thye may be applying 'pressure' in the form of these ridiculous outburts.

Well well.

If that is true it does explain a lot. If it is true, it is also very well hidden behind the Wilson Tuckey-Joh Bjelke Petersen hybridised pile of old poop you serve up to us.

There is a saying that was made for you: Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Disclaimer: I live in the electorate of Bradfield, and have no political memberships or affiliations of any kind.

You know when you have hit the nail right on the head Barnaby by the desperation and length people will go to to discredit and villify you. I say spot on and keep up the good work informing us of this monstous scam called AGW. It is a scam to bring in a new tax that will screw us all and do diddly sqat to the climate. That last blowhard needs to check his own spelling.

SW Johnson - your not too bad at the mis-spelling either. Lighten up a bit. Its about the uselessness of the jestures not the grammar in the article. Rudd and Wong are sending us down a path of increased taxes based on half truths and dodgy goals. There is no proof that CO2 drives the climate , yet we are going to be taxed to the back teeth while other countries are not. Already China has flagged a reduction in CO2 emissions that will actually see them rise. See what happens at Copenhagen then decide what we can do , not the other way around.

We are living on the backs of cheap labour because our businesses have taken many of our jobs overseas. We provide the ingredients for the poluting industries in China and then buy their goods. You want to see carbon emmissions - go to China, Japan, Indonesia.
We pay thousands of dollars to increase our population in an over-populated world while suffering from droughts. The oceans are being depleted, forest are being chopped down and burnt, ice-caps and glaciers are melting, the gulf stream is slowing, co2 levels mirror 140,000 years ago and you guys want to WORRY ABOUT TAXES?

Loosen up Lizzie ....you have been sold a heap of garbage along with a lot of other people in this country.
Dont believe all that you have been told !!! Statistics can be bent either way to suit whatever the person selling the idea wants it to reveal...you have been had !!!
Australians will be paying higher taxes along with experiencing third world living standards..I consider that very serious for my children..
I would like to know how you intend stopping any volcanic eruptions in the future.....well one eruption could wipe out any C reduction we could make in a year !!!
I agree with Barnaby,....keep up the great work...we need more like you.

Sorry to pull you up there people, but you will find that the only scientists that don't recognise that CO2 emissions are a major driver of global warming are the ones that are funded by oil companies or other self-interested industries. Rather than making a point on the value of the current proposed ETS I feel I should clarify that there is NO dissent from the independent scientific community that global warming IS occurring and that something needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere to prevent the known global problems that will arise.

CO2 emissions have gone up since fossil fuels began to be widely exploited. This is fact - we can isotopically trace the source of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is from fossil fuel sources.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes increased warming of the atmosphere most of the excess heat is then taken up by the ocean. This is fact - any physics lab can show you the effect of CO2 in absorbing and then re-radiating said heat, of which the oceans are the main sink of this heat as air and continents do not hold onto the heat as readily - again any physics lab can demonstrate this effect.

Global temperatures are most strongly driven by the OCEAN temperatures and unlike the more variable atmospheric average temperatures have consistantly risen. Again there is the data to show this.

To state that ANY country does not have a role to play in reducing global CO2 emissions is an injustice. And if Senator Joyce was really representing regional Australia and the farmers that are at the forefront of soil management (e.g. pasture cropping, zero till, etc.) he would know that most welcome an ETS providing that would give them an opportunity to trade in the carbon market. This would help reduce the approximately 15% of current atmospheric CO2 levels that has been lost from agricultural soils world wide and the associated losses of soil structure and fertility.

As an aside, scientists project that without remediating the landscape degradation of this country within 10 - 15 years we will not have the soil and water captial to grow food to support OURSELFS not to mention many other net food importing countries. So how about some long term political outlooks from the representatives on capital hill - and Barnaby you used to be one of them.

Nathan, I dont agree with your generalisations. To say the only scientists that dispute man made global warming are funded by oil companies is an out right lie. You will need to produce proof to back up your statement. There is no proof that CO2 is driving the climate. History tells us that when the temperatures increased ( naturally) CO2 rose after fact - not before. We have had ( in recent history) a rise in CO2 levels yet the global temps have flattened over the last 10 years. None of the projections from the computer models have been correct. I would also like to see you information on ocean temperatures. Not anecdotal evidence fron your lab - just facts from reliable sources

With respect - and I mean that (btw - unlike Baranaby I don't have a speech writer and a spell checker when writing in these boxes but I'll try to get the spelling right for lachy and Mark).

To the point: the lengths to which "people will go to discredit" Joyce says Lachlan?

I spell out exactly what piffle the Senator was spouting - mixed metaphors that make no sense (I reckon he was unprepared); a paragraph that makes absolutely no sense whatever (here it is:

"The inspiration for the development of a mechanism to deliver a higher level of carbon efficient production, not the regression associated with an inhibitive new overhead and associated bureaucracy entrenched in the massive new tax system of Australia’s CPRS."

Now tell me what it means, lachlan, please! That's no "great lengths", mate, that is a 10 minute comment from me and it is called "rational debate".

If you can, try to re-read my comments and respond to the arguments in it rather than knee-jerking some automatic response without thinking it through.

C'mon, regional folks, you are a lot smarter than this. Come back at me with meat , rather than hot wind.

C'mon Mark: "there's no proof CO2 drives the climate". The majority of recognised climate scientists believe that we have a problem. Just like you, I wish they were wrong, but on balance the evidence from appropriately qualified scientists is against you and anyone who takes the same line.

No matter how much we keep telling ourselves that while there is one scientist who disagrees, we can conscientously go with him or her and ignore the the weight of scientific opinion (because this is what you are doing). The reality is that we have to rely on scientists for our evidence, and no amount of your wishful thinking will change that. If a qualified vet says your horses have Hendra Virus, do you argue? What is 100 vets says your horses have Hendra and one vet says: "no mate they are fine." ??

The potential for climate change may be a red herring (I hope it is) but we are stuffed if it isn't. That's the logic that most governments are following.

Also, it ain't a conspiracy of town v country.

The policies Rudd and Wong are trying to introduce will cost us all. No-one wins with this, and the majority of properly-qualified scientists are not being "bribed" to tell us the bad news. Time to face up and recognise that if you dead-set do not believe in climate change, you are in a tiny minority and you are following scientists who are way outside of the accepted view.

Please respond, but do it after you have the comments properly.

SW Johnson. Try this site and let me know if the "majority" of scientist believe we have a problem.
www.petitionproject.org
Of the IPCC scientist ( 2500) Only 5 independant scientists actually looked at the data and determined that there was a 90% chance that CO2 was driving the climate.
31000 to 5 - Who has the majority ?

Mark - not sure what your point is.

Firstly, the 'Petition Project' is a US-only privately-funded (i.e. by a business man) petition made by non-qualified and non-verified scientists (who are they? Are they PhDs in history? Literature? Climatology? It is meangless without that detail, and the website you present has no detail). There is more here and on youtube. The former head of the US National Science Academy (Dr Seitz) who is used to validate this petition in 1997 was declared 'mentally incompetent' to operate professionally in 1978! He had also steered $45million in public funding to Big Tobacco companies for research on cancer in the 60s. Guess what? Seitz found no link between tobacco use and lung cancer. Seitz is a nutcase, Mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

This is pretty specific Mark:

"A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." Read it here

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

Your comemnt that only 5 independent scientists 'actually looked at the data and ... there was a 90% chance ..." tells me that, even if you are right and only 5 people looked at the data, 100% of the five scientists believe that there is a 90% chance that CO2 is driving climate change. The only argument you have here is that only 5 looked at it and they agreed that CO2 drives climate change. Your logic is skew-wiff mate, and it is certainly not 31000 versus 5.

Its is 5/5 scientists who looked at the evidence. That equals 100% of scientists belive there is a 90% chance that CO2 drive climate change.

I am not thoroughly convinced that CO2 causes climate change, but as I said before, if the sceptics (including you, an unqualified person) are wrong then we are stuffed.

I am a reasonably well-educated person - not in the sciences though - and on the balance of evidence and the alarm raised by the vast majority of climatologists and other relevant experts (and furthermore, these people gain nothing from this alarm) there is good reason to believe that we have a problem.

Over to you.

Go to the links on the web page - Qualifications of signers.
3803 Trained in specialities directly related to physical environment of the earth and past and current phenomena that effect the environment.
5810 scientists trained in physical and molecular properties of gases and liquids
I need not go on as it is all listed there. Names, qualifications, fields of expertise etc.
The fact that i dont have a qualification ( an assumption on your part) is not relevant as I - Like a lot of other people want the facts so we can judge if the conclusions reached are credible. These people are questioning the data that says man made CO2 is changing the climate. There can be no consensus on this - science is either proved or disproved. There are projections and graphs but so far none of them have produced outcomes that can be matched to recent results.
Not all these people can be nut cases or in the pocket of big polluters etc. Dont tell me that people who work in climate departments or environment departments dont have a reason to continue ramping up the climate change theory. Their jobs depend on it !

It would be interesting to profile Nathan at 2:53 PM. Maybe a young disciple trained by Al Gore. Comes out with the classical line about 'ones that are funded by oil companies'. Such an idiotic line of debating.

Would be interested to know his response to the fact that Australia's emission of carbon dioxide is equivalent to the width of hair relative to one kilometre of atmosphere.

SWJohnson may also like to give us his thoughts on how such an infinitesimal amount could affect the climate.

Keith - sorry, but you are quoting someone, who has quoted someone else, and you have picked up some rot at the end that you remembered, and now you are now spouting it as fact (hey - these forums are tough for the ego). Keith, Australia makes up about 1.75% of the world's GDP. So I expect us to have contributed about 1.75% to the world's pollution. Now I may see 1.75% as infinitesimal. But if you think this is what the argument is about, then you are a man who has not travelled more than 100km from his own house, and for that I feel for you becasue I doubt you will ever get it.

Mark - so are you qualified or not? Am I being presumptuous about this, or just sensible? Let's stop wasting space with cheap rhetorical devices that draw the argument away from the root. I am not qualified. You are not qualified. We are educated people weighing the facts and discussing what we know.

Move on.

The Petition Project (clearly something you believe is relevant and a point of clarity for you - and fair enough) is debunked. It is driven by shonky, business-related interests, and is endorsed by a totally irredeemable and disgraced former head of the US Academy of Sciences (Dr Seitz) who lost all credibility in the scientific field in 1978, 30 years BEFORE he endorsed your Project Petition. Mate, move on from the Petition Project.

There are far stronger and more credible climate change sceptics out there to whom you should be plugging in to if you genuinely believ that climate change is a fad. This Petition group is not one of them.

I am NOT swayed by lunatic lefty groups screaming the house down any more than I am by discredited right wing LOONS like the poor old bastard who has dementia and who endorsed the Petition Project.

I agree that the science is UNPROVEN. But it is also totally NOT PROVEN that man-made emissions DO NOT cause a change to climate. It is like proving that God doesn't exist, or does exist.

You cannot do it.

But unlike the teleogical argument relating to God's existenmce or not, this is actually empirical (ie it is tangible and could realy hurt us) if we get it wrong. So ...

I listen to credible people working in broadly recognised, credible mainstream science, not people on the fringes, even if the fringes have a message that I want to actually hear (like "dude, climate change isn't a problem").

I need to hear the facts. The facts bloody well hurt sometimes, Mark.

Finally - are you seriously suggesting that scientists who believe climate change is a genuine threat are bullshitting the facts to ... what? ... gain funding back into climate change research? Come on.

So this is a conspiracy driven by scientists now? The world, run by big business (of which I am a part) and big government, despite their combined huge resource, have been completely outfoxed by a bunch of clever, sneaky scientists who have 'engineered the results' in a massive conspiracy claiming that the world is in MORTAL DANGER from climate change. And it's all just so that they (the scientific community) can get some extra research funding.

Oh My Lord.

Now that is as far fetched as those awful Dan Brown novels - you know the ones that make you feel smart by reading them because you think you are learning stuff, but they are actually made up stuff that just sounds credible?

And fair dinkum - if you believe that, you will go down like the dinosaurs, oblivious to it all.

Anyways - I have been rambling. Apologies and all respect to all readers and contributors. I am forceful - sorry if I offended. The argument creates discussion - the discussion makes us think - perhaps we can get to the truth together? As Spike Milligan used to say: Love, Light and Peace (at least until my three kids wake up in 6 hours!).

To SW Johnson 10:46 PM. Obviously you are an inspiring politician on two counts. Attack the questioner and refuse to answer the question. 'The fact that Australia's emission of carbon dioxide is equivalent to the width of hair relative to one kilometre of atmosphere'.

In simple terms. Carbon dioxide makes up a very very small percentage of gases, mankind produces about 5% and Australia about 1% of that. The analogy is the width of a hair on the Gateway Bridge. I have done the maths. Now that it may be clearer to you could you respond to the actual question?

When you assume that I haven't traveled you are only making an ass out of yourself.

Keith - This is from Michael Smith 4BC. I think it is what you are referring to :

Here’s a way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution. We’ll have a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.

Actually Keith I said nothing of the sort.

I said that if you think the argument is about some dumbed down analogy involving a human hair, then you are a man who hasn't travelled. Why just reinforce the fact that you don't "get out much". These analogies about a hair breadth on a big bridge are very cute and easy to understand, which measn you like them, but they do not represent the scale of the issue.

Here's another analogy for you: A bullet makes up about 0.8% of your body's weight. Now convince me that if it was expelled from a powerful gun pointed in your direction, that it is still of "infinitesimal value".

Don't get sucked in by simple parables - they only ever tell a part of the story - 8 years of intense study resulting in a PhD, followed by many years of research cannot be explained away with little stories.

SW Johnson, I wont move on until i am convinced on the science. the petition is not debunked. Deal with the facts. 31000 scientists signed this petition. They cant all be discredited because a person who endorses it is a "right wing loon" - your words.
What about the 50 physicists from the American Physical Society, What about the 70 German scientist who wrote to Angela Merkel - all questioning the science. The debate on this has never been had. It has been forced through and only now it is being questioned and challenged.
What im talking about is "man made climate change" not natural variations
Clmiate scientists certainly have a vested interest in presenting "evidence" in their best interests.In 1996 Professor Schneider a Global Warming Consultant in the USA stated " so we offer up scary scenarios, make simplified statements and make little mention of the doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest"

Mark. I understand your point regarding my lack of presented evidence, but you support your own arguments with generalisations and incorrect information.

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my judgement of scientist that don’t agree with CO2 and global warming but if you do a search at the peer reviewed journals in the field of global warming (unlike that at the petition project website – and their justification for publishing it in the obscure medical journal does not hold – all results remain the property of the authors and are not subject to copy write provided due reference is made) of Science and or Nature. You will see that the scientific community has moved on from the debate of whether CO2 is the cause of global warming – instead the debates are now about the magnitude and diversity of effects from said warming.

The following link will take you to a report given to the Oz gov on climate change and it covers all the science and the new findings (especially those of the last 18 months which have not really filtered into mainstream media yet).

http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf


These links show the data regarding the warming of the oceans:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/trendmaps.cgi

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi

The first one shows how much the temp of the land and the ocean has increased since 1970 - present

The second link shows the trend in overall global temperature in graph form showing it has increased since the 1800s and these are based on actual measurements on the ground integrated with satellite data – real data not anecdotal.

Yes the climate models were wrong. But the ones developed in the past 18 months have been improved to far more acceptable levels of error. And besides the IPCC models from a decade ago are showing that if anything they under predicted the CO2 emissions and their effects (www.ocean-acidification.net).

So maybe the ETS in its current form is not the best way of reducing CO2 levels but perhaps looking at some of the info I’ve presented will be helpful for making a more informed opinion on global warming. You may come to the same one you hold now but this data is a bit more balanced than that shown at the petition project website

Keith. In regards to my profile: I've never watched Al Gore's movie (can't stand his voice and a couple hours of him droning on sounds ear-bleedingly painful), but I don't have to to be convinced of global warming and human's role in it - the science stands without being trumpeted by an ex-vice-president. If you are interested I am a soil scientist. Certainly not young (whitening hair is a give away) and if you knew the way research funding can and often does get supplied (and the circuitous routes they often come along) and the strings attached regarding the publication of the results then you wouldn't think that the "funded by oil companies" line of argument was so idiotic.

Mark and Keith. Your analogy would be grand if there was a straight line connection from the amount of CO2 present to the warming effect. Fortunately only a small amount is needed to insulate the planet otherwise we would be sitting in average global temps around -12 degrees. No thanks. Unfortunately, the large volumes of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere from fossil fuels are contributing to the re-radiation of heat from the atmosphere back to the planet surface.

And last time I heard about it, doesn't Oz have one of the highest per capita CO2e emissions levels? Where is the global justice if we just say bollucks to that - our emissions are tiny compared to others. But in reality only as an aggregate, individually we are among the worst and its embarrassing. Isn't fairness about cleaning up our share of the mess.

Nathan - What is the acceptable level of error you talk about. Have a look at www.surface studies .org and the article from Anthony Watts 2009 titles : Is the US surface temp record reliabe?:
I think you may need to look at the data from further back than 20-30 years to get a real picture of the trends in climate. Try this on ice core samples and CO2 increases. They all happened after the rises in temperature not before and i dont think there were too many humans around them.

Science 12 March 1999:
Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714
DOI: 10.1126/science.283.5408.1712
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Geosciences Research Division, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0220, USA.

Mark. Below is the abstract of a recent modelling application using past climate reconstructions to determine the likelihood of current climate change being natural variation or man-made, rather than the usual modelling approach of predicting temerature increases using a global circulation model (like the IPCC) - the last sentence is probably the most relevant. The palaeo-reconstruction is using the data records from ice cores and coral cores.


Using models with long-term persistence to interpret the rapid increase of Earth’s temperature

John M. Halley

Received 8 December 2008;
revised 16 February 2009.
Available online 27 February 2009.

Abstract

Statistical processes with long-term persistence (LTP) offer a promising approach to modeling the natural dynamics of Earth’s temperature. One such process, the family of 1/f-noises, is used here to assess the plausibility of a natural origin for recent global warming. Following earlier studies, a model of natural variability with LTP is parameterized via paleoclimate reconstructions. The method developed here resolves a number of limitations in existing studies, primarily the problem of inaccuracies in estimating the spectral exponent of LTP. The output of the model is compared with the observed rate of temperature rise (0.61 ring operatorC/century between 1850 and 2007 for Northern hemispheric land air temperatures). We find that rates comparable with the observed global warming are very rarely generated by the model of natural variability (the probability is less than 2.3×10−4). Thus, natural agencies are not a plausible explanation for the observed global warming unless all the paleoclimate reconstructions through which the model is parameterized are underestimating natural variance by a factor of at least four.


There are a couple of sites that refute the arguments of Watts (2009) on the web - the most credible compares the temperature variation over the whole data record of US surface temperatures with the temperature record solely from the stations that Watts determines are suitably located to not bias temperatures. The results track almost identically and still show the same increase in temperature.

The chicken or the egg argument in terms of global warming (i.e. whether Milankovich cycles control warming or whether CO2 does) is really quite irrelevant when viewed in the context of a whole warming period. Whether CO2 came after warming began does not matter as it is the presence of the CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of its source, that perpetuates initial 'natural' warming. However there is no evidence that we are currently experiencing a Milankovich cycle that would account for the observed warming anyway.

I have presented arguments that I feel measure your own (and I suggest you use more of the reputable journal articles such as Fischer et al. (1999) and even Bjorn Lomborg to support your arguments in the future) but I will withdraw from this discussion. Thank you for your time - I've enjoyed the debate.

Thanks for your input and an anjoyable exchange. I hope we didnt bore everyone else

Who is this SW Johnson with so much time on his hands engaging in the usual gibberish that comes out of the mouths of politicians and those who speak for them? Nit picking on

Come on SW, tell us who you work for!

As a recently retired management consultant, with some 40 years experience in Strategic and Operational Planning, and having read at least 100 academic papers on the subject of human induced global warming, I have become a total sceptic.

Barnaby, please keep up your questioning approach, and lead the sceptics in parliament to reject Rudd's legislation until after Copenhagen.

Those of us who do not agree with Rudd's arrogant and ignorant approach need a voice. The Parliament needs to engage in a process of Strategic Thinking, before adopting a position. Rudd and his acolytes have never bothered to try to persuade the electorate through logical argument.

Rudd is seemingly an acolyte of the execrable Al Gore and his oxymoronic 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Both of these eco-religious fanatics employ ridicule and denigration as tactics in their attempts to demolish the rational arguments of the many eminent scientists and other who have formed a view at variance with that of the new eco religious zealots.

It sounds as though Malcolm has shot himself in both feet today with his statement of not wanting to lead a party not united in support of the Rudd approach.

Barnaby, stand firm and let Malcolm walk, which is what it seems he intends to do, since the Coalition will never unite in the way he wants.

Sorry, SW, if the spelling and grammar is not perfect. There is no spell checker in this little box!

And as for your SME business owner and his 'intellectual contribution', I have been consulting to many such business persons for the past 22 years, and I only met a couple with any serious understanding of economics, business planning or any other key area of the practice of management.

Finally, God save me from the Nathan's of the world, with their little incomprehensible extracts from the literature!

I have a small library of papers, many of 30 to 40 pages which purport to demolish the doom and gloom rubbish peddled by the Sterns and Gores of the world. I would wager that there are far more sceptics than believers, so why cannot we err on the side of economic caution until at least the Copenhagen conference has discussed the situation and agreed on a course of action which, whether or not it eventually works, will not destroy our economy.

And finally, a big POX on SW for his rude, denigration of Barnaby Joyce. And if he still does not know what the world 'develop' means, in the context of a developing nation, he has led a sheltered life!!

SW, get a life!

May I suggest that those who believe in man made climate change read John Reids article in the latest Quadrant. Also to the pro climate change people, Google “carbon credits scam” and read about the more than $2.2 billion is being investigated by detectives in at least five European countries.
In closing may I quote from a news paper with regards to CO2 “It is clear that the theory that CO2 causes dangerous global warming is false. It predicted increasing warming as the CO2 content rose. But temperatures fell, twice in the past 100 years. Now, in another fraudulent about face, they will try to say that man's CO2 is now causing the cooling. In other words, no matter what happens, they will adjust the theory to claim it proves their failed thesis. This is pseudo-science.

PS hope my spelling is OK.

Thanks to Nathan for raising the subject of the Milankovich Cycles and the effects of orbital factors in forcing temperature change. We are now getting down to the nitty-gritty of the scientific arguments regarding AGW. Nathan acknowledges that these orbital cycles actually instigate climate change, but then claims, as does the IPCC reports, that Greenhouse gases "perpetuate" this change. The evidence shows that this claim is illogical. The ice-core data shows that CO2 rises and falls occur some 800 years after the temperature rises and falls. So some other forcing agent is controlling the variability.

Most AGW sceptics including myself, who practice in the earth sciences, acknowledge that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases have a buffering effect on climate, in that they assist in keeping temperature within a natural range of variability of approximately 10 degrees Celcius from the Ice Age troughs to the Interglacial peaks. This pattern has repeated itself on 100,000 year cycles over at least the last 800,000 years. The greenhouse effect of CO2 decreases exponentially with increasing concentration, and it is the orbital and solar cycles that actually control the climate cycles.

In the current cycle, warming commenced about 14,000 years ago from an Ice Age optimum of minus 8 degrees below present and peaked 6,000 years ago at an Interglacial optimum of plus 2 degrees. The IPCC ignores the latter evidence, which is published widely in peer-reviewed journals. Temperature has been decreasing since then in the normal roller-coaster pattern of ups and downs, hence the Roman Optimum of about 2,000 years ago, the Mediaeval Optimum of about 1,000 years ago, and the Little Ice Age from which we are currently emerging. Our current average temperature, whether it is warming or not, is within the normal range of variability for an Interglacial period. The critical issue is that the CO2 concentration does not matter as it does not control the cyclical pattern. It is the temperature that controls the CO2.

Ivan the Management Consultant giving me an hour of personal abuse for apparently abusing a paid politician and spending too much time doing it.

The word is "irony". You can look up the meaning here beause it was devised just for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Moving on:

The argument that we should "just wait" is offset by the price of you being incorrect. Lets be optimistic and say that the situation may not be as bad as presented - do you believe that the path we are/were heading down is sustainable?

If your answer is 'yes', you are lost.

If your answer is 'no', like me, then at what stage do we start to take action?

My thinking is that the path we were taking is/was unsustainable - not just for climate change reasons but also for just reasons of air quality (ever spent a month in Shanghai? Cough cough. Even the Chinese are acknowledging that emissions must be dealt with - they have whole countrysides around power stations turning black from pollutants.

The Germans were watching acid rain slowly kill the Black Forest, so they are now the world's most advanced technological alternative power users.

To me this is the big picture, and arguments over politicians and their personalities are meaningless. It is our debate, not theirs.

One point to note is that global warming and increased CO2 is of great benefit to life on earth, it increases food production and makes living generally more comfortable.Unlike global cooling which is an absolute disaster for life on earth as has been previously experienced by mankind eg."The Dark Ages"and other life on earth.So please keep those power stations fired up and our standard of living rising further anyone who says other wise is about destroying our freedoms and way of life.

Mr Johnson - air quality depends on pollution. The global warming debate is centred on CO2. My high school chemistry lessons, if I recall correctly, states CO2 is a colourless tasteless odourless gas essential to life on earth. You don't cough when you breathe in CO2, you cough when you breathe in pollution. Sub-mariners do not consider CO2 a problem until it reaches 8000ppm (they don't cough). You are confusing pollution with CO2 - now that I have set you straight perhaps you should spend your energies on addressing the pollution problem in the world. By the way acid rains are due to SO2 (a pollutant), it combines with water to form sulphurous acid.

MurrayB -

I am not confusing anything with anything.

Please just re-read what I wrote in full and try to avoid patronising me - high school chemsitry lessons, for God's sake? - I said that even if climate change was not the problem that it is being portrayed as being - as most people contributing to this forum seem to be saying - is it really okay to continue polluting the air to the increasing levels that we are, and to the detriment of our health in the name of 'development'? Chris, above thinks so. He thinks the Earth has an unlimited capacity to soak up pollutants - in fact to him it's all providence and meant to be! Unbelievable.

It is naive to isolate each cause of pollution and pretend that they may not be linked to the possibility of man-made climate change. Saying 'not linked' to each individual cause doesn't mean that the combined effects, or a particular combination, is not causing damage.

It is like saying that cigarette smoking doesn't result in cancer-death in all smoker patient deaths. But respiratory or peripheral vascular diseases, or a combination of these, will have undoubtedly shortened the smokers life, and may have also caused death. Doctors often cannot tell, either.

Your argument runs the same strategy, Murray.

How about having a little humility, as well as taking a breather, Mr Johnson.

I don't have much more to add to what has already been said to you, EXCEPT :

. Your assertion, "It is naive to ..." ,remains just that and is without conviction, even though it does arbitrarily claim the high moral ground.
. Your comparison, "It is like saying...", is an attempted creation of a "straw man" which can then be knocked down by proxy: BUT , in fact, it is really nothing like "saying that cigarette smoking doesn'tresult in...etc"
. As a medical practitioner of 42 years standing, whose specialty is very closely involved with respiratory and peripheral vascular disease, let me assure you that, contrary to your last assertion, doctors have a much greater degree of certainty about the statistical relationship between tobacco smoking and both peripheral vascular disease and respiratory disease than any climate scientist can currently claim about any possible relationship between man made atmospheric CO2 pollution and the [possibly unrelated] presently observed global warming.

Thank you PaulB and Barnaby Joyce
Ad hom and straw men aside, the science is all settled for me - CO2 causing climate change is supported only by climate computer computer games - that's it, and their fist validation test failed - predicted tropical hot spot fingerprint at 8-12km is absent - and only validating forecast for the last 10- years also failed - CO2 and predicted temperature up - actual temperature down (air, satelite and ocean by ARGO). Thus models wrong, no dangerous man-made global warming.
Why is ETS being introduced with lies and deceit by government against its own people?
1. A scam by UN / IPCC / Deep green / Political Left to gain influence and hurt capitalism, by deceit - since it can't gain it by being effective.
2. Government's ETS will create a new fiat currency gaining revenue in years to come and unparalleled control over industry and all people.
3. Big-end of town industry and banks will make billions from trading and speculating carbon credits, which will be worth trillions in next few years. Remember - Enron was one of the the biggest lobbyists for ETS in US.

Downside?
No change to climate
Cost $2000-4000 per taxpayer in first year and rising
Lost industry, energy shortages, blackouts
Unemployment (spain 19% after embarking on green industry)
Massive corruption and lobbying in the carbon trading
Certain next financial crash from Carbon speculation

Time for action - join an opposing party - support Barnaby Joice, Sen. Fielding, Climate Sceptic party etc. Talk to all your friends I find many people simply have not thought about it or smell a rat but need another peson to confirm that AGW and ETS is a huge scam .

And something for us sceptics to cut our wrists over -
Given IPCC itself reports 10 years of cooling and another 10-20 coming next, which has been kept quiet, I predict following scenario:
1. ETS is introduced
2. Temperatures keep falling
3. Within a year governments announce triumphant success of ETS in preventing global warming.
You think they won't get away with it? Just watch.
We can scream all we want - but there was no fall in CO2 and temperature was falling before - climate models will prove that ETS saved the world - the only way to model the fall in temperature with an immeasurably small fall in CO2 is for feedback sensitivity to CO2 to be even much greater/worse than we thought and tipping point was weeks away - hail the saviors - UN / Rudd / Wong.
And we will have to continue with ETS forever else return to warming - who will dare risk a return to the dreaded warming of the 1990's and the tipping point we so narrowly avoided.
Oh, I love it. You all have a good night now.

No no thank you MichaelC. You clarified something beautifully.

What you, and many watching this post are after, is absolutism.

Certainty.

You want 100% assuredness one way or the other. You want 'control' and in this argument, you can't have it, becuase there is no cetainty. You not provide a single ounce of balance or any acknowledgement of doubt in your post. You even arrogantly predict a cynical outcome to it all, and I bet you are praying for it.

Is that an argument ad hominem, Michael?

Does presenting evidence from a two year sample make you right? Does baldly stating no decline in temp over a 10 year period mean that we have been hoodwinked all this time - everything's gonna be okay? The eveidnce for climate change is based on at least 200-300 and there is evidence going back to the Middle Ages. You quote 10 years. An insignificant sample wouldn't you say?

And finally - please answer me this, because you right-wing conspiracists never do - if this is all a [your quote] scam by UN / IPCC / Deep green / Political Left to gain influence and hurt capitalism, by deceit [unquote] ...

What is the motive?

PaulB putting aside your patronising tone (why do so many doctors so often behave in such a supercilious manner?)

I always believed that smoking was rarely categorically identified as a direct cause of a person's death. Stay with me, because it's possible CO2 may be treated similarly and there is a good parallel.

No-one in their right mind nowadays believes smoking is anything other than seriously unhealthy, but allow me to offer a case study: a mate of mine, 38 years old, had a large frontal lobe aneurism last year, hwich he barely survived.

Did smoking cause the aneurism? He has smoked half a pack a day for 20 years. He has also had a job as a printer doing rotating 8 hour shifts for 20 years around very heavy machinery in an enclosed place. Could this have been a cause? He also drinks 6 stubbies a day minmum and a lot more on weekends, and has done all his life. Is this a cause of the aneurism that nearly killed him? What about his listening to very loud rock music through his ipod? What about his pot smoking as a young adult?

Fact is, many causes or combinations of causes result in an effect, the same way a unique combination of pharmaceutical medicines can result in an unforeseen complication in a patient.

My many medical mates tell me that 'smoking' is very rarely given as the official cause of death - is this correct?

So if you are taking a scientific approach to this perplexing issue of man-made climate change, you would have to agree that there has been no definitive explanation for events such as rising sea levels, melting ice caps, bleaching coral reefs, increasingly unpredictable extreme weather events, etc.

You seem certain that it is not man-made, therefore we must assume that you have an explanation.

In all seriousness, what is yours and other climate change sceptics' explanation for these events?

S W Johnston

You say very little which is on the point, which I consider to be that there is an attempt to swindle the taxpayer, supported by people like you, who do not, or cannot, for some reason, address the facts. You seem to think that regurgitating words makes you appear educated.

Carbon is not pollution. All life on earth is carbon based and carbon dioxide is a very important part of the cycle.

We have 388 parts per million of CO2 in our atmosphere, and already see the benefits of the increase. The unexpected success of the reclaiming of millions of acres of the Sahara in recent years is an example. It was not unexpected if you knew that increased CO2 meant that plant life was better fertilised and required less water, with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

The most striking aspect of this whole debacle is the continual misrepresentation of those pushing the global warming scam.

A recent case to prevent British schoolchildren from being lied to, by Al Gore’s film, highlighted this.

There are 35 misrepresentations in the film, starting with the assertion that CO2 causes global warming, while the scientific observation is that CO2 increases after warming occurs.

CO2 cannot warm anything. The warming is from the sun, and another benefit of CO2, one of the ineptly named “greenhouse gases” is that it acts with the other gases as an insulator, which prevents escape of enough of the heat to prevent the earth becoming an ice ball. We still have excessive ice pollution, but not to a life threatening extent.

At present, the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising while the temperature of the globe is falling. The temperature of the ocean is falling, and it will start to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, as it becomes colder.

If the content of the atmosphere were represented by a line 1 kilometre long, the CO2 content contributed by Australia would be represented by a line across it almost the width of a human hair. That is a very small contribution of this valuable gas, but instead of rewarding people for producing more CO2, it is proposed to tax people for producing the little that we do. Any representation that the tax will be used to reduce CO2 is disingenuous, and laughable.

If, as you claim, you are educated, you have somehow managed to dodge the learning of comprehension. You have a lot of words, but convey no information pertinent to the topic .

Your statement "So if you are taking a scientific approach to this perplexing issue of man-made climate change, you would have to agree that there has been no definitive explanation for events such as rising sea levels, melting ice caps, bleaching coral reefs, increasingly unpredictable extreme weather events, etc." displays incredible ignorance of the topic.

Here is the point Jock - concentrate now - it's only a few lines:

The vast majority of qualified scientists believe we are undergoing climate change, and that it is 'probable' that this climate change is man-made.

The majority of people running governments as well as our political leaders (our leaders, Jock, for whom a very large number of us voted) also believe this to be the case.

Now re-read your entry above with some objectivity and you might undertsand that you are way off track, and living in denial.

Like I said, nothing is definite in this debate, but a balance of healthy scepticisim and a preparation for the worse is seen as a wise tack to take.

Right on point Jock, or are we back to the parable about human hair and far-fetched conspiracy theories?

By the way the 'recent case' of Al Gore's film not being shown to UK kids was more than 2 years ago.

What a load of garbage climate change is, its only a tax
When will we have ministers that actually have worked in fields that they are in charge of or are we to believe that these clowns are that smart one day
they are finance minister , next police , health etc .etc
Penny Wong climate change minister , what a joke

Blaze -

Barnaby is a small town accountant.

Not knocking it, but by your definition it doesn't qualify him to be a future Finance Minister.

The convention is that Ministers are not particularly effective when they come from the 'profession' that they are supposed to oversee: for example Graeth 'Biggles' Evans is considered one of the country's finest Foreign Affairs Ministers, yet he was a solicitor who failed at first as Attorney general.

The thinking is that if you come from that particular area, then you are likley to come with an existing network of people (potential for nepotism and favouritism) as well as the prejudices and preferences you carry from practising in that field.

The idea is that a Minister should bring a fresh pair of eyes and a 'big picture' view to the portfolio and not bring the emotional 'baggage' from practising in that area - whether it's law or accounting or running a smash repair business!

This is the theory anyway. In the US they do it more the way you suggest - but the heads of the portfolios are not elected like our Ministers - they are apppointed by the President.

Not sure which system is better - both have their flaws.

I am just the average Aussie, sorry no qualifications.

I believe there is a lot of distraction from some very important issues.

Can we keep on polluting the planet the way that we have and have a sustainable future for the next generation and the next?

What is to be done about the potential growth in pollution given China and India are modernising?

I believe the stakes to the answers to these questions are incredibly high. Our future and the future of our children and their children, ad infinitum.

It is good to finally see some action. Maybe it is wrong, maybe it is right, at least it is stirring debate. I know often my first attempt at tackling a problem needs reviewing but at least I have made a start. I notice that most people knocking you for having a go, don't have any better ideas anyway, or the gumption for change.

Discussion on this issue has been around for a long time. It was discussed globally at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 according to Wikipedia, and global action seems to have initiated from there. I prefer to think of Australia as a country on the forefront, but it has taken 17 years for serious debate to start here. A bit sad but at least we are on our way.

I believe that global action needs to take place and that includes Australia. Perhaps we can look at the ETS established in Europe in 2005 for some guidance. I believe it is more comprehensive and covers other pollutants and as far as I have read recently I don't believe the ETS there has created a basket case of Europe even with the GFC.
Good on the Europeans for having the balls to have a go. I believe the European ETS is in phases so they can tune it, review it etc.

I know that having a high price for fuel has meant that fuel efficiency is an issue. It has driven technology to a point where vehicles today are much more efficient. (We seem to be market driven animals). Trying to put a price on pollution may have the same effect in driving new technology.

Of the IPCC scientist ( 2500) Only 5 independant scientists actually looked at the data and determined that there was a 90% chance that CO2 was driving the climate.
31000 to 5 - Who has the majority ?

Hey guy, I love your style that you posted. I will subscribe for your feed please keep posting! Thanks for your creative info:)

In fact, Global temperatures are increasing as much as possible as temperatures of Ocean. We need have a method to solve this. I hope we will soon show this more.

You know when you have hit the nail right on the head Barnaby by the desperation and length people will go to to discredit and villify you. I say spot on and keep up the good work informing us of this monstous scam called AGW. It is a scam to bring in a new tax that will screw us all and do diddly sqat to the climate. That last blowhard needs to check his own spelling.

I love your style that you posted. I will subscribe for your feed please keep posting! Thanks for your creative info:)

This is my first time i visit here. I found so many entertaining stuff in your blog, especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your posts, I guess I am
not the only one having all the leisure here! Keep up the excellent work.

Aw, it was a top quality content. Actually I would like to write like this as well - taking time and real energy to bring about an excellent post... however what can I say... I procrastinate an awful lot and by no means appear to get things completed...

Interesting post and I really like your take on the issue. I now have a clear idea on what this matter is all about. Thank you so much.

The President need has some strategies for this problem in Australia. This will make the ocean in this country better than before.

increasing as much as possible as temperatures of Ocean. We need have a method to solve this. I hope we will soon show this more.

These people are responsible for building the better nation. The effective decisions taken will help public in all ways of living.

it does explain a lot. If it is true, it is also very well hidden behind the Wilson Tuckey-Joh Bjelke Petersen hybridised pile of old poop you serve up to us.

There is a saying that was made for you: Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

I like this concept. I visited your blog for the first time and just been your fan. Keep posting as I am gonna come to read it everyday!!

I wish to congratulate you on your stance re the ETS and the mis information regarding Global Warming.Thanks.

He says it's a great big new tax on the economy with zero environmental benefit. He's also had thousands of signatures on a petition against the ETS.

Finland gave us Nokia; the U.S. split the atom, gave us Silicone Valley, computers and modern production techniques; Japan gave us Toyota, Sanyo and the Bullet Train; China gave us everything cheaply and Mr Rudd is going to travel to the G20 and deliver Australia’s climate based aspiration for a massive new tax and supporting bureaucracy. Not surprisingly the world’s not very interested.

I really liked your article. Keep up the good work.

thank you for your post. this is the Senator Wong’s personal yacht Fantasia has apparently run into the rock of pragmatic politics. As was always to be expected the world does not have much to gain when all Australia has to offer to the global warming debate is a new form of bureaucracy underpinned by a massive new tax.

The Norwegian’s gave us Nokia; the U.S. split the atom, gave us Silicone Valley, computers and modern production techniques; Japan gave us Toyota, Sanyo and the Bullet Train; China gave us everything cheaply and Mr Rudd is going to travel to the G20 and deliver Australia’s climate based aspiration for a massive new tax and supporting bureaucracy. Not surprisingly the world’s not very interested.

Sorry to pull you up there people, but you will find that the only scientists that don't recognise that CO2 emissions are a major driver of global warming are the ones that are funded by oil companies or other self-interested industries. Rather than making a point on the value of the current proposed ETS I feel I should clarify that there is NO dissent from the independent scientific community that global warming IS occurring and that something needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere to prevent the known global problems that will arise.

You know when you have hit the nail right on the head Barnaby by the desperation and length people will go to to discredit and villify you. I say spot on and keep up the good work informing us of this monstous scam called AGW. It is a scam to bring in a new tax that will screw us all and do diddly sqat to the climate. That last blowhard needs to check his own spelling.

You are increasingly coming across as a desperate blowhard, I have to say. I was in the bush camping with some Tory-voting fellow dads and kids from our local school in Sydney on the weekend, and your name came up while discussing the various personalities. "He sounded pretty pragmatic and sensible a couple of years ago when the coalition ruled. Now he sounds like a bullshit artist cow cocky" said one dad, a small business owner. The consensus is that 'relevance deprivation syndrome had kicked in.