Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

A 2014 calendar for climate change policy-making

To mark the beginning of a new year, I have put together a list of some of the major issues and events expected to influence climate change policy-making in 2014. From 1 to 8, these are my top predictions…

What are the key issues influencing future climate change policy? www.shutterstock.com

To mark the beginning of a new year, I have put together a list of some of the major issues and events expected to influence climate change policy-making in 2014. From 1 to 8, these are my top predictions.

1. Countries struggle to reach agreement on mitigation targets

In 2011, nations participating in the Durban climate change conference agreed “to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force” on emissions reduction targets applicable to both developed and developing states.

Then, in 2012, it was agreed that “elements” of a draft negotiating text for such a document would be “considered” no later than the end of 2014, “with a view” to a negotiating text before May 2015, for agreement later that year and then implementation in 2020.

Last year, at Warsaw, a loose time-frame was set for countries to propose their “intended nationally determined contributions” to the 2015 agreement – the end of the first quarter of 2015 for those “ready to do so”.

Nations are now unsure how to fulfill these proposed contributions, and don’t have plans to deliver on them. Overall, states aren’t ready to collectively address the climate change problem.

2. Scientists agree that the planet has a carbon budget

The September publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report on the physical science basis for climate change referred for the first time to a global cumulative carbon budget. The IPCC found that to hold global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels (the limit agreed by most states as a global warming “safety threshold”), total emissions cannot exceed one trillion tonnes of carbon.

By 2011, 515 gigatons (more than half of the threshold amount) had already been emitted.

The Trillionth Tonne website continually updates estimates of current total cumulative emissions from fossil fuel use, cement production and land-use change since industrialisation began at about 575 gigatons. Based on emission trends over the past 20 years, it expects the trillionth tonne will be emitted in October 2040.

3. Four measures may stop emissions growth

In June this year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) produced a report outlining energy measures to slow the impacts of climate change. The IEA’s chief economist Fatih Birol summarises and ranks these measures as:

  • adopting specific energy efficiency measures
  • limiting the construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants
  • limiting methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production
  • increasing the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies.

Oil, gas and coal producers received more than US$500 billion in government subsidies in 2011. These financial contributions in turn subsidise activities which “are pushing the world towards dangerous climate change”, beyond the 2C threshold.

4. We realise dangerous climate change is on the way

Even 2C, though, is problematic. A paper published this month by James Hansen, Jeffrey Sachs and others argues that cumulative emissions of a trillion tonnes of carbon (associated with the 2 degrees target) would spur eventual warming of 3 to 4 degrees.

Such warming, they say, would have disastrous consequences. Put another way, such a target is “well into the range of dangerous human-made interference with climate.”

Natural gas is merely a gangplank to cleaner energy, not a bridge. www.shutterstock.com

5. Natural gas: a gangplank to a cleaner energy future, not a bridge

I have argued previously that industry sectoral agreements might be easier to make than international climate change agreements. Also, the advantages of an LNG sectoral agreement could be environmentally effective. By displacing coal with gas emissions will be reduced.

But there are questions associated with a natural gas “bridge” to a carbon-free future.

While cleaner, natural gas is a fossil fuel and is mostly methane – a potent greenhouse gas. Furthermore, a recent study found that emissions from fossil fuel extraction and processing (natural gas) are likely double that cited in existing studies. And, as Joe Romm notes, natural gas as a bridge fuel must displace coal only, rather than a combination of coal and renewable energy sources.

6. ‘Common but differentiated responsibilities’ may be dead

Underpinning the international climate change regime is the principle that states have common but differentiated responsibilities (and respective capabilities) in addressing the climate change problem. It’s more or less the “polluter pays” principle, with developed states given responsibility to take the lead. So, under the Kyoto Protocol, only developed states have emission reduction targets.

Developed and developing states have now agreed to agree on an agreement from 2020, under which both will have targets.

The US negotiator Todd Stern described the position this way:

The imperative of bringing all major emitters into a regime of climate commitments is clear. There is simply no other way to head off the coming crisis … just do the math.

Nonetheless, at the Warsaw talks China clearly emphasised the importance of the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principle.

Two-thirds of cumulative carbon dioxide and methane emissions can be attributed to 90 international entities AAP

7. Emissions responsibility is attributed

A recent study shows that 63% of cumulative global carbon dioxide and methane emissions between 1751 and 2010 can be traced to 90 international entities. Half of these emissions have been emitted since 1984.

This study importantly offers a different view of climate change responsibility: major producers of fossil fuels are not all located in developed states.

Further, in tracing emissions to major carbon producers – corporate entities – it opens new opportunities for such entities “to become part of the solution rather than passive (and profitable) bystanders to continued climate disruption.”

8. Future generations in the “climate casino”

Climate change is the most significant threat to humanity and the natural world.

Yale economist William Nordhaus refers to humanity entering the “climate casino”. Economic growth is producing perilous changes in the climate and earth systems, leading to unforeseeable and dangerous consequences. Humanity is rolling the climatic dice, with likely perilous outcomes.

We benefit now from carbon emissions, but the costs will be borne by future generations. And the present benefits are often modest, the future costs severe.

The Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, in his review of Nordhaus’ climate casino book, notes that Nordhaus gives relatively little weight to the interests of future people – he uses a high “discount rate”.

Nicholas Stern, however, with a low discount rate, asks the present generation to make urgent sacrifices for the sake of future generations.

The prevailing view at the international mitigation level seems to be, as the saying goes, “Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?”

Our view about future generations, however, will determine climate change policy in 2014 and beyond.

Happy new year.

This article included contributions from Rebecca Johnston, a corporate lawyer for a major law firm.

Join the conversation

177 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Henry Verberne

    Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

    I'll get in first before the deniers do to comment on their strategy.

    1. Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data…

    Read more
    1. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      And there are many more: Ad hominem attacks such as "Flying to Europe using JetA1 fuel etc etc

      report
    2. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry, they may choose to attack the author, and try to undermine his intelligence by saying, "he's not a climate scientist", something lost personally on "them".
      Thank you David Hodgkinson for the good piece.
      By the time sea life starts to crash, due to a collapse in the food chain, people may start to take notice.

      report
    3. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Silly Season's Greetings to you, Henry. Guess, I am one of these 'deniers', though you don't make it clear what I am *denying. Maybe it's because I have the audacity to question your beliefs. 'Blasphememer' might be more appropriate.
      Alas, I don't have a name for you, but, in this time of festive celebration, you should be aware that even God thinks man made global warming is to blame: Religions speak with one voice on climate policy http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/06/27/3791330.htm

      It appears God is on your side.

      report
    4. Paul Merrifield

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      YOU tell our kids it WILL be so you need to prove to us deniers that science itself agrees beyond just "could be" a crisis as they have now for 30 years of their "maybe" consensus. Science didn't commit any hoax, believers did.
      Find us one single IPCC warning that agrees beyond "could be" and says "will be" or is "inevitable".

      report
    5. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Yes, Mark if the cap fits wear it, no more to be said, no use arguing with you.

      report
    6. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Paul Merrifield

      The IPCC is clear but cautious, it talks about the level of probability in relation to climate change. It does not make outlandish or unsubstantiated claims, does not "cherry-pick" the data, but presents the total picture, it is the distillation of peer-reviewed science and their reports represent a high level of agreement amongst climate scientists.

      report
    7. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Mark,I do not have "beliefs", I have evidence that draws on peer-reviewed science and all you have is Antony Watts and his "cherry picking" denialism.

      And for the record, I do have any religion and an acceptance of climate change is not a religious belief because it can be falsified- but no one has.

      report
    8. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Mark,

      What religion thinks about climate change is basically irrelevant to me. I know you are trying to depict those who accept the peer-reviewed science as subscribing to a new religion but I reject that as I have no religious beliefs.

      Got any more substantive evidence that does not draw on junk science, that is genuinely peer-reviewed?

      report
    9. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Sorry that should read: "I do not have any religion.."

      report
    10. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      @Mark McGuire

      Just to remind people who Mark McGuire is.

      A few months ago he read on a climate crank web site a comment from a science ignoramus who said you could not heat water from above because of surface tension. This turkey had apparently proved it by trying to heat a bucket of water in his garage using a blowtorch.

      McGuire was so impressed by this piece of clueless pseudoscience that he posted it here for weeks and apparently still believes it to be true.

      So when McGuire says "I have the audacity to question your beliefs", he really means that he will believe any piece of garbage that he reads at a climate crank blog if it accords with his climate science denying ideology.

      The true fake sceptic, a sucker for psuedoscience.

      report
    11. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Doubt the science!

      Maybe you are right Mr Verberne, but at least that is ethically superior to those who believe the science but then do absolutely nothing in their personal behaviour to address the situation These people prefer to that others to do something while they enjoy a holiday in Europe courtesy of our old fossil fuel friend, JetA1.

      As long as these people behave in this manner, why would the rest of us take any notice of them.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    12. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      How is that an "Ad hominem' attack Mr Verberne, it is a factual observation of people's duplicitous behaviour.

      The people who say the rest of us should stop using fossil fuel, then choose to burn JetA1 fossil fuel for nothing but their own pleasure are making fools of themselves - I don't have to do it.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    13. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Just to remind you who Mike Hansen is.

      For many months Mr Hansen has attacked those who question the ethics of those who SAY they believe in climate science but then CHOOSE to burn JetA1 fuel to fly to Europe for a holiday.

      In all of those hundreds of comments, Mr Hansen has never offered an ethical basis for this seemingly hypocritical behavior.

      One hopes he will see the fossil fuel light in 2014

      Gerard Dean

      report
    14. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard, you have a weird and I have to say very unhealthy obsession with Mike Hansen.

      You can get professional help for these sorts of conditions.

      report
    15. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Re #2.

      Since Abbott became PM there will be no money given to climate change research. Therefore, the theory that they only go where the money is would hold up if there were a swag of applications for funding into research that climate change is a conspiracy.

      That won't happen. Well, maybe Monkton would apply.

      report
    16. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      Now, my New Year's day is made when I get a reply from the charming Ms Gneist

      Suzy, it should be apparent from my many posts that I revel in using the earth's resources for the good of my family and my nation. I drive an Australian made car, which has a glorious 7 litre V8 motor - it is just the thing to put pretentious Audi and Mercedes and BMW drivers in their place. My obsession of buying Australian made cars is a good obsession for the nation.

      I founded a high technology company that…

      Read more
    17. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard Deal is it stupid of you to determine your beliefs because some people who are hypocrites or for some other stupid human reason decide that they need to fly despite the carbon they are using.

      What sort of reasoning is that?

      report
    18. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      It is you who is the fool Gerard. Who are you to judge what reason people have for flying?

      report
    19. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      I don't think professional help would be any good for Gerard. Most of these blokes have a personality disorder and these are very resistant to treatment.

      People with personality disorders do not believe there is anything wrong with them; they blame the rest of the world. They are notorious for never accepting that they have a problem.

      report
    20. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      In my view it is ad hominem Mr Dean, straight out of the Andrew Bolt playbook.

      I will allow that it is better for the planet that ALL of us not burn jet fuel but that is clearly impractical at present. (But their is research being done that could result in much lower emissions fuel in time to come).
      It's the same sort of thing with other forms of energy: I buy my power from a supplier who sources from hydro, a relatively low emissions source. But I would rather that brown and black coal was progressively replaced by lower emitting sources.

      By the way, do you accept the peer-reviewed science as reported by the IPCC? If you do not you are just being deliberately provocative.

      report
    21. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Of course if we take your argument it boils down to this:

      1. Some of those who claim they accept the science on climate change travel to Europe for pleasure
      2. This is hypocritical behaviour
      3. Therefore they do not REALLY accept the science.

      As I have stated, this is a form of ad hominem attack, of the sort that claims that climate scientists are in it for the research grants, career advancement etc.

      Even if people who accept the science behave as Mr Dean says, (and he makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions about people's lifestyles) that does not invalidate the science of climate change, though that is Mr Dean's attempted but sly and dishonest inference- straight out of the Andrew Bolt camp!

      report
    22. Casey Jones

      Diving Board Of Directors

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard, so you would probably agree that Jet A1 fuel should be phased out and replaced with sustainable biofuels. Should the people who travel to Europe (to enjoy a holiday) fund the required research and transition through some kind of collected impost on Jet A1 fuel (let's call it ... um let's see ..... a 'carbon price')??

      report
  2. Tony Walters

    Teacher

    Thank you David for a succinct, clear overview. Thank you, too, Henry, for your neat summary of the denial it's conspiracy.

    report
  3. John Newton

    Author Journalist

    A new front in the denialist war has opened. From a story on the front age opf today's Australian:

    Mr [Maurice] Newman said Australia had become "hostage to climate-change madness". "And for all the propaganda about 'green employment', Australia seems to be living the European experience, where, for every 'green' job created, two to three jobs are lost in the real economy," he said.

    "The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling. Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years. Now, credible German scientists claim that 'the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the little ice age of 1870'." '

    The most disturbing part of this is that Newman is advising the government.

    report
    1. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to John Newton

      Newman is such a buffoon, one of the stupidest and most ignorant of the neo-cons. Almost as demented as Cory Bernardi.

      report
    2. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to John Newton

      Maurice Newman's role appears to be saying the things that Tony Abbott can no longer say since becoming the leader of the Liberal party. If you're a climate change denialist, but you know calling climate change scientists frauds or incompetent buffoons will hurt your popularity rather than help it, what do you do? You surround yourself with people who will run that line on your behalf. When the Bernardis, Jensens and Newmans run denialist talking points in the media, you just pretend you accept the science and stress that your colleagues are entitled to their opinion.

      report
    3. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to John Newton

      It took a while, past pages and pages of every US City and state "Top 5 Articles by day", dubious news sources, and excited denier blogs..
      EIKE (German crackpots) doesn't mind who joins, so long as they don't think AGW exists. Lord Monckton Viscount of Brentchley, is an adviser.
      Maurice Newman, "senior" adviser for us all, no surprise.
      http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/german-sceptics.html

      report
    4. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to John Newton

      It is ideology that rules among people such as Maurice Newman. I am happy to listen to reasoned argument supported by credible evidence but he presents none.

      Very disturbing that this sort of ideologically-based rejection of the peer-reviewed science is rife in the new Abbott government.

      report
    5. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Adam Gilbert

      Yes I agree that Abbott has form with this sort of cowardly but perhaps politically astute approach.

      report
    6. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      I often wonder whether the right line of pressure from a political opponent or journalist could get Abbott to 'spill the beans', as it were, and loudly and proudly reaffirm his 'climate change is crap' stance. There must be times where he is itching to let loose with a bunch of climate change denialist talking points.

      report
  4. David Arthur

    resistance gnome

    How to UNILATERALLY commence taking climate action without either international agreement and without damaging Australia's economy and trade position.

    1) Set a consumption tax on all fossil fuel use (FFCT), including fuel used to bring imported goods to Australia.

    2) Apply the proceeds of the FFCT to decreasing Australia's domestic taxes.

    report
  5. John Newlands

    tree changer

    I suspect in Australia 2014-2016 we may reduce emissions slightly but not so much because of policy settings but other factors. The price of imported oil will go up as will our local gas due to increased exports. Mine trucks may run less using less diesel. The Galilee Basin railway may never happen. A subdued economy will see less work and recreational travel generally. High electricity prices will make people switch off.

    I doubt that Direct Action will get off the ground but perhaps we…

    Read more
    1. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to John Newlands

      Sadly I think you are correct Johnin most of your tips for 2014 but in this country we still have people denying the need for any change rather than discussing and promoting sensible measures that will gradually and fairly painlessly reduce the carbon intensity of our economy.

      report
  6. Pat Moore

    gardener

    A clear and concise calendar thanks David, succinctly comprehensive in order to deal with the gravity of the situation and therefore not likely to appeal to governments in denial which not only support but sponsor the ongoing economic paradigm of the major polluters/dominant power brokers. Governments which rather, actually and deliberately, avoid making any attempt at an appropriate policy, especially this current one.

    "Number 7, Emissions responsibility is attributed" is the missing link....only…

    Read more
  7. Kevin Cobley

    slave

    We've got "Newman" the newest "Scientist" on the job, we don't need cars anymore because the law of gravity is just a leftist plot and we can now float from place to place!
    It's amazing the scientists gave us electricity and it actually works what are these leftists plotting!

    It's pretty clear that we've got a nut job advising the government, well at least we've got let us pray Tony in government and the supernatural are in charge.

    report
    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Kevin Cobley

      Mr Cobley

      You correctly state that Mr Newman is not a scientist, yet you do not also point out that the author of the article we are supposed to be addressing is an Associate Professor of Law and also not a scientist.

      You cannot have it both ways Mr Cobley

      Gerard Dean

      report
    2. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard you really have not made it clear why Mr Cobley is wrong. Mr Newman is just saying that climate change is not happening. He is not quoting anyone reputable research - he mentions a group in Germany apparently but where is the reference to this work? - whereas the author of the article is not pretending to just know climate change is happening, the author quotes scientific references in support of the claims.

      Where are Mr Newmans' references and/or authoritative sources?

      report
    3. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Mr Dean: some people have more credibility than others. If they are use an evidence-based approach to climate change (ie peer-reviewed science) their arguments are much more likely to be valid than Maurice Newman's assertions which are not backed up credible evidence (none at all actually).

      report
  8. Michael Wahren

    Self employed

    We can discuss these well made points endlessly and nothing will happen as long as economists guide the changes required. Nordhaus believes over 700ppm co2 equivalent is an ok peak before reduction begins, his discounting method on future generations is really a crime against humanity if adopted. Stern said on the 27th of January 2013 "I got it wrong on climate change, it is far, far worse". Hansen's idea from many years ago is still more than valid, tax at the well head and pay all that revenue…

    Read more
    1. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Michael Wahren

      "The capitalist system is one of continual growth"

      Not necessarily physical growth, of course.

      report
  9. Paul Merrifield

    logged in via LinkedIn

    You lazy copy and paste news editors can believe all you like but you cannot say a crisis will happen for our kids until science says it FIRST! Science only agreed it "could be" a crisis not "WILL be" a crisis as not one IPCC warning agrees beyond "could be" a crisis or says "will be". "Climate change is real and is happening and COULD lead to unstoppable warming" is the consensus and NEVER have they agreed beyond "could be" and you knew it all along.
    The consensus was just a meaningless consensus of "maybe" and real planet lovers are happy a crisis for our children was thankfully just a tragic exaggeration. The rest of you just hated yourselves and humanity itself in wanting this misery to have been real for billions of innocent children.

    report
    1. Michael Wahren

      Self employed

      In reply to Paul Merrifield

      Lets put Climate change to one side and consider the following. Species extinction is currently at a rate never seen in human existence, more than a hundred times the background rate over millennia, in fact at a rate exceeding that which occurred during the Permian extinction. Plastic pollutants is increasing at a frightening rate and now is throughout the food chain. Particulate pollution, especially from coal burning kills tens of thousand every year (in addition climate studies suggest that this…

      Read more
    2. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Paul Merrifield

      Paul, science never has the audacity to claim certainty, only probability. The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) To quote from a tiny part of the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased".

      And…

      Read more
    3. Adam Gilbert

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Would Paul, when advised by a doctor that it is highly likely that he will die unless he takes a particular medicine or receives a form of surgery, not take any action until the doctor could prove, with 100% certainty, that inaction would cost him his life?

      I think climate change denialists like Paul actually do believe that 100% certainty is required to act on climate change while they would employ a more standard form of risk management in other areas. It is cognitive dissonance which allows…

      Read more
  10. Paul Merrifield

    logged in via LinkedIn

    Y2Kyoto
    *sung in Gregorian chant*

    Let us pray;

    ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
    He maketh me lie down in his Greenzi pastures:
    He leadeth me beside his still-freezing waters.
    (Spoken; Adagio); He selleth my soul for CO2.

    He leadeth me in his path of his self-righteousness for his own sake.
    And yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason,
    I shall fear all logic for thou art with me (Spoken; Adagio); and thinking for me.

    Thy Gore family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square ft. Gore mansion, they comfort me.
    Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence.
    Thou anointest mine head with nonsense, (Spoken; Adagio) ; my mindless conformity runneth over.

    Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of the rest of my life,
    And I shall dwell in the house of ALGORE (Spoken; Adagio) ; forever.

    -P.G. M. 1993

    report
    1. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      I wondered whether I should respond to this silly jangle. The only point made, that al Gore is seriously wealthy.
      I'll bet if one actually knew the man, he'd be privy to serious facts about the way other oil families use their obscene wealth to further f*** the planet and protect their $$.

      report
    2. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Paul Merrifield

      I am sorry to say you make some rather asinine points Paul.

      report
    3. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      What's crazy is that someone actually spent time to write this stuff... it obviously plays well in the denier alternative reality but just looks creepy strange in the real world.

      report
    4. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      Ian, every one of us who write something here, think we have something of value to say, or are capable of writing, sometimes with skill. I've noticed sometimes some get carried away with the writing bit. Beyond any real ability. You can see it most clearly when there's a certain hatred for "the other", and can tell there was some sort of pleasure in constructing sentences with collections of descriptive words designed to undermine the person or people. (It) usually resembles aspirational pot-boiler style, but in this case it's a bit more conservative / out there?
      Note to self, try to keep it simple, and, I'm allowed to be here too.

      report
    5. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Paul Merrifield

      I like that Paul, especially the Gregorian chant and then good ol Al certainly rates a mention.

      report
    6. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Greg North

      Good for you Greg, you losers need to support each other through the dark days ahead as all your 'truths' are revealed to be nothing but your own prejudices and unconscious biases.

      report
  11. David Arthur

    resistance gnome

    Top 8 predictions?

    1. Countries struggle to reach agreement on mitigation targets. Well, yes: it is in no nation's interest to penalise its own economy, even if the whole world benefits.

    2. Scientists agree that the planet has a carbon budget. Actually, the world had finished blowing its carbon budget back in 1988, when atmospheric CO2 first reached 350 ppm. All CO2 increases since then have been pushing the world further from the climatic comfort zone of 300-350 ppm CO2. Ref Hansen et…

    Read more
    1. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to David Arthur

      Oops, premature clicking ("Post comment" button).

      7. Emissions responsibility is attributed Err, we're all consumers, so if we have a fossil fuel consumption tax instead of an emissions production tax, we'll stop outsourcing our fossil fuel use to China; every time a car is imported from somewhere else in the world, it has to be brought here on a ship that burns much fossil fuel and emits a great deal of CO2.
      It does not make sense to charge Australian manufacturers for their CO2 emissions unless the same charges are imposed on goods manufactured overseas and then shipped to Australia - by burning more fossil fuel.

      8. Future generations in the “climate casino”. A casino in which the temperature control is rising, but not rising as quickly as the flood-water in the basement.

      report
    2. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to David Arthur

      I think I have said it before but I will say it again, your FF consumption tax is a proposal that sounds very sensible and needs to be seriously considered.

      David, would you be able to expand on your proposal ? Would it function somewhat like the GST? And would it be offset by reductions in other taxessuch as income tax?

      report
    3. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      "David, would you be able to expand on your proposal ?" I can probably be able to expand on such proposal, Mr Verberne, ad nauseum.
      Meanwhile, Oxford Energy Policy Professor Dieter Helm's copmments regarding the Kyoto Protocol might be a good place to start: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/forget_kyoto_putting_a_tax_on_carbon_consumption/2590/

      To find out about a FFCT in practice, you can do worse than Dana Nuccitelli & John Abrahams "Can a carbon tax work without hurting the economy? Ask British…

      Read more
  12. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    The author states, 'The prevailing view at the international mitigation level seems to be, as the saying goes, “Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?”

    This should be rewritten, ' The prevailing view of the climate change believer seems to be "The governments should stop big companies burning fossil fue.... sorry, I cannot finish this comment because I have to go to Tullamarine to catch my flight to Paris for a holiday."

    As long as people SAY they want a reduction in fossil fuel usage, but then CHOOSE to burn tons of it for their own pleasure, the politicians and governments will do nothing but pay lip service to the problem.

    Gerard Dean

    report
    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      Mr Alexander

      I am afraid your comment says more about you than myself.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    2. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Nup I agree with Ian Alexander, Gerard, you are a dick. Capitalised or not. Although, you could be an asshat? Which would you prefer as your title henceforth.

      report
  13. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    Finally some one realises the game is up for climate change action. The author, an Associate Professor of Law, has nailed the essential problem but continues on as if we haven't noticed.

    Writing about the failure of governments to take effective mitigation against emissions, he concludes, 'Overall, states aren’t ready to collectively address the climate change problem.'

    And those states will never act when their constituency, me and you, SAY we want action to cut emissions, but then choose to burn JetA1 fuel to fly to Europe for nothing but pleasure.

    Politicians are not stupid. If they bought in an effective mechanism to cut fossil fuel usage that raised the price of petrol, jet fuel and electricity enough to stop us using it, they would be kicked out of office within days.

    Gerard Dean

    report
    1. Oksanna Zoschenko

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      As usual the resident warmist trolls are out in force, inoculating articles before nary a sceptical murmer is raised, then descending into cussing and ad homs.

      However, Gerard, you have hit the nail on the head regarding the public not being willing to pay an aviation or fuel levy. I think it's especially relevant here given the author's background in aviation and climate law.

      Because the author has co-written a paper on exactly this problem, and suggested that airlines pre-emptively charge…

      Read more
    2. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Oksanna Zoschenko

      Do you see yourself here?

      2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

      report
    3. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Oksanna Zoschenko

      So what?

      This is just dishonest quibbling about one detail that has nothing to do with whether the science is right. You have nothing, no counter evidence from any reputable scientific organisation in the world.None.

      Do you know anything about the German group Mr Maurice Newman spoke of?

      report
    4. Oksanna Zoschenko

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      1. This article is about climate policy predictions. Like soothsaying. It's not about "whether the science is right". The author,a lawyer, didn't run the policy options through a big computer running a General Circulation Model to get his forecasts. He read some warmist sites like Trillionth Tonne, and a few blogs like Joe Romm's and then maybe pondered his tea-leaves before taking a punt. So I ask is it reasonable to hold the readers to a higher standard than the author when making comments…

      Read more
    5. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Oksanna Zoschenko

      Well Oksanna Zoschenko there are strange things afoot no doubt about that. But you have just not made any sense with your argument. You are right about the rentseekers though.

      Did you see this amazing thing that has happened?

      Billionaire Ken Langone, the founder of Home Depot issued a warning to Pope Francis during an interview with CNBC which was published this past Monday. In the interview he said that wealthy people such as himself are feeling ostracized by the Pope’s messages in support…

      Read more
    6. Oksanna Zoschenko

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Shades of liberation theology.

      Julie, you are commendably concerned about social justice and the environment. But redistribution of wealth as climate compensation for less developed countries, will impoverish the West and do little to help the world's underprivileged.

      The author of this article David Hodgkinson, is Executive Director of a group, EcoCarbon, with a computer program available to organizations to simulate an emissions trading scheme, the VETP.

      http://www.ecocarbon.org.au

      Read more
    7. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Oksanna Zoschenko

      I just need a lot more evidence that what you say is true. And I'm not a fan of Turnbull either. He is a neo-liberal and a man who made his wealth by taking advantage of people less able to play the market as well as he was. That does not make him a person who I would support.

      If you have a story to tell, why not publish your own articles. I see no reason why The Conversation would not publish it if it fitted with their standards. There are also other places for you to publish what you have. Why do you do these drive by irrelevant complaints about the site and the articles without putting your own full argument forward.

      You have nothing that adds up to the expertise of the IPCC and you are not at all convincing in your choice of people to admire and people to excoriate for stupidity.

      report
    8. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Oksanna Zoschenko

      "former Prime Minister The Hon. John Howard (another lawyer) called "rentseekers""

      How supremely ironic. A leader of rentseekers complaining about rentseekers.

      You just couldn't make this up.

      report
  14. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    Perhaps the author can discuss the misleading caption on the photograph accompanying this article.

    "Two-thirds of cumulative carbon dioxide and methane emissions can be attributed to 90 international entities AAP"

    Whilst it may be true that these entities be they companies or government enterprises do contribute the bulk of carbon dioxide and methane emissions (not so sure about the 90%), it should be remembered that we, the consumer are the emitters because we use the products supplied by…

    Read more
  15. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    And in closing, the author might add another item to his list as follows:

    9. Media Management Gone Wrong or True Irony.

    A few weeks back a ship of climate scientists and reporters from Fairfax, BBC and the Guardian set off to view melting ice of the Antarctic which they claim is caused by climate change and global warming. They are now an international embarrassment with the ship firmly wedged in record levels of ice which cannot be penetrated by icebreakers sent to rescue them.

    Helicopters will now have to rescue the stranded environmentalists from record ice levels. Helicopters powered by, you guessed it, JetA1 fossil fuel. Oh, and the ship is powered by special low temperature fossil diesel fuel.

    This Ship Of Fools who have done more to discredit their cause in one week than the ABC Catalyst light entertainment program can do in a year.

    Gerard Dean

    report
    1. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard A Russian ship - what can I say? - not climate scientists and apparently they were re-creating Mawson's journey.

      And they are not stuck because the world is getting colder.

      They were caught as they left to go north en route to home by a new breakout of ice dragged across to this area by strong southeasterly winds. This was a fairly rare event in this specific location.

      report
    2. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Julie, FYI:

      "CHRIS Turney is professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales. He recently set off on a 233-foot-long Russian-flagged ship with 70 or so colleagues to check-out the climate by following in the footsteps of famous explorer Douglas Mawson’s 1912 expedition to the Antarctic.

      I’m assuming that the ship is running on diesel. So it would be incurring a “carbon debit”. Did Professor Turney make provisions to off-set this debit before he set off?

      According to David…

      Read more
    3. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim did you not realise that one need to go to a variety of sources these days to find out the 'truth' or something close to it. Silly you to think that you can get all you need to know at the Con as you call it or TC as others call it.

      I suppose calling the Conversation the 'con' is a right wing joke? hahaha it has been said that you people just don't have much of a sense of humour.

      report
    4. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Yes all these things are true Jim but so what?

      What has all that got to do with the science that already shows conclusively - there is no sane argument that this is not happening - that the planet is warming and we are possibly fkd if we don't do something?

      Whatever a ship or a few human beings - climate change professor or not - do does not change the vast amount of evidence that scientists from all over the world have that says climate change is happening and is human caused.

      I really fail to see how this argument works. There are some people who apparently are climate change scientists who are hypocrites and apparently use more than their share of carbon doing things for their own enjoyment or self-aggrandisement.

      So fkn what

      report
    5. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Jim Inglis How does that add up to a conclusion that we should take the whole of the climate change evidence as wrong or suspect?

      report
    6. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "How does that add up to a conclusion that we should take the whole of the climate change evidence as wrong or suspect?"

      That's right Jules, Doesn't matter how hypocritical and couldn't-care-less-about-the-outcome these climate change professors are, we should still shower them with funds for their junket research and believe everything they tell us.

      Awa impoverish ourselves to "solve" the "problem".

      We'd be DENIERS to do anything less.

      report
    7. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim that does not make an argument. Does it?

      Show me that 'these' professors are 'showered' with research funds. Provide some evidence - a link to somewhere that shows how much funding any of them receive.

      And surely we are better off 'impoverished' than all dead. But if we do it right and cooperate to deal with the threat to our planet, we need not be impoverished.

      Humans are clever, if we work together to find the truth and a solution we can do it, I think.

      report
    8. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "link to somewhere that shows how much funding any of them receive."

      What? do you deny that the taxpayer doesn't fund their dubious science?

      That they pay for it themselves?

      Who do you think paid for that ship, that junket, those 3 icebreakers?

      And these clever, hypocritical professors are yet to even prove [other than by GSMs, which are 96.7% wrong] that we even have a problem with CO2.

      But they've sure got you lot convinced and happy to shell out.

      report
    9. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      What an eejit you are Jim. Of course the taxpayer pays for science. What sort of world are you wanting to live in?

      I'm asking you to tell me who paid for what and who gets too much of taxpayer money. You seem to be the one who knows that science is showered with research funding. Showered I tell ya!

      report
    10. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim No way! Not the Bolter! Don't quote me the Bolter as an accurate source of information! Good Grief and suffering succotash.

      Mr Bolt has no idea what is going on in the world.

      http://johnquiggin.com/2013/07/12/bolt-ten-years-on/

      This is a blog by Prof Quiggan, an economist at UQ who has corrected Bolt a number of times when he made basic mistakes with the anti-science climate change information he was providing, but Mr Bolt has failed to ever come to Quiggan’s blog and explain why he…

      Read more
    11. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Link doesn't work Jim.

      report
    12. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Julie Jim makes clear where he gets his rubbish information from doesn't he?
      Do not bother replying to him though as he comes from the under the bridge variety of commenter, who is impervious to evidence, has no peer-reviewed science to back up his discredited assertions.

      Mr Dean is of the same (maybe the same person) ilk.

      report
    13. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Yes he is rubbish but I can't let their stupidity go unchallenged. Henry I just need to let them know they are not convincing anyone. Even if it kills me :) Which it won't.

      But one does get some idea of where their stupidity comes from in the replies and that is useful.

      It will be a long fight to get our country back and we might have to have some of the more egregious liars - like Jim - put away for their own good. lol

      report
    14. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "No way! Not the Bolter!"

      Didn't think you could overcome your prejudice but you don't know what you are missing.

      Just click on the you tube and watch the professor.

      And BTW, has Quiggin ever produced any of the "stolen" generations?

      report
    15. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry, would you try shooting the message for a change. How many times have you been up for GBH?

      But it is always a great indicator of how close to home the message strikes.

      report
    16. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Works for me. Try again.

      Also with Bolt. As in play ball - not man.

      report
    17. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      ROFL Jim I think I will take Henry's advice and give you a wide berth. You don't even have enough wits to be a half-wit.

      Can you write poetry like the dude above? That is some awful doggerel. What is it with right wing people who think they have artistic ability?

      Gina Rhinehardt thinks she can write poetry and I do believe that the Bolter thinks he is a cultured man of taste. He's been in Tasmania you know eating pistachio and rose water merangue!

      He writes:

      "I recommend the pistachio and rose water meringue.
      - if I had to hide myself somewhere beautiful to write a book or flee the madness of contemporary culture I would probably choose the Tasman Peninsula. I just wish I knew more about boat engines. But that would bore me."

      Here is what he wrote. how fkn cultured eh? What a great big up himself asshat.

      report
    18. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      'has Quiggin ever produced any of the "stolen" generations?'

      I'm quite sure he could find one. Or two. Or a few thousand.

      To deny the stolen generations is like believing in Santa.

      report
    19. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim I am trying to play the ball but you won't give me any actual data. Bolt is not a reputable source of information.

      Can you not understand that? Bolt has no credibility, he has done nothing that would give any person - except an LNP supporter - a reason to think that he understands science or anything much else about this world we live in.

      So let's play the ball?

      Is this the argument you are making?

      There is a ship that is stuck in the Antarctic and this means that climate change isn't happening?

      report
    20. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      Thanks Phil Hell yeah and there are people who still say there was no stolen generation! Unbelievable!

      report
    21. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      Phil, if you study the facts you will know that there have been NO stolen generations.

      Of all the aboriginals that have been to court over it only one was compensated for being "stolen" but even that was false.

      They have all been found to be put into institutions for care and safety. Never to "steal" their culture.

      Andrew Bolt has been very factual in bringing this to the worlds notice in spite of propaganda like "Rabbit Proof Fence".

      He has thrown out a challenge to anyone to come up with SGs and no one has.

      report
    22. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      You know about the stolen generations, Jules?

      report
    23. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      I do obviously know more about the stolen generations than you do Jim,

      My dad who would have been 86 this year spent some time outback in the 1940's. He saw what was done to the Aboriginal families. He actually saw police take a light skinned child from his mother - both of them screaming and crying.

      He also heard from a man who knew that his grandfather had joined hunting parties to go after Aboriginal women.

      My father was not alone, there were people back then who were saying that it was wrong, although their voices were not heard. My father was disgusted with this shameful way white people behaved and Andrew Bolt is equally shameful for his lies.

      So Jim, That was the first of the evidence - eye witness anecdotal evidence - that I have collected over the past 50 years since he told me these things, about the racism and the terror that was visited on the first Australians by people like you.

      report
    24. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Yes, and it really was Santa and those reindeer that brought you this lovely present dear. Look, he drank his milk so you know he was here.

      report
    25. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "I do obviously know more about the stolen generations than you do Jim,"

      You might Jules and then again you might not.

      I lived and worked with aboriginals out around Sturts Stony Desert during the '50s and have actually "stolen" a couple myself.

      It came about from unparented, young pre-teenage part-aboriginal girls working as a cook's offsider or similar in a fencing or well-sinking camp and the workmen taking the girls to the local pub every night, getting them drunk and having a wonderful…

      Read more
    26. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      Phil, Jim's world also has the easter bunny sitting with Santa, on the bench where he's got a mark which proves there is no such thing as sea level rise on the gold coast. They all watch the rein-deer frolic along the sand.
      At other times, when he's not on his computer checking favoured sites, which provide compelling evidence that there's no such thing as (human induced) climate change, all he has to do, is take a look out the window. Marvellous.

      report
    27. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Those are the victims of your white man cruelty. I am absolutely flabbergasted that you would think your horrible story was some sort of insight into what happened?

      You thought those Aboriginal girls were laughing because they were having a good time? Really? You thought that asking them where their babies were is enough to do for children - how young were they? - who were raped and made pregnant by ugly drunken white men, girls who have had their whole culture destroyed for the white mans greed…

      Read more
    28. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      It is up to you to prove that no children were 'stolen' you fool. The whole argument hinges on what you define as stolen. And that was certainly not how most of the stolen children were taken. Stop lying.

      But those babies were stolen because the girls - who gave birth to them had their lives stolen. Why did they have no parenting? - why was there no welfare to help them look after their babies. How were they supposed to look after babies if there was no grandparent only ugly drunken and callous men like you around?

      Where was any money to come from to look after those babies and the 'fathers' ugh! did they take abolutely no responsibility? What were those girls to you and those men? Not even human?

      Unbelievable that you could have done things like that and you don't have any shame.

      report
    29. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Julie, You are breathtakingly stupid.

      Who said the perpetrators were white men?

      How do you know I'm white?

      You know nothing but what I told you in the comment above yet you leap to these wild conclusions.

      And we're all supposed to bow to your selective wisdom with your crazy opinions.

      report
    30. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      I think Jim has Keith Windshuttle sitting right there with the two of them. With Bolt.

      Bolt and Windshuttle!!!! Yeee Haah.

      report
    31. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      I don't know or care what colour you are? Does that make any difference to your indifference to the fate of those girls?

      And the idea was not for you to bow to my opinions. The idea was for you to provide evidence. You provided some anecdotal evidence and I critiqued it as being evidence that you do not respect the problems that any girl in those conditions would experience.

      Ok?

      report
    32. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      Yeah I tried to argue with Windschuttle back in 2002 I think in a comment thread on one of his articles. He was just as 'thick' with ideology. :(

      report
    33. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Pity you can't make any substantive argument Jim. never any links to peer-reviewed science, only to rubbish, emotive and unsubstantiated crap from Bolt or Watts.

      report
    34. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      Yes the signs are certainly there to lead to that conclusions. Hi Andrew, bit bored today are we. Fired up by your lapdog Maurice Newman?

      report
    35. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      WTF are you implying Jim?

      "But it is always a great indicator of how close to home the message strikes". Hardly. We can just can't let you get away with pathetic argument.

      report
    36. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "Unbelievable that you could have done things like that and you don't have any shame."

      Are you mad?

      I didn't even know these girls.

      They were living with other aboriginal workers in a separate camp, under a female cook [there was no welfare then] and aboriginals worked as contractors and were very capable people.

      I wasn't old enough to be allowed into a pub but the aboriginal men brought the grog out to the girls.

      Do you think the same thing is not happening today in aboriginal communities?

      It's happening worse than ever.

      And sad as it all is, it isn't "stealing."

      report
    37. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      You are totally changing the topic Jim. We were talking about the stolen generations.

      You are not the expert on what is happening in Aboriginal communities you know? You do know that don't you? Just because you have spent some time there and so on.

      Many people have had those experiences these days - young musicians and artists I know go out there for a few months and older grey nomads are also getting out there and seeing for themselves.

      That is why most people have changed their ideas about what happened and that is why most people know that Whindschuttle, as John Quiggan says is a fraud.

      Why can't you see this? Bolt is wrong about Aborigines and about climate change and about pistachio flavoured meranques.

      report
    38. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "You are totally changing the topic Jim. We were talking about the stolen generations."

      No I'm not. Those same babies that were saved from the meat ants are now getting much better treatment but are being "stolen" in greater numbers than ever.

      That's what the "stolen generations" was really all about. Kids that their parents couldn't cope with being put into foster care.

      And dysfunctional, drunken parents having their kids taken away to give the kids a chance.

      But claimed by aboriginal parents later in life as "stolen" for cultural erasure.

      But with all the sympathy in the world and all the legal assistance no one has ever been able to prove that any aboriginal child was "stolen" to have their culture erased.

      report
    39. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      And all Australians owe Andrew Bolt and Keith Windschuttle a debt for setting the record straight.

      report
    40. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim you are calling a whole lot of people who say they were taken from their families, liars. This is just crazy stuff. There were some babies who were saved rather than taken forcibly, but these were not the whole story or nearly any way near the whole story.

      If Windschuttle is so good why has nothing changed in the history books; except one footnote has been deleted in which what was his name, that leftie historian who apparently lied about something minor.

      So what has changed and how has…

      Read more
    41. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "Jim you are calling a whole lot of people who say they were taken from their families, liars."

      Of course they were taken from their families, you stupid, cloth eared Bint.

      They just didn't realise that their family was so dysfunctional at the time and had to either give them up or have the kids taken away.

      Nothing unusual in that, even today. More so today.

      There is enormous financial reward in compensation and endless free legal assistance for anyone who wants to try and prove their…

      Read more
    42. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Such a stupid old man you are Jim. cloth eared Bint indeed! Not even close.

      Yeah yeah all the money went to white people and the blackfellas are so greedy that they will sue the arse off everyone and evict us from our homes.

      BS Jim. Just go away. I'm giving up on you for the time being. You have not done anything but proved to people how barmy you are - just heard that on the cricket. Barmy you are.

      You have the last word. Bye

      report
    43. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "cloth eared Bint indeed! Not even close."

      Tell us what's closer, Jules.

      "I'm giving up on you for the time being."

      I'm pleased it's only for the time being.

      report
    44. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice, especially for you.

      If you looked out the window yesterday you might have noticed something:

      2nd Jan 2014, was the highest astronomical tide of the year.

      In Moreton Bay it was about 200 mm lower than it was in 1946.

      On the Gold Coast Broadwater it was about the same as it was in 1969.

      Barometric pressure 1012 hPa. IOW ~ normal

      report
    45. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      How could it be 47 degrees in western Queensland with drought and bushfires?

      I just looked out my window and it's cloudy and green as ever.

      report
    46. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      And Phil, if you had ever got off your backside and visited or worked in those places in the past you would have noticed that it has been over 50c many times in many places.

      But still not hot enough to stop working.

      report
    47. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      For some people Jim. Some people can work in those temperatures. But people tend to be acclimatised to the temperature in which they were raised. There is also the matter of skin colour and vulnerabilities that some people - red heads for example - experience because of no fault or choice of their own.

      There are many problems that we cannot imagine that the increase in high temperatures will cause. The diseases and pests that will affect crops and animals we use for food will change and will we…

      Read more
    48. Phil Dolan

      Viticulturist

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Err, viticulture, 50 degrees............

      Ooh, and by the way, did you hear the news this morning? Hottest year ever. Ever.

      Look further than your window Jim was the message.

      report
    49. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Phil Dolan

      "Look further than your window Jim was the message"
      "Ooh, and by the way, did you hear the news this morning? Hottest year ever. Ever."

      Don't you mean, "EVAH"!!!

      But wrong again, Phil.

      The message here is, when you remove all the old temp records prior to 1910 and then recently install a lot of new thermometers in hot places plus all the established city and airport thermometers that are "enjoying" wonderful UHI conditions, you manipulate the system with a big heat injection.

      Not rocket science.

      But when you use satellite TLT you get this for Australia:

      http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_18-nov-04-19-00.jpg and:

      http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_23-nov-04-19-58.jpg and this for the world:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise:0.5/scale:0.5/offset:0.34

      report
    50. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Julie, I worked for years in these summer conditions in the Sturts Stony Desert area and so did a family of red headed, freckle-faced Scots who settled the area in the 1870s, hot on the heels of the Duracks.

      It was a shock when I first arrived but you soon get used to it.

      I have just got back from checking the second HAT[ highest astronomical tide] of the year. It was predicted to be the same as yesterday but with a strong northerly wind causing a sea surge in Moreton Bay plus the barometer reading ~ 10hPa lower, the tide was ~ 10cms higher, but it was still 10cms lower than 1946.

      No SLR, very little AGW.

      What a disappointing day ☺.

      report
    51. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Oh well Jim did you note what they died from or are they still alive? No skin cancer? Wow they are outliers then. Because science says that people with fair skin get skin cancers at a much higher rate than dark skinned people.

      This is sort of science that has been going on while you have been manipulated into looking the other way. :)

      report
    52. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      You are quite right Julie, they mostly died in their 60s of skin, bowel or other cancer, if they weren't gored by a bull or thrown to their deaths from a horse but they weren't too concerned in those days and did "foolish" things. The corn beef and damper diet didn't help either. Today, their descendants are much smarter and don't suffer as much. One of the darling daughters was looking after the place last summer in near record temps and when I asked her how she coped in her old age out there with no aircon she just shrugged philosophically and said, "you just ignore it and get on with it".

      BTW, Cloncurry recorded 53.1 c in January 1889.

      report
    53. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Design Engineer

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Well said, Gerard.
      I notice a deadly silence from the true believers on this embarrassing topic and of course with global sea ice breaking all records for this date you can see why they are so reticent. The whole topic has now become a joke.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03SWGkxt72A
      With another in a series of brutal NH winters it is not surprising the Global Warming Church is finding it hard to get countries to pony up trillions of dollars to make it colder.

      report
    54. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Design Engineer

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim
      Don't confuse the faithful with real satellite data. They much prefer their own tricked-up data which interprets UHI as CO2-caused heating in their own Orwellian world.

      report
    55. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      On the other hand, "The Conversation" is meant to be an inviting place where people are free to spread lies with impunity.

      report
    56. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      And when you're definitely not a pro, only a con....

      The Con is where CO'Ns can con, lie and insult with impunity.

      Summoned the courage for a bet yet CO"N?

      report
    57. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Yes Neil, and what is amazing, with accurate thermometers in cars these days, the majority of "clever" people here don't even get UHI.

      Or if they do they conveniently deny it.

      report
    58. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      So Jim, what, pray tell, does this: https://theconversation.com/so-if-the-carbon-tax-is-not-working-then-what-is-21284#comment_274317

      "Of course, [redacted for the benefit of the editors] like Inglis could be relied on to claim that since there has never been any statistically significant warming over any period of 13 years, and that since time can be broken up into periods of 13 years each, that therefore there has never been any global warming.

      You just can't beat [redacted for the benefit of the editors] like this."

      have to do with your comment that cites my comment above: https://theconversation.com/so-if-the-carbon-tax-is-not-working-then-what-is-21284#comment_274351

      "OK Chris, so you believe in the 95% certainty of the IPCC.

      That's 19 - 1 on.

      How about I give you twice as good odds.

      Money up or shut up."

      How is your comment anything other than a non-sequitur to mine????

      report
    59. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      What a strawman. Almost as silly as claiming a thermometer in a milk crate gave an accurate reading.

      report
    60. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Jim isn't really arguing against climate change. he's old and it won't worry him unless the unpredictability factor means it starts to be really unpredictable very soon and as he's argued fairly convincingly, he is one tough,,,, person so he'll be okay.

      What he is really arguing against though? Perhaps the 'academics/scientists' who he has been led to believe have an easy life working in air con offices and who all want to shut down progress.

      There is a lot of resentment and a need to tell…

      Read more
    61. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Still waiting for your answer Jim. How is my comment above or any other comment of mine anything to do with making a bet on what the IPCC say?

      Put up or shut up.

      Also, you have no defence for your lie:

      "Cloncurry recorded 53.1 c in January 1889."

      report
    62. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Any comment requiring you to put your money where your mouth is would be a non sequitur to you.

      report
    63. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Are you saying after all this time you have finally summoned the courage to have a bet on AGW?

      report
    64. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      I never proposed a bet but since you're so desperate for one, here is one that is relevant to the fact that 17 years of data only means there was a 10% or so chance of no warming. I'll bet that there will be no statistically significant cooling periods, finishing anytime from now on, on any record while I'm alive. If I die before this happens then the bet is void. Since that's only likely to happen if there is a really massive volcanic eruption (much bigger than Pinatubo), I will donate the proceeds…

      Read more
    65. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Never mind trying to worm out of it by changing the bet.

      You have never let up in your support for the IPCC's claim of 95% certainty [19 - 1 on] that humans are responsible for global warming.

      And go about shouting Liar at every opportunity when I put up any evidence to the contrary.

      As a result I offered better than twice as good odds [at 9 - 1 on].

      Are you now saying you haven't got the courage of your convictions?

      How pathetic is that?

      report
    66. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "You have never let up in your support for the IPCC's claim of 95% certainty"

      Were you born dumb or did some brain damage make you that way?

      I never said ANYTHING about the IPCC's claim.

      What does it take to get that through your thick skull?

      report
    67. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      "I never said ANYTHING about the IPCC's claim."

      Are you claiming that you don't support this proposition?

      And live and breathe it at every discussion?

      And that all the insulting comments you make to me are not based on your overwhelming belief in, and support of, this AGW theory?

      Are you now adding hypocrisy to your other shortcomings?

      report
    68. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      You're in a bind when you have to either deny or money up on the IPCC's 95% certainty of AGW hey CO'N baby?

      report
    69. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Let's just leave it that you were lying when you said there was no warming for 15 years. This has nothing to do with the IPCC.

      report
  16. Neville Mattick
    Neville Mattick is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Grazier: ALP Member at A 4th Generation Grazing Station

    Very interesting article - thank you to the Authors'.

    What I want to know is WHY do we have this wrecking ball Government - so called COALition undoing the good done by the prior Labor Government.

    Sheer short term benefit for a few methinks.

    report
  17. Greg North

    Retired Engineer

    Seems as though the slangers, sloggers, slingers and doppel gangers have been out if full force likely adding to warming with all the hot air and no doubt even researchers are even contributing their share or more.
    What is really needed is an acknowledgement that there will likely be no global agreement coming forth and something like the WTO principles can only add to energy use, just all the shipping of resources and then products manufactured not to mention that most products are of a throw away…

    Read more
    1. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Greg North

      Greg, Why do we need to acknowledge that there will likely be no global warming agreement? Seriously, explain what good it would do to acknowledge this untruth? How would it make the world a better place?

      And then if you can do that, explain why you know that there will likely be no agreement. Not such a strong statement there so that is an improvement in your thinking. Less certainty is a good thing.

      The historical bent your comments are taking is another good sign that you are beginning to be able to think outside the box that the Murdoch commentariat has constructed for your comfort and amusement over the past decades.

      report
  18. Theo van den Berg

    IT consultant and trainee farmer

    Got rain on the radar and I don't want to get my Tractor wet, so I caught up with GW. Got an interesting article on the Conversation, but it looks like they still allow ratbags to wreck the dialogue. Most responses are about the validity of the topic or the writer or the science and then providing diatribe references to unrelated garbage. If they want this Website to become anything useful, they need to moderate the responses and only allow constructive criticism or praise of the exact article and without any personal attack. Responders should be given an Ebay type rating and those known to be ratbags excluded from any interaction. I think I rather get wet.

    report
  19. Billy Field

    logged in via Facebook

    It's incumbent on ANY person or Scientist who make claims about "climate change facts and problems" to table clearly understandable imperial evidence....Where is it?
    I haven't been able to find it?

    The EST is a money scheme....Who will get the money?
    Looks dodgie to me....a bit like the YK2 and Flue Virus scare campigns where huge public money was expended.

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Billy Field

      You see, Bily, that's the problem, - the thing you want is 'empirical' evidence...the crap you've been swallowing from WUWT and similar is, indeed, 'imperial' evidence.

      report
  20. Julie Thomas

    craftworker

    Some reputable publications have banned comments from climate change deniers. It is clear that these people have some sort of psychological problems and for their own sakes they need some sort of rational response from the community, from our society.

    We do not give air time to people who continue to support Hitler and his ideas about the Ayran 'race', so why do we let people with some sort of personality problem that needs treatment, take away our freedom to talk rationally about the climate change problem?

    report
    1. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "Some reputable publications....."

      Is that right Jules?

      And some reputable publications say that introducing the Hitler analogy for people who are quietly trying to overcome foolish and misguided religious beliefs is the equivalent to behaving like a Goddard's Cloth Eared Bint.

      report
    2. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      I hope you are not stalking me Jim.

      report
    3. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      I'm probably just over sensitive Jules.

      report
    4. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Doesn't sound like you are from what you tell us about your self? But we all like to interpret our behaviour to our own satisfaction.

      report
  21. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    This is a pile of ideological nonsense. This is what you should have covered:

    1. Latest estimates from observational data as opposed to models shows climate sensitivity is about 1.8C, not 3.2 C. So the warming effect of emissions is about half what the projections are based on. Emissions will cause mucxh less warming than claimed.

    2. Natural variability is much greater than the models allow for. Climate changes massively and suddenly without any man made emissions. We have no idea whether…

    Read more
  22. Oksanna Zoschenko

    logged in via Twitter

    Here is Oksanna's climate policy prediction for 2014:

    A dilemma for The Conversation is shaping up in uranium mining and nuclear policy, with Tony Abbott now pushing to resurrect Olympic Dam uranium and copper. Its proponents say it is safe, clean and green. But an older generation of greenies fought it tooth and nail. Climate money is on The Con's coverage automatically being pro-nuke by omission. But Oksanna's crystal ball says this online journal will surprise many by not ignoring dissonant green voices and by instead adopting a more balanced approach. Time will tell.

    report
    1. Rotha Jago

      concerned citizen

      In reply to Oksanna Zoschenko

      Kevin Rudd talked about "The Greatest Moral Challenge of our
      time" being Climate Change. I disagree I think it is Corruption.
      How else can you explain the concern with CO2 and the total lack of interest in dwindling Oxygen? Government finance of herbicide amounting to $Millions per month, and Environment funding handed over to private companies which are paid 10% for all the grants they request from Governments, State and Federal.
      Of course the country is suffering of course the Environment is collapsing fast. Of course we will keep on wanting something done,
      while we condone the use of herbicide imagining that we cannot do without it. We are being LIED to. Corruption is the most destructive problem Australia has today.

      report
  23. Yoron Hamber

    Thinking

    What if we're in a tipping, starting to show this decade and the next few? What do you expect to stop it?

    report
  24. Ian L. McQueen

    Retired

    If you haven't seen my name much recently it is because I have been busy with other matters. But I come back from time to time to see that most of the same ignoramuses are posting with their intemperate "liar" and similar pseudo-retorts.
    I live in eastern Canada and recently went seven days without electrical power because an ice storm had caused trees to bend over and knock down the electrical lines. Before that we had three big snowstorms. And this was before the beginning of the New Year. Very…

    Read more
    1. Rotha Jago

      concerned citizen

      In reply to Ian L. McQueen

      We are in a tipping, and I am not an ignoramus.
      It is the cause I am disputing.
      And what should we be doing about it.

      report
    2. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Ian L. McQueen

      Ian, forgive me for my silly question but I don't understand how you can say that what the strange weather that eastern Canada recently experienced, "had nothing to do with the amount of carbon dioxide in the air"?

      Surely everything is interdependent and the amount of carbon in both the air we breathe and the normal air that we don't breathe - so how do we know which air to breather? - would affect that "zonal to meridional flow of air out of the arctic"?

      Please explain in simple words as I am an ignoramus; it isn't a choice I make you know. It just happens to me that I am called names because of my ability - inability or disability - to understand points that some people make.

      report
    3. Ian L. McQueen

      Retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Hi Julie-

      Now that I have expressed my feelings in general, let me try to make my response to your reasonable posting more temperate!
      The effect of CO2 on temperature is, basically, unimportant. Any effect that it had was during the first 40 or so ppm; now it is pushing 400 ppm, and the effect of adding any more CO2 is just about negligible. Check into the logarithmic effect of CO2.
      As for CO2, its effect is ONLY due to radiative effects. Another gas with radiative properties (never mentioned…

      Read more