Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Australia and Canada are leading the wreckers at Warsaw

Ian McGregor is reporting from the Warsaw Conference of Parties for The Conversation. Australia’s and Canada’s extremely unusual action at CHOGM to deny developing nations any further climate funding has…

Response at Warsaw has been strong to those blocking climate change action. EPA/JACEK TURCZYK

Ian McGregor is reporting from the Warsaw Conference of Parties for The Conversation.

Australia’s and Canada’s extremely unusual action at CHOGM to deny developing nations any further climate funding has had strong negative repercussions here in Warsaw.

The other two developed Commonwealth countries, UK and New Zealand, agreed to including a statement in the final CHOGM text about the importance of climate finance. Australia and Canada decided to disassociate themselves from the statement. But providing much-needed climate finance between now and 2020 is a huge issue at Warsaw, particularly for many of the poorer developing countries.

They want an agreement on some kind of compensation for “loss and damage” they will suffer as a result of climate change, which they see as being primarily a creation of developed countries.

Both India and South Africa made strong statements severely criticising Canada and Australia for their stance at CHOGM. They shouldn’t have been surprised: Australia and Canada have been repeatedly blocking moves at Warsaw to improve climate finance.

The UK and the EU have been the most progressive of the developed country groups on climate finance. But even with that support, the total commitment on climate finance within the process falls way short of what is needed by 2020.

Without more funding, poorer countries won’t be able to get on a path to low-carbon development. Nor will they be able to deal with the huge issues of adapting to the temperature increases, extreme weather, ecosystem collapse and sea level rise that will result from climate change.

The Philippines delegate - Naderev “Yeb” Saño - has made the strongest connection between climate change, the plight of the developing world and the need to address it with climate funding. He said the suffering of people in the Philippines should motivate the delegates to make this year’s climate talks count.

Russia is competing with Australia, Canada and Japan (who have backed away from their emissions reduction target) in stopping climate progress. Russia is trying to get back emission credits that were eliminated by the agreement at the last Climate Summit at Doha.

Russia earned many carbon credits when its dirty industry collapsed following the end of the Soviet Union. These were taken away from them in Doha in order to enhance the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol. But Russia and Ukraine continue to fight this decision.

I hope, but I am not optimistic that the second week of the negotiations will be more fruitful and make significant progress towards an effective global agreement. One major challenge is getting the Developed Countries to do much more to address climate change before 2020, when the new global agreement comes into force. This is due to be finalised at the Global Climate Summit in Paris in December 2015, and they seem to be holding off on any new action until then.

Meanwhile, they are focusing on trying to create strong commitments for China and India in the post-2020 agreement.

What may yet shift the dynamic is the ongoing impact of Typhoon Haiyan. While Australia’s government may not be accepting scientists’ views that this storm was worsened by climate change, others are. David Cameron, the UK prime minister, said “I’ll leave the scientists to speak for themselves about the link between severe weather events and climate change. The evidence seems to me to be growing.”

Will these last weeks result in a more constructive stance from Australia? Will Australia stand with the Philippines and return to using its power to influence the talks for the better? Only a crazy optimist would hope for such a thing. It seems far more likely Australia will continue to be an action wrecker with Japan and more quietly behind the scenes with the US and Canada.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

221 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Wade Macdonald

    Technician

    Australia is the wrecking ball eh?

    This country has far more environmental policy than the worst 100 nations put together.

    More muck raking garbage over another useless gobfest.

    report
    1. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad, there are far more than 61 countries that emmit carbon and wreck their environmental carbon sinks. Who are you trying to kid with non holistic rankings?

      Rankings that include ETS's no doubt? Prop up the investment banking sector, Greenwash your countrlies industry at the same time and credit your way to carbon bliss.

      report
    2. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Wade,

      The ranking is for industrialised countries which are those to which we should be compared.

      "Canada and Australia are the worst performers of all the industrialised countries, also Japan dropt several ranks. After a change in government, Australia’s policy evaluation was much worse than previous years; consequently it has fallen to a rank of 57th"

      http://germanwatch.org/en/7704

      report
    3. Philip Hingston

      Associate Professor

      In reply to Ross Barrell

      Hi Ross.

      I sort of agree. I think the denialists could actually play a positive role in these discussions if they would just come up with a few new arguments - even wrong ones as long as they are interesting! The problem is they keep running the same old recycled, defeated arguments from skeptic sites and bloggers, like so many broken records. Very lazy. It becomes tedious.

      GD who inhabits these conversations is a classic example. He actually has a valid point - air travel contributes to climate change - but the problem is he only has the one point. His posts are now SO boring!

      Come on skeptics! Let's have some new ideas and insights!

      report
    4. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Ross Barrell

      I don't deny the 0.7c degree rise over the last 100 years so what am I in denial of??????

      However, Gerard Dean touches on one aspect that seems to be highly relevant to the hypocrisy of these 'global conferences'.

      Thousands travelling around the world going to copius amounts of gobfests on said issue and living the exact lifestyle they are campaigning against? Please.....

      If these peole truly believe the science they sure have a disgraceful way of leading by example.

      In fact, dead set taking the piss is how most view them. All scientific evidence aside on C02 these people are in reality speaking a lie against their own personal actions.

      report
    5. Philip Hingston

      Associate Professor

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Thanks, Wade. I don't know enough about you to know which parts of climate science you don't accept. But you sure seem mad about something! From your posts here, it looks like you don't like : people discussing things (gobfests), other countries that don't do enough for the environment, ETS's, climate scientists who go in planes (gobfests again), and, apparently, me (boring). Oh, and more generally, scientists having something to say. Anyway, I withdraw any implication in my earlier comment that you are boring.

      report
    6. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Philip Hingston

      So which one of those issues I am supposedly upset about (carefactor quite low actually) makes any tangible lowering of co2 emissions?

      Years n years wasted on global travel, gobfests n rorted ets's.

      report
    7. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Indeed, there are 196 countries in the world and all, to a greater or lesser extent, emit carbon. However, many of the smaler, less-developed nations emit such tiny amounts, whether as totrals or per-capita levels, that they have very little impact. The 61 nations Brad mentioned are the bigger players and account for the overwhelming bulk of total world emissions. I gather Australia ranks 14th in the world and is therefore the 14th biggest emitter out of the 61, but the poor quality of our actions has us ranked at 57 out of the 61.

      To simply focus on the top 61 out of 196 is not 'non holistic' (whatever that might mean) - merely focusing attention on the data that matters.

      report
    8. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Wade, the total emissions generated by things like the Warsaw conference represent the most miniscule part of all world emissions for travel and gatherings - so tiny you'd barely be able to register them.

      The difference between the emissions generated by things like Warsaw and almost all other acitivity is that events like Warsaw are, for all their imperfections, at least endeavouring to solve the problem. To the extent that they are successful, they would lead to emissions reductions so much…

      Read more
    9. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      I don't have any challenge to meet against Philip. I do not deny the 0.7C warming Felix. However, I do suspect many are taking personal advantage of climate change by attending those conferences. Many likely on tax paying dollars that should be going into tangible changes instead.

      report
    10. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Good for you for doing what you can. I built a modest size home on a small block and am looking to solar as soon as I can afford it. Reduced my car to an effiecient 4 cylinder etc. It all takes time and money but I am aware of my personal impact.

      report
    11. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      So you 'suspect' something rather than have any real evidence...and even to the extent that might be true it's all still pretty trivial when you consider what taxpayers' dollars get spent on every day...that's pretty weak evidence to advance against the whole process (indeed, by that reasoning, virtually all government and business activity would be deeply suspect!).

      But you still haven't answerd my challenge: what realistic alternative/s are you proposing?

      report
    12. Ross Barrell

      Aikido Student

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Hi Wade

      Sorry to imply that you are a climate denier, however you did say a few things that awoke the denier radar in me. First, to claim that Ian McGgregor's article is "muckraking garbage" is going a bit far I think. Further, you claim that attendees at such a "gabfest" are at least somewhat hypocritical in that their means of attending leaves a rather large carbon footprint. Couldn't agree more (though I don't think "hypocritical" is such an appropriate descriptor - doesn't help much, you see…

      Read more
    13. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      The whole process Felix? This doesn't surround politically motivated global conferences but good old fashioned local grass roots science.

      Cut out the bureaucracy, hypocracy and political activism. Only spend money on tangible efforts that reduce the need for co2 energy. Make other forms of energy cheap and abundant.

      Nuclear, solar, wave, wind, hydrogen etc... do it all, do it smart , get scientists back into labs and field work instead of wasting time whinging over ratings and rankings. Stop feeding off the public tit or crying about funding. Work out of your damn shed if ya have to.

      Do it the old fashioned Aussie way.

      report
    14. Suzy Gneist

      Multiple: self-employed, employed, student, mother, volunteer, Free-flyer

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Wow, you think australian scientists can develop and provide far reaching solutions from their garage/shed without any government/citizen funding? What world changing technology have you developed in your shed lately?

      report
    15. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      "have read a few that claim 0.6C to 0.7C"

      Here you're talking about a smoothed figure for the 20th century. Time, and global warming, have moved on since then.

      report
    16. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      Suzy did you ever attend your history classes? Many inventions, discoveries and cures were solved in the humble home. Your mentality is lost in modern hysterics.

      report
    17. Suzy Gneist

      Multiple: self-employed, employed, student, mother, volunteer, Free-flyer

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      I would guess that i have at least as good, if not more extensive, history background than most. Yet i thought you were talking about today's corporate world where, unless you have access to funding, you have little chance of turning a good idea into a product and if your idea has no immediate commercial value to investors (because it will only pay off in future or benefit non-commercial values) then it's unlikely your idea will see the light of day.
      This is were public funding is essential to allow an improvement without immediate profit potential to be developed. You think that is 'hysterical'? Check your history.

      report
    18. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      re "Stop feeding off the public tit or crying about funding."
      Dark Snow Project Brings People Power to Climate Science
      There is already much excitement in the arts, media and beyond about the potential of crowd funding - via sites such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo – to finance projects that might others have remained an unfulfilled dream. To date, though, few scientific expeditions have successfully utilised crowd-funding.
      The Dark Snow Project hopes to change this. Jason Box, a climatologist based at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, is hoping to raise $150,000 over the coming months to pay for an expedition this summer up onto the “ice dome” of Greenland to gather samples of snow.
      http://climatecrocks.com/?s=black+ice+project

      Visiting and monitoring South Greenland dark ice Posted on August 17, 2013 by Jason Box
      with photos of dark snow on Greenland
      http://darksnowproject.org/

      report
    19. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Surface Temps Increase = 0.89°C (0.69°C–1.08°C) over the period 1901– 2012 This does NOT represent total "warming" globally due to circa 90% of warming being absorbed by the Oceans (and misc ice melts) see below IPCC ref.
      Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half - 13 November 2013
      A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially…

      Read more
    20. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Ross Barrell

      Ross,
      Sorry, but it remains a fact that there is no single, quantitative, useful paper that connects levels of GHG in the atmosphere with temperature changes. It is not even established which one might cause the other, or by how much.
      In normal science, this lack of causation would squash the primary hypothesis, if that hypothesis is that greenhouse gases cause enough warming to be bothered about.
      Intelligent people are wrongly accused by you of disregarding peer reviewed science. Wrong. It is being studied. It has not produced the goods to satisfy scientific rigour.

      report
    21. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Philip Hingston

      Phillip.
      New ideas appear all the time, but you might be like so many others who find it beneath their dignity to read about them.
      Those sceptical of aspects of mainstream science have pointed out many mistakes by now, often on blogs. Blogs are appropriate for this type of audit function. They are fast, cause diverse comment and are public.
      You should not expect such bloggers to write peer-reviewed papers all the time, because that is not part of an audit procedure.
      It is up to the writers of research papers to get them right in the first place, then it is up to all and sundry to find errors.
      If you accept this basic proposition, it becomes much easier. It is that much past climate science has been poor science compared to other disciplines, so poor that one accepts the Establishment view at ones risk. It is crumbling by the day.

      report
    22. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Philip Hingston

      Philip.
      Last night I saw footage of people filing out of a room at the conference, in protest at not getting their ways.
      Most seemed under 30 years of age, most seemed to be dressed alike, almost as in uniform. Many had that wild, defiant look in the eye that used to get a spanking when I was that age.
      If you think that we should have international policy based on unproven science and cheer squads of indoctrinated kids, then you live in a different world.
      I look forward to you realising that. I grew up decades ago.

      report
    23. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, what has this got to do with the science of climate change?

      report
    24. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      You're welcome. This part is really important re "This does NOT represent total "warming" globally due to circa 90% of warming being absorbed by the Oceans "

      If a good group of scientists do not know something for certain, then they say so, and give reasons. They do not pretend they know what X is, and make a guess. So they are making an estimate here based on basic Laws of Physics that 'about' 90% of the heat must be going into the oceans, especially the deeper portions because there is no where…

      Read more
    25. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice,
      Would you feel better if I slipped you a couple of quid in a brown paper bag? With a Kleenex to dry those virtuous, self-inflicted tears?
      The big discussion is about the findings of rigorous science. Acting before major hypotheses are shown to be correct is voluntary, but hardly wise.
      It's not a social modification discussion, it's a climate science discussion at this stage.

      report
    26. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris,
      Of which, for example, USHCN data have been adjusted by about 0.6 deg C from the originals, with the past made cooler and the present warmer to give the appearance of a larger warming trend.
      Yes, some adjustments are required. However, the scope and magnitude of some adjustments, the gross changes that label millions of dedicated thermometer measurements as wrong, tends to draw scepticism.
      There are laws that send people to jail if they fiddle data, such as in the reporting of mineral…

      Read more
    27. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean,
      That Cowtan and Way paper is not through to public acceptance yet. There are serious misgivings expressed already about the validity of using certain techniques, like extrapolating far out into uncharted polar regions. How far is too far? The authors have not yet answered all the questions.

      report
    28. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoffrey Sherrington

      re: "Blogs are appropriate for this type of audit function. "

      Again you display your ignorance for the world to see. Geoffrery you clearly have no idea what the 'scientific method' is nor how it has worked successfully for 300 plus years now.

      re " It is crumbling by the day." Geoffrery, your intelligence and knowledge is equivalent to an Anzac biscuit placed beside an ants nest. :)

      "There is a lot of inaccurate nonsense about climate science written in blogs and the media, whether exaggerating…

      Read more
    29. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoffrey Sherrington

      You would not know what questions to ask Geoffrery. Judith Curry having "serious misgivings" is about as important as her not knowing what to wear out to dinner. Cowtan and Way will not spend much more of their time posting to her Blog that's for sure.

      Revised Global vs MetOffcie Temperature Trend http://www.realclimate.org/images//Cowtan.png

      Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half - Cowtan and Way stefan @ 13 November 2013 Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/ 195 Responses

      report
    30. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, if you look at actual CO2 emissions per country, you'll see that the rankings are irrelevant as they don't follow any sort of scale. Australia produces about 1.3% of global CO2 emissions which is less than the jet fuel emissions that Mr Dean is always on about.
      Your second sentence is almost correct:" However, many of the smaller, less-developed nations emit such tiny amounts, whether as totals or per-capita levels, that they have very little impact. "
      I'd edit out the "less-developed" and "per capita" and you'd have an accurate assessment of Australia's impact on dangerous climate change.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Geoffrey Sherrington

      "It's not a social modification discussion, it's a science discussion at this stage" Really Geoffrey ? The meeting in Warsaw is not a discussion about the validity of the science, it's a political one.
      Australia's and Canada's extremely unusual action at CHOGM to deny developing nations any further climate funding has had strong negative repercussions here in Warsaw"
      My reply to Wade was specifically about "people leading by example", and our countries backward stance . Nearly all, in Warsaw are not happy with our behaviour.
      "Would you feel better if I slipped you a couple of quid in a brown paper bag? With a kleenex to dry those virtuous, self-inflicted tears? Geoffrey, who's crying? If you want to stand on your rock and ignore the reality of climate change, go ahead. I'll keep enjoying my discussions with you, because I'm right, your wrong, and this fact is so satisfying.

      report
    32. Ian Rudd

      Retired accountant

      In reply to John Phillip

      John, at what point, if at all should a wealthy country such as Australia with high per capita emissions consider doing something about its own emissions?

      I don't know what percentage of total GHG emissions happen to come from Australia but let's say it's the 1.3% you mention. If our population was 10 times what it is now and we emitted 10 times the GHGs we now do then do you consider we should feel obliged to curtail those emissions? If not would we have to act if our emissions and population…

      Read more
    33. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Ian Rudd

      Ian, my point is that we are doing something about CO2 emissions. I think we are balancing fiscal responsibility and 'doing our bit' well. I disagree with Brad's perspective because whatever action we take will only ever be a token. Hence there is no real reason to adopt his targets or accept his rhetoric. By 'real reason' I am referring to the actual effects on dangerous climate change that our mitigation efforts will have. You are talking about 'what ifs' and that's fair enough if you want to argue…

      Read more
    34. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to John Phillip

      "whatever action we take will only ever be a token"

      The litterbugs defence.

      report
    35. Ian Rudd

      Retired accountant

      In reply to John Phillip

      John, we are doing practically nothing about CO2 emissions, that is a fact.

      Another fact is that if we all sit on our backsides and do nothing or ignore the problem then those kids and grand kids are going to have a terrible time dealing with the problem no matter how much money we may save now.

      Given these two facts then is it not another fact that doing more to reduce emissions both directly and by example encouraging others to act will have a better than zero chance of providing a somewhat…

      Read more
    36. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Ian Rudd

      Ian, you state:"Why do you insist that quantifiable data be presented re the effects of our efforts when you know damn well that is not possible nor really necessary (although perhaps desirable). Life is not made up of black and white "facts" and in nearly all circumstances decisions have to be made based on imperfect knowledge."
      How can you possibly argue for an action and insist people make sacrifices without being able to tell them what they are going to achieve? You want to convince them to…

      Read more
    1. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      nofrackingconsensus...seriously?.

      More evidence of the insidious nature of "Burfield's Syndrome"

      report
    2. Laurie Willberg

      Journalist

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      Agreed.
      And considering the high levels of corruption in governments only too happy to glum onto the extra cash, where's the evidence that any of these proposed funds will actually benefit the residents of those countries?
      Most of the residents of these undeveloped nations are still clamoring for clean drinking water or gainful employment while their leaders are living lavish lifestyles. Even more are being held hostage by blackmarket antics of self-aggrandizing and/or homicidal warlords.
      Someone is missing priorities here.
      Good for Canada and Australia.

      report
    3. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Laurie Willberg

      So, adding the impacts of unrestrained climate change to the problems they already face is helpful?

      report
    4. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      So, Grant, from your own career in science, you'd agree with Laframboise's assertion in her little Connor Court tome that graduate and post-graduate researchers doing the bulk of the practical work i nscientific research, under supervision of more senior scientists, is some kind of fraud or abnormal practice?

      report
    5. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      Grant

      Donna Laframboise again huh? Wasn't the fact that we showed you that she was completely wrong on so many things enough for you huh?

      I guess you are proof positive that evidence means nothing to a denier, and their discredited views have both the staying power and intellectual capacity of zombies.

      report
    6. Laurie Willberg

      Journalist

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice, you haven't made any attempt to refute anything I've stated, you've merely uttered your opinions about how I've stated mine and thrown in a value judgment.
      I fully support my country's (Canada's) position.
      What you have written doesn't indicate who or what you support, or for what reasons but is merely a knee-jerk reaction. I'd call that "baloney".

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Laurie Willberg

      Laurie, your descriptive racist comments about the "third world", are what I'm commenting on. And you make no mention of the overwhelming corruption inherent in first world governments all over the world whose energy policies are woefully inadequate, and are enormously corrupted by fossil fuel corporations. I actually don't quite know what the **** your talking about because you've not been at all clear yourself. In Australia's case Gina Rinehardt (the wealthiest female miner in the world) is a close friend of the inner cabinet and she is directly implicated in changes to both the mining tax and climate policy.
      Knee-jerk reaction yes, baloney no.

      report
    8. Suzy Gneist

      Multiple: self-employed, employed, student, mother, volunteer, Free-flyer

      In reply to Laurie Willberg

      Ah, the old 'do as i say not as i do. Laurie, your value judgements and generalisations are somehow more factual than others? I thought that most points you brought up apply to Australia too - granted, the governments 'glum' into superannuations or extra travel expenses, the warlords run corporations and endanger the quality of our own drinking water and/or climate with their profitmaking schemes, but you seem to think these morally superior to other nations.

      report
    9. Laurie Willberg

      Journalist

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Nothing "racist" about it. Kindly advise how you think dumping large amounts of cash in undeveloped national governments will do anything for the benefit of the residents of those countries or change the status quo. And you need to explain what the **** the relevance is of the person you refer to and what the **** it has to do with this conversation.

      report
    10. Suzy Gneist

      Multiple: self-employed, employed, student, mother, volunteer, Free-flyer

      In reply to Laurie Willberg

      I'm not 'ranting' but commenting on your logic (in criticising others' comments when your own are only opinion and value judgements based on your personal ideology) and content:
      "And considering the high levels of corruption in governments [Australia being no stranger to corruption] only too happy to glum onto the extra cash, where's the evidence that any of these proposed funds will actually benefit the residents of those countries?
      Most of the residents of these undeveloped nations are still…

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      Suzy, we could also mention Peter Costello and his use of military planes to commute between Melbourne and Canberra, what was that bill... $2,000,000+... Water, good point.

      report
    12. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix,
      Can you name an existing, actual, man-made climate change effect that has been shown to be physically oppressive to such people?
      I can't think of a single concrete example. Many, many guesses abound, especially as projections for the future, but what, really, has been set in stone as a harmful effect?
      If there are none or few, is not Australia acting prudently in refusing to get rushed into vague commitments?

      report
    13. Geoffrey Sherrington

      Surveyor

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix,
      Apart from it being abnormal, it was until recently not allowed under IPCC rules. Before AR5, the ONLY literature accepted by IPCC rules was supposed to be peer reviewed. They grey literature like NGO handouts got a look in for AR5 with some underhand work by an IPCC non-scientist working without proper IPCC endorsement.

      report
    14. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoffrey Sherrington

      RE: "name an existing, actual, man-made climate change effect that has been shown to be physically oppressive to such people?"

      The effect upon fools who then spend their life posting to blogs and discussions boards a sif they actually know something of value to anyone else when really they are *not-knowers* but persist in being a regular physical pain in the arse to everyone else.

      How's that for starters? :)

      report
    15. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoffrey Sherrington

      "Before AR5, the ONLY literature accepted by IPCC rules was supposed to be peer reviewed."

      LIAR or IDIOT? You get to decide Geoffrey.

      report
    1. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad,

      Abbott and his merry men don't represent me or my views on plenty of matters (no recent/current political party has) and I am certain many Aussies would be in the same boat.

      My point being....don't associate Aussies with Abbotts behaviour by including Australia in your sentence.

      report
    2. Jack Arnold

      Director

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Well Wade, it is encouraging to see that you are among the first Liberal Party voters who have realised that Toxic RAbbott and his coven of crooks have absolutely no idea about governing anything, let alone Australia for the benefit of all Australians.

      report
    3. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Wade,

      The Australian people elected the coalition into government in the knowledge that this would make Tony Abbott our PM. Of course this means that the rest of the world will look to our PM and government's policies as representing the will of the Australian people. If Aussies aren't happy with the government's behaviour or their policies then they should express their dissatisfaction to the government.

      report
    4. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      As the Prime Minister represents the nation, the elision of 'Abbott' and 'Australia' in this context is correct.

      report
    5. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Well I vote below the line these days and given the chamomile that is our preference system I doubt your claims are accurate.

      report
    6. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Wade,

      I understand your concerns about the preference system (particularly in the senate) but people select their own preferences in the lower house which is where the government is formed so I am not sure which of my claims you think are inaccurate?

      report
    7. Frank Moore

      Consultant

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Well folks, you may not believe this but... Australia's unwillingness to cough up more dough at Warsaw plays really well with most Australians.
      Any taxpayer moneys spent needs a high return. This wont happen out of any dollars given up at Warsaw.
      Having the odd foreign accented, Leftist Activist pontificate on the supposed evils of Abbott will increase Abbott's popularity.
      Not here amongst the Abbott Haters, but out there - in the real world.

      report
    8. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Frank Moore

      Frank,

      Are you seriously trying to say that you speak for most Australians? Where is your evidence for this?

      My experience in the real world tells me that most Australians are not happy to shift the costs of their behaviour onto the kids of today and tomorrow.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Frank Moore

      In the real world Frank, opinions are very different to that of our current politicians. And I would bet on this current Government becoming very unpopular with the broader electorate as time goes on. For a start the inner cabinet is overwhelmingly conservative and male, and I doubt has the capability to reflect the population in many areas of policy. Women will for example notice changes to super, which favours wealthier men. The government has just decided not to object to Israel's rampant settlement program in the west bank as it is an obstruction to peace, unlike most countries. The point being, this government does not consider a discussion with Australians to be necessary. This paternalistic secretive method of governing will not last long. It is not just a leftie abbott hating issue. It will become how representative, honest, consultative, and wise is this new government. On all these points this government is failing. And it's not just the left who is noticing.

      report
    10. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Most Australians would be happy to pass on the benefits of progress to their children and grandchildren. Benefits such as improved life expectancy, health, education and standard of living to name just a few. Off course, we try and limit the costs involved in providing those benefits, but there are no free lunches.

      report
    11. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      Richard,

      No-one said Australians weren't happy to pass on the benefits to future generations.

      My point is that most Australians are not happy to shift the costs of their behaviour onto the kids of today and tomorrow. We have the solutions available to transition our economy away from fossil fuels without giving up the benefits we now enjoy. We have an ethical responsibility not to pass the costs of our behaviour onto the kids of today and tomorrow.

      report
  2. Geoff Henley

    Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

    "What may yet shift the dynamic is the ongoing impact of Typhoon Haiyan. While Australia’s government may not be accepting scientists’ views that this storm was worsened by climate change"

    Now for the reality.

    Typhoon Haiyan is ranked at between the 21st to 35th most intense typhoon in the West Pacific region since records have been kept.

    Records show no increase in the frequency of typhoons in the west pacific region for the last 100 years.

    Even the IPCC indicates a 'low confidence' in increased cyclone activity over the long term.

    As tragic as carnage caused by Typhoon Haiyan is, the science provides no evidence that this typhoon has anything to do with human activities.

    report
    1. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      "The current consensus is that climate change is not making the risk of hurricanes any greater, but there are physical arguments and evidence that there is a risk of more intense hurricanes." A Nature Geoscience research paper from 2010 found that global warming will increase the average intensity of the storms while the total number of storms will fall, meaning fewer but more severe cyclones. It also found that rainfall in the heart of the storms will increase by 20%."

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/11/typhoon-haiyan-climate-change

      I think the most important point is that the science is telling us that we will experience more intense extreme weather events like Typhoon Haiyan if we don't do what is necessary to address and prevent further climate change

      report
    2. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      You can follow the links to the supporting science if you like. Obviously there hasn't been enough time for scientists to publish about Typhoon Haiyan in peer reviewed journals.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      Geoff, you've conveniently omitted a few factors, temperature of the pacific to the east of the philippines, the way typhoons strengthen as Brad says, and the way typhoons are measured, speed at landfall (which is of relevance historically), storm surge destruction, air pressure, and size. Cyclone Tracey was tiny but powerful, are you saying it was of no relevance? The Pacific ocean to the east of the Philippines is an area of the ocean which has been warming faster than other parts of the ocean…

      Read more
    4. Geoff Henley

      Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      The link you provide is pretty weak. The WMO is simply just another alarmist propaganda unit.

      Everything in my post is a substantiated fact.

      Stop accusing everyone who disagrees as lying. Thats simply displaying arrogance.

      report
    5. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      Hahahah - Well done Geoff! Great Poe.

      The World Meteorological Organisation an 'alarmist propaganda unit'. Hilarious.

      I love how you make outlandish statements in order to make deniers look like ideological fools.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      There are differing opinions as to which typhoons are historically the biggest, the website you use as an example can be disputed. Also, you did not include all the facts.

      report
    7. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      re "Stop accusing everyone who disagrees as lying."

      If the shoe fits, wear it.

      report
    1. Jennifer Norton

      statistician, researcher, entrepreneur

      In reply to Darren Kay

      Ha ha!

      When really it's more like, compassion masquerading as ... compassion?

      report
  3. Rene Oldenburger

    Haven't got one

    Don't know how many billions have already been spent on reducing global warming, so how much cooler has it become having spend all this money?

    report
    1. Philip Hingston

      Associate Professor

      In reply to Rene Oldenburger

      Hi Rene. Getting cooler is not possible now - it's going to keep getting warmer. All we can do, if we choose to act, is to try to keep the increase to the lower end of the range. It's looking like 2C above pre-industrial is now very hard. The longer we delay, the harder it gets, and the higher the temperature will go.

      report
    2. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Philip Hingston

      Philip Hingston wrote: "Getting cooler is not possible now - it's going to keep getting warmer. All we can do, if we choose to act, is to try to keep the increase to the lower end of the range. It's looking like 2C above pre-industrial is now very hard. The longer we delay, the harder it gets, and the higher the temperature will go."

      This is a great surprise. We have a topic still going on and on about our commitments and in there a simple question was asked.

      If Australia indeed implements…

      Read more
    3. Philip Hingston

      Associate Professor

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena.

      First, I'm not a climate scientist, but I'll answer as best I can. We pump greenhouse gases into the air. Some of them are cleaned up by natural processes, but not all, so the amount of them in the air is increasing. The more of them there is, the hotter Earth is going to get. This much nearly everyone, including most skeptics, agrees about.

      If we pump out less, it won't get quite as hot. That's what current targets like Australia's 5% reduction are trying to do - keep the planet cooler than it would have been otherwise. I don't think anyone has been saying we can make the temperature go down from what it is now, or make sea levels go back to what they were (at least not for hundreds of years). But every little bit helps, and 2 degrees would be much better than 3, or 4, or even more.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena, This is an argument mr. grumpy demands an answer to every week at the conversation. The point is, The IPCC has most recently updated their physical science report,it's the fifth, and with it comes a brief summary report for policymakers based on the science. I can't look at it because the kids have used all my fast internet speeds, but the last graphic shows the impact of not reducing CO2 and there's probably a graph of predicted temperatures as well. Press the orange bar "summary for policymakers…

      Read more
    5. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      We almost never know exactly what the outcome of any investment will be.

      What if I asked you advice on buying some shares and, perfectly sensibly, you suggest X Corporation because their fundamentalks were good and their market was expanding, bu ti demanded to know exactly what those shares would be worth in 5, 10 or 15 years' time and exactly what my profits would be? Would you (or anyone) be able to provide those exact numbers? Would that mean that buying X Corporation's shares was a bad idea…

      Read more
    6. Suzy Gneist

      Multiple: self-employed, employed, student, mother, volunteer, Free-flyer

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Spending money now on improving our outcomes is an option we have some control over. Doing nothing is also an option, however, the result of doing nothing will mean that the money we didn't spent becomes more and more worthless as it can no longer achieve the value it can today in the future. If we don't curb our emissions now, natural limits will curb them for us and you will find that money is no substitute when storms and fires rage and food and fuel shortages and international quarrels for resources begin...

      report
    7. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice Kelly wrote: "I would expect we will be punished by the rest of the world as we should. It is immaterial how much the temperature will drop, the world has to cut their emissions by 25% by 2020, 40%, by 2030, 60%by 2040, and 80% by 2050"

      Although it is important to know how much the temperature will drop if we implement our 5% or 20% or whatever, let's leave it for now.

      Interestingly, though, I feel that by 2050 our emissions may drop even naturally as there would not be too much oil and coal left. This is one of the reasons why Canada and Russia are looking at their North territories and beyond.

      So, by 2050 having no oil and coal we would have some other sources of energy and our emissions will drop naturally anyway without too much noise about them.

      report
    8. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      re: " how much the temperature will drop if we implement our 5% or 20% or whatever? "

      as in drop below our current temps? Um probably nothing, as it will continue to increase. Cut by 80% globally before 2035, and the 'temperature' will continue to increase from now till then and after.

      So "If Australia indeed implements the target of 5% emissions reduction and achieves it, what are the values of global temperature drop or sea level drop would be achieved thanks to OUR effort?' is asking the WRONG question. :)

      I hope that's clear now.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena if we wait till 2050 for oil and coal to run out, then our cumulative total emissions will be somewhere in the range of 8000 GtCO2. Temperatures will be 3 degrees celsius higher, feedbacks caused by previously unreleased methane will be assured, out of control, and leading to further releases of methane in the arctic, from tundra, permafrost, oceans, sea floor etc leading to catastrophic rises in temperature well above 5 degrees by 2100. There may be a few jellyfish left in the ocean, but not much else, and the murray darling basin as a food bowl will be approaching complete collapse. We will have a collapsed economy, where will we get our food, Indonesia?
      There is nothing "interesting" about your comments or theories. You have an appalling lack of understanding about all aspects of the science and what it means. Elena Read that report I referenced to you please.

      report
    10. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice no ref to hand but I believe there is enough coal in Oz to last a few hundred years at current rates. Certainly more than 50 years worth, and we are not the only nation with good quality coal that is obtainable. Half (?) of Qld is Coal barely beneath the surface. The largest single deposit in the world.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Yeah, no doubt, it was (all) Elenas crackpot idea that we can wait for them to run out in 2050. Never mind the devastation if we all follow her (lead). I don't know why people post rubbish without bothering to at least read a bit of science. I couldn't use a computer till Kevin bought me one. I hope we get punished, soon, for our dig it up/ to hell with the consequence policies.

      report
    12. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Yeah, I was going to reply to Elena about this, figured may as well talk to someone who is awake with a functioning mind and decent human values instead. and good one Kevin the evil socialist bastard ! Giving away other peoples precious taxes in such a wasteful manner. The cheek of it. :)

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Good rant Sean, I was going to start on about CO2 emissions caused by unreleased methane etc. Because it makes our own contribution of potentially 8000 GtCO2 look like peanuts. And bits of degrees welcome by comparison.
      http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/372266/09_Glikson.pdf
      Add up the numbers here, even with my scant understanding of mathematical number terminology, they're mind boggling. And their potential is only just starting to be registered by the IPCC. I'm sure there are a few sleepless scientists out there somewhere.
      And it begs the question. Parliament receives many submissions based on the science. Do they read them? The response so far both here and at Warsaw, by this one, (many of whom were around in 2009) when this submission was tabled, is really very "flat-earthed". They have to go.

      report
  4. Ian Alexander

    Reader

    Ian

    Abbott promised before the election to make Australia a laughing stock internationally on environmental issues. Looks like he is succeeding.

    He's also doing a wonderful job destroying our relationship with Indonesia.

    What a genius.

    report
    1. Mark Pollock

      Analyst

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      Hi Ian, care to give us some details about when he made this promise or are you just making stuff up?

      report
  5. Mark Pollock

    Analyst

    Sensible people around the world are congratulating us for pointing out that the AGW Emperor is wearing no clothes.

    report
    1. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Actually part of the reason we are becoming such an international embarrassment is that our new government says they accept the science yet then turns around and actively opposes adquate action to prevent dangerous climate change.

      report
    2. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena,

      I think you should open your eyes and have a look at the international media - we are not leading anything, we are holding everyone else back and the international community is not at all impressed with our refusal to face reality and get responsible for doing our fair share to prevent dangerous climate change.

      It is deeply unethical for Australian adults to continue to shift the costs of our behaviour onto the kids of today and tomorrow around the world. Personally I find our nations irresponsible spoiled child behaviour deeply embarrassing.

      report
    3. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      But, in which direction are we leading, Elena?

      Personally, I was never in that much of a hurry to get to shit creek.

      report
    4. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Actually, funny how Elena believes our efforts to reduce emissions would be useless and have no impact on others' behaviour yet, when we move in the opposite direction, we are 'leading'?

      Come on Elena, as an accountant this should be a simple question for you - is Australia able to lead and influence the world by its actions or not? Or is there some subtle form of mathematics that you could explain to us that shows we can only 'lead' in one direction, not the other?

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Mr. grumpy repeats the words quantify/temperature/difference as often as Mr dean hypocrisy/ jet fuel, and like Elena think this is an argument, when really we know it's more, petulance, and an immature inability to admit the size of the problem we all have to face.

      report
    6. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      No, Elena, we are now leading the retreat, leaving others to do our share of fighting the battle. Distinctly embarrassing.

      report
    7. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      It's a great little 'argument' though, isn't it - I mean you could use a cersion of it to argue your way out of doing absolutely anything you didn't want to and almost appear rational (well, at a superficial level, anyway).

      When someone publishes 'the Denial Omnibus' it will certainly be in the list of the twenty best pseudo arguments with which to derail sensible discussion and frustrate everyone.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, I have an armful at the ready for the kids, and in that situation I have to be able to "turn on a dime". In this situation it simply means the rats are adults, not kids, and the wrong questions are being used because quantifying becomes difficult and will depend on variables like our mature collective response, and feed-back mechanisms. I resent the use of these simplistic arguments because there's an inability to confront the hugeness of the problem implicit in their use? Yeah they're sneaky.

      report
    9. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Actually, when you think about it, even if you were trying to hindcast rather than forecast, the range of error in actual measurement would probably be greater than the standard demanded by this furphy!

      report
    10. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Fair enough if that is your view on co2 and climate influence but surely you see the merit in reducing exhaust born pollution?

      report
    11. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Wade Macdonald wrote: "Fair enough if that is your view on co2 and climate influence but surely you see the merit in reducing exhaust born pollution?"

      Of course I do but more from the practical point of view. I would not go to Shanghai because it is just not possible to breath in such cities

      report
    12. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix MacNeill wrote: "Come on Elena, as an accountant this should be a simple question for you - is Australia able to lead and influence the world by its actions or not? Or is there some subtle form of mathematics that you could explain to us that shows we can only 'lead' in one direction, not the other?"

      People are losing jobs and unemployment in Australia grows day after day. When we need to create new jobs or re-train people or pay them rent assistance or any other benefits we need a lot of…

      Read more
    13. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad Farrant wrote: "think you should open your eyes and have a look at the international media - we are not leading anything"

      Yes, Brad, I fully agree with you. I opened my eyes and see that we are not leading in science, medicine, engineering and lots of other areas where we lost our capabilities or never had them. Investing money in such areas would also be beneficial, otherwise we would be leading in digging only but for a very limited time.

      When you talk about our moral and ethical obligations I am just wondering what Australia would do when there is nothing to dig. When all nations around the world would use nuclear or green technolgies, plastic instead of metal and so on and so forth, what our industry would be doing? Then, your kids would tell you that your moral obligations were to support our industry capabilities rather than wasting money and resources on something which killed Australian economy, whereas the other countries still moved ahead.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Yeah, and if you dare to mention the actual numbers of unreleased CO2, (and potential to wipe out the planet completely), your an alarmist. There isn't even time to behave like a moderate in this debate. We all have to become alarmists. The bits of degree Grumpy and Elena are confused about have nothing to do with the real debate as I see it. Your right.

      report
    15. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena,

      The problem is that you seem to be railing against the industries of the future - renewable energy, sustainable industries etc.

      If we continue with business as usual then we will be not only failing in our ethical responsibilities to do our fair share to protect the kids of today and tomorrow from dangerous climate change but we will also be acting in an economically irresponsible fashion by failing to transition our economy and build the industries of the future. Remember that we were once leaders in developing solar pv but poor government decision making saw the technology and scientific skills move offshore.

      report
    16. Ian Rudd

      Retired accountant

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      A couple of days ago at the COP 19 in Warsaw delegates of some 133 nations walked out of the conference in disgust. As one delegate commented the last straw that prompted the walkout was Australia getting up and refusing to accept ANY of the proposals up for negotiation. It along with Japan this time and Canada previously have refused to even try and honour commitments made earlier by them.

      In my mind that is disgraceful. If this had been a WTO commitment we would have been sued left right and centre by governments and the corporations that own them.

      I repeat it is disgusting.

      report
    17. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Ian Rudd

      This is being reported as Nations walking out, not only green groups (?)

      133 countries walk out of UN climate meeting over global warming compensation row

      In Wednesday’s session, G77+ China negotiator Juan Hoffmeister walked out of a closed-door meeting when delegations from the industrial block refused to agree that the mechanism for such compensation is needed now and not after 2015 when a new climate change agreement is expected to be signed in Paris.

      OR is it ONE person representing…

      Read more
  6. Jack Arnold

    Director

    Another in an increasing number of examples showing that the Coalition has no idea about government or governing Australia for the benefit of the voters. Instead, we have conservative politics turning wheat fields into CSG fields for the benefit of foreign shareholders living overseas.

    Let us view this objectively, AUstralia has become a third world mine site and so it is ridiculous for us to reject any or all support for the loss of manufacturing capacity due to demolition by government policy for ideological reasons.

    report
  7. Geoff Henley

    Research Associate in Health Statistics at Flinders University

    Interesting to see that the Warsaw conference is giving a platform to just about every bleeding heart environmental activist organisation on the planet.

    If you thought these conferences had anything to do with science, you would be sadly mistaken.

    At least the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for Kevvy and his travelling circus to travel halfway around the World to a gabfest where nothing is achieved.

    report
    1. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Geoff Henley

      The Warsaw Conference of the Parties is not a scientific conference.

      "COP19/CMP9 affords an opportunity to consolidate responses to climate change and to showcase the many ambitious adaptation and mitigation initiatives being implemented around the world. By scaling and speeding up action we prepare for a universal global agreement and move toward a safer future." - Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary UNFCCC

      If calling for adequate action to protect our kids and future generations from dangerous climate change makes me a "bleeding heart" in your book then so be it. As someone who actively opposes this what do your actions make you?

      report
    2. Mike Farrell

      Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      So all the stink about any Aussie Minister not attending has been proven to be correct. Who wants to see the latest solar-powered dunny.

      report
  8. Doug Hutcheson

    Poet

    "I hope, but I am not optimistic that the second week of the negotiations will be more fruitful and make significant progress towards an effective global agreement." Judging by some of the comments here, I am correct to share your pessimism. Until public opinion drowns them, wreckers will breathe.

    report
  9. Mike Farrell

    Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

    "Without more funding, poorer countries won’t be able to get on a path to low-carbon development. Nor will they be able to deal with the huge issues of adapting to the temperature increases, extreme weather, ecosystem collapse and sea level rise that will result from climate change"

    Given we'll face the same consequences, you'd have to be a fool to fund some other bastard's survival at the expense of our own. There is not enough Chinese yuan to fund our contributions to some UN black hole, at the ecxpense of our illiterate and enumerate citizens until Gonski is fully implemented. How can we fund selective sex abortions. How can we fund PhD's into the meaning of life or more to he point, impacts of same sex marriage legislation for Hispanic transgender residents in Australia.

    Keep our borrowed money here !!!!!!

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Mike Farrell

      Have you discussed the impacts of same sex marriage legislation for Hispanic transgender residents of Australia with Penny Mike?

      report
  10. Ai Rui Sheng

    Retired

    While sympathetic to the economic difficulties of less developed nations I find their constant hypercritical finger pointing a little tiresome. The position that developed nations caused the problem, and they alone should fix it, is insane. Developed countries may have created most of the human CO2, etc but they did it in ignorance. That China and India want to continue adding garbage to the atmosphere, when they know it is adding to the problem, is sophistry, selfishness, an insult to our intelligence and suicidal.

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Ai Rui Sheng

      re "The position that developed nations caused the problem, and they alone should fix it, is insane."
      I would agree with that. However, I have never heard anyone, nor any developing nations, suggest that the developed nations alone should fix it. Brad makes a good point too. A few examples of that abound in our own recent history.
      I really don;t see this as matter of blame or revenge politics either. It's not about 'doing it in ignorance'. I think the issue is more about well due to the industrial…

      Read more
    2. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Ai Rui Sheng

      RE: " That China and India want to continue adding garbage to the atmosphere ...."

      Just for a little balance here regarding China: I am not giving refs, feel free to check what the facts are yourself.

      China is the largest and cheapest manufacturer of Wind Turbines today
      China is the largest and cheapest manufacturer of PV Solar panels today
      China is the largest and cheapest manufacturer of the most advanced Battery technology including for Solar PV and other renewable systems and for Electric…

      Read more
  11. Mike Farrell

    Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

    Why should Australia agree with any tin pot dictator in Africa ???

    report
    1. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Mike Farrell

      Why should Australia get responsible for its past and present behaviour? Why shouldn't we pass the costs of our behaviour onto the kids of today and tomorrow around the world?

      report
    2. robin linke

      stamp dealer

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      In keeping with many other green academics occupying the high moral ground, you are responsible for passing on carbon emissions by opposing the only two base load carbon free energy sources namely Hydro and Nuclear. Renewables don't work in the real world.
      On Q&A David Suzuki quoted Sweden as the ideal exemplar of clean & green but he failed to mention that most of Sweden's energy is produced by Nuclear & Hydro and Tony Jones made no comment of course.
      Hopefully Tony Abbott will cut funds to University departments who use the public purse to project moral superiority instead of rational argument and policies that work.

      report
    3. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to robin linke

      Robin,

      You will notice the adjunct part of my title which means that I am not employed by a university department.

      How do you know what my position is regarding Hydro or nuclear power?

      Contrary to what you say, there are a growing number of analyses which demonstrate that Australia can transition away from fossil fuel based electricity generation without the need for nuclear and all the many problems that that would face in the Australian context including public opposition, lack of expertise and the long lead times.

      This isn't about 'moral superiority' it is about rationally doing the right thing by the kids of today and tomorrow around the world rather than passing the costs of our behaviour onto them.

      report
    4. Mike Farrell

      Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      You state you aren't emloyed by a university yet you also state "Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia"

      Please explain !!!!!!

      Are you like Professor Clive Palmer, a well known academic genius ???

      report
    5. robin linke

      stamp dealer

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad, you are tertiary educated, and we have invested billions in the Universities to get back tangible benefits for our investment .
      You stated there are a 'growing number of analyses which demonstrate we can transition away from depending 90% on fossils fuels.......'. without nuclear or hydro. Really!!! Well please give examples that actually work stating what the base load carbon free energy generators are that work 24/7, their location, their capacity in MW, the cost per kWh, and area of…

      Read more
    6. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to robin linke

      Robin,

      Here are a couple of analyses that demonstrate not just that 100% renewable electricity generation is already possible but that it is also economically viable. I am sure you will find the answers to your questions here.

      http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/zero-carbon-australia-stationary-energy-plan

      http://www.greenswa.net.au/energy2029

      report
    7. robin linke

      stamp dealer

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad

      The first address does not work and the Greens Energy 2029 site is a fantasy devoid of any facts. My questions were very simple and very specific, to define the location and parameters of at least one carbon free renewable energy source that can provide carbon free energy 24/7 . Your failure to answer simply supports the hypothesis that Green politics aims to sabotage Australia. It also demonstrates that University courses in renewable energy are a farce and all but a handful should be terminated by the Abbott Govt.

      Of course it is entirely open to any Green supporter, and there are 1000's at our Universities, to answer my simple question. They won't because they can't!

      report
    8. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to robin linke

      Robin .. re "to define the location and parameters of at least one carbon free renewable energy source that can provide carbon free energy 24/7 " I'll give you more than one.

      1) Hydro Electric dams all over the world. New ones being built in China etc as we type. Build another

      2) Mini-Hydro systems located all over the world and across Australia on private property. Been used for decades in Oz and elsewhere. 10x more efficient now than in the 1990s.

      3) After construction GenIV Pebble…

      Read more
    9. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      2) Mini-Hydro systems located all over the world and across Australia on private property. Been used for decades in Oz and elsewhere. 10x more efficient now than in the 1990s.

      NOTE: capable of producing in-situ 3-Phase 240v AC electricity ... and not only 12/24 volt DC with 240v Invertors

      report
    10. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to robin linke

      My apologies for making you look like an ignorant uneducated fool, but I didn't force you to open your mouth now did I?

      Nor did Brad.

      report
    11. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      3) After construction GenIV Pebble bed nuclear reactors latest tech running 400Mw (?) electric power plants in China and elsewhere.

      NOTE: I mention these because of their safety aspects .... they are VERY safe, in fact they cannot have a "meltdown" as occurred at Fukishima , Chernobyl and many other places round the world mostly not well know about, eg in USSR during the cold war period. .

      They cannot be used for nuclear weapons, in fact they can used to reprocess existing nuclear waste into safer stable less radioactive material for storage .... various kinds of GenIV exist, with different advantages for each.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

      report
    12. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      5) PV Solar system with battery back up for residential and business use.

      6) Mini-Wind Turbines for boats, private property and business with battery back up for residential and business use.

      and as well as battery storage one can get Flywheels and all kinds of things to store the energy and reconvert to electric later.

      Already operational in Power plants and large wind turbines

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage#Grid_energy_storage

      report
    13. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      8) Enhanced geothermal system EGS
      The largest project in the world is being developed in Australia's Cooper Basin by Geodynamics.[6] The Cooper Basin project has the potential to develop 5–10 GW.

      So that means 5,000 to 10,000 MW (mega watts)
      Compare with existing Power generators eg
      Bayswater 2,640 MW
      Liddell 2,000 MW
      Tarong 1,400 MW
      Swanbank E 385 MW
      Torrens Island (SA) 1280 MW
      Loy Yang A 2,200 MW
      Muja (WA) 854 MW

      all the above equals about 10,000 MW (or 10GW)

      NOTE: List of proposed power stations in Australia includes 12 x Coal CSG fueled 8,000 MW and 6 x Wind 2,050 MW
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_power_stations_in_Australia

      RE : australia-and-canada-are-leading-the-wreckers-at-warsaw are also major Coal & CSG Shale Gas producers, users, and exporters. Toss in the USA another CSG manic nation and COP19 Copenhagen wrecker, and must be all a totally unconnected co-incidence.

      report
    14. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      1) hydro systems need a river with sufficient height difference and sufficient water. The greens don't like dams.

      2) mini hydro systems, ditto, but can't provide sufficient energy to support industry.

      3) nuclear reactors are good and could be successful if we can get rid of the greens.

      4) thermal solar is getting closer.

      5) PV systems can work for limited loads. We are installing a 4kw grid connect system and I am presently considering augmenting it with a 12 volt system with batteries to run the lights.

      6) Mini wind turbines only work in areas with sufficient wind. May be able to supplement a pv system. Not everyone lives on a boat.

      7) thermal to augment coal fired plant? Cost effective where adequate supplies of coal are available???

      8) Geothermal is feasible.

      Transmission distances are a problem and result in large transmission losses.

      You would need to do better than this if you intend to make a living as a consultant.

      report
    15. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      <sigh> some people are just never happy and the glass isn't half empty it's as dry as a bone.

      Not everyone lives on a boat..... true, but anyone on a boat does NOT need a Grid System so why should "they" be forced to pay for one out of their taxes? How many ways do you really want to slice it? The was what renewables are available 24/7 that's the answer nothing about maintianing an old archaic system from the 1900s. Any sensible answer and every example that proves a belief is wrong is dismissed…

      Read more
    16. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      PS most home level mini hydro systems require less than "100 foot of Head" 30 metres .. but the more the merrier. Feel free to take your over-inflated head and educate yourself.

      report
    17. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to robin linke

      Robin,

      Not sure why you had problems but I just tried both links and they work fine.

      It isn't helpful to simply try to dismiss out of hand these detailed analyses without delineating where any problems with them may be. These analyses were done by highly experienced experts so if you can identify any real problems with the analyses then I suggest that you contact the authors - I am sure they would be more than happy to rectify any real issues with the analyses.

      In the absence of any substantiated problems these analyses continue to demonstrate not just that 100% renewable electricity generation is already possible but that it is also economically viable.

      http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/zero-carbon-australia-stationary-energy-plan

      http://www.greenswa.net.au/energy2029

      I support those who are trying to be part of the solution to preventing dangerous climate change.

      report
    18. robin linke

      stamp dealer

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad,
      The WA Greens 2029 link was sufficient to satisfy me that after 40 years of research you had no examples of carbon free base load power sources that could replace fossil fuels, other than hydro and nuclear which you apparently reject.
      I do not have to understand the chemistry and physics of nuclear engineering to know they work, their location, their capacity etc etc
      You could easily have given that information re your 'analyses'. You did not therefore they don't exist.

      report
    19. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to robin linke

      Robin,

      Both reports demonstrate that it is possible to get all the electricity we need without fossil fuels or nuclear.

      All the information you require about how 100% renewable electricity generation is already possible is in the two reports. I am not an engineer so you would be best to read the reports yourself to get the information you request.

      It is disingenuous for you to assert that something is not possible and then turn around and refuse to read the reports that demonstrate that it is possible.

      report
    20. robin linke

      stamp dealer

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean
      I certainly don't have your sophisticated knowledge but hopefully some commonsense. If you read my submissions I support hydro and nuclear which are proven base load carbon free sources so there is no disagreement there. The greens reject these so my question was where the alternatives exist after 40 years.
      There is no point in citing hot rocks in the Cooper Basin unless 1000MW examples are working overseas which they are not. Voltage drop over 1500Km.....? It is not yet solved.
      Examples of boutique energy sources are not relevant. Base load power sources to cities of over one million people are.

      report
    21. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to robin linke

      Robin,

      Read the reports and they will show you why your questions are not the right ones to ask. It is all about having a range of different renewable energy sources (these technologies have already been proven around the world) rather than the traditional fossil fuel power stations.

      report
    22. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to robin linke

      Robin,

      Your continual ad hom attacks do nothing to bolster your arguments.

      If you re-read my comments here you will find that although I have raised some problems with nuclear in the Australian context I have rejected neither of them.

      Questions about baseload are not the relevant questions to ask. Again I ask you to read the reports I have already provided. It is all about having a range of different renewable energy sources (these technologies - solar pv, solar thermal, wind, wave etc - have already been proven around the world) rather than the traditional baseload fossil fuel power stations.

      report
    23. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to robin linke

      This is woolly thinking and unreasonable demands. When Benz first built a car it wasn't like 2000 model with all the extras. When they built the first coal fired steam turbine for electricity it didn't put out 1000 MWs. And they didn't Jump from prototypes to mainstream building of power plants in 10 years, nor in 20 years and in fact not even in 30 years.

      The same for Nuclear power plants since the 40s there's been about 200 version of a Nuclear power plant. They built them one at a time and…

      Read more
    24. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      QLD Kennedy Wind Farm 750MW

      TAS TasWind 600MW

      NSW Liddell Power Station 1000MW Solar Thermal CSP

      VIC Bridgewater Solar Plant 500MW CPV

      QLD Cloncurry Solar Farm 2128MW CPV

      QLD University of Queensland St Lucia campus 1220MW PV

      QLD Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project 44,000MW CSP

      WA Greenough River Solar Farm 10,000MW PV

      NT Uterne Solar Power Station, Alice Springs 1000MW PV

      ACT Royalla solar farm 20,000MW PV

      QLD Valdora Solar Farm 10,000MW PV (2014)

      WA Collgar Wind Farm 206 MW

      ----------

      other examples in the real wolrd

      Bath County Pumped Storage Station 3,003MW

      Solana Generating Station 280MW molten salt

      Alta Wind Energy Center 1,020MW

      Agua Caliente Solar Project 251.3MW PV

      Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station 254MW

      Hellisheiði Power Station 303MW

      report
    25. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad Farrant wrote: "Both reports demonstrate that it is possible to get all the electricity we need without fossil fuels or nuclear."

      …which is a total nonsense right from the start of reading this report. The report says that 60% of demand can be provided by solar and 40% by wind. I am just wondering how these idiots who created this piece of art report would go when there is no wind and no sun. Oh, they are probably going to keep working from batteries charged as a result of previous good days…

      Read more
    26. Ian Rudd

      Retired accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      No need to apologize to Mr Linke, the fault for him looking like an ignorant, uneducated fool is all his own.

      Then on top of the renewable technologies you noted there is the possibility of connecting renewable infrastructures of different types like say wind and solar and/or in different locations so as to achieve a practically certain 24 hour flow of electricity.

      Finally even if 100% renewables is not possible we can and should do our utmost to strive for that goal. If after trying we fall short then so be it and we either go without or resort to fossil fuel back up.

      report
    27. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean Arundell wrote: "I only charge $250 / Hour (+GST) for detailed global search data research and collection. Let me know if you wish to hire my services. :"

      yes, we saw this before already. However, a search does not mean calculation of technicalities. When it comes to that, I would not pay you a dollar per hour :)

      If you still would like to get $250, could you please calculate how many batteries (with their capacity) are needed to supply a house with no sunny or windy days for a week if
      - the house consumes 15 kWh a day
      - there are also two electric cars required to be charged daily as they runs 100 km a day and their batteries are flat by the end of the day
      - on day 5 guests are coming in and there is a sudden increase of power demand to 40 kWh during 5 hours to cook with the electric oven

      External help is not allowed :)
      I will send you a cheque for $250 when see your answer :)

      report
    28. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Can I borrow your calculator Elena, my batteries seem to be flat.

      report
    29. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Ian Rudd

      Exactly, where there is a will, there is a way. Much good work is being down. It's surprising actually, though in this age of information overload little makes it to the top of the pile to gain much attention. Much distraction and attention-seeking going on, imho.

      UK Study 2011: *Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time* Highlights –
      1) Scepticism is strongly determined by environmental and political values rather than by education or knowledge…

      Read more
    30. robin linke

      stamp dealer

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Hi Elena,
      Pleased to read your reply to Brad, a breath of fresh air and common sense in an other wise intellectually sterile environment. You have asked the right questions with base load power 24/7 being a prerequisite for all energy generation. Brad et al never told us what happens when the wind stops and the sun goes down or what storage systems are to be used to keep the lights on in Sydney.

      Several years ago South Korea won a very competitive contract for four nuclear reactors…

      Read more
  12. Geoffrey Sherrington

    Surveyor

    "Will these last weeks result in a more constructive stance from Australia?"
    Many think that Australia's stance has been more than constructive.
    We are leading the way, in a direction that will be the cause of thanks from many countries in years to come, once people wake up to reality.
    Sorry, but I thought this was about climate change, not international finance arrangements.

    report
  13. Richard Clowes

    logged in via email @bigpond.net.au

    Is Australia really the bad guy that you claim? If we examine greenhouse gas emissions as a function of land area Australia ranks around 139 out of 209 countries with 48.4 metric tonnes per square kilometre. Countries like Macau 89,480 tonnes per square km; Singapore 81,121.21 tonnes per square km; and Gibraltar 55,000 with tonnes per square km lead the pack. The elephant in the room here is population, both size and growth, which is the driver of greenhouse gas emission. Cut population and you will cut emissions.

    Also, it is poor fiscal policy to go into debt in order to give money away. On this basis Australia should cut aid until it has its debt level under control.

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      IF ??? "examine greenhouse gas emissions as a function of land area" is an irrelevant and Fallacious meaningless argument.

      How about everyone simply does NOT bother examining it in the first place, or putting it up as IF it might mean something, when it doesn't.

      re "Cut population and you will cut emissions.' Now that's a valid argument. But now Richard you need to back it up with HOW you suggest that 7,000,000,000 Population should be cut, and who gets the chop first.

      Are you volunteering? :) .

      report
    2. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      Sean, I have already volunteered and had the snip after two children. Have you? Perhaps the 'developed' nations could make aid to the 'developing' nations conditional on adopting such a principle, otherwise let nature, which has an answer to overpopulation, take its course. The latter is not pretty, but very effective, it's called starvation.

      Greenhouse gas emissions as a function of land area is about as irrelevant, falacious and meaningless a metric as greenhouse gas emission per head of population. With 'developed' nations it takes no account of energy expended in feeding and providing aid to 'developing' nations.

      report
    3. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      Hi mate. with " greenhouse gas emission per head of population" it's never an issue for me. Our natural situation here with low population sparely spread around plus high resources & farming exports it's a given the per head rate is higher and highest. Seriously I do not know of any nation in the UNFCCC system who has complained about the hard fact and not accepted the reality of it in all prior negotiations. Though just about the entire world did complain and point out Oz expected far more concessions…

      Read more
    4. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      You may be interested in this Richard. It's interesting and entertaining at the same time. He touches on many things most of which I already knew something about in more detail. But this is a good summary of the key global issues. No one here really gets a chance to be aware of such things when bitching about a minor carbon tax issue for 6 years. Gosh how many people don't even have an electric light let alone an extra tax being levied on it? Not trying to make anyone feel 'guilty' or anything, only mentioning the facts of the matter. Some people truly spoiled rotten with entitlements, and it isn't those on the receiving end of Food Aid or Refugee Visas.
      Gwynne Dyer - The Geopolitics of Climate Change - 58 minutes lot's of juicy parts throughout
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRLg8No0RVQ

      report
  14. John Nicol

    logged in via email @bigpond.com

    Ian McGregor

    From your background as a contributor to most climate committees in Australia, I guess it is to be expected that your reaction to the sensible policies of these two nations would be negative, irrespective of the position which they need to take.

    The suggestion, against most broad comments by the IPCC, suggesting that a particular devastating event can be attributed to any fraction of global warming which may or may not be caused by increased densities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…

    Read more
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to John Nicol

      If Ian McGregor is smart and aware he will ignore your duplicitous sophistry, as well as your insulting and disrespectful commentary John Nicol.

      RE: "From your background as a contributor to most climate committees in Australia, I guess it is to be expected that ....."

      Example of Ad Hominem
      Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
      Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
      Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
      Dave: "Those don't count…

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

      sole parent

      In reply to John Nicol

      It's called global warming John, I realise you are a member of the galileo movement, a group devoted to somehow proving there is no such thing. But unfortunately there are others who can easily explain the connection between the intensification of typhoon Haiyan and climate change. Specifically, the unusually warm ocean to the east of the Philippines. An area of ocean which has been warming at a faster rate than other parts of the ocean for twenty years. And the fact that warmer oceans contribute to the intensification of weather events. And that super typhoons are highly likely as a result.

      report
    3. Mike Farrell

      Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      As a global warming alarmist, I hope you acknowledge that Tony Abbott's direct action policies have succeeded in stopping the bushfires in the Blue Mountains. There have been no major fires in November - a first. Onward with the Coalition policies - proof that they work is at hand.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Mike Farrell

      What makes me a global warming alarmist Mike? Specific points would be most welcomed, as I can readily reference peer reviewed science, of which there is 98% agreement.

      report
    5. Mike Farrell

      Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Strange that an independent survey this week shows that only 52% believe that man is totally responsible for global warming. The crap 97% has already been debunked numerous times. And when you mention peer reviewed, I suppose you mean hickeystick etc. Just admit it, some scientists are on a good wicket in salaries, overseas travel withis this global warming BS. Of course they'll agree - the next funding relies on it.

      report
    6. Jennifer Norton

      statistician, researcher, entrepreneur

      In reply to Mike Farrell

      Direct Action policies have not yet been implemented.
      Perhaps it's just the thought of them that has made the difference ;)

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Mike Farrell

      Who has de-bunked 97% climate scientists agree. It passed peer review, and if nasa and all other major climate institutions quote John Cooks study and add that it's outcome is similar to previous then... But do tell, unsubstantiated blogs? Or peer reviewed disagreement? Name the study which has been peer reviewed, and found accurate, to disagree with the numbers.
      Substantiate the fact that climate change is bullshit.
      *Global atmospheric temperatures for the last 50 years.
      *Ocean temperature for the last 50 years.
      *Sea rise for the last 50 years
      *CO2 rates for the atmosphere for the last 50 years
      *Total ice sheet and glacial loss for the last 50 years.
      *Acidification rate for the last 50 years.
      Use these 6 points to explain why climate change is occurring, not due to CO2 released by people, peer reviewed and agreed upon as a plausible explanation. Or stop wasting peoples time, and admit your wrong.

      report
    8. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      A major problem with the climate change religion is that it looks to very short timeframes to support its extremist views. 50 years, really. Climate has been changing for billions of years. It has been both wamer and cooler than present temperatures with warmer periods coinciding with both lower and higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the same for cooler periods. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is water vapour. Does CO2 have the capacity to raise temperature, yes, but to a limited extent…

      Read more
    9. Mike Farrell

      Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

      In reply to Jennifer Norton

      Glad someone took the bait. Exactly my thoughts Jennifer. We've had massive global imposts on out economy with the RET (9% increase in electricity prices in NSW), the CO2 tax (again, another 9% in NSW according to IPART) and yet we have had a massive increase in floods, bushfires, cyclones, sea rises etc according to world expert Tim Flanney et al.

      In the space of 17 months, records have been set by decreasing our CO2 emissions. Clearly, these taxes have a perverse effect on our climate to its detriment. Just look at that recent hurricane that we have caused by reducing our emissions. These alarmists have killed people with their polocoes and prophesies.

      I still believe though that we will face 8 storey high seas impacting on Tim's riverside property on the Hawkesbury.

      report
    10. Mike Farrell

      Former Penny Wong employee (DSP)

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Well here's one from our very own Bureau of Meterology. Spose it was too hard for them to fiddle the figures, unlike Mann and his hockstick:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

      Cyclones in Australia have reduced, as we have increased our CO2 emissions. THat's peer reviewed by the BoM's own data.

      report
    11. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      "A major problem with the climate change religion is that it looks to very short timeframes to support its extremist views. 50 years, really."

      That should read 15 years.

      report
    12. Richard Clowes

      logged in via email @bigpond.net.au

      In reply to Sean Arundell

      A rather long-winded and rambling post. Am I correct in assuming that you disagree with Dr Nicol?

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Richard Clowes

      Climate has changed before, but far slower than the last 50 years. Explain the last 50 years as I referred to above. And explain those changes in the last 50 years in "natural" terms.

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

      sole parent

      In reply to Mike Farrell

      That's not what I asked you, explain the rapid (in geological terms) by natural means, land and glacial ice loss, temp of ocean and atmosphere, sea rise etc. In the past there are only two things which have explained rapid climate change as is happening now, massive volcanic activity and asteroids. What has caused climate change? for the last 50 years.

      report
    15. Ian Rudd

      Retired accountant

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice, you won't win. It's infuriating I know but these trolls are not here to provide you with scientific or rational argument but to confuse the issue. Like creationists which no doubt many of them are they are steadfast in their beliefs regardless of the facts. These neoliberal ideologues, unlike some of the creationists are guided by purely selfish motives (If there's nothing in it for me why do anything types typical of the Abbot class.). On top of that they are much more evangelical in their attempts to convert the masses.

      report
    16. Elena Berwick

      Accountant

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice kelly wrote to Mike Farrell: "What makes me a global warming alarmist Mike? Specific points would be most welcomed, as I can readily reference peer reviewed science, of which there is 98% agreement."

      I am just waiting when we would see 100% :). I believe IPCC is going to provide this value soon to make their argument stronger. What is their number after Warsaw? Is it 98% or 99%? I saw some reports already where they doubled our warming so that we would die two times sooner than they originally…

      Read more
    17. John Nicol

      logged in via email @bigpond.com

      In reply to Elena Berwick

      Elena Berwick

      Elena, Yours is one of the best descriptions of modern climate science peer review that I have seen.

      I agree and have commented before, that the cry is always for "peer review, Peer review" which clealy indicates to me that the people cannot understand any of the material or analyse it for themselves, relying on some "expert', who is just another 'scientists" somewhere near the field, who reads it and sees that it has a few of the correct references so recommends to the editor…

      Read more
  15. Fred Moore

    Builder

    Until 'Warsaw' (conference) comes up with concrete population policies and aims you can be forgiven for laughing at its TOTAL impotence.

    When women with more than one child and their supporters are targetted to protect the environment the same way as drink drivers are to protect other road users then the climate change problem will be solved. Forums which continually censor this basic truth out of some fool notion of community standards should be brought before the courts charged with reckless…

    Read more
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Fred Moore

      Fred re "I'm calling you out Warsw ~ Which side of the fence are you people really ON?"

      I am on the side of the Scientific Method and the best minds humanity has to offer. I am on the side of evidence, of reason, of logic, of ethical behaviour, and of natural god-given common sense

      RE: "Hammer the fact that No growth in population == no growth in climate change."

      That comment belief is Factually and Self-evidently and Provably False. Take India and China as two examples. Assume that globally…

      Read more
    2. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Fred Moore

      However a Cut in population (and growth) and you will cut emissions. All other things being equal.

      Now that's a valid argument. But now Fred you need to back it up with HOW you suggest that the 7,000,000,000 Population should be cut, and who gets the chop first. Are you volunteering? :)

      Because the Chinese and Indians and Indonesians and the Africans sure aren't volunteering. They want exactly what you and I have.

      All other things are not equal. It is NOT an either or proposition in other words. It's both at the same time. Blame Warsaw, Greenies, Politicians and the article author Ian McGregor all you wish, but bitching about that changes nothing.

      Yee cannie no find better than an Ian Mcgregor! boom boom. :)

      report
    3. Jennifer Norton

      statistician, researcher, entrepreneur

      In reply to Fred Moore

      I agree that population is a crucial issue.
      And since the most cost effective way to reduce population growth is to educate girls, aid to developing nations to faciliate this is essential (for a simple explanation of how/why this works see http://www.girleffect.org/why-girls/ )

      However reducing greenhouse gases is not just about population, as your statement implies:

      "Hammer the fact that No growth in population == no growth in climate change."
      Not true.
      Most western nations have very low, zero, or even negative population growth, but their/our emission rates are still increasing.

      report