Sometimes I wonder why I don't take any notice of priests. Your vicious comments explain it perfectly.

For the record, do you fly Mr Wilson? Do you burn JetA1 fuel to go to conferences like Will Steffen, then lecture the rest of the world to stop using fossil fuels?

Gerard Dean

Mr Date

You are correct in thinking that one or two of us not flying won't make a jot of difference to Australia's emissions.

But, if the majority of Australians, who claim to believe in the evils of climate change, who claim they are concerned about global warming and who claim we should live a more sustainable lifestyle CHOSE not to fly for their holidays and took a train instead it would save 4 BILLION LITRES OF JETA1 HYDROCARBON FUEL, EVERY YEAR.

That might be nothing to you, living on the wealth clawed out of the Western Australian soil I dug as a young miner in the days of the Red Dog, but old mother earth would be greatful indeed.

Blaming 'They", be they 'The Government" or "Big Oil' or "Neoliberal Fetishists" is no excuse for your own choice to burn JetA1 fuel to fly overseas for conferences or holidays. If you do so choose, you are "they".

Gerard Dean

I have just cut and pasted your submission at random with just a few conjunctions changed, Can anyone see any difference?

"It is a Luddite fantasy, and part of the reason many of us support change at that it's fallacious to expect individuals to address global climate change ultimately rooted in the same Neoliberal fetishisation of individual choice that got us in to this whole mess. And as a systemic/economic level we because s because we recognise. It as viral moral crisis and a return to local agrarian/community solutions

Mr Coochey

Fantastic work. Mr Date did so amuse me by accusing me of being a luddite. I was of the impression that Luddites fought against the introduction of new, labour saving technology that created wealth for all to enjoy. They smashed looms that dramaticaly cut the cost of clothing, enabling the poorest to dress reasonably cheaply. This was in a time when the clothes you wore were the equivalent of our child's private school or our car or holiday destination as a social status indicator.

Todays equivalent of the luddite is Mr Date who so wants to take the power in oil and coal and gas from the Chinese peasant, desperate to claw their way out of poverty. Mr Date, who lives on the royalties of the iron ore mines to his north. Mr Date whose state stands to make billions for schools and hospitals and roads from the north west shelf gas projects. It is OK for him to live on the bounty of minerals, but heaven forbid the Chinese peasant or African tribesman dreaming the same dreams.

Chocks away.

Gerard Dean

Wrong again Mr Date.

So economic and social systems govern individual consumer behavior. I am not so sure -

Jeans and cotton T Shirts. Australia dominated the world wool trade, everyone wore woollen trousers and suits and jumpers and they itched like hell. The Australian government, massive trading houses such as Goldsborough Mort, the worlds clothing industry and lobby groups, sheepgrowers and anybody over 30 all said BUY WOOL.

We didn't - we bought blue jeans and cotton t-shirts and windcheaters. Within 25 years the world's wool industry collapsed.

History is littered with dead companies who thought they could control consumer behaviour- Pokemon, New Coke, Commodore 64, Hillman, Austin, Leyland, Fletcher Jones, IBM, Pan AM, sailing ships, steam engines etc etc etc etc.

The moment you and others who piously claim to care for this earth translate your public posturing into action by not burning JetA1 fuel on your next holiday or conference, you watch Qantas and Jetstar and Virgin react.

A 50% drop in air travel would decimate the industry and put over 100,000 Australians out of work, but that wouldn't worry you, because it is doing good by reducing emissions.

Nobody has a monopoly of power, nobody.

Gerard Dean

Aden - Ignore Mr Deans hypocritical pot stirring. He is well aware that Jet Fuel is a 2nd or 3rd order issue with respect to controlling emissions. He is also a HUGE personal consumer of such.

There is no logic at all to focus on one source of emissions to the exclusio of all others.

What matters is the effort we all make as individuals to reduce our emissions. The mix is secondary.

It's a challenge given that our built infrastructure and economic structure is so "burning of fossil fuel dependent" - but that doesn't mean changes can't be made. I've managed to significantly reduce my personal/household kwH/day average usage just through a few simple measures - eliminating stand-by's, reducing downlights, better control of interior lighting, dressing more warmly inside. I've also managed to reduce the km travveled by car per year by more than 20% just by switching to more public transport and walking more often. Of course each of our personal circumstances and the ability to reduce emissions are different - so it's not appropriate to lecture others in ANY way about any specific matter.

Just to encourage us all to see what changes we can makeI. t can be done if we try and every little bit helps.

Mr Dean is just trolling/stirring when he raises the Jet Fuel issue. He displays no serious interest in acknowledging or addressing the problem. Don't feed him - he seems to thrive on the riposte - perhaps because it means he can avoid dealing with issue personally?

Mr Hansen says I am a 'pompous fool' with a 'limited imagination' and a 'sort of bore' and a 'denier' and a 'nasty and self obsessed fool.'

I have always said that the climate changes, it always has and it always will. I doubt that humans have much to do with it, however if it pleases you, I will say - I deny that humans have a big influence on the world's climate.

You may quote me on that for ever more. I trust that now you will withdrawe your slur that I, in your words, "Whenever is asked the question he obfuscates and runs away."

I have never run away from a debate with you as the record on this sight will show. It will also show that I argue the facts and not the person.

Unfortunately, you appear to disagree and prefer to insult the person and ignore their often constructive comments. That is your decision.

Thank you

Gerard Dean

Actually they are both correct.

"German greenhouse-gas emissions fell 2.1 percent in 2011 over the previous year as milder weather and more power from renewable-energy generators reduced the need to burn fossil fuels, the government said"
"Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, seeks to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels by the end of this decade."
"The latest data, which includes a 2.4 percent drop in CO2 emissions to 799.7 million tons, shows that the German emissions reduction targets can be reached “also with an accelerated nuclear exit,”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-12/german-carbon-emissions-drop-2-percent-on-renewables-weather

As the above article points out, it is going to be more difficult without nuclear power but Germany is still on track.

This is the full quote from the BBC article

"Accordingly, Professor Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research told the BBC that the use of coal in power generation could actually rise from the current 42% to about 50%.
The problem, as she sees it, is that the emissions trading market in Europe - whereby companies that put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere have to pay a price - is arranged so that the cost of emitting is too low."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19168574

So Professor Kemfert would be more confident that Germany could meet its target if the carbon price was higher.

Seems like Kemfert agrees with Will Steffen.

Mr Hansen, you got it wrong. An "if" does not trump an "is"

Here is the full quote from the BBC article

"Accordingly, Professor Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research told the BBC that the use of coal in power generation could actually rise from the current 42% to about 50%.
The problem, as she sees it, is that the emissions trading market in Europe - whereby companies that put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere have to pay a price - is arranged so that the cost of emitting is too low."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19168574

And your comment was:

So Professor Kemfert would be more confident that Germany could meet its target "IF" the carbon price was higher.

Seems like Kemfert agrees with Will Steffen.

Professor Kemfert can agree with Mr Steffen and dream all she likes, but the reality "IS" the European Carbon Price is so low that is allows Germany to build over 20 coal fired power stations to replace the mothballed nuclear stations.

So, back to my question, who is right Mr Steffen or the BBC?

Gerard Dean

They are still both right, if you are genuinely concerned.

As you say, an "if" does not trump an "is."

Germany IS currently meeting it's emission targets.

IF they increase the contribution of Coal Power to to their energy production, they may not. But this IF doesn't trump the IS - it sits alongside at as a point to consider.

Nor does that increase in Coal dependency immediately mean that they will fail to meet emissions targets. The article not only confirms the German commitment to renewables. It also suggests that they should be commiting to cleaner and more efficient Coal and Gas facilities.

So, Germany remains commited to reducing its emissions and phasing out Nuclear power, but has the task of also balancing this goal with its economic and actual energy needs.

So setting this reality aside, what is the point you wish to make? Are you implying that Will Steffen is being dishonest?

Mr Hansen, give me a break! Have you ever been to California?????????

Holding up California as an exemplar of environmental good is as bad as Will Steffen praising Germany for building 20 new coal power plants to replace their nuclear plants.

The place is, and you heard it here first, a Resource Black Hole. It sucks water from every neighbouring state and the Rocky Mountains, every year they fight over water rights. It sucks oil from any well in the world to power the millions of cars on its 6 lane freeways. It sucks gas out of Australia and anywhere else it can be pumped from and it sucks almost all of the movie talent from around the world.

An American's idea of fuel efficiency is to proudly drive a "hybrid" SUV that lifts consumption from 8 miles a gallon to 12.

Don't get me wrong, I love the joint, but any idea the California is going to turn into some green, vegetarian, low energy lifestyle nirvana because of a "Cap and Trade" system is a bad dream. California will keep sucking the world until it ends up like one of their oranges, big, orange and wrinkly.

Gerard Dean

Mr Dean, perhaps you are missing the point: everybody, even Californians, have to start somewhere.

Somewhere!!!!!!!

I take your point, but that somewhere shouldn't be the biggest resource sponge the world has ever seen.

There is another quirk about California that will stop the Cap and Trade the moment is hurts their economy. It's called Citizens Iniated Referendum. It sounds good, but it makes effective government virtually impossible. The Californians will vote to mandate the government to say, spend 3% of income on education, then in the same election. The result, a government that is locked up.

The moment the Cap and Trade law does anything to harm Californian's lifestyle eg raise the price of 'gas' too much, whacko, a citizens initiated referendum capping gas price rises due to the Cap and Trade rule will pass.

End result, business as usual and California will keep sucking resources.

Keep it simple, by not using Germany and California as environmental exemplars.

Thanks

Gerard Dean

Gday John, the Bureau of Meteorology has a webpage entitled "Australian climate variability & change - time series graphs (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi). You can then select from among various options using clickable menus.

If you do this, you can produce a graph of annual mean temperature anomaly for NSW/ACT region. Setting "Years of running average" to "T" (trend) gives a graph with a straight line through it with slope of +0.08 deg C per decade.

I hope this helps.

Hey all you Red Tickers,

Why not prove me wrong. Why not prove Will Steffen right!

All you have to do is find a reputable source who says that Will Steffen's prediction, "This is the critical decade to turn the global carbon emissions trend downwards.", will happen.

That's all. Find some one who says that the world's fossil fuel usage and carbon emissions are going to FALL during the next decade.

Good luck.

Gerard Dean

Mr Dean is wrong. Will Steffen is right.

"This is the critical decade to turn the global carbon emissions trend downwards.",

The IEA makes it clear

http://www.iea.org/etp/explore/

This graphic from the IEA CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that a reduction in emssions will occur in the next ten years IF we adopt their 2 degrees scenario.

Which they advocate here http://www.iea.org/etp/factsheets/widerbenefitsof2ds/#d.en.28312

Took me about 10 minutes to find

You have no idea do you really!

I am sorry Dr Harrigan, You are wrong. Again.

The IEA webpage quoted the following, "This graphic from the IEA CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that a reduction in emssions will occur in the next ten years IF we adopt their 2 degrees scenario."

You did not mention their description of the graphic "IEA releases interactive data and figures to highlight potential scenarios" Note the two critical words, "IF" and "Potential".

But, more importantly, the exact same IEA also publish a factsheet titled: "WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2011 FACTSHEETHow will global energy markets evolve to 2035?" (Let me know if you want a PDF copy)

The IEA FACT SHEET predicts the following energy use will occur in the next decade,

"World demand grows for all energy sources......Coal demand, dictated largely by emerging economies, increases foraround the next ten years but then stabilises, ending around 17% higher than 2010."

The IEA and the World Energy report back my statement, fossil fuel usage will INCREASE during the next decade. I trust the Iinternational Energy Agency FACTSHEET Dr Harrigan, not their IF's and not their POTENTIALS.

Mr Steffen is wrong. His contention that fossil fuel usage and carbon emissions will fall during the next decade is manifestly wrong.

Red Tickers, why don't you prove me wrong. Dr Harrigan cannot.

Gerard Dean

Finally, someone has nailed Will Steffen.

Byron Smith says, " it is clear that Dr Seffen's claims are ethical rather than predictive.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will Steffen is, to quote the Australian Climate Commission website, " Professor Will Steffen is a climate change expert and researcher at the Australian National University"

The Australian government setup the Australian Climate Commission, at taxpayer's expense (less schools, hospitals etc) and again quoting their website, "to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about:
•the science of climate change,
•the international action being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and
•the economics of a carbon price."

Byron, you have just totally won my argument for me. Mr Steffen has not followed his brief as scientist, he has not provided Australians with 'reliable' information, he has indulged in misleading, predictive behaviour.

Will Steffen has not only mislead his audience by ignoring the factual advice of every major energy agency worldwide, he he has actually gone beyond the bounds of the Australian Climate Commissions area of reference.

His work on this article is an absolute waste of taxpayers mone. Money that should have been used to paint the decaying country high school of my upbringing.

Will SOMEONE please prove me wrong, so I can get back to work.

Gerard Dean

Arguing about the merits of carbon mitigation with Gerard Dean - a person who denies the science of AGW is like arguing with an executive of Philip Morris about the merits of plain paper packaging of cigarettes - a waste of time.

Arguing about the merits of carbon mitigation with Gerard Dean - a person who denies the science of AGW is like arguing with an executive of Philip Morris about the merits of plain paper packaging of cigarettes - a waste of time.

OUGHT is the big word you used Byron.

Of course we "ought" do a lot of things. We ought respect our parents more and we ought eat healthier food and we ought stop smoking if we already do..

BUT, and this is the BIG BUT BYRON. What we OUGHT to do, and what humans,including myself, ACTUALLY do are often entirely different things.

The International Energy Agency says we OUGHT reduce fossil fuel usage, but then they publish a fact sheet that says that mankind is ACTUALLY going to increase fossil fuel usage.

It is the same thing as say, a student of Christian Ethics telling us we OUGHT stop using fossil fuels, but then that same student ACTUALLY chooses to burn fossil fuel JetA1 fuel on discretionary air travel.

However Will Steffen, Australian Climate Commissioner did not say we OUGHT reduce fossil fuel and carbon emissions during the next decade, if he did, I would agree with him, no, he said "This is the critical decade to turn the carbon trend downwards."

No IF's, no BUTS and certainly no OUGHTS.

Mr Steffen's concluding statement is ludicrous, it is wrong, it is hyperbole, it is not scientific, it is not only doomed to fail, it has failed.

Mr Steffen is being paid to produce 'reliable' information about climate change, not rubbish. He ought not do that.

Gerard Dean

Ahh Mr Hansen

Back to arguing the man following another factual defeat once I showed that your source, the International Energy Agency Fact Sheet shot down Will Steffen's concluding statement.

Gerard Dean

Mr Dean - you are either actually dim and cannot understand what you read - or are so blinded by your conceptual biases that you fail to understand what you read - or, more likely, you are just deliberately misrepresenting

First, Will Steffen's statement "The world is entering the clean energy era and the momentum is growing. This is the critical decade to turn the global carbon emissions trend downwards."
Is clearly saying that this is the decade we need to turn around emissions. It is not a predictive statement. it would have been if the word "to turn" had said "will turn" - but it DOESN'T.

Second, the IEA Fact Sheet, which I have in my possession and have had for a while the full quote that you selectively cherry pick
" The share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls slightly from 81% in 2010 to 75% in 2035. Natural gas is the only fossil fuel to increase its share in the global mix over the period to 2035. Absolute growth in natural gas demand is similar to that of oil and coal combined. Oil demand increases by 15% and is driven by transport demand. Coal demand, dictated largely by emerging economies, increases for around the next ten years but then stabilises, ending around 17% higher than 2010. "

So, you've deliberately highlighted coal but ignored the total.

This is also a statement about fuel USAGE, not emissions. The IEA has pointed out before that more efficient coal plants can help limit their emissions burden

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/factsheets.pdf
(Why is it twits like you are incapable of posting your links?)

But the really relevant section is below. The fact sheet also says

"On planned policies, rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change. Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the principal greenhouse gas – jumped by 5.3% in 2010 to a record 30.4 gigatonnes (Gt). In the New Policies Scenario, our central scenario, emissions continue to rise, reaching 36.4 Gt in 2035 – an increase of 20%. This trajectory is consistent with a long-term global temperature increase of more than 3.5°C.

In the 450 Scenario, global energy-related CO2 emissions peak before 2020 and then decline to 21.6 Gt by 2035. This scenario assumes strong policy action to have a 50% probability of limiting temperature increase to 2⁰ Celsius – the globally agreed goal under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – which would require the long-term atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to be limited to 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent.

In the 450 Scenario, the primary energy mix is markedly different from that in the New Policies Scenario. The share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix falls from 81% in 2009 to 62% in 2035. Global demand for both coal and oil peak before 2020, and then decline by 30% and 8% respectively by 2035, relative to their 2009 levels. By contrast, natural gas demand grows by 26%, though it plateaus by around 2030. The 450 Scenario involves additional cumulative investment in and consumer spending on energy-related equipment on the demand and supply sides, totalling $15.2 trillion relative to the New Policies Scenario, but delivers lower fossil-fuel import bills, reduced pollution and improved health benefits."

Any sane and rational reading of that supports Will Steffen's statement.

This is indeed the critical decade. The IEA is making ti clear that actions this decade are required to turn emissions down.

You idiotic denialism isn't helping. I earnestly hope you run your company with more intelligence than you display here

Mike

So, now you have added "Philip Morris executive" to your list describing me;

'pompous fool'
'limited imagination'
'anti-science denier'
'nasty'
'self obsessed fool'
'cowardly hypocrite'
'the sort of bore you meet at a party'

I might be all of the above, furthermore I might ride a Harley, I might drive a 7 Litre Holden, I might design, manufacture and build my own 150cc Double Overhead Cam V12 dual carburettor engine from scratch in my back shed, I might design and build, in Melbourne, measurement machines for some of the worlds largest high technology companies in the USA, Germany, France, England, China and the rest of the world, but one thing I am not is a Philip Morris Executive. (All rest are true)

Thank you

Gerard Dean

Messrs Harrigan, Hansen and Young Byron

You may not have made any sense, you may not have used a single fact, you may not have even thought very much about what you wrote, but in the end you wore me down, and that, I have to say, does earn you some respect. In fact, it reminds me of those young Russian soliders crossing the Volga in never ending columns wearing down the Wehrmacht 6th Army soldiers trapped in Stalingrad.

So, Gentlemen, until next time, I bid you adieu. Or should that be Zdravstvujtye.

Gerard Dean