Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Global business responses to climate change: Where to now?

Despite the widespread scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, ideological rhetoric dominates the global political discourse. This is preventing the development of clear policy frameworks…

Despite regulatory uncertainty, business in the US and Australia is responding to climate change. Flickr/KateAusburn

Despite the widespread scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, ideological rhetoric dominates the global political discourse. This is preventing the development of clear policy frameworks that companies need for long-term investments. In spite of this, there are signs of progress at the international, national and corporate levels.

A growing number of countries, or states within them, are instituting measures to price carbon emissions. By the end of 2013 an estimated 850 million people will be covered by a carbon price, including China and US states such as California (the ninth largest economy in the world). Further, associated policies like automobile, appliance and building efficiency standards and Renewable Portfolio Standards are proliferating.

There has also been a recent increase in political attention to climate change. For example, in response to the unprecedented flooding of New York City by Hurricane Sandy last October, elected officials such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, publicly pronounced the need to get serious about climate change, a sentiment echoed more recently by President Obama in his inauguration and State of the Union addresses.

Yet, despite having endured the hottest summers on record, more bush and forest fires and record floods, climate change remains a “wedge issue” on both sides of the Pacific. In Australia, while the Gillard government succeeded in introducing a price on carbon through the recent Clean Energy legislation, there is considerable uncertainty as to the longevity of this reform, given Opposition leader Tony Abbott’s “blood oath” to repeal the “carbon tax”.

This mixed political landscape in the US and Australia all adds up to continued regulatory uncertainty for businesses over the pricing of carbon emissions and energy policy more broadly. This is a critical issue for business, particularly those in the energy, resources and manufacturing sectors looking to make infrastructure investments that can last decades.

However, despite the regulatory uncertainty, research into business responses to climate change in the US and Australia suggests there is reason for hope. This will be explored during a symposium on ‘Climate Change: Generating Business Responses’ to be held at the University of Sydney on March 21, which shows that many of the world’s major companies actively engage with this issue by seeking to mitigate emissions and adapt to the changing market and physical consequences of our changing climate.

Examples include global manufacturers which have profitably developed new ‘green’ products and services (e.g. hybrid and electric cars, high capacity batteries, wind turbines, solar cells and more efficient jet engines). Major financial institutions now include ‘carbon risk’ in their lending practices and mark down enterprises that fail to manage these risks. Virtually every company in the construction sector offers green construction materials and supplies. Energy companies are diversifying into renewable electricity generation such as wind, solar and geothermal. And perhaps most directly impacted, insurance companies now focus explicitly on the physical and financial risks of more frequent and intense storms, floods and fires.

Taken together, these responses represent a future for a more sustainable and prosperous global economy no longer tied to last century’s out-dated fossil-fuel dependence. The fact is that markets are shifting, leading us through an energy renaissance where we are beginning to think about energy and our impact on the global climate in an entirely new way.

While important, such corporate innovation also requires a clear regulatory structure to thrive and prosper. Changing markets and corporate action on their own will be insufficient to generate the type of economic transformation needed to meet the challenges of climate change. The accelerating Arctic melt and projections of 4-6 degrees Celsius average temperature increases this century highlight that this is a crisis of an unparalleled kind. As has been the case historically, in times of crisis, governments and regulation, developed in cooperation with the market, are essential in creating the policy infrastructure for fundamental economic and social change.

Government must continue to set the conditions that will advance the energy renaissance already underway. Companies need sound energy policy to secure stable, long term energy supplies; they need sound and predictable technology policies to plan investment; they need clear and coherent industrial policies that recognise we operate in a globalised marketplace competing against countries that heavily subsidise their domestic industries; and they need a knowledgeable consuming public that can make informed purchasing decisions.

The current political scrabble fails to do justice to what we are truly capable of. Building a platform for policy clarity and greater business innovation is crucial if we are to meaningfully rise to this challenge.

Andy Hoffman is in Australia as a guest of the University of Sydney Business School and the United States Studies Centre.

The symposium ‘Climate Change: Generating Business Responses’ will be held at the University of Sydney on Thursday, 21 March.

Join the conversation

121 Comments sorted by

  1. Liam J

    logged in via email @gmail.com

    Hasn't US consumption of coal and oil declined since 2008, without a carbon price? Is the author willing to recognise the fact and acclaim the benefits of the GFC/'de-growth'/shrinkage, or is that too heretical for someone from the growthist club?

    Mr Hoffman may not agree that decline is due to GFC; perhaps its due to the recordbreaking impacts & costs of 'natural' disasters (hurricanes, floods, drought..), regardless it has happened and without any subsidised regulatory patches on market failure.

    I doubt we've got much to learn from the yanks when they're ignorant or disingenuous about their own situation.

    report
  2. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    The author's opening line says it all, 'Despite the widespread scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, ideological rhetoric dominates the global political discourse.'

    Why?

    Because the political discourse reflects its citizens when they claim to believe in climate change and the need to stop using fossil fuels only to burn JetA1 fuel to fly to Europe for a holiday.

    As long as those who believe in climate change continue to say one thing to others - stop using fossil fuels, then use those same fossil fuels for personal pleasure, the politicians will continue the climate double speak.

    Climate Doublespeak - nice line that.

    Gerard Dean

    report
    1. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard, you are playing the hypocrisy card but it does not wash.

      It is just silly to claim that if you believe in climate change you must not fly. OK, you are correct that flying creates emissions and that this source of emissions needs to be addressed through the gradual conversion to non-fossil fuels, eg bio fuels etc. I am confident this will be achieved over time.

      If we took your reasoning to its ultimate (and absurd) conclusion you would argue that I should completely eschew from ANY fossil fuel use, which is not really practicable at this time.

      report
    2. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      "the need to stop using fossil fuels only to burn JetA1 fuel"

      because as we all know, the only fossil fuel is JetA1 fuel.

      report
    3. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Ahh - if only the weather was as predictable as Gerard Dean. Every time there is an article on climate change, we have Gerard posting his usual rant about people flying overseas for their holidays.

      And I would like to correct Gerard about one thing. Climate change is not a matter of 'belief' Gerard - it is a matter of science and evidence. Your position is based on belief - you know, just like religion.

      report
    4. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry Verbene,
      Gerard Dean is opening an important point. Suppose that society as a whole became more concerned about global warming, despite its current plateau. Sticking to Australia for simplicity, let's do a quick look at individual sacrifices, rather than corporate ones like carbon tax.
      Now, I've been thinking along these lines for 15 years or so, therefore this is not off the cuff. Nor is it given spin to sweeten it.
      If Australian individuals were asked no forego a carbon use because it…

      Read more
    5. Gary Murphy

      Independent Thinker

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Yes - a large portion of the population are selfish and short-sighted.

      That is why it is so destructive and unprincipled to politicise long term issues that require money to be spent now.

      report
    6. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      A good deal of carbon emissions come from energy production (about 75% from high-emitting coal). That's where the largest reductions can be made. In contrast individual emissions are miniscule. I would agree that driving to sporting events should be discouraged; best to use public transport.

      report
    7. Greg Adcock

      Scientist

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard,

      I haven't checked further down yet, but did you ask that question about whether the dinosaurs are more evolved than humans. I really wish someone would answer it.

      report
    8. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Greg Adcock

      Hi Greg

      Not sure if you are asking that question tongue in cheek, but in case you aren't...

      Dinosaurs and humans are not more evolved than each other. Both are adapted to their environment. In fact, all animals (and plants) are equally evolved - that's what the word means.

      report
    9. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris,
      Boeing have demonstrated ethanol-based fuel on the Dreamliner.
      Must try to keep facts correct.
      As to opinion - why they'd rather grow jet fuel instead of food for hungry people defeats my sense of priorities.

      report
    10. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Mike, Years ago I used to assign corporate funds and projects to some think tanks. At one meeting, someone suggested a program to "Buy Australian". Prof Porter from Tasman Institute said "What for? People think they save by buying Australian, then fly off for an overseas holiday and blow it all."
      Have a look at Australia's balance of trade in tourism. IIRC, we lost many millions a year for many years. I've not looked lately, but it would not surprise me to find that more still Australians fly oversea…

      Read more
    11. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry Verbene
      Your argument does not compute. Sure energy production dominates, but 20 million people use the output. You have a choice to tax or source or to tax at end point - or both and all points between.
      Public transport - now how much did Myki ticketing cost Victoria before it even got started? $1.35 billion by mid 2011? Is that efficient investment?
      I'm saying that those who wish for carbon-based imposts should have a choice to put their sentiments where their mouths are. If you are going to reduce carbon consumerism, why exclude wasteful individuals? Answer, because you'd lose votes in Canberra.

      report
    12. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Gerard, totally disagree its your argument that fails the logic test and reads like another denialist cherry-picker. As for public transport-the ticketing system was certainly expensive but does not invalidate the global argument that mass transport is far more efficient than private car transport.

      And I use it public transport whenever it makes sense to do so. What do you do, drive a gas guzzler paid for and maintained by your company?

      report
    13. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      "Public transport - now how much did Myki ticketing cost Victoria before it even got started? $1.35 billion by mid 2011?"

      Did it cost that much BECAUSE it was public transport or because the administration was incompetent?

      report
    14. Rubens Camejo

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard

      I’m new to this site so I am yet to become familiar with the “regulars”.
      I first came across you today on the "Seafood sustainability not a sustainable reality" and I responded to your comment, which I took to be a glib one.

      I now realise that it wasn’t glib at all but rather one that appears to be a serial comment against the idea of climate change.

      Before I continue, please allow me to put in my own disclaimer.

      I am not sponsored or funded by anyone and none are going to profit…

      Read more
    15. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Mr Sherrington, most Australians aren't in a position to forego fossil carbon consumption; alternatives are either unavailable, or too expensive for most people to afford.

      Now, Mr Dean may well mock those who are concerned about climate change, yet eschew self-sacrificing actions to decrease their own fossil fuel use. This is because most people, unlike Mr Dean, understand that if we are all going to hell together, then why should any individual among us give up his/her seat for another free…

      Read more
    16. Michel Stasse

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      We've reduced our footprint to ridiculous levels, with zero sacrifices as far as I'm concerned....

      And I watched the Grand Prix on my 40W TV while drinking an icy cold Guinness (it was St Patrick's!) from our hyper efficient refrigerator.....

      http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/heres-a-really-cool-idea/
      http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/the-power-of-energy-efficiency-revisited/

      report
    17. Greg Adcock

      Scientist

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      thanks Mike. I am an evolutionary biologist, but you don't need to be one to easily find and understand the answer you gave. Deniers don't.

      report
  3. Michel Stasse

    logged in via LinkedIn

    There's but one solution to this mess....... we need to stop consuming.

    Humanity did without cars and iGadgets for millenia, it can do it again. It's all coming to an end anyway, Peak Everything.

    report
    1. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Michel Stasse

      "Humanity did without cars and iGadgets for millenia, it can do it again."

      The Stone Age was great.

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Of course, Murdoch media notwithstanding, there actualy is something in between profligacy and the caves Could we refrain from over-simplifying things in this way, please?

      Apparently, the last time we were living within our means (in global footprint terms) has the early 1970s. Now, I'll grant you that was greatly aided by a rather lower population, but it was also a time of crude and inefficient technology. I had my teens and early twenties in the 1970s and, while we occasionally had to do something other than stick our heads up our own electronic arseholes (aka Facebook) we also had a few other things to do than bang rocks together.

      report
    3. Michel Stasse

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      The stone age knew NOTHING about science. You know very well I am not advocating going back to the stone age.

      We already have everything, WHY should we want MORE...??

      report
    4. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Michel Stasse

      "You know very well I am not advocating going back to the stone age."

      OK, the Bronze Age of millenia ago was great. Happy now?

      report
    5. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      So in that case, what he said about "millenia" was silly.

      report
    6. Michel Stasse

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Hardly....... the Egyptians and Mesopotamians were around millenia ago, and were very civilised, thank you very much...

      report
  4. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    Can the authors please explain their direct contradiction!

    Claim1 , "Examples include global manufacturers which have profitably developed new ‘green’ products... ( ....and more efficient jet engines)"

    Versus

    Claim 2, "...these responses represent a future for a more sustainable and prosperous global economy no longer tied to last century’s out-dated fossil-fuel dependence."

    No matter how efficient a jet engine is made, it still burns 'outdated' fossil based JetA1 fuel. Furthermore…

    Read more
  5. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    I wonder if BP will be at the conference. After all, they just quit solar power joining Shell.

    Gerard Dean

    report
  6. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    The more I read, the worse it gets!

    The authors are now extolling the benefits of a carbon tax that will be introduced by those "Green" states, China and California.

    Pardon me for being a tad cynical, but the California I know and love sucks all the water from its neighbours and energy from the rest of the world to create an artificial agricultural. commercial and industrial monster.

    China plans to build over 1000 (One Thousand) new coal fired power plants and have just deferred their planned carbon tax because it may reduce economic growth.

    In future I suggest you use the green poster nation Germany to tout the benefits of a carbon tax. Hang on, haven't they just started building 20 new coal fired power stations using cheap Euro ETS credits and cheap Polish Coal.

    Perhaps you should use Tasmania as an example of green credentials - poor, poor Tasmania.

    Gerard Dean

    report
    1. Gary Murphy

      Independent Thinker

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      I have asked you before for a reference for your 1000 new coal plants claim.

      Your claim of 20 new coal power stations in Germany has already been debunked several times.

      report
  7. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

    Boss

    There will be a time when we will realise that man-made Global Warming has ceased. The question is when.
    Some believe that it ceased 15 years ago. Others believe that it will not cease for many decades, because of theories and models that assume that GH gases have to return to pre-industrial levels.
    Society is polarised. We have a situation akin to the going to war with imperfect knowledge about Weapons of Mass Destruction. In the wash up, the war was justified for diverse reasons when WMDs were…

    Read more
    1. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Geoffrey,

      You are never going to have any credibility while you continually use denier blogs as your source of information, and while you continually based your views on media articles that have already been shown to be lies.

      You might have your views and 'beliefs' regarding climate change - the rest of us will stick to the evidence thanks very much.

      report
    2. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Mike Swinburne,
      Please list at least one definitive characteristic that makes "The Conversation" blog acceptable, but the "Jo Nova" blog unacceptable.
      You are showing extreme selection bias, which is a property that debases science. If you come back with an Argument from Authority. we'll know that you know little about logical argument.
      Look, I've been emailing Phil Jones on and off since about 2006, asking him to quote figures fairly. Phil stars in photo in the 'Mail" article I referenced. If you don't know who Judith Curry is, you'd better quit the race.
      If you consider that the temperature stability shown in the graph from the UAH satellite record on Jo Nova is wrong, you are invited to give reasons. If not, then I'll accept your concession that global warming has been absent for 15 years or more.

      report
    3. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      No Geoffrey, you are completely missing the point.

      No-one - well, no-one with any credibility - would link to an opinion piece on the Conversation or any blog site as proof of their position on a scientific issue. The fact that you have linked to a denier blog just demonstrates that you have no grasp of science and how it is done.

      I have and always will link only to properly constructed science papers from peer reviewed journals as support for my position on this issue - and I will accept…

      Read more
    4. Gary Murphy

      Independent Thinker

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      One significant difference is that the scientific community has a coherent theory to explain the empirically measured increases in the earth's heat content.

      All the denier blogs have is cheap shots and distortion (claiming discrepancy when they are measuring different areas).

      "... global warming has been absent for 15 years or more."

      As has been said repeatedly - surface temperatures are a very narrow measure of the earth's heat content. If these denier blogs were at all interesting in understanding what is really going on they would know this.

      report
    5. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Design Engineer

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Mike- attacking the Jo Nova blog is a desperate act to avoid commenting on the UAH temperature graph which shows the BOM figures to be demonstrably incorrect. The UAH satellite measurements are integrated across the whole of Australia and have no UHI component which is a major part of the warming signal.
      As for saying we should only look at "proper" science papers the latest example of peer-reviewed climate claptrap is the widely published Marcott paper which has been shown to be complete nonsense by the eminent mathematician Steve McIntyre'
      http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/
      Now those without the intellectual ability to criticise McIntyre's work will parrot that it is a denier site and should be ignored on that basis as that is the only argument they have.

      report
    6. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Neil

      There is nothing desperate about my position at all. I will be polite here: Opinions are like rectums - everyone has one and most of them are full of faeces.

      And since you have linked to an opinion piece on a website as support for your position, I can place your views in the same category as those of Geoffrey - lacking in evidentiary support. It has nothing to do with whether or not people have the intellectual capacity to critique Steve McIntyre's work. But then, if he had the intellectual…

      Read more
    7. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      "global warming has been absent for 15 years or more"

      You've slipped back to the false assertion of absent global warming when recently you at least said there was no "statistically significant" warming for 16 years.

      No "statistically significant" warming can mean there is 97% likelihood of warming and 3% likelihood of cooling from 16 years of data.

      Tell me, would you get on a plane that had a 97% chance of crashing?

      report
    8. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      "There will be a time when we will realise that man-made Global Warming has ceased. The question is when.

      "Some believe that it ceased 15 years ago."

      Thanks for this, Mr Sherrington; there may well be a time when we realise that global warming has ceased, but that can and will occur only after global warming actually has ceased. This will only occur after intensity of the hydrological cycle has increased to such extent as to match the decrease in non-hydrological ("dry") heat dissipation…

      Read more
    9. Rubens Camejo

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      A right wing news site that accuses the public broadcaster of being left biased,(sound familiar?), in this case the BBC and a blogger that promotes Lord Mockton!?

      They are your reference points?

      Try NASA's satellite data.

      Try ANY famous university site and look up their climate departments.

      Try ANY weather bureau around the world.

      Try looking at the increase in severity and frequency of weather events in the last decade and then tell us all is right with the planet.

      Why is it that…

      Read more
    10. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Design Engineer

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Why on earth would McIntyre subject his work to the incompetents who reviewed the flawed Marcott paper which of course was lauded by Michael Mann. Climate "scientists" have made a mockery of peer review as shown by the Climategate emails.
      If you are a true believer in the peer-review process you will obviously believe all these peer reviewed papers of the global-warming-causes-everything ( and it's opposite) variety.
      http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers

      Read more
    11. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to John Phillip

      John

      I have no issues with Jones and Mann - it's just that opinion pieces by anyone are not valid evidence for anything, no matter how much credibility they have.

      report
    12. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      "Why on earth would McIntyre subject his work to the"

      biggest scientific conspiracy of all time.

      report
    13. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      "The globe is not warming." Really? Then pray explain what is happening to all the energy arriving at the Earth's surface, that is not being radiated back into space. Hint: the oceans are still warming just fine, thanks, and the Arctic is continuing to melt at an unprecedented rate. High school physics is all that's needed to show the statement "The globe is not warming" is a complete fabrication.

      report
    14. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to David Arthur

      "those who reckon warming ceased some 15 years ago are having themselves on - it would appear that Jo Nova and the people at the Daily Mail have elected themselves to that self-deluded group." The only difference between them is that the Daily Fail reporters are, perhaps, not smart enough to realise they are "having themselves on".

      report
    15. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      "Please list at least one definitive characteristic that makes "The Conversation" blog acceptable, but the "Jo Nova" blog unacceptable." Well, for one thing (you did ask for a list of one, did you not?) TC is interested in sharing valid information and has no preconceived answers it is trying to push.

      "If you consider that the temperature stability shown in the graph from the UAH satellite record on Jo Nova is wrong, you are invited to give reasons." Well, for one thing (there are many others) the oceans have been happily warming during the time obfuscators claim global temperatures have been flat, or declining. Of course, that only matters if you consider the oceans to be part of the globe referred to in the term "global warming". Hint: most people would agree that the "globe" referred to includes atmosphere, oceans and cryosphere.

      report
    16. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      "the eminent mathematician Steve McIntyre." Is he any relation to the well known obfuscator of the same name?

      report
    17. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      "Why on earth would McIntyre subject his work to" peer review? Well, it's called peer review because it is supposed to be carried out by people who know what they are talking about, unlike the "mob review" carried out on blog sites.

      Of course, if McIntyre is infallible, there is no purpose to peer review and all his words can be taken as gospel truth. Is that what he is expecting to happen?

      report
  8. Neil Gibson

    Retired Electronics Design Engineer

    While "climate experts" keep publishing propaganda which does not agree with data then there is little chance of global action . The "hottest summer in Australia' is a prime example where satellite data disagrees completely with the BOM manipulated data.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/hottest-summer-record-in-australia-not-even-close-says-uah-satellite-data/#more-27633
    Quoting electric cars as an example of "profitable" green products is far from reality as major companies are losing money on…

    Read more
    1. Gary Murphy

      Independent Thinker

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Read the article. They are measuring different areas.

      Oh - the world is going to cool is it? Like it was going to cool after the lull in the 1980's?.

      Meanwhile - the ocean's continue to heat; sea levels continue to rise; and the imbalance in the earth's energy budget due to the increased CO2 levels remains.

      report
    2. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      You are correct Neil - there is no chance of global action while the propagandists keep publishing inaccurate data. And thank you for providing a link to one of those propagandists.

      report
    3. Henry Verberne

      Former IT Professional

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      What is going to make it cool Neil? Seems like more of "the climate is always" changing simplistic nonsense. The climate warms due to forcings (natural forcings mostly pre-industrial) and human-caused from greenhouse gases).

      report
    4. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      Oh, so climate experts aren't experts and there is a cover up by the experts. Something only a brave blogger can reveal!

      Or, maybe the experts are experts and the data is not being tampered with and maybe Jo Nova is just a blogger with an agenda to push. Because you and she are making a big claim to say that thousands of weather stations, satellite measures, let alone the millions of data points and the hundreds of scientists, have all been manipulated without any actual evidence.

      report
    5. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Tim
      Here's a debunking graph that I drew a 4 years ago from official data.
      http://www.geoffstuff.com/spaghetti%20Darwin.jpg

      You tell me if we have a problem, Houston.
      Remember, on the Y-axis, the globe is supposed to have warmed by less than 1 deg C in the last century. Given that all of these started from essentially the same BoM record and the differences arise from fiddling, do I make any point about fiddling? Like that it happens?

      report
    6. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Doesn't debunk anything, Geoff.

      Your graph is drawing false comparisons and using incongruent datasets. Besides that fact, I just pulled up the Darwin data from BOM and did a quick analysis of the temperature record.
      http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=014015

      When you compare pre-2000 temperatures to post-2000 temperatures (daily max, haven't done the others as yet) it shows that there has been a significant increase in annual average daily maxima (0.32 degrees p = 0.033 and 0.36 degrees p = 0.011). For individual months you see highly significant increases in temperature in September, October and November.

      If I can spend 10mins doing an analysis on one sites data and show an increased warming using a simple analysis, surely you could accept the full time experts analyses that show the same thing after taking into account far more factors.

      report
    7. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Thanks Geoff - a debunking graph that 'you' drew.

      Well that proves it people. Geoffrey has overturned years of work by experts with his graph. I will alert the Nobel committee.

      report
    8. Neil Gibson

      Retired Electronics Design Engineer

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Tim ,
      JoNova is commenting on the UAH satellite measurements conveniently ignored by BOM in their alarmist headline. They certainly disagree with the BOM "Angry Summer" meme. You had better read your reply. The "satellite measures" you quote are exactly what JONova is using and if you believe the "satellite measures" then you are in danger of crossing over to the dark side with the rest of us.

      report
    9. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Neil Gibson

      BOM obviously prefer to use reliable data, and not data that has been shown to be adjusted incorrectly, as pointed out in the science:
      http://www.quikscat.com/papers/msu/A_Reanalysis_of_the_MSU_Channel_2_Tropospheric_Temperature_Record.pdf
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.abstract

      Jo Nova continues to cherry pick data and ignore the science. Otherwise she would not be using unreliable UAH data from Spencer and Christy. Nova lacks credibility at the best of times, her ignorance of the errors in the UAH data is palpable.

      This again proves that BOM and CSIRO (amongst many of the science organisations looking at climate) are doing a fantastic job of getting the data right. I side with science, not cranks, Neil.

      report
    1. Gary Murphy

      Independent Thinker

      In reply to Spiro Vlachos

      Ah yes. Another example of a sensationalist headline not reflecting the reality of the situation.

      The carbon tax is equivalent to about a 1c rise in the Australian dollar.

      Retail electricity prices have approximately doubled in the last 5 years. The carbon tax is responsible for 10% of that.

      Why is the Telegraph not up-in-arms about the huge dividends the state governments are pulling out of the electricity networks?

      report
    2. Rubens Camejo

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Spiro Vlachos

      As Greg Murphy points out in his reply the carbon tax is responsible for about 10% of the increase in electricity charges. That is NOT going to break ANY business. Electricity price increases might in some very limited cases but NOT due to the carbon component. To believe that you'd have to stop thinking at the headline you read in a rag like The Telegraph

      Here is something for you to ponder

      If you are the CEO of a company that spends $130,000 per month on electricity your at the head of an…

      Read more
    3. Spiro Vlachos

      AL

      In reply to Rubens Camejo

      There you go. ASIC must not have a shred on your understanding of the situation.

      Penrics Soda is just one example that displays the nonsense that you have made up in your response:

      "The Adelaide-based firm will shut its factory which has made soda ash for the past 70 years in a few months.Guy Roberts, the company's CEO, says up to 70 jobs will be lost, with the firm deciding it will import soda ash used in the production of glass and detergents rather than continuing to make the chemical.

      ``We are replacing a factory with a shed,'' he laments.Penrice Soda had negotiated a deal with the Government to reduce its carbon tax bill from $8 million a year to $1 million but Mr Roberts said that was ``still effectively the straw that broke the camel's back''.

      ``It's a million dollar hit to our business overall. You can argue that the carbon tax pushed us into the red I would argue that the carbon tax contributed materially to the loss in the first half,'' he said."

      report
    4. Gary Murphy

      Independent Thinker

      In reply to Spiro Vlachos

      Here is Penrice Soda's latest financial report:

      http://www.penrice.com.au/pdf/Appendix%204D%20Half%20Year%20Results%20December%202012.pdf

      It shows a loss of $28 Million. The $1 Million Carbon Tax was a very small part of the problem. Not sure why the Telegraph didn't mention that part.

      They would have cut these jobs with or without the Carbon tax.

      The largest problems are the higher dollar leading to lower domestic competitiveness and declining sales.

      Also wage expenses are much higher in Australia than in other parts of the world. It would cost around $5 Million dollars to employ 70 full time staff. That figure would be much lower overseas.

      But let's not get into the effect of unconditional free trade undermining our labour and environmental standards here.

      report
    5. Rubens Camejo

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Spiro Vlachos

      Spiro, take a look at ALCOA... that is a company involved in THE most intensive electricity using industry there is. They too have shut some, not all doors. Theirs is not just a problem with Carbon tax but of the condition of the international market and the low price of aluminium. As a result they have got little if any help from the government.

      The company you mention is a trade exposed company and the price of production is partly affected by the carbon tax. As a result, they got a $7 million…

      Read more
  9. Mark Lawson

    senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

    "By the end of 2013 an estimated 850 million people will be covered by a carbon price, including China and US states such as California (the ninth largest economy in the world)."

    Guys! Guys! Wild overstatement there! It wasn't right when the climate commission asserted it (the link in the article) and it still isn't right. China doesn't have a carbon price, it has policies on subsidising (or taxing) power stations which commentators have stretched to the breaking point to claim as a carbon price…

    Read more
    1. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "There is a price in the EU, sure, which is now very low, and there is the carbon price in California and (I think) Ontario, which has not collapsed yet."

      So the carbon price will become very cheap and hence it will be no significant economic problem.

      Thanks for letting us know the good news.

      report
    2. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Yes it is cheap. Cap and trade system have proved uniformly disappointing in enforcing a carbon price of any significance (disappointing, at least, for those who care about the carbon price). Australia has a very high carbon price that is set to collapse in 2015 to international levels - likely to be one third of the Aus price by then - which does not make a lot of sense.

      There is no real question of cutting emissions, at existing prices.. .

      report
    3. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "Cap and trade system have proved uniformly disappointing in enforcing a carbon price of any significance (disappointing, at least, for those who care about the carbon price)."

      And why, pray tell, is it the price that matters?

      Answer: it isn't the price that matters, it's the cap. If you only need a low price to achieve the cap then so what?

      report
    4. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Remind me how long Amazon took to be profitable. Remind me how profitable it has become and its market position now.

      While we are at it, plenty of economic reports that show the value of investment in renewables. Stern, Garnut, etc have all published how good an idea it is.

      Mark, your continued simplistic and short sighted comments are as irrelevant as ever. How about reading some actual climate science and start being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

      report
    5. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris - because a low price means that the buy the credits from somewhere else.. they won't do anything about emissions themselves, or are simply getting the permits for free. But doesn't that mean an overall reduction in emissions? Nope. As noted governments are issuing them for free and the Clean Development Mechanism which lets them buy credits from overseas is notoriously loose. In this case low prices are bad.

      report
    6. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Tim - sorry but the economic case for doing anything about climate change died some time back. Stern has been kicked around so much now that I won't bother to repeat the arguments against him and, as I think I pointed out before, no-one understands how Garnaut arrived at his conclusions. In any case, both economists agreed that their calculations depended on effective international action on emissions.No action, no case. It is you who are part of the problem, not me.

      report
    7. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Oh Mark, you really do fail at your chosen field. I heard the same argument made recently by a known shill, so I'll post the same rebutting links I posted to him.
      http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
      http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43084.de/diw_wr_2005-12.pdf
      http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29337/m1/1/
      http://climatechange.worldbank.org/overview

      And these are just some of the hundreds of analyses and reports done on the topic. Your argument that these analyses depend upon effective action may be so, but to suggest that we shouldn't or couldn't have action is not an argument to be made without strong support for your "lets not bother" stance. If you seek to destroy the environment for profit the profits are only ever short term.

      report
    8. Christopher Wright

      Professor of Organisational Studies at University of Sydney

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark,

      In your hunt for profitable green business - you might want to go and have a chat to the good people at GE - their ecomagination initiative started in 2005 for an investment of $US5 billion in green R&D had generated $US85 billion by 2010 in new green products and services. They also cut their GHG emissions by 22 per cent in this time and saved $130 million in energy costs. They are now going further promoting crowdsourced innovation in the green economy (the winners being announced this…

      Read more
    9. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "In this case low prices are bad."

      Can you please let us know what it is you want? Do you want a low Carbon price which has an insignificant economic impact and cost or do you want a not so low Carbon price which has effects? I'm having trouble determining what it is you are actually arguing for.

      report
    10. Rubens Camejo

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark, You're a journalist with an organisation that has some sway with business,

      As much as as I agree with you in relation to our price being high and the fact that it is most likely to, as you say, collapse in 2015, what do you have to say about all the investment in clean energy being made in Australia by foreign investors?

      Furthermore, using your crystal ball, how long do you envisage the price on carbon remaining low as, despite some believing it is not happening, more and more jurisdictions around the world begin to price carbon?

      Finally; were you to advise a business contact looking to make a long term decision on whether or not to invest in carbon mitigation for his or her business, would you suggest to forget it or would you counsel that going on your somewhat educated guess he or she should seriously consider setting up their business for a time when not being a carbon efficient business might be a decision they would most likely come to regret?

      report
    11. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris - oh I don't care either way. the whole carbon price policy is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. But if you care about reducing emissions then you want prices to be high. Just recalling earlier posts its occurred to me you may not be aware of estimates that the carbon price needs to be above $20 to affect any change. Saw a comment today that even $26 is not enough to change. It just becomes an additional tax..

      report
    12. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Christopher Wright

      Chris - for heaven sake go back and look at the numbers you cite. They are both essentially meaningless and impossible, I can't decide which. GE has thrown their ecomagination stuff at me several times but they didn't try to cite those figures.

      I'm not knocking the ecomagination stuff; some good things came out of it, go and look at the detail and then ask yourself what were the new products; how were they distinguished from non-green and what was the profit? You may well be disappointed at the answer.

      I don't have time to fully deconstruct the other stuff you point to, but most of them seem to be energy savers, which is to the good.Of course there is an advantage in saving energy.. Green industry? No, sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

      report
    13. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Rubens Camejo

      Rubens - guessing the future of the carbon price does require a crystal ball but I would guess it would stay low. Carbon prices have a habit of collapsing .. As for foreigners investing in clean energy here well that's their problem, but I don't see how it can be large amounts.. wind farms are being developed at a glacial pace, and projects in other forms of wind energy are all at pilot plant stage. I think if you look again at this investment you may find that its announced (rather than having occurred)..I'm sure there's a few million dollars, which is good.

      As for advice all that alternative stuff is subject to government mandate and their may be a change of government in September.

      report
    14. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Christopher Wright

      Just refreshed my memory on econmagination.. didn't have time to unearth the financial details but if you look at the info on their web site you'll see there's a large wind component - that's where much of the revenue has probably come from. the way you set it out here you are implying the R&D spending generated the $85B in revenue.What'll find is that the revenue's been generated from the portfolio of investments they have, and also they invested $5 B in green R&D.. Some parts are certainly useful - membrane technology improvements - and the wind stuff would remain profitable, provided government subsidies are maintained, I'll grant you that.. But large scale businesses that stand on their own?

      report
    15. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "But if you care about reducing emissions then you want prices to be high."

      So you're pretending to be putting up someone else's opinion. That's awfully generous of you. It's just a pity that your generosity is highly selective and fails to extend to any consideration of how to make sure that carbon emissions credits are genuine.

      report
    16. Michael Shand
      Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Really? Large scale business that stnad on their own..

      Tell me Mark - how much did we tax payers subsidise fossil fuel last year?

      report
    17. Michael Shand
      Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Tester

      In reply to Christopher Wright

      Mark Lawson is a Well known Climate Troll - his goal is not to get answers, his goal is to confuse, distract and waste time.

      I wouldnt treat any of his questions with any regard as it is ultimately a waste of time - which is what he wants

      He is a good position to have these facts himself and his inability to do journalism is an indicative of the state of journalism in this country

      Thank you for your article

      report
    18. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Michael - we didn't.. the green industry keeps on talking about "subsidies" when they mean tax concessions. The two should not be confused. Tax concessions are not subsidies; subsidies are not tax concessions.. If we use their terminology then you and I are being subsidised whenever we get any of our hard earned dollars back from the office. The car manufacturing industry gets subsidies.

      report
    19. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Tim - your first link is to the Stern report itself which has been thoroughly discussed by me and others and the second link is to green agit-prop. I'll stop checking your links in future if that's your level of debate.

      report
    20. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark, I certainly hope that you don't dismiss all information on the basis of your bias rather than the quality of the information.

      Stern report is widely accepted.
      The German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) is not a green agit-prop group, they are a renowned economic research agency. The fact that you don't know that shows you are either very biased, trolling or not very good at your job.
      AEA Tech and Stockholm Env Instit are hardly biased and are award winning independent agencies…

      Read more
    21. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "I'm merely pointing to the different policy options."

      If you really do HYPOTHETICALLY care about the carbon price being made too low by improper process (saying it's "bad" e.g.) then surely you would have some interest in that improper process and ways to avoid it. Otherwise you're just being a concern troll.

      report
    22. Michael Shand
      Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Ohhh, I didnt realise they were technically called something else...either way you phrase it we are giving tax breaks, incentives, subsidies, rebates to the most profitable companies in the world

      so let me rephrase the question - why are we giving tax concessions to Fossil Fuel producers and consumers?

      What happened to the free market?

      report
    23. Rubens Camejo

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark, I'm sorry to have to say this but if I were you, I'd hand in my membership of the journalists union. You are a mouth piece for agenda driven vested interests.

      "A few million dollars", you say. Depends what you call a few, of course, but in most people's parlance, an industry that produces as of 2010, 2% of Australia's electricity would have required several $ billion.

      In fact, for you to even contemplate dismissing current wind and other clean energy sources as being at pilot stages…

      Read more
    24. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "Tax concessions are not subsidies ..." Really?

      In order to get a diesels fuel excise rebate, you buy some diesel fuel, then claim such rebate as to which you may be entitled.

      Government handing out money? Sounds like a subsidy to me.

      report
    25. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      "But if you care about reducing emissions then you want prices to be high". Yes, you do.

      The joy of a (revenue-neutral) Fossil Fuel Consumption Tax is you can set the tax rate just high enough to get everybody looking for the 'low-hanging fruit', as it were, at any and every stage of the emissions-reducing technological transition away from fossil fuel use.

      What's more, because it's a consumption tax, price stability is assured, allowing all consumers to plant their emission-reducing investments in low/zero equipment and technology.

      what's more, by making it revenue-neutral, other taxes can be decreased so as to not over-burden the "productive economy" with a tax burden, while leaving all taxpayers with funds for purchase of the aforementioned low/zero equipment and technology ... With absolutely none of the casino capitalism of the derivative markets.

      I believe we've had a discussion around that issue elsewhere.

      report
    26. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "Saw a comment today that even $26 is not enough to effect change".

      Easy solution -increase it to $30 next year, then $34 the year after, $38 the year after that ... and continue with this interminably.

      Will this eventually achieve the requisite emissions reductions? Yes.
      What do you do with all the extra revenue from the carbon tax? Keep the "productive" economy from paying too much tax by applying e extra carbon tax revenue t,o company and personal income tax cuts.

      Now, there's a thought.

      report
    27. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to David Arthur

      David Arthur,
      You should examine where you want to place community imposts (if you think they are needed) in the whole spectrum of the energy flow, from mineral exploration at the start, through mining, transportation, electrical generation, distribution, then the various types of consumption.
      Some of these stages have different gravity and some have different popularity.
      If you want to get a genuine reduction in GHG to work, surely you start by either stopping or overpricing the least valuable…

      Read more
    28. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Thanks for that, Mr Sherrington.

      If mass spectator sports consume too much resources, then a consumption tax on those resources will drive the operators of those mass spectator sports to respond by either shutting the sports down or by devising ways and means of having the sports without the consumption.

      Matter of fact, if ever you get into power, you can put a consumption tax on whatever you like, and consumers of whatever it is that you like will respond accordingly by running their operations…

      Read more
    29. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to David Arthur

      David Arthur,
      Some of you guys read far more into what I write, than I do write. I did not write, as you interpret, that spectator sports consume too much resources (resource?), I wrote that they consume a lot of resources that add little tangible back in. It's like you've confused capital expenditure with net profit in a financial analogue.

      The point I was making must be obvious with out the need for a retort. If you want to reduce carbon combustion, one good tactic is to start shutting down those activities that have a low or negative 'profit' first. I did not advocate taxing these, you did that. I advocated closing them down.

      Julian Cribb's article has nothing to do with me.

      report
    30. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Thanks for that clarification, Mr Sherrington.

      Perhaps a difference between our worldviews is that I would adopt a 'harm minimisation' approach toward any and all activities, you would rather ban activities that arouse your ire.

      Julian Cribb's article may well have nothing to do with you per se; , however, what he writes could engender a good deal of productive thinking for each of us.

      report
  10. Tim Scanlon

    Debunker

    I fear that the lack of political will is driven by hard line lobbyists (with and without vested interests) and a very vocal minority of deniers (quite a few posting here). The lack of will is as much a fear of change as it is a perceived fear of change promoted by those lobbyists and deniers.

    If we allow these uninformed voices to influence our future, it won't be much of a future to have.

    report
    1. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Tim Scanlon.
      For the sake of sanity, stop repeating over and over that you don't believe; and start producing hard, meaningful data that advances understanding.
      My pet cocky used to have a vocab about as repetitive as yours.
      Just show me one place on The Conversation where I have given significantly wrong figures or data. See you again in about a year.

      report
    2. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Geoff, your pet cocky must have a 30,000 word vocabulary then: that's might impressive.

      Now, lets get past your ad homenim and onto your burden of proof fallacy. This article is about climate change, it links to articles supporting AGW and is discussing mitigating it. Thus, the burden of proof lies not with me to prove my support of AGW and mitigation, but on your to prove that your claims are anything other than significantly wrong.

      But lets entertain your little fallacy and provide some proofs of AGW: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

      So, by the very fact that I can provide links to two organisations with millions of data points supporting their position (and mine), with air tight and peer reviewed analyses to support them, your contrary claims using incongruent data do not stack up. Especially when I was able to analyse the same data as you and show that you had just masked the changes using poor graphing.

      report
    3. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      Tim Scanlon,
      Don't stop now, please. In a few minutes you have started to understand what has taken me nearly 10 years. You say above "Your graph is drawing false comparisons and using incongruent datasets."
      Tim, that's the point. Incongruent datasets. People who write peer reviewed papers used various of these datasets (and some still are). That's why if one is valid, another cannot be, so how do you tell? Well, you go back to the earliest data possible.
      When you read old newspaper articles of…

      Read more
    4. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Seriously? Are you seriously trying to make that claim?

      Data standardisation and covariates: that's how you compare and interpolate data (two amongst many methods). You didn't do that, thus the data was incongruent.

      Also, exactly how stupid do you think the statisticians and scientists at BOM, NASA, etc, are? Because you are being very insulting for someone who doesn't seem to grasp how they measure and analyse data.

      report
    5. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      The point of that graph of Darwin, as you well know, was precisely to show that said scientists make bad errors. Is it insulting to point out bad errors? I think not. I thought that was a major way that science progressed.
      I did not adjust the data, I simply plotted what others had adjusted. Imagine that you wish to calibrate a proxy for temperature that you are researching near Darwin. Which of the graphs would you use? Would you even know that there was a spaghetti smorgasbord if I had not publicised this?
      Why do you want to attack me for showing it as it is?
      Do you have a better graph? If so, why not post it here for comment?
      Remember that the BoM now offer 4 official versions of Australian temperatures (including Darwin) so you still get spaghetti if you plot all 4 BoM Darwin records. I'd call that poor work. Would you?

      report
    6. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      The only errors are yours, along with the arrogance to second guess data analysis from experts when you clearly fail to do basic statistics on (as I showed with my own simple analysis in a previous post).

      BoM do excellent work. You are just muck raking.

      report
    7. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      The BoM records of historic temperatures are riddled with errors and adjustments. I did not adjust them, I did not make the errors. they are there to be seen online.
      Why do you think that Darwin graph looks the way it does? I did not alter any temperatures, I merely presented the official ones alongside each other. You say there are no errors? How so? You can take it as a given that after a decade of studying these figures, I can tell you why they differ. It's not a very pretty story. And on this basis, repeated around the nation, we spend billions of dollars on global warming? A prudent scientist would get the ducks in a row before starting the spending.

      report
    8. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Your Darwin graph is rubbish because of the way you are putting it together and interpretting it, as I pointed out previously.

      Your accusations toward BoM show you don't understand the sampling and correction protocols they use and how they spatially normalise data. I've picked up physical errors in some of their stations before and BoM have already isolated those stations for data checks because of the errors.

      I say again, BoM do a great job, and you really have to stop pretending that they are incompetent because you can't understand how they do their job.

      report
  11. Dan Cass
    Dan Cass is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Lobbyist for the forces of good at Dan Cass & Co

    Dear women,

    I'd like to apologise.

    The crazy old angry white climate denialist men are an embarrassment to all us men also. We hope they don't put you off participating in intelligent conversations on The Conversation.

    Yours truly,
    Dan the man

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Dan Cass

      As a middle-aged white man, I'd like to second your motion, Dan - they embarrass me no end!

      report
    2. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

      Boss

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Shoe us some data, Felix. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and snipe.

      report
    3. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Dan Cass

      "We hope they don't put you off participating in intelligent conversations on The Conversation." At last! Some intelligent conversation in this thread!

      report
  12. George Harley
    George Harley is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Retired Dogsbody

    Some people think that global warming is not happening.
    Some people think the world is less than 10,000 years old.
    Some people think that evolution is "just a theory".
    And some people think.

    report