John this is one of the most genuinely insane arguments it is possible to make. In plain terms it amounts to; we have a very serious problem but the big guys aren't doing enough about it so the correct thing to do is nothing.

You advance the argument as if it somehow vindicates your position. All it does is double-down into despair.

They say that animals that are going extinct tend to shit in their own nests because they really can't be bothered not to. That's pretty much what you're advocating with this ugly line of 'argument'.

"the USA never joined Kyoto, Canada, Russia, New Zealand and Japan have withdrawn"

We are going to have demonstrated to us whether "tragedy of the commons" is a fallacy (or not) as some people believe: http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv08n04page5.html :

"The main error was to adopt a key proposition of the free market, and of Adam Smith’s, that man is a rational being who always acts in his own best interests, and then to assume that those interests automatically involved multiplication of personal assets. But what Hardin was describing was not rational behavior — it was the purest selfishness. And there is, after all, a crucial difference. A rational being, faced with a dilemma of the commons, would be able to calculate long-term prospects and conclude, quite rationally, that some sort of short-term limit, arrived at through negotiation, would be in his own interests. In other words, in the context of a limited commons, cooperation is a more rational decision than independence."

i.e. a rational being will avoid tragedy of the commons. That begs the question, are the beings dumping CO2 in the atmosphere rational or not?

What are we going to do about it?

We could begin by not adding to the problem: that is, all fossil fuel use is replaced with alternatives.
- Stationary energy generation via any or all of wind, solar (PV and thermal), tidal, wave, and nuclear power, maybe even biomass combustion.
- Transportation powered by some or all of the above, plus biofuels.

To guide decision-makers and planners (including consumers) on what technologies to use, the optimal signal is a simple fossil fuel consumption tax (FFCT), the rate of which is increased year by year until the required decrease in fossil fuel use is achieved.

Also necessary is the phasing out of all subsidies and rebates for fossil fuel use.

As the FFCT ramps up, further opportunities for fossil fuel replacement will emerge through R&D.

To enable decision-makers and planners (including consumers) to make these investments, the revenue from the FFCT (and the savings from subsidy and rebate phase-out) is applied to tax cuts and (possibly) benefit increases.

Just as the GST was introduced without affecting Australia's overseas trade, this FFCT will similarly have no adverse effects. To that extent, it stands in stark contrast to the emission production taxation under the Clean Energy Futures package, which requires complex adjustments and compensation for 'trade-exposed' industries.

Applying the FFCT to fuel used to import goods to Australia will also encourage domestic manufacturing.

Best of all, Mr Coochey, all this has nothing to do with Kyoto, and there is no need for a single derivative to be traded.

Kim,
This is the problem. You continually regurgitate Jared Diamonds' Easter Island hypothesis, yet when I refer you to a study that offers an alternative viewpoint, you dismiss it without addressing it.
'The myth of Ecocide'-
http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/faculty/Hunt/index.html#sbibliography.
The rest of your posts seem to add up to merely restating generic climate change propoganda.
What is it that you're selling?

John you are showing your scientific ignorance. Recent cold records such as Canberra, China and Russia are caused by weather. When it gets hot it is global warming . This is the basis for modern climate science . It is all explained on John Cook's website.

Extreme weather swings are a predicted component of climate change - this includes colder winters in some areas. A useful reference can be found here:

Petoukhov, V., & Semenov, V. A. (2010). A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115(D21), D21111.

Michael,

You say we know cold kills more people than heat. Do you have some sources for that knowledge?

For George Takas
http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7262/670
"Annual cold related mortality was higher than heat related mortality in all regions (table 1). Over the seven regions together, annual cold related deaths averaged 2003 per million compared with 217 per million heat related deaths"
That is a ratio of 10 to 1.

Michael - It is odd that they missed the Chinese cold snap as well as the Russian record cold snap in December ,the coldest since 1938. Record cold is of no interest when you are promoting a global warming agenda.
http://www.livescience.com/25737-russia-cold-snap.html

When exceptional cold conditions in Europe a year or two back were reported it was seized on by the usual climate change deniers in our local paper. What did not go reported was the fact that a prediction of warming in the Arctic is a change to air circulation patterns that would increase the frequency of extreme cold snaps in Europe, something I was only aware of from a CSIRO seminar on science in the Arctic that I had attended about 6 months earlier.

Peter Campbell - yes that is essentially the conclusions of Petoukhov and Semenov (2010) and other scientists from the region who have been studying in influence of diminishing sea ice.

In reply to Neil Gibson,

First, thanks for the link. Though having looked at it, all that paper shows is that mortality rates vary throughout the year. This analyis was restricted to the age group 65-74, in only five regions of Europe. However, the finding is consistent with more extensive data sets which show the same thing, mortality rates show an annual cycle.

What is interesting is the way mortality rates vary with temperature. There is a band of temperatures which give a minimum mortality rate. Above that band the mortality rate rises steeply, whilst below that band it rises slowly. The paper you refer to essentially takes the minimum to establish a baseline, and then integrates the curve for temperatures outside that band to arrive at the difference between what it calls cold related deaths and heat related deaths. This is not what I would call showing that heat kills more than cold, and I say that because the same paper shows the effect is the same for regions with different climates, just the temeprature band which gives minimum mortality shifts with climate.

What I am interested in is does a heat wave (summer temperatures higher than expected for prolonged period) lead to a different change in the seasonal mortality rate than a cold snap (winter temperatures lower than expected for a prolonged period).

Also, if you think about the shape of the curve I described earlier, small negative slope below minimum, large positive slope above minimum, it implies that as mean temperatures increase, and you shift to the right on the curve, you will reach a point at which the increase in mortality due to heat will outweigh the decrease due to fewer cold days.

So, I don't know that one can say that cold kills more than heat, it is more nuanced than that, as discussed here http://www.wunderground.com/climate/heatmortality.asp?MR=1

If it is extremes of temperature that cause increased mortality then the argument that cold kills more than heat is moot. If, as is predicted by climate change models, we can expect greater extremes of heat in some places, and cold in others, then increased mortality from both extremes can be linked to climate change. While wealthier countries may be able to develop strategies to adapt to extreme weather events there are a large number of people in the world who do not have access to the resources to do so.

Thanks Mr Brown.

There's also been some jolly cold wether in the US these last few weeks, and yet 2012 is the hottest year on record for the contiguous US ("2012 Was Warmest and Second Most Extreme Year On Record for the Contiguous U.S." Science Daily, 8 Jan, 2013, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108131149.htm, more information is available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ ).

Of course, China is making it worse for itself by burning all that domestic (Chinese) high-sulfur coal, which contributes to the vast sunlight-reflecting aerosol cloud over North Asia. Perhaps they'd be better off using more low-sulfur Australian coal.

Mind you that would further accelerate Arctic summer warming, further slowing the (northern) jet stream the following winter - the same phenomenon which turned Atlantic Cyclone Sandy into Superstorm Sandy.

Mitch Dillon: "the graph on the RHS of the paragraph from which you quote from in the Wikipedia article. It shows raised CO2 levels in the periods 10k-100kya. Ie.-before the intensification of farming practices."

The CO2 levels during that time were all lower than during the era of farming. What is your problem, exactly?

"the various huge dips in CO2 levels over the last 10k yrs. Especially the one in the early 1800's?"

Where do you get this claim from?

Bob Buick ~

There is a very good gage to tell where the physics is taking us.

During the last Ice Age CO2 was around 180 ppm.

Over the past 10,000 years as our civilization emerged, CO2 has been at around 280 ppm.

CO2 has now reached 400 ppm, so what changes can we expect.

As the CO2 forcing works slowly, the temperature does not rise all at once, but rise it will in proportion to the atmospheric CO2 level.

Unfortunately for us, emissions are continuing to rise, both from us and Nature now, with the Arctic warming up fast.

My other comment refers to an option that would permit growth beyond Earth and the winning back of a safe Earth.

Much damage will still happen, but if we act with determination, we can assure our survival and give Nature a chance to recover.

Kim Peart

The end of the world is nigh!

Bob, putting "scientists" in inverted comas as you do and suggesting they are 'jumping to conclusions' is so clear an indication of your refusal to engage with the evidence and the vast body of research that it is unsurprising that you believe you can draw valid conclusions from a little local short-term anecdotal 'evidence' about air conditioners on the gold coast.

Yes, the world is warming, but less than the alarmists believe and I'm not sure what known and unknown factors are causing it. I'm not sure, either, how much the slight warming during the last decade or so has contributed to a relatively brief event such as our current heat wave. Meteorology is bedevilled by chaos (that's why I used inverted commas), but the media generally prefer extreme and unproven views, to attract their audience.
If I were a climate scientist, jumping on the band-wagon might gain me publicity and enhance my career, but I prefer hard evidence and I'm not impatient.
It was obvious from the outset how this discussion would go and I just couldn't resist tempting the usual suspects out of the wood-work. Please forgive me for being a little provocative and playing devil's advocate in the process.

Bob, I have to reply to your reply to my comment here.

Frankly, quite apart from your reiteration of evidendce-free speculation and insults to professional scientists, your little comment:
"It was obvious from the outset how this discussion would go and I just couldn't resist tempting the usual suspects out of the wood-work. Please forgive me for being a little provocative and playing devil's advocate in the process."
is genuinely sad. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time or no more useful action to take then indulge in childish provocation?

Felix,
1. I think it's valid to put "scientists" in inverted commas when so many public statements are made by academics passing opinions outside their range of expertise. The proper scientists have my respect, as theirs is a very challenging subject, "bedevilled by chaos" and buffeted by fashion. I hope you would admit that there's far too much pseudo-science around.
2. Like you, I have many things to do with my time and, like you, I find some of these discussions interesting and even stimulating. Unlike you, however, I also have a sense of humour and a perspective which tempts me to make fun of correspondents banging on about the same old peeves, endlessly and fruitlessly.
3. Your insulting comments demean you, but I apologise sincerely for unintentionally making you sad, when I intended simply to amuse while making a valid point.
4. I'm exiting this discussion as I post this.

" I think it's valid to put "scientists" in inverted commas when so many public statements are made by academics passing opinions outside their range of expertise."

By that definition Bob can we please refer to you as a "scientist" in all further communications?

No, James, and nobody is saying anything like this.

The idea is simply that the media should adequately and accurately report the facts and the best available explanations. The reasonably rational, if maybe optimistic, hope is that, armed with that kind of genuine and comprehensive info, people would act spontaneously to demand effective action from governments and corporations.

Hi Felix

I'm confused! Can you explain what the second half of the article is trying to say, for example:

"On agency, the German Advisory Council on Global Change tells us that far from being unable to make a difference, Individual actors can play a far larger role in the transformation of social (sub)systems than the one that has been accorded to them for quite some time."

How is this about reporting facts and best available explanations?

Cheers

James

James, the quote you offer below comes from the German Advisory Council on Climate Change which is an expert advocacy body, not a news-reporting media outlet.

Your apparent confusion seems to arise from being unable to distinguish between two obviously different bodies with obviously different purposes and requirements. That or you're just being disingenuous.

ditto the climate evangelists

David - One of Australia's most published paleontologists is Dr Bob Carter who gives very clear lectures on the subject of paleontology and global warming. He is a well-known skeptic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ

@neilgibson paleontology != palaeoclimatology

Eddy Schmid: "the temps we have been experiencing this summer, are NOT an aberation".

So the average temperature across the whole continent reached the highest temperature on record, 40.3 deg C, on Monday and you think that's NORMAL?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-08/australia-records-hottest-ever-day/4457164

You are in denial of the facts. No-one can help you in your present state.

your physics is dogdy the CO2 effect is logarithmic. Most of the work is done by about 75ppm after that it like coats of whitewahs on a pane of glass the first coat does most of the work

no it means he has a brain and thinks for himself

Darryl O'Bryan ~

Is there any evidence that microwaves in use now have any effect on the air and this climate?

It is basic physics that CO2 is a warming agent in the air and by increasing this greenhouse gas, the warming impact is enhanced.

Why avoid known physics, when CO2 is staring one in the face?

Kim Peart

Felix----can not work out what your comment means-----

-'Fear Won't Do It': Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations
by Saffron O'Neill
"Results demonstrate that although such representations have much potential for attracting people's attention to climate change, fear is generally an ineffective tool for motivating genuine personal engagement."----maybe the media have realised the above is true.