Hi Alex

I sadly agree with you that it is TOO LATE.

Our earth is past the point of redemption. The seas are dying, the waterways are polluted, the soils are contaminated.

Our governments are fiddling while Rome burns, tinkering away at the edges of a problem that is shouting out for prompt and radical action.

I see wars as a result of economic and environmental degradation. There appears to be behind the scenes war mongering going on in China. And that country is spreading its economic influence and investment into many African countries - not in a beneficial and ameliorating way, but adding to pollution and environmental disasters.

India's growth will add further fuel to the fires of hell on earth.

A documentary on teev last night reiterated that gold mining in Venezuela and Brazil is contaminating one of South America's great rivers, the Orinoco.

Native Indians along its banks (and its tributaries) have been warned not to eat the fish they catch.
Again, another link in the global chain of disintegration, but links that are dismissed as blips on the radar of history.

It seems no-one in authority is adding all these stories together to provide a global picture, relying on blind optimism that everything will be just fine. Woe is us.

The IPCC was formed in 1988.

The initials IPCC stand for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Why do you keep posting here Gerard? It must be embarrassing to continually demonstrate how clueless you are.

Gerard Dean wrote: "In the nineties the doublespeak was 'Global Warming'" In your opinion, but at high school in year eight they taught me the history around the science of 'Global Warming'. There learning the reason for the financing of Scotts Expeditions to the Antarctic was the science and observations to verify GCC . These expeditions started in 1901–04, and the ill-fated Terra Nova Expedition, 1910–13 failed. These men died trying to advance the understanding of global warming. Were financed with the belief of scientists and financiers that the issue was worth exploring. Nineties doublespeak in-deed, 1890s.
Gerard Dean wrote: "Now that the temperature has flatlined fo 16 years" In your opinion.
If your read those who actually understand GCC, you will see 'the planet' is telling us to change our course and direction. Naturally you could choose one of the 34 scientists that reject this, but who could possibly be that stupid.

Gerard, in your case, the only interesting thing that might be 'next' will be the next excuse you lift from Andrew Bolt or Marc Morano.

O dear. How many times do we need to cover this. If you think the warming trend changed 16 years ago the onus is on YOU to provide statistical data to prove it. Put up or shut up. Saying "the warming trend of the last century suddenly stopped" is a massive claim which needs to be substantiated with something more than a blog post.

Meanwhile - you can try and draw a flat line on this:
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/rapidly-warming-satellite-data-sends-skeptics-scurrying-to-models/

"Now that the temperature has flatlined fo 16 years"

Gerard Dean is not telling the truth: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend

Thank you Gerard, I totally agree with you.
There appears to be some agenda when anyone who doesn't toe the party line is immediately bombarded with ad hominem attacks!

They really would like to silence the skeptics because they have no answer to the facts!

Most scientists actually are sceptical of mythical AGW!

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://tinyurl.com/amfwwzq

The IPCC Is Actually Infested With Scientifically Illiterate, Young Activists, Not Scientists

IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.”

Also, approximately one third of the sources for the IPCC come from magazines, press releases and unpublished scientific papers.

The Summary for Policy Makers (i.e. our leaders) is compiled by bureaucrats not scientists and often completed before the articles they actually summarise are made available.

http://tinyurl.com/86pxxb8

Citing a warmist site with all its disinformation does not help your cause Chris!

The link is to climate crank James Taylor from the tobacco loving climate science denying Heartland Institute.

The http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

More of the usual shite. Because the cranks rarely write papers for peer reviewed journals, their current trick is to misrepresent papers that they can quote mine to make them appear to be saying the opposite of what they are actually saying.

Taylor's claims are shredded here.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/more-heartland-less-sense.html

"Taylor’s post is based almost entirely on the incorrect claim that the study’s results are representative. There is no mention that all the study’s respondents were only in Alberta, Canada. There is no mention that they’re all members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). There is no mention that the membership of APEGA is predominantly employed by the Alberta petroleum industry and its regulators. And there is no mention that the authors repeatedly and specifically write in their study that their results are not applicable beyond the respondents and members of APEGA. "

Nickolas, there is a difference between an ad hominem attack and criticising someone's argument on the basis of evidence, which is what has been done in every case with Gerard.

Given that you are unable to understand even this basic distinction it's no surprise that you cannot sort evidence from noise.

So George Takacs independently came to exactly the same conclusion as me. The article by climate crank James Taylor is a lie - what a surprise.

You have just trashed your own reputation here for posting a link to it.

I see that you have now posted a link directly to the study that Taylor is misrepresenting - are you withdrawing support for Taylor's article?

I see that this is the first article that you have commented on Nickolas. Not an auspicious start.

Ah yes, I was wondering when you'd start quoting from Donna Laframboise.

We should get some Ian Plimer soon...

Nickolas Bes wrote: "The IPCC Is Actually Infested With Scientifically Illiterate, Young Activists, Not Scientists" If that is true the infestation must be very large, an interesting value system you are using.
Because so far on last count there were over 33,700 climate scientist who agree the planet is telling us climate is changing and 34 who disagree.
33,700 climate scientist agree with the IPCC
Plus a countless number of scientifically illiterate infesting the IPCC who also agree with the 33,700 climate scientists.[according to you]
34 disagree with the IPCC
Interesting perspective, just how does that work for you written like this? My guess is it is just one giant scientific conspiracy, the largest in human history. Hmmm.....

Bob Carter is wrong.

We have satellites mearuring light in and out of our climate system and can observe light energy absorbed by the atmosphere that MUST be converted to heat. We can see how much energy is converted to heat specifically by CO2 because of the wavelengths absorbed. AND we have noted an increase over the last 30 years.

Furthermore - we observe stratospheric cooling at an altitude above where CO2 is active as a GHG.

We have a tool to explain these things. It's called PHYSICS.

no, i tell you it's the broccoli thats behind it, they need more food!

If you don't like GISS because it's part of the great conspiracy, then try any other reasonably complete surface record (Hadcrut4, NCDC). None of them show no warming over 16 years.

What you are describing has been dubbed "The Escalator" which involves a series of cherry picking points to establish periods of cooling/flat trend interspersed with periods of "natural" warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Here's a guy who's actually crunched the numbers on the 16 years thing http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/

You are also ignoring where the heat energy actually has gone - the ocean.

"The 16 year warming is fully explained by natural variation, "

Fully explained??! Nature doesn't just happen by magic. Everything in nature follows the laws of physics. Saying "it's natural" is not an explanation.

Ooh look! It's 17 years of pause now...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

Graeme Lloys thinks enough time has passed to add another year onto the bogus claim himself. No statistics or maths of any kind, just a bit of creative journalism. What's worse, he vaguely attributes the number to Pachauri and the Met Office.

That is not ignorance there. He knows that the Met Office released a statement last year contradicting the 16 year claim. It's sleazy denier journalism at its worst. (and yes I use that word deliberately)

Last time he opened his trap the Australian had to issue an apology for inaccuate reporting. Here's hoping he gets another smackdown.

"Lloys thinks enough time has passed to add another year onto the bogus claim himself"

They will keep doing this for a few years yet. Just make sure 1998 is included at the beginning to keep the trend down and it will probably be 2018 before it reaches 95% statistical significance. Has nothing to do with disproving anything, of course.

Can i suggest that we ignore the bleating of the Gerard Deans and the other increasingly irrelevant denialists - and i exclude scientific sceptics - and get on with the job of trying to fix the problem, even if it is 'too late.'

The astonishing hypocrisy of dealing in coal while playing lip service to emission reduction as pointed out by this article and Christine Milne is one thing that should be widely broadcast.

How many Australians know of the extent of fossil fuel subsidies? Gikson uses the figure $10 billion, I use the ACF figure of $7 - so what, it's an awful lot of money that could be used to develop our renewable industry.

Thank you for this article Mr Gikson. I'll distribute it widely.

And don't let the denialists deflect and distract us: you'll never convince them of the truth, so best ignore them.

"FYI the dominant greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOUR, CO2 is a bit player"
CO2 has a signature light frequency bandwidth which can be measured and quantified. H20 is a significant GHG but responds to temperature (humidity) and is is therefore a feedback element not forcing. This is very basic Climate 101 stuff. To repeat my statement: CO2 greenhouse contribution can be observed and measured.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Or research back radiation:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/14/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-eight-co2-under-pressure/

"A doubling of CO2 MIGHT increase global temp by about 1ºC, but there are probably many NEGATIVE feedback mechanisms to keep it steady."

"Probably"?? Sorry - do you call yourself a sceptic?

"These POSITIVE feedbacks are the garbage fed into computer models to give the desired scary result so often touted by warmists."

Please cite source.

"The evidence for NEGATIVE feedback is the plateauing of temperatures over the last 16 years (and counting) DESPITE "SOARING" CO2 LEVELS, whilst there is absolutely no evidence for positive feedbacks."

Well for starters levels of atmospheric H2O is a positive feedback, melting ice (albedo) is a positive feedback... theres 2 obvious ones for a start.

16 years - see my above comments. AND Pls cite source for this myth.

"Also FYI carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated SO ANY MORE WILL HAVE MINIMAL EFFECT."

Pls cite source.

The CHANGE in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

Harries 2001:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

I like John's point, but I still think it's premised on the naive idea that if we ignore them they'll eventually go away.

It doesn't work with herpes and it doesn't work with irrationality.

"The five-year mean global temperature"

So you think five years means 16 years? Riiiiight.

"Professor Judith Curry"

We all know she's unbiassed, don't we? She can't even make up her mind whether she's stating her own position or parroting Montford.

“There has been no warming since 1997"

That's out of date if it was ever true so is not relevant to the last 16 years.

"no statistically significant warming since 1995.”

No "statistically significant" warming does not mean the same thing as no warming. Just means the noise in a period as short as 16 years is significant.

You're going to have to do better than asserting "the scientists beg to disagree".

Here are two (reasonably complete) measures of the surface warming for the past 16 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend

Both show warming is most likely just from 16 years of data. Of course, anyone would be a fool to confine their climatic observations to just 16 years of data.

There is nothing unusual about 17 years of warming that fails to reach statistical significance (2σ confidence interval entirely above zero trend), e.g. 1980 to 1996: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Just means the noise in global temperature is strong. If you're so worried about the noise level, then reduce it by making the obsevation interval longer.

But as we all know, some people can't see the forest for the trees.

"The evidence for NEGATIVE feedback is the plateauing of temperatures over the last 16 years"

You don't know that global average temperature has plateaued over the last 16 years. All we know is that global temperature trend was 0.046±0.124 deg C/decade (according to Hadcrut4). So it could have been 0.170 deg C/decade for all you know.

16 years of data doesn't prove or disprove anything.

None of those 3 quotes back your 16 years no warming claim. I ask again - Where is your statistical analysis saying that the period 1996-2012 lacks significant warming? I have shown links to the contrary from a highly regarded statistician.

Here he is savaging Curry's claim with actual data. She has not done the maths.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/questions-for-judith-curry/

And...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/

She ultimately retracted the comment you quoted above.

I take your herpes point but you only have to look at this column of responses to see how the denialists hijack the argument. Actually maybe we should look for a retroviral that would work against denialism.

i wonder if the IPCC needs a good dose of Quellada?

So are you asserting that the contributing members of the IPCC (as in the peer reviewed authors whose work have been accepted into scientific journals) are not actually scientists? but instead are some young activist green army that have managed to infiltrate and hijack all the non fossil fuel backed scientific organisations across the globe?

Wow, now if only we could enlist them into the gay rights agenda, then we could have a different Queen sitting on the throne in the UK and extra medication for all!!

you will never get 100% of the people to like you 100% of the time, particularly if i pay people to curl their lip in a sneer everytime you make it to the lunch room.

it would be a reasonable assertion that if 97% of people stepped outside and got wet, you could reasonable infer it to be raining.

From http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

"this year's record northern summer Arctic ice growth"

Actually, there is no ice growth in the Arctic in summer (believe it or not ice melts in summer), and last summer had the least ice on record.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, especially The Australian.

Nickolas Bes wrote : " last summer had the least ice on record"??" Thank you for the segway.
Do your homework Scotts expedition to the Antarctic was financed because of those and other very observations. His last and fatal expedition was made up entirely of climate scientists. All you have done quoting all these sources is verify climate scientists have been doing this research for over one hundred years.
Yes, a disturbing trend even observed back at the turn of last century, this set of data has a long history.

33,700 climate scientists actuall believe the planet is telling us it is warming.
34 climate scientists are on record as denying this.

33,700 vs 34 what are the probabilities they are wrong after studying over one hundred years of data?

"Besides, natural variability is reason enough."

Oh god. Really? You don't think nature abides by the laws of physics?

By what MECHANISM could the earth's entropic system be gaining energy if not by increased GHGs?

Surface temperatures are a very narrow measure of the planet's heat content. 90% of the energy absorbed by the earth is absorbed by the oceans.

Oceanic heat content and related sea levels continue to rise.

Mr LLoyd's (and others) continual focussing on the narrow surface temperature measurements while ignoring the rest of the story is very deceitful.

Gerald, there is no reason for you to believe this but keep it in the back of your mind, it is a prediction from the book "2052 A Global Forecast"

It states that Climate Change will become a National Defence issue in most countries within the next 30 years.

Just keep it in the back of your mind and see what happens

Poor old Gerard. Gets his science from Mr A Bolt.

Must have missed this.

"A 2010 Defense Department review cut through political rhetoric and stated that climate change and energy security are “prominent military vulnerabilities”. Climate change in particular is an “accelerant of instability and conflict,” the report noted."

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/04/04/u-s-military-combats-climate-change/

"U.S. Military Forges Ahead with Plans to Combat Climate Change"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change

Well said Gerard. Keep up the discussion in terms of the facts and don't let the personal abuse get to you. It is always the case that when one does not have an argument to put, there alternative is to insult your opponent, a feature which is well demonstrated unfortunately on this site. One needs to have a very thick skin here. Best, John Nicol

ohhh its all a massive conspiracy yeah

I must say, though, that getting the US Defense Department in on the pinko greenie warmist conspiracy for world government and universal cave-dwelling was something of a coup - to be honest, we're still cackling about it here at Greenie Supreme Command...

Paul Howse is exactly illustrative of the reason Lanbor is in trouble - an unprincipled bully and crude numbers man.

John "What do the Greens do?"

You left out ...
death duties,
communist world government,
giant carbon dioxide tax to make electricity unaffordable,
confine all humans to giant high rise ghettos to make way for "nature" (agenda21)

... a few off the top of my head.

mm.. huge amounts of tax, Less 7-10 billion that we pay them for selling our resources for the benefit of 83% foreign owned corporations who would really like to import their workers on the cheap, plus the health costs associated with coal mining, transport and burning, plus the distortion of our political process displacing our communities, who have virtually no rights at law to protect their businesses and homes and assets, plus the long term clean up costs which eventually fall on the taxpayer, plus the billions of taxpayer funds used to provide the infrastructure, plus the squeezing out of truly renewable energy tech. And this without even referring to the costs of AGW. And they still make mega billions while the taxpayer has to scratch around to cover those inconsequentials like health, education etc.

Seems like we get the short end of the stick, or is it that they have us by the short n curlies?

Thats ok Nick, the rest of us understand fine.

And no, i was not at all referring to carbon pricing. What i was referring to is changing salinity and current flows in the oceans with their impacts on food chains and weather patterns, increased severity and frequency of weather events, displacement of large amounts of people due to rising ocean levels, failing food productive regions, the economic costs to our cities mostly on the coast as the CBD becomes an aquatic park etc etc.

If the only cost you can see with global warming is electricity prices then "ignorance truly IS bliss".

psst.. here's a secret, put some solar panels on your roof to counter electricity prices (you know, you could have got a grant to cover most of the cost, too late now i guess) oh and in case you missed it, electricity prices are such as they are due to investment in transmission infrastructure, the legislated return on investment set up by government, the demand which these are designed to support being around 16% than what was anticipated and governments sweetening the pie as a precursor to full privatisation.

Now if you had of said that santa claus doesn't exist, i'd agree with you.

oops "16% LESS than what was anticipated"

"What i was referring to is changing salinity and current flows in the oceans with their impacts on food chains and weather patterns, increased severity and frequency of weather events, displacement of large amounts of people due to rising ocean levels, failing food productive regions, the economic costs to our cities mostly on the coast as the CBD becomes an aquatic park etc etc."

None of this has happened.
Looks very much like you're projecting from GIGO climate models!

BTW:
Just to pick one point, I've been an observer at Sydney Harbour for many years now, and there is no noticeable sea level rise there.
So when is this sea level rise to start then?

FYI
2012 ranks as 54th in ‘extreme weather’ events
The worst years for extreme weather were:-

Year Comments
1936 2nd coldest winter, as well as 4th hottest summer and drought.
1933 5th worst for hurricanes, hot summer, dry.
1910 4th coldest winter, driest year on record.
1988 8th driest year, 9th hottest summer
1955 Cold winter, very dry, hurricanes.
1918 7th coldest winter, dry
http://tinyurl.com/aw93wt8

"failing food productive regions"?????

Let's look at just some facts ...

The latest news on India’s rice crops:
RECORD RICE CROPS
India Hits Record Grain Harvest
February 28, 2012
India is reaching records this year in many key agriculture areas… India has become the world’s largest producer of rice as a result of record production and the lifting of a three-year ban non-basmati rice exports.

http://tinyurl.com/a3fw9mx

RECORD WHEAT CROPS TOO.
India. Wheat exports to more than double in 2012
Wheat exports from India, the world’s second-biggest producer, is expected to more than double to 1.5 million tonnes in the 2012-13 marketing year on account of back-to-back record harvest, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in a report.

http://tinyurl.com/ao5q4h5

21 Nov 2011
West Australian farmers are on track to reap the second-biggest harvest on record as operations at major receival depots across the state move into high gear.

Have you looked at the aquifers underlaying Indias food producing regions which these regions are reliant upon to produce food?

Notice how depleted they have become with some bores now needing to be 60 - 70 meters deeper than pre the green revolution?

I wonder if you can find that in the agricultural chemical company website you repeatedly link to.

Anyway Nick, your not going to convince me or anyone else that AGW and climate change is not real, and that current world experience is not exactly as has been already predicted by the climate models and the chances of you being right and 97% of the worlds actual climate scientist being wrong are quite negligable.

By all means keep trying though, I wouldn't want you to feel irrelevant to the discussion.

That is a very dishonest comment Mark.

The article that you link is not calling for nuclear power - in fact it is making many of the same points that Milne makes in her speech.

To blame the Greens for the failure of the world to take action on climate change while not mentioning that Barry Brooks, Australia's main advocate for nuclear has joined lukewarmers Bjorn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr at the Breakthrough Institute is disingenuous in the extreme.

Mark Duffett wrote " ...nor want proven-at-scale nuclear energy technology to combat it." Why would they?
Do you actually understand how long it takes to plan, construct and commission a single modern nuclear power station? The issue is rapid global climate change, not a casual ramp up over twenty to thirty years.
Mark Duffett wrote : "....and in so doing condemning the planet to catastrophic consequences." This phrase or similar is on every nuclear industry sales brochure across the planet. We all know why. Because there is over a hundred years of continuous highly profitable income, from a nuclear power plants cycle. Do you want a position for yourself or family, or are you there already?
Before you or anyone else mentions 'thorium reactors' be prepared to explain how a blue sky technology could possibly be constructed in time. If it works as the projection sales brochures suggest, the time to plan, construct, commission alone would not even have an effect on the second half of this century.
The public should be grateful Senator Milne / the Greens have the vision and values to be honest with the Australian public about this 1950s utopian dream of nuclear power. So far we have been clever avoiding nuclear power production, why regress and model failed technology?
There is a viable solution already tabled, can only suggest you read it.
"Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan" published by Melbourne Energy Institute University of Melbourne, July 2010.
http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf
I recommended also recommend due diligence on the nuclear waste issue.
Here is a start, these are relatively easy for an overview;
http://www.drkarl.com/the-karl-collection/great-moments-in-science/nuclear-waste
http://youtu.be/xDNGWKCS39M

Look if you can get one of the other parties to stand up for Nuclear then great but until then you are cherry picking

"Look the greens are against Nuclear..." - is that a slight against the greens or a slight against the majority of Australians?

Unless you are suggesting that the greens have been the ones holding back Nuclear this whole time? what a powerful political party they must be to be able to do that

BTW Gen IV or Gen V Nuclear, especially LFTR are awesome, almost magic, unbelievably safe and produce stupid amounts of energy - I appluad you for pushing Nuclear but dont use it as an excuse to justify your own prejudice (IE> dont jst attack one minor party for doing the same thing as both major parties, its dishonest)

Michael Shand wrote"BTW Gen IV or Gen V Nuclear, especially LFTR are awesome, almost magic, unbelievably safe and produce stupid amounts of energy." So the 'sales' brochures and stakeholders tell us. Nuclear scientists that are unaligned tell the other side of the 'story'.
Nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos, of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), says the world shouldn't hold its breath waiting for LFTR - 'thorium reactors'. "Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding. China's development will persist until it experiences the ongoing major technical hurdles the rest of the nuclear club have discovered" he said.
This is the harsh truth about nuclear power production on every level, the only ones selling it are the corporations and their stake holders.

In reply to Mike Hansen:
I agree entirely with Mark Buffett. To warn that climate change will have catastrophic consequences for life on Earth and then to completely reject without scientific debate the two base load power sources that are carbon free, namely Nuclear & Hydro is tantamount to sabotage.
In fact it is the very thought control that George Orwell condems.
So the issue of climate change, which is real and demands rational debate is being used to stifle debate on nuclear, hydro and to ridicule climate change sceptics
Is this the way a lot of scientific debate is conducted in Australia? To read the Glikson article.and its supporters and quite a lot of similar articles in 'The Conversation' the answer appears to be unfortunately yes.100,000 men & women died for free speech and rational debate.
Personal ridicule and denegration are the tools of the agents of big brother. Mike Hansen's first sentence, 'That is a very dishonest comment Mark', is a classic example. The comment was honest. Pauline Hansen was the object of ridicule, 'Pauline Pantsdown' but the intellectuals never debated her ideas which have been proven substatially correct.
Nuclear power advocates include many eminent Australians eg Gustav Nossal our most decorated scientist, Robert Carr, foreign minister 'I support nuclear power because I support the dangers of climate change'.

If the Andrew Glikson article is to have any integrity he or one of his supporters must give actual working examples of base load carbon free power stations: their geographical location, their capacity in MW, the cost per kWh, the surface area they cover, their cost including any Govt subsidies, do they use storage and if so how many hours?
If there is no answer forthcoming then many academics and scientists are using the politics of fear and ignorance and Big Brothers favourite weapons of thought control.

Alright, if Gen IV Nuclear cannot be done ever for some reason....then I am against Nuclear Power for obvious reasons

Actually robin - I am not opposed to hydro. Nor am I opposed in principle to Gen 4 Nuclear - I just doubt that it can actually be deployed safely and in the timeframe and cost to make a difference.

I am not sure what Pauline Hanson has to do with the debate other than her racist crank ideas are shared by many climate science deniers. The cranks are thin on the ground in this discussion because they are all busy defending Dutch racist Geert Wilders at another article.

Oh do calm down, robin.

If you are going to make slanderous claims like 'completely reject without scientific debate' without backing it up with any evidence your post is nothing more than a tantrum and deserves about as much respect.

Thanks robin, the 'religion' word won me $5 in a bet...if only you'd said 'elites' or mentioned 'lattes' instead of just settling for the more banal 'intellectual class' I could have doubled that!

even better, "latte-sipping"

Ken Oastler wrote " Either or both those answers are not politiccaly possible." So true, the keywords 'exponential profit' 'growth' and 'exponential growth' have been dominating neoliberal rhetoric for over fifty years. The political centre of gravity in Australia is enamoured with it, and basic K6-K7 arithmetic demonstrates this is seriously flawed thinking.
This 2001 lecture of Professor A.A. Bartlett [physicist] outline the growth issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ&feature=share&list=PL3300DB41E04CD5DF

Sometimes we only have humour at hand and I do love a good parody - thank you first time commentator and Brasin Surgeon, Ken Oastler.

For some great parody of deniers, see http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/ and http://friendsofginandtonic.org/ -- remember if you go here, Poe's Law does apply. Good parody, like Ken's can sometime be almost indistinguishable from the real crank

Hi Gordon

you are damn right - its the discordant music of fear, and its blasting through speakers a hundred miles high. I'm quaking in my booties.

I just watched a 2009 French documentary on nuclear energy posted by a commenter today.
If all is true, we are doomed well and truly. Watch it and weep.

And you are correct that the issue of climate change is not the only debate in town worth promoting.
But to me it is the issue that will supercede all others in 50 years (or less), cos the others wont have much (or any) relevance.

If as another commenter says, that 30,000+ scientists agree with climate change and the URGENT need for action, then we all should be hoping we get that action asap.

And as yet another commenter quoted " You dont get to go to the bank on the way to the cemetery"

oh just a note - that documentary is 90 minutes long.

But VERY illuminating.

Bugger - I had a rule - if the ratbag cannot be arsed to paragraph, then one is not obliged to read.

But I thought, hey "this is TheConverssion, not Andrew Bolt, there may be something in this" .. so I tried reading the above ..

I'm telling you, I only read 1/2 of the dribble above but it is golden "if the ratbag cannot be arsed to paragraph, then you're not obliged to read"

They have an auto-generation page that does all that. You just put in the area, the time scale and it gives you the output. Just look in their climate change section of the BoM page.

thanks Tim, I tried for Perth and the data only went back to 1994, which is not much use when I want 1972 data

And he didn't even include a graph showing world artichoke yields for the last 16 years - I'm sure that must be part of the conspiracy too!

that's it! the artichokes are behind the green global mind controlling conspiracy!! aided and abbetted by those shady broccoli!!

"all greens are equal, but some greens are greener then others"

on the other hand, as CO2 is plant food, wouldn't the greens be advocating more carbon in the atmosphere?

Last Liam.

Pollies are subservient to their rich benefactors otherwise they would never be pollies.

Greens are no different, only they want total control of natural resource profits through human exclusion of everyone else from it, not by any balanced means of all man being equal.

Wade Macdonald wrote:"Greens are no different, only they want total control of natural resource profits through human exclusion of everyone else from it, not by any balanced means of all man being equal." That is a projection of your value system on to the green values. "If they say this, it must mean that, because that's the way 'I' think."
Seriously the values held by the greens, are simple they put humans and their environment at the apex of the economic pyramid.
Labour and Liberals [ particularly the neoliberal in both parties ] put the corporation and profit above humans on the economic pyramid.
This clearly does not clash with your values. Would appreciate your understanding of the 'green' values though, its ok to not value theirs.

Paul if the Greens were putting humans at the top of the apex then why do they seek to ban sustainable stakeholders from their local environments?

The Precautionary principal of science may wash with the navel gazers against environmentally abusive industries but the Greens push for large areas of gaia against the will of sound local public policy as well.

They are considered simple because their policies would only serve to clog up our court system with complaints.

Wade Macdonald wrote :"..... then why do they seek to ban sustainable stakeholders from their local environments?"
Because the stakeholders are 'sustainable' by your value system, based on that they appear fine. Which is understandable, appropriate for your stage of development and all good.
"Stages of development" refers to the life work of Dr. Clare Graves.

Wade Macdonald wrote: "..... sustainable stakeholders based on values" The value system or 'precautionary' system promoted by the Greens Party is, ban sustainable stakeholders based on values not evidence?
Well put, the evidence the stakeholders you 'imagine' are sustainable do not hold the same values, so true.
Simple really, the environment and people are second to the 'stakeholders', so your parties or personal values will always clash with the Greens.
Your values require 'faith' in the trickle down economic model, and so far the only winners are corporations, their shareholders and executive staff. But then again you know that, and good luck with that grand dream.
So the corporations stand at the apex of the economic model worldwide, those aspiring to reach the lofty heights and dominate gaining economically support the system. Hoping one day these beinfit will trickle down to benefit them, sad news is these beneficiaries make only 1% of the population. Most die clinging to these values without evolving to the next level of thinking.
Which - "Pretty much sums up the 'values' I understood to be true." About your value system.

Wow, that video should be used in all first year university courses to illustrate how to argue from logic and evidence.

Felix MacNeill : "Wow, that video should be used in all first year university courses to illustrate how to argue from logic and evidence."
If you enjoyed that this is actually used in media courses.
http://youtu.be/zyY-xI6zgfk?t=20s

Wade Macdonald wrote " .... 'sustainable' and what that means then there is no environmental detriment and values to run an agenda against."

" ...... no environmental detriment and values run an agenda against" So true you are right, anyone who does not hold or grasp the values of the evolved green thinker and those on higher levels. Simple has no grasp of the meaning of 'sustainability' based of their values.
A very good example of an earlier stage of development is the overall population of Australian indigenous. They fail to understand the values of the Europeans who 'stole' their land, they still do ask any of them. They are as dogmatic in their belief our culture has little to offer. just as you are about the green values.
This does not make them inferior, less intelligent or stupid, just have a less evolved set of values. If you keep insisting you hold the values of an unevolved stage of human development thats ok.

i love how he refers to the precautionary principle.

The Precautionary Principle states that "a lack of full scientific certainty is no justification for delaying action to prevent damage occuring to the environment." (n.b. environment includes flora, fauna, water, air, microbes in the soil and yes, human population and communities)

I would say that, oh I don't know, stopping CSG in it's tracks (which i believe is a policy of the Greens) while there being no scientific certainty as to the impacts (although plenty of anecdotal experience globally and vastly different from the shiny brochures) is in full accord with the Precautionary Principle.

I suspect Wade may be confusing his own motivations with the Greens and perhaps hasn't understood that the emphasis is on preserving our remnant biodiversity, ecology and water resources, which Wade may have missed, NOT taking control of the resource in question for their financial gain, which strangely enough is EXACTLY the motivation of resource companies.

Robert McDougall wrote: "I suspect Wade may be confusing his own motivations with the Greens"
Good comment, projecting our values onto others is part of a natural response.
Our responses being triggered emotionally by reliving earlier emotional events, awareness of these triggers is the key. Highly emotional reactions are part of the chaos genrally seen around a time of transition through old ideas, some fight against the new values and fail to grow. Others do not and learn new values and evolve to the next stage. It is not easy, friends and colleagues do not look the same, cannot grasp your thinking. Choice has to be made.
Questioning 'why' people have the values they do, needs true critical thought. Putting cognitive bias aside, being aware of our bias and we all have them. Not easy, many do not develop.

Thanks paul - I'd forgotten how startling that was.

The two would make a great book-end: when to shut up versus when to talk.

(For the record, I actually thought that, in context Abbott's private comment to the US officer was not unreasonable or offensive, and I don't see why he couldn't simply have said as much himself. Most people would have agreed with him. I guess he just had to clamp his jaw to stop him attacking the journalist...)

Felix MacNeill wrote: " ...I don't see why he couldn't simply have said as much himself..." True, clear really. He must judge others by his standards so believed he had to shut up out of fear. Not confidence inspiring to see a leader frozen in fear, why not simply just walk away?

Wade Macdonald wrote : "I am environmentally aware and have many concerns for the environment."
Which environment, the one modified by humans over ten thousand years or the ecosystem?
Wade Macdonald wrote : "You will all be better off to learn the difference as well."
I do. Which one are you saying we put first?

"agendered hyperbowl" i assume you are providing an example in your comment.

I was referring to the legal definition of the Precuationary Principle, with the Greens stand against CSG being an example of being in accord with the legal Principle.

I suppose "environmental zealots" are just as bad as "capitalist zealots" and one may well produce the other.

If you could perhaps detail which sustainable activities you feel have been abused by Green Party principles and policies i might then be able to discuss the issue.

As your comment stands, i can't really determine what your argument is, relevant or otherwise.

John, I notice that your reading comprehension skills are somewhat lacking. Did you need a spare 3 year old to help?

The NASA link alone shows change in climate since 1880 to be 0.8 degrees, and the UK Met Office data is stated as 0.16, 0.15 and 0.16 degrees per decade based on the three different datasets. This just shows that you are quite keen to cherry pick to misrepresent.

You clearly missed the statements about fitting a linear line to a cherry picked interval to get a figure of 0.05 degrees, you are also not adjusting values to remove covariates. The fact that the hottest ten years on record have occurred since 1998 seems to skip your notice as well.

Ho Trieu Ngoc Luan wrote : ".... otherwise 'newspeak', 'double-speak' problems mentioned in this article will continue and delay necessary actions." Only if we choose not to recognise the strategy of misinformation employed by the tobacco industry and there 'think tanks' to promote their profitability.
These 'think tank' strategies are no conspiracy theory, they are real and very well documented as part of human history.
So far over 33,700 actual climate scientists have agreed the planet is telling us there is global warming.
Only 34 climate scientists disagree.
Just 'why' anyone else needs to dispute this is really the issue. What exactly is their personal stage of development and where does their value system lie? Are we really going to be deceived again?

37,000 vs 34 - what are the probabilities the 34 are right?

Yeah, jst like the Evolution debate yeah....knowledge is such a loose weave of a mourn that you cant tell whether its better to leave your house by the front door or the window on the second floor.

Your 50-50 assertion is rubbish Stephen.

You will be delighted to hear (if you're genuine) that you can get great fantastic odds as a denier at climate betting sites.

Intrade offers monthly temperature betting - they give deniers a 0.45C head start and have odds that the month will be cooler than +0.45C of 30year average. Last December, $1000 contract with the denier stumping up just $5, that's just about 200:1

If you're sure it's 50-50, offer up a contract of odds like that (or even $10 for my/their $100) and you'll be taken up in an instant - let us know if you are pls.

Henry,

You are right - the tribal segreation of humanity renders joint action to mitigate climate change almost impossible. Organizations do exist whose role, in principe, is to do just what you are suggesting, mainly the UN and the IPCC. However without the full economic and political support of the major powers (US, Europe, China, Russia, Japan) and the large interneational corporaltions they are unable to mitigate global warming.

In reply to robin linke
If you look 3 or so posts before yours you will see my post on Tidal energy. (Hydro) which can generate ten times more power than we currently do without the risks. Nuclear I am happy to debate but have been deleted before for being off topic.

"And no one country wants to be “the first one to jump in the water at the count of three.” That simply makes that country "the dummy who jumped in first.""

This, of course, is a tragedy of the commons. 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.What we will have demonstrated to us over the next century is whether the beings dumping CO2 in the atmosphere are rational or not.