Alan Jones, Great & Wise Leader at the carbon tax rally:

"The notion of global warming is a hoax, this is witchcraft.
"There are stacks and stacks of eminent scientists all over the world who've argued it's witchcraft.
"I have interviewed every one of them on my program and not one syllable they have uttered has been produced on any other media outlet anywhere in Australia.
"There is a conspiracy in this country to deny the other side."

Is it possible to get dumber than this guy?

How would you define a "climate change denier"?

How about this?

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/02/10/surrounded-by-people-educated-far-beyond-their-capacity-to-undertake-analytical-thought/

Markus Fitzhenry, February 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm :

“”It’s a very simple question, Markus. What evidence would you have to see, to accept”"

You’re thick jim x.

There isn’t ANY evidence available to say Anthropogenic warming is fact.

I never believed in spells before but after last night, I'm not so sure - ahem.

LOL! And here's me thinking it was her perfume...

Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin'd.
Harpier cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!

Round about the beaker go:
In the poisoned entrails throw.
Days and nights are two stroke seven
Sweated venom sleeping got....

Double,double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and beaker bubble..............

.

"How much has carbon increased in the world since it came into being?"

The answer is course is none (give or take the odd meteor). Unless those sneaky martians are sending us some. John - I suggest that you look at the picture kindly included with the article, think a little bit and then ask your question again.

And John, I think you will find an answer to your question re Flannery and Pitman here.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/03/28/taking-pride-in-ignorance/

"Andrew Bolt apparently thinks that the following two quotes are incongruent – “Twenty years or 1000? One of these “experts” is hopelessly wrong”:

Andy Pitman: If we could stop emissions tomorrow we would still have 20 to 30 years of warming ahead of us because of inertia of the system.

Tim Flannery: If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

Does Andrew not understand what “inertia” means? Those two statements are in no way contradictory."

Well said, Mike.

And the answer is? that does not answer my question, WHICH IS RIGHT? You cannot have both and I thought the science was settled

The answer is:
1000 years before the planet starts cooling.
20-30 years before the planet stops heating.

Reducing emissions won't cool the planet - but it will stop it from heating as much.

Do you understand the difference now?

I think Andrew Bolt probably understands quite well - he is probably just trying to confuse and mislead his fans. No!!!

What a load of unmitigated crap, To paraphrase our Prime Minister just tell me which is right, dead simple!

John Coochey: "... You cannot have both ...". Wrong.
John Coochey: "... just tell me which is right ...". Both.

Exactly the same question was asked on both times, the answers were different, the Chief Scientist was asked on live radio which was correct and he he admitted he did not have a clue! QED

And - getting back to reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png

Matthew: you are a denier, as every single statistic I cited in my post emanates from NAS-Gistemp and NOAA-CDIAC. Refute them!

And back radiation is in flagrant contravention of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Howeer, do let us know when you succeed in publishing your 3rd Law showing that back radiation from cool atmosphere to hotter earth is possible.

Just check out out the intra-annual readings for May-September, showing a clear negative correlation between falling CO2 and rising temperature.

Otherwise save your breathing out of CO2 and desist from arm waving.

Well that's not quite true is it. Climate sensitivity will predict global average temperature change.

Climate sensitivity can be derived using models but also directly from physical evidence. eg paleoclimate data / ice cores / ocean heat uptake ...

So when you imply unreliable "computer models" would invalidate climate predictions you are wrong. But it is also worth pointing out that even the more basic models of the 80's and 90's do not appear to be wrong so far.

I suggest George you look closely at the predictions vs what has actually occurred.

I reassert - the politics of this argument is being driven by computer model predictions, which even the modellers, if closely questioned, will admit are flawed.

As a scientist and metrologist I am increasingly frustrated by conclusions that are being drawn from the type of data to which you refer. There is no way anyone can infer climate sensitivity from the factors to which you refer other than by the use of models - which are flawed.

Nonetheless, my objection to the "religion" that is being espoused is that its proposals are doomed to fail because the economic impact will be intolerable. The world has far bigger problems to solve, other than satisfying the egos and ambitions of those seeking to create a hollow log from which they can constantly draw.

:-)

Are you saying that climate sensitivity cannot be calculated from other data other than by input into climate models?

btw they are described as "projections" not "predictions".

The models are not that flawed, as evidenced by Jim Hansen's earlier work. The problem for models mostly relates, not to global changes, but to the resolution required to determine regional and local changes.

George,

I am not confused in my thinking. Simply said climate change is not the most pressing issue confronting our planet. It's over emphasis simply clouds our perceptions.

There is a "religion" associated with the climate change debate. The language used confirms that. Words like "denier" and"sceptic" confirm that. Similar thinking led to people being burnt at the stake in the past.

Peter, could you please outline your scientific and metrologist qualifications and how they relate to atmospheric/climate science. Have you worked in the climate science field? If so, please advise.

The reason I ask is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the science - you might be surprised to know that there are multiple lines of evidence of AGW that have nothing to do with modelling. (and always remember that Andrew Bolt is not a primary source!)

Personally I don't care whether or not you accept that.

As to your comments about models, I do not wish to disparage, but do you really understand how they are constructed? . I suspect if you did you would be more skeptical. James Hansen is a missionary for the climate change lobby. Personally I am skeptical about zealots.

That is not to say that I totally reject that we are having some influence on our future climate. I simply believe that the mitigation policies being proposed are totally ineffective and more about symbolism and egos than serious science.

The catastrophes that the zealots are predicting are based on flawed models. The data shows that they are flawed. The modellers are now admitting they are flawed. But you will only discover this if you dig deep into the literature.

Oh how I love this mode of attack!

I have majors in chemistry, physics, mathematics and statistics. I have 26 years experience in metrology and computer modelling. And I suspect I have been modeling environments before you were born!

If you have read what I said closely you would realise I have been arguing the politics. Not the science. The politics is based on the models - not the science. Models should not be assumed to be science

If you were a metrologiist you would undress tans that your multiple lines of evidence diminish very quickly when subjected to serious analysis.

Peter, it is a simple question. What are your qualifications?

You make a number of statements on the science, most of them incompatible with the evidence. Not politics.

You should not be embarrassed if you do not have an education in climate science but it does mean you are not qualified to pass judgement on areas you do not understand. Please feel free to present the scientific evidence you have to show that the 'mainstream' science is incorrect (but please peer reviewed only!)

George, I always find it sad when someone like Peter, who is obviously intelligent, feels the need to parrot the well known denier blogs, rather than looking at the science. When you see references to 'zealots' and 'missionaries' and 'flawed models', you can be sure the poor person has spent too much time at WUWT or Andrew Bolt or Jo Nova. Pity they don't just read the science instead...

Sorry Robert,

My iPad crashed as I was trying to correct some predictive text errors!.

For me this is not an argument about AGW. I am not a denier - so don't diminish me by associating me with Andrew Bolt. It is an argument about politics. I have far more sympathy with the views of Bjorne Lomborg than with the climate change zealots.

I am also a realist. The Gillard Governments reaction to this issue is totally political and has resulted in a policy that will achieve nothing whilst damaging Australia's competitive position in the world. Face up to it - CO2 generation will continue to increase because we are continuing to sell coal and gas to developing countries in Asia. As I said - this is not about science - it is all about politics.

It is interesting how you personalize the attack rather than criticizing the substance of the argument. I suspect I have been reading the science before you were born. My views were formed before blogs became fashionable. And I suspect I have been reading the science for a lot longer than you. But if this is the way you choose to debate then I can't be bothered.

Peter, I find your responses quite strange. If you want to talk about Gillard's tax, there are plenty of other articles that address this issue. This article is about carbon pollution and your comments about modelling are not political -they criticise the science. My questions about your qualifications are (I think) relevant in this context.

Peter, my guess is that you are intelligent but sadly misguided. Your age is not relevant but your qualifications are. Why are you so afraid to say what you are trained in? It's OK if it is not climate science - all I ask is that you present some peer reviewed science to support your ideology.

Robert,
I have answered your questions. Climate science is physics and thermodynamics so I am not the least embarrassed. I know I am qualified to comment - so don't play the typical zealots game and challenge the questioner rather than the issue.

You should be embarrassed by your mode of criticism - it betrays more than you understand.

And please don t raise the hoary argument of peer reviewed literature. If you have been around as long as I have you would understand what a farce that really is. Scientific orthodoxy is older than archimedes and if you really understood that you would know that to be so.

Peter - you have multiple posts attacking climate science which are distinguished by a total lack of science and scientific evidence.

If you do have scientific qualifications it is time to go back and do a refresher course.

OK Peter, it seems that you are unwilling to explain your credentials in the field of climate science. The only conclusion I can draw is that you have none, apart from being a well meaning(?) amateur. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with that but it does mean your comments on the climate models are neither informed nor accurate. If you would like some introductory literature on atmospheric physics (you need this before you can rationally talk about the models) then let me know - I am happy to help.

As to your comments on peer reviewed papers, it is a simple request and hardly 'zealotry' to ask you to back up your words with some evidence.

I have to say that your comments do display an amazing degree of hubris - not only do you know better than expert climate scientists on climate modelling, with a wave of your hand you dismiss all peer reviewed science. You don't like being called a denier but you do seem to be heading strongly into that camp with beliefs like these.

Peter, I have obviously hit a raw nerve on the topic of qualifications but really you should not be embarrassed. As you state, you have an excellent array of skills and these clearly give you a good lead-in should you choose to study climate science in more detail.

But, as I said before, well meaning amateurs are not climate scientists. As such their views carry little more weight than any other person on the street.

I'm guessing when you say you 'majored' in various subjects then probably you have an undergraduate degree in science or engineering. If this is the case, well done and good on you, but you are a long, long way from the level of education and experience required to pass judgement on the scientific aspects of climate change modelling.

Politically, go for your life, everyone is qualified in that area!

Hi again Robert,

My apologies for my final response last night. I was tired, but that is really not excuse.

I have to admit your "condescending" politeness irked me. I actually have more than an undergraduate degree, but never mind. Do I describe myself as an active climate scientist? I don't. A scientist and philosopher - certainly.

Your generous offer to help me learn more about the topic is appreciated. But I do have an extensive reference library of my own, and what is more I have read most of it and understand it. I do find the IPCC reports very tedious but I also have the same problem with Productivity Commission reports. Less is often more . I prefer a decent technical paper anytime.

I am not the least concerned about or interested in your or other's qualifications, which is why they haven't been part of my conversation. I am rather more interested in what is said. And this has been a salutary experience..

You will note I haven't actually challenged the science in any of my comments, so you will find me difficult to label and categorise.

Enjoy your weekend. I certainly will enjoy mine.

"You will note I haven't actually challenged the science in any of my comments, so you will find me difficult to label and categorise."

Peter, apart from not making sense, I don't think you have actually written anything scientific or anything that references science, you have just made seemingly baseless assertions and claimed authority without any evidence of such.

Perhaps that is a "label or category" ?

Peter Somerville,

I agree with you about the sub-optimality of the Clean Energy Futures package, and I share some of your reservations about computer modelling.

However, I utterly reject the implication of your comments that because climate modelling may not be accurate to the nearest week, that we should not cease using fossil fuels.

1. Studies of climate millions of years ago have already established that atmospheric CO2 already exceeds anything since the Pliocene Epoch (5.3 to 2.6 million years ago) when polar glaciation was somewhat less than present and sea levels were perhaps 10-20 metres higher than at present.

2. To maintain a climate approximating the climate within which all recorded human civilisation has occurred, atmospheric CO2 should not exceed 350 ppm; it did that in about 1988, for the first time in ~4 million years. (The last time atmospheric CO2 exceeded 400 ppm was ~10 million years ago.)

Polar ice melt and sea level rise has commenced already, as has permafrost thawing (from which methane emissions are accelerating, threatening runaway warming and sea level rise).

Non-fossil fuel technologies are already available to start replacing fossil fuel use; as understanding of the imperative outlined above becomes more widespread, particularly given further technological advances, the cessation of fossil fuel use will be rapid.

From an Australian perspective, we will not be exporting coal or LNG for more than another couple of decades.

Wake up to yourself, and start applying the critical thinking that such a substantial array of qualifications would imply.

Hi George,

My contribution to this blog started with you so it is appropriate that it finishes with you.

Actually I am finding it very difficult to find any comments within the various threads activated by this topic that actually talk about science. The vast majority are either overt or politely snide attacks. That is politics, not science.

Also within the tangle of comments it is not easy to follow any logical threads. There was one comment that suggested that I derive my views from deniers and bloggers - I know that is arrant nonsense but it is understandable in the context of this media where the game is all about playing the man, not the issue. The smart young men who are so active here seem to think this is the way to conduct a discussion. I grew up in a very different, and I suspect a superior school, where we debated issues, not competencies and personnal attributes.

I made only one assertion - the computer models that underpin the politics of this movement are flawed. There is good evidence to support that, and it includes admissions by the modellers themselves. That assertion has not been challenged thus far, and frankly I have lost interest in pursuing it here. I have more productive things to do. Search the literature - you will find the evidence.

Anybody who is trained in science will know that one of the most important source of errors is blind prejudice. It is sad but true that this is being amply demonstrated by both sides of this argument, within and outside this particular blog.

If you want a label for me then let me give you one - I am a practical realist. I am not a denier nor am I climate change zealot. Because I am a practical realist I do have solar cells on my roof and tanks collecting run-off from the same. But my reasons for this have nothing to do with the prevailing green mantra. Think about that.

I trust you are enjoying your weekend. You too , Mike and Robert!

Bye

Don't be to concerned about Robert Haye the 'physicist'. I have asked many times for him to reference any of his work. Problem is, he cannot. I think he actually mixes up pure sciences like the ones you have been disciplined in to the social ones, like say, Climate Science.

As for Mike Hansen, he threats are somewhat benign. Know what I mean Mike, nudge nudge,wink wink.

You can tell how grown up these blokes are, they think it's a game to see which cohort can get the most votes as insightful or nonconstructive on a Group Think site that the Conversation has become. Of course, I do qualify that to the articles on climate change as there are many good articles on pure sciences here. Let's face it, these chaps and gals are becoming outcasts from academia.

I'm off to some involvement of the Edward Barton kind.

Bye flippers, Try your best.

Wondering what markus is upset about.

http://theconversation.edu.au/rio-20-small-steps-could-get-us-out-of-the-climate-quicksand-7755#comment_46524

markus gets his science from the blog of Roger Tallbloke, a crank who believes that the famous Michelson-Morley experiment which lead to the theory of relativity was faked and that there is an aether.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame/

markus' reponse after I pointed that out can best be summed up by Monty Python.

"Brave Sir Robin ran away Bravely, ran away...away... When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely talking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

Have your lovely ladies read the life and times of Svante Arrhenius? Have you?

Hi David,

I had decided to opt out of this debate, but your contribution, apart fom George's is the first I have seen that posits a genuine argument. Thank you for that.

Firstly, I never said we should not stop using fossil fuels. But frankly, that is not going to happen in the short term. The power stations that China is building will continue operation for another 50 years. That is an engineering reality. Our coal exports, supported by our current government, will continue to fuel those facilities. Loy Yang will continue operation as will the comparable stations in NSW and QLD for a similar period. That is the reality.

What is not also generally appreciated is that Germany, the so called shining example of "green energy" has installed 12 GigaWatts of new power generated capacity, fueled by coal. This has been a direct consequence of the political decision to close down nuclear plants. This is planned to grow to 25 GigaWatts. I will leave it to you to figure out why - a clue. It is about base load capacity.

I have some problems with your arguments in point 2, particularly in light of your expressed reservations about computer modeling. The expectations you are expressing are based entirely upon the predictions of those same computer models. Worse still, the models only predict average temperatures - they do not predict the effects. Those, in the main are best guesses, or plain speculation.

There is evidence of polar melting - but this is patchy at best and is really over very short, in climate terms, time periods. And within this evidence there are also contradictions. Certainly sea levels are rising - they have been doing so for a millennia - a direct consequence of the background warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. Has it accelerated - the evidence suggests it has, but not at catastrophic rates.

I disagree with your assertion that non- fossil fuel technologies are available already. In the most important area - electricity generation - this is simply not true, unless you accept nuclear energy. Solar cells and heliostats simply do not match coal or gas capabilities for baseload generation, except at a vastly greater cost. Coal and gas facilities operate at 90% design capacity - the solar alternatives cannot match that. Geothermal potentially can, but you have to have the right geological conditions. What many do not realise is that on the west coast of the USA geothermal is already a significant contributor. You don't need to be Aristotle to understand why. However, within Australia, despite Kevin Rudds contribution of $80,000,000 taxpayers dollars , to a company which includes Tim Flannery on its share register, thus far there has been little success.

And of course I have yet to see a realistic sustainable replacement for the fossil fuels that power air and shipping transport. Are you aware of the contribution of the shipping industry to the total load of CO2 release? Look it up - and be prepared to be shocked.

Your penultimate paragraph is really a wish, not a reality. Most of our coal and gas exports are to China - the capital investment China has in facilities that use these energy sources will not be shut down in two decades - that is a reality.

I am disappointed with your final paragraph because it is totally out of context with everything that preceded it. I know I am already very wide awake - please don't diminish the debate by patronizing me.

Finally, don't misspeak me. I don't think we should ignore the potential effects of increasing use of fossil fuels on our environment. Also, what most people do not realise that fossil chemicals are critically important to the way we live, simply in terms if the chemical industry that parallels fuel production. They are a very large but finite resource that should be conserved.

This is an important debate - but it needs to be an intelligent debate, and not one driven by simplistic green messianic agendas.

:-)

It is interesting to see the blue and red counters against all these posts. It illustrates a point that someone needs to address. I can change them as I will - so what is the point?

Aw…. well cheer up Don. Would you like a loan to carry you over? My annual income is <$20000 and I always have some left for lost dogs and their begging bowls. And I have already received a subsidy from the government to meet additional costs of the Clean Energy Bill too – yay.

The money saved from this Bill will be used to promote clean energy and energy efficiency alternatives, which will be in line with public opinion.

However there is much to be done as blogger Ronda Jambe wrote on June 20:

“Why aren’t we party to the group of countries that are trying to achieve fossil fuel subsidy reform? NZ has raised their voice, but Australia remains captive to an industry that is destroying our future.

“This forwarded para from today’s Crikey gives the figures:

“Oil Change International estimates the figure to be between $775
billion and $1 trillion each year. The Australian government
estimates that our own fossil fuel subsidies are between $A6-9
billion, although a report from the UTS Institute of Sustainable
Futures a few years ago put the figure as high as $11 billion.

“Gee, that's a lot of potential investment in a post-carbon future,
but if the game continues with these rules, maybe we won't have
to worry about that.”

Fossil fuel greed merchants have had an easy ride Don, wouldn’t you agree? Oh the obscenity of it. The damage is beyond tragic but thankfully, no longer can they and government sycophants bequeath their carbon pollution to the taxpayer to clean up eh? They had their chance and wilfully failed and so finally, the Polluter Pays principle kicks in and with some luck, the massive FF subsidies will cease. Bring it on Don.

Hi Shirley,
Always nice to see another point of view. However, I suspect that when all the rebates and social income factors are taken into consideration your real income is much greater than $20,000 pa, which probably explains why you can feed lost dogs etc.

There is actually no money "saved" from the carbon tax legislation. If you analyze it carefully it is simply a redistribution of income. The whole basis of the tax, or it's ultimate successor is to force a switch from cheap fossil fuel energy to much more expensive "sustainable" energy. The only problem is that the implementation of the tax is designed to minimize this pressure to the point of non-existence. It is a political tax, not a tax designed to produce an environmental outcome. If you examine the documents you will see that the strategy is to reduce carbon emissions by closing down power stations and replacing them with geothermal power. But the majority (2/3's) is to be achieved by buying carbon credits in dubious overseas markets. You will be paying higher prices for your electricity and other purchases to transfer millions to shady schemes overseas.

I have recently installed 4 kwatts of solar generation capacity on my roof - but not for altruistic reasons. I have done it so that I can take advantage of the subsidies that you and others, who cannot afford to do so, are providing me via the rates you are paying for your electricity.

Cynical maybe, but that is what happens when politicians and idealists create artificial markets. My $0.68 net feed in tariff is being paid by you and other electricity consumers. Mind you, despite the fact that my income is less than $80,000 pa, I am in a situation where I receive absolutely no compensation, because I am totally self-sufficient from government subsidies.

Have a good day :-)

Gawd, Geoff Davies put these non-arguments to bed ages ago.

See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7381&page=0

Grenades? Peter, I was not even talking to you. I was addressing Don Aitken's ongoing campaign of disinformation, something he has been doing for at least 5 years, Geoff's article which you obviously haven't read is not a 'grenade'; it is a reasoned, lengthy deconstruction of the half-truths that Don perpetuates (relying on people like Bob Carter). While Geoff's speciality is mantle dynamics, he understands the climate sciences better than Don (and you).

As you are so keen to get personal, I have to say that your snide comments mixed amongst pleasantries is more than a little creepy. Quite often when I receive anonymous emails, they start off this way and usually they degenerate into personal threats and abuse. Let's hope you are not one of these kooks. (Markus, I'm talking about you here)

And when you show me your qualifications Peter, I'll show you mine ;)

I see that you changed your qualifications in your title (now scientist and technologist, it was something like educator and trustee before). What area of research are you currently working in?

Finally, a couple of recent interesting papers that might help your understanding:

Philipona, R. (2012), Greenhouse warming and solar brightening in and around the Alps. Int. J. Climatol.. doi: 10.1002/joc.3531

Screen, J. A., C. Deser, and I. Simmonds (2012), Local and remote controls on observed Arctic warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L10709, doi:10.1029/2012GL051598.

Yamamoto, A., Kawamiya, M., Ishida, A., Yamanaka, Y., and Watanabe, S.: Impact of rapid sea-ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean on the rate of ocean acidification, Biogeosciences, 9, 2365-2375, doi:10.5194/bg-9-2365-2012, 2012.

Dear Peter

I believe you are implying that I have my mitts in the public purse. May I suggest that the taxes I paid during my 49.8 years in the workforce contributed to your education? And no, I did not avail myself of the public purse over those <50 years – not once - heaven forbid.

Now you brood over the flaws and warts in the carbon tax which is the result of nefarious greed merchants bludging off the environment with impunity (that’s our environment thank you!) and breaching every regulation of the EPA since the first agency was established in 1970. Tut tut:

WA EPA – Part V, 49:3: “A person who causes pollution or allows pollution to be caused, commits an offence

Part V, 50:2: A person who causes or allows waste to be placed in any position from which the waste could reasonably be expected to gain access to any portion of the environment; and would in so gaining access be likely to result in pollution, commits an offence.

Have you had a squiz at Gladstone lately? Oh the "enforcement" regulations of the EPAs are so comical that one could become hysterical with mirth. Now it’s sooking corporate bandits with their snouts in the trough who pout and hiss and who are sufficiently deluded in believing they can continue chewing the **se out of an outraged Momma Nature for free. Remember the old adage Peter? You can put a nightie on a pig but…….? Cheerio.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiteme/333338027/in/set-72157594402024843

Hi Shirley,

Yes indeed you did contribute to my education if you paid taxes for 49.8 years, although if you live in WA then your contribution would have been disproportionate to the amount paid by taxpayers on the this side of the continent. Mind you I myself have paid taxes for 46 years, so I am not far behind you. I probably contributed to your education too. But that is not the point. I did not mean to disparage, but at an income of $20,000 you will be receiving a social income on top of that. At the moment I don't, because my income is self funded, and I don't get access to any of the social honey pot at all, aside from the relatively small benefits associated with a seniors card. Mind you I do accept that and I am not resentful, but in the light of this governments actions I am taken action to utilise the subsidies available to minimise their impacts on me - because I can afford too. On your income you could not possibly do the same - and that is what is wrong with the the entire policy.

You seem to have some issues that really don't relate to the carbon tax at all - but no matter. The enforcement of EPA acts all around the country is fairly minimal. However, I worked for a long time in the waste disposal industry and I saw first hand the effects the regulations under the act here in Victoria achieved. The EPA used a carrot and stick approach. There have been failings but the Yarra is a much cleaner river today than it was in the 1960's, and Melbourne's air is also cleaner than it was then too.

Cheers :-)

Peter Sommerville: "This talk of acidification of the oceans puzzles me - given that they are alkaline." What evidence do you have that the pH of the oceans is not affected by absorbing CO2? Where you disagree with the vast majority of the best qualified, why should anyone believe you?

Peter, your comments regarding the acidification of the oceans are either wilfully ignorant or you are a climate change denier. Any chemist worth their salt understands that decreasing the pH of solution - even if it is alkaline - is called acidification. The ocean pH has dropped by about 0.11 units (call this 30% increase) and given the human-induced increase carbon dioxide, will decrease about 0.4 to 0.5 units (call this a 300% increase in acidity) by 2100. The average pH in the oceans is already more extreme than experienced in all of the glacial–interglacial period and most likely for the last 20 million years.

I'd suggest you ask Tom Trull at UTAS nicely and he should be able to give you some introductory information on ocean acidification. In the meantime, I've attached a link on the topic for non-technical people:

http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/f083e1ac-bc49-102e-bf5a-4040d04b55e4/ACE%20OCEAN%20ACIDIFICATION%202011%20WEB3%20(2).pdf

(Still waiting for your qualifications Peter)

But the good thing about solar panels is that they generate a lot of power where it is needed at peak time.
This reduces the required capacity of the transmission network which is what is really driving up electricity prices.
So it might be worth paying a premium for.

Hey Peter you didn't pay for my education because I didn't have one. And: “Yarra is a much cleaner river today than it was in the 1960's.”

Remember what I said about Porkabella, the mighty fine lookin’ pig?

Contradictory to your greenwash, It goes like this: A scathing report was published In 2010 by the Ombudsman of Victoria on the rampant failures of the EPA:

“Ombudsman Victoria found that the organisation's culture did not encourage
enforcement and that even though the EP Act provided EPA with extensive statutory powers and enforcement tools, the governing culture within EPA was to 'under-utilise'its powers.”

In June 2010, the Victorian Auditor-General tabled his report:

““The EPA's monitoring and inspection activities lack coherence, purpose and
coordination. This combined with poor business information because of the
EPA's lack of data reliability, poor analysis and reporting and inadequate
documentation of its rationale for decisions, means that there is neither sound compliance monitoring nor effective enforcement regimes. As a consequence, there is little assurance that hazardous waste is stored and disposed of appropriately.”

.Further, the Riverside Rescue Report, was commissioned by the Victorian National Parks and released last September. The report stated:

"About 80 per cent of the total length of Victoria's rivers is in very poor condition, with only 14 per cent rated as being in excellent condition."

In addition, Mobil has been pumping waste water from its oil refinery into the Yarra for 40 years. E. coli bacteria readings taken last month showed a serious problem with pollution.

So it’s yet another waterway used as a corporate lavatory. I mean you don’t actually swim in this sewer do you?

Victoria’s EPA has been held captive by pollutant industries since 1970 and the damage is once again bequeathed to the taxpayer. Industry got the carrot and the environment got the stick. And what hope clean air with industry crawler, Brown Coal Baillieu bossing everybody about?

And it is all about CO2 and the synergistic impacts of non-carbon pollutants. All things go together, all things connect. But as there is a global consensus on the scientific literature about the main propositions of climate science, I think you are just trying to hoodwink us. Is it all to do with the filthy lucre?

Oh Peter, sad really ... don't try to change the argument when you are proven wrong. Best just to admit that you made a mistake, we all make them. Say it after me: "When we say we are reducing the pH this is the same as saying we are causing acidification". That wasn't hard, was it!

But seriously, you have revealed yourself to have at best only a passing understanding of chemistry and no knowledge of ocean chemistry (buffer capacity - FTW!!!). Just a hint - the carbonate buffer of the ocean can not restore the ocean to a pH found before human intervention and the consequences of the new steady state are unknown: no natural mechanism has injected carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at over 2ppm at this speed (ie 100 times faster than ever seen in the glacial-interglacial period). Of the total pH decrease of 0.5 units, 0.1 has occurred and 0.2 is in the pipeline. In fact the only way to not decrease pH by 0.5 units by 2100 is to stop all carbon dioxide emissions immediately (not happening).

Remember, this is not modelling we are talking about, it is marine chemistry that has been both calculated and observed - by real chemists, not blow-hard obfuscaters like you.

Simple challenge - you don't want to tell me your qualifications. OK. Then how about you show me the equations that you say prove that buffering will solve the problem. Time to put up or shut up.

Let's summarise here:
- you don't understand basic chemistry
- you refuse to read the scientific literature presented to you
- you refuse to contact scientists who could help you to understand the science
- you think Bjorn Lomberg is a role model
- you love to snark but never back it up with any facts

Smells a lot like the "D" word.

Oh dear, you really aren't any sort of scientist or technologist, are you? Robert Haye responded well enough (http://bit.ly/Lsz6wX). I won't clutter up the place with repetition.

Peter, time to put up or shut up.

You believe that a pH decrease of 0.5 units is not possible. I have explained 0.3 is already happening. You have presented no evidence to support your assertion that a 0.5 unit change is arrant nonsense. Only a person with no knowledge of chemistry would make such a statement. If you really understood marine chemistry, you would not make such statements.

You speak about buffering but do you understand that adding acid to the ocean system greatly changes the proportion of carbonate but hardly changes the proportion of bicarbonate? That a simplistic analysis using Le Chatelier's principle is not good enough? That even applying Henry's Law in a conservative way (disregarding some of the complexity imposed by Revelle's factor) means that, as the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases (remember we are increasing at 2 ppm pa), then the surface seawater pH must increase?

Maybe I'm treating you like a dunce but perhaps we need to go back to square one - do you even recognise that ocean acidification is caused by absorbance of atmospheric CO2 by seawater and that this acidification of surface seawater is causing the removal of carbonate? Unless you get this, I've just wasted a whole heap of time on someone who is not worth it...

(I'll even accept a speciation diagram if the equations are too much for you)

Allo allo Peter. So a report by the EPA on the water quality in the Yarra from 2009-2011 found swimming was safe at Millgrove and Warrandyte? Yay.

Ten other locations - including Healesville, Templestowe, Heidelberg, Kew and Abbotsford - were not. Huh?

And so let us pray. “Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch (genuflect): Give us this day our daily bread but oh Lord please deliver us from the sins of Brumby. Amen.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-06/brumbys-boss-quits-over-carbon-tax-letter/4115044

Yep, three times I've asked you to put up or shut up. You have failed to put up. Definitely now it is time for you to shut up.

The only thing I can infer is that you are incapable of presenting any information to support your assertions. I've shown you that the increase in ocean pH is already significantly affecting marine chemistry and eco-systems. You say it is trivial. I've given you five or six areas for you to rebut - you haven't done so because you don't understand marine chemistry.

You sir are nothing more than a rolled gold climate change denier. Unable to present evidence. Driven by your belief in how right you are. You aren't a scientist or a technologist or whatever other bs title you use. Back to WUWT or Jo Nova or whatever other denier sites you usually live at - your arrogant, opinionated ignorance will be applauded there.

Peter, the “colonies” to which I referred were the E.coli in the Yarra River. For reasons suspected, you distracted the debate and alluded to a “colony” of platypus though I suspect there is a paucity of scientific literature to substantiate those smelly old fish i.e. red herrings with which you beat us around the head and with great regularity.

One rumour hath it that the story on one injured platypus, entangled in fishing lines, plastic and rubbish has been hyperboled into a “likely” colony of platypus. Additionally, official monitors have reported witnessing “up to three platypus.” Um... so how many platypus make a "colony?"

However, the EPA Victoria guidelines suggest the levels safe for Homo-stupidus to swim in must be less than 200 E.coli organisms per 100mL and levels safe for recreation such as fishing and boating must be below 1000 E.coli units.

Hey buddy, try diving into Victoria’s dirty river secrets of 24,000 units of E.coli per 100mL and see how you cope with that “ring of fire” (anatomically southwards) - cringe.

Hennyways I do believe it’s more credible for you advise us on the whopping GHG emissions of wool production. After all yakking about sheep emissions of CH4 is more appropriate for a wool metrologist who insists on pulling the wool over everybody’s eyes. Wouldn’t you agree?

“But your tone suggests another agenda, ignorant as it may be.”

Psst – speaking of ignorance, I do believe the official spelling of “Fitzsimmons” Lane has one “m.”

I may be "ignorant" but I'm a good Englisher.

BSc. Oh dear, we have been exaggerating haven't we Peter?

No wonder you were afraid to give me a straight answer.

http://www.awta.com.au/en/Home/Publications/Newsletters/2001-May/Executive-Management-Team/

As you said, Google is a wonderful thing!

Shirley,

This guy is a fake. He pretends to be qualified in all sorts of areas. He says:

" Wool metrology is but one of my skills - I am a statistician after all."

All he has is a BSc, and an ancient one at that. He is not a statistician. From what I can tell from this website, all he did was drive a desk.:

http://www.awta.com.au/en/Home/Publications/Newsletters/2001-May/Executive-Management-Team/

You might remember that Professor Pete changed his title a while ago. Originally it said stuff about trustee and educator. Well it looks like he is hiding his current *guffaw* scientific job:

Peter Sommerville : (Secretary of Trustees)
formerly Corporate Development Manager, AWTA Ltd, now retired.

http://www.woolwise.com/WET.html

Retired? Didn't he say he was a gun scientist, working in all sorts of areas! It looks like as Secretary, he is back to driving a desk. Not much science there.

And he speaks of cowardice. Makes you wonder what is happening to the old people these days.

Shirley, In the spirit of full disclosure, do you think I should write to the Australian Wool Education Trust trustees, showing them Peter's tendency to, well let us say, exaggerate his qualifications? If I were a trustee, I think I'd be concerned if my trusty trustee-secretary was prone to fibbing. Probably frowned upon I would surmise. Not he done thing at the club.

I'll leave the decision with you Shirley.

Peter Sommerville: "... I enjoy debating with my peers ...".
On the evidence, your peers are into finger-painting.

Conflatulations for dumping on the Chinese Mister Peter. No doubt a competent "scientist/statistician" would have calculated that there are around 1.3 billion Chinese but there around 1.1 billion sheep worldwide (oh and a couple of billion cows and goats too). And it’s not the orifices of the Chinese venting all that methane which has a GWP of 56 (over 20 years).

And dems fighting words Peter for it is not I who registered on this forum with the intention to deceive. Of course any old “scientist/statistician” could have clarified my bona fide since there are only two S Birneys listed in WA’s white pages and I happen to be one of them. No silent number for me pal.

Feel free to ring but don’t visit since my carbon-conscious Fido can detect a litter bug a mile away. He’s far more partial to a human leg than a lamb’s leg though he acts strictly on instructions from his mistress, naturally - grrrr.

PS: How many platypuses in a “colony?”

Peter Sommerville: "... the oceans have absorbed massive amounts of CO2 with very little impact ...". What evidence do you have for that assertion?

You imply that the capacity of oceans to absorb CO2 is effectively infinite?

"Conflatulations"

This is now my new favourite word.

Hi Garry,

Thanks for your contribution to this debate.

I think you need to understand that methane clathrates can only exist in scenarios where the pressure is very high and the temperatures are very low. There is millions of tonnes of methane locked up in this form at the bottom of the World's deepest oceans. They present both a threat and an opportunity.

Catastrophic ocean warming has the potential to release enormous quantities of methane, with catastrophic effects on us. But the probability of this is minuscule, barring a catastrophic event such as a large asteroid impact. The sort of warming that we are observing cannot precipitate such an event. Ocean warming predominantly affects the surface layers - below the thermocline it has little effect! These clathrates are located well below the ocean thermoclines.

What most people do not understand is that the major inputs of methane into the atmosphere are not anthropogenic. The biggest contributor is nature itself. Methane is produced by anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. Methane is in the bubbles bursting out of bogs, out of puddles, out of lakes and reservoirs, and the rotting of trees and other organic matter. This has always been so.

Frankly I don't think you need to panic about a mass extinction event. These sorts of scenarios are promulgated by the largely uninformed green lobby and also by scientists (which embarrasses me personally) trying to milk hollow funding logs.

Personally I don't cite Andrew Bolt as a reference, but I do respect his integrity - he does cherry pick, but his motives are genuine, just as are those of the greens and their ilk. That doesn't mean we have to accept either as experts. Do the research yourself, but don't limit it to sources that confirm your prejudices. That is not scientific.

The other factor not well understood is that methane, whilst a very much greater warming gas than CO2, it is relatively much shorter lived. Atmospheric chemical reactions break it down, whereas this cannot be said for CO2.

Once again thank you for your contribution to what is an important debate..

:-

Er, not not quite the whole truth.

Perhaps you may have not read this paper written in 2010 called "Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf" by Natalia Shakova et al.

Or, even this one released in May, 2012, published in "Nature Geoscience" under the title "Geologic methane seeps along boundaries of Arctic permafrost thaw and melting glaciers", written by Katey M Walter et al.

Come to think about it, using "Google Scholar", one can find many fact based current and past science papers, documenting both man made and natural sources, of leaking Methane Gas.

Such is life.

Hello Peter, it seems rather hazardous to differentiate between the security of deep water Clathrates and those in the Permafrost - and as for the short life of Methane, much the same

"" Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Despite its short atmospheric half life of 7 years, methane has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 21 over 100 years (IPCC), ""'

The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits has been hypothesized as a cause of past and possibly future climate changes. Events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Climate scientists such as James Hansen hypothesize that methane clathrates in the permafrost regions will be released as a result of global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces which may cause runaway climate change that cannot be controlled.

In other words - a tipping point can be a game change for humanity

As for Andrew Bolt - well he's a journalist with an agenda, quite often playing his well written columns to fully paid up members of the "Lavoisier Group" a pro Tobacco lobby, using the tactics of that industry - Except this time its the pro mining lobby. I'm of he view he's a health hazard

**************

In reply to Trevor Prouse about carbon capture and the soil. The promise of large scale sequestration may be 20 years away (if ever. ! ) However some of the constructive small scale ideas, such as what you have mentioned, may prove to be of more benefit than what we could imagine.

Perhaps read this link - then travel sideways to find out about some more on the the sort of hardware a soil tinkerer might employ.

http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/soil-carbon-may-come-from-tractor.html

Eriks.

The IPCC was formed in 1988 - 24 years ago.

Guess what the CC stands for - that is right Climate Change. It was called Climate Change because conservatives thought it sounded less scary than global warming.

I am assuming that you heard this little false factoid from a right-wing shock jock. When you realise you have been lied to, do you ever reconsider your source of information?

Eriks Velins: "What is the evidence that climate change is reversible?"
The very fact that we're having this discussion implies that climate can change. Where is your evidence that change can happen in only one direction?
Of course, if we get it wrong:-
Carl Sagan: "... Venus is an ominous reminder that in a world rather like the earth, things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that our planet will always be so hospitable."
Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ...".

The topic was--What is carbon pollution and why are we trying to stop it? A farmer I know in western australia measured his soil carbon content over a period of ten years while he was planting cereals continuosly on the same land. He was using a system called no-till which has very little soil disturbance and the crop residues are left on the soil surface.The capture of carbon in the soil at $23 per ton would have given him thousands of dollars over the whole of the farm. Some estimates are that if this system was evaluated on all no-tilled crops , it would counter Australia`s carbon footprint.
Soils contain more carbon than vegetation and it would be more sensible to look at this aspect than the gas co2. My interest in this topic is mostly the practical appliance of the carbon tax in farming. I can not see how reducing the level of carbon dioxide will avert our ability to feed the world , transport our food or change our climate by a reduction of 5% by 2020. Estimates are that the increase of CO2 over the last 50 years HAS INCREASED FOOD PRODUCTION. If the carbon reduction is to be 80% by 2050 , has any one worked out what the price of food will be then and what the compensation will be?

Trevor,
You are quite correct.
The first measurements I recall, which demonstrated an increase in carbon due to a reduction in tillage were done by Anne Hamblin and David Tennant (Tennent?) in the late 70's. In those days it was called Direct Drilling or Minimum Tillage. As the systems have progressed they have become known as 'No Till'.
In the early 80s Australia led the world in dry land minimum tillage crop establishment.
Many farmers have practised 'No Till' since the late 70's.

Mike,
Every one of your posts is abusive, when will you enter into a serious debate?

In the last 200 years we have increased CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 400ppm. We are continuing to emit more and more CO2 into the atmosphere.
CO2 concentrations have not been this high for nearly one million years.

Gambling with the climate of the only planet we have is not clever - not clever at all.

Hi Garry

It actually not quite 400ppm yet, but the difference is trivial.

Gambling with the climate? Living on the one planet we have is always a gamble. One super volcano or one asteroid could have far more impact than a slow increase in CO2. However, I have never argued to do nothing. My argument is with what is proposed, particularly here in Australia. I don't believe in stupidity.

:-)

Peter Sommerville: "... I have never argued to do nothing. ...". Is that the same as arguing to do something? If so, what do you argue that we should do? How is your preferred course superior? Why should anyone take your word that your plan is superior?

Hi Shirley,

I am aware of what you have referenced. But I think you missed the point. And you are not really Shirley the retirree, without an education are you!

I am learning something about these forums!

OK Peter, time for some Multi Choice Q's

Q1
Bjorn Lomberg is:
a) not an expert in climate change
b) entirely disingenuous on the subject of climate change
c) has qualifications ( only) in "political science"
d) Author of the book "the skeptical environmentalist"
e) All of the above

Q2
The DCSD ( Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty ) cited his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, for:

a) Fabrication of data;
b) Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
c) Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
d) Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
e) Plagiarism;
f) Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
g) All of the above

I'll give you a clue, the answer to Q1 and Q2 are the same.

Lomberg has changed his position numerous times from "Climate change isn't happening" to "it is too costly to address it " to " we should develop cost effective renewable energy first".

Bit the one consistent thing he advocates is to "do nothing".

Peter, as a result of your reluctance or inability to respond, can we now correctly assume that you based your anti-CO2 tax stance entirely on the monotonous ambiguities in Bjorn Lomborg’s scribblings?

There’s compelling evidence too suggesting that Lomborg has a habit of verballing his opponents (especially when they’re dead.):

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Referringtooralcommunication.htm

It appears to me that Lomborg is even an embarrassment to his country fellowmen. The Danish government has cut Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre – err... Project Palooza funding by more than £1 million therefore he’s practically penniless. So it’s bye bye Bjorn – sob.

Why hang with losers?

Shirley, the other thing you have to ask a Lomborgian acolyte is - which Bjorn are you agreeing with?

He has changed his views and contradicted himself so often that the poor dear doesn't know what he thinks. His followers however, tend to attach themselves to a Lomborg at a specific time - most of the waffly apologists (see above) attach at the 'it's only a small issue and we can manage' Lomborg. When you explain to them that their hero has moved on, they don't believe you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: How many climate sceptics does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. It's too early to say if the lightbulb needs changing.

A: None. It's more cost-effective to live in the dark.

A: None. We only know how to screw the planet.

A: None. Eventually the lightbulbs will right themselves.

Hang about Robert. Is man-child Lomborg reinventing himself (yet again) to get at the filthy lucre? Desperate times for merchants-of-spin require desperate measures:

http://tinyurl.com/6s46sj6

Hark, I hear the clang of his lepers’ bell from here. Quick, ‘tis time to lock the gate. En guarde all those who would walk the earth softly and defend her from such evils.

Watermelon: “An environmentalist with socialist leanings (from the similarity to the fruit, being green on the outside, and red on the inside).” ( Red? Well enough of the embellishments. Shall we say a delicate shade of pink?)