Ian Musgrave has written an open letter to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, correcting him on his claim that “at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now”.

But where did Abbott get the notion that it was considerably warmer in Roman times? Most likely from Ian Plimer, who on page 59 of Heaven and Earth writes:

The Roman Warming Period (250 BC – 450 AD)

Warming started about 250 BC and was enjoyed by the Greeks and Romans. The Romans had it easy. Although the Empire started in cool period, grapes were grown in Rome in 150 BC. By the 1st Century BC, Roman scribes record little snow and ice and that vineyards and olive groves extended northwards in Italy.[213] At he peak of the Roman warming, olive trees grew in the Rhine valley of Germany. The location of vineyards is a good climate proxy. Citrus trees and grapes were grown in England as far north as Hadrian’s Wall and most of Europe enjoyed a Mediterranean climate. This suggests a very rapid warming. It was also wetter. Temperatures in the Roman Warming were 2 to 6°C warmer than today. Sea level was slightly lower than today despite the fact that times were warmer[214] suggesting that land movements associated with the collision of Africa with Europe influenced local sea level. Roman clothing also shows that it was warmer than today.

[213] Allen, H. W. 1961: The history of wine Faber & Faber, London.
[214] Lambeck, K., Anzidei, M., Antonioli, F., Benini, A. and Esposito, A. 2004: Sea level in Roman time in the Central Mediterranean and implications for recent change. Earth and Planetary Science 224: 563-575.

“2 to 6°C warmer” would certainly qualify as “considerably warmer”, but as he commonly does, Plimer provides no cite to support his claims. He only has two references in the entire paragraph. One, about vineyards, doesn’t support his claim that the Roman period was “2 to 6°C warmer” since there are plenty of vineyards in England today. The other, on sea levels contradicts it. If sea levels were lower in Roman times, then it was likely cooler. Plimer tries to wriggle out of this by suggesting that the difference is caused by land movement, but after adjusting for land movement, sea level was still lower. Look at the abstract:

These data provide a precise measure of local sea level of −1.35±0.07 m at 2000 years ago. Part of this change is the result of ongoing glacio-hydro isostatic adjustment of the crust subsequent to the last deglaciation. When corrected for this, using geologically constrained model predictions, the change in eustatic sea level since the Roman Period is −0.13±0.09 m.

In other words, sea level in Roman times was similar to that at the start of the 20th century, suggesting that temperatures were also similar to those at the start of the 20th century, and hence cooler than curent temperatures nad certainly not “considerably warmer”.

Comments

  1. #1 Nic Jonsson
    May 18, 2010

    “There is nothing new about Swedish wine. Fruit and berry wines have been around for years. But wine made from grapes grown in Sweden? Now that is something new.”

    (http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Lifestyle/Food-drink/Reading/Swedish-winemakers-uphill-harvest/)

  2. #2 Ian Gould
    May 18, 2010

    “Britain is too cold today for an army to invade it wearing skirts. But the Romans did exactly that.”

    Funny, it wasn’t too cold for Jamie Stuart’s kilt-wearing highlanders in 1745 and they wre coming from the north.

    Re Roman wine, the Romans drank heavily watered wine in preference to water whenever possible, not because of its intoxiocating effect but because of its antibacterial effect.

    British win (which was notoriously lousy) was produced in fairly large volumes up until the 16th century when it was dealt a double whammy that had nothing to do with climate.

    Most British wine was produced in monasteries and used as Sacramental wine during the Catholic Mass. When Henry the Eighth disoolved the monasteries, most of the vinyards were destroyed.

    At the same time, improving shipping links allowed the importation of cheap wine (“port”) from Portugal.

    Some essentially hobbyist grape production continued in England right up to the present day – including during the Little Ice Age.

  3. #3 Ian Gould
    May 18, 2010

    As for the cirus production claim: it’s possible.

    Even today there are small areas of western Britain – like Findhorn Bay in Scotland that get the full effect of the Gulf Stream and are substantially warmer than the rest of the island.

  4. #4 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    Re Matt [and Tim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2520756)

    A sign that Nova and Idso are scaping the bottom of the barrel in their attempt to cherry pick the few sites they can find to (unscientifically) support the RWP was the inclusion of Nordt 2008 (North American Great Plains) which ends in the LIA several century ago provide no comparison to current temperatures.

    Then they use Oppo et al 2009 – Makassar Strait, Indonesia- Indo-Pacific warm pool , who’s abstract states:

    >*Our record from the Makassar Strait, Indonesia, exhibits trends that are similar to a recent Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction* [ie consistent with reconstructions like Mann’s]. *Reconstructed SST was, however, within error of modern values from about AD 1000 to AD 1250, towards the end of the Medieval Warm Period.*

    ie. even this cherry picking by Idso to find few locactions that show a MWP (and the RWP) do even make Abbott claim of “warmer”. Are should one reconsider when even one’s cherry picks still require “within error” margin comparisons.

    Poor [old Loehle](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2512115) got left out of this cherry pick. I Don’t expect the [poor reconstrcution methods](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/) by Loehle, nor the lasted meme (which ditches his work) will see the end of Loehle. I’m sure his reconstruction will be revived from the trash heap and once again held aloft when the denials want to make a different arguemnt to their current claims re RWP.

  5. #5 SteveC
    May 18, 2010

    derecho64 @94, that 7.30 Report interveiw with Abbott was chuffing hilarious 8^)

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2901996.htm

  6. #6 Richard
    May 18, 2010

    “And if you click through to CO2 science you find that CO2 science only thinks that one of the six is evidence for the RWP” Tim Lamberth

    Are you claiming CO2 science doesn’t believe in a RWP? Clearly they do:

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php

    Abbott’s claim would appear to rest on the existence of RWP and latter the MWP. A definitive statement for OR against would not appear supported by current evidence.

  7. #7 MFS
    May 18, 2010

    We seem to be getting dragged further and further into a logical fallacy. Whether the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age really existed and reflected global temperature trends has little or no bearing on the question of whether our 50% increase in the natural level of CO2 is responsible for the warming we see right now.

  8. #8 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    >*Abbott’s claim would appear to rest on the existence of RWP* [distiguishably higher than current global temperatures] and latter the MWP. *A definitive statement for OR against would not appear supported by current evidence.*

    And the best [avaliable evidence](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/) does **not** support the claim made by Abbott.

    It’s like Abbotts says, you [can't trust him](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hhGhPLf5vXxWHS4AQwSOiYaers2A) when he opens his mouth.

  9. #9 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    A [Greens perspective](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2010/05/17/the-smoking-gun-labor-always-planned-to-shut-the-greens-out-of-the-ets/) relavent to a recent [in house debate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2518352):

    >The government’s hope of clinging to any remaining climate credibility relies on pretending that it was the Greens who were intractable, not them. [...] But now, thanks to Paul Daley in the Fairfax Sundays, someone has squeaked and we have the smoking gun.

    >a Labor source saying *“Kevin was crystal clear from the start – the Greens couldn’t be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme.”*

    >This may not sound like much, but it entirely undermines the government’s claim to climate credibility. It was always Kevin Rudd’s political strategy to do a deal on an ETS with the opposition – whom he had consistently branded climate sceptics – so he could share any blame for higher prices with them and to shut the Greens out of any negotiations. The Greens would either have to sign up to a policy the party knew was completely unacceptable or vote against it and wear the orchestrated ALP attack.

    [Why Ammedendments](http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/webfm_send/356)?

    >the CPRS as it stands would unleash a wave of investment in coal. [...] A weak target and price signal would drive hort-sighted investment in polluting infrastructure [...] In WA, generators are considering recommissioning two old coal fired power stations to take advantage of this…

    >Almost all emissions reductions under the CPRS will be bought in from overseas – a case of smoke and mirrors, with offsets hiding the reality that Australia would be continuing with its highly polluting economy.

    >The government even **refuses to accept the Greens’ proposal to ensure that all offsets from offshore are accredited to make sure they are 100% reliable**. There have been increasing reports of dodgy offset schemes around the world.

  10. #10 Nathan
    May 18, 2010

    Jakerman

    Indeed. The Govt could have any legislation they wanted if they had a double dissolution election. If they really wanted THEIR (actually it was a Labor-Liberal version)ETS they could have it in a flash (late August probably).

    The reason they won’t have a double dissolution election is because the Greens would have a far easier time winning Upper House seats (lower quota in a DD election). It’s just politics from the Labor Party.

  11. #11 tyro rex
    May 18, 2010

    “TR, you’ll find that the entire denialist canon is overwhelmingly composed of half-baked, plausible-sounding nonsense aimed at rubes and morons – without exception.

    They’re aiming at a mass audience, not what might be loosely termed the intelligentsia. ”

    Sorry yes I understood that, what I wasn’t perhaps being clear enough in saying, is that their historical reasoning is also completely beyond acceptable. If changes in agricultural crops and methods appeared in Britain in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., well, my first impulse to assume that’s the result of the presence of Roman legions and related social structures, not changes in the climate.

    I guess “plausible-sounding nonsense aimed at rubes and morons” does cover it after all. ;-)

  12. #12 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    >No you’re still ignoring the point. If you want to look at it this way then free permits do not shield them from the lost opportunity cost of selling those permits.

    This is only a driver for change when positive alternatives are cheaper than BAU with dodgy credits. So when the cost of credits is artificially low due to dodgy credits, coal burners use their free credits to burn coal.

    >Again, I’m not talking about them buying permits, I’m talking about them selling their permits.

    See my point above.

    >You’re just restating the tax evasion issue. Taxation of permits is a spurious issue. The issue is tax enforcement, not structure (assuming they even need a tax on emission permits in the first place).

    I’m point out actually there are structural problems with the ETS’s credit system that lead to [multiple and diverse examples of rorting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Development_Mechanism#Concerns). Read the examples and look into the “concerns”.

    >>*How do you properly measure what doesn’t exist?*

    >Money doesn’t represent anything physical either but that doesn’t stop it from being measurable.

    Look how much money was created out of thin air to bail out the banks following the GFC. Do you want that with carbon credits?

    Worse still, stateed intentions to emit are not auditable. Get ready for credit for fantasy claims will gain the same standing under bogus credit regiemes.

    >*”Beyond the missing trader scam, the ETS is attractive to fraudsters because in order to trade in EUAs [European Union Allowances] you have to register your company, but there are no strong regulations or checking principles as there is in banking to prevent such activities as money laundering.”*

    >So is there some law of physics preventing regulation as there is in banking?

    Huh? Are you saying banking is appropriately regulated, or that made up intensions are easier to audit than banks?

    >>Even if there were more stringent regulations, “How can you control this, how can you check up on someone selling an intangible credit from Belgium to Denmark to Paris even with more rules?”

    >Maybe the person saying that doesn’t know much about what he’s talking about. There is nothing new about an authority issuing credits with registered owners. Ever heard of real estate, shares?

    Consider the GFC and creation of trillions of trillions to bailout out the banks? Or Goverment buying their own bonds? Well this will be worse as you are dealing with unaudiable claims.

    >>*I repeat how you properly measure something that doesn’t exist?*

    >I’ve already dealt with this but I’ll point out here that the same fundamental issue exists with taxing emissions. Emissions have to be measured and the regulation of emission measurements has to be at least as good as the registration of emission permits.

    No its different to taxation. You can can at the mine gate and at the wharf. You tax something real, tangiable and aditable.

    >>*You are creating a massive incentive for fraud, at at the cost of both good will and the climate.*

    >Just like when emissions are measured.

    Huh? see my last point, apply the tax to phyical fuel domestically and on LCA for import/export ajudgemets based on the particiapation of other nations. Far more robuts than stated intentions.

    >No they don’t undermine the incentive. They have an incentive to get their emissions down so they can sell their permits.

    See my opening point: This is only a driver for change when positive alternatives are cheaper than BAU with dodgy credits. So when the cost of credits is artificially low due to dodgy credits, coal burners use their free credits to burn coal.

    >>*In a market flooded with dodgy credits,*

    >That’s a different set of goalposts. If your objection is dodgy credits then say dodgy credits in the first place.

    [My objection is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2516829) dodgy credits which are part of Labor’s ETS.

    >>*I see no way forward for incorporating carbon offsets whose rubbery accounting seem a designed to maximize both incentives and a smoke screen for corruption.*

    .
    >>*they’ll just keep BAU and use their free permits.*

    >It’s hardly likely the government will keep allowing dodgy credits to flood the country.

    That seems to be exactly what the government [indends allowing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2520996). And why the Green would not support the ETS.

    >*The government even refuses to accept the Greens’ proposal to ensure that all offsets from offshore are accredited to make sure they are 100% reliable. There have been increasing reports of dodgy offset schemes around the world.*

  13. #13 TrueSceptic
    May 18, 2010

    107 MFS,

    50%? Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 284 ppm in 1832 to 387 in 2009. That’s a 36% increase. 50% would be 426 ppm, which we won’t reach until around 2025.

    If you take a lower “natural” figure of 275 ppm, that’s still only a 41% rise and 50% would be 412, due at around 2020.

  14. #14 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2010

    At least there’s one potentially useful thing about jnova’s anti-science blog, Tim might consider introducing comment hiding based on low rating by readers.

  15. #15 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2010

    If they really wanted THEIR (actually it was a Labor-Liberal version)ETS they could have it in a flash (late August probably).

    A flash taking 3 months. That’s the quickest flash I’ve ever heard of.

  16. #16 Birger Johansson
    May 18, 2010

    I find it frustrating that the state of knowledge is still so fuzzy that vague historical accounts get to substitute for hard facts….
    Since Britain is full of limestone, are there no stalactite/stalagmite records that can be used as climate proxies?
    What about peat bogs preserving pollen, giving a snapshot of the plant assemblage of the time? Even taking into account that climate proxies can be ambiguous, there should be enough data collected on British climate proxies to create statistically reliable reconstructions of past climate.

    With better computers, climate simulations with slightly altered ocean currents and/or jet streams will also reveal which conditions that fit the proxy interpretations. Eventually, all this will converge on something approximating a reliable reconstruction of past climate (at least for Britain, and other well-researched areas).

  17. #17 JPA Knowles
    May 18, 2010

    Forgetting science for a moment, I lived on the site of a Roman Barracks in North Wales during the 70s. I had glass in my windows and some central heating but it was still a miserably cold place. I doubt the climate was much different in 100AD but I would be most surprized if it was colder. If it was, those Italians must have been a lot hardier than me. (My idea of a good week-end is to build an igloo and go X-C skiing).

    Climate, by definition, is variable. Early cultures expanded during the warmer more favourable times and retracted in colder times. During the 1600s the population of Europe declined, wars were waged and monarchs had difficulty maintaining their nations. No-one disputes that it became colder during the 1600s and then warmed up again. The difference these days is that it has become politically expedient to say that mankind is responsible for the warming phases of the 20th C.
    The arguement that CO2 is the only cause, is absurd.
    There are many factors which affect climate in different parts of the globe at different times and I’m a bit tired of hearing ignorant comments which single out one factor, such as CO2 density, and exclude all the others.

  18. #18 dhogaza@pacifier.com
    May 18, 2010

    JPA Knowles – the straw used to construct your strawman would be better used to insulate your house.

    I’m a bit tired of hearing ignorant comments which single out one factor, such as CO2 density, and exclude all the others.

    Climate science says no such thing, nor do those conversant with climate science. That’s the strawman. Intentional or are you just ignorant?

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    May 18, 2010

    117 JPAK,

    I’m tired of “sceptics” making ignorant comments like “I’m a bit tired of hearing ignorant comments which single out one factor, such as CO2 density, and exclude all the others.” The only people I have seen saying this are “sceptics” misrepresenting climate science. As dhogaza says, this is a simple and obvious straw man.

  20. #20 Dave Andrews
    May 18, 2010

    jakerman,

    There have been increasing reports of dodgy offset schemes around the world.

    Wow have you finally woken up to real life? Haven’t I been telling you about this problem for some time?

  21. #21 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    Wow Dave, I am amazed at the extent of your continued dishonesty. Did you think I wouldn’t remind you [of this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac.php#comment-2514476), a link back to the repeated number of times that I point out I do not like the ETS model? And a repeated number of times that I corrected your making up and misrepresenting my position on this point.

    What does it tell you that you keep needing to misrepresent my positon on this point, and need to do so in a 180 degree misrepresentation? Wake up Dave. You dishonesty has damaged your cognitive functioning

  22. #22 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    How do readers rate the dishonesty in Dave Andrews contribution compared to Brent and el gordo. After engaging with the three I’d put Andrews has worse than el gordo. At least el gordo sometimes provided useful information.

    I support Bernard’s call to include Dave Andrew in the el gordo set. We’ve got better thing to discuss than correcting persistently dishonest characters who add nothing and choose to simply continue the [same blatant misrepresentations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2525099).

  23. #23 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    Re our [internal ETS debate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2520996), The ACF and ACTU just [published a joint study](http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/ACF_Jobs_report_190510.pdf) on the effects of “weak” versus “strong” action on carbon pricing and alinged activity.

    They found “strong action” creates more innovation and more net jobs accross the board.

    Of particular relevance to our debate was the point that in their study “weak action” involves an over reliance on an ETS where:

    >Australia imports vast amounts of international permits to
    achieve reductions in greenhouse pollution, while domestic greenhouse pollution levels remain stable.

    [PS. Amoung other things this involves coal burners using their free permits to burn coal.]

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2010

    They found “strong action” creates more innovation and more net jobs accross the board.

    Smelting Aluminium at Portland which is hundreds of kilometres away from its brown-coal burning power station was a job creation scheme too. Look how that turned out.

  25. #25 jakerman
    May 18, 2010

    >*Smelting Aluminium at Portland which is hundreds of kilometres away from its brown-coal burning power station was a job creation scheme too. Look how that turned out.*

    I don’t know the details of the particular project, but I assume you make a fair point. Clive Hamilton describes how each Job in Aluminium smelting (or in at least a region/project) is subsidies to the level of $75,000 per job (by tax payers).

    This relates to Fran’s earlier point about the need to reducce the [billions](http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/climate-change/billions-of-taxpayer-dollars-c) in sudidees that [promote](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100421133110.htm) fossile [fuel use](http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/effects_ffs.pdf).

  26. #26 jakerman
    May 19, 2010

    From [The Australia Istitute](https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP44.pdf#page=37)
    >In sum, the aluminium smelting industry in Australia employs 5,500 people, exports $3.9 billion worth of primary aluminium [...] and was responsible for additional greenhouse gas emissions of around 27 Mt CO2-equivalent in 1998-99 (or 5.9 per cent of total emissions)[...] every dollar of economic output generated by the aluminium smelting industry results in the emission of around five times more greenhouse gas than agriculture and around 22 times more than other manufacturing activities.

    >Through the provision of cheap electricity, the industry receives a subsidy estimated to be at least $210 million each year, and probably in excess of $250 million. Each job directly generated by the industry is costing governments close to $40,000 per annum. The industry is not currently charged for its greenhouse gas pollution, but at a conservative price of $10/tonne CO2-equivalent the industry is receiving an additional annual environmental subsidy of close to $270 million, or around $50,000 per employee.

    That’s $40,000 plus $50,000 per year per job. Now compare this with figure 5 on [page 33](https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP44.pdf#page=45) of the report. We are paying a massive subsidy per job, per year to be the worst CO2/Al polluters in the world. Its time to get sensible and provide these expensive subsides to jobs that are aligned with our interests and interests of our children.

  27. #27 jakerman
    May 19, 2010

    Guess [which ETS](http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/026_energy_report_22_april_2010.pdf#page=14) included free permits for these Aluminium smelters?

    >Even in terms of protecting Australian employment these are very expensive jobs, far exceeding the cost of other employment schemes. On average, free permits cost over 65,000/employee, with jobs in the aluminium industry costing 160,000/employee.

    Bailing out polluters at the cost of and effective pricing mechanism, then foisting massive unnecessary cost onto the public and undermining good will. And what will it achieve? Importation of dodgy permits and BAU for coal burners.

  28. #28 Fran Barlow
    May 19, 2010

    You make an excellent point Jakerman.

    If one were really desperate to protect these jobs and willing to pay subsidies on this scale, one could pay 100% of them to take yoga classes and pilates in between studying Fine Arts at university. Not only would they be healthier and doubtless able to impress their friends with their ability to discuss the post-modern world, you could have some change out of the subsidy.

  29. #29 Anonymous
    May 19, 2010

    Guess which ETS included free permits for these Aluminium smelters?

    And exactly how much do they pay for their permits now? And exactly how much of rise in price of these permits will they tolerate before they start getting nasty?

  30. #30 jakerman
    May 19, 2010

    >And exactly how much of rise in price of these permits will they tolerate before they start getting nasty?

    Zero?

    What are you gonno do when they get nasty? Give them what they want and and useless ETS with dodgy credits? Or stand up, put some real skin in the game and take what we need?

    I’m not bending over to those with concentrated power and a self interest which is at odds with that of our climate and the lives of hundreds of millions of the most vulnerable.

  31. #31 TrueSceptic
    May 19, 2010

    122 jakerman,

    DA is definitely more dishonest than EG and on the level of Brent IMO.

    I think that they should all be quarantined in one thread and not given their own ego-inflating platforms. This would apply to any future examples too.

  32. #32 jakerman
    May 19, 2010

    [Garnaut on](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2010/2904376.htm) legislating a base price for carbon.

  33. #33 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2010

    jakerman:

    Or stand up, put some real skin in the game and take what we need?

    Yes, putting on the hair shirt should work real well. This is why The Greens are out of touch with reality. Just look at how the mining companies and the Liberals are reacting to a resource tax. That is nothing compared with the reaction to a straight-out carbon tax. If you think the Labor Party had trouble with an ETS, just wait till you see what happens with a plain carbon tax.

    http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/webfm_send/356

    This statement is strong on political rhetoric and assertion and very weak on evidence that imported credits must usually be dodgy.

    Even in terms of protecting Australian employment these are very expensive jobs, far exceeding the cost of other employment schemes. On average, free permits cost over 65,000/employee, with jobs in the aluminium industry costing 160,000/employee.

    This is a really weird statement because unless those permits are actually sold (in which case the emissions are no longer allowed to be generated by the business selling them) then the permits don’t actually cost anyone anything. Permits give them the motivation to shut down the Aluminium smelting altogether if the emissions saved are high enough. In that case the government also saves on subsidies presently going to Aluminium smelting (which are pretty enormous).

    By the way, exactly how much are Aluminium smelters that burn brown coal paying for their permits now? No-one ever seems to answer that question.

  34. #34 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    >*Yes, putting on the hair shirt should work real well.*

    Which hair shirt are you refereing to? I assume you mean meeting targets set by science?

    My point was upping the anti rather than trying to belittle the only political party:

    * standing up for science based targets; and
    * calling for accredited carbon permits;
    * calling for legislated floor price of $20/tonne to prevent the sytem being worse than useless.

    >*The Greens are out of touch with reality. Just look at how the mining companies and the Liberals are reacting to a resource tax. That is nothing compared with the reaction to a straight-out carbon tax. If you think the Labor Party had trouble with an ETS, just wait till you see what happens with a plain carbon tax.*

    Reality check Chris, you’re beating up the Greens in favour of a worse than useless system based on unaccredited imported carbon credits. So in ten years time CO2 concentrations are worse, Jobs are exported, and the public are paying more for the whole useless deal. But never mind, that, at least you have appeased the those with concentrated wealth including the Murdoch press. They’ll have even more concentrated power for the next round.

    >*This is a really weird statement because unless those permits are actually sold (in which case the emissions are no longer allowed to be generated by the business selling them) then the permits don’t actually cost anyone anything.*

    Chris, the $160,000 per job per year (a claim I highlighted from the Grattin report) is only meainingless as long as the carbon credits are meaningles. And as long as credits are dodgy the coal get burned and we all wear the costs.

    Part 2 to follow…

  35. #35 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    >*Permits give them the motivation to shut down the Aluminium smelting altogether if the emissions saved are high enough. In that case the government also saves on subsidies presently going to Aluminium smelting (which are pretty enormous).*

    That’s the other side of that card, either (A) the credits are dodgy or (B) the worst polluters getted even more of a bailout.

    If the carbon credits are worthless then there is zero motivation to shut down any of the worst offenders.

    But lets hope public pressure force the government to come around. Lets look at (B): say the Greens position gets public support and swings the governement around to the demand of permit import accrediation. And/or if the public support come in to back the Greens and Garnaut to convince the Governemtn to legislate a floor price on import credits (say $20/tonne). In that case then you still get Al smelters getting the combination of the permit subside plus cheap electricity vauled ($40,000 /job/year), so we keep the massivly subsidies alive with more massive subsidies!

    Under the (A) your strategy of whacking the Greens we get dodgy credits and no floor price on permits, and keep subsidising Al. But under (B) we at least get either accredited imports or a floor price to pick off the dodgiest credits.

    >By the way, exactly how much are Aluminium smelters that burn brown coal paying for their permits now? No-one ever seems to answer that question.

    Exactly the same as under the worthless ETS with dodgy credtis.

  36. #36 Fran Barlow
    May 20, 2010

    OTOH Jakerman …

    the best solution now, which I find quite elegant is simply to make fossil fuel-derived energy non-tax deductible. No new laws needed and if someone can show that they are expending money to run a business on a clean source of energy, they get to deduct that.

  37. #37 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    >*the best solution now, which I find quite elegant is simply to make fossil fuel-derived energy non-tax deductible.*

    No object to that as a first step. If its made to be understood by investors that this will be followed by ramping up of a clear price in the future.

  38. #38 MFS
    May 20, 2010

    Interestingly it seems that governments invariable prefer a carbon tax or a trading scheme simply because they stand to gain some income from them.

    In Australia mining law stipulates that the owner of a mining or exploration lease has a finite period of time to exploit the resource. If you take out a lease on a hypothetical coal resource, and don’t exploit it or at least begin work in a timely manner, you lose the right to do so and somebody else can acquire that lease.

    But what if mining law was such that people could own a coal resource while in the ground, so that it is not mined? Instead of paying somebody in a foreign country to plant some trees, allow people to purchase the rights to coal in the ground so it does not end up mined, and therefore directly compete with the mining companies and industry for coal.

    Competition in the ownership of coal resources should at least help drive up the price.

    However, the possibilities for rorting also seem endless…

  39. #39 pough
    May 20, 2010

    The difference these days is that it has become politically expedient to say that mankind is responsible for the warming phases of the 20th C.

    If you can think of no better way to get votes than “I’ll need to restrict what you can do and raise your taxes” then you are insane. That’s politically expedient like cheating on your wife with another man is good PR.

    The arguement (sic) that CO2 is the only cause, is absurd.

    Of course it’s not the only thing that has an effect on climate, but it does have and we’re dramatically changing the amount of it. To ignore a 36% increase now and the knowledge that it’s going to go much higher is absurd. Speaking of absurd, let us know when you’ve found that mystery forcing that works exactly like CO2 should (but isn’t, for whatever reason).

    And just for good measure…

    If it was, those Italians must have been a lot hardier than me.

    At that point in time and in that place, what percentage of the soldiers in the Roman army were actually Roman?

  40. #40 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2010

    Which hair shirt are you refereing to? I assume you mean meeting targets set by science?

    That’s beside the point. The hair shirt approach means attempting force regardless of the consequences. As I pointed out, the resources tax gives a hint of what would happen with a straight-out carbon tax.

    the only political party:

    standing up for science based targets

    So what target did their vote achieve?

    calling for legislated floor price of $20/tonne to prevent the sytem being worse than useless

    And how much does it cost to emit carbon now? (BTW, wouldn’t it be terrible if it cost less than $20/tonne to reduce carbon emissions?)

    calling for accredited carbon permits

    And what carbon permits are needed to emit carbon now?

    you’re beating up the Greens in favour of a worse than useless system

    That’s your opinion and it’s just The Greens’ political rhetoric.

    based on unaccredited imported carbon credits.

    Yes we should just assume they’ll always be dodgy. The negative approach always works doesn’t it?

    So in ten years time CO2 concentrations are worse,

    So what is CERTAIN to happen to Australia’s emissions as a consequence of The Greens’ vote?

    and the public are paying more for the whole useless deal.

    The public won’t actually pay anything for free permits unless emissions are actually reduced. Wouldn’t that be terrible?

    And as long as credits are dodgy

    And we must assume they always are dodgy, mustn’t we?

  41. #41 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    >The hair shirt approach means attempting force regardless of the consequences.

    I still don’t get why you apply the hair shirt analogy is this case. It more analogous to those trying to foist on the deeply flawed CRPS with is arguably worse than useless.

    >So what target did their vote achieve?

    We’ll see in 10 years. So far we’re arguably no worse off due to deep flaws in the CPRS. We can still be better off within a decade if public pressure can force a better deal.

    >And how much does it cost to emit carbon now? (BTW, wouldn’t it be terrible if it cost less than $20/tonne to reduce carbon emissions?)

    The same for Al-smelters and coal burners as under the Turnbull-Rudd CPRS with dodgy credit imports and free permits.

    >And what carbon permits are needed to emit carbon now?

    The The same for Al-smelters and coal burners as under the Turnbull-Rudd CPRS with dodgy credit imports and free permits.

    Part 2 to follow

  42. #42 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    >That’s your opinion and it’s just The Greens’ political rhetoric.

    Really? Dodgy import credit plus free permits equals cheaper cost for BAU coal than high capacity change. Its more logic than you’ve presented.

    Chris why has the government failed to support the accreditation of import credits? There a structural drivers for corruption of these credits, as well as numerous documented examples of the predictable corruption as I linked you to previously.

    As I said, we’ll know in a decade or so if were worse off without voting in the Rudd-Turnbull model. So far were no worse off. And the Government need to feel public pressure to legislate a meaningful, less corruptible (hence more cost effective) mechanism.

    So Chris what’s your approach going to be? Keep beating on those who want an mechanism that is closer to science targets and more certain to reduce emissions while costing less and hence imposing less of the majority of voters?

    Or side up with the big polluters and whack the greens and tell them to weaken their demands so we can get a piece of junk that wrecks good will by being an ineffective rip off?

    >Under the (A) your strategy of whacking the Greens we get [unaccredited permits] and no floor price on permits, and keep subsidising Al. But under (B) we at least get either accredited imports or a floor price to pick off the dodgiest credits.

    Chris ditch A go for B. Put your energy where its deserved.

    Ask why the goverment reject basic checks and balances such as either accredited import permits or at least a floor price given the evidence of (as well as predicable motive) for the corruption that occurs with an ETS.

    Ask why the Govt refused to negotiate with the Greens.

    Australian citizen need to drive more pressure for stronger action not more pressure for weaker action or arguably worse than useless action. Even Garnaut thought it line ball.

    Who wins when the CPRS is showup as predictably will be with its lack of checks and its structural incentive for corruption? We export job via importing credits, credits that are uncredited. Credits that are often unauditable. Credits that provide massive incentive for rorting. Credits that provide massive opportunity for rorting. Credits which have been demonstrated to be rorted in a wide number of differnt ways.

  43. #43 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    Debating this with another concerned as I am with AGW, is interesting. In regard to the missing basic checks that seem obviously important for the whole integrity of and ETS, I was reminded of a quote that goes a little like this:

    >Those with political power have a job when they get us to accept their wishes. But those with overhwhelming dominance can induce us to beg for even that which is against our interests.

    Is it against our interest to have and ETS without these seemingly essential checks? Or is it against our interest vote down the CPRS no matter how flawed, and how costly?

    Complex questions, but it seems in this case either way we’re beggers to another power.

  44. #44 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2010

    (B) the worst polluters getted even more of a bailout.

    You just don’t want to understand this. A new tax mainly on particular businesses will be fought tooth-and-nail by EVERYONE involved – business owners, management, employees, unions, local community, politicians, you name it. They’ll adopt the position that that the country wants THEM to pay for reducing emissions that they’ll argue the whole community should be responsible for etc. The fact is that it is not necessary to use this method to motivate a reduction in emissions.

    By the way, exactly how much are Aluminium smelters that burn brown coal paying for their permits now? No-one ever seems to answer that question.

    Exactly the same as under the worthless

    In your opinion

    ETS with dodgy credtis.

    In your opinion.

    So The Greens have achieved for certain no cost of emitting carbon AND for certain no motivation whatsoever for reducing carbon emissions. What a wonderful achievement.

  45. #45 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2010

    the evidence of (as well as predicable motive) for the corruption that occurs with an ETS

    The only “evidence” you provided for corruption that occurs with an ETS is tax evasion (what a new and impossible to deal with phenomenom that is) of a completely unnecessary tax.

    Pardon me for being totally unconvinced by your “evidence”.

  46. #46 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    Chris writes:

    >The only “evidence” you provided for corruption that occurs with an ETS is tax evasion (what a new and impossible to deal with phenomenom that is) of a completely unnecessary tax.

    Two points of correction Chris, firstly what you mischaracterize as “only” ETS tax evations was [described by Europe's criminal intelligence agency]( http://euobserver.com/885/29132
    ) this way:

    >Europe’s criminal intelligence agency, said that as much as 90 percent of the entire market volume on emissions exchanges was caused by fraudulent activity, undermining the very viability of the ETS just as the EU is touting a similar scheme for the rest of the world.

    I.e this is core emissions trading. This up to 90% of trades. This is bad.

    Secondly, you mis-remember this when you claims this is the only evidence I presented of corruption. I also [linked you to concerns](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2521026) which included different versions of spurious credits, and in particular the example of the HFC-23 industrial gas projects. If you did as I suggested and looked into these concernes you would have been able to find [details of this rort]( http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/459046/lets_stop_people_scamming_billions_from_the_carbon_market.html).

    I reinterate how do you measure what doesn’t exists? Buying claimed intentions, and without a proper audit trail such credits are ripe for fraud. Its was predictable and it happened. Yet Rudd’s model refused to require accredited permits to even catch the worst examples of dodgy credits.

  47. #47 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    Chris writes:

    >The only “evidence” you provided for corruption that occurs with an ETS is tax evasion (what a new and impossible to deal with phenomenom that is) of a completely unnecessary tax.

    Two points of correction Chris, firstly what you mischaracterize as “only” ETS tax evations was [described by Europe's criminal intelligence agency]( http://euobserver.com/885/29132
    ) this way:

    >Europe’s criminal intelligence agency, said that as much as 90 percent of the entire market volume on emissions exchanges was caused by fraudulent activity, undermining the very viability of the ETS just as the EU is touting a similar scheme for the rest of the world.

    I.e this is core emissions trading. This up to 90% of trades. This is bad.

    Second point to follow…

  48. #48 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    Secondly Chris,

    You mis-remember when you claim the above example this is the only evidence I presented of corruption. I also [linked you to concerns](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2521026) which included different versions of spurious credits, and in particular the example of the HFC-23 industrial gas projects. If you did as I suggested and looked into these concerns you would have been able to find [details of this rort]( http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/459046/lets_stop_people_scamming_billions_from_the_carbon_market.html).

    > *it was revealed that profits being made by companies involved in eradicating HFC-23 through the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) were so vast that factories were producing excess HCFC-22 just to generate CDM revenues. […] HFC-23 destruction costs as little as $0.20 per CO2 equivalent tonne…*

    I reiterate how do you measure what doesn’t exists? Buying claimed intentions, and with out a proper audit trail such credits are ripe for fruad. Its was predictable and it happened. Yet Rudd refused to require accredited permits to even catch the worst examples of dodgy credits.

    Chris writes:

    >So The Greens have achieved for certain no cost of emitting carbon AND for certain no motivation whatsoever for reducing carbon emissions. What a wonderful achievement.

    Arguabley we are in no worse a position than with the deeply flawed CPRS which even Garnaut called line ball on its worth in its final perverted state.

    Yet it is certainly too earlier to foretell the final consequence of the ALP failure to put up a workable ETS and the subsequent vote against the CPRS by the Greens. Are you going to help get a better deal or are you set on this toxic path of blaming the Greens instead of working for a meaningful deal with basic counter fruad accreditation.

    (Despite my usual dyslexia I am intentionally miss-spelling fruad to get past the auto moderation).

  49. #49 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    BTW I congratulate the Rudd government on the resource rents tax. Not only is it good to increase the public share of the profits on our resources, but it also forces those with concentrated power to exercise that power more in the public eye.

    How else do you increase public awareness of the extent of this undemocratic power? Self censoring, capitulating in advance or crumbling in response to their back-room threats just makes them stronger and won’t expose who is wielding what power.

    It could help other more important price mechanisms in the long run.

  50. #50 MattB
    May 20, 2010

    Just the greens couldn’t get it though anyway. I think it was politically important for Rudd to strike a bipartisan deal, and he was not prepared to look like he was selling out for rabid greens ideology (and I say that as a greens supporter before I get accused of bagging the greens).

    The CPRS was crap – lets face it. There is still a chance that the super tax will turn out ok, but only if Garnaut (7:30 report tonight) is correct in that the mining companies are wrong and it has just been poorly explained. If the mining companies are right and ALP have released their second dud policy on the back of ignoring an expert report they commissioned, then this super tax will hopefully get dumped/amended.

  51. #51 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2010

    firstly what you mischaracterize as “only” ETS tax evations was described by Europe’s criminal intelligence agency this way:

    Europe’s criminal intelligence agency, said that as much as 90 percent of the entire market volume on emissions exchanges was caused by fraudulent activity

    It’s hardly a surprise that tax evasion causes a lot of activity UNTIL IT IS CAUGHT. Lots of activity doesn’t necessarily mean it’s motivated by anything more than tax evasion.

    This up to 90% of trades. This is bad.

    Your emotive language shows you’ve been sucked in by Green party hype.

  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2010

    You mis-remember when you claim the above example this is the only evidence I presented of corruption.

    I was talking about the ETS, not genuineness of credits.

    I reiterate how do you measure what doesn’t exists?

    And I’ll just repeat what I’ve already said and you’ve ignored. Money doesn’t represent anything physical either but that doesn’t stop it from being measurable.

    So The Greens have achieved for certain no cost of emitting carbon AND for certain no motivation whatsoever for reducing carbon emissions. What a wonderful achievement.

    Arguabley we are in no worse a position than with the deeply flawed CPRS

    Of course you’re not certain about that and your arguments are far from convincing.

    which even Garnaut called line ball on its worth in its final perverted state.

    Garnaut has no concern for political reality.

    Are you going to help get a better deal or are you set on this toxic path of blaming the Greens instead of working for a meaningful deal with basic counter fruad accreditation.

    Good luck to the Greens if they can help the ALP pass some carbon pricing mechanism after the next election. I just hope they don’t place too much importance on ideological purity as they did last time.

  53. #53 Dave Andrews
    May 20, 2010

    jakerman,

    Strange you are pointing to the EC report on the fraudulent nature of ETS schemes when a few posts back you were more or less denying that they were a problem:-)

  54. #54 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    Dave stranage that you continue to outright lie. Seek help Dave your cognition is suffering.

  55. #55 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    Chris this interaction with you seem to be deteriorating. For example your response @152 is more about word games than addressing the evidence I was presenting of corruption.

    And I’m struggling to see how you can justify writing off the point that:

    >Europe’s criminal intelligence agency, said that as much as 90 percent of the entire market volume on emissions exchanges was caused by fraudulent activity

    Especially when this is linked a systemic problem, which has not been solved.

    Then when commenting on this observation:

    >This up to 90% of trades. This is bad.

    Your response is “*Your emotive language shows you’ve been sucked in by Green party hype.*

    Wow Chris, “bad” seems an appropriate discription for the corruption of up to 90% of market volume trades in the EU- ETS.

    Your comparison of the carbon credits with money should bring comparisons with the GFC, derivatives and banking failure that that I compared earlier including the printing of trillions in “quantitative easing”. But even worse, the examples of rorting in the ETS have less checks and are less auditable than money, and are more ripe for fruad.

    The rest of your response is empty opinion in the face of the evidence I provided. You avoided addressing the bredth of evidence of rorting that were both predicatable and then occured.

    You also failed to address the logic that cheap unaccredited (rort prone) import permits plus free permits to the biggest polluters combine to undermine change in the biggest polluters.

    Abusing the Greens and snipeing at Garnuat don’t make you right. And it certainly dosn’t help your cause when you set aside and ignore evidence of fruad.

  56. #56 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    >Good luck to the Greens if they can help the ALP pass some carbon pricing mechanism after the next election. I just hope they don’t place too much importance on ideological purity as they did last time.

    Ideological purity = requiring basic fraud checks and a system where the worst polluters in the world such as our Al smelters are not subsidized (with both cheap electricity and permits) to shield them from change and thus support them to keep polluting at the highest rate in the world.

  57. #57 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    >Good luck to the Greens if they can help the ALP pass some carbon pricing mechanism after the next election. I just hope they don’t place too much importance on ideological purity as they did last time.

    Ideological purity = requiring basic fruad checks and a system where the worst polluters in the world such as our Al smelters are not subsidized (with both cheap electricity and permits) to shield them from change and thus support them to keep polluting at the highest rate in the world.

  58. #58 Vince Whirlwind
    May 20, 2010

    El Gordo,

    Juvenal, writing during the 1st Century AD, talks about ice on the Tiber in winter.

    This corresponds perfectly with Tony “I don’t always tell the truth” Abbott’s “Roman Warm Period”.

    We therefore have two problems with Abbott’s nonsense:

    — This supposed “Roman warm period” was – in Rome at least – quite cold.

    — The relevance of the climate of 1stC AD Rome to the current warming climate isn’t clear.

  59. #59 Vince Whirlwind
    May 20, 2010

    oops, wrong thread. I think…

  60. #60 Fran Barlow
    May 20, 2010

    MattB said:

    There is still a chance that the super tax will turn out ok, but only if Garnaut (7:30 report tonight) is correct in that the mining companies are wrong and it has just been poorly explained. If the mining companies are right and ALP have released their second dud policy on the back of ignoring an expert report they commissioned, then this super tax will hopefully get dumped/amended.

    That wouldn’t be right MattB. The second policy was from a ereport they commissioned and it is fundamentally a rational tax. We should reject the special pleading of the mining lobby much as we (but not the government) did over the ETS.

  61. #61 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    MattB [your reckoning](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2529950) that:

    >*it was politically important for Rudd to strike a bipartisan [Lib-ALP) deal, and he was not prepared to look like he was selling out for [what is caricatured as] “rabid greens ideology”

    is supported by [revelations from an ALP insider](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2520996):

    >saying “Kevin was crystal clear from the start – the Greens couldn’t be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme.”

    So it was not about the quality, workability, nor robustness of the CPRS. Rudd was focused in positioning the ALP with the Libs and apart from the Greens.

    The result being:

    * an ETS that is highly susceptible to fraud (given the incentives for dodgy credits and the government’s refusal to require accreditation of import credits or even a floor price on credits);

    * a mechanism overly weighted to import of credits, (the cheapest being more like the useless ones);

    * and hence export of potential new sustainable industry and jobs (assuming the market is not riddled with fruad);

    * massive free credits to the worst polluters, shielding them from incentive to change (even if fruad does not dominate the pricing- the reason is they are doubly subsidised);

    * thus unnecessarily high cost are past onto the public (that is if emission cuts are achievable in the system) given that the public cost, under a workable system, would require them covering the free permits plus the cheap electricity that double subsidises the worst industries;

    * hence we for-go good sustainable jobs by over reliance on importing credits, we overcharge the public, we sustain the worst of our polluters at massive cost, at this is the good news. The bad news is that despite this the abatement could be illusory if the system corrupted by dodgy credits.

    * This is all done in the hope of a weak target based on 2000 emission levels, so then hopefully in 5 or 10 years the government says to the public, how about we crank up this overcostly, poor performing, rort ridden piece of junk a bit further. What do you reckon the public response would be? A fraction more might begin to wonder if “maybe climate change isn’t the worst thing”?

    Alternatively we could demand the basic integrity of the system at its inception, by: accreditation of permits, or a floor price on carbon, or a cap on the ratio of import credits, or scaling back the double subsidies to the worst polluters. Yet the government appears to have refused to come around on any of these. Who has the “ideological purity”?

  62. #62 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    MattB [your reckoning](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2529950) that:

    >*it was politically important for Rudd to strike a bipartisan [Lib-ALP) deal, and he was not prepared to look like he was selling out for [what is caricatured as] “rabid greens ideology”

    is supported by [revelations from an ALP insider](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2520996):

    >saying “Kevin was crystal clear from the start – the Greens couldn’t be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme.”

    So it was not about the quality, workability, nor robustness of the CPRS. Rudd was focused in positioning the ALP with the Libs and apart from the Greens.

    The result being:

    * an ETS that is highly susceptible to fruad (given the incentives for dodgy credits and the government’s refusal to require accreditation of import credits or even a floor price on credits);

    * a mechanism overly weighted to import of credits, (the cheapest of which are more like the useless ones);

    * and hence export of new sustainable industry and jobs (assuming the market is not riddled with fruad);

    * massive free credits to the worst polluters, shielding them from incentive to change (even if fruad does not dominate the pricing- the reason is they are doubly subsidised);

    * thus unnecessarily high cost are past onto the public (if emission cuts are achievable in the system) given that the public cost, under a workable system, would require them covering the free permits plus the cheap brown coal fired electricity that double subsidises the worst industries;

    * hence we for go good sustainable jobs by over reliance on importing credits, we overcharge the public, we sustain the worst of our polluters at massive cost, at this is the good news. The bad news is that despite this the abatement could be illusory if the system corrupted by dodgy credits.

    * This is all done in the hope of a weak target based on 2000 emission levels, so then hopefully in 5 or 10 years the government says to the public, how about we crank up this overcostly, poor performing, rort ridden piece of junk a bit further. What do you reckon the response would be?

    Or we could demand the basic integrity of the system at its inception, by: accreditation of permits, or a floor price on carbon, or a cap on the ratio of import credits, or scaling back the double subsidies to the worst polluters. Yet the government appears to have refused to come around on any of these. Who has the “ideological purity”?

  63. #63 jakerman
    May 20, 2010

    This is all done in the hope of a weak target based on 2000 emission levels, so then hopefully in 5 or 10 years the government says to the public, how about we crank up this overcostly, poor performing, rort ridden piece of junk a bit further.

    What do you reckon the public response would be? A fraction more might begin to wonder if “maybe climate change isn’t the worst thing”?

  64. #64 Chris O'Neill
    May 21, 2010

    jakerman:

    Especially when this is linked a systemic problem, which has not been solved.

    What are you talking about? THE TAX EVASION PROBLEM WAS SOLVED.

    This is your problem. You won’t consider the arguments at all. You just endlessly repeat the same assertions over and over again. The assertions are just Green party rhetoric. Pardon me for being completely unconvinced by substance-free rhetoric.

    I have another question. Exactly what carbon price have the Greens achieved?

  65. #65 jakerman
    May 21, 2010

    >What are you talking about? THE TAX EVASION PROBLEM WAS SOLVED.

    Chris, the problem is corruption, and on a superficial and specific level [read this](http://euobserver.com/885/29132):

    >According to a Europol official, the scam is very far from having been shut down in other member states. Germany in particular has a “huge problem.”

    On a broader structural level read this:

    >One Europol official, Rafael Rondelez, who was involved with the investigation said that the “missing trader” scam can happen to any good, particularly high-value items with high rates of taxation, such as carbon credits.

    >What makes the ETS such a beguiling enticement for criminals, he said, is that the item being traded – a carbon credit – is intangible.

    >”It makes it easier for fraudsters because it’s an intangible good. Before, goods actually had to be transported from one member state to another. You had to prove that goods were really being transported. With this, it’s just the click of a mouse.”

    >”It’s an incredibly lucrative target for criminals,” he added, warning that there are other aspects of the ETS that are creaky.

    The problems with corruption have certainly not been solved, as also indicated with the repeating [HCF-23 problem](http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/459046/lets_stop_people_scamming_billions_from_the_carbon_market.html).

    “Beyond the missing trader scam, the ETS is attractive to fraudsters because in order to trade in EUAs [European Union Allowances] you have to register your company, but there are no strong regulations or checking principles as there is in banking to prevent such activities as money laundering.”

  66. #66 jakerman
    May 21, 2010

    Project much? You’ve been relentless with your ignoring the evidence (case in point above) yet accusing others of your own folly. How many time have you played the ideology card and the political rhetoric card whistle ingoring the evidence that contradicts your own rhetoric. Case in point [your claims of ideological purity](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2531749).

    >I have another question. Exactly what carbon price have the Greens achieved?

    Here goes the tired old record with the same well answered question. Chris its a dud question because the CPRS is no where near the cuts necessary, and your preference method of yielding to the crap CPRS will predictably take us further away from where we need to be for the reasons stated [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2531749) and [here](hhttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2531764):

    >This is all done in the hope of a weak target based on 2000 emission levels, so then hopefully in 5 or 10 years the government says to the public, how about we crank up this over-costly, poor performing, rort ridden piece of junk a bit further.

    >What do you reckon the public response would be? A fraction more might begin to wonder if “maybe climate change isn’t the worst thing”?

    Not a cleaver nor forward thinking strategy Chris to hang the ultimate outcome of the issue on the shallow short-term question that you have chosen. Lift your eyes a little further into the future.

  67. #67 Chris O'Neill
    May 21, 2010

    jakerman:

    What are you talking about? THE TAX EVASION PROBLEM WAS SOLVED.

    Chris, the problem is corruption, and on a superficial and specific level read this:

    According to a Europol official, the scam is very far from having been shut down in other member states. Germany in particular has a “huge problem.”

    That was last December. They are hardly likely to let tax evasion go on indefinitely. And policemen usually like to hype up the likelihood of crime. And you keep ignoring the fact that there is no need to put tax on emissions permits in the first place. Your whole attitude is totally negative and has achieved absolutely nothing but an ongoing zero carbon price (which is the same as nothing). You’re just assuming that because there was a tax evasion problem that it is impossible to solve. I can only presume that your attitude is politically motivated.

    there are no strong regulations or checking principles as there is in banking to prevent such activities as money laundering.

    And of course, there is a law of physics that prevents setting up strong regulations or checking principles, isn’t there? Sure.

    You’ve been relentless with your ignoring the evidence

    You’ve been relentless in ignoring my arguments beginning from here.

    I have another question. Exactly what carbon price have the Greens achieved?

    Here goes the tired old record with the same well answered question.

    It is not the same question. Why don’t you pay attention and answer it? In fact I’ll give you an answer that you might like to try and we’ll see how you go. How about: Exactly the same as under the worthless ETS.

    You can then prove that permits under the ETS would necessarily be free.

  68. #68 Ken Fabos
    May 21, 2010

    It’s very dismaying to think a would-be Prime Minister prefers to ignore the abundant good quality scientific advice at his disposal and get his advice on this from a geologist turned mining company director who is enriching himself by telling people what they want to hear. Unlike the current Prime Minister who gives lip service to the quality scientific advice at his disposal whilst having done his best to negotiate away the woefully inadequate emissions reduction policy and blame the LibNats and Greens for his own failures!

    I find it hard to blame the Greens for the complete failure of mainstream politics on this issue; it’s way past time we had true bipartisan policy on climate change. Having an opposition that expects to solve this issue by the power of disbelief is bad enough but when they actually encourage and promote climate science denialism for the sake of short term votes and the short term profitabity of industries that are doing us long term harm is worse.

    By regulation, punitive taxation, threats of lawsuits and prohibitive insurance costs, the fossil fuel industry has to be curtailed and they should be on notice that they don’t have a long term future and will face punishment for the harm they knowingly cause. If people think we can successfully maintain the ongoing profitabity and viability of the fossil fuel industry whilst simultaneously getting substantial emissions reductions I think they’re delusional. Which brings us full circle to Labor and it’s faith in Carbon Capture and Storage – the ‘solution’ that even the fossil fuel interests don’t want to invest in. And why should they when true bipartisan mainstream politics continues to fully support the ongoing expansion of fossil fuel extraction?

  69. #69 Fran Barlow
    May 21, 2010

    Chris

    It’s hardly fair to blame the Greens for the want of a carbon price when the government refused point plank to negotiate one that was meaningful.

    A meaningless carbon price is the same as no carbon price at all, unless one is simply playing at semantics. Worse yet, a derisory and pork-barrelling scheme, which is what the CPRS was, invites ridicule of all its supporters. The ALP can afford to be ridiculed for being too close to the polluter-lobby, but the Greens cannot, which, matters of principle aside, was a compelling reason for them to turn their noses up.

    They know that on the other side of the election, this matter will be revisited, and when that happens, they want to be in the strongest possible position to bargain. I support that.

  70. #70 jakerman
    May 21, 2010

    Chris you have claimed there that corruption has been solved by pointing to one aspect of corruption and saying that surely it must have been solved by now.

    In the mean time you ignored the [broad structural problems identified](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2532551), and evidence of [recurring problems](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2532551).

    Picking out one problem and saying that you hope it has now been fixed does not address the broad structural issues that are both: a) predictable based on the nature of trading ethereal derivative like products; and b) also identified in multiple form in practice; and c) recurring despite effort of correction.

    Why dismiss these problems Chris? Instead of shooting the messenger I advise you would be better off supporting those who are trying to shore up the system again the predictable and experienced problems.

    The goal after all is to meet scientific based targets and where not going to get their if the public lose faith in a mechanism that is corrupted, weight down with unnecessary expenses and found to have multiple problems of rorting.

    >And of course, there is a law of physics that prevents setting up strong regulations or checking principles, isn’t there? Sure.

    Since when did the non physical (such as claimed intentions) need to obey the laws of physics? I again refer you to the derivatives trading that is an order of magnitude larger than the global GDP. I again refer you to money being created out of thin air in non-physical bubble that burst and require further “quantitative easing”.

    Again, why bash those who are seeking [close loopholes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2531749), I urge you to instead support these effort in the interest of well functioning efficient system that will in the medium term be attractive to voters rather than turn voters off when the time comes to raise our targets to a more meaningful level.

  71. #71 Nathan
    May 21, 2010

    Chris,

    Your constant diatribe against the Greens is irrational, and shows you don’t really understand how the Parliament works. They haven’t really stopped the ALP doing anything. If the ALP were serious, they’d call a double dissolutin election and pass whatever they want – remember in a DD election both houses sit together and vote once of the Bills the ALP chooses. With the ALP’s huge majority in the Lower House they could pass whatever they like.

    The Greens know this, so there is no point in them siging up for the Labor-Liberal version of the ETS. That is the bare minimum that will happen. And it WILL happen. The only way it won’t happen is if the Govt goes to the polls in a normal election whereupon the Greens will most likely get the balance of power after July 2011 (when the half Senate is changed).

    Loabor can either have a DD and get THEIR legislation passed in August 2010, or get a Labor-Green Bill passed in August 2011.

    It’s Labor’s choice.

  72. #72 jakerman
    May 22, 2010

    >You’ve been relentless in ignoring my arguments beginning from here.

    Chris I began answering your arguments point by point (until far later on, when as I stated: your points were becoming what I thought to be either a) word games, or b) empty opinion. If you think I have ignored a substantive point please raise it, as I re-raised points that I believed you had not addressed.

  73. #73 R Mitchell
    May 22, 2010

    The RWP and MWP were an accepted part of consensus science prior to the hockey stick and were part of IPCC reports 1 and 2.
    It was generally accepted that the current warm period was similar to those (with the holocene optimum about 2deg C warmer.
    Therefore Abbots claim that it was significantly warmer than today is not supportable.

    As for wine as proxy for temp, the varieties grown in burgundy/champagne are the same as was grown during the MWP, they could regularly grow table wine in champagne then, but would still struggle now except for the warmest of vintages.

    Of course prior warm periods do not falsify CAGW, However the observation of declining water vapour does! Strange that declining concentration of the dominant greenhouse gas is ignored by the entire climate community

  74. #74 Chris O'Neill
    May 22, 2010

    you have claimed there that corruption has been solved by pointing to one aspect of corruption

    Don’t be a hypocrite by saying I pointed to one aspect of corruption (tax evasion) when you were the one who pointed to it first.

    and saying that surely it must have been solved by now.

    So you think the governments involved are stupid and they let tax evasion go on indefinitely.

    And you keep ignoring the fact that tax on permits is completely unnecessary anyway.

    In the mean time you ignored the broad structural problems identified,

    Wrong. Your “broad structural problem” is high rates of taxation on an intangible good. As I’ve said over and over again and you continue to ignore, intangibility does not necessarily make measurability unreliable, e.g. money, and the taxation doesn’t need to exist at all. Your policeman’s opinion of what constitutes a “broad structural problem” is just a policeman’s opinion. I’m sorry but that simply doesn’t amount to much.

    and evidence of recurring problems

    I haven’t been able to get you to even understand why the tax evasion issue is not a genuine issue so there’s probably little point in trying to get you to understand anything else. In any case your citation contradicts your opinion about carbon markets. It does not say carbon markets should be closed down just to prevent HFC-23 pollution. It says:

    “While there is a need for carbon market offsets”

    I’m now quite used to you not understanding the issues here. You are obviously hidebound to political ideology.

    I advise you would be better off supporting those who are trying to shore up the system again the predictable and experienced problems.

    The irony’s incredible. You complain about a system that you say is hard to regulate, and then tell me to support those those who are trying to shore up a system. I should be telling you to support those who are trying to shore up ETS.

    And of course, there is a law of physics that prevents setting up strong regulations or checking principles, isn’t there? Sure.

    Since when did the non physical (such as claimed intentions) need to obey the laws of physics?

    You completely missed the point. There is absolutely nothing, laws of physics or otherwise, preventing setting up strong regulations or checks for ETS or credits.

    I again refer you to the derivatives trading that is an order of magnitude larger than the global GDP.

    What does this have to do with regulating credit measurement?

    I again refer you to money being created out of thin air in non-physical bubble that burst and require further “quantitative easing”.

    What does this have to do with regulating credit measurement?

    revelations from an ALP insider:
    saying “Kevin was crystal clear from the start – the Greens couldn’t be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme.”
    So it was not about the quality, workability, nor robustness of the CPRS. Rudd was focused in positioning the ALP with the Libs and apart from the Greens.

    Maybe he’s not silly. Positioning with the Greens was absolutely pointless because they couldn’t win the vote. In that case he was better off having nothing to do with the Greens at all.

    The result being:
    an ETS that is highly susceptible to fruad

    In your and the Greens opinion

    and hence export of new sustainable industry and jobs

    The issue should primarily be about emission reduction.

    massive free credits to the worst polluters,

    The politics of avoiding compensation cannot be avoided. Just on the resources tax, Abbott said he will oppose it opposition, rescind it in government, fight it all the way. This is nothing compared with an uncompensated carbon tax. You are out-of-touch with reality.

    shielding them from incentive to change

    In your and the Greens opinion.

    under a workable system, would require them covering the free permits plus the cheap brown coal fired electricity that double subsidises the worst industries;

    We haven’t been able to stop the electricity subsidies in more than 25 years. If you think you can stop them at the same time as putting a new tax on them then you are crazy.

    This is all done in the hope of a weak target based on 2000 emission levels,

    20% per person reduction in 10 years is not a weak target.

    overcostly, poor performing, rort ridden piece of junk

    In your and the Greens opinion.

  75. #75 Nathan
    May 22, 2010

    Chris

    [ revelations from an ALP insider: saying “Kevin was crystal clear from the start – the Greens couldn’t be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme.” So it was not about the quality, workability, nor robustness of the CPRS. Rudd was focused in positioning the ALP with the Libs and apart from the Greens.

    Maybe he’s not silly. Positioning with the Greens was absolutely pointless because they couldn’t win the vote. In that case he was better off having nothing to do with the Greens at all.]

    Well, maybe, just maybe you’ll stop with the stupid “It’s the Greens fault rubbish you were spinning before. :)

  76. #76 jakerman
    May 22, 2010

    Chris I’m not going to address your word games, your claims about hypocrisy, and several other points, other than to say I believe you need re-read my last few posts as you were way off the mark.

    It takes too much time set people straight on each detail that I disagree with. And I find that doing so is a discretion from the key point of getting to where we need to get. So I’ll cut down to the core issues:

    >* intangibility does not necessarily make measurability unreliable, e.g. money, and the taxation doesn’t need to exist at all. *

    Except that ETS have demonstrated themselves has highly rortable even with current low targets. And closest thing that exists to trading claimed intentions are the derivatives type markets which have also shown to be highly rortable, with failed regulation in the finance markets, and continued bailout of bubbles. Transpose that into our ETS and it equals high risk of massive costs burden on the public and illusory abatement, which intern translates to loss of public support for abatement schemes.

    BTW Chris instead of suggesting that the police investigating ETS fruad don’t understand the problems which they are dealing with, stop to consider that the people looking at this might actually understand it more than you know?

    And I need to reinterate, why shoot the messenger? Why not instead work to [sure up the system](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-25317499) to secure good performance and hence sustained public acceptance?

    >*It does not say carbon markets should be closed down just to prevent HFC-23 pollution.*

    Chris your beating up on people who wanted basic fruad protection, not shutting down carbon markets. The “ideological purists” you seem to be arguing with are strawmen. You are actually arguing with people willing to try and make a flawed system work.

    [Chris I note that via this strawman diversion you’ve once again not addressed the substantive recurring issue exemplified by HCF-23.]

    >*There is absolutely nothing, laws of physics or otherwise, preventing setting up strong regulations or checks for ETS or credits.*

    If that is the case why are you so against those trying to implement basic protections, such as permit accreditation to catch problems (such as those exemplified by HCFC-23)?

    Given the list of [predictable reasons](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2531745) for the current CPRS to undermine public belief or taste in further cuts; and given the recurrent problems with current ETS, and given your acknowledgement of the need for “*strong regulations or checks* why do you dismiss the views of those in the business of [catching breakers of regulations](http://euobserver.com/885/29132)?

    >What makes the ETS such a beguiling enticement for criminals, he said, is that the item being traded – a carbon credit – is intangible.

    Why dismiss his views on this structural problem?

    >”It makes it easier for fraudsters because it’s an intangible good. Before, goods actually had to be transported from one member state to another. You had to prove that goods were really being transported. With this, it’s just the click of a mouse.”

    He’s looked at the problem and found this to be a relevant point.

    >”It’s an incredibly lucrative target for criminals,” he added, warning that there are other aspects of the ETS that are creaky.

    >”Beyond the missing trader scam, the ETS is attractive to fraudsters because in order to trade in EUAs [European Union Allowances] you have to register your company, but there are no strong regulations or checking principles as there is in banking to prevent such activities as money laundering.”

    So Banks are hard to regulate, yet the ETS has less regulation. Why not learn from someone who is looking that the vulnerability of the system? Why not use his knowledge to improve the integrity of the system?

    Instead of beating on the Greens and me and others for pushing for the regulation (that you recognize as important) why not instead urge the government to adopt one of these points: accreditation of permits or a floor price on carbon? Or both?

  77. #77 jakerman
    May 22, 2010

    >20% per person reduction in 10 years is not a weak target.

    Agreed, but the Government’s target of %5 reduction by 2020 (based on 2000 levels) is very modest indeed.

  78. #78 Chris O'Neill
    May 22, 2010
    20% per person reduction in 10 years is not a weak target.

    Agreed, but the Government’s target of %5 reduction by 2020 (based on 2000 levels) is very modest indeed.

    It’s the same thing. You’re ignoring population growth.

  79. #79 jakerman
    May 22, 2010

    10 years population growth is going to account for 15% of of emissions?

    It that is true its an even bigger job, and its even more important for any ETS be high functioning, efficient, and appropriately regulated.

  80. #80 Chris O'Neill
    May 23, 2010

    10 years population growth is going to account for 15% of of emissions?

    Why don’t you check with the ABS instead of remaining ignorant for a change?

  81. #81 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    Nice touch Chris, I note you declined to answer [this question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2535604)?

    >Instead of beating on the Greens and me and others for pushing for the regulation (that you recognize as important) why not instead urge the government to adopt one of these points: accreditation of permits or a floor price on carbon? Or both?

    And the point is magnified, more population increases challenge and strain put on an ETS. Thus increasing the need to both high economic efficiency and appropriate regulation.

  82. #82 Chris O'Neill
    May 23, 2010
    intangibility does not necessarily make measurability unreliable, e.g. money, and the taxation doesn’t need to exist at all.

    Except that ETS have demonstrated themselves has highly rortable even with current low targets.

    Your “demonstration” was not much of problem at all. Countries that decided to do something got rid of the problem. If this is your best example of rorting ETS then your overall argument must be very weak.

    And closest thing that exists to trading claimed intentions are the derivatives type markets

    I’m tired of your bare-faced assertions. Can you leave them out please.

    And I need to reinterate, why shoot the messenger?

    The Greens are not just a messenger. They are partly responsible for the existing zero carbon price.

    and hence sustained public acceptance

    So your objective is to manipulate the public?

    It does not say carbon markets should be closed down just to prevent HFC-23 pollution.

    Chris your beating up on people who wanted basic fruad protection, not shutting down carbon markets.

    Oh so they didn’t want to shut down carbon markets, they just wanted to stop one from being set up in the first place. Oh that makes SO MUCH difference. With logic like that you’ll go a long way.

    You are actually arguing with people willing to try and make a flawed system work.

    Yeah, they tried to make it work alright, by making sure it never came into existence at all.

    [Chris I note that via this strawman diversion you’ve once again not addressed the substantive recurring issue exemplified by HCF-23.]

    The recurring issue, which doesn’t mean our trashed-by-the-Greens-and-Tony-Abbott ETS won’t work is simply that HFC-23 generation is unregulated in many countries. Tell me how your carbon tax is going to make one iota of difference to that.

    If that is the case why are you so against those trying to implement basic protections

    I’m not against them because they are trying to implement basic protections, I’m against their thwarting of action on this issue which is based on an overwhelmingly negative attitude.

    So Banks are hard to regulate, yet the ETS has less regulation. Why not learn from someone who is looking that the vulnerability of the system? Why not use his knowledge to improve the integrity of the system?

    What system? The proposed system was trashed by the Greens and Tony Abbott before it had even begun.

    By the way, you have avoided comparing the carbon price we will now have with the carbon price we would have had with the ETS. I’m not surprised you want to avoid mentioning something that is embarrasing to the Greens.

  83. #83 Chris O'Neill
    May 23, 2010

    Thus increasing the need to both high economic efficiency

    The irony being that the person saying this prefers a system (carbon tax) with a lower economic efficiency than the alternative (ETS).

  84. #84 jakerman
    May 23, 2010

    >Your “demonstration” was not much of problem at all. Countries that decided to do something got rid of the problem. If this is your best example of rorting ETS then your overall argument must be very weak.

    You repeat the same fallacy Chris, you select the superficial and ignore the structural. [Note again you decline to address the recurring problems exemplified by HCF-23.]

    >I’m tired of your bare-faced assertions. Can you leave them out please.

    You your self related the intangible nature of ETS to regulating money. And my view is consistent with the those of the Europol official who liken ETS to intangible banking (except with even poorer regulation.

    >*So your objective is to manipulate the public?*

    My my Chris, your case must be disintegrating if you resort this this misrepresentation.

    >Oh so they didn’t want to shut down carbon markets, they just wanted to stop one from being set up in the first place. Oh that makes SO MUCH difference. With logic like that you’ll go a long way.

    Wow, you’ve gone all out tonight Chris. Unlike some the Greens were very supporting of the ETS in the beging and largely supporting of the Garnaut model.

    Again Chris, what dose it say about your argument that you now rely of such misrepresentation?

    >Tell me how your carbon tax is going to make one iota of difference to that.

    Happy to debate that question, but its a distraction from this one.

    >I’m not against them because they are trying to implement basic protections, I’m against their thwarting of action on this issue which is based on an overwhelmingly negative attitude.

    An attitude that you imagine based on dismissing the demonstrated rorting, shooting the messenger, and shooting those who try to appropriately regulate the system to [make it workable](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2535568) in the face of past experience, intangibly issues and recurring problems, and the obvious motives to rort.

    >What system? The proposed system was trashed by the Greens and Tony Abbott before it had even begun.

    A veiw you fabricate by ignoring the actual demands put by the Greens, am I debating Dave Andrews?

    >By the way, you have avoided comparing the carbon price we will now have with the carbon price we would have had with the ETS. I’m not surprised you want to avoid mentioning something that is embarrasing to the Greens.

    As I said I’m Happy to debate this issue but its a distraction from this one. I sense you want to change the topic.

  85. #85 Chris O'Neill
    May 24, 2010
    Your “demonstration” was not much of problem at all. Countries that decided to do something got rid of the problem. If this is your best example of rorting ETS then your overall argument must be very weak.

    You repeat the same fallacy Chris, you select the superficial and ignore the structural.

    So your prime example was superficial. Pardon me for being underwhelmed. As I said, if this is your best example then your argument is very weak. You are obviously incapable of understanding the importance of your prime example.

    [Note again you decline to address the recurring problems exemplified by HCF-23.]

    I note that you fail to notice my comment on that issue so I’ll write it again:

    The recurring issue, which doesn’t mean our trashed-by-the-Greens-and-Tony-Abbott ETS won’t work is simply that HFC-23 generation is unregulated in many countries. Tell me how your carbon tax is going to make one iota of difference to that.

    And closest thing that exists to trading claimed intentions are the derivatives type markets

    I’m tired of your bare-faced assertions. Can you leave them out please.

    You your self related the intangible nature of ETS to regulating money.

    Changing the point as usual. You are quite a dishonest debater.

    So your objective is to manipulate the public?

    My my Chris, your case must be disintegrating if you resort this this misrepresentation.

    It’s just a logical conclusion from what you said. If the logical conclusion is pretty embarrassing then what you said to begin with was also.

    Chris your beating up on people who wanted basic fruad protection, not shutting down carbon markets.

    Oh so they didn’t want to shut down carbon markets, they just wanted to stop one from being set up in the first place. Oh that makes SO MUCH difference. With logic like that you’ll go a long way.

    Wow, you’ve gone all out tonight Chris.

    What a hypocrite.

    Unlike some the Greens were very supporting of the ETS in the beging and largely supporting of the Garnaut model.

    Who cares what they said they were in the beginning. The bottom line is they didn’t want to give the ETS any chance whatsoever. Absolutely zilch. Kill it stone dead before it had any chance.

    Tell me how your carbon tax is going to make one iota of difference to that.

    Happy to debate that question, but its a distraction from this one.

    Oh so it’s OK for you to complain about me not dealing with the HCF-23 issue but then when I start doing that you say it’s a distraction! What an appalling hypocrite you are.

    I’m not against them because they are trying to implement basic protections, I’m against their thwarting of action on this issue which is based on an overwhelmingly negative attitude.

    An attitude that you imagine based on dismissing the demonstrated rorting

    I’m talking about the overwhelmingly negative attitude of the Greens. And when are you going to stop the garbage about the historical and irrelevant rorting?

    What system? The proposed system was trashed by the Greens and Tony Abbott before it had even begun.

    A veiw you fabricate by ignoring the actual demands put by the Greens

    I can help it if I’m telling the truth and you think the truth is a “fabrication”.

    By the way, you continue to avoid comparing the carbon price we will now have with the carbon price we would have had with the ETS. It must be acutely embarrassing to you and the Greens to contemplate this point. The Greens have made a huge environmental mistake siding with the anti-scientists although they may get some political benefit. Their vote has achieved nothing but delay, exactly what the anti-scientists want. Even if the ETS is not certain to achieve anything, the chance of achieving something is wiser than the certainty of achieving nothing.

  86. #86 jakerman
    May 24, 2010

    >So your prime example was superficial

    No Chris my [superficial example](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2532551) was one simple example of the power of structural flaws:

    >>*What are you talking about? THE TAX EVASION PROBLEM WAS SOLVED.*
    >Chris, the problem is corruption, and on a superficial and specific level read this:

    >*According to a Europol official, the scam is very far from having been shut down in other member states. Germany in particular has a “huge problem.”*

    >On a broader structural level read this:

    >*One Europol official, Rafael Rondelez, who was involved with the investigation said that the “missing trader” scam can happen to any good, particularly high-value items with high rates of taxation, such as carbon credits.

    >What makes the ETS such a beguiling enticement for criminals, he said, is that the item being traded – a carbon credit – is intangible.

    >”It makes it easier for fraudsters because it’s an intangible good. Before, goods actually had to be transported from one member state to another. You had to prove that goods were really being transported. With this, it’s just the click of a mouse.”

    >”It’s an incredibly lucrative target for criminals,” he added, warning that there are other aspects of the ETS that are creaky.

    Your error is to only tackle one partially solved superficial example rather than the underlying structural problems.

  87. #87 jakerman
    May 24, 2010

    The rest of your points are a continuation of shark jumping that you started last night. Come back when you’ve got some substance. I’ll re direct you [back to the point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2535568) that preceding your jumping of the shark. See if you can address [these points](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2535568) civilly.

    And perhaps contemplate why your responses took such an ugly turn at that point?

  88. #88 jakerman
    May 24, 2010

    >Your error is to only tackle one partially solved [managed] superficial example rather than the underlying structural problems.

  89. #89 Fran Barlow
    May 24, 2010

    Chris@185 claimed:

    Even if the ETS is not certain to achieve anything, the chance of achieving something is wiser than the certainty of achieving nothing.

    Please justify:

    a) the assertion that blocking the CPRS = certainty of achieving nothing

    AND

    b) the chance of achieving something (implicit: valuable) = passing the CPRS

    and disprove:

    c) passing the CPRS = high probability of achieving nothing in any meaningful time-frame

  90. #90 jakerman
    May 24, 2010

    In case not everyone has been driven away by mine and Chris’s interaction, I wanted to recommend this [easy to read pdf book](http://www.dhf.uu.se/critical_currents_no7.html) with some interesting details.

    I’ve not read it all, yet on first glance it reminded me of the superiority of the Germany’s direction action approach to SO2 compared to USA’s pollution trading.

  91. #91 Fran Barlow
    May 29, 2010

    Jakerman

    Given the discussion above this link to an article by Johann Hari in The Nation dealing with REDD credits and the idea that something is always better than nothing” may be of interest.

  92. #92 Dave Andrews
    May 29, 2010

    Jakerman,

    Wow, Chris O’Neill is dishonest just like me. Now Chris and I have never agreed on anything but it sure says something about your mindset if you go around accusing everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being dishonest!

  93. #93 jakerman
    May 29, 2010

    Dave my case regarding your dishonesty is greatly assisted by pointing to a sample of the the [manifold examples](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2525099).

    Another example is you claiming that I accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with me of being *dishonest*. That is so over the top and simply not supported by facts Dave. I do not see dishonesty in most disagreement I encounter. Even in the long exchange with Chris I believed he was sincere right up until he started relying on claims such as the Greens didn’t want a carbon market:

    >*Oh so they didn’t want to shut down carbon markets, they just wanted to stop one from being set up in the first place.*

    But even in that I don’t see intentional dishonesty but rather a rationalization. But with you Dave I’ve seen so much more. Is so consistent, and so unveiled. I also wonder wonder if its not a cognitive problem that lead to your consistent misrepresentations, and [making things up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be.php#comment-2367498).

    Glad that your are at least paying attention to what I am noticing about you Dave. Now you need to internalize and deal with your approach instead of trying to project the problem to a point that is external from you actions.

    Dave its [not just me who notices](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2526620) your approach.

    It is not healthy for you to be satisfied with continuing your dishonesty Dave. Seek help I fear your cognition is suffering.

  94. #94 Dave Andrews
    May 30, 2010

    jakerman,

    “Even in the long exchange with Chris I believed he was sincere right up until he started relying on claims such as the Greens didn’t want a carbon market”

    This sums you up exactly. Chris was ‘sincere’ until he said something you did not agree with. Then he became ‘dishonest’.

    You don’t like people who have a different point of view to yourself. You cannot accept that others can have and hold valid viewpoints that are not the same as yours. You need to grow up.

  95. #95 jakerman
    May 30, 2010

    Wrong Dave, I believe Chris sincere, and his contribution was consistant with that until he said something demonstrably false. At which point I pointed out the contary evidence he was ignoring.

    I don’t believe Chris is dishonest, more likely the snip and paste technique in used in high volume can lead to communication error or out of context rationalisation.

    On the contrary Dave your constant dishonesty [dominates your post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm.php#comment-2552765).

    Seek help Dave, life doesn’t need to be this ugly for you.

  96. #96 jakerman
    May 30, 2010

    BTW Dave do you deny your consistent dishonest behavior? That would be pretty hard for a well person to do with straight face given the evidence.

  97. #97 Dave Andrews
    May 31, 2010

    jakerman,

    I must admit many of your posts reduce me to tears – of laughter!

    Keep living in your ‘own world’ and ignore the real one around you.

  98. #98 jakerman
    May 31, 2010

    Poor Dave.

  99. #99 sHx
    June 2, 2010

    I just checked wikipedia for Roman Warm Period and it turns out there is no such thing. Proof again that Roman Warm Period is a denialist lie. Ahem!

  100. #100 Robert Murphy
    June 2, 2010

    “I just checked wikipedia for Roman Warm Period and it turns out there is no such thing. Proof again that Roman Warm Period is a denialist lie. Ahem!”

    That’s funny, I found it right here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L1_northiceland.gif

Current ye@r *