Andrew Bolt column flooded with deceit

Andrew Bolt liked the trick of pointing to the one part of a document that doesn’t mention floods and pretending that there is no mention of floods in the whole document so much that he did it again in his column:

The mantra was that global warming meant drought for us, and the 2007 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the Vatican of the warming faith – made no mention of more floods in Australia from rain.

I hope you spotted Bolt’s scam. The Synthesis Report summarises the WG1, WG2, and WG3 reports and only has four bullet points about Australia and NZ. It does say this:

Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in many regions, including some in which the mean rainfall is projected to decrease.

Is Australia one of those regions? If we look at the WG1 report we find:

A range of GCM and regional modelling studies in recent years have identified a tendency for daily rainfall extremes to increase under enhanced greenhouse conditions in the Australian region (e.g., Hennessy et al., 1997; Whetton et al., 2002; McInnes et al., 2003; Watterson and Dix, 2003; Hennessy et al., 2004b; Suppiah et al., 2004; Kharin and Zwiers, 2005). Commonly, return periods of extreme rainfall events halve in late 21st-century simulations. This tendency can apply even when average rainfall is simulated to decrease, but not necessarily when this decrease is marked (see Timbal, 2004). Recently, Abbs (2004) dynamically downscaled to a resolution of 7 km current and enhanced greenhouse cases of extreme daily rainfall occurrence in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland as simulated by the CSIRO GCM. The downscaled extreme events for a range of return periods compared well with observations and the enhanced greenhouse simulations for 2040 showed increases of around 30% in magnitude, with the 1-in-40 year event becoming the 1-in-15 year event.

Or you could look in WG2 on impacts

Increases in extreme
daily rainfall are likely where average rainfall either increases or
decreases slightly. For example, the intensity of the 1-in-20 year
daily rainfall event is likely to increase by up to 10% in parts of
South Australia by the year 2030 (McInnes et al., 2002), by 5 to
70% by the year 2050 in Victoria (Whetton et al., 2002), by up
to 25% in northern Queensland by 2050 (Walsh et al., 2001) and
by up to 30% by 2040 in south-east Queensland (Abbs, 2004).
In NSW, the intensity of the 1-in-40 year event increases by 5 to
15% by 2070 (Hennessy et al., 2004).

And

For the Albert-Logan
Rivers system near the Gold Coast in Queensland, each 1%
increase in rainfall intensity is likely to produce a 1.4% increase
in peak runoff (Abbs et al., 2000). However, increases in runoff
and flooding are partially offset by a reduction in average rainfall,
which reduces soil wetness prior to storms. A high-resolution
atmospheric model of storm events coupled with a non-linear
flood event model has been applied to flooding around the Gold
Coast caused by tropical cyclone Wanda in 1974. If the same event
occurred in 2050 with a 10 to 40 cm rise in mean sea level, the
number of dwellings and people affected is likely to increase by
3 to 18% (Abbs et al., 2000).

Bolt continues:

The Rudd government was also sucked in, and told Murray-Darling farmers they’d have their water rights cut to “save” our rivers. Here’s then-Climate Change Minister Penny Wong in 2008:

“We know the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said by 2050 that Australia should expect around about a 25 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern part of the Australia.”

And the very next paragraph in WG2 predicted that increases in extreme daily rainfall were likely.

Bolt is so pleased with his trick that he repeats it again and again:

As Garnaut himself told the National Press Club about his influential report:

“It almost had an exciting title. When our team in Melbourne finished the draft of the draft a few weeks ago we held a naming competition and the winner by acclamation was No Pain, No Rain. [Laughter]“

What the Garnaut report said about impacts in Queensland:

Queensland’s coastal settlements are
anticipated to suffer extreme
infrastructure impacts from increased
storm surge and localised flash flooding.

Comments

  1. #1 zoot
    January 31, 2011

    Luke, any more straw and you’ll be able to set up as a stock food supplier.

  2. #2 Luke
    January 31, 2011

    Jakerman obviously learnt his discussion skills at Jo Nova – no content just ranting. Quelle horreur !

    The only reason Gillard has been elected is by do-gooder but not really serious chardonnay swilling urban greens – living among what they so detest. Earth Hour and changing the light bulbs is about it. But I guess that’s the price you have to pay.

    Chris – not misleading – to do anything serious you’ll need probably a 60%-70% cut. You’ll need everything you can get (and more).

  3. #3 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    >*Jakerman obviously learnt his discussion skills at Jo Nova – no content just ranting. Quelle horreur!*

    [Here is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3186894) the content, and [here is the vacuous](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3184270) the rant.

    Come back luke and try again when you’ve given up retreating to such fallacious tactics.

  4. #4 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    Speaking of learning discussion skills from Nova, compare [Stockholm Syndrome Luke's talking point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3183699):

    >*Good luck convincing people to pay a lot more for electricity in Australia for zero impact on global temperatures.*

    And:

    >*And in terms of us nobly hobbling ourselves – why should we? – so we hobble our economy for no ZERO climate gain.*

    And:

    >*will turning Australia off the coal-fired mains power outlet (NOW!) improve the damage outcome from ENSO*

    With [Monckton's current favorite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/the_australians_war_on_science_59.php):

    >*Cap and tax is as pointless as it is cruel. Australia accounts for 1.5 per cent of global carbon emissions. So if it cut its emissions, the warming forestalled would be infinitesimal.*

  5. #5 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    Here is some more content for Luke. Luke adopts [NewCorp culture war language](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3187926) to dis on people for not doing enough, saying:

    >*to do anything serious you’ll need probably a 60%-70% cut. You’ll need everything you can get (and more).*

    But apparently for Luke, “everything you can” does not include playing our rightful leadership role in pricing carbon:

    >*good luck convincing people to pay a lot more for electricity in Australia for zero impact on global temperatures. Look at them whinging about the flood levy. And you could turn the whole of Australia off at the mains and make ZERO difference.*

    For someone who claims we “need everything” we can get, why such a poor understanding and poor support for the most hopeful positive mechanism we’ve conceived? That being a global emissions reduction agreement. A requisite for such an agreement is leadership by the richest and worst polluters, responsible for the most per capita current and historical cumulative contributions.

    Luke’s [Monckton like](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3188194) undermining of the necessary steps for such an agreement seem puzzling. Game theory suggest that Australia’s strong leadership role is vital to the success of such a treaty.

    A price of $20 per tonne of CO2 will raise power bills by [less than the GST]( http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/08/05/more-on-abbott-and-carbon-taxes/). And a price of $40 per tonne would raise domestic power bills only 20-25%. And unlike the GST it would only rise produced goods in proportion to the their embedded dirty energy rather than being a flat tax like the GST.

    Why does Luke resort to mischaracterizing pricing carbon as:

    >*“turning Australia off the coal-fired mains power outlet (NOW!)”*

    And why does Luke try to scarily link the necessary leadership action for Australia (already taken by Many in Europe, many states in the USA and China) as:
    >*turn[ing] the whole of Australia off at the mains*

  6. #6 Luke
    January 31, 2011

    So Jakerman you’d like to piddle about making weeny little prunings here and there. And then you’ll sleep better. Grow up and do the math on what’s required to make a serious climate impact. No wonder “helpful” greenie ideologues like yourself are stuffing up the debate. I suppose you were one of the sillies at Earth Hour were you?

    “Game theory suggest that Australia’s strong leadership role is vital to the success of such a treaty.” Oh please – which uni class taught you that? There is NO global agreement – it’s in tatters.

    If you want to stop “polluting” reduce your own CO2 output – try holding your breath.

  7. #7 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    >*you’d like to piddle about making weeny little prunings here and there. And then you’ll sleep better. Grow up and do the math on what’s required to make a serious climate impact.*

    Ah haa!, Back to the fallacious strawman tactic. So when I point out the hypocritical nature of you dissing a carbon price you come back with a fabricated straw man pretending that I want even less than you!

    Come back and try again when you’v got some genuine content.

    Here is a guide if you do decide you’d like to add some content:

    >For someone who claims we “need everything” we can get, why such a poor understanding and poor support for the most hopeful positive mechanism we’ve conceived?

    >*There is NO global agreement – it’s in tatters.*

    Because countries like Australia are dragging the chain. Lukes solution? Strangle the best hope we’ve developed to drive structural change and adopt NewsCorp culture war language and Monckton talking points.

    Luke I think you need to give those Novarian numpties a break your game is really off. Perhaps you haven’t always retreated to fallacious arguments so consistently in the past?

  8. #8 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    BTW Luke, excising your fallacious strawman we are left with this:

    >*do the math on what’s required to make a serious climate impact.*

    Sounds like it might be good suggestion, perhaps you can kick us off by telling us:

    a) what your math tells you is required;

    b) how are we going to get there;

    c) why a price on carbon would impede what ever ‘b’ is;

    d) what benefit a price on carbon would give to ‘b’ and;

    e) repeat c and d but sub global mitigation agreement for carbon price.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    January 31, 2011

    Luke:

    Chris – not misleading – to do anything serious you’ll need probably a 60%-70% cut. You’ll need everything you can get (and more).

    Thank you for moving the goal posts. You have proven you were wrong.

  10. #10 MapleLeaf
    January 31, 2011

    Luke perpetuates yet another fallacy with this beauty:

    “If you want to stop “polluting” reduce your own CO2 output – try holding your breath.”

    Another “skeptic” fallacy that is refuted here.

    SkepticalScience.com, your one stop shop for debunking denialist canards, memes, distortions, disinformation and myths using science and facts.

  11. #11 Luke
    January 31, 2011

    Well what a bunch of chardonnay swilling greenies – playing little fringe games with carbon taxes. For ZERO improvement in climate outcomes. That’s ZERO – ZERO point ZERO – but hey game theory suggests we should all drop our pants. Happy enough and stupid enough to take unilateral action and stuff our economy while enjoying your public service jobs or dole cheques. How’s it feel to to waste your days on nonsense guys?

    And and and – this classic “Because countries like Australia are dragging the chain” – oh pullease – mate we don’t count as Wikileaks recently confirmed. Jeez – Obama just can’t wait to get here and get our opinion. ROFL !

  12. #12 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    Luke, I note that rather than go for a reply of content, you instead [dodge that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3188649), and opted to restate your misleading Monckton talking points, all wrapped up with you NewsCorp Newsspeak.

    Quite revealing Luke.

  13. #13 Gaz
    January 31, 2011

    What’s wrong with Chardonnay, trollboy?

  14. #14 Mike Pope
    January 31, 2011

    Luke @ 105 …. do the math on what’s required to make a serious climate impact.

    The top 20 greenhouse gas emitters (including Australia) were responsible for >80% of global emissions in 2007. All they have to do is reduce their emissions by 25% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. That would have an impact.

    The problem is lack of political will, refusal to adopt meaningful reduction targets or measures to enforce them. Oh, and apologists for Monckton, Plima and Ollie.

    I ldo hate inherent intellectual dishonesty don’t you Luke?

  15. #15 adelady
    January 31, 2011

    What would Autralia going to zero emissions do for the world at large?

    My memory tells me that Oz’s emissions are usually around 1.5% of total emissions. So we eliminate that. And that would be the same effect as taking 75% of the world’s planes out of the air. Air traffic emissions are about 2% of the world total.

    We’d think it was pretty impressive if someone organised that kind of reduction in airline industry emissions.

  16. #16 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    >*My memory tells me that Oz’s emissions are usually around 1.5% of total emissions. So we eliminate that.*

    Adelady, the figure sounds about right. But if Australia went to zero emissions it would mean all the richest and worst polluters had done so as well- as we’d only go so far as part of a global agreement.

    A more relevant questions (unless you are Monckton) is: what difference would it make if Australia joined European nations and leading US states by committing to significant cuts from now and pricing carbon to restructure markets?

    It would increase the possibility of a strong global agreement. It would cut our per capita emmissions to less than 4x China’s, and less than 10x India’s. Hence bringing close and readying these developing countries to join with there own cuts.

    And it would reduce the gap between Australia’s per capita emissions and those of leading Euro and US states, hence reduce the amount of freeloading we leverage. This would enable progressive states to make deeper cuts with greater leadership as they would no longer be economically disadvantaged to the current extent by Australia’s freeloading.

    Its a positive feedback cycle. Australia’s choice has great positive feedback effect which ever direction we choose.

  17. #17 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    Note, when I speak of economic disadvantage [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3190860), I am refereing to the restructuring transition period.

    This should not exclude the likelihood that leaders in restructuring will be at an advantage after the economic restructure.

  18. #18 Luke
    January 31, 2011

    How much climate damage did Kyoto save – zero !

    And how did Australia comply. The Australia clause. A one off swiftie by Queensland banning tree clearing. So essentially urbanites are bludging off landholders carbon stocks.

    Urban Australia has done diddly squat. And if they really knew what they’d have to give up – they wouldn’t want to. Unless of course someone can tell them how much climate improvement they’re going to get?

  19. #19 Wadard
    January 31, 2011

    It’s so good you call out Bolt’s deceit like that.

  20. #20 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    Luke, once again you dodge your own question and [my followp](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3188649).

    Your persistant avoidance is interesting.

    >*How much climate damage did Kyoto save – zero !*

    Wrong. Besides the actual carbon abated we also have the positive feedback from the leadership countries that I [descriebed above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3190860). Kudos to the leaders of this small first step, who acted despite the Bush-Howard aliance to undermine it.

    In such a positive feedback cycle the first steps are the hardest and give the smallest return. Credit to those who are making this more possible. And if we are going to make it we’ll just need to work around those who use fallacious logic and lose lose arguments.

    Read to address [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3190860) yet Luke?

  21. #21 "John"
    January 31, 2011

    Come on Luke. You never answered me. How do you think we should address global warming? What would be the best way to get a global agreement?

    You do, after all, think global warming is *real* and a *problem* so I’d like to hear your solutions.

  22. #22 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    Correction, in the above post I meant to link to [these question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3188649) that luke is avoiding.

  23. #23 Luke
    January 31, 2011

    Todays Peter Lewis column at abc.net.au

    “One thing is for sure. If politics becomes a zero-sum game, where the only consideration is “what’s in it for me?” then the role of government will continue to contract. And if the flood levy is a harbinger of things to come, it will leave all policy makers up the creek without a paddle.”

    So the climate improvement from Kyoto is what exactly?

  24. #24 John
    January 31, 2011

    Stop trying to divert the conversation and answer the questions, concern troll.

  25. #25 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    >*So the climate improvement from Kyoto is what exactly?*

    Refer [to above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3191321). Lets hear your critique rather than just shutting your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears.

    And Luke, the reason I keep refering to [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3188649), is that by addressing them you will need to analsye your position in relation to a carbon price. I’d be very interest if you have a sound argument for not pricing carbon.

  26. #26 Steve (or SCPritch)
    January 31, 2011

    I agree with some of your points Luke.

    I think scientists should be very conservative in discussing AGW contributing to extreme weather events, because it doesn’t take much in the game of chinese whispers for commentators and over-zealous green thinkers to shape the qualified pronouncements of scientists into AGW being responsible for the extreme weather events. I made this point on a previous thread, and watching the way commentary on the Qld floods has played out, I don’t feel swayed to change my opinion yet. This is not simply an argument about what the science says, its an argument about what pronouncements are influential in the wider community discussion, and I don’t think raising the spectre of climate change after every single extreme weather event is a good way to prevent widespread cynicism and promote action.

    I agree that a lot of the alleged action on climate change (particular personal actions, earth hour etc) serve to make individuals feel good and serve that purpose much more than they assist in combating climate change (or even in changing the culture as a whole).

    I have become extremely skeptical that the “think global act local” philosophy of the environment movement can work in addressing a global problem like climate change. An individual unplugging their mobile phone charger or voluntarily changing a lightbulb or even installing solar or driving a hybrid is just not significant enough – not only does it not reduce global emissions by much, but i think that for every person who is inpsired by individual green action, there is another person who is made cynical and negative watching their earnest neighbours set up a worm farm and drive a prius and take a hefty subsidy to put solar panels on the roof.

    Solving climate change through voluntary individual action makes as much sense as a voluntary income tax system. Voluntary taxation might be meaningful if we lived in a village of <50 people, but in society of > 20 million people? OR a world of almost 7 billion?

    And this is where I disagree with you luke. I think we must be pursuing action at a national level, even if australia only contributes a small fraction of global emissions. We must have a carbon price (which the last couple decades seems to be the leading solution in terms of having a possibility of being implemented in this market-focussed society).

    There is no world government, and therefore the best way to reduce emissions is for our nation to talk with other nations and get them to agree to reduce their emissions. But it is pretty hard for us to be taken seriously in such discussions when we have the highest emissions per capita in the world, and indulge in rubbish like the Australia clause, and do nothing meaty to demonstrate our own commitment.

    You say that turning off australia (read as acting to ensure deep cuts in australian emissions) won’t make a difference. It might make a difference in that it would give us some legitimacy in arguing with other countries about doing similar action.

    Kyoto was useful – significant even – even if the actual emissions reduced was only a small fraction of what is required. The reason is that it was a global agreement. It would have been even better if countries such as USA had signed on, but still, many countries did, and a lot of pressure was put on various govts (including the USA) to do something. Kyoto should be understood in the insanely complex and fraught political project of getting the whole world to agree to control emissions. Such an agreement doesn’t just happen from a couple of dudes shaking hands. It might require years and years of discussion involving many people, failed starts, small steps fwd etc.

    Luke is not a concern troll, and if you think he is you need to take a cold shower. I worry that use of ‘concern troll’ is stifling constructive debate here rather than weeding out wiley denialists.

  27. #27 Luke
    January 31, 2011

    John – you know you’re hurting when you start screaming troll and demanding answers. I’ve asked some questions and your lack of answers are telling. You are therefore the troll.

    There is little point in pricing carbon without a serious global agreement. Climate impact diddly squat. And when you start to unravel the implications of domestic carbon sequestration schemes on property rights and the many interesting practices that aggregation brokers could get up to you have to be very cynical who will be making money out of this.

  28. #28 Luke
    January 31, 2011

    Thank heavens for Steve

    So some points:

    (1) AGW is a hazard worthy of risk management (among others)
    (2) But so is natural variability i.e. El Nino, La Nina and interdecadal variation (can you see an AGW rainfall signal out there yet?)
    (3) We need more precision in our AGW messages
    (4) We don’t need to be alarmist on non alarmist – we need to get it right
    (5) I’m up for a carbon tax on a major emitters all-in agreement
    (6) “new” nuclear probably needs to be part of that mix if we’re going to bring most of our country-men along
    (7) yes I’ve changed my light bulbs, recycle my aluminium, power manage my PC and have turned off the stand-by power too (hypocrisy and guilt) but am also a major emitter in other ways – let who is without sin etc….

  29. #29 "John"
    January 31, 2011

    Wikipedia lists a “concern troll” as:

    >…a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group

    This is exactly what you are trying to do. You don’t believe AGW is real, and you’re only in this thread to distract from the fact Lambert caught Andrew Bolt lying.

    I asked you – how do we go about getting a global agreement?

  30. #30 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    >*There is little point in pricing carbon without a serious global agreement.*

    This is a circular argument designed for failure. Serious cuts by the richest and worst polluting nations is essental for a global agreement.

    These nations have determined price on carbon is the most efficinet mechanism for them to reverse our growing emissions that. And Australia’s role in reversing our growing emissions is essential for our global agreement.

    Think of the positive feedback cycle [I described](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3191321). Luke’s approah would push the positive feedback in the opposite direction to that required for a successful emissions reductin agreement. We are currenlty freelaoding on the efforts already made by leading nations.

    Luke given your defeatist circualar logic, and in order to get you addressing broader issues I once again ask you to address [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3188649).

  31. #31 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    Luke writes:

    >*I’m up for a carbon tax on a major emitters all-in agreement*

    Could you expand on your condition *”all-in agreement”*

  32. #32 zoot
    January 31, 2011

    @125:

    I worry that use of ‘concern troll’ is stifling constructive debate here rather than weeding out wiley denialists.

    Yes Steve, the use of terms like “chardonnay swilling greenies” @110 definitely counts as constructive debate.

    Your concern has been noted.

  33. #33 jakerman
    January 31, 2011

    I’m sure we agree with more of Steve’s posts than does Luke.

  34. #34 adelady
    January 31, 2011

    I see no reason why USA, Canada and Australia should hold back from unilateral emission reductions. We are the worst per capita emitters. The USA could reduce its emissions by half and still have the same standard of living as Europeans manage on their 50%(ish) of US emissions. Not exactly a huge burden.

    Standing back and saying ‘I won’t until you do’ is a recipe for delay, finger-pointing and blame shifting, not for getting a better outcome. I don’t care if the salad or cheesecake I take to a barbie is better or bigger than other people’s dishes – in fact if I know I’m the best cook or the wealthiest person attending, I feel a bit of an obligation to make a good contribution.

    And no-one in this position needs to brag or whine about the situation. Just do it. It’s not an instantaneous thing. If it turns out that some have done more or better than others, it’s not so hard to fix up as you go along.

  35. #35 Steve (or SCPritch)
    January 31, 2011

    Zoot: you pinged me for concern trolling on a previous thread despite my comments being free of name calling and constructive, didn’t you? And didn’t I waste comment space and time having to demonstrate that I wasn’t one? Maybe you should be more sure of it before you waste a comment to accuse someone eh?

  36. #36 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    Zoot – I’m sorry I should have said pinot grigio.

  37. #37 John
    February 1, 2011

    >Standing back and saying ‘I won’t until you do’ is a recipe for delay, finger-pointing and blame shifting

    Exactly what Luke and other deniers are advocating, hence why they push these idiotic memes.

  38. #38 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Luke rather than build up more credits in Newsspeak, how about you turn your mind to [this question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3191784).

    Or the other questions you’ve left unattended.

  39. #39 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    And of course Bolt’s a a waste of space – goes without saying. Do we need to actually discuss the obvious. And please let’s not waste time on Monckton either.

    Anyway – so is your carbon tax including agricultural emissions?
    And what do you think of the carbon farming initiative.

  40. #40 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >*so is your carbon tax including agricultural emissions? And what do you think of the carbon farming initiative.*

    If they can measure it accurately with sampling it should be considered in the tax. Though activity that is dificult to measure will eventually need to be accounted for as the cap contracts. I wouldn’t make it a deal breaker at instiation of the tax. My preference is to prioritise taxing the biggest generators as close to source as possible. So first priority (stationary energy and transport fuel) are relatively easy to tax at extraction or at the national border.

    Agriculture would be paritially taxed via fuel inputs.

    Carbon farming should be considered with the same scruity as emmissions on farms. The same sampling system will determine how much of your land/livestock is a net source or sink.

    I wouldn’t hold up a tax on the highest emitting sector waiting for ag-tax to get fully embeded. The tax will start low anyway. Its not going to be a vice like clamp on emissions rather it will ramp up mitigating deeper in the most polluting sectors and mitigating wider over time.

    So Luke, [your turn](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3191784).

  41. #41 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    Check out LUCFAg or just Ag – and then reconcile the Farm Institute’s work on how many farms will go to the wall.

    But more important – this is appalling dross

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/01/3127184.htm?section=justin

    compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahina_Cyclone_of_1899

    More cackling from sceptics about to ensue. Thanks Christine for friendly fire shoot-up..

    In fact there’s a 30 downward trend in cyclone landfalls – IPO probably – which is about to change – they’re baaaccck e.g. “Variability and decline in the number of severe tropical cyclones
    making land-fall over eastern Australia since the late nineteenth century” Callaghan and Power – Climate Dynamics 2010 – “a rapid return to
    much higher land-fall rates therefore possible”

  42. #42 cohenite
    February 1, 2011

    luke, come back, all is forgiven.

    But just so the trip is not a complete waste of time: I see BJ Thoreau is leading his simple, ascetic life in the woods; pity it isn’t a quite one but in the spirit of self-sufficiency can you explain BJ, where you go for your medical treatment?

  43. #43 Jeff Harvey
    February 1, 2011

    Cohenite whinges: *can you explain BJ, where you go for your medical treatment?*

    Cohers: First I’d like to know where you go for yours. Clearly your ‘treatment’ isn’t working.

  44. #44 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >Check out LUCFAg or just Ag – and then reconcile the Farm Institute’s work on how many farms will go to the wall.*

    Link please, and how about answering [the question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3191784)?

  45. #45 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    I can’t workout if cohenite is intending his support for Luke to make Luke feel better or worse.

    Which would you prefer Luke, cohenite’s genuine support that unintentionally undermines you or his faux support that isintended to undermine you?

  46. #46 cohenite
    February 1, 2011

    I retain hope for my treatment Jeff; I believe you were part of the control group.

  47. #47 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    Agriculture is about 16% National Inventory
    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/~/media/533BCD85CCC845B68889B8823151EC1C.ashx

    The Implications of Greenhouse Mitigation Policies on the Demand for Agricultural Land

    October 2010, pp. 1-116 (116 pages)
    Publisher: Australian Farm Institute
    Authors: GHD Hassall
    ISBN 978-1-921808-04-3 (Web)
    ISBN 978-1-921808-03-6 (Print)

    Tree planting in competition for agricultural land in high rainfall zone.

    Preliminary Modelling of the Farm-Level Impacts of the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Trading Scheme
    Full Report
    September 2008, pp. 1 – 63 (63 pages)
    Publisher: Australian Farm Institute
    Author: Australian Farm Institute – Keogh, M & Thompson, A
    ISBN: 978-0-9805475-6-6

    The modelling indicates that increases in the
    prices farmers pay for farm inputs as a result of
    the ETS have the potential to reduce average farm
    cash margins in 2016 by between 3 and 9% in
    comparison with a business as usual scenario, with
    cropping specialists experiencing larger impacts.

    If agriculture becomes ETS-covered after 2015 and
    is required to pay for all the emissions attributed
    to the sector, the potential impacts on farm cash
    margins would be devastating. Modelling indicates
    a greater than 100% reduction in farm cash margins
    in 2016 for many broadacre farms compared with a
    business as usual scenario, with livestock-specialist
    farms experiencing the largest impacts.

    In the event that agriculture becomes an ETScovered
    sector post 2015 and businesses in the
    sector are considered to be Emissions Intensive and
    Trade Exposed (EITE), receiving 90% of required
    emission permits free of charge, the impact on
    farm cash margins in 2016 is still very substantial,
    and projected to range from a reduction of 3% to a
    reduction of 25% compared with business as usual,
    with livestock enterprises experiencing the greatest
    impact and horticulture and vegetable enterprises
    the least impact.

    As you can see – quite non-trivial

    Answer to your question – is the G-20 countries !

  48. #48 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >*Answer to your question – is the G-20 countries!*

    The G20 countries what?

  49. #49 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Jeff Harvey would like the source that Luke cites. The Director of the Australian Farm Institute is on record as [cherry picking the science](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-change-will-boost-farm-output/story-e6frg6nf-1111116309158) and even challenging the the notoriously conservative data from ABARE:

    >*In a report published by the Australian Farm Institute, executive director Mick Keogh says agricultural output is projected to improve strongly through to 2050…*

    And,

    >*Mr Keogh says, if global warming does occur, some areas such as southeast Queensland will receive more rain, and as a result will greatly benefit. Recent research has shown increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lifts plant production by up to 30 per cent in a phenomenon known as carbon fertilisation.

    >*Mr Keogh, a well-respected industry figure, said much of the media reporting on the recent ABARE report Climate Change: Impacts On Australian Agriculture, was so misleading it risked eroding industry confidence in public research agencies.*

    Apparently the ABARE report informed the Minister of a predicted 20 per cent drop in farm production by mid-century.

    The carbon fertilization is a well known cherry pick that ignores others productive factors such as temp, drought and flood, pests and disease.

    In short Luke, I want more evidence than that produced by models from the AFI.

  50. #50 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >*I’m up for a carbon tax on a major emitters all-in agreement*

    >Could you expand on your condition “all-in agreement”

    >*Answer to your question – is the G-20 countries!*

    >The G20 countries what?

    The G20 countries all agree to the tax? That is your pre-condition? So any opt-outs and any stage in the electoral cycle for any of the G20 means that you want us to keep freeloading on the backs of the courageous leaders that are trying to make our last best hope work?

    Is that your precondition?

  51. #51 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    > And didn’t I waste comment space and time having to demonstrate that I wasn’t one?

    And you’ve never shut up about how hard done by you are.

    you’re quacking like a duck and are hiding in the rushes.

    How about, instead of telling other people how they should talk, talk the way you want to yourself?

  52. #52 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    > Standing back and saying ‘I won’t until you do’ is a recipe for delay, finger-pointing and blame shifting, not for getting a better outcome.

    Funny how that isn’t the case when it came to, say, invading Iraq.

    Re another post:

    > But if Australia went to zero emissions it would mean all the richest and worst polluters had done so as well- as we’d only go so far as part of a global agreement.

    Why? That would only be the case if you were wedded to the idea that CO2 production is wedded to growth. Only those wedded to the 19th century victorian ideals of industry think that growth and CO2 are linked like that.

    Meanwhile, you don’t have to go to 0.000 recurring % to remove 1.5%. Getting down to less than 0.1% gives you that mathematically, and getting down to a couple of tenths gives you very much the same change. Result: you’re ahead of the game and no longer wedded to burning your own coal to grow and can instead sell to any sucker who hasn’t moved from Victorian technology.

    Why do you think the US has a nuclear power industry when they have so much coal? Or Iran when they have oil reserves?

    Selling a scarce resource is more economically effective than burning it.

  53. #53 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >*Why? That would only be the case if you were wedded to the idea that CO2 production is wedded to growth.*

    The time scale is an issue. We have limited to adjust and there are economic effect during transition time. Its possible that we could reduce our emissions by that scale regardless of other countries. But I think it unlikely. And if we could do it on our own, it would be likely that so to could most of the richest and worst polluters (so we would still be part of a global push).

  54. #54 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    You’re now dissing the Institute Director – what a wonder you are – isn’t that Andrew Bolt style. Plus a sprinkling of cherry picked comments yourself. You clown – you haven’t read the report so stop your petulant nonsense. You’ve done a very lazy little Google drive-by shooting of http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-change-will-boost-farm-output/story-e6frg6nf-1111116309158 and sampled a few bits and pieces. Just like faux sceptics do. Just like Christine Milne has done tonight with her alarmist press release.

    Keep this debating style going and the collective will be getting you to march down the back on demos.

    “I want more evidence than models” eh? Sounds like what sceptics say about IPCC models. How do you get “proof” for a proposal that has not yet been implemented without economic modelling some estimates. So with tight terms of trade in agriculture, a tax on energy inputs, feeding through into chemicals, then a tax on agricultural emissions itself – and you’re wondering why there may be an impact?

    “Notoriously conservative ABARE” ROFL.

    All the G20 – gee I don’t know. How about a significant majority of the emissions then. So if the USA, Russia, China or India are not in – tends to make a mess of the concept doesn’t it? One would have to consider the implications in some details which is what Copenhagen events try to achieve.

    But you’re nowhere near that position – you’re prepared for Aussie go it alone with many major emitters not in. With our Australian peculiar resource base, rural industries (export exposed), long transport distances, small population, and high climate variability exposure. Which urban green electorate do you hail from?

  55. #55 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Luke back to he’s now predictable fallacious tactics.

    This time Luke is editing my quotes to change its meaning:

    After exposing the cherry picking anti-science employed by the AIF director I finished with:

    >”In short Luke, I want more evidence than that produced by models from the AFI.”

    But Luke lops of the end to change the meaning:

    >*”I want more evidence than models” eh? Sounds like what sceptics say about IPCC models.*

    What does it say about your argument Luke that you need to resort to this dishonesty?

    What a joke you have reduced your self to.

    If I was arguing with an honest player I’d point out that the AIF [looks like front group](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Farm_Institute). The report you cite in not available online. And neither are their assumptions. Their director is there representative is shown up in the report I cited. What would you have me do? Accept you one report from this group at face value? You have got to be joking. Especially given the only record of their performance on this issue is so flawed.

    If I were arguing with an honest player I’d ask you to you show me where you believe I misrepresent the AIF director.

    But I’m not arguing with an honest player. I’m arguing with someone who shameless resorts making up strawman arguments, won’t address the very question he ask himself, then finally doctors quotes to change their meaning, in a last gasp effort to score a false victory.

    Shame on you Luke. Look your self in the mirror and ask what is going on when you push Monkton’s talking points, and cohenite comes in to give you support.

    Check out Barnaby at 5:30 sec.

  56. #56 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Luke writes:

    >*”Notoriously conservative ABARE” ROFL.*

    Well ROFL seems to be one of Luke reactions when he ain’t got a leg to stand on:

    [Bedder](http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/pacific.html):

    >In Australia the Commonwealth government has relied heavily on figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)–a governmental agency. ABARE was set up by the Commonwealth Government but now bills itself as an “independent” research agency. It relies on both government and industry funding. For its economic modelling of the impacts of meeting greenhouse-gas targets, ABARE raised $1.1 million from oil companies and industry lobby groups by offering them the opportunity to pay $50,000 to sit on the steering committee and “have an influence on the direction of the model development” (as stated in ABARE’s literature).

    >Those who took advantage of the offer included Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, BHP, Rio Tinto, the Australian Aluminium Council, the Business Council of Australia, and the Norwegian oil company Statoil. The Australian Conservation Foundation, which could not afford the $50,000, requested a waiver of the fee to be on the steering committee but was refused. According to Clive Hamilton, from the Australia Institute (an environmental think-tank), 80 per cent of the funds for ABARE’s climate-change modelling come from the fossil-fuel industry.
    And,

    [Keane](http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/06/04/abare-ignores-inconvenient-truths/)
    >*But ABARE’s real trick was to overstate even the costs yielded by its modelling. Its favourite method was to calculate either the cumulative total reduction in GDP over the course of several decades if action was taken to ameliorate carbon emissions, or calculate the present value of reductions in per capita GDP if such actions were taken. These entirely meaningless figures could then be dressed up as a sort of massive impost on Australians for addressing climate change.*

  57. #57 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >*All the G20 – gee I don’t know. How about a significant majority of the emissions then. So if the USA, Russia, China or India are not in*

    If I was having a debate with an honest player I point out that the USA currently needs pressure from the outside, it is not going to be a leader in at least the next 2 year.

    While Luke would have us siding with the worst delayers in the US. I’d have us siding with the best and most active in the US and the other leadership group in Europe who Luke is happy to freeload on. Even a carbon price of $20/tonne would shift the global balance in the positive direction.

    And China are already way better than us using 1/4th the emissions per capita and India even better at about 1/10th IIRC.

    But I’m not dealing with an honest player, so I’ll save these points for someone worthy.

  58. #58 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    > The time scale is an issue.

    Sorry, no, I don’t accept that. For a start, that issue has only just now been introduced, so I discard it. Secondly, just because I should have braked five seconds ago isn’t a reason to let engine braking slow me down before hitting the brick wall or mowing down the mother and child.

    > We have limited to adjust and there are economic effect during transition time.

    And..?

    There’s economic effect in building new power stations. There’s economic effect in not building new power stations. There’s economic effect in hopping up on one leg and crowing like a rooster.

    We don’t know what the time to change is. It could already be too late. It could be we have more time than we thought. But just because we don’t know whether we can stop in time doesn’t make us think that braking hard is a bad idea because we could wear the tread of our tires out prematurely.

    > Its possible that we could reduce our emissions by that scale regardless of other countries. But I think it unlikely.

    I agree too, but not for any reason other than hard-headed contraryness and an endemic misanthropy in the empowered. Still not a reason why a practically zero carbon energy system can’t be done in Australia.

    > And if we could do it on our own, it would be likely that so to could most of the richest and worst polluters (so we would still be part of a global push).

    No, you CAN do it on your own. A reason other than your own advancement into the future technology and the ability to monetize the sloth of other countries would be that other countries would follow.

    But even if they didn’t follow, you could still do the reduction.

    Australia is proud of their pioneering spirit (as the US is). It’s a pity that alarmists scare them into thinking they are doomed if they try to change, vested interests misinforming them to keep the heirachy structured where they are the top and an often willful belief in whatever is most convenient has made this pioneering spirit hide in a closet.

    But Australia CAN reduce output to nearly zero, whether other people do or don’t. Your ability to do so is not dependent on others doing likewise.

    In fact, if they DO follow your change, your scarce resources will be worth less.

    Iran are working smart: they’re moving away from oil so they can sell it to suckers.

  59. #59 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Wow, I hope you’re write, but in the mean time if I read you correctly we both seem to agree that its unlikely that we could reduce our emissions by that scale required without a global treaty bring in the richest and worst polluters. Is that correct?

  60. #60 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >*The time scale is an issue.*

    This is short hand for a lot. I’m thinking about the time to restucture our economy. A very handy economist here (Steve Keen) critiques Economists IIRC for failing to factor in time lag to reach equilibrium after a perturbation.

    New industries must develop, and even the fastest boom in the real jobs sector expansions like Apple’s etc don’t happen overnight. An estimate at an upper limit for a transition time would be the speeds of industry redeployment seen in WWII. I think that would require support significantly greater than the support currently in Australia for doing ‘something’.

  61. #61 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    J-Girl – you need your own thread. How are you powering your laptop BTW – hopefully by peddle power and burning dung to see by.

    “The AIF looks like a front group” – you pretentious treasure. You haven’t read any of their reports. Face it – a bit more substantive than your Googling of the usually denialist Australian – obviously your cite of choice. Pullease deary. Aren’t you due to attend a coven meeting or something?

  62. #62 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    I think the disagreement we have, jackerman, is that you think that that point is relevant and I think it is irrelevant.

    Whether change will only happen with an international treaty is irrelevant to whether it can be done.

    And by continuing to make a big deal of international treaties, I think you help paralyse advancement.

    At a real personal level, I pick up litter every now and then. I DO NOT CARE whether this only makes my town cleaner if everyone else does it too. I’m not responsible for other people’s actions, only my own.

    And on a national level, the wrongs my country have done are not condoned by wrongs greater or lesser done by other countries. Whether African Warlords will get arms from French, Swiss, American or Chinese manufacturers if we don’t sell it to them is irrelevant. Either the UK sells arms to criminals and murderers or it doesn’t.

  63. #63 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    > How are you powering your laptop BTW

    Me, 100% renewables.

    How are you powering yours? I hope there’s no wind power of PV being used.

    But what does this have to do with the price of fish in Billingsgate?

    > You haven’t read any of their reports. Face it

    Since they hide their work, nobody can read their reports. Far FAR more secretive than any climate research establishment. If they were sure of their findings and sure they were probate they’d open up their emails and accounts and all their raw data and how they processed it. Including all source code (just like you can get NASA’s GCM and the datasets used online).

  64. #64 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    But surely Wow – this much more complex than litter or gun running. Take jakerman’s “Wong” propaganda speak of referring to CO2 as a pollutant. CO2 a major part of the earth’s carbon cycle – circulated through plants, animals and the oceans – now framed a pollutant. Made into sea shells. No wonder the silent majority turns their heads away. It’s not a pollutant in the sense of the word. It’s a greenhouse gas. It has a dipole moment. It changes the world’s radiation balance. And like water – you can drink it and you can drown in it. Not enough CO2 – photosynthesis stops. So this is a pollutant? pfft !

  65. #65 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    100% renewables. Do tell – not some green power scam I hope. Or have you manufactured your wind turbine or solar cells by hand. Surely you haven’t bludged off this carbon-fuelled society to ship them in? Calculated the whole of life greenhouse footprint have we? And did you make your laptop by hand. Any rare earths from gorilla habitat ?

    Perhaps if you got a job Janet you might be able to actually pay the modest fee required to view the reports. And that’s right Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Climate Dynamics. How silly of me – they’re all FREE aren’t they !

  66. #66 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    More zero content trash from the debased Luke. Go back to your [ROFL](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3192921), or you Monckton-Barnaby copy catting. Or doctor more quotes like the person you’ve reduced yourself to.

    Or cherry pick a study from any lobby group, don’t review their methods nor assumptions, just push their claims in the press pack. All the better if their methods and assumptions if aren’t available online, and haven’t been peer reviewed.

    And given that lobby group has questionable past output make sure you ignore the deep flaws that are pointed out to you.

    Base your position on the work from that one lobby group. Go on Luke, I won’t but you can.

  67. #67 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    >*Take jakerman’s “Wong” propaganda speak of referring to CO2 as a pollutant. CO2 a major part of the earth’s carbon cycle – circulated through plants, animals and the oceans – now framed a pollutant.*

    OMFG

    Luke you’ve have lost it! Cookoo, tropo, lopo lost it!

    I feel a little sad at your demise.

  68. #68 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Wow writes:

    >*And by continuing to make a big deal of international treaties, I think you help paralyse advancement.*

    Thats an interesting call. Tell me how you see things on this point. I see our role as joining the leadership group in promoting action as being paid back by the positive feedback from following nations (including freeloading laggards).

  69. #69 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    I see it as possible, even plausible, but irrelevant as to whether Australia should reduce their output to nearly zero.

    Just like I’d take the idea that an ELE asteroid impact would wipe us out before we had undone our mismanagement as anything to consider.

    It’s plausible, but so what?

    Or methane clathrates may collapse and undo everything we did before the temperatures start dropping again.

    Plausible again. So what?

    Do what is right.

    Isn’t that what being a moral human being all about? It’s only evil that does what it must because they will profit from it.

  70. #70 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    > 100% renewables.

    Yes, 100% renewables.

    You seem a little hard of seeing. Please leave off the onanism. Baby Jesus cries every time you spank one out.

    And look at those goalposts fly past from one-hand-Luke!

  71. #71 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    > But surely Wow – this much more complex than litter or gun running.

    Begging the question.

    Why is it “surely much more complex”?

    > Take jakerman’s “Wong” propaganda speak of referring to CO2 as a pollutant.

    No, the EPA’s referrence. And it is accurate. Unless you WANT carbon dioxide from your engine, it IS a pollutant. Just like all waste products.

    > CO2 a major part of the earth’s carbon cycle – circulated through plants, animals and the oceans

    If it’s all used there, why is atmospheric CO2 increasing then?

    It isn’t going in to the carbon cycle.

    This is why it’s a pollutant.

    > Made into sea shells

    Snurk. Higher CO2 increases the acidity of the sea which stops sea shells being made.

    You’ve been told what to say and have not bother to understand any of it.

    > No wonder the silent majority turns their heads away.

    The vocal minority always say this in a vain attempt to make them the majority.

    83% of UK people polled accepted climate change as a current or upcoming threat.

    You’re in the minority and your obvious blathering is why they turn their heads. You sicken them.

    > It’s not a pollutant in the sense of the word.

    Please try a complete sentence.

    > It’s a greenhouse gas. It has a dipole moment. It changes the world’s radiation balance.

    True. True. True.

    > And like water – you can drink it and you can drown in it.

    False. False. Liquid CO2 (you can only drink liquids) would kill you, freezing your throat and causing massive cell damage to your mouth and internal organs. You wouldn’t drown either, since you’d be frozen solid before you run low on O2.

    > Not enough CO2 – photosynthesis stops.

    Not enough Ka? Plant growth stops.

    > So this is a pollutant? pfft !

    Too much CO2? Respiration stops.

    Not a pollutant? pfft!

  72. #72 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Wow, I’m not sure I see the intersect between with some of our points, we might be partially missing each others points.

    But I certainly get (and agree with) your last two paragraphs.

  73. #73 zoot
    February 1, 2011

    Steve @125:

    Luke is not a concern troll, and if you think he is you need to take a cold shower.

    Yeah, right Steve.

    For what it’s worth I fear Luke is correct. The human race is just too f*cking stupid to save itself from AGW. As Exhibit A I offer all the positive contributions Luke has made to this thread.

    Doesn’t directly affect me; I’ll be lucky if I’m still here in 20 years. But Luke, I fervently hope my grandchildren’s children hunt down your descendants to thank them, in an appropriate way, for all you’ve done to help the human race.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 1, 2011

    > The human race is just too f*cking stupid to save itself from AGW

    No, LUKE is to -ing stupid. He’s not the only one. But since stupidity is self-propagating and impervious to reason, the human race hears this and wonders whether there’s anything to worry about.

    re:

    > I’m not sure I see the intersect between with some of our points, we might be partially missing each others points.

    My point is that the future existence or possibility of global change has nothing to do with what Australia can do itself.

    Therefore in a discussion about whether a 1.5% reduction in global CO2 can be made or not, global agreement is irrelevant to a country that produces at least 1.5% of the global CO2 production.

    A country that produces 1% cannot make the change alone.

    A country producing 1.5% can.

  75. #75 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Wow:

    >*Therefore in a discussion about whether a 1.5% reduction in global CO2 can be made or not, global agreement is irrelevant to a country that produces at least 1.5% of the global CO2 production.*

    Agreed:

    >*A more relevant questions (unless you are Monckton) is: what difference would it make if Australia joined European nations and leading US states by committing to significant cuts from now and pricing carbon to restructure markets?*

  76. #76 Luke
    February 1, 2011

    Ah yes – good old Europe and the ponzi scheme carbon markets

    We might end up as good as Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal – perhaps you should go and join them?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/20/us-carbon-scandals-idUSTRE70J4M120110120

    http://www.masterresource.org/2010/11/death-chicago-climate-exchange/#more-12908

    How many shares did you have J-girl?

    Get a job Janet !

  77. #77 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    Luke’s predictably off the mark with his now standard fallacious arguments. I’ve argued for a carbon tax not carbon trading.

    Sadly a sleep has not improved Luke’s performance. We still see the same [diminished](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit.php#comment-3193008) person.

  78. #78 jakerman
    February 1, 2011

    If Luke was going to resort to his now standard fallacious argument he could at least be consistent.

    Luke dumps the ETS flaws on me, ignoring the fact that I argue for a carbon tax.

    Then Luke is so shameless that he doubles down by adding hypocrisy to his fallacy. As Luke is:

    >*up for a carbon tax on a [sic] major emitters [if a majority of the G20 are in agreement].*

  79. #79 jakerman
    February 1, 2011
  80. #80 sleepy
    February 1, 2011

    Luke seems to enjoy the sound of his own voice declaiming faux-knowledgeably, world-weariedly, on almost everything.
    Wow’s on the money with the “onanist” jibe.

  81. #81 Wow
    February 2, 2011

    > what difference would it make if Australia joined European nations and leading US states by committing to significant cuts from now and pricing carbon to restructure markets?

    It’s a good question.

    But not more relevant.

    That other people lie cheat and steal and that it will only be controlled if we had strong government agreement against those crimes doesn’t mean that I’ll decide not to refrain from lying, cheating and stealing.

    That Europe (excepting the UK, boo!) have a 30% cut in mind doesn’t mean Australia has to agree to 30% too. Or 40% or indeed 50%. 90% and more is possible.

    Lots of doom-and-gloomers (which again are the denialists, not the AGW science promoters, despite their continued projection) proclaim that if $OUR country cut all of its emissions, China would just ramp up their emissions anyway.

    So what?

    Are they saying that China would produce MORE CO2 pollution (which affects them more in impacts) to EXACTLY use up the shortfall *over and above* what they would have done if the reduction hadn’t been made?

    This sort of insinuates that China (and the rest of the world) assume that CO2 *must continue* to rise at 2ppm and if anyone slows that done, someone must take up the slack.

    Is this what they think that China (or any other eebil country) believes?

    Or would $OUR country reducing their output from X% to nil continue to reduce the output that would otherwise have been the case by X%.

    That seems far more likely than some country burning up as much fossil fuel as an entire country extra just to keep polluting.

    Much more interesting question would be:

    > If Australia removed practically all their output of CO2, what would Europe and leading US states do to show they were still world leaders?

    How about reaching for the stars instead of looking at how high other people are going? And when there, how about giving these others a hand up?

Current ye@r *