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.
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).
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).
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.
From the Garnaut report, section 5.2.2
There has been a major change in rainfall patterns since the 1950s, with large geographic variation. North-west Australia has seen a significant increase in annual rainfall, whereas most of the eastern seaboard and south-west Australia have seen a significant decrease (CSIRO & BoM 2007). Rainfall changes over the longer period from 1900 to 2007 are generally positive and are largest in the north-west. Drying tendencies over this period are evident in south-west Australia, some other parts of southern Australia, including much of Tasmania, and over much of north-east Australia.
From the IPCC FAR, Chapter 10:
An increase in precipitation is projected in the Asian monsoon (along with an increase in interannual season-averaged precipitation variability)... as well as an increase in the Australian monsoon in southern summer in a warmer climate
It's worth noting that there is a prediction of increased precipitation in tropical Australia during the wet season, mostly linked to changes in intensity of the Australian monsoon, along with a general drying of the country through winter months (primarily linked to changes in the trade winds in the tropics and the reduced penetration of cold fronts in the South). [Here's](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-11-17.html) a pretty picture.
Also, from the Climate Change in Australia Report (Chapter 5):
By 2050, under the B1 scenario, the range of annual precipitation change is -15% to +7.5% in central, eastern and northern areas, with a best estimate of little change in the far north grading southwards to a decrease of 5%. The range of change in southern areas is from a 15% decrease to little change, with best estimate of around a 5% decrease
I could go on. There are many studies that show an increase in tropical rainfall with increasing GHG emissions, and many other with weaker results.
Shorter: Precipitation change is not projected to be the same everywhere. Different dynamics cause rain fall in different areas, and the effect of global warming on each is not the same. Tropical areas are predicted to be
I was just looking at the Press Council's criteria for complaints.
"Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission."
I am seriously considering making a complaint in relation to Bolt's blogs on climate change. The two most recent posts in this blog about his deceit clearly indicate that he is breaching the above.
Quote mining FTW!!!!!
Margaret, if you feel strongly, do it.
I have an abiding resentment towards Bolt. I used to like that Insiders program on ABC Sunday mornings - and then I noticed Bolt's frequent appearances along with a couple of other token right wingnuts. I just couldn't stand them and their sneering smart aleckry, so I gave up on it.
This was all presumably in pursuit of the famous ABC balance. If they want balance they should ask someone balanced to provide it. Surely there are some sensible conservative commentators who'd fill this gig.
I'm not a suitable letter-writer for this little project. (Because I couldn't write just a letter. It'd finish up far too much like one of his own clan's diatribes.)
Fairly unbalanced, blot is.
My use of newspapers, print and online versions, diminishes each day. Feebles like this individual have encouraged that decline in my interest in reading newspapers' opinion pieces.
Indeed, do it if you feel you should. Be warned that last year I made a Press Council complaint regarding flagrantly misleading (and demonstrably untrue) rubbish reprinted by The Australian (surprising, I know) in a particular article, from yes you guessed it, Jonathan Leake. All I requested was that a correction be printed.
The result was entirely unsatisfactory. Much along the lines of "well someone else really wrote it so it's not our problem".
The Australian Press Council is utterly useless.
There's also these comments in the Queensland government's 2010 report "Climate Change In Queensland: What the science is telling us" (for the full report see here http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climate-change-in-queensland-20…)
Key findings for Queensland
- longer dryer periods interrupted by more
intense rainfall events (especially in the Gulf
and Cape York)."
"The State of the Climate report (CSIRO & BoM 2010) indicates that in
the future much of Australia will
be drier; however, it is likely that the occurrence of intense
rainfall events will increase in many areas."
"Climate change is also likely to affect extreme
rainfall in south-east Queensland (Abbs et al.
2007). Projections indicate an increase in two-hour,
24-hour and 72-hour extreme rainfall events for
large areas of south-east Queensland, especially
in the McPherson and Great Dividing ranges, west
of Brisbane and the Gold Coast."
Margaret, Donald probably hints at the reason that Dolt can get away with what he says in the paper.
It's likely an opinion piece (I'm not going to waste my time linking to Dolt to check if that's the case -- it seems likely).
So, if it's anything like the PCC in the UK, then by and large your PCC will likely side with the opinion former in any complaint (as they largely did with the high-profile Jan Moir piece after Stephen Gateley's untimely demise) in a protection of free speech sort of ruling.
> The Australian Press Council is utterly useless.
Oh, no, they're great if your rich and/or connected.
What? Did you thin laws were set up for YOUR benefit? They discovered that private law was not working, so they just changed how they enforced the rules and got something FAR better for their interests...
P.Lewis, the Australian Press Council deals with opinion pieces, as well as straight reporting. From their website:
"The Australian Press Council considers news reports, articles, editorials, letters and images (including cartoons) published in Australian newspapers and magazines, and on co-operating websites."
I feel confident that his blog pieces are covered. (I should mention that as well as being at the end of my Bachelor of Advanced Science, I'm also a former lawyer.)
The first step is to complain in writing to the editor of the newspaper. I'll do that, and if I don't get a retraction, I'll take it to the Council.
Just what sort of a person would INSIST that their offspring inherit an atmosphere choking in greenhouse gases?
Then go for it Margaret. You might like to peruse this Guardian piece on the Moir article alluded to above, though. And I don't think it's a particularly isolated one; just more high profile than most.
Thanks, P.Lewis. Shall do.
Avoid clicking through to Bolt's bullshit, the more hits he gets the less likely he is to dissapear.
Alan @ 15
Bolt is a content provider for an advertising platform. The more clicks he generates, the more they will pay him to write this garbage.
> Just what sort of a person would INSIST that their offspring inherit an atmosphere choking in greenhouse gases?
A complete and utter bastard?
Just a guess.
Use adblock et al.
This quote is a nice summary
>âWhen journalism becomes nothing more than digital hits, the more provocative you are â often, the more obnoxious you are â the higher the hit count,â says Richard Gruneau, a Simon Fraser University professor who studies popular culture and media.
>âIn that sense, the system pressures you to become a dick. Who cares if what you say is good, let alone whether there is any truth in it or not? When everything becomes opinion, the most opinionated, most strident and least compromising âjournalists' are the ones who rattle enough cages, or inspire enough like-minded devotees, to build the hit count.
>âAnd if you can somehow get the people you piss off arguing with your devotees, then your hit count will really soar.â
Great quote, Shinkso. A quick link to the full article: [When journalism is about hits the craft goes amiss](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/when-journalism-is-about-h…)
Wow @ 18
I'm a big fan of adblock (if you're not familar with it it's a FF thing! works a treat...) But do you know if the hit counts presented for the scrutiny of advertisers are based on page loadings or the actual ad loadings themselves. If it's the former adblock wouldn't make any difference - if the latter that's another excellent reason to install the plugin.
Margaret Morgan @ 11 - the APC does indeed extend its remit to "...articles, editorials, letters," and ctrollumnists like Blot and the Devine Miranda. The problem, sorry, one of the problems with what are euphemistically called "opinion pieces" is that the APC gives these much more leeway than a "conventional" piece of reportage.
As a guide to what you can expect from the APC (not much, to put it briefly), a piece or two over at Crikey:
A commenter ("Angra") writes to Blot about the latter's obnoxious drivellings on a UK crematorium proposing to use waste heat from cremations. "Angra" had already written to Blot:
... and Blot's response got "Angra" to send a complaint to the APC:
It'll be interesting to watch to see if the APC take that anywhere.
About 18 months back, Crikey's Pure Poison had a thread on the APC and its judgement following a complaint made to the APC about Devine's foul little tirade that blamed the Victorian bushfires on "greenies" who should "hang from lamp posts".
Well worth a read. I think it's important to make the effort to put in a formal complaint and get these things on the record, even though the APC is pretty much a toothless, gutless and chinless organ.
re the Press Council.
It is best to look at its website and some of its own findings rather than rely completely on a possibly biased third-party commentary on it, even if that commentary is by Crikey. The Council does deal with complaints about columnists as well as news reports and has condemned columnists when their 'opinions' are based on misrepresented facts. It has also upheld complaints about inaccurate reporting of the climate change debate (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1457.html). Perhaps the problem is that, despite the loud whinges, no-one lodges complaints about Andrew Bolt.
>*rather than rely completely on a possibly biased third-party commentary on it*
Jack, this thread contains people's [first hand](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…) experience, and dose not rely completely on a third-party commentary.
The problem with the ideological rubbish that the likes of Bolt and Devine push onto their readers is that many lay people accept it as gospel truth when it is clearly based in conscious misrepresentation of science. This really makes these opinion pieces no better than [fraud](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) - "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage". As customers of Bolt's, Devine's, et al work the public should have recourse to compensation for having been defrauded, both in terms of immediate fincancial loss and in terms of the future harm, to themselves and to their descendants, resulting from these opinionators' effect on shaping policy responses to the science.
If these non-journalists want to use the argument of the right to "free speech", then their work should be required to be clearly labelled 'fiction' or 'not based in science', after the fashion of labelling 'advertorials' clearly as being advertisements.
The faux sceptics bleating on this topic is utterly nauseating:
(1) all govt AGW reports are supposed to have said it would never rain again and La Nina had been suspended - bolsh
(2) sceptics like Stewart Franks had secret knowledge about La Nina and the IPO interaction - ignored by govt, even though a number of Australian academics have made such analyses in hydrology, agriculture and coastal processes.
(3) bizarrely they fail to notice that the evil BoM and Hadley centres have done much of the work on the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation - so why do they believe it?
(4) greenies have stopped all dam building - well shucks Wyralong has just been built, recently built Paradise Dam (2005) just filled, and didn't Barnaby speak out against Traveston. Not to mention numerous dam upgrades http://www.sunwater.com.au/future-developments/all-projects/dam-safety-… and Hinze Dam
(5) Brisbane was caught by surprise - pity the local Bureau and Lord Mayor have been on about flooding for months.
Bolt is little more than an amusing joke amongst his fellow journalists.
great maps showing changes in rainfall in Australia over the past 50 years.
Bolt's link to a Chart from a Federal government dept in an earlier post shows no change in rainfall patterns since 1900. Is that wrong?
If not then what does the current flood have to do with AGW?
>Bolt's link to a Chart from a Federal government dept in an earlier post shows no change in rainfall patterns since 1900. Is that wrong?
>If not then what does the current flood have to do with AGW?
Troll. Are you denying that Bolt has been lying to you? How can you trust anything he says, unless you desperately want to believe it?
Here we go, the abuse and name calling when there's disagreement at this site.
I asked what is a legit question. Bolt is arguing the recent flood has nothing to do with AGW and the rainfall chart since 1900 suggests that rain levels and pattern haven't changed since 1900 nor show any discernible trend suggesting this was something different.
So who is the bigger liar: Tim for recently suggesting otherwise (as well the echo chamber around here) or Bolt who this time is actually relying on the science which in this case is an official rainfall chart from 1900?
>Here we go, the abuse and name calling when there's disagreement at this site.
My heart is breaking.
>I asked what is a legit question. Bolt is arguing the recent flood has nothing to do with AGW and the rainfall chart since 1900 suggests that rain levels and pattern haven't changed since 1900 nor show any discernible trend suggesting this was something different.
I just proved you were wrong. They have shifted significantly. Are you blind?
What is wrong with you?
>*I asked what is a legit question. Bolt is arguing the recent flood has nothing to do with AGW and the rainfall chart since 1900 suggests that rain levels and pattern haven't changed since 1900 nor show any discernible trend suggesting this was something different.*
So you ignorned the evidence that [rain patterns have changed](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/andrew-bolts-hockey-…) (in the link provided by John)
While also ignoring the dishonest claims made by Bolt that have been clearly documented in this thread.
Try a different approach than ignoring this evidence if you really are searching for truth.
You try this, ask your self what chart would test if these claim by the IPCC are close to the mark?
>*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 if the Rain fall in Australia's South decreased, and north increased, why judge this with a chart showing the pattern in the east? Perhaps you'd do so if you didn't want to show the changes that have happened?
This whole thread is about Tim presenting evidence of Bolt being dishonest in his presentation of data. Your post ignores that.
I genuinely don't understand how your vague reference to some government department's chart shows that the evidence presented by Tim is wrong? The stuff Tim is presenting is about selective evidence presented by Bolt that is used in such a way to directly contradict material in the same report. Can you please show how Tim's evidence is wrong by either dealing with his information directly or showing how this particular chart you mention accurately demonstrates that Tim has got it wrong about Bolt in this instance.
No name calling, just me asking you a direct question. If people here are just being ratbags as you are saying then you should be able to answer this question very easily.
Here's the reference chart on QLD rainfall since 1900 from that "obscure" government agency, The BOM.
Where's the trend suggesting higher level rainfall? If there's is a pattern, it's high variance.
The IPCC made long term projections. They were hardly projecting 3 years out. The suggestion is absurd and every serious climate scientist would back that up.
Tim recently indirectly suggested in an earlier thread that the QLD floods were evidence of an AGW related weather event. That's untrue.
Your argument is a strawman. The only person to mention any "trend" in this thread is you. Seeing as you are such an expert at reading what Tim "indirectly" says, perhaps you can read what he directly says instead of this asinine attempt to defend your hero's lying?
BTW you still haven't addressed the link I provided that shows Bolt has lead you astray here as well. Are you capable of any skeptical thought at all, or do you always believe what you're told?
Maybe I've missed something but I'm not sure what agentq is arguing against.
Bolt said that the rainfall patterns haven't changed. Now, you didn't link to the chart you're talking about (the one about rainfall changes since 1900), but is it this one?
If so, it gives you no information about spatial changes in rainfall (see this link, posted previously in the this thread, for some of that). There, you do see a spatial change in rainfall patterns. Its an important distinction to make especially since Queensland is, to put it mildly, big.
>If there's is a pattern, it's high variance.
>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... ...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)
i.e. increased variance.
Where's the beef?
You don't consider "trend" relevant to a discussion on whether the QLD flooding was AGW related (as Tim suggests) or not? That's interesting.
We're talking specifically about the flooding in QLD and if it's an AGW event, not continent wide rainfall pattern changes.
According to the BOM chart Bolt is correct in so far as rainfall pattern from 1900 to the present for QLD. There is no discernible trend to suggest otherwise.
Does this falsify AGW. Of course not, but it also does not support it like Tim said in an earlier post. Live with it.
Thanks for the interesting discussion and I'll leave you alone now.
>Does this falsify AGW. Of course not, but it also does not support it like Tim said in an earlier post. Live with it.
Huh. I can't find any such claim by Tim. Anyone got a link?
According to the BOM chart Bolt is correct in so far as rainfall pattern from 1900 to the present for QLD. There is no discernible trend to suggest otherwise.
What does total annual rainfall have to do with flooding? It's extreme rainfall events you want to look at.
>*According to the BOM chart Bolt is correct in so far as rainfall pattern from 1900 to the present for QLD. There is no discernible trend to suggest otherwise.*
Bolts is also correct when he dates his column 2011, that doesn't make Tim, the IPCC or anyone wrong, nor does it address the changes in intense rail fall events, nor the spacial changes, nor the risk of increasing flood and drought.
Agentq is acting determinedly to ignore these facts, with is eye solely on proving bolt was correct about something that is apparently completely insensitive to the factors that are have changed.
In other breaking news: water wet, sun rises in east, and humorously-captioned cat found on internet.
Andrew Bolt is fat.
To be fair both sides of the AGW debate have not done the story on the recent floods very well. It's hard to find a full story out there. And it's all or nothing.
1841 and 1893 floods in Brisbane were bigger. Much bigger. [River was up for 3 weeks in 1893](http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml) Daily rainfall records were 1893. In fact BoM have released a summary of the event with comparisons. http://reg.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs24b.pdf
Rainfall is broadly a result of the La Nina pattern with a change in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. And that's happened before in our history.
But this La Nina is a super La Nina - but with many record breaking or near record breaking meteorological features. Tropical sea surface temperatures around Australia trending up for decades. Crude measurments like 3pm vapour pressure (humidity) from eastern Australia highest since the the 1970s. And the Toowoomba and Lockyer floods caused by an extreme short duration super-cell event on saturated catchments. Unprecedented flash flooding. Not a tropical cyclone traverse. Just like the CSIRO models suggested 10 years ago.
So there is perhaps a story here of AGW potentially contributing to the case. That's contributing not causing. How strong is that evidence. Probably very mild. Single event stuff.
All following a long drought in the Wivenhoe dam catchment worse than 1902 Federation drought sequence. However CSIRO have recently put this down to "most likely" natural variability (just bad luck). There are other views however involving AGW moderated southern hemisphere circulation changes.
No wonder many people are worried. But maybe our memories are short and humans don't live long enough to see the full climate variability range.
So how often do we get a full discussion. Not often - it's all or nothing. No prisoners !
(and Bolt is that last person you'd ask)
>*To be fair both sides of the AGW debate have not done the story on the recent floods very well.*
To be fair Luke, I heard Matthew England make much the same points as you follow up with, so you are not being so fair on the pro science side of the the AGW "debate".
I agree with Agentq (#30). The regulars here being generally bereft of valid argument always resort to name calling - or worse silencing dissent - stalin style.
jakerman - we have had cringe worthy comments from Bob Brown that this event is due to AGW and Xstrata should pay for the cleanup. Sheesh ! as an AGW supporter one just shudders at this sort of comment.
@ Luke, what most commenters forget to include (or just forget) is global context, i.e. don't just look at floods in Qld, but also vast flood areas in Victoria, floods in Brazil (>600 confirmed dead, more to come), Sri Lanka, the heatwaves and wildfires in Russia in 2010, an exceptionally warm winter in Canada and an abnormally cold winter in Europe. And that's just 2010/ early 2011 - if you start going back a few more years, the increasing number of "extreme" weather events starts to look more like a trend...
That said, I don't necessarily think Bob Brown's timing or how he said what he said wrt Qld was all that well judged IMO.
Luke, as your evidence indicates, and as commented by Matthew England, this event is associated with record SST of the Queensland coast. And SST are directly linked to extreme rain fall. And SST have gone up by x degrees over the last x decades in this region. England calculates that SST would have been about 1/3 lower with the recent decades of warming.
Hence it likely than not that this event would not have been as extreme without AGW. Xstrata should pay, they are externalising their costs of there activities. We are warming the planet they are profiting from this.
jakerman - you will have the moral high ground if you have disconnected from the grid and adopted carbon-neutral alternative energy with whole of life greenhouse costing. Most of us including myself have not. If you live in Queensland the state and those who live in it benefit immensely from coal exports - and everyone seems to want better education, police, health spending etc using those dollars. Qld Treasury love coal income despite Anna's hubby being Qld office of climate change boss. So all of us enjoying the flow-on benefits have some guilt. Mind you if we turned Queensland off at the mains it wouldn't make a scintilla of impact on AGW. So let he who is without sin etc ....
SteveC - maybe on some - but 1841 and 1893 Brisbane floods much worse by another 4 metres over 2011 !! and South America - simply what you'd expect in a big La Nina? Probably has happened for 1000s of years from natural variability.
>*Most of us including myself have not. If you live in Queensland the state and those who live in it benefit immensely from coal exports - and everyone seems to want better education, police, health spending etc using those dollars.*
Who ever uses coal are externalizing costs to the rest of world. If users of coal instead paid the full price of there activity they'd use less, and more alternatives would be brought to market.
And I note in your reply to Steve C you ignore the link between rising SST and extreme rainfall events.
Yet again you ignore SST trends as jakerman points out, and yet again you persist in narrowing your focus down to Brisbane, rather like strangled dingo and his pet obsession with Nerang River.
Rising SSTs affect global climate patterns which affect global weather events. Simple.
Well jakerman 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. Alas we live in a pluralistic democracy, poll driven and internet enabled - you have to get into power and stay there. Probably more than 50% don't believe - and Bob Brown helps that view no end.
So the marginal cost of abatement for an "x" AGW trend across significant natural interannual and decadal variability for a unilateral Australian carbon pricing decision is what?
Steve - sorry about Brisvegas (I somehow thought it was topical) - pick Rockhampton (recently topical) or Victoria - same story. Or Brazil ! Do we have a good link between rising SSTs and extreme rainfall? A cite?
Luke, I donât know why you would compare the 2011 Brisbane floods to previous flood events without considering mitigation. The Australian did it yesterday as well. I have read anecdotal reports that the amount of water flowing into Wivenhoe catchment prior to the flood was much greater than 1974 and 1893 but it would be good to see the source.
And why the concentration on Brisbane alone?. Queensland is a big state and flooding affected areas from St George to Springsure to Rockhampton and beyond. Multiple towns had record flood events, Condamine and Theodore recorded two in several weeks. Regardless of the flood heights, the record Queensland rainfall and the extent of the rainfall is more indicitive of the severity of the monsoon.
Matthew England is quoted on SBS âI think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change,". Not a comforting thought to those of us living in central Queensland and only half way through the wet season.
>*Well jakerman good luck convincing people to pay a lot more for electricity in Australia for zero impact on global temperatures.*
Not zero impact at all. As one of the highest percapita players, and one of the richest out strong action is essential for global action.
>*Probably more than 50% don't believe*
Just your guess Luke? [here is closer to the mark.](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/05/31/lowy-poll-climate-chang…)
>*So the marginal cost of abatement for an "x" AGW trend across significant natural interannual and decadal variability for a unilateral Australian carbon pricing decision is what?*
Let at least strive for a price that evidence indicate will keep us to our share of 550ppm CO2, then ramp it up bring us in line with 450ppm. If we can keep the public with us we go for 350ppm.
Luke, your argument against pricing carbon is curious, out of interest what action do you propose be taken?
Do we have a good link between rising SSTs and extreme rainfall?
With 0.8 deg C of warming, the quantity of rain would have been increased by 0.8 x 7%, let's say 5%, for a given event. There are reports of 7500 Gl falling in the Brisbane catchment so AGW increased the rain that fell by 375 Gl. Wivenhoe dam sent 280 Gl down the river above the flow rate deemed to be non-damaging (3,500 m3/s). So AGW is probably entirely responsible for flooding Brisbane given the way Wivenhoe was controlled (which wasn't necessarily the most rational operating strategy). Put down a couple of billion dollars against the cost of AGW.
>So there is perhaps a story here of AGW potentially contributing to the case. That's contributing not causing.
Acacia - all that has happened in the past too despite some records in some places. I'm simply saying there may be an AGW component but evidence is pretty soft. The 2011 event was nowhere near 1893 for Brisbane in volume or duration. See the Crohamhurst rainfall records in 1893.
jakerman - I think the first figure in your survey graph is telling. Declining interest. And if people were aware of the full economic consequences ....- be interesting wouldn't it.
Many young people haven't got a clue what action really means - they think changing their light bulbs and having a sing-song at Earth Hour is it
You might feel strong about moral action on per capita or affluence - many don't give a stuff. And there will be no climate change - ZERO - for our unilateral action.
if there is no global deal - nuts for us to be legislating strongly. We'll simply export heaps of jobs off shore as industry re-locates. So need a global deal. AGW is indeed a grand challenge science, economic and social problem .... at the moment we're nowhere near a global deal.
It's a really difficult problem with few simple answers.
>The 2011 event was nowhere near 1893 for Brisbane in volume or duration. See the Crohamhurst rainfall records in 1893.
No it just happened to be across most of Queensland, as well as two other states. No other flood in our settled history comes close.
Luke, how do you think we should deal with AGW?
Well jakerman good luck convincing people to pay a lot more for electricity in Australia for zero impact on global temperatures.
This is wrong on just so many levels.
1. The collective action problem. It is commonly the case that the acts of individuals make no significant difference to a general problem, but that is not a rationale for relieving individuals of their obligations.
If one person refrains from littering, for example, the difference to total litter will be trivial. Yet a culture that grants that littering is OK is one in which litter will be pervasive. Once a person accepts constraints, he or she will insist that their peers do as well, and their peers will feel under an obligation to comply, both to avoid embarrassment and because if high compliance is achieved a worthy outcome should follow. We don't adjudge the wrongness of murder by its relationship to total morbidity. We don't allow murderers to get off lightly because the victim was at high risk of premature death and so the act would make trivial difference to global life years.
2. Politically, the argument that "everyone else is copping out so why should we hobble ourselves" can and is used everywhere just as you have used it. It's especially effective when Australia cops out because Australia is in per-capita terms the leading direct contributor to historic emissions and amongst the leading per-capita and jurisdictional emitters year on year. The context for climate mitigation will be much improved if Australia is in the front rank of developing effective policy.
3. While it may well be the case that a carbon price would imply paying substantially more in real terms for electricity and other power, a carbon price system that returned the bulk of the money raised to those on middle to low incomes in cash or kind would give them full compensation, allowing them scope to arrange their affairs to reduce consumption and put a premium on the production of energy not merely cleaner in CO2 terms, but in terms of other pollutants as well. So overall, it might turn out that they were actually better off, despite paying more for their power. Don't forget too that at least some of the funds raised will be paid not by Australian citizens but tourists, or people importing Australian-sourced hydrocarbons.
Interestingly, those parts of the country where CO2 intensity is fairly low -- SA, Tasmania for example -- would be beneficiaries because they'd get rebates but not pay much more in electricity charges. It's also the case that merely delaying this matter is already leading to increasing electricity costs as generators try to keep their options open, so the net effect of current policy -- delay -- doesn't foreclose cost increases. That's something one reads little about in the Murdochratic press.
4. There are other reasons for trying to decarbonise than GHG abatement. These include foreclosure of price-shock inflation associated with spiking hydrocarbon prices following some sudden downward movement in supply. They also include cleaner air and water. Airborne pollutants are very costly on the health system and of course to human beings. These costs show up in lost productivity as well as human suffering. Quality of life counts.
I hope this helps.
>*I'm simply saying there may be an AGW component but evidence is pretty soft.*
You're at odd with Matthew England on that point for one.
Chris Thanks for [this analysis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…). Interesting.
BTW Luke, instead of your inactivist approach, how about you do a positive thing and answer [this question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…)?
I donât know why you would compare the 2011 Brisbane floods to previous flood events without considering mitigation. The Australian did it yesterday as well.
You must have a look at that Australian article:
As The Weekend Australian has argued for years, what will deliver is a price on carbon. We would have one if Senator Milne and her mates had not blocked Labor's emissions trading scheme in 2009.
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it.
John - Come on - it's not like it's never flooded or there's been big wets before. 50s and 70s and 19th century saw major wet La Ninas and major eastern seaboard floods. Don't confuse increased or changed people location and increased asset exposure with increased actual climate risk.
Despite cyclones bearing down at the moment - in general the frequency of tropical cyclones making land fall in eastern Australia is less not more.
And in terms of us nobly hobbling ourselves - why should we? - so we hobble our economy for no ZERO climate gain. And see jobs go off-shore and the Americans and Chinese continue to emit with impunity? Does this make sense? Sucked in Aussie.
However - want to do something about AGW inactivism - get the greens off their irrational nuclear phobia and lets go "new" nuclear. And let's stop kidding ourselves what a substantial cut really looks like for quality of life. Like about 60% cut. The electorate would lynch ya !
Luke, if you believe nuclear will do the job, why oppose a price on carbon?
Wouldn't a price on carbon, combined with a desire for cheap energy drive new investigation of nuclear options. And as the price of carbon begins to take effect, if nuclear is as promising as you believe, wouldn't economic imperative drive it. And if Australia's renewable options are as promising as many believe couldn't they break through were there supply matched with demand?
>*And in terms of us nobly hobbling ourselves - why should we? - so we hobble our economy for no ZERO climate gain. And see jobs go off-shore and the Americans and Chinese continue to emit with impunity? Does this make sense? Sucked in Aussie.*
Zero climate gain claim once again Luke. Aren't you willing to accept evidence that conflicts with your beliefs?
A global agreement on emissions reduction is the most likely way conceivable we have for keeping AGW below dangerous feedback levels. And you simply write it off? Do you not see Australia's responsible participation in such an agreement as a climate gain?
>*And in terms of us nobly hobbling ourselves - why should we?*
"*nobly hobbling ourselves*" would be the inactivities term for giving ourselves the opportunity of becoming leaders and hence exporters of low carbon technology.
And why should we, one reason would be to avoid more of the cost like those incurred during recent flooding. The other would be to build sustainable employment rather than bubble jobs based on incorrectly priced coal. Read WG2 for a more extensive list of reasons why.
And see jobs go off-shore and the Americans and Chinese continue to emit with impunity?
The Chinese are actually paying a higher effective price on Co2 than is Australia, so that is a furphy. In any event most of their emissions are exports from the west as their emissions are produced to meet western demand. So really our emissions count is deceptively low.
FTR ... I am a Green and I support nuclear power as part of the mix. We are going to need a serious Co2 price for that though.
(1) you tell us the net improvement in climate will result by turning Australia off the coal-fired mains
(2) will turning Australia off the coal-fired mains power outlet (NOW!) improve the damage outcome from ENSO and anti-ENSO cycles that have been interacting with the IPO for 1000s of years
So Luke, are you the same Luke who stands toe-to-toe against the numpties at Marohasy'r Bog? I find it hard to believe that you are, considering the concern troll mantle that you wear here.
As to your problem with leading the world in addressing carbon emissions, your strategy sounds like nothing else but a game of 'chicken', where the stake is no less than a future livable world for our descendants and their biosphere, such as it might be.
>*1) you tell us the net improvement in climate will result by turning Australia off the coal-fired mains (2) will turning Australia off the coal-fired mains power outlet (NOW!)*
1) Luke can you tell us the name of the logical fallacy where one argues against a made up argument rather than addressing the case made by your opponent?
2) What does it say about the strength of one's case if one is reduced to practicing this logical fallacy?
improve the damage outcome from ENSO and anti-ENSO cycles that have been interacting with the IPO for 1000s of years
I used to teach (euphemism for stand there stunned at some of the student answers to my questions...) CALCULUS! Calculus is a study in limiting behaviour where each individual contribution to a sum is infinitesmal, and yet, the total is finite...integral calculus, anyway.
My point being made by analogy: each individual contribution is a JOKE! a big FAT ZILCH! NADA! Miniscule! Infinitesmal! Sometimes we need to make a miniscule contribution as part of something bigger, in order to affect change of a finite nature.
In the case of AGW (Anthrophogenic Global Warming), the ironic thing is that we got here by a series of for all practical purposes infinitesmal contributions by a bunch of individuals - ta, Grampa - and yet people are so willing to use this very argument as a reason not to try to reverse the process of AGW. Now, we probably can't actually reverse AGW, but if we don't play an active role in trying to, it continues to get worse each and every day. That is because inaction actually still entails a series of infinitesmal daily contributions be each individual on the planet. Our choice, our responsibility!
I predict Luke is about to use the "Incontrovertible, there is no answer to this" argument:
And Fran Barlow, Janet Ackerman, Chris O'Neill, etc make the necessary points for why collectively our behaviour is key. It is all well and good to yap on about how nuclear might do the trick, but the fact is that a market driven price on Carbon will select nuclear and many other mechanisms, depending upon both global and local factors.
If we went gang busters to build as many nuclear power plants as possible, that is still going to give only an INFINITESMAL contribution each day to the overarching problem of AGW. That's because the rate of construction is limited by economic factors, labour factors, technological issues, and so on. A mixture of partial solutions is probably the best that we can achieve, so let's get on with it while there is still an opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions towards zero.
Some people might benefit from AGW, at least for a time, but on a country by country basis Australia gets hit pretty hard. It will be more expensive to do business in Australia in the future, precisely because of the additional impact of AGW inspired extreme weather events. Other parts of the world might end up with more opportunity for business due to a lucky conspiracy of AGW and their current physical environment. Australia still has to compete economically against such lucky countries. Ever thought about that?
Bernard J - yes I am to your question.
It's simply a straight discussion though - the answer to what effect unilaterally turning off Australia at the switch is that, despite some popular opinion, will do nothing about our climate futures. Even if we stopped emitting today we would still be impacted by periodic droughts, floods, bushfires and cyclones. Our background won't go away - albeit it could get worse under AGW.
So I find myself in a depressing position. I think politically and morally on this issue most of us are full of shit - we're not really going to do anything about emissions short of serious technological intervention. Nobody will vote for lower living standards. And the developing world wants more of what we have.
So perhaps there is only adaptation. However don't let me deter renewable energy types from keeping on trying.
However - just because the problem is difficult doesn't mean that the climate science is faulty. Which is my opponents position. i.e. if it's a difficult problem therefore the problem doesn't exist.
AGW is a serious issue IMO. Our opponents tactics are to discredit the science at all costs and so that behoves us to communicate the science outcomes with precision and not overstate the case. But also to repel nonsense attacks.
I apologise if this seems confronting.
>*It's simply a straight discussion though - the answer to what effect unilaterally turning off Australia at the switch is that, despite some popular opinion, will do nothing about our climate futures.*
Would you like some more straw for you logical fallacy? Luke?
Its not confronting, its sad.
Jakerman - Yes please - I'm sorry the truth is unpalatable. You've simply ducked the issue.
>*Jakerman - Yes please - I'm sorry the truth is unpalatable. You've simply ducked the issue.*
What you mean I ducked your strawman where you needed to pretend my argument was we turn the lights off?
Pathetic Luke. Grow up this is a serious issue, your game is weak. Come back when you are prepared to tackle the real issue and my real argument.
Even if we stopped emitting today we would still be impacted by periodic droughts, floods, bushfires and cyclones.
You stop at the most important point. If we found a way to stop emitting today then we could guide others in doing likewise. Of course we can't stop emitting today. That's not technically feasible, but if we found a way of cutting by, for argument's sake 40% by 202O and another 40% by 2040 we could invite others to do likewise with some authority.
Yes, it's likely that in the medium term we would continue to reap much of what our grandparents (and our parent and us following them) have sown, but the world's grandchildren would stand appreciably better and theirs better still, relative to us doing nothing.
What's your theory on what most adults hope for their children and grandchildren and whether we ever set aside our personal interest to ensure they achieve what he hope for them?
I love your calculus analogy - it clearly illustrates the issue of indvidual contribution!
Although, having said that, I suspect that it might be a bit like that episode of the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon uses SchrÃ¶dinger's cat as an analogy for Penny's realtionship with Leonard. When Sheldon says "SchrÃ¶dinger's cat" to Penny, she looks blanky at him, but when Sheldon says "SchrÃ¶dinger's cat" to Leonard, Leonard immediately says "oh, yeah!" without any further explanation required.
Whilst I actually agree with you about the likely outcome of human nature and its inertia with respect to changing how we live, I still believe that we must each try as much as we can.
Personally, I have sacrificed about three quarters of my income, if not more, as a part of the process of changing how I impact the planet. It hasn't been that hard for me... but then, I have a very different view of what is necessary in life compared with most people I know. In most people's eye's I would probably be regarded as an ascetic. My new laptop is my one luxury; other than that I have little in the way of "stuff", I do not travel intersate or overseas, I have a small power consumption, I grow a lot of my own food, and I use only rainwater collected from my roof.
It can be done.
But whether or not people are prepared to do what I have done, or more, there is no excuse for not trying at least to do something. One of the big travesties in the whole emissions pricing debate is that Westerners are basically trying to dodge the cost of damaging the planet, which is bizarre given our predilection for charging others for any damages wrought upon ourselves or upon our properties.
In this we are no different to the Southern slave-owners who resisted emancipation, even though there was no moral case at all for them to "own" other people.
If Australia "unilaterally turns off the power" it might actually serve as the impetus for the rest of the world to stop playing chicken. And there are economic measures to counter any damage too - taxing polluters can apply as easily to overseas industry as to our own, such that tarrifs (gasp!) level the playing field and halt to flow of jobs overseas.
If our government can't explain to free-trade partners that such imposts are simply our refusals to subsidise their own industries at Australia's expense, then the problem becomes another one of playing 'chicken'. Personally, I don't understand why such tarrifs are not proposed at climate talks as a levelling mechanism for dealing with emissions, unless there are strong lobby influences that tap politicians' shoulders in back-rooms...
Which brings us to one of your comments. Yes, in many ways we and our governments and our corporations are full of shit, but sitting on our hands and continuing that attitude isn't going to help the planet. The fact is, at some point we won't have a choice, and the longer we leave it the more it's going to cost us, economically and ecologically.
Saying that adaptation is "perhaps the only strategy" misses the point that such a strategy would result in us forever chasing our tails, because we would be forever readapting and forever paying more and more, as the climate continues to move inexorably to a point where no amount of further adaptation is feasible. It's no different to bailing out water from a leaking boat at the rate of 10 buckets per minute, when the boat is taking on 20 buckets per minute. If you are sensible you plug the leak first and then bail, rather than bailing and hoping that you can stay afloat.
Mitigation must come first, and then adaptation as a secondary strategy.
Bernard J - while I admire your personal commitment - do you really think in your heart of hearts that 90% of Australians will follow your example. How many plasma TVs were bought on the stimulus package. Have a look at the massive freeway infrastructure in Melbourne and Sydney. Tunnels in Brisbane. Saturday mornings at Harvey Norman. And Kmart and Big W full of the latest container loads of stuff we all must have all assisted to manufacture by our energy imports. We're nowhere near doing anything and the energy intensity keeps growing.
Additionally how many self-sufficient people could survive one of the recent decade-long drought sequences without a supportive external society able to transport commodities, irrigate etc. The climate variation is Australia is harsh. That is even if you have a clue about producing your own food.
Huh the Turkish spam bot agrees with Luke!
And the spam bot like Luke won't defend Luke strawman fallacy either.
#83 Luke. You're a puritan at heart I'm afraid. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You know, I know, everybody knows that what conscientious individuals are doing is not enough. But it -is- a start.
And bleating on about consumerism is attacking the problem from the wrong end. It's a lot easier to get people on board by saying you -can- have the same quality of life without emitting vast quantites of CO2. It's one of the reasons why I favour a big rollout of solar PV. There are many, many people who would see this as a chance to go one better than others in using power wisely.
Friends who visited us last week told us about neighbours who were now receiving cash rather than bills from their power supplier - all without modifying anything about their lives except having the big thing on their roof. Once people get into this mindset, you can bet your boots that the next time they replace an appliance the main game for them will be getting the -best- efficiency possible. Get a new appliance, use even less power, get more cash from the supplier. And then this more frugal approach carries over into other aspects of their lives.
And our energy intensity is not growing.
Bernard #81, UK historian Jean-FranÃ§ois Mouhot has written about that link between ending slavery and tackling global warming (which Jim Hansen has talked about). He thinks we could learn from what worked in the campaigns against slavery.
adelady - but the reality - how many new homes have air-conditioning, how many new homes have entertainment electronics that didn't exist years ago, multiple computers, dishwashers, microwaves, kitchen appliances, driers etc. And multiple vehicles.
It's a far cry from the 1930s ! So instead of an efficient appliance - think "no appliance" at all.
Yes shouldn't have said intensity but see Garnaut http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm Figs 7.7 and 7.10
And for electricity consumption http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=as&v=81
Emissions still rising http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/our-greenhouse-emissio…
>*Luke. You're a puritan at heart I'm afraid.*
I'm concerned with Luke's retreat to fallacious argument. Pretty hard to have a sensible conversation when one side (puritan or not) won't address your argument and instead insist on slaying straw tigers.
If someone sharing Luke's concerns (even a puritan bent), but not his fallacious tactics, were to join us it would be interesting to discuss the difference between one doubling (560 ppm) of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and 2x doubling (1100 ppm).
But alas when instead get stone wall on the real argument and straw tiger distractions.
The best economic (as opposed to scientific) argument I have heard for why Australia should cut carbon emissions in a hurry is that:
a) Despite what Blot et al believe, China, the US and the EU are actually ahead of us in cutting carbon emissions now.
b) These three major economies of the world are all suffering economic woes connected with low domestic demand and poor domestic employment.
c) The traditional populist response to these circumstances is tariffs, but WTO/GATT rules prevent this.
d) However, there are no rules against tariffs on the greenhouse emissions of imports.
e) Therefore, it's very likely that in the near future, many of our major trading partners will slap CO2 based tariffs on our exports/their imports - at which point our energy-intensive economy goes from hero to zero. Adapt now and we dodge this bullet. If we wait until it happens, we lose our place in the global economy for a very long time as we have to retool, change all our processes, then repenetrate markets we have been excluded from.
Luke's concern for something he doesn't actually believe in is greatly appreciated.
Chris Monckton, Cliff Ollier, Ian Plima and possibly Andrew Bolt ?
Guys, I am just heading down to the quote mine, does anyone want anything?
Well Jakerman instead of being towed around in my wake sniping you could have made your point by now. So do tell your story ....
Bernard J - while I admire your personal commitment - do you really think in your heart of hearts that 90% of Australians will follow your example.
Luke, if you parse what I posted before you'd realise that I personally doubt that we have the collective gumption to give up our national selfishness until there is simply no longer any choice. Oh, there is a large minority of Australians who have a clue and are prepared to spit on their hands and go to work, but the recalcitrant self-indulgents and the vascillating middle are currently the majority.
This is why people such as Bolt, Codling, Marohasy, Devine, Watts, and their ilk carry such huge culpability for their ravings. From so relatively few people sufficient reluctance has been generated in the self-absorbed and nose-ringed middle of our society that it's already too late for the best action to be entrained.
However, my points still stand. If nothing is done at all, there will be no future for our society. Anything done before the point of "too late" is something that reduces the final mess, and the sooner that we figure this out and bite the bullet the better it will be for everyone.
Waiting for others to go first will just slow down everyone else around the planet, and as [James Haughton points out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…), such a strategy will mean that we only end up eating the rest of the world's economic dust.
I'm not sure what you think that we should do Luke, but even though we as a country have already shown that we aren't as up to the task as we should be, it's no reason not to continue pushing for belated action.
Better late than never; better a moderate mess than a huge one.
>*Well Jakerman instead of being towed around in my wake sniping you could have made your point by now. So do tell your story ....*
Wake up Luke and read the thread. Here is a guide, go back to my posts [@66 through @68](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…). You know, the posts you avoided responding to by pretending I was arguing for:
>*turning Australia off the coal-fired mains power outlet (NOW!)*
I was being a bit diplomatic before, Luke.
What I think you're really arguing is that going carbon-free is a passport to "living in caves". Sounds like a boringly familiar denier argument to me.
What I see is that the sooner we use the technologies we have to get to carbon-free, the more likely we are to have a good continuation of something like current lifestyles. (Otherwise I see eventual rationing - which would mean that those of us with domestic PV would be restricted from using things we like even though we're net contributors to the power supply.)
My own experience with 20+ years of solar hot water is a simple example. The whole world tells me that I should wash my clothes in cold water. Why? My hot water system is turned off at the power connection. If I want to risk a cold shower in the morning because I'm silly enough to do half a dozen hot water loads of clothes and dishes after sunset, that's my lookout.
Good, simple, available technology can be distributed to substantially reduce or eliminate power drawn from the grid. Good, simple, available technology can be employed to retrofit domestic and industrial buildings and change the timing or other details of activities to reduce power requirements regardless of source.
Wailing about "turning off the power" is pointless. Turning our attention to better ways to produce power and to reduce the need for it in the first place is more productive.
>*Oh, there is a large minority of Australians who have a clue and are prepared to spit on their hands and go to work, but the recalcitrant self-indulgents and the vascillating middle are currently the majority.
This is why people such as Bolt, Codling, Marohasy, Devine, Watts, and their ilk carry such huge culpability for their ravings.*
BJ its interesting that the Nova numpties you refer to are only [approx 13% of Aus pop](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/05/31/lowy-poll-climate-chang…). The way they make such a noise you'd think they were much more.
And despite a lackluster performance from Rudd, Gillard managed to scape back in while promising to put a price on carbon. The largest swing going to the party with the most ambitious carbon policies.
I'm sure Luke would like to distance himself from the arguments used by [Monckton here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
how many new homes have air-conditioning, how many new homes have entertainment electronics that didn't exist years ago,..... So instead of an efficient appliance - think "no appliance" at all.
Household electricity consumption is less than around 20% of total consumption and probably half of that is just for heat. "No appliances" could only hope to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation by 10% and by 5% of total GHG emissions. Luke is just being misleading.
Can immersion at Nova's/Marohasey's have a fatiguing, demotivating and anti-logic effect?
Luke, any more straw and you'll be able to set up as a stock food supplier.
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).
>*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…) the content, and [here is the vacuous](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…) the rant.
Come back luke and try again when you've given up retreating to such fallacious tactics.
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…):
>*Good luck convincing people to pay a lot more for electricity in Australia for zero impact on global temperatures.*
>*And in terms of us nobly hobbling ourselves - why should we? - so we hobble our economy for no ZERO climate gain.*
>*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_…):
>*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.*
Here is some more content for Luke. Luke adopts [NewCorp culture war language](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…) 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, âeverything you canâ 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 âneed everythingâ 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.
Lukeâs [Monckton like](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…) undermining of the necessary steps for such an agreement seem puzzling. Game theory suggest that Australiaâs 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…). 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:
>*âturning Australia off the coal-fired mains power outlet (NOW!)â*
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*
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 Australiaâs 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.
>*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 âneed everythingâ 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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…), and opted to restate your misleading Monckton talking points, all wrapped up with you NewsCorp Newsspeak.
Quite revealing Luke.
What's wrong with Chardonnay, trollboy?
Luke @ 105 â¦. 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 donât you Luke?
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.
>*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.
Note, when I speak of economic disadvantage [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…), 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.
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?
It's so good you call out Bolt's deceit like that.
Luke, once again you dodge your own question and [my followp](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…).
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…). 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…) yet Luke?
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.
Correction, in the above post I meant to link to [these question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…) that luke is avoiding.
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 âwhatâs in it for me?â 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?
Stop trying to divert the conversation and answer the questions, concern troll.
>*So the climate improvement from Kyoto is what exactly?*
Refer [to above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…). 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…), 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.
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.
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.
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....
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?
>*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…). 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…).
>*I'm up for a carbon tax on a major emitters all-in agreement*
Could you expand on your condition *"all-in agreement"*
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.
I'm sure we agree with more of Steve's posts than does Luke.
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.
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?
Zoot - I'm sorry I should have said pinot grigio.
>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.
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…).
Or the other questions you've left unattended.
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.
>*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…).
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
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 - âa rapid return to
much higher land-fall rates therefore possibleâ
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?
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.
>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…)?
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?
I retain hope for my treatment Jeff; I believe you were part of the control group.
Agriculture is about 16% National Inventory
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
September 2008, pp. 1 - 63 (63 pages)
Publisher: Australian Farm Institute
Author: Australian Farm Institute - Keogh, M & Thompson, A
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 !
>*Answer to your question - is the G-20 countries!*
The G20 countries what?
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-f…) 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...*
>*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.
>*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?
> 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?
> 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.
>*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).
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-f… 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?
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, wonât 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 Monktonâs talking points, and cohenite comes in to give you support.
Check out Barnaby at 5:30 sec.
>*"Notoriously conservative ABARE" ROFL.*
Well ROFL seems to be one of Luke reactions when he ainât got a leg to stand on:
>In Australia the Commonwealth government has relied heavily on figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)âa 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 ABAREâs 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 ABAREâs climate-change modelling come from the fossil-fuel industry.
>*But ABAREâs 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.*
>*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.
> 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.
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.
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?
>*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'.
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?
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.
> 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).
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 !
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 !
More zero content trash from the debased Luke. Go back to your [ROFL](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_column_flooded_wit…), 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.
>*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.*
Luke you've have lost it! Cookoo, tropo, lopo lost it!
I feel a little sad at your demise.
>*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).
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.
> 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!
> 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!
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
>*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 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?*
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?
How many shares did you have J-girl?
Get a job Janet !
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…) person.
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].*
I wonder if [Sou](http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/travesties-train-wrecks-and-cli…) has been reading Marohasy's blog?
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.
> 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.
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?