The Climate Change Thread

[chasmac]

Imagine if Australia sets up a Nuclear power plant AND continues to supply massive quantities of coal to the world. Is this hypocritical ?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Wow, today the West Australian front page said "Ban the Lord" (Monckton). I never thought i'd see the day they when they wouldn't endorse some batshit insane politician propagating against the carbon tax. I suppose they are only doing it so they don't get labelled "nazi lovers", but at the same time it is a good sign even the most "liberal" media outlets are distancing themselves from this fool.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The data in the graph indicates a rise of 0.4 degrees over the last 20 years, so in line with their 1.1 degree prediction over 40 years, however the data is also showing a reduction in the temperature over the last few years. It maybe another 5-10 years before we can truly know if the prediction is at all accurate.

The underlying trend is still upwards. I'd be more than happy for the temperature to start going down, and stay down. But looking at the long term data that doesn't appear to be the case. We could be sitting here in 2020 where the average temperature is .6 degrees higher, but saying the earth is going to cool down due to a downward trend over the last 4-5 years.

 

[Scotty]

Being out by a factor of almost 3x is not really an acceptable margin of error though, is it?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Well remember that's the IPCC's first report in 1990. Blogs who pick up on it are reading very selectively. It is not as if the IPCC still stick by those exact predictions, they recognized the changes and adjusted accordingly. In the 1990 report they would have had to forecast things like population growth/economic growth/deforestation/technological advances/aerosol offsets...ect for the first time (well not as comprehensively as this). It isn't a surprise they didn't get it spot on.

Anyway, I've decided to read more of these reports as i never realized how easily accessible they were until recently. So i can only really answer briefly at this stage. Not that i am trying to "defend" the IPCC, if they managed to do something as stupid as not changing their predictions in the face of new evidence of course i would reject what they are saying. But that wouldn't be giving the scientists much credit, they are usually the first to ask these questions so when bloggers are "disproving" the IPCC's work by quoting their 1990 predictions they aren't really doing much at all. Any credible scientist would have asked themselves that question ages ago, i'm sure they'd all agree that the figures were off. Anyway, i'm going to continue reading on the subject for now.

 

[Scotty]

Yes there is plenty of 'reading selectively', however it does also appear there has been plenty of 'writing selectively'. This is meant to be a completely non-biased and impartial body informing governments on the climate and our response to it. It doesn't appear to anyone from the outside that this is the case.

 

[matty_k]

Anyone else catch Adam Spencer interviewing "Lord" Monckton.

You can listen to it here.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2011/07...ew.html?site=sydney&program=702_breakfast

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

hahahaha great find, listening to that now. Good to see him being exposed for his dishonesty. He is just another washed up UKIP politician, not a scientific sceptic of any kind.


edit: for anyone interested, here is a nice video series on youtube (about Monckton): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM

 

[Clawhammer]

Anyone else catch Adam Spencer interviewing "Lord" Monckton.

You can listen to it here.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2011/07...ew.html?site=sydney&program=702_breakfast

I love the way Monckton describes himself as 'center right'. The ABC really should have just ignored him though, just adding fuel to the fire.

 

[Cutter]

Scotty, you're right, there is an enormous amount of dishonesty surrounding this debate. The science is clear.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/when-science-is-undone-by-fiction-20110628-1gp26.html

When science is undone by fiction
Jo Chandler
June 29, 2011
OPINION
Comments 357

Jo Chandler Photo: Penny Stephens
The myth of Climate-gate has endured because of media failings.

Geologist and long-time climate change denialist Bob Carter materialised on this website on Monday, reprising a weary routine - tiptoeing through the scientific archive to find the morsels of data that might, with a twirl here and a shimmy there, contrive to support his theory that global warming is a big fat conspiracy.

Meanwhile, in real news, the journal Nature Geoscience published a paper by American and British scientists that found West Antarctica's Pine Island glacier is now melting 50 per cent faster than in 1994.

In an effort to better understand the hidden mysteries of ice sheet dynamics, which have obvious implications for every coast on the planet, the team also sent a submarine beneath the floating portion of the ice. It found the glacier had broken free from the ridge that once grounded it, allowing warmer waters to circulate and melt it from beneath. This had long been the theory - now they had some observed evidence.

Advertisement: Story continues below
The hastening retreats of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers have been closely monitored by scientists for decades. Their collapse is a nightmare cited as one of the tipping-point scenarios scientists most fear - potentially pulling the plug to drain the western ice plateau, and possibly even destabilising the sleeping giant next door: the East Antarctic ice sheet.

The uncertainties of these processes are to blame for the wide, wild variations in anticipated global sea level rise - the hottest, most disputed topic in forecasts for a warmer world. So you might imagine that this latest insight would merit a mention. But it didn't make the cut for publication in any Australian newspapers. (It did make an appearance on Fairfax's online news sites.)

The murky, under-the-waterline mysteries of media dynamics are no less confounding than those determining the movement of glaciers, and no less potentially catastrophic in terms of implications for informing policy debate and climate action.

But there are no laws of physics or nature to provide a framework to explain the vagaries of the media machine, which seems utterly overwhelmed by the task of telling the story on climate science. There is, in truth, nothing very scientific about the processes that determine what makes news in this critical debate. It's a crap shoot. Often, you get crap.

At the heart of Carter's argument against the science is the claim that the credentials of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - and hence its authority in underpinning policy such as a carbon tax - were ''badly damaged by the leaked 'Climate-gate' emails in November 2009''. He's right - terrible damage was wrought by the accusations that scientists had behaved without integrity or honesty.

What Carter fails to then mention is that, at last count, there have been eight separate inquiries by British and US government agencies, independent panels and universities. Their findings have consistently upheld the honesty and integrity of the scientists. None have identified wrongdoing, and the science was unassailed.

The great scandal of Climate-gate is the failure of the media to recognise and report the findings of these inquiries. That failure allowed the shadow of Climate-gate to endure, and it has been identified as a powerful, albeit hollow, thief of public confidence in critical, evolving science.

Climate-gate, a triumphant moment in the machinery of manufactured doubt, continues to be used to obscure where the live debate is actually occurring. If you want a taste of the fiery end of it, you might like to pay heed to a gathering in Melbourne next month of international experts contemplating a future with 4 degrees or more of warming. (fourdegrees2011.com.au)

It might be argued that the devotion of scientists to identify consensus on climate forecasts - and the sensitivity of the media to brokering anything that might be labelled alarmist - has also nobbled debate.

The valiant efforts of scientists to deliver to policymakers and the public a coherent, consensus voice on climate change moderates the messages, substituting worst-case for best-guess, itself a distortion. As veteran British climate writer Fred Pearce reflected in the wake of the 2007 IPCC report, ''some people accuse the IPCC of being alarmist. On the contrary, my reading is that [it] worked so hard to assuage the concerns of its critics that it left out all the things its authors really fear.''

Further distortions in the debate are rendered by clumsy efforts of the media to achieve ''balance'', or contrived efforts to drum up controversy. But as new Chief Scientist Ian Chubb argued last week, ''if 99 people say one thing and one person says another thing, the one person has a right to have their view on the table, but they don't have a right to be given the same amount of time and space as the 99 without qualification''.

Recent surveys of active climate scientists (those publishing in the area) calculate that 97 in every 100 have views that reflect those of the international academies of science: the planet is warming, this is human caused, and it is dangerous. Most are unlikely to ever have the gift of this page to explain their findings.

Therefore, a more balanced, rigorous and honest rendering of their work is critical to elevating the political and public debate on climate. ''The media has a particular and important role to play,'' said Chubb, ''and the sooner they play it better, the better."

Jo Chandler is a senior writer and author of Feeling The Heat, which tracks climate science field work.

 

[chief]

Considerable tax breaks under the Carbon tax with the increased threshold. However it's right now seeming like a whole lot of cash being thrown and a bit of wealth redistribution. Predictably they are removing the fuel excise for large vehicles in mining industries. I think I am kind of sympathizing with the mining sector. They under this government are getting whacked.

The considerable tax cuts will make Tony Abbott very nervous when he comes to government probably in two years time. He must be thinking "How on earth am I going to repeal this tax?"

PS. This is such a significant reform, that they really need to give a mini budget.

 

[mark_s]

I'm unhappy with the announcements today. I'm a believer in climate change and would even support am EMTS. however I fall into the 1 in 10 that get no support/compensation under the carbon taax proposals. That bugs me, but this is about the 4 or 5th time I have been in the 10% that misses out since the labour party came in in 2007 so I haave now decided how I will vite in the next election even though I don't rate Abbot. I have a young famliy (3 kids under 5) and hardly think of myself as rich or even financially comfortable in the expensive city of Sydney. $110k of income in my home town would be in a jackpot, but in Sydney its not far of minimum wage for a one income family with 3 kids.

 

[Scotty]

I'm actually leaning the other way in regards to compensation. If Labor truly believes in the need for all of us to contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then the compensation should be reduced. How are people going to change their habits when it doesn't cost them a cent to continue on the status quo? (In fact some are actually going to be making money out of this?!!!)

 

[Cutter]

I'm actually leaning the other way in regards to compensation. If Labor truly believes in the need for all of us to contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, then the compensation should be reduced. How are people going to change their habits when it doesn't cost them a cent to continue on the status quo? (In fact some are actually going to be making money out of this?!!!)

At last, we agree on something Scotty! You'd have got shorter odds on the Reds winning the comp 2 years ago.

mark_s - it's too simplistic to say you don't like this solution so you'll vote for Abbott. The Coalition (the other coalition) hasn't decided how it will finance its expensive and ineffective plan. It's important to do a side by side analysis and then decide.

 

[Scotty]

Yah. Group Hug!

 

[Scotty]

PS How does this carbon tax tackle the amount of emissions that come from our coal exports? (Or the burning of our coal outside this country?)

 

[mark_s]

At last, we agree on something Scotty! You'd have got shorter odds on the Reds winning the comp 2 years ago.

mark_s - it's too simplistic to say you don't like this solution so you'll vote for Abbott. The Coalition (the other coalition) hasn't decided how it will finance its expensive and ineffective plan. It's important to do a side by side analysis and then decide.

My point is slightly different Cutter. I am consistently falling into the category of not being worthy for any favourable changes the labour government bring in but am coping the full effect of unfavoruable changes right on the nose. The carbon tax is the last straw for me.

Your right though, it is premature to say I will vote for Abbot, but I won't be voting for the ALP direcrtly or indirectly. I realise now I have probably taken this topic of track.

 

[ChargerWA]

PS How does this carbon tax tackle the amount of emissions that come from our coal exports? (Or the burning of our coal outside this country?)

As far as I understand, it doesn't. Which is why it is going to encourage offshore companies to come in and buy up the remaining 13% of mining companies we still do own. Get all those mining profits offshore.

US-based Peabody Energy has teamed up with India's ArcelorMittal to offer $US5 billion ($4.7 billion) for Macarthur Coal, the world's bigger producer of pulverised coal, as demand for steel making raw material intensifies.


The offer of $15.50 a share is at a 40 per cent premium to Monday's close and comes only a day after the federal government unveiled a plan to tax carbon emissions from the nation's worst polluters or about 500 companies including coal miners.Despite black eyes from environmentalists, the global market for coal has never been better, with prices for the unique PCI coal mined by Macarthur trading at a narrowing discount to hard coking coal.

 

[Cutter]

As far as I understand, it doesn't. Which is why it is going to encourage offshore companies to come in and buy up the remaining 13% of mining companies we still do own. Get all those mining profits offshore.

We should definitely have backed a wide spread mining super profits tax. Australia will regret that for many generations.

 

[Clawhammer]

We should definitely have backed a wide spread mining super profits tax. Australia will regret that for many generations.

Agree - and they should have adopted the rest of the Henry reforms with it, that was a big mistake.

I'm a bit confused though, if the carbon-tax was going to destroy investment why would a multi-national be trying to buy coal mines?