The Climate Change Thread

[Scotty]

I wasn't going to, but I'll explain one last time.

I wasn't calling all Co2 in the atmosphere pollution, I stated that man-made co2 emissions are pollution.

By (what appears to be) your definition of pollution, nothing is in fact pollution. Every single chemical/gas is important to the earth in some shape or form. Every chemical has it's use in the oceans, atmosphere... you name it. So if my company was releasing billions of tons of dangerous chemicals into the environment I could object to the term "pollution" simply because those chemicals might have some use to some aspect of the eco-system on a much smaller scale.

-------------

Back on topic. George Pell's rants are always a good laugh. Just a shame whatever he says/writes gets published on a national scale...

Talk about Carbon Dioxide Pollution or even Carbon Pollution all you want. I was disagreeing with the use of 'Pollution' alone. People that read this thread may be mislead into thinking this tax is about all Pollution, not just of the carbon kind.

It is the type of language that politicians use to subtly but intentionally mislead the public.

 

[Scotty]

Scotty there is a difference between being wrong, and someone correcting you and being a pedant thereby distracting debate from the real issues.

One of the issues is the politics and the mire of language around this issue. I know you want agree with me on this site, but it is likely you also find this to be part of the issue.

It is not pedantic to insist that the general term 'pollution' is not the same as 'carbon dioxide pollution', particularly when discussing a 'Carbon Tax'.

Bru said:

Putting a limit on pollution is a good start. It seems the more the world produces, the higher pollution gets with no repercussions. Which is a type of negative externality

.

 

[Moses]

CANADIAN Foreign Minister John Baird has cast doubt on the fundamental analysis underpinning Australia's carbon tax policy, saying neither his nation nor the US would ever introduce an emissions trading scheme.

While avoiding any criticism of the Gillard government, Mr Baird told The Australian he did not believe any effective carbon-trading system would come into effect.

The ability to trade greenhouse gas emissions, or carbon credits, is central to the Australian government's carbon tax.

Under Labor's scheme, Australia's greenhouse gas emissions would continue to rise but the nation would achieve its carbon reduction targets by purchasing credits on an international scheme.

Mr Baird said he did not believe Canada would introduce a carbon tax or an ETS.

"The people of Canada spoke unequivocally about that at the last election," he said.

Mr Baird's conservative government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, won an absolute majority in the Canadian parliament for the first time by advocating a policy of no-carbon tax and no ETS.

"I think there's only one member of parliament who advocates it, and that's the lone Greens member," Mr Baird said.

He also does not believe the US will introduce either a carbon tax or an ETS: "I think even President (Barack) Obama has conceded that when he had massive majorities in the house and the Senate, he couldn't get it passed.

"The chances of anything comprehensive coming out of the congress is not likely."

Mr Baird was at pains not to comment on or criticise the Gillard government in any way.

However, his comments are devastating for the Gillard government's proposed scheme, because if the US and Canada do not go down a market road for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, it is impossible that anything remotely resembling a global market could emerge.

Even more devastating is Mr Baird's judgment that carbon-trading schemes are inherently unreal and non-productive.

Asked if Canada would participate in a carbon-trading scheme, he replied: "There's nothing to participate in. Where is it going on today?"

He spoke more generally about the ineffectiveness of so-called market mechanisms in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions: "Everyone just lines up to get credit. My province has a lot of forests -- where do we get credit for that? At the end of the day, it's like a pyramid marketing scheme. You don't have to sell this dog food, you just have to get 10 of your friends to sell it and get the royalties from that."

Instead, Mr Baird said, the Canadian government had decided to reduce greenhouse gases through regulation.

"We've taken the decision to use regulation as the centrepiece of our approach."

If he is right in his two judgments -- that Canada and the US will never embark on a carbon tax or ETS, and that an international carbon trading regime is impractical, impossible to implement meaningfully and subject to endless manipulation -- then it follows that the Australian approach of a carbon tax and purchase of offshore carbon credits stands no chance of succeeding.

Mr Baird was toodiplomatic to comment directly on the Australian scheme, but the implications of his analysis are inescapable

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-carbon-tax-case/story-fnapmixa-1226180920686

Classic: "The people of Canada spoke unequivocally about that at the last election,"
So did the people of Australia

 

[Cutter]

The ill informed opinion of the Canadian foreign minister is irrelevant. Let's keep listening to the scientists.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

@ Scotty. The text you quoted me on is a basic economic fact. It simply supports putting a price on any gas emissions, particularly greenhouse gasses.


Even though I'm not making any claims about the government taxing all harmful pollution (which you think I am). I would say this is a decent first step towards that, once there is a system in place it will be easy enough to bring other gases under the same umbrella.

 

[MrTimms]

The ill informed opinion of the Canadian foreign minister is irrelevant. Let's keep listening to the scientists.

I think the ill informed opinion of the Canadian foreign minister is relevant when discussing policy around climate change.

Instead, Mr Baird said, the Canadian government had decided to reduce greenhouse gases through regulation.

"We've taken the decision to use regulation as the centrepiece of our approach."

If he is right in his two judgments -- that Canada and the US will never embark on a carbon tax or ETS, and that an international carbon trading regime is impractical, impossible to implement meaningfully and subject to endless manipulation -- then it follows that the Australian approach of a carbon tax and purchase of offshore carbon credits stands no chance of succeeding.

A valid point and no need to get defensive, in fact I couldn't see anywhere in there that the science was even questioned.

 

[Scotty]

The ill informed opinion of the Canadian foreign minister is irrelevant. Let's keep listening to the scientists.

Since when do we listen to scientists for economic policy? You really do appear to read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear!

If anyone disagrees with Cutter, he will simply write off their opinion or ignore them. Not much way to have a debate!

PS this is a politics sub-forum not a science one, so I assume it would be ok to talk about politics?

 

[Cutter]

I should have said experts when I said scientists but my fig leaf is that economics is known as the dismal science.

You have to forgive my fanatical cynicism in respect of everything said by politicians. Pretty much anything that escapes their mouth is tarnished by politics. The only value in it is by reference to what they're trying to achieve, not the substance.

I suspect our mate in Canada is trying to wedge the opposition by saying what he's saying. I doubt he knows more than he's read in the media or in a briefing paper and I very much doubt he's done any analysis on the likelihood of success of the Australian scheme.

National regulation can't work because its national and therefore specific and compromised. A trading scheme (which is what this will become) can be modified to sit within a global framework.

There will come a time when the US isn't as internationally influential as it currently is. In some respects, if you were drawing a curve of influence, it would probably be on the downward curve already. As such, the conclusion drawn by the Australian (that the Australian scheme is doomed because the US/Canada won't follow suit) hasn't convinced me that either the US or Canada will be dictating the rest of the planet's response to this threat.

 

[Set piece magic]

in fact I couldn't see anywhere in there that the science was even questioned.

That's part of the problem - the government / other governments are paying for scientific reports that will only ratify the science. And let's face it, science is biased. They need money and will do anything to get it.

I'm not a skeptic and i'm not a believer; I will need definitive proof first and that's whats lacking atm.


As for the Tax, i'm sorry but it's going to screw us over if no one / barely any other countries in the world are participating.


My two cents, no offence to anyone else

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

That's part of the problem - the government / other governments are paying for scientific reports that will only ratify the science. And let's face it, science is biased. They need money and will do anything to get it.

Governments are paying for scientists to come to a certain conclusion? The science is bias? (Citation please....) What about scientists that aren't payed by the government coming to the exact same conclusions?

If this "the governments are bias" argument actually held any weight. We would see a difference in scientific conclusions between each country (because each government has a different political ideology). Furthermore, why don't we see scientific conclusions changing each time a government changes? Do you think if Rick Perry wins the next USA election scientists in the USA will start coming to a different conclusion? Why didn't they change their "science" when Barack Obama took over from George Bush? Also, if Tony Abbot is elected will Australian universities start changing their minds on the science?

The answer is a flat no. The scientific conclusions have been consistent for decades.

I'm not a skeptic and i'm not a believer; I will need definitive proof first and that's whats lacking atm.

There isn't definitive proof of anything in science. If you want a starting point for research on the current "debate", here is where I'd start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

As for the Tax, i'm sorry but it's going to screw us over if no one / barely any other countries in the world are participating.

It's hardly going to "screw us over". You could say it gives us a disadvantage compared to other countries who don't have such a tax. But then there will be people saying "we have to draw the line on co2 emissions somewhere". Anyway, this is an entire other topic, but one with an actual "debate" taking place due to disagreement amongst experts.

My two cents, no offence to anyone else

I'm offended

 

[Karl]

That's part of the problem - the government / other governments are paying for scientific reports that will only ratify the science. And let's face it, science is biased. They need money and will do anything to get it.

I'm not a skeptic and i'm not a believer; I will need definitive proof first and that's whats lacking atm.


As for the Tax, i'm sorry but it's going to screw us over if no one / barely any other countries in the world are participating.


My two cents, no offence to anyone else

“Climate Change” is a misnomer. The Climate is always Changing. “Global Warming” has already been dropped for the more general “Climate Change” terminology, but what we should be discussing is Anthropogenic Climate Change – ie, changes in Climate caused by human activity. The precise use of language, and the consistent use of language is VERY important in this sort of discussion. It’s not pedantic, its absolutely necessary in order to ensure clarity. Correlation is not causation either so just because you show on a graph that two things seem to be behaving in a similar way does not mean A is causing B. B might be causing A. Or something else might be causing both of them. The Science isn’t settled at all in my view and as soon as scientists, who are meant to be sceptics, start saying that the “science is settled” when patently we still don’t understand so much about climate change over time, climate drivers, feedback systems etc and rely on computer models that are subject to endless manipulation – well, that is truly absurd. The medical community were all pretty sure that tiny little bugs had nothing to do with illness too and that hygiene in surgery had no impact on infection. Is it more likely than not that Man is having some impact on Climate? Probably yes, but to what extent, how much is our contribution and how bad is it really? It’s all pretty rubbery when you get down to it and the demonstrated intent and willingness of the IPCC scientists and their cohorts to selectively interpret data (and actually suppress, hide and twist information) to support a particular hypothesis is pretty concerning when it comes to making a decision on the reliability of their “findings”. That email saga, or Climategate, has been spun so hard that now they would have you believe that it was a beat up by Sceptics of a few harmless emails that meant nothing. In effect it was “ a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.” Look here for a good analysis - http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

And apart from ANY of these considerations, the Carbon Tax won’t have any impact WHATSOEVER on climate. None. Its just another tax. It’s just another symbolic grandiose gesture from a pointless Labor Government that has never implemented a meaningful or successful initiative in it’s entire existence, under either leader. It’s just more cost and pressure on prices and opportunity to rort another stupid Labor scheme and it amounts to nothing but smoke and mirrors. It isn’t real, it will have no benefit and it will cause more economic pain when the country can least afford it.

Oh – and the whole thing is founded on a massive lie that for some reason I cannot fathom, Giilard is being allowed to get away with. There was a clear and unequivocal promise, made with the intent it was to be relied upon by voters before a crucial and tight election, that Labor would not implement this Tax, and here they are doing it. Unapologetically. With a gun to their head in a deal knowingly struck to win power which would otherwise have eluded them. It’s beyond dishonest. It’s far worse than cynical. The so-called Independents have colluded and are all knowingly parties to the fraud. It’s too serious to be a joke but if you don’t laugh you’ll cry.

 

[Cutter]

The Science isn’t settled at all in my view

In terms of scientific proof, it doesn't get much better. There are 16 pages of debate in this thread where we've dealt with the fact that there are no peer reviewed papers challenging Anthropogenic Climate Change. As for the email hacking episode, we've dealt with that too. If you are aware of something we're not, then let us have it. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure no one here wants to stretch the 16 pages to 32 to get to the same point.

 

[Karl]

In terms of scientific proof, it doesn't get much better. There are 16 pages of debate in this thread where we've dealt with the fact that there are no peer reviewed papers challenging Anthropogenic Climate Change. As for the email hacking episode, we've dealt with that too. If you are aware of something we're not, then let us have it. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure no one here wants to stretch the 16 pages to 32 to get to the same point.

Read the link I posted. Peer Review among "climate scientists" is a joke. Who are these "peers"? It's a pretty small club and they all drank the Coolaid. And many of the peer reviewed papers are all tainted at best when you see how the results are arrived at. And your approach to my post is exactly the dismissive "look son, the issues settled" attitude that is used to stifle debate.

And how about you deal with the other issues i raised rather than singling out the only one you think you've got a chance with and ignoring the rest?

 

[Scotty]

“Climate Change” is a misnomer. The Climate is always Changing. “Global Warming” has already been dropped for the more general “Climate Change” terminology, but what we should be discussing is Anthropogenic Climate Change – ie, changes in Climate caused by human activity. The precise use of language, and the consistent use of language is VERY important in this sort of discussion. It’s not pedantic, its absolutely necessary in order to ensure clarity.

Karl,

According to some on this thread it is only important to be accurate if you are not agreeing with them. If you agree with their viewpoint you can twist the language on the issue to whatever you like.

Double standards hey? Sound familiar?

 

[Cutter]

Peer Review among "climate scientists" is a joke. Who are these "peers"? It's a pretty small club and they all drank the Coolaid. And many of the peer reviewed papers are all tainted at best when you see how the results are arrived at.

Even assuming that is correct, there still aren't any peer reviewed papers challenging the accepted position. What does that tell you?

If you disagree with the science, go for your life, but back it up with science supporting a contrary view.

 

[Karl]

Even assuming that is correct, there still aren't any peer reviewed papers challenging the accepted position. What does that tell you?

If you disagree with the science, go for your life, but back it up with science supporting a contrary view.

So if we assume that the supposedly peer reviewed material is all tainted and misleading, and that the peers who do the reviews (which is meant to happen before publication as a peer reviewed article in a peer reviewed journal) are a small club who aren't exactly open to the views of contrary opinion holders, how exactly do you propose that this occurs? And if there isn't really any legitimate peer reviewed material due to the objectively demonstrated bias and dishonesty of the authors, then any reasonably considered writings of an appropriately qualifed scientist should be just as valid.

I think, on the point of the "science", you need to read the emails which are all set out in full text and exhaustively analysed in the article found at the link I provided. The authors of those emails are the authors of the peer reviewed papers you want to hang your hat on. Those same authors have no confidence in the "science" or even their own results and manipulated the data shamelessly to present the results they needed to support their position. I don't need to show you peer reviewed proof that the science isn't settled. The people who wrote the damned articles and their own words are clear proof of the very ambiguous and unsettled nature of the "science".

But have a look at these anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

When you take it back to source data, understand the manipulation and the flaws in the modelling etc, the unequivocal nature of the IPCC assertions are cavalier at best.

And besides all of that, THE CARBON TAX IS A POINTLESS, SYMBOLIC AND DAMAGING RESPONSE.

Cutter - tell me what you think of the Carbon Tax. Explain to me what beneficial effects this scheme will have on Climate and why it won't make Australian businesses less competitive globally and Australian domestic products more expensive. We know what happens when inflation gets a little high, so explain to me how there isn't going to be an economic knock-on effect. And please tell me why when most of the World Economy is in the toilet this is a good time for a social experiment by a Government with an uninterrupted track record of backflips, backfires, blowback and generally stuffing everything they touch?

And what do you think of this Government breaking a clear, unambiguous, unqualified promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax, a promise made with the intention that the people of Australia rely on it when voting at a federal election?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I read the link and I just can't see where the conspiracy theory is. Which email is the silver bullet in climate change? I'm sorry, but climategate is the biggest non-scandel I've ever seen.


On that topic, I really struggle to take that website remotely seriously. Take a look at their other pages:

"The moon landing was a hoax"
"9/11 was an inside job"
"JFK murder was a conspiracy"

Karl, does it bother you that your main argument comes from such an insane source? Do you believe the moon landing happened? Because people on that website don't, and that is why they can find a conspiracy where there simply isn't one.

 

[Karl]

Not the rest of it, just the article by John Costella. Of course the Moon landing happened. When I was looking for the original emails and other documents I found this article. I read it over a couple of days. Regardless of the nutty theories the website owner subscribes to (James Fetzer), John Costella has undertaken a pretty thorough analysis of the emails, and included links to the source material in context. The source is the author, not the website or it's owner. The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data. They insane as well? John Tierney at the New York Times wrote: "these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause."

And re a "silver bullet" in climate change - there isn't one. Thats not the point. The point is that these emails when read carefully, and when you piece them together and understand the context (not "take them out of context" like their authors claim) show that there are many grounds of dissent and disagreement and a clear intent to select favourable data and apply favourable and artificial interpretations and suppress unfavourable and neutral data and to use language designed to inflame or suggest far greater risks/threats/probabilities etc.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The problem here is that climate "skeptics" want to see:

- A full 15 year squeaky clean email history.

ie: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468345a.html

The official inquiry into the e-mail affair concluded that such robust exchanges were typical in science. But many non-scientists were still unconvinced. They hold peer review as a revered gold standard of scientific excellence, not to be questioned or used as an opportunity to be rude about academic rivals, even in private. Why? Researchers may routinely complain about the shortcomings of peer review to other scientists, but they often unite behind it in the face of criticism from outside the scientific sphere. That a study has been through peer review is used too often as a universal defence of its quality. If more scientists were more forthcoming about the flaws in their quality-control system, then commentators and the wider public may have been more willing to accept that scientists engaged in it do not always act as the public would expect.

And people who are skeptical of conspiracy theories want to see:

- A clear timeline of events. Proof of any wrong-doings. Clear evidence that a conspiracy is going on. If these guys have been fooling the world for 15 years, we need a lot more than what has been presented:

ie: My post on page 14:

If I was going to say... "I have emails that prove a conspiracy in the ranks of the government/AFL/NRL/IPCC." Wouldn't people expect something along the lines of:

Person 1: Hey Person 2, did you get the email from Person 3? As soon as we can confirm Team 1 is going to throw the game, they will transfer the money into our offshore accounts.
Person 2: Yes, I got the email. Have you talked to Steve from Team 1? Make sure they are definitely in, and are going to throw the game on Thursday.
Person 1: Ok, everything is set.

Person 2: Nice, did you see the game? Worked a treat.
Person 1: Yes, thanks for your help. I'm off to Thailand to collect my winnings.

Instead of a clear picture of corruption. We are left with bloggers taking 2 or 3 sentences from 2 or 3 emails and claiming they must have the silver bullet in climate change. I mean, can you at least draw a timeline or something? NO, they just want to quote-mine emails talking about something they have no clue about.

I'm sure if we hacked the emails of anyone, from either side of the debate (from the last 20 years) we would be able to make a conspiracy out of it. When the climategate saga started, I thought "If these guys have been lying to us for 20 years and climate change is a complete hoax, there must be some pretty destructive stuff." Unfortunately all that followed was a few suggestions of deceit here and there, followed by arguments suggesting that those emails don't suggest a conspiracy themselves.

It is all just so underwhelming and when I tried researching more on this, all I found was the same articles from that same 1 guy who keeps pushing this conspiracy.

There is no squeaky clean email record. There is no clear evidence of any conspiracy or wrongdoing. Futhermore, I doubt there is any scientist, journalist or politician on the planet that has the former. While if there is a hoax going on the latter should be easy to prove with 15 years worth of emails.

Quite simply I'm not impressed and can't see why anyone would be. And it quite frankly gets boring every time this thread comes back to this topic. I thought we were making progress a few pages back when we finally got onto discussing the details of the science.

 

[matty_k]

It's in. How is everybody feeling?