Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Climate Science for Dummies
Malcolm and others have a refrain of "show me the evidence", so I thought it was worth setting this out as clearly as possible. If you want more detail, the Garnaut Report chapters 3-5 are a good summary.
What is undisputed
1. The so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs)* do what they say on the tin. Specifically, they absorb certain wavelengths of infrared radiation. The sun pours in 342 watts per square metre of energy into the planet every day, and some of it is not reradiated back into space because of greenhouse gases. If they didn't do that at all, it would be too cold for human or much other life. There is no qualified scientist on the planet that disputes this basic science.
- * for ease of reference, added from a later comment: the GHGs specified in Kyoto , and thus the ones controlled by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, are: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. There is an argument in Garnaut (p59) about also including chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, but these are covered by the Montreal Protocol, and therefore should be phased out by 2030 anyway. Water vapour and ozone also have greenhouse effects, but aren't primarily human in origin, and water vapour at least is complicated, since much of it forms clouds, which reflect energy from the sun as well as retain heat below them.
2. There is more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than at any time over the last at least tens of thousands of years, and the amount has been climbing steadily year on year at an accelerating rate for at least the last fifty years. These are direct observations, for recent years by direct measurement, and for the history from concentrations of CO2 in deep ice cores.
3. The great majority of the growth in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic – ie we did it, by burning fossil fuels and clearing land and spreading fertiliser and raising cows (cow and sheep farts contribute 11% of all Australia's GHG emissions, and there wouldn't be any of them here at all if humans weren't raising them). The more powerful greenhouse gases don't appear in nature at all, so we can't blame anyone or anything else for them (unless you have evidence that aliens have been secretly importing them from off-planet).
What is only disputed by the willfully blind or deranged
1. The planet has been getting hotter in the last 50 years, and for the last 30 years has been hotter than ever recorded. There are no remaining unexplained anomalies in the observational series whatsoever: regional and other differences eg in the high atmosphere are all accounted for. I have heard people claim that the world has cooled / stopped warming since 1990: since 12 of the last 13 years are the highest on record, they have to resort to three-card tricks or falsified data to attempt to justify this ludicrous claim. It is true that some regions around the north Atlantic were as warm in 1250 as they were in 1975, but a) the sort of fluctuations in the Gulf Stream that caused that are included in the mainstream models, b) this wasn't true of most of the rest of the world, and c) anyway, all but four of the years since 1980 have been warmer than that. There is, of course, no direct observational record of either the medieval anomalies or the regionality. Both the claims and the refutation rely on anecdotal and other contemporary observations without instruments, and on indirect observations such as tree-rings. Insofar as anecdotes and tree rings count for anything, they support the submission that the world wasn't generally warmer / colder at those times as much as or more than they support the claim that it was. We can't claim that European monk's accounts are more reliable than Indian or Chinese ones, only note that they record different trends. NB: if you were relying on The Great Global Warming Swindle for a different view on how warm it was in 1250, note that the UK broadcasting regulator has castigated the program's makers for altering their graphs to mislead viewers (eg, on that one, by re-labelling 1975 as "Now").
2. Getting hotter will be a Bad Thing. Thousands upon thousands of detailed studies have been done over the last twenty years on the impacts of warming. They have indeed identified a few impacts that are positive, but these are enormously outweighed by the negative impacts on everything from crop yields to disease ranges. Even the crop yield gains from CO2 fertilisation in some crops disappear at warming of more than two degrees, and are overwhelmed by the rainfall changes above that.
What can be debated
1. How much warming is due to GHGs? The mainstream science says that doubling GHG concentrations raises the temperature by 2 to 6°C. The sceptics say 1) something else is causing the warming, eg solar cycles, volcanism, or whatever, and therefore 2) since the GHGs definitely do cause warming, they're contributing less than the mainstream models show, and so we don't have to worry yet about further increases in GHGs, because they won't warm us as much as is feared.
2. er – that's it. Since GHGs do cause warming (basic physics) and are increasing (undisputed observations), any other touted cause boils down to that argument.
Note also that alongside the sceptics there are at least as many scientists (eg James Hansen) who think that the models underestimate the GHG effects, and therefore we need more drastic action than the mainstream models suggest.
The problem with all the other alternative explanations for warming is that they either don't change at the right times in the right direction to explain the temperature record, or that there is no observable mechanism for them to put enough energy in. For example, the total energy expended/burnt by all human activities to date is simply insufficient to have had any direct impact on warming: we may be able to keep our cities a degree or so warmer at ground level on a cold day, but in the great energy budget scheme of things it just doesn’t count.
Solar variations obviously do have impact –all of this energy came from the sun originally – but they vary at different times and different directions than the temperature record does. Huge amounts of effort have been put into understanding this, and the chances that there is some missing high-energy source we don't know about and can't detect are very small indeed. Finding one that stands up to scrutiny would be worth huge amounts in support from people like Exxon, so there is plenty of incentive for scientists to publish if they found one. And equal bunce for peer reviewers who got that paper through to publication. And the count of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals supporting the sceptics' position: none, nada, zero.
What if it's a conspiracy?
What if all these thousands of scientists working in all the countries of the world have a secret conspiracy to defraud us all? Well, if just one of them decamped from the conspiracy with evidence of it, they'd be living in luxury on the rewards from those interested in keeping the gases flowing. What are the chances that a) it exists, and b) none of them have gone public? I leave that exercise to the reader.
What if warming is mostly caused by arbitrarily advanced alien space bats?
If there is some real as-yet-unidentified cause of warming that we don't recognise, or if thousands of scientists have uniformly and systematically got their model coefficients wrong, and some combination of other factors is causing warming, then what should we do that's different to what is currently planned?
Well, this runs into the undisputed territory again. GHGs do cause additional warming, and warming is a Bad Thing. So, if the warming to date is caused by something else, and that is going to carry on having this effect (if we don't know what it is, it would be imprudent to assume anything else), then we should take action to reduce as far as possible our efforts to add to that warming. So, if the mainstream science is wrong, we need to reduce GHG emissions even more than is currently planned. Simple really. Now let's get on with it.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Head of OECD says Australia has big role to play
The world is watching Australia. We can play a big role on the global issue of climate change. As the world's largest exporter of coal, we could reduce world global greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out coal exports. Coal is more dangerous than uranium. For years we have limited our exports of uranium. Now it is time to limit our exports of coal.
Booming or busting
The quality of life in Australia has, to my mind, deteriorated markedly during these "boom" years. Housing and education are more elusive. Services have shrunk. The necessity for mothers to work, and the increase in alcohol use and abuse, are similar to the old USSR.
The environmentally destructive path that we are on is not the only path forward.
A glimpse into the future?
In any economic downturn, say like a commodities recession, crippling growth taxes are most unhelpful. The Australian Government might be well advised to read about investor stampedes - stampedes to the exit door that is.
I supply them with one such stampede
Remarkable! ABC does it again.
Just how far will these doomsayers go in their efforts to convince the gullible that there in fact such a thing as global warming?
How much money was spent on producing theses tricked up videos? Where were the dissenting views upon the matter?
Think how much more military hardware could have been bought with the money wasted — well perhaps half a rocket, or some such!
ETS is on the road to nowhere
David Roffey: “Well, Paul, if you deny the existence of market failures, you're parting company with every economist (and businessman) that knew what they were talking about (so no surprises there).”
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I don't see markets as a living, breathing thing. I see markets as a neutral. I believe markets are given signals, which are interpreted and reacted to. The notion of failure, and success, is a personal opinion. Markets die and new markets are born.
“This is what carbon trading is for: to add a more accurate price signal to the market.”
An accurate price signal already exists. The only price signal currently being sent out is one of wait and see. This will result in an under-investment in a number of key industries. The ramifications of which, will become clearer with time.
Personally I doubt an ETS will ever be started in Australia - certainly not a meaningful scheme. I'm certain that if one does happen to start, it won't remain for any length of time.
The market to come
For once I agree with Paul Morrella. The ETS is on a road to nowhere. It is not a meaningful scheme, and it won't remain for any length of time. It is a grandly delusional plan to top up a leaking bucket with a few drops, before it runs dry, in order to delay its running out by a few more minutes.
And yes, markets, which are also on a road to nowhere, and always have been, die, to be replaced by new ones. Hail the coming market, soon to be born. I'll give you some of this crocodile I speared, if you'll give me some of those pandanus you found. Deal?
The cult of the market.
Dear Mr Morrella,
I post an account of our current circumstances by someone who is widely regarded as a genius for his understanding of the emergence of what might be called "market based democracy" and ...no response. Polanyi, with astonishing foresight, noted that the conditions of production within capitalism would (had already) eroded the ecological conditions of human and other existence.
What I find, several days later, is the following obscurantist nonsense from you:
"Markets never fail. There isn't even a measurement of success and failure."
Markets don't fail. People do. Markets don't fail. Societies do. Really?
You've exposed yourself as an adherent of anti-intellectual Graduate School of Management bunkum that reifies markets with such a degree of religious fervour that it can only be seen as the most dangerous type of ahistorical irrationality. The GSM point of view depends on simply ignoring any contradictory evidence or opposing point of view. It doesn't engage with other views...it simply ignores them.
It is the hallmark of the zealot that, once having lost his way, he redoubles his efforts.
Ever heard of the Great Depression?
Wasted opportunities
Mark Sergeant: "Tax rebates, etc. I think I'm in favour of this one. There is the general problem that if you don't have the taxable income it is hard for the tax system to deliver the benefit, so maybe not all through the tax system. You have to find the revenue to finance it, too."
The Australian Government already has the revenue to finance any number of proposals. It's currently holding a surplus of around 80 billion, and minus any debt - a unique situation in the world. The inexplicable thing was that the government raised overall tax take rather than decrease it. It doesn't surprise me that this is now becoming the nail in the coffin. People should have serious doubts about their policy makers.
Lowering taxes, in this case through "green rebates", would have saved the Australian Government the current situation of deflation - they've actually put growth into reverse - which means a recession is almost assured. The "black swan" (unseen and uncontrolled major event), is now a commodity recession - the ultimate Australian nightmare. This more than anything else will halt Australian emissions growth - along with growth in just about everything. That I can assure you is not what you want.
Basically the result will be: all the money the government has socked away, will now be pissed against the wall, with minimal outcomes - probably reverse outcomes - thus has it always been the way. A new generation will have the pleasure of learning why it's never a good idea to allow a government the collection (and keeping) of excess revenue.
Markets never fail. There isn't even a measurement of success and failure. Markets are as markets do. If a market offers poor returns, people find a new market. Australia is a medium sized fish amidst a sea of sharks. A government can attempt to set any market it pleases - people turning up to opening day is another matter all together. And in my opinion the future isn't looking rosy.
Prediction: In 2010 this scheme will be the least of Australia's problems.
Markets never fail?
Paul: "Markets never fail. There isn't even a measurement of success and failure. Markets are as markets do. If a market offers poor returns, people find a new market. "
From what I can gather, and not being an economist, that is a fair statement of the current orthodoxy, or 'conventional wisdom' as Galbraith would have it.
A market is a population united by a common purpose. I am very much in favour of the freedom of people to trade goods, services and ideas as they wish, and am not alone there. Argument only occurs over limits (eg should there be unregulated prostitution, sale of legal services etc?) and is never settled.
Now If I take a farm implement to a clearing sale, say, and nobody wants to buy it, even at a price of $0.00, I suppose I can complain all the way home about 'market failure', but that is a totally different sense of the expression.
I see 'market failure' in the sense used by Stern re CO2 and global warming ('the greatest market failure in history' or words to that effect) as being a failure of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' to do what it is supposed to do.
The theory of the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole. The reason for this is that greed will drive actors to beneficial behavior. Efficient methods of production will be adopted in order to maximize profits. Low prices will be charged in order to undercut competitors. Investors will invest in those industries that are most urgently needed to maximize returns, and withdraw capital from those that are less efficient in creating value. Students will be guided to prepare for the most needed (and therefore most remunerative) careers. And all these effects will take place dynamically and automatically. [1]
What I think Stern was saying was that Adam Smith's invisible hand can't deal with climate change. There is no way the myriad of private human exchanges can integrate into an action for the common good, in this particular and vitally important domain. State intervention is required, and not individually there either. A global concert of states consciously acting together in the common interest of all humanity, indeed all life, is the only force that will work here.
Otherwise, it is a classic race to the bottom.
I would be pessimistic about this were it not for the (limited) international cooperation and success in stemming the damage to the ozone layer done by chlorofluorcarbons and other industrially-generated substances. The Montreal Protocol is the lighthouse here.
Not unrelated: I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on this piece, by Johann Hari.
"Markets never fail"
Well, Paul, if you deny the existence of market failures, you're parting company with every economist (and businessman) that knew what they were talking about (so no surprises there). This includes Hayek, Friedman, and co. Markets fail when there are information failures or false price signals, so market participants are making decisions on incomplete or wrong information. Markets also fail when costs are falling on different participants than those making decisions.
This is what carbon trading is for: to add a more accurate price signal to the market. The addition of the emissions cap puts in a regulatory element, too. Sticking to the cap through government changes and the like adds certainty, which enables the market to set the price signal on more stable information. The antics of the Coalition on this are increasing the costs to business, who will have to put in much more significant risk and uncertainty betas into their investment decisions.
With a stable and relatively predictable cap-and-trade system, there are no big disastrous impacts on business decisions of the sort that you keep predicting (at the same time as accusing us of being doom-mongers). If you want proof of that, look at the business case for e.on's proposed new coal-fired generation plant in the UK: they show that they can still make a good return over the whole 40-year life of the plant even after costing in the ever-increasing price of the European ETS through to the full cuts at 2050. So almost everything you have said on this thread simply doesn't add up even in the minds of a prospective coal-burning generator, let alone anyone sensible.
World's most deadly PR campaign.
Perhaps some of the deniers on Webdiary are funded?
I wonder how people who take blood money sleep at night.
What's that Flipper? In like flint?
Peter Hindrup: "I was at Q & A — ABC, Thursday night. There were those on the panel who stated that: ‘ Coal will always be a part of the (energy) mix’."
Well, if it's not, we can always go back to using flint instead of tool steel. Oh, wait? Will mining flint be good for the environment?
Ian MacDougall: "I have just had a nice week up in the Alps skiing. Very cold (down to -10 one night) and reasonable snow, both cover and quality."
Not that long ago we were being told that snow would soon be a thing of the past in the Alps. And that penguins would all suffocate because of oxygen depletion in the antarctic atmosphere. Remember that?
Instead, we discover an entirely new species of dolphin. First in fifty years. Must be due to climate change, or perhaps because Peter Garrett has stood up to the Japs.
Eleven celsius in Sydney at 9am today. Normal. Probably the last time ever.
Confessions of a climate scientist
Ian M: "The 'chix' could finish up hotter than expected."
And then, and then, I shit you not dude, she said, talk dirty coal me.................
Skeptics throw the best parties
Ian MacDougall
Skeptics come in for a "caning" on almost a daily basis - so there's nothing about these articles that is unusual. Being a sceptic is getting to be rather anti-establishment. Almost an anti-cultural movement if you will - a secret society on many levels. It's exciting.
It's only a matter of time before the hand signals and secret rendezvous swing into operation. To all the young scientists out there: It might even be a good way of meeting hot chicks. The babes love the bad boys.
Ian M (ed): The 'chix' could finish up hotter than expected.
People always perceive they are right
Ian MacDougall: "Paul Morrella, so we're agreed: Garnaut has never banged on about Australia saving the world. Just pulling its weight."
You're right, it's actually worse. He has attempted to isolate Australia from the world.
His frame is that Australians can save Australia if only they accept economic hardship. This would be irrespective of, say, China picking up the slack and running with it. That's a blatant falsehood by omission.
In the case of this particular subject I think it is.
I guess in the end, people will make up their individual minds, about the validity of the "perceived threats". I hope they make the right decision - and that decision is based on all the available evidence - not just one side of the story.
China to invest $33 billion annually in renewable energy.
For those that think Australia is at risk of leading the pack on climate change, I think we have a lot of catching up to do. China is putting its money where its mouth is. Makes Rudd's $500 million look a bit sick.
The only risk Australia is facing is that it will be left behind. A carbon reduction scheme is all well and good. We should also be increasing our investments in renewable energy.
Beluded, & not a little ignorant!
Check you investments and the strategies of your fund managers and divest yourself of energy stocks. The change when it comes could be startlingly rapid.
Off the top of my head
Mark Sergeant: "You said "Australia has all sorts of alternatives, that are much better, and have a much higher chance of success, than the current option being taken". Can you give us a sketch of a few? I can think of a few options, but none that are likely to have more chance of success."
A quick outline:
1. Use the tax system for returns through rebates, deductions or subsidies on a selective products. For example, a solar power system could be written off against taxable income. This would apply to all businesses and individuals.
2. A broad consumption tax on all items excepting "green based energy products". In conjunction with scraping all other taxes this will give the consumer real choice. One can choose to pay for ones consumption (the more consumed the more paid) or one has the choice to reduce consumption. This would result in a market outcome.
3.A number of smaller things such as lower parking fees for smaller cars (makes sense actually), lower tolls etc (makes sense because a smaller car does less road damage) etc. I imagine there would be thousands of small, yet, sensible, and economical rational ideas of this nature.
The current idiot scheme is all stick and no carrot. Added up this is an entirely new layer of bureaucracy. Something both business and individuals need as much as a hole in the head.
Should we wear a cap?
Interesting suggestions, Paul.
Taking them one at a time:
1. Tax rebates, etc. I think I'm in favour of this one. There is the general problem that if you don't have the taxable income it is hard for the tax system to deliver the benefit, so maybe not all through the tax system. You have to find the revenue to finance it, too. Removing the current subsidies for GHG emitters would provide $7-9 billion (from memory), and/or you could get the revenue by putting a price on GHG emmissions with an ETS or a carbon tax.
2. A broad consumption tax. If you are serious about "scrapping all other taxes", then this would be rather more catastrophic than emissions trading. Otherwise, it is a version of a carbon tax. On that basis, it's an arguable alternative to cap'n'trade, and my argument is that we need the cap. A carbon tax without a cap is putting more trust in the market than I am willing to do.
3. A number of smaller things. Agreed.
We are attempting to deal with market failure ("greatest ever", roughly according to Stern). The price of just about eveything has not incorporated the cost of the associated GHG emissions. To correct that failure we have to, one way or another, incorporate that cost into the price of just about everything - with either cap'n'trade or a carbon tax. To make up for lost time and provide a path for the future, much of the revenue should be directed to alternative technologies. Since many people will be hurt, we need to find ways for compensation that do not compromise the price on emissions. That will require much of the revenue too.
Of course they're "only making impressions"
Ian MacDougall: "I'm sure that if Rudd or Garnaut had said that Australia can save the planet it would have been on the front pages for weeks. I would like to see where it says that in Garnaut's draft or in the government's green paper. As I recall, the government has said that Australia must pull its weight on the climate change issue, and be seen to be doing so by the rest of the world. Nor can Australia send the world to oblivion, but note that the converse is not equally true."
I typed a few words into Google and came up with this:
I suspect the same thing is littered all over the net. It's a classic case of framing an argument - a classic case of fear mongering at its finest. Learnt direct from the Karl Rove School of getting "shit" done. As far as I'm concerned, politicians, and those that flirt with them, can have it. I've never needed to falsely scare people to achieve results - and I don't intend to begin now.
I agree with the economic case made. I never said people should not strive for a better planet - in fact lowering pollution is a good thing. My argument is about the way this should be achieved.
Scares and warnings
Paul Morrella, so we're agreed: Garnaut has never banged on about Australia saving the world. Just pulling its weight.
"I suspect the same thing is littered all over the net. It's a classic case of framing an argument - a classic case of fear mongering at its finest. Learnt direct from the Karl Rove School of getting "shit" done. As far as I'm concerned, politicians, and those that flirt with them, can have it. I've never needed to falsely scare people to achieve results - and I don't intend to begin now."
If there is a perceived threat and people are warned about it, is that "falsely scaring" them?
Bill Avent
Bill Avent: "Paul Morrella, why, pray tell, would you want to "dissemble" anyone's post?"
I didn't think I could feign knowing what the post was about. Perhaps the word wasn't used in the precisely correct context - no doubt you'll let me know. I don't mind any mistake I make being corrected.
Nothing.
Answers
Ian MacDougall: "First question: Am I right there? Yes or no? If no, where have I got your (shared?) position wrong?"
You're presenting me with a false dilemma. Australia can neither save the world (if indeed man made climate change is happening), nor can it send it to oblivion. That's the real lie in this report, and the lie of those enablers relying on it for their arguments.
Well, there's lots of ways. People could for example collectively decide to live a caveman like existence. Realistically though, government will interact with other associated stakeholders. It's not even that government is intervening - it's that government is intervening in the wrong way.
Australia has all sorts of alternatives that are much better, and have a much higher chance of success, than the current option being taken.
Mr Rudd doesn't btw really believe in climate change - only the politics of climate change - if his actions, as opposed to rhetoric, are to be judged.
Wanting something to happen, even for the right reasons, isn't a reason to ignore serious flaws. It's also not a reason to dismiss other voices that have just as much interest in this as anybody else.
Feel free to ask me any follow up questions.
False dilemmas
You, Paul Morrella, are presenting us with a false dilemma. Who is arguing (or believing) either that Australia can save the world, or send it to oblivion?
It certainly isn't Garnaut. He seems to think we should do what we can on our own account, and be a good, if belated, example internationally. He also seems to think (not surprising) that the measures he recommends won't even send Australia to oblivion.
It isn't the pollies. Not even Bob Brown. The ALP have been tempted, but are far too careful to say they'll save the world. Besides, they never answer the questions. The Libs have no idea what they believe, except for the inherent evil of Labor - and they never answer the questions either.
Around here, we've got a range of views, but I don't recall anyone claiming that Australia will save (or destroy) life as we know it. I think we all know that the actions of the big and dirty will be much more significant than someone small and dirty like us.
You said "Australia has all sorts of alternatives, that are much better, and have a much higher chance of success, than the current option being taken". Can you give us a sketch of a few? I can think of a few options, but none that are likely to have more chance of success.
Perhaps you would agree with this, Paul
Paul, you say I am presenting you "with a false dilemma. Australia can neither save the world (if indeed man made climate change is happening), nor can it send it to oblivion. That's the real lie in this report, and the lie of those enablers relying on it for their arguments."
I'm sure that if Rudd or Garnaut had said that Australia can save the planet it would have been on the front pages for weeks. I would like to see where it says that in Garnaut's draft or in the government's green paper. As I recall, the government has said that Australia must pull its weight on the climate change issue, and be seen to be doing so by the rest of the world. Nor can Australia send the world to oblivion, but note that the converse is not equally true.
I have spent part of today perusing the June 2008 issue of Quadrant in hard copy. One of the interesting articles was The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism by Ray Evans, Secretary of the Lavoisier Group, urging us all to pay no attention to 'global warming hysteria'. You can read Evans off the link if you like.
In a companion (hard copy only) article The Abused Science of Climate Change, Sev Sternhell, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the University of Sydney, after dismissing the computer modelling, the credibility of some 'alarmist' claims (eg the 'hockey stick') and the religiosity he detects in some 'alarmists', is none the less generous enough to concede that their case "has one argument going for it, the 'precautionary principle', which essentially amounts to avoiding risks if potential consequences are dire." He believes that the climate-CO2 connection justifies further research, but not the "currently proposed expensive, probably unnecessary, disruptive and probably futile measures."
Do I assume too much in saying that you would agree with that?
Evading the question. Okay for some, not for others...
Just have a look at the Rudd interview again, Ian, and ask yourself 'Who is evading questions?':
The simple question was: 'Are you concerned the economy is slowing too fast?', asked three times - and completely ignored.
The modus operandi of the Rudd Government is to ignore direct questions, and fill the resulting dead air with PR-scripted statements of what "We believe..."
Over and over and over... Without actually saying anything.
It's even more embarrassing if you listen to the live audio. The PM even stumbles over his lines, and restarts them like an amateur actor at a school play.
My guess. Rudd, as he hints, simply doesn't know the answers to the questions.
They weren't in the script written for him by the PR office. So, "All I know...."
The response of his apologists to that embracing and increasingly obvious fact is to demand that everyone else give the answers.
As for the likelihood of the world succumbing to some epic climate change catastrophe? I know. Let's ask Professor Tim Flannery, chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and Australian vice-chairman of The Climate Group. He says, of the evidence:
And Flannery is the nation's arch-pessimist, remember?
So, Rudd doesn't know. Garnaut doesn't say. But Flannery is thinking in terms of one in ten probability. And he concedes he's guessing.
My bet?
The same people who have over the last one hundred years embarrassed themselves by banking on one crack-pot hypothesis after another are going to be more embarrassed by their commitment to the "climate change" hysteria than anything else.
Brrrrrrr. It's really cold and wet here again in Sydney. How's it going where you're at?
The complexities of the climate system
Eliot: Brrrrrrr. It's really cold and wet here again in Sydney. How's it going where you're at?
I have just had a nice week up in the Alps skiing. Very cold (down to -10 one night) and reasonable snow, both cover and quality.
A few years ago the only prediction climatologists and atmospheric physicists were prepared to make about the effect of global warming on the atmosphere was that more energy would go into it. I'm not sure BTW if that still holds. Winds come up from Antarctica at around 2,000 m and the first land they meet is the Snowies, freezing the hell out of them. But that only indicates to me that an equal mass of warm air is being drawn into Antarctica on the other side of the vortex, and helping to warm it up a bit. Cold winds off Antarctica do not necessarily indicate planetary cooling. There is a difference between climate and weather.
BTW I notice that the sceptics came in for a general caning in a cluster of articles in the SMH this morning. [1] , [2] and [3].
Two weeks of record breaking hot weather.
Eliot, "Brrrrrrr. It's really cold and wet here again in Sydney. How's it going where you're at?"
It might be cold in Sydney but the planet is still warming at an alarming rate.
May I suggest that you broaden your horizons.
Rudd and Eliot Ramsey: two of a kind
Eliot, trying to get a straight answer out of you is like searching for Lasseter's Lost Reef.
You link to Flannery provides the following quote (the full paragraph):
I am not commenting further, except to say that I would half-expect the probabilities of various outcomes for the Murray Darling to be normally distributed, which means a 10% probability of a total dry-up could be matched by a 10% probability on the other side of the graph of the river flow being as in one of its best years. It may be, however, that the probabilities are now skewed to favour disaster over bountiful flow.
As for Rudd, he answers questions as does any politician. He is wary of getting drawn and wary of the loaded question. Uhlmann's question was dead set, by accident or design to draw out a sensational answer. It's in the same category as 'have you stopped beating your wife?'
But cutting back to the chase: In the absence of a straight answer from you to the question I have asked twice, I can only assume that the answer you favour but are so reticent to give is: "Yes, we have no alternative but to hold present course at full steam ahead and just hope that we don't hit an iceberg."
There are problems with your position.
Buy a boat
Paul Morrella, why, pray tell, would you want to "dissemble" anyone's post?
And what have you got against the education "industry"?
John Pratt: "I believe you have to be optimistic. Getting international cooperation will be difficult and take time."
The call to optimism is to be found everywhere in discussion on this topic. Optimism is admirable, I dare say; but I cannot help thinking that in this instance, if it is tempered with just a little bit of realism, it exposes itself as no better than wishful thinking.
As you say, getting international cooperation will be difficult and take time. How much time do you think we have? And how likely is it that the big polluters are going to stop polluting during whatever time is left?
This is just the first, and relatively minor, example of misplaced optimism. The larger one is that climate change appears already to have gone past the point of no return. Even if the industrialised world were able to stop polluting immediately, which it is not, the climate change we have set in course would continue. Nothing we do can re-freeze polar ice. And that, according even to the optimists, is now the main driving force behind global warming. The more the world warms, the more the ice melts; and the more the ice melts, the more the world warms.
Those other optimists, the ones who point out that the climate has changed in the past, and people survived that change, miss the point altogether. The people who adapted to those changes were adaptable people. They had no enormous baggage of industrialisation to lug along behind them. On my own optimistic note, I am sure humanity will survive as a species. I am equally sure that this crazy industrialisation we have invented and used to destroy the world as we know it will not. Three cheers for that. It was never meant to last.
With apologies to Joe Strummer and Mick Jones of The Clash:
I'm off to buy a boat.
Paul...and others....
The keenest examination of the subject that is at the heart of this discussion is that by Karl Polanyi whose The Great Transformation provides a magesterial account of the complex engagement of the state and the market.
I've taken the liberty of reproducing this extended abstract of his book from Wiki in order to stimulate discussion:
I wouldn't argue for socialism as he did when the book was published (1956 I think) but his formulation of the problem remains without peer.
"All I know..."
Ian MacDougall: "In other words, that we have no alternative but to hold present course at full steam ahead and just hope that we don't hit an iceberg."
It would be nice if we knew what the "alternative course" being proposed by Rudd was, wouldn't it?
Here's Rudd talking on AM today...
"CHRIS UHLMANN: Prime Minister, finally, have you asked Treasury for advice on what would happen if you increase business costs by putting a price on carbon at a time when the economy is slowing?
KEVIN RUDD: On the question of the advice sought from Treasury, that of course, remains internal to the Government and it is a question best directed to the Treasurer as well. All I know…
CHRIS UHLMANN: You would ask that question though, wouldn't you?
KEVIN RUDD: In the context of the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change deliberations on the carbon pollution reduction scheme, we have been exceptionally mindful of getting the balance right.
In terms of doing the right thing for the environment and the economy long-term; while also helping households and affected businesses in the adjustment process. That will be painful and difficult on the way through as well but we believe that we have done the right thing.
On the question of specific advices from the bureaucracy, I am sure there is a thousand of them; that is the right way to in fact do public policy in Australia. Not lock the bureaucracy or anybody else out.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Prime Minister, thank you."
There? That clear things up?
Now you see Ramsey; now you see Rudd
Eliot, my question to you was: In other words, that we have no alternative but to hold present course at full steam ahead and just hope that we don't hit an iceberg.
First question: Am I right there? Yes or no? If no, where have I got your position wrong?
Which you replied to with: It would be nice if we knew what the "alternative course" being proposed by Rudd was, wouldn't it?
Well, yes it would. But that evades the question.
Perhaps you might like to try again.
The great emissions cover up
Developed counties are getting China to do the dirty work. With the Rudd government planning to bring in a cap on our emissions let's hope that all our emissions are taken into account. It seems there is a lot of cheating going on.
It is time to come clean: we must know exactly what emissions we are responsible for, even if they are produced for us by developing countries.
1,000 tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere every second
The governments of the wealthy countries like Australia must lead. It is no use waiting for China and India to act.
We have profited from the pollution of the atmosphere and we must use the wealth created by that pollution to develop the technologies we will need to move the world into a cleaner future. We may have only 100 months to make those changes. The Liberal party led by Brendan Nelson is missing the point: we have to make the changes now, the sooner the better.
We should look on climate change as an opportunity to develop new industries using our science and wealth to help the rest of the world to change.
I saw this on Cataylst last night:
Scientist giving Australian athletes a winning edge to win gold in China.
Anyone would think the planet is not at risk. How is it that we have scientists to waste on gold medals? We cry poor and say it is too risky to move to clean technologies.
Wake up Australia - we are fiddling while Rome burns.
Chinese saving CO2 wasted on hosting websites
Paul Morrella: "Mark Sergeant, btw exporting all jobs to China would be the most effective way of getting down emissions."
A lot less carbon emissions would be used on hosting websites, too.
Should have heard Rudd this morning on Radio 702's AM programme dodging and weaving over the economic impacts of all this.
Repeating over and over and over in his inimitable fashion scripted public relations waffle to avoid stating anything specific about the effects to the economy, or any obvious benefits, or anything even remotely like a specific detail in relation to, or outcome deriving from taxing CO2 emissions.
The transcripts should be available soon, and I'll post a link from here.
The other spin to be trundled out more frequently will be about the deepening recession. It will be simultaneously;
a) due to global factors beyond the control of any government
b) due to John Howard.
c) good for the environment if handled properly by Penny Wong
The man's like Bert Newton but without a decent script writer.
Costs if we do and costs if we don't
Eliot Ramsey, Paul Morella, I confess that I am perplexed.
I take it from your constant stress on the perceived economic costs of doing anything about atmospheric CO2 (which is precisely measurable, and rising) and global warming (over which there is some level of dispute) and the argued link between the two (over which there is also some dispute) that we really have no alternative at the national or the global level but to emit on at whatever level the markets set, and hope for the best.
In other words, that we have no alternative but to hold present course at full steam ahead and just hope that we don't hit an iceberg.
First question: Am I right there? Yes or no? If no, where have I got your (shared?) position wrong?
There is a level of uncertainty inherent in the process of science itself. However, we do know for sure that as time passes and the data accumulates, our understanding of what is really going on in the Earth's climate will improve. For sure. Even if only to the extent that we will be able to say with that the whole thing, while still being inherently chaotic, is somewhat less mysterious than it was before. We will approach 'certainty' on the issue, but never reach it in the absolute sense.
The problem is that by the time sufficient alarm bells are ringing to convince you two that emission controls are necessary at whatever cost to avoid the sort of environmental changes that have led past civilisations to collapse, it may well be too late to avoid runaway greenhouse. Where exactly the tipping point for that might be is still open to debate, of course.
The present woes of Brendan Nelson and the Liberal Party are due to the fact that public opinion is well in support of emission controls. Most Liberal MPs are battling to mask their own personal doubt and cynicism on the matter sufficiently to make their party electable by that very same public.
Which brings me to my second question: If emission reductions are agreed as desirable, is there any way they could be brought about without (shock, horror) government intervention? Ross Garnaut, I understand, advised the government that taxing liquid fuel and coal was to be preferred to carbon capping and trading. That seems to me the best and least rortable course. The money raised, of course, would have to be invested in alternative non-polluting energy.
That, if I understand your position, will price Australia out of international markets, particularly in primary products. So are you saying that we have no alternative but to join in a race to the bottom, which may well be climate catastrophe?
Let's nail it down. Yes or no?
I'm lost
Anthony Nolan, I'd only be guessing if I tried to dissemble any of that post. Does it mean you want somebody to make all the choices for people? I'm also guessing you're involved with the education industry?
A place far far away in a time long forgot.....
Mark Sergeant, btw exporting all jobs to China would be the most effective way of getting down emissions. Australia could start thinking about trading shells or something. Maybe title the Prime Minister uug............
Crazy brave or just plain crazy
Mark Sergeant: "As David Roffey has said so many times he must be sick of it, "it's the cap that reduces emissions, not the trade". "
That (cap) could be achieved by shutting down the country on, say, Tuesdays. Along with a whole host of other solutions.
What he has alluded to is that it's possible to cap growth and yet, amazingly, still have growth. I'm saying it's not. I've no doubt many others would share that opinion.
This scheme has just started in Montreal. It's a farce. Merely looking at the traded volume tells any person it's a complete farce. What's the proposed solution, do you think? America joining the programme. One problem - that's never going to happen, irrespective of who the President is.
The factories will simply (when things get tough) move to Mexico. The only people telling anyone that money can be made are the people trying to sell "industry advice".
The best industry advice would be how to relocate to Mexico. Australia beware!
The whole country will feel the pain - and Australia will gain absolutely nothing from it. In history it will go down as "one of those bad ideas" - and be quickly forgotten, never to spoken of again.
Keep scaring them and things might get better: not
John Pratt: "Paul, the weather certainly does change. The problem now is that human activity is causing the change, a change that could be avoided if we stopped fouling our own nest."
This isn't any conclusive proof of that. Obviously man wasn't involved in the previous changes in climate.
From what I gather this "political will" is having problems getting much of anything right. Saving the world may be a little ambitious. Get the smaller things right first, and the bigger stuff may follow.
OK then...
Hi Paul Morella. In response to my comment: "Social life is significantly more than the aggregation of acts of free individuals as they seek to maximise their market capacities", you ask:
What does this mean? Example?
Well, here are as many as I can think of in just a few moments:
Sex. Love. Affective bonds of all sorts and the ways that we maintain them especially with children. Volunteer work from bush fire brigades to soup kitchens and so on. Cultural activities. Sporting activities.
Then, if we take a wider view, social life is, in classical Marxist terms, the way in which we organise the production and distribution of the means of subsistence with a view to species survival. All of the complexity ot it.
At an even more theroetically rarified level Axel Honneth holds that the distribution of respect and recognition is an esential component of social organisation.
Markets are the nexus of production and distribution of goods and services as well as the distribution of some elements of respect (ie, through one's location in the labour market). There is no reason why markets need to be free from social organisation. In and of themselves they are not things but networks of social association.
Time is short. Check ya later.
State controlled media and double standards
Presumably you all saw or heard Labour-spokesperson Kerry OBrien "interviewing" Brendon Nelson about the Coalition's "inability to set a date" for the commencement of its carbon emissions trading policy.
It went like this....
BRENDAN NELSON: You can't start any earlier than 2011 responsibly, and would probably start in 2012…
KERRY O'BRIEN: But might start later…
BRENDAN NELSON: But you've got to get it right Kerry…
KERRY O'BRIEN: But might start later…
BRENDAN NELSON: Well Kerry, well Kerry you've got to get it right.
SABRA LANE: Kerry O'Brien pressed the Opposition leader to nominate a specific date.
BRENDAN NELSON: Would you rather see Australian industries leave this country because we got it wrong? Is that what you're suggesting?
KERRY O'BRIEN: Dr Nelson I'll take it that what you're saying is, that it is open-ended. It could be after 2012 before a Brendan Nelson Coalition would introduce an ETS. So…
BRENDAN NELSON: It would be done when it can be responsibly done.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Ok.
BRENDAN NELSON: As soon as practicable, probably 2012, no earlier than 2011 but most importantly, we'd get it right, unlike Mr Rudd.
Clearly, a party that cannot be more specific shouldn't be in office.
The Rudd Government says it will tell Australians how much an emissions trading scheme will cost. But not just now.
The Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has criticsed the Opposition for not committing to a start date for the scheme. For not being specific enough.
Now watch this...
LINDSAY TANNER: It's particularly important that as well as the Government having a clear position on this that the Opposition does as well so that business knows when it's making investment decisions what the future landscape is going to be.
Business makes investment decisions with a five, 10, 15 year horizon. It needs to know what the future holds on these issues.
And Dr Nelson is running scared. He simply does not have a credible position on climate change.
LYNDAL CURTIS: The Coalition's environment spokesman Greg Hunt is calling on the Government to outline tax and price rises under its emissions trading scheme. Do you have those figures and can you say how much prices will rise?
LINDSAY TANNER: We're still in the process of a public consultation through the green paper that was released only a couple of weeks ago and that's going to go for some months. And towards the end of the year there will be a full position set out by the Government on these issues…
LYNDAL CURTIS: Will it include information on likely price rises?
LINDSAY TANNER: All the issues that arise from the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme will inevitably be covered by the final framework that the Government puts out.
LYNDAL CURTIS: So they will know how much things like electricity and transport prices are likely to go up?
LINDSAY TANNER: All of the issues that are involved in the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme as we envisage, and they obviously cover things like energy prices, they will all be covered by the Government's final position and the white paper that sets out what that position will be, which will be toward the end of the year.
LYNDAL CURTIS: The ACCC's report on the grocery industry is likely to be handed down today. Are you open to changes to laws which would see a lessening of market power for the major players in the grocery industries and increased transparency for consumers through things like unit pricing?
LINDSAY TANNER: We'll obviously assist the ACCC report on its merits when it's handed down. When the Government receives it, it will be considered.
And there have been a number of issues that the ACCC has examined. Some of them have been in the public arena for some time - restrictions on market share, some of the planning issues, the unit pricing proposal. All of those things are legitimate matters for debate and obviously the Government will treat the ACCC report very seriously. "
In other words, the Rudd Government doesn't have a clue about the actual effects of its own carbon emissions trading policy - or when they'll start making an impact.
Ice age v heat age
John Pratt, and the ice on the side of the world increased. What is your point, weather changes? That weather is different in separate hemispheres? Have a look at the history of world agriculture, and you will see just how much it does change.
Only dumb animals foul their own nest.
Paul, the weather certainly does change. The problem now is that human activity is causing the change, a change that could be avoided if we stopped fouling our own nest.
I don't know about you but I like my rivers with water and my reefs with coral.
I cannot understand why anyone would think the pollution of the Earth's atmosphere is good and something that we can ignore.
We have the technology to change we just need the political will to make the necessary changes. The sooner we do it the less the economic cost of change will be.
Serious impediments ahead.
John: "I cannot understand why anyone would think the pollution of the Earth's atmosphere is good and something that we can ignore."
I agree, John.
John: "We have the technology to change we just need the political will to make the necessary changes. The sooner we do it the less the economic cost of change will be.'
The problem is, John, what should these changes be. According to Sharon Beder the ETS won't achieve much. In fact, Australia on her own can do very little, as many have pointed out. How do we convince the rest of the world?
As Greg Sheridan says in The Australian today:
There's a Cap in cap'n'trade
Kathy Farrelly, Sharon Beder is ignoring the "Cap" side of Cap 'n' Trade - rather like a few around here. Since she should know better, I suspect it's so it doesn't get in the way of her anti-market argument. Usually I'm a great fan of anti-market rhetoric, but this time it is mistaken.
As David Roffey has said so many times he must be sick of it, "it's the cap that reduces emissions, not the trade". Whether or not the ETS is effective in reducing our emissions will depend on the level of the cap, the comprehensiveness of it, its policing, and what is done with the revenue from auction of permits. The amount of economic pain, and who feels it most, will, since we are governed by market ideologues, be determined by what the market delivers (plus the redistribution of some of the revenue).
The rest of the world is moving towards zero emissions
Kathy, the rest of the world is already moving towards a cleaner future.
For example:
Solar.
Wind.
and
Geothermal.
Wave.
Investment worldwide in alternate energy is booming.
Australia is in danger of being left behind. It is certainly not out on its own.
The rest of the world doesn't need convincing - it is Australian politicians who need convincing.
The world may not agree on the way forward but they all will move when there is a quid in it.
We are not the recalcitrant ones
Sorry can't agree. It's a bit like pushing shit uphill if the biggest polluters, say India, China and the US, are not on board.
We are a drop in the ocean, John.
These alternative sources of energy are certainly a step in the right direction. However, these measures are small in comparison to (realistic) energy needs. It will be many years, for instance, before wave technology will be a viable alternative.
I think you are being overly optimistic .
Did you not read Greg Sheridan's piece?
Optimistic you have to be.
Kathy, I have read your link to Greg Sheridan. I am glad that you think I am optimistic. I believe you have to be optimistic. Getting international cooperation will be difficult and take time.
The point I am trying to make is that the world is already moving in the right direction without formal agreements.
Wave energy is closer than you think. I think you are in the West - you could pop down to Freo and check this out.
The point is that we have the technology, the world is not waiting for us. Alternative energy technologies are being deployed all over the place while we procrastinate.
We should be investing now, we should be replacing coal fired power stations with alternative technologies. We should be putting our coal customers on notice that we will be phasing out coal mining. We do not have to wait for any international agreements. We can act now and we can make a difference. What would happen to the world price of coal if we banned or restricted the export of coal, just like we do uranium?