Leaked document shows how Australian government planned to “sell the idea of a carbon dioxide tax to the public”

Professor Bob Carter writes:

A rather remarkable thing happened in Australia last week, which was the leaking of an internal government document issued to all Labor MPs (probably from the PM Gillard’s office) with 16 pages of suggestions as to how members of the government might best sell the idea of a carbon dioxide tax to the public. Many of the sound-bites and slogans suggested in the paper have already been in common currency for many months.

I attach a copy of the strategy paper, and also of a critique that I have made of it with Alan Moran and David Evans. These documents are now publicly accessible at Quadrant Online:  http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/climate-change-facts.

[Document available as download  Government's_brief_to_ALP_MPs (PDF) here on WUWT - Anthony]

It will surprise none of you that the strategy paper is filled with pragmatic political advice on how to run down the opposition and to spin the government’s policy in a favourable light. But what may (or may not!) surprise you is the simply breathtaking inaccuracy, dishonesty and partiality of the content – individually, we have heard all of these arguments before, deployed around the world. But seeing them gathered together in one place makes rather an impact regarding the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the persons who are still pushing the global warming scare.

=============================================================

Climate facts Labor overlooked

by Bob Carter, Alan Moran & David Evans

Addressing the facts on climate change and energy

An internal strategy paper has been provided to Labor MPs for use in the promotion of the Government’s proposed new carbon dioxide tax.

We offer critiques of the two most substantive parts of that paper, namely “Carbon Price” and “Climate Impact on Australia”. The full text of the paper is posted (pdf) here…


An analysis of the strategy paper

Statements in bold italics are allegations (numbered by us) from the strategy paper; our responses are in ordinary typeface:


CARBON PRICE – TOP LINES

Key Facts


1a. We believe climate change is real ……..

Climate change is real and continuous. 20,000 years ago present day New York was under a kilometre of ice and lower sea levels meant that early Australians were able to walk to Tasmania; and just 300 years ago, during the “Little Ice Age”, the world was again significantly colder than today.

Australians who witnessed the 2009 Victorian bushfires or this year’s Queensland floods and cyclones need no reminder that hazardous climate events and change are real. That is not the issue.

The issue is that use of the term “climate change” here is code for “dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions”. The relevant facts are:

(i) that mild warming of a few tenths of a degree of warming occurred in the late 20th century, but that so far this century global temperature has not risen; and

(ii) that no direct evidence, as opposed to speculative computer projections, exists to demonstrate that the late 20th century warming was dominantly, or even measurably, caused by human-sourced carbon dioxide emissions.


1b. …… and taking action is the right thing to do.

The primary action that is needed should not be controversial.

It is to combat and adapt to hazardous climatic events and trends (whether natural or human-caused) as and when they happen. Of course, the required activities should be undertaken within a framework of careful cost:benefit analysis.

Spending billions of dollars on a penal carbon dioxide tax fails the cost:benefit test. Such a measure acts only to reduce Australia’s wealth, and therefore our capacity to address the real-world problems of natural climate change and hazard.


2. We want the top 1,000 biggest polluting companies to pay for each tonne of carbon (sic) pollution they produce.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet. If carbon dioxide were to drop to a third of current levels, most plant life on the planet, followed by animal life, would die.

As Ross Garnaut recognises, all businesses, including even the corner shop, are going to be paying for carbon dioxide emissions. In the long run, businesses must pass on the tax to their customers and ultimately the cost will fall on individual consumers.

A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users. This will initially impact on the costs of all businesses, and energy-intensive industries in particular will lose international competitiveness.

The so-called “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Ultimately, any cost impost on them will either be passed on to consumers or will result in the disappearance of the activities, with accompanying direct and indirect employment.


3. A carbon price will provide incentives for the big polluters to reduce their carbon pollution.

All companies must pass on their costs to consumers, or go bankrupt. A price on carbon dioxide will encourage firms to reduce emissions, but their ability to do so is limited.

The owners of fossil fuelled electricity power stations that are unable to pass on the full cost of a carbon dioxide tax will see lower profits, and the stations with the highest emission levels will be forced to close prematurely. If investors expect the tax to be permanent, power stations with higher emissions will be replaced by power stations with lower emissions whose lower carbon dioxide taxes enable them to undercut the tax-enhanced cost of the established firms. The higher cost replacement generators will set a higher price for all electricity.

Alternatively, if investors lack confidence that the tax will be permanent, the new more expensive, lower emissions power stations may be perceived as too risky to attract investment. This will cause a progressive deterioration in the system’s ability to meet demand.


4. Australia is the worst per head carbon emitter in the developed world.

This statement is untrue.

According the latest UN Human Development Report, Australia emits 18 tonnes per capita of carbon dioxide. Other countries with high emissions include Luxemburg (24.5 tonnes), the US (19 tonnes), the UAE (32.8 tonnes), Qatar (56.2 tonnes), and Kuwait (31.2 tonnes).   Australia’s emissions are higher than those of many other countries largely because we have cheap coal, little hydro-electric potential, and have banned nuclear power.

Low energy costs allow Australia, unlike other developed countries, to export products like aluminium whose production incorporates high carbon dioxide emissions. Most other developed countries import these products, effectively our-sourcing their emissions but not reducing them.

Importantly, countries are not better or worse emitters. Countries’ levels of emissions depend on their geographical and industrial structure and their living standards rather than any policy decisions their governments may have taken on carbon dioxide emissions.


5. Other countries are taking action, even China and India. Australia must make a start or our economy will be left behind.

Although several European countries have created conditions that force or encourage electricity producers to invest heavily in wind/solar, these high cost sources of electricity comprise a greater share of total output in Australia than in most other countries. Compared to the share in Australia of 1.5 per cent, the US obtains 0.8 per cent from these sources, Japan 0.4 per cent, China 0.5 per cent and India 1.7 per cent (sources: ESAA, EIA, IEA).

Australia has a Mandatory Renewable Energy Tariff (MRET) which requires that 20% of electricity is to be generated by renewables by 2020. Because renewable sources such as wind and solar are uncompetitive, by 2020 MRET will impose a tax equivalent to $14 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. Though these subsidy measures have often been trumpeted as promoting new Australian technologies, none have materialised. Nor are they likely to do so in the future, but in any event Australia cannot be left behind technologically, because if any practical research breakthroughs occur these will become available in all countries

More broadly, any expectation of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings, and the world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide taxation or emissions trading. The Chicago Climate Exchange has collapsed, and though a dozen US states had previously committed to anti-carbon dioxide schemes some of those (e.g. New Hampshire and New Mexico) are now withdrawing from the schemes.

Contrary to assertions, neither China nor India is taking substantive action specifically to mitigate their carbon dioxide emission level. China has already surpassed the level of per capita emissions said to be necessary to stabilise atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. In both countries, nuclear power and efficient coal-fired electricity generators are being embraced, but these choices are directed at energy supply efficiency not carbon dioxide emissions. Minister Combet has claimed that India has a form of carbon tax, but that “tax” is actually an environmental levy on coal mining at about $1 per tonne, which is similar to long standing levies faced by coal mining in Australia.

China and India together deliberately undermined the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009. Both countries refuse to commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets, other than that the carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP will progressively decline as their electricity generators are increasingly modernised and their economies develop. As in Australia, there are many voices in both countries rejecting theories of man-made global warming[1].


6. We will protect existing jobs while creating new clean energy jobs.

The whole point of a carbon dioxide tax is to force coal-fired power stations out of existence. No amount of subsidy will “protect” the jobs of the workers involved.

It has been shown that in Spain, 2.2 conventional jobs are destroyed for every new job created in the alternative energy industry, at a unit cost of about US$774,000/job. In a comparable UK study the figures were even worse, with the destruction of 3.7 conventional jobs for every 1 new job.


7. Every cent raised by the carbon (sic) price will go to households, protecting jobs in businesses in transition and investment in climate change programs. There will be generous assistance to households, families and pensioners (tax cuts are a live option).

As with any tax, the proceeds are returned to the community. One part of this, perhaps 20 per cent or so, is required to administer the program and is a deadweight loss. The rest is a redirection of funding to areas that the government considers to be more productive, or more politically supportive. The effect of this invariably leads to a loss of efficiency within the economy and to a slower growth rate.

It is also the case that introduction of a new tax generally results in unanticipated costs, which, because they are unknown, taxpayers cannot be compensated for.


CLIMATE IMPACT ON AUSTRALIA


8. We have to act now to avoid the devastating consequences of climate change.

Of itself carbon dioxide, even at concentrations tenfold those of the present, is not harmful to humans. Projections usually assume a doubling of emissions and associate this with an increase in global temperatures.

There is no “climate emergency”, and nor did devastating consequences result from the mild warming of the late 20th century. Global average temperature, which peaked in the strong El Nino year of 1998, still falls well within the bounds of natural climate variation. Current global temperatures are in no way unusually warm, or cold, in terms of Earth’s recent geological history.


9. If we don’t act then we will see more extreme weather events like bushfires and droughts, we will have more days of extreme heat, and we will see our coastline flooded as sea levels rise.

These alarmist statements are based exclusively on a naïve faith that computer models can make predictions about future climate states. That faith cannot be justified, as even the modelling practitioners themselves concede.

The computer models that have yielded the speculative projections quoted in the strategy paper are derived from organisations like CSIRO, which includes the following disclaimer at the front of all its computer modelling consultancy reports:

This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood.

Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.


10. This [human-caused climate impact] will hurt Australia’s industries, jobs, our infrastructure and our way of life.

[This statement is fleshed out with a further page of unvalidated computer projections of a future that will be characterised by more extreme hot days, a higher bushfire risk, enhanced sea level rise, an increased frequency of drought and an increased, negative climate-event impact on tourist icons such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Victorian ski fields.]

All these claims are speculative, and the accuracy of the computer models involved can be judged from the following graph and its explanation.

Graph source

US government climate scientists started the global warming scare in 1988 when they provided this forecast to a committee hearing in the US Congress. The actual observed temperature that eventuated later has been superimposed on the model projections in red.

The three black prediction lines are for three scenarios:

A.  Carbon dioxide levels grow exponentially (top line, solid).

B.  Carbon dioxide levels grow linearly (middle line, dashed).

C.  Carbon dioxide emissions cut back so atmospheric CO2 stopped going up by 2000 (bottom line, dotted).

The carbon dioxide levels that occurred in reality were almost exactly those in scenario A, so it is the topmost line that is the relevant forecast.

Obviously the planet’s temperature (red line) hasn’t increased nearly as much as was forecast by the computer models. After the temperature peak in 1998 (a strong El Nino year), the temperature has levelled off and is now gently declining. The red overprinted temperature is only plotted up to the beginning of 2010, but after a temporary peak in 2010 (below the 1998 peak) temperature has again declined, and is now lower than at the beginning of 2010

The claims in the strategy paper that we have to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions immediately or dangerous warming will occur, with manifold dramatic environmental consequences, are based on faulty computer models that are unchanged in basic character from those that have proved to be inaccurate since 1988.


THE ALL IMPORTANT DATA

In the real world, over the last ten years, and despite a 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide:

Global temperature has declined slightly (Liljegren, 2011)

Ocean heat content has declined slightly (Knox & Douglass, 2011); and

Global sea-level rise has remained stable, with no net acceleration (Houston & Dean, 2011)

In addition:

Tropical storm energy shows no upward trend, and is near its lowest since records began in 1977 (Maue, 2011);

The number of cyclones in northern Australia has declined since the 1970s (BOM, 2011); seven times as many extreme tropical storms traversed north Queensland and the GBR between 1600 and 1800 as occurred between 1800 and 2000 (Nott et al., 2007).

No evidence exists that current Australian climatic phenomena – including droughts, floods, storms, heat waves and snow storms – differ now in intensity or frequency from their historic natural patterns of strong annual and multi-decadal variability; and

Tourists continue to flock to a Great Barrier Reef that (outside of very local resort areas) remains in the same excellent natural health that Captain James Cook observed in 1770.


The headline-seeking, adverse environmental outcomes that are highlighted in the strategy paper are therefore as inaccurate and exaggerated as were Hansen’s 1988 temperature projections.

There is no global warming crisis, and model-based alarmist projections of the type that permeate the strategy paper are individually and severally unsuitable for use in public policy making.


 

Authors:

Bob Carter is a geologist and environmental scientist at James Cook University, and a Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Alan Moran is an economist who specialises in energy policy, and Director of Deregulation at the IPA.

David Evans is a consultant mathematician, engineer and computer modeller who occasionally consults with the Department of Climate Change on the forestry and agricultural model that they use for managing Australia’s greenhouse gas inventory.

 


 

References:

Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), 2011. Tropical cyclone trends. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml.

Houston, J.R. & Dean, R.G., 2011. Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, in press.

Knox, R.S. & Douglass, D.H., 2011. Recent energy balance of Earth. International Journal of Geosciences 1(3), in press.

Liljegren, Lucia, 2011 (Feb. 19). HadCrut January Anomaly: 0.194C. The Blackboard. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadcrut-january-anomaly-0-194c/.

Maue, R.N., 2011. Global Tropical Cyclone Activity. Global Tropical Cyclone ACE does not show an upward trend in communion with global temperatures. Global Tropical Cyclone Frequency and ACE remain near the lowest levels since 1977. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/.

Nott, J., Haig, J., Neil, H. & Gillieson, D. 2007. Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth & Planetary Science Letters 255, 367-372.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Government idiocy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Leaked document shows how Australian government planned to “sell the idea of a carbon dioxide tax to the public”

  1. Peter Miller says:

    Unfortunately, the Australian and British Labour Parties have a consistent record of creating huge amounts of unneccessary economic damage by blindly following unsubstantiated trendy economic and political theories. The fact that most of their leaders could not organise a party in a brewery is an aditional factor.

    The proposed Australian carbon tax is no different, except for the fact that it has not yet happened – and hopefully never will. Western economies will most likely eventually crumble under the weight of the pointless, expensive bureaucracies their politicians have created; this would be a classic example of accelerating the process.

    If any one country in the world is over-blessed with natural resources, it is Australia. Why on Earth would anyone want to totally negate these advantages at such huge cost for almost no benefit?

  2. “the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the persons who are still pushing the global warming scare.”

    Absolutely correct.

  3. C. Shannon says:

    On part 1, I would also point out that the fact that New York may have been under an ice sheet 20,000 years ago is irrelevant (I am not even sure if this assertion on their part is true) when you recall that 20,000 years ago was in the midst of a glacial period (or glaciation if you will). Imagine that, it’s cold during the colder part of an ice age!

  4. pat says:

    Which begs the question what is this nonsense all about? And do not think for a second this was not a part of a strategy shared among these types in NZ, Canada, Britain and America. Just listening to these creeps recite the same nonsense over and over again indicates a sharing of a BIG LIE.

  5. David L says:

    What do governments gain by destroying economies?

  6. James Sexton says:

    Excellent work guys!

    There is a small quibble, you should probably be made aware. The Hansen scenarios weren’t exclusively CO2, but rather combined with the other trace gases. It works out the about the same, but Hansen is saying we’re in scenario B because methane didn’t act like he expected……. or some such stuff.

    At any rate, keep fighting!

    James

  7. King of Cool says:

    Only problem is – How is this message conveyed to the population at large?

    Gillard has the ball and the umpire is on her side.

    I do not know how many people read Quadrant but it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the masses that are subjected daily to the party line put out by the Government over every media outlet.

    Also, I am not sure what credibility Professor Bob Carter, Alan Moran and David Evans have with the public compared to all the scientific bodies Gillard claims are on her side. Let us be frank, unless you are a sceptic, not much.

    Yes, there is a big movement going on opposing a Carbon Tax but it is as disorganised as the rebels in Libya. What the movement needs is a big name leader that can articulate the message in your article and win over the majority. At present the Government strategy is to demonise the opposition as redneck extremists that do not understand the science. This image needs to be strongly counteracted.

    Not only does Gillard have a large number of people on her side such as the CSIRO and BOM, she also has the bulk of the MSM including the ABC. But most important of all she runs the elected Government albeit by deceit and she is counting on pushing the tax through and then hoping the public will get used to it before the next election in 2 and a half years time.

    I really cannot see how she can be stopped unless the opposition and argument against increases at least tenfold.

  8. Peredur says:

    All this ‘selling’ and nowhere does she explain exactly what a Gillard climate would be, and how we would distinguish it from the one we have if we had it! In her policy announcement she acknowledged the planet had warmed 0.7 degrees over the last century or so, made no mention of any natural variance in that figure, expressed alarm that the balance was all the fault of ‘carbon’ and human activity and essentially implied that climate trends should flat-line. What she would do in a cooling era, or confronting falsification, she does not say.

  9. AusieDan says:

    Congratulations Professor Carter for your continued efforts to bring some sanity to the Australian government and, more importantly to the Australian people.

    I trust that somebody in your staff has forwarded copies to both the Federal and NSW State Liberal politicians (Labor seems to be away with the fairies at this time).

    For people reading from outside Australia, it is interesting to note that the former Labor state government was trashed in the recent NSW elections.
    Swings of over 30% were recorded against them in seats where people working in the coal mining and steel industries live, as well as in the equivalent state seats of the two independents in the national parliament who have foolishly joined the Labor and Green parties in a sort of coalition.

  10. UK Sceptic says:

    Hopefully, with this political con job strategy out in the open, the magnificent ousting in NSW won’t be a singular event.

  11. graham g says:

    My comment is addressed to the many people who have been taught to expect that Anthropogenic Global Warming will justify the Carbon Tax and ETS introduction. As a retired power engineer I ask you to carefully read this excellent article. You certainly can reduce your carbon footprint by encouraging the electricity generators and other coal users to go to gas, BUT you should be aware that the cost to you will not be as insignificant as the current ALP federal politicans indicate. I believe the articles authors have done a good service to the Australian people. Their link to the ALP Federal Government guide to MP’s is well worth your time to consider ….Many countries get up to 30% of electricity capacity from nuclear power and some like France 80% , but the world cannot get a small fraction of that reliable power source from wind or solar and we choose not to have nuclear power generation.

  12. Being under a kilometre of ice is what I call climate change! The last Century’s 0.7 degrees Centigrade change is a mere variation of weather.

  13. King of Cool says:

    Only problem is – How is this message conveyed to the population at large?

    Gillard has the ball and the umpire is on her side.

    I do not know how many people read Quadrant but it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the masses that are subjected daily to the party line put out by the government over every media outlet.

    I am also not sure what credibility Professor Bob Carter, Alan Moran and David Evans have with the public compared to all the scientific bodies Gillard claims are on her side. Let us be frank, unless you are a sceptic – not much.

    Yes, there is a big movement going on opposing a carbon tax but it is as disorganised as the rebels in Libya. What the lobby group needs is a big name leader that can articulate the message in this article and win over the majority. At present the Government strategy is to demonise the opposition as redneck extremists that do not understand the science. This image needs to be strongly counteracted.
    Any-one know some-one with the debating skills of Lord Monckton, the leadership of Winston Churchill, the scientific knowledge of John Christy and the charisma of JFK?

    Not only does Gillard have a large organisations her side such as the CSIRO and BOM, she also has the bulk of the MSM including the ABC. But most important of all, she is in control of the Government, albeit probably by deceit so she is counting on pushing a carbon tax through and then hoping the public will get used to it or it is too hard to unravel. With two and a half years before the next election, time is on her side. As they say, a week is a long time in politics.

    I really cannot see how she can be stopped unless the opposition and argument against increases at least tenfold and we find that badly needed Mr or Ms X.

  14. Luxembourg the worst per capita emitter?
    I have to correct this statement that appears over and over again. Luxembourg has cheaper gas and diesel prices than its neighbors, so about 3/4 of all these liquid fuels are sold to passing foreigners and exported during the next 30 minutes (what is the approximate residence time of foreign cars entering and leaving the country by the auto-routes). Dividing the total by 500000 (approximate population count) makes us the champions, without any merit!

  15. Binny says:

    David L says:
    April 3, 2011 at 12:10 am
    What do governments gain by destroying economies?

    Perhaps this is your answer.
    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
    — Ayn Rand

  16. Mr Green Genes says:

    UK Sceptic says:
    April 3, 2011 at 1:27 am

    I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, as you’ll well know, all 3 “major” parties in the UK have bought the CAGW scam so there’ll be no ousting here, just replacing one set of idiots with another (as happened last May).

  17. amicus curiae says:

    David L says:
    April 3, 2011 at 12:10 am

    What do governments gain by destroying economies?
    ————————
    well remember
    its the U.N. set up IPCC.
    so from the UN search our the Agenda 21 outlines. Cigiar also.
    being implemented as planned in small increments starting at the very local Council and working in with state and fed goals, out of that same book.
    lots of new Charges and rules and regs, increased power over the citizens.
    then the select glocal banksters are on side, trading , new equipment loans etc,
    the insurers plan to do very well charging heaps more for coverage of the little they pay out on anyway(ask anyone in this flood or others past if they got the payments for flood damages?) semantics, Flood , Inundation.

    Unions , some, support it because they can find more reasons to be paid more, that extra Carbon assessment and training, time off to go to classes, costs of that +travel etc etc.
    what they don’t sem to be grasping is that every single item going into a home, will also rise. On the thousands of items that go into any “made object” Bricks..start at the cost of even getting a sand quarry into business with all the new charges rules regs inspection fees, etc.the truck that carts it, fuel parts rego everything rises there too so his fees rise.
    new Govt depts to control use,
    and provide abuse to those trying to actually Produce goods.

    The Eu example is about perfect, they all adjusted? their economies to suit some great One World Governments plan, or as close as they can get.
    Carbon Scams got the same MOI and the same lousy outcome, lookit ! how many Eu countries are now broke?
    recent mentions of SDR, a European source for International trading etc. one world currency in effect.
    other proposals mooted for a One Huge Bank and tax dept too.
    Insane, yes, but it has all been proposed.

    Copenhagens hidden, and outed by Lord M after he was tipped off, finding of the planned Global payments of Carbon Credits fees exchanges etc , were slated to be paid to a UN Based central source, they would apportion it to 3rd world and maybe others? as they saw fit. Worked on GDP and a rising percentage yearly. non payment incurred hefty fines, a real bankers wet dream.
    if your country signs up, you have to have a Majority Vote by all other co signers, to allow you Out, once in, anyone really think everyone else whos hurting is going to allow another mob to decamp?their input would have to rise to cover the loss.

    UK is broke, so is USA , chinas rocky, Sth Koreas wobbly, Ireland Iceland Spain Portugal Greece, and now Japan got a triple whammy on top of the problems they had.
    so?
    How is a Carbon tax going to affect all those nations?
    So far I have to say it helped drag them down.

  18. Brian H says:

    Clearly, when you get to invent a problem and its solutions out of whole cloth, you can really come up with quite a penny operetta deluxe costume! Talk about strutting and fretting about the stage, these guys are getting risible-er by the day.

  19. Christopher Hanley says:

    The shaded area on Hansen’s 1988 graph underestimates the temperature range during the Eemian and Holocene Optimum:

  20. Mariwarcwm says:

    The problem is not CO2 but the number of people, listed in the last paragraph but one of Prof. Carter’s excellent book ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’ who are sucking on the hind teat of this AGW milch cow. No wonder they don’t listen to sceptics – to do so would put thousands of climate change workers on the dole. There are so many of them that it would probably cause a mini economic crisis on its own, but think of the benefits to the rest of us who would no longer have to fund them and their crazy ideas.

  21. polistra says:

    Excellent summary of the non-science.

    One minor point in section 7 about gov’t action:

    “redirection of funding to areas that the government considers to be more productive, or more politically supportive. ”

    This sentence really deserves to be expanded with specific examples. Most people don’t especially want an “efficient economy”, because “efficient economies” send jobs to China. But most people can understand immediately, and get properly outraged, when they see exactly who is getting filthy rich from their tax money, and why the tax money is going to those “politically supportive” organizations or corporations. Think Al Gore in the US, Rajendra Pachauri in Britain.

  22. Jeff Wiita says:

    David L says:
    April 3, 2011 at 12:10 am
    What do governments gain by destroying economies?

    Here is another plausible answer.
    The governments gain nothing. They are only a means to an ends.

    Environmentalism is a new age pagan religion. Followers want to protect their Goddess Gaia and Cathedral. They can only do that through controlled genocide, convincing individuals to commit suicide, and/or promoting infanticide (a form of eugenics). In their eyes, humans are considered a parasite to Mother Earth.

    Environmentalists are living proof that if you don’t believe in something, you can fall for anything.

    Keep Smiling :)
    Jeff

  23. Steve from Rockwood says:

    “We will protect existing jobs while creating new clean energy jobs”.
    IMPOSSIBLE!
    The Australian government will take in about $A 320 billion this year and spend $A 352 billion. Much of that revenue is from exports, as Australia is one of the world’s greatest exporters.
    Australia exported more than $A 55 billion of black coal – its largest export.
    Iron ore and other concentrates plus gold make up the second and third largest exports.
    Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal, ahead of Indonesia (2) and Russia (3).
    Australia already has a lot of taxes:
    Personal Income Tax.
    Corporate & Petroleum Resource Tax.
    Sales tax.
    Petroleum Excise Tax.
    Customs Duty Tax.
    General Excise Tax.
    Fringe Benefits Tax.
    Superannuation Tax.
    The problem with Australia is that it’s making too much money. Slow down guys and take some time off.

  24. Roberto says:

    The memo uses and re-uses variations on the idea “Act now or Australia will be left behind”.

    This is a variation of the hoary old sales maneuver, “I have other interested customers. Buy it now before they do.” Don’t think it through, just close your eyes and buy, buy, buy. You haven’t got the time to think it through first.

    It isn’t attractive when buying a car, and it certainly isn’t attractive here.

  25. theBuckWheat says:

    “But seeing them gathered together in one place makes rather an impact regarding the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the persons who are still pushing the global warming scare.”

    The aim of this web of lies was to give government more power over people and more money to use for that purpose. In this scheme, government presumes that it knows the ideal amount of CO2, the ideal temperature and the ideal sea level and that it is paramount to strive to maintain these levels. This is the hubris of useful idiots.

    I would suggest this is not the only grand scheme government is advancing with lies and made possible by the hubris of useful idiots. An even bigger scam is the idea that government knows the ideal interest rate and has the right to create money out of thin air. But that is a topic for a different forum.

  26. DJ says:

    I’m all for Australia imposing a carbon tax on itself.

    There’s one little area they’re overlooking that would, and SHOULD be included in the calculation of a carbon tax, and that’s coal exports. After all, they don’t dig up and export coal for the fun of it. They do it for profit, and the end users (Japan, South Korea, India, and China) are going to BURN it. How’s that for a carbon footprint?

    If they’re sincere about this, then coal exports should be taxed just as if the coal was burnt in Australia because, after all, it’s the very same climate the CO2 ends up in, and you must consider the source.

    On the financial side, think of the income potential for the government?

    Here’s some interesting reading on Australian coal exports and money…

    http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/FurtherReadings/21/DocumentFile/9D63EB55B19E650503D72582B5544E1D/The_Aust_coal_industry_16.12.10.pdf

  27. G. Karst says:

    The bottom line that everyone seems to be missing, is that, a people attain the government they deserve. Unless, the Australian people, muster more critical thinking and skepticism, they will travel down this road of self deception. The consequences will become apparent and the people will blame the government.

    However the blame will rest within their own gullibility.

    That is not to say, the people and institutions, that feed and encourage, this gullibility… should not be held accountable. We pay for our mistakes, one way or another. Our only protection is critical thinking and a proper skeptical approach to all claims and actions. Our reply to elitist policy should never be a bleating ” baaa ‘. GK

  28. John F. Hultquist says:

    C. Shannon says: at 11:57 pm…. “I would also point out . . .”

    The post’s including New York(?), Tasmania, the Little Ice Age, and 20,000 years ago – all in one sentence is not very helpful. Beyond that I’m not exactly sure of the point you are making regarding the post’s assertion of New York (what part there of?) being under an ice sheet. However, about the Long Island area (or really any part of New York State) information is easy to find. Likewise, for many other regions, as shown by examining the links provided below.

    http://www.powertolearn.com/li_history/natural.html

    Folks talk about an “ice age” when what they mean is a glacial phase, a geologic event within a broader glaciation. See the linked map and caption:

    http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~davem/abstracts/06-1.pdf

    For North America and Europe such mappings are quite detailed regarding direction of movement and ice margins, lakes, and other land forms, for example eskers. Ice thickness is usually estimated, with less accuracy, perhaps, than the areal descriptions.

    In this next link

    http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/WaittThorson83/summary.html

    Reference is to the “Fraser Glaciation”, a phase coinciding with the previous item’s (Late) Wisconsin Glaciation.
    During the Fraser Glaciation the Cordilleran ice sheet occupied parts of the Fraser and Puget lowland and Strait of Juan de Fuca between about 18,000 and 13,000 B.P., after the maximum stand of nearby alpine glaciers. At its maximum extent about 14,500 to 14,000 years B.P., the ice-sheet surface sloped from about altitude 1,000 meters at the international boundary to between 0 and 300 meters at the ice terminus on the continental shelf and in the southern Puget lowland.

    This article also mentions the catastrophic floods (from glacial Lake Missoula) that raced across eastern Washington State.

    This link…

    http://flightline.highline.edu/jloetterle/153F05pdfs/G153_FieldGuide.pdf

    …shows some of what is known about the Puget Lobe and explains how they know it. Besides the general information, this is also a road guide so print it out and bring it on your visit to the region.

    Bottom line: In point #10, the posters were looking for events that “climate change” is real and did a poor job of citing examples and their “wordsmithing” was confusing. Still, the fact remains, climate has changed and continues to do so.

  29. Dr Reginald Lamington says:

    A lot of us lefties here in Oz are caught between a rock and a hard place.
    We don’t like the Greens for destroying our beloved working mans party, we don’t subscribe to the AGW religion but we would rather die than vote for that right wing religious nutjob Tony “Mad Monk” Abbott.
    Make no mistake the poor here will suffer regardless, Labor’s carbon tax or the Liberal’s welfare and health cuts and middle class tax breaks.
    The reason lefties like me stay in hiding and don’t voice our concerns over the AGW religion is due to left wing working people not wanting to be associated with, in any shape or form, Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbott, the LNP and News Ltd.
    I would urge you Anthony and fellow WUWT readers, don’t throw your lot in with the right, it scares off people like me, i love your facts and articles just not the right wing politics. You need left wing dudes like me for the cause.
    If you guys drop the right wing stuff, us lefties will come out of hiding and take our own party to task on this, but if we are lumped in with Abbott and Bolt for dissenting it will never happen.
    Thanks for letting me express my opinion.
    Peace my Brothers.

  30. Mr Lynn says:

    David L says:
    April 3, 2011 at 12:10 am
    What do governments gain by destroying economies?

    The delusion that a world socialist environmental utopia will arise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of those economies.

    Cf. the uncanny parallel with the Xhosa of South Africa:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-parallels-in-our-time-the-killing-of-of-cattle-vs-carbon/#more-8702

    /Mr Lynn

  31. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Dr Reginald Lamington says:
    “A lot of us lefties here in Oz are caught between a rock and a hard place.”

    Actually Australians have it quite good at the moment as do Canadians. With a high currency, robust export market etc, both countries can afford to suffer through useless government pondering.

    At some point in the future, however, China will reconsider its position on coal (possibly more nuclear power) and the U.S. will actually move to lower oil imports. That is when both countries will need a Plan B it won’t look anything like a carbon tax.

  32. Mr Lynn says:

    Dr Reginald Lamington says:
    April 3, 2011 at 9:13 am

    . . . If you guys drop the right wing stuff, us lefties will come out of hiding and take our own party to task on this, but if we are lumped in with Abbott and Bolt for dissenting it will never happen. . .

    Unfortunately, but not accidentally, the enviro-madness of CAGW was from the start a favorite cause of the Left, not the Right, because it offered a tidy excuse for political control, and fit right in with the neo-Marxist’s aim of world socialism and hostility to freedom, private property, and capitalism. It would be a great boon to everyone who believes in human progress if you could convince your fellow lefties to drop the ‘global warming’ hoax, but you can be sure they’ll find another ’cause’ to resume their war on the dignity of the individual.

    /Mr Lynn

  33. Theo Goodwin says:

    Dr Reginald Lamington says:
    April 3, 2011 at 9:13 am
    “A lot of us lefties here in Oz are caught between a rock and a hard place.
    We don’t like the Greens for destroying our beloved working mans party, we don’t subscribe to the AGW religion but we would rather die than vote for that right wing religious nutjob Tony “Mad Monk” Abbott.”

    Reginald, you answer your own question. Who destroyed your beloved working man’s party? Now, do something about it.

  34. Bloke down the pub says:

    From what I’ve seen, Australia have got themselves in this position because their use of the alternative vote system(AV) has allowed the Green party too much clout. In May the UK gets a referendum on whether to adopt AV. If anyone needed help in deciding which way to vote then this issue is surely it.

  35. Ian says:

    I can do no more than echo the comments of others on this post. Without input from the MSM, anything Professor Carter and other scientists with similar attitudes say will not register with Australians. WUWT despite being right up there in the blogosphere, doesn’t reach anywhere near the number of Australians that TV and MSM do. As for stopping mining coal, add to that stopping the mining iron ore and alumina as the processing of adds significantly to global CO2 levels. If Australia stopped exporting these products it would have a far greater impact than any tax on CO2. Of course, it would also have a major impact on the Australian economy and so isn’t even a remote possibility. What does this say about the genuine desire of the Australian government to lower global CO2 levels?

  36. Richard Sharpe says:

    Dr Reginald Lamington says on April 3, 2011 at 9:13 am

    A lot of us lefties here in Oz are caught between a rock and a hard place.
    We don’t like the Greens for destroying our beloved working mans party, we don’t subscribe to the AGW religion but we would rather die than vote for that right wing religious nutjob Tony “Mad Monk” Abbott.

    You, sir, are no working man. Please drop the pretensions.

  37. Dave Andrews says:

    Mr Lynn,

    There are many of us on the left who are not ‘ neo – marxists’ or believers in a ‘world socialist environmental utopia’.

    You need to seriously consider your obvious prejudices and recognise that your POV is considerably wide of the mark.

  38. jrwakefield says:

    The job creation myth of renewable energy has another aspect that is often overlooked. All jobs are not equal. There are two types of jobs.

    Wealth Creaing Jobs. These exist only in private industry. These industries create GDP for the country, that is, they create wealth. These companies pay taxes and their employees pay taxes that are used to run government and their social programs. That evil corporate profit funds pension and retirement plans.

    The second job type is Wealth Leaching Jobs. These are necessary work done but they do not generate any contribution to a countries GDP. They do not create wealth, but in fact consume wealth so wealth can be created (The costs of doing business). This includes government jobs, emergency services, and any job that is a cost to business (such as insurance, and importantly energy consumption).

    To pay for Wealth Leaching Jobs, there must be far more Wealth Creating Jobs. In the specific case of energy consumption, there has to be a wide base of people in the GDP growth sector of the ecomomy to pay for that energy. Once there are more energy jobs than there are people who pay for energy, then the system would collapse. (It’s one of the reasons the EU PIIGS countries are in serious trouble — too many government jobs and not enough private jobs to pay for them).

    Thus the goal of any country is to have as FEW energy jobs as possible, not more. The goal should be to allow industry to create as many wealth creating jobs as is possible, not the opposite.

    FIT programs, carbon taxes, do the exact opposite of what is needed for a healthy economy. They create Wealth Leaching Jobs at the expense of Wealth Creating Jobs. (1:1 loss would be bad enough, but 2.3 to 3.6 private jobs for every energy job is a road to disaster EU style.)

    But then again, that may be the goal of the eco-nut cases — collapse modern civilization.

  39. charles nelson says:

    Just in case you think that the Government Prepared this document and has yet to release it…bear in mind that the ABC has been propagating this type of argument for weeks now, relentlessly and at EVERY opportunity. Whether it be agriculture, architecture, tourism, the natural world…somehow the presenter always manages to get a question in about climate change or carbon sequestration or some such nonsense which the interviewee is forced (whether they’re a true believer or not) to give the ‘correct’ response.

    It’s not just the ABC, that vile rag the Sydney Morning Herald, ran an article a couple of weeks back in which climate change skeptics were lumped in with Creationists, vaccine deniers etc!

    As winter sets in here, and the great urban centres of australia continue to get cool weather and decent rainfall, the last big Global Warming Lie i.e. that Australia would continue to be in ‘Endless, Ever Increasing Drought’, is wearing a bit thin for the population. The much promised catastrophes of Tim ‘Ghost Metropolis’ Flanney and chums have failed to materialize. That’s why the Warmists are squealing loudly and in a co-ordinated kind of way…they are desperate, reality is against them…of course it always had been but in the battle for fickle public opinion it is very difficult to get people to pay for a problem that they can see simply doesn’t exist!

  40. Cynthia Lauren Thorpe says:

    It’s heartening indeed. As TRUTH comes to light, these “pro-pagan-duh” tactics do, too.

    The best thing about the garbage that has been exposed is that the peddler’s of their propaganda are also exposed as mindless simps.

    In The End – folks that can truly still think for themselves will triumph over this absurdity.

    Cynthia Lauren Thorpe
    American in Kingston SE, SA

  41. Douglas says:

    King of Cool says:
    April 3, 2011 at 12:28 am
    [Only problem is – How is this message conveyed to the population at large?-----
    Not only does Gillard have a large number of people on her side such as the CSIRO and BOM, she also has the bulk of the MSM including the ABC. But most important of all she runs the elected Government-----. I really cannot see how she can be stopped unless the opposition and argument against increases at least tenfold]
    —————————————————————————
    King of Cool. Sadly I have to agree that you have this summed up accurately. It needs a well organised and motivated opposition that has a lot to gain in mounting that opposition. Where is that to be found in Australian politics? Can the Liberals be so motivated? I can’t see it.

    Douglas

  42. val majkus says:

    Latest climate change information captured in new CSIRO book
    Reference: 11/30

    CSIRO today will launch Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia to help inform business, government, and the community about the many issues that need to be addressed in response to climate change.

    http://www.csiro.au/news/New-Climate-Change-book.html

    (book is downloaded from the above site; 168 pages; can’t see the usual CSIRO disclaimer but some of the footnoted material may carry its own disclaimer)

    sigh …..

  43. graham g says:

    Regarding comment by Charles Nelson @ 2.47pm .

    The only way that I see any possible change in the Australian ABC’s position is if sufficient citizens express their repulsion at the constant AGW barrage by emailing the ABC Corporate Affairs section about those program issues that are unbalanced in a real sense. I sincerely believe that the ABC is now trying to get a balance on what was a “set position” on Climate Change by both mainstream political parties in Australia only a few years ago. Observe online the latest Insiders program on ABC TV1 on the 3rd. April as a fair example.

    I consider emailing company management as a more civilised example of the protest marches of yesteryear, but I hope we as a community don’t have to exhibit unrest like we see in the middle east on TV to get the attitude change towards open dialogue on this issue of substance against spin.. Fortunately , the Fairfax controlled newspapers can’t spread their AGW bias all over Australia, not that it helped in the recent NSW state election where they have a dominant position, I’m told.

    Thanks to all the people that took the time to comment on this article.
    I especially liked the jrwakefield comment as it reflects my life experience over the past 70 + years.

  44. val majkus says:

    (some one sent me this e mail)
    Here are some useful and enlightening articles about this TRAITOROUS and now NON SCIENTIFIC “csiro”……..

    The CSIRO calls this proof?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_csiro_calls_this_proof/

    CSIRO shames itself

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_csiro_shames_itself/

    The BOM & CSIRO report–it’s what they don’t say that matters

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/

    CSIRO suddenly feels a chill wind

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_suddenly_feels_a_chill_wind/

    ABC News Watch: Sensationalist headline for CSIRO study on ocean salinity

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/sensationalist-headline-for-csiro-study.html

    Penguins die from wrong cause; CSIRO head promoted for right one

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/penguins_die_from_wrong_cause/

    The CSIRO chairman’s yacht no measure of global warming

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_csiro_chairmans_yacht_no_measure_of_global_warming/

    CSIRO and the green march through our institutions

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_and_the_green_march_through_our_institutions/

    CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-2702,00.html

  45. Douglas says:

    Mr Green Genes says: April 3, 2011 at 3:24 am

    Unfortunately, as you’ll well know, all 3 “major” parties in the UK have bought the CAGW scam so there’ll be no ousting here, just replacing one set of idiots with another (as happened last May).
    ————————————————————————-
    Mr Green Genes. Like King of Cool you have identified the problem with the politicos in the UK, Aus, and NZ. They have all bought into this via their respective Science Advisors Sackett, (Aus) Beddington (U.K.) and Gluckman (N.Z.) all of whom repeat the meme to whoever happens to occupy the treasury benches at the time. They are all in step lock together. How can this be changed? Seems to me we have to all suffer a cut in the standard of our living or perhaps wait till hell freezes over. It seems to me to be ‘hobson’s’ choice.

    But the Americans seem to have a better grip on things. It could be that they can lead us out of this mess.

    Douglas

  46. connolly says:

    Dr Lamington there are many of us on the left in Australia who are opposing the ACGW scam. One of the main proponents of the push for a price on carbon are the financial sector hungry for another speculative bubble. Take some encouragement from the response fronm the ALP heartland in the recent NSW state elections. Before the election the ALP held 24 electorates with employment bases in the manufacturing, mining and steel industries. After the election they hold 13. The ALP held their steel region seats despite a massive swing against them. Their apparachiks are now denying that the carbon dioxide tax had anything to do with the result. In the steel making and coal mining regions of NSW it sure did. The ALP is betraying its working class base with its policy of carbon pricing. There is a rank and file movement of workers forming to fight it. Join us and to hell with what a corrupted and discredited political class are saying. Just do what you know is right.

  47. Mr Lynn says:

    Dave Andrews says:
    April 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    Mr Lynn,

    There are many of us on the left who are not ‘ neo – marxists’ or believers in a ‘world socialist environmental utopia’.

    You need to seriously consider your obvious prejudices and recognise that your POV is considerably wide of the mark.

    I’m glad to hear you are not so far to the left that you buy into the the pervasive neo-Marxist ideology that has animated the chief promulgators of ‘environmental’ extremism, going back to the Club of Rome and beyond. But many do, including millions of what Lenin called ‘useful idiots’, well-meaning, emotion-driven naive souls who are terribly worried that the evil corporations and the SUV-driving, beer-drinking rednecks are ‘destroying the planet’ and polluting it with ‘carbon’.

    Maybe you and Dr. Lamington can talk some sense into them.

    And, by the way, re Richard Sharpe’s slam against Dr. L: “You, sir, are no working man. Please drop the pretensions.”

    That was quite undeserved. You don’t know Dr. Lamington, and I think we can assume that he is no layabout on a trust fund. Anyone with a job, who works at it, is a ‘working man’. Doesn’t matter if your collar is blue or white.

    /Mr Lynn

  48. Roger Knights says:

    King of Cool says:

    I really cannot see how she can be stopped unless the opposition and argument against increases at least tenfold and we find that badly needed Mr or Ms X.

    Another provincial election result like the one in NSW will do it.

  49. Sun Spot says:

    @Mr Lynn says: April 3, 2011 at 11:11 am

    CAGW is as much a child of capitalist extremism as it is a product of eco-fascism, and therein lies the magnitude of the problem. Capitalists like Al Gore and others that would like to fleece us in a market carbon trading scam or carbon tax have formed a cabal of convenience that gives the truth no place to find home.

  50. ayankinoz says:

    Dr Reginald Lamington = Concern Troll

    This is no Labor-voting working man. This is just another green useful idiot.

    Tony Abbott is mercilessly vilified and misrepresented by the biased propagandists of Oz media, eg. ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age. How dare Abbott have the audacity to be a practising Catholic. For o/seas readers, Abbott is an Oxford-educated Rhodes Scholar, has served many years in Parliament, including several Ministries, both in govt and in opposition, is married with 3 daughters (high school to uni age), lives in a nice suburban home with a 2nd mortgage to pay for said daughters’ education, is a volunteer firefighter with his local CFA, was a competitor in the Oz Iron Man last year at the age of 52, and spends part of his annual holiday time at a remote Aboriginal settlement where he teaches reading to kids. Of course the leftist media smear him as the “mad monk” (as a young man he was studying to enter the priesthood before deciding he wasn’t cut out for it) – if the public objectively weighed him up against Julia Gilliard (Fabian socialist and labor lawyer for “ambulance-chasing” law firm), she wouldn’t have gotten half the votes she did.

  51. Smokey says:

    Sun Spot,

    Al Gore is about as “capitalist” as Kim Jong Il. All the free market ["capitalism to Marxists] is, is the freedom to do as one wishes within the law, free of onerous government meddling and excessive regulation. The result is an explosion of prosperity. Please don’t conflate Big Government Gore with the free market. He’s in the game only for Al Gore.

  52. Mr Lynn says:

    Smokey says:
    April 3, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Al Gore is about as “capitalist” as Kim Jong Il. . .

    LOL! Thanks, Smokey. Saved me the trouble of responding.

    /Mr Lynn

  53. peter_ga says:

    Considering that a document was given “confidentially” to all labor MP’s, the use of the word “leaked” is somewhat redundant.

  54. Dr Reginald Lamington says:

    Funny… the Dr handle is a “working class” joke that has seemed to be lost here,
    i have in fact worked manual jobs my entire life, and i am not a green.
    ( Lamington being a cheap cake )

    But with,
    Concern Troll
    This is just another green useful idiot.
    leftist media smear
    “ambulance-chasing”
    You, sir, are no working man. Please drop the pretensions.

    It would appear that me and you are not that different after all then
    I dont like Bob Brown or Christine Milne either
    Peace

  55. ayankinoz says:

    Peace to you, too, Doc, but Dr is pretentious when you haven’t earned the right to the title.

    And lamington is indeed a dead give-away that you are being frivolous.

    If you are alarmed at the prospect of a PM Abbott, then your research on the potential candidates has been sloppy and/or you rely on being spoon-fed by the media propagandists.

    As for falling for Gillard’s scaremongering re: Abbott “cutting welfare” – fair go, mate – he’s right to point out that it beggars belief that in a country of a mere 22 million, there are 800,000 people receiving a disability pension. Heaps of people here rort the system – you know it and I know it. And I think it sounds like a very generous idea to offer relocation assistance to long-term unemployed under 50 who are willing to move to another city/town where there are plenty of jobs instead of sitting around doing nothing in a city where there are none. How is that a “welfare cut”? Sounds like a helping hand to get the able-bodied back to work.

  56. Philip Shehan says:

    The problems with this analysis begin with:

    “(i) that mild warming of a few tenths of a degree of warming occurred in the late 20th century, but that so far this century global temperature has not risen; and

    (ii) that no direct evidence, as opposed to speculative computer projections, exists to demonstrate that the late 20th century warming was dominantly, or even measurably, caused by human-sourced carbon dioxide emissions.”

    In response:

    (i) The AGW signal did not appear above the noise until the 80’s. The increase in temperature since then is 0.7 C. A decade is too short a period to be meaningful in terms of a long term trend and any lack of warming arises from the fact that the AGW signal is superimposed on natural forcings.

    (ii) It depends on what you mean by “direct” evidence. The models are not speculative. They are theoretical explanations for observed temperature changes. Models that exclude CO2 concentrations do not fit the data well. Models that exclude natural forcings do not fit the data well. Models which include natural and anthropogenic contributions fit the data very well. See Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 in the article below.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

    Unsurprisingly Hansen’s models have improved since 1988.

  57. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Connected important people tell me that China is supposed to be the industrial giant that replaces the United States in the 21st century. Everyone else is supposed be colonies that sell raw materials and buy finished goods. Ask your self, who are your politicians work for? Maybe they are working for the New World Order. pg

  58. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Connected important people tell me that China is supposed to be the industrial giant that replaces the United States in the 21st century. Everyone else is supposed be colonies that sell raw materials and buy finished goods. Ask your self, who are your politicians working for? Maybe they are working for the New World Order. pg

  59. Dr Reginald Lamington says:

    ayankinoz says:
    Peace to you, too, Doc, but Dr is pretentious when you haven’t earned the right to the title.

    Lighten up there Bro no need to snap, this is Australia here….. we make fun of titles

    ayankinoz says:
    If you are alarmed at the prospect of a PM Abbott…
    I did not say that at all( although i would be ), i said i did not want to be lumped in with him and other right wingers for a dissenting view on AGW.

    ayankinoz says:
    As for falling for Gillard’s scaremongering re: Abbott “cutting welfare” – fair go, mate – he’s right to point out that it beggars belief that in a country of a mere 22 million, there are 800,000 people receiving a disability pension.

    I did not say that i got that information from Julia Gillard at all, i have my own mind. You just assumed ( what was that about poor research? )
    I got my information from Tony Abbott’s comments in one of the many Liberal party newspapers same as you . ( im assuming now… sorry)
    Maybe we could give the disabled bibles instead of pensions?
    Miracle cure, no more welfare, back to surplus! Onya Tony!

  60. philip andrew travers says:

    As a working unpaid farmhand and disability pensioner,I am in some ways as close to Karl Marx’s Free Labourers as is possible today.There have been at times whilst the debate about AGW continues the facts of coal hoarding and releasing by Australian buyers of coal that were attempts to reduce the value of that coal as a selling price by Australian corporations,and, or based in Australia corps.A game that will occasionally occur no matter what commodity or level of manufactured item or Tertiary skill service provision.Those general views are entirely Marxist derived unthreatening to either Chinese interests or Australian interests,because the main supplier of distributed wealth,remains the Government sectors on receivals of any monies as a process involved in contract as a result of transshipment.When coal loader ships are held up by very bad weather this then becomes the evidence of why the Queensland Rail sale didn’t eventuate as the Queensland Government assumed it would.Waves became the market depressor in a number of ways.And as a Greenie of type, coal loading ships worry me,as do fuel delivering ships near the Barrier Reef.And Bob Brown was of the same mind as anyone could be about safe exports.The problem really there is, the Professor Carter’s of the world haven’t really got a say either.Because they would be drowned out also.The Marxist realities are useful if they lead to a better understanding of what is going on.I doubt there is Global Warming.I am convinced enough that a more honest assessment can be found elsewhere.I am also a opponent of the medical jab,more so when other countries medical professional bodies go about assessing realities somewhat differently to the egoist indoctrinated Univ. Graduates.And more so when there are developmental areas even within the inventiveness of medically trained Queenslanders.I do not accept that ,as a generality, our medical systems can be gratefully trusted.And then it goes to say ,maybe, Bob Brown himself.Who on another question re Israel claims some moral virtue re having a policy about Israel and Palestine.If this web address permits this whole response,I will be thankful.I find no reason for me to accept the windbag nostrums of accusation about people simply because they will not jump to your own windbagging. Lamington would have to be that. I do not have to accept either the ALP is a working persons party.To me it a jealous machine of people in the socialist mode of power and retaining power rather than for some sustainable and worthwhile and acceptable justice.I have been appalled on the attacks on Professor Carter.I am now starting to want to give Bob Brown a good bloody boot.This change in me,has come about by noticing the endless windbaggery rather than the option of appealing to me,by well presented argument,instead,I get, thinking I will act tribally.No! I am proud to be unaccepting of the AGW mentation.I am for better outcomes,so Australians get back to respecting each other.Understanding does not come about by asserting something about self or others expertise, and niggardly going about increasing the hot air of self,and those who readily agree.There are a lot of matters about mining that could assist the longer term acceptance that forests are both Cathedral[visit Cathedral Rocks National Park near Armidale for that] and wonder gratefully about the ancientness of this land whilst calling into the Ebor Falls!Please reduce the dickhead assessments here.They are abundant on the other side of the non existing debate.Down with Murdoch acolytes!Not a bad banner slogan.Hey!

  61. Paul A Peterson says:

    (Quote) Philip Shehan says:
    April 3, 2011 at 11:35 pm
    The problems with this analysis begin with:

    “(i) that mild warming of a few tenths of a degree of warming occurred in the late 20th century, but that so far this century global temperature has not risen; and

    (ii) that no direct evidence, as opposed to speculative computer projections, exists to demonstrate that the late 20th century warming was dominantly, or even measurably, caused by human-sourced carbon dioxide emissions.”

    In response:

    (i) The AGW signal did not appear above the noise until the 80’s. The increase in temperature since then is 0.7 C. A decade is too short a period to be meaningful in terms of a long term trend and any lack of warming arises from the fact that the AGW signal is superimposed on natural forcings.

    (ii) It depends on what you mean by “direct” evidence. The models are not speculative. They are theoretical explanations for observed temperature changes. Models that exclude CO2 concentrations do not fit the data well. Models that exclude natural forcings do not fit the data well. Models which include natural and anthropogenic contributions fit the data very well. See Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 in the article below.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

    Unsurprisingly Hansen’s models have improved since 1988. (end qoute)

    Dear Philip:

    Your response (i) is not accurate. The AGW single has NEVER been sepate from the noise, execpt as a religious excerise.

    The tempature run up from about 1974 to 1998 is not exceptional and is nothing more than normal noise. It followed a long cooling period, was timely and consistant with other tempature run ups, and a continuation of the warming from the LIA. Nothing special there.

    It became policitally convienent to ignore science and use this “too short” period as evidence of global warming. According to a RC post I read, the 1974 to 1998 does not even meet the IPPC’s standard of 30 years for a valid statical trend. (Not that they would ever put that together for me. They were trying to discredit the current trend of non-warming. It took only a little thought to see that they had clearly identified that the recent warming was not a statistically meaningful trend. They needed to have a 30 year trend which there is not. In order to fake a 30 year trend you have to add years to the beginning or end of the warming period. The added years are simply statistical deception.)

    From my own prespective a 30 year tempature trend is not long enough to be proof of anything. There appears to be 30 to 60 year cycles in the tempature record. Any preiod of warming or cooling or stasis of 30 to 60 years should be recoginized as natural and it should take serious evidence to prove otherwise.

    You seem to recoginize that the tempature increases from the LIA to present while interesting has nothing to do with CO2 increases. Use of that increase as evidence for CAGW is a red herring arguement by CAGW crowd.

    Regarding (ii) you have a meaningless point. Yes the models may have got better. But the improvements have an insufficient track record to place any more trust in their results than the older modles. I have not seen any information that would indicate that the bias which infected and ruined the accuracy of the older modles have been removed from the newer ones. Indeed one of the biases seems to be the overstating of the effect of increased CO2 on the envoirment. For political and perhaps religious reasons that bias will not leave the models. After all men of faith are often completely blind to the inconsistancies in their religion.

    Paul

  62. Andy says:

    Philip Shehan says:
    April 3, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    Philip,

    You seem to put great faith in the models and their supposed accuracy. At the same time, you dismiss the last ten years of flatlined temperatures as not significant.
    However, the fact that the models didn’t predict this flatlining surely invalidates these models. If these models are so accurate, why didn’t they predict this change in the trend?

Comments are closed.