The news that 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded in Australia comes at the end of a year in which, to the extent that facts can settle anything, the debate over human-caused global warming has been settled. Worldwide, 2005 was equal (to within the margin of error of the stats) with 1998 as the warmest year in at least the past millennium.
More significantly, perhaps, 2005 saw the final nail hammered into the arguments climate change contrarians have been pushing for years. The few remaining legitimate sceptics, along with some of the smarter ideological contrarians, have looked at the evidence and conceded the reality of human-caused global warming.
Ten years or so ago, the divergence between satellite and ground-based measurements of temperature was a big problem – the ground based measurements showed warming in line with climate models but the satellites showed a cooling trend. The combination of new data and improved calibration has gradually resolved the discrepancy, in favour of the ground-based measurements and the climate models.
Another set of arguments concerned short-term climate cycles like El Nino. The late John Daly attributed the high temperatures of the late 1990s to the combination of El Nino and solar cycles, and predicted a big drop, bottoming out in 2005 and 2006. Obviously the reverse has happened. Despite the absence of the El Nino or solar effects that contributed to the 1998 record, the long-term warming trend has dominated.
Finally, there’s water vapour. The most credible of the contrarians, Richard Lindzen, has relied primarily on arguments that the feedback from water vapour, which plays a central role in climate models, might actually be zero or even negative. Recent evidence has run strongly against this claim. Lindzen’s related idea of an adaptive iris has been similarly unsuccessful.
Finally, the evidence has mounted up that, with a handful of exceptions, “sceptics” are not, as they claim, fearless seekers after scientific truth, but ideological partisans and paid advocates, presenting dishonest arguments for a predetermined party-line conclusion. Even three years ago, sites like Tech Central Station, and writers like Ross McKitrick were taken seriously by many. Now, anyone with access to Google can discover that they have no credibility. Chris Mooney’s Republican War on Science which I plan to review soon, gives chapter and verse and the whole network of thinktanks, politicians and tame scientists who have popularised GW contrarianism, Intelligent Design and so on.
A couple of thoughts on all this.
First, in the course of the debate, a lot of nasty things were said about the IPCC, including some by people who should have known better. Now that it’s clear that the IPCC has been pretty much spot-on in its assessment (and conservative in terms of its caution about reaching definite conclusions), it would be nice to see some apologies.
Second, now that the scientific phase of the debate is over, attention will move to the question of the costs and benefits of mitigation options. There are legitimate issues to be debated here. But having seen the disregard for truth exhibited by anti-environmental think tanks in the first phase of the debate, we shouldn’t give them a free pass in the second. Any analysis on this issue coming out of a think tank that has engaged in global warming contrarianism must be regarded as valueless unless its results have been reproduced independently, after taking account of possible data mining and cherry picking. That disqualifies virtually all the major right-wing think tanks, both here and in the US. Their performance on this and other scientific issues has been a disgrace.
John Quiggin 
This stuff is harder than most people think. For instance, we have a “greenhouse gases” theory based on completely trustworthy science that links increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations to AGW (and we have measured a big increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution). This theory says that the upper atmosphere will get warmer. But measurements show that the upper atmosphere is *not* warming!
Possible conclusions:
(1) The current GHG theory is slightly wrong and we need to produce a modified version of it that does not predict upper atmosphere warming. But the basic idea (AGW from GHG) is correct.
(2) The current GHG is completely bogus. The current global warming is *not* anthropogenic, but is (2a) natural variation in a complex, chaotic system or (2b) due to variations in Solar output (note the northern icecap is shrinking on Mars) or (2c) [insert new theory here].
My point is that *no* *one* can rule out either of these 2 conclusions yet (and there are plenty of other hypotheses to be explored).
Ender,
The vey best solar cells today are hard pushed to give you 1MWh/square m/yr. And this is in the very best climates. This gives, in theory, a land area closer to 15, 000 square km to supply world electricity needs.
But. The challenge is you need to then get the electricity to other places around the globe where the sun doesn’t shine as well. To do this (for example, through hydrogen storage, global transport, and then fuel cell conversion) is a process that quickly wipes out your achieved energy ‘gain’. One also needs to realise that electricity is only a part of our total energy use and that to meet total energy use requires much more area than your figures suggest.
You also ignore the fact that the embodied energy that goes into the process of making many modern solar cells is often larger than the net life time yield of the cell itself (reference Environmental Accounting, Odum, Wiley and Sons, 1996). You also need to account for the pollution caused to make the plastics, silicon, dye-sol and whatever else gets used to manufacture your magical energy silver bullets.
Putting CO2 in the atmosphere is not tossing a coin. When you toss a coin you either get a head or you don’t. When you put CO2 in the atmosphere it is not either in or out of the atmosphere it is in the atmosphere and it is intercepting radiation.
People are just not getting the point here. Putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is similar to turning up the Sun. Sure it may produce different weather and climate and a different pattern of very complex variations but unless you are incredibly lucky, complexity is not going to stop it from getting warmer. It’s a bit like hoping that because the flow pattern of water in a pot is very complex, it won’t warm up when you put a flame under it. One of the challenges in scientific understanding is seeing the fundamental issues in complex systems and that’s what global warming is about.
Chris C., reread the post. Your info on the upper atmosphere is out of date, as noted there. Upper atmosphere measurements now match the predictions of the models very well. Given this, I’m sure you’ll be eager to revise your syllogism to conclude that the GHG models are right.
Andrew R. and Matt, I’m not aware of any dispute about the relationship between CO2 emissions and the observed growth in atmospheric concentration, though there’s still some doubt about the role of sinks and so on.
Finally while we all know about anecdotal evidence, it’s nice that Steve Chidio has turned up as an illustration of the link between global warming scepticism and fraud. And welcome also to Tim B showing that no issue is too important for cheap pointscoring.
Putting CO2 into the atmosphere is nothing like putting a flame under a pot of water. A flame is hot and so simple thermodynamics means the water temperature will rise.
CO2 is more like a catalyst that operates in the presence of other catalysts, some of which have positive feedback on temperature and some which have negative feedback. It is complex precisely because of that interaction. It is no accident that many scientists believed as recently as 30 years ago that the earth could be heading for another ice-age.
Ender’s real point about where skeptics get their wedges from should have been that they make quotations out of context which is what he did to me. To quote with context I said “These people ignore the fact that basic physics (which are no longer considered to be mere hypotheses) says there will be some warming unless by some incredibly lucky fluke the climate system just happens to produce forever-lasting weather events that counteract the effects of basic physics.” The “unless…” part implied the difference between what basic physics says and the effect of a complex weather system as I went on to explain in more detail in the following paragraph.
So yes one of the ways skeptics get their wedges is dishonest quotations out of context and yes they also dishonestly use the media and public distrust of science to cloud the issue. Fortunately there’s not a lot of room for dishonesty in scientific debate but unfortunately there’s ample room when it comes to politics so that debate can go for a long time. When they say “prove global warming from CO2 and we will take action” it’s a bit like saying “prove that we won’t be lucky enough that some complexity in the global climate system won’t save us from something as sure to warm us as the Sun getting hotter”. Yep, OK, I can’t prove it and neither can anyone else.
As above, this analogy is way off the mark. I challenge you to find a reputable pro-AGW climatologist who has made such an analogy (increased CO2 = hotter sun). It is you who is wedging my friend. Why don’t you actually read some of the science before posting?
For those bringing up solar energy in Australia I’ll just repeat for the umpteenth time:
* Photovoltaics are way, way, way too expensive at this point in time. Maybe something like the solar tower might be cost effective, but those guys have been very quiet recently.
* Solar cells *do* pay back their energy costs reasonably quickly. See this, for instance. Wind does this a lot quicker, though.
* Wind power is much cheaper than solar.
* We can’t store energy efficiently. Pumped-storage hydro is not going to be the solution, either (we don’t have enough places for dams to do so). This is the killer problem that means we can’t currently use wind *or* solar for more than a small fraction of our energy needs. There are possible solutions available (ask Ender about his feasible, but rather futuristic scheme for doing so), but they are some way down the track.
On a global scale, I can’t see any way to avoid the very wide scale deployment of nuclear energy as a way to avoid greenhouse emissions. Locally, we might be able to switch to things like HDR geothermal, but Australia is a special case with an enormous landmass and not many people. Densely populated countries are not going to be so fortunate.
Dishonest quotations out of context? Like this one?
From Plimer’s article:
“Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures rise a few degrees?�
I advise anyone who leaves near a beach to drop by during a king tide and mentally add “a few metres� to the water level.
There are literally hundreds of millions of people around the world who live within “a few metres� of sea-level.
This ignores Plimers arguments that sea levels have varied greatly over time, and that the cost of relocating people because of the rise of sea levels would be less than the cost of switching to supposedly ‘green friendly’ power sources.
Apologies for the error in my previous post. I had read the climateaudit post but remembered it wrong. Very embarrassing …
What I should have said is that the current GHG theory predicts *more* warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface but the adjusted satellite data still show less warming up top than down below.
Hey, I said this stuff was hard. The rest of my post was just an example of how hard it is.
Of course, it’s much easier if you decide that anyone who has been subject ed to a barrage of ad hominen attacks on the web cannot have ever made any valid points.
John
It’s great you think satire is fraud. But then who am I to comment, right?
While on that subject a poster at Blair’s site has brought up the costings for Kyoto you came up with and were later challenged by Jerry Jackson. Here it is. You want to comment now or…..
number 16 in Blair’s site.
This comment by Gerry Jackson exposes Quiggins economic tripe on Kyoto:
The so-called greenhouse effect has given our Greens and their media mates a vital weapon in their war against economic growth. They know that energy is the life blood of any industrialised society. Apply a severe turnkey to the flow of energy and not only will you slow growth but you will cause major disruptions to the economy. And that is what carbon taxes will do. Once again The Australian showed its green colours with several items supporting this destructive policy. John MacLeay, its resident Green propagandist, provided Greens with another platform to attack the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics econometric study claiming that global cuts to ‘greenhouse emissions’ would cost Australians $9000 per head (The Australian 5/5/97).
Substituting Mark Twain for Disraeli (he cannot even get his quotes right) MacLeay led with the cliché “there are lies, damned lies and statistics. (The Inference is clear). What upset the Greens was that the ABARE study estimated the annual costs of curbing so-called green gas emission at 3 per cent of GDP, thus virtually wiping out growth. Naturally, the Greens responded with their own figures. Professor Quiggin stressed that ABARE’s $9000 was the net present figure using a 5 per cent discount rate. Dividing the figure by 20, adjusting it for the fact that 70 per cent of wage earners are below the average and that wages are about 60 per cent of GDP (gross wages are actually over 70 per cent) he massaged the figure down to $200. He then virtually eliminated the cost altogether by using a 10 per cent discount rate. Presto! Simple arithmetic manipulation has now made it possible to raise the cost of production by raising energy prices without affecting output, competitiveness and living standards.
Gee John. Why not use a discount factor of 20%, that way you’ll show a profit on going with Kyoto. Those are the sort of numbers Labor would believe.
Ken
“Judging by that paragraph, you haven’t read any peer reviewed scientific literature on the topic. Here’s a hint, it strongly supports the opposite”.
Errrrr….. no,. It doesn’t strongly support it. It strongly infers it. There is a difference.
Let me ask all you here at the site. JQ, you first. If I suggested we ought to do away with audited financial statements and regular oversight in the business world you would be screaming out like stuffed porkies, right?
And yet, in a fashion that is exactly what we are expected to do. Roll over to un-audited scientific research. And no I am not talking peer review. Billions of Dollars to be funneled away, yet not one of these studies has ever been audited in the same way IPO are checked out.
What makes it worse is that when some of these scientists have been asked for their source code they refuse to give it up despite the fact that their research has been publicly funded.
Great, so they are peer reviewed by people who consider anything other than “conventional wisdom” to be leprosy.
Mention audits for public funded research and these scientists run a mile. Would you support Audits, Ken?
Some of these studies are using pine cones as proxies for Ch….t sake….to detemine what the weather was like hundreds of years ago. This is supposed to be accurate!!!!!
Ok, sure there is acurrate records of temp going back 160 years ago. 160 years is not even a blink in the earth’s life scale.
Let’s get real here.
“Putting CO2 into the atmosphere is nothing like putting a flame under a pot of water. A flame is hot and so simple thermodynamics means the water temperature will rise.”
See, people just don’t get the point. The temperature that some object reaches when it is fed by a heat source and insulated from its surrounds depends on the rate of heat flow and the amount of insulation. Increasing the amount of insulation causes the temperature to rise just as surely as increasing the rate of heat flow. That’s why climate scientists call both the increase of atmospheric CO2 and an increase in solar radiation “forcings” because either of them would force the temperature to be higher if all other independent variables were held the same. So ideas like “CO2 is more like a catalyst that operates in the presence of other catalysts, some of which have positive feedback on temperature and some which have negative feedback.” just completely misunderstand the issue. You can pray that there is some aspect of the complex details that through very good fortune counteracts the continually increasing forcing effect of increasing CO2, but it’s just praying.
Professor Quiggin writes: “Welcome also to Tim B showing that no issue is too important for cheap pointscoring.”
Actually, I don’t think this issue is important at all, and take the opportunity to correct those who’ve described me as a global warming denialist — I’m more of a global warming don’t-give-a-damnalist. Slight difference.
S. Chidio,
Do you have a link to the article or paper in which PQ analyses the ABARE figures?
Regards,
Terje.
First of all, e sciaroni quoted me out of context as saying “…anthropogenic CO2 which will stay in the atmosphere on average for many thousands of yearsâ€? and said this is just not the case. What I actually said was “…A LOT OF THE anthropogenic CO2 which will stay in the atmosphere on average for many thousands of years”. I was referring to the discussion by David Archer at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134 entitled “How long will global warming last?” which begins “The notion is pervasive in the popular and scientific literature that the lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 released to the atmosphere is some fuzzy number measured most conveniently in decades or centuries. The reality is that the CO2 from a gallon out of every tank of gas will continue to affect climate for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years into the future.” and then goes on to explain how the mistaken beliefs about CO2 lifetime come about. He says “When you release a slug of new CO2 into the atmosphere, dissolution in the ocean gets rid of about three quarters of it, more or less, depending on how much is released. The rest has to await neutralization by reaction with CaCO3 or igneous rocks on land and in the ocean.” and “My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years.”
7% of the carbon released today and in the next however many years is a lot of carbon to be around in 100,000 years time and even more than 7% over a shorter period still many thousands of years. He says that dissolution in the oceans should take it down to 25% in several hundred to a thousand years and then the slow geologic processes will remove it from the oceans and take it down to 7% over the following 100,000 years.
I should point out that a thousand years is easily long enough to melt Greenland and West Antarctica so that melting alone will make the oceans 7 metres higher within 1000 years.
But I guess we shouldn’t worry about that because all of us alive today will be dead long before then.
I understand that a few years ago a study found that land clearing was causing more CaCO3 to leach into the oceans. However I think it was also found to be insufficient to significantly effect the Oceans uptake of CO2.
I don’t think we should worry too much about what happens in 1000 years from now. We certainly shouldn’t lose sleep over it (ironic for me to say that at 4:40am). There are way too many variables. For all we know we will be extinct in 300 years due to alien invasion or we may be populating 1000 planets across the Galaxies. Having too much certainty about future events can be a curse.
Tim B says he is more of a global warming don’t-give-a-damnalist rather than a denialist which I take as meaning he believes the consequences of global warming are insignificant. It would be interesting to hear him explain the insignificance of the consequences.
Tim Blair has made 20 posts about global warming in the past month. I wonder how many there would have been if he thought the issue was important?
“Tim B says he is more of a global warming don’t-give-a-damnalist rather than a denialist which I take as meaning he believes the consequences of global warming are insignificant. It would be interesting to hear him explain the insignificance of the consequences.”
Well, I’m also a don’t-give-a-damnalist (and Lambert, the reason we DGAD’s talk about it so much is that you Chicken Littles are looking to spend billions of our money and screw around with our way of life. THAT’S why it’s important.) I have no idea of the “significance” of the “consequences”, and neither do you, Chris. Here’s some choices:
1) No significance.
2) Beneficial warming (think Canada and Russia)
3) Non-beneficial warming (submerged islands, coasts)
4) Runaway greenhouse effect.
5) Prevention of naturally-occurring (and devastating, and close to overdue) Ice Age.
#1 is nothing. #2 & #3, at worst, cancel each other out (but since history shows warmer periods to have been beneficial to civilization, probably a plus). #4 is a catastrophe due to “inaction” (assuming it’s true), #5 is a prevented catastrophe (assuming it’s true, and would become a catastrophe if allowed to happen due to environmentalist meddling.)
So, for all of you people who say we have to “do something” – which of these five outcomes is the one that is going to happen? No fudging, because the fact you want to take action means that you will waste money if it’s #1, destroy a positive benefit (and waste money) if it’s #2, and destroy civilization if it’s #5.
Oh, BTW, I’ve got the Weather Channel on in the background, and they just showed a graphic showing that temps in Florida are running 15 degrees below average.
According to NASA, the Martian polar ice caps are melting! Clearly, this can only be due to one thing: arrogant white male colonialist oppressors with their fast food and releasing their noxious gases into the solar system! Is it not enough that they have to destroy their own planet, but they have to destroy other planets as well? George W. Bush, now you have Martian blood on your hands! Well, how does it feel? For God’s sake, how does it feel?
You refused the Kyoto Protocol, and pretty soon we’ll be seeing hurricanes ravaging the peaceful coastal prairies of Mars! Why do Neocons want Martian children to suffer under their calloused capitalist paradigm?
After all, the only other thing that could possibly cause such a catastrophe is if there was some sort of concentrated source of intense light and heat floating about our solar system, that goes through cycles of warming and cooling over periods of centuries, but what are the odds of that?
I blame Karl Rove’s dastardly weather machine!
This is from the first link in the header:
“The Bureau of Meteorology says South Australia’s temperature average last year was the highest on record.
The state’s average maximum temperature was 26.7 degrees, nearly one-and-a-half degrees above the previous record.”
Are we to assume the previous record was in 2004, since it’s been suggested that the “debate” over global warming is over?
Last time I checked the sun didn’t float around the solar system but rather the solar system floats around the sun. Perhaps you were refereing to some other concentrated source of intense light and heat.
Worth understanding are Milankovitch Cycles that describe the variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earths orbit:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
I thought the melting of the ice caps on Mars was merely a seasonal event (ie part of a well known short term climatic cycle).
Actually, the Bureau of Meteorology says the previous record for Australia is from 1950. That’s 1950!
“2005: Australia’s warmest year on record?
Australia has experienced its warmest start to a year on record (since 1950), with the January-to-October temperature averaging 1.03 degrees Celsius above the 30-year average (1961-1990). As the year nears an end, a record-breaking year is looking likely – another indicator of climate change.”
“Dave S.’ says “I have no idea of the consequences and neither do you”
Dave, are you aware that these have been studied in detail by the IPCC and other bodies?
Climate change will be negative on balance for two main reasons. First, ecosystems are adapted to existing climates and will therefore suffer from climate change – for example, coral reefs will suffer badly from bleaching even though, in the long run, corals benefit from warming.
Second, lots of human investments have been made on the presumption that the existing climate will continue. Obvious cases are dams and coastal developments. In the long run one coastline is as good as another, but that doesn’t help people who live on the coast if sea-levels rise, as predicted.
I’m a AGW skeptic, not completely so – for example, the ice cores from Antartica clearly prove that human CO2 emissions have increased the CO2 levels. Done.
Someone earlier asked what you would accept as proof that AGW was true… I can’t answer that specifically. I can say that I will accept proof that a particular climate model is true if it correctly forecasts the weather over several years. A correct and complete model of the environment will properly predict warming in certain parts of the globe, cooling in others, properly anticipate the warming/cooling effects of soot, pollution, methan from the permafrost, the increase in tree growth caused by increased CO2 levels, the cloud cover response to increased warming, anticipated volcanic activity, ice melt impact on the gulf stream, etc.
I recognize that the chaotic nature of the system makes specific predictions impossible. That’s fine, I’ll accept a reasonable error bar on the estimates. At the same time, I note that in 2005, we discovered that methane release in the permafrost was increasing, and that this hadn’t ever made its way into the previous models. Pro-AGW people point to that and say ‘see, we’re in more danger than ever.’ But the scientist in me says – ‘well, this means that all those previous models are crap, because they never even knew about a significant variable, or how it might affect the overall model in a non-deterministic way.’ What other ‘big variables’ are out there, waiting to be found, that need to be factored into the models. Why is it that I should believe that methane was the very last missing piece of the puzzle?
Because, just today I read an article that said that pollution had a significant cooling effect, much more than earlier expected, and the reduction in atmospheric pollution (however beneficial that may be in other ways) has increased global temperature.
So, just today, another new variable (or at least one that the models didn’t factor properly). Again, why should I expect that this is the last one?
Ideologically, I’m a recent Bush hater, long time libertarian athiest evolution-supporting free-marketeer who thinks everyone should get to marry whoever they want, smoke whatever they want, and say whatever they want, as long as they don’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
And, like Dogz, I am suspicious of the convenience of ‘AGW exists, therefore we must put more politically-motivated controls on the free market.’ We know that the free market is a massive positive force for good across the world. I am reluctant to further hamstring that beneficial engine on science that still seems suspect based on the regular discovery of new ‘missing variables.’
But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, and I have laid my cards on the table earlier.
I think you are refering to global dimming. And this insight didn’t just pop up yesterday although I am not sure exactly when it got integrated into climate models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Hey me too. Except I am too busy to hate Bush.
Me too. I don’t hate Bush as such, but I do think he is too dumb to be president. I’m also something of an insomniac, apparently like some of the contributors above. But last night I slept straight through apart from a brief interlude at 3am to change my daughter’s wet sheets (toilet training). Bliss (the sleeping through, not the wet sheets). I’ve suffered from insomnia for nearly my whole life but recently discovered that exercise in the evening combined with a low-carb diet seems to fix it. It is quite a revolution.
Anyway, that was completely offtopic, but I thought if some of those wee-hour-posters are in fact insomniacs they might be interested.
In terms of reducing fossil fuel usage there are some interesting technologies. I find the Solar Tower being touted by Enviromission to be fascinating, although they seem to be struggling with the commercialisation for reasons that seem unrelated to the technology itself.
http://www.enviromission.com.au/solar-mission-project/solar-mission.htm
The other technology I find interesting is the hybrid-electric car. The following report came out in the last few days:-
http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006001
A quick back on the envelope calculations suggests that hybrid electrics may represent 100% of US car sales somewhere around the year 2030. That assumes a growth rate in production of 20% per annum and no change in the size of the car market.
I read recently that Ford is struggling to get enough engineers with the relevant skills to play catch up with Toyota. Clearly their are real bottlenecks in ramping up production of alternative technologies.
It also assumes that consumers actually want to buy hybrid vehicles. Production is only half the picture, car companies have to actually sell hybrids to people.
Iain – I am not ignoring anything just refuting the point that Dave S made. I realise all these things and said that it was not a realistic solution.
Dave S – you are touting the arguments that are commonly used to refute action on climate change. Very often the changes to reduce energy use are beneficial to the company that makes the changes and results in lower costs increasing profit rather than lowering it. The fossil fuel scare campaign of reducing CO2 means extra costs is because it is companies that derive most of their profits from fossil fuels will lose out if a massive energy reduction program was successful. You know very well from previous arguments there is no-one on Earth that can give such answers.
Avaroo,
There does not seem to be much problem with consumer demand for hybrid-electric cars. Despite the higher prices (which are caused mostly by strong demand rather than production costs) there are still waiting lists for all the major hybrid models.
Regards,
Terje.
Terje, I don’t know, people are buying a lot of non hybrid cars. Remember, Americans buy SUV’s even when gas is $3 a gallon. I know ONE person who drives a hybrid. One.
There are waiting lists for Hummers and Mercedes-Benz SLK’s too. I think there is some market for hybrids in the US, but it may not be as wide as you seem to think it is.
No matter coming in late nothing new. Oh please are we still going over this BS with the AGW sceptics even Howard and Bush know they cannot deny it any longer but want to do a neo-liberal techno fix solution. It’s like arguing with creationists no amount of evidence will suffice and like evolution pick at it long enough with enough techno speak, out or date or out of context statements and the denial looks credible. The world’s leading scientific institutions what they know, bloody amateurs!
Hands up the AGW sceptics who think overall that the world’s environmental problems are myths perpetrated by pinko greenie anti-capitalists. Throw in the DDT and dioxin ‘myth’s just for good measure. In that context AGW is just another one poor cold water on.
At least one business group has got the picture the insurance industry is starting to show its hand with some big insurers “Swiss Re, …competitor and one of the world’s largest re-insurers, recognizes climate change risk to be a potentially serious exposure for directors and officers. It now requires companies to disclose their climate strategy as part of their D&O insurance application’ leading the way.
JQ Clive Hamilton did a speech at the national Press club not long ago pretty well dismissing nuclear time; combine that with the work of the rocky Mountain Institute and the case by the nuclear lobby is very weak. Yes I know one would expect that so I hope that the government gets around to doing a complete energy Futures white paper including all options and mixes.
Funny how I don’t hear any win/win scenarios by the economic rationalists who think any thing good for the environment must automatically be a cost or of no use to business. I’ll consider them and our current government serious credible when at the very least we start looking at a national energy and resource efficiency drive.
Like past Australian governments I’ll expect this one to miss the opportunities afforded by showing some vision for future economic opportunities. Oh well we can always import the technology.
Lastly it’s nice to know that the gov is going to do something for those Pacific island nations that will go under so they won’t have to immigrate to Australia. Wonder what the cost to build sea walls for them will be? Not like the Labor party throwing its hands up in the air and giving up by allowing immigration for these people as on gov spokesman pointed out.
To date hybrids technology has been applied to a limited range of models. However as it becomes available in more models the appeal will broaden. In the USA Toyota will soon bring out the Hybrid Camry as it expands the range of models that use its Hybrid Synergy Drive.
And the US Army is developing a Hybrid Electric Hummer because they like the fuel efficiency (extended range) and the stealth mode. See article below.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8082
Personally I don’t know anybody that has a new car. My own car is nearing 15 years old. Mostly I catch the train, however its all electric.
avaroo says: Remember, Americans buy SUV’s even when gas is $3 a gallon.
That may be true, but it doesn’t make it a smart choice. And SUV sales are down seriously in the US, by about 20% over the last six months, if memory serves.
You can find the range of hybrid-electric vehicles (currently about 14 car models) from different manufacturers here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicle#Hybrids_currently_available
A hybrid electric SUV here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Highlander
John – can I assume from your reply that your answer to my question is #3? And that you are quite certain of that?
I’m confused as to why you have ignored the remainder of my thoughts on that, i.e., that a deleterious effect to coasts, as you allude to, would be more than offset by beneficial aspects elsewhere, as in more arable and habitable land in Canada. Change is not always negative, correct?
And what about the possibility that AGW is forestalling an Ice Age? Are you prepared to risk burying Canada under 30 feet of ice on the chance that coastal dwellers might have to gradually relocate?
“To date hybrids technology has been applied to a limited range of models. However as it becomes available in more models the appeal will broaden. ”
That’s what I don’t believe has been established. Yes, hybrids will appeal to a segment of the market but they certainly won’t appeal to everyone, or even to most people.
“That may be true, but it doesn’t make it a smart choice.”
But isn’t that the great part – that we all get to decide for ourselves what IS a smart choice?
“And SUV sales are down seriously in the US, by about 20% over the last six months, if memory serves. ”
They were hurt by rising gas prices. But remember in the 70’s when everyone said the age of big American cars was over and we’d all be buying little Japanese tin can cars soon? Guess what? The Japanese tin can cars became more like American cars. We do have a thing about cars, no doubt about it.
Ender says:
“you are touting the arguments that are commonly used to refute action on climate change. ”
Well, yes, Ender, I am. Because they’re rational.
And you continue to (A) avoid answering simple, direct questions, and (B) respond with impenetrable non-sequiturs. What the balance of your reply has to do with anything I’ve said is beyond me.
I do you the courtesy of asking simple, direct questions, and you continually, on this forum and elsewhere, answer with tangential obfuscation. Which is why I gave up trying to debate you.
I’ve never spoken to JQ before, but while he failed to thoroughly address the points I raised, he at least managed to address one of them, and directly. While I vehemently disagree with his assessments (sorry, John, but this debate is far from over), at least it’s a dialogue.
The early adopters are those that like the technology for the sake of it. However I think that in time it will be like air conditioning or radios or starter motors in your car. Something that comes standard. The benefits to consumers and manufacturers are too significant. The technology has already proven itself. BMW has said it will unveil its hybrid-electric plans in the next week.
If you want a van then of course the Toyota Prius is not going to appeal. However when your prefered model of van comes as a hybrid electric why would you go with something else?
My observation is that the bottleneck with Hybrid electrics is all to do with keying up production. Their is no signifcant problem on the sales end of the process so long as the technology is incorporated into the right car model.
Even ignoring the supposed environmental benefits I think that Hybrid electric technology offers a superior car.
Their = There
“The early adopters are those that like the technology for the sake of it. However I think that in time it will be like air conditioning or radios or starter motors in your car. Something that comes standard.”
Much the same was said about tiny Japanese cars in the 70’s.
“The benefits to consumers and manufacturers are too significant.”
Same again. Yet people are still, even in this day, buying Hummers and Armada’s and Yukon’s.
“If you want a van then of course the Toyota Prius is not going to appeal. However when your prefered model of van comes as a hybrid electric why would you go with something else?”
Well, clearly some people will. Like some people want 4 wheel drive and some don’t. Some want automatic and some want shift. After all, who, for ANY reason, would buy a HUMMER? Why doesn’t everyone recycle? It’s not a question of it not making sense, surely it made sense for people to buy tiny Japanese cars in the 70’s when gas was short, and to keep buying tiny Japanese cars, yet that didn’t happen.
“The technology has already proven itself.”
I don’t think it’s a matter of unproven technology. It’s a matter of Americans, many of them anyway, liking big powerful cars. We are somewhat unique in that respect, we’ll actually pay for all kinds of things on automobiles that we not only don’t need, but are fairly wasteful.
There will be a segment of the market who agrees with you that hybrid is the way to go. There will be many people who won’t agree.
149 posts later (I think we are no. 150) and the debate continues!