White Flag

The long-awaited White Paper version of the government’s emissions trading scheme is out. I’ve been too disheartened to read anything more than the summary so far. The target of a 5 per cent reduction on 2000 emissions by 2020 seems designed to secure the support of the Opposition, which will probably not be forthcoming anyway. That’s about the only defence that could be made for it.

The government’s main argument in favour of such a weak target is based on Australia’s relatively high rate of population growth. I have no objection to per capita, rather than national, emissions targets in the context of a contract-and-converge agreement leading ultimately to a uniform global allowance per person. But if you wanted to argue that way, the fact that Australia has one of the highest emission levels per person in the world means that our (interim and final) reduction targets must be more stringent than those of other countries.

At this point, the only real hope is that the Obama Administration will take a strong line on the issue. If it does, then the US-EU combination will dragoon recalcitrants like Australia into a sustainable agreement whatever Rudd and Turnbull might say or do about it.

118 thoughts on “White Flag

  1. “# nanks Says:
    December 17th, 2008 at 9:44 am

    The denial position is tedious because it does not provide any useful information to further the investigation of climate change but rather uses pseudo-science as a diversionary tactic in the service of corporate interests.
    It reminds me of the tobacco industry attacks on science, which became quite sophisticated. A similar and systematic attack has been mounted by the creationists as part of their ‘intelligent design’ campaign.
    Well developed propaganda techniques can be used to trap people who may lack the background to assess the science, or may be psychologically motivated toward contrarian viewpoints, but who often have a genuine interest in ‘the public good’. These people can then provide what is effectively a viral marketing campaign for the corporates, who subsequently benefit from the political response to the apparent confusion and public concern.”

    Oh, so global warming skeptism is caused by global capitalists, who prey on the weak-minded. (“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for” “These aren’t the droids we’re looking for.” “Move along!” “Move along!”) Then these same weak-minded individuals want to push dangerous books into school science classes, and try to get kids hooked on tobacco at the same time. Dangerous weak-minded individuals!

    Do me a favour! If your cause was so air-tight, you wouldn’t need to convince the general public (who you don’t trust to get it right on their own) that you were right. How long has scientific truth depended on consensus – between scientists OR between the rest of the population? Answer: It NEVER has. If AGW is true, we will all see it, without having to be brow-beaten by the intellectual elites who keep telling us we’re ignorant because we don’t believe them.

  2. JQ;@98

    “a totally dishonest misquotation of Joanne Simpson”

    Calling the above excerpt quotation by Joanne Simpson “totally dishonest” is also an unbalanced representation of what she said.

    People can read for themselves what she said here.

    She has a PHD in a climate science.

    In relation to AGW she states she is a sceptic;

    “if…the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

    She states the quality of the evidence behind “the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming” is frail.

    She states that “a large group of EARTH scientists have reached what THEY claim is a consensus of nearly all ATMOSPHERIC scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet.”

    She says based on “incomplete information” a decision has to be made. To be inline with the precautionary principle based on the above consensus, she has to say “we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC ” .

    The main reason she has come out of the closet with her scepticism, is the 10 year anniversary of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission; TRMM.

    The TRMM has indicated that “Global warming impacts appear much more severe in polar latitudes than in tropical regions” and that unfortunately “The major lack for TRMM data use in testing climate theories is latitude limitation.”

    “The best news is that the Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) is on schedule for a 2013 launch. In conclusion I can just pray that GPM scientists and engineers are as smart and as lucky as we TRMM participants have been.”

    Hopefully after 2013 this “latitude limitation” can be over come and more of the climate theories can be tested.

  3. Peter P @102
    Do you really think intelligent design has a legitimate place in the science curriculum for schools and universities?

  4. You folks are hi-larious. You’ve been had. The day Al Goracle’s carbon footprint is as small as mine, I’ll start to take him seriously.
    He jumped on the GW caboose and pretended he was driving the engine. He does what all rich politicians do. He doesn’t stop his bad behavior he just buys off the critics. He’s a prophet all right the kind who profits from carbon emissions by starting his own Enron like cap and trade company. Many will get rich from carbon reduction mandates, look for him to be the first. Man of the people and all that.
    By the way 650 world wide scientists just came out against the Absolutist hypothesis of globaloney warming (or global climate change, since warming stopped a decade ago.) What are you worried about anyway? Now that Barack Obama is coming to save the world, He shall speak peace to the winds and they shall not nino. The oceans, as Michael Moore has prophesied, shall recede; the Lion will lie down with the lamb and they shall not learn to make war anymore. (Biblical allusion for the western literature illiterate.)

    p.s. What ever happened to all those people from the Club of Rome? Don’t know what that is? Google it.

    With every breath I take I’m a polluting machine and global warming skeptic till they pry the CO2 from my cold dead lungs.

    /meet the new boss, same as the old boss- The Who

  5. AGW Theory + Fraud + Hysteria + Duped Well Meaning Environmentalists + Fake Consensus + CFR and UN funded Pseudo Studies = Elitist Dream of Global Tax Scheme (Carbon Tax)

  6. You know its a political and not a scientific movement when they use words like “denier” to slime people who dissent from this fake consensus. Adding the slight tincture of “Holocaust Denier” to smear those who know AGW fake is real classy.

  7. All this kerfuffle about putting a price on carbon based on an as yet unproved theory about the impact of carbon on our climate. What about seeing it in perspective? A huge amount of the world’s resources have been poured down the hole of dubious financial schemes and policies also based on unproved theories. Why not add Bernanke et al into your hysteria group?

  8. Global warming “skeptics” are the funniest thing on the internet.

    Thanks for the laughs, guys.

    Meanwhile, back in reality;

    “Thirteen of the hottest years since records of global temperatures began in 1880 have clustered in the last 17 years. It is tempting – and it sure makes good headlines – to blame it on climate change. But does science support such a claim?

    According to new statistical research, it does. The recent glut of unusually hot years is incredibly unlikely to happen in a stable climate.

    Eduardo Zorita of Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research and colleagues calculated the probability of this happening in a range of scenarios.

    A key consideration is that the weather one year is not independent of the weather the year before. If it were, the odds of having any given temperature would be the same each year, and the likelihood of getting a such a 17-year cluster would be tiny – on the order of 1 in 10 trillion.
    Natural memory

    “An anomalous warm year tends to be followed by a warm year,” says Zorita, because of the way oceans store heat and release it slowly. “A devil’s advocate could argue that the clustering of warmest years at the end of the record could be simply due to chance, since the climate system has a natural memory.”

    However, even when Zorita included this natural feedback in his model, but excluded global warming, the odds of observing the cluster of record-breaking years was still about 1 in 10,000.”


  9. I’ve deleted a lengthy reprint of Morano’s lies, which has already been reprinted above. Nothing more like this please – JQ

  10. “Morano’s lies”

    Morano might be an anti AGW zealot and you can shoot the messenger if you want, but the message is loud and clear. The AGW science is far from settled and Morano has collated a comprehensive cross section of ‘scientists’ that are willing to put their hands up to confirm that fact. (debating exactly how many is a juvenile derision, considering more are coming out of the wood work as the planet cools)

    You can infer Joanne Simpson is not putting her hand up as a sceptic with the ‘Quiggin lie’ “a totally dishonest misquotation of Joanne Simpson”. The fact remains she said “as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

    No amount of deriding Morano or Quiggin lies will change the fact he has collated a comprehensive cross section of ‘scientists’ that are willing to put their hands up to being AGW sceptics.

  11. Joanne Simpson also makes the point

    “One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.”

  12. One only has to look at the temperature records to see “that many aspects of climate change are regional”

    A quick perusal of long established weather stations where the immediate
    surrounds have not been altered, so as to not subject them to warming from the urban
    heat island effect, which is due to a replacement of natural vegetation with
    manmade structures (buildings, parking lots, etc.) around thermometer sites.

    These un-heat island effected sites do not seem to indicate any recent warming temperatures, or any recent increase in the highest temperatures or any upward movement of the lowest temperatures recorded. It appears the ‘record’ highest temperatures were in the distant past.

    If there is global warming occurring you would expect it to be getting
    hotter with the highest temperature readings increasing recently. This doesn’t
    seem to be happening at these long established non heat island effected sites. Many other sites where the urban sprawl has encroached or the airports where the tarmac has been sealed show increased temperatures, but not these long established sites.




    I have included a few regional ones;









  13. So Tony how many stations did you look at to find the ones that supported your position?

    You know a while back I read up on the process for siting weather stations and adjusting for heat island effects.

    But I’ve forgotten some of the details so maybe you’d like to describe it for me and others and explain why you thinnk its defective.

  14. Ian,

    There are very few weather stations in Australia that are still operating and that have been operating continuously for a 150 years in the same spot( especially with a static local environment). The few ones that we have do not seem to support a recent warming.

    If you do find one that does support a recent rise in temperatures, it can usually be explained by a change to its localised environment and/or immediate development engulfing it.

  15. So how did you check the “static local environment”
    = field trips? Oh wait let me guess, a rise in temperature is proof that the local climate is being affected by the UHI and therefore the station needs to be excluded.

    While we’re at it I’m curious as to exactly what statistical tests you applied to the data to determine that there’s no change in the average temperature.

  16. So how did you check the “static local environment”

    Ian, you can get a good look at them in google earth or sites like this one ,which in some cases shows them in 1942.

    Ian if the hottest day on record was in say 1929 and not 2008, you do not need a statistical test to tell you that, just an accurate record of that event.

    ANyway Ian, I am putting up the white flag for this year, you won a few battles, but the war will continue when I return next year.

    Happy Hanukkah and have a safe and happy Xmas and New Year to everyone.

  17. “i think the deniers should put thier names on a big list to be handed to future generations, these are the people that screwed the planet”

    I’m late to this party, but heck: add me to the list! I am not convinced that AGW as currently understood is worth worrying about or doing much of anything about.

    Glen Francis Raphael
    New York, NY

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s