Firstly the good news.
Despite some initial speculation (and concern), Denis Jensen did not land the role of science minister. Placing a climate sceptic in charge of policy would have been a disastrous for science in Australia. Not to mention somewhat embarrassing.
Newly incumbent Prime Minister Tony Abbott neatly side-stepped the potential embarrassment of having a sceptic heading up the science portfolio by doing away with the science portfolio:
The country’s top science bodies have expressed concern over Tony Abbott’s new ministry, which has omitted a dedicated science minister for the first time in more than 80 years.
Not since 1931, and for six weeks during World War II, has an Australian government been without a minister with science in their portfolio title. Under the incoming Abbott government the minister for industry, Ian MacFarlane, will be responsible for some areas of science including the main scientific organisation, the CSIRO.
The Australian Academy of Science’s Les Field was disappointed Mr Abbott had not appointed a science minister and hoped one would be announced in the coming days.
”A scientifically literate society is a society which is equipped to hold informed debate and make intelligent decisions about big issues that affect us all,” said Professor Field, the academy’s secretary for science policy.
See, problem solved!
Silly, silly scientists. What importance could science be to Australian society in the early 21st century?
Some commentators have noted that Macfarlane is a better choice than Jensen.
Really? Those of us with long memories and some insight into climate politics in Australia have grave concerns.
MacFarlane was once described as a member of Australia’s “Greenhouse Mafia” – part of a select group of men (surprise!) who worked behind the scenes in the Howard Government to block attempts to put a price on carbon or ratify the Kyoto agreement.
As Clive Hamilton noted in 2007:
“As industry minister in the Howard Government since November 2001, Macfarlane has been the greenhouse troglodyte of the Government. Even after the Prime Minister and the environment minister had accepted (at least in public) that climate change is real and potentially damaging, he continued to deny that there is a problem. MacFarlane has worked hand-in-glove with the fossil fuel lobby to sideline climate change. When the issue is unavoidable, he engages in policy window dressing in order to fool the Australian public into believing that the Government takes its responsibilities seriously…”
OK, now I can see how science fits into the industry portfolio.
Macfarlane’s mates get a free pass on polluting the planet, while science is muted and subservient to the needs of the fossil fuel industry.
Binders full of women, I mean women knocking at Cabinet’s door
In addition to this incumbent Prime Minister announced a ministry lineup which comprises of 95% men.
Memo to Australia: Afghanistan has more women in senior government positions than Australia.
Abbott sensed it may cause a perception issues stating:
“Nevertheless, there are some very good and talented women knocking on the door of the Cabinet and there are lots of good and talented women knocking on the door of the ministry.,”
Phew! Glad Mr. Abbott cleared up the impression he had a problem with women.
Yep, the boys are well and truly back in town.
Watching the Deniers 
The only reason that there are no women in the ministry, ignoring the one with big brass balls, is because they only have “sex appeal” and no real ability…. kidding. Realistically, Abbott has chosen a ministry that suits his agenda. Old men, with Old ideas from an OLD word order…
He feels more comfortable with a bloke inserting his suppository of all wisdom
The words I heard / read somewhere was that Abbott was recreating the Catholic seminary he once lived in – one Bishop and 19 men.
mungo
The sooner the wide boys hit the wall the sooner the question mark will turn into a light bulb.
Abbott, really must have a fear of women, especially women who might possibly acheive a position, that would enable them to establish themselves as leaders in their own right. Bishop is safe, because without Tony, no one would follow her, much less take instruction from her.
I think it’s beyond gender, it’s educational and work experience background, plus the religious devotion to conservative power grasping from their teens or early university days. Bishop is one of them, a lawyer, ideologue and grafter. Mirabella fit the mold, too…just grinding away at whatever ghastly task was allotted. They’re all in the club, one of Australia’s few genuinely powerful unions….sorry, ‘professional societies’.
And a shockingly unrepresentative and unworldly lot they are, too, no matter that they would violently disagree with that assessment. People like Pyne and Minchin are just absolutely cloistered from their teen years, climbing the party ladder,kissing ass and ticking boxes. Of course a party machine cookie-cuts Labor Party types as well, but they cover more social territory.
Environmental issues, science, really confuse these people, it’s too complex and it can’t be brow-beaten, and you can’t put a clock on it…
Slight tangent but good if rather mournful and depressing interview with Chief Scientist and member of the Climate Authority Ian Cubb tonight on Lateline. Just watched.
Mr Abbott says he will immediately instruct the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to prepare legislation to repeal the carbon tax.
He also says incoming treasurer Joe Hockey will instruct the board of the Clean Energy Corporation to cease operations.
It is also expected that the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission will be abolished.
Mr Abbott also stated that repealing the laws of physics was an urgent government priority.
Maurice Newman, the former chairman of the ABC and the ASX who will be the chair of Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, has launched an attack against the CSIRO, the weather bureau and the “myth” of anthropological climate change
change.http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/tony-abbotts-business-advisor-attacks-myth-climate-change-53017
DrM • 15 hours ago
As an anthropologist, I am not sure whether to be proud or ashamed that he thinks I am not responsible for climate change. Yet another head shaker from the LNP.
George
Abbott is following a familiar script – the 4 Ds of climate change inaction promoted by fossil fuel lovers the world over. Deny, then defer, then delay, then despair.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/abbott-climate-change-election
Five Ds…. you forgot ‘dismantle’…wait, 6 Ds…add ‘disappear’….it is not a whole lot different from airbrushing ‘disgraced’ people out of official photographs.
So, at the level where fools can make things happen, there is a lot of deliberate action in the inaction.
On a sidenote I urge everyone to follow #indivotes on Twitter today. Just 500 votes to count and Cathy McGowan, a proper conservative in that she is in the mold of a Tony Windsor (conservative with a social conscience), is likely to defeat Mirabella by about 150 votes.
Personally I think no science portfolio is better than one with Mirabella and certainly Jensen running it. It’s only for 3 years afterall
Mirabella has conceded.
very comprehensive report IPCC AR5
Click to access ar5-outline-compilation.pdf
Abbott has had the worldmap updated to reflect our new status
/large
cringe
Very adult.
The left really aren’t taking the rejection of their core beliefs very well, are they? They had three years to get used to the idea that they were going to loose but somehow convinced themselves that some miracle would save them. It didn’t Still, they’ll have plenty of time to get used to being peripheral on policy decisions.
second strawman today,
did you forget that rudd came back to apparently save the furniture.
leaders always go to elections talking of victory rather than defeat, are you so naive ?
No, I’m not taking the rejection of my belief in equality for women, the disabled, the elderly, the disadvantaged, and those of different ethnicities very well. The fact that you seem to delight in the election of a racist, homophobic, sexist, elitist and xenophobic and religiously indoctrinated anti-science, anti-progressive government speaks volumes about you and your core beliefs.
“In addition to this incumbent Prime Minister announced a ministry lineup which comprises of 95% men.”
I can see this is going to become one of those factoids that becomes leftie foke-lore despite being wrong. 17% of the ministry are female.
again
abbott cabinet ministers
women 1 out of 19
afghanastan 3 out of 25
whats this leftie crap, even abbott was disappointed that women did not get up
BTW
do you reject or accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ?
1 in cabinet 5 in ministry and the claim was about the ministry.
. “do you reject or accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ?
Depends on what you mean by that phrase.
I accept that CO2 has a warming effect.
I think that its probably true that about half of the post 1950 temperature rise was due to the rise of CO2 levels.
I think that continued CO2 emissions will continue to raise the temperatures above whatever would have been the natural level.
I accept that Otto’s CS numbers look about right given our current level of understanding.
I reject fears of dangerous AGW – but that’s not science is it? That’s fortune-telling.
Anything else?
so you believe that a temperature anomaly of 4Degc is not dangerous,
Some of the most extreme predictions of global warming are unlikely to materialise, new scientific research has suggested, but the world is still likely to be in for a temperature rise of double that regarded as safe
.
The researchers said warming was most likely to reach about 4C above pre-industrial levels if the past decade’s readings were taken into account.
That would still lead to catastrophe across large swaths of the Earth, causing droughts, storms, floods and heatwaves, and drastic effects on agricultural productivity leading to secondary effects such as mass migration
you obviously accept these findings, that temp will reach double what is considered safe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
“you obviously accept these findings, that temp will reach double what is considered safe”
I “obviously” accept it? Do I? What do you base that on?
In fact I think there is a vanishingly small chance of that happening in any time-frame I’d consider relevant.
Your own words
“I accept that Otto’s CS numbers look about right given our current level of understanding”.
Notice how the dissenters who come here have morphed from straight out deniers like Eric into concern trolls?
How do Otto’s CS numbers translate to a 4c warming? Are you expecting a 1000ppm CO2 level.
What’s a “concern troll”.
you gents have more put-down names than you can shake a stick at. Do you realise that abuse isn’t a substitute for reason?
“What’s a “concern troll”.”
Take a look in the mirror. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-concern-trolling.htm#didyouknowout
how do Ottos number translate into 4DegC warming by 2100,
“”This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios6, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
“The researchers said warming was most likely to reach about 4C above pre-industrial levels if the past decade’s readings were taken into account”………
so i have to ask , do you still accept otto’s CS and the consequences or not ?
So a concern troll is someone who agrees with you with insufficient wholeheartedness.
and someone who can’t really interpret what they read either. You say you accept the science but every single reference you give suggests otherwise. End result. We all think you are full of shit.
Right, so as long as you and maybe your adult children get by OK, stuff the generations that come after, stuff the citizens of poor countries who didn’t cause this problem in the first place, and stuff the thousands (and perhaps millions) of species that will disappear with the 6th great extinction event that will be supercharged by global warming.
Lucky that it’s all about you J Giddeon. For a moment I thought that humans had a moral responsibility to others, that democracy extended across generations and across economic and national boundaries, that properly caring for the natural world on which we all absolutely depend was an inescapable truth, and that life wasn’t all about getting as rich as possible as quickly as possible.
Silly me – obviously the only thing that matters is what happens in your own private little world…
“how do Ottos number translate into 4DegC warming by 2100”
It was clever the way you slipped that “by 2100” in so as to change the whole tenor of the conversation. Don’t worry, I’m sure no one noticed.
what flaming time frame do you think he was referring to when he states in the paper
“”This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios6, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
and then say
“The researchers said warming was most likely to reach about 4C above pre-industrial levels if the past decade’s readings were taken into account”…
are you for real?
I originally said I thought his CS numbers look right .ie 1.3c TCR.
I didn’t mention a time frame.
FYI I also think we won’t actually get to 560ppm ie a doubling of ‘natural’ CO2 levels.
so you got excited to read the TCR figure but did not read the rest
“”This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios6, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
and then say
“The researchers said warming was most likely to reach about 4C above pre-industrial levels if the past decade’s readings were taken into account”…
actually you probably just got excited over one one the denier blogs
as uki said, you are full of shit
J Giddeon says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:50 am
1 in cabinet 5 in ministry and the claim was about the ministry.
! cabinet minister out of 19 is a women.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/dunlop-the-intelligent-design-of-tony-abbotts-new-cabinet/4965704
look in the mirror
The anger of certain men at rising gender equality is this resentment’s most obvious manifestation, and we can expect that those who jeered at Julia Gillard will be the same ones cheering, or rationalising, Tony Abbott’s one-woman cabinet.
But other aspects of the new cabinet reveal a more general conservative malaise.
Thus, we now have no science minister, and this is as one with the general tenor of the sort of dumbed-down conservatism to which Mr Abbott adheres. Science comes under particular attack, because it is the great dethroner of religious power.
Mr B
Its an interesting way of arguing but I’m not playing.
Just because I say that I think the TCR of ~1.3c looks right given the current level of understanding doesn’t mean that I’m then obligated to accept every other word out of the mouth of Otto. But this is how you operate, constant deflection, constant attempts to re-orient the terms of the discussion.
If I say I rather accept Pythagoras’ notion that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the same of the sqaures on the other two sides (for a right angled triangle) that doesn’t immediate mean that I must also accept what Pythagoras says about Transmigration. Yet this is precisely how you think – if I accept one thing someone says I must accept the lot. If I link to an interview I must agree with every word in it. I know this is how you think (eg having ‘signed’ up to SkS you must accept every word, every article in it as holy writ). But in the adult world, we are able to pick and choose, to differentiate between one idea and another even if it comes from the same source.
For example, it is possible to say that I tentatively accept his TCR but don’t accept his extrapolation of that because I don’t accept his criteria for that extrapolation. He is working on a BAU increase through to 2100 that more than doubles CO2 levels. But I don’t accept that that (BAU increases) are what is going to happen. As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t accept that we’ll ever get to a doubling (560ppm).
Just because I say that I think the TCR of ~1.3c looks right given the current level of understanding doesn’t mean that I’m then obligated to accept every other word out of the mouth of Otto.
but the temperature rise for 2100 flows from that Transient response, it is not opinion, it is peer reviewed science
currently about 400ppm
i do not think we will reach 560PPM]
WTF
while the ocean increases its absorption each year it is not keeping up with our emissions, the absorption of our emissions by the ocean has decreased by about 10% since 2000
NEWS FLASH
to have a good chance of keeping warming below 2Degc we need to keep emissions below 450PPM
so you deny 2Degc is dangerous
what else is news ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118143211.htm
Something else to get used to….the slow unravelling of the AGW story
http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/16/german-professor-ipcc-science-finds-itself-in-a-serious-jam-5ar-likely-to-be-the-last-of-its-kind/
You have to admire the Germans. They’ve seen the writing on the wall and are making sure they’re ahead of the curve – Storch, Otto, now Vahrenholt.
Do you have anyone who isn’t completely discredited?
You post an opinion piece from a person who rejects your own position?
ahrenholt is skeptical of human-induced global warming. In 2012 Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet[4] (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. They predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles, and will cool by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C by 2035ahrenholt is skeptical of human-induced global warming. In 2012 Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet[4] (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. They predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles, and will cool by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C by 2035
remember your position
I accept that CO2 has a warming effect.
I think that its probably true that about half of the post 1950 temperature rise was due to the rise of CO2 levels.
I think that continued CO2 emissions will continue to raise the temperatures above whatever would have been the natural level.
I accept that Otto’s CS numbers look about right given our current level of understanding.
how do you manage to accept both views without dissonance?
what was the other half, post 1950 temperature rise due to
link?
Myriad factors….mainly natural cycles.
Do you think 100% of the post 1850 warming was due to CO2? If not what other factors do you see at play? Link?
this is common knowledge
Concern trolling is a form of Internet trolling in which someone enters a discussion with claims that he or she supports the view of the discussion, but has concerns. In fact, the concern troll is opposed to the view of the discussion, and he or she uses concern trolling to sow doubt and dissent in the community of commenters or posters.
so they say they accept the co2 theory but then claim that cycles may be responsible for half the warming
“Myriad factors….mainly natural cycles”
what natural cycles ?
“so they say they accept the co2 theory but then claim that cycles may be responsible for half the warming”
but, but, but….such a view falls squarely into Cook’s consensus.
J Giddeon says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:15 am
“so they say they accept the co2 theory but then claim that cycles may be responsible for half the warming”
but, but, but….such a view falls squarely into Cook’s consensus.
the view that cycles are responsible for half the warming?
the consensus project
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
john “what natural cycles ?”
According to two new papers it would be ENSO and the PDO. I’m sure the AMO is in there somewhere too.
Cook category 2:
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change
no mention of cycles then?
So you misunderstood Cook as well
stop writing crap, put up your papers that have half the warming due to cycles
or keep writing crap if that is all you know
you are so tiring in your ability to get things wrong and to twist plain English.
I didn’t say half the warming was due to cycles. I said about half was due to CO2 and of the balance, cycles were the most important. Such a view (that half the warming was caused by man) would be categorised a cat 2 endorsement by Cook.
FOS
It’s more like 40% is due to CO2 according to climate scientists.
and 104% according to others
Let me guess…you don’t even know why it can be 104% and still only account for 40% of the observed warming.
Mr B,
It was an interview. Am I required to agree with everything said by the interviewee in, not just that interview but elsewhere as well? I linked to the article because it shows how even the most gung-ho of AGW believing nations is beginning to waiver.
Why do I have to agree with everything he said?
He thinks that all or most of the industrial era warming can be explained by the sun. I’m prepared to accept (provisionally) the view of many scientists that the warming in the second half of the 20th century shows the effects of rising CO2 levels. I don’t see anything wrong with agreeing with much but not all of his views.
3 non-experts = a country? That’s quite an extrapolation, especially since you are talking about Germany who is leading the world in domestic renewable energy supply, the result of climate change inspired policy.
Storch and Otto… non-experts? Holy cow, that’s taking deranged to a whole new level.
how did otto get into it he has a 4DegC rise by 2100 as his Middle range
Bill Jamison says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:41 am
john “what natural cycles ?”
According to two new papers it would be ENSO and the PDO. I’m sure the AMO is in there somewhere too.
link to your papers for ENSO and PDO produced warming trend over the past 100 years
AMO?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/tropical-ssts-natural-variations-or-global-warming/comment-page-2/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=2
again
john byatt says:
September 18, 2013 at 6:11 am
how did otto get into it he has a 4DegC rise by 2100 as his Middle range
Ask uknowispeaksense
He said Otto was a non-expert and completely discredited.
otto is not in the link you posted is he?
http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/16/german-professor-ipcc-science-finds-itself-in-a-serious-jam-5ar-likely-to-be-the-last-of-its-kind/
“otto is not in the link you posted is he?”
No
and….. so what?
and….. what are you talking about?
uki was referring to your link with three
uknowispeaksense says:
September 18, 2013 at 4:20 am
3 non-experts = a country? That’s quite an extrapolation, especially since you are talking about Germany who is leading the world in domestic renewable energy supply, the result of climate change inspired policy.
and you replied
J Giddeon says:
September 18, 2013 at 5:03 am
Storch and Otto… non-experts? Holy cow, that’s taking deranged to a whole new level.
otto was not one of the three
i agree with uki your full of shit
The three were “Storch, Otto, now Vahrenholt.”
uknowispeaksense responded that they were completely discredited and later that they were non-experts.
Your ability to misunderstand the simplest things is astounding.
you are effin nuts
otto is not in your group, he has a middle range 4Degc by 2100
“otto is not in your group”
well if you want to dispute the bleeding obvious. But the post is still on this page for you to view. He most definitely was in three I mentioned.
But why are you so upset about this….according to your mate uki, Otto isn’t an expert on these matters and has been completely discredited?
Notrickszone? Wow. You are gullible.
Fritz is flogging his book. There are nutters enough who will buy it.
So a new estimate for the cost of cutting emissions is “only” $2 trillion per year for the next 35 years. $70 trillion.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24211-halve-emissions-to-avoid-dangerous-climate-change.html#.Ujk8YZfn-00
“Doing all this will cost a cool $2 trillion per year, or 1 per cent of global GDP in 2050. “It sounds like a big figure,” says lead author Nilah Shah, but it is probably cheaper than the alternative. In 2006, the economist Nicholas Stern estimated that if left unchecked, climate change could wipe out 5 per cent or more of global GDP per year indefinitely. Compared to that, cutting emissions is cheap. “It’s not going to cost the Earth, quite the opposite,” says Shah.”
The alternative will cost more. Choose,
are the deaths included?
The alternative “may” cost more. No way to know, no way to forecast it.
Doesn’t matter though since neither India or China will be reducing emissions any time soon.
You just read a forecast, from Stern, and dismissed it. You’ve decided to hide under the duvet in hope rather than act upon knowledge in an uncertain world. That isn’t very bright.
Ah, the China Syndrome. Per head the west is a serious polluter. Over history the west has been the most serious polluter. The west decides not to lead and thus plots its own decline.
what on earth did you put up the link for, just to deny it or did you miss that bit?
5% is actually the ,lower end
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10405-top-economist-counts-future-cost-of-climate-change.html#.UjlKv8ZmiSo
So what you guys are saying is that either way we’re doomed. Either we spend the money and cripple our economies and drive the world into a worse situation or we continue on our current track and suffer whatever future climate change brings.
I disagree.
I think the answer is investing in new technologies and new nuclear plants so the world can continue to advance and improve the standard of living for billions of people and at some point in the future also reduce GHG emissions.
You guys always see it as a black and white problem of do something or else. I disagree. There isn’t just one solution, there isn’t just one way to tackle the problem, there isn’t just one certainty for climate change.
Continue as is is the most expensive option on the table.
There’s ZERO evidence for your statement JHS. There is absolutely no way to estimate the cost of climate change in 5 years never mind 50 years. Any claim is pure rubbish.
do you have any evidence for that claim,are you claiming zero cost?
once more you defer to your own authority
how did you work out those costs because stern has done that
Try reading my post again john or try taking some remedial reading courses.
so no evidence then just an appeal to your own authority
So Stern is somehow an expert and NOT appealing to his own authority?
Maybe I should just create a model that predicts zero cost and claim it’s accurate. You guys will buy anything it’s truly amazing how gullible you are!
“There isn’t just one certainty for climate change” No, there are well detailed scenarios which reflect some serious effort. And indeed there are many uncertainties, none of which are particularly pleasant according to science You seem to see uncertainty as offering a wider spread of possibilities with equal weighting of happy to sad. Yes? I think they range from challenging to extremely challenging.
Our best understanding indicates that your policy,which is BAU in reality, is going to reduce uncertainty about GAT rise, and none of the uncertainty about smaller-scale change under GAT rise is pointing to benign outcomes. Your BAU transition model is probably realistic behavior [except for the raising billions out of poverty].
The last government moved policy towards your model. The new one has rejected it. We have gone back to crossing our fingers about nearly everything we need to do, while troglodytes loot some more of the commonweal in the name of the ‘economy’. Those are the people who you should be accusing of thinking we are doomed either way, they are dismantling your transitional economy.
and your qualifications for doing that are, let me guess zilch
Well BAU is the policy we have so I guess you guys better learn to deal with it. Without China and India adopting new policies it almost doesn’t matter what the rest of the world does.
Signalling to India and China was the whole purpose of adopting modest measures to motivate industry to move to energy conservation measures, with post FF networks not far away by simple extraction /consumption calculation…that’s what Kyoto was about. Showing will to make a first step.
The Libs have taken us backwards, basically by lying through their teeth. The fake budget crisis, the ‘Great Big Tax’ that apparently would ruin the economy within a year of its introduction, the lies about the cost of energy rising [it was starting to plateau after thirty years of above inflation rises following the privatisation debacle of the 90s.]
Instead of laugh at them like an independent media, News Ltd protected them, attacked the Greens and Labor, big coal poured the money in… et voila, the coup
Zero evidence? Oh dear. Bill is in deep, derpy, sheepy denial. He posts links on costs, in attempt to create alarm – and then disputes the article he posts, Is he related to Francesco Schettino?
You’re right JHS I deny that we know what the costs of climate change will be over the next 10, 25, 50 and 100 years. Since we don’t know how much the climate will change we obviously can’t possibly know what costs those changes will entail. To claim otherwise is either silly or naive. Or maybe you’re just so trusting that these models are accurate that you never even question them. Followers tend to do that.
And exactly what is China’s emission profile since Kyoto?
“Signalling them” apparently didn’t work. But then they’re probably more concerned about feeding 1.35 billion people than GHG emissions particularly considering the hundreds of millions of Chinese that live in abject poverty. As China’s emission have grown their poverty rate has declined since there is a tight correlation between economic growth and emissions which isn’t surprising.
Schettino it is. He claimed the rocks weren’t on the map.
Yes, the world’s political will failed, because politicians are in awe of oligarchs. Too many people have invested too much in the get rich and get out dream, which is physically bogus, environmentally unrealistic.
Abbott has folded. We are treading water internationally,and we are going backwards nationally. He could not even understand the domestic benefits of a carbon price and a renewables policy, and how to turn it to his political advantage. All he hears are complaints from shareholders about the complexity of the transitional network,and how they want a little as possible costs attached to enriching themselves. Have you thought about the ongoing cost of mine remediation? We already have hundreds of leaking orphan mine sites,the cost of which falls on the community.
China is running out of coal,and is not interested in buying more than they can help. hence their diversity policies. Their prodigious growth rates rest substantially on irrational discounting of environmental and social costs. Ditto India. Are these the countries that should dictate our domestic policies?
I never suggested that China and India should dictate your domestic policies. What I said is that reducing emissions won’t have much, if any, impact if emissions from China and India continue to grow as they have. Feel free to stop emitting completely and see if it has any impact on global temperature.
The balance of evidence is strongly on the “will” cost more. Only fools would continue as is.
This nonsense about “no-one knows what the future holds” is contradicted by your pension fund investing in municipal bonds and capital projects. They don’t know, with absolute certainty, but they know enough to take a 50 year punt with your money.
We know we’re adding CO2 at an accelerated rate. We know that the disbenefits will outweigh any benefits. We know delaying addressing the situation will cost more.
“The balance of evidence is strongly on the “will” cost more.”
I’m constantly amazed that people like you blindly accept computer models as so-called “evidence”. Have you ever asked what parameters and assumptions went into those models? Or do you just assume they are correct because you’re a follower and would never question authority?
“I’m constantly amazed that people like you blindly accept computer models as so-called “evidence”
i did that, it saved my life
Compooters too hard for deniers?
Don’t drive a car, fly a plane, walk across a bridge or walk into a building. Computer model all these.
The models have proven pretty accurate.
mining does not seem to be saving WA
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/wa-loses-aaa-credit-rating/4965982
Indeed. How to blow a windfall. Another tribute to the Coalition’s ‘We’re the natural party of economic management’ bullshit!
common traits of deniers
Click to access TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Chapter 1 Who Are the Authoritarian Followers?
Chapter 2 The Roots of Authoritarian Aggression, and Authoritarianism Itself
Chapter 3 How Authoritarian Followers Think
Chapter 4 Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism
Chapter 5 Authoritarian Leaders
Chapter 6 Authoritarianism and Politics
Chapter 7 What=s To Be Done?
will have a read tonight, free
Sounds like they’re describing YOU jb.
260 pages in 34 minutes
average reading speed is two pages per minute you do nearly eight
at the end
In my certifiably paranoid moments I wonder whether publishers recoil in terror
at the thought of putting out a textbook that will offend the Religious Right
the religious right are the deniers , they pray to a god
“We shall probably always have individuals lurking among us who yearn to play
tyrant. Some of them will be dumber than two bags of broken hammers”
He IS talking about you! Did he actually interview you for this book?
I just can’t figure out if you’re a Right-Wing Authoritarian Follower or a Left-Wing Authoritarian Follower. All I know for sure if that you definitely are a follower.
He could be describing WtD:
“they aggress when they believe right and might are on their side. “Right” for them means, more than anything else, that their hostility is (in their minds) endorsed by established authority [climate scientists], or supports such authority. “Might”
means they have a huge physical advantage over their target, in weaponry say, or in numbers, as in a lynch mob”
“the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting” (or insulting in this case)
“Which suggests authoritarian followers have a little volcano of hostility bubbling away inside them looking for a (safe, approved) way to erupt. ” (which helps explain the name calling and insults)
“High RWAs tend to feel more endangered in a potentially threatening situation than most people do” (Ah ha, now I see why you guys are so worried!)
“believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed.” (yep, that’s what you’re trying to do…get us all to step in line with what YOU believe is right)
Very enlightening!
except that it is about the religious right bill, your mob
see here
“In my certifiably paranoid moments I wonder whether publishers recoil in terror
at the thought of putting out a textbook that will offend the Religious Right”
you even appeal to your own authority on economics and a self regulating planet for temperature
bill the hypocrite
“Some of them will be dumber than two bags of broken hammers”
He IS talking about you
then
“the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting” (or insulting in this case)
and you managed to do that in just one comment
Implying that you’re “dumber than two bags of broken hammers” has nothing to do with being moreally superior to you jb. Sheesh you really ARE that dumb.
And exactly what is China’s emission profile since Kyoto?
“Signalling them” apparently didn’t work. But then they’re probably more concerned about feeding 1.35 billion people than GHG emissions particularly considering the hundreds of millions of Chinese that live in abject poverty. As China’s emission have grown their poverty rate has declined since there is a tight correlation between economic growth and emissions which isn’t surprising.
seems to be hallucinating , oh wait
3:15 AM
Wednesday, September 18, 2013 (PDT)
Time in San Diego, CA, USA
yep sleep deprived again
Yes you’ve tried that ad hom attack before john and no one cared. It just shows how obsessed you are with my life that you care when I post, what time I go to bed, how much sleep I get, etc. etc.
Get a life dude.
get some sleep you are making an idiot of yourself again
“Yes you’ve tried that ad hom attack before john and no one cared.”
the only back up denier you have here is a self confessed wanker
K largo seems to have gone missing in action after his Rockhampton inanity
JB I am still here. Not sure why I am in the category of denier. The only one denying facts so far has been you. Regularly.
You have a habit of mining for climatologically meaningless “records” and extrapolating them to some sort of major trend – like melting icecaps. With your Rockhampton and Julia Creek posts I clearly showed your climate illiteracy.
K,
“Not sure why I am in the category of denier.”
Yeah I’m a little perplexed by that as well. As best as I can work it out, you are a denier if you are concern troll. And you are a concern troll if you don’t agree 100% with the approved thinking which seems to derive SkS. So you are a denier if you don’t think every word in SkS and presumably RC is gospel.
all you showed KL is that you cannot read
http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/qld-breaks-early-season-heat-record/2671327.aspx
from the paper by otto TCR 1.3DegC
“This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios6, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
some moron accepts the TCR because it is a bit lower than IPCC then wants to reject the consequences because watts did not tell him about them. now he knows about it he wants to call it opinion Fwitt
Mr B
Its going to take me a little while to learn just how little you understand and therefore where I can and can’t use shorthand.
Otto calculated two TCR based upon different time scales. From these TCR it is possible to calculate estimated temps up to any particular period, but those calculations are based not just on the TCR but a range of other issues, the most important of which is the projected co2 levels which of course are based on the projected level of emissions.
As I recall Otto used RCP8.5 which I think will never occur. Hence my scepticism on the calculated temps.
stop pretending you have a clue you look idiotic
“As I recall Otto used RCP8.5 which I think will never occur. Hence my scepticism on the calculated temps.
Click to access ngeo1836-s1-corrected.pdf
thanks for the link but since it had nowt to do with the calculation of the likely 2100 temps I’m wondering why you mentioned it.
Tell me Bill, why is it that you poo poo climate models, which have some accuracy and yet you swallow hook line and sinker, economic modelling, which has brought the world to it’s knees twice in the last hundred years and indigestion every ten years? Do you really equate economists with scientists?
Actually I don’t accept either as necessarily having any skill. Too many variables and too many unknowns.
bill as usual appeals to his own authority, or his delusions
still waiting bill
I would love to hear how ENSO and PDO add heat to the planet rather than just move it around
john byatt says:
September 18, 2013 at 8:13 am
Bill Jamison says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:41 am
john “what natural cycles ?”
According to two new papers it would be ENSO and the PDO. I’m sure the AMO is in there somewhere too.
john you can’t be so dense that you think surface temperature measurements are an indication of the heat of the planet. Yikes.
We measure air temperature. ENSO and PDO impact air temperature. When the models predict 0.2C of warming per decade they are referring to surface temperature measurements not planetary heat capacity.
Is it really possible that you don’t know that???? Have you learned NOTHING in all the years you’ve being read and posting. Maybe that’s the problem – you post more than you read and comprehend.
smh
you either have no comprehension or are just to dumb to realise it
again
john byatt says:
September 18, 2013 at 8:57 am
still waiting bill
I would love to hear how ENSO and PDO add heat to the planet rather than just move it around
john byatt says:
September 18, 2013 at 8:13 am
Bill Jamison says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:41 am
john “what natural cycles ?”
According to two new papers it would be ENSO and the PDO. I’m sure the AMO is in there somewhere too.
bill the black knight
So you think that the super El Niño in 1998 didn’t impact surface temperature jb? Really? You can’t really be that stupid to try to make that claim. Yikes. Even your boys at RC know that fact.
But it’s not possible according to you! There you go appealing to your own authority again.
oh god
bill both the oceans and surface are warming due to AGW
PDO has SFA to do with it
you cannot be this dumb
of course it impacted the temperature same as the back to back recent la ninas impacted temperatures
http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm
yet watts dismisses any impact from la ninas for the supposed trend
the best way to look at it
below
john “I would love to hear how ENSO and PDO add heat to the planet rather than just move it around”
Man you can dance! You were cornered and instead of admitting it you dodge and deny and post links.
So ENSO, in this case a strong El Niño, contributed to record warm surface air temperature.
But you said ENSO can’t add heat to the planet!!!!
john do you admit that ENSO impact surface temperature and that both ENSO and the PDO are natural cycles?
john “of course it impacted the temperature”
At least you admit that ENSO impacts temperature. So why the stupid question about ENSO “adding heat to the planet”?
But you said ENSO can’t add heat to the planet!!!!
john do you admit that ENSO impact surface temperature and that both ENSO and the PDO are natural cycles?
J G
“Myriad factors….mainly natural cycles” (referring to half the warming over 20th century”
what natural cycles ?
bill claimed that half the warming over the last century was due to ENSO and PDO
bill
john “what natural cycles ?”
According to two new papers it would be ENSO and the PDO. I’m sure the AMO is in there somewhere too.
the PDO link put crap on that inane claim
and enso cannot produce a trend or even half a trend over a hundred years
do you get any of this?
or did you forget that you were claiming half the warming due to ENSO and PDO ?
No john you just FAIL at reading comprehension. You asked what natural cycles contributed to warming and I listed two obvious ones. You replied that they can’t “add heat to the planet” forgetting that surface temperature measurements aren’t a measure of planetary heat. At least you were forced to admit that El Niños do contribute heat to the atmosphere and result in warmer years than La Niña years. I suppose that’s a start. You just have so much to learn and there’s so little time to try to educate you.
no i did not , this is what you came in on
john byatt says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:15 am
what was the other half, post 1950 temperature rise due to
link?
Reply
J Giddeon says:
September 18, 2013 at 5:06 am
Myriad factors….mainly natural cycles.
Do you think 100% of the post 1850 warming was due to CO2? If not what other factors do you see at play? Link?
john byatt
what natural cycles?
bill states According to two new papers it would be ENSO and the PDO. I’m sure the AMO is in there somewhere too.
bill realising that he has just made a total cretin of himself
changes the question to
“You asked what natural cycles contributed to warming”
not even a good try bill
trashed again
I’m amazed at how foolish you make yourself look john. It’s so easy to make you post something that then corners you into admitting you were wrong.
First you say ENSO doesn’t impact temperature then you admit that the cause of the huge spike in temperature in 1998 was the “super El Niño”. You sure do flip-flop there johnny boy.
As I said, there are two very recent papers that blame ENSO for the pause so obviously ENSO has an impact on global temperature. We know it can warm and now it’s blamed for a lack of warming. Natural cycles at work contributing to the fluctuations we’ve seen over the last 30 years.
your claiming that half the warming since 1950 was due to ENSO displays absolute ignorance,
ENSO is a cycle which adds to or reduces yearly temps, it does not as you claim produce a trend
FFS this is basic stuff
the huge spike in temperature in 1998 was the “super El Niño”
no super el nino in 2010 billy boy and it was the warmest GISS year
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/Nino-to-Nina.shtml
trashed again
You’re so tiresome john.
The spike in 1998 was due to the El Niño there’s no debate about it. Even you admit it. Yet you want to try to argue that ENSO doesn’t have an impact on temperature because it “can only move heat around the planet”. You don’t even know what you’re arguing.
ENSO and PDO impact global temperature according to several recent papers. Even you have to admit that.
bill just keeps on digging, nothing to see here
trashed again
Further, as we have previously discussed, like ENSO, PDO physically cannot cause a long-term global warming trend. It is an oscillation which simply moves heat from oceans to air and vice-versa, so even if there were a period of predominantly positive PDO over the long-term, the oceans would cool as a consequence of the transfer of heat to the overlying air. That is not the case: the oceans are warming as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=367
bill never links anything, the reason is obvious
Bill Jamison.
Can you explain how ENSO heats the atmosphere over time?
His theory has suffered a set back and he is busy researching after his super el nino year temp was beaten about a decade later by a neutral year
shit happens
Could you explain your question J Bernard?
“Can you explain how ENSO heats the atmosphere over time?”
The recent papers credit ENSO for the pause in global warming. So if ENSO can prevent warming then obviously it must be able to contribute warming also. The 1998 El Niño is the obvious example.
Both ENSO had the PDO have a major influence on US temperature and precipitation for example.
then again, there is reality to look at
What about PDO, ?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/blaming-the-pdo.html
@ uki
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-will-doom-future-generations-if-he-ditches-carbon-tax-20130917-2tx0j.html#ixzz2fCxCdTbI
The horror! You’re all DOOMED!!!
Just like the guy wrote in his book about you Right-Wing Authoritarian types: “High RWAs tend to feel more endangered in a potentially threatening situation than most people do”
Yep you sure do.
poor bill sees a potentially threatening situation and denies it,
unable to face reality he retreats into the depths of his own dissonance
he does pray it wont happen as well
man up bill, face reality
If it’s not a data deficit that’s preventing people from doing more on global warming, what is it? Blame our brains. Renee Lertzman, an applied researcher who focuses on the psychological dimensions of sustainability, explains that the kind of systemic threat that climate change poses to humans is “unique both psychologically and socially.” We face a minefield of mental barriers and issues that prevent us from confronting the threat.
Read more: http://tinyurl.com/kynx3ds
link appears broken, here is another article on why bill rejects reality
http://www.chalquist.com/climatechangedenial.html
Boy you really hate having your own link used against you! It’s obvious by your rants, one after the other.
You might want to come to grips with the fact that you absolutely fit the profile of the Right-Wing Authoritarians in the book you linked. It really describes your posting style with the attacks, insults, bullying, and of course being dumber than a bag of broken hammers.
bill reads a book about himself, denies the reality and claims that it is about the exact opposite to which it refers,
bill the true denier
John you engage in the exact behavior described! I know you can’t possibly see it but believe me it describes you to a “T”.
For a supposed atheist you sure do use the word “pray” an awful lot.
do the deniers all have shares in fossil fuel companies or just unable to accept change ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130917124817.htm
Flannery sacked
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tim-flannery-sacked-climate-commission-dismantled-by-coalition/story-fni0xqrb-1226722779566
yes abbott wants his own department of truth rather than an independent authority to inform the public about climate change,
tim has travelled around the country giving talks, not only to the public but also the fire departments. emergency services, nurses, doctors etc about preparing for the future,
not back to 1950 as some claim, this is back to 1850
Dont worry. The economic incompetence of the coalition will guarantee a return to sanity by the next election.
Tim will make a glorious return as we will have set a new record warm temperature by then.
At that time I propose the new government, as an act of urgency, legislate to get rid of all climate deniers as threats to national security.
Yes – that means abolishing the IPA, Limited News, etc. and locking up all their followers (including Arch-bishops, columnists, bloggers, retired geologists etc.).
You have been warned!
Dr No.
You’d be a menace with an atomic-powered radio beam…
Nevertheless, if someone had the resources it would be enormously useful to have catalogued at one easily accessed location the Abbott government’s actions against climate science, against the environment, and against the safety and security of future generations, and how these action knock on through the national and international arenas.
It would make much more effective the holding to account of the Coalition at the next election.
“The Coalition will now take advice on climate change from the Department of the Environment”
Any problem with that? Australia’s premier climate science body, the Bureau of Meteorology, is part of the Department of Environment. It has been advising governments about weather and climate for over 100 years before climate advice was politicised by agencies such as the Climate Commission.
Expect science based reports such as “Australia’s record high temperatures this summer” instead of the Climate Commission political propaganda entitled “the angry summer”. It was duplication which we didn’t need.
BOM is constrained politically,
do you really expect BOM personnel putting their job on the line talking about any coalitions failures which may arise?
The CC was able to do that
but hey if you want your science filtered though Abbot, you got it
What John said, and explained more here:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-shuts-down-climate-commission-20130919-2u185.html
Will Steffen has also just spoken in the media to express his concern at the ability of the Department of Environment to produce independent and impartial material on climate change, and given Abbott’s straight-off-the-mark sacking of public service heads who supported objective positions at odds with Abbott’s’ own ideologies, I’d say that this concern is well-justified.
And more here:
http://theconversation.com/axing-the-climate-commission-splits-australians-from-science-18425
And David Suzuki on the matter:
More from Suzuki:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/09/20/10/49/suzuki-slams-abbott-climate-move
yes an eye opener there that the sacking targeted those who accept the science and abbott now has a denier as his business adviser,
like Saddam, Tony will surround himself with those who sing from the same denialist songbook.
result of a Jesuit upbringing
I know you chaps prefer your governments to lie at elections about what they will do and subsequently do the opposite.
You might have to get used to a government that actually does what it says it will do. The closure of the climate commission was flagged a long time ago.
Even Flannery, whose ability to predict the future is horrendously bad, would have known this was coming.
you still flogging this (pun)
“an independent authority to inform the public about climate change,”
A body hand selected by the government, answerable to the government, funded by the government? The very definition of independent. 🙂
well you deny everything, nothings changed
Tim
He said the commission in its work it had stayed out of politics and stuck to the facts.
“As a result we have developed a reputation as a reliable, apolitical source of facts on all aspects on climate change,” Professor Flannery said.
“I believe Australians have a right to know, a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change.
“We have just seen one of the earliest ever starts to the bushfire season in Sydney following the hottest 12 months on record. Last summer was the hottest on record, breaking over 120 heat records across Australia.
and yes i do know Tim a fine man,
Abbot just wants to control the information flow…no messages that may put the effects/weaknesses of the DAP into perspective. I personally don’t mind digging a little deeper for information, but this is a retrograde step.
And attempts to justify as cost saving are laughable, now that the budget crisis has been put back in the dress-up box.
“constrained politically”. If that is so, it is much less so than the Climate Commission was as J Giddeon rightly pointed out.
BOM is answerable administratively to the Department of Environment but it was set up by a separate act of parliament and strictly speaking is responsible to parliament itself.
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/index.shtml?ref=hdr
let me get this
you said that if BOM is constrained politically then it is less so than the climate commission because BOM answers direct to Parliament
was that what you tried to convey ?
Yes. it has legal and international obligations.
The Climate Commission however can be disbanded by the minister as he has done. That always made it more vulnerable to the political direction of the government of the day.
That is not so regarding for example the Climate Change Authority and certainly not BOM. If the CCA is abolished it will need legislative authority.
when we talk about constrained politically we are referring to the fact that BOM will need to get clearance from the government for all climate related press releases,
ie it will need to be edited by politicians, much the same as the IPCC is politically edited as we have seen, such as reducing the certainty from almost 99,9% to 90% in AR4
CC did not have to do that
You are joking, right?
what alternate reality do you live in ?
From “the Australian”
“The Coalition believes it is the role of the Department of Environment to provide independent advice and analysis on climate change,” said Mr Hunt, “and that the role of the Climate Commission was duplicating the work of the department.”
The Climate Commission has been a controversial body. Established by the Gillard government in 2011, it was charged with providing Australians with “an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change, the international action being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the economics of a carbon price”.However it delivered reports with titles including the “angry summer” and “critical decade” which said climate change is already having a deleterious impact in Australia.
The reports were widely publicised and the commission was accused of running an agenda.Macquarie University academics Ryan Crompton and John McAneney, for instance, responded to the “angry summer” report with a paper which said, in part; “any claim of a climate change influence on increasing disaster loss totals to date is simply unfounded and in contradiction to the international scientific evidence”. – See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/coalition-delivers-on-promise-to-axe-climate-commission/story-e6frg6xf-1226722787406#sthash.WX5zjnnr.dpuf
About the same as I allready posted. Duplication. Reports like “angry summer” not scientific reports but political.
it was a strawman argument from Crompton and McAneney
https://theconversation.com/weighing-the-toll-of-our-angry-summer-against-climate-change-12793
even the comments picked up on it
Mike even comments to that effect
Michael Marriott
logged in via Twitter
Having gone back and re-read the Climate Commission “Angry Summer” report I was struck by the fact the report makes no reference to increasing insurance claims. Steffen makes it very clear in the report that Australia experienced record breaking weather extremes: no reference is made to 2012-2013 being exceptional for property damage.
The sentence in question reads thus: “The significant impacts of extreme weather on people, property, communities and the environment highlight the serious consequences of failing to adequately address climate change.”
Thus the report indicates the extremes of the past summer may be indicative of future risks. No attempt is made to quantify those in terms of insurance loses.
I do have to ask the authors of this article to clarifying what they are saying: are they saying there was nothing special about the climatic events themselves?
The data itself is worth looking at.
You’re quoting the Australian … really?? The mouth piece for that toxic US citizen Rupert Murdoch … who thinks hacking dead kids voicemail is a valid business model … that boil on the bum of posterity … you’re quoting his minions as an authority???
It can’t possibly be true, it’s in the Australian.