Whats a greater threat to Australia Climate Change deniers or terrorists?

[GOAUS!]

Correlation does not demonstrate causation. And the correlation is not clear. Since industrialisation there have been some periods of positive correlation and other periods showing an inverse correlation. Over the longer term the correlation is not evident.

The correlation between the CO2 and temperature and sea level rise is quite evident and well established over the longer term (last 400,000 years).

 

[Lester Burnham]

The correlation between the CO2 and temperature and sea level rise is quite evident and well established over the longer term (last 400,000 years).

Correct. And over the long term CO2 lags temperature.

 

[Dan26]

and you clearly didn't read the links i gave you at all.
they show the empirical evidence your looking for, That is what this is all based on the Spike in C02 levels and the corresponding rise in temperatures since industrialisation.

They don't show that at all.

I asked for empirical evidence that:

a.) Humna CO2 emissions are the main driver of warming, or
b.)That human CO2 emissions are dangerous.

There has been no measurable rise in temperatures that can be attributable to humans. Yes, we know that CO2 causes warming (which has been well established physics for 100 years) and there has been a gradual rise in temperatrures over a wider scale of a few hundred years, but this is due to coming out of the little ice age. There is absolutely no evidence that this is primarly die to humans, and that humans are having anything other than an irrelevant impact.

Temperatures have been rising since we started coming out of the little ice age and this was before humans started to have any meaningful industrial impact.

There is categorically NOT ONE peer reviewed paper with empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are the main driver of warming or that human CO2 emissions are dangerous.

That is why the alarmists are losing the debate. They have no evidence to back up the alarmism. It's simply left-wing people wanting policies that suit their left-wing ideology, and taking a true fact (that being that CO causes warming) and exaggerating it to scare people into adopting policies that suit big govermment ideology.

Go on, admit you're not left-wing. I dare you. You lefties are so boringly predictable, and scarily, you are unscientific. You should be ashamed of yourselves politicising and exaggerating this issue for your own ideological causes.

 

[SEN_Fan]

Don't argue since with the alarmists, they have none. They do have some pretty pictures though.

 

[Dan26]

Now that you've pointed it out, I have noticed a lot of similarities between AGW denial and Holocaust denial,

How dare you.

The temerity of you to even compare the two is disgusting. You should immediately apologise.

Here is a list of 30,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD's that don't agree with the alarmist view of climate change)

www.petitionproject.com

Are these people the same as holocaust deniers. Am I? This demonising of reasoned debate, and the reliance of insults shows how pathetic the alarmists have become. No wonder the left hate free speech so much. They know free speech exposes them.

Instead of relying on reasoned debate and empirical evidence (of which they have none) they now rely on insults, name calling, and the labelling of climate realists as being the same as holocaust deniers. It's as if the only view worth having is that of being alarmist about the climate even though there is NO empirical evidence to support that alarmism. And being sceptical of that alarmism (which is entirely sensible given that we've had no statistically significant warming for nearly two decades) generates insults and comparisons to holocaust denial?

You disgusting individual.

, in that they twist the facts and go against the scientific consensus for their own political and/or financial ends.

Firstly, there is no consensus. It's a myth.

Whilst there is 100% consensus that CO2 causes warming (DUH!), there is no consensus about the alarmist view of global war..... sorry climate change (funny how the left-wing establishment changed the name to climate change)

The University of Illinois sent out an email to 10,000 scientists asking two questions. 77 responded and 75 answered yes to two questions. That is where the 97% comes from. 75 people. There is no consensus.

It was claimed by John Cook (that idiot alarmist on skepticalscience.com) that of 12,000 peer reviewed papers, there was a 97% consensus.

He was wrong.

Only 41 of them, or 0.3% of the entire sample, had in fact explicitly endorsed that “scientific consensus”. The defective paper that Cook published laiming 97% published concluded with these words:

“Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

The authors had stated at the outset their intention to determine the level of

“scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. [my emphases]

They had listed this standard, quantified definition of “scientific consensus” in their paper as

“(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming)”, [my emphases]

the first of seven “levels of endorsement” to which they assigned the abstracts. Yet they did not disclose in their paper how few abstracts – just 64 – they had marked as having stated support for that standard, quantified “scientific consensus”.

To conceal how very small this number was, they added together all of the abstracts they had assigned to the first three of their seven categories, treating all three categories as one, and did not state the three values separately. An impartial peer reviewer would have spotted this.

There is no consensus for the alarmism. The consensus is with the sceptics.

But unlike you, I would NEVER use the consensus we have to prove I am right. Science is not done by consensus. Science is not a democracy. It's only takes one person who is right to dissprove 100 people who are wrong. Consensus is not evidence. Empirical evidence and real life data prove who is right.

Anyone who posts to a consensus instead of pointing to empirical evidence is running away from the scientific debate.

 

[CountryRace]

How dare you.

The temerity of you to even compare the two is disgusting. You should immediately apologise.

Here is a list of 30,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD's that don't agree with the alarmist view of climate change)

www.petitionproject.com

Are these people the same as holocaust deniers. Am I? This demonising of reasoned debate, and the reliance of insults shows how pathetic the alarmists have become. No wonder the left hate free speech so much. They know free speech exposes them.

Instead of relying on reasoned debate and empirical evidence (of which they have none) they now rely on insults, name calling, and the labelling of climate realists as being the same as holocaust deniers. It's as if the only view worth having is that of being alarmist about the climate even though there is NO empirical evidence to support that alarmism. And being sceptical of that alarmism (which is entirely sensible given that we've had no statistically significant warming for nearly two decades) generates insults and comparisons to holocaust denial?

You disgusting individual.



Firstly, there is no consensus. It's a myth.

Whilst there is 100% consensus that CO2 causes warming (DUH!), there is no consensus about the alarmist view of global war..... sorry climate change (funny how the left-wing establishment changed the name to climate change)

The University of Illinois sent out an email to 10,000 scientists asking two questions. 77 responded and 75 answered yes to two questions. That is where the 97% comes from. 75 people. There is no consensus.

It was claimed by John Cook (that idiot alarmist on skepticalscience.com) that of 12,000 peer reviewed papers, there was a 97% consensus.

He was wrong.

Only 41 of them, or 0.3% of the entire sample, had in fact explicitly endorsed that “scientific consensus”. The defective paper that Cook published laiming 97% published concluded with these words:

“Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

The authors had stated at the outset their intention to determine the level of

“scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. [my emphases]

They had listed this standard, quantified definition of “scientific consensus” in their paper as

“(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming)”, [my emphases]

the first of seven “levels of endorsement” to which they assigned the abstracts. Yet they did not disclose in their paper how few abstracts – just 64 – they had marked as having stated support for that standard, quantified “scientific consensus”.

To conceal how very small this number was, they added together all of the abstracts they had assigned to the first three of their seven categories, treating all three categories as one, and did not state the three values separately. An impartial peer reviewer would have spotted this.

There is no consensus for the alarmism. The consensus is with the sceptics.

But unlike you, I would NEVER use the consensus we have to prove I am right. Science is not done by consensus. Science is not a democracy. It's only takes one person who is right to dissprove 100 people who are wrong. Consensus is not evidence. Empirical evidence and real life data prove who is right.

Anyone who posts to a consensus instead of pointing to empirical evidence is running away from the scientific debate.

does the left hate free speech?

the mix of holocaust denial and free speech makes it an interesting read

 

[Father Jack]

How dare you.

The temerity of you to even compare the two is disgusting. You should immediately apologise.

Here is a list of 30,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD's that don't agree with the alarmist view of climate change)

www.petitionproject.com

Are these people the same as holocaust deniers. Am I? This demonising of reasoned debate, and the reliance of insults shows how pathetic the alarmists have become. No wonder the left hate free speech so much. They know free speech exposes them.

Instead of relying on reasoned debate and empirical evidence (of which they have none) they now rely on insults, name calling, and the labelling of climate realists as being the same as holocaust deniers. It's as if the only view worth having is that of being alarmist about the climate even though there is NO empirical evidence to support that alarmism. And being sceptical of that alarmism (which is entirely sensible given that we've had no statistically significant warming for nearly two decades) generates insults and comparisons to holocaust denial?

You disgusting individual.



Firstly, there is no consensus. It's a myth.

Whilst there is 100% consensus that CO2 causes warming (DUH!), there is no consensus about the alarmist view of global war..... sorry climate change (funny how the left-wing establishment changed the name to climate change)

The University of Illinois sent out an email to 10,000 scientists asking two questions. 77 responded and 75 answered yes to two questions. That is where the 97% comes from. 75 people. There is no consensus.

It was claimed by John Cook (that idiot alarmist on skepticalscience.com) that of 12,000 peer reviewed papers, there was a 97% consensus.

He was wrong.

Only 41 of them, or 0.3% of the entire sample, had in fact explicitly endorsed that “scientific consensus”. The defective paper that Cook published laiming 97% published concluded with these words:

“Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

The authors had stated at the outset their intention to determine the level of

“scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. [my emphases]

They had listed this standard, quantified definition of “scientific consensus” in their paper as

“(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming)”, [my emphases]

the first of seven “levels of endorsement” to which they assigned the abstracts. Yet they did not disclose in their paper how few abstracts – just 64 – they had marked as having stated support for that standard, quantified “scientific consensus”.

To conceal how very small this number was, they added together all of the abstracts they had assigned to the first three of their seven categories, treating all three categories as one, and did not state the three values separately. An impartial peer reviewer would have spotted this.

There is no consensus for the alarmism. The consensus is with the sceptics.

But unlike you, I would NEVER use the consensus we have to prove I am right. Science is not done by consensus. Science is not a democracy. It's only takes one person who is right to dissprove 100 people who are wrong. Consensus is not evidence. Empirical evidence and real life data prove who is right.

Anyone who posts to a consensus instead of pointing to empirical evidence is running away from the scientific debate.

I'm not a scientist, so scientific arguments are going to be a little lost on me, so therefore I am not saying I am right on anything. What I am saying is that if that long list of scientific organisations that I posted earlier all say that AGW is occurring, I'll go with that, for they are scientists.

And why would I apologise for making a comparison that is objectively correct, ie that both AGW deniers and Holocaust deniers go against the accepted consensus for political reasons (as exemplified by recent absurd comments about 'the left' in this discussion, as if that even mattered)? There's no reason for me to apologise at all, as I'm not the one hurling personal insults around. I'm just pointing out the comparison that exists. If you want to go around calling the vast majority of scientific opinions on the subject 'alarmist' then that's your look out.

So, once again, whilst the vast, vast majority of scientific organisations accept that AGW exists, then so will I. Why would I think that I know science better than they do?

 

[madmug]

I'm not a scientist, so scientific arguments are going to be a little lost on me, so therefore I am not saying I am right on anything. What I am saying is that if that long list of scientific organisations that I posted earlier all say that AGW is occurring, I'll go with that, for they are scientists.

And why would I apologise for making a comparison that is objectively correct, ie that both AGW deniers and Holocaust deniers go against the accepted consensus for political reasons (as exemplified by recent absurd comments about 'the left' in this discussion, as if that even mattered)? There's no reason for me to apologise at all, as I'm not the one hurling personal insults around. I'm just pointing out the comparison that exists. If you want to go around calling the vast majority of scientific opinions on the subject 'alarmist' then that's your look out.

So, once again, whilst the vast, vast majority of scientific organisations accept that AGW exists, then so will I. Why would I think that I know science better than they do?

As I've said before, the worlds insurance heavy weights have factored in the projected effects of climate change.

They dont take guesses or punts. They dont bother with the biased politics, the vested interest lobby groups, or the google eyed clowns like Viscount Monckton. They look at the best objective opinion, the overwhelming weight of the best science, before risking any of their trillions of $$.

When in doubt, follow the money!!!

 

[Lester Burnham]

As I've said before, the worlds insurance heavy weights have factored in the projected effects of climate change.

They dont take guesses or punts. They dont bother with the biased politics, the vested interest lobby groups, or the google eyed clowns like Viscount Monckton. They look at the best objective opinion, the overwhelming weight of the best science, before risking any of their trillions of $$.

When in doubt, follow the money!!!

CLIMATE change is predicted to have a much smaller impact on private insurance costs over the next 60 years than inflation, despite dire warnings from climate change experts about an increase in extreme weather.

The Actuaries Institute, in a submission to a Senate inquiry into preparedness for extreme weather, predicts the impact of climate change on insurance costs will be about 0.5 per cent a year using a mid-range scenario for global warming.

The institute represents the interests of about 4000 members, including more than 2000 qualified actuaries many of whom predict the statistical scenarios used to calculate insurance premiums.​

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...m-climate-change/story-e6frg6xf-1226629617872

 

[ralphmalph]

CLIMATE change is predicted to have a much smaller impact on private insurance costs over the next 60 years than inflation, despite dire warnings from climate change experts about an increase in extreme weather.

The Actuaries Institute, in a submission to a Senate inquiry into preparedness for extreme weather, predicts the impact of climate change on insurance costs will be about 0.5 per cent a year using a mid-range scenario for global warming.

The institute represents the interests of about 4000 members, including more than 2000 qualified actuaries many of whom predict the statistical scenarios used to calculate insurance premiums.​

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...m-climate-change/story-e6frg6xf-1226629617872

And the article goes on to say:

While the institute predicts the overall impact on the general level of insurance premiums will not be significant, it does not contradict warnings of more extreme weather events by climate change experts.

The submission warns that more properties will be at risk of flood, cyclone and storm surge and will become uninsurable and unaffordable.

Bushfire-prone areas will increase and small pockets may become uninsurable. But the additional cost for most properties is likely to be spread over the community.

The actuaries warn that while the projected growth in costs is relatively modest, the costs to the community would be much higher than this as their estimates to predict the likely increase in insurance premiums only reflect privately insured claims costs.

For example, the submission argues, actions of the sea are to a large extent not insured and hence are not included in the estimates. The property damage costs associated with coastal inundation from storm surge would increase by an amount that was many times the estimated increase in the insured costs.

The costs of repairing government infrastructure were also largely excluded from the estimates.

The submission said while the per-annum increase in average premiums was modest, if the global warming scenarios were realised, some people living in exposed, risky areas would see dramatic increases in their insurance premiums since the effects of climate change would fall mainly on this small proportion of the population.

"The current debate around flood affordability illustrates this well," the Actuaries Institute said.

 

[Dan26]

I'm not a scientist, so scientific arguments are going to be a little lost on me, so therefore I am not saying I am right on anything.

You don't need to be a scientist to look at the evidence (or lack of it.)

What I am saying is that if that long list of scientific organisations that I posted earlier all say that AGW is occurring, I'll go with that, for they are scientists.

Professor John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Roy Spencer, climatologist and principal research scientist at the university, 25 years ago announced that satellite data showed the world was not warming as fast as the climate models predicted

The two of them discuss below many of your concerns Father Jack, including the debate about "consensus." Read the bits in bold




Spencer: It wasn’t too long after [John] came here that we were at a meeting… We were discussing, Don’t we have something better than the thermometer data to monitor global temperatures? [UAH scientist] Dick McNider said, ‘What about the microwave sounders we have on the weather satellites?...”

AL.com: How do you respond to the perception that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change? [The Wall Street Journal in 2013 reported on the “myth” of the 97 percent].

Christy: The impression people make with that statement is that 97 percent of scientists agree with my view of climate change, which typically is one of catastrophic change. So if a Senate hearing or the president or vice president says 97 percent of the scientists agree with me, that’s not true. The American Meteorological Society did their survey and they specifically asked the question, Is man the dominate controller of climate over the last 50 years? Only 52 percent said yes. That is not a consensus at all in science.

Then when you look at the core of that question, the core is do you believe that man has some influence on the climate. I don’t know anyone who would say no to that… Roy and I have both made the statement that we are in the 97 percent because we believe in some (man-made) effect…

Spencer: Whoever came up with that, it was very powerful.. It was very misleading, but it was a good idea… Adding CO2 to the atmosphere probably adds some warming. The science on that is pretty solid. But then the devil’s in the details. How much warming does it actually cause? It makes a huge difference.

AL.com: When you hear about the catastrophic effects of climate change, data from reputable organizations such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or NASA is frequently cited. How do you respond to that?

Christy: NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, those are agencies. Agency leaders are appointed by the government, by the current administration. They do not represent objective independent scientific organizations. They can’t. They are appointed by the head. They try. People who come out with different views in their organizations are found to be squashed. There is an agenda in those agencies.. There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don’t speak out.

Spencer: I know that they’re not unbiased. Most of them probably really do believe we’re destroying the earth. When I talk to scientists who should be objective over a beer at the end of the day, I will argue with them and their final position will always be, ‘Yeah, but we need to get away from fossil fuels anyway.’ Where did that come from? Are you an expert in alternative energy sources and what they cost? How many poor people are you going to hurt? How many more people are you going to make poor through energy poverty because they are paying five to 10 times as much for their energy?…

Christy: I am for any energy source that is affordable and doesn’t destroy the environment. If carbon dioxide was a poisonous gas, I’d be against it.... The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem…

There is absolutely no question that carbon energy provides with longer and better lives. There is no question about that… And to suppress, to me, is immoral.

AL.com: Why is your research using satellite data a more effective way of measuring climate change than surface temperature? ...

Christy: ...Where is the biggest response to greenhouse gases? It’s in the atmosphere, not on the surface. So if you want to measure the response and say that’s the greenhouse gas response, you would look in the atmosphere. That’s precisely where satellites measure it.

I'll go with that, for they are scientists.

So, why not go with this, going by your logic?: www.petitionproject.com

There are 30,000 scientists that don't agree wkith the alarmism. And that's what the debate is about - climate alarmism. It is NOT about whether human CO2 emissions cause "some" warming (however small or irrelevant), which 100% of people agree with. That is the one of the reasons there is a flawed "97%" consensus. Sceptics are part of that 97%. The empirical evidence simply doesn't support the left-wing alarmism. Sorry, it just doesn't. ALL the climate models overestimate the warming.

ALL OF THEM.

And why would I apologise for making a comparison that is objectively correct, ie that both AGW deniers and Holocaust deniers go against the accepted consensus for political reasons

Oh for God's sake, can't you even see how insulting that is? Hell, there used to be a consensus that the Earth was flat? are you going to compare Galileo to holcaust deniers too?

There is NO accepted consensus on the alarmism. It's a myth. And even if there was a consensus (which there isn't), so what? Consensus isn't evidence.

as exemplified by recent absurd comments about 'the left' in this discussion, as if that even mattered)?

Of course it matters. Left wing people tend to believe in bigger government, more taxes, more regulation etc. Belief in alarmist climate change requires these things. It fits perfectly with the left's ideology, hence why left-wing people gravitate to it. The politics of this debate are entirely relevant.

There's no reason for me to apologise at all, as I'm not the one hurling personal insults around.

You compare climate realists (which includes climatologists John Cristie and Roy Spencer who I have quoted above) as no different to Holocaust deniers. The word "denier" in the context of the way it is used in the AGW debate is an abhorrent term with clear links to holocaust denial. You should apologise. It's utterly disgraceful.

So, once again, whilst the vast, vast majority of scientific organisations accept that AGW exists, then so will I. Why would I think that I know science better than they do?

Everyone accepts that AGW "exists"

After all, CO2 causes warming, and humans are putting it into the atmosphere.

For the BILLIONTH time, that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about A.)HOW MUCH WARMING and B.) IS IT DANGEROUS

And there is categorically, factually and absolutely not a single peer reviewed paper anywhere in the world with empirical evidence THAT human CO2 emissions are the main driver of warming or that human CO2 emissions are dangerous.

There is, however, actual empirical evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial and has helped to create plant growth in areas where the plant growth would have been marginal years earlier. I can show you if you like.

The total ignornace by alarmists such as yourself for what this debate is truly about is astounding.

 

[Father Jack]

Scientific consensus has nothing to do with left wing ideology, and until I see that majority of national scientific organisations saying otherwise, I'll stick with the consensus. And interesting you bring up Galileo, as he was the scientist and his science was denied by people with non-scientific agendas, just like you do with the vast majority of scientists on this matter.

And yes, I'll happily plead ignorance on the debate as I am not a scientist, so I'll just have to go with the consensus of that long list of scientific organisations that I posted earlier. If they change their position then I'll change, as they are the scientists and the experts in the field and I am not.

 

[Todman]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/06/el-nio-or-ot-the-pause-lengthens-again/

 

[Gough]

Interesting words from the head of the World Bank.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ies-say-burn-more-carbon-world-bank-president

Jim Yong Kim calls for five-point plan to deliver low-carbon growth, including removal of incentives to exploit oil, gas and coal

Poor countries are feeling “the boot of climate change on their neck”, the president of the World Bank has said, as he called for a carbon tax and the immediate scrapping of subsidies for fossil fuels to hold back global warming.

Jim Yong Kim said awareness of the impact of extreme weather events that have been linked to rising temperatures was more marked in developing nations than in rich western countries, and backed for the adoption of a five-point plan to deliver low-carbon growth.


Speaking to the Guardian ahead of this week’s half-yearly meeting of the World Bank in Washington DC, Kim said he had been impressed by the energy of the divestment campaigns on university campuses in the US, aimed at persuading investors to remove their funds from fossil fuel companies.

“We have a whole new generation that is interested in climate change”, he said as he predicted that putting taxes on the use of carbon would trigger a wave of clean technology which would lift people out of poverty in the developing world while preventing the global temperature from rising by more than 2C above pre-industrial levels.

Kim said it was crazy that governments increased the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies for consumers. He said that in low and middle-income countries, the richest 20% received six times as much from fossil fuel subsidies as the poorest 20%. He added: “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now.”

Kim insisted that the recent fall in energy prices meant there had never been a better time to reduce the payments made by governments to help people with their fuel bills. Politicians around the globe currently spend around $1tn (£680bn) a year subsidising fossil fuels, but Kim said: “Fossil fuel subsidies send out a terrible signal: burn more carbon.”

Some countries, such as South Korea, have recently announced carbon taxes as a way of making the use of fossil fuels more expensive. Kim said: “You can have growth that will protect the planet and decouple carbon emissions from growth. We can get it now, but it would be much easier if we put a price on carbon.”

He said that, in addition to scrapping fossil fuel subsidies and introducing a carbon tax, the World Bank’s plan involved spending more on energy efficiency, measures to make agriculture greener and changes to help cities become less polluted and more liveable.

The World Bank president said the Chinese and Indian governments were coming under pressure from their populations due to heavily-polluted cities, and that appreciation of the dangers of climate change was greater in developing countries.

el the boot of climate change on their neck, more so than people in the developed world”, Kim said. “The results of the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather-related events are having a much bigger impact in poor countries than in the US or Europe.”

Kim said it was important the Guardian’s Keep it in the Ground campaign had published figures showing that between two-thirds and four-fifths of known fossil fuel reserves would have to remain unburned to keep temperatures below the 2C ceiling.

He said: “Putting the figures out there is important. Now we can have the debate and see how others respond. When I meet business leaders from the very carbon-intensive industries, their openness to a carbon price is striking. They say, ‘let’s do it’.”

Although the World Bank has been criticised in the past for financing the building of dams in developing countries, Kim said Africa had to explore hydroelectric power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Noting that Africa exploited just 1% of its hydroelectric potential, Kim added: “There is plenty of coal in Africa. If we step back, if we don’t move forward on hydro, then the natural progression is to more coal.”

While solar and wind were going to be an important part of the energy mix for Africa, they would not be capable of providing power to consistently meet a minimum level of demand, he said.

The World Bank will be involved in the meeting in Paris in December when the UN is seeking a global pact to deal with the threat of climate change.

Kim said he wanted to see the talks result in a collective agreement binding the international community to a zero-carbon world by the end of the century; individual countries coming up with their own plans; a financing package that by 2020 would provide poor countries with $100bn (£68bn) to help them adapt to climate change and mitigate its effects and a stronger role for the private sector to use its innovative skills to find ways of reducing emissions.

“New technology is going to be spurred on by putting a price on carbon”, Kim said. “It will be an extremely important incentive for innovation.”

This puppet government that we have been lumbered with, Insha'allah not for much longer though, is so far out of step with the rest of the world it's not even funny.

 

[Maggie5]

Interesting words from the head of the World Bank.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ies-say-burn-more-carbon-world-bank-president

This puppet government that we have been lumbered with, Insha'allah not for much longer though, is so far out of step with the rest of the world it's not even funny.

I am looking for a business partner, you interested?

http://theaimn.com/who-wants-to-a-millionaire-screw-that-i-have-a-scheme-for-making-billions/

Very generous government.

 

[Gough]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...help-climate-sceptic-set-up-australian-centre

The Abbott government found $4m for the climate contrarian Bjørn Lomborg to establish his “consensus centre” at an Australian university, even as it struggled to impose deep spending cuts on the higher education sector.

A spokesman for the education minister, Christopher Pyne, said the government was contributing $4m over four years to “bring the Copenhagen Consensus Center methodology to Australia” at a new centre in the University of Western Australia’s business school.

The spokesman said the “Australia Consensus Centre” was a proposal put forward by the “university and Dr Lomborg’s organisation”.

Sources have told Guardian Australia the establishment of the centre had come as a surprise even to senior staff in the business school, who were unaware that the centre was being established until shortly before it was announced this month.

The University of Western Australia vice-chancellor, Prof Paul Johnson, confirmed the money had been offered specifically for the centre, telling Guardian Australia it was “an opportunity that arose in discussions with the department and the minister”.

“As we all know it is difficult to get federal dollars to flow across the Nullabor,” he said.

“Bjørn Lomborg was in WA last year and called in at the university. He had separate conversations with the minister … I have been having conversations about this for six or seven months.”

As Lomborg explained in a Freakonomics podcast last year, his consensus centre was defunded by the centre-left Danish government in 2012 and he was searching for a long-term funding solution. In the meantime his centre had moved to the US and was relying on private donations for a budget of about US$1m a year.

“We used to be funded by the Danish government, from 2004 until 2012,” he said. “One of the things that the Danish government did not like was that we said, ‘Yes global warming is real, it is a challenge, but the typical way that we solve it turns out to be a pretty poor investment of resources.’ When there was a change of governments here we went from a centre-right to a centre-left government, they actually cut off our funding.

“We moved to the US where we get funding from private individuals and we’re trying to find a long-term solution for actually getting funding. So we’re a … nonprofit in the US. We used to have a budget of about $2m a year. Right now, we probably have a budget of a little more than $1m a year. And we get it from private donations.”

Pyne’s spokesman said the federal government’s $4m was “around a third of the total cost” of the new Australia Consensus Centre, with the university also contributing and “committed to raising external funds.

Johnson said the university’s contribution would be in kind, but that it was seeking more funding from the state government or the private sector.

The centre would have three or four staff and be operational by June or July. Lomborg had been appointed an adjunct professor, as well as co-chairing the centre’s advisory board, with Johnson.

“I anticipate he will contribute to the intellectual life of the university when he is in Western Australia,” Johnson said.

Lomborg uses cost-benefit analysis to advise governments what spending produces the best social value for money spent, concluding that climate change is not a top-priority problem. It says the seriousness of the issue has been overstated, that subsidies for renewable energy make no economic sense, that we should stop spending as much foreign aid on climate projects and that poor countries need continued access to cheap fossil fuels.

He was also appointed to advise the Abbott government on foreign aid as one of 14 people on an international reference group for the new “Innovation Xchange” which aims to find ideas and encourage more private sector involvement in delivering aid.

Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, questioned what kind of message the appointment sent to Pacific countries who are deeply concerned about the impact of climate change.

In the Freakonomics podcast Lomborg described his policy on taking private donations.

“There’s no strings attached,” he said. “We’re very clear on saying we take no money from fossil fuels, and we do not let anyone direct what we’re going to do. So we have only taken money from private individuals and foundations that have accepted that.

“With that said, almost all of them have wanted to remain anonymous. There are a few like the Kaufman Foundation, for instance, who have accepted to say that they’ve given money to us. We’ve also got money from New Ventures Foundation, from the Randolph Foundation and from Rush Foundation.”

The Rush Foundation looks for new policy on HIV Aids and the New Ventures Fund is financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates has backed Lomborg’s views that wealthy countries should not try to stop poor countries using fossil fuels to alleviate poverty.

According to Graham Readfearn’s Desmogblog, the Kaufman and Randolph foundations have links to fossil fuel interests.

But the communications manager for the Copenhagen Consensus, David Lessmann, denied funding links with such interests.

”Kaufman is America’s largest private economic foundation, funded with money from pharmaceuticals, and Randolph is a charitable foundation funded with money from Vicks chemical company,” he said.

He pointed out the Copenhagen Consensus Center had recommended the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and increasing investment in RD&D for green energy technologies.

UWA said the Australia Consensus Centre would have “three main projects” – advising on the “smartest” post-2015 UN international development goals, advising on what policies would best “keep Australia prosperous in a generation’s time” and “setting global priorities for development aid and helping Dfat and development agencies produce the most good for every development dollar spent”.

“It was a standard funding agreement with a series of deliverables,” Johnson said.

He said the centre would hold a major conference in 2016 or 17 on Indo-Pacific development goals. It would also do cost benefit analyses of investment in agriculture, which could inform the debate about the development of northern Australia.

Last year Lomborg spoke at an event on “energy poverty” in the leadup to the G20 in Brisbane, sponsored by Peabody Coal.

Tony Abbott quoted Lomborg in his 2009 book, Battlelines, writing: “It doesn’t make sense, though, to impose certain and substantial costs on the economy now in order to avoid unknown and perhaps even benign changes in the future. As Bjørn Lomborg has said: ‘Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is manmade and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations with major costs, without major cuts to temperatures.’”

And in a speech to the Grattan Institute in 2013, the then Coalition environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, used Copenhagen Consensus Center findings to support his policy to abolish the carbon tax.

Labor’s environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said Abbott was “using scarce public funds to help legitimise his climate scepticism”.

“Tony Abbott has deputised one of the world’s most well-known renewable energy sceptics to continue his climate change denial and attacks on renewable energy,” Butler said on Friday.

The Institute of Public Affairs responded to Lomborg’s new Australian operation by saying, “Bjørn, it’s great to have you!”

Lomborg will be the co-chair of the Australia Consensus Centre Advisory Board with Prof Johnson, the university’s vice-chancellor.

No money for proper science, $4million for this fraud, sums up this government perfectly.

 

[Maggie5]

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ntre-government-approached-us-says-university
Oh, no this article implies that a government minister may have told an untruth.
“I can confirm that the university was approached by the federal government,” he said.

That contradicts an earlier claim made by a spokesman for Pyne, who said last week that the proposal for an Australian Consensus Centre was put forward by the “university and Dr Lomborg’s organisation”.

And I can see that any reports will be entirely objective.

If it receives additional funding, the centre will “undertake a broader program of activities” to be determined by its financial partners and approved by the board.

 

[Lebbo73]

Coldest temperatures ever recorded in Hughenden overnight. Record lows recorded around Queensland as well. It is time to do something about Global Cooling!

http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/qu...ril-temperatures/story-fnkt21jb-1227315158433

 

[Maggie5]

Coldest temperatures ever recorded in Hughenden overnight. Record lows recorded around Queensland as well. It is time to do something about Global Cooling!

http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/qu...ril-temperatures/story-fnkt21jb-1227315158433

Doesn't climate change cover that?

 

[Gough]

I have it on good authority that the government has just offered Belle Gibson $4 million to set up a cancer centre as well.

 

[Xsess]

Perhaps climate change is for the better. The earth was quite bit warmer during the age of the dinasaurs and supported far greater areas of lush tropical rainforest (and biodiversity), Australia for instance was once covered in vegetation. I saw a study recently that showed that vegetation coverage on earth was actually increasing as the rate of clearing in the amazon rainforest and elsewhere was more than offset by the rate of vegetation "expansion" elsewhere... northern Australia was cited. Coincidence? To me a warmer, wetter earth capable of supporting higher vegetation loads is a good thing.

Discuss.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Perhaps climate change is for the better. The earth was quite bit warmer during the age of the dinasaurs and supported far greater areas of lush tropical rainforest (and biodiversity), Australia for instance was once covered in vegetation. I saw a study recently that showed that vegetation coverage on earth was actually increasing as the rate of clearing in the amazon rainforest and elsewhere was more than offset by the rate of vegetation "expansion" elsewhere... northern Australia was cited. Coincidence? To me a warmer, wetter earth capable of supporting higher vegetation loads is a good thing.

Discuss.

It’s a bit strange to reference dinosaurs given they were wiped out by changes in climate. The other thing you’re ignoring here is that it’s not just average/max temperature that poses potential problems, but the rate of change. If the rate is too fast, some organisms cannot keep up and thus get wiped out.

I saw the study too re vegetation "expansion". There are of course more factors to vegetation growth than CO2 ppm, and no guarantee that changes in climate would provide a “warmer, wetter earth” conducive to improving conditions for life. Eg north Oz might benefit to a certain degree as it may still receive reasonable rainfall during wet seasons, but far larger regions would simply get hotter and drier. I think the general belief re Australia specifically is that we are drought-prone and a warmer planet will increase the length and severity of our droughts.

But, let’s say you’re right and rising average temps lead to a wetter, warmer world more conducive to plant life and by association, animal life too. We still must address the transitional, “teething problems” associated with historically rapid changes in climate, which may have serious repercussions for things like food and water security in the short-medium term.

I am unsure whether “hey, it’ll all work itself out in 1000 years when we’ll all be better off!” is that great a position to take.

 

[Lebbo73]

It’s a bit strange to reference dinosaurs given they were wiped out by changes in climate. The other thing you’re ignoring here is that it’s not just average/max temperature that poses potential problems, but the rate of change. If the rate is too fast, some organisms cannot keep up and thus get wiped out.

I saw the study too re vegetation "expansion". There are of course more factors to vegetation growth than CO2 ppm, and no guarantee that changes in climate would provide a “warmer, wetter earth” conducive to improving conditions for life. Eg north Oz might benefit to a certain degree as it may still receive reasonable rainfall during wet seasons, but far larger regions would simply get hotter and drier. I think the general belief re Australia specifically is that we are drought-prone and a warmer planet will increase the length and severity of our droughts.

But, let’s say you’re right and rising average temps lead to a wetter, warmer world more conducive to plant life and by association, animal life too. We still must address the transitional, “teething problems” associated with historically rapid changes in climate, which may have serious repercussions for things like food and water security in the short-medium term.

I am unsure whether “hey, it’ll all work itself out in 1000 years when we’ll all be better off!” is that great a position to take.

I thought dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite hitting Earth?

 

[Long Live HFC]

I thought dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite hitting Earth?

the meteorite is one option put forward to explain the rapid changes in climate.

 

[Xsess]

It’s a bit strange to reference dinosaurs given they were wiped out by changes in climate. The other thing you’re ignoring here is that it’s not just average/max temperature that poses potential problems, but the rate of change. If the rate is too fast, some organisms cannot keep up and thus get wiped out.

I saw the study too re vegetation "expansion". There are of course more factors to vegetation growth than CO2 ppm, and no guarantee that changes in climate would provide a “warmer, wetter earth” conducive to improving conditions for life. Eg north Oz might benefit to a certain degree as it may still receive reasonable rainfall during wet seasons, but far larger regions would simply get hotter and drier. I think the general belief re Australia specifically is that we are drought-prone and a warmer planet will increase the length and severity of our droughts.

But, let’s say you’re right and rising average temps lead to a wetter, warmer world more conducive to plant life and by association, animal life too. We still must address the transitional, “teething problems” associated with historically rapid changes in climate, which may have serious repercussions for things like food and water security in the short-medium term.

I am unsure whether “hey, it’ll all work itself out in 1000 years when we’ll all be better off!” is that great a position to take.

Its intresting that left wing politicians are taking a collective worst case view of the situation and have fixated solely on cutting emissions through taxation (diverted into welfare). The cynic in me cries bullshit. There's no plan for the "teething problems" you flag, no recognition that climate change is likely survivable or possibly even beneficial. If Julia stood up for instance and said we are going to put all money raised from the Carbon tax into a future fund to offset climate change impacts - such as preparing for rising sea levels or relocating southern based cities further to the north to take advantage of the rainfall - whatever- then she might have got my attention. As it stands I totally get why people are calling it a scam, regardless of whether they are open to clilmate change as a concept. Personally I dunno if its real or not (and I bet neither does anyone else hereabouts).