That's your best contribution for the day BH...you did well.

Carry on...

WYL I am starting to think Ben Her is actual Tony Abbott.

I suppose I should start the new year off with something. How about Tony's business advisor Maurice Newman and his latest rant in the Oz about the religious cult of Global Warming? I mean this is scary stuff, the flat earthers are everywhere it seems.

I suppose I should start the new year off with something. How about Tony's business advisor Maurice Newman and his latest rant in the Oz about the religious cult of Global Warming? I mean this is scary stuff, the flat earthers are everywhere it seems.

Wrong crowd mate. You'll find many in here would agree with him, and see no issue with someone in his position holding such views. Nothing surprises me anymore. The circus is definitely in town.

I suppose I should start the new year off with something. How about Tony's business advisor Maurice Newman and his latest rant in the Oz about the religious cult of Global Warming? I mean this is scary stuff, the flat earthers are everywhere it seems.

So feel free to point out the factual errors In Maurice's peice.

Wrong crowd mate. You'll find many in here would agree with him, and see no issue with someone in his position holding such views. Nothing surprises me anymore. The circus is definitely in town.

Must be difficult to understand not everybody is a leftist sheep.

So feel free to point out the factual errors In Maurice's peice.

Wrecker it would be easier if you could point out a scientific fact! Is there one in Maurice's opinion piece?

please point it out.

I did mean to describe his opinion piece as a fact free essay.

As for leftist sheep, try to get your mind around some of the science on climate change, you may learn something rather than swallowing the vested interest dribble put out by the likes of Maurice who is setting the ground work for the destruction of the Renewable Energy Target. The only mechanism that could deliver our 20% target in emissions by 2020 that we still adhere to for the moment. Not that you would probably give a toss about any of this.

Must be difficult to understand not everybody is a leftist sheep.

David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, said 2013 was ''an unprecedented year'' for Australia. ''These record high temperatures … cannot be explained by natural variability alone,'' Professor Karoly said. ''This event could not have happened without increasing greenhouse gases, without climate change.''

David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, said 2013 was ''an unprecedented year'' for Australia. ''These record high temperatures … cannot be explained by natural variability alone,'' Professor Karoly said. ''This event could not have happened without increasing greenhouse gases, without climate change.''

You mean this warmist ?

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

Wrecker it would be easier if you could point out a scientific fact! Is there one in Maurice's opinion piece?

please point it out..

"Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years"

There is a nice fact for you despite all the IPCC computer models and therefore the "science" predicting otherwise.

David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, said 2013 was ''an unprecedented year'' for Australia. ''These record high temperatures cannot be explained by natural variability alone,'' Professor Karoly said. ''This event could not have happened without increasing greenhouse gases, without climate change.''

Are we talking about global climate or Australian weather? Can Karoly explain why the global climate has had no significant warming in 17 years despite all the "scientific" predictictions?

Edited January 4, 201411 yr by Wrecker45

I do not usually follow these things but this thread piqued my interest and so off to Google.

Maybe read this if you want some reasoning behind why air temperatures do not necessarily rise over a short period of time.

Apparently sea temperature change is a better indicator of change than air temperatures.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

Edited January 4, 201411 yr by Mgdee

"Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years"

There is a nice fact for you despite all the IPCC computer models and therefore the "science" predicting otherwise.

Wrecker I am not sure about 17 years I thought 1998 was a peak year for global average temperatures? That's 15 or 16 perhaps? 1998 coincided with increasing warming and the top of an El Niño cycle. In statistical terms it would be seen as an outlier in the data set. Since 1998 temperatures have continued to trend higher but at a slower rate of increase than the previous 30 years but increase they do. Ten of the hottest years globally have been since 2000! Temperatures are going nowhere only if you take 1998 as the benchmark. One year in a thousand!! I suggest you go back to school and study some statistical theory. Total Quality Management theory iused in many businesses would instruct you to see 1998 data as an anomaly and tell you to look at the overall trend and global temperatures are on the up Mate!

I really find this debate frustrating why are we arguing the obvious, all the scientific data points in one direction, some opinion points in the other but with no empirical data to back it up, no scientific, peer reviewed studies. Just the thoughts of those who chose to deny climate change for whatever reason.

… and people talk about the "loony left".

… and people talk about the "loony left".

You're usually more balanced.

Is it your contention that there is climate change ? The climate has always changed, so no contention there.

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases contribute to change ? No contention there.

Is it your contention that climate change is anthropogenic ? Most scientists would agree with you, although clearly not all do. Even those that agree with you acknowledge that the science most definitely isn't ''in''.

Is it your contention that warming is bad ? Many scientists see benefit in some warming.

Is it your contention that carbon dioxide is a pollutant ? It isn't.

Is it your contention that Australia can have an effect on the weather ? It can't. Laughable when you think about it. Even with the entire world taking action the effect to temperatures would barely register.

What are you mainly arguing ?

I happily admit I'm sceptical that man is warming the planet. And certainly not ''dangerously'' so. But even if it is, imposing a do nothing tax on business and households will be looked back by future generations as one of the most idiotic cures and decisions ever foisted on a nation.

Edited January 5, 201411 yr by The Myth

you're not entitled to stupid ideas just because you still like them.

The earth is rapidly warming and oil is running out.

Arguing against a tax because you think it's a waste of your money is more than pointless.

In the 1870's they started collecting money for a sewerage system that was probably seen as a luxury.

The globe is warming and the Earth is round!

Climate change is constantly occurring, it is the extent and level of the change that is occupying a range of studies, not only related to weather but also plant and life forms plus sea and ground changes. Many well credentialed scientists have analysed much data and are making as well as some speculative models, some fairly profound factual indicators. Not all data is conclusive but it is certainly comprehensive.

As a response a price was put on carbon emissions identified as one of the factors that could be managed. The pricing mechanism has been adopted in many different forms in many different locations. The purpose of the charge was to alter behaviour and encourage development of alternative practices. This was termed a tax by some in Australia despite it having none of the characteristics of other taxes, especially being universally applied.

Australia did have some of the highest rates of emission per head of population and as a developed country with aspirations for some influence as a well educated country our adoption of progressive practices inspired continued studies and considered action.

Our current government is merely reacting to perceived difficulties which are consistent with conservative action. Some of us expected no less and will await the continued stifled results while we slip further behind the more dynamic countries.

Australia did have some of the highest rates of emission per head of population and as a developed country with aspirations for some influence as a well educated country our adoption of progressive practices inspired continued studies and considered action.

Yes, all of 1.5% of the world's total emissions.

You're just another sucked in by this new religion.

And what are these progressive practices you speak of and how will they change the world's temperatures ?

Edited January 5, 201411 yr by The Myth

Yes, all of 1.5% of the world's total emissions.

You're just another sucked in by this new religion.

And what are these progressive practices you speak of and how will they change the world's temperatures ?

Maurice Newman, is that you?

Yes, all of 1.5% of the world's total emissions.

Yes, and why should I dump my empty sandwich wrapper in that bin? My contribution towards keeping Australia clean will have little to no effect so I guess I may as well just chuck it in the gutter along with everybody else.

"Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years"

There is a nice fact for you despite all the IPCC computer models and therefore the "science" predicting otherwise.

Wrecker45, you might want to look at this (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php)... NASA scientists (Goddard Institute) tend to look at things over a slightly broader scale than what the temperature has been doing for the past 17 years.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

...

A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

But hey, what would NASA know eh?

Yes, and why should I dump my empty sandwich wrapper in that bin? My contribution towards keeping Australia clean will have little to no effect so I guess I may as well just chuck it in the gutter along with everybody else.

you can argue better than that hardtack

it's a valid point. 1.5% would make hardly a dent in the GLOBAL position

and that is assuming a ridiculous 100% drop in australian emissions. you'd have to slaughter a lot of livestock among many other things

so the question is, at the end of the day what realistic contribution can we make and at what cost to our relative competitiveness and living standards

you can argue better than that hardtack

it's a valid point. 1.5% would make hardly a dent in the GLOBAL position

and that is assuming a ridiculous 100% drop in australian emissions. you'd have to slaughter a lot of livestock among many other things

so the question is, at the end of the day what realistic contribution can we make and at what cost to our relative competitiveness and living standards

DC if your attitude had been around in the 1930's I think we would all be talking German and following the Melbourne Demons soccer club. How un Churchillian of you! If you believe we face a dire future you must play your part not leave it to others.

Let's have it out in the open then, where do you stand on human induced/influenced climate change?

you can argue better than that hardtack

it's a valid point. 1.5% would make hardly a dent in the GLOBAL position

and that is assuming a ridiculous 100% drop in australian emissions. you'd have to slaughter a lot of livestock among many other things

so the question is, at the end of the day what realistic contribution can we make and at what cost to our relative competitiveness and living standards

Sometimes it's not the contribution that matters, it's that fact that change has to start somewhere... it's the fact that if we don't do anything and no one else does anything, then things can only get worse... that is the point I was making.

DC if your attitude had been around in the 1930's I think we would all be talking German and following the Melbourne Demons soccer club. How un Churchillian of you! If you believe we face a dire future you must play your part not leave it to others.

Let's have it out in the open then, where do you stand on human induced/influenced climate change?

thanks for the history lesson hood. If Churchill had his way we would still be part of the British Colonial Empire

I noticed you just changed the goal posts. The discussion was what could we (australia) achieve (for global warming reduction) by a massive unilateral sacrifice

I am quite happy for us to follow a multi-lateral policy with the world's major emitters, though i am skeptical it would make a big difference

I've long been a believer that over population is a bigger issue

call me a pragmatist if you like

Sometimes it's not the contribution that matters, it's that fact that change has to start somewhere... it's the fact that if we don't do anything and no one else does anything, then things can only get worse... that is the point I was making.

you really over-rate any leadership role australia could take

the majority of the world don't even know (or care) of our existence

we could send ourselves back to the dark ages trying and no-one would blink an eyelid

Edited January 5, 201411 yr by daisycutter