Leader of the Nationals in the Senate Barnaby Joyce writes to the Agmates community -
*****
I’m going to be serious and quite frank with you here as the issues I am about to raise will be contentious not only amongst coalition MP’s but also my own party.
Every age comes up with a witch to burn, a sect that apparently if it is not succumbed will bring about the destruction of an empire, an issue that occupies the rigours of the day.
It is almost as if those in the position of power and their surrounding Illuminati with time to spare are terrified of the banality of daily existence and so search for an issue that demands blind obedience to conquer it.
The most dangerous place to be in these times of immense fervour is in the counter position that calls in to question the logic of the euphoria. Those who dare to question are held as heretics. There is a communal life fest in being part of the pack or staying silent.
It is hard for them to separate from the reality that the world is fairly constant and predictable and that things of the greater nature of the universe have remained beyond our control in the past and generally shall remain so into the future.
It was interesting to hear the recent discussion between Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, with Robyn Williams, on The Science Show on ABC Radio National, when he rightly stated that the world has many problems but global warming is not one of the biggest ones. As Dyson said:
“Sea level rise has been going on much longer, long before global warming, and it probably has very little to do with human activities. All we know for sure is that sea level has been rising steadily for about 10,000 years and we’ll have to do something about that.”
I don’t pretend for one moment to be a scientist but in my role in the Senate it is implicit in my job to be a sceptic , to question and to consider all sides and be open to the views of many rather than one view.
My current concern with the emissions trading scheme is that a religious fervour has built up around the altar of global warming. Those who serve at the altar have become ruthless in their denigration of alternate views. This fervour has now received its imprimatur by reason of a new tax, or should it be tithe to be paid to the Rudd Labor Government.
The similarity in this newest forte of socialism can be defined by the ultimate purpose of divesting the individual of their asset or income stream on the premise of an apparent greater moral good.
But who becomes the benefactors of this divestment? The administrators and the traders. Their pockets are lined with the property and income of others.
I don’t remember anybody paying rural Australia for the vegetation that was divested from their asset, rural land, during the tree-clearing legislation so we could meet our Kyoto target and unfortunately I don’t hear any chorus of questioning as to why in the future rural producers, after trying to feed the nation and others, will have to be dragged into an emissions trading scheme that could make many of them unviable.
Where is all this heading?
The National Party has been at the forefront of saying this is all getting beyond ridiculous and becoming dangerous. They are also being supported by unlikely allies such as the Australian Workers Union who see their own members, who have been part of the process of delivering wealth to our nation from their labours have had their industries now termed ‘dirty’ by the new environmental high priests. In this new Orwellian frenzy everyone is looking over their shoulder.
Australia is going down a path of an ETS without the co-operation of the major emitting countries. It says that it is morally right to do so. The Rudd Labor Government and others say that unilateral action is a moral imperative. I look forward to that same fervour of moralistic rectitude as they approach the Mugabe issue in Zimbabwe. He is certainly in the wrong and it is on this new platform of morals that we await our dear leader to launch an attack in a very worthwhile and immediate practice of ridding our planet of this tyrant, Mugabe. That is something that would be of an exceptional benefit.
The government is currently honey-coating the fact that it will be collecting a vast amount of money from the Australian people. The ETS will collect $11.5 billion in its first year, $12 billion in its second, it will force up the price of goods and services, it will encourage industries to move to where an ETS is not present.
Australia generates 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions and this ETS will reduce world levels by the smallest sliver, which self-evidently will have nil effect on global climate whether you believe in climate warming or not.
People will lose their job or their business because of the ETS. They will be the modern-day witches burning on the environmentalist fanatical pyre because their role in this new dynamic was unacceptable.
For regional Australia we look forward to the ridiculous prospect of 34 million possible hectares of forest to take the place of farming land, formerly the backbone of so many regional towns and generations of good, honest working Australians’ lives.
The history of human civilisations has the disturbing trait of devising ways to put themselves out of business, sometimes through no more than their own excesses and belief structures of their governing bureaucracies. The only protection against these excesses is the capacity of the general population to question, to doubt and to disagree.
I have no doubt that as a world we must become efficient with the utilisation of our resources. We must give the greatest number of people the greatest access to the highest standard of living, it is only fair.
Efficiency, more than emissions, must become the trading scheme that brings a cleaner, fairer future. Encourage efficiency and keep the government’s hands out of people’s pockets and off their assets and that will bring a greater propensity to a long-term broad-based better world for all of us.
END
Christmas Message:
To the Agmates Community,
I’ll lighten up here but be just as sincere when I wish you all a great Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Drive safely.
Barnaby Joyce.
*****
Have Your say.
March 8, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Ok Dr G
I am sorry to say that it is you who have been brainwashed by the delusional thinking. I don’t blame you for it, it’s because we have been lied to so completely. The IPCC report is a lie that is the basis of the Environment departments assetion that humans do cause global warming.
I used to believe the lie too so I can undestand your position, you probably think as I did, that the deniers are stupid. They aren’t. They are the smart ones, for they have somehow managed to elude the mass mind control campaign.
Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN’s own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.
Dr Arthur Robinson concluded an interview by saying If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.
Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity
<font face=”Arial” size=”2″ color=”#0000ff”><font face=”Arial” size=”2″ color=”#0000ff”><font face=”Arial” size=”2″ color=”#0000ff”>
Daniel Taylor
</font></font></font><font face=”Arial” size=”2″ color=”#0000ff”><font face=”Arial” size=”2″ color=”#0000ff”>
</font></font><font face=”Arial” size=”2″ color=”#0000ff”>
</font>
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Proponents of a system of world government and the tyrannical measures that accompany it have seized upon the popular issue of global warming to advance long existing plans for global governance. World government has been the desire of power hungry organizations and the individuals running them for many years. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome are all such organizations. Council on Foreign Relations member James Paul Warburg, who was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, a prominent banker, stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950 that, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it — by conquest or consent.”
Terrorism, economics, and global warming are all reasons given by proponents of world government as evidence of the necessity for a new world order. If world government is to be achieved by consent, as Mr. Warburg put it, then the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity.
In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called “Limits to growth.” The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.
Today, global warming and climate change in general have become foundational issues for one of the largest political movements of our time. As more focus is placed on global warming, the solutions which are being presented to the world often have nothing to do with what many are saying is the root cause of the problem. Scientific evidence has emerged, highlighted in the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” which supports the theory that the sun is in fact a major driving force behind global warming. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature. Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun’s activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth’s temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change.
In response to the conventional explanation of global warming, several calls have been made by various individuals to create a system of world government, and put into place rigid controls over the lives of millions across the world.
Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. “Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function,” says Haass. “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…”
Gordon Brown, the potential future Prime Minister of the UK, stated recently that a ‘new world order’ must be created in order to combat global warming.
Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas who has a following of dedicated environmentalists, made startling comments regarding population reduction to a group of students and other scientists in April of 2006. Because of the negative effects of overpopulation on the earth, Pianka proposed that the Ebola virus be used as a tool of population reduction. Pianka also praised China’s one child policy, saying that, “China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop re-producing.”
Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control.
<font face=”Arial” size=”2″><font face=”Arial” size=”2″>
</font></font><font face=”Arial” size=”2″>
</font>
January 23, 2009 at 8:05 am
Mainstream Science?
In that case you could answer the Joanne Nova question:-
"What evidence is there that more CO2 forces temperatures up further?"
Nice and simple question that you should be able to answer..
No cheating though, your not allowed to wheel out your IBM Big Black to do the simulations.
Now that's without an ad hominen attack on Jo Nova, who probably is suffering from delusional thinking, just like the rest of us sceptics.
January 23, 2009 at 9:02 am
So I take it you accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a worming effect. Without any we would be about 18 deg cooler ie freezing. You are correct in as much as we do not know the CO2 sensitivity of the climate, but it would seem rather unlikely that CO2 has a warming effect up to 280 or 380 ppm and then just stop. there is no reason in physics for that to happen.
January 23, 2009 at 10:53 am
Ah Dr G.
I see your into stating the blooming obvious, and going over very old ground to do it.
May I suggest that if you are going to write on this subject, that you go and study some more basic science, and a lot more climate related subjects.
At the time of Al Gore's alarmist fairy tale An Inconvenient Truth, I sat up and took notice, and looked at the rationale of his version of Global Warming and found it severely wanting.
And I don't think you answered the question.
January 16, 2009 at 4:43 am
You are right Chris… it would almost be worth introducing an ETS even if AGW science WAS a load of hogwash!
January 16, 2009 at 4:15 am
The economy is changing and it won't be painless, just as productivity reforms in the 1980s was painful for some. But there are sound reasons for adopting practices that reduce the amount of CO2 emitted for each unit of economic value,
Many rural activities can benefit from the ETS. Energy efficiency is often good for the bottom line as it has a short payback period. Selling wind power or biomass gives new income streams. Landowners will be able to sell their forest's carbon sinks as offsets to coal power stations. Better ways of tiling the soil or managing water won't cause the sky to fall. Landcare is not practiced by city witchdoctors.
Barnaby, By all means keep an open sceptical mind, but what evidence would convince you that a climate catastrophe is probable?
January 4, 2009 at 9:56 am
Thank you Barnaby – it is a relief to hear some politicians have not fallen into the “man-made CO2 is creating the end of the world” myth.
Thank you also Syd for opening this forum and encouraging open discussion on this topic.
The hockey stick is a lie. It uses two different sets of selectively chosen data which were joined together at about the 1850 mark. The world has been warming since about 1850 – recovering from a minor ice age. This warming to date has been relatively moderate, as was the cooling cycle before. The world has warmed and cooled periodically in a series of different cycles which sometimes build upon each other, and sometimes cancel out one another, and has being doing this for millions of years.
The world was warmer than today during the Medieval times. IPCC has chosen to ignore a large number of studies which demonstrate this cyclical warming and cooling.
There are a number of contributing factors to these cycles of cooling and warming, including the Earth’s orbit, the position of our solar system, the sun’s activity …….. The climate will continue in these cycles and what man made CO2 has been added to the atmosphere is minuscule in relation to these forces. CO2 and other gases are being added to the atmosphere as a result of warming, over and above what man is creating.
An ETS will not reduce CO2 emissions, just shuffle the costs around and create another industry based on nothing (remember Enron?).
The more I learn about this global warming/ climate change industry, the more I am concerned for the people who are being affected by climate change and other physical events such as rising sea levels, but are not being helped while the UN and other bodies waste billions on chasing a flawed theory. It appears the world is going through a warming phase of these interacting cycles. Let’s deal with the realities of life.
A first good step would be to stop wasting time, money and brain power on an ETS. If the real purpose is to build in the “costs” of pollution and environmental use or abuse into the costs of production, then the net needs to be spread a lot wider than just CO2 emissions.
January 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Your’ve got my support Barnaby.
Climate scepticism is widespread in the electorate and more people are piling on board every day. Australia is desperately in need of a political party that will balance the influence of the greens.
A firm and independent stand against the voodoo science used for climate change, marine and national parks, forestry, water and land management etc would provide strong support for the Nationals. There is a great opportunity for the Nationals (the upper house) in cities (a foil for doctor’e wives).
The community wants “conservation through sustainable use”, not the green’s position of “preservation by lockouts”. This ideology permeates all issues, including climate change.
I was in WA in the lead up to their state elections and the new look Nationals were the talk of the town.
January 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Congratulations to Barnaby Joyce.
We need to look at some history and get a sense of perspective. There is nothing unusual or dangerous about current temperatures. And the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is low by past standards. Plants stop growing if CO2 gets to 200 ppm and we are only at 385 ppm.
Farmers and foresters in particular should be aghast at proposals to reduce CO2 levels or even more stupid, bury valuable CO2 in carbon cemetries.
Carbon dioxide is a harmless and very beneficial plant food. All life depends on this trace gas in the atmosphere. If we trebled the CO2 content, we would all be better off. Sea and land production of plant material would increase providing, at no cost, a large increase in food or forests, whichever you want.
Viv Forbes
December 31, 2008 at 5:43 pm
GOOD COMMON SENSE BARNABY and you have the ‘balls’ to say it.
If we really wanted to clean up the atmosphere in OZ we ought rapidly increase our renewable energy target and crank up wind, wave and not just solar. (Southern Australia has more cloudy days than sunny BUT the wind blows!!)
To the cranks that say renewables are too expensive – I say, they will be ‘as cheap as chips’ compared to Dudd’s ETS scam.
December 19, 2008 at 11:02 pm
“ETS a big pain for little gain”
The Australian
Dr Bob Carter.
http://tinyurl.com/4t5fcu
THE IPCC model of dangerous, human-caused climate change has failed.
More ->
Read his bio here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
December 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hi Anna,
With all due respect, as I don’t want to brawl with you about this, but please, have you had a look at what is happening around, and not just taken the MSM eye view of things?
Just as a simple easy look at the polar ice situation:
Every day I look up the German, Bremen University’s AMSRE website to track the ice cover of the Arctic and the Antarctic, as well as the sea ice cover around Svalbard (Spitzbergen).
Since 8/12/08 until now 19/12/08 I have seen the ice cover of Hudson Bay (Canada)go from ~30% to todays ~98% of 100% ice cover.
Svalbard’s ice cover surround is now around 50% ( at a latitude below 80de N.)and from their web cams they also have nice big fat glaciers.
‘The seas will rise as a result’ – three words for that – Eaglehawk Neck, Tasmania.
On the peninsula on the way to Port Arthur, it was a gateway to stop escaping convicts, with dogs on chains pegged at this narrow neck. About 100m wide, with the Tasman Sea on one side, Norfolk Bay on the other. Has been in use since the 1850′s.
Google Earth – Eaglehawk Neck, or do a trip to Tassy, to have a look, it’s a beautiful state.
If you browse around Agmates, one of my blogs is a newspaper clipping (NYT)about all the ice cover melting around Greenland, the North Pole etc. Fishing depleted.
Dated 1922 – Global Warming.
No, I’m not a scientist either, but boy doesn’t it make my research more thorough.
January 23, 2009 at 7:17 am
On the other hand you check the real data at
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
the arctic ice is undoubtedly decreasing, 2007 was the lowest recorded cover, t2008 not far behind and clearly consistent with the trend of arctic warming. This is why the Russians are getting all excited about exploring the arctic for new fossil fuel deposits that have not previously been accessible.
January 23, 2009 at 8:24 am
N.S.I.D.C. may be contaminated with data from James Hansen's GISS sources, which are from ground based stations. (see Anthony Watt's "Watts Up With That?" excellent website, on ground stations, and Russian ground stations, and of course (JAMES HANSEN))
I use the University of Bremen's AMRSE website and printout the ice cover maps on a 3 day basis to allow comparison.
AMRSE sources are from satellite readings which are extremely accurate and haven't been "adjusted".
2007 was definitely low, 2008 Winter has increased by approx 9% on 2007 figures.
With AMRSE you can download the last 5 years day by day data and play back as an animation, to see the build up and the decreases in ice cover.
Another site which I use is the AMRSE / JAXA total ice cover graph, which shows the increases in ice cover compared to the previous 5 years.
Links for both sites where posted as a request from Agmate Steve, yesterday.
January 23, 2009 at 8:58 am
There is a difference between surface ( winter ) ice and more stable ( multi year ) ice. There has been a loss of the latter. The thick satble multi year ice is the most relevant, as surface ice melts quickly each spring.
Even so the surface ice, while greater than 2007, is still consistent with a long term reducing trend. ( Dec 08 was 830,000 square kilometers (320,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 December average. ) .
January 23, 2009 at 11:17 am
Just look at the diagrams for 9/10 and 10/10 ice and watch the animations.
Go back and check the ice cover figures on AMRSE / JAXA. For Jan 09, they are exceeding 2004, and as the level normally keeps rising until March, may even look better.
You did know that there was a nearly total Arctic meltdown in 1922, didn't you? And at other times when the North West passage was open?
No? I have posted the newspaper article on Agmates recently.
Question:
Have you noticed the lack of warming alarmists out of Russia?
And have asked yourself why?
The Russians are doing an amazing amount of climate research, mostly to do with the possibility of a cold period.
January 24, 2009 at 2:31 am
Yes, there is a lack of just about any free speech in Russia, similarly I have seen much coming out of N Korea lately. the Russians are also banking on a fossil fuel powered future economy.
'Warming alarmists" – I think perjorative terms are unhelpful. The fact is that global temperature is clearly increasing and that we would be quite mad not to be very concerned about it.
Refusing to accept arctic ice melting seems strange in the context of the overwhelming evidence of information on this subject. the NW passage hasn't been ice free during human history.
Ice cores from Greenland / arctic ice date back 10s -100s thousands of years, so clearly they didn't all melt in the intervening period.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200… ( is interest that this was published prior to the 2007 summer )
It is important to separate anecdotal and cherry picked data when the wealth of evidence is telling you something different.
January 24, 2009 at 7:36 am
Ah Dr G,
I can see that your one of the indoctrinated. Did you do a Al Gore course as part of the propaganda that is eminating from that camp?
I don't know what sort of Dr you are, or whether it is just username, but I will give you another good reason to rethink your attitude on the no coal, no coal powered electricity:
http://planetark.org/wen/51329
From Planet Ark, showing people that are dying from lung and other diseases, induced by using wood and dung as fuel for heating and cooking, something that you would take with the flick of a switch. Just like the flick of a switch these people deserve, to continue their lives in some sort of dignity.
This article covers India, if you would like further that covers Africa, no worries, I've got that on file too, as part of my "Mine your own Business" file from the movie. (A Must See if you believe in humanity and not just the output from the Goracle and similar ilk)
Your misguided opening about the lack of free speech in Russian scientific circles, involved in climate research is just that – misguided. Take as example the Vostok ice cores that came from 3.9km deep in Antarctica, came from a Russian Antarctic base. There has been collaboration with the Russians, US and UK scientists and this is continuing.
Then there is collaboration with the Russian Academy of Science, with NASA amongst others on Solar and climate cycles.
Please stop reading nonsense from a site which uses the continuation of alarmism for continued large funding.
January 26, 2009 at 3:23 am
For the record, I didn't mention coal, Russian free speech may actually be irrelevant but not misguided. Collaboration on a project doesn't prove consensus or otherwise and is irrelevant.
Yes i am qualified, I have studied science at university and have ongoing involvement . Unfortunately my curiosity gets the better of me and I end up getting drawn into one of these rather pointless interactions.
Denialist argumentsl eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information. I can see you are also versed with the tactics of cherry picking ( selectivity ), quoting fringe or fake "experts", impossible or changing expectations and "fallacy of logic".
January 26, 2009 at 8:03 am
Well Doctor G.
You didn't mention coal, I did, in reference to electrical power generation, and since you have studied science at university and have an ongoing involvement, I wouldn't have to explain to you that the green alternatives – wind power, solar power are at best intermittent and would not cope with heating and cooking. And that was in regard to people dying in Africa, India, China and other third world condition countries due to using wood and dung for fuel. How do the medical people keep the vaccines cold?
Seeing you didn't comment on that possibility, I must assume that they are of no importance to you. Besides they cannot afford to pay carbon Emission Trading Scams (ETS).
Not a bad word count for a relatively small post – 2x Denialists, 1x Crack mind. You did comment on that!!
Now the conspiracy bit – because the Dr set the tune:
Maurice Strong, and I shouldn't have to explain Maurice Strong and this statement –
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"
Yes I cherry picked that, out of a lot of other dangerous statements by Strong, Gore, Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich ——
January 26, 2009 at 11:17 am
Dr G.
For your information, which I cherrypicked from my database:
http://tinyurl.com/bgp3bm
Wikipedia – North West Passage, USS Storis – US Coastguard
*****************************
http://tinyurl.com/dd92vk
Website Crush Liberalism – Arctic Ice melt 1922
*****************************
http://tinyurl.com/2fjugt
Watts Up With That – Arctic Ice melt 1922
*****************************
So 2007 was unique, was it? The ice melts in summer, and reforms in winter.
There's more of course, like pictures of US submarines at the North pole in 1959, but your not interested because you didn't read about it in Real Climate or Deltoid.
December 18, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Thanks for sharing your views Barnaby, I’ve often thought much of what you’ve said over the past few years has been a breath of fresh air. However, I cannot agree with your comments here.
You’ve written: “I don’t pretend for one moment to be a scientist, but in my role in the Senate it is implicit in my job to be a sceptic, to question and to consider all sides and be open to the views of many rather than one view”.
1. You’re not a scientist – well, let’s go to the scientists for their point of view. The vast majority of scientists whose specialisation is in this area report that all the facts show the Earth is warming. Arctic sea-ice is breaking up, Greenland is melting away and Antarctic glaciers are being warmed by the increasing temperatures of the Southern Ocean. Seas will rise as a result. These are all observable facts, reported scientifically and objectively from many different scientists from many different countries. As you say, you’re not a scientist – so do you disagree with these scientists’ findings?
2. You need to be open to the views of many – yes, there are many views in this debate, and those who know global warming is a fact aren’t just “one” view either. But if I want to understand a subject, I’ll look to specialist experts, whether it’s about health, economics, whatever. There are always going to be multiple views on any subject. But generally, I’ll listen to those who’ve studied it over a long period of time and whose conclusions have contributed to an overwhelming consensus.
I think it unnecessarily inflames the debate by describing people who believe these scientific reports as “environmental fanatics”. And we can’t have it both ways: we can’t ask to “keep government’s hands out of people’s pockets” as you say but then also expect government to assist us when times are bad, which is likely what will happen when the effect of global warming is increasingly felt.
Ultimately, we all want to leave this planet in good shape for our children and grandchildren and we all have different views about how best to do that. Barnaby has his views and I hope they are genuinely and intelligently reasoned and not just an excuse to maintain the status quo on this difficult issue.
Thanks for your Christmas message and hope you and other Agmates enjoy the festive break with family.
January 1, 2009 at 9:48 am
Anna, consensus is not science.
There is a lot of evidence that the world has intermittently warmed since the mid 1800′s, and that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased.
However there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support the theory that the warming has been caused by the CO2 increase. There are other valid possibilities.
Science is about observation and evidence and the ability to explain challenges to the current explanation / theory about the way things work. Denigration and personal attacks (by its advocates) on those who question the theory of anthropogenic global warming indicates an incapacity to substantiate the AGW theory.
The evidence is rapidly accumulating to support the contention that the current warming is from a complex of natural causes.
January 3, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Ian McClintock expresses in clear and simple terms the crux of the issue.
We can not be sure that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a an outcome of global forces including warming but we can be sure that it is not the key driver without a whole lot more evidence rather than the tenous assertions and modelling done to date.
We have not learned from history once again. The “heretics and sceptics” who challenged the accepted beliefs of our “Flat Earth” were outcast for their views which were contrary to ones held by those of power and influence. Sadly the politicisation of science has seen a return to similar attitudes and commentary on the Global Warming “debate”.
Anne (Dec 18) quite wrongly identified a core problem of people who advocate the AGW theory being described as “environmental fanatics” as being unhelpful. It is no less helpful to ostracise those who take a contrary view on Global Warming as “sceptics”. To do so indicates an inability to argue ones case logically and factually.
Our tendency to view the world from our own window of experiences and immediate observations is of little use in endeavouring to form a view about a long term trend in something such as Global Warming – where the long term is many multiples of the timeframe our personal experience.
It is pleasing to see a few of our politicians taking a questioning stance on a matter which the mainstream leadership now seems to take for granted and at a cost that our children and grandchildren will have to (needlessly) bear.
January 3, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Ian, consensus may not be science, but would you rather politics made policy based upon rabid fringe scepticism.
I can;t believe you have the cheek to talk about what science is and stand by your snake oil clap-trap.
January 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm
MattB, I would rather have policy made after a comprehensive and open study of all the science.
If this was undertaken it would become obvious that CO2 is not and can not be the cause of the current warming.
Water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas and CO2 is only a minor, relatively insignificant contributor.
The evidence for example, obtained when due to the ‘great depression’, world release of fossil carbon fuel emissions was actually reduced by 30% between 1929 and 1932/33 and made absolutely no difference to the steadily rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This clearly indicates that the emissions were arising from other natural sources.
The Earth has been recovering (warming) from the Little Ice Age since about the middle of the 1800′s.
The oceans, covering some 71% of the Earth’s surface, can both sequester and emit CO2. As they warm, emissions of CO2 increase. This is the principle source of atmospheric CO2 increase, it is a result of the warming and not the other way round.
The Vostok and other ice core data confirm that CO2 peaks some 800 years AFTER temperatures peak, and therefore CO2 could not have caused the warmings. These higher levels of CO2 also did not inhibit the subsequent coolings that occurred.
Temperature response to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is not linear as many assume. It follows a logarithmic curve with decreasing increases in temperature as CO2 levels rise. There is no dispute about this.
A doubling of current levels of CO2 would have an inconsequential effect on temperature, but would provide major benefits to all biota and mankind due to increased plant productivity, improved water use efficiency, greater drought tolerance and reduced susceptibility to disease due to the reduced size, and possibly number, of plant leaf stomata.
The Government, and many (but fortunately not all) of the opposition, are going off half-cocked on this issue due to basic ignorance of the scientific facts. Policy needs to be based on sound science, not populist beliefs.
The inappropriately named ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ is doomed, at considerable cost and lost opportunity, to fail in achieving its stated goals.
It would be wise and very prudent to at least thoroughly check the science before taking this futile scheme any further.
Full marks to Barnaby for having the ‘guts’ to take a stand.
January 4, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Ian one assumes by “comprehensive and open” you mean “one that comes to Ian McClintock’s warped conclusions”.
your comments about water vapour are absurd. You speak as though not every single climate scientist on the planet would not agree with you that indeed water vapour is a hugely significant greenhouse gas… just one that is not changing in concentration to any meaningful degree. If you actually believe that CO2 is not capable of increasing temperature then you are quite frakly ignorant of the most basic high school science.
Great depression… crikey what are you on about. Seriously that is three years – what is that – nothing… you could not possibly draw ANY conclusions from three years – especially as CO2 emissions were practically sod all back then.
I’m pretty sure you will find that those ice cores confirm that co2 starts to rise about 800 years after temperatures start to rise… rather than peak 800 years after temperatures peak… please link to some scientific reference if you think otherwise as your interpretation is different to mine. Again no climate scientists would disagree with such a finding… the 1st 800 years of warming in deed are totally unrelated to CO2 concentrations – so what?
If policy needs to be based on sound science, not populaist beliefs, then surely that would mean listening to the scientists (who say it is not a load of clap=trap) rather than say for example… Ian McClintock.
And yes Ian I know there are some scientist out there who dissent, but that goes for ANY field of science in which politics makes policy based upon NOT what the loony rabid look at me fringes insists is true.
January 5, 2009 at 2:34 am
Gentlemen,
Your to-ing and fro-ing makes amusing reading. However, if you want the detailed scientific domcumentation on why the ETS is a SCAM of the highest order, go to my website at http://www.politicalguts.com/id6.html and at the bottom of the page, read submissions from Don Aitken, John McLean, Stewart Franks and more. These are the guys who helped frame the Kyoto Protocal and have learned from it, they are CSIRO guys who woke up to the scams from the inside, and more… While you are there, look around at some of the other “stuff” I uncovered and my solutions to them!
I HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH and uncovered this information and it wasn’t hard to find… High school level science studies should alert most people to the flaws in the global warming and ETS argument, but these very eminent and globally recognised scientists put it far more eloquently than I ever could. However, I’m happy to tell the world to listen to them, wake up and refrain from bankrupting our wonderful country.
I agree, there IS climate change, but that’s part of being a world of immense complexity, with factors such as volcanic and oceanic forces that make our own contributions pale into insignificance. The earth IS cooling, the science tells us that, but the real problem with man’s interference is with the pollution we dump – and CO2 is not part of that! As the scientists will tell you, CO2 increasing is a path to feeding the world, not condemming it!
If we are serious about the problems of the planet, start cleaning up the chemicals and litter being dumped in the oceans and around the coastlines, beaches and being buried in all manner of places. When the mess is cleaned up, you never know, we might have a lot fewer other problems too!
Happy New Year,
Ray Jamieson
Author
Political Guts
January 22, 2009 at 11:25 am
Or alternatively you could read the scientific peer reviewed journals, or take note of: NASA, Royal Society, IPCC, NOAA, American Meterological society, Australian Meterological and Oceanographic Society, World Meterological Organisation, American Institue of Physics, Engineers Australia, . In fact the consensus of scientists is so extraordinary that is is quite difficult to believe that anyone on this planet thinks that there is any real debate. There are a few , generally non scientist or retired, often oil company sponsored, fringe anthropogenic dissenters, you really need to wake up and move on.
January 22, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Or you could take a serious look at what is the common denominator in all those sources you mention, and translate it into "who pays the piper?" And at what financial level?
Sure it isn't at the meagre level of oil industry funding of sceptics.
NASA – James Hansen's fairy stories and failed predictions
Royal Society – a good record of alarmism.
IPCC – how many reviewers did they say reviewed AR4 WG1? – Kevin07's 4000, or less than 60?
And you've mucked it up by the use of "consensus of scientists" – consensus? sounds like Galileo and the
consensus of the church.
To be continued
January 23, 2009 at 3:58 am
The common denominator, as you are probably aware, is that the aforementioned proponents of anthropogenic climate change are all mainstream and reputable and science based.
It's quite simple Jeff, the science has become clearer and clearer. Tell me how many articles that contradict climate change have been published in peer reviewed journals in the lst few years ? Conspiracy ? Scientists are by their nature skeptical and inquisitive, do you honestly believe that nearly every reputable climate scientist and academic organisation in the world is going to jump onto a conspiracy bandwagon dismissing all contrary evidence and uniformly agree? I find it rather difficult to believe you're actually entertaining that idea.
Tell me, even if all the scientists were wrong and instead of being "more than 90% likely" tat climate is occuring and due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, there was only a 5 or 10 % of climate change with it's attendant consequences, would you still think we should ignore that threat too?
If all the aeronautical engineers told you it was 1 or 2 % likely that the plane you were going to send you're family on would crash, would still recommend they take the flight and assume it was all conspiracy
January 23, 2009 at 5:19 am
Dr G,
You wrote:
"Scientists are by their nature skeptical and inquisitive, do you honestly believe that nearly every reputable climate scientist and academic organisation in the world is going to jump onto a conspiracy bandwagon dismissing all contrary evidence and uniformly agree? I find it rather difficult to believe you're actually entertaining that idea."
Dr G, Scientists have to eat, pay mortgages, rates, taxes and school fees etc. too.
If you don't toe the line, you don't get the paycheque.
This is why you see more scientists dissenters are elderly, retired, self funded. There are numerous episodes of dissenting scientists losing their funding because they spoke out against AGW.
There have been numerous battles to get papers peer reviewed – Svensmark for example. And then there is the school of thought that peer review is also the old boys network.
Over simplified – yes, but I do not have time to list names, as I have to eat, pay taxes, rates etc.
You may want to paint my opinion as conspiracy theory, therefore using that to discredit moi. Please don't bother.
January 23, 2009 at 6:28 am
I'm always fascinated with you guys, prepared to dismiss all of mainstream science ( which is now overwhelming ) because scientists are often funded by government ( and you are talking about many different governments ) but willing to believe fringe elements even when they do have links to vested interests ( usually exxon mobil ) as in the case of Heartland Inst or Fred Singer for example.
It is the result of trying support a predetermined belief against all contrary evidence. In medical terms it is called delusional thinking.
January 2, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Anna, let’s not leave a bankrupt economy to our children. That would be far worse.
January 3, 2009 at 7:48 am
Silly girl; there are two issues, whether the climate is warming and whether carbon dioxide has got anything to do with it. On a 10,000 year perspective the climate is not warming, it is probably cooling slightly. On a thousand year perspective it is cooling. One a one hundred year perspective it is warming. On a ten year perspective it is cooling. Closed box physical experiments tell us that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Commonsense tells us that the changes in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere are insufficient to make any difference. Commonsense also tells us that the much touted climatic models do not include many factors that operate on the climate and observation alone is sufficient to show that they have failed to predict climatic change correctly.
January 4, 2009 at 9:56 pm
PLease define commonsense? or does it mean “what I reckon”?.
December 18, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“The National Party has been at the forefront of saying this is all getting beyond ridiculous and becoming dangerous. They are also being supported by unlikely allies such as the Australian Workers Union ”
Many of the Labor and Liberal politicians really worry me – I believe they are on a mission to bring in their dominance by the globalization plan to control us and stop any negotiations concerning Israel. They are absolutely loyal to that plan above all else with no loyalty at all to ordinary Australians.
They pretend to be religious but I believe they are ruthless.
I’m pleased we have allies in the Australian Workers Union – we farmers need as many as we can get.
It is I believe also a class struggle as this article states http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=46698
Globalism is good for the investment class and the ownership class and the banking class so workers and small/medium farmers are definitely in the same boat getting wiped out.
December 18, 2008 at 9:18 am
Fair dinkum, if I ran my farm the way these turkeys run our economy I would not only go broke, I would go hungry!
What Barnaby says is dead right & good on him for having the ticker to come out & say it. It may ruffle a few old National Party feathers, but this is a big opportunity for the Nats to take the initiative from the Government on a high profile issue.
The Libs have nowhere to go on this as it is largely what they would have done themselves, if still in government. If the Nats can put forward a fair & equitable alternative that truly values the contribution of agriculture to carbon sequestration while maintaining or improving productivity (soil carbon rather than wood carbon) they can embarrass both major parties & wheel the greens.
And while they are at it, come up with a better Solar power scheme, this one smells.
Best wishes to Barnaby & his team, & other Agmates, for Christmas & New Year.
December 17, 2008 at 11:42 pm
That is an excellent post from Senator Barnaby Joyce. I’m sure it will give hope to rural and regional people, to see that they DO have representation by a Senator that hasn’t been tainted by the Climate Change lobby.
Another good post on Carbon Sense Coalition, by Viv Forbes – “A Fabian Carbon Tax”
http://carbon-sense.com/2008/12/16/fabian-carbon-tax/
Note: The old Fabian Society Coat of Arms was a Wolf in Sheeps Clothing.
Possibly Viv’s reference to A Fabian Carbon Tax.
December 17, 2008 at 10:46 pm
“Your words have given me some hope that at least there is one sensible voice in Parliament. So I thank you for lifting our spirits” – Yes, you do lift our spirits Barnaby and the Nationals supporting you because too many Liberals support Labor on too many issues and many upper-middle class city people can’t see the problem.
“Encourage efficiency and keep the government’s hands out of people’s pockets and off their assets and that will bring a greater propensity to a long-term broad-based better world for all of us”
That is exactly what Rudd doesn’t want to do he wants BIG GOVERNMENT and practically everybody dependent on government handouts.
Thank you for your courage for standing up for ordinary people particularly rural and regional areas and have a rest over Christmas and New Year and build up the National Party’s energy for a hard slog in 2009 ‘cos we are sure going to get it!!
December 17, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Hi Barnaby
Thank you for talking with us and thank you for your Christmas message. Not just the one at the end of your post but the words above it.
For me and my family, Christmas was descending into despair. In the last few months I have watched my life’s work being frittered away by others. My private native forest is quarantined, my superannuation has halved, my other business turnover has declined massively, we are going to have a new tax impost (ETS) and as the final straw
my life has been put on hold by the ‘freezing’ of funds in Challenger.
At my time of life I don’t have enough time left to wait for this nonsense to be sorted out and I am at my wits end as to what action I can take.
Worst of all was the perception that not only did no-one understand what is happening but that no-one even cared. Your words have given me some hope that at least there is one sensible voice in Parliament. So I thank you for lifting our spirits.
Merry Christmas to you and your family and stay safe on the roads.
December 17, 2008 at 11:26 pm
“my life has been put on hold by the ‘freezing’ of funds in Challenger”
Very likely Charlie sometime next year there is going to be enough people who are angry enough to get on the streets in big numbers and protest. I know widepread protests have never happenend in Australia before but they will.
They should be bailing out people who are losing their homes of residence and small buisnesses not the banks and corporations.
Keep your spirits up and keep positive for yourself and your family.
December 17, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Thanks for those thoughts Margaret.
Don’t get me wrong, we still have an awful lot of things to be thankful for and there are many people worse off than us. It’s always good when we are helped with reminding ourselves. Best wishes to you and yours.
“We’ll make it fine in ’09″
December 17, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Maybe the nationals should not be part of a coalition that is committed to introducing an ETS in 2012?
I can tell you I’m not a greenie because I’m a fanatical zealot on a witch hunt… I’m optimisting about the economy, people, and jobs flourishing in a carbon constrained future.
And here is the key for me: “I have no doubt that as a world we must become efficient with the utilisation of our resources. We must give the greatest number of people the greatest access to the highest standard of living, it is only fair.
Efficiency, more than emissions, must become the trading scheme that brings a cleaner, fairer future. Encourage efficiency and keep the government’s hands out of people’s pockets and off their assets and that will bring a greater propensity to a long-term broad-based better world for all of us.”
I could not have said it better myself… but all an ETS does is introduce the most efficient manner of keeping tabs on carbon… and it jsut helps business and farmers and anyone just worry about the bottom line, instead of this juggling act where if you are “green” well you do it alone while your competitor may not…
I know I’m speaking to sceptics, and I can tell you I LOATHE what ALP has done with the ETS, and today with their solar scam/sham, but the fundamentals of ETS are so sound it is not funny. It should be core Liberal policy, and farmers should love its brute simplicity and transparency.
If the Nats and Libs want back in, then come up with a 2012 ETS that is not just a backhander to the coal industry, introduce some real Solar initiatives, and I can tell you I and many many greens will send you our preferences with bells on.
Trouble is on Howards stubborn Ideology you;ve handed the inevitible on a plate to the ALP who were just abusing the ETS (as Margaret has warned all along).
BRENDON ARE YOU LISTENING THIS IS THE COALITION”S CHANGE TO EMBRACE THE SCIENCE AND DELIVER AN ETS THAT IS FAIR< EQUITABLE< AND NOT JUST AN ALP REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH SCAM.
THe more I think on this the more embarassed and FURIOUS I am that Rudd has scammed so many people with his false promises…. why oh why does the coalition have no balls to outmanouver them!