Global changes in temperature...

A couple of years ago, I was definitely the odd one out when it came to the whole story of "climate change" and "global warming". However, the worm seems to have turned and while there is still an overwhelming weight of opinion on the side of climate change in the media, that consensus has definitely gone and much more questioning is now happening.

If you think about global warming and carbon dioxide and emissions trading schemes there are two very basic distinctions to make.

Firstly; do you believe in global warming or not?

No - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Yes - continue...

Secondly; do you believe that global warming is anthroprogrenic (man made) or part of the earth's natural cycles?

Natural - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Man made - continue...

Thirdly; if humans are warming the globe, are our emissions causing lots of warming, or just a little bit?

Little bit - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Lots - continue...

Forthly; If we are warming the globe by a lot what are the ramifications? Will we have increased food production and more trees or droughts and flooding rains?

I think that's the one that's a little bit hard to answer.


I want to once again put myself out there as a sceptic. While belief seems to be a strong word, I do accept that there has been some warming of the globe happening over the past couple of centuries. However, I do have a few small queries about the consensus view pushed forward by the media. Some of my doubts are:

This global warming seems to have happened over a period of a couple of hundred years, not just in the last 50, which isn't really in keeping with the whole anthroprogenic theory.

There hasn't been any increase for a few years now, the actual peak temperature was when, 1998?

There's been no accounting for the impact of sun spots on the earth's temperature cycle, something we're going to know a lot more about in the next few years as the current sunspot cycle finishes, with an accompanying reduction in solar radiation.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but increases in atmospheric CO2 don't result in equivalent direct increases to global temperature. Double the CO2 you don't double the temperature, you only get an increase of 1 to 2 degrees.

Previous examples of extreme global warming (in the record of things such as ice cores) seems to indicate that previous spikes in CO2 have FOLLOWED spikes in temperature

Previous examples of warming that we have records for (such as the Medieval Warm Period) were obviously not caused by burning of coal and oil and indeed saw periods of unprecedented prosperity in Europe. It would seem likely that increased temperatures combined with increases in CO2 would see the potential for greatly increased food, fibre and timber production.

Many of the sites that are used to measure temperature (around the world) have over the last 40 or 50 years been increasingly developed, to the point where they are now surrounded by concrete, air conditioner outlets and other items which could all influence the temperature reading and certainly bring into question data from the individual sites.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that I personally can accept that there is some global warming and that it might even be man made, but that there probably doesn't really need to be that much done about it.

I can see lots of other reasons why you might want to limit CO2 emissions, from national security to improvements to our environment, especially in built up areas, but I DON'T believe that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to somehow save the planet.

That being said, if you do want to reduce emissions, I believe that a carbon tax is the best way to do that. It's simple and effective and means that there is a massive incentive to actually find alternatives. An ETS I can't conceive as being effective, simply because it becomes too complicated. This makes it expensive and it makes it easy to rort.

Far too many people take a quasi-religious view of this whole situation, wanting to "cut emissions" without thinking about the whole picture. And often while driving a nice car, living in a nice house and having overseas holidays. ????

I fought Jude Law and Jude Law won...

You know, it's a pretty good gig being involved with "climate change". You can tell people to change their ways and live an earth friendly lifestyle, but you're allowed to fly around the world spewing carbon (and other things) into the atmosphere everywhere you go. This is because your message is so important that it justifies doing some of the "bad things" to spread it.

This is very machiavellian really, announcing that the ends justify the means (part of the reason I don't believe in anthroprogenic global warming).

Anyway, amongst the perks of international travel and first class accommodation, attendees at Hopenchangen now get free sex from prostitutes. Talk about a great metaphor for those people pushing the global warming bandwagon. Except of course in this case it's the prostitutes offering the free sex, not the hopeychangeys demanding it as some inalienable right associated with their saving the planet.

Dr Harry

It's getting hot in here, so hot, so take off all your clothes...

Is it getting hot in here? Apparently not, if the people of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia are to be believed. And they probably should be believed since they're the people that have data from all over the world and have provided the majority of the data for the findings of the IPCC report.

Anyway, whether or not it's getting hotter is actually completely irrelevant to this particular post. However, I will outlay my own feelings, just so there's no misunderstanding.

I don't believe in anthroprogenic climate change.

The earth maybe warming. The earth maybe cooling. Both these things have happened many many times before. What's the difference? How can you believe computer models that can't even replicate what's happened in the past let alone look into the future? How can you ignore the role of sun spots, the fact that many measuring stations are now in built up areas, that changes to CO2 levels seem to historically occur AFTER major climate events, or the fact that the Mediaeval Warm Period was far warmer than current global temperatures?

Anyway.

My question for today is: Why do we need an Emissions Trading Scheme?

I do understand the basic idea, that the market will decide the price of carbon and by limiting the amount of the CO2 produced we get to utilise the benefits of the free market (possibly the only time many greenies would ever be interested in the benefits OF a free market). However, for me, the big problem is that any such scheme is impossible to administer without massive bureacracy and the invasion of government into many aspects of personal and business life, aspects that the government doesn't really need to be involved in.

Surely there is a simpler way?

If Australia wants to reduce the emissions of CO2, let's just whack a tax on all those things that produce it, or at least the main ones. A whacking big tax on coal and oil, basically. For good measure we could ban the export of coal as well, a good way to do our bit to cut global emissions. This will let the market decide the value of CO2, but it will be done in a much simpler, much cheaper way. If you burn coal, you pay more for it (do powerstations even pay for the coal they use at the moment?). You then pass on your costs to your customers, who will presumably use a bit less. Your customers then pass on their costs, and so on. Such a chain reduces overall use while not requiring any invasion of bureacracy, except into the start of the chain where you need to do the taxing.

For me, one of the big issues is this. If I truly believed (TRULY BELIEVED) that humans were causing the globe to warm and as a result everybody would die in fire and brimstone, I would be doing something about it. Not something like telling people to use 1 sheet of toilet paper or setting up some half arsed ETS that will have zero impact on global emissions, but will have the benefit of increasing govt (and therefore politican's) power and reach.

No I would be acting drastically to actually have a real and meaningful impact on emissions. Such a policy might be electorally unpopular, but if you can sell it as a life and death mission that you really believe in than it is not only possible, but mandatory to try.

What really gets me are those people who are fixated on climate change, but don't REALLY believe in it, they just use it as a way to exercise their own little hobby horse. Lots of greenies just believe that we should be leading simpler lives, growing our own food, recycling more, living in harmony with mother earth. Lots of other lefties just believe that they know better (symptomatic of their kind really) and this is a great excuse for telling people what to do. Not that they lead by example, (of course) but they're quite happy to tell you to have a short shower or not eat meat or not take holidays or not buy a new TV.

Hypocrisy people! I'm afraid I can't take hypocrites very seriously. If you tell me that global warming is the greatest threat to mankind in history and you arrived on a private jet to tell me that then I automaticall regard your opinion as being null and void. Don't like it? Don't be a hypocrite!

ps I'm not the biggest supporter of the Greens, but at least they put their money where their mouth is. They voted to defeat the ETS last time because it wasn't strong enough. The wishy-washy compromise hammered out by Gillard and MacFarlane is a steaming dog turd and the Greens are right to vote against that as well.