How long can we live in denial?
Barnaby Joyce was in fine form in the Senate on Monday, clearly refreshed by a two-week break from parliament. He even managed to get Qantas and climate change into the same sentence, in a delightful example of Barnabyese. Or should that be a Barnabism?
“When I think about the images from the past weekend, and now the first vision will be of flying down here on a Virgin airliner and seeing all the Qantas planes parked on the tarmac and becoming new homes for swallows, because apparently we can cool the climate but we cannot actually manage to keep planes in the air,” Hansard quoted him. Better tighten that seat-belt, Barnaby!
And on he went. The man who aspires to be deputy prime minister and to run the country when Tony Abbott goes cycling pursued his favourite themes – the carbon price and how it’s effectively a tax on breathing, for humans, sheep and cows; and the work of several activists in the denialist blogosphere – but drew no conclusions from mainstream science.
It was an ominous start to the Senate debate on the government’s Clean Energy Future package and a fair indication of what was to follow, as his fellow Coalition Senators added their own highlight packages from their favourite denialist websites, including that the world was warmer 500 million years ago when there were no cars or coal fired power plants; that the Whitsunday Islands were once attached to the mainland; that Co2 is good for plants; that humans produce one molecule of CO2 out of every 90,000; and so on.
Eric Abetz trotted out the assertion that if Australia really wanted to do something about the climate then it should sell uranium to India and cut down more forests (so less forests are cut down elsewhere!!!!), while Corey Bernardi got down to the nub of it by claiming the science was not complete.
But the underlying theme of almost every Coalition Senator this week – including those that profess they accept the science – has been that the carbon price would not make a scrap of difference to global temperatures. “By how much will world temperatures decrease and when? How much will sea levels be reduced by? How much lower will sea levels be and when?” asked Abetz.
Seriously. The Coalition Senators often forget what they are debating. If they do not believe that a 5 per cent reduction in emissions will have an impact on the global environment, and is not worth doing, then they must surely conclude that their own plans to reduce emissions by a similar amount would be just as futile. Or do they believe that their emissions reductions have a special power? It is nonsense. The principal difference between the Coalition and the government policy is simply that the latter party – along with almost everyone – accepts that a traded price of carbon is the cheapest way to achieve that reduction.
How the Coalition must envy their Conservative mates in the US, where climate change denial now appears to be the official Republican Party policy. Eight out of the nine Republican presidential candidates reject the premise of climate change and the need to act. The three more loopy among them – Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Hermain Cain – have dismissed it variously as a hoax, a scam and a plot to extract research funding. Now Mitt Romney – the one candidate that had appeared half sensible on the issue – has bowed to the influence of the Tea Party hysterics.
In June, Romney said he believed the world was getting warmer, that human activities contributed to that, and it was “important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases.” Not any more. His new line is that “we don’t know what’s causing climate change” and it’s best not to spend money trying to reduce greenhouse emissions, just in case they are not the cause.
And just to show he means what he says, Romney is leading the charge to prevent the Environmental Protection Authority from being able to regulate US greenhouse emissions – pretty much the only policy lever left to President Obama after the demise of a cap-and-trade scheme and the impossibility of a tax. (Romney says the EPA is anti-coal, anti-nuclear, anti-gas and anti-oil, which presumably makes up his entire constituency, or at least all of his donors. He has campaigned to end support for clean energy investment, and so has the only candidate who says he does accept the science, John Huntsmann. They are united in their call to drill, drill, drill.)
But at least the Republicans have the advantage of being consistent. In Australia, the Coalition argues that a carbon price will have no environmental benefit, all the while having a plan to reduce Australian emissions by the same amount as the government, but at twice the cost of an ETS.
Still, you wonder how much longer this denialism can actually last. The scientific case supporting the extent of human-induced climate change is getting stronger.
Last month, one prominent climate skeptic, Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to analyse the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. It came hot on the heels of the “Climategate” affair and was eagerly awaited by other sceptics. It was even partly funded by the notorious Koch brothers, the billionaire oil and chemicals folk who have underwritten much of the US sceptics' campaigns.
What Muller found was not what he expected – the data actually confirms the basic basic tenets of climate science. “Global warming is real,” the paper concludes.
The Koch equivalent in Australia may be Gina Rinehart, Australia’s richest person, the owner of Hancock Coal, a loud and forceful opponent of the climate tax, as well a reported sponsor and host of presentations made by prominent denialists Ian Plimer and Chris Monckton.
It seems, though, that her own coal mining company no longer buys the arguments of Plimer and Monckton. In an environmental impact statement prepared for Hancock Coal’s massive Kevin’s Corner Project in Queensland, it states there is “a direct relationship between GHG concentrations and temperature” and acknowledges that the earth will face average global warming of around 1.1°C by 2030 (and that is over 1990 levels, not pre-industrial levels).
In fact, Hancock Coal notes, there is little doubt about this forecast because these temperature rises will largely be the result of greenhouse gases already emitted, and are built in. There is greater uncertainty about the extent of further rises out to 2070, Hancock Coal says, because they will be affected by current and future emissions, including the 58 million tonnes of CO2e to be emitted by this mine, and total levels are hard to predict – but it could be between 1.8°C and 3.6°C (over 1990 levels, not pre-industrial levels).
Hancock Coal goes on to say that, even over the life of the Kevin’s Corner Project, the climate in inland areas of Queensland will change – temperatures will rise, rainfall will decrease, evaporation and wind speed will increase, all making for a drier, windier landscape with fewer, but potentially more destructive, cyclones. The EIS outlines Hancock Coal’s plans to batten down the hatches, as it were.
But you won’t find Opposition Senators quoting from that document, will you. The Coalition’s spokesman on climate change Greg Hunt has been complaining that the government is shutting down proper debate on the Clean Energy Future package. No, the Opposition shut down proper debate on climate change legislation the day it elected Tony Abbott. As imperfect as this legislation is, it’s time for a vote.
Follow @gilesparkinson on Twitter
Comments on this article
Silent Elephant in the Room of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"
The real Titanic struggle is whether our brains are up to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I&feature=player_embedded
It’s a long video clip and much patience is required but it’s worth it.
Get a coffee or a cup of tea or a beer or a wine and listen to a real scientist…
Label warning: Gen X warmistas equipped with only a dodgy post-modernist education might have a struggle.
Answer is ..... a looong time !
By how much will world temperature decrease and when ? Nobody in Parliament answers the question, that's because the answer lies beyond the election cycle and every political life. To get anything like an answer, hear climate historians Curt Stager and Kevin Trenberth.
www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2011/3262700.htm
www.abc.net.ay/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3258331.htm
To these men AGW is real but there is a delay in effect due to absorbing (and 70 year delaying) effects of oceans. Oceans can store about three-quarters of emissions quickly, but the last quarter is taken up over long periods (at the peril of hard-shelled animals and corals). Because we are putting into the air more quickly than can be absorbed by any system, we measure atmospheric CO2 as going up. If we stopped emitting today peak CO2 would be from 500-600 ppm. Restoring it to 350 ppm would take about 3000 years. Man's emissions currently contribute to 5% of the hotter days above the historic climatic variable, and increases in severity of individual weather events.
So the next time you hear a politician utter a VRQ (vain rhetorical question) consider that perhaps none of this will affect them personally.
Science
Great article Giles
You have the Liberals dead to rights. It must be hard work for Greg Hunt. He knows the party policy is kooky yet has to defend it day after day.
Amused by the deniers in the comments section, weird.
Keep up the good work.
M
David Arthur to Sam Richards
Sam, you think I'm writing nonsense. This is because I neglected to state that the process leading to the necessary end result will take a couple of decades.
OF COURSE if we make all the necessary changes in THIS financial year it would be excessively expensive; if that's your point, then, like der-r-r-r.
Sam, the 100% decarbonisation of the world's industrial economy is necessary over the next couple of decades, and eminently affordable in that time frame.
Sadly for Australia, the LibLab Party which runs this place has not the intellectual wherewithal other than to make a complicated cock-up of the simple tax regime that would guide the transformation.
Matt Ridley on confirmation bias
I strongly recommend an article in OLO today written by Matt Ridley. Very pertinent to this discussion:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12844&page=0
New Liberal Party?
We already have a new Australian Liberal Party... It's actually a defacto old DLP in disguise.
What we need is the old Australian Liberal Party back again.
Invest now, or forever hold your piece
I cannot believe that the Coalition is in a real denial mode. Its mostly guilt now. Its Guilt for their years of climate inaction, of pandering to every wish of the coal mining industry . They are denying their guilt, by denying global warming.
To admin to global warming now is to admit to years of lying to the Australian public. The coalition is trapped in its own big lies. Years of lying also involves genuine self brainwashing and dumbing down. Such an attack on open minded thinking cannot be easily reversed in a closetted organisation in a personal lifetime. The change involved is simply too great. As a result, the current Liberal Party is full of science brain-dead zombies.
What is required is new Australian Liberal Party, one that is scientifically literate. Funding for such a party organisation cannot come from the mining corporations, as that would asphyxiate the ability to assess independent science, in favor of vested interests.
EVERYONE IS MISSING THE POINT
Lets put the contentious issue of whether Human Induced Climate Change is real or not and consider this: investing in cleaner, renewable energy technologies is A SMART THING TO DO. Why use old, scarce, increasingly expensive and quickly dwindling polluting technology like coal thermal or, heaven forbid, nuclear technology, when PROVEN, AFFORDABLE AND EFFECTIVE renewable alternatives exist. Seems like a no brainer to me ... but maybe that is the problem, a lot of people in this debate appear to have lost the capacity for logical thought. Good on you Giles, keep stirring the pot!
Bigger Fish
The real danger of the current Anti-Science Anti technology politics of the United States, is undermining of their lead in Miltary Technology. After the end of WWII the USA forgot how to make fission bombs ( for about a year or so). Now they are no longer able to put humans into orbit.
David Arthur "Nonsense"
With all due respect David your response is like telling a fat person the way to lose weight is "just don't eat". A smoker, “just don't smoke”. To the Arabs and Israelis, “just be friends”.
You are ignoring reality.
The western lifestyle is, frequent travel, exotic foods by historical standards, frequent updating of possessions, extensive social services and much more, all made possible by the wealth of fossil fuels.
Clean energy now and for the foreseeable future is more expensive and not possible in the quantities needed. I don’t believe for a minute the rubbish that it is cheap. If it was cheap it would be here already. Expensive energy means less money for other things. Already now at 24cents kWh power bills are starting to hurt lifestyles here and the recent doubling in price has been totally due to climate action shenanigans.
Even the Govt’s carbon plan accepts that by 2050 it will still be cheaper to buy carbon credits than cut emissions here.
By the way, steel-makers can’t use electrolytic smelting methods, maybe in 20 years they might with abundant cheap clean power but where does that come from? Look at aluminium, RIO dumped all its dirty assets, it was too hard with carbon taxes and that technology was available.
How long can we live in denial?
Several decades probably, but if we stopped and did two things, we might start part of the change process to give our youth some solid hope. Bring in Loan Guarantees for renewable energy projects and legislate for a 1:1 feed in tariff across the nation.
Memo Les Aldridge
Les: please read my comment entitled "Memo t h: we already KNOW what [CO2] should be."
In that comment, I state that atmospheric CO2 should be in the range 300-350 ppm.
* Below 300 ppm risks onset of another Ice Age.
* Above 350 ppm is causing undesirable sea level rise due to polar ice cap melt.
All this is achieved without recourse to a single computer model (just look at the ice core record of Pleistocene temperatures and CO2). So stop whining about computer modelling, and start reading some science for yourself.
Replying to Coupe deVille
Coupe DeVille asks rhetorically, "where to start?", then launches into a litany of half-truths and fabrications.
Here's one:"Muller's research failed to explain the recent decade of cooling."
FYI, Coupe, Muller's research was NOT an attempt to explain anything. All that Muller was doing was checking that the instrumental record of temperature rise is correct. As you know, Muller's work was funded by the Koch Brothers, who have Big Money tied up in Denialism.
What did Muller find? That the instrumental record, including the relatively slow rate of warming over the last decade (NOT a temperature decline, irrespective of how Denialists might spin it) is pretty well correct.
FYI, here are some factors that account for the relatively low rate of temperature rise over the last decade.
1. Increased rate of heat transfer to oceans
2. Increased rate of heat transfer to ice caps (which are melting)
3. Chinese industrial takeoff powered by high-sulfur coal (which causes more atmospheric sulfate aerosols which reflects more sunlight)
4. Expansion of global shipping trade powered by high-sulfur fuel oil (which causes more atmospheric sulfate aerosols which reflects more sunlight).
Nothing childish about use of "Denialist" - it's a term I coined about a year ago because Global Warming Deniers either feigned offence at being accused of being Holocaust Deniers, or were genuinely confused. Their inability to understand what is, after all, some fairly straightforward science, tends to suggest the latter.
"The REAL story is that REAL
"The REAL story is that REAL action on climate change, with current available technology, will involve a rather severe curtailment in western lifestyle for a large majority of the population"
What a load of nonsense!
All we need is wholesale replacement of fossil fuel use with technologically proven alternatives. To do this, we need great big tax cuts, and the government foregoes ALL fossil fuel subsidies.
Next, we have more great big tax cuts, in return for which the government puts a consumption tax on fossil fuels, rated according to the fuel's carbon content (ie a REAL carbon tax, not the Get-Rich-Quick scheme for derivative traders that they're foisting on us at present).
With all the tax cuts, we can all afford to buy solar panels and, in a couple of years when they're fully developed, electric cars.
Steel-makers can use electrolytic smelting methods in place of coke and blast furnaces, etc. Where will they get the power? Existing power utilities will phase out their coal-fired plants, motivated by the tax savings following from generating power using non-emission alternatives - wind, solar thermal, tide/wave, geothermal ... even nuclear (ideally, thorium, not uranium) would be preferable, and cheaper once the fossil carbon consumption tax is high enough.
Memo t h: we already KNOW what [CO2] should be.
t h makes much of quoting one "Mike Robbins":
First of all, uncertainty is inherent to climate science; it is, by its very nature, highly inductive. We don’t observe and quantify climate change as such, at least not yet – rather, we look at the concentration of greenhouse gases and we know, in principle, what will happen, even though there is massive uncertainty.
Well, t h, here's what we DO know:
1. IF we don't want melting polar ice to inexorably inundate our coastal infrastructure (eg beach houses) over the next couple of centuries, THEN we must limit atmospheric CO2 to < 350 ppm as quickly as we can manage.
2. IF we don't want a new Ice Age to expand polar icecaps, with sea level drops leaving coastal infrastructure kilometres inland (and a cold dry climate), THEN we must avoid letting atmospheric CO2 fall below 280 ppm.
Atmospheric CO2 exceeded 350 ppm some 2-3 decades ago, but sea level rise won't catch up for a couple of centuries. Rest assured, however, that it will catch up.
There is denialism all round Giles
Where to start? Firstly, if I may be so bold Giles, this site is called "Climate Spectator" not "Climate Action Advocate". A little more balance please. How about inviting respected academics with differing points of view like Bjorn Lomborg to write articles here?
Now to the point I wish to make. OK you make the (loaded) point that many people are denialists because they disagree with the current politically correct view on climate action. Yet all the advocated mainstream action on climate change, including Australia's carbon tax / emissions trading scheme, is insufficient to the point of being ludicrous. Australia’s emissions will rise not fall in my lifetime under this scheme. Yet for decades we have been told we have ten years to act to avoid disaster. “Act” means to REDUCE atmospheric CO2 levels closer to pre-industrial levels, not INCREASE them further.
You have climate activists on this site advocating the wholesale application of heat pumps in the home to the point of luxury. Al Gore lives the high life and just buys carbon credits from himself. Celebrities and the rich like Dick Smith are all in support of “action”, they will not be affected, they just pay more.
The REAL story is that REAL action on climate change, with current available technology, will involve a rather severe curtailment in western lifestyle for a large majority of the population. This is the true denialism, or is it just the truth we are not meant to know?
IPCC
I think the latest draft IPCC report has shown a 1 degree warming in the past 50 years. As for the 'contrarians' arguing for global cooling, care to provide evidence? And, just out of curiosity, what are you going to use to power the planet when we run out of oil, cow farts? Or coal-seam gas which rips the guts out of farmland? Would you rather eat or drive?
Hurricane Katrina, Cyclone Yasi. The two biggest storms ever seen, within 5 years. Go on ostriches, stick your heads in the sand.
Whether you believe in AGW or not, we're running out of oil, gas is getting harder to come by and so, if you want to keep driving your air-conditioned Hummers, we're going to need alternative energy sources. Get on board now and you never know, you might even make money off it. That's the main thing, after all, isn't it?
Climaate change
Giles , Do you really believe that the convuluted muddled carbon tax adresses the issues ? If you do I have grave doubts about your credibilty on anything related to climate change,.
My suggestion to you is to concentrate on the facts and fictions not on the dubious carbon tax arrangements.The bills represent stupdity at best and totally fails to engage everyone in the issue. trhey are being bribed with money and no facts let alone encouragement to take action.
carbon tax? an expensive way to do harm the environment
You can believe that human activity has contributed to global warming or you may not believe it. In fact, the issue can actually rest as we ALL have a responsibility to use all our non renewable resources with care to enable future generations to survive. If we continue to waste our resources, we will become guilty of genocide. The act of genocide will be carried out on our descendants by us. We are at the moment burning essential resources needed by future generations. The Bob Brown Carbon Tax will actually cause far more harm and will increase the waste of non renewable resources. The opposition is correct in opposing the carbon tax. Over 85% of the tax will be wasted on administration, compensation and supporting what we usually call “scams”. The removal of Billions of Dollars from the economy and re-directing of environmental dollars towards trading, administration and “compensations”, will do enormous environmental harm.
How long can we live in Denial?
An absolutely superb idea to have a vote. The fact that the rabbit has been calling for one for donkeys ages is of no account. Giles Parkinson go get up there, thump the bleedin desk and jus' yell at 'em they must have a vote now Julia or else.
we're all doomed
With political leaders like these what chance do we stand of ever coming to some worthwhile climate change agreement? It's like we are trapped in a room with a dozen smokers still in denial that their habit is a deadly addiction threatening us all.
Doing something about global warming is not about saving the planet... it's about saving our own skin as the earth is far more resilient than us.
With more than seven billion kids on the planet, mother nature might need to take matters into her own hands and do a little spring cleaning ... if only to keep the real messy kids like Barnaby under control.
You have all missed the main point of the article...
Giles, I can't believe the "hate following" you are gathering in this forum. Amazing how flustered they become by your articles; they must really feel threatened by you. Keep it up.
This is the crux of the article right here people: "In Australia, the Coalition argues that a carbon price will have no environmental benefit, all the while having a plan to reduce Australian emissions by the same amount as the government, but at twice the cost of an ETS."
No doubt you're the same people who don't believe humans are at least partly responsible for global warming and then vote for an Abbott led Coaliton with the same emision reduction targets!!!!
You can't have it both ways. Talk about cutting off your noses to spite your faces...
Living in Denial
People can live in denial until the pitchfork hits them in the sternum.
Reference Charles Lindburgh's appeasement crusade in 1940:
...To millions of one-time admirers, Charles Lindbergh's lustre had been fatally tainted by his words and associations during the 1930's and early 1940's. Historian William O'Neill spoke for many Americans when he offered the opinion that "In promoting appeasement and military unpreparedness, Lindbergh damaged his country to a greater degree than any other private citizen in modern times. That he meant well makes no difference." It would be years before the words Lindbergh and hero were again uttered in the same breath...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html
Immediately after Pearl Harbour he volunteered for military service.
Mainstream science??
To quote Giles regarding Barnaby:
“The man who aspires to be deputy prime minister and to run the country when Tony Abbott goes cycling pursued his favourite themes – the carbon price and how it’s effectively a tax on breathing, for humans, sheep and cows; and the work of several activists in the denialist blogosphere – but drew no conclusions from mainstream science.”
How about this quote from Climate Spectator today by Mike Robbins, who surely qualifies as mainstream science (according to Giles), if only because of his inclusion in Climate Spectator
“First of all, uncertainty is inherent to climate science; it is, by its very nature, highly inductive. We don’t observe and quantify climate change as such, at least not yet – rather, we look at the concentration of greenhouse gases and we know, in principle, what will happen, even though there is massive uncertainty.”
While I do enjoy Giles’ rants, perhaps he should read his own blog before getting carried away.
You've summarized the situation well, Giles
Name of the game is of course to sow doubt by spreading bullsh--. Yes they've succeeded in the US; seems to be less intelligent political engagement over there.
I must add to your list of Liberal Party deceit, Giles. They plan to dispose of 65% of the carbon they claim they will reduce (yes it's a 5% reduction target same as the Labor), by paying farmers to lock it up in the soil for a cost of $8-10 per tCO2e. That is the craziest nonsense I've heard and yet it's LP policy!
If they planted half of our agricultural land back to trees it might eventually be attainable but that would cost 2-3 times more per tCO2 than what they claim. And do they really think farmers will simply forego future cash flow by replacing profitable crops with trees than must remain there for posterity?
We had an election. We voted
We had an election. We voted in this Parliament.
where to finish
Coupe
You mean that Hancock Coal have published a whole chapter in an EIS that they know to be false?
I am truly shocked. Someone better tell the authorities.
Climate /warming etc
It seems that the warmers consist of the labor government who want the billions in blood from the public and the big business end that sees the billions coming their way through investment and carbon credits and other schemes that will inevitably come along.
The truth is the carbon tax will destroy Australias enconomy, the economy that most Australians will have to rebuild after labor is gone and the money is in the coffers of big business.
Nothing can be done to stop it - even if it was true. The comment that how much and when is becoming annoying (Phillip Impey 3 Nov.) is thankfully just that because no one can anwer it. When the so called science is 'reliable' why is when and how much such an issue. You will find that the reliable science is based on computer modelling and the old addage applies 'crap in crap out'.
Les Aldridge
How long can we live in denial?
There are two separate issues which have been conveniently muddied together such that anyone who disagrees with the carbon tax is labelled a 'denier'.
The first is Global Temperature and pollution. I don't think anyone disagrees that we should look after our environment.
The second issue is the carbon tax. What we have to remember is that we have a socialist government with a $200bn deficit which they need to fund. They also believe in wealth redistribution. A new tax to fix this would never take off, but if they can align it with something people feel very passionate about such as the climate and convince them that the two are connected, it stands a better chance of being accepted.
The problem is that whether the left wing likes it or not, more than 70% of voters can see through this. They have realised that the carbon tax is a con, but they still agree with the core unpoliticised 'science'. That does not make them 'deniers'.
Tony Abbott's policy may have its problems, but 70% clearly support it!
There are other ways to manage our climate and they don't involve massive socialist wealth redistribution air taxes.
My grandfather once said that one day, the government will find a way to tax the air we breath. This government is the first to actually do it!
With 70% of voters not supporting Labor, it is clear that an election wil bring about a resounding 'no' to Labor and the carbon tax.
How long can anyone live in denial?
Again, can't help yourself with the "denialist" taunt.
Its old hat mate. We all know its an "abusive ad hominem" designed to insult or belittle one's opponent in order to attack an opponent's claim or invalidate his argument -its logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
Because there are many who take a disspassionate stance on the sceince of climate change and AGW, (many of us with post nominals that won't fit a single line on a business card) doesn't mean we're akin to Holocaust "deniers".
Any one who has at least an undergraduate degree in science or technology at university level and understands the scientific method knows full well that the "science" is never "settled". And anyone whos done post-graduate level research knows that the "peer-review" process is not perfect and can be (and is at times) subjective.
You may be able to pitch your argument at the average punter who may be swayed by it, but please,
spare us the insults.