Pacific Islanders speaking at climate change forum in Brisbane

Oxfam Australia has just http://www.oxfam.org.au/media/article.php?id=599 released a report on the impacts of climate change in the Pacific.  It details impacts which are already occurring for some Islands in the Pacific region. The report’s release is timed in the lead up to the http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/pacific-islanders-cry-for-help-20090726-dxio.html upcoming meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum, being held next week in Cairns.
That Forum in turn is occurring in the lead up to the climate change Summit being held in http://en.cop15.dk/ Copenhagen this coming December.
Brisbane is playing host to http://www.aclimateforchange.org/events/brisbane-voices-from-the a forum tomorrow (Tuesday) night of speakers from some of the Pacific Island nations most at risk – Tuvalu, Kiribati and Micronesia.  Importantly, there will also be speakers from the Torres Strait Islands, a part of Queensland that can often be somewhat forgotten when people think of islands impacted by climate change.
The speakers will also http://www.aclimateforchange.org/profiles/blogs/voices-from-the-frontline-of be in Melbourne on 30 July, before finishing up in Cairns on Sunday 2 August just before the Pacific Islands Forum commences.
Climate Change is bound to remain high on the Australian political agenda over the next month as the carbon trading legislating comes closer to a vote in the Senate.  It was no coincidence that it was the first topic Kevin Rudd decided to write about on his http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/PMs_Blog new blog.
But the Pacific Islands forum stands outside the immediate Australia political manoeuvring.  How well the federal government listens and responds to those from poorer countries and areas that are very much on the climate change front line, when there are few political points to be won or lost, will be significant.
As the Oxfam report notes
The report argues that the fairest and most cost-effective way of dealing with climate change is to ensure the most extreme impacts are avoided altogether, as Australia would be called on to respond to more emergencies in the region. As the wealthiest country in the region and the highest per capita polluter, Australia must prevent further climate damage to the Pacific by urgently adopting higher targets – reducing emissions by at least 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 – and urging other developed countries to do the same.
Personally, I think there also need to be moves to make it easier for people from a range of Pacific Island nations to have easier access to Australia and its labour market, the same as New Zealanders currently do.

Oxfam Australia has just released a report on the impacts of climate change in the Pacific.  It details impacts which are already occurring for some Islands in the Pacific region. The report’s release is timed in the lead up to the upcoming meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum, being held next week in Cairns.

That Forum in turn is occurring in the lead up to the climate change Summit being held in Copenhagen this coming December.

Brisbane’s City Hall is playing host to a forum tomorrow (Tuesday) night of speakers from some of the Pacific Island nations most at risk – Tuvalu, Kiribati and Micronesia.  Importantly, there will also be speakers from the Torres Strait Islands, a part of Queensland that can often be somewhat forgotten when people think of islands impacted by climate change.

The speakers will also visit Melbourne on 30 July, before finishing up in Cairns on Sunday 2 August just before the Pacific Islands Forum commences.

Climate Change is bound to remain high on the Australian political agenda over the next month as the carbon trading legislating comes closer to a vote in the Senate.  It was no coincidence that it was the first topic Kevin Rudd decided to write about on his new blog.

But the Pacific Islands forum stands outside the immediate Australia political manoeuvring.  How well the federal government listens and responds to those from poorer countries and areas that are very much on the climate change front line, when there are few political points to be won or lost, will be significant.

As the Oxfam report argues

that the fairest and most cost-effective way of dealing with climate change is to ensure the most extreme impacts are avoided altogether, as Australia would be called on to respond to more emergencies in the region. As the wealthiest country in the region and the highest per capita polluter, Australia must prevent further climate damage to the Pacific by urgently adopting higher targets – reducing emissions by at least 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 – and urging other developed countries to do the same.

I believe there should also be moves to make it easier for people from a range of Pacific Island nations to have easier access to Australia and its labour market, the same as New Zealanders currently do.

PS: Another tour of international speakers facing direct impacts of climate change is also happening in August – this time featuring speakers from Nepal.

It will feature Pemba Dorje Sherpa, holder of the world record for the fastest climb of Mount Everest, talking global warming in the Himalayas, and Nepalese environmental lawyer and activist Prakash Sharma.   Receding glaciers would lead to big drops in regular water supply into the rivers for people in the region.

The Brisbane event is being held at 4:30 pm on Sunday 16 August at Wesley House, 140 Ann St.  The speakers will also be appearing in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra.

Please like & share:

42 Comments

  1. Surprised no comments yet.Leave mine till later,as you may know by now,I am in the Climate Change Cooling camp,although I am aware of some factual matters that seem to be suggesting something other.JeffRense.com has had a site link to somebody that suggests Betelgeuse is turning into the not the very large mass in the Universe that it once was..no direct link yet ,as far as I can tell with no sunspot activity.I lost all respect for many bloggers on the attacks on Fielding,whom I think has been genuine in his endeavours to assess whatever can be assessed as the future.I am finding it also extremely odd and perplexingly so,how on that fateful day of the 9/11 event,a larger hurricane than the Katrina event had almost completely formed off New York. On other matters. I doubt very much also Fielding would dismiss concerns of Islanders….I cannot, although about the weather matter my views are almost concrete.

  2. Pacific islanders had better wake up real fast to the peril of ocean acidification which is an offshot of fossil fuel burning induced climate change in general.

    Not a word in Oxfam’s report released today about ocean acidification which makes their whole effort rather flimsy and fatally flawed

  3. For those of you out there who think that Kevin Rudd is going to dig deep into Australia’s pocket and hand over billions to Oxfam or Pacific Islanders to save them from the ravages of climate change–and/or ocean acidification–please think again. Kevin Rudd comes out of the same mould as every other major Australian or NZ politician–lots of hot air, very short on substance–full of sound and fury not signifying very much.

    The fate of a few million Pacific Islanders is not a major concern of either New Zealand’s or of Australia’s. There will be, as there has been in the past, cosmetic attention, a few crumbs but not much else. Same old, same old. To believe anything else is mere wishful thinking.

    By and large Pacific islanders and even the best of their leaders are lost as climate change and ocean acidification overwhelm them.

  4. philip travers

    Philip Says: Surprised no comments yet.Leave mine till later,as you may know by now,I am in the Climate Change Cooling camp

    I think most level headed people are phillip. It seems that no amout of logic or evidence will change the alarmists stance. Even if you believed in Global Warming (not suggesting that anyone on this site is that silly) What good would Australia do by implementing a carbon trade system ? Thats right none …nothing….zip. India and China have no intentions of doing so. What are we going to do imploy trade bans on china………I dont think so…… Kevin is too keen to flog the place off. Remember under globalism countries must remain inter-dependent no independent.
    But what we do know is that it will cost this country dearly.
    Job Losses
    The sad part is that both sides will support this and will only argue on how much the polluters will be compensated..(adding huge costs to fixed and lower income earners including small business.) Yes the TNC
    will just move offshore and continue to utilise slave labour while leaving us in a terrible mess.

    Roast Beef for $150 a meal anyone…..?

    Tony

  5. Phillip and Tony – did you even read what the blog topic was about other than climate change?
    Perhaps if you had attended the event and heard first hand about the poverty people are currently enduring in the Pacific Islands, Tony may not have been so callous to bemoan expensive beef when thousands of people no longer have even have access to fresh water – which, among other things, Phillip, have been caused by rising tides. I’m pretty sure that water is warmer than ice.

  6. MEGAN

    Megan Says: did you even read what the blog topic was about other than climate change?

    Yes I did…. But when writers write articles you have to be aware of the underlying message. (man made Global Warming). Its the acceptance of this nonsense that upsets people like myself and Phillip Travers.

    When comments like this are made in the article.
    As the wealthiest country in the region and the highest per capita polluter, Australia must prevent further climate damage to the Pacific by urgently adopting higher targets – reducing emissions by at least 40 per

    What rubbish. Pollution and Carbon are two separte issues. Perhaps you should be having a go at the extremists that push this nonsense, not the people that have the welfare of their own country at heart.

    It gripes me when this constant rubbish is pushed to this generation in an effort to place them in a state of fear, only to have governments tear down their lifestlye and tax them into submission.

    Tony

  7. There is a limit on the number of characters here per subject.I made a point about Islanders with some sympathy.It certainly will not always be true that rising tides that are warmer are caused by what appears as global warming to some,this is evidenced by scientists regularly.I am not unsympathetic to peoples problems generally outside of the process of blaming humans for this and that.I read ReNew Magazine regularly,I am aware of Volunteers Abroad and even matters associated with wanting to help Islanders other than finding a overwhelming cause.If you decide that I am a idiot for accepting the Globe is Cooling,that is fine by me.I refuse to accept by belief, that the Global Warming scenarios are essential fact ..about a future that is so imprecise that if, it was a product on a shelf the use by date couldn’t exist.I didn’t want to put off others by going into the subject presented by Andrew with my usual suggestings things,which are often finally taken up as good ideas.I like Andrew’s openness,that does allow some suggesting of practical matters,rather than the hoopla of man the evil on the planet.I will say the same thing about sharks as well,with some trepidation. I have decided that Feral Abacus approves of his own expertise, via Reuters.I read stuff like that regularly including what has happened up in the Artic where a record has now been broken of movement in days of Russian commercial interests.That however isn’t proof of either man made warming or over all Global Warming…and was it a totally accurate precise prediction by Warmers generally!? I am more frightened of the Cooling Scenario that I have accepted!

  8. Philip T, I have no doubts about your sincerity re the plight of the Islanders.

    However, you did claim that the globe is cooling, & in response I pointed to some satellite images that provide startling evidence contrary to your assertion. I was hoping that you might consider how a cooling globe could result in widespread melting of ocean ice.

    I’m really not sure what you meant with your references to Reuters and ‘Russian commercial interests’.

    For everyone else, go here to view the satellite photos that George W Bush did not want you to see, and that – according to Tony – ignorance of which will render you enviably ‘level-headed’ .

  9. Feral,I probably saw those photos that George didn’t want to see before you. I visit the following nearly every night,into the late hours,and disturbing myself in a manner ..that it would take years of you knowing me,to understand that disturbance.Sorry Andrew,but here they are http://www.Rense.com,DavidIcke.com, AlexJones.com ,PrisonPlanet.com InfoWars.com KeeleyNet.com, David Irving Online Report.I check out the links videos and background whatever is presented..Frankly,some nights after doing this, it is very hard to do anything on the Blogs,after backgrounding organisations,individuals money flows public expressions,private manouvres.I go to the Climate sites,and see this offensive insistance,of skeptics,and I see holes in what is published by Australian Climate Change Scientists.If as a lay person,I find some real weakness like the use of particular words,believe me,I have seen roadkill everyday in my life..and I wont be part of it. I am not trying to make you understand me,I will not be part of the characterisations.I have defended Bob Brown in my personal life in comment,and on the Blogs,The Greens may do well, like the ALP seems to be doing lately,I remain unconvinced and not accepting for reasons of my own,which remain difficult to express as an entirety.I find it difficult to understand why a reference to Reuters becomes difficult to you,and Russian ships non military are self explanatory.I have misgivings if you like,about Reuters,as it has been under new owners for sometime.I am not saying at all what appears in the photo approximates something other than its description.Ihave nothing to gain from being a Global Cooling advocate to me a “Nuclear Winter” is also something to be frightened of. Watch bloody Israel!

  10. Actually AlexJones at PrisonPlanet.com on the 30May 2009 has a article from NASA about Solar Sunspot activity and what it may mean,which is something quite different from the oft. repeated Hansen from NASA line.Seeing many quote NASA about Global Warming,the matters of the pertinence of NASA suggesting something different there needs to be accounted for by those willing to use NASA to support their acceptances.Which may not in entirety change any outcomes for Islanders.

  11. Feral

    Feral Says: For everyone else, go here to view the satellite photos that George W Bush did not want you to see, and that – according to Tony – ignorance of which will render you enviably ‘level-headed’

    Even if you believe the chicken little story. Why is that a reason to tax our nations poorest to compensate the (as there called here) the polluters.

    We’ve all heard this nonsense before……every generation has talked of heating or feezing. It looks like they’ve finally found a generation silly enough to believe it. (Looks like they’ll laughing all the way to the bank with big Al).

    Tony

  12. Well here are a couple of interesting reports from the television news and a small mid-city newspaper.

    China puts out the highest percentage of coal-generated emissions on the planet at 55% of the total. The USA is second. If anyone should be subjected to a carbon tax, it should be those 2 countries.

    An astronaut looking down on the Earth says he thinks the icecaps are smaller than they were a few years ago.

    We are repeatedly told that Australians have the highest per capita emissions, but I think they should be measured according to the total landspace and not the total population.

    My scientist friend says he thinks we should do something about surplus CO2 (that’s if we are being told the truth), because he thinks it could cause some kind of problem, even if not the one it is being accused of.

    I asked him if he could completely discount the possibility of the planet being in a naturally occurring interglacial period. He said: “No.”

    A well informed neighbour seems to think that no amount of carbon trading – nor even complete cessation of CO2 producing activities – will get rid of the existing CO2.

    If the government was being honest with us, it would invest money in changing things gradually, using carbon capture and sequestration, solar power, biofuels etc.

    It would not be planning to tax businesses out of existence, increase costs for consumers, and then shell out money it doesn’t have, to compensate all and sundry.

    It would not even think of charging a carbon tax while China continues to pour out unfettered, untaxed filth.

    As for the Pacific Islanders, I’m sure if high water eventuates, they will simply get into their boats and move to the nearest higher ground and legitimately claim refugee status.

    Noel Pearson has been on TV complaining that an “environmental blanket” has been thrown over the whole of Cape York, with only one area set aside near Weipa, which China wants to use to mine OUR mineral resources for ITS OWN benefit.

  13. “We’ve all heard this nonsense before”

    So you hear satellite photos Tony? How interesting!

  14. Lorikeet, instead of beating about the bush with peripheral questions to your scientist friend, why don’t you get to the nub of the matter?

    Like asking

    “Can you reject the hypothesis that current levels of anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases will alter global climate in the foreseeable future?”

    or the somewhat more challenging

    “How likely is it that recent unusual global weather patterns are the result of anthropogenic activity?”

    Philip T – I had a quick look at a couple of those sites. A bit dodgy, aren’t they? All that stuff about The protocols of the elders of Zion was thoroughly debunked decades ago. I don’t know that I’d be placing too much reliance on them as primary sources of information.

  15. Feral:

    I have discussed these matters with the scientist before.

    In answer to your questions:

    1. Easily rejected, since no one really knows what is causing it.

    2. As I said before, he could not reject an Interglacial Period as the likely cause. Global weather patterns have always been unpredictable. They wax and wane along with the moon, and ebb and flow along with the tides, with some input from sunspot activity, and other conditions which none of us can fully understand.

    We are told that an interglacial period lasts for 100,000 years. I’m sure we couldn’t even tell if we were in one for at least a few thousand years.

    So when scientists want to look at a 10 year or 50 year period, all I want to do is laugh – even more so when one of your links comes from scientists measuring temperature change who are attached to the US Department of Commerce. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Phil has a much broader perspective than you. At least he isn’t locked into Greenism.

    If you want to get to the nub of the matter, here it is. The proponents of global warming want to use a carbon tax to break the western economies, so a global government can take over.

    The Greens have a specific policy on Global Governance, which I trust you will read and then consider the ways in which it might be used, and the likely ramifications for Australian citizens.

    Tony:

    I know quite a few well educated young men. All of them are well aware of the true agenda. One is even asking for a revolution to overthrow and change the various damaging social and financial trends (taxation, banks), preparing the population for neo-communism:

    Free trade agreements
    Continuing immigration despite lack of jobs
    Workplace abuses
    No increase in unemployment benefits
    De-regulated bank ripoffs being applauded with bailouts
    Deteriorating health and education systems
    Undisciplined society
    Selloff of government assets and utilities

    This list is not comprehensive, but it’s all I can think of for now.

  16. Feral

    Feral Says: “Can you reject the hypothesis that current levels of anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases will alter global climate in the foreseeable future?” – Yes

    or the somewhat more challenging

    “How likely is it that recent unusual global weather patterns are the result of anthropogenic activity?” What unusual weather patterns ?

    They can

    So in the meantime its okay to tear millions of dollars of the nations poorest to subsidise the nations richest.

    That makes sense — Not

    Tony

  17. Tony:

    Yes, the sun is King. We would have a lot more to worry about if it became a pauper!

    I would still like to see a cut in pollution (all kinds), and better use of resources, but I don’t want a carbon tax which isn’t necessary.

    The government can simply fund solar power, carbon capture etc and forget about taxing and then compensating people.

    I’m sure most women have 3 or 4 times as many clothes in their cupboards since we have had access to cheap imported clothing. That’s a huge waste of resources. We’d be better off environmentally if we had fewer clothes that were made here, also keeping profits in our own country and reducing pollution created by shipping.

  18. Lorikeet

    I think you may have misread or misinterpretted my questions.

    My first question is about whether or not elevated greenhouse gases have the potential to alter climate ie whether or not we can rule out the possibility that such an event may occur at some point. Your response appears to be directed at a somewhat different question.

    My second question asks for an opinion on the likelihood of that we are already seeing the effects of climate change as a consequence of anthropogenic activity, not a discussion of multifarious other potential factors.

    BTW How can you easily reject a possible cause when you claim you don’t know what the cause is?

  19. Interesting thread.

    We have Phil, who says the globe is cooling; Lorikeet who concedes that it might be warming, but as a consequence of anything – anything at all – other than anthropogenic activity; and Tony, who thinks its business as usual because some Yankee political hack says so.

    But the really neat twist is that Lorikeet & Tony are running the line that these 3 divergent views are in actual fact congruent. And that this is proof that I’m not making any sense! It’s a funny old world….

    ****

    “‘How likely is it that recent unusual global weather patterns are the result of anthropogenic activity?’ What unusual weather patterns ?”

    Memory problems there Tony? Try my comments upthread. Or cast your mind back to the last couple of southern summers. Or perhaps you could consult a few of your rural party members.

    And please don’t bother attempting to ‘educate’ me with nutjob right-wing propaganda. I find that the scientific literature is a far more succinct and reliable source of scientific information.

    And I must say that your attempts to lecture me on science are utterly preposterous – I distinctly recall conversing you on another thread where it was excruciatingly apparent that you did not even understand the distinction between science and technology.

    You’re way out of your depth – give it up!

  20. Feral:

    I think it is the case that we cannot definitely “rule in” or “rule out” any possibilities.

    It might help if you took into account all of the scientific literature, instead of just the bits of your choosing.

    It was you who linked us to the US Department of Commerce as a reliable source, and when the dollar issue and lack of connection with climate was pointed out, you wanted to argue the point.

    I think the “Climate Change” argument is just the latest attempt by world governments to tax us to the eyeballs in order to unfairly redistribute wealth.

    I think Phil is one of the most intelligent, broad-thinking people who contributes here. It is not our fault that YOUR views are narrow.

    “Congruent” is a mathematical term. Please put the abacus away and try to think on a more interactive basis.

  21. Feral

    Feral Says: And please don’t bother attempting to ‘educate’ me with nutjob right-wing propaganda. I find that the scientific literature is a far more succinct and reliable source of scientific information

    So you will just continue to believe the left wing clap trap.

    Is that right. Look I am constantly reading up on the subject. The one thing we can say for sure is that CO2 levels rise following warming. Fact.
    The Earth is now cooling. Fact. The year the earth started to cool is debateable.
    The Junk science (Mr stand to make a billion Al Gore) hypothesis that increased carbon output equals warming is now flawed. Fact.

    Governments are always looking for a new revenue stream…. Fact.
    If they can convince the mob that a CPRS will do something they and Corporations stand to make billions. Fact.

    It will also act as the most controlling tax ever imposed on a society.

    So we will just have to wait and see if this country is silly enough to accept this nonsense. (They certainly have you fooled)

    Tony

  22. “Fact. The Earth is now cooling.”

    What about the satellite photos Tony? How do you explain the melting ocean ice on your cooling globe Tony?

  23. Feral:

    Back in 2007 there may have been some melting. Not unusual though as they discovered old wooden vessells that once could pass through the nort passage. The earth warms and cools naturally as it has done for ever. Thats why climate change continues to happen naturally with or without any inteference. Vikings once farmed most of greenland.

    In 2007 a team in the US almost rescued aircraft that had landed there during the 2nd world war, but cooling has finished any chance of that now.

    In the meantime in the real world. Electricity has risen 40% with a further 20% on the way. Heating costs in northern Europe are so high that the elderly are dying.

    There seems no boundaries on how far the Governments and Corporations will go for a buck. (As long as there is suckers there will be monsters to rip them off)

    The inter-dependant global Corporate/Socialist state need funding and the the most vunerable are there for the pickings.

    Imagine how they must be laughing. A Tax that will affect you wherever you are and whatever your doing. Incredible. Huge revenues for governments and polluters.

    Are we really that stupid?

    Tony

  24. Feral:

    “How can you explain the melting ice on your cooling globe Tony?”

    It could be from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occurring under the sea in certain places. Even the waters at some beaches are hotter than others – depending on location, depth of ocean, tidal movement etc.

  25. Sure, Tony. So you pass off exceptionally warm polar conditions in 2007 as natural climatic variability. But you claim a subsequent return to not-so-exceptionally warm conditions is definitive ‘proof’ of global cooling.

    Don’t you see the problem with this line of argument? And how do you know that the polar sea ice has returned – can you provide subsequent images from those satellite photo sequences, or are you parroting another factoid from some right-wing columnist?

    As it happens, and completely contrary to your claim, 2008 was the second biggest sea ice melt on record. And this year’s loss of summer sea ice is on track to match 2007. You can see it here.

    I’ve shown you my photos, now let’s see yours.

    Essentially, your argument is a complete fantasy. You’ve been fed a lie and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. And that’s because its been wrapped in a political cover that you desperately want to believe. Greens, Gore, conspiracy, global governments, evil scientists yadda yadda yadda…. Who are you trying to convince with this bullshit?

    I suggest you go and read this before you bother us with any more of your poxy arguments.

  26. Feral – I suppose I may be displaying some ignorance here, but it does seem to me that the precautionary principle can also work in reverse.

    Taking out the globalist conspiracy theories so beloved of Tony and others do we have any definitive evidence that the rates of change in the climate are unable to be reconciled with historical data.

    For example – while blind freddy knows summers are incredibly hotter and more humid, in Sydney anyway in recent times, and odd and serious weather events certainly around the world seem to be increasingly severe, is this conclusively able to be proven as outside of some form of acceptable confidence limit.

    Lets look at something I’m much more familiar with – the Dow Jones. In its hundred years or so the ups and downs even out, change and vary. If we took the last two years and modelled that into the future it would look pretty bleak, However that two years is only a small fraction of the 100 years of data so that from of modelling would be risky.

    Accordingly is the modelling of the last thirty or so years equally as likely to be not significantly variable as a sub-component of the thousands of years the earth has been warming and cooling.

  27. Tony – Forgive me if I’m wrong, or missed them, but what’s your scientific data that feeds your dogmatic assertions? I’ve listened to, read lots and now I just want them to get on with it. I’ve read about how more accurate it is to use the oceans temperatures to determine what’s happening. I recall the horrific bushfires in Victoria last February, where people more experienced than I asserted, that there was a different component to these fires – the extreme heat and winds etc of those fires.
    I’m satisfied that the scientists who’ve been warning of this for 20-30 years are spot on. Now I just want action. At worst(if you’re right) we’ll hopefully have a cleaner environment for my grand kids future(and yours too)but if you’re wrong and we do nothing, I don’t want my grand kids jumping on my grave (or urn, or tree in my case) blaming me for their lousy stinking world!

    What are your scientific degrees? Whose word do you believe, and what is their CV? Been working for the tobacco industry in recent years? I understand that many who worked for them years ago, are now leading the charge on disclaiming climate change.

  28. Ken, thanks for the pertinent questions.

    Reconciling current rates of change with historical data is near impossible. Current methods give good indications of the size of changes that have occured in the geological past, but the time frames are not known with enough certainty to give reliable estimates of rates.

    And trying to draw conclusions from rare events is fraught with difficulty. Inferential statistics are great for estimating the magnitude/frequency of common events. But getting a good estimate on rare events needs a huge amount of data, moreso in inherently ‘noisy’ phenomena like weather or the Dow Jones.

    But there are things that we do know about CO2 & climate. All else being equal, we know that increasing atmospheric CO2 will change the energy balance of the planet. Its a hardwired consequence of the nature of the atomic bonds within the molecule – it can’t help but absorb radiation of the wavelengths re-radiated by the earth. Had it not been for greenhouse gases like CO2, all of this re-radiated energy would otherwise have escaped into space. These are known knowns, and beyond dispute.

    The excess absorbed energy finds it way into the atmosphere and into the oceans, where it’s heating effects are thought to alter climate. To date, no-one proposed a plausible mechanism by which the global energy balance is not changed, or backed up their assertion with data. Hence it would be foolish to assume that we can continue to allow atmospheric CO2 to rise without adverse consequences.

    Have we already seen climate change? Difficult question, but Prof Peter Bloomfield (an expert in time series analysis of financial risk) ….

  29. …has calculated that “Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.” (p 30, 3 Mb pdf) and, a little more uncertainly, that “temperatures at many… locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900.” The pdf is worth reading in full.

    More recently Bloomfield has calculated “… the human contribution to 20th century warming is 0.75C, ±0.45C, or from 0.29C to 1.20C.” Bloomfield’s work is a couple of years old now, & I’d expect that more recent data will have further increased the confidence around his findings.

    So we have a mechanism linking CO2 & global energy balance, and that compels us to predict that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will change global climates. We also have data that clearly indicate that global changes are beginning to emerge, and that they are more than likely the consequence of human activity. Given this level of information, there’s little scope for rational uncertainty about anthropogenic climate change.

    As an aside, its also worth watching the actuaries. They’re treating climate change as a risk that they need to take into consideration. From page 20 of QBE’s 2008 Annual Report

    “Our comprehensive systems and modelling of realistic disaster scenarios and property aggregate accumulations include assessment of the potential impacts of climate change related risks. The models used are regularly updated to incorporate the latest scientific evidence in relation to emerging climate change scenarios such as population shifts, changing property values, extra costs incurred for goods and services from demand surge and short-term and long-term seasonal weather forecasts.”

  30. NAOMI

    Naomi says:Tony – Forgive me if I’m wrong, or missed them, but what’s your scientific data that feeds your dogmatic assertions?

    Feral and Ken are the believers in the chicken little theory (or Dogmatic as I have referred to the believers in this CPRS scheme) not me.
    They are the ones that agree we should tax our country’s poorest to reward the polluters.

    My agrument is that even if you want to believe in that nonsense, then a CPRS is certainly not the way to proceed. Besides a massive windfall for Governments and Polluters there seems to be no logic in it at all.

    Feral seems to refute the statement that Co2 levels rise after a warming period and not during. He prefers to believe the fantasy rather than face the facts and constantly points to poles to try and push his agenda.

    This article here may help you understand why and how Feral has attached himself to this dogma.

    Ferals Dogma

    Look Governments and Corporations are rubbing their hands and it looks as though the 50 billion spent to brainwash us has succeeded.

    Tony

  31. Feral:

    The climate changes every day, every week, every month, every year.

    Given that an interglacial period lasts 100,000 years and is a naturally occurring phenomenon, I see no reason why you would want to support one line of thinking, while condemning other scientists’ views and other posters with such a high degree of insulting rudeness.

    Naomi has stated that scientists have been giving warnings about climate change for 20 to 30 years. I find it an interesting coincidence with many other factors which are pointers to global governance.

    I just answered a post on another blog from a man in Denmark. I asked him if the Danish government was using underpaid slaves living on unemployment benefits as their new Green army – perhaps even expecting them to work a 40 hour week for 10 hours pay at the minimum wage.

    I believe one of the agendas of Greenism is to collect high rates of taxation while abusing workers, only in certain countries, as part of the plan to redistribute wealth.

    No government in its right mind would go to Copenhagen in December with a CPRS already in place, i.e. without the unilateral agreement of all nations. The Liberals are also quite right to reject a proposal that does nothing to protect our farmers. This is deliberate economic suicide.

    Ken:

    There is no global conspiracy. It is all a part of The Plan.

    Why do you think The Greens would have those policies on Population and Global Governance if it were otherwise?

  32. Noami:

    Following up from previous link……. Here is another that believes that the lure of big money from the nations poorest is too good to knock back.

    More Revenue

    Not that Ken and Feral will care. Feral will point to the poles and avoid the obvious at all cost.

    Our comprehensive systems and modelling of realistic disaster scenarios and property aggregate accumulations include assessment of the potential impacts of climate change related risks

    Unbelievable…… Here is Feral quoting from QBE (one of the many financial insitutions that stand to gain massive revenues)
    I think most people are aware of the money that financial corporations and governments will make from this nonsense and perhaps unwittingly Feral has shown his colours.

    Lets float all our futures on the market.

    Brokers are winners

    Thats right Feral the pensioners, fixed income earners, small business
    and small farms have a few cents left…. lets make them pay.

    Tony

  33. On discussion of support for women in PNG on ABC this morning .. in passing, aid expert mentioned that the locals in PNG notice that the rainfall is changing .. it’s getting wetter, and in that steep country causes problems re agriculture, among other things. It’s starting to look like we are going to need to acknowledge the reality .. like it or not. The women in PNG were not asking for aid .. just a fair shake re the chance to trade, e.g. food supplies when we are having problem because of our drought. It isn’t going to happen tomorrow .. but they can see it coming.

  34. Tony – you could at least attempt to read and udnerstand my latest but one post before commenting so stupidly.

  35. Ken

    Ken Says: ken
    Tony – you could at least attempt to read and udnerstand my latest but one post before commenting so stupidly.

    What comparing the worlds temperatures with the stock market.
    Do you know how silly that sounds. It seems you’ll state anything to support this nonsense.

    The only studid comment I’ve read is that very comparison you chose.
    When losing an argument please do revert to Argument Ad Hominem which has been cleary shown by your deatest crys of

    Quote: Ken…… commenting so stupidly.
    Quote K …..Taking out the globalist conspiracy theories Thats a good one considering your raming the chicken little ideology down our throats

    Climate change is normal and has been happening since time began.
    Even if you believed in this global warming nonsense. Why is a tax on the poorest the answer?

    Every time this question is asked all we get is …..the propoganda rubbish which will obviosly benefit Corporations and Governments to the detriment of pensioners, small business, small farmers.
    (As clearly seen in Europe and other places that similar schemes are in place)

    What good will taxing us with the most controlling tax ever introduced on a society do for global warming even if it was happening?
    From what I’ve read… if every country met their targets tommorrow it would have less then 1% over the next 100 years.

    So the idea is just an ideology or religion. If in the billion to one chance that the alarmists are correct then why is this very expensive tax and controlling trade mechanism going to do anyway.

    At least try to answer that question.

    Tony

  36. Well, let’s weigh it all up against Rudd’s latest agreement to sell $50 billion worth of natural gas to China over the next 20 years. Simon Crean said it’s only $40 billion. But who do we believe?

    Rudd says it’s a windfall for the Australian economy. Is $2.5 billion per year a windfall, taking into account inflation during that time?

    Christine Milne (The Greens) says he is recklessly flogging our clean source of energy.

    I am therefore left to wonder if Rudd is principally allowing the Chinese to purchase our natural gas so they can exempt themselves from a carbon tax which other countries may end up having to pay – and at the same time, continuing to allow them to use up other nations’ resources (coal, iron ore), while saving their own for later on.

    Today I also saw Labor waxing lyrical about all of our wonderful mining projects. I noticed that China, Japan and Malaysia all had their fingers in various pies.

    I don’t think we can comment too much on the likely effects of a carbon tax on our economy until we see who signs up in Copenhagen in December or, more importantly, who does not!

  37. Ken:

    On another blog, a very elderly woman put up a link that covered droughts over a period of more than 100 years.

    Droughts are a normal part of human existence, and the comment by Togret regarding high rainfall at the present time in PNG is nothing out of the ordinary.

    I’m sure Mother Nature will continue to dish up anything she chooses, even if we find it inconvenient or annoying.

    It is also possible that we could be in an era known by some as a Carbon Age. During such a time, it is said there are more earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and volcanic eruptions which return carbon to the soil via inundation and burial of peat bogs and forests, creating new sources of coal.

    Another link showed that the nutrient levels in drought-affected crops are much higher than normal.

  38. Tony – I am neither a climate change denier nor a climate change jump on the bandwagoner. I am cautious and seek a better understanding before jumping.

    The point of the comparison with the stock market was, as obviously you failed to comprehend (that’s not ad hominem it’s obvious from your post) the issue of how statistics and inferential analysis can sometimes not be an accurate predictor of longer term trends.

    The point I sought clarification on was that if we are using data from a small period of time to predict the future, then it is rather dangerous either to predict long term market returns or long term climate change.

    get it Tony…..

    Can you please find one post of mine that rams the chicken little ideology, presumably that means a we’ll all be ruined Naomi type statement , down your throat Tony, just one? .

    You will not find that on any post ever I have written.

    I have a strong view that science will prevail as it always has. i am not convinced on the ETS stuff, in effect the rhetoric we are being sold is that we have to make all these changes but no one will be disadvantaged. this is patently not possible and deliberately disingenuous.

    As anyone who has been on this blog for any period of time and is capable of analytical thought would know I am not some screaming leftie like Naomi or Andrew for that matter, but also not camped stubbornly in the other side either.

    I try to look at each situation on its merits rather than from a predetermined stance – it would be useful for others to adopt the same position.

  39. Ken:

    I might agree with you, if it were not for your inability or disinterest in joining the dots.

Comments are closed.