All the best for Christmas and the New Year.

I haven’t been much around commenting, but my hand is improving and almost healed now.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Peter

TA’s use of the term “great big tax” is, of course, a great big stunt.

I think that you have to be very careful with comments such as the $1.30 per week for food. Carbon reduction will cost, it has to if we are going to reduce carbon emissions. To pretend otherwise will create real problems a little later as the costs flow through.

So far we have had one official pricing inquiry, that on electricity in NSW, and that points to significant cost increases. And that is what I would expect.

If you look at the ETS, every dollar the government gathers from sale of permits has either to be absorbed by business or paid for by final consumers through price increases.

Specifically on food, food prices have risen in recent times and will rise further as the ETS kicks in. Like the NSW electricity case, those rises will be due in part to the projected effects of the ETS, in part to other variables.

I haven’t modelled the effects on food prices, but the $1.30 a week strikes me as astonishingly low given that farm input costs will rise, distribution costs will rise, as will final sale costs.

None of this should be construed as opposition to action on climate change. I just think that we need to recognise, to be hard headed about, the fact that such a fundamental change in the way things are done will cost.

…Opposition leader Tony Abbott is busy reminding people of the cost of an emissions trading system and promising a yet-to-be seen policy that won’t cost anything.

It has left the Government a bit flummoxed by the seemingly new concern about price. It thought it had this part nailed when it promised 100per cent compensation – and then some – for low- and middle-income households.

The compensation will come in the form of rebates, so people still feel the impact of the rises (and supposedly change their behaviour) but don’t lose out overall.

The Government never suggested the scheme would be cost-free…

Selling action on climate change is not as hard as it seems.

Remember when the ABC came up with the “eight cents a day” slogan? It seemed like a pretty good deal.

Is reducing the risk of severe bushfires and limiting the damage to the Great Barrier Reef worth $1.30 a week? That’s what Treasury puts the average weekly rise in food prices under the scheme.

That is about 19 cents a day andmost people won’t even haveto pay it thanks to the compensation scheme.

Untill Tuesday night Ian Plimer was the respectable face of climate scepticism in Australia. Plimer looks the part of the distinguished professor, and as a geologist gives the impression of understanding the long run forces affecting the earth’s climate, as opposed to the ephemera that excite the global warming alarmists. On top of that, he was known as as an eloquent debunker of creationism, which earned him credibility as a rational mind as well as immunity from accusations of rightwing ratbaggery. A non-scientist, concerned citizen, while appreciating the significance of the IPCC findings, could still hold some doubts about global warming as long as someone like Plimer disputed the consensus position.

But on Lateline it all came crashing down. The eminent Plimer looked like a rat in a trap…

But this fairly disingenous (IMO) scare campaign is where the Liberals are taking a leaf out of the ALP’s GST playbook (I hope with less success). In both cases (and in both cases mainly because the government was forced to negotiate with another party) the extra money the government got was in effect returned for the most part especially to the people most seriously affected and least able to afford the change uncompensated. So both opposition parties in effect appeal to fears that ignorant people have that they will bear the brunt of the extra costs. Some sections will bear more than others but as with the GST the government is saying the measure will be (broadly) revenue neutral so this isn’t more tax it’s actually just much better directed tax (on net Carbon Dioxide emissions and other net Kyoto ‘problem’ gas ‘Carbon Dioxide equivalent’ emissions). But as with the GST also with the ETS it seems to be relatively easy to scare people about if the opposition simply pretends that it is or will be extra tax rather than better tax. People just tend to feel threatened by any change if other people spend enough time and vested interest money trying to scare them about it for their own nefarious purposes.

People forget in this that those who can’t really afford any higher costs will be well compensated and those who can’t be compensated as well (because the government has to compensate emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries as well as the poor and pay for mitigation and further research) would tend to be able to afford to share some of the cost (and would probably favour the liberals in many cases anyway). They also forget (incredibly) that the much greater cost will be the cost among other things of the virtually unimaginable economic devastation and the breakdown of civilisation that is more and more likely to come about sooner and sooner the longer those who really can afford to aren’t prepared to undergo this relatively painless change now.

I hope that makes sense and isn’t too long-winded. If I am correct you would know all that so thanks for allowing me to have a frustrated rant about it.

Dr Spash has lashed out at the organisation which he says promotes self-censorship among its scientists with its unfair publication guidelines.

He has been stunned at the treatment he’s received at the hands of CSIRO management, including boss Megan Clark, and he also believes he’s not alone.

“I’ve been treated extremely poorly,” he told AAP on Thursday.

“There needs to be a Senate inquiry.

“The way the publication policy and the charter are being interpreted will encourage self-censorship.

“It’s obviously happened before at the CSIRO – and there’s issues currently.”

Last month, Dr Spash accused the organisation of gagging him and his report – The Brave New World of Carbon Trading – and restricting its publication.

The report is critical of cap and trade schemes, like the one the federal government is seeking to introduce, as well as big compensation to polluters.

Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.

The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.

Thanks for mentioning it though: this is his website.

I will add a little above on Pearman.

Even Kevin Rudd seemed haunted by the manifestations, if a little confused.

“Took the boys to the movies last night to see Zombieland,” he Twittered the next day (I am not joking about this, by the way).

“Zombieland gives me a whole new perspective on what to watch out for in politics. Boys loved it. I’m not sure.”

Do note:

“We don’t base policy by what is said in personal emails from people who are just developing some sort of scientific story,” he said.

“The real basis for developing policy has to be reports like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and literature that appears in scientific journals that’s gone through what’s called peer review.

“I think the best approach to these people who criticise our work, whether it’s in other scientific papers or on blogs or whatever, is to fight science or pseudo science with science. And that’s what we often do.”

Dr Wigley has also attacked climate change sceptics such as Australian commentator Andrew Bolt, who have used the emails as proof that the data on global warming is wrong.

“Using the word whistleblower is really just another ploy on the part of Andrew Bolt and others to attempt to make it look as though the person who hacked these emails was a good guy and that they had a motive of trying to expose nefarious activities within the Climatic Research Unit,” he said.

“Well, of course there were no such nefarious activities.

“I didn’t choke on the deceit because there was no deceit. All I did was ask a number of pointed questions and I received perfectly adequate answers and that’s the end of the story.

“It would be really nice if someone like Andrew Bolt used the same approach and tried to get both sides of the picture and then he might learn to understand some of these issues better.”

The coal industry’s Ralph Hillman has raised the prospect of the country going onto a war footing if global warming accelerates and drastic action is required by governments.

Mr Hillman made the suggestion as he prepared to depart for Copenhagen.

The burning of coal is responsible for 40 per cent of global emissions but, despite that, Australia is planning to double its coal exports by 2030.

But Mr Hillman says the coal industry recognises that burning coal is a “major contributor to greenhouse emissions”.

“I’m going to Copenhagen because global climate change is the biggest issue confronting the Australian coal industry,” he said.

“The coal industry in Australia accepts the science of climate change. We recognise that we have to address it, we have to reduce emissions.

Mr Hillman knows his industry could become increasingly unpopular if it is blamed for exacerbating climate change.

“One of the reasons we’re addressing climate change is to preserve the value of that and so that people feel comfortable with coal,” he said.

“We don’t want people to feel uncomfortable with coal and think that it’s ruining their children’s prospects.”

It all rides on how quickly so-called clean coal technology or carbon capture and storage can be developed.

But after years of procrastination, Mr Hillman says the Australian industry will finally start rolling out the money to trial the technology.

I wasn’t seeking to convert you, by the way, though you may have been seeking to convert me. I was merely refining my own position on the topic.

“Then there’s the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). These 23 individuals from 15 countries, including a handful of scientists, disagree.” — That’s Scientific American obviously not very impressed with the so-called NIPCC, which does seem a grandiose name for a minor think tank with rather obvious connections to people with axes to grind, but I never said there are only 23 scientists etc. I am sure there are more, if a minority.

So… you think… you believe that only 23 scientists disagree with the IPCC… despite the fact of forged data, IPCC ppl hiding data from non-believers, the ‘peer review’ scam where only believers can peer review. You’re still going with the 2,500 (some of which have asked to have their names removed from that list), knowing that they used falsified data to produce the catastrophic conclusions they desired to see.

I give up. You are as blind to the reality of this scam as you are to the horror of sharia, and you won’t change. Time has proven that. I can’t do this anymore. It’s too discouraging. I hope you have a great and enjoyable life.

I think the later posts make that clear, Kevin. There is still an issue about the most effective response or set of responses. It will be interesting to see if Copenhagen actually does come up with any workable agreement.

You can have Tony Abbott, of you like…

*sigh* Still, grats on you not having to pay extra taxes for your energy use, and getting rid of Turnbull. I know that you’re not happy about it now, but you will be within a decade when this farce goes away.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-i-wish-that-the-global-warming-deniers-were-right-1833728.html

It’s not especially insightful. The interesting feature for me, though, is that it suggests Ian Plimer is known over in the UK as a prominent “climate change denier”. I really hope Australians can be known for something more useful than Plimer in this debate. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer also noted yesterday that our Senate had blocked the ETS so our image is suffering in the US, too, pace Kevin, who might see those things as good for our image.

More importantly, though, we’re adding ‘negative fuel’ to the atmosphere of Copenhagen as both a major emitter per capita and major beneficiary of past carbon emissions – the world can’t afford us, of all countries, to allow ourselves be hijacked by Tony Abbott’s (and the Conservative rump’s) denialist politics and Plimer’s vanity. It was sad to see Greg Hunt kowtowing to it last night and Lee Sales’ questions were a little lame, too. She was making it so easy for him that it almost seemed she was advertising him as the next Liberal leader.

I hope we can get a large turnout at the rally from Martin Place to the Botanic Gardens on the 12th at 1 pm (during the Copenhagen meetings). I believe there’ll be rallies all around the world on that day and hope they have more success than the anti Iraq War rallies.

In the meantime until you can cite a body of scientific opinion of the same weight as the consensus, broadly speaking, on the IPCC analysis I will remain in the camp of those who give the planet the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say I dot every i or cross every t on what is proposed. Further, I do not exclude the need for looking at nuclear energy, as some greens do and our Labor Party; interestingly James Lovelock (the Gaia guy) also has embraced nuclear technology.

I’ll answer the opposite qurstion. Here’s what would turn me into an AGW believer. If someone used pre-1960 data to create a computer model that accurately predicts the climate as recorded from satellite data from 1960 to today, without having any post-1960 temperature data input into the program. That seems reasonable, doesn’t it?

Of course, it would then have to also predict doom and gloom for the future.