Justinian the Great – Climate Realism: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

As Australians we really do live in a bubble. We like to think we are global in outlook but in fact we are very selective and very parochial depending on the subject. Which brings us to climate change.

Almost every day our political and media classes drone on about looming climate catastrophe and how by Australia unilaterally going green we can save the planet, basking not only in our moral virtue, but the free energy from wind and sun that will lower our electricity bills and provide millions of clean energy jobs of the future.

That none of these fantastical claims ever comes to pass in any country in the world (including Green utopia Germany now doubling down on coal to keep the lights on) and that in seeking to do so almost always ends in political tears never seems to dissuade our dim witted political class from once again trying to square the unmalleable circle.

Meanwhile in the good ol’ USA the mid-terms are just around the corner and neither side of the political divide is campaigning hard on climate change. That’s right, not even the Obama-Clinton complex are campaigning to save the planet anymore. Why? Because, it just doesn’t rate as a serious issue to average Americans.

You would have thought that our ambassador to Washington could have perhaps passed on that vital piece of information to his former Coalition colleagues. Apparently not!

As Alan Moran correctly observed in a post today, climate change doesn’t rate as a serious issue for ordinary Australians either. In the Essential poll he refers to climate change came in a paltry 8th on the list of issues concerning voters.

Considering, as stated above, you cannot escape climate hysteria and renewable utopia on a daily basis in the mainstream media, that is a truly terrible result. That any alternative (sceptic) argument never gets a run, not even from the Coalition, makes it worse. It suggests the climate game is up.

At the same time, herein lies the Coalition’s problem. It just doesn’t have the courage to call out the games up. It cowardly refuses to challenge the scientific premise of climate change and by paying uncritical lip service to the “consensus” it can hence only ever be a poor man’s Labor. It’s political and policy messages are in complete contradiction and a shambles. It is the ultimate vote loser.

On the one hand, we can meet our Paris commitments “in a canter” according to our newly minted PM, and in a way that is somehow great for the nation because we kept our international promise. On the other hand, if we can exceed our commitments in a canter, why not a gallop? Especially if it so good.

You can understand why the average voter is perplexed and more likely seduced by the Labor / Green argument that more renewables must mean better economic and environmental outcomes all round.

It beggars belief that the Coalition has been utterly wedged on a Labor/Green policy so mired in contradictions, flawed logic and fraudulent claims that it should be Labor and the Greens being wedged into political oblivion.

Be that as it may, how does the Coalition dump Paris, end the subsidy racket and craft a point of differentiation from Labor without questioning the science and being labled a denier and international parasite by all of Australia’s press?

To start with, let’s be clear about what won’t work (i.e. current Coalition policy):

  1. The argument that we (and our emissions) are too small to matter always fails the “must do our part” counter argument. That is a non-starter. As small fries our pollies love the big stage and as a nation we love fooling ourselves we punch above our weight. Heads up! It’s rare!
  2. The argument that hundreds of coal fired power stations are being built all over the world fails the “green is cheaper” counter argument despite how bogus the claim actually is or investment risk reasons why. I simply state:
    1. Trying to explain the economics of the energy market is beyond most voters comprehension.
    2. It is definitely beyond the Coalition’s comprehension.
    3. It is way beyond the metastasising cancer of energy regulators!
  • Singing the praises of HELE or gas as a transition technology suffers from the logical fallacy of investing in renewables in the first place (which they have). If they worked we would needn’t a transition technology (factor in Rafe Champion’s analysis about backup in the worst case scenarios).

So what will work? My seven point plan follows what I call the Lomborg-Trump solution (i.e. the real world):

  1. Shift the political debate to discussing the inevitability of climate change rather “denial”. Accept the climate catastrophe as laid out by the IPCC in all its fire and brimstone devastation. It’s worse than we thought!
  2. Highlight the futility of the Paris Treaty as made plain by Bjorn Lomborg, notably that if all countries implement their Paris commitments by 2030, global temperatures will still be in excess of 2°C by 2100. Total failure!

In other words, the Paris Treaty is a non-solution to the problem as stated by the IPCC, and even then is predicated on the heroic assumption that all countries will actually meet their targets. This would be a world first. None (that count) at present are on target

Worse still, the Paris Treaty is already redundant according to the IPCC. It was predicated on a 2°C scenario. The latest IPCC report now says the goal must now be 1.5°C. Climate Armageddon is locked in!

  • Zero in on the adverse specifics of the Paris Treaty, in the manner in which Trump does:
    1. This is a horrible, horrible deal for Australia. We spend billions and billions of dollars for nothing in return.
    2. China doesn’t reduce a single emission. They take our coal, our jobs, our wealth. As they get richer we get poorer and the emissions continue to rise. All the while buying our farms and real estate. China is not alone. None of the big emitters across the developing world make a contribution.
    3. China and developing countries aren’t the only winners from this terrible deal. Foreign dictators will receive billions and billions of tax payers money for years and years in the delusion that third world thugs will invest in windmills and solar panels instead of guns and ammunitions (when not lining their own pockets).
    4. And let’s not forget the big end of town – the bankers and superfunds that have performed so honourably at the Royal Commission – that profit from ordinary Australians energy poverty with subsidised, government guaranteed investments paid for by the tax payer.
    5. How cosy for Labor and the Unions (superfunds). Union proxy politicians legislating sweet heart renewables deals that profit union super funds. A virtual cycle for Labor. Vicious to the nation.

It is important that when focusing on specifics one should always relate back to the existential question: to what end?

For Australia to wear the consequences of climate change have squandering our nation’s prosperity and resources and ability to adapt? This is the ultimate lose-lose deal. It is madness.

  1. Challenge the claim Australia is a high emitting nation. Accounting for forests, grasses and oceans Australia likely sequesters more carbon dioxide than it emits (or at the very least pushes us way down the list). Fairness and equity (Labor / Green articles of faith) demand the rich, major emitters do the heavy lifting.

If Australia is a global carbon sink then the premise of any future international agreement should be compensation paid to Australia for sequestering other nations emissions.

To the extent we emit CO2 through bushfires emphasise Green policies that promote this very outcome such as hindering efforts to reduce fuel loads.

  1. Re-orientate the debate to domestic policy issues that matter, as Alan Moran highlighted in a previous post (aforementioned), also in the manner of Trump. That is to say, never concede to being opposed to lowering emissions, but do be prepared to argue not at any cost, and only when the ends justify the means. For example:
    1. “The Coalition is all for lower emissions but not if it means higher cost of living pressures and lower living standards.”
    2. “Not if it means making housing even less affordable for ordinary Australians.”
    3. “Not if it means exporting Australian jobs to China.”
    4. “The Coalition is more than happy to commit Australia to real solutions shared by all nations.”
    5. “We will not, however, damage our economy and weaken our country on non-viable solutions that will not solve the problem.”
    6. “The Coalition will not raise taxes or waste money funding fake solutions that should be spent on real hospitals, real schools and real ways to improve people’s lives.”
    7. “We will not lump future generations with the consequences of a climate the IPCC has all but conceded is inevitable, but without the fiscal means to adapt. That is morally bankrupt.
  2. Sow a seed of climate doubt presented as hope and optimism, (i.e. “in the absence of a solution we can only hope the IPCC are wrong”). Mercifully, there is cause for hope on this front:
    1. We know the climate models used by the IPCC have been over sensitive to CO2 to date.
    2. We know the planet has not warmed over the past 18 years as these models predicted.
    3. We know the satellite record shows less warming than surface based records.
    4. We know the IPCC is contradictory regarding the impact of global warming in relation to hurricanes, floods, droughts and bushfires, both on global and regional scales. It concedes a low level of certainty and contrary trends.
  • Adopt a climate realist policy: hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Australia cannot risk its future relying (against all evidence) on global action. We have been waiting for such action for twenty years ever since the Kyoto Protocol. Paris is no different other than time has run out.

The Paris Treaty is a fake solution that robs Australia of future resources to adapt. We must plan for the worst in the absence of a genuine and enforceable global solution. Any global solution must also recognise Australia as a global carbon sink (assuming we are one) and compensate (or discount) accordingly.

Hence, we must re-orientate our climate policy to one of climate realism (global inaction) and hence future adaptation. Anything less is an abrogation of the first duty of government to defend its citizens from all threats including global climate inaction. The time for empty gestures and tilting at windmills is over.

Climate resources must be weighted to better climate research that can better determine Australia’s likely climate future taking into account all variables and feedbacks, whether human induced or natural variability. This is critical in adaptation planning regardless of the source of the climate forcing.

To the extent mitigation is still possible government policy must focus on R&D involving genuine breakthrough technologies, rather than wasting precious resources / limited funds subsidising mature but inferior technologies that at present offer no solution to the problem at hand.

Australia could also boost its net CO2 position by taking more stringent fire management practises that focus on fuel reduction. Reducing emissions from bushfires is good for the environment and good for landholders and regional people living at the front line. Lives versus bracken. You decide.

In conclusion, prosecuting a climate realism policy has the potential to have enormous political upside. Without conceding a single politically correct (i.e. denial) point it demolishes the dystopian lunacy of Labor and the Greens.

It returns the debate to bread and butter issues that matter most to ordinary Australians. It does so without resorting to guilt or relying on ignorance. To the contrary it educates voters to appreciate the rationality of it.

It catches Labor / Greens out in all their duplicity with a logic they cannot hide from. Starting with a ban on coal exports (or carbon tax attached) if they genuinely believe it has no future and is killing the planet.

Make Labor / Green own the killing off of mining in Australia!

Climate realism is patriotic, in the national interest and self-interest. Climate globalism is a con-job and sell-out waiting to be exposed.

Educating the public, rather than pandering to a mob (or poll) is leadership. Strength of leadership –  in the national interest, aligned to voter interest – is what wins elections.

Time to burst the bubble. Time to call the alarmists bluff. If the climate is irretrievably buggered (as we are told it is) we are beyond the point of tilting at windmills.

Only a heavy dose of realism will protect Australia’s future prosperity and security and win public opinion.

Time to turn the polls!

 

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Justinian the Great – Climate Realism: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

  1. a happy little debunker

    The trouble with these goalposts – is that as soon as you are within kicking range, the alarmists move them.

    Besides the argument is not really about climate change nor indeed actual science – but like ghouls, just days out from Halloween, activists are wearing it’s skin to scare all the kiddies.

  2. OldOzzie

    Global Warming – Bull

    After the 3rd Great Snow Season in Perisher this year, this Spring has been the coldest, windy, grey, drizzily I remember in Sydney

    1st October in a while where the Grandkids have not been in the Pool swimming as it is yet to reach 22C when they go in, but have the heated spa adjoining to keep warm

    Global Warming is the Greatest Criminal Fraud ever perpetrated on the Australian Taxpayer and the World

  3. destroyer d69

    Very few of our current crop of politicians ,in residence, or waiting in the wings for access to the Canberra coolaid fountain, gives a rats rectum about the current dire straits that we are in unless it has a direct negative impact on their positions. Those with genuine interests are powerless to be any more than a minor irritation to the larger parties. It is time to dismiss the entire parliament (as none of the parties seem to have any real differences in outcomes) and place the country into caretaker administration, an action I believe the GG has the power to do,with supply guaranteed for essential services only untill a sensible government can be elected This must include the installation of Right of Recall legislation so that it is possible for the citizens to remove underperforming members before the full term expires. We are on the edge of the precipice and the abyss beckons below.

  4. feelthebern

    An interesting post.
    I think that if there were some real long form interviews on matters like this, instead of panels filled with audiences & sound bites, the fig leaves that cover most of the fads these days would come off.

  5. Roger

    What is this Coalition you speak of?

    I only see Labor Left & Labor Lite.

  6. Tim Neilson

    Shift the political debate to discussing the inevitability of climate change rather “denial”

    No.

    This is part of the problem.

    First, we need to call out the fraud of conflating “climate change” with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

    “Climate change” is inevitable but we don’t know what or when it will be. It might be an ice age commencing within the next decade.

    CAGW is not demonstrably “inevitable” no matter how much fossil fuel we burn. So far, the CAGW theory has failed by simple application of the scientific method.

    We have no reason whatsoever to concede to falsehoods. Maybe other arguments will get more traction, and if so we might tactically focus on them, but we should keep hammering all the reasons why climate alarmism is a crock.

  7. Herodotus

    The politicians and media should both be honest and tear down the big scam in three word slogans.

  8. RobK

    Thank you for taking the time to post. Some good thoughts on a none to easy challenge.

    “We will not lump future generations with the consequences of a climate the IPCC has all but conceded is inevitable, but without the fiscal means to adapt. That is morally bankrupt.

    I think this is the salient point to tease out. Showing the experiment thus far, with all its cost and meager result. Highlight that proceeding will further ramp-up cost. Point out that Finkel’s report reference was today’s already inflated costs and prices will go up a lot for sure but it is mear projection that they will ultimately come down from that high price by very much. Each increase of penetration of RE will have associated adaptation costs and problems. For this reason Finkel recommended increased over-sight to tackle the inevitable unforseen and yet to be costed hurdles. The whole scheme is awaiting some new technology yet to be discovered. Let’s not go broke before it arrives.

  9. RedneckRuss

    Angus Taylor is my Federal Member, his recent statements regarding renewables has lost him my vote. Sadly the Libs need to be sent to opposition to rebuild or die. I shudder at the thought of ALP. Suggest we elect plenty of Conservative Senators to keep Shortens House of Reps under control until sane administration can be reelected.

  10. Senile Old Guy

    We have no reason whatsoever to concede to falsehoods. Maybe other arguments will get more traction, and if so we might tactically focus on them, but we should keep hammering all the reasons why climate alarmism is a crock.

    …and…

    The trouble with these goalposts – is that as soon as you are within kicking range, the alarmists move them.

    I have been watching this environmental Armageddon for quite some time, back to (and before) the days when the issue was global cooling. There is always an environmental scare on the way. Remember acid rain? The hole in the ozone layer?

  11. RobK

    Taking the wrong path will not get you to where you want to go.

  12. Bruce of Newcastle

    Be that as it may, how does the Coalition dump Paris, end the subsidy racket and craft a point of differentiation from Labor without questioning the science and being labled a denier and international parasite by all of Australia’s press?

    Do what Trump is doing.
    And defund the ABC and SBS.
    The rest of the MSM are commercial, so if they squawk about defunding a scam they’ll go bankrupt from lack of viewers and readers.

  13. Simply announce that you accept the Green/ALP argument that roonables are cheaper and as a consequence all roonable subsidies stop, now. Goodbye RETs. End of problem.

  14. Genghis

    Watched an ABC discussion program last week. Four Girls (I mean women) and the token white male. The start point was Climate Science – is all settled! If only these idiots could read, the push back is coming BUT the constant claim ‘the science is ALL settled’ means we need a catastrophy to make people to wake up. However we could start building Nuclear Power plants and ‘save’ the world and provide cheaper and reliable energy.

  15. Justinian the Great

    My policy is achievable. Banging on about the science as your leading strategy will fail.

    It’s a boxer leading with his chin.

    I repeat:

    1. Focus on the futility and sheer waste of non-solutions (that way the science doesn’t matter).
    1.1 Hence end all the subsidies and other regulatory impediments that are a drag on the economy.
    2. Zero in on who isn’t doing anything (e.g. China) and will free ride to our detriment.
    3. Wasting precious resources future generations will needed in order to adapt is morally bankrupt.
    4. Australia is not a “high emitter” but a global carbon sink. Therefore, we don’t need to reduce anything!
    4.1. If anything Australia can sell international carbon credits to boost the budget for a change.
    5. Don’t retreat on science but reposition/ refocus on understanding (all climate forcings) and adaptation.
    6. Shift the debate back to bread and butter issues people care about that shape voting intention.
    7. Have a field day wedging Labor / Green irrationality, lies, deception, hypocrissy.

    The Australian public are not stupid. They can spot common sense when they see it.

    So give them common sense!

  16. cohenite

    I helped start the Climate Sceptics. In conversation with industry energy providers I was surprised when they said in 2009 that it would take at least a decade for the madness of alarmism to filter through Australia. I was surprised because the science even then was ripped to shreds, it made no sense. My argument was all it would take is a couple of people of scientific background to hold some talks and present the facts to the public and that would be that.

    I did not filter in a host of motivations driving the alarmist side. Power and money are obvious, all of it through government sinecure; the genuine loons and believers would always provide foot soldiers. But I underestimated the slavishness of the media and the weakness of politicians in supporting alarmism. Now I believe this hoax will continue until the abc is closed; outlets like Fairfax, guardian etc don’t count. The abc gives an outlet for the third rate academics (climate scientists) who in turn provide the gravitas for the talkback and tv programs which in turn terrify the pollies. Close the abc then attack the school syllabuses and the others will evaporate.

    The abc.

  17. I use their own tactics against them …. I have just started calling everybody who advocates for renewables ‘Racists’. Dialog goes something like…

    ‘Oh you support renewables you must be a racist’
    ‘How so’
    ‘You obviously don’t like yellow people’
    ‘What?, When have I ever said that?’
    You do know the Chinese are building 100s of coal fired power stations to create electricity to build all the windmills and solar panels we import – given chinese quality control how much real pollution is being produced.’
    ‘But the chinese government …’
    ‘yep and it is being ignored – just google something like satellite photos show new chinese power stations’
    ‘And what about Lake Baotou, where all the byproducts rare earths used in making windmills and solar panels ends up – once farmland, now an artificial tailings dam. Birds drop dead flying over it, and what about the factories where they are made ? locals around them are suffering cadmium poisoning which is nearly as bad as lead poisoning – don’t believe me? – google it – so chinese workers and their families are dying for your renewable energy, as I said you are a racist !

    Some do look it up in order to rebut me at some point, but come away, not with a changed mind, but at least with an appreciation of the real environmental and social harm being caused

  18. manalive

    … Coalition has been utterly wedged on a Labor/Green policy so mired in contradictions, flawed logic and fraudulent claims …

    Exactly they have wedged themselves, if ‘saving the world’ is worth doing it is worth doing well, on what basis can they criticise Labor’s or the Green’s emissions targets?
    They must rescind the Paris Agreement to even appear consistent.

  19. RobK

    Justinian,
    My policy is achievable
    It’s a good formula.

  20. Entropy

    Almost every day our political and media classes drone on about looming climate catastrophe and how by Australia unilaterally going green we can save the planet, basking not only in our moral virtue, but the free energy from wind and sun that will lower our electricity bills and provide millions of clean energy jobs of the future.

    Don’t worry, I am sure bill barnacle will double down and dig deeper into that magic pudding.

  21. old bloke

    RobK
    #2851457, posted on October 29, 2018 at 12:12 pm

    Taking the wrong path will not get you to where you want to go.

    This is true, the CAGW scam should be called out loudly for what it is, no pussyfooting around it. This requires political leadership which we don’t find in Canberra at the moment.

  22. Tezza

    The Libs have wedged themselves precisely because they have not (with the honourable exception of Abbott, Kelly and a few others) sustained an honest opposition from first principles to hysterical alarmism leading to tremendously expensive but worse-than-useless policies. A wise old strategic analyst I once worked with used to say “The first duty of a good analyst is to re-state the obvious.” It’s amazing how many errors blossom because a completely cock-eyed conception of an alleged problem is accepted without challenge.

    I would never “Accept the climate catastrophe as laid out by the IPCC in all its fire and brimstone devastation”. That only empowers the green left to say “If you agree that Paris is useless and the problem is even worse than we thought, we have to redouble our renewables efforts, and lead the Chinese to virtue by our example. What’s more, we should do as Lomborg implies and bend every taxpayer dollar to the subsidisation of new anti-carbon technologies.” That sort of crap appeals to the green left, and the affluent of Wentworth (but I repeat myself).

    Nor would I ever resile from making your first pair of numbered points (Australia too small to matter and others are powering ahead using coal – in many cases, Australian-exported coal).

    Elsewhere you encourage switching the emphasis to the inevitability of climate change, and that is sensible. The Libs could argue that real environmental stewardship requires we focus resources on improving in a cost effective way how we handle droughts, floods, salivation, fertiliser run-offs and so on.

    That said, your 7 point plan is fine. But never resile from restating important facts.

  23. Justinian the Great

    I will make one last attempt at reason to those who wish to first and foremost dig into the trenches of the scientific debate and climate wars without regard to the end result.

    IT IS A LOSING STRATEGY!!!!

    Are you interested in fighting a pointless proxy battle or winning the war?

    The only way sanity prevails in the climate debate is to call the alarmist bluff!

    Yep! It’s all down hill from here. So what is the plan?

    Oh, there is no plan. So we are buggered (according to your logic). You have no workable solutions.

    Worse, your solution lets the biggest emitters off the hook while sealing our fait.

    So your plan is to sell us down the river without a paddle. Great! Thanks!

    By the way, Australia is not a big emitter. So why are we committing suicide?

    This is a classic risk / reward / cost / benefit analysis most Cats should understand.

    The current “solution” is a fake solution resulting in massive cost for no benefit!!!

    It is all risk with no reward!!!

    Only a moron would sign up to this.

    That is the only way realists will win back the average Aussie voter that ordinarily can sniff out BS at ten paces.

    But hey, if you want to debate sun spots and ice cores and winds and magnetic rays and ocean currents and and infrared atmospherics and warming periods and ice ages and so on and so with feedback after feedback after feedback and consensus on undefined terms and hopefully by now you have got the drift . . . be my guest but know it will get you nowhere.

    I’m not saying real science doesn’t matter. I am talking tactics. Tactics dictate you defeat the pointless of it all on the warmist / alarmist own terms. Only then can you open the door to a semblance of balance in this crazy debate.

    Wise up! Learn from the past. Deal with the reality. The deck is loaded.

    You cannot win by drawing a card. You have to call the warmest bluff.

  24. Bruce of Newcastle

    Are you interested in fighting a pointless proxy battle or winning the war?

    Neither. Fighting for truth over lies and morality over corruption.

    The climate data clearly shows that zero global warming has been happening for a couple decades despite a massive rise in pCO2.

    Any action to fix a non-problem using government money and regulation is immoral.

  25. Mark M

    Meet our education system end results …

    0.00sec: “We are going to go on strike from school, we wanna get the, um, our like carbon (sic) footprint down to 1.5 (?) …”

    ​We are striking from school to tell our politicians to take our futures
    seriously and treat climate change for what it is – a crisis.

    They can show us that they care by taking urgent action to move Australia
    beyond fossil fuel projects (e.g. #StopAdani’s mega coal mine)
    and get the job done of moving us to 100% renewable energy for all.

    0.10sec: “I don’t wanna live in a place, where, you know, we’re in that sort of danger. I don’t like where we are heading and I think it needs to change.”

    Join us November 30 …

    https://www.schoolstrike4climate.com

  26. egg_

    You cannot win by drawing a card. You have to call the warmest bluff.

    Nailed it.

  27. Empire 5:5

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #2851787, posted on October 29, 2018 at 6:43 pm

    Are you interested in fighting a pointless proxy battle or winning the war?

    Neither. Fighting for truth over lies and morality over corruption.

    The climate data clearly shows that zero global warming has been happening for a couple decades despite a massive rise in pCO2.

    This is the light to dark strategy. It is typically superior to the bullshit comes in 32 exciting new flavours this summer strategy.

  28. Paul Farmer

    The problem is there is not one person with the spine, principles and well read up enough to really fight this argument in the liberal party and to bring that argument to the general populace. This is regrettably an endictment on the current liberal party , an opportunity lost, and moreover probably may well be the one thing that ensures their demise. This debate is absolutely winnable if you bring your A game channeling the likes of Karl Popper and in more modern times many well credentialed skeptics, without the need to come across as a science denier.

    The problem is people , both the main stream media ( msm) and the general public, conflate many different aspects of this argument into one narrative. Firstly the msm conflate the authority of the science which has the general direction correct ( albeit just ! ) with the accuracy of the science, which is highly inaccurate. Any sensible government who was pro science would say , we will attach more confidence to the ipcc predictions and ergo their recommendations , when the models actually start zero ing in on the observed empirical evidence. That is just common sense particularly given how inaccurate they have been and isn’t a cop out of any sort or anti scientific in the least. Most of the 30 odd main climate models are junk, one or two such as the Russian models are not too bad, no surprises there give the Russians are a tad better at maths than most folk but the rest by and large belong in the bin.

    Second conflation is that the recommendations by the ipcc bureaucrats for greenhouse reductions are , because they have eminated from a body claiming to be scientific , perceived to be just as infallible. The evidence is getting pretty clear that the catastrophic scenario is just plain silly so it should be discarded from any consequences and likelihoods matrix. Part of the philosophical problem in fighting this nonsense has occurred because the zealots quickly a long time ago , invoked the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is not science, it’s certainly not falsifiable, which is exactly why the lunatic greenies love it. It is rather a principle of risk management and needs to be called out as such. It can only be justified in times of great uncertainty but that uncertainty is rapidly evaporating. The upper bound of warming probably won’t go past 2 degrees and much to the chargrin of the left , that regrettably probably won’t be the end of life on earth as we know it.

    We are not spending trillions of dollars and inordinate amounts of every nation’s gdp on preventing an asteroid smashing into the earth, yet this has a far greater likelihood of ending life on earth anytime soon then this any of this climate change nonsense ever will have. Until someone sensibly reframes the policy discussion to draw away the illusion of science and frame it as one of risk management and priorities and showing agw cc doesn’t even rate on a scale of things that could possibly send us the way of the dinosaurs, then you remain stuck fighting a straw man argument erected by the lunatic left.

    Once you accept , the world isn’t going to end, and the suspension of rational thought that went out the window when the the precautionary came in it can return, you’re back into standard economic textbook trade offs and cost benefit scenarios and most of the carbon abatement targets being suggested by the ipcc will do far more damage then simply doing nothing, which a lot of the earlier work of nordhaus shows.

  29. Ainsley Hayes

    Feelthebern, I think there are just not enough longform interviews on any topic full stop. However, if you missed it, the last but one episode of Life, liberty and Levin with Patrick Michaels was interesting.

  30. Mitchell Porter

    “Accounting for forests, grasses and oceans Australia likely sequesters more carbon dioxide than it emits”

    I would be extremely surprised if Australian forests and grasses compensated for Australian coal and oil burning to any great degree. It would imply that dead plant matter was being incorporated into the soil at extraordinary rates.

    The ocean seems a slightly better bet. If you define our share of ocean as our Exclusive Economic Zone, that’s something like 10 million km^2 out of 360 million km^2 of world ocean. So we might get to claim about 3% of ocean carbon uptake as ours, versus 1% or less of global carbon emissions.

    The question is, what fraction of human civilization’s CO2 emission gets absorbed by the ocean? Obviously it isn’t all of it, or there wouldn’t be an upward trend in the CO2 ppm at all. But if it is as much as 1/3, then perhaps you could claim that Australian ocean waters make us carbon-neutral.

  31. BoN;

    The climate data clearly shows that zero global warming has been happening for a couple decades despite a massive rise in pCO2.

    The interesting thing is that food production has been increasing regularly as the higher level of CO2 allows better cropping.
    The Greens want this stopped.
    That says a lot about the Greens.

  32. Empire 5:5

    This debate is absolutely winnable if you bring your A game channeling the likes of Karl Popper and in more modern times many well credentialed skeptics, without the need to come across as a science denier.

    This isn’t a policy debate. It’s a corruption issue.

    The problem can’t be solved by scientific argument. The lie will collapse when the crooks are taken down.

    That is Trump’s strategy. His apparent acquiescence to some things thermogeddon just buys time and confuses the master leeches. Look at Steyer’s recent behaviour.

    A rogues’ gallery of climate scammers.

    http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/board-investors/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.