bullus_hit said:
You can write me a ticket for what you think is fair. Existing climate models can't reproduce historical weather events; forgive me for not having complete faith in them with regard to the future.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
You can write me a ticket for what you think is fair. Existing climate models can't reproduce historical weather events; forgive me for not having complete faith in them with regard to the future.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Your lack of faith is not based on the science though so why use bad science to bolster your argument?. The science is solid and consistently confirmed as more data comes in. Only practicing quantum physicists have a truely in depth understanding of what is really going on a sub-atomic level and much of the theory is counter-intuitive in the extreme. But it consistently predicts outcomes it just isn't written about because most of us don't care why high speed communication and miniature electronics works. But we all have life long experience of weather and feel comfortable extending that to the unimaginably complex global climate. Your bet is an easy one to make the changes we are seeing will take hundreds to thousands of years. Does that mean we should take no resonsibility?
I have said many times that I think the disussion of the science is misplaced. Disagree with the policy because that is something we all understand but to belittle the science is to rationalise inaction. Work smarter not harder is a great motto. Finding cleaner sources of electricity that are less limited and building houses and factories and cars and trasport that are more efficient just makes sense and happens to benefit the environment. Why has one of the richest men in the world put so much of his money into an electric car company? He's hardly a dope, or a hippie - his other company builds rockets. He is a modern visionary and he sees electric cars as part of the future. We can do better and we can benefit from it while modernising our economy and reducing our impact on the environment. It isn't all pain no gain and it isn't either or.
KnightersRevenge said:
That's the thing, I don't believe the science is solid. Tweak a few of the many variables and the models will produce disparate outcomes. It's educated guesswork, but guesswork just the same.
I grew up with the threat of nuclear war omnipresent. When the US bombed Tripoli everyone wondered, "Is this it?" Climate change is the new boogeyman. It has subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) infiltrated popular culture.
I'm a nature lover at heart, work in IT and subscribe to a science magazine, so not exactly a Luddite. Perhaps it's irresponsible of me, but when told earnestly that X is going to happen and it doesn't eventuate, scepticism sets in quickly.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I'm sure you're not a Luddite but other than a bit of baffonery by Tim Flannery which "X" are we talking about and when didn't it happen? We live daily lives and understand things on a timescale that is logical for our experience. The global climate changes we are talking about are measured in millenia. You just aren't going to see it in a way that is easy to understand. Have a look at the video I posted. It explains historical warming and cooling in terms of our cosmological situation. The current warming is out of kilter with it. Why do you think that is and why does it lag the industrial revolution? No one is denying its been warmer and cooler before just that previous increases in atmospheric CO2 were a part of this cycle. The current increase is outside this cycle.
But again my main point is that we can innovate out of good sense and make better technologies and have better lives while making money and products and technologies for the region. Who cares about the warming? Do smart science and smart engineering and it will look after itself.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Okey Dokey, let's start with $500, global average temperatures from 2014-2023 (presuming we're both still kicking by that stage). If the temperature remains stable then it's a stalemate, money can be deposited in a nominated bank account.
KnightersRevenge said:
If only that were the case, we'll see distinct changes this century, we've already increased by nearly a degree in 100 years and emissions continue to grow. One thing's for certain, if we reach the tipping point, we could see dramatic changes in as little as two seasons, when systems collapse they do so abruptly, nature can be violent in it's attempts to restore balance.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I'll have some of that. So will all my kids and their kids and their kids kids and their kids kids kids etc etc. 10K should cover it. pm me a trust fund with a reputable solicitor, a tight definition of 'passe' and your deposit chit.
KnightersRevenge said:
Canada's CanESM2 was a notable. The website now carries this caution:
The IPCC itself is another.
"Regardless of whether scientists are wrong on global warming, current European Union energy policies are the right ones even if they lead to higher prices for consumers, Europe’s climate action commissioner has said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
NB I'm not a denialist, merely a skeptic. There's nothing at all wrong with seeking to do things smarter and/or better.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Maybe maybe not. You posted a graph with a tiny data set and claimed it calls the whole thing into question. That's what the denialists do. The conversation should not be about the science, it is too complex for those of us who don't have the training to understand. The conversation should be about how we innovate. Surely if we can have all the creature comforts and maybe some we haven't dreamt of but can have them without creating the devastation of forests and species and without the need to sacrifice to air quality we should do it anyway?
Will Abbott appoint an IPA man to a renewables review?
ENVIRONMENT
The renewable energy industry in Australia might be tempted to pack their bags and find another country to conduct their business if the latest talk in Canberra is true: sources say that the Abbott government will name Alan Moran, an anti-renewable zealot from the Institute of Public Affairs, to a new panel that will review the Renewable Energy Target.
According to sources, Moran will be one of three or four business people appointed to an “independent” panel that will get secretarial support from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet — rather than departments for the environment or industry, which includes responsibility for energy.
If true, that will ensure that the panel is closely monitored by Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s inner core, who include the climate change contrarion and anti-wind advocate Maurice Newman — his chief business advisor — and others from the conservative hard-right who neither accept the science of climate change nor the attraction of renewable energy.
And if true, it will shape up as a disaster for the renewable energy industry in Australia, which has already ground to a halt because of policy uncertainty, and which could face not just the possibility of the RET being diluted, but removed altogether. The Abbott government is insisting on another review of the supposed health impacts of wind farms, despite not releasing a report from its main medical body, and there is also talk that the government support for rooftop solar will also be removed.
Moran has famously hard-nosed views about renewables, and wind and solar in particular. In a panel discussion at Clean Energy Week in 2012, even former senator Nick Minchin, the man who orchestrated Abbott’s rise to power and the scrapping of bipartisan climate policy, said Moran made him “look like a pinko”.
Moran, like others from the IPA, including former head and now WA Energy Minister Mike Nahan, believe wind and solar don’t work, don’t cause abatement, and need like-for-like fossil fuel backup and constant spinning reserve, a myth that is repeated ad nauseum by conservative commentators.
When asked, in 2012, of his vision of the future, Moran’s response was to look 50 years into the past. “We had communism then, we got the Greens now,” he grumbled. He said the energy profile in the 1960s was not much different from today, and “I expect that will continue into the future”.
Moran, who is the head of the IPA’s deregulation unit, was one of the main speakers at a poorly attended anti-wind rally in Canberra, which described the RET as a fraud. He described wind and solar as costly and “low quality”, said their costs were amplified by the need for backup in terms of fast-start conventional businesses, and were “imposing a huge burden on consumers and businesses”.
Abbott has been adopting many of these lines in his recent talking points. As has Newman.
Last week, Moran wrote an opinion piece in The Australian Financial Review titled “Renewable energy sources are just a power failure”. He said the support of renewables entails “crippling subsidies paid by consumers and businesses”, accusing the RET of playing a role in the foreshadowed plant closures of Holden, Electrolux and the aluminium smelters at Kurri Kurri and Point Henry.
RenewEconomy sought comment from the government, but was told only that the RET review details would be announced soon. “The government is committed to the RET and our policy has not changed,” a spokesperson said, emphasising the government is also committed to lowering the cost of electricity.
The details of the RET review had been due to be released before Christmas, but appear to have been derailed because it was unable to dissolve the Climate Change Authority — which conducted the last RET review and found in favour of the renewables industry — which has a statutory requirement to conduct the next review. That may have made it difficult for the government to appoint the Productivity Commission, as some in cabinet had urged. The creation of a panel is a potential way around that, even though the government is not obliged to adopt the CCA recommendations.
Many of Moran’s claims are wrong. South Australia now has more than 31% of its demand sourced from wind and solar, without the need for any new backup generation. The state’s wholesale cost of electricity, and its emissions profile, have fallen sharply.
There was one very revealing moment in Moran’s comments to the renewables industry in 2012. Moran had predicted that renewables such as wind and solar would account for just 1% of global energy by 2050 — less than they do now. But in what must have been a Freudian slip, he acknowledged there was a “slim chance” that a global accord to fight climate change could be implemented — in which case, he said, “there would be 60-70% renewables”
by Giles Parkinson
ENVIRONMENT
The renewable energy industry in Australia might be tempted to pack their bags and find another country to conduct their business if the latest talk in Canberra is true: sources say that the Abbott government will name Alan Moran, an anti-renewable zealot from the Institute of Public Affairs, to a new panel that will review the Renewable Energy Target.
According to sources, Moran will be one of three or four business people appointed to an “independent” panel that will get secretarial support from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet — rather than departments for the environment or industry, which includes responsibility for energy.
If true, that will ensure that the panel is closely monitored by Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s inner core, who include the climate change contrarion and anti-wind advocate Maurice Newman — his chief business advisor — and others from the conservative hard-right who neither accept the science of climate change nor the attraction of renewable energy.
And if true, it will shape up as a disaster for the renewable energy industry in Australia, which has already ground to a halt because of policy uncertainty, and which could face not just the possibility of the RET being diluted, but removed altogether. The Abbott government is insisting on another review of the supposed health impacts of wind farms, despite not releasing a report from its main medical body, and there is also talk that the government support for rooftop solar will also be removed.
Moran has famously hard-nosed views about renewables, and wind and solar in particular. In a panel discussion at Clean Energy Week in 2012, even former senator Nick Minchin, the man who orchestrated Abbott’s rise to power and the scrapping of bipartisan climate policy, said Moran made him “look like a pinko”.
Moran, like others from the IPA, including former head and now WA Energy Minister Mike Nahan, believe wind and solar don’t work, don’t cause abatement, and need like-for-like fossil fuel backup and constant spinning reserve, a myth that is repeated ad nauseum by conservative commentators.
When asked, in 2012, of his vision of the future, Moran’s response was to look 50 years into the past. “We had communism then, we got the Greens now,” he grumbled. He said the energy profile in the 1960s was not much different from today, and “I expect that will continue into the future”.
Moran, who is the head of the IPA’s deregulation unit, was one of the main speakers at a poorly attended anti-wind rally in Canberra, which described the RET as a fraud. He described wind and solar as costly and “low quality”, said their costs were amplified by the need for backup in terms of fast-start conventional businesses, and were “imposing a huge burden on consumers and businesses”.
Abbott has been adopting many of these lines in his recent talking points. As has Newman.
Last week, Moran wrote an opinion piece in The Australian Financial Review titled “Renewable energy sources are just a power failure”. He said the support of renewables entails “crippling subsidies paid by consumers and businesses”, accusing the RET of playing a role in the foreshadowed plant closures of Holden, Electrolux and the aluminium smelters at Kurri Kurri and Point Henry.
RenewEconomy sought comment from the government, but was told only that the RET review details would be announced soon. “The government is committed to the RET and our policy has not changed,” a spokesperson said, emphasising the government is also committed to lowering the cost of electricity.
The details of the RET review had been due to be released before Christmas, but appear to have been derailed because it was unable to dissolve the Climate Change Authority — which conducted the last RET review and found in favour of the renewables industry — which has a statutory requirement to conduct the next review. That may have made it difficult for the government to appoint the Productivity Commission, as some in cabinet had urged. The creation of a panel is a potential way around that, even though the government is not obliged to adopt the CCA recommendations.
Many of Moran’s claims are wrong. South Australia now has more than 31% of its demand sourced from wind and solar, without the need for any new backup generation. The state’s wholesale cost of electricity, and its emissions profile, have fallen sharply.
There was one very revealing moment in Moran’s comments to the renewables industry in 2012. Moran had predicted that renewables such as wind and solar would account for just 1% of global energy by 2050 — less than they do now. But in what must have been a Freudian slip, he acknowledged there was a “slim chance” that a global accord to fight climate change could be implemented — in which case, he said, “there would be 60-70% renewables”
by Giles Parkinson
Yeah Moran is an odd cat. A lot of his analysis and arguments are over the top, its as if he was bullied by some solar or wind energy bosses as a schoolkid. His views all rely on the premise that air pollution is fine, as you'd expect. He basically thinks their should be no environmental regulation of any kind. Cities can sprawl into ghettos, fisheries can be stripped etc, as long as there's a market for the houses and the fish the government, ie the people, should stay out of it.
Persoanlly I think the Libs love of the IPA is very concerning. On the one hand you have the nations universities, large, old accountable intitutions full of experts of all political pursuasions competing for funds nationally an internationally, on the other hand you have the IPA. 30 odd staff, who I'd argue tend to be failed academics with extreme views that don't stand up to peer reviewed scrutiny. They self publish and rely on a bias media, the ABC balance charter, and an ideologically driven government for airtime and funds. Or if you like, one big and existing in a free and competitive market for funds and knowledge, the other a small closed shop.
Persoanlly I think the Libs love of the IPA is very concerning. On the one hand you have the nations universities, large, old accountable intitutions full of experts of all political pursuasions competing for funds nationally an internationally, on the other hand you have the IPA. 30 odd staff, who I'd argue tend to be failed academics with extreme views that don't stand up to peer reviewed scrutiny. They self publish and rely on a bias media, the ABC balance charter, and an ideologically driven government for airtime and funds. Or if you like, one big and existing in a free and competitive market for funds and knowledge, the other a small closed shop.
tigersnake said:
You forgot to mention the undisclosed funding. Having advisors from a group with such an anti-disclosure bent seems undemocratic to me. The PM certainly can't claim transparency with a straight face with the IPA dictating public policy.
tigersnake said:
Too kind TS. Hes a complete $*smile*. Car lobbyist, one of Clive Hamiltons' 'climate dirty dozen', director of "The Deregulation Unit".
He's had a knock on the head at some stage thats taken out his anterior insular cortex. Either that or he was born that way, which is being very mean to his mum and dad
Giardiasis said:
interesting table. As i've said, and as the progressive expert policy direction says, you use the profits from dirty energy to subsidise start up clean energy, simple. (again, that's if you accept the premise that climate change is a real problem that needs addressing, and/or that we have responsibilites to future generations and ecosystems).
This is an old table, particularly for how quickly things are moving in this field. The policies work where they're allowed to be implemented for a decent period of time, that is, the cost differential keeps closing.
Also, if the environmental costs of polluting energy were internalised, the table would look very different. right now 1KW of coal power costs $1 while belching smoke, 1KW of wind power cost $2 with no smoke. Its all very simple kids
2013 Marked the thirty-seventh consecutive year of above-normal global temperature. There may be the odd anomaly but long term that graph is heading very clearly headed in one direction.
http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C51/temperature_2014
http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C51/temperature_2014
Tigers of Old said:2013 Marked the thirty-seventh consecutive year of above-normal global temperature. There may be the odd anomaly but long term that graph is heading very clearly headed in one direction.
http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C51/temperature_2014
Bunkum Oldie. Apply a 1/log to it and you've got the joint clearly getting cooler. Its cool and rainy here today. Next youlle be cutting and pasting a graph that links Aspestos to mesothelioma or something.
On another related matter, around here, we have these strange yellow posters beside every road that say
"100% of (insert community name here) residents agree"
"NO COAL SEAM GAS"
While FWIW, I agree too, I dont get the signs on a couple of counts: (1) surely SOMEONE has shares in santos and disagrees? and (2) Im sure 100% of residents agree that passionfruit icing is delicious too, but ive never seen a sign to that effect.
it is very unfortunate that the gov, which has professed to believe the science of climate change could only find someone who does not to head their review into renewable energy. if i were a cynic i may think they were hoping for unfavourable findings.
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-*smile*-warburton-to-head-tony-abbott-review-into-renewable-energy-target-20140217-32vve.html
Climate sceptic *smile* Warburton to head Tony Abbott review into renewable energy target
The Abbott government has launched a formal review of Australia's 20 per cent renewable energy target, choosing senior business figure and climate change sceptic *smile* Warburton to head it.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane launched the review on Monday afternoon, saying it would focus on the target’s impacts on electricity prices, the renewable energy sector, manufacturing and households.
Among other things, the review will also advise on whether the size of the target ‘‘is still appropriate’’ and consider the scheme’s interaction with other government programs.
The target, established under the Howard government and expanded under Labor, mandates that at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2020. But with electricity demand falling in Australia some industry groups complain the target – which mandates 41,000 gigawatt–hours of power be produced from renewables by decade's end – will be overshot by up to 7 per cent.
The renewable energy industry say billions of dollars in investment will be significantly hurt if the target is radically altered. And they say rather than lowering power bills, cutting the target will mean more reliance on increasingly more expensive natural gas.
Both Mr Hunt and Mr Macfarlane emphasised a target review was due in legislation this year. The review was to be carried out by the independent Climate Change Authority, although the government is seeking to disband the body alongside the carbon tax.
An earlier review of the renewables target by the Authority in 2012 found it should not be changed because it would hurt investor confidence in the sector. The Authority also recommended the next review of the target be pushed back to 2016, something the former Labor government failed to change in law.
Mr Macfarlane said the government was mindful of the contribution renewable energy makes to Australia's electricity mix. But he said it had to be put in the context of an oversupply of electricity in Australia.
"Renewable energy has a role to play and it is now time to see where this scheme is going," he said.
Mr Hunt said the government wanted to encourage the development of the renewable energy industry in an environment of stability and long-term security.
"Everything has to be put in the context of the overall costs to the economy. But it is a very productive sector. It's an important contribution [to electricity], and what we are looking to do is provide long-term certainty," Mr Hunt said.
The Abbott government's renewable energy target review will be carried out by a four-person panel headed by former Reserve Bank board member Mr Warburton.
A self-declared climate change sceptic, Mr Waburton told Fairfax Media on Monday that he still maintained those views. But he said he had made a commitment to Prime Minister Tony Abbott that he would carry out the review in a ‘‘completely open fashion’’ and fully canvass all other sides.
‘‘I am not a denier of climate change. But I am sceptical about some of the aspects of global warming, and more particularly what might be causing it, and I don’t resile from any of those comments,’’ Mr Warburton said.
‘‘But I want to be very clear I will be having a very open position on this [the review] and want to make sure we do get all sides of the discussion tabled.’’
In 2011 Mr Warburton co-authored a two part-article in the conservative journal Quadrant called "The Intelligent Voter's Guide to Global Warming", which questioned the findings of mainstream science about how much global warming would be caused by man-made emissions.
Chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator Matt Zema, former chief executive of Verve Energy, Shirley In't Veld, and former head of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics & Sciences, Dr Brian Fisher, will also be on the review team, which is due to report its findings to the Prime Minister's department by mid-year.
The renewable energy sector has been concerned that the target is about to be slashed or even dumped following several negative comments by Prime Minister Tony Abbott about its impact on electricity prices.
Mr Abbott made fresh comments about renewable energy and the target in an interview with Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones on Monday morning. He said the target was having a "not insignificant" impact on power prices, but not as great an impact as the carbon tax.
But Mr Abbott went on to say renewable energy did make a lot of sense.
Mr Jones then responded by saying "it's not affordable," which prompted Mr Abbott to say: "If it goes too far it becomes very, very costly."
"It is one thing to have solar hot water systems and what have you but it's another thing to expect that we can deliver base load power with renewables. That is why all of these renewable systems need conventional backup."
Greens leader Christine Milne said the review was a thinly veiled attack on solar and wind energy in favour of coal.
‘‘Climate denier *smile* Warburton is one of the nation’s chief opponents to carbon pricing and effective global warming policy,’’ she said.
Climate Institute chief executive, John Connor, said contrary to many claims the cost of the renewable energy target was cheap – about $1 a week for the average household – and if changed the emissions intensive coal-fired generators would be a major beneficiary.
Power giant Origin Energy has previously called for the target to be delayed by five years to 2025, but increased to 25 per cent.
Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said circumstances had changed markedly since the current target was set. In particular projections of electricity demand had fallen so that the legislated target was now well in excess of the original 20 per cent goal.
“The key challenge of the review will be to find the balance between the direct costs for energy users of the [target] and its impact to suppress wholesale electricity prices,’’ he said.
“We particularly welcome the inquiry as an opportunity to tease out the various impacts of the [target] on electricity prices and to examine closely how changing the target might be expected to flow through to changes in electricity prices for households and business users.’’
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-*smile*-warburton-to-head-tony-abbott-review-into-renewable-energy-target-20140217-32vve.html
Climate sceptic *smile* Warburton to head Tony Abbott review into renewable energy target
The Abbott government has launched a formal review of Australia's 20 per cent renewable energy target, choosing senior business figure and climate change sceptic *smile* Warburton to head it.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane launched the review on Monday afternoon, saying it would focus on the target’s impacts on electricity prices, the renewable energy sector, manufacturing and households.
Among other things, the review will also advise on whether the size of the target ‘‘is still appropriate’’ and consider the scheme’s interaction with other government programs.
The target, established under the Howard government and expanded under Labor, mandates that at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2020. But with electricity demand falling in Australia some industry groups complain the target – which mandates 41,000 gigawatt–hours of power be produced from renewables by decade's end – will be overshot by up to 7 per cent.
The renewable energy industry say billions of dollars in investment will be significantly hurt if the target is radically altered. And they say rather than lowering power bills, cutting the target will mean more reliance on increasingly more expensive natural gas.
Both Mr Hunt and Mr Macfarlane emphasised a target review was due in legislation this year. The review was to be carried out by the independent Climate Change Authority, although the government is seeking to disband the body alongside the carbon tax.
An earlier review of the renewables target by the Authority in 2012 found it should not be changed because it would hurt investor confidence in the sector. The Authority also recommended the next review of the target be pushed back to 2016, something the former Labor government failed to change in law.
Mr Macfarlane said the government was mindful of the contribution renewable energy makes to Australia's electricity mix. But he said it had to be put in the context of an oversupply of electricity in Australia.
"Renewable energy has a role to play and it is now time to see where this scheme is going," he said.
Mr Hunt said the government wanted to encourage the development of the renewable energy industry in an environment of stability and long-term security.
"Everything has to be put in the context of the overall costs to the economy. But it is a very productive sector. It's an important contribution [to electricity], and what we are looking to do is provide long-term certainty," Mr Hunt said.
The Abbott government's renewable energy target review will be carried out by a four-person panel headed by former Reserve Bank board member Mr Warburton.
A self-declared climate change sceptic, Mr Waburton told Fairfax Media on Monday that he still maintained those views. But he said he had made a commitment to Prime Minister Tony Abbott that he would carry out the review in a ‘‘completely open fashion’’ and fully canvass all other sides.
‘‘I am not a denier of climate change. But I am sceptical about some of the aspects of global warming, and more particularly what might be causing it, and I don’t resile from any of those comments,’’ Mr Warburton said.
‘‘But I want to be very clear I will be having a very open position on this [the review] and want to make sure we do get all sides of the discussion tabled.’’
In 2011 Mr Warburton co-authored a two part-article in the conservative journal Quadrant called "The Intelligent Voter's Guide to Global Warming", which questioned the findings of mainstream science about how much global warming would be caused by man-made emissions.
Chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator Matt Zema, former chief executive of Verve Energy, Shirley In't Veld, and former head of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics & Sciences, Dr Brian Fisher, will also be on the review team, which is due to report its findings to the Prime Minister's department by mid-year.
The renewable energy sector has been concerned that the target is about to be slashed or even dumped following several negative comments by Prime Minister Tony Abbott about its impact on electricity prices.
Mr Abbott made fresh comments about renewable energy and the target in an interview with Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones on Monday morning. He said the target was having a "not insignificant" impact on power prices, but not as great an impact as the carbon tax.
But Mr Abbott went on to say renewable energy did make a lot of sense.
Mr Jones then responded by saying "it's not affordable," which prompted Mr Abbott to say: "If it goes too far it becomes very, very costly."
"It is one thing to have solar hot water systems and what have you but it's another thing to expect that we can deliver base load power with renewables. That is why all of these renewable systems need conventional backup."
Greens leader Christine Milne said the review was a thinly veiled attack on solar and wind energy in favour of coal.
‘‘Climate denier *smile* Warburton is one of the nation’s chief opponents to carbon pricing and effective global warming policy,’’ she said.
Climate Institute chief executive, John Connor, said contrary to many claims the cost of the renewable energy target was cheap – about $1 a week for the average household – and if changed the emissions intensive coal-fired generators would be a major beneficiary.
Power giant Origin Energy has previously called for the target to be delayed by five years to 2025, but increased to 25 per cent.
Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said circumstances had changed markedly since the current target was set. In particular projections of electricity demand had fallen so that the legislated target was now well in excess of the original 20 per cent goal.
“The key challenge of the review will be to find the balance between the direct costs for energy users of the [target] and its impact to suppress wholesale electricity prices,’’ he said.
“We particularly welcome the inquiry as an opportunity to tease out the various impacts of the [target] on electricity prices and to examine closely how changing the target might be expected to flow through to changes in electricity prices for households and business users.’’
http://science.time.com/2014/02/23/krauthammer-climate-change-caveman/
Unfrozen Caveman Pundit Debates Climate Change
If you want to argue about science, it's helps to know how the scientific method itself works
Climate change has a strange way of making people say ridiculous things. There’s the crowd that hoots “Where’s your global warming now?” every time there’s a cold snap or a blizzard in their home town—as if local weather were the same as global climate. There’s the faction that continues to insist that climate change is an elaborate hoax, one that’s enabled by a “bought-off media,” without ever specifying a) who’s doing the buying off and, b) exactly where I should have been going all these years to pick up my check.
And then there are the people who have way too much intellectual octane to be ridiculous, but they don’t mind getting the facts tactically wrong. Which brings us to Charles Krauthammer—specifically to the column he wrote in the Feb. 20 Washington Post. The headline—“The Myth of ‘Settled Science’”—portended bad things. But the opening sentences gave me hope.
“I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it can’t be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Regrettably these sentences were followed by this sentence: “I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.” And everything fell apart from there.
The biggest problem with this point is that those white-coated propagandists are white-coated strawmen—people who, for all practical purposes, don’t exist. Krauthammer either has not been following the science in the 30 years the climate change debate has been raging, or he has been following it and is pretending not to understand it. (The third possibility—that he has been following it and actually doesn’t understand it—I reject out of hand. That thing about the intellectual octane again.)
The fact that has become inescapable for those who have indeed followed the research, who may have even read at least a few of the scientific papers (and not just the abstracts of those papers—that’s cheating—the whole thing, beginning to end, intro to data-crunching to conclusion) is that virtually no legitimate climate scientists ever claim to know exactly what will happen in 20 or 30 or 50 years. For a long time, in fact, climate science has been built on two core truths: that the climate is changing, driven in meaningful ways by human greenhouse emissions; and that the climate system as a whole is far, far too complex to be modeled or understood with anything like absolute certainty.
Indeed, the researchers typically take pains to point out what their models don’t prove, what they can’t establish with certainty. And subsequent models—often by the same investigators—offer revisions and refinements accordingly. (Again, reading the scientific papers—particularly the final sections in which researchers own up to the limitations of their conclusions and the work that needs to be done in the future—makes that plain.)
I don’t believe Krauthammer needs any schooling in how the scientific method works; I believe he knows. But when it comes to climate change, he affect a disingenuous, Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer naiveté. I’m just a caveman. These computer models confuse and frighten me. Except that, like the caveman of the legendary Saturday Night Live sketch, he’s not a bit confused. It’s simply ideologically convenient to act that way. He surely knows how the arc of scientific progress plays out—typically beginning with a big brainstorm followed by a billion different squalls and cross-currents over the years that challenge and elevate and improve the original insight but don’t overturn it.
In the 1980s, science determined that HIV causes AIDS. In the three decades since, studies conducted in vitro, in vivo, in the cold brains of computer models, have sought to unravel the impossibly complicated puzzle of how that happens and how medical researchers can best fight back. There have been reverses and revisions and even occasional retractions, but the fundamental truth hasn’t changed. The same is true of plate tectonics and their role in earthquakes. Does Krauthammer pretend that any geologist in the world claims to know what the San Andreas fault is going to do 20 or 30 or 50 years from now? Do we take botched predictions as a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with the basic principles, that the scientists are somehow venal or dishonest?
Krauthammer’s column was pegged to nine words in last month’s State of the Union Address. “The debate is settled,” President Obama declared. “Climate change is a fact.” To which Krauthammer responded, “‘Climate change is a fact?’ Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge."
Only Krauthammer knows what he meant when he wrote that. Does he genuinely believe that Obama—who, whatever else you might say about him, is no ninny—was really claiming that climate science, for all its complexity, is fixed and complete and a closed book? Or might the President more plausibly have meant that in a political atmosphere in which members of the opposing party continue to call climate change “phony science,” “the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” it might be time to say out loud that no it isn’t, that global warming is confoundingly, worrisomely, dangerously real, even if there are uncountable unanswered questions about it.
The rest of Krauthammer’s piece was the usual dreary exercise in scientific hole-poking: What about the much-discussed 15-year ‘pause’ in warming? What about the backing and forthing on whether climate change is contributing to the frequency and severity of hurricanes? Answer that!
To which, yet again, I say, read the studies. The answers are there, the complexity is there and the frustrating ambiguities are there too—all spelled out, all acknowledged. But none of that changes this simple truth: the debate is settled, human-influenced climate change is a fact, and so—for those willing to entertain complexity, to crack a sweat to understand something worth understanding—is the scientific method.
Unfrozen Caveman Pundit Debates Climate Change
If you want to argue about science, it's helps to know how the scientific method itself works
Climate change has a strange way of making people say ridiculous things. There’s the crowd that hoots “Where’s your global warming now?” every time there’s a cold snap or a blizzard in their home town—as if local weather were the same as global climate. There’s the faction that continues to insist that climate change is an elaborate hoax, one that’s enabled by a “bought-off media,” without ever specifying a) who’s doing the buying off and, b) exactly where I should have been going all these years to pick up my check.
And then there are the people who have way too much intellectual octane to be ridiculous, but they don’t mind getting the facts tactically wrong. Which brings us to Charles Krauthammer—specifically to the column he wrote in the Feb. 20 Washington Post. The headline—“The Myth of ‘Settled Science’”—portended bad things. But the opening sentences gave me hope.
“I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it can’t be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Regrettably these sentences were followed by this sentence: “I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.” And everything fell apart from there.
The biggest problem with this point is that those white-coated propagandists are white-coated strawmen—people who, for all practical purposes, don’t exist. Krauthammer either has not been following the science in the 30 years the climate change debate has been raging, or he has been following it and is pretending not to understand it. (The third possibility—that he has been following it and actually doesn’t understand it—I reject out of hand. That thing about the intellectual octane again.)
The fact that has become inescapable for those who have indeed followed the research, who may have even read at least a few of the scientific papers (and not just the abstracts of those papers—that’s cheating—the whole thing, beginning to end, intro to data-crunching to conclusion) is that virtually no legitimate climate scientists ever claim to know exactly what will happen in 20 or 30 or 50 years. For a long time, in fact, climate science has been built on two core truths: that the climate is changing, driven in meaningful ways by human greenhouse emissions; and that the climate system as a whole is far, far too complex to be modeled or understood with anything like absolute certainty.
Indeed, the researchers typically take pains to point out what their models don’t prove, what they can’t establish with certainty. And subsequent models—often by the same investigators—offer revisions and refinements accordingly. (Again, reading the scientific papers—particularly the final sections in which researchers own up to the limitations of their conclusions and the work that needs to be done in the future—makes that plain.)
I don’t believe Krauthammer needs any schooling in how the scientific method works; I believe he knows. But when it comes to climate change, he affect a disingenuous, Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer naiveté. I’m just a caveman. These computer models confuse and frighten me. Except that, like the caveman of the legendary Saturday Night Live sketch, he’s not a bit confused. It’s simply ideologically convenient to act that way. He surely knows how the arc of scientific progress plays out—typically beginning with a big brainstorm followed by a billion different squalls and cross-currents over the years that challenge and elevate and improve the original insight but don’t overturn it.
In the 1980s, science determined that HIV causes AIDS. In the three decades since, studies conducted in vitro, in vivo, in the cold brains of computer models, have sought to unravel the impossibly complicated puzzle of how that happens and how medical researchers can best fight back. There have been reverses and revisions and even occasional retractions, but the fundamental truth hasn’t changed. The same is true of plate tectonics and their role in earthquakes. Does Krauthammer pretend that any geologist in the world claims to know what the San Andreas fault is going to do 20 or 30 or 50 years from now? Do we take botched predictions as a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with the basic principles, that the scientists are somehow venal or dishonest?
Krauthammer’s column was pegged to nine words in last month’s State of the Union Address. “The debate is settled,” President Obama declared. “Climate change is a fact.” To which Krauthammer responded, “‘Climate change is a fact?’ Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge."
Only Krauthammer knows what he meant when he wrote that. Does he genuinely believe that Obama—who, whatever else you might say about him, is no ninny—was really claiming that climate science, for all its complexity, is fixed and complete and a closed book? Or might the President more plausibly have meant that in a political atmosphere in which members of the opposing party continue to call climate change “phony science,” “the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” it might be time to say out loud that no it isn’t, that global warming is confoundingly, worrisomely, dangerously real, even if there are uncountable unanswered questions about it.
The rest of Krauthammer’s piece was the usual dreary exercise in scientific hole-poking: What about the much-discussed 15-year ‘pause’ in warming? What about the backing and forthing on whether climate change is contributing to the frequency and severity of hurricanes? Answer that!
To which, yet again, I say, read the studies. The answers are there, the complexity is there and the frustrating ambiguities are there too—all spelled out, all acknowledged. But none of that changes this simple truth: the debate is settled, human-influenced climate change is a fact, and so—for those willing to entertain complexity, to crack a sweat to understand something worth understanding—is the scientific method.
China running out of face masks to deal with smog.
Beijing's official reading for PM 2.5 - small airborne particles which easily penetrate the lungs and have been linked to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths - stood at 501 micrograms per cubic metre on Wednesday afternoon.
The World Health Organisation's recommended safe limit is 25.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-27/chinas-continued-smog-hazard-forces-face-masks-out-of-stock/5286888
Beijing's official reading for PM 2.5 - small airborne particles which easily penetrate the lungs and have been linked to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths - stood at 501 micrograms per cubic metre on Wednesday afternoon.
The World Health Organisation's recommended safe limit is 25.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-27/chinas-continued-smog-hazard-forces-face-masks-out-of-stock/5286888
