Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Drought in most of Australia at the time?

[fish]

Perhaps circumstances changed?

Circumstances have changed since that July 2009 interview smac:

Human activity has emitted almost two years worth of greenhouse gases largely unabated.

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen.

The upward trend in global temperature has continued.

The need for action on human-induced climate change has become even more urgent.

[redandblack]

Only Tony Abbott would be allowed to get away with that explanation without being called to account

[Interceptor]

Interceptor, it's the 2nd story in The Age, has been on Lateline and morning TV, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet in The Australian

I guess you must've looked too soon

Try this

Positive article about Swan's spin, plus as a bonus, the "Abbott carbon debacle" video!

[Interceptor]

The need for action on human-induced climate change has become even more urgent.

If it was that urgent governments would proposing far more drastic steps.
We and the rest of the world will be long burning fossil fuels and gases for power.

If the prophets of doom are correct, people will adapt to how the climate changes, which won't be the first time in human history.

[redandblack]

Ah, Interceptor, with respect, you're still not up to how The Australian works.

It's like the pro-carbon tax rally story, posted at midnight, more than 12 hours after the event

What they do with these stories, which they have to cover, is to bury them and/or mix them up with another story. In this case, for a story which was a headline story in The Age, they only put it on-line this afternoon as a tiny link to the video, well down the page.

The only commentary was quoted parts of Swan's speech: no analysis, no criticism at all.

What you should also know is that if The Australian asks government ministers for a written reply to a question, the government sends the answer to all media, so that any 'spin' or misquoting is obvious.

However, I'll happily give ticks to The Australian if you are able, now or in the next day or two, to post any article by any of their regular 'journalists' giving substantial critical analysis of Abbott over this.

Fair enough?

PS: You said earlier that I was 'playing the man' when I said you were behind the game re the media. Am I now a 'prophet of doom', as well as having 'watermelon politics' and being a hippie (I didn't know they were still around)

[fish]

The need for action on human-induced climate change has become even more urgent.

If it was that urgent governments would proposing far more drastic steps.

The scientists have been telling governments for years that urgent action is need but many governments have failed to act. I blame any number of reasons including lack of leadership, denial of climate change, fear of change, not wanting to be among the first to act, lack of a mandate etc. for this inaction.

Thankfully some governments are acting such as the UK who are cutting their emissions by 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

[fish]

We and the rest of the world will be long burning fossil fuels and gases for power.

In a small way maybe but in a large way only if we can work out how to capture and sequester the carbon emissions.

[fish]

If the prophets of doom are correct, people will adapt to how the climate changes, which won't be the first time in human history.

"Prophets of doom" is a rather unkind word for the scientists who are researching and modelling climate change and its impacts.

Yes - adaption to some climate change is inevitable but the less adapting we have to do the better. Surely it is better to avoid or minimise negative impacts on our water resources, food supplies, coastal settlements, health and ecosystems rather than just sit back and let them happen unabated?

[Bully]

Not the correct topic but -

all this talk about climate change ...i tend to agree with some of the scientists that believe is NOT human influence that is making the earth warmer. We have not as a human race kept records of the earths climate for millions of years seen as we have been around only for about 2 million. Who is not to say this is a weather change every 3 million years, or every 65 million years. NO ONE knows this only the dinosaurs . But it could be us that is doing this but we cant pin point human influence over the last few hundred years and say oh since we have been here it has gotten warmer. this could be a 5 million year event, or a 6 million year event etc etc

like i said if we have been around for 100 million years and this was a re-occurance then yes we have done this, not just monitoring the weather for the past few hundred years. Even some scientists have said before the last ice age which COOLED the planet the weather was outstandingly hot and the earth warmed more then normal of more then 5 degrees. And scientists have predicted we are due for another ice age NOW.......

but yes if we dont do something to stop carbon then in 5 million years IF we are still here as a human race we cant then look back and say why didnt we stop carbon...

[Interceptor]

Ah, Interceptor, with respect, you're still not up to how The Australian works.

It's like the pro-carbon tax rally story, posted at midnight, more than 12 hours after the event

What they do with these stories, which they have to cover, is to bury them and/or mix them up with another story. In this case, for a story which was a headline story in The Age, they only put it on-line this afternoon as a tiny link to the video, well down the page.

The only commentary was quoted parts of Swan's speech: no analysis, no criticism at all.

Firstly, news.com.au had a link to the AAP sourced story about the Abbott video yesterday morning. No it wasn't a specific The Australian link, but it's the same organisation.
Secondly the Swan story wasn't out until mid afternoon. It was originally on the ABC site at 3.23 pm AEST. Their article has no analysis or criticism at all either. Call Mediawatch!

However, I'll happily give ticks to The Australian if you are able, now or in the next day or two, to post any article by any of their regular 'journalists' giving substantial critical analysis of Abbott over this.

Fair enough?

No worries comrade
George Megalogenis mocks/criticises Abbott prior (28/5/11) to the video story.
Peter Van Olselen doubts Abbott on pledge to repeal a carbon tax (midnight today).

Not specifically on the video, but same topic and still relevant.

PS: You said earlier that I was 'playing the man' when I said you were behind the game re the media. Am I now a 'prophet of doom', as well as having 'watermelon politics' and being a hippie (I didn't know they were still around)

Nope, my original 'playing the man' reference was about the result of left refusing to engage opposition debate. I considered your reaction to being provided with a link to Albrechtsen's article as an example; that is all. I do find your lecturing on the your take on The Austalian to be slightly patronising though.

[Interceptor]

If the prophets of doom are correct, people will adapt to how the climate changes, which won't be the first time in human history.

"Prophets of doom" is a rather unkind word for the scientists who are researching and modelling climate change and its impacts.

Yes - adaption to some climate change is inevitable but the less adapting we have to do the better. Surely it is better to avoid or minimise negative impacts on our water resources, food supplies, coastal settlements, health and ecosystems rather than just sit back and let them happen unabated?

Yeah I agree with at least making an effort to improve things.
It would be great to have pre-industrial age quality air and water.
My take is that the shift to cleaner technologies is going to take a very long time and that we will still need carbon based fuels for reliable supply.

The "prophets of doom" are people like Flannery who is a bit of a scaremonger.
As an Engineer with scientific training I have respect for the scientists in general (really hate when the press call technicians/scientists/engineers "boffins").

[redandblack]

Thanks for that, Interceptor, but what you’ve posted might just confirm my point, which was about criticism of Abbott relating to what he said on the video. You’ll note I said “over this), ie: the video.

The George Megalogenis article, as you say, was written before the video came out, so it’s not relevant. I will say, however, that Megalogenis is a very good journalist, one of the very few who write for The Australian who I have some time for.

The other article doesn’t refer to the video at all. That’s my point – it will be spared critical analysis by that newspaper. I haven’t argued that they don’t write pro-government stories, of course they do, but the occasional offering is buried by a relentless campaign of misinformation and anti-government ‘spin’ (if you like). When they do, it’s often just a link to AAP, or else they byline it ‘a Staff Writer’

We’ve had the Leader of the Opposition saying the world will end if we have a carbon tax. A video surfaces where 2 years ago he said if there was one, it wouldn’t make much difference. I (and much of the media) thought this was noteworthy. The Australian didn’t. I’m not surprised, I said they wouldn’t and so far I’m right.

I’m sorry if you feel a bit patronised about my comments about The Australian. That wasn’t meant as I thought it was common knowledge amongst political followers. It’s been covered in dozens of newspaper articles and blogs for a long time. It’s well-known and not something I feel I have to prove. My references are more in sorrow and disbelief that they would be so obvious rather than any anger.

As for Janet Albrechtsen, she has never written a pro-ALP government article in her life that I’ve read and is also noted for her very right-wing views, to the extent she is called a ‘conservative’ journalist. I just presumed you knew that, so I apologise if you read more into it than was there.

Don’t despair, though, mate, some of us are used to being labelled, so It’s not a one-way street. “Socialists, do-gooders, bleeding hearts, hippies, latte-sippers, watermelon politics, etc, etc.” and plenty more I’ve enjoyed.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time with the links and for the reply. Keep looking at The Australian, take note of the headline story each day and the tone of their ‘opinion writers’, but perhaps think of also having an occasional read of some blogs such as “Pure Poison” or ‘Grog’s Gamut’ for a different point of view.

I'll repay the favour and give a link or two when I can.

[Sky Pilot]

Personalities aside re Gillard and Abbott, no-one really knows who is on the money with the carbon tax issue. The climate change skeptics sound convincing in their arguments as do the scientists espousing climate change as man-made.
What bothers me in the meantime is the very realistic possibility that Australia will introduce a carbon tax which will drive much of our heavy industry off-shore where there is no carbon tax.
The end result will see Australia lose the industry, export dollars and employment to China or India where there is no carbon tax- the environment is no better off because the emissions are still being spewed into the environment but very probably less monitored than they were here, and we have another nail in our employment/manufacturing/export coffin.
There needs to be a global response- we can't continue on as we have been because we have no conclusive proof of the cause of climate change because when we know for sure it may be too late.

[fish]

Not the correct topic but -

all this talk about climate change ...i tend to agree with some of the scientists that believe is NOT human influence that is making the earth warmer. We have not as a human race kept records of the earths climate for millions of years seen as we have been around only for about 2 million. Who is not to say this is a weather change every 3 million years, or every 65 million years. NO ONE knows this only the dinosaurs . But it could be us that is doing this but we cant pin point human influence over the last few hundred years and say oh since we have been here it has gotten warmer. this could be a 5 million year event, or a 6 million year event etc etc

like i said if we have been around for 100 million years and this was a re-occurance then yes we have done this, not just monitoring the weather for the past few hundred years. Even some scientists have said before the last ice age which COOLED the planet the weather was outstandingly hot and the earth warmed more then normal of more then 5 degrees. And scientists have predicted we are due for another ice age NOW.......

but yes if we dont do something to stop carbon then in 5 million years IF we are still here as a human race we cant then look back and say why didnt we stop carbon...

Thats a good question Bully. However climatologists know their stuff well through the study of historical climate change as well as observations of recent climate change and what influences it. This is what the latest science says:

It is beyond reasonable doubt that human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate.

A very large body of observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory points to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – with carbon dioxide being the most important – as the primary cause of the observed warming.

Increasing carbon dioxide emissions are primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as deforestation.

Natural factors, like changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, cannot explain the world-wide warming trend.

[Interceptor]

redandblack, that's fine, a few points though:

-Clearly you are disappointed The Australian didn't have a headline to match other media, but as those links illustrated it's not like they are painting Abbott as a particularly credible alternative.

-I am not politically naive and I've known for ages that The Australian is regarded as conservative. It's not like it's the only publication around and contrary to the belief of some (not saying you specifically), people who read it and other Murdoch publications are quite capable of independent thought and obtaining information through other sources.

-I linked to that Albrechtsen article because I agreed with her there about her points about freedom of speech. Obviously you don't agree with her in general so we'll leave it at that.

-Admittedly my stuff on sunday was essentially trolling, with my evil alter-ego at the keyboard

-I'll have a look at the Crikey blogs occasionally and note their tone as well

[fish]

My understanding is Australia contributes 1.4% of global emissions and Green/Labor's plan is to reduce that by another single digit percentage by 20-whenever. It is simply laughable.

Darth your figure of 1.4% is pretty spot-on.

Whilst we are a relatively small producer of greenhouse gases on a global scale, we are one of the highest per-person greenhouse gas emitters in the world - higher than every country in the world except for Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (possibly Luxembourg too I can't find data to confirm this though). Higher than our major trading partners including Japan, Indonesia, China, India, the US and NZ.

Also, we have developed over the last 200 or so years without any constraints on greenhouse gases emissions.

We have contributed more than our fair share to the problem of human-induced climate change - I believe it is reasonable that we contribute at least our fair share to solving the problem by cutting our fair share of emissions.

[redandblack]

redandblack, that's fine, a few points though:

-Clearly you are disappointed The Australian didn't have a headline to match other media, but as those links illustrated it's not like they are painting Abbott as a particularly credible alternative.

-I am not politically naive and I've known for ages that The Australian is regarded as conservative. It's not like it's the only publication around and contrary to the belief of some (not saying you specifically), people who read it and other Murdoch publications are quite capable of independent thought and obtaining information through other sources.

-I linked to that Albrechtsen article because I agreed with her there about her points about freedom of speech. Obviously you don't agree with her in general so we'll leave it at that.

-Admittedly my stuff on sunday was essentially trolling, with my evil alter-ego at the keyboard

-I'll have a look at the Crikey blogs occasionally and note their tone as well

No worries, mate, that's all fair enough

[Darth Vader]

My understanding is Australia contributes 1.4% of global emissions and Green/Labor's plan is to reduce that by another single digit percentage by 20-whenever. It is simply laughable.

Darth your figure of 1.4% is pretty spot-on.

Whilst we are a relatively small producer of greenhouse gases on a global scale, we are one of the highest per-person greenhouse gas emitters in the world - higher than every country in the world except for Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (possibly Luxembourg too I can't find data to confirm this though). Higher than our major trading partners including Japan, Indonesia, China, India, the US and NZ.

Also, we have developed over the last 200 or so years without any constraints on greenhouse gases emissions.

We have contributed more than our fair share to the problem of human-induced climate change - I believe it is reasonable that we contribute at least our fair share to solving the problem by cutting our fair share of emissions.

Fish - 1.4% is 1.4%. We are miniscule in the big picture. Volcano eruptions close airports but ETSA powerstations dont. This whole thing is a total sham in my opinion. Climate change has been going on forever surely. I'm sorry but I will never be convinced (irrespective of who is in power in Canberra) that this issue is man made to a level thast requires more than a casual glance let alone another Save the Murray Tax scenario

[redandblack]

Darth, you might be interested in this article in the Sydney Morning Herald today. Amongst other things, it discusses the relevance of small carbon percentages.

I'm not suggesting you'll necessarily agree with it, but it's interesting.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... 1fsuj.html