Senator Steve Fielding - Leader of Family First
US Fact Finding Tour
Posted by Senator Steve Fielding on June 04 2009 | 97 Comments
I’m currently in Washington on a self-funded trip to try to get more of an insight into the climate change debate.
I think it is very important, being an elected person that I give both sides a chance to put their case forward so that I can make an informed decision on the Rudd Government’s proposed carbon reduction scheme that I will be asked to vote on in just under two weeks.
I am not a climate sceptic and I am not a climate change extremist. What I am, however, is someone that actually wants to take a balanced view, look at the facts and then respond appropriately, unlike the Greens.
As well as meeting with various scientists I will also be having high level talks with members of the Obama Administration on how they plan to deal with reducing carbon emissions.
I hope this will give me more information so I can chart a clear course in my mind for where Australia needs to head in reducing carbon emissions.
The Rudd Government’s plan to rush through its carbon reduction scheme could cause major problems for our economy for many, many years to come if we don’t get it right.
There’s no doubt putting a cap on carbon emissions will lead to significant job losses here in Australia so it’s important that we don’t rush through this legislation just because the Greens say so.
Unlike Family First, they have no choice with their ideological and extreme stance.
Unfortunately a decision like this can’t be made with the single minded view of just putting the environment first.
I also have to ask, what about the impact on the families and the economy of Australia?
Decisions like these need to be balanced against what’s good for the country in giving hard working Australian’s jobs and affordable food on the table.
Already the government has forecast around a million Australian’s will be out of work by the end of the year and if we believe what industry is saying, thousands more Australian’s could be put out of work if a heavy unworkable carbon reduction scheme is put in place.
We all know there are arguments which suggest climate change is because of pollution.
But equally there are scientists saying climate change is naturally occurring.
Either way until we have more of an understanding of the science and the economic implications I don’t believe the parliament can make an informed decision on a carbon cap until at least the end of the year.
Let me know what you think about the whole climate change debate.
Do you think climate change is man made or not?
Do we need a carbon emissions trading scheme?
You have to remember people that there are a lot of for and against scientists and this is understandable as most of what is happening today is built on the back of a conspiracy started back in 1990 Quote:
The suggestion of a conspiracy to promote the theory of global warming was put forward in a 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy broadcast by Channel Four in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990. The program was part of the Equinox series,[1] and it asserted that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding.[6] Although the program title referred to a conspiracy, Patrick Michaels downplayed the idea, saying, “It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but certainly a coalition of interests has promoted the greenhouse theory; scientists have needed funds, the media a story, and governments a worthy cause”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory Unquote
When you view a very sound minded professor as we have here in Australia Professor Bob Carter who brings all facts to the table and that is the same data that the IPCC have built their case on there is strong evidence that the government is moving to fast on this issue and should sit back and stop trying to take the lead on the world. If you have a few minutes have a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=fvwe2
A few years ago, Lawrence Solomon, a renown environmentalist, author and anti-nuclear activist, started out to investigate who were the scientists being rubbished as “Deniers.” To his amazement, he found that these scientists were more highly qualified in their various scientific disciplines than their critics. These were not just good scientists, but the most accomplished and eminent meteorologists, oceanographers, glaciologist, paleoclimatologists and experts on hurricanes, clouds, glaciers and in other sciences related to climate. Between them they have published hundreds of books and thousands of peer-reviewed papers. But the Al Gores and James Hansens of this world, with the help of a compliant media, have managed to side-line these experts as if they were a bunch of ignorant dissidents small enough in number to fit into a telephone box. Some telephone box!
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/sceptic-scientists.html#myth
Comment by PaulB on 06 August 2009 at 10:02:37 AM
markW1;serious scientists @ heartland institute???
they are funded by the tobacco death spreaders
and the fossil fuel industry who until recently have said we will never be short of oil/gas/coal
but shell oil is now saying conventional crude oil will NOT be able to meet demand by 2015
as henry ford said” if i was a betting man i’d bet on solar and wind”
Comment by kiwichick on 25 July 2009 at 07:28:13 AM
Looking at the comments here and Mr Fielding’s final position leaves me in despair.
I would very much appreciate it if all those who claim to be open-minded sceptics actually took the time to look at the science.
The level of distortion from scientists like Ian Plimer - who should know better - is breathtaking. Either it is done in full knowledge of what they do (and the consequences) or through extraordinary ignorance. Neither thought is comforting.
If you do want to see the background of AGW in a very straight forward way, please visit http://cce.890m.com/ . Look at the chapters and press the look/listen button for some quality presentations that deal with some of the myths propagated on this thread.
Another alternative is to go to a more technical site run by climatologists and have a look at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses .
If you are truly genuine about having an open mind these experts will give you a deep, regularly updated, understanding of climate change and what is happening as opposed to what you would like to be happening.
To be honest, I have little faith that the people on this thread will take the time to examine and understand the data, but I do genuinely hope a few among you may want to get to the science behind the grandstanding.
If you are a person of faith, it would strike me as being even more important for you to have access to all the facts before aligning yourself with a position that could have profoundly negative aspects for this world.
Good luck with it, because it does take time and a fair bit of reading but at least it means you will no not only know where you stand but whether the position you hold is a true and honest one.
Cheers,
Alvin
Comment by Alvin on 14 July 2009 at 03:32:48 PM
they have so many free energy systems but you the slaves arnt aloud to have them, there only for your masters yeh bit suspicious that exxon and cheveron and bp and shell all want this,why would that be, maybe it lets them to continue to get away with murder. it lets corporations to pollute as much as they want,keep believing the corporate media,all is good footy scores more important
Comment by lau440 on 02 July 2009 at 12:08:52 AM
For those who think climate change is a hoax. These institutions all disagree:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU) - http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS) - http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP) - http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS) - http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) - http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. On top of that list, see also this joint statement [PDF] that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, a statement issued by
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
You can also read this one that includes all of the above signatories plus the following:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing?
Exxon-Mobile, the largest oil company in the world has this public statement:
The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.
Chevron, a bit less non-commital, says:
At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the earth’s atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.
18 CEO’s of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Have the EnviroNazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power on top of infiltrating the UN, the science academies of the major nations and the top research institutes of North America? Somehow, I think that is just not too likely.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/global-warming-is-just-hoax.php
Comment by Study on 30 June 2009 at 02:15:15 PM
Steve is well instep with the people of his party, the people of australia. The lies and rubbish by the AGW alarmists has been exposed by him , and he is one polititian we can all thank for standing up for common sence by asking the hard questions. Gods servant.
Comment by Loc Hey on 20 June 2009 at 07:04:08 PM
Steve wrote:“I am not a climate sceptic”...problem is Steve, you seem to be well out of step with your party membership who are saying either that climate change is not happening or is not due to C02 & other greenhouse gases released by human activity.Trouble is, from what simplistic stuff they have written here & elsewhere on this site, the strong impression is that they have little idea of what the data are indicating…some in fact appear to dwell on another planet to Earth. But the overall impression is fear & denial that the operation of the planet’s climatic & other systems do not align with their steady state world view
Comment by d on 20 June 2009 at 06:35:55 PM
Steve though you have Critiques not only here but on other forums as the next paragraph displays:
[Finally today I learned who the meeting was with- the Heartland Institute.
I understand now why he was not anxious to name them.
This bunch are the lobbyists and spin doctors for(and receive funding from) the likes of the tobacco companies and of course the fossil fuel industries( with especially close ties to Exxon)Doh I should have guessed.]
I commend your approach to this Steve, it’s a pity the Wong Song does not do the same.
As I look around, I see annual tree planting exercises. I see some people taking responsibility for the problem in their own backyard. I think of Salisbury council and their wet lands project which is a high success and receiving international interest here in Adelaide.
I look into my own history when stuck in the back of a Ford sit up and beg Poplar with my Sib’s travelling through London and cannot see the end of the street for smog which was a direct result of doing away with horse and cart and the advent of fuel inefficient cars and trucks particularly diesels and hungry coal burning power stations and trains.
Man’s biggest criteria in his life apart from food and survival are the needs of transport at any cost.
Yes we have seen pollution of the air as a result at ground level which is often washed into the soil through precipitation as well as pollution of our hedge rows, the damage to the ecology in the loss of butterflies, some species of small birds due to poisons from exhausts and not the CO2 that it pumps out; and probably many smaller insects as well as pollination being disrupted as a result.
What ever I look at I see something marvelous happening, something that is taken for granted and never the less happens and that is the evolution of modification programmes that are sometimes thwarted and delayed in happening through greed and syndicates that presume to run the world even to the hilarious thought that we control Mother Nature.
So is protests and debates, commissions financed through taxes an important part of progress? In part, “Yes.” Why? Because trying to get anything going, even ourselves at times, needs a kick up the ass.
For many years mankind used animals to do his farming and make his travel easier. In Fact the amount of animals around was probably not much different today, though they say we have more horses now than we did when they were being used a statistic I find hard to comprehend or even believe but will stand corrected.
When the streets of London started to stink as well as other cities and the by product was becoming a serious problem, along comes man and produces something that could eliminate this problem with the advent of the automobile propelled by an internal combustion engine as opposed to steam created through coal fired generators.
The only unfortunate problem that came with this was as we all know exhaust gases that created even more soot and the fact that steam was still a prime resource this escalated into weather conditions never seen before (smog) acid rain, which many in cities have seen the direct result of to monumental buildings; though today one can see very little evidence of this happening now. So there has been a vast improvement.
We are now through unfortunate wars seeing man moving into an alternative energy resource again. As history repeats itself we see greed in big business and politicians slowing its progress by diverting attention away from what needs to be done into areas of examination and useless debate at considerable cost to tax payers and the demise of business’s trying to escape the impending needless charges by moving off shore its enterprise to fuel economies that are cheap labour and the owner has not the responsibility of providing economical alternative power to create its produce. In a sense man has turned the clock back fifty years.
The wonderful thing is change is happening and it won’t be to late as projectionist indicate. All these projections are based on if things stay the same. They will not stay the same life moves forward as does technology, all we need to do is to get these monopolies that control fuel source to be more adventurous and invest some of their ill earned gains into this new technology. NASA has proved what we have at our finger tips. If you ask how, just remember the humble microwave, what changes that has made in most people’s lives.
People this change will happen and is happening, it is not the end of the world and Mother Nature will always look after her own no matter what we do. But we do need a sensible approach to this as Steve is doing.
Comment by PaulB on 18 June 2009 at 01:44:44 PM
The solution . . .
A ‘tax’ in any form is acceptable PROVIDED THAT the following people will GUARANTEE human produced CO2 must be drastically reduced to save the Globe:
Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt (NASA); Al Gore, Professor Ian Lowe, Don Henry; Bob Brown, Penny Wong; all IPCC consultants (you can finish the list of willing subscribers).
The guarantee must be personal and each guarantor must charge all real property owned by them in favour of a ‘trust’ for all companies that are required to pay CO2 tax by way of ‘permits’ or other legislated CO2 impost.
The guarantee would compensate companies in the event that the IPCC (or any three of its member Governments) admit GW cannot reasonably be linked to human activity as claimed by the IPCC in 2009 OR in the event that the Globe cools after any three consecutive years during which CO2 concentration are between 380 ppm and 1200 ppm.
Will one AGW proponent be willing to put their assets on the line to back their absolute conviction that CO2 is the culprit and companies must spend precious 2009 money on CO2 mitigation and/or tax?
Attention all AGW proponents . . . please register your interest in joining the abovementioned guarantee (cash is also acceptable to be held on trust on mutually agreed terms). Register your interest by responding hereon . . .
Comment by Warren on 17 June 2009 at 06:15:18 PM
Trinna, ‘green jobs’ is a myth for Australia. China, India, USA, Germany, France etc will have the majority of any NEW REAL green jobs.
Don’t believe me? Then look at just two multi-million dollar ‘green job’ Australian companies this year:
CLOSING DOWN 2009 – BP Solar – Australia’s largest solar panel manufacturer is moving to China.
CLOSING DOWN 2009 – Viridian (ex Pilkington) – ‘low iron glass’ line manufacturing tons of glass sheet for solar panels for export and domestic customers. Phone them and ask where to get this type of glass now. The answer . . . China!
REAL sustainable green jobs are a complete fallacy in the long term for Australia! The number of plumbers, architects, engineers, assembly workers etc will not increase at all. The opposite is the case for Australia in the long term if CO2 is ‘taxed’. All manner of uninformed Green lunatics will try to convince you otherwise. They know nothing about industry; they only have a self-serving academic view of the matter.
Your asbestos analogy is sad. There is empirical evidence that asbestos can kill. No evidence exists that atmospheric CO2 can kill. Atmospheric CO2 does not cause ‘global warming’ because ‘atmospheric physics’ won’t allow it. That is a big subject, so a simple way to put it in perspective is to understand two things:
1. We would already have been destroyed by a run-away ‘thermal catastrophe’ if atmospheric CO2 was the culprit as claimed by IPCC scientists.
2. For 90% of Earth’s 600-million year ‘animal inhabited time’, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been in the thousands of ppm, not hundreds as current.
Comment by Warren on 17 June 2009 at 09:27:34 AM
anto68 spot on soldger. Will the sheeple wake up in time though, I doubt it.
Comment by Loc Hey on 16 June 2009 at 07:25:21 PM
Hello Senator Fielding, I wish to congratulate you on having the courage to question the validity of the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) arguement. I am a disillusioned Green voter and am increasingly disturbed by the hijacking of the Green party by the scientifically flawed and politically motivated ACC movement. In a nutshell the likes of Al Gore and the highly rewarded authors of the IPCC reports have literally rewritten the historical, archaeological and scientific record to create the impression of man made CO2 driven global warming. A gullible and brainwashed public that lives on unchallenged media sound bites and hollywood docu-hysteria like “An Inconvenient Truth” are literally rivetting the shackles to their own ankles. The goal of the globalist / collectivist elite is to literally make humankind the enemy and thus justify outrageous restrictions on our freedoms and tyrannical inroads into our human rights. And with the introduction of carbon taxing the financial elites will make new fortunes on the backs of the people along the way. When the IPCC and Al Gore deliberately suppress information about the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages Cooling, the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, you have to ask why and who stands to benefit. I strongly suggest you read Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth; Global Warming the Missing Science. I hope you don’t get lost in the political spin and subterfuge of the politically correct think tanks. Good Luck!
Comment by anto68 on 16 June 2009 at 01:41:24 PM
Once again kimbo, you agree that fossil fuels are not the future but claim there’s no jobs yet in green industries because you don’t want to invest in them. You’ll not support investing in them so therefore you can continue to say there’s only jobs in fossil fuel. Round and round it goes.
Except you seem to continually overlook that green energy is just as profitable as fossil fuel.
If you don’t believe in climate change then why do you care if other countries adopt cleaner practices or not? I know I’d rather live sustainably here, paying bugger all for renewable energy and selling our technology for such to other nations, then waiting around for other countries to realise there are better ways to live.
If this is the way you feel then why don’t we just go back to using asbestos? You’ know it’s still mined in China, Russia and Canada and it creates thousands of jobs right? Why don’t we wait for it to be banned worldwide before we decide it’s bad for our health and homes?
Comment by trinna on 16 June 2009 at 09:50:27 AM
James .... Your arguement is consistant with all the other alarmists. You are basically saying “stop investigating” and start doing what we want. Senator Fielding is like most of us ...we have been waiting for the debate but the debate has failed to start because anyone with an alternative view has be howled down.
Come on ..be honest. You are like many Australians in that you don’t really understand the science but you have latched onto the alarmist scare mongering. You are concerned about the Barrier Reef and Kakadoo and that is enough to settle it for you.
Well I for one want to know why the world is not warming. I also want to know why having a TAX in Australia is going to fix a worldwide problem that is NOT happening?
Comment by Kimbo on 16 June 2009 at 01:12:57 AM
Triina ...I don’t think anyone is happy about burning fosil fuels full stop. However we have to be honest with this whole question.
Is applying a tax here in Australia going to make any real world difference? It will cost more to make things here and our jobs and CO2 will simply move to another country.
The only way a tax like this can work is if it is applied universally and at the same time. We also have to recognise that our modern lifestyle would be imposible without fosil fuels simply because renewables are not cheap enough ...yet!
We need honest debate not emotional alarmism. Just because you like the thought of renewable energy does not mean AGW is true.
Comment by Kimbo on 16 June 2009 at 12:59:49 AM
Dear Senator Fielding.
Thank you for being a breath of fresh air and looking at this objectively. I personally believe Mr Rudd’s carbon trading scheme is at best misguided or worse a scam for more tax. Either way it will damage our economy for no benefit. I won’t attempt to summarize mountains of theory’s and reports but simply point our CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past history of the earth without an increase in temperature resulting. These inconvenient truths appear to be missing from the information Ms Wong and company present.
Good luck and please don’t let this crazy emissions trading scheme damage or economy further. We have an unemployment rate of 5.7% now the ETS will make that far worse.
Regards
Michael Groves
Comment by Michael Groves on 15 June 2009 at 07:27:41 PM
Dear Senator Fielding,
I’m concerned. You have stated the following,
“What I am, however, is someone that actually wants to take a balanced view, look at the facts and then respond appropriately. . . . . . . As well as meeting with various scientists I will also be having high level talks with . . . . . . . I hope this will give me more information so I can chart a clear course in my mind . . . . .”
As I advised, I am concerned. Why have you waited until now to start looking at both sides of the case? And what about these talk fests you have had in the US and are now having in Australia. What a sham. There are any number of quality scientific documents on the subject you could have been reading during the last ten years. And so what if you are an engineer?
You need to chart more than a clear course in your mind.
Please get a grip pronto and vote with the Federal Government.
Comment by James Scammell on 15 June 2009 at 06:55:07 PM
Can someone please explain why moving toward renewable energy, better design and green jobs threatens anyone’s future?
Comment by trinna on 15 June 2009 at 05:30:01 PM
Thanks for looking beyond what the Media feed us on Global Warming.
I can’t risk my children’s future based on something that is becoming a bit or a religion to many people and goes far beyond science. I personally have looked into GW and find it terribly over hyped and am very against an ETS.
Please vote against and ETS in he senate.
Comment by qlder on 15 June 2009 at 03:27:23 PM
Senator Fielding,
Good to see you will be using up to date temperature information from the last ten years to confound the establishment fuddy duddies whose inertia is yet to recover from the warming years of 1975 to 1998.
There is sweet irony in watching this unfold as someone whose view is considered conservative becomes the torch bearer for the free thinking. Albeit maybe without the solar flare pants as depicted in the Fin Review.
I saw your interview on the ABC “Insiders” and was disappointed the three gossiping class journalists were more concerned about PM Rudd’s shake or suck of a sauce bottle.
But full marks to the ABC for screening a definitive cut from that interview on the 7.00 pm news.
I’ve got myself an Hons degree in Industrial Engineering from UNSW and some of the faculty rooms were shared with Arts classes. I remember carved into one of the desks by one such Arts student -
“Four years ago I could not spell engineer, now I are one.”
- and it sums up the disdain held by the trendy for those that pursued the tiresome.
So for all those who endured the study years, I hope you stike a blow for common sense.
Cold day today in Sydney. Glad to have had acces to the fruits of burning fossil fuel.
Have a good week!
Comment by Sydney Street on 14 June 2009 at 08:42:21 PM
Spot on Lea. People persist in complaining that action to curb the polluting of this world only helps one section of the community who want to make money by developing cleaner technology (god forbid!) or apparently curtail ‘freedom’ in the name of climate change (?!).
When actually, living with improved design, cleaner technology and less reliance on oil and coal improves everyones lives. Climate change or not.
Comment by trinna on 14 June 2009 at 08:29:49 PM
75,000 yrs ago Mt Toba in Indonesia errupted causing a mini ice age that lasted for a thousand yrs.Atmospheric CO2 were 4-5 times the present.Throughout our geologic history similar events have happened with CO2 levels being 16 times greater.
What we have to realise is that there are many who have other agenda’s that are both social and economic.Even in private enterprise there are many poised to make a fortune out of trading carbon credits.The socialist left want to see more control over society and less individual freedoms.
So we have this strange alliance between the global business powers and the socialist left that will mean less prosperity and freedom for us all.
They are right on one thing,climate change is happening but we do not know if this is within the normal parameters of change that would have happened anyway, even without human influence.
Comment by Arjay on 14 June 2009 at 10:02:41 AM
Mr Fielding,
I applaud you for using professional scepticism in regards to the climate change and carbon emissions issue.
I have recently watched your comments on climate change on the Insiders 14 June 2009 and I was slightly disappointed that yourself, the leader of the “Family First” Party, were solely focused on the issue of whether carbon emission is actually contributing to global warming (and if global warming actually exists).
Why is it that the other consequences of carbon emitting activities are not being considered, for example, the strain of the hospital system due to respiratory conditions associated with smog, the unsustainable forestry practices (deforestation) which destroy native animal habitats and also other conditions such as traffic congestion due to the reliance on motor vehicles.
These consequences also have an impact on families, why are these not been considered within the argument.
If you want to actually put families first, please consider the other social and health impacts. Climate change is not an isolated issue, it not only affects the environment and businesses.
Comment by Lea on 14 June 2009 at 09:44:10 AM
Senator Fielding,
Very interesting to read along this blog. I am now a fan of Prof Bob Carter as well as Prof Ian Plimer.
Geologists in the petroleum industry were the first to recognise peak oil and with the AGW issue, their unique perspective and corroborating evidence is enough for me to be an AGW sceptic.
This week you will have potentailly the greatest opportunity to put the case against AGW into the spotlight. This may be the most important issue and stand that you will be remembered for.
I wish you all the best for the coming week and I look forward to what you have to say in Parliament.
Comment by Sydney Street on 13 June 2009 at 10:20:41 AM
Dear Senator Feilding,
Thank you for taking a stand against the lies we are continually force fed by the media, particularly the ABC. I congratulate you and wish you to know that you have my full support. As has been said by others earlier, you will very likely be leaned upon very heavily, but please keep slogging on.
I am an engineer myself, but you do not need to have a degree to understand that the climate does go through various cycles, and that change is the only constant in the climate. Those that think change in the physical environment is unnatural are kidding themselves. Trying to change that is like sweeping the tide back with a broom.
From a scientific point of view, there has not been one fact proposed by the AGW proponents that link CO2, a harmless trace gas and necessary constituent for life, to the cause of climate change. Not one.
Computer models do not produce facts.
If you take a close look at what the IPCC claims are made on, their own predictions do not hold water. The claimed rate of temperature increase attributed to CO2 is based on the total temperature increase since the middle of the 18th century, when the start of this cycle of increasing temperatures began, when clearly CO2 produced by man was not a factor. Not only is this wrong, but the outputs are based on the predicted CO2 rise that the IPCC has also had a guess at. The real value of CO2 increase is not as the IPCC has predicted, and in reality is considerably lower. They also assume a linear response of temp rise to CO2, which it is not. Even if you accept the rate rise of temp attributable to CO2 as correct, which clearly it is not, the fact that the CO2 levels are not what the IPCC predicted, invalidates the predictions of the models. To further discredit the models outputs, recent studies on the so called “Conveyor Belt” ocean currents have indicated it does not flow as previously thought. Considering that this is an input in the models calculations, the models outputs can only be described as very questionable.
There are very many indicators that the observations do not fit the theory.
Einstein once said something like …a thousand experiments will not prove me right, but only one will prove me wrong…
Please continue to investigate this issue Steve, as the more that you understand the more that the only conclusion that you can arrive at is that CO2 has an almost insignificant effect on the climate, and to introduce a tax to combat the so called “problem” is nothing more than a quest for money, greed and power.
Thank you
Comment by Burn of the Glen on 13 June 2009 at 12:13:12 AM
Steve…
I’d like to know how these things are modelled into climate change programs.
Dec. 11, 2007: NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called “substorms” and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth’s upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth’s magnetic field.
Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.
Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:
“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.”
“THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007,” says Sibeck. “It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth’s surface in a region called the magnetopause.” The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth’s magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: “They seem to occur all the time,” says Sibeck…....
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
———————————————
How can we make any models unless all these things are fully considered?
Considering that the Earth is a conductive body, and we now know it is connected by magnetic ropes to the sun, and these ropes are dynamic in nature….we musk ask a few questions!
Scotty.
Comment by Scotty37 on 11 June 2009 at 10:13:38 PM
Dear Sir,
as something of a Godless Engineer, I have taken umbrage at the new religion of “AGW”, Giai worship and the nonsense spouted by a dozen or so members of the IPCC. There are any number of good scientists in this country that will show you that the CO2 -> AGW link fails the proposed hypothesis. It is clearly not true.
If you have the time in your schedule I recommend:
As Congress debates global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.
In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.
The book can be downloaded here:
http://www.nipccreport.org/
Welcome back to Australia. Take the science to Ms Wong. And if at the end of the day you are not convinced that the ‘Global Warming’ myth is worth a few tens of billion dollars out of our economy, and some tens of thousand jobs, then kill the legislation.
A respected Australian scientist Bob Carter has spoken to this subject. If you have not heard Prof. Carter yet, here is a link to part one of part four talking to this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Well done,
Mark Addinall.
Comment by addinall on 11 June 2009 at 05:45:12 PM
ABC Radio Wed 10th about 4:45pm Bruce Shapiro talks on Emissions trading future:
A conversation with the author of the Garnaut Climate Change Review. When parliament resumes next week the government will resume its efforts to get the emissions trading scheme through the Senate. It has passed the Lower House where the government has a majority but faces a blockage in the upper house, where the Nationals are implacably opposed to the scheme and the Liberals are demanding it be put back.
Bruce Shapiro and Garnaut were belittling Senator Fielding, I sent this email to the ABC.
I was dismayed at the smug interview this afternoon, unprofessional comments like “Skeptics love in” his boot licking interview was embarrassing to listen to. Here we have an economist and a journalist again reinforcing and misstating the myth of global warming. The both openly admitted that they don’t understand the science and then place judgment on Senator Fielding who is a qualified engineer (they are practical scientists), again they are part of the consensus, many people who have no idea of what they are talking about agree, on a loose definition about CO2 being the problem.
Please people get you head around the issue. Is CO2 the problem? Is human burning of fossil fuels causing dangerous global warming?
CO2 is good plants love it, we breath it out its non toxic its not pollution!
See my other post on
VIDEO - Climate Change - Lateline interview from USA
kind regards Colin Strathalbyn SA
Comment by Colin Dixon on 11 June 2009 at 12:46:51 AM
A colleague of mine put it rather well. The IPCC, he said, has developed a highly successful immune system. Its climate scientists have become the equivalent of white blood cells which rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by ideas and results which do not support the basic thesis that global warming is perhaps the greatest of the modern threats to mankind.
Comment by Sydney Street on 10 June 2009 at 10:40:54 PM
Hey Trinna - no problem with “pushing for things which improve our lives in any case, such as good housing design, better public transport, water conservation, less packaging and less consumption of non-renewable materials.” (I would include reducing the real pollutants I mentioned before - by the way air quality in Melb and the LaTrobe Valey was a lot worse 30 - 40 yrs ago), I just don’t like the bad science, hysteria and profiteering that is nurtured by AGW. I would much rather see money spent on say the sorts of things you mention or humantarian aid, or habitate protection than resources being diverted to thousands of freeloaders living it up in Bali or Copenhagen and all the gab fests in between.
Comment by Herb on 10 June 2009 at 05:27:52 PM
Steve..Don’t you listen to any of them godless, satan worshipping, sodomite scientists, course you & I know that the world was created just as it is now about 6000 years ago by the Lord God. All them things about Ice ages & dinosaurs are just all made up to try to turn the Elect away from reading their bibles & giving lots of their money to holy men ministers so that they will have big new cars so that they can drive up to church to do God’s work. Climate change ain’t gonna happen…it’s just lies by them commies. Gee if we stopped using coal, billions of godfearing workers down the mines would lose their jobs, their holy families would starve, cause that Rudd guy is a devil incarnate…only that godly Mr Howard would have given them money..when they were working for the dole. Also the coal mine owners, who are all really the best Christians, would go broke & not be able to give tons of loot at church. Only listen to good Christian scientists, check that they are not devil worshippers first though…those are the ones who believe in evolution, human rights, & that women were created equal to men. Women are meant by God to serve men & to breed up new good Christians…that they have been let do any preaching or the like as in some devil controller churches, is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord..this is one reason why he is punishing the world by sending down “solar flares” to make it look like the atmosphere is burning up. It’s a sign to make all real Christians, turn back to the true path & to take what the bible says as gospel. So we got to get all them unclean women out of the church, & start a big crusade against the heathens, devil worshippers, sodomites, feminists, & foreign people. Its ok to capture them & use them as slaves (but not as sex slaves..cause that would be wrong) to build new churches all over the place..but mostly out in the suburbs where the really good family men Christians live.
Comment by d on 10 June 2009 at 05:15:29 PM
Good on you Steve. Everyone knows that global warming is a myth, just like the holocaust and evolution. Good Christian Scienists and historians have demonstrated this. These myths have been created by athiests to destroy Christianity. As good Christians we need to attack and debunk these myths if we are to see Christinaity flourish again.
Besides, everyone knows scientists only know false science, only Christians guided by God know real science. And as a Christian, I know Global warming isn’t happening. The rise in temperatures are caused by solar flares. These are punishment from God for our sins, such as allowing unclean women to approach the altar in church.
We also need to abandon “enlightenment” values. In God’s eyes it is okay to own slaves from neighbouring nations. It is time we as Christians wage war on our heathen nieghbours and enslave them until they see that Jesus Christ is their saviour.
Keep up the good work Steve, and God bless you.
Comment by Edvard on 10 June 2009 at 03:39:54 PM
Hello Steve,
You have my respect for daring to question the science of human induced climate change.
When someone (especialy an elected someone) is met with outrage and anger for asking resonable and important questions you know the questions are worth asking!
Well done and keep up the good work
John
Comment by John Melbourne on 10 June 2009 at 02:38:34 PM
Stev, your beliefs and religin dont play in a part of judging you at all , unlike others on here. However, the fact on global warming etc and carbon trading, please please hold stead fast. Make them get facts and data out to substantiate their concerns. it never really has been debated and in fact only the media and Govt focus on the earth is warming and we need to introduce carbon etc and trading schemes , in the end it is going to cost a lot extra money in an ever expensive world. The ALP side with the greens who have no credentials at all, and this global warming really plays into their hands. How they get such a large voice astounds me , considering some of their polices are dangerous.
Stick with the facts on global, if its true, no problems, if its not, you may well save the pain etc of being pushing or herded a certain way. Dont do deals to get the vote etc, but stick to your guns, find out the truth and get them to answer the questions with facts and not round and around type answrs.
Good for you, ive beeen saying this for over 5 years its not founded and its about time.
thanks
Comment by Moyston on 10 June 2009 at 02:10:42 PM
Dear Senator,
The AGW hypothesis depends upon computer modeling. In any modeling exercise, which necessarily has to decide what to include and what to exclude, you have to ask what are the key assumptions/approximations in the model. The models the IPCC is relying on have a very crude model for clouds which is acknowledged in their reports. Clouds are tricky things to model and on the scale the climate models operate at they are treated as having a constant effect that significantly enhances the warming predictions. Water is a much more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
And if I may quote a doyen of computer science, Joseph Weizenbaum on computer modelling:
What is important in the present context is that models embody only the essential features of whatever it is they are intended to represent. ... What aspects of reality are and what are not embodied in a model is entirely a function of the model builder’s purpose. But no matter what the purpose, a model, and here I am concerned with computer models of aspects of reality, must necessarily leave out almost everything that is actually present in the real thing. Whoever knows and appreciates this fact, and keeps it in mind while teaching students about the use of computers, has a chance to immunize his or her students against believing or making excessive claims for much of their computer work.
Weizenbaum, J. (1984). Computer Power and Human reason. From Judgement to Calculation. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, p. xvii
Comment by cj13 on 10 June 2009 at 12:23:12 PM
ha kimbo, not being alarmist, just realistic enough to know there are better ways to do things which you steadfastly refuse to address because you’d rather fight all day and call people names.
If you feel ” polution, water, recycling has nothing to do with AGW.” then good for you. I personally think the way we use resources in this world are linked and have an impact on us, and the natural environment. I certainly believe the industrial revolution in its earliest form was shocking for people’s health. Not a great deal has really changed.
Any move to use modern design and technologies (not ones from 100 years ago) and cleaner, quieter energy, albeit under the reasoning of climate change then that’s fine with me. Again you haven’t explained why we can’t move every single job and dollar over from oil and coal to other, better industries.
...but then again, I don’t need to believe in a god, heaven or hell either way, to know that being a good person makes the world a better place.
It’s seems everyone here would rather fight over the existence of a god, before deciding to do the right thing.
Comment by trinna on 10 June 2009 at 08:42:20 AM
Please keep the rest of the world informed of what is happening in Australia. Many of us would love to be told, quickly, anything that happens when you meet with Senator Penny Wong, for example.
Comment by Jim Cripwell on 10 June 2009 at 03:56:02 AM
Triina ...I think you are a prime example of those that are eager to embrace the AGW retoric. The AGW industry focuses on whipping up hysteria by preaching exagerated consequences of not believing. They side step discussion on the science and only want to talk dooms day messages. This tactic sucks the emotional folk in and they become part of the lie.
It is a well known tactic of the left to be alarmist and even to begin to present fiction as fact. For instance ..are you really sure that air quality in our cities is worse than it was 30 years ago? I don’t have the figures to hand but I can tell you that our air is significantly better now.
Even so polution, water, recycling has nothing to do with AGW. AGW lies are being used as a political tool to bolster the relevance of green groups and the gulible have bought it.
Comment by Kimbo on 10 June 2009 at 01:26:26 AM
Go steve, you are right on the money. GW is a lie and I hope people will listen and we can get on with lives and not have to pay the Rudd Tax for something that isn’t even happening.
Comment by Sonor on 10 June 2009 at 12:05:34 AM
I would like to thank Steve Fielding for his stand on demanding to ask hard questions about climate change science in the face of massive ridicule from those that seek to introduce the biggest taxing scheme ever introduced called the ETS. Until hard science exists I think it would be prudent not to give up our manufacturing industry, which in essence is what will happen under an ETS in the face of unproven science.
The ETS has the potential to have its tentacles eventually reach into every ones lives to the extent of where we are scared to flush our toilets or release gas or even take deep breaths.
I thank you again Steve Fielding from stepping back from the brink and I hope and pray you have the integrity to stand up to any back room shady deal or any other deceptive shenanigans no matter how enticing or threatening the alternatives may be on offer for you to sell your vote and to stand your ground in having your questions and concerns answered in full before you commit to anything.
I personally implore you to jettison this ETS completely and not doom Australia to endless regulations and control all in the name of saving the earth from climate change.
Comment by Dan King on 09 June 2009 at 11:34:54 PM
Apologies Kimbo,
Previous post should be addressed to Bob Beale.
Comment by Sydney Street on 09 June 2009 at 11:31:35 PM
Kimbo,
I just watched the video. It did not put a case against many of the issues put by Professor Plimer in his book,
The irony of your intro is that Plimer is famous for his pro evolutionary advocacy.
AGW advocates love comparing dissenting views to the tobacco debate. By extension they imply their case is as statstically correct as the case against smoking, when all they have is one very complex 5000Ma old subject with no end in sight and a few weak computer models.
Comment by Sydney Street on 09 June 2009 at 11:28:41 PM
Dear Steve,
I was encouraged to hear you on radio this morning, explained the purpose of your visit to the US.
Your efforts are truely appreciated in honest representation of our future generations and planet earth.
Further resources;
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.WelcomeMessage
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=164002
Please speak with Marc Morano.. http://www.climatedepot.com
Bob Carter.. http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/index.htm
The list goes on…
Let’s together strive to preserve life on this planet beyond the constraints of the human ego.
Comment by Robb on 09 June 2009 at 11:18:04 PM
Good on you Steve, all is not as it seems. Please do yourself a huge favour and get Ian Plimers book “Heavan and Earth” the missing science. 500 pages of very interesting reading. Plimer uses real science to prove that AGW is bunk and a scam , to bring in a carbon tax. Plimer is no fool, he is a top scientist. Once you have read his book you will realise how stupid this whole debate is and how gullable people really are. It should be manditory reading for all senaters before any vote is taken on the matter. Please buy several copies and give them to the other senaters. There are so many holes in the AGW scam you could drive the queen mary liner through it. Please this is Aust future at stake here, dont be bullied by mantra repeating extreamists like Wong into signing away this country. What you might not realise but I believe you are about to find out is that this has nothing to do with “saving the planet” but more like “lets see if we can get away with the biggest scam in history agenda”. When its proven that it is a scam, and Rudd and Wong know its a scam, they should loose all there assets, (cars ,houses , money) under the” proceeds of crime act”. And they should also spend a long time in jail for attempting to commit fraud and treason. No I am not joking.
Comment by Loc Hey on 09 June 2009 at 09:32:17 PM
So Herb, where does this ‘real pollution’ come from? Why is it that 30 years ago, when the prevalence of cars was far less, the air was much cleaner in Australia’s capital cities? Or is that mere coincidence?
Nothing is ‘clean’ if handled incorrectly or business does not pay for recycling. The articles you list talk about only 2 kinds of technology which are presently being misused, incorrectly handled and/or not recycled because the companies in charge are too lazy and cheap to do so. This does not mean that Oil and Coal are superior, or in anyway cleaner than the hundreds of other technologies which can be used to make energy.
I wish the passion climate change skeptics show when fighting over the inevitable (no matter who/what caused it) would transfer over to pushing for things which improve our lives in any case, such as good housing design, better public transport, water conservation, less packaging and less consumption of non-renewable materials.
Comment by trinna on 09 June 2009 at 09:21:27 PM
I find it interesting that sceptics are accused of all sorts, like receiving oil and cigarette money.
On the contrary we have a whole industry that has sprung up with many now at the AGW trough. Why are these people not seen as having a vested interest? The entire employ at the IPCC only remains in work as long as AGW exists.
This is what Senator Fielding is saying. Let us focus on the science, not the playing of the man.
Comment by Kimbo on 09 June 2009 at 08:58:30 PM
Dear Senator Fielding,
I’m sure you are an intelligent and well-meaning man. But you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the doubt game played by the tobacco lobby against medical science, and by fundamentalist Creationists against the science of evolution.
If you truly want to understand where the scientific consensus on climate change came from, why the IPCC was formed and how and why this was perverted by base ideological politics in the US, may I suggest you and your readers here take the time to watch this video by a respected science historian, Naomi Oreskes - it’s fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
Comment by Bob Beale on 09 June 2009 at 06:55:23 PM
Trinna you need to understand that the air quality in Bejing has nothing to do with CO2, a colourless odourless gas essential for life as we know it, and everything to do with real pollution - particlates and oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. I haven’t heard or read of anyone disputing the need to clean those up.
Nor is it a question of simply being against “renewables” Problem is they are not necessarly that “clean” and often require a large energy input during manfacture. Eg you might like to check the following
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/hybrid-cars-minerals
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595_pf.html
Comment by Herb on 09 June 2009 at 06:25:25 PM
Dear Senator Fielding,
I will not discuss the science because i am on the same track as you. The certainty displayed by all the politicians in this debate only sharpens my skepticism.
I thank you for your courage in engaging a debate where the alarmists have long ago “moved on” to victory. This will, as you know , lead to considerable critisism of yourself with few friends to help defend you. I am not a natural political allie of yours, but have enormous respect for your willingness to take the heat on this topic when others have wilted. Shame on the Liberals!
More power to you senator. The more that your detractors get personal, the closer you are to the truth.
Keep asking difficult questions.
Comment by Realist on 09 June 2009 at 04:37:12 PM
Can all these people below who to reinforce our reliance on coal and oil based energy, under the noble guise of ‘Climate Change Skeptic’, explain why our wanting our cities to have the air quality of Beijing is a good thing?
Can then you then clearly explain why we can’t replace every single job from the coal/oil industry with one in a renewable energy industry?
Do you understand the paradox you all endorse; by not wanting to support and invest in renewable resources, so you can keep your faith in the ‘job creation’ of the non-renewable ones?
Comment by trinna on 09 June 2009 at 04:01:06 PM
Senator Fielding - it is a breathe of fresh air to see a real DEBATE on AGW…...finally. All the media and it seems most scientists agree that man is the problem in global warming; so man can be the solution. So all the West agrees that we need to combat, fight by…..raising taxes. Yea. And as a by-product increase world governance….Yea! NOT. I’m sure you’ll keep an open mind and I’ll be praying for you, as I know that the personal attacks will be severe. God Bless.
Comment by Neil on 09 June 2009 at 03:48:28 PM
wow. What an interesting illustration of how politics is conducted in games of truth. No-one seems to dispute the existence or the importance of knowing the ‘truth’ of the matter and everyone seems to want to associate themselves with the highest standards of rigor, skepticism and rationality. Everyone seems to agree that ‘evidence’ is important.
But there seems to be no agreement on:
1) what actually qualifies for ‘evidence’ in the practices of the natural sciences;
2) whether the journal peer review process and scientific ‘consensus’ is equivalent to peer pressure or non-independent/herd thinking;
3) whether, how and which climate scientists (ie on which side of the debates) are being ‘fooled’, ‘blinded’ or simply have some dark vested interest in deceiving the world about the real truth of the matter. ie how and the extent to which the disciplines that are necessary for promoting independent, rational thinking and the discovery of truth are failing for some climate scientists.
But in my view what is far more interesting and ought to be talked about a lot more is:
What exactly qualifies for ‘evidence’ among the vast array of non climate scientists with views on climate change? On what basis do non climate scientists themselves discriminate between reliable and unreliable evidence? And what sort of disciplines do non climate scientists undertake to ensure they are not victims of irrationality, prejudice and vested interests?
For instance, do you make sure you undertake some disciplined method in order to minimise your own necessarily existing prejudices and blind-spots? or perhaps you trust the authority of certain institutions to practice according to their ideals while others you don’t. Or have you developed a finely-tuned neutral umpire point of view that enables you to see the truth about things where many others can’t? Or perhaps you have some reliable rules of thumb where you can tell straight away by the ‘extremity’ of the opinion or perhaps by the source of the opinion whether it is true or not? Or perhaps you have a highly developed theory about how human nature and/or human society works which provides a useful diagnostic technique for any given social problem.
All sorts of possibilities, most of which appear in this blog methinks. But i reckon it is here among non climate scientists, not among climate scientists (who i think are in far more agreement about what constitutes valid and reliable truth-seeking discriminators) where the real battle about proper truth-seeking practices is happening.
Comment by fisher on 09 June 2009 at 03:16:43 PM
Dear Senator,
It is easy to become confused as to what is fact and what is fiction in this hotly debated issue. However, with relation to solar cycles issue consider, why we do not see the types of climatic impacts we have seen over the past 100 years on a more cyclical scale?
Here is the information from NASA on that issue. Solar cycles have an impact of around 0.1 degree on temperature, where we have seen an increase of almost 1 degree in average global temperatures in the past 100 years.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
Here are some more links to assist with your research on the ‘deniers’ their links to the fossil fuels industry, their sources of funding and common arguments they use:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8397
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp
Comment by Tanguerra on 09 June 2009 at 02:11:43 PM
Hi Steve
Good on you for being a stand up man, and questioning AGW alarmism ideology, you have won my vote and support. Please don’t let these so called experts sway your rational decision making methods, it’s about time someone stood up for truth and was not fooled by peer pressure. Good luck, you have a lot support in the public, however you would know with the biased media coverage. If you need help ask Andrew Bolt for support,
Best regards
Hard of Hats
Comment by Hard of Hats on 09 June 2009 at 01:42:14 PM
Dear Senator,
It is wise to educate yourself on this very important topic of climate change and its causes. As you can see from the above this topic is very hotly contested, however, this does not mean that there are two equal ‘sides’ to the debate.
The reason as you stated in your article in The Australian, that you have not heard of solar flares and so forth, is that most scientific, academic and government organisations have adopted the tactic of ignoring the ‘denialist’ lobby so as not to give them undue publicity. Perhaps this has not been the best course of action.
Please ask your staff to do some research on the Heartland Institute, its funding arrangements, the make up of its board and its general agenda. You may then be able to decide for yourself if the information they have provided you with has been impartial and accurately reflects the state of the science as it stands today.
Please also make sure you do some research into the background and affiliations of Ian Plimer and S Fred Singer. I think you will be surprised by the results. I recommend this site as a starting point:
There has been a determined project funded by the fossil fuels and motor car industry for the past 20 years to spread confusion and doubt about the cause of climate change. It is good that you are now becoming aware of it.
I recommend the following resources for reliable scientifiic information on this topic:
http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change.html
http://www.climatescience.gov/
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Good luck with your research project.
Comment by Tanguerra on 09 June 2009 at 12:50:37 PM
Good on you Steve, get the facts and fight for the truth.
As the saying goes, ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see!!!’
For anyone who would like to know more about the origins of the environmental movement and AGW an excellent starting point is ‘The Greening” by Larry Abraham and Franklin Sanders.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT the current environmental agenda (including AGW) was actually set in the 1960’s when it became obvious that sooner or later communism was going to implode.
Don’t take my word for it get the book (available from Amazon .com and abebooks.com).
Although published in 1993 it s predictions have become chillingly true.
It contains detailed biographies of the major players in the environmental movement, their links to each other and big business. It also contains references to various conferences and think tanks dating back to the mid-1960’s showing how the current policies were formulated over 40 years ago.
Comment by Ange on 09 June 2009 at 10:49:05 AM
Hello Steve,
Congratulations on your stand. Finally we have a person in public office who has the intelligence to question GW and both our, and other governments, who blindly follow people who have their own agendas. Have they forgotten the Millenium Bug? What happened to the Weapons of Mass Distruction? Does the Hole in the Ozone layer still exist? Deregulation will cause more competition and lower prices. Whilst the 9/11 attack did happen, there is so much that has been “governmentized” to take the publics’ eyes away from a lot of obvious cover-ups. $600k to investigate 9/11; $40m to investigate Bill Clintons indiscretion - where are the priorities?
I was a little doubtful about GHG emissions and GW. It seemed too convenient that the only way to combat this was by increasing prices on the necessities of life.
Some months back, I saw and purchased a dvd “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. It was put out by MRA Entertainment in Qld. This is an extremely enlightening dvd. It explains how the people appearing in it, were GW supporters until they realized only part of the story was being told. The rest of the story was conveniently ignored by the 2500 GW experts. They would lose their status, big money and credibility if the full truth be known.
Prof Richard Lindzen (Meteorology) says that there were warming concerns in the late 30’s when the Artic warmed more than today. There was mild cooling in the 40’s - 70’s which looked more profound from the records then, compared to today. The concern for global cooling was such that the Times and News Week wrote about man’s emissions were going to give rise, due to aerosols which would cool the earth and we would go into an Ice Age. The last ~ 20 years has seen the bleating that the end of the earth is nigh due to GW.
He also states that the experts’ “model” for GW says that a doubling of C02 emission will cause a 3 - 4 degree temp rise. At the moment, we are 3/4 of the way to a doubling of CO2 but the temp rise has only been 0.5 of a degree.
The last of the bonus features was Dr Tim Patterson a Prof. of Geology who discussed the 4 solar cycles amongst other things. They are an 11 year Schwabe cycle, a 75 - 90 year Gleissberg cycle, a 200 - 500 year Suess cycle and an 1100 - 1500 year Bond cycle. Solar cycles along with Cosmic rays greatly affect the earth’s temperature. The longer the solar cycle, the greater the temp rise.
I would most certainly recommend looking at this dvd as I feel it will provide more information as to the real cause/s of GW and GHG. I firmly believe we should all do our bit to keep our world clean and produce as little pollution as possible, but could all these GW experts tell us the whole truth and not what you want us to hear.
Comment by JeffG on 09 June 2009 at 10:40:06 AM
Instead of going to the US you could have spent the time reading the scientific literature rather than hearing the views of discredited wannabes who are peddling falsehoods.
This should answer your questions
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=97
Comment by gaustin on 09 June 2009 at 09:08:32 AM
Steve
As a professional Geologist with 25 years under my belt I can assure you that AGW is a complete fabrication. The science of climate change is weak and does not hold up to scrutiny. Most people believe in it because intuitively we believe our decadent lifestyle must be causing some kind of environmental damage. And yes we are causing damage, but it is not C02 which is the cause, pollution is. If Cap&Trade; were designed to reduce pollution, there would be no resistance, this legislation would already be in place; But C02 is not a pollutant and intuitively we all know this.
By the way, you will never be granted a debate on AGW because the AGW Believers always lose. You will also note that the media seldom report when a debate is lost. Have you ever seen a debate with Al Gore? No. There is a reason for that; Should he lose the debate, he’d lose billions for himself and his investors.
Oh and by the way, the green movement has collapsed around the world again with the economic downturn, as it always does. We are all moving back to the right.
Comment by Ken on 09 June 2009 at 05:11:51 AM
Steve ...I would like to thankyou in your efforts to get some proper analysis on this topic. I note that even though you have made it clear that you are open minded there are some itching to call you a denier (therefore muzzled). This is one topic that debate has been actively stiffled with religious zeal.
To understand how we have got to where we are with this we only have to look back a few decades. At school in the 70’s we were taught that it was imposible to feed more than 4.5 billion people, especially with the ice age that was going to freeze everything in our lifetimes. That is of course if we failed to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons first. We were taught all this as fact.
Modern man seems to have some kind of self loathing where we are always on the brink of some self inflicted doom. Global warming is just another more innovative incarnation of this phenonomen.
Remember ...man made global warming is still just a theory. It is not proven nor can it be proved. In fact the world is not behaving the way the experts models predicted.
Comment by Kimbo on 09 June 2009 at 03:54:24 AM
Senator,
I don’t understand why you had to go to the US to ‘hear’ both sides of the so called debate. As an engineer I am very confident that experts on the science behind climate change can be found here in Australia, indeed I’ve heard them.
Let me also echo some of the other posts here questioning where you have been while the science behind AGW has been accumulating this past generation of Australia adults?
You posted above that putting a cap on carbon emissions is going to cost the Australia economy. Who says? Where’s the evidence? As an engineer, like yourself, I’m looking forward to the continuing spur to creativity in technology and opportunities that has already been started in dealing with emissions. Do you really want Australia to miss out on the jobs and additions to the economy that this creative reaction could unleash? Do we really want to stay a coal based economy when other countries such as New Zealand, China, Thailand etc are forging ahead without relying on coal to earn money.
Finally, I wasn’t convinced by your interview on Lateline. It seemed to me in listening to you in that interview you were looking for an excuse to not deal with AGW whether by turning down the ETS (yes I know its not perfect) or claiming with no evidence that there will be a net job loss. I could be wrong, so show me.
Comment by Jeremy Cavanagh on 09 June 2009 at 03:06:18 AM
Dear Senator Fielding,
I am delighted to see that you do pursue facts rather than accept dogma and fiction.
By now, when it comes to Climate Change I define myself not as a sceptic, but as a facts person simply because being a sceptic implies that I am a lone voice against one hundred other voices which are “right”.
The essence as I see it is this:
Dr. Michael Mann redrew the earths temperature chart whilst including false and
invented data, removed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and added the hockey-stick that shows a fast increasing earth temperature. Mann’s chart is by now fully discredited, ie. dead, and the old chart again alive and well!
Eg. see here: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Mann’s chart underpinned the IPCC report, it is it’s body and soul. So the IPCC report in turn is fully discredited.
The IPCC report underpinned the Kyoto protocol, it is it’s body and soul. So the Kyoto report in turn is fully discredited.
Kevin Rudd signed the discredited Kyoto protocol. So Kevin in turn with his hard sell gospel is now fully discredited!
Two other short notes:
Perhaps you know already, but school children in UK and the USA must by law
be warned of all inaccuracies, exaggerations etc in Al Gore’s film An
Inconvenient Truth before it is screened.
See eg.here: http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html
And if you think that a free, substantiated thinking is possible in Wikipedia, see here:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
We need much more of your kind of independent thinking, have a good trip and welcome back home.
Comment by Gnidleif on 08 June 2009 at 11:40:41 PM
Thank you for being so concerned to find out about the evidence first, and then for considering the cost to Australians and the effect that our decisions will have on the earth anyway in the light of what the major players are not doing. After seeing Landline the other week and seeing what the cost will be just to the cattle farmers, you can’t believe that the government can be serious about all this, that’s for sure. The big problem is that the average Australian doesn’t know how the scheme will work and what it will cost. It needs to be spelt out in simple terms.
Comment by Helen on 08 June 2009 at 10:36:07 PM
Dear Senator Fielding
Thank you for your hard work. You are doing your job as a review Senator as it should be done.
INSIST on getting straight answers from Senator Wong. Do not allow her to play the man and not the issue.
Stand firm and don’t give your vote away until the science has been fully examined by this Government.
Comment by acs on 08 June 2009 at 10:28:45 PM
I am not a Family First voter and I disagree with most of Family First’s policies.
But I would like to thank Senator Fielding challenging the global warming dogma that is about to unleash yet another burden on business and consumers without providing any significant real-world benefit.
Climate Change is not new. Climate has always changed and always will. CO2 is not a pollutant, and man-made CO2 is insignifant compared to other greenhouse gas components. The sun and earth’s orbit are primary factors determining our climate, a no new tax is gonna change that.
Comment by Liberty on 08 June 2009 at 09:35:42 PM
why should we rely on the analysis of Garnaut the economist, when as a group they cannot predict the following:
1. the USDAUS$ exchange rate net week/month/year
2. our budget deficit next year. These are the same wizards who were telling us last year that australia had escaped the recession because china was decoupled from the usa. They cant even get predictions in their own supposed areas of expertise right.
Yet on their analysis, i must willing accept a new tax. The world may be warming but i see no proof that it is because of co2. if it was there should be a correlation between co2 increase and increasing temperatures.this link is still to be proved.
if the govt was that concerned about australia’s contribution to global warming, they would be reducing our migrant intake instead of working on the ETS, which is nothing more than a new tax. analyse how it is structured and you will see it is structured to operate like GST, with retention of records, reporting regimes etc etc, all expensive, non-productive wasteful activities that will benefit the legal, accounting professions and of course Treasury. ask your local labor rep why under the scheme one cant purchase carbon credits from overseas, is it because they are too cheap and will not benefit treasury?
surely that is an immaterial consideration. after all we are doing this to save the planet, aren’t we?
Comment by perthboy on 08 June 2009 at 08:21:36 PM
Steve….You said you wanted to get a “balanced view”.
I would, for one, very much, like to know what you have concluded to be a “balanced view” & how you reached this conclusion!
Remember we are dealing with hard scientific data & real economic & social outcomes from any action or inaction. Subjective impressions are invalid!
As a graduate with two degrees, you will be aware of the need to: construct research programs in such a way as to be able to test the validity of your hypothesis, to record data & to document your sources.
What hypothesis did you develop to test with your research program?
Please list the scientists/groups you consulted to obtain this view in the USA & elsewhere.
How & why did you select these?
You nominated one particular group that you recently met with in the USA. This group denies that any link between cancer & smoking exists.
Do you share this view?
Why was it necessary to go to the USA to obtain basic data?
Have you no confidence in Australian science/scientists?
Do you see any current climate change trend (such as warming or cooling)?
What data do you base this conclusion on?
Is the trend natural?, Human generated? both?
If natural, what is the quanta & timing of change?
Would the measured rate of this change be more or less than the changes that occurred as the last Ice Age period ended? Describe & Quantify these.
In general, describe the effects of this change (c12000 to 8000 years ago) on human economic & social organisation.
What would be the immediate, medium term & long term overall, economic & social effects of the current (20th C & 21st C) changes? Quantify these.
If human, or part human induced, what is the quanta & timing of the effects of this change?
You claim that measures taken to adjust greenhouse gas build up is counter employment. Describe & quantify these negative effects?
On what data do you base your findings?
List this data in full, including evidence of peer review
Comment by d on 08 June 2009 at 07:44:07 PM
Pragmatic - don’t quite understand the association between “Senator Jim Inhofe, his bible belt cronies”. After all Al Gore is a card carrying Baptist - see http://www.adherents.com/people/pg/Al_Gore.html . I
In fact Al got a “Baptist of the Year” in award.in ‘08 (despite a court in the UK finding much of AIT was either not substantiated or plain wrong. But it’s not about religion, or Left or Right politics. It’s about empirical science and evidence and there is virtally non to support the man made CO2 hypotheis. 2 days a laptop is after all an incredibly shallow and supperficial review of the topic
Comment by Herb on 08 June 2009 at 06:44:42 PM
Get over the peer review. Wall Street CDO’s were peer reviewed and given AAA ratings which local governments all over the world took in hook line and sinker.
Remember Enron was run by the smartest people in the room.
We are not at a phase as warm as when Norse people colonised Greenland, or the Roman warming.
Only recently the “Ice Man” was revealed in the Alps, so it was warm enough those few thousand years ago for him to be up there in the first place.
When the climatologists can explain history, then we may grant them some credibilty for our future.
As Professor Plimer says - consensus is not science.
Comment by Sydney Street on 08 June 2009 at 04:37:42 PM
I think you are using the word “debate” too much. It suggests climate change is still hotly contested. I’m all for a pragmatic approach, but I wouldn’t bother travelling half way around the world to hear some bible belt politicians and fringe scientists tell me that smoking isn’t linked to lung cancer. I did my own research from my laptop over 2 days and can safely assure you that all roads from the “non issue” camp lead to the good Senator Jim Inhofe, his bible belt cronies and his oil money backers (in his last campaign he received the 2nd highest contribution from the oil and gas industries - guess who was number 1!).
If this trip was titled a “final confirmation of climate change”, it would be more appropriate considering where things are on this issue. Having said that, if somehow you did find something that forced the real scientific (real as in not a room of 300 fringies trying to lobby in Washington) community to reverse their findings and prognosis I’d be pretty impressed because everyone in Aus would love to be able to sell and burn our vast brown coal resources without guilt and I love a long, hot shower in the morning.
I do agree with assessing the impact and cost of the proposed actions because there is a big difference between acknowledgement of an issue and how to deal with it. If there isn’t going to be a major impact to the long term outcome by carbon trading, let’s can the whole idea and enjoy life in a slightly warmer, slightly more watery world!
Comment by Pragmatic on 08 June 2009 at 04:01:52 PM
fact finding tour? more like fairytale tour. lucky for us, youll not get another term. pull ya head out. by the way, there is no god either. first class nutjob.
Comment by godless on 08 June 2009 at 02:27:52 PM
Steve - you say “I think it is very important, being an elected person that I give both sides a chance to put their case forward so that I can make an informed decision on the Rudd Government’s proposed carbon reduction scheme ... “
Where have you been for the LAST 25 plus YEARS ! The debate has waged for all that time and longer - and solar activity and every other avenue / issue has been explored in depth in that time. You are the fool who walks into a movie when it is 75% over and wants to stop it and re-run it so you can see what you missed! The reason we are at a crisis point, nearing a tipping point is because those who oppose climate regulation have WON the debate for the last 25 plus years ... and you will never get a unanimous scientific consensus so you should also study the concept of the precautionary principle - also known as common sense. You also talk of being free of ideological commitment - in this debate that is called “IGNORANCE”. The ALP does not have an ideological committment to ETS plucked out of the air .. I am sure Rudd would love it if it could be proved a non-issue, it would save many difficult decisions that up until now too many governments have refused to take. Its far easier to be the sceptic and take no action.
I cannot believe you are talking about hearing both sides - of course that is important - but that debate has been raging for decades - where have you been Senator RIP VAN FIELDING ... Wake up wake up - even Turnbull concedes the need for action, for Gods sake (and our children’s sake) bloody wake up to yourself and stop “strutting and posturing” - you are a 2% rep - DON’T LET YOUR HEAD SWELL any further and DON’T FUCK UP the world for my children.
Graham D
Comment by Steve Fielding is a fool on 08 June 2009 at 02:20:35 PM
Some answers to my own questions:
Q1. If the world was to actually cut GHG emissions by the amounts proposed, how much difference would it make to the climate in say 2100?
A1. Using IPCC’s own figures, and the A1B scenario, the most realistic of them, the IPCC forecasts that the Earth’s average surface temperature would increase by 2.8C by 2100. If the world’s economies cut GHG emission as being proposed, the temperature at 2100 would be 2.7C, ie a cut of 0.1C. Is it worth the cost?
Q2. What is the cost to humanity of the proposed actions to cut GHG emissions?
A2. Sir Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut, both political appointments, have calculated that the cost of not acting to cut emissions is greater than the cost of acting. But sound judgement is needed to assess the assumptions they have made and what weight they have given to various positive and negative factors. Cutting emissions will slow GDP growth in the world - IPCC says by 5.5% by 2050. The UN Human Development Program shows the relationship between GDP and: life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, education level, fertility, and population growth rate. If world GDP is cut as projected, it will cause millions more infant mortality, shorter life expectancy, lower literacy, lower education levels, higher fertility and higher population growth rates than would be the case without the cut in GDP growth rate. The world population will peak higher and later. The conclusion: there are large negative consequences of cutting GHG emissions, and they have not been properly included in the analyses by Sir Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut.
Q3. Is global warming, whether natural or man made, actually a net benefit or a net cost to life on this planet?
A3. There is much evidence that life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when it is colder. Here is some:
a) IPCC says that there is more carbon tied up in biomass when the climate is warmer than when it is colder. Life thrives when warmer. This evidence is over geologic time from well before the dinosaurs until now. The world is currently in a cold period.
b) When the planet is warmer there is more water vapour and CO2 in the air - good for plants and animals;
c) when warmer, there are no ice caps at the poles and forests extend to the poles. The area of deserts is less (according to IPCC);
d) there is less sand and less dust in the air. There is less wind and less powerful winds;
e) coral reefs are much more extensive;
f) new species are formed faster when the planet is warmer than when colder
g) regarding sea levels: IPCC A1B scenario projects that sea level will rise by 400 mm this century. That is 4 mm per year, which is just 2 mm per year faster than it has been rising for the past 1000 years. 2mm per year is imperceptible to all but scientists. People move and migrate and adapt to new environments all the time, so sea level rise is not ‘dangerous’.
Comment by Havequestions on 08 June 2009 at 02:07:29 PM
Steve
Don’t now if you’re still in the US but John Christy is another example of an eminent climate scientist who has concerns about the veracity the Global Warming creed see-
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=9
One of the alarming aspects of Global Warming is how popular it became when it began to be marketed as providing opportunities to make money.
Another is the denial of empirical data - back in the 80’s we were told the atmospheric temperature increase followed an increase in atmospheric CO2. When that position became blantantly indefensible, the official legend changed to - well CO2 increase does follow temperature, but it then causes the temp to rise further than it otherwise would - . ........!
Then of course there’s the one about the warming/melting Antarctic. Russian scientists reported some years ago that they saw no significant warming in 50 years of records from 5 antarctic stations, (if anything slight cooling this century); publically available satellite data shows a gradual increase in antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, yet it took until last month for British and Australian antarctic reseachers to acknowledge the obvious - to be almost totally ignored by the media. “No crisis” doesn’t sell newspapers.
Then there’s the nonsense mantra “Reduce CO2 emissions to Save the Planet”. The planet, earth that is has done just fine with lots more CO2 in the past, in fact if CO2 the alleged preindustrial level of around 285ppm is arguablly getting too low for comfort. There are many more real and urgent issues facing humans and the environment than a modest blip in atmospheric CO2 - which incidentally is not increasing a anything like the rate hypothesised by the IPCC - in fact the rate of increase appears to be starting to slow.
Comment by Herb on 08 June 2009 at 01:53:56 PM
Hi Senator Fielding.
Recently a group of respected climate scientists spent months compiling all the peer reviewed work on the climate and climate change and produced a summary for policy makers such as yourself.
Here is a link to it
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
Some quotes:
“Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic
greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has
increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm
to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as
determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide
concentration growth rate was larger during the last
10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than
it has been since the beginning of continuous direct
atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4
ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability
in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}
• The primary source of the increased atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial
period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change
providing another signifi cant but smaller contribution.
Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased
from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8]5 GtC (23.5 [22.0 to
25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5]
GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005
(2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon
dioxide emissions associated with land-use change”
Please ask the scientists at the skeptics conference for peer reviewed work. My guess is that they can supply none.
Solar flares and solar variablity was considered however it makes up only a small portion of recent warming as the sun has not increased in intensity much over the last 40 years or so. Cosmic ray flux has also been quite steady.
It is easy and comforting to blame others for the warming that we are causing however if we do not take action soon there will be little hope of anything getting done.
Additionally if you are going to take the tack that reducing Australia’s emissions will do little then I hereby apply to stop paying income tax. My contribution is only .00001% of the total tax income therefore I should not have to pay it.
I have no idea why you think a handful of skeptics that cannot publish peer reviewable work and cherry pick certain data is more authorative that the IPCC reports that contain the summary of thousands of peer reviewed papers and scientific work on the climate and climate change.
Comment by Ender on 08 June 2009 at 01:46:06 PM
Good on you Steve.
I hope you can get the electorate considering the following three questions:
1. If the world was to actually cut GHG emissions by the amounts proposed, how much difference would it make to the climate in say 2100?
2. What is the cost to humanity of the proposed actions to cut emissions?
3. Is global warming, whether natural or man made, actually a net benefit or a net cost to life on this planet?
Comment by Havequestions on 08 June 2009 at 01:15:00 PM
Brad, yet again that is not an argument. There are a whole bunch of people called bishops who are “experts” in religion who all agree that God exists. Does that mean God exists?
It’s not a matter of point of view. Science is a matter of fact. Human induced climate change is a matter of predicting the future based on a model that CANNOT predict the single most important factor in the warming or cooling of our planet. The activity of the sun. While the model may be the best we have, we can be certain that any predictions made by it are tenuous at best. Certainly you wouldn’t want to wreck your economy based on soemthign so tenuous.
By the way, it is also important to note that the model, such that it is, makes predictions based on probability. While the model predicts a 5% chance of ctatstrophic global warming, it also predicts a 5% chance of no warming at all. For every prediction of ctastrophe there is an equal prediction of no problem whatsoever.
The IPCC released a statement that a certain reduction by 2050 (and you’d have to get their exact figures) would result in a 50% (and I remember that figure exactly) chance of reducing the effects of human induced global warming. This is doublespeak. A 50% chance is the same as tossing a coin. In effect it is not a prediction at all.
Comment by Burbage on 08 June 2009 at 10:54:07 AM
Re : Graham Readfern
Let’s not give this kid too much attention. He works for SMH whose leading headlines at the moment are about a football coach who wants to be spanked, an accidental drowning in California, an all night dance party and a nightclub owner shooting. Truly impactful, leading edge news of the world that lot.
This kid has been thoroughly trained in the perspective that generating emotional reactions and attention gets page views, and ultimately increases his chance of a salary rise in his next job review. So let’s not take his contributions as anything more than just blog spamming
Comment by PeterD on 08 June 2009 at 10:50:14 AM
The single greatest impediment to the Climate Change debate is the sheer complexity of the science, it is very easily manipulated and misrepresented by people with hidden agendas and alterior motives - Exxon Mobil have now publicly admitted to funding the sceptics to the tune of $3 million, using a model and approach identical to the Tobacco industry and their campaign against health officials.
Logic and reason tells us that if we have a serious heart problem we go and see a Cardiologist, if we have a serious legal problem we go and see a Lawyer, and if we have a serious mechanical problem we go and see a Mechanic.
Regarding Climate Change we can safely say that over 90% of the relevant scientists - Climatologists, Meterologists, and Atmospheric Scientists agree that humans are contributing significantly to the warming of the planet, as you expressed there are other contributing factors, but there are no peer reviewed papers that are not taken into account when forming this consensus.
If you arrived at the airport with your family, ready to board a flight to London, and there was a debate on the tarmac between the Aeroplane mechanics about the safety of the plane, with 9 out of the 10 saying you would’nt make it to London alive, would you and your family board the the plane ?
Comment by Brad Homewood on 08 June 2009 at 10:43:42 AM
The question which nobody in public, until now, seems to be asking is this.
The current theory of man made global warming is based on a mathematical model. Not on measurable scientific data.
How can this mathematical model be considered even remotely accurate if it cannot predict the behaviour of the Sun?
If someone produced a model for future water supply in Queensland, for example, and assumed that rainfall was a constant you would consider them insane. And yet rainfall is far less important to water supply than the sun’s influence is on the temperature of our planet.
The man made global warming theory is a religion, not a science. Those who support it do not defend their methods, they do not attempt scientific debate. They merely say this is THE TRUTH and brand as a heretic anyone who disagrees. They have gained a great deal of popularity using these methods. After all religions have perfected the technique.
All the evidence points to the fact that the world is gradually getting warmer. None of the evidence that we have suggests that this is an unnatural event. The Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period for starters. We have to adapt to a warming world not fool ourselves into thinking that we can prevent it.
As for carbon dioxide pollution, let’s address it. But it isn’t either the cause of, or the solution to, global warming.
The problem with politics, of course, is that a man like Mr Rudd appears to ask the question “Where are the votes?” before he asks the question, “What is the reality?”
Comment by Burbage on 08 June 2009 at 09:57:07 AM
Senator Fielding,
On this issue you do not carry the baggage of the larger parties. As a point of difference, your re-election could be achieved on an AGW sceptic platform alone, This issue is why I find myself at your website.
I have become a big fan of Professor Ian Plimer who is thick skinned enough to present his observations and deductions in public arenas that seem set to pull him down. The IPCC and its retinue of followers have become the estabilshment fuddy duddies relying on the public gravy train.
We are all being bombarded with consequences based on extrapolations of innacurate computer models. Comparisons to the fight against big tobacco would only be valid if the earth had an expected life span of 70 years
and several thousand case studies could used to develop and test the model.
Somewhere I read Plimer’s challenge to the climate lobby to run their models backward. They could but their innacuracies would be revealed, just as every year they must revise and moderate earlier predictions of doom as real figures contradict the models..
So why are we to rely on their future predictions?
CO2 concentrations seem to have a digressive greenhouse effect, not linear and along way from the exponential hyperbole we are being bombarded with.
I hope you can make the climate lobbyists re present their case to get the debate in Australia going again.
Somewhere along the line elections were held and it seems assumed that Australians have been fully informed and decided this AGW thing was true.
Just remember many financial derivatives were subject to peer review and look at the mess they created.
You have a unique opportunity, good luck.
Comment by Sydney Street on 08 June 2009 at 08:28:23 AM
Thanks for making AGW a big issue on your agenda. To answer your two questions directly : I am certain that climate change is not man-made and, no, we do not need a carbon emissions trading scheme.
I have read enough about the science to know that the critical evidence shows that CO2 is not a climate driver let alone the major one.
I have been astounded by the extraordinary amount of disinformation being peddled by the general media and others. Whether their messages are false or narrowly accurate, their intent is to deceive and brain-wash the public into believing that ‘carbon is pollution’. It is not.
And please distinguish AGW from other issues like sustainability and resource efficiency. Although man continues to ruin local environments through deforestation and pollution, this does not drive climate. We (all humans) need to fix up the real environmental problems that we have created.
It is only a matter of time before the AGW bandwagon starts breaking up and goes away but our future (or I should say, the future of our kids and subsequent generations) depend upon decisions that our government is making now. Fortunately you are in a position to influence these decisions in the Senate. How you play the political game (I don’t envy you there!) is up to you but I hope your efforts are justly rewarded.
Comment by ChrisVS on 07 June 2009 at 09:24:00 PM
Warren,
Further to my previous post, I own a 1993 Toyota corolla Diesel (private import from Japan). About 6 months ago I installed a hydrolizer (breaks up water into hydrogen and oxygen) which generates hydrogen on demand (so no storage and safety problems involved as are by what the commercial interests/governments are trying to do).
With ABSOLUTELLY NO MODIFICATION WHATSOEVER I am achieving a reduction of 12% to 15% in my diesel consumption as well as a staggering reduction of over 60% in particulate emissions. This device costs less than $250 to make.
A friend of mine who runs a Holden on LPG developed a hydrolizer of his own which has reduced his LPG consumption by almost 90% that’s right ninety percent. The only modification he made was to replace his standard alternator with a heavy duty one costing him $360. His system cost him almost $3000 to make but most of that money was spent on experimentation and the system would cost less than $1000 to replicate.
So we can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions with simple technology that is already in use.
THERE ARE simple technologies out there but they are not pursued by either big business nor government because they can’t sell nor tax water like they are doing to fossil fuels.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN ABOVE DOES NOT USE PLASMA IGNITION OF WATER WHICH IS AN EVEN BETTER METHOD OF DERIVING FUEL (HYDROGEN) FROM WATER.
Comment by Ange on 07 June 2009 at 09:41:22 AM
Warren,
I wonder if you had a good look at the two links that I posted?
Neither of the links that you refer to are relevant!!!!!
WHY?
Because both of the links are concerned with hydrogen fuel cells (for driving electric motors) or hydrogen for use in internal combustion engines again both REQUIRING REFUELLING from commercial suppliers of hydrogen.
In1996 Mazda spent over US$600 million on research into hydrogen as a fuel.
Currently part of the public transport bus fleet in Iceland runs on hydrogen supplied through Shell.
As far as I am able to find out ALL current research in using hydrogen as a fuel, whether funded by commercial interests or government grants are purely on how to extract the same or more dollars from the economy for fuel.
The first link that you supply talks about the high cost (therefore inefficiency) of hydrogen as an alternative to petroleum as a fuel source and the second link in its criticisms section states that
‘the BMW Hydrogen 7 would probably produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today’
Now doesn’t that statement seem strange to you when anyone who has done even basic chemistry in high school knows that burning hydrogen which on combining with oxygen only produces H2O (water). Burning CARBON produces CO2.
BURNING HYDROGEN DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY CO2!!!!!!!
The links that I referred to examine the use of PLASMA IGNITION to ignite water as a fuel on existing internal combustion engines with VERY LITTLE MODIFICATION.
In many countries a large percentage of electricity is generated using diesel motors which with acceptable levels of modification would be able to run using plasma ignition and WATER.
So I hate to disappoint you Warren but what I am suggesting is far different from what you believe is ‘done and dusted’.
We could make a HUGE contribution not only towards reducing CO2 emissions (whether or not we believe that that is a contributing factor to global warming or not) for very few taxpayers dollars as well as creating thousands of jobs and export opportunities by developing generators and cars that used PLASMA IGNITION OF WATER which unlike any form of hydrogen storage is absolutely safe as well as being as cheap to run as the cost of your tap water.
THIS IS NOT PIE IN THE SKY as the links I provided show but only require adequate funding to become a commercial reality.
THIS WOULD CERTAINLY BE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO BOTH ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF GLOBAL WARMING (FOR THE TRUE BELIEVERS) AS WELL AS A HUGE BOOST TO THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY.
Comment by Ange on 06 June 2009 at 10:03:54 PM
Dear Senator Fielding
I hope you will read my latest article on climate change issues it is available here:
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/4changedeniers
Interestingly enough, it is written to these very same scientists you are currently listening to. I have sent a copy to media and other Honourable Elected Representatives. My article addresses their “petition” (and includes it and their names - as a link reference).
I also hope you will visit my website and have a look around. You would be most welcome.
“Ways Forward” is a good link… worthy of your scrutiny.
Senator Fielding, it is my opinion and the opinion of many other voters in this country, that Climate Change is happening and that time has pretty much run out to fix this mess. Humanity has a slim chance if our elected representatives start acting SERIOUSLY to reduce, prepare and implement clean energy solutions on a Federal Government Level NOW.
With respect where respect is due, if you place your vote against the future of humanity, may your God have mercy on your soul.
Anne
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org
Comment by AnneEmu on 06 June 2009 at 03:09:33 PM
Ange, you may “suggest a paradigm shift from a hydrocarbon economy to a hydrogen economy”; however, it is not a realistic suggestion due to the fuel’s current all-factors inefficiency.
Moreover, Hydrogen is done and dusted so there’s no need to squander millions on needless R & D!
The US Department of Energy and most major auto-manufacturers are so far ahead of the game we couldn’t hope to catch them:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
Many are even further ahead than their current disclosures suggest.
We need to spend our development dollars on things we can make a significant contribution to.
Comment by Warren on 05 June 2009 at 04:29:18 PM
Steve,
A PARADIGM SHIFT IS REQUIRED
In your introduction to this topic you say:
‘I hope this will give me more information so I can chart a clear course in my mind for where Australia needs to head in reducing carbon emissions.’
Like some others who have posted on this topic I too have spend a lot of time researching this topic since the mid-1990’s.
Whether climate change is due to CO2 emissions, changes in ocean currents bringing warm water from the tropics to the polar regions or the activity of the sun is all ope to debate. What I suggest is not open to debate is our overdependance on hydrocarbon fuels to sustain our economy.
There is a statistical corelation between economic growth indicating that there is a 1% increase in energy use for every 1% increase in our economic growth.
So far the only alternative energy sources being promoted are, hydro, solar, wind and tidal power to drive our industries. Apart from hydro electricity generated by all the others is prohibitively expensive and economically viable (but has a very high FEELGOOD FACTOR).
May I suggest a paradigm shift from a hydrocarbon economy to a hydrogen economy.
With the right technology (and it is already here – please refer to the following links)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk511S_I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR7eIbL1Ffc&feature=related
Australia could lead the world in developing energy based on using water as a fuel.
Think about it no more air pollution (including CO2) from power generation or internal combustion engines, UNLIMITED ENERGY for the cost of water.
NOW WOULDN’T THAT BE WORTH SPENDING A COUPLE OF HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY TO FUND COMMERCIALISATION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.????????????
Even the greenest of green climate change advocates can’t argue against such a proposal and then Australia would not need to intorduce a CARBON TAX because our emissions would be dramatically reduced if not almost ZERO.
Comment by Ange on 05 June 2009 at 11:48:02 AM
How did an open minded engineer like Steve pop-up at just the right time? The Australian people are very lucky; wow that was close!
Fact 1
Atmospheric CO2 has never caused global warming and never will.
Fact 2
Dynamic atmospheric CO2 causes cooling under particular conditions of pressure and velocity.
Fact 3
Interaction between dynamic CO2 and the effects of ‘cloud physics’ combine to deliver nature’s global air-conditioner. It can take anything we throw at it and much much more!
Fact 4
The atmosphere is currently CO2 impoverished. For most of earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm (yes, x000); currently we have approx 380 ppm.
Fact 5
The IPCC does not retain one expert atmospheric CO2 consultant.
Fact 6
The IPCC has never subjected their CO2 hypothesis to the rigorous experimental techniques of the scientific method. No one (anywhere) has ever conducted the appropriate megalab atmospheric CO2 experiments. All will declare IT CAN NOT BE DONE; all are liars or ignorant or arrogant or self serving or a combination thereof.
Fact 7
Be afraid of ‘global cooling’ only because you would not survive it. The Late Ordovician Period was an Ice Age with atmospheric CO2 levels above 4000 ppm (yes, four thousand). Luckily you don’t have to be afraid for yourself; but spare a thought for your distant relatives.
Take the global warming test:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
Comment by Warren on 04 June 2009 at 09:36:14 PM
To : Graham Readfearn.
What is it with people like you ?
You make snide comments about Heartland and other groups voicing dissent over alleged Man Made Climate Change.
You practically fall over yourself to point out how Heartland has received $800,000 over man years from Exxon, while totally ignoring the fact that Global Warming Doomsayers, like yourself, are getting $$$$ TENS OF BILLIONS of DOLLARS $$$$ in funding from both private & public sources along with Multi Billionaires whose only interest in all of this, is to line their own pockets.
Christ was right in pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the likes of you. It was for people like you that he said, first pull the Beam out of your own eye, before worrying about the splinter in the eye of your brother..?
Your position is driven by political hypocrisy, Junk Science and financial fraud. That is why the likes of AL GORE, your hero and mentor, knows full well, that the moment he steps foot in England, he will be charged with running a “Ponzi scheme” that is designed to defraud the public. That is also why he has now chosen to limit his company share distribution to America only. He knows full well, that to set up his Carbon Credit company outside of the USA, would very likely see him being charged with conspiracy to defraud.
Oh and just by way of background.
I have three degrees, A BSc in Science (Botany) an Arts Degree (Philosophy of Science), and a Post Grad in Education. So that means I am probably as qualified (if not more) to speak about Global Warming as AL GORE or most other Global Warming Doomsayers.
Comment by Aqua Fyre on 04 June 2009 at 08:00:31 PM
I also saw your interview by Tony Jones on Lateline and congratulate you on your performance. From memory you said that most people including yourself had taken the global warming argument put out by the “CO2 is the cause proponents” as gospel and you were now looking at contrary arguments among them climate change caused by the sun.
Most people who have accepted the CO2 argument either have an agenda or, are amongst those including children at school and young adults who have been indoctrinated and scared half to death by the biased media reporting.
It is a national disgrace that the ABC has lead this bias against any who put the “it ain’t necessarily CO2” side of the story. And you only have to look at Jones & O’Brien in action to see what I mean.
I could go on and on but suffice to say, keep up the good work because families in Australia will suffer if Wong’s proposed ETS gets through in any form.
Comment by BBBaz on 04 June 2009 at 07:11:41 PM
Re Aqa Fyre’s post, I was not aware that you have an engineering background. I am embarassed and ashamed by the IEAust’s obsequious homage to an AGW cult that is not supported by empirical science. Congratulations on at least trying to explore the facts - unlike so many politicians.
One of the things that strike me is that the “Climate Skeptics” are mostly highly qualified and experienced in relevant disciplines, and in many cases disilussioned past participants in the IPCC process. (unlike so many AGW luminaries who otherwise would never have been heard of). We need to focus on real environmenal issues, not be distracted by a bizzare and unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Eg. did you know that that the manufacture of photo voltaic material used in solar cells, apart from consuming hugh amounts of energy, results in 3Kg of Silicon Terachloride a persistent toxic waste for every 1 kg of photovoltaic material?
Comment by Herb on 04 June 2009 at 06:45:29 PM
Steve. My view on your trip.
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/some_people_are_easy_to_please/
Comment by Graham Readfearn on 04 June 2009 at 06:00:22 PM
Steve,
I saw lateline and want to thank you for hopefully being a catalyst for a proper debate. It was refreshing to hear that you want to look at the issues. Im all for renewable energy especially for the cities where pollution can have a direct effect but lets not be duped into by fear mongering. Bring on the debate!
Comment by PG on 04 June 2009 at 04:41:57 PM
Hello Steve,
It’s good that you’re trying to navigate this complex issue by talking to all parties. But I would just like to make one point here; people are putting far too much time fighting over the causes of the cause of climate change, when we should be making policy in improving our lives to be cleaner, less wasteful and more economical. The rest will follow. Fighting over carbon emissions and jobs in old industries is a moot point if our cities have the air quality of Beijing or, dare I say it, the water quality of Adelaide.
We are beholden to the coal industry, purely because we have not put enough funding into alternative energy industries and best design practises, in which thousands of jobs can be created without having harmful polluting side effects. Yes, it is possible to give up reliance on one industry for another, note that 120 years ago we lit all our lamps with whale oil. It takes time and effort but it can be achieved.
Example: I grew up in a house, so well designed (35 years ago) that it did not require air conditioning to stay cool in summer. Good design like this has been overlooked by the building industry who, for decades, continue the wasteful practise of building homes unsuitable to our climate eg; Mc Mansions, purely because better plans have never been encouraged by legislation. People in new suburbs are not offered an economical choice for the better. Changing this one design issue, for example, would not lose jobs in the building industry; it would just mean improved practise, less energy use (think peak-summer blackouts) that is cheaper for families, and providing more comfortable living spaces. This is what we need to concentrate on, but it needs to be on a far-reaching and massive scale.
A carbon emissions bill is one very complicated way to bring the marketplace up to speed on being less wasteful and unhealthy. A simpler way is to make good design and technology available to the market at a competitive rate. This requires government legislation and investment also from the private sector, but politicians on all sides are far too slow and gutless to make any moves for real change.
People want to save energy, they want to have water-tanks, and they want well-designed cities and houses. If you support this, then our non- renewable energy consumption goes down as a matter of course and regardless of Climate change, we all benefit as a result.
Comment by trinna on 04 June 2009 at 02:47:47 PM
Steve,
I, too, saw your interview with Tony Jones on Lateline last night and would like to congratulate you on your measured and well reasoned response to some relatively hostile questioning. It seems to me that Tony has a strong belief that climate change is being driven by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and that to question that belief is heresy. This attitude has been evident in previous interviews, such as his interview with Prof. Ian Plimer. I wish that he and many other journalists could maintain a more open mind on this issue.
As a geologist with over 30 years experience in exploration I have had a great interest in the history and mechanisms of climate change. I have read widely on these issues with, I think, an open mind to both sides of the argument. I have read most of the IPCC reports and many articles and books. It appals me that the debate is so often reduced to name calling rather than an honest assessment of the science involved.
My own conclusion, based on my reading and my geological training and observations, is that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are most unlikely to be a significant driver of global warming. Therefore, an emissions trading scheme will be nothing but a direct financial burden to most of the Australian population. In addition, it will reduce the competiveness of our exports. Finally, its impact on climate change will be about as effective as King Canute’s ordering back of the tide.
Constant climate change is an historical, geological fact. Whether we are currently undergoing global warming or cooling is debatable. It depends on whose measurements you accept. This being the case, it is clear that the errors associated with each temperature measurement system are likely to be at least as great as the recorded variations. Another problem is that most modern temperature recording systems have only been available for a very short time so that the period of temperature observation is historically insignificant. Are temperature changes due to climate change or just due to normal, more or less cyclical variations?
The myriad short and long term climate changes that have occurred throughout geological time have been driven by many naturally occurring physical influences on the earth, too many for me to elaborate on here. The computer models used by the IPCC ignore most of these historical climate change drivers. The trouble with these models is, then, that they fall back into the familiar, “Rubbish in, rubbish out” category.
We hear a lot about scientific consensus. Science should never be about consensus: it is about constructing theories based on observations, testing those theories by further observation and measurement and then drawing conclusions that can be verified by independent testing.
Galileo was a lone voice in the wilderness when he theorised that the earth rotates around the sun. Consensus, scientific and religious, was so strongly against him that he was forced to recant this “heresy”.
As you said last night, this debate is too important to just accept one side of the argument.
Comment by Tom Tumbleweed on 04 June 2009 at 01:51:41 PM
Dear Senator,
I saw your interview with Tony Jones last night on the ABC program “Late Line”.
You did well to keep a balanced & open position, despite the hectoring from Jones. I do hope you noticed Jones’ use of ‘weasel terms’ when he started talking about the 5th hottest, 6th hottest etc. What he was actually admitting (in his roundabout way), was that the Earth actually has cooled. Its just that he couches it in the term warmest, to create the impression it is still getting warmer, when the fact s say otherwise. As part of that sleight of hand, Jones also makes much use of the Hadley Centre. But their data is not without controversy as is outlined here.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1544
Finally, while you are in the Unites Sates, may I suggest that as part of your fact finding mission, you seek out Senator Inhofe of the US Senate.
Senator Inhofe, like you, is a Climate Realist and as such has been a thorn in the side of Global Warming fanatics. As such, I believe he would probably be able to give you some very sound advice in respect of Climate Change.
His contact details are to be found on this link.
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/
Good luck on the rest of your journey.
God Bless.
Aqua Fyre
Comment by Aqua Fyre on 04 June 2009 at 12:04:28 PM
Steve,
Congratulations on your sincere attempts to determine the truth of Global Warming/Climate Change. Now that you have met some of the serious scientists at the Heartland Institute with the truth about this topic you will have no trouble becoming a Climate Realist, not a sceptic.
Your performance against Tony Jones in Lateline was admirable, he probably lost the “debate” with you during that show, but there is a long way to go to save us from the worldwide economic tragedy that will be caused by an unnecessary tax on a harmless trace gas.
With a background in engineering you will easily be able to seek out the odds on favourite for the majority of the “warming” that has been experienced since the end of the last period of cold that ended in the mid 19th century. I refer to the SUN, of course. The so called “consensus” opinion of CO2 being the cause is seriously flawed as the many experts around the world will be able to prove to you. The fact they they need to refer to the “consensus” is in itself an indication of the lack of real evidence for an understanding of the causes of any warming. Science is not about consensus, it is about evidence!
Be careful not to be caught in the “denialist” trap. This is not about denial of any “warming”, it is about the real truth of the science. Currently that truth is that CO2 is NOT the problem. That is not to say that we all need to keep wasting resources but that is a different issue altogether.
Enjoy the rest of the trip
Comment by MarkW1 on 04 June 2009 at 10:56:57 AM