Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


I don’t give a **** if we agree about Climate Change



Brisbane Times: Richard Denniss, Chief Economist, The Australia Institute: Two waves sink Malcolm Turnbull’s rhetoric

Embracing the climate challenge: Tasmania’s draft climate change action plan 2016-2021: Read the full action plan here

Elizabeth Farrelly, SMH: Taking out the trash is a job half done for Malcolm Turnbull

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Keith Antonysen

    January 17, 2016 at 9:50 am


    I have been to your Hockey Schtick site and viewed your reference to the Ordovician Ice Age.

    In the abstract about the Ordovician Ice Age was the comment that cosmic rays had an influence on what had gone on.

    Cosmic rays have not been associated with the current change in climate. It is a myth that is pushed from time to time by deniers.



    Rod, what should we be doing to take into account climate change; whether from the science view; or, contrarian view?

  2. Steve

    January 16, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    #23; Last time I visited the Supply River Creek, it wasn’t in ruins.
    Pedantry aside, it would be very difficult to make any point about sea level rise by using the Supply River as it runs into a tidal estuary with a considerable tidal difference, so it would depend very much when your photos were taken.
    I must say though, that I have seen the river high enough that water was flowing into the ruins of the old mill. Presumably the mill was originally built above water level so this must mean sea level rise! Of course it could just mean that the Tamar was high due to heavy rain….? Pick your story, it’s hardly science!

  3. Rod

    January 16, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    During the Ordivician Ice Age, CO2 levels were 10 times what they are now:


    By the way, don’t worry about sea level rise in Tasmania. At the ruins of the Supply River Creek on the Tamar, there has been no sea level rise in 100 years. I’ve got the photos to prove it.

  4. Rod

    January 16, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Another better explanation of why CO2 has little effect on temperature. It is basic physics and mathematics and cannot be questioned.

    If there was no CO2 we would all be 30 degrees colder but the wavelengths in question are now saturated and further CO2 makes little difference.


  5. Rod

    January 16, 2016 at 10:46 am

    #18 The laws of physics have not and never will change. You don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand them. The IPCC and all climate scientists accepts the logarithmic decline in the influence of CO2. It is a fact. The IPCC rely on water amplification to provide the increased greenhouse effect but that theory depends on an atmospheric hot spot that isn’t there. Temperatures declined by 0.3 degree between 1950 and 1980 whilst CO2 shot up. There has been a 50% increase in CO2 emissions in the last 20 years yet no increase in temperature in the last 18 according to satellite and radiosondes, the most accurate and comprehensive way to assess temperatures. Explanation?

  6. Keith Antonysen

    January 15, 2016 at 10:35 am

    No 19, Steve, initially I was responding to the climate plan put out by the Tasmanian government; and then, responded to comments.
    Though, in producing an action statement/public relations document the Tasmanian government provides a vague document that should be answering questions about how to deal with future climate change.

    Currently the market place in the US is making decisions about coal, a number of mining companies have gone bankrupt, and profits are dwindling for surviving companies.

    Yesterday a visitor we had, who has just come back from a trip to Britain, stated they are no longer commenting about whether climate change is happening or not; the questions being discussed are how to deal with it. That is what we should be fully engaged in here; but deniers still have significant influence.

    The Japanese Metrological Agency has just stated that for the month of December 2015 that there has been an increase in global temperature of 1.4C since 1890. A temperature just .1C from the hoped for goal set in Paris, how long will it be before there are a number of months measured at 1.4C over temperature measured in 1890?

    The question that I believe is of importance is how do we mitigate against climate change as quickly as possible without causing too much disruption. Should councils begin by disallowing new homes to be built in low lying areas for example. How should infrastructure be dealt with in low lying areas?

    Is there the possibility of the Tasman Peninsular being cut off from Tasmania due to sea level rise?

    On an International front how are climate change refugees going to be helped? Is the constant need for growth pushing us closer to the point of no return? The point of no return beginning with costs to communities and infrastructure being higher than revenues raised.

    To begin answering questions raised we need leadership Federally; not acquiesce as we are currently witnessing from Prime Minister Turnbull.

    While the science clearly shows that man has given climate a big push; the climate is changing, and whether man created climate change or otherwise, how to deal with vulnerable areas must be addressed. If deniers continue with their nay saying they need to produce science to show they are right. To persist in their nay saying places them in being part of the problem.

  7. Steve

    January 15, 2016 at 12:40 am

    #18; Keith, with all due respect, you’re wasting your powder. Refer back to the philosophy of the original article and consider the position presented.
    Rod may be right, although I seriously doubt it. I for one don’t care. Cutting back on fossil fuels, and giving some thought to what we are doing, seems to me to be simple common sense.The reckless exploitation of resources that have taken millions of years to develop has bugged me since my pre-teen years and subsequent years have not provided any reassurance!

  8. Keith Antonysen

    January 15, 2016 at 12:14 am

    No 16, Rod, you asked for a reference to Powell;


    Rod, there is so much science research completed since 1971 that is of historic interest and may , or may not be a building block for current climate science. Your scientist of 1971 did not have the sophisticated technology available now, per satellite use in studying climate change.

    The film clip didn’t make personal attacks on Watts, but was critical of what Watts presents as science.

    The ARM study has not anything to do with modelling it created pure data over an 11 year research program at two locations.

    Quote from reference provided above:

    “Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth’s surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.”

    The relationship between CO2 and infrared radiated light has previously been shown in numerous laboritory experiments.

    Please provide a science reference to when the planet had 400 ppm of CO2 and was in an ice age. It would need to be from a Science Journal where proper peer review has taken place. Watts, Goddard and Monckton are not Paleoclimatologists.

    Interesting that you are very defensive towards Watts; yet, very critical of James Hanson. Watts has been proven to be wrong in relation to temperature, and the state of sea ice in the Arctic.

  9. Rod

    January 14, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    #15 Just read this report again. Two thirds of it is denigrating Watts. A typical alarmist tactic.

    The rest is just models and other info’ that has no connection to CO2.

    The Earth went into an ice age when CO2 was 4000pm for goodness sake.

    I’ve been following climate science for 45 years. The some of the present lot are the biggest load of cowboys ever seen. I’ll be prove right eventually but by then I’ll be too old to care or dead.

  10. Rod

    January 14, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Well, that’s strange because NASA’s top scientist in 1971 said that CO2 could only have a minimal effect on climate because of exactly these reasons.


    Notice how they call Watts pathetic. If they had right on their side they wouldn’t have to.

    Show me one study out of the 24,000 you mention that shows that CO2 was responsible for the late 20th century warming.

    James Hanson is completely discredited as far as I’m concerned with his revision of climate data.

  11. Keith Antonysen

    January 14, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    No 13, Rod, you really need to be careful about the references you use. Neither Anthony Watts or Goddard are climate scientists.
    Watts has stated his primary interest in trying to debunk climate science is for political reasons. He has stated that he is worried about big government.
    Rod, please respond back if you wish me to produce more references than the one listed:


    If you wish to see what scientists say go to Skeptical Science or Real Climate. Skeptical Science goes through the types of myths Watts, Goddard, Monckton et al put out.

    The ARM study took thousands of bits of data from the natural environment at two locations for eleven years. The study completely repudiates any comments Watts might make about CO2 and radiated infrared long waves. It was highly sophisticated research which Watts would have neither the expertise or capital to undertake.

    No 14, Mike

    James Hanson and a group of his science peers have had an epaper published towards the end of last year which virtually was a collation of many previous papers published. They concluded that sea level rise would happen much more quickly than envisaged by the IPCC. A number of papers have been published about Antarctica having reached a tipping point. Deniers will say “what about the extended sea ice”; it is back to average at present. But sea ice extent has been somewhat of a red herring. It’s the sheet ice ( not sea ice) at the terminal end of glaciers that is being undermined in Antarctica.

    Presently, Sub Tropical Storm Alex is impacting on the North Atlantic , completely out of season. Oceans are exhibiting anomalous temperatures.
    The Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in the US have been subject to record flooding lately; out of season, when floods happen it is generally Spring and Summer.

    Be careful about what you wish for, Mike.

  12. mike seabrook

    January 14, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    #12 keith

    on balance tassie looks great, more so in the future – if only the kids who deserted tassie for a happy economicaly viable future were to return. (tassie only survives on the loot it can extract from the feds)

    if tassie wanted to do something to help save the rest of the planet, tassie could recommence construction of the gordon-below-franklin hydro scheme and get rid of the greenhouse gas generating zinc works and the aluminium smelter and at the same time get rid of the massive long-term pollie promised electricity subsidies which are a very heavy cost to battling tasmanians

    warmer water and a generally warmer climate would be great for the tassie tourism businesses particularly if it extended the short nov-april tourism season

    – shell fish etc. in tassie could possibly be minor collateral damage and of course they would enjoy higher prices from a wipe out of their competitors elsewhere outside tassie

    the mainland and overseas residents if they wish to look after their own interests can live with the consequences of their own actions.

    1 metre or so rise in the tassie sea level (some adverse and some beneficial effects) would take 100 or so years in tassie and could be easily managed and planned for and do not forget that carbon emissions are probably not the major cause of the sea level rising. other events may cause the sea level in tassie to fall.

  13. Rod

    January 14, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    I did send in a reply that contained links to back up all my statements but it either didn’t go through or it was too long or complicated.

    However, here is a link that explains why CO2 is no longer a major player in climate:


    A look at the fairly recent past also backs this up. We know that when the World warms up, CO2 in the atmosphere increases because it is expelled from the oceans. That in turn would lead to more warming and more CO2 and so on. This would lead to a runaway warming. But in the medieval and Roman warm periods this didn’t happen even though they were warmer than the present interglacial warm spell. The conclusion must be that the CO2 warming effect must be pretty small.

    It’s difficult to understand why people still believe climate scientists when all their predictions have failed to materialise or even look as though they’re going to. Any other profession with this failure rate would have been booted out long ago. And some scientists have been changing the data to suit their theories and have been caught discussing how to do it on the Climategate emails:


    I stand by all my past statements and if you want links to back any up I’ll be happy to supply them.

  14. Keith Antonysen

    January 14, 2016 at 9:44 am

    No9 &10;, Mike, the flooding in Britain and US has been quite severe. In Britain a 300 year old bridge has been destroyed through the flooding. In the US the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers have had severe flooding completely out of season. Currently there is a Sub Tropical Storm Alex completely out of season in the North Atlantic.

    There are many such examples over the last few decades; as a record is created it has soon been broken.

    The point is that with extra warming of the climate we do not get a nice homogenised climate. The outcome being that agricultural crops become less reliable due to damage from extreme weather.

    The warming waters off Tasmania’s East Coast are already causing periodic closure of the shell fish industry, we do not need warmer water creating further damage.

    Billions of dollars are being lost overseas through damage to infrastructure, family property, and business; a time must come when the damage done is unsustainable in financial terms.

    In the meantime Tassie is the place to live.

  15. Steve

    January 14, 2016 at 9:11 am

    #9; So we can assume that you have no concern about what that metre of sea level might mean, not only for the rest of the world, but also for Tassie…?

  16. mike seabrook

    January 13, 2016 at 11:15 pm

    so there will be no forest fires or oil field fires spewing out unaccountable myriad greenhouse gases

    are u gunna shut down the hobart zinc works and the bell bay aluminium smelter – even the tassie greens are not calling for this

  17. mike seabrook

    January 13, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    the questions to debate should be

    would tassie residents be better off and happier and wealthier if there was

    1. more climate change as in warming (especially in the tassie winter).

    2. faster climate change (warming).

    can this tassie greens promise (of 2 – 3 degrees warmer and 1 metre in sea level rise) be made a higher probability of eventuating and can it be speeded up

    why should anyone in tassie give a toss – if people don’t like it – tassie is no longer a convict colony and tassie residents could move – conversely if people don’t like cooking in the cook-town (or adelaide sa) summer they could move to tassie for the summer or full time.. is it not obvious why I and a lot of tasmanians get out of tassie for the tassie winters

    who is gunna pay, how and when for actions which may or may not work.

    would our kids who have left tassie return to tassie.

  18. Doug Nichols

    January 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    #5, Rod, heat can come and go as you say (although you are wrong to assert that CO2 has no effect on that!). However, heat flow was not the point of the third question. It was about pollutants.

    Put simply, the Earth does not have an exhaust pipe. We are not leaving a trail of exhaust gases behind us as we orbit the sun. All the emissions from vehicles and industry come along for the ride along with everything else.

  19. Keith Antonysen

    January 13, 2016 at 9:22 am

    No 5, Rod, you have made a number of assertions that do not fit climate science.
    Climate science began almost two hundred years ago; those who deny climate science have only been denying the science for a few decades.
    ExxonMobil scientists in the 1970s and 1980s were fully supportive of anthropogenic climate change happening; executives from ExxonMobil have supported this view publicly in the last months.

    The eleven year ARM study showed the relationship between infrared radiated long waves and CO2 in the natural environment which provides evidence for the corner stone of climate science. Prior to the ARM study, the relationship between CO2 and infrared radiated long waves had been shown in simple to quite sophisticated experiments in the laboratory. Those who deny the science make many statements but do not provide evidence for the denial view.


    The three main arguments deniers seem to use are; its the sun, its natural variation in climate change, its a conspiracy by every peak scientific body and scientists from many nations.
    The sun happens to be in a slight dimming phase at present, so cooling should be happening.
    Natural variation in climate is fully acknowledged by climate scientists; man has given climate a huge push. Carbon has been sequestered over millions of years, we are releasing it into the atmosphere in a few moments in geological time.
    The conspiracy theory is quite laughable.


    The Japanese Meteorological Agency has given a provisional statement that 2015 has been the warmest year on record and 2014 had been prior to that.

    Rod, I had not written that we are in a closed system; however, the greenhouse effect is slowing down the amount of warmth that is being lost.

    The volume of peer reviewed published science is massive; Powell, has stated that between 2013 and 2014 that 24,000 papers were published, a few lines from a lay person will not make the slightest amount of difference to denting the science.

    Please provide references to back up your statements.

  20. Steve

    January 13, 2016 at 9:21 am

    #5; Where do you get this stuff from Rod? I don’t wish to be unkind but it really is a load of gobbledegook.
    I would suggest that you examine your sources very carefully. You’re entitled to your own views on global warming and I feel no strong urge to argue the point but some of the “facts” you are quoting are dubious in the extreme.

  21. Rod

    January 12, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    I agree with everything in the article. The question is how long do we have to adjust to a fossil-free World as they will surely run out? And we need to reduce pollution as much as possible. The developed countries have already made great strides but the situation in some developing countries can only be described as disastrous. But, let’s be clear, CO2 is not a pollutant but a life-giving trace gas in the atmosphere increasing plant growth everywhere. This year’s harvest around the World is the largest ever.
    There is no evidence anywhere that CO2 effects World temperatures. There’s a lot of misinformation out there: According to satellite and balloons 2015 is only the third hottest year after 1998 and 2010. Since 1998, each El Nino has been cooler that the last. Storm activity is at a 30 year low. In 1970 a group of scientists said that the West Antarctic ice shelf was collapsing and it would result in sea level rises. They also said it was nothing to do with climate and there was nothing we could do about it.
    CO2 is a simple linear molecule that will have an immediate effect once it gets in the atmosphere. Why would it take 10 years? But that effect will be tiny as the wavelengths are already saturated.
    The long-term trend over the years has not altered one jot since CO2 started rising in fact past temperature variations have been much larger. Temperatures went up 2 degrees in the 50 years 1700-1750.
    Finally #3 we don’t live in a closed system. Every day we gain heat from the Sun and lose it to space – especially after an El Nino.

  22. Steve

    January 12, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    #3; Many thanks for that Doug. A question in line with the previous two; simple and hard to refute.

  23. Doug Nichols

    January 12, 2016 at 11:47 am

    #1, the third question was getting at the fact that we live in a closed system with no way out. He asked us to choose which of two sealed rooms we would care to enter and remain in – one containing a car with its petrol engine running non-stop, or one containing an electric car running non-stop. It’s a good analogy, provided fossil fuels weren’t used to generate the electricity.

  24. Keith Antonysen

    January 12, 2016 at 9:37 am

    In relation to the draft Tasmanian Climate Plan; the question is what is it meant to be an analysis of climate impacts; or, a public relations exercise?
    At the beginning of the document is the statement…”It does not constitute professional advice and should not be relied upon as such….”
    On that basis, is it merely a document to suggest the Government has considered the matter, has made some statements that appear to broach climate change, and then can be filed away. While that might appear cynical, it is a process that Government Agencies constantly undertake.

    We have had the Paris deliberations with a hope that global average temperature does not increase above 1.5C.
    While it is a great goal, the chances of meeting it are quite remote.
    It takes about a decade for CO2 that has previously been discharged to begin fully interacting with radiated infrared long waves, to begin with. Globally, there is little evidence that any efforts are in the pipeline to commence mitigation of climate change. Coal is the main fossil fuel that has an impact on CO2 levels; and provisions need to be made to keep it in the ground.

    The Japanese Meteorological Agency has given a provisional suggestion that 2015 will be the highest temperature ever recorded since preindustrial times. The JMA had already recorded 2014 as having been the previous warmest year.
    The impact of the current El Nino is expected to push temperature to a record for 2016 as happened in 1998 after the 1997 El Nino.

    Chris Sharples, in the past has researched and identified areas that will be subject to being inundated in Tasmania:





    The trend over decades is of temperature progressively going up, by steps. The likelihood of storm surges due to extreme weather events increases with higher temperatures. Glaciers in Antarctica are said to have reached tipping points which make sea level rise inevitable.


  25. Steve

    January 11, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    And the third question…? Or was it the sub question; “What’s your plan then?”?
    Queries aside; a simple and basic article addressed to the climate sceptics amongst us, and one that’s hard to refute.

Leave a Reply

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

To Top