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


What nobody dares say to you about climate change …

*Pic: Nicole Anderson’s evocative pic of recent climate change-induced wildfires in the Tarkine. Nic says: ‘The eye is drawn simultaneously to everything – the fore, mid, backgrounds and sky. On such a windy, spectaular blue sky day, with clouds fluffy and striated – the tones and lines and shapes completely contrasting each other again and again. Completely unsettled. Completely in disarray.’ Pic from HERE.

*Pic: Pic: of Bill McKibben by Nancie Battaglia

I recently attended, along with several hundred others, the Bill McKibben lecture on climate change at the University, thinking that I would learn something useful from such a distinguished scholar, world-renowned author and journalist on global warming, tireless activist, founder of 350.org, and winner of the Gandhi Peace Prize ( TT HERE ).

Bob Brown introduced Bill with great enthusiasm, and I settled back to finally hear the truth from the horse’s mouth himself, uncensored by governmental spin or corporate greed.

And we were confirmed in our understanding that the world’s biggest companies, including Exxon, have known for decades … the harm fossil fuels is doing to humans and our atmosphere, but they press ahead anyway.

We heard about compliant governments, particularly in the USA, who create laws and trade deals that foster the use of these fuels. About how our own government signed the climate change deal in Paris (which is already out of date in any case – the much-touted 2C limit has already been surpassed) while in the same week it was approving the world’s largest coal mine.

And how it continues to lag behind in encouraging alternative power projects, being far outstripped by Denmark (which now produces 49% of its entire power needs from wind), and by Germany (which apparently has more solar panels than the entire US). McKibben indicated that 98% of all scientists agree that climate change is happening, much much faster now than anyone thought possible only a few years ago, and that it is caused by human activity, most particularly by the use of fossil fuels.

There are also some scientists now who believe we have in fact passed a non-reversible tipping point, and that the warming and destruction of the planet is coming upon us like a speeding freight train, right now.

It was a grim story. Much of it was not new; most of us by now have a sense of the gigantic collusion between corporations and governments, but it was chilling to have our worst fears confirmed. Knowing that those in power in our supposedly democratic and enlightened world are prepared to destroy our future in order to make ever more massive dollars, and that they will go to any obfuscation and delay in order to keep the status quo going, is a terrible betrayal – beyond all that could be called human decency.

I feel more than sick when I think of my grandchildren, laughing happily now in their childish games and innocence, may have to grow up into a world that’s no longer a good place to be, possibly up-ended enough to make mere survival doubtful. That’s terrible enough, but that sheer greed may have brought it about is almost beyond comprehension. What has happened to us that we have allowed this to come about – and continue to do so? Why are we not raging in protest, shouting for our very survival?

But I had come to this lecture, invested my time, to learn the answer – what should we now do about it. McKibben described a tiny opening (though a fast-closing one) that’s left for action. He’d told us the worst, so now I leaned forward, waiting for the words of hope, the thoughts of a very experienced and knowledgeable person on how we could handle this, on what we can do to keep that window from closing fully. Useful advice on how to stay sane through action that could contribute positively, so we could look our grandchildren in the eye.

But the rest of the lecture was devoted to the activities of his foundation, 350.org. Certainly, it was heartening to hear how many people round the world have taken up the environmental banner, the successes in stopping pipelines, the protest marches, and more. But did he have the courage to tell the hundreds present – all in a position to influence friends and family – that to stop the fossil fuels from destroying our earth means not using them?

That it means using public transport, or walking/bicycling; that it means not travelling anywhere unnecessarily; that it means not buying anything that’s been imported because it was brought here using fossil fuels; that it means not buying anything that is not basic and essential because every manufacturing process uses those fuels as well as plastics and creates pollution in many ways; and above all, that it means not flying.

On any given day, there are between 10 – 12,000 commercial aircraft in the air (not counting military and small planes), pumping all that fuel into the atmosphere, every single day, 365 times a year. Giving up your overseas holiday – or even the quick trip to Melbourne – may hurt your lifestyle, but you know the need for it is true: after all, you’ve been told a thousand times that climate change is caused by fossil fuels. How long until there is no breathable air left?

This is what they won’t tell you, because if we stop consuming, we will destroy the (foreign) money-making part of the economy. For the sake of keeping its big-company buddies happy, our government will not implement the very things that could make our future safe. They won’t restrict international trade with its massive carbon footprint, they won’t foster local industries (which would be socially far more satisfying and secure anyway); they won’t put a ban on plastics or nasty chemicals, or support an Australian electric car industry.

They won’t fund enough light rail or ferries, preferring to build roads and more runways to encourage yet more aircraft with their deadly emissions. Oh no, they couldn’t possibly say out loud that tourism in Tasmania (or anywhere) is actually a bad thing, because it might upset their foreign investment mates.

We’d miss out on all those jobs and destroy all our living standards, they’ll tell you – but of course that is complete nonsense.

We will all still need to eat and have the basic goods and services, plus the many ingenious individual entrepreneurs just waiting for their chance, so the ‘economy’ will keep going, albeit most likely at a lower level. But it would be safer, in our hands, something we can fix when it needs fixing (unlike a certain, foreign-owned cable), and with known parameters – in other words, a society that puts its people and their social setting first, before the almighty dollar.

If a lower income and a less glamorous lifestyle is what it takes to secure your grandchildren’s future, isn’t that exactly what we can do? We can activate our power now, no need to wait for the government, and simply stop consuming. It’s the loudest message we can send, and the biggest single most effective contribution we can make.

I came away grieved from the Bill McKibben lecture. It was a missed opportunity of gigantic proportions. Even Bob Brown, for whom I otherwise have the greatest respect, continues to publicly promote tourism into Tasmania.

Even though he’s been here as long as I have, and he also should remember that vibrant Tassie air that was like champagne in the body as you stepped out of the aircraft after arriving in Hobart.

It was still so in the 1980’s, but somewhere in the 90’s that vitality went from our air. It may still be very clean (when they’re not making everything worse with the burn-offs, of course) by comparison, but inside 30 years the very air here has changed, as has the temperature, and the moisture that makes our earth fruitful, and strange changes are happening everywhere: fish are caught that were never here before, strange algae bloom, oysters die of exotic diseases, birds are vanishing…the list goes on.

How long does it have to get before you will do what you know you must?

*Elizabeth Fleetwood ‘is of European origin and has lived in Tasmania for nearly 35 years. Ran two dairy farms in the NW, then two retail businesses in Burnie, raised a family of three children there; moved to Hobart 17 years ago and ran a tourism business for 10 years before selling and ‘retiring’ recently. Initially an unwilling immigrant, it was not long before the (then) pristine beauty and extraordinary history of this Island exerted its influence and created a campaigner for the preservation of this unique place. To see it being destroyed, along with the values that once made Australia a truly special place worth coming to, is a matter of great concern for this ordinary citizen, whose grandchildren will one day ask: why did you let this happen?’

• Mike Bolan in Comments: Excellent material … but what to do? Here are a few thoughts … There is a lot that we can do, the first of which is to try to protect ourselves so that we are in a better position to help others …

• John Coombes in Comments: One of the best articles ever on TT. That a bunch of serious-minded, intelligent people can devote their time to reading and discussing such a gloomy topic is cause for celebration, if not for optimism. There may be some cause for optimism in recalling the way that nations of the free world, in response to the outbreak of WW2, completely and rapidly reorganised their economies and societies to deal with the very real threat to their existence. It wasn’t pretty (“blood, toil, tears and sweat”) but it worked.

ABC: CSIRO to set up climate research centre in Hobart The CSIRO has announced it will establish a national climate research centre based in Hobart, which will employ 40 full-time scientists. The research centre aims to guarantee Hobart as a climate research hub for the next decade …

ABC: Leading scientists urge UK newspaper The Times to improve ‘sub-standard’ climate reporting Some of the world’s most eminent scientists have written to the editor of UK newspaper The Times to complain about its coverage of climate science. They suggest the newspaper may be unduly influenced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, despite its name, denies humans are causing climate change. Baron John Krebs, a highly decorated biologist is behind the push, writing that the newspaper has become a “laughing stock” for publishing poor quality science …



  1. Anne Cadwallader

    April 24, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Great article. I remember reading that there was a level of consumption at which the world was sustainable. That as developing nations converged with the (over) developed, we needed to find a meeting point where all could equally live. That meeting point was the level of consumption that Australia enjoyed in 1967. I remember 1967. Life was good. We had perhaps two trips overseas in a lifetime. We rarely flew interstate, and it was not some sports match or shopping trip. We lived with a fraction of the possessions but had community life. Today, with the internet, feminism, and all we’ve learned about self sufficiency, it could be a glorious time. Voluntary simplicity and an enriched community and cultural life. Since the oil-based economy is collapsing anyway, we can start to build the new Tasmania. Its not a choice, the alternative is another great depression. One we never come out of.

  2. A.K.

    April 24, 2016 at 11:46 am

    So what else is new, sadly the societies of the world have passed their use by date by decades and now it’s just a matter of time before everything collapses into an unlivable heap. Everyone has to realise there is nothing that can stop the total collapse of our environment and climate and it is happening dramatically faster than any scientific prediction. Anyone who can actually open their eyes and see beyond the delusions they so desperately cling to, can see we have less than 5 years left before living on the planet will becomes just as hard as living on Mars, as our climate goes into calamity after calamity.

    There is no way anyone will make changes, especially the ideologically driven corporate and religious organisations, who control world societies with their insane delusions. When you consider all governments are controlled by the same groups and the vast majority of politicians are even more deluded and blindly insane, what hope is there, when the people like cloned sheep bow down and vote for their deaths.

    To make any successful changes would mean turning our societies around very quickly and making them sustainable under very different climate and society conditions. To get any country to make those changes is impossible, simply because our leaders and their supporters are in complete denial of what we are facing now, let alone on 5-10 years time, if we last that long.

    But our small island could turn things round within a year and within 2 years, reduce all forms of pollution by 85% as well as doubling our economic output and empowering every aspect of our society. This is a very simple thing to do, which would boost our economy, make us self sufficient in energy fuels and foods and develop a 21st century technologically advanced society, which can cope with the future, because it is prepared.

    But the real situation is, we have a political system which is dedicated to ensuring idiocy is in control. That way the corporate and religious control can continue unabated, because they controls the political system with ther’s donations, economic threats and demands. Until we get rid of that form of control, disaster is all we have to look forward to.

    Then again, everyone will be doing all in their power to force their denial into being even more stubborn, so they don’t have to accept the glaring fact, we are looking at a winter which may well reflect tropical temperatures and each year it will be come hotter with very little rain. Until we get no significant rain and are wiped out by massive fire storms sweeping Tas. This last summer was a preview of what is to come fire wise, yet nothing is being done of use. All this burning off is ridiculous, unless you have a proper management and forestry defense strategy and no one produce one of those, because they don’t have the intelligence to do so.

    Enjoy the ride, it will be horrendous, but can be combated if we were to remove the current politician party system, get decent policies and then let the people drive the future, instead of brain dead fatalistic ideologues.

  3. phill Parsons

    April 24, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Individual and collective action cannot be divorced. Alone neither will change anything. We all have to change but so does society.

    Is there a point in importing a dishwasher theta can be completely recycled when it must return to Finland for that to occur?.

    And then you must compromise with the ones you live with in the hope they will change a bit.

    McKibben flew here to speak because he wants change. Was that flight wrong?.

    Is it wrong to have national or even statewide competitions and events or should the competitors travel by electric bus?.

    The times will get hotter and stormier, dryer and with more floods. We will change but I don’t know if it will be enough. Much will be lost. The humans among us will be affected and the others in the monkey troops will wonder what happened and why they were not told and then seek someone to be their savior.

  4. Chris Harries

    April 24, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    Yes, good article. Bill and Bob of course know these things – the depth of the emergency and the degree of change needed.

    In communicating the gravity of climate change and also wanting the message to be listened to there’s a tendency to focus on the small stuff. To tell decision maker that the entire economy must be transmogrified and to tell citizens that their lifestyles and habits and luxuries have to be taken away is not what people want to hear.

    The tendency of campaigners is to pragmatically signal messages that are not too threatening – that don’t turn the public away – that don’t get tagged as ‘doomsday’ by the media.

    It’s time for some at least to say it as it is. The society we’ve got is short lived. It’s on life support. It’s coming to an end. We don’t even need to do anything to bring it to that end point, we are beyond critical tipping points.

    This doesn’t mean complacency, it means bringing it on but in ways that minimise the collateral damage to society and the planetary environment that will otherwise happen if we behave as silent onlookers.

    Secondary denial (knowing but not acting) is more harmful than is primary denial (denying the problem).

  5. Peter

    April 24, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    Elizabeth is absolutely right. Change is now accelerating and is probably out of control. But their is no way, not even barring a global catastrophe, that we can wean ourselves off the materialist teat. The solutions are easy if their was any real will to deal with the problem: starting with one child families; investment in renewables; education; consumption taxes and import tariffs. Sadly, massive crop failures, drought and other natural disasters will probably not engender international cooperation but wars over food security. Mass migration and floods of refugees will not give rise to compassion but racism and genocide. Meanwhile the electorate ponder over issues such as negative gearing, royal commissions into banks, same sex marriage, and so on; while the world is about to collapse around them. Even the Greens seem to have forgotten their prime cause; the planet.

  6. Anne

    April 24, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    Yes. Well said. I, too, have wondered for some years just how long I will be able to remain comfortable about jetting off each year to visit my family and friends in the northern hemisphere, knowing that by doing so I’m contributing to feeding the fossil fuel industry, and polluting the planet.

    The shameful and arguably criminally negligent stance of successive governments over their blinkered support and promotion of fossil fuels beggars belief, and makes one wonder if they actually care about their own children and grandchildren. Surely if they did they could not possibly condone or justify the approval of more coal mines. Or a refusal to seriously support and promote renewable industry technologies. These after all are where the jobs of the future lie – and far more sustainable jobs they will be too.

    In Tasmania we are so well placed to take full advantage of renewable energy options, but until there is widespread rejection of the major political parties, with their unhealthily close ties to powerful corporates and mining magnates, and a recognition that progressive parties like the Greens actually do have answers and solutions to the problem, that aren’t whacky, way out or uneconomic, we are looking at a very very bleak future.

  7. Chris Harries

    April 24, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Here’s a great article on how to communicate climate change.


    Andy Revkin is one of many in the science / journalist community who has spent years futilely trying to communicate the urgency of the climate emergency and then realised that we first need to now how the human brain works or we are wasting our breath.

    Britain’s George Marshall has done a lot of work on this communication front too. His book is: “Don’t Even Think About It
    Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change”

  8. Karl Stevens

    April 24, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    This was very objective writing. Bill McKibben probably didn’t say that you are also powerless over the actions of other people – you can forgo air travel and live frugally, but your next door neighbour is probably planning their next trip to Hawaii or Disneyland.

    Elizabeth Fleetwood has defined a very big collision of denial and reality.
    Apportioning climate change blame is hard – we still have carbon in the atmosphere from WW1. It’s also a numbers game – The US and China produce a lot more CO2 than we do – but for different reasons they claim.

    My response. Science has ‘compartmentalised’ most of our thinking. As atmospheric CO2 increased so did global debt, food allergies and kids on the autism spectrum. Let’s de-compartmentalise our thinking and mix-up these elements? (even though it’s forbidden)
    Already a depressed pilot has taken a whole jetliner with him. Maybe your neighbours Disneyland trip will be next? Just living in this climate mess is playing Russian roulette.

    Not only are societies in denial about carbon pollution, they’re in denial about their hopeless national debt. A whole civilisation killing itself on the a credit card.

    While we are experiencing the warmest ocean surface temperatures ever recorded around Tasmania, I’m tracking a 40,000 tonne wood chip carrier that’s been doing donuts in Bass Strait for 5 days. Apparently it can’t anchor because a storm could blow it onto rocks which would cause an oil spill. So which genius tells it to burn oil continuously for a week? It has an non-Australian crew and it removes wood chips that were once native Tasmanian forests. Those forests were originally sold by our government at a loss.
    Looks like we deserve one hell of a whipping from the climatic forces of this planet.
    We were the lucky ones, we saw this planet while it was alive and wonderful.

  9. Got Me a Shopping Spree

    April 24, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    There is no fix. This is a runaway train.

    If people stop consuming, and stop buying my stuff, I go broke.

    Going broke means the same now as it did in 1967, or 1867. And it’s probably harder to recover from bankruptcy now, given the higher cost of living and competitiveness.

    I can’t be rid of my bills. I must pay private health cover because the public health system is pathetic. I must have two cars.

    I’m not going to make my family go hippy and risk ruining my kids’ future prospects by putting limitations on them.

    Even if I make sacrifices by not going to Tahiti for holidays, there will be someone else to take my seat on the plane.

    You really expect farmers to sell their cows? People to give up their cars and private health cover? The Bali holidays? weekends down the coast?

    There is only one answer, a maximum of two kids per family, with almost zero immigration. And even if this were introduced, it is probably too late to make a difference.

    Don’t think I haven’t made an effort. We did our bit by not having 6, 8 or 10 kids. But I see plenty around me having many kids (and feeding them chips and Coke).

    It will be a rate race until the end.

    People have tasted the good life. Like junkies, they will continue until the drug of consumerism kills them.

  10. Keith Antonysen

    April 24, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    There are already predictions that 2016 will be warmer than last year.
    Arctic sea ice is in a mess and it is highly likely the 2012 lowest sea ice extent record will be broken.
    Northern Canada has already had wildfires in 2016.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger makes a good point when he says that the climate is changing; and whether by natural changes or man made change; we need to do something about it.
    How many more film clips do we need to see of cars and houses being washed away in floods before it dawns on the vast majority of people that something has to be done.

  11. Mike Bolan

    April 24, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Excellent material…but what to do? Here are a few thoughts …

    There is a lot that we can do, the first of which is to try to protect ourselves so that we are in a better position to help others. If we cannot do that as individuals, then working with a group may help overcome difficulties.

    The implications include becoming less dependent on mainstream supplies and services (e.g. avoid debt; get off grid power, water and waste organised; get out of unsustainable cities, get a bicycle etc.)

    Form useful networks of aware thinkers and competent doers (welders, plumbers, doctors etc) without using bureaucratic control structures.

    Work to be invisible/uninteresting to government/corporate control structures wherever possible.

    Develop non-government communications capability (e.g. radio)

    As that is all happening for you, expand your influence with writings, teachings, products, services and other outputs that will help others to plan effectively.

    There’s a large amount of available information on the net.

    Note that over time, it is communities that survive rather than isolated individuals.

    Sure, it’s major but so are the problems facing us!

  12. Lynne Newington

    April 24, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    @2 Maybe those like minded have to take the lead that’s all…..we can’t change the whole world……but an Island…. Then maybe the politicians who can’t take the heat will depart for distant shores, the ballot box will tell the tale.

  13. Jon Sumby

    April 24, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    This sort of dialogue has been going on for over a decade. Have a look at this 2007 story on TT, the first paragraph has been clipped and put at the end for some reason*.


    Then there is this 2002 article by Sharon Beder:

    Ed: Updated technol … that is why!

  14. john hayward

    April 24, 2016 at 7:42 pm

    Don’t worry. The Libs are promising jobs and growth if we vote them in, which in turn will eventually produce enough wealth to fix everything.

    The only other solution is to reincarnate as a jellyfish. They’re going gangbusters.

    John Hayward

  15. Karl Stevens

    April 24, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    It seems too weird the Chinese would hack into the Bureau of Meteorology during Australia’s worst climate event, and PM Turnbull would be unable to tell us who did it and why?

  16. William Boeder

    April 24, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    If only the people of Tasmania (and of course the entire of Australia) knew what our various levels of State and Federal government have obliged upon the people and then withheld all reference thereto, we may find that there is in place a set of documented instruments to prevent the citizens, or to disempower citizens, people from having any recourse against either the State and Federal governments.
    For example the manner in which Australia has become subservient to the United States of America, this being one of the Australian people great unknowns, then that subject matters akin to this are covered by the Official Secrets Act.

    Having previously formed a firm social friendship with a person that held a classification 6 status, (one of the highest available but now outdated) this person held the security status to access much of what is contained in the pdf link below.

    Even within this firm social friendship held between us there were topics and subject matters that were strictly non-communicable.

    The purpose in my forwarding this comment for publication is to establish the awareness to the people that attend this forum that there are highly secret or privileged correspondences between various allied countries, perhaps even top secret military defence material, also inter-department government agencies, often these items having the highest level top secret classification.

    It is within this classification system that the people and or citizens, as above referred to, this information will ever remain locked in the Australian Archives and marked never to be released.
    So let it be known that there are highly classified top secret matters that the Australian people will never have any hint of its factual being or that it exists.
    Having stated the above there most certainly are limitations as to what we the people can/cannot do as a defiance against this country’s State and Federal government rule.
    It is to this secret classification of material that prevents the disclosure of whether ‘yes or no’ we are our own country.
    The link below is an available web-site that will provide some answer to those interested in matters of our National Security.

  17. Alison Bleaney

    April 25, 2016 at 12:40 am

    Thank you Elizabeth and excellent comments and questions.
    # 11 I agree .. It will be community survival, and it won’t be pretty!

  18. George Smiley

    April 25, 2016 at 2:16 am

    In the end the Minoans desecrated their temples; all that bull-vaulting, importuning and toadying was for naught when the forces of nature brought their civilization down anyway. But then it was a local thing, life was simpler and with 220 trillion dollars in global debt we can’t risk policy changes and deleveraging at this stage.
    Despite the gigaburden of local drivel in the electromagnetic spectrum we have been listening and hoping for similar from deep space and there is nothing. The WHOLE exercise might have been worthwhile just to know why.

  19. Simon Warriner

    April 25, 2016 at 2:20 am

    Got me “must have” two cars. Yeah, right, right up til the point where one or other of the jobs vanishes and the money that funds those two cars stops and the other bills don’t. Simply insisting on something counts for 5/8ths of f..k all, and always has. That attitudinal pattern prevents the sort of actions that will make the inevitable a hell of a lot less painful.

    John Greer has the best strategy I have seen so far:
    Collapse early and beat the rush.

    his greenwizards site is also a very useful resource.

    It is worth noting that in any collapse cities fall, but the rural communities that support them refocus on self sufficiency until the next big thing comes along.

  20. John Coombes

    April 25, 2016 at 6:12 am

    One of the best articles ever on TT. That a bunch of serious-minded, intelligent people can devote their time to reading and discussing such a gloomy topic is cause for celebration if not for optimism.
    There may be some cause for optimism in recalling the way that nations of the free world, in response to the outbreak of WW2, completely and rapidly reorganised their economies and societies to deal with the very real threat to their existence. It wasn’t pretty (“blood, toil, tears and sweat”) but it worked.

  21. Frank Strie

    April 25, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Yes Elizabeth, Mike #11 and Alison #17,

    We may be 9 year behind this initiative that began with one person, then shared with the family, with friends, with the neighbors, the business associates, Educators, the Kindergarten, the local Schools, Researchers, Universities, the local businesses from Food Growers – Horticulture and Agriculture, Retailers, Wholesalers, the Tourism and Hospitality businesses, the Bicycle Shops, the Transport Operators, Builders and Renovators, Power and Thermal Energy suppliers, Traders and Manufacturers, Council and Regional Planners, people interested far and wide.
    What started in early 2007 is now a fantastic example for the country and beyond what individual people who share their knowledge and skills with the communities can achieve when they move from blaming the situation and the shortcoming of others to see how it may be possible to become “Carbon Neutral by 2020”.

    Just imagine for a moment what such a goal or target figure entails, what it would take and who should be part of to move into that direction without panic but collaboration and innovation and creative planning.
    Think about the common Carrot & Stick would be complimented by the Tamborine.
    Anyone interested seriously to learn from this example may use the search facility “Eco-Region Kaindorf” or “Ökoregion Kaindorf” and if required use the translation option.
    Or even better, let’s have a meaningful exchange here on Linz’s Tasmanian Times.

  22. davies

    April 25, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    The reason why nobody dares to say it is because it is a lie! Here is the quote no one here has questioned:

    “McKibben indicated that 98% of all scientists agree that climate change is happening, much much faster now than anyone thought possible only a few years ago, and that it is caused by human activity, most particularly by the use of fossil fuels.”

    98% of scientists…really? Not just climate scientists which is a a very dodgy and concocted figure anyway but all scientists! This is a basic error. A falsehood that undermines whatever good things he may have said.

    But then apparently he goes even further by saying 98% of all scientists agree that it is happening much much faster than anyone thought possible. Seriously? If even the IPCC admit that 111 of 114 climate models have overstated the expected temperature rise over the last 18 years or so how the heck can 98% of all scientists agree that climate change is actually happening even faster than anyone could predict! Yet again not a single comment.

    Is this another case of picking sides over principles?

  23. Chris Sharples

    April 25, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Yes John #20 – I think WWII is the best analogy we have to what I suspect is the option must likely to pull us through the coming crisis. That is to say: a massive society-wide effort to finally get real and seriously come to grips with the crisis that we (or the primary and secondary deniers amongst us) have allowed to get so big. That a similar effort actually happenned in WWII is the main evidence that I think we might still make it in the end.

    Read Paul Gilding “The Great Disruption” on this – possibly the most optimistic and real writing I have seen on dealing with the climate crisis.

    We need to get ready to forget about tourism (there was no tourism during WWII either) and get ready to act genuinely and seriously on sustainability, finally, after all these years of talk.

    I’m looking forward to it – some authentic action at last!

    Well, that’s the optimistic option, so obviously it’s the one I want to see happen.

  24. Got Me a Shopping Spree

    April 25, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    WWII is a poor analogy, the enemy here isn’t Hitler and the Emperor, the enemy is a nice house, two cars, holidays on Pacific Islands, simple business survival …

    These are far harder to mobilise against than a Nazi war machine.

  25. Chris Sharples

    April 25, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    #24 I think you missed my point. I’m talking about what will happen when people finally realise their consumer dreams are falling to pieces. The poo will hit the fan, and THATS the point at which the WWII analogy kicks in.

  26. Chris Harries

    April 25, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    Quite true, #24.

    George Monbiot surmised some 15 year ago that this is the first major environmental issue where the target is ourselves. He went further to conjecture that though people may express a desire for their government to take climate action, deep inside themselves they don’t want this to happen, because government taking action seriously means imposing restraints on our comfortable, unsustainable lifestyles.

    We also need to rid ourselves of any notion that the public is clamouring for action on climate whilst their recalcitrant governments are refusing to act. It’s hard to pick whether the community sector or the government sector is ahead, but climate change is an equally inconvenient truth for both.

    And so this comes back to messaging – and the tendency to proffer ‘soft’ solutions such as solar energy to replace coal (nearly everyone agrees with this because it doesn’t imply any change in business-as-usual, just a change of horse at the front).

    We do, of course, need to advocate for renewables, but if put honestly this campaign needs to include strong messages that such a transition can only work if alongside deep cultural and lifestyle change. i.e. the bits that hardly anybody wants to talk about.

    Most citizens want to have their cake and eat it too. Put up solar panels and fly off on jet setting holidays and feel good about it.

    On the plus side we are wowing the seeds for a more enlightened response that will take flight when things get tougher. Then we may have quite an adventure on our hands!

  27. John Coombes

    April 25, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    davies #22

    1. What is the lie you speak of?

    2. Did you hear Bill McKibben’s address yourself or have you read a transcript of it? If “No” are you relying on Elizabeth Fleetwood’s hearsay report of McKibben using “all scientists”?

    3. If McKibben did use “all scientists” is it possible he meant to infer “all climate scientists”?

    4. What percentage of scientists in agreement would you need to be convinced by them?

    4. What are your own scientific credentials?

  28. A.K.

    April 25, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    Using wars as a comparison for our climate, energy and psychological situation, is ridiculous, as this is a war between nature, evolution and ideological humanity, not between humans. Only one can win and that will be nature and evolution. We are yet to be confronted by the true reality of change and it will be nothing like conventional war, or it’s effects.

    The closest you could get to it would be a war of attrition, which will be an internal war as less than .01% of the human population is making any form of preparation and most of the preparation some are making, will be useless.

    What will bring everyone down, is their withdrawals from their lifestyles and the huge amount of pharmaceuticals and chemicals they consume in their diets. As mental illness is rising extremely fast, it’s logical to see just everyone who eats any from of processed foods, will go through massive withdrawals. As more than 98% of people in Tas rely upon corporations feeding them, supplying them with drugs, fuel and energy every day of their lives. The only outcome will be confusion, violence and psychological breakdown.

    Especially when they have to cope with natures dramatic and devastating changes, as well as dwindling food supplies, energy, fuel, clean water and withdrawals. The future is looking good under the direction of our current political system, so good, all you can do is laugh, or cry.

    Now that’s what no one dares tell you about climate change, it’s going to kill most of us before 2030 and only dramatic change and preparation yesterday could possibly make a difference. By 2020 at the rate and direction we are going, our society will have collapse completely.

    To put it simply, no one will do anything personally and will leave it up to the current political system, which is controlled by the god cult and got us to this point in the first place. So for our elected leaders, denial is all they have and denial is what they live and die by.

    Sadly everyone else seems steeped in denial and refusal to take responsibility for their footprint on the planet and for us, Tasmania.

    We could turn it round within a year and prepare our island so we and Tas gets through the next 20 years, until it is a safer more reliable climate. But we would have to get rid of our current political system now, next year may be way to late and we will be coming with unprecedented fire storms. Unless the demise of El Nino reduces our temps and brings good rains. Which is possible, but unlikely considering the rapidity of the changes we are already seeing and it has yet to really start.

  29. Chris Harries

    April 25, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    When their backs are to the wall and only cooperation can work humans have occasionally shown an extraordinary ability to face up to nearly impossible circumstances, A.K. (#24)

    Putting early dates on possible social /ecological breakdown is likely to embarrass you somewhat when we are still stumbling along after those dates. The planet is a resilient beast. So is the global economy, even with its wheels wobbling. Reminds me when visiting India I thought at the time that the chaos there could not possible hold together for another decade and it still does a quarter of a century later.

    That said, the prognosis for modern society is bleak indeed. Most earnest campaigners are dealing with some 5% of the whole problem, not realising the broad scale of the human predicament. Perhaps 5% is all they can handle at once.

    It’s good to be optimistic where possible, all the same, People don’t respond well to total fatalism. (Excessive optimism is just as destructive because it induces complacency.)

  30. A.K.

    April 26, 2016 at 10:03 am

    #29, Chris no chance of me being embarrassed by getting dates wrong. Giving time lines is just an exercise in pointing out the gravity of our situation and how rapidly things could go wrong for humans.

    Sure humans are resilient in solving problems, but this is a problem we have no say in how it turns out and the only way we can cope with it, is to stop what we are doing on the planet for a few decades. Not going to happen, humans are pouring out more and more pollutants daily, making things worse by the minute and no one is doing anything to change things. I’ll stick by my claims and if I am wrong and some miracle changes the mindset of ideological humanity, that will make me very happy indeed. We are all in the same boat and will suffer the same outcomes, unless we are prepared and we as a society are decades away from being prepared, in any way.

    Remember it was close to a couple of decade ago when they made their first commitment to reduce emissions and now they are putting much higher quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere and nothing has been done and never will under present political regimes.

  31. Su Chan

    April 26, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Good points made that essentially we are the problem, and that nothing will change unless it has to. The inertia in the system is too large, and despite great individual efforts, it will make no difference to the world situation.

    The best and most persuasive reading I’ve seen on this is The Great Disruption (thanks Chris for reminding us) which outlines all of the issues and problems we’re well aware of. On a positive note, what Gilding says is that in times of extreme crises, faced with immediate, inconvertible extinction, we humans are capable of incredible efforts. The problem is that we won’t move until we face the precipice, and that is rooted deep in our evolution and psychology.

    So not much will happen, until things become desperate, and then we will suddenly act. It may be too late, and the world is already changing, but it’s possible to have some hope that future generations will ‘do okay’ whatever their world looks like. Certainly huge changes and adaptations will have to made at some point.

    Not to be too antagonistic, but doomsday comments by A.K. are not very helpful, and seriously overestimate the power that humans have on the earth. Even if we make it unlivable for ourselves in our current society/tech level, it will carry on much as it has done for billions of years, developing new species and environments.

    As for laughable comments about societal control by doping, the complete destruction of society in just four(!) years, and ridiculous comments like “we have less than 5 years left before living on the planet will becomes just as hard as living on Mars”. Really A.K., please at least try and keep the commentary serious and somewhat based in truth.

    Just FYI, here is what life on Mars is actually like:


  32. Keith Antonysen

    April 26, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    No 22, davies

    Your comments about the consensus is nothing but an attempt to cause doubt and confusion. There are several papers written about scientific consensus; but in the long run it doesn’t matter much whether its 87%, 90%, 95%, 97% or 99%; nature bats last anyway. Assessing scientists views who have been published in science journals is how those assessments are made. Naomi Orestes made a comment at a forum that scientists had a consensus view, it created so much interest that it was formally researched by a number of researchers.

    On 10th July 1912 a very short newspaper article expressed concern about the impact of coal emissions; the title of the article is Coal Consumption Affecting Climate.

    ExxonMobil knew about the impact of their emissions in the 1970s; yet, later funded denier groups to cast doubt a couple of decades later. ExxonMobil is being investigated by a number of US States for criminal action for having provided bad information to investors. Allegedly there being conflict between their science data and what they were reporting to investors and the community generally through denier Agencies. There is a paper trail to having paid denier groups.

    Currently, the Arctic is still recording the lowest ever sea ice extent recorded since satellites began to be used at the end of the ’70s. It is highly likely that the 2012 record sea ice extent will be well and truly broken in 5 months time.

    Within the last fortnight there have been wild fires in the environs of Fort St. John in Northern Canada; Huston in Texas was inundated by rain bombs; and there have been huge ice bergs which have carved off the EastAntarctic Nansen ice shelf.

    On the news last night there was commentary about 24 million US citizens potentially being in the path of epic storms; that information being provided after reports of huge hail stones and tornadoes causing immense damage.

    Whether man created it or otherwise, we need to be mitigating and adapting to a changing climate.

  33. Robert LePage

    April 26, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    AK: spot on. You are so right.

  34. TGC

    April 26, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    Some recent scientific work appears to indicate increased atmospheric carbon will be good for agriculture (food production?)

  35. Doug Nichols

    April 26, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    Some recent scientific work appears to indicate that the crops that might benefit from increased carbon will end up submerged by the rising sea levels after only a few years of bumper harvests.

  36. davies

    April 26, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    And the earth has seen an extra 18 million square kilometres of greenery. To put into perspective that is 2.5 x the Australian continent. And all grains and cereals are either at record production or close to it. Sea level is rising on average at only 1mm per year. Satellite temperature databases showing a pause since 1998.

    This is not disaster scenario material.

    The atmosphere contains 400ppm of Carbon Dioxide. Commercial greenhouse operators enrich the atmosphere to 1000-2000 ppm. Submarines have it around 5000 ppm. Your exhaled breath contains Carbon Dioxide at 40,000 ppm. If your serious about helping the planet then go drink the cool-aid.

    Someone asked about my scientific credentials. Well it is on a par with Mr McKibben who has no background in science that I can see. He is a prolific author, journalist and environmental activist. He is NOT a scientist. Now I do not discount what he says because he is not a scientist. I dismiss what he says because he cannot get the most basic of facts right.

    There is no study, survey or report suggesting anything like 98% of scientists agree that human activity is causing climate change. There are 4-5 surveys suggesting 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is responsible for a percentage of climate change but even those totally discredited surveys baulk at suggesting that human activity is the sole cause of climate change.

    And who in their right mind is going to state that climate change is happening much faster than thought possible when 111 of the 114 climate models overstated the warming (well lack of it) since 1998.

    So how did a highly intelligent and well-read person make such a series of basic errors? Answer: He did it deliberately. He knows you won’t question what he says because you fervently believe it yourself. Cognitive thought has been replaced by default settings.

  37. Keith Antonysen

    April 26, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    No 34, Trevor, in yesterday’s news there were hail stones big enough to smash car windscreens and violent tornadoes being experienced in some States of the US. Good for agriculture?

    Are rain bombs good for agriculture?

    Is drought good for agriculture?

    There must have been an article about it in the Australian as somebody else elsewhere mentioned CO2 was good for agriculture.

  38. Chris Sharples

    April 26, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    #36 What a tedious litany of wrong, misleading and out of date statements. I wont waste my time responding to each and every one of your incorrect statements, I’ll simply focus on the one I know best because it is in my professional area of expertise and I have colleagues who are global leaders on it – that is the issue of sea-level rise (Hobart actually has some of the leading researchers on sea-level rise in the world, at CSIRO and UTAS).

    Sea-level rose at an average of about 1 mm year over the whole 20th Century. That’s averaged over the whole century. However since around 1990 the average rate of sea-level rise has been close to 3mm per year. In other words its accelerating. That’s the problem. Get it?

    No I suppose you don’t…

  39. john hayward

    April 26, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    Don’t mind Davies.

    He’s probably just lobbying Larry Marshall for a job at the CSIRO.

    John Hayward

  40. Rod

    April 26, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    #38 The rate of sea level rise has not gone up. The only thing that’s changed is the instruments recording it and they showed no rise at all until they were fiddled with.
    There has been no sea level rise in northern Tasmania for 100 years – I’ve got the photos to prove it.

  41. davies

    April 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    Ouch #38. A tedious litany of lies yet you cannot provide the simplest of rebuttals!

    But let’s focus on the one you do highlight. I state global sea rise is 1mm per year. This is substantially lower than IPCC and other Reports.

    You retort with ‘HAH it WAS 1mm per year for the last century but only until 1990 where it shoots up to 3mm a year. So your disaster scenario is a sea level rise of 30 cm in the next century…

    But what happened to all those predictions from alarmists stating sea level rises of 100 metres! Flannery’s sea level rise the height of an 8-story building. And we could go on.

    Anyway this is not my area of expertise so I read scientist’s reports who are experts.

    Beenstock et al looked at 1000 tidal gauges and found sea level rises of 1mm per year. No measurable acceleration.

    Nils-Axel Morner in his 589th Paper and 60 plus years studying sea levels found 1mm rise per year over the last 125 years and no acceleration.

    Bob Carter studying Fort Denison records since 1866 shows a 0.65mm rise per year and a deceleration over the last 50 years.

    Even NOAA and their measurements of 182 gauges come up with only 1.6mm per year.

    It’s hardly bloody catastrophic is it!

  42. Keith Antonysen

    April 27, 2016 at 12:50 am

    According to deniers:
    .Astro-Physicists are wrong,
    .Paleoclimatologists are wrong
    .Glaciologists are wrong
    .Geographers are wrong
    .Meteorologists are wrong
    .Geologists are wrong
    .Biologists are wrong
    .Zoologists are wrong
    .Physicists are wrong
    .Chemists are wrong
    .Hydrologists are wrong
    .Oceanographers are wrong
    .etc, etc

    Then we have NASA, CSIRO, The Royal Society, and other peak science bodies that are wrong according to deniers.

    These views often come from an ideological political view; for example; Watts from WUWT, says he is concerned about the creation of regulation by government to safe guard against climate change.

    davies says that the consensus does not exist, on that basis he should be able to come up with 20 papers published in peer reviewed journals in 2016 by skeptical scientists. There have been numerous papers published in 2016, so he should easily be able to do it.

    But, regardless of the cause of a changing climate we need to adapt and mitigate.

  43. Steve

    April 27, 2016 at 1:05 am

    #40; Fascinating comment Rod. Is there any way the editor can facilitate these photos being made available?
    I know that when I return to beaches I knew thirty years ago, there’s a whole lot less beach, but I’d be really interested to see images relating to a 100 year span of northern Tasmanian sea levels.

  44. John Coombes

    April 27, 2016 at 1:27 am

    Rod, Sounds like total BS to me and btw my career as a land surveyor did include calibrating the Burnie tide gauge for a while.

    Try this media release from UTAS for starters: http://www.utas.edu.au/latest-news/utas-homepage-news/new-analysis-shows-sea-level-rising-faster

    Then come back to us. Oh and bring your photos!

  45. abs

    April 27, 2016 at 1:53 am

    davies, or should we refer to you as Cool hand Luke 😉

    “…totally discredited surveys..”

    so discredited that they are referenced by NASA and remain published in leading scientific journals (including the prestigious ‘Science’ journal).

    you do realise that unqualified people writing stuff on websites does not constitute ‘discredit’?

    if these research papers were to be considered ‘discredited’ it would need to be done through the peer-review/scientific journal publication route.


  46. max

    April 27, 2016 at 3:41 am

    # 38 Rod One of the oldest tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. When combined with historical tide gauge data (found in the London and Australian archives) and recent sea level observations, it shows that relative sea level has risen by 13.5 cm from 1841 to 2000. Perhaps your photos are waiting for the tide.

  47. Robert Vincin

    April 27, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Emission Offset trading is a $160-600,000,000,000 p a meeting UNFCCC 100year rule written with Australia the most likely recipient. The Australian amendment at COP6 tabled by Hon Robert Hill reinforced Australia as global trader to offset industrial worlds emissions.
    Neither Australian Political Leader has any plan to establish, a new baseline income industry to replace the ailing mining manufacturing. The UN SG supports offset business taking CO2 and sequestering back into Mother Earth’s soil.
    Industrial world and anthropogenic desert nations are perpetually adding CO2 CH4 to the upper atmosphere at a rate equal to the Australia nations’ international debt. If leaders and Minister of environment comprehended Climate Change and CO2 Offsets Trading, Australia would eliminate its global debt by 2018! Well planned the income would be such as not to place any burden/tax on Australian emitting industries and public. Equally well planned the nation would create 200,000 new jobs and offset trade would also reduce national income tax.
    Applying the dedicated vegetation here in Australia as CO2 sinks the expanding soil would allow Australia to capture the global market of food shortages. CO2 offset trade will fund rebuilding the historical Australian Farming, grazing, forestry industry. This is the only business open to overcome Moody’s proposed dropping Australia’s AAA rating.
    Australian Politicians have but one think on their mind “re-election for 3/6 more years” not the wellbeing of the kids and grandkids. Ask your MP what plan do they have to create jobs income security and cast your vote accordingly. To me as a member of the original UN Kyoto Protocol authors team 1996-99 (pushing for Australia to be global CO2 sink) I very much doubt the PM understands CO2 offset trading or, is really interested. Without prejudice Robert Vincin (Vincin help UN Kyoto protocol and now to lower CO2 build up teaching leading other nations to grasp this UNFCCC 100yr perpetual income opportunity). Here is proof how simple it is. PRC will offset 8Billion tonnes CO2 meeting UNFCCC 100year rule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbI8YZmBP8g

  48. Chris Sharples

    April 27, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    #40 I wonder what your photos show, exactly?: If you’re referring to an expectation of seeing smaller beaches if sea-level is rising, be aware that most beaches and other shoreline types are not yet showing a response to sea-level rise, because there are other processes going on (related to sand budgets) which buffer the effects of sea-level rise on shorelines.

    The most likely scenario is that the majority of beaches wont show notable physical changes in response to sea-level rise for several more decades. And I’d suggest that will be especially so for many northern Tasmanian beaches because of their specific process environment.

    On the other hand there are some beaches in Tasmania which are in particularly susceptible local process environments, and they are showing clear early responses to sea-level rise (by receding). Two examples are Roches Beach (Lauderdale) and Ocean Beach (West coast). And I do have the (aerial) photo history to prove it!

    The way to tell if sea-level rise is happening is not to look at beaches, or other random shorelines, but at tide gauge records. And the Burnie tide gauge (whose record I have seen) shows a clear sea-level rise of similar magnitude to that found at most tide gauges globally.

  49. Keith Antonysen

    April 27, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    davies, talks about lies in relation to the consensus.

    I’m happy to reduce the challenge for him in relation to providing 20 peer reviewed articles in journals published to 10. Powell has stated that in his study he found there were 5 papers written by skeptical scientists published in peer reviewed journals in a year; the total number of papers reviewed was 12,000.

    In a very short time I have come up with 10 papers; one published in January 2016, the others in March and April 2016. The lead authors of the papers were:
    Shapna Sharma, Zaichen Zhu, Albert Milbank, James Hansen, Zeebe, A J Turner, Eric Spurling, Matthew Long, Edward Hanna, and Ryan J Wooosley.
    Included in the list is a paper referred to by Trevor at 34, the paper had been cherry picked by Murdoch and Lawson, very clear references to climate change are made.

    davies, if you are able to come up with 10 papers, then I will provide another 10. But, doubt that you can come up with 10 papers published in peer reviewed journals.

    Rod at 40, tries to create doubt about sea level rise. They talk about fine day floods in the South East of the US, they have issues on the Western side of the US as well:


    Water levels in Oceans have areas where water level is higher and others where it is lower; overall the level of Oceans is increasing.

  50. Robert LePage

    April 27, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    A Climate of Mind
    Of the 11,944 peer-reviewed articles on the topic published between 1991 and 2011, 97 percent endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it.

  51. Keith Antonysen

    April 27, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    An after thought is that to hold myself to just 10 papers published in peer reviewed papers was too easy.

    Lead authors who have published papers in April 2016 in appropriate journals are:

    Manabu Nakamoto,Igor Semiletov, Alexander Boehm, Richard Davey, Catriona Menzies, Renato Castelao, Elani Anagnostou, John Landolfi, Delphine Deryng, and Andrew Friedland.

    A major paper in relation to Attribution:


    A major paper in relation to the West Coast of the US:


    I doubt if davies is able to provide any where near the number of references. Climate change deniers rely mainly on blogs or newspaper articles which have not been vetted by close scrutiny.

    You say davies that the consensus view is a lie, prove it.

    Just providing verbiage is no answer.

    But, regardless, we need to be planning for the future, and taking action. An obvious action we can take at present is to reduce the amount of energy we use at home and work.

  52. Chris Sharples

    April 27, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    #49 You’re right to challenge davies but he won’t come through. I wish davies would engage in a real debate with practicing professional climate scientists, oceanographers and other relevant specialities, he might find these gems of consensus-refuting “science” that he picks up from denier websites aren’t as simple and straightforwardly convincing as he thinks.

    Maybe he should publish something – if he’s right then he has a major insight that 97% of actual practising climate scientists have failed to see! Now wouldn’t that be worth publishing? He won’t do it of course, it would expose him to too much critical review. Which of course is how science works and its what scientists expose themselves to every day. But deniers prefer to live in a simpler world than that, where everything is just obvious despite their lack of study and professional experience in the discipline in question.

    The tide gauge analyses he refers to at #41 are all by very well known and committed climate change deniers. Bob Carter is a geologist and not an oceanographer at all. Morner is one of the 3% of actual climate-related scientists who doubt the reality of sea-level rise. His analyses of the data have been refuted by many many others (that’s how science works), and that’s why he is only taken seriously by non-specialists who want his minority views to be the right ones.

  53. Rod

    April 27, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    #40 If I knew how to put the photos up I would do it. It’s a solid stone structure with a clear high water mark from a century ago. Today’s high tide doesn’t get up that far let alone go above it.

  54. Robert Vincin

    April 27, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Sustainable Financial system and exceed Paris COP21 perpetual global sustainability goal!
    Prima fascia, it seems all are too close to the financial asset system to implement a protocol for perpetual global sustainability! In the global problem is global cash generating solution. The only baseline BANK of asset (for Perpetual survival of the species) SOIL, WATER, VEGETATION, ATMOPSHERE, BEES (SWVAB) all (all) else but commodities. We monitor by the minute global financial movement; Moody’s applies a rating! The solution to restore a sustained global financial system is to, restore the global base-line assets SWVAB. 1996 the late Morris Strong assembled a global group of experts to write a simple, logic, protocol based upon, Mother Nature’s proven protocol, following mass volcanic eruptions. The logic what became the Kyoto Protocol (COP3). – Lower mass CO2e back into the 2-4% vegetation/soil firstly into anthropogenic deserts. Sad fact that sees COP21 MPs sign off on “stop temperature rising 2 degrees” and no COP3 plan. Desert nations and others nations now have 3-5 degrees’ increase. The same delegates advise their home Nations have but 10-40 more years of soil to grow food. PLAN; proven plan applied in PRC 9 provinces since 2005 and can apply anthropogenic deserts lower CO2 and grow food. (1minute clip) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbI8YZmBP8g COP3 protocol restores the Bank of assets; Set up a Global SWVAB “Moody’s place a value on these assets, lower temperature, reverse anthropogenic CO2, desertification, poverty and mass migration to EU.
    The you-tube clip shows by year 1-2 soil, carbon rich soil! Well planned and apply Nature-science, excite rainfall sea to upper catchments. The visual show what was desert is now rich sustainable Farm-grazing-forest land. So under COP3 and backed by UN SG Moon and EU SG a fixed price $20.00 CO2 offset trade to UNFCCC 100year secure growing CO2 storage. Now see the visuals and self-sustaining annual massive crops ready for export from what was desert. So see Mother Nature perpetual reparation; look up high old building bird dropped seed, the root system manure becomes soil! (A PS; Coal is essential de-facto volcanoes!)
    Bottom line; To restore the global ailing financial system “restore the Bank of base line assets SWVAB national and global economy and establish a SWVAB “Moody’s daily report the stable Global financial reporting will run in parallel! PRC by 2020 will lower 8b tonnes CO2 pa and be self-sufficient in food fodder forestry; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbI8YZmBP8g

  55. Chris Sharples

    April 27, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    #53 Theres a wise saying in science and critical thinking, namely that “extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence”.

    You are making the extra-ordinary claim that you have evidence that sea-level rise hasn’t risen in 100 years. That flies in the face of tide gauge data analyses over many decades by hundred of oceanographers world wide, including work by Tasmanian oceanographers John Hunter and John Church. Your claim, if true, would be revolutionary.

    But now it turns out your claim is based on your interpretation of what you think to be a high tide mark on a stone structure. That doesn’t sound like extra-ordinarily good evidence to me. I reckon lots of things could be construed as high water marks but then turn out to be something else. How do you know your mark is really a high tide mark? What’s the evidence for that?? Which experts have you shown the mark to? What do they think caused the mark?

    Your evidence sounds remarkably shaky to me. Until you’ve subjected your claims to real critical scrutiny, and unless your evidence stands up to that scrutiny (which doesn’t sound so likely to me) I wont be rushing out to tell hundreds of oceanographers who’ve spent decades of their life studying sea-level rise (and critically reviewing each others evidence)that they have got it all wrong on the basis of an amateur interpretation of a mark on a bit of masonry that could be anything!!

  56. John Coombes

    April 27, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    #53 Rod, the benchmark you speak of sounds like the one at Port Arthur which is mentioned by max at #46.

    My memory is a bit hazy but I believe it was meant to be cut at the height of mean high water (MHW) which would have been determined from observations of all the tides over at least one full lunation (i.e. 29 days). It is quite normal for half the high tides to fall below MHW.

    Rod (and davies) you really need to have a little more faith in what research scientists are telling us. There are a few shonks amongst them (occasionally even a Nobel Prize winner) but no other profession has such a rigorous system for finding out how nature works.

  57. Rod

    April 27, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    #43. Best I can do. I’ve started a free website and downloaded the pictures. The first one is at least hundred years ago because they dismantled the wheel for metal then. You can see the high tide mark which goes up to the corner of the building. The second photo was taken at a full spring tide last year. The building is at the bottom of a waterfall so the landing stage has got washed away. http://rodsramblings.weebly.com/
    Hope this works!

  58. Chris Sharples

    April 27, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    #57 What exactly are you claiming is the equivalent spring tide mark in the older photo? Looks as clear as mud to me. Especially if its what you are claiming to have disproved the work of hundreds of oceanographers and coastal geomorphologists over decades of professional work with!

  59. davies

    April 27, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    So there appears to be a general consensus here that 97% of climate scientists, or is anyone believing McKibben’s claim it is all scientists, agree on the climate change consensus.

    So what is the consensus position?

    You provide me your opinion of the consensus position and I can very easily give you a list of papers that fall outside that consensus.

    This is, afterall, the crux of the debate. You lot seem to hold great store that 97% of climate scientists have agreed on a consensus position.

    So what is that position?

  60. Steve

    April 27, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    #57; Many thanks for that Rod. Making the effort is much appreciated.
    I’m quite familiar with that particular building so your photos are of great interest, however I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, as I have seen the water across the path and lapping at the base of the building.
    The problem with assessing ocean levels from a site such as the Supply River Mill is that it’s a considerable way up a tidal estuary. The level of the Tamar River can be influenced heavily by how much water comes down the two Esks, especially the South (did the photo pre-date Duck Reach Power Staion; 1895?). The level of the water at the mill site can also be heavily influenced by the volume of water coming down the Supply River.
    Given the huge tidal flow up and down the Tamar and that the people talking sea level rises are talking in terms of mm’s per year, it’s impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from such a site.
    That doesn’t mean that I’m any the less grateful for someone making the effort to back up their argument. Such efforts improve the quality of debate considerably. Next spring tide, I’ll be out there, carefully identifying each rock in the historical image. Thanks Rod!

  61. TGC

    April 28, 2016 at 12:31 am

    There ought to be some concern that Macquarie Point in Hobart is to be ‘re-developed’ at significant cost when that area could be under several metres of water in a few decades.

  62. Chris Harries

    April 28, 2016 at 12:35 am


    Davies, these tit-for-tat debates have played out in the millions on the internet for near on 20 years. Non scientists challenging scientists. Scraping the internet to find anything to fit their contradictory world view.

    Mostly these are innocent people, frightened by the prognosis that’s before us. Some are agent provocateurs. Whichever, it doesn’t matter, engaging with them provides them with oxygen and, worse, they consume a lot of useless time debating nonsense rather than getting down to constructive ways of dealing with problems.

    Take away climate change (if you like) burning coal is still a major polluting activity and causes millions of deaths through particulate, so shifting away from coal has other advantages. Not least preparing for when carbon resources become so expensive to extract that other forms of energy will have to be utilised anyway.

    Climate change sceptics are a dying breed. The evidence on the daily news is enough for most people to get past their incipient denial. A vast body of climate science has now been built up. There’s no need for more science. There’s a need to respond to it.

  63. Claire Gilmour

    April 28, 2016 at 12:53 am

    Whilst there is no doubt human induced climate change is happening and is a huge scourge on the earth, let’s also appreciate the breathing earth is also moving around on it’s axis … spinal cord … universe …

  64. Mike Bolan

    April 28, 2016 at 1:22 am

    davies @59

    “you lot”? To whom are you referring?

  65. Keith Antonysen

    April 28, 2016 at 2:16 am

    No 59, davies I have provided 20 peer reviewed papers that have been published in journals and 2 papers published by committees in 2016; 15 of the peer reviewed papers were published in April 2016.
    You say that you can provide references from peer reviewed journals. All of my references are from 2016 with the majority from April. If you can produce 10 papers published in peer reviewed journals in April 2016 you will have shown the 97% consensus wrong on the basis that roughly 100 articles are published every month in journals.

    Meanwhile, India is being hit very hard through lack of water resources, and crop failure being another issue. There are 12 States of India which are particularly being impacted on. Several millions of people around the planet are living in a state of near famine.


    The situation is not good in Vietnam also with issues of water resources problems and failure of crops.


    We need to be doing everything possible to adapt and mitigate against a change in climate.
    The whole matter of foreign aid needs to be reconsidered.

  66. Hans Willink - Science Party Senate candidate

    April 28, 2016 at 2:37 am

    The Science Party, for which I am a Tasmanian senate candidate at this years election, has the following policy on climate change ….

    12.2 Global Warming

    12.2.1 Policy: The Science Party is in favour of moderate, sensible action to mitigate the potential grave risks associated with climate change:

    Carbon pricing mechanisms as the main way to achieve control over our carbon emissions at the lowest cost to society. All major alternatives to Carbon pricing are well known to cost more for consumers, or taxpayers, or both.
    Given the global political inertia in achieving prevention, more work needs to be done on adaptation and mitigation to climate change. We would fund more research into the specifics of how climate change is likely to damage various sectors of the economy and the environment. We would fund greatly increased research into geoengineering – with the caveat that we would unequivocally oppose any attempt to conduct large geoengineering experiments or interventions until very thorough research had been complete on the safety, costs, side effects and alternatives.

    12.2.2 Discussion: The science on Global Warming is not settled – because that’s not how science works. Scientists weigh evidence, balance probabilities, make predictions, construct and falsify models, and try to come to the most accurate possible picture about the world. The answer is never perfect; even the laws of gravity are subject to revision.

    The best current picture science gives us is that the Earth is undergoing long term warming. This is true beyond what you might call reasonable doubt. So at a minimum, we need to start making preparations for the world getting warmer.

    The best current picture also tells us that humans are responsible for most of this warming. Again, this is very, very likely, although not quite so far beyond doubt as the fact that the Earth is warming. Exactly how quickly the Earth is warming, and exactly what share is because of humans, is again, less certain.

    Warming is going to cause some benefits, and some costs. There’s good reason to believe that the costs are going to be worse than the benefits – especially for large amounts of warming. Larger and more abrupt changes are harder to adapt to, for both us and the natural systems we rely on.

    “Climate skeptics” will argue there is a lot of doubt and uncertainty in all of the above. While there exist uncertainty in results and conclusions of science, the existence of uncertainty is not an argument specifically for doing nothing about climate change.

    It is important to remember that the main purpose of having a carbon price in place now is not to make massive cuts in emissions straight away (although obviously every tonne of emissions avoided helps). Rather it is to:

    Enable the research that will solve this problem to become viable. Huge private investments in technological solutions – renewable energy, smart grids – and an end to capital funding of the worst technologies such as new brown coal plants – will occur with even small carbon prices.
    Lay social and regulatory groundwork for reductions in carbon emissions. If and when we do need to make drastic cutbacks, it will be much easier to go to a heavy carbon price from a modest one than from none at all, with the legislative framework in place and companies familiar with its operation
    Make global political compromise possible. It is simply absurd to expect countries that are much poorer and emit much less per capita than us at the moment (let alone historically) to begin making serious efforts before high polluting, wealthy countries such as Australia. Cutting our emissions now is the absolute minimum gesture required to establish good faith for negotiations for them to limit and cut theirs.

  67. davies

    April 28, 2016 at 9:44 am

    It should not be hard. What is the consensus position that 97% of climate scientists agree with?

    You surely must know!

  68. A.K.

    April 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Forget what 97% of climate change scientists say Davies, just sit back and experience the never changing climate you so fervently support. Looks like BOM is living in fantasy land as well as the logical thinking people of the planet, no need to worry about anything at all. You certainly have your finger on the pulse of the planet and this link supports your claims admirably.


    #66m sorry to tell you, but you’re just another ideological party with no clue whatsoever and trying to jump on the band wagon. All you offer is more committees, reviews, investigations and and nothing of substance or worth for our immediate future. You post is just like every other parties contribution to the future, empty semantic babble and nothing of worth.

    Carbon tax, pricing or any other form of economic stupidity will do nothing. Who care about what other countries or even Australia does, it’s Tas which is important to us and nothing else.

    The only thing that will work here, is solar now and not after more useless investigations. Reviews committees, investigations, all designed to make out the idiots are doing something, whilst all they are doing is wasting or money time and future. The only thing that will make a difference in Tas, is instant solar in Aus, abandon support for fossil fuels completely and build 21st century solar industries. There would be no loss of jobs as the new clean industry, installations and maintenance would create all the jobs we need.

  69. Kim Peart

    April 28, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    There is a brutal truth that transcends any simple solutions to the carbon crisis that is driving global warming, climate change, sea level rise and ocean acidification.

    Who is ready to face the brutal truth?

    Atmospheric CO2 above 350 parts per million (ppm) will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth (James Hansen).

    350.org is built on Hansen’s findings.

    To keep the planet’s temperature rise below 1.5C (now passing 1C) we need to keep CO2 in the air below 350 ppm.

    But atmospheric CO2 is now passing 400 ppm and every additional ppm CO2 makes the planet that much hotter.

    Have we passed the tipping points for a safe planet?

    Freezing in position, like an animal caught in the headlights of a truck on the road at night, will not save us.

    To freeze in position is simply to deny the brutal truth.

    Often those who deny the brutal truth of our predicament attack those who deny climate change.

    What we need is a plan to extract excess CO2 from the air and keep it below 350 ppm.

    That plan needs to take into account all dynamics, including the force of Nature for expansion and the momentum of human civilization.

    What is the plan?

    Love to know.

    Kim Peart

  70. Chris Harries

    April 28, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Hans (#66), with greatest respect, the statement that “the science on global warming is not settled” is just what folks like Davies likes to point to and elaborate and play around with and laugh at.

    Scientists, being scientists, like to be precise and cautious with language and not make statements that can be technically challenged so the language of scientists too often hint at doubt and confusion to the non science reader:- Global warming doubters are absolutely confirmed, whereas the scientists aren’t too sure.

    This caution with language has been a communication problem all along.

    I’m happy to argue that the fundamental premise of global warming is absolutely settled bang on, insofar as we can ever be sure of anything in the world.

    Meanwhile, best wishes with your candidature. It’s good that there is a Science Party out there, as there is a Renewable Energy Party and Greens candidates and others who try to bring about change through the political system.

  71. Chris Harries

    April 28, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    #68. Switching from coal to solar represents about 5% of the overall solution that’s needed. Solar energy has become a populist mantra, but it is only useful if built into the context of radical sociological change happening at the same time at many levels.

    Kim @ 69 is correct, most do not face up to the brutal truth. Most citizens – even many climate activists – are in stages of secondary denial. For this reason I think we should be compassionate towards people who are in chronic denial. They will come around.

    The core problem isn’t them, it’s those who accept the reality of climate change but can not translate this to meaningful action. Unfortunately, this describes nearly everybody. We are just like those wallabies – caught in the headlights and immobilised.

  72. abs

    April 28, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    #67 davies,

    please address evidence that you are presented with (the positions are summarised concisely in the NASA link i provided in #45).

    in case you find it too difficult to click a link here are the positions –

    NASA – “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”

    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2

    American Association for the Advancement of Science

    “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

    American Chemical Society

    “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4

    American Geophysical Union

    “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

    American Medical Association

    “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

    American Meteorological Society

    “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7

    American Physical Society

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

    The Geological Society of America

    “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9

    U.S. National Academy of Sciences
    “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)11

    U.S. Global Change Research Program

    “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

    “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

    “The scientific community has reached a strong consensus that global temperatures are rising rapidly as a direct result of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human-made sources.”

    davies, in #59 you state, “You provide me your opinion of the consensus position and I can very easily give you a list of papers that fall outside that consensus”

    i ask you to do so now.

  73. Keith Antonysen

    April 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    No 67, davies stated:

    “What is the consensus position that 97% of climate scientists agree with? ”

    We both know that the 67% of climate scientists believe in the impact of man on climate; you dispute it.
    As predicted you are not able to produce any current appropriately peer reviewed papers published in April 2016.
    The game then of the denier is to try and get away with playing around with semantics.

    Earlier you suggested that the consensus is a lie, but cannot produce any proof when challenged.

  74. Kim Peart

    April 28, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    One of the primary motivations for our project in Ross is to front up to the brutal truth and figure out exactly what needs to be done to win back a safe Earth.

    This wallaby is hopping like mad, day and night.

    We begin with a lookout for residents of and visitors to Ross, add a sculpture trail, include astronomy, engage in farming, plan for survival and consider how we must hop and run in this rather dangerous old Universe.

    We invite folk to walk over our land on Sunday at 1pm ~ see our media release in TT ~ all welcome ~ Walk in the Clouds ~

    Even in Tasmania an individual who cares can have a huge global impact.

    It will only take ten determined individuals, working as one, to change the world, and they could all be Tasmanians.

    We now have the technology to act locally, communicate globally and build for cosmic survival.

    There is an answer for every question, a solution to every problem.

    We face a carbon apocalypse.

    It’s time to hop.

    Kim Peart

  75. TGC

    April 28, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    So #49 because “Included in the list is a paper referred to by Trevor at 34, the paper had been cherry picked by Murdoch and Lawson,” had been ‘cherry-picked’ it was wrong?

  76. TGC

    April 28, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    #51 “But, regardless, we need to be planning for the future, and taking action. An obvious action we can take at present is to reduce the amount of energy we use at home and work.”
    And cumulatively #51- how are you going with that?
    #71 is hitting the right notes.

  77. Robert LePage

    April 28, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    Davies, in my opinion, is adding nothing to what has become a serious discussion about the main threat to humankind facing us.
    This is possibly an unsolvable problem and personally I am of the opinion that we are now past the point of no return.
    There are not enough thinking people in a position to alter the way of life in the world to reverse the accelerating AGW.
    There are too many who either do not see the warnings, or too many who do not care and will continue on to make more money, build bigger mansions, drive bigger cars, plan bigger developments and seize more power.
    Some (myself included) are building “lifeboats” where we hope to provide enough food, shelter and a safe haven to survive perhaps only for a time but are making the effort.
    Futile perhaps but at least doing something.


  78. Rod

    April 28, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    450 million years ago the CO2 level was 4500ppm.

    The Earth went from conditions similar to present into an ice age.

    If CO2 is main driver of temperatures how could this happen?

  79. Rod

    April 28, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    Ocean acidification dunked:

    This survey shows the PH of the oceans goes up and down all the time more than any likely increase from CO2 without affecting plants and animals and also there is no long term trend over 15 years.

  80. Rod

    April 28, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    This site shows the raw satellite sea level readings that show no sea level rise and the one’s after climate scientists have ‘adjusted’ them.


  81. Rod

    April 28, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    This link shows that at least 282 peer reviewed papers were published in 2015 supporting or partially supporting the sceptical view. Scientific consensus?


  82. Keith Antonysen

    April 28, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    At 65, references were provided in relation to India and Vietnam in relation to water resources being impacted on and food crops failing.

    A further reference indicates further South Eastern countries that have been hit by severe heat.


    We need to be pushing for the government to be increasing foreign aid.

    It is a red flag that more needs to be done in relation to adapting and mitigating against climate change.

  83. Kim Peart

    April 29, 2016 at 6:09 am

    Re: 77 ~ There is hope, if we are prepared to confront the brutal truth of what we must do to save ourselves. If we save ourselves, then we can win back a safe Earth. Saving ourselves must include all threats to life and an advanced civilisation on a planet. The problem is no different to if we were stranded on Mars. The primary challenge is to identify exactly how we maintain a sustainable survival presence. The next challenge is to ensure we are not trapped on Mars. If we solve both parts of that problem, we gain the liberty of the Solar System, with direct access to the virtually unlimited energy of the Sun to do work and the resources of the Solar System to make all we need. To focus on survival on one planet only is a death-trap, both mentally and physically. With a more inspiring survival vision, we can offer hope.

  84. A.K.

    April 29, 2016 at 10:13 am

    #71, you’re right, our survival will require radical social change, done in the right fashion, would not disrupt them. Solar, tide and wave would take care of our power needs, seed oils our heavy fuel needs and bring the cost of fuel for the ferries down by 80% and diesel vehicles, by 50%-70%.

    Starting up 21st century industries would bring us new non polluting innovations, turning our plastic waste into road work commodities and ban all plastic packaging. Farmers growing seed oils as a secondary crop, for an extra income and fuel which can be turned into anything fossil oils can, yet seed oils produce 80% less emissions, are perfectly compatible with the environment and the waste used as compost. Set up small solar desalination plants around the state, for fresh clean water for communities, recycle all our waste and sewage waters, instead of pouring them into the sea as we do now.

    Change our urban buses to electric and build our own electric public vehicle systems state wide. Use 3D printing technology, to mass produce electric cars, trucks and buses using strong modern light materials.

    Solar charge stations around the state, utilise and join all unused railway lines round the state, for an electric transport system covering the state using local business and workforces.

    Introduce preventive medicine clinics round the state to avoid the unnecessary elective surgeries and illness which drain the system. The medical profession would concentrate on traumatic and genetic medicine, as they know nothing of diet, lifestyle, or how to attain good health. Preventative medicine, would save us billions a year in health costs alone and the savings on pharmaceuticals would be huge..

    Introduce a school system which educates kids in biology, reproduction, nutrition, diet, lifestyle, the law, and the 3 R’s, 21st century style. At 16, put them into 4 years of community work experience, doing every job in the state, including the police, hospitals, health care, ambulance, SES, aged and disability care, bureaucracy, council, forestry, fisheries and parks.. At 20, they will have enough experience and knowledge in life, to choose a career, will be good citizens, who understand how and why society works.

    An empowered knowledgeable youth, capable of undertaking any community job, means we end up with an informed and experienced society. It dramatically lower crime rates and in times of crisis, we would have the best trained people every where round the state.

    Next, put the running of the state into the hands of the people online, they can write the laws, impose justice, decide what and were we are going and have a say in every decision in the state, that effects them. That would take a year to implement and could be done, with a hack proof internet system that’s easy to do with open source systems.

    There are other aspects of our society that need attending to, but we have to start somewhere and having policies like the above, would give us a chance of surviving as a society. Energy, food and fuel are the major problems we are going to face materially, climate change is something we have to learn to live with and survive through.

    If this warm weather continues for the year, we are in for a horrendous time in a couple of years. This degree of warming, was predicted to happen in 50 years, not now. The next warming, may well be double this one.

    We live in one of the few places on the planet, which can actually survive, because we have all the right ingredients. Low population, surrounded by water, isolated and capable of becoming totally self sufficient if we needed to. Not many other societies can claim that, especially when it will be our technology that gets us through, without it, we are doomed.

  85. Kim Peart

    April 29, 2016 at 11:30 am

    In comment 84 I see elements of a plan that I wonder about for Tasmania, including small desalination plants and pumping clean water to any place on the island using a serious of pumps powered by solar, wave and wind. We could drought-proof Tasmania and keep the dams, lakes and reservoirs topped up, which would also mean having clean power to export.

    The elephant in the room can be read of in my comment at 69. Carbon driven Earth change is a global problem and even Tasmania cannot escape this raw fact.

    Should global conflict break out over the South China Sea, Australia stands a high chance of being invaded, so the southern continent cannot be used to fight back from. Tasmania would be hit by a large wave of mainland refugees, or an occupation force and change of government, followed by many new immigrants. How well could Tasmania as an island defend itself?

    If war is avoided and as the tropics go hostile for humans, there will be tens of millions of refugees and they will not be allowed to go north. They will go south In the dangerous future we are sailing into. Earth change is a national defence and survival problem.

    Let’s not forget the warning that we face a repeat of the Great Dying of 252 million years ago, begun by rising levels of carbon in the air, then going into the sea, making the planet hotter, turing the sea acidic and leading to sulphur bugs blooming, which released toxic hydrogen sulphide gas that killed life on land and wrecked the ozone layer, letting in lethal doses of radiation.

    The hammering of the Reef is our canary in the ocean. Atmospheric CO2 is rising faster than at any time in the past 300 million years, so we really don’t know where this experiment with this planet will take us.

    Change is happening too fast for evolution to keep pace, which will result in increased species loss, as with the Reef.

    To deal with hydrogen sulphide gas, we would need to be living in Tasmania, more as if we were living in space. We would need to build protected environments to survive and locate warning buoys out at sea that can detect when the gas is moving.

    Our core option is to reduce the size of the elephant from its current 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the air and growing, back to below 350 ppm, to keep any temperature rise below 1.5C.

    We need to identify the level of energy needed to do that work and where it will come from. This work will need to be rapid. This is a global problem.

    With that level of energy, we would be able to help other nations raise their living standards, avoid an invasion of Australia and build peace on Earth.

    There is the elephant that grows as we feed it. Now where do we get the level of energy that will shrink it without killing the Earth?

  86. Chris Sharples

    April 29, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    #78, 79, 80, 81 Rod: If you spent as much time studying the real science and becoming involved with how real scientists actually evaluate evidence as you do searching denier websites for misleading claims, you might begin to understand how easy it is to come up with superficially plausible ‘evidence’ that climate change isn’t happening, and how little of it stands up when subjected to the rigours of real scientific review and critique.

    Just as your own bit of “incontrovertible” evidence for no sea-level rise over the last 100 years doesn’t look so convincing when one starts to inquire closely as to just what your supposed 100-year old “High Water Mark” really is (its not at all obvious to me, maybe its just an effect of rising damp in the stone? I’m not even convinced there is a clear “mark” as such.), and what it actually means in the context of its location in a tidal estuary which is not only subject to tidal amplification, but also to significant changes in the river discharge itself that have occurred as a result of changes in discharges from the Esk Rivers due to use of catchment water for irrigation, diversion of the Derwent headwaters into the Esk via Poatina, land clearance and other changes. All of which are local effects that can modify water levels in a specific estuary irrespective of the underlying global sea-level signal.

  87. Keith Antonysen

    April 29, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Rod, be careful with where you get your opinions from.

    CO2Science is a blog site, it spruiks a recent film by Marc Morano, a non scientist, who has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions.

    Joannanova, is not a scientist, the inferred data from satellites needs modelling to derive data.

    NASA provides good information.

    I had look at your last set of references and believe that Skeptical Science has many answers to what your references suggest. The film clips from the series Denial 101x has many interviews by climate scientists; including Astro-Physicists, Glaciologists, Biologists and Meteorologists etc.


    George Monbiot has written about Neo Liberalism:


    Rod, are you able to name a continent that has not been impacted in the last decade by severe drought, extreme rainfall events, flooding when no precipitation has happened ( occurs periodically, South East USA ), lack of normal snowfall, huge increase in snowfall, major change in jet streams, rain bombs, and break down of glaciers and ice sheets etc.
    The axis of our planet has just shifted, said to be caused by loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, the Gulf Stream appears to be slowing.
    The Iditarod dog sled race has been in existence for decades; for the first time ever in 2003 ( from memory) there were problems due to lack of snow and ice, that has been repeated over the last three years.

    Taking those examples individually you can say that it is an aberration and leave it at that; when all of those incidents are happening in a close time frame to one another, it’s another matter.

  88. davies

    April 29, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    If you go back to #22 you will see the lies I was talking about were from the following. I stated they were lies because McKibben is obviously highly intelligent and well-read on the subject so to make such basic errors is a quite deliberate policy.

    “McKibben indicated that 98% of all scientists agree that climate change is happening, much much faster now than anyone thought possible only a few years ago, and that it is caused by human activity, most particularly by the use of fossil fuels.”

    Lie 1: It is not 98% of all scientists but supposedly 97% of climate scientists. Anyone here want to back up McKibben’s claim?

    Lie 2: Climate change is not happening much much faster than thought possible. As the IPCC themselves point out, 111 out of 114 climate models have overstated the amount of warming that was supposed to have occurred over the last 20 years. So whatever climate change is supposed to be it is obviously happening slower than thought possible not much much faster.

    Lie 3: “That it is caused by human activity”. So McKibben totally discounts other factors for climate change such as the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles, volcanoes, cosmic rays, changes in earth’s orbit and other natural causes. Anyone else here thinks all this climate change is 100% caused by human activity?

    Now the responses here indicate that great weight is given to the perception that 97% of climate scientists agree on a consensus opinion about climate change. This is based on a few surveys which I, and many others, say have been discredited.

    Those that even query the slightest aspect of this consensus have lost their jobs, government grants, threatened with jail, public shaming, cannot get their papers published, and even in one case have had their children incited to kill their skeptic parent.

    So I ask the question, what is the position on climate change that has a 97% consensus from climate scientists?

    And only one of you can reply. So the rest of you either did not actually know what the consensus was or were you too afraid that your consensus was different to other people’s consensus.

    It seems from the only response you were right to be fearful. Because we don’t get one consensus opinion we get 12! And they are very different!!!

    Is it global warming, climate change, climate warming, or a warming climate system? Is it the last 50 years or is it the last 100 years? Is it 100% caused by human activity, or a primary driver, major influence, significant, primarily, largely, or extremely likely it is over 50%?

    Amazing for something so settled that there is such a massive difference in opinion on the percentage of climate change caused by human activity.

    But the most damning difference in the consensus of opinions is whether it is a threat. Apparently it is a growing threat, no it is potentially very serious, requires urgent action, adverse, significant disruptions. But more than half do not mention whether it is a threat or not.

    I guess if you add the number of climate scientists that think it is a threat to the number that do not think it is a threat you can get close to 97%…

    The take home message is there is no consensus about the consensus. (to be continued)

  89. davies

    April 29, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    And what about those surveys? It is hard to pick the one that abuses statistical methods the most. According to experts, the mathematical manipulation or statisticulation is really quite breath taking.

    As an example, let’s choose the Doran and Zimmerman (2009) survey. They claimed a survey based on 10,257 earth scientists of which 3,146 responded. Many refused to respond because they stated the two questions were poorly worded and sought opinions not evidence.

    Anyway 3,146 did respond out of 10,257. Upon review, only 79 were identified as çlimate scientists though no definition of climate scientist were provided and nor were the qualifications required.

    Of these 79, 76 agreed with the opinion that temperatures had generally risen when compared to pre-1800’s levels. The second question asked was whether humans were a significant factor in this rise. The meaning of significant is not quantified. Apparently 75 from 77 answered yes.

    So out of 3,146 respondees 79 are selected, without explanation, by the two reviewers and voila 97% agreeement!

    Anyone, see any issues with that?

    Now compare that to the methods used by Strengers, Verheggen and Vringer (2015). They asked some 6550 scientists studying various aspects of climate change and received over 1800 responses. All these responses were included in the results.

    The IPCC AR5 statement is:

    Ït is extremely likely (95% certainty) that more than half of observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010 was caused by anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations…”

    So what percentage of climate scientists that responded agreed that there is a 95% surety that man-made CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change? The answer is 43%.

    Now the researchers admit a margin of error is quite possible but 43% is a magnitude or three away from 97%. What that means is 57% of climate scientists are less certain or think other natural factors are more important.

    But go ahead with your chicken little scenarios. Personally, I wouldn’t mind going back to the 1960s as the cars were way cooler and we still had countries on the gold standard.

  90. Simon Warriner

    April 29, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    And from a local perspective, there is a leatherwood tree on Oldina Road that has decided to have a second flowering for the year, just this week!
    Add in the rape crops that have started flowering, and it is hard not to pay more attention to the climate scientists than the denialists following the neoliberal script.

  91. abs

    April 29, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    davies, you really know your stuff. well i must say you have shown yourself to be more masterful than the experts. BTW, do you even science??

    i guess all that remains now is for you to publish or perish 😉

  92. Rod

    April 29, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Come on now. Let’s have an answer. Why did Earth go into an ice age when the CO2 levels were 4500ppm? Why did temperatures increase by 2 degrees in 50 years in the eighteenth century? This discussion should be about whether CO2 is responsible for any changes (no evidence in spite of billions on research) or not. Opinions don’t count.

    #86. Why isn’t there rising damp on the building now? Why doesn’t the tide regularly go 2 bricks higher now. Why is the high tide mark along the bank lower than 100 years ago? My links may be from sceptical sites but that does not invalidate the contents. You’re just shooting the messenger.

  93. max

    April 29, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    # 88 – 89 Why are you quibbling about the number of scientist that believe that global warming is man made. What is the worst thing that can happen if they are all wrong? Nothing. What is the worst thing that can happen if they are right? The end of the world as we know it, sea level rises and run away climate just for starters. If they are wrong and we clean up our environmental act for nothing would it be such a bad thing. It is well past time we stopped this mad rush to use every last bit of our natural resources and the over population of our earth.

  94. Got Me a Hint

    April 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    The warming process is possibly far more complicated than anyone realises.

    Atmospheric Co2 is increasing fast, while vast tracts of rainforest are or have been ripped down (think Amazon, Borneo etc).

    Land use has changed radically the past 100 years, have a look at a satellite image of Australia or any other developed country … it is almost all farms, aside from the desert and hilly bits.

    There are evermore people every year, and evermore cars. In this regard, China is just warming up.

    With all this, it would be a miracle indeed if there weren’t major changes in the climate.

    This past year or two we have been getting the first major hints of what is to come.

  95. Keith Antonysen

    April 30, 2016 at 1:39 am

    Rod , at 92, I imagine you obtained your information from the Hockeyschtich blog spot. And yes there was a paper published in 2002 in relation to CO2 being at >4,500 ppm, it was not as definitive as suggested by Watts or Hockeyschtich.

    But, blog sites that have been created by deniers use information that appears to fit in with their point of view.

    A more recent reference:


    It was a time when an asteroid hit the planet and volcanic action was incredibly high. A time when major extinctions took place.

    The 18th Century was the time of the “Little Ice Age”.

    As stated before you need to be careful about references you use.

  96. Factfinder

    April 30, 2016 at 4:18 am

    CLIMATE DISRUPTION THE MOVIE (Official HD) Most Dangerous Threat We’ve Ever Faced

    Published on Sep 6, 2014

    Some believe there is still hope. Do you?

    The changing climate… pollution, species loss, acidic oceans, weird weather, methane, polar melt…

    Is climate change real? Can we do something about it? Will we? Is it too late? Discussion encouraged…


    “When it comes to climate change, why do we do so little when we know so much?’

    Through a relentless investigation to find the answer, Disruption takes an unflinching look at the devastating consequences of our inaction.

    The exploration lays bare the terrifying science, the shattered political process, the unrelenting industry special interests and the civic stasis that have brought us to this social, moral and ecological crossroads.

    The film also takes us behind-the-scenes of the efforts to organize the largest climate rally in the history of the planet during the UN world climate summit.

    This is the story of our unique moment in history. We are living through an age of tipping points and rapid social and planetary change.

    We’re the first generation to feel the impacts of climate disruption, and the last generation that can do something about it.

    The film enlarges the issue beyond climate impacts and makes a compelling call for bold action that is strong enough to tip the balance to build a clean energy future.”

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWPj6CxtsGo

  97. Kim Peart

    April 30, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Re: 96 ~ There was a solution to the carbon problem in the 1970s, which would have allowed progress and the keeping of a safe Earth, but this was ignored. This was the proposal to build solar power stations in space, defined by Glaser in 1968 and written of by Asimov in 1941. This option was physically possible in the 1970s, but was actively suppressed.

    What we did get was a carbon energy propaganda machine that convinced the whole world to focus on the Earth. The carbon energy monopoly was very smart and knew what was coming with space based solar power in the 1960s. I fear that carbon energy propaganda has dumbed down the whole world, so we now have difficulty imagining any solution to the carbon crisis that is not focused on the Earth.

    Until we expand our thinking and look at all options, we risk dithering our way into the black sludge of a carbon apocalypse. If we can awaken and break the mesmerising hold of carbon energy propaganda, we can begin to work out exactly how to solve every problem on Earth, including the management of the Earth’s carbon balance.

    If we will not expand our thinking, we cannot hope to find working solutions to a carbon problem that crossed tipping points in the 1980s. We are now observing how those tipping points fall into our children’s future.

    Kim Peart

  98. Chris Harries

    April 30, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    The nuke folk have the same story, Kim (#97). According to them we missed the opportunity to bypass coal when the US administration killed research into safe nuclear technologies.

    There are no end of energy supply enthusiasts of various kinds, all believing in their own barrow. The problem for all of us, though, is that energy supply is just a small part of the sustainability equation.

    If we can imagine a hypothetical source of clean energy that gave society all the energy it wants (it wants an awful lot) then it’s like taking one finger out of a dam that is leaking all over the place. Or it’s like the classic relieving of congestion on roads only to find that that allows for far more cars.

    The energy debate has to be tempered by an across the board, systemic approach to the human predicament. There are far too many earnest people devising novel ways to power up rather than power down.

  99. abs

    April 30, 2016 at 5:08 pm


    in relation to the Strengers, Verheggen and Vringer (2015) study, I addressed it here in comment #22 and @23


    you failed to address my comments there, yet now you appear here as if your statements have not been debunked.

    you additionally make statements (above) about the Doran and Zimmerman (2009) survey including –

    “Those that even query the slightest aspect of this consensus have lost their jobs, government grants, threatened with jail, public shaming, cannot get their papers published, and even in one case have had their children incited to kill their skeptic parent.” (davies, #88)

    no evidence provided by yourself, davies.

    “ According to experts, the mathematical manipulation or statisticulation is really quite breath taking.” (davies, #89)

    no evidence provided by yourself, davies.

    “Many refused to respond because they stated the two questions were poorly worded and sought opinions not evidence.” (davies, #89)

    no evidence provided by yourself, davies.

    “So out of 3,146 respondees 79 are selected, without explanation, by the two reviewers and voila 97% agreeement!” (davies, #89)

    wrong! the selection of the 79 was explained and is consistent with systematic review methodology. here is a quote from the paper –

    “in our survey, the most specialized and knowledge-able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).” (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009)

    further –

    “Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2” (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009)

    I believe that you have not read the actual study of Doran and Zimmerman (2009), have you, davies? why I believe this is that it is behind a paywall (like so much of the other research you think you can discredit). i have just read it as I, being a scientist, have access to it through my university association. i assume that this would account for much of your misunderstanding and false statements. your source of information, i assume, are blog sites from people with agendas and/or poor/absent scientific credentials and capabilities.


  100. abs

    April 30, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    another cherry picked stat you often throw around is the ol chestnut –

    “And who in their right mind is going to state that climate change is happening much faster than thought possible when 111 of the 114 climate models overstated the warming (well lack of it) since 1998.” (davies, #36)

    the whole paragraph is provided below, davies (this is not behind a paywall, so no excuse 😉

    For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial
    degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1, Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller
    warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change.

    For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend (very high confidence)
    (Box 1.1, Figure 1c).

    so as statisticians understand, the shorter the time frame (e.g. 1998-2012) for trend estimation, the higher the associated error terms/value for that estimation. when looking at a longer time period (1951-2012) the models demonstrate “very high confidence” of fit between estimate and observed.

    the most damning comment to make davies is that while you display ignorance for scientific method, a tendency for clinging to cherry-picked information, and generally nick pick, misunderstand and mislead, is that you are unable to reference any scientific literature that counters the consensus position directly. You fail to cite any scientific society or organisation that clearly states that climate change is not occurring, or that climate change is happening but that human activity is not contributing to it. You also fail to cite any peer-reviewed published scientific paper that provides evidence that there is not scientific consensus of AGW.

    I assume that you do not have access to scientific journals, or more correctly, you are not prepared to fork out the $$ to get access to databases and scientific journal. I also assume that you do not have the training, qualifications, nor scientific methodology skill that are essential to assess scientific methodology. And I do think that the blog sites you get your misinformation from are leading your down the garden path 😉

  101. Kim Peart

    April 30, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Re: 98 ~ Is powering down natural?

    The Sun is powering up ~ now 35% hotter than at its birth 4.5 billion years ago and will continue to burn fiercely over the next 5 billion years, until expanding to the orbit of the Earth as a red giant star.

    So much power. ~ So much fuel in reserve.

    Nature is about expansion and powering up.

    The question is wqhere and how to power up.

    On Earth we must live within limits and on Earth humankind needs to power down to a sustainable level.

    But the Universe is all about expansion and this means we need to learn to fly from the nest we are now messing.

    There is a conflict with Nature when we resist expansion, when the whole human system, which is an espression of Nature, will not expand beyond Earth.

    If we insist on clinging to the Earth, we will wreck the planet, as we are wrecking it now, because the driving force of Nature for expansion is merciless and relentless.

    This is raw evolution bottled up in the pressure cooker that the Earth has become.

    Powering down on Earth without excpansion beyond Earth is a death-trap.

  102. Keith Antonysen

    May 1, 2016 at 10:57 am

    abs at 100, quite rightly writes about the cost of obtaining information from properly peer reviewed science papers on climate change.

    The referred article from Inside Clime News displays how information can be obtained without breaking the Bank.

    The article also shows an area that deniers keep clear of; the break down of glaciers; though there are just a few glaciers that are increasing in size.
    Watts, from WUWT informs us that the Arctic sea ice is not decreasing; he uses an old discarded DMI program which inverts results. Satellite photos of the Arctic Circle, measured temperature, the cold water area South of Greenland related to the break down of the Greenland glaciers and ice sheet; say otherwise.

    The other point about the article is that it provides hyperlinks to science and scientists. The hyperlinks can be translated through using Google.


    A hyperlink from article in English:


    Inside Climate News has been one of the main sites investigating ExxonMobil; as a result a number of Attorney Generals from US States are investigating whether criminal charges can be pressed against ExxonMobil on the basis of allegedly providing false information to the Financial market. It involves the science that ExxonMobil was establishing which is mutually exclusive to ExxonMobil funding denier groups. Paper trails exist in relation to the science and the funding going to denier groups.

  103. Chris Harries

    May 1, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    (#101) Well Kim, that view is completely in accordance with western values. You can be satisfied that you side with majority thinking.

    I beg to differ, believing that our fundamental societal value system, underpinned by the growth ethic, is flawed.

  104. Kim Peart

    May 1, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Re: 103 ~ “that view is completely in accordance with western values.”

    Is it?

    Current Western values have the whole world focused on the belly of the Earth for energy and the stretching out of this profit-driven addiction to fossil fuel is a belly ache for the Earth and a risk to our survival.

    The green way has not turned the tide of death, because of tripping into the Western value of focusing totally on the Earth.

    We need a functional plan that will win back a safe Earth.

    I simply point out that there is a force of Nature to deal with, which if ignored, is a death-trap.

    Survival only has winners.

    Survival failure delivers extinction.

    It is the total focus on the belly of the Earth that is killing the Earth.

    That is the Western value that is a death cult.

    We must expand our options, to entertain survival.

  105. Chris Harries

    May 1, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Press the accelerator but never the brake, I think you are saying, Kim. Enjoy the ride. 🙂

  106. Kim Peart

    May 1, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    Re: 105 ~ Only by putting our collective foot on the accelerator going beyond Earth, will we ever be able to put the foot on the brake on Earth.

    While natural expansion is trapped on Earth, the accelerator is being applied on Earth and this is causing our strife.

    It is a lost cause to apply the brake on Earth, while the the force for expansion is trapped on Earth and resulting in the foot on the accelerator by most of the world.

    It is a death-trap to promote only braking, while the force for expansion on Earth is seeking to expand beyond Earth.

    Fish once came out of the sea: we must now go out of the air.

    Once the pressure valve of expansion is released on pressure-cooker Earth, then it will be possible to apply the brake on Earth and plan a sustainable human presence on home planet, as evolution is allowed to resume with life on Earth.

    As we apply the accelerator of expansion like our survival depends on it, which it does, at the same time we can fight for a safe Earth.

    It is the energy of the Sun secured through expansion beyond Earth, which will give us the level of power to begin extracting excess carbon from the air.

    Cars come with both a brake and an accelerator and they both have to be used, if we wish to survive on the road.

  107. Chris Harries

    May 1, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    As said, Kim, this is the dominant world view, but fascinating to see it take another form. We may be programmed to aim for endless growth, but have been stymied by a finite planet.

    As for me I quite like our shining little planet, and think our aim should be too look after it…. but to each their own.

  108. Chris Harries

    May 3, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Further to the above, Kim, this is the sort of analysis that you need to apply if you are serious about powering up society. It requires much more than sci fi thinking:


  109. Kim Peart

    May 6, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    If confronted with a question of survival, then the choice is whether to surrender to the threat, or figure out a way to survive.

    There are many threats to survival that we hope will not happen, such as a large asteroid or comet hitting the Earth, the Yellowstone super-volcanoe going off, or a large solar flare from the Sun licking the Earth and melting our wires.

    Now James Hansen and other scientists have seen a threat to our survival from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 above 350 ppm, now passing 400.

    There are a number of lesser threats which may equally prove damaging to human society, such as the loss of all satellites from a cascade of space junk, which could be triggered if war breaks out over the South China Sea and the eyes in the sky, the satellites, are struck. If a space junk cascade could take out all satellites and make space inaccessible for hundreds of years, we can wonder what the immediate threat would be to aircraft, as space junk falls to Earth at high velocity.

    Let’s not talk about the threat to cows being hit by space debris.

    Our insurance cover includes a provision against our house being hit by space debris.

    Anyone wishing to invest in survival insurance now have a chance to collaborate globally and act locally to do something about it.

    It’s not just asteroids that are Nature’s way of asking: “How’s that space program coming along?”

    Silver bullet thinking focuses on one problem alone, such as the Earth alone.

    Survival in this dangerous old Universe we live in requires whole system thinking, which must include the Solar System as a whole and even threats that may arrive from deep space, such as a planet that long ago was thrown out of its star system and has been flying through deep space. I read that there are as many lone planets as there are stars and at least one has been detected directly.

    Such a planet drawn toward the Sun by gravity and flying through the Solar System, would disturb the orbits of millions go objects, such as large asteroids and comets, that could then present a threat to Earth that wasn’t there before.

    When the real basic survival threat is taken on board, then we can also get into the more technical scientific evaluations, such as how sea level rise could be an unexpectedly rapid event. So far, scientists cannot warn us about the speed of sea level rise, but it could pay an insurance dividend to prepare for the worst.

    Then there is the warning from deep time, when sulphur bugs bloomed 252 million years ago and released toxic hydrogen sulphide gas, which is hard to detect but kills life swiftly and in large volume, will damage the ozone layer, letting in lethal levels of radiation.

    If we wait for proof of events that have historic precedence, then we can be left vulnerable when the threat arrives. Survival insurance requires precautionary action.

    That first little piggy hoped for the best and that second little piggy tried a little harder, but it was the wiser third pig that saved the others and dealt, the wolf problem and provided a meal.

    Could we be as wise as the third little piggy and survive any threat, on or off third rock?

    Delay can be just as big a threat to survival as inaction through ignorance or denial.

    Kim Peart

  110. Garry Stannus

    May 6, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Anne, in her comment #1, suggested the halcyon days of the sixties … 1967. We were in a cocooned little world then, weren’t we! Magnanimously, we’d just decided that the first peoples of this country, the aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, would no longer be counted as ‘flora and fauna’, but instead were to be regarded as people, just like ourselves. It took a referendum to decide to do this … so the seeds were set for the end of the spurious doctrine of ‘terra nullius’… and then Eddie Mabo forced us (via the High Court) to admit that aboriginal/indigenous peoples had land rights predating the invasion of their lands. Unfortunately, Paul Keating, in his rush to legislation to give effect to this HC judgement, established that native title had survived (given certain conditions) and that the Australian Govt/Courts were the ‘legitimate’ bodies to determine whether aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders still had title of those lands that they occupied. In effect, in my opinion, Keating’s Mabo legislation reimposed the right of an invader to decide whether or not the first peoples had land rights. Again, the decision was in the hands – not of the first peoples – but of us, the usurpers. Then Howard got in and with more legislation, began undoing what good there was in the Mabo legislation by (for example) extending land rights to graziers.

    Sorry for that digression, but it is customary now, isn’t it, in public fora, to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land, and then, having got that out of the way, to move onto the ‘real business’. Let me now respond more closely to Anne’s comment:

    Yes, prior to the time that Anne has mentioned, a ‘world trip’ was something that people might take after they had retired, and if they had the dough for it. Interstate travel was not a weekly event and people didn’t hop a plane to watch Hawthorn play. There was the VFL, but no AFL. Going to Kardinia Park was a ‘big thing’. Yes we did have less possessions, and in my neck of the woods, it was still only the dads who had a car, and who drove – before that, in the fifties, virtually no-one in my street had a car, and we used to play cricket, tennis, footy etc without inhibition on the road, with a wooden fruit box for stumps, a dodgy old tennis ball with no felt left on it, and a rolled/folded copy of the Herald or the Sun tied with string to kick ‘end to end’. But our lives were changing, Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Vietnam. Punched-card computers were giving way to more modern forms. America’s relentless technological and economic growth gave us Honeywell who gave us many good things, including cluster bombs, guided missiles, napalm and land-mines [Wiki].

  111. Garry Stannus

    May 6, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Can I give a list of other comments which resonated with me?
    phill Parson’s (#3) “Individual and collective action cannot be divorced. Alone neither will change anything. We all have to change but so does society.”

    Chris Harries’ (#5) “Secondary denial (knowing but not acting) is more harmful than is primary denial (denying the problem)”

    Peter’s (#5) “consumption taxes and import tariffs”

    Karl Stevens’ (#8) “As atmospheric CO2 increased so did global debt, food allergies and kids on the autism spectrum. Let’s de-compartmentalise our thinking and mix-up these elements?”

    Mike Bolan’s (#11) “Note that over time, it is communities that survive rather than isolated individuals”

    John Coombes (#20) “nations of the free world, in response to the outbreak of WW2, completely and rapidly reorganised their economies and societies to deal with the very real threat to their existence”

    Chris Harries’ (#26) “Most citizens want to have their cake and eat it too. Put up solar panels and fly off on jet setting holidays and feel good about it”

    Keith Antonysen’s (#32) “On 10th July 1912 a very short newspaper article expressed concern about the impact of coal emissions; the title of the article is Coal Consumption Affecting Climate […]” Whether man created it or otherwise, we need to be mitigating and adapting to a changing climate

    Chris Sharples (#38) “Sea-level rose at an average of about 1 mm year over the whole 20th Century. That’s averaged over the whole century. However since around 1990 the average rate of sea-level rise has been close to 3mm per year.  In other words its accelerating.  That’s the problem. Get it?”

    Steve’s (#60) “#57; Many thanks for that Rod. Making the effort is much appreciated. I’m quite familiar with that particular building so your photos are of great interest, however I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, as I have seen the water across the path and lapping at the base of the building”

    Keith Antonysen (#87) “The axis of our planet has just shifted, said to be caused by loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, the Gulf Stream appears to be slowing.”

    Chris Harries (#98) “The energy debate has to be tempered by an across the board, systemic approach to the human predicament. There are far too many earnest people devising novel ways to power up rather than power down”

    Chris Harries (#) “I beg to differ, believing that our fundamental societal value system, underpinned by the growth ethic, is flawed.”

    and finally (for the time being?),

    Chris Harries (#105) “Press the accelerator but never the brake, I think you are saying, Kim. Enjoy the ride. :)”

  112. Kim Peart

    May 6, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    The current wildfires in Canada are being attributed to climate change ~

    The devil is in the details, but the tragedy has seen a city evacuated and who knows yet how much of it lost to wildfire.

    We can but wonder what will happen if the 1967 fires are repeated in Tasmania, which reached the suburbs of Hobart and danced along the hills above Howrah.

    It was a little unreal, on the first day of the year back at Clarence High, to be asked to walk home along the beach.

    We have created a very dangerous present and future.

    I find it disturbing to read of reaction to the problem in the article, rather than planning beyond the crisis.

    It is also disturbing that there is no serious addressing of the need for the extraction of excess carbon in the air, which is driving the problem.

    It saddens me to see the root cause of the problem and how it could have been avoided.

    It also saddens me to see reaction to the problem, without addressing what must happen to fix it.

    Energy transition to the power of the Sun would have avoided the climate change catastrophe.

    Now energy transition to the Sun has to be at such a level, that atmospheric CO2 can be brought down below 350 ppm, now passing 400, and kept there.

    How that can be achieved needs to be the debate of fire we have to have.

    The harsh mistress of survival offers no free trips.

    Kim Peart

  113. davies

    May 9, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    I thought I would provide plenty of time for people to come forward to support McKibben’s assertion that 98% of scientists think climate change is happening much much faster than thought possible and it is caused by human activity.

    And the consensus on here is obviously no support for it being 98% of scientists. Got one reply suggesting it is not happening slower than predicted but rather is on pace. So no one supporting the much much faster scenario. And no replies supporting human activity is THE cause of climate change.

    So if no one here believed what McKibben was saying why did no one pick him up on it?

    I asked in this thread for the consensus position. E.g the one that supposedly 97% of climate scientists agree with and those that don’t get ridiculed etc. Again, one response only, and that was to cut and paste 12 different consensus positions! Well at least they tried. I can only presume the rest of you do not know the consensus position, yet it does not seem to stop the name-calling.

    I mentioned that people have lost their jobs, been threatened with jail etc for merely being skeptical of big climate alarmism. I thought this was well known, but Apparently, that is news for some of you and they wanted proof. Well climategate emails are a good place to start. Nothing like knowing the motivations of second rate activists…I mean scientists. But here are some specific examples:

    Twenty scientists wrote to Obama to demand that the RICO anti-racketeering laws be used against those who dissent from the climate alarmism. I think it is a 10 year jail sentence under this law…Interestingly, the chief scientist, Jagadish Shukla, has been paid millions of dollars of government grants both through salaries and control of a not for profit group which he controls. Apparently, he is now under investigation…

    France’s chief weather man , Mr Verbier, was sacked after he published a book critical of climate alarmism.

    Raul Grijalva, Democrat representative from Arizona is targetting seven private citizens because they disagree with climate alarmism. A congressional investigation is no small thing. And who are the seven? Robert Balling, John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Hayward, David Legates, Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke Jr. Do the climate alarmists on here wish to list seven scientists to match those seven?

    When Lennart Bengtsson, a distinguished climatologist, joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a skeptic) scientific advisory board, the pressure was so unbearable that he withdrew, worried about his health and safety. Roger Pielke had to quit Nate Silver’s 538 website following a similar campaign against him.

    And let’s not forget the disgraceful and continuing attacks on the leading female climate scientist Judith Curry. But is it sexist when the recipient doesn’t agree with your position?

    Finally, I query the supposed wish to cut back on consumption and for all to live a simpler life. If you truly believed that is the way to go to save the planet from excessive amounts of carbon dioxide then why do you support political parties, Greens in particular, that encourage continued growth and consumption? If you want to cut back on consumption and growth at all costs, then why does no one here support measures that try to make governments, and hence citizens, to live within their means? In fact we see the opposite, support for stimulus measures that are designed to keep aggregate demand up.

    Is this just more picking sides rather than adhering to principles?

  114. Chris Sharples

    May 9, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    #113 davies (who-ever you are, there’s a lot of ‘davies’ around), the reason you got so few responses is most people are sick of arguing with you because you trot out the same tired old denier chestnuts that have been refuted a thousand times before, you cherry-pick the evidence and never acknowledge that fact, you very obviously have little understanding of science yet think you know better about climate than scientists who have spent their whole lives studying these issues, you blow contrived non-issues like ‘climate-gate’ out of all reasonable proportion – and then you ask silly questions like “what is the consensus everybody is talking about?” If you cant work out the answer to that then there’s no point discussing it with you.

    And if you are capable of making a statement as blatantly wrong as “why do you support political parties, Greens in particular, that encourage continued growth and consumption?” then its clearly a waste of time trying to communicate with you. (The transition to a non-growth steady-state economy is fundamental to Greens policy after all.)

    You’ve had your fun egging people on with your nonsense, I for one wont bother responding to you in future.

  115. Chris Harries

    May 9, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    Just wondering if you bother to put on a seat belt when you drive somewhere, Davies.

    Not accepting the Precautionary Principle I don’t suppose that you would.

    Most scientists would posit a link between driving and car accidents – though I’m sure you could find one or two that would deny it. On that issue I would go for the majority of opinion, simply because it sounds much more plausible than the alternative.

  116. Kim Peart

    May 9, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    Re 113 ~ Why fight facts in science, when survival is the main game?

    This is our simple choice: ignore facts and risk extinction, or deal with facts and secure survival, as well as a healthy Earth.

    On Earth we have to live within limits, but the facts about limits have been long ignored.

    It would be good if every graduate on Earth was obliged to obtain a certificate of starship Earth management, to properly understand how to care for the life-support systems of this planet.

    Beyond Earth there are no limits to growth and that is where we should now be, taking the pressure off the home planet.

    The root cause of all environmental trouble on Earth is the primal force for expansion in the Universe, expressed through evolution and human progress, but by seeking to do all we want on Earth, we have made the planet into a pressure cooker and its gunna blow, delivering death.

    Mum used to say “You can’t stop progress” but we sure have, because we failed to see that human progress was an expression of Nature, that must be released beyond Earth, or we are playing dice with the devil.

    Time for anyone who loves this Earth to mobilise globally via the Internet to plan local action to demand energy transition, from fossil fuel on Earth to the Sun in space.

    Fossil fuels should be saved for more value added uses.

    I am hopeful that a key number of people on Earth, even in Tasmania, will wake up in time, connect all the dots and act on human survival.

    Survival is one of the basic drivers of evolution toward greater diversity, but survival is a harsh mistress, where failure leads to extinction.

    Investing in cosmic survival needs to be seen as a basic necessity, if we wish to be part of the pageant of life.

    At our stage in human evolution, we can seek to offer our children a future among the stars, or risk a fate in the fossil record of Earth.

    What future will we choose?

  117. Keith Antonysen

    May 10, 2016 at 1:26 am

    No 13, davies

    Powell through his research in 2013 and 2014 suggested that 99% of climate scientists believed in anthropomorphic climate change. There have been a number of studies that have suggested that 97% of scientists agree with the consensus view.

    The environment tells the story.

    Greenland and the Arctic generally are in a mess. It is highly likely for the 2012 of a record low level of sea ice extent will be broken in September 2016.

    How do deniers explain land subsistence due to permafrost thawing?
    Buildings and roads are being destroyed or damaged as a result.
    It is a signal of continual high temperature.

    Prior to the latest early wild fires at Fort McMurray there had already been wildfires at Fort St. John. While the terrible fire was happening at Fort Mc Murray British Columbia was also hit by wildfires. It must be stressed these fires are extremely early.
    There had been significant fires in 2015 in the Northern Hemisphere.
    Temperature has been an issue in the Arctic and sub Arctic for some years.

    How many more rain bombs have to be experienced before deniers start to say there appears to be something going on here?

    What deniers would have us believe is that NASA which has placed men on the moon, sent a capsule beyond Pluto, has landed a capsule on an asteroid; but they are wrong about what happens in Earth’s atmosphere.

    Modelling is used to obtain inferred temperature from satellites, the modelling is now up to Mark 6. Suddenly the modelling is showing an increase in temperature.

    Most of the Great Barrier Reef has been impacted by warm waters; some of it will recover, it is a waiting game to ascertain exactly how much will recover.

    Tasmania has had troubles with lack of water resources, check out Venezuela in relation to hydro power. India and several South East Asian countries have been impacted by lack of water and high temperature.

    On the news just lately is that people have had to leave 5 Solomon Islands due to sea level rise inundating them.

    So, davies when so much has been going on for decades with extreme situations, your comments about 98% of climate scientists being a wrong figure matters not a jot.

    Currently there are several millions of people around the planet who are at risk in relation to lack of water and lack of food supplies.

  118. Kim Peart

    May 10, 2016 at 3:56 am

    Re: 114 & 115 ~ Climate change denial is given fuel to burn when all facts are not being told: when the brutal truth is withheld.

    On 6 May the atmospheric CO2 level at Cape Grim was recored at 399.9 parts per million (ppm) and will pass 400 any day now: the actual day will be figured out later ~

    The observations say ~ “”It would take a lot of emissions reductions – and probably negative emissions for some period, decades – before we see CO2 reduce in concentration,” he said. Research to be published soon by CSIRO has shown the ocean would act against any drop in atmospheric CO2. The seas would likely give back some of the extra CO2 it has absorbed – as it did during the “Little Ice Age” during the middle ages – delaying any drop in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he said.”

    But critical information is left out.

    One ~ Earth’s temperature rise is currently at 1.5C, but when the fiorcing effect of CO2 in the air at 400 ppm is taken into account, the planet is now locked into 2C rise, to begin with.

    TWO ~ A warmer planet is already causing further release of greenhouse gases from the Earth in places like a fast warming Arctic region, with melting permafrost and dissolving ocean floor methane hydrates. The wildfires in Canada are part of this process. The consequence will be the driving up of atmospheric CO2 and Earth’s temperature rise ~ to how far above 2C? I fear we are gazing at a minimum of 6C, which will create hell on Earth far worse than the Canadian wildfires.

    As the wise haggle over current observations, the root cause and real solution to Earth change is left out, amounting to a deeper level of denial, which is far more dangerous.

    I want to know what the plan is to win back a safe Earth, getting CO2 in the air below 350 ppm.

    The focus needs to be on that plan, as in a vacuum of hope, the brutal truth is being avoided.

    The stage is set for uncontrolled Earth change, with Hansen telling us that we are gunning toward turning third rock into a second Venus.

    Lovelock tells us that change to a permanently hotter Earth can be triggered and happen swiftly.

    To understand the root cause we have to go deeper than evolution, to appreciate the force for expansion in the Universe, that drives evolution and by extension, human progress.

    When these facts are faced, then we can see how killer Earth change could have been avoided, not by being good on Earth, but by reaching beyond Earth to initiate energy transition by building solar power stations in space.

    The brutal truth of the solution to our carbon crisis, is that the neglected prevention, which became possible in the 1970s as CO2 was gunning for 350 ppm, is now the solution.

    If honesty can be let out of the closet, then anyone interested can gear up and get to work on a global campaign to fight back a safe Earth and help assure human survival in a very dangerous old Universe.

    Applying the brake is suicide, as it would have been in the 1970s, because of the deeper forcing of expansion in Nature.

    Only by applying the accellerator beyond Earth, can we hope to be effective in applying the brake on Earth.

    Inaction or partial action is simple membership of a suicidal death cult.

    If we love life, if we love our children, if we love the Earth, we have one hell of a fight on our hands, and it will not be won on Earth alone.

    The Earth-alone option is a silver bullet for suicide.

    If we accept the challenge of survival in the race of evolution, then we can accept that survival is a harsh mistress, where failure is extinction.

    Those without a fire in their heart for survival can fiddle with words as the planet burns.

    We really need to hear the full orchestra playing the survival symphony.

    How else to inspire survival level action?

    Kim Peart

  119. daives

    May 15, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Well that was your last chance. It is official the McKibben statement that 98% of all scientists agree that climate change is happening much much faster than thought possible and that this is caused by human activity is NOT supported by anyone here.

    Apparently the consensus position on climate change is soooo obvious that no one actually needs to write it down. Just questioning the consensus is enough for #114 to no longer reply to my comments. Of course #114 is free to do what they wish and if their preference is to only reply to those that already agree with them then I guess their‘safe space’ can remain intact for another day. Personally, I much prefer questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned.

    I am accused of cherry-picking by people who see no problem with just 79 responders being chosen from over 3140 in order to get that magical 97% figure.

    I am told that climategate has been exaggerated! Yet it was the last straw for one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, Judith Curry, to start questioning the thuggish tactics of big climate alarmists and why those tactics were even necessary when the science was already supposedly settled.

    Yet, for some reason, most people here seem quite happy to support these ‘scientists’, even when they falsely claim to be a Nobel Prize recipient. I prefer to side with scientists that have integrity. And that means I can change my mind on climate change which is something most here will be totally incapable of. If Richard Lindzen, Pielke, Steven Hayward, David Legates, Judith Curry, and John Christy (and others) start saying climate change is dangerous and it is mostly caused by human activity then I will take note.

    In the meantime, thugs will do what thugs usually do and the social justice warriors will cheer them on because picking sides always overrides having principles.

  120. davies

    May 15, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    #14 If the Greens truly wish for no growth, why do they heartily support Keynesian economics? The only economists the Greens mention and support are Keynesians. In particular, they support the work of Paul Klugman who thinks we should be creating and spending way more money than we currently are. He even wants a fake alien invasion to justify the spending!

    So how can the Greens support no growth when they support an economic theory that has as its essential belief that aggregate demand must be maintained. This is a growth at all costs model which apparently the Greens despise.

    This is a significant disconnect between what the Greens say on the economy and what they actually support. When you support Keynesian economics, tax rises, and higher levels of government spending you are not supporting ‘No Growth’.

  121. William Boeder

    May 16, 2016 at 5:52 am

    Davies, forget your lambasting of the Greens party, try and get your mind around to the threat as to whether the World can sustain the obscene proliferation of America’s military killing designs, then for the whole of the World to feed their greed besotted desires to control and then aim to destroy the World and its once paradise beckoning futures.

  122. Kim Peart

    May 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    Re: 119 ~ Atmospheric CO2 has just been officially recorded at 400 parts per million, which will further warm the Earth.

    The warming caused by increasing the Earth’s greenhouse effect is observed in the Arctic region, which is now the fastest warming place on Earth. Will the ice be gone from the Arctic Ocean completely this summer? If that happens, we will read about it in the news. Is it alarmist to read the news? Past predictions of Earth changes are now the news.

    Denial of the news will be a new phenomenon. Some will deny the bleeding obvious. That is their sport, but it doesn’t have to be our truth. Because the Arctic region is getting hotter, Spring arrives sooner, which is bad news for one species of migratory bird, when the chicks hatch after the main insect tucker is about. As a consequence, the birds are small, fewer survive and those that do, have shorter beaks that cannot reach the tucker in the sand where they migrate too, forcing them onto a vegetarian diet. This is how cause and effect works, even into extinction as the Earth changes too fast for many species, directly due to rising levels of CO2 in the air.

    The main question has to be ~ exactly what is the plan to deal with the carbon crisis. For that migratory bird, it is now a survival crisis. How long before we find that it’s a survival crisis for us too.? From just reading the news, if we are not alarmed, we would have to be stark raving mad.

  123. Chris Harries

    May 16, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Well, Matt (119), you can wait until a few notable deniers change their minds, or you can wait until there’s no need for evidence any more. At which point we’ll have to forgive you.

    I often wonder whether those who advocate against climate change action experience moments of qualm – thinking “What if I’ve been wrong all along and my life long legacy is that of an accomplice to a great human tragedy? How then could live with myself?”

    Or does absolute certainty rule out any such misgivings?

    It’s an honest question, I am genuinely interested and would like to put it by other deniers too, if I can find any. They’ve become a bit scarce of late.

  124. Keith Antonysen

    May 16, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    No 119, davies, the US Navy predicted in 2013 that 2016 could be a year when sea ice in the Arctic completely has melted for a limited time. They stated it was a remote possibility; yet, presently there is a chance of that happening. Satellite photos of the state of the Arctic Ocean suggest that it is within the realms of possibility; the opinion arising from observed data (satellite photos).

    Your question about the level of consensus is but a mere aside in comparison to the import of what is happening in the Arctic and sub Arctic at present. The level of sea ice is at a record low level for the time period, most multi year ice has been lost; if there is no ice free period; then, it is highly likely that the 2012 low sea ice level record will be broken anyway.

    The fires at Fort McMurray have flared up again and other Canadian Provinces are being hit by wildfires as well. The fire season has begun very early.

    Meanwhile, Venezuela is having to severely restrict energy consumption as their hydro system lacks water resources.
    Chile has been impacted by a red tide of pathogenic algae killing numerous marine species at an unprecedented rate.

    Fossil fuel companies have been hiding the fact that their science of decades ago showed that their product had an impact on climate.
    A number of US State Attorneys are investigating these unravellings at present.

    Dr Christy is an interesting inclusion in your list of skeptical scientists; he and Dr Spencer are closely involved with modelling the inferred temperature from satellites. They are up to model Mark 6; I think, and are finding that satellite inferred temperature is showing a jump in temperature.

    Should more exploded pingoes be found in Siberia in a couple of months, you need to be an absolute imbecile not to take notice of what is happening with a changing climate.

    By the way, Powell et al in 2013 and 2014 reviewed 24,000 peer reviewed papers published in journals, only a handful were by skeptical scientists. There were well over 30,000 authors involved.
    It matters not whether it is 90% of climate scientists who believe in consensus, 95%, 98%, 99+%, or the 97% which most research suggests.

    There are no peak scientific bodies that have a skeptical view towards a changing climate.

  125. Kim Peart

    May 16, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    As the age of the climate change sceptic sets in the west, high in the sky are the climate solution sceptics, who haven’t yet delved into the size of the carbon crisis problem and appreciated just what it will take to win back a safe Earth.

    Rising in the east is the brutal truth that with CO2 in the air passing 400 ppm, the Earth is set for a 2C temperature rise, to begin with. This is from Hansen’s findings, which the 1.5C limit came from in Paris last December.

    On this path, with the only action in town cutting back on the burning of fossil fuel and limiting cow farts, I fear we are looking toward a 6C and more hotter world, which will make the planet very dangerous and destabilise nations, leading to conflict that in our world, could all too easily slide toward nuclear madness.

    Is there a plan to win back a safe Earth, one that covers all the overlapping problems? If we can first agree on the size of the problem, then we can get serious about a plan to deal with it. Has anyone got a plan?

  126. davies

    May 16, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    # 123 You seem to think we skeptics are scarce? Yet there is another thread on this site where everyone is rejoicing in the fact that they are a skeptic and how important it is to remain skepitcal.

    Just for the record, the last CSIRO survey I have seen showed 46% agreed with the IPCC statement that human activities are a major contributor to climate change. So where does that leave the majority of 54% including 25% that identified as Green. A large survey done in the US late last year had only 3% of the responders seeing climate as the main threat to society. Another recent survey has showed a significant drop in the number of people that identify as an environmentalist from 1989 to now. In 1989 around 77% of Republicans and Democrats self-identified as an environmentalist. Now that figure is 27% for Republicans and 56% for Democrats.

    I am not certain that I am right and neither should you be. But the evidence you provide is not very compelling, especially considering the cost you want to impose upon Australia and other western countries.

    Any side that tries to impose it’s viewpoint by shutting down debate and threatening to jail and humiliate the dissenters is a side with a very weak case. And it is weak because you have basically ignored natural climate variability.

    A recent paper by Dr Carly Tozer showed how important natural climate variability is, and how neglected it is with the current doom-laden scenarios spouted around here. Basically the paper indicated that over a 1000 year period droughts have lasted longer and flooding has been more severe than current records. You cannot blame CO2 so what did influence the climate?

    Also of great interest, I came across a paper done in 1954 (Chapman et al) that showed the CO2 concentrations over time over an acre of corn. It showed, in windless conditions, that CO2 concentrations build up each night as CO2 diffuses from higher air and the organic matter and bacteria create CO2 from the soil. The CO2 level would rise to 410ppm overnight but as soon as the sun came up the plants rapidly draw down as much CO2 as possible. By late morning the CO2 concentration had dropped to 210ppm.

    Fascinating stuff. And since 1982, we have an extra 18 million square kilometres of greenery sucking up all the CO2 it can find.

    #124 You said “There are no peak scientific bodies that have a skeptical view towards a changing climate.” And nor there should be as everyone I know agrees climate changes. Your sentence is typical of the shoddy and inaccurate wording used by alarmists to try and prove the superiority of their position. Like McKibben saying all scientists instead of climate scientists the basic mistakes that are made both distract and lessen whatever else you may say on the subject.

    John Christy has been pointing out a pause in the global temps over the last 18 years. Now, with a large El Nino event in play, global temperatures may have recently risen and all of a sudden you feel comfortable in quoting him.

    The agreed consensus opinion is vitally important. What exactly are 97% of climate scientists agreeing too? It is telling that none of you, bar one who provided 12 consensi, has even attempted to spell out the consensus.

    Do you not know it or do you realise that these surveys you love to quote have all used different interpretations of what the consensus means.

    And whilst on your favourite survey (Powell), were there any papers, with a dissenting opinion, from Christy, Spencer, Curry, Lindzen, Legates, Pielke or Soon? If not, why not? And this Powell guy, is he a climate scientist or have a background in science?

  127. Keith Antonysen

    May 17, 2016 at 1:46 am

    No 124, davies; the current measure of interaction between CO2 and other greenhouse gases with IR creates 2.974 Watts per square meter. Which clearly creates an incredible amount of energy over equilibrium ( remember the ARM 11 year study).

    Arnie Schwarzenegger suggested that it is leading nowhere to argue whether man is causing a change in climate or not; he argues we need to adapt and mitigate regardless.


    In relation to Powell; davies, I was just pointing out how pedantic you are in scoffing at McKibben.

    There is consiliencein relation to nature showing an increase in temperature as displayed by:

    More recent Iditarod dog sled races impacted by lack of snow especially over last decade, glaciers are regressing, thermokarst breakdown in Polar areas, pingoes exploding, wildfire season extending, breakdown of ice sheets, disease vectors changing, drought, rain bombs, marine species moving North and South of the Equator, coral reefs dying off; South Eastern Coastal States in the US are experiencing flooding along sea side communities even though there has not been the associated weather patterns to create flooding, we are still waiting to see how much the GBR has been impacted.

    Carbon has been sequestered over millions of years; we release that carbon in a few moments in geological terms; commonsense suggests to me that when the atmosphere gets flooded with CO2 that there is going to be an impact. On top of that we have the consilience factors above.

  128. Kim Peart

    May 17, 2016 at 5:40 am

    Like the atomic bomb that obliterated Hiroshima, science is an effective way to figure things out.

    The same science has been used to figure out the impact of raising carbon levels in the biosphere.

    The only question in town now, is exactly what must be done to get the carbon balance back under control.

    How will we win back a safe Earth?

    What is the plan?

  129. Kim Peart

    May 17, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    Following are extracts from a report today in the Sydney Morning Herald, that spell out some of the details of how we aint seen nothin yet. Fasten the seatbelt and prepare for a wild future as the Earth goes quite mad. We really do need a plan to win back a safe Earth ~ ASAP. ~ Anyone got a plan? We will also need to look to some basic survival preparation. Life kind of hinges on survival.

    ‘When should we worry about climate change?’
    Peter Hannam, 18 May 2016, Sydney Morning Herald

    “News that Tasmania’s Cape Grim weather site had recorded its first baseline reading of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide sparked some debate over the meaning of the milestone. As we noted ahead of the declaration of the first recording of 400ppm in the southern hemisphere, the primary greenhouse gas increase carried not much more global warming significance than, say, 399 or 401 ppm. But as with other markers – such as Australia’s foreign debt passing a $1 trillion – the 400 ppm tally helps focus our attention.”

    “By that gauge, when the temperature increase breaks past the 1.5 degrees warming – perhaps in coming months before the El Nino in the Pacific fully stops giving back heat to the atmosphere – will be sufficiently concerned then to act? Climate scientists, such as Professor Karoly, know globally warming limits agreed at international summits to prevent dangerous climate change – such as 1.5-2 degrees range agreed in Paris – are arbitrary in a similar way to 400 ppm. “You’d be hard-pressed to find scientists agreeing that 1.5 degrees would be manageable for our reef,” he said. “Look at what’s happening to the reef this year – and that’s with 1 degree warming.””

    “As Fairfax Media noted back in late 2014, a long-lived climate phenomenon named the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, has begun to switch to its positive phase. In fact, climate experts have in the past few days detected it hitting a new high. Such a PDO switch – it is an 11-year rolling average – would indicate oceans will become less of a sink for the planet’s surplus heat – and may even give more of it back to the atmosphere. That means global conditions will favour more El Nino events but also when La Ninas come, they will tend to be more extreme. For Australia that could mean more severe tropical cyclones, although parched inland regions may get some rainfall relief. A PDO switch, however, would likely see an acceleration in global temperature increases, with all the unpleasant outcomes for corals, glacier melting and disappearing Arctic sea ice. In other words, we could soon have a lot more to worry about.”

  130. Keith Antonysen

    May 17, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    At No 126, davies wrote …”Now, with a large El Nino event in play….”

    El Nino events happen as a result of the temperature of Equatorial Ocean waters; prior to the El Nino, which now is dissipating, Ocean waters had been at record levels. Of interest is that during 2014-2015 it appeared that an El Nino would develop, it did not happen; what it did show was the warmth of Equatorial Ocean waters. That is, it displayed the nonsense that temperatures had not been rising constantly put out by deniers. Due to the sheer volume of Oceans they do not warm as quickly as land mass.

    The wildfires at Fort McMurray have flared up again meaning that residents are not able to move back. Temperature is being recorded as being high at present, forecasts hold little relief. Temperature in sub Arctic and Arctic Regions have been high over number of years.

    Huge wildfires are now being picked up by satellites in Siberia.


    Firies tell us that fire seasons begin earlier, the fire season lasts longer, and the fires are more intense.

  131. Kim Peart

    May 18, 2016 at 11:51 am

    Past science echos in today’s news, with a report on the Totten Glacier near Casey Station in East Antarctica. Like the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Totten is getting eaten away by warmer ocean water working its way underneath. An earlier report described a process of channelling, where the warmer water works its way up into the ice to create a channel and when an upward warming channel meets with a downward drifting crevasse, watch out. This is how the Totten and the WAIS could collapse faster than now imagined, and hoped, delivering 5 metres and more sea level rise. In the Arctic, the Greenland Ice Sheet hugs 7 metres potential sea level rise, but with ash from the Canadian wildfires settling on the ice, which are still raging in a hot northern spring and where the Arctic air is now warmer than at the South Pole, we can but wonder how much ice will drain into the sea and how soon. We would only need the first half metre from all three ice sheets to redraw the map of Hobart and make a dam across the Tamar River look like a damn good idea.

    ‘Climate change could trigger ‘tipping point’ for East Antarctic Totten Glacier’
    Anna Salleh, 19 May 2016, ABC Science Online

    “The Totten Glacier in East Antarctica has an unstable area that could collapse and contribute to more than two metres of sea level rise beyond what is generally predicted if climate change remains unchecked, researchers say. East Antarctica is the world’s largest area of ice and, until recently, was thought to be more stable than the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet. The Totten Glacier, in particular, has rapidly become recognised as the most vulnerable of all the East Antarctic glaciers, with its floating ice shelf already in retreat. “While traditional models haven’t suggested this glacier can collapse, more recent models have,” said Dr Alan Aitken of the University of Western Australia, co-author of a new study published today in the journal Nature. Dr Aitken and colleagues have carried out the first study to analyse the stability of the Totten Glacier’s ice sheet. “We confirm that collapse has happened in the past, and is likely to happen again if we pass a tipping point, which would occur if we had between 3 and 6 degrees of warming above present.””

    It would still be rather cool to have a plan that could halt the march of the heat, but it would have to be pretty good and fast, with 400 ppm CO2 in the air enough to force temperature rise up to 2C, to begin with. Current innaction may simply deliver a 6C plus future, which will release hell on Earth.

    The next alarmist announcement from the Earth, will be when the temperature rise clocks on at 2C. How soon? The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is about to release heat from the ocean into the air over the next decade. Watch the news.

  132. Chris Harries

    May 18, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Matt (#126), since you didn’t reply I’ll ask again.

    Do you ever experience moments of qualm – thinking “What if I’ve been wrong all along and my life long legacy is that of an accomplice to a great human tragedy? How then could live with myself?”

    This question becomes even more poignant since you claim not to be certain about your position.

    I’m very interested in the pathology of climate denial.

  133. Kim Peart

    May 18, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    For anyone with a factual eye on this planet’s current temerature rise, they may have noticed how the spectre of Tony Abbott’s “bullshit” views on global warming and climate change now haunt the current election campaign, with Earth change matters still largely hidden in the policy closet. Greg Jericho seeks to bring some carbon and climate facts onto the campaign trail. If Australian politicians have a plan to actually win back a safe Earth, it would be so nice to know what it is. For now, the brutal truth waits in the wings of the fantasy stage, that mascarades as the political reality we must have, even if it kills us, flattens the stage and wrecks the planet. When will the voters of Australia begin electing representatives that have stepped out of the shadows of fantasy and are leading the people into the reality of that which must be done. It would also help to define exactly what “that which must be done” is. As the facts in the article show, its getting increasingly harder to predict just how harsh Earth change will get, as Earth change gets increasingly harsh. Politicians really hate that kind of thing, preferring a calm electoral sea, but the truth about the looming storm is out there and we need to get ready.

    ‘Climate policy silence: Can’t our leaders handle the heat?’
    Greg Jericho, 19 May 2016, The DRUM ABC Online

    “On Monday, NASA announced that April this year was the hottest April on record, marking the seventh month in a row the monthly record had been broken, and the third month in a row of the record being broken by a record amount.”

    “The temperature for April was 0.24C above the previous record for April set in 2010 and coming after records in January, February and March. We have now had the warmest start to a year on record by a very long way. The average global land-sea surface temperature for the first four months of this year was 1.12C above the 1951-1980 average. It is a jump that looks absurdly large on a temperature graph – even one that goes back to 1880:”

    “So clear is the evidence now on temperatures rising, that to say that the world isn’t warming requires a level of ignorance so brutally departed from reality that the polite thing would be to at least include mentions of dragons, white walkers and the kingdom of Westeros in your fantasy tale to give it some interest. Climate change deniers still futilely hold to the view that the world hasn’t warmed since 1998 and yet had we in 1998 thought to forecast ahead to 2016 based on what had occurred over the previous 30 years, we still would have undersold just how much the world would warm.”

    “On the Friday after the budget the Department of Environment released the latest quarterly update on our nation greenhouse gas emissions. It showed that for the sixth quarter in a row, annual electricity emissions had risen. The rise began when the carbon price was removed in the middle of 2014. Must be a coincidence, I guess.”

    “But at least while this nothing of a policy debate occurs we can all sit back and enjoy watching the temperature records fall and note as well that record levels of carbon dioxide are being measured in the southern hemisphere. Surely just another coincidence.”

  134. Kim Peart

    May 18, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Re: 132 ~ What is the plan to win back a safe Earth?

    James Hansen observes that 400 ppm CO2 in the air will force the planet’s temperature rise to 2C, to begin with, but he also claims that 2C will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect.

    The reports offered above show that the scene is now set for the 2C event and it could be in this decade.

    These details being accepted, any plan has to get quite serious quite swiftly.

    If survival matters and offering a future for Earth’s children is wanted, then the plan will need to get very personal, along with the action.

    Poking sticks into those living in the fantasy of denial will not deliver a map or guide book to show the way back to a safe Earth.

    What is the plan?

  135. Keith Antonysen

    May 18, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    No 133, Kim, record CO2 levels are also being recorded at the Mauna Loa Station at Hawaii, should the measures continue at the same pace as are presently being recorded; then, in 10 -12 years 450ppm of CO2 will be recorded.

    Currently, 2.974 Watts/square meter are being created by a number of greenhouse gases through radiative forcing with CO2.
    How many billion square meters are involved?


    Satellite temperature has shown quite a jump for April 2016 as measured by Dr Christy and Dr Spencer. Now that they are up to Version 6 in interpreting slabs of temperature through their modelling.

  136. Kim Peart

    May 18, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    Re: 135 ~ Do you have a plan to win back a safe Earth.

    I have searched the literature and asked armies of scientists and none can tell me about a plan that will with absolute certainty deliver a safe Earth.

    There is plenty of hedging the bets, but that usually focuses on one problem, or set of problems, rather than taking on the whole Earth system, including the difficult dynamics of geopolitics.

    I wonder if a large part of the problem we face is the tendency to strict, virtually religious in nature, specialisation in science.

    Hansen complains about reticence in science being a serious problem when it comes to getting on with the actual work of winning back a safe Earth.

    Will the world talk itself to death in suicide by peer review, or wake up and get decisive with a path of action?

    If a monster asteroid were to be heading for Earth and we had ten years to save ourselves, we would be up in space faster than you could say “dimity cricket” with solar power stations and industry to build a shield for home planet.

    A spinoff would be gaining access to the power of the Sun to extract excess carbon from the air to turn the tide on global warming and Earth change.

    I live in hope that good people on Earth will wake up and demand action.

    Should anyone be interested in a weekly meeting in Second Life, to get the ball rolling, love to hear from you ~ kimpeart@iinet.net.au

    Words are power and we can use the power of words to inspire action.

    If we have a plan that is inspiring , that will be half the battle won.

  137. Kim Peart

    May 19, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    James Lovelock warns of rapid change on Earth to a permanently hotter planet, by pushing the Earth system too far too fast (The Disappearing Face of Gaia, 2009). This is in part because Gaia is pushed to the limit to keep the Earth’s environment stable for life, as the Sun is getting hotter, now 35% hotter than at its birth 4.5 billion years ago. The report below shows one of the ways that may drive the phase change to a hotter Earth. There is currently concern about methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floor, including the Arctic and how warmer sea water can trigger rapid release of this methane, and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The story points to methane deposits held beneath ice sheets, as in the West Antarctic. As warmer ocean water works away under the ice, as is now happening under the West Antarctic and under the Tottem Glacer in East Antarctica the methane deposits are being exposed. It is warmer ocean water that may be the key to trigger rapid global warming and dangerous Earth change. What’s the plan for our survival? Love to know.

    Retreat of the ice followed by millennia of methane release
    Space Daily, 17 May 2016

    “Scientists have calculated that the present day ice sheets keep vast amounts of climate gas methane in check. Ice sheets are heavy and cold, providing pressure and temperatures that contain methane in form of ice-like substance called gas hydrate. If the ice sheets retreat the weight of the ice will be lifted from the ocean floor, the gas hydrates will be destabilised and the methane will be released.”

Leave a Reply

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

To Top