Climate sense
Terry McCrann makes the very strong point that according to the Climate Commission, the science is settled and therefore the world will inevitably get warmer (because China and India will be increasing their emissions over the next decade). So, the argument goes, if we know that as a certainty, why are we flushing billions of dollars down the lavatory in a hopeless attempt to stop it, when we should be spending that money on adaptation? Don’t wait up for an answer from the warming zealots.
IF the science is as settled as climate commissioner Will Steffen asserts, then the Gillard government has only one rational policy option. It is the Lomborg solution.
It should immediately abandon all attempts to impose costly and inefficient wind and solar energy generation and, more broadly, abandon the 2020 target of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent; with the redirection of all those freed resources to dealing with the perceived consequences of a hotter world.
Because it will get hotter; indeed, much hotter. That is to say, according to Steffen’s “settled science”. Because, simply put, global emissions in 2020 – at the end of Steffen’s “(absolutely) Critical Decade” – will be higher than they are today. Perhaps much higher.
The die will have been cast. For, according to Steffen and his settled science, that would then require the world to agree to cut global emissions by 9 per cent a year, every year from 2020, all the way to zero. That is, to total global decarbonisation in 30 years. And even that would only get us to a still 2 degrees hotter world. According to Steffen and his settled science.
You would have to rate the chances of doing that as zero. That a world that had allowed emissions to grow each year to 2020 would both agree to start cutting them immediately by 9 per cent a year, every year, and actually have a pathway to do that. Such an agreement is beyond even the most wishful of thinking.
As Danish statistician and “sceptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg has consistently and persistently argued, the best course (for the world) is to adapt to short-term temperature rises rather than engage in futile and costly attempts to stop them.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Terry McCrann makes perfect common sense. Unfortunately the climate change debate is not based on common sense but politics.
Gillard and Brown are hell bent on making Australia a 3rd world country with the introduction of their carbon dioxide tax. We need an election NOW to stop this madness!!!
The scare tactic was to talk up the prospect of 100 year tidal flood events in Sydney becoming more frequent. If you are rich enough to live on a Sydney waterfront you are rich enough to make a plan to relocate over the next 30 years. I am so over political scare campaigns. They know if the masses are scared they will vote for any moron that declares they will save the world. But just as the WMD’s in Iraq were a fictitious political deception which we now look back on in disgrace, man made global warming will end up in the same Journal of “Evidences of Human Stupidity”. Probably some where between the Article talking about the earth is flat dogma and the Article explaining the belief that the sun would not rise in the morning without a human sacrifice.
The government might tell you it’s an attempt to make the situation less worse than it would otherwise be. They seem to duck questions about what effect a “carbon” tax will have.. or they don’t get asked. They’re not asked enough.
Terry McCrann has got it all wrong. Using Logic against the GW fanatics wont get him anywhere. They’ll just look back at him with a vacant look because they don’t understand logic.
If McCrann and others want to communicate with the fanatics you just need to accept what they say, join the religion and take pride in watching your beliefs destroy this country.
Logic… what good will it do you?
Yup. I decided to stop using logic and start creating stark images of the AGW world:
Denial: http://oi51.tinypic.com/242hnb8.jpg
Authority: http://oi52.tinypic.com/11sl7aq.jpg
Prophecy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/29bh95e.jpg
Psychopathy: http://oi51.tinypic.com/1iohe0.jpg
The “debate” is unreasonable because there is no reasoning with warmists..
A little post I put on FB two days ago.
“From the “It’s OBVIOUS” department. Ever wondered why people on the left of politics get all excited about “global warming” and those on the right don’t? Simple! People who have the brains to see through ridiculous scenarios aren’t socialists. It’s obvious!”
Terry McCrann is a rare voice that has got the climate change logic correct. As he says ” if “settled science” is actually telling us to prepare for a hotter world… the rational policy would be aimed at promoting the fastest possible growth… a new LNG plant or coal mine monthly …to generate economic surplus.. to be spent on building global warming tsunami sea walls”
How can you prepare this nation for change if the Government action impoverishes its citizens and Companies, even if the so called “settled science” is mildly correct (which I dispute).
Keep up your voice of logic Terry, it is needed in this time of Gillard and Green party madness.
How does carbon dioxide have such a “profound effect” on climate? It does not form a layer like water vapour; it does not react with the the other gases – nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21%, argon 93% – which make up the atmosphere. It is essential for photosynthesis which combines carbon dioxide with water in the leaves and stems of plants to form the building blocks of plants. It absorbs infrared radiation from the Sun so it warms up, but at a bit less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, that heat is soon dissipated to the surrounding gases in much the same way that a teaspoon (4ml) of warm water added to 10 litres of tap water has a barely detectable effect.