Do You Like This Story?

earth 380x380 A cheats guide to understanding climate change.

 

 

 

by ANNA ROSE

If you had 97-98% of doctors telling you had cancer, would you ignore them just because there were a handful of doctors (who weren’t cancer experts) telling you to wait and see?

Well the same principle applies to climate change. The problem is that a lot of us don’t really understand much about how the earth is warming. And we should. Here’s quick way to get your head around the facts…

The basics of global warming:

Imagine a blanket around the Earth. This is the atmosphere, and it’s the reason we have life on this unique blue and green planet. From rainforests, coral reefs, the pyramids, New York, inventions like the hair straightener and other wonders of civilization: we owe it all to the atmosphere.

For a long time, though, people took the atmosphere for granted. We assumed that, like a loyal long-term boyfriend, it’d always be there for us no matter how badly we treated it.

Sadly, the atmosphere is more fragile than we initially assumed. Imagine a beach ball covered in a layer of nail polish. The tiny layer of nail polish is the relative size of the atmosphere compared to the Earth.

Before people started pumping carbon pollution into it, the atmosphere was made up of just the right concentration of gases (called greenhouse gases) that trap heat in the atmosphere. These gases allowed just enough heat from the sun to warm our planet so we weren’t freezing cold and devoid of life (like the Moon) but reflected excess heat back into space (so we don’t turn into, say, Mars).

But then people burning fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – messed with this natural balance. Burning fossil fuels releases more heat-trapping greenhouse gases. And too much of a good thing, it turns out, messes up Earth’s climate.

What is the situation at the moment?

So now we have the equivalent of two or three blankets over Earth rather than the original one. We’ve increased carbon dioxide levels 40% since the Industrial Revolution and are pumping out over 25 billion tonnes of carbon pollution each year. And we all know what happens when you have too many blankets on the bed – things start to get a little uncomfortable.

To recap the basics: Since the Industrial Revolution, people have sharply increased the concentration of greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. And since we’ve been pumping them out, global average temperatures have increased by a global average of 0.8 degrees C. This may sound small, but it’s enough to seriously mess with Earth’s system – and is far above anything that could be explained by natural climate variability.

The data below shows three separate official temperature records (including from NASA). The line is a bit jagged – but when scientists talk about “climate” (as opposed to weather), they’re talking about thirty year trends.

Picture 1 380x130 A cheats guide to understanding climate change.

Image: temperature records from the three main scientific agencies: NASA, NOAA and the UK Hadley Centre.

How do we know that people are the cause?

There are two reasons scientists know that people are the main explanation for this warming. Firstly, countries track and report their emission levels and they’re more than enough to account for the rising temperatures. Secondly, scientists track the isotopic signature of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – so they can see that the 40% rise in carbon pollution comes from burning fossil fuels rather than natural processes.

But with all of this evidence, why do some parts of the media make out like the science isn’t settled?

Certain corporate-funded think tanks, mostly in the United States, have run a huge campaign to cast doubt on mainstream climate science. But the “debate” you hear on talkback radio simply doesn’t reflect the findings of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Every National Academy of Science of every major country in the world confirms the science of climate change, along with NASA, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and hundreds more scientific bodies we have every reason to trust. There is no longer any reasonable doubt.

Several studies of scientific opinion have found that 97 – 98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the peer-reviewed literature (as opposed to, say, blogs) support the basic principles of climate science. It’s about time we listened to them.

Screen shot 2012 07 30 at 11.14.15 AM A cheats guide to understanding climate change.

Anna Rose

So what’s the bottom line?

Climate change is happening now. The World Health Organisation estimates that climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year (over what would have occurred without it). The Australian Medical Association calls it “a real and imminent threat to the health of Australians”.

Extreme weather events are on the rise all over the world, particularly due to the havoc climate change is wreaking with the water cycle. Warmer air holds more water vapour, so in dry areas water is sucked out of the soil faster. This creates harsher droughts and more severe bushfires. In wetter areas, because a warmer atmosphere holds more water, you get heavier rain and higher floods.

What does this mean for Australia?

In Australia, scientists are particularly concerned about food security. 40% of Australia’s food comes from the Murray Darling basin, yet scientists have warned us we’re facing a 92-97% decline in agriculture in the region by the end of the century if we don’t solve climate change. Our coastal infrastructure is also at risk from sea level rise, with over 85% of Australians living along the coast.

The good news is that with the carbon price, Australia has taken the first step to addressing climate change. It’s a simple idea. When it’s free to pollute, big businesses keep doing it. But when it costs something, heavy polluting businesses make an effort to stop. The carbon price gives them a reason to clean up their act and be more efficient with energy. It also raises $10 billion for renewable energy like wind and solar. That’s why 31 other countries, from New Zealand to England, have already put a price on pollution.

Anna Rose is the author of Madlands: A Journey to Change the Mind of a Climate Sceptic, you can check out her blog here and her twitter here.

View more posts on:

Comments

Comment Guidelines : Imagine you’re at a dinner party. Different opinions are welcome but keep it respectful or the host will show you the door. We have zero tolerance for any abuse of our writers, our editorial team or other commenters. So if you’re rude, mean-spirited, snarky, aggressive, defamatory or bitchy, your comment will be deleted (so will any replies to the original comment – so don’t bother arguing with rude people, instead just hit the ‘alert moderator’ button).
And if you’re offensive, you’ll be blacklisted and all your comments will go directly to spam. Remember what Fonzie was like? Cool. That’s how we’re going to be – cool. Have fun and thanks for adding to the conversation…

Use your profile to comment: Or, comment as a guest:
(Max file size is 150kb & jpeg's only - if you need help resizing go here »)

260 Comments so far

  1. John Shade

    Some excellent comments here, suggesting to me that the alarmists may well be losing the ‘debate’ here at least. I put that word in quotes since what we have endured for decades from a docile, conformist media is more of a torrent of one-sided opinion that rising CO2 levels pose an urgent, extremely dangerous threat. The reality as evidenced by modern observations, and hsitorical records over many timescales, is that CO2 does not have a big effect on climate, and that doubling the levels of it (which has not yet happened in our time) would likely lead to such a modest warming that it would be hard to detect amidst the variations caused by other factors.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  2. Ninety-Seven

    Where did the figure 97% come from? You know the one about 97% of the world’s scientists believing in man made climate change. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. In the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  3. Lady Ha Ha

    In the years to come, we”ll look back and shake our heads at the stupidity of the people who believed the hoax of man made climate change. People will ask, why did they tax plant food? And the answer will be because they could and they knew the people were silly enough to go for it. But what about the climate change mega billionaires, the people will ask? How did they get away with it? Didn’t anyone smell a rat? Yep lots of people did!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Cindy

      Love it, Lady Ha Ha!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  4. Blah

    Loved the article, but hated the girly references for dumbing down’s sake – “From…New York, inventions like the hair straightener and other wonders of civilization: we owe it all to the atmosphere…We assumed that, like a loyal long-term boyfriend, it’d always be there for us no matter how badly we treated it…Imagine a beach ball covered in a layer of nail polish.”

    Really!?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  5. Chrissy

    Great article Anna, thanks for continuing to inform the general public with real science. I think most mothers with young children are concerned about this and the future of their young children and the world they will live in. We have you to thank for continuing to push this in Australia, I know they will thank you when they are older.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  6. Leon

    Meh! This subject always reminds me of the question, how do you start an argument on-line? Post an opinion……wait….. No matter how many people spend their time writing that “the debate is over”, there’ll be another person, including myself, who doesn’t believe it. This surprisingly similar article from my local paper recently: http://www.standard.net.au/blogs/plainly-speaking/the-climate-change-debate-is-over/2624318.aspx

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  7. Suranda

    Anyway I believe in man made climate change because I believe in Julia Gillard. She would never tell us anything that was not the truth. And I also believe Tim Flannery. He has never made a prediction that hasn’t happened. I believe everyone in the Federal Labor government believes in Man Made Climate Change.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • elle

      Very funny.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Kristy

      Ha! Don’t forget that the Water Act, that the Murray Darling Basin Authority needs to work within was legislated by the Howard Gov’t. people in the bush are fucked by all political persuasions.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Oooh La La

        Oooh are you allowed to say f …….. d on Mamamia?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  8. guess

    Why have the ‘like’ buttons gone again? Do I smell a conspiracy?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • lizi

      No conspiracy – more likely a website malfunction – it’s been a bit ropey recently.. Seems to happen to benign conversations too. MM, is it possible to devote some of those $$$ you get from advertising to fix up things like this?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  9. Guest

    I find it hard to beleive Tim Flannery when he talks about sea levels rising and at the same time is living in a house on the Beach, makes his claims about as real as Y2k.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  10. Teo

    From James Lovelock: ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing … we thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.’

    ‘The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
    ‘[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising …’ – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.’

    He also said that Tim Flannery and Al Gore had got it wrong too.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Anonymous

      We aren’t going to fry – ever!
      The earth is a self-sustaining, self-correcting organism.

      In the 70s or 80s it was the ozone layer that we were being warned about and how its depletion was inevitable and we’d all fry from increased exposure to the sun’s rays.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  11. Bradley

    If enough of us ask questions about the content of this article….I see it being retitled for a fourth time.

    We should be asking questions.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  12. Penny

    Enjoyed the article, but LOVED the discussion following!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  13. Catharine

    Regardless of whether or not you’re a sceptic, I don’t think it’s ok to do things that are not sustainable and harmful to the environment. Why not invest in renewable energy? Why not preserve our forests? Why not recycle? Why not consume less? It’s fine if you’re a cynic but add something positive to the debate. What is so bad about encouraging people to take care of their environment?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • vivacious

      I have always loved this cartoon for that very reason: http://greenmomintheburbs.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hoax-cartoon.jpg

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Catharine

        hahaha that’s great. Love it. I’m sharing that with all my friends

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Anonymous

      I’m not convinced of anthropogenic warming. Although, I have no doubt climate change is a real phenomena, after all it has changed continually since time began.

      But, I’ll do everything I can to lower carbon emissions because I could be wrong. And I’d rather be wrong than be sorry.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Catharine

        YES! exactly. EXACTLY. See, I admit that I do believe in anthropogenic warming, but you and I share something in common here. I would rather be wrong than sorry too. I don’t think this debate has to be so much about choosing sides. Let’s all just get along!

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Diana The Huntress

      I completely agree. As I said downthread, not being 100% sold on ACC does *not* necessarily mean being apathetic about the environment or consumption.

      Honestly, the binary thinking on this and other topics drives me batty. Not being 100% down with all one side of ideology does not mean we automatically embrace the other. People’s narrow-mindednes (both the Left AND the Right, thank you) is incredibly frustrating. It stymies dialogue.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Catharine

        Yes! This quote by Clint Eastwood is one of my favorites of all time.

        “Extremism is so easy. You’ve got your position, and that’s it. It doesn’t take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.”

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  14. Anonymous

    So what’s the go with the ‘like’ or ‘thumbs-up’ button? Where has it gone?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • S

      Yes, that’s at least half the fun of this website! MM?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • The wounded bull

      Ive noticed a few times now, when the mamamia line isnt supported by votes, when they are losing the debate hands down, the votes mystereously disappear.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Bradley

        …..or they take away the “reply” button !

        Can’t reply….can’t ask questions.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • justme

        YES! I believe that too! The disappearance of the’ like ‘ button seems to happen at very odd times. What’s the deal mamamia?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Bradley

          If you can’t “like” a comment….then you clearly can’t “not like” a comment.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • Anonymous

        Yes, it does seem to disappear when too many ‘wrong’ posts are getting the thumb’s up. And when MM itself is getting criticised it disappears and the ‘reply’ function goes with it.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  15. Hannah Violet

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Richard Lindzen, told about 70 Sandia researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.

    “Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect,” he said. ”Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change.’

    Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandia’s Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society…

    There is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events, he said. “Even the IPCC says there is little if any evidence of this. In fact, there are important physical reasons for doubting such anticipations.”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  16. Maz

    “If you had 97-98% of doctors telling you had cancer, would you ignore them just because there were a handful of doctors (who weren’t cancer experts) telling you to wait and see?

    Well the same principle applies to climate change.”

    This is the most ridiculous analogy used for scare mongering I have seen so far.
    By the way in case you’re not up to date with the latest, an article has come out stating that AGW data is false.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/18/new-study-shows-that-50-of-warming-claimed-by-ipcc-is-fake/

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Gianna

      And if someone told you that he/she was a doctor who was an expert in cancer and he/she thought you had cancer and that 97%-98% of doctors agreed with him/her that you had cancer and that you should have both of your breasts removed. Would you do it? Then you found out by doing some research that not only wasn’t he/she an expert in cancer but the 97%-98% of doctors he/she was talking about was just the percentage of people who answered his/her questionnaire.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  17. Mike

    while you all sit around debating about who caused it or is man made climate change even real, it is happening, we work in the pacific islands and these people are adversely affected now, who cares who is to blame , it doesn’t matter, what we do now is important,
    it is Human nature not to care unless there is a $ in it for you. good people are working hard on this issue, people that don’t get paid big bucks, people who care, what will australian people do when there are 200,000 people off the east coast looking for a place to live. put them in detention?
    wake up Australia it is right here right now you just don’t see it yet because you are not hungry yet.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  18. faerygodmother

    It’s not like this is the first time we humans have interfered with our enviroment to the point of destruction. I imagine all those people who said “hey maybe we shouldn’t chop down ALL the trees” on Easter Island were shouted down as deluded doomsayers. Any look at history shows us that civlisations die when energy usage exceeds what the natural enviroment can support. But I guess all civilisations are like teenagers- we’re conviced we know better then everyone who has come before us. We’re convinced that somehow we’re too smart for nature and we can just do whatever the heck we want with no consequences. I guess, once again, we’ve learnt nothing from history.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  19. Liz

    I really want to believe Anna and the Climate change debate. I do. But I have to say I’m suffering from “The little boy who cried wolf” syndrome. For as long as I can remember there has been something that we’re meant to be running around scared of – CFCs, the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, now climate change … and I’m struggling to get passionate. And perhaps its becuase its people like Anna and Tim Flannery making these broad sweeping, emotionally charged statements with the idea that it will illicit support from the community through fear.

    Not so long ago Tim Flannery said Australia’s dams would never fill again. That our climate was so broken it would never rain enough for the Murray Darling basin to flood. That our food bowl was destined to be a dusty one because we, the people who live and farm here, had broken it (and the climate) beyond all repair.

    Well it rained. And it rained and it rained and it rained and the Murray Darling basin rivers overflowed, the dams spilled and the soils are replenished. And there have been casualties along the way, in terms of farmers and towns, and great benefits in that those who remain have improved their technologies to grow more with less and that can only be a good thing for Australia’s food eaters.

    And so while I want to believe Anna it just seems like a junket to keep everyone who was employed to tell us CFCs would ruin the earth and the whole in the earth would never close.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Alex

      Liz, it’s a huge money making concern if you manage to get on the climate change gravy train. Climate Change bureaucracies and government funded university departments reap the benefits. As do businesses and banks which trade in emissions. And as long as you put the words ‘Climate Change’ in your research applications, you’ll get the money to fund your thesis. Maybe something along the lines of, ‘Jane Austen and Climate Change.’ Or what about ‘ Pop songs and Climate Change.’ Don’t laugh, I have actually read even more ludicrous titles for university grant applications and they get the money. Governments love Climate Change because governments are addicted to taxes. And voila they get the money through the Climate Change hoax.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Marcus

        Alex, I’d love to see your stats for such a broad statement. What a lot of rubbish. Do you think that everyone only operates on a money basis, how about and job satisfaction. And they have simply made up all of this data have they? Christ! We could say the same about church leaders, they don’t really believe in god,(although it is all made up lol) they’re just doing it for the money . No ethics there… they fiddle with little boys which proves it! Seriously Alex…… And where did you hear this rubbish anyway, Andrew Bolt told you? Take off the shutters and approach with an open mind.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Layla

          Marcus, perhaps you should call Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Richard Lindzen. He’ll give you the stas and the facts about Climate Change. In the mean time check out Hannah Violet’s psot above. And by the way even James Lovelock has recanted.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • SarahBJones

      But the problem isn’t that this is just some new ‘thing.’ People have been talking about it for 30 years.

      And remember, the boy who cried wolf was serious the third time. And we’re serious this time!!!!!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Marcus

      Eventually there was a wolf, remember? Thankfully, the world got together and did something about CFC’s and the Ozone replenished. This was because there where no great $ interests behind keeping CFC’s alive, and there were simple alternatives available.
      Anna has good reason to be worried. She is young and the actions of those gone before her will impact on her world and those of the children she is yet to have. We are seeing the start of major weather events, from deep droughts causing major bushfire conditions, to huge cyclonic events, and crazy floods.
      And it’s not just here that it is happening. The USA has experienced record breaking weather events this season, with the same sorts of conditions we were experiencing before the big rains.
      There is good reason to fear the future Liz, and the fear is that our governments will continue to sit on their hands, fiddling while the world burns. I have the greatest respect for people like Anna who keep the flame burning while we go about our lives.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • seaghan

        What do you mean “those who have gone before her”?

        She is, without question, creating demand for coal fired electricity, and therefore contributing to CO2 emissions, not to mention sulphur and all the other crap that’s in coal.

        I’m sick of younger people blaming older generations when they are at the forefront of demand themselves. It’s ridiculous.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Penny

      Liz, you didn’t see all that rain as an ‘extreme weather condition’? Luckily, the ground is now soft enough for people to bury their heads in!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Liz

        No becuase it happened before and it will happen again. Just like the drought before it. The rivers of the Murray Darling basin used to run dry long before it became popular to call it climate change.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Kristy

          Yet now, we have the MDBA planning to rob the region of its productive water. Where’s the plan for these environmental flows? There isn’t one. Why? I just don’t understand,
          I believe in climate change & charging carbon polluters, but there are a LOT of bad policies around that are going to have huge impacts on rural areas that are based on questionable research.
          The Sustainable Rivers Audit was performed during the last drought. Surely it’s good science to repeat the Audit now that the drought had broken and see what the REAL issues are.
          Sending productive water down river without a plan at the cost of rural communities and our farming industries is madness.
          Our farmers are the most environmentally foucsed and innovative in the world. Just ask one how much it’s cost them to convert their farm to drip irrigation. It’s something they pay off themselves & costs way more than a rain water tank in the city.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
    • Mel B

      Umm Liz “CFCs and Hole in the Ozone layer” was hardly anyone crying wolf!

      The point is that due to the issue being more “measurable” than predicted climate change and its effects on us and the environment, something was done about it – the Montreal Protocol – which banned the production of ozone-depleting CFCs and other chemicals. The rapid decline in use of these chemicals has had a measurable positive effect on the recovery of ozone over the polar regions. However, the science of rapid depletion of ozone over the poles was known about for over 10 years before the Protocol was signed, and quicker action would have dramatically reduced the depletion that we are still seeing today (which is probably linked to increase in skin cancers and a host of other environmental consequences).

      However, I do agree with you that persistent “alarmism” by prominent public scientific figures doesn’t do much to help the cause of combating human-induced climate change. It fires the skeptics up too. The trouble is that the “real” climate change, as opposed to extreme events and climate variability, is not nearly as exciting…

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Liz

        Granted, perhaps not crying wolf, but declaring the sky was falling in and using similar scaremongering tactics.

        Hmm… wonder if there’s any quickfire solution like changing the stype of spray cans we all use?? :)

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  20. donttalkloud

    Baaah! Anna Rose.

    A couple of years ago ‘climate change’ came up in a conversation I was having with a friend. I said I wasn’t yet convinced about the ‘facts’ and she said something about people – meaning me – ‘hiding their heads in the sand’.

    Maybe I should have called her Chicken Licken.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Marcus

      Maybe you should be looking at the facts rather than the commentary of those that don’t understand them.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • donttalkloud

        Some scientists are not comfortable that the ‘facts’ are being presented as indisputable.

        This is partly because of data gathering methods, the very short time in which it data has been collected, and the chance that specious conclusions that have been drawn.

        I don’t say that climate change is a con. What I don’t like is the way a lot of people won’t even let you question it. I call that very unscientific.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  21. South Sea Bubble Girl

    Man made climate change is a hoax, a con and witch craft. The earth’s climate has always changed. The only difference today is that the UN’s IPCC has worked out that you can redistribute money by hoodwinking people. It’s all about models and using parts of graphs and spinning. Time, even a few decades has shown up evey man made climate hoaxer who uses the con like a religion. If you’re a non believer, you won’t get government funding and your life will be made hell. Every time you hear one of them get up and make predictions based on their models, go back and check their previous predictions and check their stats. Nothing wrong with caring for our environment but taxing plant food is just a cynical ploy by a few to grab cash.

    By the way, if you’re up to it check out ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert’ by Donna Laframboise.

    PS. Even Anna Rose’s comparison of ’97-98%’ of doctors telling you that you had cancer with the same number of scientists believing in man made climate change is a complete manipulation of the stats. It is simply not true that 97-98% of the world’s scientists are telling us that we are heating to disastrous levels. Complete fabrication. So is the story perpetrated by the hoaxers that in the near future the seas will be 6 stories high over our coastal towns and that soon people will be buying sea front homes in the Blue Mountains.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  22. pennypacker

    I don’t believe in god either. People have been scaring other people for their own gain for centuries. the masses will always believe what they’re told to believe, because they’re scared to be seen as different or the odd one out. I believe the changing climate is a natural occurrence . The earth has been evolving for billions of years.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  23. elle

    Brilliant post Anna! I have followed you and the AYCC for years now & am happy you have been everywhere recently! Could you write a post on what are the best actions we can make? I KNOW it is a really big issue and i worry about it but don’t really know what the most effective action I can take is. Thanks for your hard work :)

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Grace

      Sadly Elle, it’s a gigantic hoax and you’re being taken for a ride. If you want to know what you can do, please follow the money trail and look at the fiddled graphs and the past predictions that have flopped. You’re being played for a sucker. It’s sad but true. I used to be a believer too and then I started reading and was absolutely horrified by the real story. Don’t get angry at me, please just have a good look at the terrible manipulation that is going on. It’s an utter disgrace.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Kaz

        Grace, what did you start reading to get the ‘real story’? Were you as vigilant in ensuring your sources were accurate? ie Did you follow the money trail for them?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • elle

        Lol Grace. I’m not angry at you. It is science and facts. There is nothing to ‘believe’. This isn’t like religion where you choose to believe or not. I study climate science and have seen the evidence myself. Go to some of the pacific islands and ask the locals. Go and talk to some farmers. Real people are seeing the effects not just graphs.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Guest

          LOL elle, I’ve been to the Pacific Islands and I’ve also spoken to farmers. What’s more I’ve lived in the bankrupt state of California and in Europe too and watched California and Europe run from their emission trading debacles. And as far as science and the facts go are you for real? What Mickey Mouse Science are you studying? Anyway time will prove me right. Just wait and see. And you won’t have to wait very long.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • elle

            Good luck with that ‘Guest’. How’s Alan these days?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Guest

              Who’s Alan????? My husband’s name is sweetheart.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Luella

              Guest you’re too funny. Love it. Poor Elle!

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • elle

              Well that went over your head!

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Guest

              Sadly Elle, the irony went over your head

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  24. TwoDogs

    Anna Rose,

    Carbon Tax a good thing for Australians? Our power bills go up 20 percent because our generators burn coal yet we sell the coal to China whose yearly increase alone in coal consumption is greater than the whole of Australia’s consumption for that year! That would make it the dumbest tax in the world.

    Australians will decide in 2013 just how much prominence the so called climate change should receive with its associated 10 billion dollar green industry lefty loony slush fund. These industries have such a great record of business efficacy – yeah right.

    Bring on the next election and watch these doomsday fanatical climate change religous zealots suddenly realise what the majority really want.

    I can’t wait.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • elle

      Fanatical climate change religious zealots?! You are commenting on an article in which the FACTS were outlined CLEARLY that climate change is very real and is human caused. Yet you completely ignore everything Anna wrote and call it the ‘so called climate change’? Sorry sounds a bit like YOU’RE the ‘fanatical, loopy, religious zealot’ to me !

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • TwoDogs

        Yes you are right. Just about anything Anna writes I ignore completely. I really tried this time but didn’t make it past ’150000 people are dying every year…..’ Ummm….yeah show me that list of people please. I won’t hold my breath. Maybe it’s because she writes like a 12 year old that turns me off. Does she not annoy everyone over the age of 30 or is it just me?

        In fact I think it would be just a whole lot easier if Anna and any other climate change evangelist just had the letters CC tattooed in large font on their foreheads. That way in 2030 when these types have driven Australia’s economy to 2nd world status with no difference to the climate we would know who to blame.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Jessica

      Go TwoDogs, Thank goodness Mamamia has contributors like you. I had almost given up on it.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Penny

      MY power bills went up many, many percent WELL before the CarbonTax….and I don’t care!! If I want to lower my power bill, I need to to lower my power usage – simple!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  25. masd270248

    The cancer comparison, what a clever analogy!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • TwoDogs

      No it is not. It is mischievous and seeks to deliberately conflate a serious and emotive topic such as cancer with the nebulous modelling of climate change. A terrible analogy and serves to underline the manipulative nature of these fear mongering self interest zealots.

      Shame on you Anna Rose – I see right through you.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • SarahBJones

        Why shouldn’t climate change be just as emotive?

        These are our CHILDREN we are talking about. And our grandchildren. We are leaving them a ruined planet. I get pretty emotional about that when I think about my children.

        As someone who’s father passed away from cancer, I am not offended – rather I see the direct correlation. We need to see ourselves as more connected to our ecosystems, because we are a part of them.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • Cancer Survivor

      The cancer comparison is sick and pathetic. How dare Anna Rose and how silly are you to fall for it.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Another cancer survivor

        I think it’s a powerful metaphor. We trust the experts when they agree. There is a very wide agreement of the basics of climate change: (1) the climate has been changing in rapid and historically unusual ways over the last few decades; (2) the causes are complex but human activities are very largely to blame; (3) the consequences are difficult to predict, but are very likely to be very largely negative for human society and natural ecosystems.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • Another Cancer Survivor

        I agree with you Cancer Survivor. The cancer comparison is sick and pathetic. The majority of scientists do not support man made climate change. The stat that keeps being repeated is a lie and a deliberate manipulation by people in the Man Made Climate Change industry. I loathe the way it keeps being repeated. Anna Rose’s cheat sheet is a real cheat sheet.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  26. Guest

    James Lovelock (from wiki: CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D, independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist) has made a number of frightening predictions about famine, floods and drought severely culling the population later this century and leaving the people remaining having to scramble to the few islands that offer water (Canada, Tasmania, Britain etc).

    End-of-the-world stuff. I think most of us (particularly those who have lived abroad in horribly overcrowded places) are quite concerned and want to do something about it, but unfortunately the world seems to be run by massive corporations who take no responsibility for anything other than their profit margin, and governments who pander to their demands. What can the average person do?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • seaghan

      What on earth is a futurologist? Does it mean he stares into a crystal ball?

      I can quote my own qualifications too, but that doesn’t make me right.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Lilly

      Guest, James Lovelock has recanted. Says now it’s all wrong and a hoax. You sure are behind the times. Blind faith can do that to you. Go check out what he says now and then wipe the egg off your face.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Check again

        Actually, he’s recanting his extreme alarmist position, in which said that climate change would kill all but a few thousand breeding pairs of humans by the end of the century and there is nothing we can do about it. Now he just thinks that climate change is happening, is anthropogenic, and is very serious. In other words, he’s more or less rejoined the mainstream understanding, after having held a fringe alarmist position for some time on little evidence.

        However, in general, at 92 he’s not showing much evidence of having followed the science very closely for at least the last 5 or 10 years. His contributions to science were very significant, but he is now a very old man with, frankly, more than a few odd ideas.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • elle

        He NEVER said it was all wrong and a hoax. You just making that up. All he said is that he believes he was previously too alarmist. He still believes in Climate Change and advocates something serious be done.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
      • Guest

        Classic schoolgirl error Lilly – shooting off a condescending reply before checking for accuracy yourself.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  27. Minority Doctor

    Interesting analogy. In the 1800′s 98% or more of doctors did not believe that washing their hands between doing autopsies and delivering babies made any difference to puerperal fever.One man Ignaz Semmelweiss had a view that washing hands would cut infection rates. He was ridiculed and his ideas ignored.
    It was only after his death that he his views were accepted by the 98% of doctors who were wrong.
    In another genre Galileo comes to mind.
    The majority is not necessarily correct- it is simply a herd mentality

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Craig

      You make a very poor point. Doctors didn’t think hands needed washing because they had no evidence that it was required. When evidence became available they changed their mind. That’s what science is. Unlike politics,science goes where the evidence is. In 1900 100% of scientists didn’t believe in global warming, then evidence became available and they changed their mind.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Mooner

      Your analogy is not the same though, because the 98% of Doctors had not RESEARCHED whether hand-washing would reduce the transmission of puerperal fever, they just didn’t BELIEVE it would help.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • elle

      I can’t believe 7 people actually liked this?! Does anyone have common sense these days?! Talk about a herd mentality! Did any of you actually THINK about this and how obviously what doctors thought about hand washing in the 19th century is irrelevant to what modern scientists in 2012 have EXTENSIVELY researched and have EVIDENCE of in terms of climate change? The modern world is based on science and this was not the case in the 19th Century. Obviously when they found overwhelming evidence that hand washing prevents infection and death the mentality changed. People like you would be the ones sitting in the waiting room saying ‘Don’t worry about washing your hands for me Doctor! That hand wash is too expensive! It is nonsense anyway! All those crazy doomsayers running around mad about handwash! What do you doctors know about anything anyway?!’

      Seriously! Sometimes I despair at how bloody stupid some people can be.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • seaghan

        Tell you what elle,

        In ten years, come back and see what you just wrote. You won’t believe that you could actually form sentences that badly, or that you couldn’t present an argument with anything other than emotion.

        Then you’ll ask yourself how YOU could have been that silly.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • elle

          That’s not going to happen seaghan. Of course I feel strong emotion about this. It is incredibly frustrating when the facts have been well established yet people continue to pretend there is still a debate. You form an educated opinion by reading widely on reliable sources with clear evidence then making up your mind based on these. The VAST majority of the sources clearly state that climate change exists and is man made. Clearly people who don’t “believe” in Climate Change do not have an educated opinion. They quote zero reliable sources or facts, they make broad sweeping statements which are completely flawed (the climate has always changed) and seem to think their opinion is valuable and the REAL truth. So yes I get emotional that these people vote, spread their unfounded ‘beliefs’ and call those of us that actually base our opinions on facts evangelicalists, loopy, crazy, deluded.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • seaghan

            But you’re wrong elle!

            The ‘facts” are not proven, because it hasn’t happened. It’s a bit like economics, lots of theories but is really only any good as a post mortem analysis.

            People who are,as you claim “non believers” are not uneducated, they are not stupid, and they do not have closed minds. We are not fascists, nor do we eat our young. We are a bunch of people who can see serious flaws in the way information is being interpreted.

            There are way too many bits of conjecture that are presented as “facts”. Our Chief Scientist is guilty of this, so is Bob Brown. They certainly aren’t experts in climate change, one studies rocks and the other is a physician, and both of them have made some completely contradictory statements over the last 5 years or so, in Brown’s case over the last 30 years. Yet there are so many instances where the predicted outcomes have not occured, or the predicted outcomes were the complete opposite to what occured that any sceptic of climate change cannot help but question the whole damn thing.

            Having said that, while I’m sceptical about climate change, I’m a fiercely anti pollution, and not just the effects of CO2. You’ll find that the majority of climate change sceptics are anti pollution too.

            The other thing is that a large number of peer reviews don’t look at the science of climate change, they only compare processes used in the actual studies and report on the scientific validity of the study. The conclusions of the study aren’t challenged, only the process, so if the process is ok the study gets a tick, but it doesn’t mean that the conclusions are correct. This happens all the time and is part of the scientific process, but it’s not a general agreement on the presentation of the theories or the conclusions.

            But I’ll go back to my first point, global warming is still only a theory, and although a lot of scientists agree with the theory, it cannot be proven until it qactually happens, it’s not a mathematical model with known parameters, so conclusions are not cast in stone. I can’t understand how so many people take this type of science as gospel, it defies logic to do so.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • elle

              Of course we shouldn’t just take everything as gospel. However Global Warming is not just a future prediction. It is happening now and already affecting people.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  28. justme

    sounds like hysterical scaremongering to me.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  29. Craig

    Unfortunately, climate change debate has no longer got anything to do with science, it is just politics. Ask yourself, how many people who have strongly held opinions have actually read the research and how many are just repeating the opinion of their favourite talk back radio host.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • elle

      So true!!! Reading some of these comments it is obvious people take ZERO notice of what is in the article and just sprout their nonsense as if they know what they’re talking about.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  30. Jess2

    I feel so bad but when I read “climate change”, I think boring and white noise. I know how wrong that is and I really try. It reminds me of being in church as a kid and every week thinking “this week I’ll listen” and yet one minute in and I was flicking through the prayer book. I defer to the politicians I admire for this and if they say climate change is real, then I believe them.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  31. old timer

    and thank god for that!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  32. Anonymous

    I have a huge amount of respect for Anna Rose and the way she presents her point of view. It really is the kind of information we need to hear more about.

    Thanks MM and Thanks Anna!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  33. guess

    the climate has been changing one way or another for eons. It’s nothing new.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Craig

      What’s new is that this is the first time that humans have caused the change. What is also new is that the destruction that comes with climate change is more likely to be an issue for us than for previous instances of climate change.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • guess

        so what caused the ” previous instances of climate change” ?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • elle

          Why don’t you go read some proper research on the topic? By REAL scientists not radio jocks or random blogs. It is tiresome to have to repeat over and over the clear evidence that it is the RATE at which the climate is warming which is of concern. Previously it has been a very slow process which has allowed the environment to evolve and adapt. Due to the extreme amounts of greenhouse gas emitted by humans the rate of warming has gone through the roof at levels NEVER seen before. Read reliable sources & evidence to educate yourself before making an informed decision. Don’t just repeat untruths as if you are so sure.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • guess

            YOU believe, I. DON’T. Instead of getting all uppity like you KNOW all the answers, when YOU don’t actually., give intelligent responses to the questions asked. How do you know these levels have never been seen before, and what caused the previous instances of climate change? You don’t know obviously, and that’s what upsets people like you, the staunch believers, not having the answers. So instead you belittle, and berate, and start questioning their level of intelligence. These tactics have been used for eons too.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • elle

              I know because there is data that records it that I have studied extensively. I know because the vast majority of highly qualified very experienced scientists who spend years researching these things have confirmed it.
              Solar variability has largely caused previous changes in climate. This is not true for our current situation where the warming is caused by levels of greenhouse gases never before experienced. So there are the answers you were so sure I didn’t have.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  34. Jamboree

    Great article – thanks MM and thanks Anna for your clarity and super ability to make this complex issue more palatable for the rest of us.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • jamilarizvi

      She makes a lot of sense doesn’t she Jamboree! I was totally lost on this stuff until I read Anna’s book. Explains everything very clearly and logically.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  35. Diana The Huntress

    Now, not wanting to wade too much into the author’s personal life, but if you’re looking for agenda, Google “Getup funding”.

    Some interesting things…

    In the interest of fairness, try to avoid the stuff written by right-wing bloggers.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Jamboree

      What does the alleged funding sources of her husband’s employer have to do with her???

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • seaghan

      I agree Diana, why read anything from the right wingers, lefties are much more balanced and non judgemental.

      You’re kidding aren’t you?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Diana The Huntress

        No, I didn’t say that. You won’t find many left-wing blogs critiquing the funding of Getup, is all. My recommendation was to either read both and settle somewhere in the middle or try to find more objective sources.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
    • elle

      Anna was a climate change activist way before she married her husband. Your ‘point’ is completely irrelevant. Anyway Simon is no longer the leader of Get Up.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  36. D

    For all the commentor who like to throw insults on both sides of this arguement you should learn to argue more respectfully.

    I’m a climate change believer for the simple fact that for an inteligent species we humans always seem to take a long time to get the message that we are doing something that is harming ourselves and the planet.

    Some cases in point is our use of chemicals like DDT, or the mining of asbestos that has given so many people cancer, which took us a long time to be convinced they should be abandoned. As such without knowing anything about the science it stands to reason that if we mess around pumping gases like CO2 into the atmosphere that it has to do some damage, when that will happen I don’t know and I for one don’t want to leave my children with the headache of trying to sort it out.

    On the effect that the carbon tax will have on polluters ,a penalty like the carbon tax will have an impact on the polluters, business will not be simply able to pass the tax on. Yes some will but you can guarantee that even those that do will be working hard to reduce their tax liability and hence reduce there CO2 emissions.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  37. Eva

    Excellent article. Glad to see Mamamia tackling the big issues.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  38. Nellie

    I’m all for doing as much as I can to keep our environment clean. We recycle, we grow our own vegies, we reuse and cut down on our power consumption and water consumption, but I still don’t believe in climate change. When you talk to the oldies, they will always say, “This year reminds me of the 1970′s” … etc. Yes, the climates change .. because that is what nature intended.

    Also, a single volcano puts out more carbon in 24 hours than the whole population on the earth can “save” in 5 years … and there are volcanoes going off all the time. What do we need to do about that?

    I think we need to be cautious … but not have our head in the sand. Do what we can, but I really don’t think it’s going to change a huge amount.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • sipper

      Volcanoes land and sea, account for less than 5% of CO 2output per annum. Your information is wrong.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Stan

        Inactive volcanoes emit less than 5% of CO2 output per annum, but that doesn’t apply for active volcanoes.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Broady

          You might want to check your facts

          http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Nellie

            Ok, so I obviously got that bit wrong. Thanks for pointing it out. However, in any data regarding this, it is always an “estimate” of CO2 from both volcanoes and humans. I know that it is impossible to get an accurate reading … but it is still an estimate.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
      • Seaghan

        So how much CO2 is emitted by Australia as a percentage of total worldwide CO2 emissions?

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Kate

          So, the fact that we are a high exporter of fossil fuels doesn’t count for anything? Just so long as we don’t burn it on our soils?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • Anonymous

          It’s not even relevant. Should you speed in your car just because everyone else does?

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • seaghan

            It’s obviously not relevant in your mind because we produce less CO2 than a bunch of inactive volcanoes, which by the admission of sipper, is too small to be of any significance.

            So why is one 5% more or less significant than another 5%?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
    • jedielf

      Doing what we can is a step in the right direction. And steps in the right direction always lead to more things. But it’s a choice I reckon we all have to make. Even if it doesn’t change much, it would still change.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • elle

      I cannot understand why you don’t believe in climate change? Because some oldies told you it just reminds them of back in their day and isn’t a big deal? The science and facts are overwhelming. I just cannot understand how anyone could not ‘believe’ in climate change. How can you deny something that is proven to exist and that we can actually see is having an effect on people and the environment already? Go talk to some farmers!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Nellie

        Elle, every one is entitled to their own belief. Just because it doesn’t match yours doesn’t mean it’s not right. I had a chuckle about you telling me to “talk to some farmers”. You see, we’re on the land :) And it’s the farmers that think the whole thing is a joke and it should be named climate “cycle” rather than climate “change”. We are in North West NSW and have just come out of a terrible drought. This was broken by flood and we have had the flood through our house twice since November. All I’m saying is the oldies have seen it all before. When we are younger we think the world is changing, but the oldies have actually seen it this way before. As I said … just my opinion. :)

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • elle

          Of course the climate has changed before. The difference is the rate at which it is changing.

          You can have whatever beliefs you like but without reasonable evidence to back them up they mean nothing. Not all views are equal. You can believe in fairies if you want & be as entitled to your opinion as you want but without evidence no one is going to take you seriously.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • guess

            elle, the way you are ranting at everybody, no one’s taking you seriously either.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Elle

              Ranting? Haha. Great comeback. Making out I am ranting & can’t be taken seriously to detract from the truth that you actually have no facts to back up anything you say.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  39. Jen

    This is a complex issue and I am not a scientist, but I want to chime in with my opinion.

    There was a UN report released in 2006 called Livestock’s Long Shadow that found that greenhouse emissions from livestock production were higher than those caused by worldwide transportation. Another UN report from a couple of years ago urges a global shift towards a mainly plant-based diet, recognising livestock production as a major cause of climate change. There was a Carnegie Mellon report in 2008 that found that eating a plant-based diet is 7 times more effective at reducing carbon emissions than eating a locally sourced diet (according to this study, vegans save 94% of the energy used for food production). The huge toll that livestock production is taking on the environment is clear.

    Perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect a global shift to a 100% vegan diet, but by simply committing to one plant-based day a week, such as Paul McCartney’s Meat-Free Monday campaign, or the entire city of Ghent’s meat-free Thursday, we could have an enormous positive effect on climate change (not to mention health and well-being).

    Such a simple, achievable thing that we all can do, and it could really be a fun, educational family project too.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Seaghan

      Using climate change to turn everyone into a vegetarian is a pretty weak argument.

      So you’re saying that we can all drive dirty great V8 engined Holdens and this is more environmentally friendly than eating a kilo of meat a week?

      Spare me!

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Jen

        I gave the name of some studies you can take a look at if you’re genuinely interested in facts rather than making vast exaggerations in an attempt to refute a point of view you don’t agree with.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • seaghan

          Jen,

          I’m not going to waste my time, the simple facts are that I don’t care if vegans have a smaller carbon dioxide footprint.

          If you want to be a vegan, then bully for you. All power to you, but don’t come the raw prawn at me because you think you are somehow morally superior to anyone who eats meat. You’re not. Nor is one day a week clear of meat any guarantee of better health.

          You obviously have an axe to grind about using animals. I don’t, I have no problem with killing and eating them.

          I notice that you don’t say anything about soil degredation though intensive cropping, haven’t you ever heard the adage “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Veggie

            U sound a little defensive Seaghan, maybe because u know that Jen has valid point, and you don’t want to admit it to yourself?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • seaghan

              Actually, I know she DOESN’T have a valid point.

              High intensity cropping is diabolical to soils, that’s why crop farmers also run sheep or cattle so that the paddocks can recover with the help of a year of grass growing and manure. The soil, particularly in australia, cannot supportintensive cripping year after year.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Jen

              Agreed!

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Jen

              Amazing how seaghan knows better than the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • seaghan

              I don’t know more than them, I simply don’t care what they have to say.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  40. Seaghan

    OK, here’s one for you all to comment on.

    Production of cement is about the 5th or 6th highest generator of CO2.

    There is an alternative, made from water cooled slag from blast furnaces in Iron and steel production. This alternative cement produces about 30% the amount of CO2 during production and hydration, yet State Government Agencies will not allow it in the construction of public works.

    There is also an Asphalt product that has a reduced demand for heat during production, but once again, Government Agencies will not allow its use in public works.

    Is this Hypocrisy, stupidity, or something else?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  41. Sponsored by the Greens

    Seriously, that entire post must have been sponsored by the Greens.

    Please – someone explain to me how the Carbon Tax (not Price, it’s the Tax we didn’t vote for), gives the slightest incentive to any business to reduce emissions? It doesn’t, as we all know, additional costs are just being passed on to us.

    There was so much that could have been done at this junction that would have actually given industry an incentive to reduce their emissions and have a positive effect, but this legislation will not do that and will provide no local or global advantage for the environment. It’s a joke.

    All it’s going to do is cripple our fragile economy and make us less competitive internationally.

    The earth should weep – she’s certainly getting no help from this Government, no matter what spin they want to put on their grasping back room deal to stay in power – they’ve done nothing here but harm the environment in my book.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • sipper

      The business I own is working with several manufacturers to lower their energy consumption. This is being driven totally by carbon pricing. As electricity prices rise it will encourage the replacement of coal powered power stations with lower emission technologies and drive cuts in consumption. This is the most efficient market based mechanisim for lowering carbon emissions. Tony Abbotts approach is to pay emitting industries to shut down plant. Extremely inefficient and makes govt pick winners-not likely. I do not know why the deniers are so keen on Tony A.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Sponsored by the Greens

        Hi Sipper
        Where did I mention Tony Abbott?
        Where did I mention being a “denier”?
        Just because I disagree with this legislation, does not mean that I don’t think something should be done – I’d just prefer if it was actually effective.
        Am sure your efforts are noble and probably would have been undertaken anyway in the spirit of ‘doing your bit’ for the earth, but it’s unlikely that the changes that your company makes to energy consumption levels will have a major impact on the environment overall.
        Unless of course, you own a mine? Or are you a major player in one of the huge industries where this “Tax” is supposed to stimulate change?
        But I don’t think so, because if you did am sure you would not have the time or inclination to be on MM.
        It’s the big players who could create significant change, that would have greater impact as it filtered down to all business and industry – and that is my point – this legislation does nothing to turn their heads and motivate them in a serious path of environmental action.
        And, in my view, it’s a massive shame and opportunity missed.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • anon

          In Europe Scandanvian countries have introduced a carbon tax that particularly affects mining companies drilling in parts of the Oceans surrounding their countries. To avoid paying these taxes the companies have developed technology that makes them carbon nuetral therefore negating the tax.
          Perhaps the mining magnates of this country should look at this and use it where possible and spend the money they have spent fighting the tax and other policies they disagree with to create their own technology. Who knows maybe one day in the future people will be paying them big money for that thing they didn’t want to create in the first place.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Anonymous

            “To avoid paying these taxes the companies have developed technology that makes them carbon nuetral therefore negating the tax.”

            please enlighten us on this “technology” they have developed to make them carbon neutral.

            I think you’ll find they offset any CO2 emissions by purchasing “carbon credits” to fuel the new economy which just like the existing banking system produces money out of thin air.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • anon

              actually they don’t, they have worked out a way to feed the excess co2 back into the ocean bed. It was on a doco on sbs a while ago i will hunt out the details and post a link.
              Anyway the end result is they don’t get carbon credits, they just don’t pay the tax. The technology was expensive to develop but they believe worth it as they are saving the environment and not paying the tax.
              I was surprised that more people here had not picked up on it when i saw it.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
    • elle

      Our economy is not fragile! It is one of the strongest in the world! 31 other countries have introduced a carbon tax so we are not alone internationally. I agree that the carbon tax isn’t enough. However better than nothing! What would you suggest?

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  42. jamilarizvi

    Hi everyone

    I know that climate change is an issue that people have very strong opinions about but let’s remember the dinner party rules. We’re keen for everyone to have your say but please do so respectfully and keeping in mind that Anna is reading the comments.

    Jamila

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • Sponsored by the Greens

      Hi Jamila
      Don’t know if you’ve been deleting a whole lot of rude comments I haven’t seen, but isn’t Anna reading the comments the whole point?
      If the author believes in the subject matter passionately enough to want to write the article, wouldn’t she want to hear both positive and alternate points of view on her perspective of the issue?
      Just saying.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Lulu

        “isn’t Anna reading the comments the whole point?”

        I’d think not. This is about the Mamamia community discussing the issue.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Sponsored by the Greens

          Hi Lulu
          Read what Jamila actually wrote in her comment – verbatim – “keeping in mind that Anna is reading the comments”
          She IS reading the comments – and I definitely think she would – as I would think any author of an MM post would want to read / digest the feedback from their contribution.
          Again – just saying….

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • elle

            Yeah the point is to have constructive comments not rude or abusive ones.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • guess

              take your own advice. I believe you have been the most rude and abusive in your responses to others. Just re read some of your comments. You have been nothing but condescending to those who dare question climate change.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • elle

              I have not been rude or abusive at all. Questioning Climate Change is over. The facts are there.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • guess

              stats are not facts. we should always be open to discussings statistics. just because YOU say no more questions, only makes me want to ask more. I will never be told to sit down and shut up, end of discussion, just because you say I must believe what you believe.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • elle

              When a theory has overwhelming reliable evidence from research carried out by experienced qualified scientists then it becomes fact. Climate Change is no longer a debatable theory. It is a well accepted fact. You can say and believe whatever you want but no one that is educated will take any notice.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Anon

              Elle I find it laughable that you think you’re not being rude. Making your point with constant capitals is RUDE and SHOUTY.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  43. Lizi

    I wonder why everyone is so quick to scream about the damage caused by more immediate causes for concern (e.g. anti-vaxxers, political terrorism etc. ) and not to see the problems inherent in going along the way we are with polluting our earth’s atmosphere?

    Not everyone who looks at climate trends and global warming scenarios is an alarmist. There is plenty of science to back them up.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  44. Anonymous

    Oh, you’ve made up a percentage. Now I believe you.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • An actual scientist and not an armchair expert.

      Not made up.
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Anonymous

        “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field”

        and those most actively publishing are those who get funding by governments and people who have a vested interest in green technology and Agenda 21.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Anonymous

          Conspiracy. Science is a really bad paying job and most would get out if it wasn’t something they had a real passion for. They are not interesting in making stuff up for very little money.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
        • elle

          Lol! Are you for real? Those most published are those paid by the mining companies!!!!

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
      • Anonymous

        So it is written on another web site and is therefore not made up. How silly of me….

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Byron Smith

          If you are unable to tell the difference between “another website” and PNAS, then perhaps you need to go and do a little more research before you embarrass yourself further.

          Hint: It’s the major publication of one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Anonymous

            Being respectable (whatever that means in this context) does not equate to being right. This assetion is, in my view a complete crock! Other websites which are also regarded as “respectable” dispute it. Untill the views of all “climate researchers” are obtained this stupid assertion will always be a complete crock!

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
  45. The wounded bull

    Doesnt that make 40% of an additional blanket on, not 2 additional blankets. And anyway, c02 isnt the only insulating gas, not by a long shot, so your 2 extra blankets has now reduced though 40% to a sugar pot doyly.

    Gee, anyone would think you had an agenda to push anna.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • sipper

      App. Chem and Masters in Enviro Eng here. Better question who do you vote for???

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Bradley

        sipper…..winning over hearts and minds. One insult at a time.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
  46. sipper

    Most climate change deniers are poorly educated , vote conservatively and are often fundamentally religious. Our response to climate change will not be to cut CO2 emissions enough to make a difference. With much of Asia, India and soon Africa urbanising in our lifetimes we will see large cities collapse as climate damge, food and fuel shortages combine. The deniers thrive on the internet and are feed by the conservative side of politics here and in the US. In 70-100 years time when our grandchildren are struggling to survive they will still be blogging to each other and voting Tory.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • The wounded bull

      Masters in mathematics here, and a realist rather than alarmist. Nice to meet you.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • fender4eva

      sipper, what utter bullshit…..

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
    • Seaghan

      sipper,

      I’m Seaghan, Batchelor of Engineering (Civil), Batchelor of Applied Science (Mathematics).

      Sorry if I’m not well educated enough for you.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Diana The Huntress

        University-educated, lefty, wouldn’t vote Liberal if you had a gun to my head.

        I am not sold on anthropogenic climate change, nor am I convinced a tax will make much difference. I’m not worked up about the tax either way, it is what it is.

        Doesn’t mean I deny it. Climate change questioners are not necessarily climate change deniers. Do you know why I’m not sold? Because I have friends who are scientists (and they’re divided on the issue, by the way). The thing with scientific consensus (ha!) is that there’s a whole lot of shit going on behind the scenes that a lot of laypeople aren’t aware of. Funding bias, for one thing. Who gets published? Those who are funded. Who gets funded? Those who support the agendas of their benefactors.

        Just because science is not published and therefore is not counted publicly does not mean it doesn’t exist.

        Google if you don’t believe me.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • The Wounded Bull

          exactly. The easiest way to a grant is to create some urgent doomsday problem that just needs billions in research to fix. Anyone remember the Y2K bug. There were not too many programmers running around saying that squat would happen to computers when the clock ticked over…the were all too busy cashing in.

          World oil crisis in the 70s, when we were told there was only 20 years max oil left.

          Something about humans means we love to be scared shitless, so therefore, the scientist that sprukes the most doom gets their head on the telly (hi Tim Flannery) and gets the attention of non scientist politicians with the cash.

          Do you really think scientists want to bite the hand that feeds them. And so the cycle of doomsday fortune telling continues unabated.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Diana The Huntress

            I might also add that being unsure about the current science is not necessarily synonymous with not caring about the environment. I care passionately about it. We are raping the earth. Vulnerable people and innocent animals are suffering for it, it makes me sick with guilt. I’m just not convinced the industrial carbon is our most pressing issue.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • Seaghan

              I’m a member of the Liberal Party, but that doesn’t mean that I’m automaticaally a denier, I simply don’t think there’s enough evidence that there is significant climate change. I do, however, support anything that effectively reduces pollution of any kind.

              Taxing a few companies then redistributing the proceeds doesn’t do a damn thing to reduce emissions.

              Look at the car industry, they have completely changed their ways when it comes to emissions and fuel economy simply through legislation and targets.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
      • Anon

        You can’t spell Bachelor

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • Seaghan

          Shit happens.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Jen

            That’s your qualification and you can’t even spell it correctly? Wow.

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • seaghan

              Yeah, sometimes I spell a work incorrectly. Bachelor is one that I always stuff up, other words that I struggle with are necessary, magnaminity, and receipt.

              I don’t know why I can’t spell those words without help, but none of us are perfect.

              However, just because I can’t spell a few words doesn’t give you license to accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about when it comes to my profession. You’d be quite wrong about that and sadly ill advised to continue with your abusive behaviour simply because I don’t agree with your emotive view of the world.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
            • Chelsea

              These snide comments are not really adding to the debate.

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
  47. Betsy

    And this is why we need a carbon tax.
    Great article Anna. I saw your climate change special on ABC a couple of months and loved it.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  48. sirquack

    Also, 40% of food may come from the Murry Darling Basin, but many farmers are moving away from these areas or careers due to water issues caused by the government. Taking water away from towns, and farmers, that rely on agriculture, for the sake of an enviroment THAT IS MEANT TO GO THROUGH PERIODS OF DROUGHT is another more urgent reason for the lessening sustainability of Australian agriculture.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  49. fender4eva

    Anna Rose, is the Meryl Dorey of climate change doomsayers…..

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  50. sirquack

    Isn’t Mars colder than the Earth? It’s further away from the sun…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • sipper

      Mars very little atmoshere. Mass is too low. basic science-you might have covered this in about Yr 9.

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • Bradley

        sipper’s kindly nature and warm, yet reassuring tones have almost won me over.

        GD Star Rating
        loading...
        • M

          Pot calling the kettle black much? You are equally as sarcastic and condescending in your comments to other people.

          GD Star Rating
          loading...
          • Bradley

            Me ?

            GD Star Rating
            loading...
            • fender4eva

              Go, Bradley. Stir them up !….. :-)

              GD Star Rating
              loading...
      • sirquack

        Michael B. McElroy- “The Atmospheric Environment: Effects of Human Activity” page 40: “Mars, further from the sun, is much colder than Earth”
        Hugh H. Kieffer- “Mars” page 836 “Mars is colder than Earth”
        Jeffrey Stuart Kargel- “Mars: A Warmer, Wetter Planet” page xxxi “Mars is a water world, slightly colder than Earth”

        GD Star Rating
        loading...

So, we have $1000 to give away... oh, would you be interested? Well step right this way.

To go in the draw to win, just LIKE us on Facebook, enter your email address and tell us in 25 words or less why you love reading Mamamia.

Close this popup



Full Terms & Conditions