Letter to "The Australian" on 26th November,2009.
Australia is witnessing something that is as close as we (thankfully) get to a revolution. People power is on display! Whatever people believe about the underlying science of 'Climate Change', the vast majority of Australians now realise that they are to be hit with a tax ahead of countries like the US, India and China when we only contribute 1.5% of global emissions. The only reason we are proposing to inflict economic pain on ourselves before knowing what others may do (if anything), is so that PM Rudd can look good at Copenhagen. In resisting this nonsense, the good sense of the Australian public is once again on display.
29 November, 2009
28 November, 2009
Politics
On the 4th July, 2008 I sent the following email to my friend Malcolm Turnbull. I am tempted to say "I told you so"!
Dear Malcolm,
Listening to this morning's ABC Radio prompts me to 'write'. I have always had a predilection to telling other people, particularly politicians, how to do their jobs! Now that I don't have one myself (retired) I can further indulge myself in this annoying habit!
Murray-Darling
As a one time resident of S.A. I am acutely aware of the water hang-ups of the locals. If you live in the driest state in the driest continent and only have one decent river and you live on the rear (arse) end of that, you are sure to have a hang-up. Primary school children in Adelaide are taught that SA is discriminated against by those awful bastards upstream in Queensland, NSW (including the ACT) and Victoria who take all the water. The South Australians have, over the years, exploited this "I'm badly done by" attitude to the point that they have the best deal of all in the basin (have a look at their irrigation allocations in the last few years), pipe water all over the place and are quite profligate in its use.
The 'elephant in the room', which they never mention, are the barrages at the mouth of the river. Under natural conditions the water in the lower lakes varied from being salt to fresh depending on river flows. Once the barrages were built it became continually fresh and the expectation developed that there should always be sufficient fresh water from upstream to keep them high. The option of doing what would have happened under natural conditions and allow the salt water in, is never contemplated. Without this natural flushing it is no wonder the mouth of the Murray closes over more than it did under natural conditions.Most of the statements about the ecological collapse of the river refer to the lower lakes.
Against that backdrop, what a worry it is to have the key players in the debate now all S.A. based- Penny Wong, Mike Young and now Nick Xenothon!! I think Mike Young is quite right in saying that an absolute 'cap' figure is no way to manage a highly variable situation. We need to deal in shares of an ever moving total. However, he is quite wrong in never acknowledging the barrages issue and even suggesting that the massive evaporation of fresh water from the lower lakes should be a first call on the river.
Carbon Trading
It seems to me to be increasingly clear that the conventional wisdom is under very strong challenge. There has been no warming over the last ten years and the link between atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and warming is very weak. If there is a problem, if India and China and the rest of the developing world do nothing, what is the purpose of Australians being 'holier than thou' and inflicting economic pain for no measurable impact on the global position. I hope you have a chance to read Colin Robinson's paper that I emailed you yesterday.
My, ever humble, view is that Australia should do nothing in a regulatory sense and allow all those "virtuous greens" who apparently make up a significant part of our population, to act independently and freely! With all of the concerns about costs, particularly fuel costs, now might be the right time for the Opposition to really differentiate itself and take such a position. You might have a problem with Greg Hunt!
Dear Malcolm,
Listening to this morning's ABC Radio prompts me to 'write'. I have always had a predilection to telling other people, particularly politicians, how to do their jobs! Now that I don't have one myself (retired) I can further indulge myself in this annoying habit!
Murray-Darling
As a one time resident of S.A. I am acutely aware of the water hang-ups of the locals. If you live in the driest state in the driest continent and only have one decent river and you live on the rear (arse) end of that, you are sure to have a hang-up. Primary school children in Adelaide are taught that SA is discriminated against by those awful bastards upstream in Queensland, NSW (including the ACT) and Victoria who take all the water. The South Australians have, over the years, exploited this "I'm badly done by" attitude to the point that they have the best deal of all in the basin (have a look at their irrigation allocations in the last few years), pipe water all over the place and are quite profligate in its use.
The 'elephant in the room', which they never mention, are the barrages at the mouth of the river. Under natural conditions the water in the lower lakes varied from being salt to fresh depending on river flows. Once the barrages were built it became continually fresh and the expectation developed that there should always be sufficient fresh water from upstream to keep them high. The option of doing what would have happened under natural conditions and allow the salt water in, is never contemplated. Without this natural flushing it is no wonder the mouth of the Murray closes over more than it did under natural conditions.Most of the statements about the ecological collapse of the river refer to the lower lakes.
Against that backdrop, what a worry it is to have the key players in the debate now all S.A. based- Penny Wong, Mike Young and now Nick Xenothon!! I think Mike Young is quite right in saying that an absolute 'cap' figure is no way to manage a highly variable situation. We need to deal in shares of an ever moving total. However, he is quite wrong in never acknowledging the barrages issue and even suggesting that the massive evaporation of fresh water from the lower lakes should be a first call on the river.
Carbon Trading
It seems to me to be increasingly clear that the conventional wisdom is under very strong challenge. There has been no warming over the last ten years and the link between atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and warming is very weak. If there is a problem, if India and China and the rest of the developing world do nothing, what is the purpose of Australians being 'holier than thou' and inflicting economic pain for no measurable impact on the global position. I hope you have a chance to read Colin Robinson's paper that I emailed you yesterday.
My, ever humble, view is that Australia should do nothing in a regulatory sense and allow all those "virtuous greens" who apparently make up a significant part of our population, to act independently and freely! With all of the concerns about costs, particularly fuel costs, now might be the right time for the Opposition to really differentiate itself and take such a position. You might have a problem with Greg Hunt!
13 November, 2009
Al Gore and Global Warming
The truth is, evidence of man's impact on climate remains maddeningly elusive, in part because man's impact on climate is so small as to be hard to disentangle from natural variability. This is not Mr. Gore's position, of course. If anything, however, the case for action has become less closed since he pronounced it closed in 1989, if only because of the huge sums and manpower poured into the subject to little avail.
In retrospect, a significant moment was the falling apart or debunking of two key attempts seemingly well-suited to clinch matters for a scientifically literate public. One, the famous hockey stick graph, which suggested the temperature rise of the past 100 years was unprecedentedly steep, was convincingly challenged. The other, a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels.
These episodes from a decade ago testified to one important thing: Even climate activists recognized a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. Yet today the same circles are more dependent than ever on predictions made by models, whose forecasts lie far enough in the future that those who rely on them to make policy prescriptions are in no danger of being held accountable for their reliability.
For a while the media could patch over the scientific shortfall by reporting evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what causes warming. Inconveniently, however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined and less reliant on flaky records from the past (massaged to the Nth degree), the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.
We could go on. But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.
Isn't that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?
The Wall Street Journal November 12,2009
In retrospect, a significant moment was the falling apart or debunking of two key attempts seemingly well-suited to clinch matters for a scientifically literate public. One, the famous hockey stick graph, which suggested the temperature rise of the past 100 years was unprecedentedly steep, was convincingly challenged. The other, a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels.
These episodes from a decade ago testified to one important thing: Even climate activists recognized a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. Yet today the same circles are more dependent than ever on predictions made by models, whose forecasts lie far enough in the future that those who rely on them to make policy prescriptions are in no danger of being held accountable for their reliability.
For a while the media could patch over the scientific shortfall by reporting evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what causes warming. Inconveniently, however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined and less reliant on flaky records from the past (massaged to the Nth degree), the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.
We could go on. But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.
Isn't that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?
The Wall Street Journal November 12,2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)