marlene huff
Posted on 5 Mar 2011 2:15 pm

First PM Gillard, majority of the Australian Population does not believe in climate change and does not want a carbon tax forced upon them. Majority of Australian people are sick and tired of Politicians projecting what the Australian people want and need. There is no need to for a Carbon Tax as there is no Climate Change.

PM Gillard, as an Australian Citizen, I would like this to go to a referendum for the Australian population to decide.

I do recall PM Gillard you were against Mr Kevin Rudd for trying to bring in the ETS. Carbon Tax...ETS?? whats the difference.......REFERENDUM


Regards

Marlene

Pui Ho Lam
Posted on 12 Jun 2011 12:14 am

Well, I suggest you go to the following website and see it for yourself. http://www.csiro.au/news/ps2q9.html

On the other hand, I don't believe carbon tax can really do anything. People who are rich are always willing to pay more money for the electricity and people who are poor are certainly doing everything they can to reduce power usage.

Renato Bright
Posted on 23 Oct 2011 2:26 pm

Just noticed the comment by 'marlene huff'.
Marlene, where is the data you have reviewed to reach your conclusion that '... there is no Climate Change ...'?

Should we believe you? Or, should we critically review the overwhelming body of evidence based data provided by climate scientists and reputable scientific bodies worldwide which clearly points to man made climate change? Please direct me to where I can obtain the data upon which you have based your statement.
Meantime, you might like to avail yourself of the huge body of material, in basic, intermediate and advanced detail, which deals with what the skeptics say, and the science community's evidence based responses to what the skeptics say at: www.skepticalscience.com

Mark Addinall
Posted on 16 Nov 2011 4:48 am

Since you asked nicely, here are some datasets.
"Climate scientists", politicians, and the "concerned public" make all sorts of scary stories up about the climate, knowing full well that most people buy this "appeal to authority" fallacy.

It might be worth looking at the DATA collected by said "Climate scientists".

That would be the people at NESDIS/NOAA that collect ACTUAL data,
not 'corrected' in various super-secret methods.

And looked at by statisticians like myself. Here we go. Following the links may be interesting.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/Reg11...



What do you make of that trend-line? Scary hey?
Well worth wasting a trillion dollars over.


How about:


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.p...


Interesting that the long term mean shows NO warming, but the
'corrected' polynomal
fit over the data DO show global warming. Albeit a trivial amount
(0.9F per century).


Here is another interesting plot of ACTUAL data (without scary red
paint).


"This page explains the origin of a graph comparing the number of
weather stations around the world with the simple mean of the
temperature data."


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html


"The temperature average in the above graph is unprocessed. Graphs of
the 'Global Temperature' from places like GISS and CRU reflect
attempts to correct for, among other things, the loss of stations
within grid cells, so they don't show the same jump at 1990.
The graph mainly serves to illustrate one of the challenges for people
who are trying to use land-based station data to construct a
continuous index of the global average temperature over the 1990
boundary. Gridded data reflect processing to (hopefully) remove the
influence of problems such as the loss of station counts within grids.
The point of the graph above is that a change in the raw mean occurred
coincidental with the big loss of stations in the early 1990s. This
creates a problem of confounding. After the early 1990s the gridded
series started behaving differently, i.e. going upwards so that the
1990s becomes the warmest decade, etc. Maybe the anomaly series are
fully corrected for the problem of station closure and the shift in
the 1990s was climatic. Or maybe the anomaly series are not fully
corrected for the problem of station closure, implying not all the
shift in the 1990s data was climatic. To accept the claims that the
post-1990 anomaly index is continuous with the pre-1990 data, and only
reflects a climatic change, requires the assumption, as a maintained
hypothesis, that any effects of the sudden sample change around 1990
have been removed. It has puzzled me why this assumption is not more
rigorously tested by people whose research depends on the optimistic
interpretation of the gridded data.
The loss in stations was not uniform around the world. Most stations
were lost in the former Soviet Union, China, Africa and South America.
To see this visually, go to the University of Delaware global
temperature archive. Click Available Climate Data; log in; under
Global Climate Data select Time Series 1950 to 1999; then select
Station Locations (MPEG file for downloading). Then sit and watch the
movie."


My part of the 'Globe'.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?dat...

Astute readers will notice that the Brisbane Central Roof has a slight
increase since 1883

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py...

Not much to worry about given the population of Brisbane was nearly a
thousand.


Places like Murwillumbah

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py...

And others NOT subject to huge UHI effect...
Show no warming at all.


Here are some earlier observations using BoM data, and using thier own
tools.


http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural/


This data set consistes of ALL weather stations that have a 100yr
history and ar not
situated in a capital city (to exclude UHI effect). Not a lot of
warming happening.


And for good measure, Antarctica:


http://www.addinall.net/antarctica/


Now we pop over to our good friends at CSIRO and


Fact Sheet


"Climate change is the greatest ecological, economic and social
challenge of our time.Our climate is changing
In the past century, the global average surface temperature has risen
by 0.74 ºC. The observed increase in average temperatures is
widespread around the globe, with rising trends recorded on all
continents and in the oceans."


Contrary to observed data.


"The Earth is warming
Globally, observed CO2 emissions, temperature and sea levels are
rising faster than expected.


The warming has been fastest over land, and greatest in the higher
latitudes of the northern hemisphere.


Global ocean temperature rose by 0.10 ºC between 1961 and 2003, to a
depth of 700 metres.


In Australia, there has been a 0.9 ºC warming since 1950.


We have already observed changes to our climate that are more rapid
than anything the earth has experienced for at least 1800 years."


A bit of SCARY political crapology using made-up figure.


I see this next bit sorta 'slipped in' ex post facto as it were:


"Heavy rainfall events have increased in frequency over most areas."


But then:


"Since 1950, eastern and south-western Australia have become
significantly drier."


Of course. Makes perfect sense. Sorta.


And the citations are mostly themselves, the Department of Nasty
Climate Change
and the IPCC


*************************


Church J et al. 2008. Sea Level Rise and the Vulnerability of Coastal
Environments. In: Newman P. (ed). 2008. Transitions: Transitioning to
a Resilient City. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Pp. 191-210.


CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology. 2007. Climate Change in Australia:
Technical Report 2007. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne,
Australia.


Department of Climate Change. 2007. Climate change science frequently
asked questions.


Department of Climate Change 2007. Hot topics in climate change
science.


Hennessy K et al. 2006. Climate change impacts on fire-weather in
south-east Australia. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne,
Australia.


Hennessy K, Fitzharris B, Bates BC, Harvey N, Howden SM, Hughes L,
Salinger J, Warrick R. 2007. Chapter 11. Australia and New Zealand.
Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE.
(eds). In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.


Hennessy KJ, Fawcett R, Kirono D, Mpelasoka F, Jones D, Bathols J,
Whetton P, Stafford Smith M, Howden M, Mitchell C, Plummer N. 2008. An
assessment of the impact of climate change on the nature and frequency
of exceptional climatic events. CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology.


Hennessy K. 2008. Climate Change Evidence, Impacts and Risk
Management. In: Newman P. (ed). Transitions: Transitioning to a
Resilient City. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Pp. 23-34.


Hobday AJ, Poloczanska ES, Matear RJ. (eds). 2008. Implications of
Climate Change for Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture - A
Preliminary Assessment. A CSIRO report for the Department of Climate
Change, Canberra, Australia.


IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New
York, USA.


IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Solomon SD, Qin M, Manning
Z, Chen M, Marquis KB, Averyt M, Tignor, Miller HL. (eds). Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group
1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New
York, USA.


IPCC. 2007. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ,
Hanson CE. (eds). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


IPCC. 2007. Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA. (eds).
Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working group III to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, USA.


Lucas C, Hennessy KJ, Bathols JM. 2007. Bushfire weather in Southeast
Australia recent trends and projected climate change impacts. Report
by CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and Bushfire CRC for The Climate
Institute. 84 pp.


Newman P. (ed). 2008. Transitions: Transitioning to a Resilient City.
CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Pp. 191-210.


Stokes CJ, Howden SM. (eds). 2008. An overview of climate change
adaptation in Australian primary industries - impacts, options and
priorities. Prepared for Land and Water Australia by the CSIRO
Climate Adaptation National Research Flagship. CSIRO, Canberra,
Australia.


CAGW 'disaster' is purest kiddology. The only people paying any
notice are cretins and crooks.


The sooner Abbott chucks the pointless "Carbon Tax" the better.


Mark Addinall.

Chris Edwards
Posted on 18 Nov 2011 12:14 pm

Thanks Mr Addinall, that was the first cogent argument against climate change that I have heard, and it has given me much to consider. Also, I would like to take time to thank you to Prime Minister for your service. For me there is though one obvious point that no-one seems to be really asking.

Why IS there a debate on this issue. Period.

Mean temperatures, CO2 levels, and other climate associated data sets are not debatable. There is no debate. And yet seemingly there is. The source of this debate must not have it's origin in those data sets (as far as I am aware, weather balloons, and thermometers, are fairly bi-partisan, and, rather reliable in their findings), scientists, analysts, statisticians, data collectors, and their staff, do their utmost to fulfil those same ideals(and in the vast majority of cases achieve them), so the origin of this debate must be of another nature. I ask again, Why is there a debate?

There is no grey in this. There are no climate change scientists that I am aware of that say: "The data is inconclusive."

This is not a murky issue, this is black and white.
Establishing trends in terms of the mathematics, and, using those trends to ascertain the reality of climate change is something that I am capable of(should I have access to the raw data), and I'm a high school leaver. There should be no debate.
This all, to my mind, points at something that can only be seen as manipulation, and on a vast scale. This corruption of facts, leading to a debate of this size and scale, is, almost overwhelming to consider. More disturbing still is the amount of effort required to undertake such a thing. Mr Addinall quotes trillions of dollars; however regardless of the amount, regardless of the truth of climate change, the nature, and requirements, of an undertaking to convince me, "sell me", the reverse, bespeak of secret budgets, plans and motives. Far, far more concerning.

Either there is climate change, and all is being done to convince the public that it does not in fact exist for "it's own safety", or...
Most disturbing about the climate change issue are those three dots, and all the places they could lead.

So Prime Minister, my question, should I be given the chance to ask one is very simple:
Why is there a debate about the climate change issue?

Chris Edwards
Posted on 21 Nov 2011 9:46 am

I would also add here, that, after researching these points, Mr Addinal, and further, researching several other sources of information... I would have to agree that the carbon tax is going to make no real impact on climate change. I have discovered that in fact the carbon tax is a little like throwing a bucket of water on a house fire.... whilst a tanker is on the other side on the house pumping gallons of petrol at it.

*http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/maps.pdf

That is probably the best reference I found, however, the varying data sets available on this issue are myriad, and with only a little time with a search engine, the reality of climate change may seem very different for you.

The fact is... SOMEONE is screwing with the data... and not being very forthcoming about why.