Tim Flannery - Govco's appointed expert on the subject:
2005: Predicted NSW could be in a permanent drought because of global warming and dams will be dry within 2 years.
2008: Adelaide may run out of water by 2009
2007: Brisbane will never again have dam-filling rains
2007: Global warming will dry out Australia so much that Desal will be the only salvation for our 3 biggest cities
2011:
"There are islands in the Torres Strait that are already being evacuated and are feeling the impacts," (which ones? - I can't find any)
I haven't bothered to check that what you are attributing to him is accurate. There is certainly no context but Tim Flannery is not the whole of climate science. The broad predictions by the various models by, contributed to by thousands of other scientists, are looking to be correct.
I am fine with the concept of climate change persae. Has been happening for as long as the world has existed I'm sure.
The question is: Why? Why has it changed in the past, why is it changing now and why will it change into the future?
I do however greet stupid outlandish claims with a very healthy dose of sceptasism. Just because a so-called expert comes to some conclusion, I always look at the motivation. No different to presenting evidence at a trial. You can get 50 experts on both sides of the fence to both argue in equally convincing fashion that their point of view is correct (although completely opposite to the other side). What we are talking about is drawing a conclusion about evidence presented and that conclusion is nothing more than opinion. When opinions are involved, I always look at potential motivating factors at which case is mostly where the money is coming from.
There's not 50 on one side and 50 on the other. There are a very small number of people saying it's not happening and a much larger group with evidence that it is. Of course, within that much larger group there is debate as to how much and how fast and what the full consequences will be, but qualitatively they are all saying the same thing.
Actually my business is indirectly good for the environment, locking up carbon within timber products that are stored in houses.
Good to hear but I was writing hypothetically. If you were one of the Koch brothers, say, you would (they do) have a strong incentive to obfuscate.
I don't see your point??? If you are asking can money/beliefs sway opinion the other way??? Yep. No doubt about it.
I am saying that scientists are less skilled (unsurprisingly) at PR and have much less money and political influence than do the businesses that will be rendered obsolete by AGW. How much funding of politicians, particularly in the US, comes from oil, coal and gas companies and how much comes from individual scientists? How much political influence do they have in terms of how many people they employ? How much political influence do the various groups that comprise the religious right in the US have?
Nope. Haven't read either report.
Perhaps you should. Both are (or were) available online to read at no charge. (They'll take a while to read.) I'll also throw in a reminder that the IPCC reports are also available online.
My opinion is that it's impossible to say one way or the other how much humans contribute to climate change.
One of the 2007 IPCC reports provides a breakdown of the contributions that various human activities are believed to contribute to climate change. That's the best we've got at the moment (there's another report due soon). I challenge you to find an equivalent report that reaches different conclusions.
There is some room for error in those breakdowns and that is acknowledged and estimated. Some of the margin is in the mathematical (statistical) artifact of small data sets which doesn't necessarily mean the results are inaccurate, just not as precise as is desirable.
That said, I don't see a down side to lowering co2 emissions. Taxes don't do that. Actions do.
That depends on the level of tax and how it's applied. There is certainly room for discussion over the best way to eliminate emissions. That's a different discussion as to whether it's necessary or not.
I have mentioned before, there is a very real probability that our carbon tax will increase world co2 emissions, not lower them.
In the short term, that's arguably true. What matters is what is the best way to move the Australian economy to one with lower - ultimately no - emissions. At the moment we have a highly Carbon intensive economy. That's a very dangerous position to be in when a penalty or even prohibition on emitting is a certainty at some point.
Direct action is measurable and very clear weather it's working or not. Incentives like banning incandesant light globes - great idea (and idea who implemented it??). I support phasing out coal fired power. My personal preferance is go nuclear. Plonk it next to a desal plant and kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Both of these things are clear and measurable as to their effectiveness. As for the Carbon wealth redistribution scheme - pffft. Who knows???
Reaper
The problem is that it's very difficult for government bodies to cover all the changes that will occur (and be needed). As above, the actual reduction in emissions, while desirable, is less important than changing the structure of the economy to move away from emitting.
I doubt any government is going to tell people to move place of dwelling or business in order to reduce their AGW impact (nor would I want them to). They may well do so with a price incentive.
