July 6, 2011

Is climate change real?

There has been much in the media recently about climate change skeptics, such as Lord Monckton. They challenge the concept that climate change is occurring and that it is caused by humans. Why spend money developing solar power and other renewable energy sources if this is the case? Let us look at the facts.

The Planet is Warming

Globally, we have seen temperatures and sea levels rising faster than expected, with land areas experiencing the fastest increases. Australia has seen an increase of 0.9 ºC since 1950. In fact, our own CSIRO believes that we have observed changes to our climate faster than anything earth as seen for at least 1800 years.

Figure 1: The three most complete global temperature records available – from the UK Hadley Centre, NASA, and the US National Climate Data Centre – all show a clear upward trend in global average temperatures over the last 150 years (calculated using an 11 year running average). Figure from the CSIRO website.

Surface temperature stations have been used since the 1850s, and there are a number of complete records dating back to then. Looking at the diagram on the right, we can see a powerful upward trend from the 1970s onwards. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the 1970s. Indeed, 2010 was declared to be the hottest year on record.

Some of the effects of continued temperature increases are that the sea level continues to rise, the ice sheets continue to retreat, and coral bleaching accelerates. The flow-on effects of these symptoms have the potential to be catastrophic for a large percentage of the world’s population. Australia alone faces massive costs to our environment, including threats to the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu national park and south-Western Australia. There is also the threat of increased droughts affecting agriculture, as well as impacts on coastal settlements where the sea could move as much as a few hundred metres inland. The cost of such outcomes has the potential to be enormous. See the CSIRO analysis for more details.

Humans are causing this warming

There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming, primarily due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Based on fundamental physics and mathematics, we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we’re responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades.  In fact, we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we’ve thus far seen, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them).

Science predicts a number of “fingerprints” that we should expect, if current climate change models are correct. Indeed, these have been observed – including more warming at night, more warming at higher latitudes, and upper atmosphere cooling. Furthermore, climate models have projected the ensuing global warming to a high level of accuracy, verifying that we have a good understanding of the fundamental physics behind climate change.

Sometimes people ask “what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?”. Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that’s what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries.

The warming will continue

If we continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, the planet will continue to warm. The models tell us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv will cause a rise in the temperature of between 2 to 4.5°C. We’re currently sitting on 390 ppmv, and current predictions show us hitting 560 ppmv at some point between 2050 and 2100 if we do nothing. You might think that a couple of degrees isn’t a very big temperature shift, but keep in mind that the inter-glacial period (125,000 years ago) was 3 to 5 ºC warmer than today and sea levels were 4-6m higher than today). A rise of 1 metre would be enough to displace as much as 10% of the world’s entire population.

Arguments to the contrary are superficial

Skeptic criticisms of climate science are consistently superficial. For example, the criticisms of James Hansen’s 1988 global warming projections never go beyond “he was wrong”, when in reality it’s important to evaluate what caused the discrepancy between his projections and actual climate changes, and what we can learn from this. And those who argue that “it’s the Sun” fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they cannot explain the current global warming trend. And those who argue “it’s just a natural cycle” can never seem to identify exactly which natural cycle can explain the current warming, nor can they explain how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong.

The Big Picture

The big picture is that we know the planet is warming, humans are causing it, there is a substantial risk to continuing on our current path, but we don’t know exactly how large the risk is. However, uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk is not an excuse to ignore it. We also know that if we continue on a business-as-usual path, the risk of catastrophic consequences is very high.  In fact, the larger the uncertainty, the greater the potential for the exceptionally high risk scenario to become reality. We need to continue to decrease the uncertainty, but it’s also critical to acknowledge what we know and what questions have been resolved, and that taking no action is not an option.

Sections of this post are from an article entitled The Big Picture from Skeptical Science and are used with permission

  • Bearsmum

    Of course it’s real.  The climate is always changing.  It will always change.  And it was changing even before humans stood up and walked around.  A tax will do nothing but make those with carbon credits to trade, richer, and those with none, poorer.

  • Anonymous

    The point of this section is to illustrate that the climate is changing in unprecedented ways due to human activity You have not raised any specific points on here that you wish to counter, so I can only assume you couldn’t find any!

  • http://ozcentral.blogspot.com/ Jeremy Michaels

    Bearsmum has countered, such as
    “the climate is always changing and “It will always change” and”A tax
    will do nothing” did you not see those points? You did but they prove
    you wrong.

    As far as global warming……. sorry, climate change (there is no
    global warming and you can’t levy a tax without any excuse) is concerned
    there is no way you can claim change in unprecedented ways. It’s only
    in the last couple of centuries anywhere near reliable records have been

    And how come two real environmental concerns such as deforestation and
    overpopulation not mentioned? Maybe because there’s no money in it?

    Labor proved to me that they are not interested in protecting the
    environment and are only after money when they withdrew funding to fight
    the Asian pest bee. That bee could wipe out our farm industry but Labor
    withdrew funds saying it can’t be stopped. This is despite it has been
    stopped during its previous invasions. But Labor had to give money out
    to fight this environmental problem. They don’t want to know unless they
    can take in money. http://ozcentral.blogspot.com/2011/04/buzz-word-on-labor.html

    And how does the carbon tax work? It takes money from people. The
    environment will change regardless. Volcanoes will still pump out CO2, a
    tax won’t do a thing.

  • Cklv Com

    Everytime I see a website such as this it always makes claims about the science. Why is it that only the people who claim that global warming isn’t occurring can actually show some science? I would like to keep an open mind but all the scientific evidence I have seen shows that there is no such thing as global warming. 

    Where is this so called irrefutable science? Why can no one actually provide me with some?

  • Anonymous

    This page is full of links to fully referenced sources. I don’t see you refuting any specific points.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Jeremy, you have some legitimate questions. Let me try and answer them.

    First, this article does only show data from the last couple of hundred years. However, there is data that collates a variety of different sources to draw a picture of the last 500+ years. There are a whole swathe of studies actually, with more detail available here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    See the attached images for diagrams.

    As for deforestation and overpopulation – they are also legitimate concerns. However, you will find that there is a large amount of investment to prevent deforestation as part of carbon abatement techniques. A carbon tax puts in place a commercial interest in doing so.

    Overpopulation is a developmental thing and reliant on increasing the levels of education in the developing world. Massive investment is being made towards that end goal.

    As for how the carbon tax works – check out this section of the website: http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/what-is-the-carbon-tax/

  • Cklv Com

    So again you can’t point to any science. A news.com.au article is not science. Nor are CSIRO predictions of sea level rises (sea levels currently rise at around 1.5cm pa. Not very catastrophic.)

  • Anonymous

    Try this page - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

    All referenced.

  • KayCee

    Cklv. If you are interested start here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    From there you can indulge in the many references until your heart is content.

    Of course to truely grasp the enormity and complexity of the problem, you would need to dedicate 1000′s of hours of many, many scientists.

    You deniers must honestly think this is the worlds greatest consipricy.  See the following list of organizations that have dedicated the time to try to punch holes in the theory. If they could they would, they would probably win a Nobel Prize, but unfortunately they can’t, that is why they say there is consensus.

    This list is from this website.

    Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
    The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:
    American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyAustralian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIROBritish Antarctic SurveyCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyEnvironmental Protection AgencyEuropean Federation of GeologistsEuropean Geosciences UnionEuropean Physical SocietyFederation of American ScientistsFederation of Australian Scientific and Technological SocietiesGeological Society of AmericaGeological Society of AustraliaInternational Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)International Union of Geodesy and GeophysicsNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRoyal Meteorological SocietyRoyal Society of the UK
    The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
    Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademie des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
    A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
    The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
    African Academy of SciencesCameroon Academy of SciencesGhana Academy of Arts and SciencesKenya National Academy of SciencesMadagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and SciencesNigerian Academy of Sciencesl’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalUganda National Academy of SciencesAcademy of Science of South AfricaTanzania Academy of SciencesZimbabwe Academy of SciencesZambia Academy of SciencesSudan Academy of Sciences
    Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
    Royal Society of New ZealandPolish Academy of Sciences

  • Mindclear

    I rarely involve myself in political discussion until now. I agree the weather changes but to say man made carbon dioxide is the cause is naive.

    I am a scientist, I interprete information and base my conclusions and assumptions from the available information. I have studied numerous information sources from both sides and now face an apparent bombardment of propagada ‘science’ spruiking ‘climate change’ of what is going to happen. This is not science – this is theory, at best a guess and generally wrong ie: sea level rising 1m vs 100m? Which?

    I recall another example the Hon. Penny Wong said recently “This is dought now get use to it. This is the way its going to be with climate change” An arogant statement that was to be followed by a good drenching. There never was an apology.

    I have followed the controlled and contrived release of government information on a daily basis, some say ‘drip feed’ to manage what is said and to whom. My conclusions lead me to advise that this website is simply another method of controlling what is said and by whom. I would also be as ‘bold’ to say that the person or persons managing this site are funded by the government.    

    There has not been discussion, there has not been a debate of fact, there was no mandate, there has been no consultation and there certianly was no election asking the voters if they want a tax.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Mindclear. This site is certainly not funded by the government. It has no funding whatsoever, and is the product of the time that I and a couple of others have put into collating the information on here.

    If you are a scientist then you should know all about how science works. Everything is a theory. It’s just that this theory has a lot of credence and weight – it is backed up by a lot of evidence. It is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community who consider themselves climate scientists – see here: http://www.carbontax.net.au/is-there-a-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

    There is no controlled and contrived release of government information. The only conspiracy is the manufactured opposition by big corporations dependent on the revenue flows from fossil fuels. Read up on the George C. Marhsall institute, it’s what is driving so much of this hysteria against acting on climate change and is underpinned by a libertarian ideology. The Cold War has a lot to answer for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

  • Cklv Com

    I had a look at that page. All the articles are about models of the future. All of which have so far been proven wrong.

    Where is something that states that temperatures have risen and proves that it is as a result of carbon emissions. 

    Anything that states sealevels rising due to glacier melt can be dismissed as inaccurate considering most of the worlds glaciers are currently in advance. 

    Furthermore how do you explain how cold the current European summer has been?

  • Cklv Com

    So in summary,
    The science claiming that climate change is real does not exist.
    The climate models have been proven wrong and we have nothing to worry about and the carbon tax truly is an attempt to redistribute wealth. 

  • Jriches

     If you want science, you could try reading the papers in the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml) or more recent ones. There are plenty of indicators of increasing temperature – ground temperature and satellite measurements, reduction in arctic sea ice coverage, changes to planting seasons, and so on.

    As for glaciers, you are simply wrong. Here is the UN report on global glacier changes (http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf). Advancing vs retreating glaciers are plotted in blue and red, and that red bar is about ten times the size of the blue one.

    There is a simple explanation for the European summer. It is called ‘weather’. This is very different from ‘climate’, and this is understood by most people. Try looking at a larger dataset (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif) to see the trend rather than just the noise.

  • Cklv Com

    Your statement about glaciers is misleading. The graphs you liked to show that glaciers have been retreating for over 100 years and there has been no acceleration. It also has it’s last data set in 2005 which does not prove me wrong.

  • Jriches

    OK, so when you said ” most of the worlds glaciers are currently in advance.”, did you really mean “most of the worlds glaciers are retreating, but not at an accelerating rate”? That wasn’t entirely clear to me from your comment. If there are more of your comments where you actually meant the exact opposite of what you wrote, please let us know and we can save some time.

    The glaciers have retreated and advanced over the last 100 years, and currently they are predominantly retreating. If the data from 2005 is too old for your liking, here is some from 2009 ( http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum09.html ). Given that global temperatures haven’t plummeted since then, I feel that this data is still relevant two years later. Of course, you may feel differently…

  • Cklv Com

    OK so maybe my comment was a little inaccurate but your data is grossly misleading. 
    To have the data set conveniently begin just after the mini ice age that ended in 1750 is pure data selection.   

    So now there is something called weather? So even though you still have no data that proves that humans have caused global warming, even with all the evidence of scientist using fraudulent data sets so that their funding doesn’t get cut and all the evidence of future projections being nothing other than wrong any anomaly can be blamed on “the weather”? 

    Please. Are you all this gullible?

  • Jimmy

    altered statistics.

  • Jimmy

    Nicely said ;) i support you.

  • Jimmy

    Jimmy supports you :D

  • Jimmy

    Well said.

  • Jimmy

    You do realize climate scientists have few credentials and are funded by the government themselves. If man made climate change didn’t exist at all, neither would their jobs, and therefore they would do what they can to keep themselves in the game.

  • Anonymous

    Have few credentials? As opposed to people like Lord Monckton who have none? Climate scientists have work either way, they’re employed by academic institutions. The whole point of the academic system is to provide scientists with a way to do research that is free from influence.

  • CMAN

    The climate always changes and to me the climate feels like it is actually cooling down, not warming. It is colder now than it was last year or the year before.

  • Big one

    Also to say humans are doing it is absolutely obsurd.

  • Doylesport

    Even if climate change is real why are people like me on $500 a week being slugged??? My compensation is a whopping $6 a week! That’s not going to go far now is it? Especially as the carbon price will rise, and rise, and rise…while the piddling compensation is largely one off. WE have no spare money in our budgets as it is, and you want to pay all our bills and grocery prices going up under this tax??? 0.7 percent rise? Are you kidding?? All so a bunch of people who sit down for a living can feel better about themselves. Sod the tax we would all be better off if we buil;t a PUBLICLY OWNED renewable energy generation on a massive scale, like we did with the Snowy Scheme. Anything else is just making money for those community minded folk over at the dereivatrives markets. We are getting screwed out here in the real world and no one is helpinmg us!!! For the first time in my life I am voting Liberal – and last election I stupidly voted Green. NEVER AGAIN!

  • Annie

    I attended a q&a at Petersham Town Hall where Anthony Albanese and Greg Combet explained the carbon tax.  When asked about the models being outdated in light of the new NASA data, Combet said it’s better to be certain ‘just in case’.  The majority of the meeting was spent discussing ‘compensation’ for those less well off.  Just like the brochure that cost Australians millions of dollars, the focus was about weath redistribution and had little to do with the science.  Australia will be sending billions of dollars to buy carbon credits from developing nations like China (one of the richest countries in the world).  This money would be better staying in Australia and spent on Australian infrastructure, new dams and drought proofing our nation.  There is a world food shortage looming and rather than focus on a non proven science (there is no consensus), we’d be better focusing on stopping the degradation of our farm lands from coal seam gas companies and refurbishing our brown coal fired power stations.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone noticed that at some point in time the terminology went from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”
    I am old enough to distinctly remember a time before GW how scientist begged for money. The announcement of GW meant that money started flowing their way and in particular to NASA scientist.
    The problem I think is at some point in time Global Warming is something that would have been quantified (Is it really warming or not).
    Climate Change will never really be quantified because as every knows the climate is always changing. “Climate Change” keeps the gravy train rolling
    I suspect that the scientific community went along with this terminology due to funding.
    BTW I am not a sceptic, I firmly do believe that human activity is having an impact on the earth

  • Dave

    Personally I think a skeptic is someone who doesn’t believe in science – like people who think ‘magic’ water can cure cancer, or someone like Lord Monkton who said he has invented a cure for AIDS – I’m sure he agrees he is a ‘Skeptic’.

    Science can be verified by other people – thats part of what makes it science. So someone can get away with fraud for only a very short time to get funding or for whatever reason – remember ‘cold fusion’? And it’s pretty hard to fake thermometers all over the world :)

    Anyway, the reason why scientists started using ‘Climate Change’ is because while the WARMING of the GLOBE is the underlying problem, it causes lots of other problems too. Some people say ‘Great – warming means summer all the time’. But when you feed more energy into a system at a growing rate, it often gets more chaotic – have a look at the whorls in a coffee cup when its heated. So while the AVERAGE heat goes up, weather can get more chaotic, and you get extremes at both ends. Hence ‘Climate Change’.

    Actual definitions from (your favourite moneygrubbers) NASA at:

    Definitions Global warming: the increase in Earth’s
    average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse
    gases.Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate,
    or of a region on Earth.

  • Dave

    Pity I can’t correct post – I used the term ‘Skeptic’ as in ‘Climate Skeptic’. Obviously, per my second paragraph, real scepticism is a fundamental part of science, to a point. And that point is consensus. When 99 percent of scientists agree, chances are they are correct.

    This is a bit like common sense – gravity may be still a theory, but I take the lift and don’t just jump out the window :)

  • raadqureshi

    one of the coldest winter (and spring so far) ive gone through. so much for “warming”. it was global cooling in the 1970s. seems to be pseudo science thats changing to suit politics/economics rather then the opposite (politics changing in accordance with science).

  • Bob

    hello :P

  • Zachary Demaria

    the natural cycle it follows is the cycle of global heating before global cooling creating an ice age,  this happens once about every tenthousand years. we are currently overdue for an ice age, so it seems logical that this heating is a natural cycle to melt the ice caps in preparation of an ice age

  • Solosapce

    1.5 cm is catastrophic that increase can and will have impacts on estuarine systems, salinity of groundwater, increased erosion rates this then impacts fish breeding, water supply for millions of people it may not seem like much but it does have an impact. 

  • Zachary De Maria

    wow, referencing wikipedia. that is sad

  • Mat Menzel

    He’s not handing in an assignment, Zach. Do you know anywhere better to get information on the George C Marshall Institute? 10 seconds on their official site http://www.marshall.org told me that yes, they’re a conservative think tank that is interested in driving hysteria against acting on climate change.
    And Jimmy, climate scientists have lots of credentials. From the best universities. Uncredentialled newbs don’t get research jobs.

  • Darren

    Firstly there is a consensus by about 97% of scientists, and that is climate change is happening. Any one who tells you other wise is lying. more importantly the reason that no one ever discuss the science is because it doesn’t sell. Abbots’ no carbon tax, its bad is easier to sell than, combating climate change that will not effect most voters in their lifetimes is good because it will secure our future economy when the voters are dead and help future generations. And thirdly, yes china is rich, as a country. te average wage in china is nothing compared to what most people earn. people like doyle need to wake up and maybe shift what they spend and do, and then they will realise their not being shafted

  • Doylesport

    Oh sorry guvna fer bein’ so bold. I’ll go back to beiung ‘umble and grateful that our betters like you can decide wots best fer us an’ ‘ow we should live an’ all. Pity ’bout this pesky modernism we got stuffed with at school innit? You know? The one that said thjat society is supposed to progress and we were supposed to have a life that got easier and easier. But I guess you’re right an’ things like washing machines and heating are not fer the likes of us but only for decent clean living folk like yerself.

  • Crez

    Very true, the earth is meant to be entering an ice age, and there is a period of warming before an ice age, it is however a very sensitive system. And if something puts it out of balance (Putting extra CO2, CH4 or H2O) there are certain positive feedback systems (Like oceans) which can cause massive climate change, this has happened before and wiped out an estimated 95% of life on earth.

    So making finical incentives for reducing atmospheric pollution is a reasonable option for getting funds to invest in preventative, and post climate change measures that will give us an advantage over countries that do not invest.

    TLDR version:
    Will a carbon tax stop global warming/ice age – NO
    But it may postpone it to give more time to prepare and funds to do so.

  • I read

    Individual experiences of the weather??  Individual economic pain and suffering??  What can these insights offer the discussion of climate change apart from selfish ignorance.  There is enough information out there about global warming to satisfy any skeptic, but statistics can always be presented in such a way that lazy or self-interested people can get whatever answers they want out of it.

    I prefer to think of all of this information as a Global WARNING.  If we keep going the way are dependent on fossil fuels and consumer driven greed on having only the best and newest of everything, then the world will reject us as the parasite that we are.  The world is a living organism and we are its cancer.  There is so much that we need to be doing to change our carbon footprint that I won’t even bother going into it at this time except to make this point.

    Part of the Carbon tax issue rhetoric that has not been stated often enough is that it is a chance to give industry and business the incentive to innovate.  It is to ensure that they are moving towards doing things better, cleaner and with less impact on the world, by making it an economic necessity that they do so.  This, to me is as far as it needs to go.  There is enough information out there about what has been tried in Europe in relation to Carbon based trading schemes over the past 5-7 years and it is the scheme that Australia is adopting which is one that other countries have already agreed is the best model to base taxing on.  Which is why a LOT of other countries are waiting to see if Australia can do it.  If the SINGLE BIGGEST POLLUTER IN THE WORLD (BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE HER) CAN AGREE ON POSITIVE CHANGE THEN PERHAPS OTHERS WILL FOLLOW.  To do nothing now will not only put us further behind where the rest of the world is already (Yes, there is plenty being done in other countries to address climate change – you just have to go looking to find it and main stream journalism doesn’t) and in a very short period of time we will be scratching our heads wondering, why didn’t we give our children this opportunity when we had the chance.  Our grandchildren would have been fine if we had.

    Be educated through effort, not ignorance and don’t be a herd animal.  You can really find all the information you want in relation to what is really happening in the world without listening to “Alan Jones” or looking at commercial corporate journalism.

  • J2z_01

    I hope a few other people have the opportunity to read ‘this’ and be educated enough to see through this rubbish. Political spin at it best – thank you.

  • Firstdudehere

    There is absolutely no empirical evidence that humans cause climate change. Climate is dictated by the sun. This is a complete fallacy and a deliberate lie. This web-site is nothing short of outrageous and goes to confirm the Fabian Socialist agenda and the blatant corruption in government This is a tax on breathing. Where is the debate? 

  • NotbornYesterday

    What a load of crap!!!!! global warming my a$$, between 2001 and 2011 our average temperatures have dropped 1 degree celsius. Climates change all the time thats called nature. Now unless Im very much mistaken in grade school we were taught co2 was good for plants and trees. 


  • Robin Elden

    So, you think the Sun is just getting hotter?

  • Firstdudehere

    It was Galileo who discovered the earth revolves around the sun (but of course, the self-styled elite at the time tried him for heresy). Sound familiar! Anyway as a result of sun spots, magnetic force, gravitational pull and orbits the sun influences our climate. Man is but an ant within our solar system. In actual fact the current cycle predicts the earth is actually cooling. This is why the propagandists changed the term ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ about a year or two ago. 

    Go have a look at pictures, photos, paintings of places decades/century’s ago and you will see a pattern. For example I believe it was in Victorian times that people ice skated over the Thames in London because it iced over during winter and in Roman times in Yorkshire (northern england) they had vineyards of grapes for wine suggesting a much warmer climate. 

    Climate is constantly changing globally and this tax introduced by this traitorous Labour government is a massive transfer of wealth and effectively a tax on breathing. As anyone should know humans exhale CO2 and therefore this tax could be used as a population control. 

  • Mat Menzel


    Your astronomy knowledge notwithstanding, there is too much pollution being put out. People who have studied the topic much more than you or I (barely at all) have staked their reputations on it changing our climate. Yes, they could all be involved in the widest and most effective conspiracy ever, or they could be scientists who have spent their lives researching it.
    Dude, have you even read the material on this site?

  • Anonymous


    Your astronomy knowledge notwithstanding, there is too much
    pollution being put out. People who have studied the topic much more
    than you or I (barely at all) have staked their reputations on it
    changing our climate. Yes, they could all be involved in the widest and
    most effective conspiracy ever, or they could be scientists who have
    spent their lives researching it.
    Dude, have you even read the material on this site?

  • Crez

    “2001 and 2011 our average temperatures have dropped 1 degree celsius”
    That’s called cherry picking data, stop it. Look at the overall global temperature, it’s going up.

    “Climates change all the time thats called nature”
    But not dramatic and rapid climate change, that’s called bad news.

    “co2 was good for plants and trees.”
    That is irrelevant because we are talking about CO2, CH4 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and I am yet to see a 9km tall tree.

  • Lemmy Kilmister

    Here is one article out of the thousands there are on the internet, you stupid weirdo http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.short

  • Qwertyuiop

    Yes it is real

  • Jonathanf

    Do we really need to tax this? Climate change is a fact of nature, of course we can’t ignore it but at the same time we aren’t the only ones to blame. This shouldnt be our primary political issue

  • Facts?

    One word – CLIMATEGATE

    = Altered stats, buddy review instead of peer review, smoking gun evidence that the leading scientific research is fake. Google the word and see for yourself.

    Second – ICE AGE
    = Nothing to do with humans. Nuff said.

    Maybe we could also throw in the Medieval Warm Period – hotter than now, not shown on graphs.

    These are all scientific facts too.

    I wouldn’t mind this tax if it was solely used for green or free energy production, but it isn’t. There is no benefit. The climate will always change, there is no concensus on the harm or benefit or more CO2.

    Lets focus on real pollution and real issues, there are many more terrible things that could destroy us before natural gas might.

  • Anonymous

    Claim altered stats all you want. It means you don’t have to think about the issues. There is no great controversy in science today. Do you think all these scientists around the world are giving up on their lifelong investigation into their field and making up lies for this conspiracy? It’s crazy, really it is.
    Yes, the climate will always change, but thousands of scientists (not conspiracy theorists) are quite sure the current change is of our own making.
    Also, how about you put your name to it. Scientists do that so that if what they’re saying is bullshit, their reputations are ruined.
    If you want to focus on real pollution, become an environmental scientist or a chemist (my qualification).

  • Anonymous

    Right, You voted Green and because they’re doing something about the environment you’re disgusted and never voting for them again. Pull the other one.

  • Pandora

    Global warming is real. Sure. But the carbon Tax is a complete waste and there is no doubt that the government is using the moeny ot pay off debts. If you’re a carbon tax supporter, read this: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

  • Gaek86
  • Chris

    There’s no doubt that the climate is changing naturally and humans are most likely having some sort of impact on it (i believe a small one but still an impact) on these green house gasses.

    But that’s not the main issue, the issue is the tax itself, i mean there are so many other ways to promote cleaner and more efficient energy and reduce pollution, but of course the government (who are the lap dogs of the banking and corperate agenda who are interlinked) will only make a policy which will help the environment if it is able to somehow make them money, they are essentially privatising and commoidificating CO2.

    Issues with this tax are apart from this compensation scheme where they take money from people only to return it to people, it’s not going to reduce CO2 as much as the government is anticipating. Sure some componies will look for ways to reduce pollution but thing is some componies either probobly can’t use cleaner alternatives in their manufacturing of whatever they make, will just raise their prices of their goods to compensate for the tax imposed on them or will pack up their operations and reopen their factories in other countries that doesn’t have the tax making it cheaper for them and having Australians lose thier jobs. Of course this won’t hurt the giant corperations becuase all their factories are already based in third world countries.

    This whole “green credits” crap is just a way to open up a new market therefore turning CO2 into another commodity in an attempt to boost the global economy that is naturally falling apart because of the very rules that govern it. I’m sure many people know that the corperate agenda is to try to turn every possible thing in existance into somthing they can sell so they can make profits, this scheme has very similar traits.

    There are so many better solutions and “steps”. We got solar power which is everyone already knows that it’s fairly effective at creating energy from an infinate source without creating pollution and this will in turn will reduce our dependance on coal energy reducing it’s needed output reducing the ammount of cola burnt reducing the ammount of green house gasses. People can buy solar panels for their house for a couple of thousand dollars but if they weren’t being sold privatly, these solar panels can be only $300 which covers only material cost to make them. The reason they solar expensive to buy is because there are no on going costs after you buy them and these componies need to make a profit.

    And there are other alternatives that produce abundance of clean energy such as tidal power. The king of them all is geo-thermal energy. We have enough information about Geo-thermal energy to start actually building Geo-thermal plants (which will produce a stagerring ammount if built in the Australian outback where i’ve heard that we can dig to the Earth’s core fairly easily from there. You probobly won’t have to worry about downsizing the workforce with Geo-thermal plants for i’m confident that jobs lost from coal plants can go to geo – thermal plants if Geo-thermal plants make coal plants obscolete.

    And remember, to our government, the question to them has never been “do we have the resources and technological know-how?” OF COURSE WE DO! The question to them has always been “do we have the money?”

  • VanRado

    Your comment that, “A tax will do nothing but make those with carbon credits to trade, richer, and those with none, poorer”, is like saying, “Those who own landfill sites with rubbish space to trade will become richer and those who need to pay to dispose of their rubbish will become poorer.”The point is that air pollution is no different from any other negative externality.  It has historically been perceived differently because when you discharge said pollution, it goes into the relatively large atmosphere and doesn’t produce an immediate effect.

    Common rubbish; another kind of waste that is inevitable with any type of activity, can be considered in the same way.  For practical purposes, it cannot be avoided and will, if left unaddressed, completely cripple the ability of a business or individual to pursue their regular objectives.  It cannot be seen, therefore, as unreasonable to have to regularly get rid of this kind of waste.  However it becomes a negative externality if a business or individual decides to dump this waste off their property and onto someone else’s property.  The other person is now burdened with the cost of having to deal with this waste.  More similar to air pollution, if the business or individual decided to dump their common rubbish on Crown land in the middle of the desert, this may go undetected and may not appear as an externality owing to the fact that this waste has made such a small impact relative to the size of unused land in the desert.  However, over time with increasing frequencies and numbers of dumping, the negative externality becomes apparent even in such an expanse like a desert.

    It is no controversy that a part of the cost of doing business is to dispose of common rubbish; although the means of removal and storage and quantity of rubbish produced is controversial in its own right.  It should also be no controversy that this cost should be applied to air pollution, regardless of climate change.

    For the sake of argument, let’s assume that climate change is not caused by human action.  It is a demonstrable fact that air pollution leads to photochemical smog, which is a negative externality.  The reduction of this type of pollution leads to a reduction in smog, as it has been observed in Tokyo in recent times.  Although impractical to eliminate the creation of negative externalities in many cases, it is fair to apply a cost to it.

    The elegance of the Emissions Trading Scheme is that it promotes the most efficient way to reduce waste that is inevitable in day to day business.  Unlike common rubbish, which can be physically transported to waste management operations for processing in consideration for the market price of that service; it is not practical to physically capture and transport such waste in the same manner.  (An exception that comes to mind is flue gas that contains sulfur, which needs to be scrubbed before released to prevent acid rain.)  The market with regard to air pollution is slightly different than that of common rubbish because the number of participants actively removing carbon dioxide dwarfs in comparison to the participants emitting carbon dioxide.  Thus there are two markets in which carbon credits are traded: the offset market and the compliance market; both of which I will not explain due to this comment being too long already. 

    The point is that the people who make money from this arrangement are the ones who have the comparative advantage in either offsetting air pollution to create credits or reduce their emission output to sell their surplus credits to those who cannot.  The efficient, innovative and least polluting are rewarded  while those who are inefficient, derivative and pollute more than their available credits bear the cost.

    In reprise of your original statement, those most polluting and without enough credits may become poorer, but it is no different to any business unable to retain customers and falls into bankruptcy in a competitive market.

  • The Truth Fairy

    Ahhh – beautifully timed to punctuate Dave’s point about nomenclature, raadqureshi!

    (Putting aside for one moment the commonly expounded mistake by deniers that climate and two seasons of weather are the same thing…)

    If it were still called “Global warming”, then those of us who are too lazy/uneducated/stupid/stubborn (or all of the above) to know better could point to a cool year and say what you just have – “it was a cool winter/spring, so GW is a fallacy”. So we have Climate Change instead. Climate Change/Global Warming theory predicts chaotic weather patterns of both extremes – hot AND cold. Although you’ll probably dispute THAT as well!

    It’s amusing to me that for people who make this kind of statement, decades and decades of Himalayan-sized mountains of data from thousands and thousands of climate researchers worldwide isn’t enough to prove climate change is real, but one cold winter and part of one cold spring are enough to prove irrevocably that it’s not.

    Really – can’t you see how foolish that sounds to the rest of us?

    People like yourself, raadqureshi, and Cklv Com and Doylesport are the same kind of people who say the moon landing was bullshit. You’re contrarians by nature. We all know your type – you’re the ones who’ll disagree with us at every possible turn, just for the pleasure it gives you to have an argument or frustrate us. There’s no point trying to convince you – even if it were possible to prove it to you 100% – beyond all doubt – you’d still profess (out loud, at least) to not believe it. You just want to have an argument for the sake of it.

    Unfortunately, the misinformed ramblings and outright lies and distortions of people like yourself and Christopher Monckton are sometimes believed by those with less critical thinking abilities – meanig the bullshit gets spread further than it would go under it’s own power.

  • The Truth Fairy

    blah, blah, blah – another contrarian…
    What colour is the sky for you?

  • The Truth Fairy

    If CO2 is so good for us, try breathing it on it’s own for 10 minutes.

  • troll spotter!

    Hah hah – ignore this guy he’s just trolling with disinformation. Could you be a little less obvious? hah hah

  • quizicalfall

    Its nice to see we make climate policey base on approx 200 years of “records” out of billions of years of continuous climate change. A better stratergy would be mitigation of climate change wether it be cooling or warming as the alarmist belive

  • Anonymous

    The author uses all the tricks.  Cherry picking start and end dates, ignoring latest data, using the “we can’t think of what else it might be” argument, circular reasoning that the models which were tuned to match the temperature record mimic temperature so the models must be right, misstating the skeptic position, accepting things like Michael Mann’s hockey stick that have been thoroughly trashed, ignoring the fact that a doubling of CO2, by and of itself, will cause about 1.1 deg. C rise and that it is dependent on the pure guess that humidity will provide double or triple that amount (it might actually cause cooling), ignoring the demonstrable correlation with known sun cycles, etc.  Despite spending $79B to show CO2 causes all the warming, it is clear that it probably does not.  I would certainly not bet the economy of my country on it, especially when, even under the most amplified response, the resultant cooling would not be measurable.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PEH2Z3CPS6UDWUBVREWMCOVDDE John

    The is lots of evidenceshowing Global wearming is a Hoax.

  • VanRado

    Risking the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy; I would like to point out that there is nothing inherent in the libertarian ideology, specifically classical liberalism, that opposes government intervention to protect third parties from negative externalities.  In fact, that is considered within the role of government.

    I don’t know much about the George C. Marshall Institute, but from a quick read of that Wikipedia article, I see that they are known for being sceptical.  The problem is that people equate that with the sceptical movement, which isn’t the same thing.  The sceptic movement is basically rational scepticism or scientific inquiry.

  • VanRado

    But why do they agree?  Science is not a popularity contest.  When scientists use the word ‘scepticism’ (or ‘skepticism’ as everyone in this thread is spelling it), they mean rational scepticism, not blind rejection of claims because it doesn’t fit with their worldview.

    Scientists care whether or not their beliefs are true and the default position is to disbelieve unless there is sufficient evidence to support the claim.

  • steve-e

    think about it like this. we as a species have been riding on the back of a giant black camel for ages, and sooner or later its going to need to sit down.

  • steve-e

    think about it like this. we as a species have been riding on the back of a giant black camel for ages, and sooner or later its going to need to sit down.

  • Alex

    It’s simple;
    Humans pollute in a variety of ways
    This pollution causes issues
    Unless mitigated, these issues will not go away.

    I don’t understand why so many Australians and the rest of the world can’t comprehend this.
    Surely people don’t look at coal fired power stations and congested traffic and think that the combustion of fossil fuels won’t have any negative impact on the earth…

    I also don’t understand why Australians are so inherently against the biggest companies that cause these pollutions start paying to pollute them. Everyone needs to understand the definition of a ‘negative externality’ before they can judge whether or not an emissions trading scheme is right for Australia. The ETS aims to reduce negative externalites (which are BAD) by making those who cause them pay an amount of money to compensate for their negative impact on the world and society.

  • A Scientist

    The earth is
    a self-regulating, closed system that is reliant upon a complex interaction
    between carbon, nitrogen, water, detritus and numerous other biogeochemical
    cycles. The earth has a natural, synergistic equilibrium point, and will always
    self-regulate conditions to restore itself back to equilibrium in the event of
    disruption to these cycles.

    Though it is
    widely accepted that humans are having a degree of anthropogenic influence on
    the temperature of the earth, this change is on an extremely small scale when
    examining climate change on the more significant geological timescale. It’s
    easy to depict wild fluctuations in temperature on a graph representing a
    timescale of 200 years, but what about looking at the “big picture”
    and plotting climate change over a period of 4.56 billion years. As the saying
    goes, the past will predict the future.

    A variation
    of 0.9 degrees Celsius at a geological timescale would be deemed statistically
    insignificant compared with previous global temperature fluctuations throughout
    geological history. Consider that the earth has undergone at least five major
    glaciation periods. Evidence of these events have been widely accepted in the
    scientific community, with complete and partially complete isotopic marine and
    ice core records well scrutinized and documented. This periodic glacial event
    is part of a natural cycle, and has occurred numerous times in the past. The
    most recent occurred during the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to
    10,000 years ago. During this period, the human population size and density was
    proportionately low in comparison to today’s population.

    If, as this
    website states, that climate change is a direct result of anthropogenic
    influences, how is it that global temperatures can decrease to a point where
    glaciation occurs, then increase again to a point where the ice melts and an
    interglacation period results (ie present day), during a period in which human
    activity was extremely limited?

    This is just
    one of the reasons that the author of this website is moronic. The author
    further states,

    “And those
    who argue “it’s just a natural cycle” can never seem to identify exactly which
    natural cycle can explain the current warming”

    Some of the
    few “natural cycles” that can result in climate change are the global cycling
    of ocean currents (Responsible for transporting cold and warm currents between
    the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans), the earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun
    and its eccentricity, obliquity and distance (Milankovitch Cycle), the degree of insolation and
    albedo. All of these factors, and many more, directly influence global
    temperature. Each of these concepts have been thoroughly scrutinized by the
    scientific community and are widely regarded as accurate.

    With reference to the suggestions
    that nobody can “explain
    how our understanding of the fundamental climate physics is wrong.”, there is little dispute that humans are having SOME
    degree of influence on the global climate. Aside from a minority, nobody is
    challenging climate physics at all. The issue is whether this influence is
    going to be great enough to cause substantial disruption to the global climate.
    The answer is obviously no. An anthropogenic change of 0.9 degrees Celsius is
    negligible when compared to a natural change of 200 degrees Celsius. Even at
    glaciation temperatures, the earth has still managed to naturally transition
    back towards an interglaciation period.

    Excuse the pun, but this information
    is merely the tip of the iceberg. I could easily provide a comprehensive
    argument to disprove every aspect of the author’s supreme idiocy and ignorance.
    As a scientist, I approach this topic with great objectivity. My opinion is
    based on science and scientific process. The author of this website instead
    adopts a subjective stance on the matter, as biased political prejudice
    underpins their argument.

    I encourage everyone to research the
    facts yourself and draw your own conclusion. Don’t let this idiot’s uninformed,
    emotive bullshit stand in the way of your own logical conclusions.







  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IPMZZY3YAQAN46HQV6CKFP5FBA Flecktarn Worldwide

    Climate change due to humans is a load of crap and anyone that supports that has nothing but a $$$$ agenda – nothing more. The question people need to ask Gillard is WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR? Because it sure ain’t Australia!

  • Anonymous

    Who do you need to make it seem a big $$$$ agenda? Because
    there must be a big $$$$ agenda if it’s trying to knock off Big Oil (the
    biggest $$$$ agenda known to pull a few strings)? Are you worried you’ll offend
    the real puppet masters who control the world’s energy?

    For big $$$$ agendas I reckon the oil companies have already
    got a few runs on the board. I’ve heard it put about that perhaps the big oil
    companies may have had a hand in slowing the development of alternative sources
    of fuel over the years. I’m not pinning my colours to said agenda, I’m just saying
    we already have a cartel that is in bed with almost all governments around the
    world – if you want to look at it that way.


    Conversely, if you aren’t oppressed by today’s energy companies
    why do you fear the clean energy generators? Is it that we really actually don’t
    need to do anything at all about pollution and the environment and anyone who
    says we do has a big $$$$ agenda?


    Are oil and coal ever going to run out? Is the pollution from
    burning all the oil, LNG, shale and coal affecting the world’s climate? Would
    there have been enough? Is the climate affected? How can we tell? Scientists would
    know – do we ask them? Or are they all working for WHOEVER THEY ARE WORKING FOR
    and just going to lie to us and take all our money?


    Should we do anything about it? Yes – we should hold the
    scientists who work on developing cleaner, better fuel responsible for it all, cut
    their funding, demand an election and stop unfairly taxing the oil and mining companies
    – they’re all just about to walk as it is!


    Now – if you’ve read through that and are still convinced
    that it’s really the scientists in lab coats trying to take over the world you’re
    working for a mining company!

  • Jack

    Why don’t they release the alternative technology that is being suppressed if they are worried about carbon waist. There is much more to this carbon tax that meets the eye.  They don’t care for our well being they are only interested in total control and their own psychotic agenda.  

  • Robert

    There is not overwhelming evidence that the climate change is caused by humans. This is a lie.

  • Systemist

    Has anyone actually looked at the big picture? Like beyond our Solar System? Perhaps at Galactic Orbits? Real or not, I think all of the “evidence” reeks of humans still believing they are the centre of the Universe!

  • Maja

    Just because the climate has changed before humans were around doesn’t mean that human behaviour can’t affect the climate. In 2009 30 billion tonnes of C02 were released into the atmosphere. How can you say that that has no effect?

  • The Truth Fairy

     I believe humans are making a difference to the climate – how much is another question.
    What I don’t understand is how you can make such a sweeping statement and expect to be taken seriously? I’m sure as hell not making any money out of it and nor are any of my like-minded friends, which completely shoots down your theory.
    So QED on that one.

  • Anonymous

    Yep, it could well be a psychotic plan hatched by the masters to control us all further, but I don’t think so. I’m bind to the real agenda and think it’s the government, openly changing laws so the big polluters have to pay to pollute. Once it costs money to pollute then there’ll be a financial incentive to develop and sell alternative technologies that pollute less.

  • Anonymous

     Why do all the scientists who study the climate say there is overwhelming evidence? The more they look into it, the more evidence they find. They are overwhelmed by it and are forced to conclude that the world’s climate, which is constantly changing, is changing more wildly since we humans started burning so much coal and oil.
    If they were lying about being overwhelmed by the evidence, then they are bad and foolish scientists who will be found out!

  • Sendyourtrashemailhere

    Sometimes it gets old trying to educate people who are so gullible and so willing to believe anything the government says.  Do you know why I don’t trust government?  Democide, that’s why.  Over the past 100 years or so governments around the world have murdered, and continue to murder, well over 200,000,000 innocent victims.  Add in military deaths and estimates approach 300,000,000.  Do you really think the controlled governments around the world have the people’s best interests at heart.  No, no they don’t.  Governments are all about control, death and destruction.  Government can go to hell because it is only the sick and twisted who seek power over others.  Where, do I stand on AGW?  Of course it’s a fraud.

  • Anonymous

     Yep, governments are often bad. The point is that scientists have been doing the work and have convinced politicians that this climate change thing is bad and likely due to us. Plans of action have been worked out, by economists and scientists, and we now have some idea of what to do about it. In that this seems to be a departure from the world’s governments’ usual murderous modus operandi, perhaps this plan to limit pollution, and not kill hundreds of millions of people, should be considered.

  • Langdale10

    I have just spent a while reading through everyones comments. What a complete mess of opposing opinions. I decided to only read comments with good grammar and spelling. Alas, this was to no avail. How can you take somebody’s opinion seriously on this important subject matter if they have failed to use a capital at the beginning of a sentence.

    I pick up differing titles in book shops about climate change. Read opposing views in newspapers. What is one supposed to believe? 

  • Gary Thorpe

    Correct spelling and grammer aside. Those of use who invested in PV systems, and generate more than we use, should not be paying for electricity at all.

  • Gary Thorpe

    Explain why those of use who invested in PV systems and generate more than we use, should be penalised just because we are single, have no dependents and earn a good salary??????

  • Simon1612

    there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead

  • NowhereMan

    Why wasn’t there a sharp spike during the Industrial Revolution when massive and unregulated amounts of carbon was being belched into the air?

  • Hilton2112

    nicely done. i am so sick of these al gore wannabes, i want to puke

  • Hilton2112

    the same ipcc that came out with the hockey stick graph? that was some sound science…

  • Lukeloop

    With Nowhere Man here and the talk of Revolution all I can think of is the Beatles. Try this…, lick your hand, blow air on it, it feels cool …umm yes because evaporation causes cooling. Increase temperature of Earth —-> increase evaporation causes Earth to ….

    Anyway.. back to the Beatles….

  • old enough to know better

    When I read the inane, ill-educated comments above, I think they must come from people who are so, so stupid. These people are obviously so frightened of the facts presented to them by SCIENTISTS, they would sooner pretend that is bunkum than face up to it. We are all so selfish and greedy, we grizzle about a minor change in our wallet when we should be owning up to the mess we live in and FIX IT UP! 
    What really amazes me is these are the same idiots who buy shampoos and face-creams from a television commercial that promises “scientifically-proven” benefits. Do they believe in the science of 3D digital television or microwaves or i-phones? You bet they accept the science if they have to go in for heart surgery or if they need to go on chemotherapy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JMFruitSalad Josh Wallace

    Imagine for a moment, building a giant glass box over a large city, Sydney perhaps.. You might even call this a “greenhouse,” do you think as the cars drive around over the course of the day a lot of that pollution will begin to rise and collect on the roof of this greenhouse? Perhaps you won’t notice it on the first day, but very soon its going to heat up in there.. Why can’t people simply open their minds and extend this analogy to the entire planet, just because earth is HUGE doesn’t mean it has no limits, it doesn’t matter how big the greenhouse is its just going to take more time.. also people might argue that earth isn’t made of glass, so how can it “trap” these elements? Well I ask you, where do you think they go? Does carbon dioxide simply drift off into outer space? Does it simply evaporate into nothing? Obviously a force called gravity exists, and heavier elements exert this force more than lighter ones, however just because certain gases rise (they are lighter than air obviously) doesn’t mean they keep doing so forever.. Does oxygen simply leak out into space? How do you think we breath? Gravity keeps everything tied down, from lightest to heaviest, and carbon dioxide and other green house gases are way up there coating the planet in an invisible thermal shield. We can debate the severity of the problem, but the science is common sense, and if something costs a lot to make (the generation of fossil fuel based electricity has an environmental cost) then this cost should be reflected in price, you are paying for a luxury service, you are paying the price for polluting the earth. Some people seem to forget that only 100 years ago hardly anybody even had access to electricity, we live BETTER than the kings of ages gone, and people still complain, its this mentality that has scene the American debt crisis skyrocket, nobody is willing to give up any part of their first world lifestyle even if it means borrowing trillions of dollars to maintain what is beyond their means, and sinking their entire country into financial catastrophe. Somebody here sighted other reasons for climate change, like over population! Well no #$%!, do the math shall we? Divide the 1st world population in half, we get half the global consumption of electricity, half the carbon output, half the effects of climate change! This forum is full of working class bogans with nothing on their mind but saving for that new commodore and voting for whoever will abolish the carbon tax so they can afford another cold beer after work, I am surprised some of these people can even use the !@#$ing internet

  • Nick Marcadis

    I refute this mess of an article with three words: Interplanetary Climate Change

  • Alex

    I am in class we are talking about climate change what is everyones response on this. For or Against would be great.

  • Independent Media

    I love the way it used to be called “Global Warming” and then NASA images of the arctic ice caps doubling in size made Al Gore and his cronies change the name to “Climate Change” (google images: nasa icecaps). It’s all a con so the government can increase taxes. They tried it in the 1970s and called it “Global Cooling”. Sadly over 90% of the world’s media is owned by 6 families with extraordinary close ties with the US government so they can push their propaganda on the population and dominate public opinion. And all that cr*p about rising temperatures destroying the coral reef is nonsense. Rising temperatures and sea levels (if true) would actually help the coral and associated marine life flourish. The masses are hoodwinked into believing that big government are protective and virtuous. WMD? Iraq? Hans Blix: “There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction.”

  • M.A. Stacks

    Prior to The Industrial Revolution, the Earth had experienced over 60 mass extinctions and over 140 ice ages. So please explain what part of climate change is our fault as a human race. The fact is, yes, we are to be responsible stewards of our environment. But with no global consensus, why punish those of us who do care. I believe Australia has done it right by ending the carbon tax, but corporation who violate clean air and water laws should be fined.
    And for those of you who are low information individuals, CO2, carbon dioxide is what all carbon based animals exhale. CO, carbon monoxide, is the result of burning fossil fuels: petroleum products and coal.

  • andrew

    who wrote this