Global warming discussion IV

[Reality Check]

I agree - he, like Harper in Canada, gutted environmental science support and was in the pocket of the terribly biased Murdoch clowns that run the media.

Evidence please, macdoc.
I do know about
Abbott shuts down Climate Commission as "foreshadowed by the Coalition before the 2013 election".
Abbott government to cut $435m from renewable energy agency. This is a 15% reduction - not quite "gutting".

 

[Sceptic-PK]

So you will judge a person by what you think they say in private, rather than what they say publicly, Sceptic-PK?

No, I will infer what a politician might say in private from the (very public) policy decisions and political actions they make. (And I'm certainly not going to take a politician's public pronouncements at face value.)

As far as we know, Tony Abbott's only objection to AGW is how to stop AGW. He did not (and may still not) believe in carbon pricing.

Well, if we're apparently judging him by what he says in public?

 

[aleCcowaN]

<quote below edited to add text in red>

CAUTION: MEDIOCRITY GALORE IN THE REST OF THIS QUOTE


[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png[/qimg]


No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

[qimg]http://i63.tinypic.com/95u9av.png[/qimg]

Tell me "Haig", what do the almost vertical lines show? are temperatures going up, down or nowhere?

C'mon, Haig! Can't you answer that?

A little hint: r² is 0.0057 and the trend line is -0.012°C/century

 

[Reality Check]

No, I will infer what a politician might say in private from the (very public) policy decisions and political actions they make.

Good, Sceptic-PK.
Abbott had a plan to reduce GHG emissions. You should infer from this that Tony Abbott believes in AGW .

A (34 second!) video of Abbott stating that "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax." You should infer from this that Tony Abbott believes in AGW since he wants a price on carbon - he just wants it to be a simple tax.

ETA: Abbott government shuts down the Climate Commission as "foreshadowed by the Coalition before the 2013 election". You should infer from this that this was a Coalition decision.
Abbott government to cut $435m from renewable energy agency. You should infer from this that this was a budgetary decision that may or may not reflect Abbot's position on AGW. I would infer that this reflects Abbot's position on fiduciary responsibility or this renewable energy agency or maybe renewable energy in general (believes that renewable energy will not significantly mitigate AGW?).

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Good, Sceptic-PK.
Abbott had a plan to reduce GHG emissions. You should infer from this that Tony Abbott believes in AGW.

Nonsense. Abbott came up with a plan that has no hope of achieving anything, because he doesn't believe in AGW.

A (34 second!) video of Abbott stating that "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax." You should infer from this that Tony Abbott believes in AGW since he wants a price on carbon - he just wants it to be a simple tax.

No, I should infer from this that Abbott says/said whatever suited him politically at the time he was saying it. In this instance, he was bludgeoning the ALP over the ETS. I find your naiveté astounding.

 

[Reality Check]

Abbott came up with a plan that has no hope of achieving anything, because he doesn't believe in AGW.

Once again with reading Abbott's mind and stating a personal opinion rather then inferring from evidence, Sceptic-PK .
These are the facts

1. Abbott had a plan to reduce GHG emissions.
   This is support of AGW mitigation.
2. Abbott states in the video you posted that he supports a price on carbon as "a simple tax".
   This is support of AGW mitigation.
3. The Coalition before the 2013 election suggested shutting down the Climate Commission and it happened.
   No hint that Abbott suggested this.
4. The Abbott government to cut the budget of a renewable energy agency by 15%.
   No hint that Abbott suggested this.

This is not Abbott denying AGW even by inference. The most we have is Abbott not overriding the decisions of his coalition and government which as you point out is what politicians do! Politicians compromise in a coalition government.

To be complete - the Liberal–National Coalition (Abbott) government is a quite anti-environmental government.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Once again with reading Abbott's mind and stating a personal opinion rather then inferring from evidence, Sceptic-PK .
These are the facts

1. Abbott had a plan to reduce GHG emissions.

1. 
   
   No, he didn't. If I told you I would hold my breath every other minute in order to mitigate my CO2 production, would you claim I "had a plan" to reduce GHG emissions?
   
   

   [*]Abbott states in the video you posted that he supports a price on carbon as "a simple tax".
   This is support of AGW mitigation.

   
   LOL! Yeah right. Bashing the ALP over an ETS by raising the prospect of a carbon tax is indicative of him supporting AGW mitigation...We'll ignore the fact he repealed the carbon tax you're claiming he supported
   
   

   This is not Abbott denying AGW even by inference. The most we have is Abbott not overriding the decisions of his coalition and government which as you point out is what politicians do! Politicians compromise in a coalition government.

   
   Haha, yeah "compromise". Like when Abbott & Minchin "compromised" on Turnbull's ETS. And Gillard's carbon tax.
   
   

   It's hard to pin down exactly what prime minister Tony Abbott really believes on climate change, but his policies could only have been developed by someone who believes global warming is a hoax...
   
   But even in his pandering, Abbott was hedging. The polls showed that most Australians supported climate action, so he could not, like Minchin, come out directly and deny it was real. Instead, he used talking points imported from the USA designed to cast uncertainty and doubt on the reality of climate change, without denying it outright...
   
   The inconsistency, weasel words and hedging has continued over the last five years. During the most toxic periods of Abbott's scare campaign against the carbon price, he still declined to fully deny the reality of global warming. For example, he said on the ABC on 9 November 2011 "I think that climate change is real, mankind does make a contribution and we should have strong and effective policies to deal with it."
   
   Yet a month earlier in an interview with Alan Jones on 2GB, he equated the scientific consensus on global warming to "theology" – a common denialist talking point:
   
   
   ALAN JONES: Shouldn't there be open and intelligent debate in a science which is not settled?
   
   TONY ABBOTT: Well, Alan, I certainly accept that there's been far too much theology and not enough proper scientific scepticism in this area, I certainly accept that...
   
   Abbott's chief business advisor Maurice Newman is a well-known climate denier. The main political sponsor of Abbott was outspoken climate denier Nick Minchin. Abbott's finance minister Mathias Cormann visited the USA to meet with conservative climate denialist think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.
   
   Substantial donations are made to the Liberal party by the fossil fuel industry, almost $13 million according to Charles Sturt University academic Clive Hamilton. Major donors to the LNP since 2010 include Hancock Coal (owned by Gina Rinehart), Minerology (owned by former LNP Queensland president and life-member Clive Palmer), Caltex, Chevron, QCoal, Santos and Woodside. Also contributing to the LNP were energy retailers AGL, Origin Energy and Energy Australia.
   
   Since becoming prime minister, Abbott has been very focused on delivering for this key business constituency. Just as, in 2009 after his victory over Turnbull, he fronted the media to cast doubt on the reality of global warming, after his election victory in 2013 he has set about dismantling Australia's carbon pricing and climate mitigation policy framework.
   
   The fig-leaf for Abbott is his "direct action" policy, to pay polluters to reduce their carbon emissions. This is such a laughably inadequate policy, it could only be supported by a prime minister and political party that believes global warming to be a hoax.

   
   http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ny-abbott-climate-denial-weathervane-nihilism
   
   And his infamous business advisor claimed that Abbott is "a monarchist, a Catholic and, worse, not of the global warming faith,”.

 

[Reality Check]

No, he didn't....

That is still wrong, Sceptic-PK, because Abbot did have a plan to reduce GHG emissions. You even linked to a video where he mentions it .
These are some facts about Abbott's support of AGW.

We'll ignore the fact he repealed the carbon tax you're claiming he supported

We will not ignore that this is ignorant about what I have stated several times.
Abbott was against a carbon pricing scheme, i.e. a price for the carbon producers.
Abbott was for a carbon tax, e.g. a tax on petrol for consumers of petrol.
There is a difference.
The Abbott–led Opposition campaigned on a promise of replacing the Rudd-Gillard Government's carbon pricing system with a "direct action against climate change" policy.
That carbon pricing system has been interpreted as being a tax but then what we have is the replacement of one carbon tax with another carbon tax.

ETA: You cite an obviously biased Guardians news report (We need to call out Abbott's climate nihilism) ranting about "spinelessness, hypocrisy and turpitude", etc. An incompetent cherry picking of events in 2009 and ignoring Abbotts statements about AGW since then.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

That is still wrong, Sceptic-PK, because Abbot did have a plan to reduce GHG emissions. You even linked to a video where he mentions it .
These are some facts about Abbott's support of AGW.

Again, you seem to be confused by what Abbott says versus actual reality. Nothing Abbott has done has had any impact on emissions whatsoever. You can claim he "had a plan" all you want, it won't change the fact his plan was ineffectual and pointless.

We will not ignore that this is ignorant about what I have stated several times.
Abbott was against a carbon pricing scheme, i.e. a price for the carbon producers.
Abbott was for a carbon tax, e.g. a tax on petrol for consumers of petrol.
There is a difference.
The Abbott–led Opposition campaigned on a promise of replacing the Rudd-Gillard Government's carbon pricing system with a "direct action against climate change" policy.
That carbon pricing system has been interpreted as being a tax but then what we have is the replacement of one carbon tax with another carbon tax.

You seem to be conflating "direct action" with a carbon tax?

At its core is the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), which is designed to do the heavy lifting in reducing Australia's emissions.

Comprised of $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money, the ERF will directly pay polluters not to pollute...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...ction-auction-is-likely-to-fall-short/6383822

Abbott has never, will never, be in favour of putting a price on carbon, whether via a "carbon pricing scheme" or a "carbon tax" (terms he used synonymously btw). He merely used the term in the video I provided to bash the ALP re an ETS. ie politics as usual. I have no idea why you've taken these comments seriously.

ETA: You cite an obviously biased Guardians news report (We need to call out Abbott's climate nihilism) ranting about "spinelessness, hypocrisy and turpitude", etc. An incompetent cherry picking of events in 2009 and ignoring Abbotts statements about AGW since then.

It wasn't intended to be some objective truth, it was clearly an opinion piece pointing out the bleeding obvious for those in the cheap seats.

And you seem to be taking Abbott's statements about AGW seriously, on face value. I really can't do anything about that level of naiveté. His supposed turnaround re AGW since 2009 has coincided with his political ambitions, not a change of heart.

 

[Reality Check]

Again, you seem to be confused by what Abbott says versus actual reality.

I am not confused. Abbott says that he believes in AGW, Abbott has enacted at least 1 anti-AGW measure and thus he is not a AGW denier. The actual reality is: These are some facts about Abbott's support of AGW.

Abbott has never, will never, be in favour of putting a price on carbon, whether via a "carbon pricing scheme" or a "carbon tax" (terms he used synonymously btw).

I have written several times :

Abbott was against a carbon pricing scheme, i.e. a price for the carbon producers.
Abbott was for a carbon tax, e.g. a tax on petrol for consumers of petrol.

That example comes from the video you cited and seem not have viewed! Here is the link and a transcript:
Tony Abbott:"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax." (15 July 2009)

Tony Abbott:"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more?
Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?

And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid.

It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

The implemented plan (of according to you an AGW denier !) is not a tax on the consumer end as he hoped for in your video from 15 July 2009. It is incentives for polluters to reduce emissions.
What is the Coalition's direct action climate change policy?

The Government wants to replace Labor's carbon tax with its direct action plan, which would provide financial incentives for polluters to reduce emissions.

The Government has released a white paper that details how the centrepiece of the policy - the Emissions Reduction Fund - will operate.

The Emissions Reduction Fund is budgeted to cost $2.55 billion over four years, starting on July 1, 2014.

My point was that you seem not be able to tell when a web page is a prejudiced, almost lying, rant and so wasted everyone's time by linking to it. This is similar to some of Haig's denier posts where he linked to rants on the WUWT web site. It hints at an unthinking belief rather than skeptical thought because a skeptic would read their source and know that it is a based rant..

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I am not confused. Abbott says that he believes in AGW, Abbott has enacted at least 1 anti-AGW measure and thus he is not a AGW denier.

Hey, you like to take politicians at their word. Good for you. Abbott has enacted 0 measures that have had any impact on emissions. It doesn't matter if he enacted a million measures, if they have no effect they are meaningless.

I have written several times :

That example comes from the video you cited and seem not have viewed! Here is the link and a transcript:
Tony Abbott:"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax." (15 July 2009)

lol, that is effectively what the "carbon pricing scheme" did. It raised the costs of energy generation (which were dutifully passed onto the consumer, at least according to Abbott) and consumers at the bottom received taxation compensation.

The implemented plan (of according to you an AGW denier !) is not a tax on the consumer end as he hoped for in your video from 15 July 2009. It is incentives for polluters to reduce emissions.
What is the Coalition's direct action climate change policy?

Hahahaha, "as he hoped for". He hoped for nothing of the sort. Your internet-based research and naïve inferences from political grandstanding don't compare to the 2 decades we've had to put up with this clown in parliament. So, I give up. If you want to swallow the nonsense spun to the lowest common denominator, I clearly can't stop you.

My point was that you seem not be able to tell when a web page is a prejudiced, almost lying, rant and so wasted everyone's time by linking to it. This is similar to some of Haig's denier posts where he linked to rants on the WUWT web site. It hints at an unthinking belief rather than skeptical thought because a skeptic would read their source and know that it is a based rant..

I knew exactly what it was. An opinion piece that described Abbott's climate change (in)action for what it was and how many Australians view it.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

"This is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."

"Whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven."

"I don't think we can say that the science is settled here. "

"The climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. [...] Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays."

"It was the so-called settled science of climate change, that I thought was to be described in language that I wouldn't use on a family program."

"These so-called nasty big polluters are the people that keep the lights on. I mean, let's not forget how essential these people are to the business of daily life."

"If man-made CO2 was quite the villain that many of these people say it is, why hasn't there just been a steady increase starting in 1750, and moving in a linear way up the graph?"

"I am not setting myself up as the great expert here, but the Hadley Institute in Britain, which is apparently one of the most reputable of these measuring centres, according to press reports, has found that after heating up very significantly in the previous 25 years, there seems to have been a slight cooling, but at a high plateau I'll accept that."

"The fact that we have had if anything cooling global temperatures over the last decade, not withstanding continued dramatic increases of carbon dioxide emissions, suggests the role of CO2 is not nearly as clear as the climate catastrophists suggest."

"I think the climate change science is far from settled."

"The thesis that carbon dioxide is uniquely responsible for global warming has run up against a serious problem, and that is the fact that the climate has if anything been cooling slightly over the last decade, while there have been continued massive increases in carbon dioxide emissions."

"I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. [...] I mean, I just think that the science is highly contentious, to say the least."

"Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes."

"Even if global warming is as bad as the doomsayers claim, it’s better to respond correctly than to respond tomorrow. Man-made CO2 emission have been happening for centuries and I daresay the planet could cope if we respond intelligently in 2012 rather than foolishly in 2010."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ton...-advocates-carbon-tax-in-the-same-breath.html

And let’s not forget the more recent “coal is good for humanity”.

Of course, I’m sure this extreme conservative has made an impressive backflip since 2011 after admitting he’d been wrong for 20 years, rather than his supposed change of heart being a cynical attempt to deal with the political reality that most in Australia disagree with him on AGW.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Skeptic-PK,
I think that post should be in the politics forum. Very little anyone can say scientifically about it, except that Tony has a quite limited grasp of climate science.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Skeptic-PK,
I think that post should be in the politics forum. Very little anyone can say scientifically about it, except that Tony has a quite limited grasp of climate science.

Yeah sorry, things continued longer than expected. Mods feel free to move elsewhere.

 

[Reality Check]

Sceptic-PK: In 2009Tony Abbott talked about a consumer carbon tax

Hey, you like to take politicians at their word

I like to take people based on their words and actions, Sceptic-PK.
For example when someone seems to assume that a politician lies without good evidence and cites insulting rants about the politician, I distrust them. When I read phrases such as "clown in parliament" I suspect we have a politically biased person who will slag off the politician regardless of the AGW position that politician holds.

An irrelevant answer suggests that you still do not understand what you cited!
20 November 2015 Sceptic-PK: In 2009, Tony Abbott talked about a consumer carbon tax.

If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more?
Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?

And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid.

It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.

An opinion piece that described Abbott's climate change (in)action for what it was and how many Australians view it.

I know that it is an opinion piece . You still do not know that it is ranting, lying by cherry-picking, insulting and a bit deluded with the fantasy that politicians are free to do whatever they like!

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I like to take people based on their words and actions, Sceptic-PK.

Well you seem pretty gullible in this particular instance.

For example when someone seems to assume that a politician lies without good evidence and cites insulting rants about the politician, I distrust them. When I read phrases such as "clown in parliament" I suspect we have a politically biased person who will slag off the politician regardless of the AGW position that politician holds.

I didn't "assume" anything. I know he's being less than honest when talking about his personal viewpoints re AGW. Because, unlike you, I didn't learn all about him from a quick wiki search. I have had the amazing experience of getting to know his positions during his 20 years of public service. If you are unable to determine someone is a "clown" after more than 2 decades of evidence and examples, then how much more time do you think it requires?

Abbott is a climate change denier by word and by deed and only the truly naïve and gullible believe he's had a change of opinion since 2011.

"This is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."

"Whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven."

"I don't think we can say that the science is settled here. "

"The climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. [...] Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays."

"It was the so-called settled science of climate change, that I thought was to be described in language that I wouldn't use on a family program."

"These so-called nasty big polluters are the people that keep the lights on. I mean, let's not forget how essential these people are to the business of daily life."

"If man-made CO2 was quite the villain that many of these people say it is, why hasn't there just been a steady increase starting in 1750, and moving in a linear way up the graph?"

"I am not setting myself up as the great expert here, but the Hadley Institute in Britain, which is apparently one of the most reputable of these measuring centres, according to press reports, has found that after heating up very significantly in the previous 25 years, there seems to have been a slight cooling, but at a high plateau I'll accept that."

"The fact that we have had if anything cooling global temperatures over the last decade, not withstanding continued dramatic increases of carbon dioxide emissions, suggests the role of CO2 is not nearly as clear as the climate catastrophists suggest."

"I think the climate change science is far from settled."

"The thesis that carbon dioxide is uniquely responsible for global warming has run up against a serious problem, and that is the fact that the climate has if anything been cooling slightly over the last decade, while there have been continued massive increases in carbon dioxide emissions."

"I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. [...] I mean, I just think that the science is highly contentious, to say the least."

"Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes."

"Even if global warming is as bad as the doomsayers claim, it’s better to respond correctly than to respond tomorrow. Man-made CO2 emission have been happening for centuries and I daresay the planet could cope if we respond intelligently in 2012 rather than foolishly in 2010."

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ton...-advocates-carbon-tax-in-the-same-breath.html.

Let us actually read what you cite and see that again it is mostly about Tony-Abbott's 2009 opinion

On Sunday, Megan Evans pointed me towards a 2009 interview with Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott.

A clip from the interview was uploaded by John Cook in June 2011 and spread across the Internet.

No one is saying that Tony Abbott was knowledgeable about AGW in 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011. I do not even know if Tony Abbott is an expert on AGW today. But no one should expect politicians to be experts on science - that is what scientific advisors are for.

There is a list of climate change myths uttered by Abbott at he bottom of that article. The interpretation of the quotes is dubious a couple of times though. For example
"Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes." is obviously correct - a single country implementing an emissions reduction scheme should not make a material difference. That country + "big international polluters" (China, USA, etc.) would make a difference. The matching "If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale" fact does not match the quote.

 

[Reality Check]

Sceptic-PK: Does a lack of knowledge about AGW mean that someone is an AGW denier

I know he's being less than honest when talking about his personal viewpoints re AGW. ....

Once again with a personal, possible political opinion rather than evidence, Sceptic-PK.
20 November 2015 Sceptic-PK: Do you understand that in 2009, Tony Abbott talked about a consumer carbon tax?

20 November 2015 Sceptic-PK: Does a lack of knowledge about the details of AGW mean that someone is an AGW denier?

Shall we see if you have read Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath (about a 2009 interview and quotes up to 2011) skeptically, Sceptic-PK?

20 November 2015 Sceptic-PK: What does a 2 year delay in response mean in terms of climate change?
"Even if global warming is as bad as the doomsayers claim, it’s better to respond correctly than to respond tomorrow. Man-made CO2 emission have been happening for centuries and I daresay the planet could cope if we respond intelligently in 2012 rather than foolishly in 2010."
19 December 2008

FYI: I think that the spirit (not the content) of that 2008 quote is bad policy. We should respond to any situation with an obvious solution as soon as it is known that it is dangerous. We knew in 2008 that a 2C increase would be bad and the CO2 reduction was the way to battle the increase.

 

[Trakar]

Skeptic-PK,
I think that post should be in the politics forum. Very little anyone can say scientifically about it, except that Tony has a quite limited grasp of climate science.

Well, and while my considerations of a politician's opinion regarding their predisposition about climate change may mean that I don't vote for them (e.g. Hillary Clinton) ultimately it is the public policy they propose, vote upon and enforce that determines their standing with regard to issues such as Climate change.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

*Deleted*