Crunch time: welcome to a key week in this Parliament

Between one thing and another, this week will be one of the most significant weeks in long-term economic policy for years — probably since the financial crisis.

The repeal of the carbon price will cost the government around $4 billion a year in lost revenue, at a time when […]


Login Now

Sign up for the Daily Review - the bi-weekly arts & culture wrap
*I accept the Terms &Conditions of this website
* Required

Your free membership

  • All Crikey articles are unlocked for 10 days
  • A daily email edition direct to your inbox
  • Access to the best spin free, mogul-free journalism in the country

You must be logged in to post a comment.

15 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. This all begs the questions: is the lack of support for the carbon tax related to the lack of any global warming for the past 17 years?

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 1:28 pm

  2. What is so significant about 17 years ago in the history of this planet, except that it was an unusually warm year so it is convenient for your position?
    If we picked 18 years or 16 years to measure from the result would be different.

    by Robert Smith on Jul 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm

  3. Robert - the result would not be different if we picked 16 or 18 years. Hey, use 2000 as the start point - no warming for 15 years.

    This is significant because we have record CO2 emissions yet no warming. High emissions were supposed to cause warming.

    When is the theory wrong? If we get 20 years without warming or 25… is the theory wrong then? Or is this theory not falsifiable?

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 2:48 pm

  4. Many aspects of the budget were based on inaccuracies designed to conjure up fear and anxiety.

    These emotions were then played on to substantiate this unfair budget.

    Do they really think we can’t see through the camouflage? The Australian public is not that dumb !!!

    Here is a cartoon on the budget … .


    by cartoonmick on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:07 pm

  5. Global warming isn’t proved or disproved over a a decade or two, you have to look over a greater time series.

    In the graph below you can clearly see the upward trend despite the white noise you get periodically in temperatures, from year to year that obscure the big picture.

    by arctic winds on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:40 pm

  6. How “skeptics” view global temperature over time graphs:

    by Charles Miller on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:50 pm

  7. The theory is wrong when it can’t account for increased temperature of deep ocean. But hey, repeat a big lie often enough…

    by Chris Hartwell on Jul 14, 2014 at 3:56 pm

  8. Hi, Robert, the no warming for 17 years ago claim, is significant and informative for a number of reasons. It is also a hilarious insight into why climate change deniers, don’t for a millisecond deserve to be called skeptics; as it shows fairly conclusively, that they don’t adopt the slightest bit of skepticism to the rubbish that they repeat.
    Firstly, the 17 years ago, refers to the point that they like to start their graphs and their arguments, which is the super El Nino year of 1998. The spike in temperatures of that year can be clearly seen in the graphs below.

    What can also be seen is that a few of the years after 1998 are warmer: which deniers usually like to ignore. And also what can be seen, is the century long trend line, that despite the normal ups and downs, shows an obvious upward progress. It is here that the deniers make the mistake that every high school science student is warned about. That is, they give more significance to short term fluctuations, than long term trends. Or in other words, they’re more interested in the noise, not the signal.
    But what I find truly hilarious is the 17 years figure. Now, even if you allow them to include the yet to be completed 2014 in their data set (which any sane scientist wouldn’t), their maths still has just a minor problem. Which is, as far as I can work out, 2014 minus 1998 is 16, not 17. And they, despite being often corrected, have been making this mistake for years. That is, back in 2012, they shouted, “no warming for 15 years!” Why, Tamas even gives us a wonderful demonstration of this blind groupthink, by using 2000 as a starting point, and getting 15.
    And it is truly bizarre, how the tabloid and talk back leaders of the denial movement, keep on proselytizing such basic rubbish, and their allegedly skeptic followers, keep on repeating it. And it is even more bizarre, how such stupendously sloppy work, has been used as a basis, to launch a global attack on reputable scientists, quality research work and concerned, thinking citizens.

    by Electric Lardyland on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:27 pm

  9. None of the IPCC’s models predicted a “pause” in warming that lasted this long. Our record CO2 emissions are meant to be warming the planet. Why isn’t aren’t they?

    And don’t tell me the heat is going into the deep oceans - how does an atmospheric gas warm up the deep oceans BEFORE it warms up the atmosphere?

    Who is in denial here guys?

    Electric - 2000 until today = 14yrs, 6 months - which can be rounded to 15 years.

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm

  10. Oh dear, haven’t done a maths test for a while, have you, Tammy?
    Unfortunately, I have to go out now, but there’s a fair chance my friends will be wondering, why I’m chuckling away to myself.

    by Electric Lardyland on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:57 pm

  11. If the LNP gloats over the removal of the carbon tax, they are more stupid than I thought. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on anybody that the carbon tax was to be abolished in less than one year, 1 July 2015, anyway.
    At that time, the ETS would have commenced operation and the price of carbon would have decreased quite substantially. But this mob of drongos are going to leave us with no effective method of keeping CO2 emissions in check for the foreseeable future.
    Successive generations will not thank us for ignoring global warming.

    by CML on Jul 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm

  12. Where am I wrong electric?

    by Tamas Calderwood on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:05 pm

  13. Tamas - breathing?

    by AR on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:18 pm

  14. Don’t feed the trolls.

    by Penelope Milstein on Jul 15, 2014 at 3:05 am

  15. This just in, Tamas doesn’t understand thermodynamics.

    by Chris Hartwell on Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12 am

« | »