Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Jun 15, 2011

Future Fund boss' climate change views

The chair of the Future Fund's controversial views on climate change wouldn't have anything to do with the absence of climate change from the Fund's investment strategy would it?


The comments of Future Fund chairman David Murray on climate change last week quietly went through to the keeper, possibly because they were located in the back of Friday’s Financial Review in the quaint “Lunch With…” section.

“[Carbon dioxide] has got nothing to do with pollution…. carbon dioxide is not a pollutant., it is colourless and odourless. It is not a pollutant… It is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases. There is no correlation between warming and carbon dioxide,” Murray is reported to have said.

Asked what should be done about climate change, he replied: “Take measures to stop the effects of it.” Asked about glaciers, Murray rejects any suggestion of glacial melt. “They’re not. The amount of ice in the world is slightly increasing. It is not decreasing. It is just staggering, staggering.”

Murray’s claim that the amount of ice is increasing appears to be based on the claim that Antarctic sea-ice has increased despite the warming of the Southern Ocean, commonly attributed to declining ozone levels over Antarctica or a change in the composition of the seas around Antarctica.

Alas for Murray, the Greenland ice sheet, both Antarctic ice sheets (land ice), Arctic sea ice and the world’s glaciers are all melting, in some cases at accelerating rates. A spokesman for the Future Fund did not respond to Crikey’s request for a source for Murray’s views on ice.

Murray’s position at the Future Fund — his term expires in March 2012 — is independent of government. But his breathtakingly ignorant views on climate change are not merely at odds with the Government, but officially with that of the Opposition, which according to Tony Abbott currently accepts that climate change is real and human-caused, and which supports the Government’s target of a 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Murray’s views aren’t merely at odds with reality, they’re at odds with the views of Parliament.

But this isn’t the first time climate change has been an issue for the Future Fund lately. In April, Mat Murphy at Fairfax revealed via FOI documents (or rather, via the lack of FOI documents) that the Fund’s Board of Guardians had not discussed climate change since 2007. But as a long-term investor with over $50 billion in assets under management, the Future Fund is even more exposed to the issues raised by climate change impacts, future carbon prices and the growth of renewables than most investors.

To take the most obvious example, according to last year’s annual report, 25% of the Future Fund’s equity exposure is to the financial sector, almost certainly meaning it has substantial exposure to the insurance and reinsurance sectors, both of which are on the commercial front line when it comes to climate change.

As recently as January, reinsuer Munich Re, which has been raising concerns about the impact of climate change for several years, warned that the “number of weather-related natural catastrophes and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change”.

According to the same report, 9% of the Fund’s equity exposure is in energy, making it a potentially significant player in both fossil fuel and renewable energy markets.

The Future Fund declined to engage on the issue of the role of climate change in its investment strategy, providing only the same anodyne response it provided regarding April’s revelations:

“…the Board develops its investment strategy to meet its mandated objective of maximising returns with acceptable but not excessive risk. In doing so the Board considers a variety of risks ranging from, for example, market and liquidity risk through to environmental, social and governance risks. In line with this, the Board’s external investment managers are also expected to consider material risks in building their portfolios on behalf of the Board.”

The Fund’s apparent recalcitrance on the issue is at odds with well-established practices by global investment funds.

“ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance investment) is not a boutique investment product, it’s mainstream, and central to the world’s largest funds,” said the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Economic Adviser, Simon O’Connor.

“This is not a soft and fluffy area of analysis, rather, this lack of a detailed consideration of ESG puts at risk the future returns to Australians from the FF — this much has been made clear in reams of ESG analysis linking financial returns to ESG factors, like that done by the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative.”

The question is whether Murray’s climate stance isn’t merely contrary to the policies of both the Government and the Opposition but is having a direct impact on the long-term returns of the Future Fund.

This article has been corrected: Simon O’Connor is Economic Adviser for the Australian Conservation Foundation, not the Climate Institute and David Murray’s current term expires in March 2012 not 2011.



We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

77 thoughts on “Future Fund boss’ climate change views

  1. Kerry Lovering

    David Murray is correct.
    It is a pity Bernard Keane does not read information coming from overseas scientists who are studying the sun.
    The breath taking ignorance is all Bernard Keane’s.

  2. Shinsko

    “There is no correlation between warming and carbon dioxide” is typical of the inversion of logic being perpetuated by the denialists.

    In spite of the fact that there is no evidence for their position, and no matter many times it is pointed out that fundamental physics and our planets geological record clearly demonstrate that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations does warm the planet, they just keep trotting out the same zombie talking points…over..and over…and over…

  3. Richard Wilson

    Thank goodness for David Murray.

    If you are going to invest in anything, make sure it is for real. Notwithstanding the cretins who blog man made climate change is real and solely the product of carbon dioxide; whether you or I like it or not, coal, gas and oil will dominate energy for another 100 years because the people who own the world want us to continue to rent our existence and they can’t have their world of renters unless we are drip fed energy, medicine and media BS.

    Although the people will be forced to subsidize hazardous industries through carbon taxes, there will be no change to the way things run in the foreseeable future. There will be endless UN talk-fests where a lot of bloodsuckers fly first class and drink Bolly but nothing will come of it. That is just window dressing and feelgood politics to placate an authoritarian liberal clique. You know the kinds of people who fly first class, then wait till everybody gets out so it looks like they travelled coach.

    Medicine is never going to make you better – just keep you alive and paying, industrial food will keep you going but it won’t make you healthy, energy will be just sufficient enough to get you to work and back and provide minimal heating. It will be just enough to keep the process going but little else while surveillance of the mainstream population and intelligence will be the only growth industries as the endless central banking – warfare social control system, as Ron Paul likes to describe it, rolls on into the brave new world . At all times the machine will be lubricated by an obsequious and sycophantic mainstream media (both public and private), together with the requisite rent-seekers, and a bunch of useful idiots who can’t see the elephant in the room because they are too distracted by scoring points against righty or lefty. There are no righties or lefties – there are only owners and renters.

    What? Don’t think so! Well… that has been the lot of the Third World for the last sixty years as the West has stolen its wealth and the future of its peoples under the guise of UN Welfare. Ha ha ha!

    In the words of the late comedian George Carlin:

    “I’m talking about the real owners of this country. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. They’re put there to give you the idea you have a choice. You don’t! You have no choice. You have owners. They own you! They own everything. They own all the important land. They own or control all the corporations, they long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the City Halls. ..They’ve got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. They’ve got you by the b@!ls.”

    Thank goodness for David Murray!

  4. Michael Harvey

    Australians made it into New Scientist this week…for sending death threats to climate change scientists. Is David Murray a climate scientist? No. Are you Kerry Lovering? The Future Fund should be in the hands of scientists, not ideologues, unless we simply don’t believe in the future, but in some whacko Rapture event.

  5. GocomSys

    @Kerry Lovering
    What planet are you from again?

  6. GocomSys

    @Richard Wilson
    Confess, you are from the same planet as Kerry Lovering, aren’t you?

  7. Julie

    I am always suspicious when influential people are not open about their sources of information. The little information he shares lacks scientific understanding of evidence on climate change data.
    Not being on the regular agenda for risk assessments and planning is bizarre. What do these people get high wage packets for? It doesn’t sound like Future Fund is protecting our futures.
    Are the Board of Guardians not voicing concern? Or are they waiting for Godot?

    I am sharing this with my MP and ask him.

  8. klewso

    This “Murray, darling” bloke has something to do with running “The Fuschia Fund”, right? Please?

  9. klewso

    “Lunching With ….. The Lotus Eaters”?

  10. Apollo

    Here’s the link for an article which explains climate change is real with scientific back ups.


  11. fredex

    How can someone, Murray in this case, who is so appallingly ignorant get himself into such a powerful position?
    Boggles the mind.

  12. jimD

    OK Bernard, joke’s over…now please tell us what the chairman of our future fund really thinks.

    Oh..that was it?

    Could there be a stupider country than this one?

  13. Stephen Luntz

    It’s a particularly remarkable claim, since even the smarter deniers wouldn’t make something so easily disproved. They usually go for the sorts of things that require detailed explanations to unpick, or where multiple sources are required to show they are wrong.

    Bernard didn’t include the links to demonstrate how wrong Murray is, but they’re easily available: http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/5-9.jpg

    and http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum09.html

    for example.

    The parallels between the two lead stories today are also interesting – I’ve explored that here: http://forensicsfossilsfruitbats.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-perils-of-denial/

  14. Apollo

    @ Richard Wilson

    “Thank goodness for David Murray.”

    No surprise there since you know so much facts and posted:

    “sunspot activity is being recorded at unprecedented levels and predicted to become even more violent in 2012…”

    Over under the article “Thank goodness for David Murray.” by Bernard Keane.

    Wow, we should stop causing sunspot. You are wise with your knowledge no wonder you put down other people.

    God damn Greenies why don’t you concentrate on stopping sunspots first. LOL.

  15. Apollo

    Whoops typo: the article “PC reveals the great greenhouse rip-off” by BK.

  16. davidk

    @ Richard Wilson
    Speaking of cretins, whilst I agree that corporations rule the world, what is it that makes people who know stuff all about an issue believe they are better placed to make decisions that effect us all than those who are qualified experts on the subject?


    In light of one ex-bankers ignorance, Ross Garnaut may like to reconsider his statement; perhaps this truly is a pissant country.

  18. Richard Wilson

    @David K
    I’m sorry I cannot speak for those who make decisions that affect us.
    But you seem to be effecting their position with alacrity!

    Scientists sell out as readily as doctors, lawyers, engineers and social scientists.
    Sadly I am unable to believe any of you. Nor do most judges from what I can see, notwithstanding their own credentials as agents of the state.

  19. David McRae

    I wish I could him to put his little finger in front of a CO2 laser to prove to us all the invisible gas has no interactions with infrared at all 🙂

    Seriously, what other science or economic theory does he reject?

    He thinks he’s smarter than every single scientific organisations and no climate scientist refutes the basics (although there <3% that think there are negative feedbacks that will limit sensitivity). And as an ex-submariner, and having worked with CO2 drench anti-fire systems, I'm aghast to hear the assertion CO2 is perfectly safe.

    John Mashey has developed a taxonomy of delusion – as posted here at John Quiggin's site http://johnquiggin.com/2009/05/27/a-taxonomy-of-delusion/ summarised here http://i31.tinypic.com/ny75sm.jpg . I do wonder where he falls – almost certainly IDE2 (possibly stemming from religious fundamentalism as Michael Harvey suggested) but it would be very interesting to know if there's an economic and/or psychological reasons as well that may influence other decisions.

  20. klewso

    I get it – “filters” and all – this bloke’s just an out and out “banker”!

  21. Apollo

    AAhhh my link is still in moderation, here is the article for those disputing, copy and paste into url:

    The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why

    Karl Braganza
    Manager, Climate Monitoring at The Bureau of Meteorology


  22. davidk

    Oh Richard, I was a little worried I had used the wrong word, but I couldn’t be bothered checking. I have better things to do. You do seem a bit paranoid though in you’re damnation of both doctors and lawyers, not to mention scientists. Surely they can’t be all be conspiring together to the detriment of humanity..


    Oh crap, I just realised the irony of this guy running the “Future” fund.

    For someone utterly incapable of reading the evidence from the immediate and historical past, what chance has he got at understanding the future this planet is in for with it’s current accelerating emissions?


    Yes DavidK, it must be a conspiracy of every scientific organisation in every major country on the planet.

    I think you might have uncovered something there! Richard’s tinfoil hat must be tuned into the special frequency that picks up conspiracy waves that go all around the planet.

  25. j-boy57

    at the end of the lunch Murray opines that he’s a great believer
    in specialisation , pity he doesn’t apply this dictum to climatology.

  26. davirob

    Reading some of this gives me a vision of you guys coming home,pouring a red and taking out the days hardships via your keyboards,all breathless and pouty.

  27. Dianne Calistro

    Also interesting in Murray’s luncheon comments was that australia had wasted the opportunities of the boom years. Maybe Bernard might explore that angle?

  28. Dan Gulberry

    So are they going to rename the fund to “The Clinging To The Past Fund”?

  29. davirob

    To me, the scariest thing about climate change is the way the ‘debate’ has been handled. Demonising those people who oppose you, and the attitude from the pro-climate change authorities that the science is settled and those who disagree are to be ignored and marginalised sets my teeth on edge. (I don’t doubt the otherside would do the same given the opportunity).
    Tell me that the balance of probablities based on current understanding means that the risks of acting are less than the risks of not acting, and I’m on board.
    Tell me a relatively new field of science that covers an increadibly complex system has discovered absolute, indisputable Truth in every detail, and further discussion is just a watse of time, and they’ve lost me.
    Science just isn’t like that. It requires differing opinions, it requires theories being challenged, it requires debate, and to have all of that, it requires, at a fundamental level, a respect for the opinions of those who hold a differing opinion to do so.
    Robert | Peoples Republic of Moreland – June 14, 2011, 11:01AM

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/nutters-dont-need-your-excuses-20110614-1g0v9.html#ixzz1PKdLD8Ka I hope it’s okay to post this,this guy Robert nails it for me as opposed to the rants here .

  30. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    Well, science is complicated.

    David Murray is both right and wrong.
    There are two gases with the status of ‘life gas’, Oxygen (breath of life for animals) and Carbon Dioxide (breath of life for plants) so calling it a pollutant is dumb as I used to protest at the beginning but gave up (Carbon Dioxide won’t change no matter what silly humans call it).
    Most of us take water for granted, relishing in its beauty as delightful snow and rain, pools to swim in, lakes and oceans to sail on but regular desperate thirst will give it Heavenly status and in spite of nature giving more than we need sometimes we haven’t recoiled to calling it a pollutant in the face of dangerous and deadly floods and snowfalls that bury villages.

    President JF Kennedy receiving his presidential scientific briefing thoughtfully begged the world to take ‘Global Warming’ bloody seriously. Then he was shot and the world (not the scientists) forgot all about it although America continued to the moon.

    The one absolute in this subject is that humans recently create (including seriously interfering with natures uptake and removal methods) Carbon Dioxide in quantities never been seen before. Simple arithmetic can do the rest.

  31. JamesG

    Carbon Monoxide is another odourless, colourless gas that comes from car exhaust fumes. According to Murray therefore not dangerous or a pollutant at all. Perhaps he’d care to test his hypothesis with a hose and a closed car. I’ll pay him $100 if he is right.

  32. AR

    He spent his best years riding the privatisation of the Bank of Common Weal to being just another rapacious same-same as the other blood sucking usurers – why would he know/care about anything in the real world?
    Recall the various nasty investments the FF made, and continue to make even when outed, cluster bombs, GM and whatever makes money.
    He was a BANKER FFS! A leopard doesn’t change its shorts.

  33. Fran Barlow

    Dr Tardyvas said:

    [There are two gases with the status of ‘life gas’, Oxygen (breath of life for animals) and Carbon Dioxide (breath of life for plants) so calling it a pollutant is dumb …]

    Sorry Doctor, this was not one of your finer moments.

    Above a certain threshhold, CO2 is a pollutant because its presence disrupts the ecosystem. The upper clines of the ocean for example, become less base, and this diusrupts phytoplankton and the food chain, and as we know, in the troposphere, it changes the radiative energy balance at the surface. It changes what plants can grow at which altittude and the balance between C4 and C3 plants. In short, it reduces biodiversity on both land and in the sea. Because this change in composition is human induced, rather than a natural perturbation, pollutant is the right term.

    Yours is a composition error — not every molecule of CO2 is a pollutant. Surplus Co2 certainly is.

    For the record though:

    [pollutant (p-ltnt)
    A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

    The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. {my emphasis}]

    Note that the definition of pollutant includes heated water. Water is a colourless odourless substance and without heat, no life could exist. Yet heated water is in some settings a pollutant. Every thermal power plant using rivers and lakes as heat sinks in the west is regulated on the of temperature-elevated water they can release.

    I suppose it’s too much to hope that we will never see this zombie argument again.

  34. jeebus

    @Fran, sadly not I suspect, considering the well funded industry dedicated to confusing the scientific consensus in the minds of the general population by preying on the average person’s ignorance of the scientific method and basic chemistry.

    The current thrust of denialism centres around the fact that even though we have doubled the C02 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, because greenhouse gases make up a very tiny percent (around 0.03%) of the atmosphere, they cannot create a large impact on the climate of the whole world.

    But they forget that increasing the percentage of alcohol in a person’s blood from 0.03% to 0.05% is enough to impair a human to the point where they are unfit to drive a car.

    The current global warming debate is like the tobacco debates of the previous decades. The industry funded lobbyists don’t have to prove anything. All they need to do is throw mud and spread doubt on the science to prevent other people from taking action against their interests.

  35. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @FRAN BARLOW — Posted Wednesday, 15 June 2011 at 9:32 pm
    Nobody could be a greater believer in the catastrophe that is awaiting if man doesn’t realise that nature will extract a price if man just keeps pouring excessive Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.

    Without thinking or feeling about CO2 as a pollutant I have managed to feel passionately about man’s responsibility in contaminating the natural atmosphere by pumping excessive CO2 created by man’s activities into it.

    You are right with your excellent technical definition of ‘pollutant’.
    Even Oxygen when present where it is not wanted is called a contaminant or pollutant.

    Technically I can’t argue with your …“Above a certain threshold, CO2 is a pollutant because its presence disrupts the ecosystem…..”
    I totally agree with your eloquent description of the harm done by raised Carbon Dioxide levels in every way.

    I totally accept your correction…..
    “Yours is a composition error — not every molecule of CO2 is a pollutant. Surplus Co2 certainly is.”

    The good feelings I have for the ‘good’ CO2 molecules I do not want to be taken away by the climate change debate nor the likes of Murray hiding behind them.

  36. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @JEEBUS — Posted Wednesday, 15 June 2011 at 11:14 pm

    Your alcohol analogy is a ripper. You can extend it to the long term harmful effects of excessive alcohol consumption for all the other cells and organs beyond the brain.
    Blood certainly is the internal ‘atmosphere’ of our body’s cells and organs.

  37. Peter Lunt

    I just think it’s ironic that, in the same edition of the AFR, within the BOSS magazine there was a discussion titled “Blinkered decision-making (the reasoning that keeps blinkers in place and prevents better decisions): Fear, hubris and a love of complexity are parts of a syndrome that won’t let us see the obvious”, and within the main part we have Mr Murray saying climate change is cr*p.

  38. TheTruthHurts

    [Australians made it into New Scientist this week…for sending death threats to climate change scientists. Is David Murray a climate scientist? No. Are you Kerry Lovering? ]

    Is Garnaut a climate change scientist?

    What about Gillard?

    Swan, is he a Climate scientist?

    What about Garrett or Wong are they climate scientists?

    Seems we are being led by politicians, not scientists on this issue.

  39. ConnorJ

    Posted Wednesday, 15 June 2011 at 2:31 pm | Permalink
    @Kerry Lovering
    What planet are you from again?

    Mars, maybe? It doesn’t have a greenhouse effect so it might explain their ignorance?

  40. AR

    Please, nobody tell Tamas that the sun’s 11-year sunspot cycle could be heading for a dormant period similar to one which caused the so-called Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when markets were held on a frozen River Thames in London.

    Three scientific studies offer evidence that sunspots are on the verge of disappearing. Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory (NSO), said yesterday: “This is highly unusual and unexpected, but the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

    The current solar cycle, named Cycle 24 by scientists, is entering its period of maximum activity, and will climax in 2013. The processes that lead to a period of maximum activity during the next 11-year oscillation, Cycle 25, should by now be evident. However, the Christian Science Monitor reports, a study of the sun’s acoustic signals led by Hill has found no such evidence.

    Another study, by Matt Penn and William Livingston of the NSO, has found that the sun’s magnetic field strength has fallen over the past 13 years. If the trend continues, says Penn, there may be no sunspots during Cycle 25.

    The third study was led by Richard Altrock, who heads the US Air Force’s corona research program. They studied 40 years’ worth of data and predicted that the Cycle 24 solar maximum due in 2013 may not happen at all.

    Hill says that if the three studies are correct, the next solar maximum could be the last we will see for a few decades. Reduced sunspot activity raises the possibility of a second ‘Maunder Minimum’ – a period from 1645 to 1715 during which virtually no sunspots were observed. These decades were marked by extremely cold winters in Europe and North America and are known as the Little Ice Age.

    Of course, as any statistician will tell you, correlation does not imply causation.

    But it is impossible not to speculate how a possible cooling of the earth will be affected by man-made climate change. Tom Woods, associate director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, told the Arizona Daily Star he thinks any fall in temperatures caused by a dormant sun will be disguised by global warming.

    Hill himself is hedging his bets, saying: “I have not seen enough evidence either way to say whether solar activity is responsible for climate effects or not… if the next solar cycle, Cycle 25, does not occur, we’ll have a splendid opportunity to find out.”

    Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/80392,news-comment,news-politics,hibernating-sun-could-spark-another-little-ice-age-offset-climate-change-global-warming#ixzz1POfxjHLw

  41. Richard Wilson

    Attention: All Man’s Fault Carbon Dioxide Climate Change Protagonists

    I draw your attention to an article appearing in that great anti Carbon tax publication, the SMH today. The piece states that the current high sunspot activity cycle will reach its peak in 2013 but that the following high sunspot activity period predicted to start around 2020 may not happen and that we may instead experience a new “Little Ice Age” along the lines of the Maunder Minimum which occurred in Europe between 1645 and 1715 when virtually no sunspot activity was observed.

    These new findings were presented by three different teams of solar physicists at the American Astronomical Society’s recent meeting. The article goes on to say that other than cooler temperatures, there are likely to be few other impacts on our planet because it is high level solar activity, such as that we are presently experiencing, which not only influences changes in climate on earth but also other terrestrial effects such as disruption to the electro magnetic spectrum and all that entails.

    So kids look out for a cold snap around 2020!

  42. Shinsko

    Richard Wilson – and I in turn draw your attention to,

    A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3°C dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations.

    A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions” wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7°C to 4.5°C rise by this century’s end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.

    Additionally, I draw your attention to the fact that the planet has still been warming for the last 35 years despite the fact that solar activity has been falling.

  43. nerk

    An oft-overlooked quality of scientists is their ability to scientifically review the science of other scientists. A lay armchair enthusiast can cherry-pick isolated factoids and interpret them as supporting their pre-existing prejudices, but a proper scientific literature review (including one commissioned by a non-scientist) is science in itself, and should properly be given much greater weight. It’s easy to forget (accidentally or wilfuly) that science is a methodology, not a candy-store of facts from which to choose the ones you like.

  44. Richard Wilson


    World Series Climate Change Variable Valency Wars

    Geophysicists V Astrophysicists

    Match 1 Coming Soon

  45. twobob

    I despair.
    How can someone so naive be entrusted with 50 billion of our dollars?
    No doubt no good will come of this. The future funds money should be invested now in Australian infrastructure before the stock market crashes and leaves us all looking like Nauru.

  46. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @RICHARD WILSON — Posted Thursday, 16 June 2011 at 11:45 am
    Why are you believing this science and not arguing the point.
    All your grandchildren and great grandchildren won’t have died from the effects of climate change by 2020 but 100 years from now they will be suffering, reading your posts in Crikey and cursing you.

    This mini-ice age has been predicted ages ago and the smart people of that discipline have mused whether it will ever be noticed in the current circumstances compared to the circumstances of 50 years ago.

  47. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @NERK — Posted Thursday, 16 June 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Right, but I love your candy-store.

  48. jeebus

    @Hurts – no, we are being led by politicians who are following the scientific consensus.

    Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

    There’s really not much else to say. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

  49. pete50

    There is plenty of “science” that raises serious doubt in the minds of plenty of serious scientists about the claimed relationship between human-induced CO2 and temperatures. One example is here: http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1626-nothing-wrong-with-our-graph.htm

    Your quoted predictions of the IPCC for the end of the present century contrast with their prediction that by 2010 there would be 50,000,000 climate refugees due to rising sea level. None of the IPCC models are consistent with the deceleration of sea level rise, confirmed by Australian scientists: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1 and http://wp.me/p7y4l-9Va

    When I am confronted by this “science”, what do the warmists expect me to believe? The science is in, perhaps, or Ross Garnaut’s claim that the scientists said so . . .

  50. Apollo

    You people are all wrong. Global warming is due to shift in planetary alignment. Mars has been lining up into Ur-anus’.

  51. Richard Wilson

    @Harvey T
    Instead of banging this drum to death, why can’t we be more outspoken, even outraged, about decimation of the world’s rainforests, often in my view as a result of actions taken by the IMF and the World Bank. I am also inclined to seek more action against all of the atmospheric poisoners, the defrackers and the waterway polluters. I, and even my children’s children, won’t be around long enough to see the oceans drown us or the temperatures scorch us. But we will be here to see our waterways poisoned and privatised, our rainforests decimated and over planted with GM soybeans, our public schools corporatised and turned into institutes for the dissemination of State propaganda, and a tax on the air we breathe, notwithstanding that our atmosphere will be poisoned with the most toxic of chemicals; because all of those things are happening now and no one seems to give a toss when they can play carbon tag!

  52. Apollo

    Is there any prove that the warming of the Earth is exclusively caused by sunspot and and CO2 emission has nothing to do with it?

  53. GocomSys

    The way I see it. We need to put a price on POLLUTION in it’s various forms worldwide! Agreed? Why not, for a start, whilst working on and gradually implementing flexible incentive systems to reduce pollution overall shouldn’t we give a clear signal to some polluters by putting a price on the excess carbon they are emitting? Certainly wouldn’t hurt, would it? Better safe than sorry and all that!
    Let’s stop these apparently never ending diversions by vested interests and/or the ignorant and get on with it!

  54. Apollo

    Norway had sulfur tax since 1975, I remember reading some article on it and their GST is 25%, imagine that. Their Carbon Tax came in in 1991 covering industries which made up 60% of overall emission then by 1999 all other industries were included and only transport is exempted still.


    it says that human activity even contributed to earthquake. On emission, their best estimate for human industrial emission of sulfur dioxide is 5 times of that naturally emitted by volcanoes while that of CO2 is 100 times more.

    According to the article, since the industrial revolution the CO2 dissolved into the ocean has increased acidity by 25% and is changing the geological processes operating at the sea floor.

    At what level of concentration of CO2 in the ocean and what level of acidity would CO2 then be classified as a pollutant?

  55. Dianne Calistro

    Boy, I reckon he will think twice before accepting another lunch invitation ….

  56. pete50

    CO2 is not a pollutant – it’s plant food. And having a bit more than the 1900 level in the atmosphere is very likely to benefit agriculture.

    CO2 was given the status of a pollutant because people had given up believing that it is the cause of the end of the world as we know it. Pollution by CO2 is simple political spin.

    There is no evidence that is causes floods, fires, famine or night blindness.

  57. jeebus

    Alcohol is not a drug – some alcohols are used as sweeteners. And having a bit more than 0.05% in your blood is very likely to benefit your mood.

    Alcohol was given the status of a drug because people had given up believing that it is the cause of the end of the world as we know it (what?). Poisoning by alcohol is simple political spin.

    There is no evidence it impairs judgement or makes a person unfit to operate heavy machinery.

    Imagine if the liquor industry was as influential as the fossil fuel industry.

  58. heavylambs

    Pete50,CO2 can be plant food AND a pollutant. Substances can be designated pollutants in order to usefully regulate them,didn’t ya know? Please desist with the tiresome zombie chanting.

  59. pete50

    Of course – how silly of me not to realise that SOME CO2 molecules are pollutants and some are not. The doctrine of CAGW tells us to believe this item of their catechism, but the logic is hidden from all but the inner clique. Only a climate scientist can tell the difference between a wicked CO2 molecule and a good one.

    Its not zombie chanting that tires out the Warmistanis – there is no zombie chanting. This is zombie science – it’s aim is to “hide the decline” – remember.

  60. Shinsko

    Sorry PETE5o your meme is zombie chanting. No matter how many times it is explained it refuses to die.

    I recommend you scroll back up and read Fran Barlow’s expalantion

  61. TheTruthHurts

    How come everyone doesn’t want to talk about the elephant in the room, population growth?

    The worlds population took 1 Million years to reach 3 Billion. In then took it 40 Years to double that to 6 Billion. The next 3 Billion is predicted to take only 30 Years(2030).

    But what do we hear from lefties, tree-huggers and “save the whales” mob is cutting 5% of Australia’s 1% of global emmissions.

    What we need is immigration reductions. What we need are population controls put in 3rd world countries. This is what the planet needs. Not some p1ssing in the wind worrying about reducing a small percentage of carbon emmissions while the population spirals out of control.

  62. pete50

    Oh dear, Shinsko is sorry and Heavylambs is tired and Fran tells us that everything is a pollutant, if not in its right place. Some might assert that the Warmistanis are also pollutants. They are like radioactivity and warm water – when in their proper place they are generally harmless – its when they get out that they become a nuisance.

  63. Apollo

    Don’t you support Howard’s baby bonus and Abbott’s full maternity paid leave? The immigration rate was high during the Howard years and dropped down in recent years but now we already hear complaint from the business sector to bring more migrants in.

    “Norway to build northernmost green energy building
    Fri Jun 3, 2011 12:38pm GMT

    * N.Hydro says shows green buildings can be built anywhere

    * Norway building to generate more power than it uses

    By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent OSLO, June 3 (Reuters) – A planned building in Norway will be at the most northern location so far to generate more energy than it uses, demonstrating that “green” buildings can work anywhere, its backers said on Friday.

    A group including Norwegian aluminium maker Norsk Hydro (NHY.OL: Quote) and Swedish construction group Skanska (SKAb.ST: Quote) said it would construct the six-to-seven-story building in Trondheim, with offices and shops covering up to 9,000 sq metres (96,880 sq ft).

    The building will use solar panels and sunscreens on an aluminium facade, which will have a new energy-saving ventilation system. It will also draw on geo-thermal energy and use other technologies such as heat pumps.

    Over the year, it will generate more power than it consumes”

    From: af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE7520H020110603

    It looks more possible to reach zero emission than telling people how many children they are allowed to have, especially when we as well as no other states would want people to interfere with their sovereignty.

  64. Shinsko

    PETE50 – your response is just childish.

    People are taking the time to explain this and rather than comment on the substance you make childish jibes.

  65. Richard Wilson

    This can only be settled with an all out war between the two opposing belief systems and the winner gets to be right! That is the way the science and everything else is settled these days.

  66. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @RICHARD WILSON — Posted Thursday, 16 June 2011 at 1:59 pm
    You have wondered straight into my ‘deep passion centre’ and touched on all the serious issues that have been so poorly, even corruptly dealt with by all sorts of national and international authorities in spite of scientists advising truly appropriately (scientists have been notoriously not listened to by corporations and governments unless financially conveniently).

    For example you mention Rainforests, a major passion, there are rainforests and rainforests. The Amazon rainforest/jungle when it was, till recently, in mainly natural state had such special ‘forest’ characteristics that it acted as a virtual vacuum cleaner sucking up and converting 40% of the planets CO2 production.
    It would have been cheaper to accommodate all the Indians in Hilton hotels around the world than by accommodating them in cleared Amazon jungle land for growing beetroot.

    Part of my current scientific research is in an area where I watch worse than popular ‘climate change’ denial, but denial by many authorities including health depts., of wide spread general population ‘poisoning’ (which doesn’t exist as the authorities’ that should, haven’t defined the poisoning yet).

    There is plenty of madness around (that goes untreated) and the power of ordinary people is where the hope lies and my comment above….…
    “The good feelings I have for the ‘good’ CO2 molecules I do not want to be taken away by the climate change debate nor the likes of Murray hiding behind them.”
    ……………..is all about protecting the ordinary citizens ‘psychology’ from the mistakes that clever scientists make with it when dealing with the very important ordinary person’s state of mind.

    There are many ‘big timers’ (government and private) that need to be blamed for our excessive CO2 production for as I said before President JF Kennedy raised the alarm in 1961 and the ordinary citizen is affected psychologically when he/she is blamed for his/her consumption as the cause of the problem.

    Scientists were screaming about ‘asbestos’ for 50 years with only the very occasional medical specialist having the guts to standup for the scientists screaming.
    Only as ordinary citizens became aware did those who should have done the obvious long before got into the hero act of doing something.
    The public citizen has been brought into to the carbon business and there is the hope.

  67. TheTruthHurts

    Can someone please answer one question for me.

    What percentage reduction will we have in CO2 emissions as the population increases another 3 Billion?

    Serious answers only please.

    The rug has been pulled over all our eyes. We have all been hoodwinked. We need a population plan, not a carbon plan. Get the population issue solved and you will solve the pollution problem.

    It’s the issue no one wants to talk about, but the one thats most important. Why is that?

  68. Fran Barlow

    TTH asked:

    [What percentage reduction will we have in CO2 emissions as the population increases another 3 Billion?]

    Your question is silly. Whether the population stabilises as 8.5bn or 10bn, we have to reduce global emissions to a point where at worst, atmospheric inventories peak at about 450ppmv. Any action by any state that is inconsistent with an equitable and maintainable plan to achieve that goal ought to be resisted.

    Reaching that goal implies, as noted, a vibale and maintainable plan. That in turn entails equitable burden sharing, a part of which would be human development programs in LDCs. History suggests that with increasing wealth comes a decline in fertility. So a maintainable and equitable program might entail allowing some increase in per capita emissions in the developing world while having a serious cut in the developed world. We of the developed world have authored most of the damage, derived most of the benefits and are best placed to contribute to social justice on a world scale. It’s the right thing to do both for the longterm prospects of civilisation and the integrity of the biosphere.

    Wailing about how much difference we here in Australia can hope to make solves nothing. We just have to pull our weight and use that action to press others to do likewise. It’s certainly clear that if we don’t, the chances of others like us acting decline because like you, those who want business-as-usual will cite us as amongst the self-serving recalcitrants — which — given that we are likely to suffer most amongst developed countries from climate change and human displacement — would be damning.

  69. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    ERROR fundamental RE my Post Friday, 17 June 2011 at 2:13 pm — the 3rd Word

    @RICHARD WILSON — Posted Thursday, 16 June 2011 at 1:59 pm
    You have “wondered” ………. should be ‘wandered’ Sorry!

  70. pete50

    Shinsko, my reply is not rubbish. In the shorter Oxford dictionary the pseudo-word ‘pollutant’ does not even appear. Mind you, it’s hardly surprising that in Warmistan, a science dictionary first published in 2005 is the authority for their Newspeak words. I suppose that if anything can be a ‘pollutant’, then any weather can be caused by CO2. Hot, cold, wet, stormy and you name it, they have all been blamed on CO2.

    Why, even volcanic eruptions and earthquakes have been blamed on AGW, despite the fact that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

  71. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    FRAN BARLOW (Posted Friday, 17 June 2011 at 3:08 pm) is spot on with her message here and with more room at his disposal Ross Garnaut
    On ABC, Radio National, Late Night Live a couple of nights ago (on the ABC Radio National website)
    was able to flesh out a little more the compelling reasoning for this important message lending to its understanding just as Fran has done more briefly here.

    It’s worth a serious listen – Garnaut at his best.

  72. pete50

    Well Harvey, Ross Garnaut is anything but convincing. He told us that global warming is real, its getting worse and the scientists have confirmed it. However, there is a widespread alternative position among people who are not intellectually incompetent, which gets little exposure in the MSM, but is accessible to all on-line.

    When I see Ross Garnaut on TV looking into the camera lens and assuring us that AGW must be adressed I cannot help but recall Colin Powell’s address to the UN assuring us about Iraq’s WMDs.

    The fact is that the IPCC is found to be more corrupt year-by-year. The science it relies on is half baked, it’s statistics are little better and its forecasts are usually a joke. And that says nothing about the hockey team and climategate.

  73. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    @ PETE50 — Posted Friday, 17 June 2011 at 5:39 pm
    Scientists speak to each other, corporations and Government with confidence and commitment about global warming but as that ‘speak’ comes down to the so important ordinary citizen it can be manipulated into all sorts of psychological reactions in the ordinary person by canny players due to the fact that few scientists realize to whom they are also speaking much less the care needed to prevent unwanted affects from good scientific words falling on the unprepared but now nicely manipulated minds.

    Ross Garnaut, you say has the same problem but on the radio (I mentioned above) he is superbly doing a top job.

    Knowing the undeniable truth that man is pouring CO2 into the atmosphere like ‘nature’ (true balanced systems of all kinds unresponsive to talk and argument) has never experienced before while he (man) has also damaged ‘natures‘ powerful balancing tools – CO2 removal and conversion methods leaving them overwhelmed then, in spite of all arguments about every aspect of all the science done for a belief in its relevance, CO2 production must be sharply cut and ‘natures’ balancing tools repaired.

    It’s simple if you appreciate ‘natures’ powers at extracting a price for interference with it.

    I am not betting (I have no way of knowing – I don’t believe it) on your …….”The fact is that the IPCC is found to be more corrupt year-by-year. The science it relies on is half baked”…….. and I don’t need to know for my intelligent response as outlined above.

  74. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    And finally I would like to say something really important…………..

    But for BK and Crikey ……..”….The comments of Future Fund chairman David Murray on climate change last week quietly went through to the keeper…..”
    it’s out in the field for all the players to applaud.

  75. pete50

    Harvey you are right, Crikey has given us the opportunity to applaud David Murray’s perfectly sensible comments on “climate change”, and I and thousands of others do just that. It’s pleasing to see people in such positions tell it the way it simply is.

    The IPCC provides the foundation for the Gillard government’s policy directions re “climate change”. Since its inception decades ago, the IPCC has gradually sunk into a morass of corruption. Examples are numerous, but these will give you the flavour of what I’m seying: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/17/lorne-gunter-the-ipcc-loses-its-last-credibility/
    and http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/17/climategate-part-2-a-worrying-conflict-of-interest/

    To support the government’s embrace of the outpourings of such an institution in disgraceful.

  76. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    PETE50 — Posted Sunday, 19 June 2011 at 11:36 am

    I am applauding BK and Crikey for keeping the subject in play, not David Murray’s belief and reasoning systems.
    I guess that’s the difference between us.
    My guts tell me we must reverse excessive production and mend natures balancing and removal tools.
    You believe we should just carry with that excessive production because it suits known wealth accumulation methods practiced on Earth and discredit those who are trying to send a simple warning in, unfortunately, very sophisticated language.

Leave a comment


Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.