Steve Gibbons’ exit interview
Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. “Steve Gibbons on ‘filthy’ Rudd, the gallery and vintage cars” (yesterday). Steve informs us, “We all know the reasons why we need to move to a price on carbon: that was negotiated with the independents to be in government and that was the first step to move the new system which we’ve done.” I find his explanation a little unclear. My assumption was that “pricing carbon” was ultimately to lower the planet’s temperature, although nowadays even the IPCC admits there hasn’t been any warming for at least 15 years (in a report that Crikey has been curiously silent about). Thus, Steve’s reasoning that it was all to “move to the new system” doesn’t explain why we needed to make that move. Still, he’s right about the electoral effect — oblivion for the Labor/Green/independent coalition.
Les Heimann writes: Crikey; an honest politician — after the event of course!
Jeff Ash writes: If only the candour displayed by Steve Gibbons about Kevin Rudd was on greater display in the parliaments around Australia. At least I would know where I stand.
Weddings, parties, anything for MPs
Robyn Godbehere writes: Re. “Crikey Clarifier: the cost of entitlement for roaming MPs” (yesterday). That’s approximately $428,000 each whether they are in government or not — backbencher or frontbencher, a Minister or otherwise. I think one-day study trips are a rort and should be seen as such. Weddings are also a rort as any minister or senator can go to a wedding, just mention once the political climate and hey presto, they can claim it as a work expense. What also needs investigating is how come these guys are able to repay their expenses but Peter Slipper said he wanted to repay his Cabcharge expenses but was not allowed. Now he is going to court for peanuts and these guys are getting away with it.
Vincent Burke writes: I assume the media are checking funeral attendance lists. Surely one of them would want to run a story about government ministers rorting the system with the headline “four weddings and a funeral”. Wasn’t it Brendan Nelson who joked about politicians benefiting from “Huge Grants”? These reports won’t bring the government to its knees, but it’s nice to see some of the smugness wiped from their faces.
Tamas Calderwood.. The warming has continued, despite the deliberate misunderstanding of the data. The heat is in the oceans. Once that buffering capacity is used up, what do you think will happen?
Oh, ok Richard: An atmospheric gas is heating up the deep oceans before it’s heating up the atmosphere. This was unpredicted and remains unexplained. What’s the next excuse when we finally get round to measuring a zero increase in the deep oceans (which remain unserveyed – so we can’t actually tell if the heat is down there)?
Tamas: we actually have been measuring the deep oceans; they’re warming (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012gl051106.shtml). The atmosphere has been warming for decades now. The things you say don’t correspond to reality.
The warming has not disappeared. Even Greg Hunt will tell you that. Richard is referring to the fact that most energy is absorbed by our oceans rather than the air at the planet’s surface. Considering humans have been using water to act as a heatsink all kinds of machines for ages this should not come as a surprise to anyone. I’m sure you are aware that oceans cover most of the surface of our planet. The water temperature is being monitored, in some places very intensely. The water is getting warmer, it is becoming more acidic. This is all known and has been measured for some time.
You seem to misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works. The gases are not producing the heat, that has never been the issue at all. What greenhouse gases do is trap incoming heat. It acts like the roof of a greenhouse. Too little and the planet doesn’t stay warm, too much and the planet gets hotter. None of this is in dispute, and we have other celestial bodies nearby to observe in various extremes. Venus for example is a greenhouse gas made hell-hole that is hotter than day-time temperatures on Mercury, where the sun beams down on it from a relatively tiny distance. Every probe sent there caught on fire soon after arriving, landing on the surface was a feat of engineering.
Our planet avoids this fate because there are more systems in play than the carbon cycle. Our large amount of water helps mitigate it, lots of carbon ends up in the ground and trees breath carbon-dioxide. We know that it is not immune to external forces. There is very good evidence that the Permian-Triassic extinction event was caused by a massive eruption in what is now Siberia, inputting an obscene amount of co-2 into the atmosphere, raising temperatures around 4 degrees. The oceans also warmed, releasing methane and that resulted in yet another 4 degree increase in temperature and nearly everything on Earth died.
Now I’m not saying we have to shut down every oil well and coal mine or we’ll catch on fire or everything will die, I’m saying the effects of these gases are well known. You are clutching at straws if you are trying to poke holes in the basic science behind arguments for renewable energy. The question is, are we the cause for the observed warming? Please don’t waste everyones time arguing against physics.
Tamas ..
It is all to do with the differential rates at which solids and liquids take up/release heat. Basic Physics, by the way. If you do not understand the basic science, how do you manage to bring yourself to comment in public?
It would be like me offering an opinion on AFL!!