KEVIN Rudd took over as Australian Prime Minister replacing Julia Gillard on June 26, 2013. Since then, with the announcement by Mr Rudd that he now intends to bring forward the transition from a strict carbon tax to an emissions trading scheme, the politics of climate change and carbon taxing have changed dramatically. If the Opposition, led by Tony Abbott, is to stay competitive, and become relevant, it urgently needs a proper alternative plan to address climate change.
The answer is to introduce a new climate policy based upon preparation for, and adaptation to, all weather and climate related events whether they be of natural or of potentially human causation. Such a policy could be practical, cost-effective and efficacious, which is why it has been recommended by so many independent commentators and expert scientists over the last five years. This adaptive policy is well summarized in the last chapter of Bob Carter’s new book, ‘Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change’ [1]. 
Yes, Professor Carter, like Mr Rudd does believe in climate change and the need for a national climate policy.
The advantage of Carter’s plan, however, over anything that Mr Rudd is currently proposing is that it is open to the possibility of global cooling, as well as global warming.
Professor Carter suggests that the highly contentious ‘global warming’ problem be recast through the development of science-based adaptive response strategies that can deal with whatever nature in the end serves up. In his book the major climate-related hazards in Australia are listed as cyclones, storms, floods, landslides, droughts and bushfires, as well as the longer term hazards of abrupt or extended warmings or coolings in temperature and their attendant consequences (Page 236).
Tony Abbott’s plan, after he won the Australian federal election on 14th September, was to scrap the carbon tax. But the election is now unlikely to be held on 14th September and Kevin Rudd is about to “scrap the carbon tax” [2]?
The best thing Abbot could do in response would be to scrap his proposed Direction Action Plan and come up with a proper plan to address the very real climate-related risks as detailed in Professor Carter’s new book.
After all, the Direction Action Plan was never about addressing climate change it was always just a plan to waste an awful lot of money on feel-good things like planting trees, that would never really address the issue of global warming, that no one was convinced Mr Abbot really believed in. As long as the Australian public had a carbon tax to hate, Mr Abbott could perhaps hide behind this fig leaf of a policy. Now, given Mr Rudd’s plans to scrap the tax, the fig leaf is likely to become a liability.
As Professor Carter explains on the last page of his book:
“Pursuing expensive and futile schemes to combat the speculative, and quite possibly illusory, risks of human-induced global warming is both pointless and wealth-sapping. Instead any sensible national climate policy must primarily address the well known risks of natural climate events and change.”
***
1. For more information visit http://www.taxingair.com
2. Rudd tipped to scrap carbon tax. Bigpond News. July 14, 2013 http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2013/07/14/Rudd_tipped__to_scrap_carbon_tax_887772.html
Bob Carter is the author of more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers in professional scientific journals. The great majority of these concern interpretations of ancient environments, including paleo-climatic studies. Link to full of list of publications here… http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
"Warmism" has become a 'religion'. To belong, all that is required is faith in AGW. The believers look up to the AGW-peddling scientists who con the media (e.g. the biassed ABC), socalled science academies, and the gullible politicians and members of the public into joining their fold. Socalled scientific consensus on AGW is the 'doctrine' that they preach.
The fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that anthropogenic emissions cause dangerous global warming, is irrelevant to the believers. The fact that there has been no statistically significant global warming for some 17 years, does not prompt them to question AGW. The fact that this is clear evidence that the climate models grossly over-estimate the influence, if any, of anthropogenic emissions, is ignored.
There is no scientific nor economic justification for spending billions and billions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic emissions. But this is what has happened. The result has been the promotion of unreliable, inefficient renewable energy development at the cost of discouraging cost efficient coal-fired energy, that has in turn resulted in the doubling of electricity prices, that has in turn substantially forced up the cost of a key factor of production and the cost of living, and destroyed Australia's comparable energy cost advantage.
But the key question that is forgotten is: what effect has it had on global warming? The answer is absolutely nothing!
Why all this fuss about 'climate change' that has been occurring for billions of years?
Anyone who has conducted thorough research, knows that alleged 'climate change' in the warming sense, is not about science, but about politics....specifically the UN's Agenda 21 plan.......that is, to take control of global energy resources, spike prices to a level that destroys western industry and then take control of bankrupted nations under the banner of 'one world governance'.
Abbott's is suffering the consequences of not sticking with his knowledge of this all being 'crap' and instead employing a populist 'me too' approach. He must now draw a line in the sand and expose this issue for what it is.....an international fraud conceived by corrupt government, greedy global financiers and profit driven multinational companies.
Come on Tony, tell the electorate what's really happening......the truth never hurt anyone!
EVERYBODY should read Professor Roger Pielke Jr's testimony to the US Senate committee on 18 July 2013. One part includes "some activists, politicians, journalists corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims unsupportable based on evidence and research".
People like me are not demanding certainty about the weather/climate Luke.
We're actually sick of the AGW celebs claiming they are certain, that it's 'settled' and the only way to fix it is to tax thin air.
I would prefer to pursue the bureaucratic concept of 'accountability' as I seriously suspect that definition is radically different to people who run their own businesses, like farmers 🙂
As I said previously, AGW celebs can get away with saying some outrageous stuff about 'furure climate' and have it accepted as certain fact.
Certainty? By no means. Uncertainty and inaccuracy are fine with me.
But they suck.