Readers' Comments

Fortunately, and perhaps accidentally, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's own hand-picked climate change guru, Professor Ross Garnaut, has now driven a truck through its principal argument.

In the 10 months since Rudd, Treasurer Wayne Swan, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Environment Minister Peter Garrett have held office, the Government has constantly decried and denigrated as "irresponsible climate-change deniers" all who question their views .

• Read full story

So my question is extremely simple, we know temperature goes up and down. We know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand - we politicians and scientists - that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on? --David Gee, Chairman of the Science Committee, International Geological Congress, 8 August 2008

Posted by: Philip Hackett of England 9:52pm September 15, 2008
Comment 24 of 24

Thank goodness for some honest, disinterested account of these vexing issues. Congratulations to Piers Akerman for correctly identifying that the emporer has no clothes. What a shame we don't have here in Australia a science journalist of the calibre of Marcel Crok of the Netherlands. What a shame his articles are not republished here in Ozland and incoroprated into our discusssion of the planet's climate dynamics and what role (if any) governments should have in relation to those dynamics. For the benefit of all readers who hunger for truth in this matter here are links to two of his recent articles: http://climatesci.org/2007/04/30/interview-by-marcel-crok-of-roger-a-pielke-sr-jan-2007/ http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

Posted by: climate realist of the bush capital 3:18pm September 09, 2008
Comment 23 of 24

"ALP wants to sacrifice the economy for a lie" -wow Piers great journalism! This is simply an opinion piece, from a bitter 'journalist' still bewildered that the political landscape has changed and in frustration descend to Fox News misrepresentations and partisan journalism. Ackerman, your article fails because you neglect to address ANY problems associated with cost-benefit analysis for the environmental degradation (a measure employed by insurance companies and negligent manufacturers to defend against the cost of a recall) and yet seem to have great difficulty evaluating the conclusions of this cost-benefit analysis, perhaps a re-read of Professor Garnaut report may highlight your errors. yes there is a distinction between political rhetoric and reality, most in the public seem to understand this reality as part of the doctrinal system in any democracy but you seem to be credulous to this notion. The irony in this piece is that you seem to be attempting to suggest that the Rudd government has exaggerated and misrepresented the gravity of the threats to the environment yet hardly convince the reader when you yourself engage in alarmist journalism.

Posted by: Sean of Gold Coast 2:04pm September 09, 2008
Comment 22 of 24

Nice one Piers. Why don't you read the rest of the Garnaut review, which acknowledges that all of things that have not been included in the economic modelling, the non-market impacts; Impact on fisheries due to increased water tempretures, the impact of bushfires on infrastructure, the cost to tourism from the damage to our natural assets including, but not limited to the great barrier reef, and perhaps the most significant - the of the impacts of coastal settlements affected to rising sea levels. All of this (and plenty more) is not included in the economic modelling. For your future reference this information is available in the Draft Report, June 2008 - pages 249-267. They were not included because of the difficulty of attaching a value with any degree of accuracy to them. That we cannot quantitfy the cost now, does not mean that we will not have to pay it later.

Posted by: Nick of Melbourne 4:39pm September 08, 2008
Comment 21 of 24

Of course Piers Ackerman doesn't care about doing anything: him and his generation won't even be on earth in 40 years when climate change really starts to hurt us. It'll fall to my generation and our kids, so thankyou Mr. Ackerman for advocating the view that we shouldn't do anything you're really looking forward to the future.

Posted by: Josh of Sydney 2:29pm September 08, 2008
Comment 20 of 24

Thank you Piers for being one of the few voices of common sense in the midst of the increasing Government hysteria about climate change. Wong and Rudd (and the Opposition for that matter) are utterly clueless as to the real science, and blindly follow the corrupt and politically motivated IPCC. CO2 up by 5% since 1998, yet temperatures flat or down since 2001 - this is a classic example of empirical evidence disproving a theory, yet the Government does not even consider the possibility that the late 20th century warming had another cause (and there are plenty of candidates). An ETS will do nothing except damage Australia's economy and standard of living. By the way, John of Colac, air pollution in Beijing has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, to do with CO2 or the global warming debate. If you wish to cut emissions in order to cut pollution, fine and very laudable, but don't try to mislead the public by trying to link it to the issue of catastrophic global warming. Also, to Dario - let's hear your specific arguments against what is said in the article, not your attacks on the author.

Posted by: Simon of Sydney 11:45am September 08, 2008
Comment 19 of 24

Good news, their actions have achieved cooling over the last 5 years. However, what options have been developed in case the cooling continues?

Posted by: Nonein2008 9:44am September 08, 2008
Comment 18 of 24

I suppose the air in Bejing during the olympics was not so poluted it was bad for your health Piers? We need clean air to exist, better we clean up our act now before we all live in poluted cities.

Posted by: John of Colac 7:14pm September 07, 2008
Comment 17 of 24

Jock, what does the ozone layer have to do with anything? As usual Piers, your hatred for Rudd prevents you from producing anything credible. Better luck next time.

Posted by: Dario 3:26pm September 07, 2008
Comment 16 of 24

I just don't understand how increasing the cost of everything is going to make any difference? People will still need to drive their cars, they will still use electricity in their homes. Rather than increasing the cost of everything I.e. another bloody tax on everything. Why can't the govt start looking at alternatives - with the time, effort and money thrown at the ETS, we could have made huge headway with alternative sources of energy. Rather than giving Toyota $38M why wasn't that set aside for our Aussie scientisits to research and developd alternatives?

Posted by: Sceptic 2:45pm September 07, 2008
Comment 15 of 24

Hvanar Sathka of Brisbane says: "But I'm certain the cost is going to be more than -1.6% of the GDP". You may be certain, but you certainly aren't a climate change expert. If you have something to add to the discussion beyond your unqualified gut feeling, then please do.

Posted by: Mark of Adelaide 12:28pm September 07, 2008
Comment 14 of 24

Maybe if the Rudd Government are so keyed up about this climate change thing,then they can tell us what happened to the "hole in the ozone layer"!

Posted by: Jock Mactavish of Darwin 12:28pm September 07, 2008
Comment 13 of 24

Forget 2020... climate change isnt a short term issue.. At that range, we are purely looking at dollars and no real changes to our environmental impact. We need to look at the long term costs when the effects of deteriorating climate really start to bite. This would be 2050 and beyond. At that point, 1.5% gdp will look like a drop in the ocean.

Posted by: Stuart Read of Perth 11:43am September 07, 2008
Comment 12 of 24

Good article, I could not agree more. The Labor Government will turn Australia into a second world nation with an ETS. Any manufacturing that have will simply move off shore to China where it will pollute without restriction never to return to this country. No other country will follow our lead and any emissions that we cut will be totally in effective, that is if you even believe the fraud of AGW. Australia RIP.

Posted by: Simon of NO CARBON TAX 11:32am September 07, 2008
Comment 11 of 24

The problem could be better tackled if seen as three sub-problems, which are perhaps interconnected. The rising world temperature (if true), pollution which is a result of human activity and drought which is controlled by outside factors. There is little we can do about world temperature and drought, but we can tackle pollution and should do so as a well conceived plan devoid of the religous fervour common to "climate change". The effects of temperature change and drought have effects which can be tackled with good planning.

Posted by: Phillip Greville of Gold Coast 11:26am September 07, 2008
Comment 10 of 24

This sort of climate change debate misses the point. The economy is taking a big hit with or without ETS. It will be a slow but huge hit. Our ecomonic models are going to have to change. We have politicians and economists who consider the current models to be the closest we can get to perfect, however they have led to fast consumption of finite resources including atmosphere, oil and coal. Finite resources and environment are not factored into modern economic models and we will waste them. Stop thinking within the economic square of current economic models and look at the problem. Get out of the emotive talk such as "fixated with flawed reports" and do some research. This is not a game, this should not be about scoring politial points. The government, the opposition and most importantly the media are letting us down so badly.

Posted by: Andrew Reye of Brisbane 11:24am September 07, 2008
Comment 9 of 24

Taking too much water from the river systems has nothing to do with climate change. It is only one of many examples of our unsustainable management of resources to satisfy our unsustainable lifestyles. Stop blaming climate change for mismanagement. Nature has always had its seasons and cycles. We can't have the cake and eat it as well.

Posted by: Robert Parry of Brisbane 11:20am September 07, 2008
Comment 8 of 24

Piers you are so wrapped up in your own scepticism that you fail to be objective about climate change. The 'cost of doing nothing' as you calculate it only goes to the year 2020. What about beyond that? I intend to live alot longer than the year 2020 and so do my children. What will the costs be for their future????

Posted by: Hebs of Brisbane 11:15am September 07, 2008
Comment 7 of 24

Climate change in not just about whether we lose 0.7% of GDP or 1.6% of GDP. If the only effect of climate change was a weakening effect on the economy, then your article would be completely correct but in the real world, the GDP of Australia is not the only thing that matters. Therefore the view taken by this article is useless unless it takes into account the myriad other factors that exist in this equation.

Posted by: Mija Wel of Sydney 11:13am September 07, 2008
Comment 6 of 24

So what is the alternative. Keep polluting the planet till everyone drops dead?? Wake up guys.. There is no spare planet in the boot. Conserve what we got for your grandchildren by following 3 R's - Reduce, Recycle and Reuse.

Posted by: jumanji of Melbourne 11:09am September 07, 2008
Comment 5 of 24

You are quite right about the number of scientist who don't support the theories put forward by the IPCC. They far outnumber those who cling to the fragile anectdotal evidence of climate change. Any web search will show you that. The question is why some scientists and politicians want us to believe that we can somehow control the weather ? I guess it's a question of power. If we vote in the people that can change the weather then they get all the power and money that comes with it. Time will tell how gullible we are..... the weather records since 2000 show a slight decline in global warming so if this trend continues it will be interesting to see how the scientists and politicians distort these facts.

Posted by: JOhn of Adelaide 11:04am September 07, 2008
Comment 4 of 24

If anything I thought this was goint to be Mr Rudd's Swan song. It turned out to be a Swan wong (swan song gone wrong) Sadly Kevin 07 isn't the only chump,it took a lot of votes to get him there.

Posted by: John Bailey 10:54am September 07, 2008
Comment 3 of 24

"We often complain that governments do nothing, Well, we should really start worrying when they try and do something." (Will Rogers)

Posted by: Peter Forde of Brisbane 10:53am September 07, 2008
Comment 2 of 24

The oft mentioned 'cost of doing nothing'. What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of ever-increasing and self sustaining climate change? What is the cost of more severe, destructive storms and rising sea levels? What is the cost of several extinct species? Quite difficult to say. I'm no tree hugging climate protester. But I'm certain the cost is going to be more than -1.6% of the GDP. A few trillion dollars would be trivial to the cost of the change that the planet will face.

Posted by: Hvanar Sathka of Brisbane 5:29am September 07, 2008
Comment 1 of 24