News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Fielding sceptical after Wong climate lesson 

Fielding sceptical after Wong climate lesson

16 Jun, 2009 04:18 AM
THE independent senator Steve Fielding was accompanied by four scientists to his meeting with the Federal Government as it tried to find a last-minute strategy to gain support for its emissions trading scheme.

Before the meeting Senator Fielding said he had an "open mind" about the link between human activity and global warming.

"Global warming quite clearly over the last decade hasn't been actually occurring," he said.

The senator then added: "I also believe there is climate change."

The Coalition is considering using its numbers in the Senate to prevent the emissions trading legislation from being brought to a vote. The Government had wanted a vote next week.

If the vote was avoided this would delay the opportunity for a double dissolution.

For that election to happen the legislation would have to be rejected or fail to pass two times with an intervening gap of at least three months.

The Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, said the Government had an electoral mandate to introduce the emissions trading scheme.

"Eighteen months ago Australians sent politicians a clear message that they wanted action on climate change," Senator Wong said.

"They made it clear they wanted to leave a decent legacy for their children."

Senator Wong said both the independent senators, the Greens and the Coalition had accepted the need for action on climate change.

"The Senate can decide whether it will help slow climate change down, or whether it will help climate change accelerate," she said.

Four scientists accompanied Senator Fielding to his meeting with Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett.

The Government also asked the director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, Will Steffen, to attend the meeting.

With Senator Fielding were David Evans, a former carbon modeller for the former Australian Greenhouse Office; Stewart Franks, an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle; Robert Carter, an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University; and William Kininmonth, a long-serving member of the Bureau of Meteorology.

Senator Fielding is concerned with figures from the past decade which show that while carbon dioxide emissions increased global temperatures went down.

Professor Steffen described the discussion as an "open and far-ranging". While he could not comment on the details he said the issue Senator Fielding raised was one he was frequently asked.

Professor Steffen said 1998 - the beginning of the decade referred to by Senator Fielding - was the hottest year on record.

Professor Steffen described it as an "anomalous" year that should not be used as a reference point for comparisons.

He said people should also look at the long-term temperatures which showed that the past 14 years contained 13 of the 14 hottest years since records began in the 1850s.

Ocean temperatures were also a better indicator of the state of the planet than air temperatures, he said, and they had been rising rapidly.

Professor Steffen said he understood that people found climate science "bewildering". "It is very complex and there's a lot of it out there," he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It would be a good idea if the journalists and senator Fielding read 'Climate Myths' found at "www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide -for-the-perplexed.html"
Posted by Trugger, 16/06/2009 1:58:51 PM
An ETS won’t leave a legacy (as Wong suggests) for anyone but the govt and big business.
Posted by wrong wong, 16/06/2009 6:07:32 PM
Seems New Scientist is in bed with the UN and the IPCC, since they have been caught out telling huge porkies, why would anyone believe them again?
Posted by Loc Hey, 16/06/2009 7:42:53 PM
Someone should explain to Wong that every mandate that is given by Australian voters comes with the overriding expectation of "proper exercise of power". That means she must consider every relevant matter, such as no warming for a decade since 1998, and none for 3 decades from 1940. She must not base decisions on irrelevant matters, such as pauperising our economy to prevent 0.3 of 1mm of sea level rise. She must implement proportionate responses to realistic probabilities, not extreme extrapolations from limited data. Above all she must behave like a reasonable person, not some expressionless zombie on a mission from captain planet.
Posted by Ian Mott, 17/06/2009 6:12:13 AM
Human-induced climate change is the biggest deception of our generation. The parliament should not be passing legislation that will have a devastating effect on the economy and future food security of Australia by making decisions based on junk science driven by environmental extremists.
Posted by Kevin Rude, 17/06/2009 6:19:18 AM
Good luck to any scientist who is publicly sceptical of anthropogenic climate clange when it comes to getting that so-important research grant. The climate-change bretheren don't like heretics. Let's not forget that all the climate scientists preaching about this have a great big vested interest at stake. If we can't even have accurate weather forecasts for next week, how can we possibly give credence to climate forecasts 50 years out? The predictions all come from models that are inherently flawed and have never been validated.
Posted by Kevin-oh-seven, 17/06/2009 7:30:37 AM
I can't express my thoughts any clearer than Trugger, Wrong Wong, Loc Hey, Ian Mott and Kevin Rude. I think "ditto" covers it.
Posted by AW, 17/06/2009 7:50:21 AM
I believe Australians should think long and hard about the emissions trading scheme before accepting it. The cost to primary industries, mining, manufacturing, power production, retail, transport and so on is going to be enormous and the flow on effect will in the end have to be passed on to the consumer: us. barb
Posted by don't go the Penny Wong way!, 17/06/2009 8:14:33 AM
No mandate for your scheme, Ms Wong, but a boot in the pants for the Liberals under their previous leader. Your scheme favours certain businesses every much as he did (remember the links between coal, a certain large business and the union rule on the wharves?) Your mandate was for clean, green cheap energy, eg solar power and you have let us down on that. You have also set out to scapegoat farmers as the culprits in global warming, ignoring their role in greening Australia, as a diversion for you climbing into bed with the coal industry. You have also set out to scalp ordinary households, small business and primary producers with your carbon taxes. Shame on you for both failing the people who voted for a change and assuming we are all fools.
Posted by Jaycie, 17/06/2009 8:58:33 AM
Will the anti AGW skeptics please drop the emotive adjectives and put forth a reasoned argument. It is hard to take you seriously and not dismiss your arguments as unfounded when you have nothing to back up your claims. You might be reminded that the Hadley Centre and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies are amongst many of the recognised institutions that have observed climate change, and if you dare to read through the research they take into account variations in solar radiation, the urban heart island effect, changes in measurement etc, as put there is currently no other explanation to the increase in global temperatures over the long term (not the last 10 years). I have not read an argument from anti AGW proponent that can withstand scientific argument and the sceptics just repeat what they have heard but do not understand to do nothing about the possibility of calamitous change. How is it that the anti AGW crowd believe the economic modelling that the economy is going to be, what was it, "pauperised" when the treasury and other economic modelling shows that the cost is a fraction of the GDP and a fraction of the cost of not doing anything if man made climate change is real. But when a model comes out from Access economics (isn't that ex Liberal Carmody involved in that?) you believe it straight away. So you believe any model that agrees with you and deny any model that does not agree with you, nice, sounds like a reasonable position. Einstien said: "A man's mind is like a parachute it does not work unless it is open." It is clear that there is no point in engaging with close minded and irrational indivduals more concerned about themselves than the greater good. No wonder society is heading where it is.
Posted by the lorax, 17/06/2009 9:10:50 AM
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Family First Senator Steve Fielding.
Family First Senator Steve Fielding.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
15 June, 2009
11 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the deregulation of the wheat industry's single desk marketing system been beneficial to grain growers?

Yes
(25.4%)

No
(50.4%)

It's too soon to tell
(24.2%)

Total Votes: 476
Poll Date: 14 June, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...