One thing I will quibble about, though. I wouldn’t say that “the issue of Peak Oil is no longer up for debate”. If some significant new evidence appeared that contradicted what we currently know, then that evidence would need to be evaluated. If it stood up to scrutiny, the concept of Peak Oil would need to be revisited in light of that new evidence. that’s how Science works.

Mind you, we’ve strayed an awfully long way from the role of the ABC Chair…

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2010/03/18/peak-oil-is-this-the-end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it/

quote…

For those in the audience who may still harbour any doubts about the urgency of the issue of peak oil I will quote the former US Energy Secretary, Dr James Schlesinger, who in 2006 addressed the “Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas”(ASPO) in Ireland with this comment:

“The peakists have won … to the peakists I say, you can declare victory. You are no longer the beleaguered small minority of voices crying in the wilderness. You are now mainstream. ”

In other words, the issue of peak oil is no longer up for debate, no longer controversial, no longer considered alarmist, and has been accepted as valid by scientists worldwide.

..unquote

Bob

http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_04_on/oil_running_out_of_time.html

Sydney civil engineer MATT MUSHALIK takes a cool, rational, look at the world’s rapidly-approaching energy crisis ( 10 May 2005 )

“Peak Oil is a proven physical reality, not a theory which can be argued about in an endless debating competition. The first peak to happen was in the US in 1970.”

BTW: Matt Mushalik booked into the Fellowship of the Round Table forum (to be held Wednesday) this evening.

There’s one simple question. If the world is running out of fossil fuels (as it is) then why is the world concerned about the polluting effects of substances that in the future will be in limited supply ?

And wasn’t Tony Abbott more concerned about an ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) which produces a trade in negotiable instruments rather than a CPRS ? The bureacracy surrounding trading rights to pollute is an enormous cost to the country (IMHO that is).

Bob

http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php

“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, Cuba’s economy went into a tailspin. With imports of oil cut by more than half – and food by 80 percent – people were desperate. This film tells of the hardships and struggles as well as the community and creativity of the Cuban people during this difficult time. Cubans share how they transitioned from a highly mechanized, industrial agricultural system to one using organic methods of farming and local, urban gardens. It is an unusual look into the Cuban culture during this economic crisis, which they call “The Special Period.” The film opens with a short history of Peak Oil, a term for the time in our history when world oil production will reach its all-time peak and begin to decline forever. Cuba, the only country that has faced such a crisis – the massive reduction of fossil fuels – is an example of options and hope.”

Bob

There is no doubt that climate change from the point of view of the planet is a fact. The planet has gone through ice ages and various climatic events in the billion years of it’s history and it’s also a fact that the slight tilt the Earth makes with regards to the sun changes the climate quite remarkably. This phenonema is known as the “seasons”.

When it comes to mankind and the influence of the industrial revolution and it’s products on climate change then we’re into the area of theory (as no doubt Tony Abbott can explain).

As I understand it the major gas that influences “the greenhouse effect” is water vapour over which mankind has very little control. The second is methane from farting cows and third carbon based petrochemicals and fossil fuels.

(There is an argument that petrochemicals are not fossil fuels and that oil as we know it isn’t the product of fossilisation).

Petroleum (name literally means “rock oil”) replaced whale oil which was used prior to the industrial revolution for a variety of purposes. When “rock oil” was first discovered it was used as a replacement for whale oil which was becoming scarce. It was a product that was in abundance.

How much mankind’s use of “rock oil” and other carbon based fuels such as coal have influenced climate change is I believe a matter for debate.

“rock oil” has become the primary component of many things and much that we take for granted such as pesticides and fertiliser for agriculture and plastics will need deep consideration when “peak oil” takes hold (2023 is a prediction by Shell to it’s employees).

How much of the CPRS is a reaction to “peak oil” rather than climate change is something I’ve been deliberating on.

There’s an interesting film about how Cuba dealt with the oil crisis when the Soviet Union collapsed. Their primary source of oil disappeared and they couldn’t get it from the United States which has already reached it’s “peak” with regards to oil production.

What will the moslem hordes do when they run out of oil – or to be more precise when the cost of extraction becomes marginal with respect to revenue ?

Bob

I even got a brief mention on Lee Rhiannon’s blog as being “Acting Secretary”!

http://www.leerhiannon.org.au/peak-oil-forum-is-this-the-end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it

I have been promoted to Secretary which pays twice as much as “Acting Secretary” — twice nothing is still nothing!

She also managed to sneak my video of her onto her blog. How it ended up there I’m not sure.

http://www.leerhiannon.org.au/news/lee-speaks-at-cyber-safety-picnic-parramatta

Bob

Peak Oil is a fact. Climate change is a theory !

Gordon Moyes is coming along as he believes that when God created the Garden of Eden he had no plans for petrochemicals!

(sorry for the plug)

Only this week, for example, there seems to be more attention given to a baby elephant in Sydney than so many other important issues.

Maybe I’m in the minority, but I’d like to be informed about what’s happening in the world and how it’ll affect me and our future, not entertained with cute animal stories.

I hardly watch TV any more, or listen to the radio for that matter. I choose from the vast amount of material online.

@sylmobile: This is the future. Welcome to it.

Douglas Adams created an expectation about our future that is more painful in its non arrival to reality than the promise of a jet pack.

and let the well known people on certain issues e.g. scientists and the likes re an issue write commentary . Fed up with abc reporters commenting on everything.

We are old and enough and big enough to make up our own minds.

In fact i hardly listen or watch the currant affairs on the abc it has got so bad.

and as for the drum gee cannnot even look there any more. .never thoughti would see the day when i dont even turn on the radio to listen to them I think they have lost their loyal base some time ago the young people are too busy through the day and only look at headlines us oldies think its changed too much so dont bother.

i prefer the inderpent sites like crickey these days and watch question time now that is really where you find out what going on.

The good old days of good solid headlines and news seem to be a thing of the past.

so have given up even trying to work them out.

it not our abc any more its their abc.

Ben Goldacre in his book Bad Science (concerned mostly with CAM delusion and lack of public education in accessing health scams) asks why science/tech is written for dummies in the press and TV. He argues that business section isn’t toned down to nearly the same extent, and sport is not dumbed down at all, a level, not a low level, of understanding of the games is assumed, and sometimes sport has the most accurate and detailed statistical analysis of all the presses sections.

Did you just make that up then?

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/category/environment-climate-change/

I feel like I’ve been misled.

Now in responding to comments to far — and thank you all — I won’t drill down into the minutiae of climate science itself. The point here is about the ABC Chair’s role in editorial direction and the reportage of scientific issues. There’s enough re-hashing of the “Is climate change real or a myth?” debate over in the comments to Eric Beecher’s Crikey piece. And I’ve already had a go over there.

One bit I will repeat here, though:

“Balance” isn’t about giving equal time to every opinion, whatever its level of validity. Balance is about fairness and honesty.

A journalist’s job isn’t just repeating whatever everyone wants to say on an issue in equal measure. When I was taught the craft of radio in the early ’80s, “he said she said” reportage was derided as “tape recorder journalism”. OK for beginners, perhaps, but not for a serious practitioner.

A journalist’s job is to uncover the truth and inform us. And if, after analysing the facts and applying reason, a journalist finds that what someone’s saying is just plain wrong, or looks dubious, they should have the independence to say so, not live in fear of being called “biased”.

Mainstream media is truly appalling at reporting on science. It only makes it if it’s “miracle cure” or “impending doom” or controversy. Which is why we’ve heard about the IPCC review following a truly magnificent cock-up — which is great, that’s science in action actively fixing problems instead of the political process of trying to cover them up — but we don’t hear about the continual, incremental tweaks to climate change or evolutionary biology or, indeed, anything else.

Science is also an interlocking framework of fact, evidence, hypothesis and so on. Things don’t get to be science unless they’re supported by several strands of evidence. Which is why some of Climategate doesn’t really matter. The vast web of climate science doesn’t rest sole on one team’s set of data.

@Daremo: I’m not concerned with the specific people you list speaking on the issue, provided they’re not saying they’re analysing the science.

(However you’re not warranted to make assumptions generally about people I may or may not approve of. Because I happen not to mention things outside the scope of the article you just can’t assume.)

In the case of Lord Stern and other economists, they’re perfectly entitled to make economic predications based on what the climatologists tell them is their best estimate. It’s their job, in fact. But they shouldn’t judge the science, merely starting their comments with “If this is science is true, then X will happen economically.”

Similarly, Wong and Garrett, being the responsible Government ministers, are entitled to discuss this from a policy viewpoint, weighing up the economic, social and other evidence to determine what’s best overall. But again, they shouldn’t be judging the science. And they should adapt their policies when the science changes.

As for Flannery, I haven’t read anything he’s written so I can’t judge. I suppose that as a palaeontologist he should have an understanding of how the estimated climate change will affect life. But, as I say, I don’t really know.

@Everyone else: Thats enough of my voice for the moment.