New Day Down Under On Global Warming

(AP)  Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed the paperwork Monday to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, making good on an election promise to overturn Australia's decade-long opposition to the international global warming pact.

"This is the first official act of the new Australian Government, demonstrating my government's commitment to tackling climate change," said Rudd, in a statement issued hours after he was officially sworn into office.

The dramatic step just nine days after Rudd was elected is likely to send Australia's standing soaring at international climate change talks that started Monday in Indonesia, ramping up pressure on the U.S. to join the Kyoto framework for fighting global warming.

Rudd said he has signed the "instrument of ratification" and ratification will come into force 90 days after the instrument is received by the United Nations.

Rudd predicts that Australia will be a full member of the Kyoto Protocol before the end of March 2008.

"Australia's official declaration today that we will become a member of the Kyoto Protocol is a significant step forward in our country's efforts to fight climate change domestically - and with the international community," said Rudd.

Rudd, 50, a Chinese-speaking former diplomat, led the left-leaning Labor Party to a sweeping victory at Nov. 24 elections that ended more than 11 years of conservative rule under former Prime Minister John Howard.

Howard had steadfastly refused to ratify Kyoto, arguing that Australia would not agree to a pact setting greenhouse gas emission targets unless big polluters among developing countries such as China and India were also subject to binding targets.

Rudd said Australia wanted to help fix the problem of global warming.

"To be part of the climate change solution we've got to be part and parcel of the negotiating process ... and you can't do that properly until you've ratified Kyoto," Rudd told a television interviewer on Monday before attending the swearing-in ceremony.

Australia's overall contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions are small, but it is one of the largest polluters per capita and its stance on Kyoto is powerfully symbolic.

Australia's decision to sign on to the anti-global warming pact leaves the United States isolated among wealthy countries in shunning the agreement.

In a sign of the significance of Australia's policy shift, delegates and scientists at the world's largest climate change conference, being held in Bali, Indonesia, erupted in applause Monday when Australia's delegate, Howard Bamsey, told the plenary that Canberra was coming on board the Kyoto process.

Rudd was the first of 30 ministers to take the oath of office before Governor General Michael Jeffery on Monday, formalizing the handover of government.

Among his Cabinet are Australia's first female deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard, who as acting prime minister will become the first woman to formally take charge of the country when Rudd goes to Indonesia.

Also in the Cabinet are ex-rock star Peter Garrett and Australia's first Asian-born woman in Parliament, Penny Wong, who share responsibilities for Australia's environment and climate change.

Both ministers will accompany Rudd to Bali.

Rudd conceded Monday that fighting climate change would have its costs. He said figures indicated Australia would exceed the emission targets spelled out in the Kyoto pact by about 1 percent, and would likely face penalties as a result.

And he warned that food and energy prices could be expected to rise because of measures implemented to deal with climate change.

"We've just got to be realistic about this, accept those unfolding realities and act on climate change, rather than pretending it doesn't exist," Rudd told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

He renewed his government's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050, switching Australia's coal-dominated power generation industry to 20 percent renewable energy by 2020, and creating a national emissions trading scheme by 2010.

[seafang]

How about your understanding of Science jimfinster? If you go and examine some really ancient geology, you will find that we are currently living with just about the lowest CO2 levels that the earth has had in the last 150 million years. We used to have more than 8 times the present level (3000 ppm in fact) and the amount has been declining from around 1000 ppm for around 60 million years (go check 2006 and 2007 Scientific American magazine and read it for yourself.

How come you didn''t mention the water vapor, which is the most important GHG by far. Anything that CO2 tries to do to change the temperature (up or down) is counterracted by changes in ocean evaporation, and the resulting cloud cover to restore the status quo.

As for how much we have warmed; there simply isn''t any scientific or mathematical validity to the whole concept of a "Global Mean Temperature"; well no more than say the idea of a "Mean New York City Telephone Directory Phone Number." You can certainly calculate the average of all the NYC phone numbers; and it will tell you about as much as the mean global temperature tells you. There''s no relationship between the thermal processes over the oceans, and those over a tropical (and dry) desert; so nothing is accomplished by averaging their temperatures.

[seafang]

Well cofmanaaron, keep on working on that degree, then you may learn something.

The one thing that nobody is going to be able to satisfy; in order to claim the "Junk Science" prize, is the uncontested and irrefutable evidence from Antarctic Ice Cores; see Al Gore''s, "An Inconvenient Truth." pages 66/67 in his book. The sad fact is that the global warming (or cooling) episodes, (shown in those graphs), PRECEED the increases (or decreases) in atmospheric CO2, by periods from decades to as much as 600 years. There is NO ice core data that shows CO2 increases or decreases coming ahead of global temperature changes. So Al Gore in his book, presents convincing evidence that global warming (or cooling) CAUSES increases (or decreases) in atmospheric CO2.
Physics is not replete with examples of "CAUSE" happening after the event caused, has already occurred.

So after you figure out in your studies how to cause something that has already happened; then go and apply for the "Junk Science" prize.

[co2max]

Leadership is not demonstrated by following the crowd. So often the crowd is wrong, having been mislead by an individual or a group of crafty politicians who have a separated agenda.

So it is with Global Warming. Realize that the U.S. is showing true leadership in the world by standing fast and refusing to give up a respect for truth in science by trying to fight a natural and eons-long phenomenon. We must continue to resist the peer pressure to join all the idiot nations who have signed onto Kyoto, thinking it might be possible and responsible to fight a changing climate.

[cofmanaaron]

pussbump: I''m intriqued by the 125,000 prize, though the ''junkscience'' label sounds fishy, especially when you read in the fine print that they determine the definition of what they consider objective proof. If I had the time (still studying for my bachelor''s degree), and if I did not need to do all of the origional work myself but could reference work on say, carbon emission measurements, then I would be interested. But hey, 125,000 is small potatoes compared with the Nobel Prize, which was recently won by a group of scientists studying global warming.

[mediapreachr]

Yea,keep beating a dead horse...Truth is nobody cares.After all why should regular people care?
Everyone is busy surviving,the struggle of daily life.
We don''t have the will,nor the money to support another parasitic bunch(environmental "scientists",UN panel bureaucrats or any ''has been'' politicians).

[jcr103]

Time to pull your head out of your A** all you global warming deniers. Reality is calling.

[jimfinster]

pussbump:

There are actually no scientists at "junkscience", go check out their resumes. They are just a bunch of neocons looking for publicity. The only way they would pay out is if you visited them with gun in hand :)

[pussbump]

Jimfinster, If it is so easy to prove, then claim the $125,000.00 prize offered by junckscience.com to prove it. The money is in the pot waiting for someone to take it. Go ahead and get it. I bet you can''t.... because it HAS to be proven with science!

[rheola-2009]

Is it not strange that a few experts here on this board, are so more knowledgable than the majority of the relevant scientists around the world, and have a better understanding of Global warming, than the relevant represantatives of the absolute majority of governments around the world,of course with the very noticable exception of that government that represents the people of most materialistic and wasteful society in the world.



I feel so humbled by these extraordinarily knowledgeable persons.

[jimfinster]

It''''s the Sun not CO2, you''''re being manipulated by the leftists in the world.
Posted by jowand

Both solar activity and CO2 are easily measured, and in fact have been for many years. There are fluctuations in solar, but only enough to account for a very small percentage of warming we see now.

On the other hand, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased 35% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. There is no doubt that C02 is a greenhouse gas, this simple fact can be demonstrated in a high school science lab.

I feel sad for the people like this poster who continue to argue these points. They clearly do not understand the science involved...