JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Global bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens

The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it’s “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence, you’re called names—“Denier”, and by our Prime Minister, no less.  This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate?

 Cartoon: Bully Rudd debates climate science

In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.

It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC.

The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs…

The banks… want us to trade carbon.

And the career scientists like their “rock-star” status. “Call us heroes”. “Thanks for the institute. Ta.”

The UN bureaucrats soak in their fame and their junkets. Why wouldn’t they? Two weeks and ten thousand people in an exotic locale every year. Nobel prizes for just doing their jobs, and the promise that they might be at the centre of new world financial market: dinner with Obama and tea with Gordon Brown. Status knocks, and everyone is home.

This global gravy train got rolling in 1988 and when the evidence turned “180”, the train ran off the tracks.

This global gravy train got rolling in 1988 and when the evidence turned “180”, the train ran off the tracks. Now it levitates above the real world on a cushion of snarling spite and intimidation. It’s as if calling someone a “denier” replaces 100,000 radiosonde readings, 6,000 boreholes, 30 years of satellite results and ice cores that go back to a time before homo sapiens was sapien. These things are evidence, but a manufactured “consensus” from a self serving committee is not. “Denier” is an insult, a cheap attempt to bully dissent into submission.

Rudd offers up our nation to global bullies and giant bankers because he’s swallowed a UN committee report. The IPCC were set up and funded to find a link, any link between carbon and the climate: they are not audited, elected or accountable to the Australian people. Team IPCC-how-big-is-my-junket would never issue a press release that said, essentially: greenhouse gases are minor forces. “Thanks for the funding. We’ll all get new jobs”. They are not an unbiased source. Yet the Australian government seems to think they help Australian citizens by slavishly repeating UN committee decrees.

Rudd claims sceptics “play with our children’s future”, but if a nations leader just obediently accepts a foreign decree without checking it, isn’t he the one who lets our children down? He’s the one who isn’t arranging an independent audit of the claims made by a committee in Geneva before we sign away the hard work of Australian adults and children for decades to come.

Ratings agencies repacked junk securities into “AAA rated” investments and triggered the credit crunch. The IPCC has repackaged “junk science” and created an “expert triple A rated”, full gloss quasi prospectus called a “Synthesis Report”. The Australian government is buying their unaudited package hook, line and stinker.

It’s sobering to think this man is in our highest office.

Rudd will come to regret his Lowy Institute speech. It’s a sad indictment of what intelligent discourse in Australia has been reduced to. The nation that invented the bionic ear considers trashing its economy because someone thinks “denier” is a scientific term? There is no human subclass called “denier”, there are only concerned citizens, retired scientists, unpaid bloggers, and “working families”. All of whom will ship truckloads of money to foreign financial houses in the event we are forced to buy meaningless permits at the point of a gun.

There is no human subclass called “denier”, there are only concerned citizens, retired scientists, unpaid bloggers, and “working families”.

Kevin Rudd gambles with our economy. He wants sweeping changes based on the science, but he hasn’t spent ten minutes checking the evidence. He claims sceptics can’t name any evidence but that’s only because he never reads a word sceptics write. He can’t name a single peer reviewed paper yet we can name hundreds. But we only need one, and Lindzen 2009 will do. (Thank you, since you asked.)

Rudd could start with The Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – an enormous non-profit production of around 800 pages of dense scientific text and references. That it exists at all is remarkable. Why do so many eminent scientists around the world feel compelled to donate time to write long detailed reports?

But talking “papers” is a waste of time, Rudd thinks evidence comes from government, and he’s waiting for the IPCC to debunk itself. He actually says: “Sceptics offer no alternative official body of evidence from any credible government in the world.”

That misunderstanding about the nature of evidence automatically rules out all independent research until such time as some bureaucratic committee agrees. Einstein pointed out that it only takes one experiment to prove him wrong.  Obviously, in Rudd’s world, if a government department hadn’t legislated the sun to rise tomorrow, it wouldn’t come up. In the real world, evidence doesn’t come from governments it comes from thermometers.

Nothing bar anything is going the right way for the carbonistas.

The IPCC even admits carbon will only warm us by 1 degree. Did you know? Don’t wait for the IPCC press release in plain English. The rest of the projected catastrophe is due to feedback from clouds, rain and humidity. But it isn’t there. Outgoing radiation does the opposite of what the models project. Humidity levels aren’t rising in the upper troposphere, the greenhouse hot-spot is totally missing, high cirrus clouds shrink as the world warms, which cools us. Low clouds correlate with high energy cosmic rays. Weather balloons showed the models were wrong years ago, beyond all reasonable doubt. For the last few years, sea levels have plateaued, and temperatures have cooled. Nothing bar anything is going the right way for the carbonistas. The ice cores show that temperature controls carbon and not the other way around. One hockey stick graph was based on one freak tree in northern Russia, the other used statistical tricks that create hockey sticks from random noise. The East Anglia CRU has lost the entire raw data set of global temperatures. The whole set?! The carbon crisis charade has become a farce.

Why haven’t you heard? Because scientists get called names when they point it out.

The only thing confirmed about the theory of man-made global catastrophe is just how audacious and brazen it is, and how many people have been fooled into thinking they help the planet by insulting scientists. Really.

History books will be written about the global warming exaggerations, and people will marvel at how close the world came to feeding a new layer of financial parasites so soon after the economy collapsed due to the last speculative frenzy. Sub prime carbon was on its way.

This calling to “consensus” is the stuff of tribal witchdoctors. Chief Kevin and the council of crows say storms are coming!

Rudd scores an own-goal by saying we are deniers “who do not accept the scientific consensus”. Hell no we don’t. We stand by Galileo, Aristotle and Einstein. We demand evidence, and not just opinions. This calling to “consensus” is the stuff of tribal witchdoctors. Chief Kevin and the council of crows say storms are coming, the Gods are angry. We must pay them in barnacles to ward off the wind! For a hundred thousand years people have invented crises in order to scare their followers into submission. Rudd drags us back to the stone age.

The meaningless consensus is fake in any case. Thirty thousand scientists have signed their names against the theory of man-made catastrophe, that includes a Nobel prize winner, 9,000 PhD’s, and countless professors of physics, chemistry and meteorology.

The carbon scare is a shell game to distract the masses while bankers take Australia’s economic sovereignty and lock in a profitable carbon trading scheme for themselves. (Thanks for the tithe: here’s your meaningless paper permits to air that might-have-had-more-carbon-in-it.)

…he makes the mistake of thinking that we “deniers” think the evidence is “inconclusive”. Not any more we don’t.

Rudd is so behind the times, he makes the mistake of thinking that we “deniers” think the evidence is “inconclusive”. Not any more we don’t. In any other branch of science this theory would be dead and buried. There are so many flaws, and so many knock-out blows, it’s not possible to seriously look at the evidence and think the carbon-crisis theory has any legs left. Sure, new evidence could change that, but it would have to be one mother of an experiment to turn around the results from oceans, sediments, satellites, stalagmites, weather balloons and ice cores.

One of the most surprising things is just how clumsy Rudd’s long speech was. Not only was 6,000 words indulgent, but the reasoning was extraordinary. Somehow he thinks people will be convinced that Liberals* are crazy if he quotes them saying tritely obvious things like this line from Liberal Senate leader Nick Minchin:
“CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant… This whole extraordinary scheme is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.”

Which was the perfect point for Rudd to name the evidence and show how Minchin was wrong, but Rudd didn’t even notice the gaping hole in his own reply. It’s as if he thinks just making any point against the hallowed theory is a flaw in itself.

Ironically Rudd manages to find the one line, the only sensible comment Malcolm Turnbull has made on the topic all year, and quotes that as if it counts against Turnbull:  “I think most people have at least some doubts about the science.”

This is not exactly diabolical stuff, it’s not like Turnbull is paying tribute to the Ku Klux Klan, or accidentally said “hot air sinks”. Instead this is Turnbull showing he’s is not an automaton robot arm of the IPCC. Apparently Rudd is.

Instead this is Turnbull showing he’s is not an automaton robot arm of the IPCC.

Was there an awkward silence in the room as Rudd read sensible line after sensible line from his opponents? Did anyone in the audience notice that Rudd was acting like a cult believer with a quiet chant: The IPCC are right. The IPCC are right. Don’t question the committee. There is a consensus. The UN has never got it wrong. I can’t name a paper, I can’t name a scientist, but there is a consensus…only an ignorant tobacco funded fool conspiracy theorist who hates their own children would question it…

Rudd is clearly very frustrated that the election wedge he thought he had a handle on is bolting out from under him. And it’s not a moment too soon.

But this time he has gone too far. He needs to apologize unreservedly for baseless attacks on all the scientists who have been trying to warn him and help him understand our climate. Most of us work unpaid to help the country.

Bullying is not science. There is never an excuse.

* For non Australians: “Liberals” here are the conservative opposition. Yes, they are more liberal than the Nationals, but the most liberal are the Labor Party.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (6 votes cast)
Global bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens, 10.0 out of 10 based on 6 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yhczcvp

274 comments to Global bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Jo,

    An excellent article. Is there somewhere that creates these politicians? They seem to be from the same mold the world over. However, if you think Rudd is bad, try Gordon Brown and his acolytes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    In the US, we are up against the same mentality. Here’s the response I got from Obama when I expressed my concern about ignoring the science.

    Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing
    about your perspective on global warming. Few challenges
    facing our Nation are more urgent. The facts are clear and
    the science is beyond dispute. We know that we cannot
    keep burning fossil fuels and adding greenhouse gases to
    the atmosphere without consequence. If left unchecked,
    our continued dependence on these sources of energy will
    further weaken our economy and threaten our national
    security.

    … more boiler plate rhetoric removed …

    On the one hand, at least he recognizes that the real problem is fossil fuel dependence, but none the less, he stubbornly holds on to the belief that the science of AGW is beyond dispute. Kind of ironic since the 2 are mutually exclusive.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Interglacial John

    I could not have said it better. Rudd et al need to be exposed for the frauds they are. They offer no discussion of valid science and make personal attacks against those who disagree. I debated a prominent member of the IPCC a few months ago and was shocked at the lack of integrity he displayed. He disparaged Dr’s Christy and Lindzen (as well as myself) simply because they have a different opinion on climate. When they have nothing else left, they name call.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Joanne,

    I totally agree, another great article!

    co2isnotevil,

    On the one hand, at least he recognizes that the real problem is fossil fuel dependence, but none the less, he stubbornly holds on to the belief that the science of AGW is beyond dispute. Kind of ironic since the 2 are mutually exclusive.

    Not to be sarcastic but did you expect anything different? The Obama Clan has an “Agenda”. This is to control as much as they can before he leaves in 2012. Of course, if we could get some “backboned” People to push the “Birth Certificate” issue, we could eliminate all what’s been done! Maybe we still can if proven afterward’s that He wasn’t a legal President in Office..This would negate all of what’s been past as I understand.

    Yes, this “mentality” that you’ve stated is the proof of the “Agenda” that has spread. The smart Countries like China, India and Russia are slowing the process down…Steve McIntyre was on Finnish news as with Prof. Lindzen stating their proof of against this fiasco..Fox News is starting to help out with Glenn Beck at the helms…Washingtion isn’t liking them at all…I say if you’ve put the Knife in, twist and turn, “before” sending it Home….Sounds harsh! I’m actually a pretty nice guy.. :o )


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ray Hibbard

    Somewhere I read that the art of politics was being able to swallow your own vomit in front of a microphone and camera while smiling all the while.
    Now, what’s for breakfast!?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If Rudd really believes what he says he’s beyond barking mad.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robinson

    George quoted:

    If left unchecked,
    our continued dependence on these sources of energy will
    further weaken our economy and threaten our national
    security.

    This is very interesting indeed. I’ve long thought that there is an undercurrent here, a real reason the Politicians are so enamoured with AGW. I don’t like conspiracy theories in general and I don’t say this is one. It’s more a convenient peg to hang your national security coat on. Energy Security is the real reason this scientific scam has been promoted so extensively for so long by those who should know better. It’s a convenient tool for national energy policy. We (in the West) are giving over £1000,000,000,000 per year to countries that are less than reliable in this context (Russia, the middle east). The US effectively funds the jihad against it (Saudi cash funds Wahhabi madrassas all over the world!) and Russia is not against turning off the taps to suit its vital interests. The only problem I have with it all, then, is that our politicians don’t just come straight out with it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova: ‘Global Bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens’ [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ed gallagher

    What always amazes me is the lack of alternatives presented from the alarmist cult. We have the capability to reduce gh gas levels to a fraction of their present levels. However to do so would result in unlimited, clean, cheap,dependable energy. We simply need to replace fossil fuel energy plants with nuclear, and convert oil & gas heated homes to electric. Keep in mind that more workers were killed in fossil fuel plants yesterday than have been killed by radiation exposure in nuclear plants in the U.S. in their entire history. The problem of waste disposal is political, not technical so that is a phony impediment. The cost of building nuclear plants would drop dramaticly if the frivolous lawsuits are removed and economy of scale took over. The problem is that the unlimited and clean cheap energy would put a stake through the heart of the real alarmist agenda. That is of course zero growth through control of energy production. But think for a minute how much the world economy could grow if removed from the constraints of fossil fuel energy production. Think of how fast millions could be removed from poverty and disease. This prospect frightens the cultists who seek to use AGW as the means to their end of total population control. The social engineers of the left would rather see millions die than give up their agenda or the chance to impose their new world order.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Many thanks for keeping me informed. I look forward to hearing any news from you, and am grateful for your very welcome messages you have been sending. Congratulations to you and David for all your energy and commitment.
    I have many relatives in Australia including several grandchildren so like to keep in touch with all that you are doing.
    With all best wishes
    Alick Dowling


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bravo! What a great post. A real tour de force!

    I read the text of Mr. Rudd’s speech last week and felt quite ill. It’s appalling that the Prime Minister of an impressive nation such as Australia would behave so rudely.

    A democracy can only be healthy when people feel free to debate controversial issues openly. Name calling and overt disrespect for alternative points-of-view are unacceptable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    ed gallagher: Post 9,

    We simply need to replace fossil fuel energy plants with nuclear, and convert oil & gas heated homes to electric.

    Where is the evidence that CO2 is causing AGW?? Is this why you are stating this, Ed?

    Technology is “cleaning up the bad pollution” If it’s anything, Vehicles that are not maintained with pollution standards is because people are “not” forced to have them checked. I know there was talk that when you had your License Plates renewed, you also had to have proof that your vehicle is up to pollution standards. If not, you had 30 days to do so! If not, no renewal.. It didn’t go to far because to many complaints..The point is if anything should be done is to “enforce” the “present” laws.

    Also, don’t cram policies that “the People” cannot afford nor it’s Nation…Especially here in the U.S.. It’s bad here and it looks like it’s going to get worse because of the “Devaluation” of the U.S.Dollar. I just read where India just cashed in U.S.Dollars in October in two weeks worth Gold Bullion, 200 Metric Tons from the IMF. The U.S. Congress last spring approved it! Let’s continue to cut our throats….

    No Ed, we need to emphasize “let the Free Enterprise System” work and stop excess spending on “Fiasco’s!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Robinson (#7), I don’t think energy independence is the reason behind the deliberate scare of AGW, although I agree that it would be a bonus to be liberated from dependence for energy on certain theocratic, fascistic, terrorist-sponsoring regimes …

    If it were, then (US) politicians would be falling over themselves to drill for oil and gas in their own back yards (Alaska, offshore West coast) and everyone would be developing their nuclear power capabilities. The fact that they are not speaks louder than words.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shane Skillen, Aaron Turpen. Aaron Turpen said: Global Bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens « JoNova http://bit.ly/1oaqIw [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] “… Rudd offers up our nation to global bullies and giant bankers because he’s swallowed a UN committee report. The IPCC were set up and funded to find a link, any link between carbon and the climate: they are not audited, elected or accountable to the Australian people.” Read Jo Nova’s post. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The real tragedy in all this is that the skeptics on the conservative side of politics have denied us the opportunity to have Malcolm Turnbull aggressively and confidently attack the CPRS for its very real flaws, including the significant emphasis on clean-coal technology.

    Go back a year and take a different approach and today you could have the Liberals advocating nuclear power over carbon capture and storage, attacking the lousy CPRS, and wedging public opinion over the values of a carbon fee and rebate (as they like to call a tax in the US) versus a trading scheme (as loathed by the author of this blog). And what is more they’d have the backing of the key climate scientists like James Hansen (you can bag him but think of the PR), and totally alienating the Greens and their anti-nuclear agenda from the debate… The Libs may well lose but at least you;d have an opposition redefine itself, break the shackles of the Howard era and gain some respect from the voting public.

    Seriously if you guys had a viable alternative that would lead to significant carbon cuts, the broad establishment of nuclear power, dedicated funding to research and development of generation IV nuclear power, and a non-carbon-trading price signal, well would that be such a bad outcome?

    Instead we have to endure this pathetic skeptic/non-skeptic theatre with the only two likely outcomes being that we do nothing at all or we plunge head-first in to a lousy CPRS.

    Did you see McFarlane on 4 corners, he knows carbon capture is a total dud, he could be taking it right up to Rudd, but he is stuck in this crazy situation of trying to quell the skeptics and therefore looking as though he and Turnbull actully like the CPRS.

    Talk about a missed opportunity, a once in a generation opportunity to bounce back from an election mauling. sheesh.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Matt Matt – get excited. We almost… agree!

    The only point you get wrong is the idea that there is any point at all in cutting carbon.

    Turnbull has missed the chance to call this whole farce “a scam pushed by illogical people who think one foreign committee should be above questions”.

    Then he would really have stood out on the world stage, ammassed the public and left Rudd looking like a gullible fool sucked in by big bureaucrats and big bankers. This is a once in a generation opportunity. He splinters his party because they can see through the fake consensus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate.

    It’s not really a politicians position to describe the science. That has been done by the IPCC, and Rudd readily refers people to that. So I think you miss the point of his speech if you think that it was about the evidence that the enhanced greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gasses such as CO2. The evidence of that is clear for anyone who is interested.

    (Forgive the rephrasing, I’m not sure what you mean by “drives the climate”).

    I personally agree with the sentiments he expresses.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    MattB

    Jo obviously you’ve highlighted the key difference in our thoughts there… although I’ll point out that I don’t actually prefer a tax to a cap and trade either – just that I really don’t like the CPRS as proposed.

    But really I was putting on my “lets pretend I’m a political adviser” hat… and to me the flaw in taking the approach that argues against the climate science consensus is that to me there is far more political risk involved as come Copenhagen I think that a lot of the rumbles of discontent amongst the community will swing back in line with the IPCC science. I honestly don’t see that your strategy is going to be a winner for the Libs.

    call me cynical but you have a split in the coalition between two schools of thought on what gets them the most votes – falling in to line and looking “progressive” or being skeptical… most of them would have no idea of the science and are backing the regurgitated opinion they’ve been fed (whether warmnist of skeptic).

    Seriously Jo at the moment the skeptical outcome will lead to a whole heap of business as usual, and a lot of money wasted on CCS (regardless of the outcomes of the next few weeks), expensive indulgences in to “renewable” energy, and a future of dirty brown coal and oil depletion.

    The CPRS outcome is a whole heap of new costs for not much carbon abatement, and a lot of money wasted on CCS (regardless of the outcomes of the next few weeks), expensive indulgences in to “renewable” energy, and a future of dirty brown coal and oil depletion.

    My outcome is a future of cheap, clean and safe nuclear energy, keeping the carbon price (if there is one) low, and an avoidence of a power-down society, and a resurgence in the coalition (heaven forbid as I’m not a coaltition voter – but I’m looking at this from their perspective). Rudd would be completely exposed with nowhere to hide.

    You’re backing an outcome that takes us nowhere, even if you are right about the science. I’m backing what would go down in the history books as the greatest piece of political manouvering in the history of Australian politics! (well maybe I could be a bit more modest). Anne Kit Littler print this out and take it to your climate skeptic boss now!!! Fax it to Turnbull’s and Barnaby’s batphones;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    After that little diatribe about Kevin Rudd, I very much doubt that Kevin will invite you to his inauguration as Secretary General of the UN, Joanne


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AK Dave

    If the proponents are lucky, cap and trade may reduce Man’s contribution to climate change by a few percent, giving us cooling of an inconsequential and unmeasureable amount. In the meantime, natural climate variation during our current interglacial will cause up to 3.5 degrees C (6.3 degrees F) of variation per century – look at the ice core data over the last 10,000 years. Climate variation during the last ice age is even larger, up to 15 degrees C (27 degrees F) per century. What would we say now if we saw temps rise at almost 3 degrees F per decade? This has happened before, and it was entirely natural. If cap and trade can’t produce a measurable benefit, and interglacial natural variation of up to 3.5 degrees C (6.3 degrees F) per century is just that – natural – then what is the point??? This is just a criminal enterprise – smash, tax, grab, and run. And the perpetrators don’t worry about the average citizens who are going to get hurt, or the national economy, as long as they can “redistribute” the wealth and buy those votes.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A fine rant. Feel better now?

    Of course, it just reminds me we have our own set of clueless politicians in the US than need to hear just as strong a rant. Problem is, they’re very good at hearing only what they want to hear.

    Mother nature may be helping out – October in the US was the 3rd coldest on one UHI-infected record. Only one state was above “normal,” err, average.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/07/october-2009-3rd-coldest-for-us-in-115-years-what-about-the-upcoming-winter/#comment-221185

    Yes, it’s only some 3% of the Earth’s surface, but our politicians don’t know that!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Billy P B

    Excellent piece Jo, keep your spirits up because we think you’re great.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John of Cloverdale WA

    As reported in the CBS news, March 2007, the following question was put to the Republican Congress house members and senators: “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?” Results: “only 13% thought so”.
    At least they have a debate in the states. Where is the parliamentary debate in this country?

    Rudd’s rant reeks of desperation in his quest for global greatness, a Nobel Peace Prize, and, a future cushy UN post, when he retires on his huge pension and perks.
    I would like to inform Mr. Rudd: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. The “Science of AWG” is based on an Hypothesis, that man made emissions are causing global temperature rises and subsequent sea level rises.

    Observation of past data, in sedimentary and ice cores, has shown that CO2 changes do not force global temperature to change. Proxies also show that the Minoan, Medieval and Roman warm periods exist, even warmer than today. Interestingly, according to Dr. Patrick Hunt, geoarcheologist and director of the Stanford University Alpine Archaeology Project, Hannibal’s march through the Alps to attack Rome was during a warmer climatic time than today, when the treeline and glaciers were higher (as inferred by the pollen and lichen record).

    The IPCC has tried to decredit these past historical warm periods with the fraudulently manufactured tree ring “hockey stick” graph of Mann and his associates (as reported on this Blog). IPCC climate warming models have all failed the test with real data. Excuses follow to protect their failed models, but are never are widely reported by the press . Their models fail because the hypothesis is wrong, no matter how much tweeking they do. Climate change exists, but is due to a complex combination of natural occurring forces (such as solar activity, orbital variances, oceanic circulation, submarine ocean warming through mid-oceanic ridge volcanism, etc).

    And, as for support for a US government bill, on a similar ETS scheme to Australia’s, as recently reported by the US press

    one of the key Republican senators, Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.), the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee involved in the global warming debate on Capitol Hill, said, the Senate will have to “start from scratch” in terms of crafting climate legislation. “I don’t see any climate bill on the table right now that I can support,” said Lugar, after he recently met with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, along with the Climate Panel’s chairman, John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who are working to forge a bipartisan compromise on climate legislation. Lugar said he welcomed the opportunity to discuss global warming, but he emphasized that his constituents are more focused on the economy and did not see the bill, authored by Kerry and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), as politically viable.

    Mr. Rudd dream on!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Girma

    Oscillation of Mean Global Temperature

    “Great masses of ice are frequently observed by navigators in far more southerly position during the summer months in the Atlantic than was the case a few years ago, and the effect of these icebergs is to materially reduce the temperature of Scandinavia and Iceland. The latter island in late years has been suffering so severely that corn no longer ripens there, and the inhabitants, in fear of approaching famine, and a still colder climate, are emigrating to North America.”
    The New York Times, 24-Feb-1895

    “The earth steadily growing warmer As all the ice at the two poles melts as stupendous volume of water will be released.”
    The New York Times, 15-May-1932

    “From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down the Eastern seaboard to shivering Florida, the winter of 1976-77 is already one of the coldest since the U.S. began keeping weather statistics—and the worst may be yet to come. If February roars like January, this winter could be the coldest ever recorded for much of the U.S.—the great winter that millions of Americans will be telling their grandchildren about decades from now.” Time Magazine, 31-Jan-1977

    Do the temperature data match the descriptions of the temperatures by the media at that time?

    From the pattern of the temperature data plot, what do you expect for the next 20 years?

    Who is the denier?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Matty

    I think Rudd’s effort says there is going to be an election sooner than later. Either he thinks he can squeeze another term out of AGW or he feels he has no choice. At the rate it’s unravelling 12 months is a long time and he is terrified of a negative campaign on costs of ets. Asylum issue getting smellier too. Stir up the coalition sceptics, get rid of Turnbull, and go to the polls with a new lib leader. To me, pure election talk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Yes, nuclear power would be a good wedge for Turnbull… plenty of pork to Turnbull’s supporters, gives him a “do something” angle.

    Tony Abbott also has an option… which is to demand a tangible and clearly measurable result from both the ETS and whatever Copenhagen treaty they come up with. That means, whoever has reason to believe that an ETS will control the climate, should also be able to state solid bounds for the regions that they intend to keep climate controlled within. I suggest no more than 1 degree C above 2000 temperatures and no cooler than pre-industrial levels with CO2 above 300 ppm and lower than 400 ppm.

    No doubt the IPCC followers will start talking about temperature momentum and say that it takes time to achieve the control, already a lot of damage done, yadda yadda. That’s OK, no problem, the tangible deliverable is then a plot against time of the upper and lower bounds for both temperature and CO2 including whatever rise is inevitable and a plan to bring the system under control in the future.

    Then stipulate a penalty clause where if the system goes outside the limit bands of the deliverable range for more than two decades, the legislation and the treaty self destructs and a substantial proportion of the money spent must be refunded.

    Of course, no one from the UN will ever agree to anything tangible, nor would anyone with the slightest thread of sanity. However, having made a seemingly reasonable starting request, the next step is to say, “Why not? Why can’t you promise to keep it within bounds, when you get to choose the bounds.”

    After they have had time enough to waffle about uncertainty and models and computers not big enough, they will start to look discredited in the public eyes. Then you ask, “What can you promise to deliver, that we are able to measure in an agreed way so that it is possible to see that the money has gone to something useful?”

    The answer (we all know) will be that there’s nothing at all ever that can be delivered on a promise with potential penalty for getting it wrong. Nothing. At which point the public will ask what they are spending the money on if it delivers zip.

    Nail them down on particulars and make them sign their name to it. No more precautionary BS, a real world deliverable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ed Gallagher

    Where is the evidence that CO2 is causing AGW?? Is this why you are stating this, Ed?

    Technology is “cleaning up the bad pollution” If it’s anything, Vehicles that are not maintained with pollution standards is because people are “not” forced to have them checked. I know there was talk that when you had your License Plates renewed, you also had to have proof that your vehicle is up to pollution standards. If not, you had 30 days to do so! If not, no renewal.. It didn’t go to far because to many complaints..The point is if anything should be done is to “enforce” the “present” laws.

    Also, don’t cram policies that “the People” cannot afford nor it’s Nation…Especially here in the U.S.. It’s bad here and it looks like it’s going to get worse because of the “Devaluation” of the U.S.Dollar. I just read where India just cashed in U.S.Dollars in October in two weeks worth Gold Bullion, 200 Metric Tons from the IMF. The U.S. Congress last spring approved it! Let’s continue to cut our throats….

    No Ed, we need to emphasize “let the Free Enterprise System” work and stop excess spending on “Fiasco’s!

    Denny, you misunderstood my point. The alarmists offer no alternatives to their agenda. I wrongly assumed that you might realize that I don’t believe in swallowing the AGW KoolAid. One of the problems we are facing is the supply of oil from easily obtainalbe sources. What I have maintained for years now is that we are wasting fossil fuels by using it to produce energy when nuclear is a much more effiecient method of doing so. We can sustitute nuclear for fossil fuels in energy production but we cannot make gasoline from nuclear, or plastics or any of the other products we derive from oil that our society depends on. If we were to go to a reliance on nuclear for electricty it would free up billions of barrels of oil for future use and remove our reliance on imported oil here in the U.S. A side effect of nuclear reliance would be a reduction of hydrocarbon pollution and this would not be a bad thing. You are right about spending on fiascos but you misdirect your energies towards me. I am a believer in minimalist government and the money our government is wasting on the AGW fraud should have stayed in the taxpayers pockets. BTW, there is no evidence of CO2 causing anything but bubbles in soda water.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith F

    Fancy Rudd including Turnbull with Barnaby, Andrew and Janet and yet Jo failed to get a guernsey. Surely the Sceptics Handbook in itself should rate a mention. This article alone should convince the gullible that they have backed the wrong horse and cause grief to Rudd.

    Would be fascinating to know how many people have been lost to the alarmists cause by Jo’s writings and presentations. Unfortunately for Rudd there is a snowball reaction. When people learn they have been duped they are liable to spread the word. Just noticed in the last month a huge momentum gathering.

    Rudd is panicking and he has good reason.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo

    A great diatribe – it should be on the opinion page of every National Newspaper… hahaha Actually, though, Rudd’s rant is quite encouraging – only a politician right on the ropes would make such a stupid speech – wouldn’t he? A year ago the sceptics were almost unnoticeable. Next year, they will be making the speeches. (dream on Stu!)

    Thanks again Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Hey Robin –

    Are ya feeling “lonesome” around here again?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] to scare their followers into submission. Rudd drags us back to the stone age. Full article here. Global Bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens « JoNova __________________ Do not use fibreglass mesh tape on butt joins, ceiling joins or fibre cement [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ant of Melbourne

    Brilliant piece. Thank you, I’ll be sending the link to every “denier” I know – and there’s lots of them.

    It’s comical how our PM can make such utterly ludicrous phrases in public and not be bombarded with the ridicule he richly deserves. I shake my head in disgust at the our duplicitous media who are strapping their journalistic credibility to the mad ideas of this very strange man, Rudd.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pedro the Ignorant

    Bravo, Ma’am.

    Outstanding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Girma

    Prime Minister.

    Have you seen the following result?

    Just in three years, IPCC projection for mean global temperature anomaly is completely, utterly, absolutely WRONG!

    It is awesomely futile to try to solve a non-existent problem.

    Regards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Maggie

    Absolutley brilliant and it is working.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jo King

    Dear Andrew Bolt, thank you for introducing me to JoNova.
    Dear JoNova, I read every word. Perfect. 100/100. Thank You.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    Jo, this is a masterpiece! How can we get it published in all the national papers? Easier said than done i know.

    Im sharing it to my face book – my little bit part..

    Dave.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Matt B – The problem with any political strategy is that if it isn’t backed by cold hard facts you run the risk of looking like an idiot, even if you poll well right this minute, you never know when it will be exposed for the waste of time and money that it was.

    The advocates of the carbon crisis won’t debate, won’t give up data, lose their data, admit they exaggerate, are rude, illogical, don’t have a sense of humour and are controlling, greedy, and self serving. When the public finds out all this, and how the claims were based on invalid graphs, blatant lies, censorship, bullying and baseless audacity they aren’t going to judge any of the people kindly who were associated with it, or who fell for it and pushed it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Jo! Thanks Maggie, Thanks David… thanks to all

    Shucks, Is there higher praise? Bolt writes: Science writer JoNova savages – in a most magnificent polemic – Kevin Rudd’s extraordinary Lowy Institute speech.

    If you feel like I do, go Join Bolt’s Conspiracy .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    I already have!! :) Do you think it is a lost cause? I have to tell you, I am worried that these lunatics will win..

    I hope I’m wrong.. I love this country, but if the likes of Rudd are successful, there’ll be nowhere to run.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    melanie

    This is outstandng ,and the main game for the fraudsters is the eu agenda 21 which is the real agenda of Labor ,if any company ever tried to sell people something with fairytails like this they would be in proson yet this mob continue after being caught out by the real science ,and on top of that there is the issue that they are teaching our kids this junk instead of real science ,its a discrace and we should all be demanding that it be stopped or Nazi land here we come .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    terry

    May i suggest you let everybody you know to look up eu agenda 21 on u tube and to get their friends to do the same people need to know these clowns intend to sell our future down the road to a communist dictatorship .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris Bolts Sr.

    “In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.”

    Hmm, sounds like Rudd and Barack Obama went to the same school of Hardball Political Tactics and dual majored in the fields of demonization and argument deflection with a focus on building up arguments with strawmen and to tear them down with flowery rhetoric. I wonder if any conservatives or liberals with sanity should start to enroll at this school. Nah, something about “integrity” and “rational analysis” prevents them from doing so.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Ede

    WE need the GG to step up and sack this idiot we call PM
    Krudd is going to destroy our economy and the GG is the fastest method we have to stop his reign


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    John of Cloverdale WA: Post 24

    As reported in the CBS news, March 2007, the following question was put to the Republican Congress house members and senators: “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?” Results: “only 13% thought so”.

    Yes, John but that was two years ago. A lot has happened since then. At last count, practically all of the Republicans are against AGW! A lot of research stating the opposite. Of course, I’m talking in reference to the Senate.

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1224.last

    and this: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1222.last

    Of course there’s more with Dr. Gray, Dr. Lindzen’s latest research…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Ed Gallagher: Post 29

    You are right about spending on fiascos but you misdirect your energies towards me. I am a believer in minimalist government and the money our government is wasting on the AGW fraud should have stayed in the taxpayers pockets. BTW, there is no evidence of CO2 causing anything but bubbles in soda water.

    Thanks Ed for clearing up your statement..It’s good to know that we are on the same beliefs…I think it a shame that Americans don’t demand more Nuclear Power that’s produced in the way the French do…They reuse there nuclear waste..They do not have huge storage facilities for waste..The Environmentialists have a hold and put a fear into People since 3 Mile Island Incident..They really blew it out of context!

    Ed, sorry if I affended you..didn’t mean too.

    I invite you and anyone else to read this article! What I’m referring to is towards the bottom of the article! This gentleman does a great job..Also I recommend reading His book! “Leave Us Alone”.

    http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2009/05/14/wind-and-solar-versus-nuclear/

    Regards,
    Denny


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Owen

    Thank you for your well written article.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Jo,
    Loved the rant, but I liked Marc Morano’s review better – more specific and less emotional content.
    Roger Pielke jr’s comments are worth a view also.
    Even the Lowy Institute is not too impressed. There is a definite undercurrent of why did Rudd waste our time with this ?

    Rudd :
    “Sceptics offer no alternative official body of evidence from any credible government in the world.”

    India :
    Er, not so fast

    And where is our PM today ? I do not recall any reasons being given for the trip. Does anyone know ? Could he now be assuming the new role of UN Bully Boy ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kiwi

    Excellent article, Joanne.

    Maybe it is wishful thinking but I think the tide might be turning in favour of the skeptics (as opposed to the gullibles).

    Remembering the good old days of the McCarthy blacklists (just kidding) maybe it is time for a complete list of our politicians to be made with 2 columns (one AGW column belivers – one column AGW skeptics), The default position is believer. Publicise the list and give the pollies the chance to respond. Keep the list for 10 years and then re-release it so we can get an idea of the type of thinking underlies our political class.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nathan "No Nonsense" W

    I am not ideological nor do I obsess over any particular political dogma. I believe in common sense, pragmatism and self reliance. Lately I’ve been interested in all the ETS brinskmanship and decided to peruse the “brief” summaries in the CPRS bills and listen (amongst other things) to Rudd’s Lowy Institute speech to better acquaint myself with the “greatest moral challenge of our times” (K. Rudd).

    I must say and put on the record at least for my own sake, that this climate change “crisis” is nothing but a cult-like tax and power grab.

    I would also think that Turnbull’s desire to give Labor their ETS pursuant to their ‘mandate’ (which is highly dubious given the lack of any clarity or proper explanation to us the people) is part of a very clever strategy on his part.

    This is because, when everyone feels: the higher price for everything under the sun, the decrease in business investment, the decrease in business profits, the loss of jobs, the exponential growth of the welfare state, the additional $7 bn of our (you and I the taxpayers) money paid to foreign governments (which are incompetent at best, corrupt at worst) and the replacement of private investment with big Government “investment” projects (of which history is littered with failures and great losses arising from incompetence and decision-making that is misguided by short-term political opportunism rather than a net financial benefit whether direct or indirect).

    Some people say this is necessary or is designed to correct a market failure by placing a price on carbon. This is a fallacy. This “may” reduce our emissions by up to 20% by 2020 (sounds nice doesn’t it) but since Australia is responsible for 1% or less of global emissions the impact is negligible. Is it worth slugging business with $36 bn (gross) in tax over the next 3 years or $12 bn per year? $2-3 bn per year is returned to business and about $6 bn goes to welfare recipients ‘to compensate’ them for this new tax. This is a very unproductive way of allocating capital and represents a great cost for absolutely no financial or social benefit. Welfare recipients (I understand from the Bill) get a fixed 1.4% increase above CPI for the next 2 years. What if costs go up more? Businesses are likely to raise their prices more given their increased costs and heightened inflation expectations. Thus, even with this $6bn allocation, low income earners lose out.

    Worse case scenario, if the ETS is passed, the people of Australia (whose intelligence is far greater than this disrespectful Labor government will acknowledge) will get their cold tax-hike shower and will become fatigued by the belittling big-government piss-weak tall-poppy attitude of Labor.

    This Labor government will be profoundly rejected by the decent and intelligent people of Australia quicker than you can say “Opposition Leader Julia Gillard”.

    Come on Australia, I believe in you. Please stop this violation of common sense and our livelihoods. This is the mother of all lose-lose scams.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernie

    Rudd’s rant against what he refers to as climate change deniers is identical to Hitler’s rants against the Jews. A new low from this man who is simply frantic at the possible loss of a potential new income stream.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John of Sunbury

    Brilliant article.

    I do not believe Rudd believes this tripe. There are certainly the genuine believers who have been convinced by the spin or cowered by the bullying but everyone else supporting AGW has their own agenda. Rudd’s agenda is a new tax to fund Big government; and conspicuously supporting the UN to bolster his general secretary ambitions, hence the manic desire to go to Copenhagen with ETS legislation in the bag. Funding Big government with aging populations is surely also motivating Obama and Brown with their socialist agendas. The climate change industry is completely corrupted by the fact that only believers are funded. And the UN has been seeking a pretense for world government for decades. It is only us suckers, the ones who will pay, who are truly interested in the facts (the truth). Thankyou Jo for shining a light on the truth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Marrcus

    Brilliant article. Best analysis of Rudd’s nonsense I have read.

    For JoNova:
    One small typo -
    “It’s a sad indictment of what intelligent discourse in Australia has been reduced too.”

    should be “reduced to.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GraF

    I’d encourage people to read this expose: Global Governance on climate agenda Try not to throw-up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I wonder how it came to be that this climate change fraud became so closely associated with the leftist Labour or Democrat political parties.

    Here in the USA a fraudlulent response to “climate change” has become a REQUIREMENT for a lot of Democrat political party backing.

    To wit: A woman who owned a small-town newspaper here in the USA wrote an editorial demanding “action” against climate change, deniers, etc etc.

    The woman was also campaigning for alderwoman or mayor or some elected position to represent her district.

    I wrote to her, questioning her facts and her apparent agression against “deniers.”

    She wrote back to me saying that the issue wasn’t really of interest to her, and she didn’t know much about the subject, but the local pols told her that the local Democrat political party wouldn’t support her bid for elected official UNLESS she used her little newspaper as a soapbox to rail against “deniers.”

    I considered publishing her letter to me in another news publication of the same district; but I do have some limits


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gen y

    brilliant. Rudd’s speech is the most insulting, biased piece of propaganda I have ever seen. Insults are no substitute for facts but he seemed to find none. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    danappaloupe

    Its funny how you accuse someone of fallacies in ad hominem and appeal to authority arguments, without proving that a fallacy exists. Not every Ad Hom and appeal to authority is a fallacy.

    And then you go on to actually commit the exact same fallacies you accuse Rudd of. If you are so against Ad Hom and appeal to authority, and think those arguments are always invalid, why do YOU use them?

    You are laughable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Billiant, absolutely brilliant counter argument, Dan Cantaloupe.

    Nova’s postion that Rudd provided no evidence to support any of his statements or his irrational attcks on those who question his demands are in turn labelled “ad hominem” attacks.

    My response to you is thusly an “ad hominum attack.”

    Good


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mr. Rudd and the Copenhagen delegates need only consult the official weather records for my part of Australia (Kempsey). The record hottest months all occurred between 1910 and 1920, with one exception. The exception was August, which set its record in 1946. Quite a few daily record heat maxima were set in the last fifteen years, but sustained heat over a month surely indicates more than a single day.

    As far as “change” – as opposed to “warming” – goes, most monthly records for just about everything – drought, rain, heat, cold – were set before the 1980s, and some in the 1800s. Rain was measured only from 1882, and temps from 1907, otherwise the figures would be even more interesting.

    Mind you, those old weathermen from around World War One were probably in the pay of Big Kerosene.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    John Howard was voted out, in part, because he couldn’t make it rain in the Western desert.

    Rudd might not be able to make it rain in the West, either, but it won’t be his fault.

    It will be yours.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Big Kerosene probably saved the whales. hehe


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Indeed, by providing a fuel substitute for whale oil burned in lamps


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Peter Ede: “WE need the GG to step up and sack this idiot we call PM. Krudd is going to destroy our economy and the GG is the fastest method we have to stop his reign”

    Nice idea, but sadly our Governor General (who is required to be apolitical)seems to be on our PM” team of cheerleaders. Viz. earlier this year she undertook a 19-day, nine-country tour of Africa to promote Australia’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Thus paving the way for Rudd’s bid for Secretary General of the UN.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Rudd does seem to have all the requirements for the job

    - Shrill attacks on any critic – real or imagined

    - The ability to be histrionic with very little stage or props (witness Ban-ki’s 20-minute journey to the Arctic Circle and declaring the World coming to an end)

    - An apt marionette for Al Gore

    - The conviction widespread in the UN that the world’s problems can be solved by one means only: the transfer of gigadollars to developing nations because developed nations are “criminals”

    - The faith that dictators behave the way they do because developed nations are “criminals”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    eagle eyes

    Mirana Devines article is suspiciously similar to this article. Especially on how Rudd will be judged by history…then spliced with quotes from Ralph Alexander and similar syntax such as”ad hominem”. Just saying, as i know your post came out two days before devines.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Concur most emphatacally except. Turnball( member for Goldman Sachs) is acting like rudds 2ic (and not just on the the Great Global Warming Swindle) his days are numbered


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott t

    i do agree that the government, like most around the world, have rushed into such a huge commitment. I do, however, think that anyone who believes that this is some leftist conspiracy, or that a turnball government would do anything differently, are only showing their partisan tendancies…
    and i would suggest that before the writer starts throwing around statistics about how we are having little or no effect on the planet, he goes for a holiday to tokyo or any number of asian cities who blantently abuse fossil fuel. I dare them to spend 1 day in the city street wearing a white shirt and without a face mask, and still be so smug about the alarmists ‘ignoring the evidence’…
    all this anger is misguided… any fool can see we need to change the way we do things, just as any fool can see this treaty will do nothing towards the real change the world needs..
    this treaty needs to be recognised and criticesed for what it is, a natural phenomona within an ever consolidating global UN power base attempting to weaken the soverignty of the worlds nations and establishment of an intangible world tax.
    ST


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Sorry mr scott, the whole premise of this COP15 scam is based on CO2 emissions ala anthropomorphic change. and you are happy to cede our commonwealth and rule of law to a faceless autocracy pushing a sci-fi global panic attack upon us because of your soiled tee shirt. wake up mr scott read the draft treaty. those who wish to reduce their carbon footprint should show true conviction and autoasphixiate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    and i would suggest that before the writer starts throwing around statistics about how we are having little or no effect on the planet, he goes for a holiday to tokyo or any number of asian cities who blantently abuse fossil fuel. I dare them to spend 1 day in the city street wearing a white shirt and without a face mask, and still be so smug about the alarmists ‘ignoring the evidence’

    This is a discussion about Carbon Dioxide, which I very much doubt is going to stain anyone’s shirt. Specifically,. it is a discussion about Carbon Dioxide and the influence that it may or may not have on global climate.

    If you want to have a discussion about particulate pollution and NOx in the transport industry then I think you will find a lot of agreement that particulate pollution is a bad thing for nearby bystanders. By all means put forth arguments for stronger controls on these issues, but don’t pretend that it somehow justifies making claims about global warming.

    By the way, coal fired power stations already have strong controls on particulate emissions and motor vehicles have been subject to steadily tightening emissions standards as newer technology becomes available.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Drummond

    everybody should know that Malcolm Turnbull is an ex Goldman Sachs banker….once a goldman always a goldman


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Very nice piece.

    I wrote an article a few weeks ago on the politicisation of climate change. The escalation came about when Tony Blair was head of the G8 and the EU in 2005.

    He saw this as the opportunity to pursue a socialist agenda on the world stage. This fully referenced article cites chapter and verse the developments of this political policy from the early days when the UK Govt created the Hadley centre (which they have funded to the tune of £143 million since 1993) through to minutes from the Environmental audit committee of the British Parliament in 2009.

    It is a chilling tale of how the politics of fear deliberately replaced the embryonic and experimental science.

    The UK govt has been in the driving seat through their overwhelming contribution of funds and scientific advice to the Ipcc.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896

    I suspect Australia has followed much the same route as us in the UK, albeit a year or two behind our level of madness.

    Tonyb


    Report this

    00

  • #
    melanie

    iTS THE TREATY WE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT ,AS YOU SAW ON LORD MONKTON THE SCIENCE IS NOW BEYOND DISPUTE ,A QUANTIFIED EQUASION TELLS YOU THAT ,THE EU AGENDA 21 IS THE REAL GAME AND WILL BE ENACTED IF THEY SIGN THE TREATY .THIS SHOULD WORRY YOU ALL.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nathan "No Nonsense" W

    In summation the ETS is like a broken pushbike with no pedals only, you think you’ve just handed over enough to get you a Bentley.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    Nice one Jo. Getting good play, too. Anyone else feel like the boulder just got closer to the top?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    Oh, and I forgot to mention that “the opposite of sceptical is gullible” is my all-time favourite quote now!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Smith

    Would history have been vastly different if Hitler had been assassinated in 1939?

    [snip... ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony

    It takes a lot for a politician to climb down. They are so fond of themselves and think they are so important. They are only servants in reality and don’t need to be too bright vide Kevin Rudd


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    vide Al Gore


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    YeaH Glenn, boulder up, heads down and keep shoving!
    I`m not AGW skeptic. I`m AGW enemy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    vide penny wrong…

    stop press. latest. Agw causing `grassy knolls`


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Craig Stevens

    Given the underhandedness of our so called PM, I believe that he has left himself open to being charged with the act of Treachery ie
    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 24AA
    Treachery
    (1) A person shall not:

    (a) do any act or thing with intent:

    (i) to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage;


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    Craig, If that is right, there is definitely something in that. If the Governor General wont sack him (she just his puppet anyway) then perhaps a class action? Would be impossible to get going though..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    geoff chambers

    You Australians have a long tradition of imaginative methods for countering climate change. [snip... colourful. A bit too off topic. :-) ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    [snip... ahem guys. Let's not get too personal.]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    David Hewisons’ class action suggestion is a useful vein to follow.

    I’m not usually a supporter of litigation, but there must be some legal come-back if someone doesn’t investigate or audit the evidence, and the country suffers as a result. Who ought to be doing it? Who is failing at their job?

    Just pointing out the possibility of a class action may be enough for someone to sit up and pay attention to the ball.

    So, anyone with legal minded friends, let’s see where it leads.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Kenny

    Wow! Bolt was churlishly restrained in his praise.

    Brilliantly restrained frustration was very clearly the energy and cool calmly delivered facts, evidence and most IPCC lies noted in a supreme exposition of Rudd’s pseudo-intellectualism and dishonesty.

    I hope Lindzen and Chou’s work is dutifully analysed and seconded by other groups who are unquestionable in propriety.
    It should decimate any respectable basis for any of the IPCC computer models’ sundry panic predictions.

    Very well said indeed. Bravo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mac

    I think people got to see the true Kevin Rudd with this speech. A man who labels his opponents. A man who ignores facts to make arguements. A man who is inately a machine politician and party animal. A man who lashes out when threatened. A man not fit to be a leader of people and of a country.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Girma

    IPCC UTTERLY WRONG

    The one and only one issue in the global warming debate is the TRUTH.

    The one and only one question is, “Does human emission of CO2 causes global warming?”

    One method to find the TRUTH is to compare the computer model projections with actual observations.

    This comparison show, just in three years, the IPCC projections for mean global temperature are completely, utterly, absolutely WRONG.

    Case closed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Scott T (#69), you are confusing the issue, which is unfortunately quite common. AGW is about CO2, your diatribe about pollution in Asian cities is about … particulate pollution. They are not the same. This confusion in – sometimes very intelligent – people’s minds comes from lazy thinking or not thinking at all. There is no short cut in this, you’ve got to use your own noggin, and it’s hard!

    I was talking to a friend of mine about AGW and she said something like, “Oh, but that stuff [co2] is poisonous, we want to get rid of it anyway!” I asked her if she was perhaps confusing carbon dioxide with carbon MONoxide and she said, “Ah, I thought it was the same thing!”

    My friend is a school teacher …

    Carbon dioxide is invisible and odourless. You breathe it out all the time.

    The alarmists excel at “emotionalizing” about “carbon pollution”, and the useful idiots in the MSM dutifully follow up with pictures of smoke stacks belching out dirty black clouds of soot and aerosols. Government ads in Australia and the UK add their bit with black balloons and horrible little black monsters with sharp teeth scaring children witless. Conspiracy or not, there is undoubtedly deliberate deception going on here. If you are suggesting that Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd, Obama and Brown are not smart enough to know the difference between particulate pollution and carbon dioxide, then I’m sorry, they shouldn’t hold Government positions.

    Confusion reigns about pollution/conservation/care of our environment on the one hand, and anthropogenic global warming hysteria on the other. These are two completely different issues. None of us, even the most ardent “skeptic” could be against pollution reduction, care of our environment and sensible conservation of habitat as well as resources! But we need to teach the world to distinguish between the two – ESPECIALLY our children!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Actually Girma, the IPCC meets periodically and anybody with substantive information to share about Climate Change attends and a consensus position is agreed to which then becomes the published IPCC position until the following meeting. The IPCC position has consistently turned out to have been conservative and to have understated reality.

    Plimer has usefully collected in one volume almost all the relevant nonsensical anti-science arguments and no true sceptic could read any of it without realising it’s a load of utter hooey. If you swallow that garbage, you’re not a “sceptic”, you’re a “denier” (or a “loon”), and Kevin Rudd is absolutely correct to lambast people who propagate deceptive lies, whatever their purpose or motivation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “Actually Girma, the IPCC meets periodically and anybody with substantive information to share about Climate Change attends … ”

    hahaHAHAHA

    OK, you must have connexions, so get me a seat at their table, please

    Plimer has usefully collected in one volume almost all the relevant nonsensical anti-science arguments and no true sceptic could read any of it without realising it’s a load of utter hooey. If you swallow that garbage, you’re not a “sceptic”, you’re a “denier” (or a “loon”), and Kevin Rudd is absolutely correct to lambast people who propagate deceptive lies, whatever their purpose or motivation.

    BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    Is this copy written? May I please publish it elsewhere?

    Please??????????????

    Pretty please?????????????


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    IPCC and Conservative. Interesting thought.
    Please explain the theory of `UTTER HooEY`
    and the science of `LAMBLAST`
    lest anyone should accuse you of being a ruddite.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Vince, please answer this question truthfully:

    Have you read ALL 493 pages and checked ALL 2311 references of Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth – Global Warming, The Missing Science” personally?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Love your cartoon Joanne! I have done my own cartoon to explain one of the key reasons the AGW argument is flawed on peacelegacy.org here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graham R

    The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it’s “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence, you’re called names—“Denier”, and by our Prime Minister, no less.
    The climate change scare mongering is all about $$$$, nothing more. Financiers see profits, government see tax revenue & the UN sees redistribution of wealth [$$$$]or more likely the redistribution of poverty!!
    Rudd & his “hangers on” are not stupid people….they know it’s all BS but they are above all else socialists and therefore liars, able to stand in front of the nation and blatantly lie about it. If they were to be made to accountable for their actions, as with company directors, for fraud & misrepresentation they would think again about the fraud they are attempting to perpetrate. Money gained by deception and lies is FRAUD!!!
    They must not be allowed even a watered down ETS as a “thin end of the wedge”. Once they get the “thin end” in every government [labour or liberal] will ramp up the charges or reduce the so called “cap” to tax the population unrelentingly. STOP IT DEAD IN IT’S TRACKS NOW!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Prof Plimer it seems, is in the former gt britain launching `Heaven & Earth`. amongst the first out of the traps to hit the panic button is Vicky Pope of the pom met office…..

    “Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, said it is widely accepted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has doubled in the last 200 years and as a result the globe is warming. The basic physics is that if carbon dioxide increases then the temperature goes up,” she said.”

    scary stuff


    Report this

    00

  • #
    danappaloupe

    Brian G Valentine:
    I was not proposing a counter argument at all. I was just pointing out that most respectable people who point out a logical fallacy follow up their accusation by detailing where the fallacy is committed. Simply yelling “I SEE A LOGICAL FALLACY” doesn’t cut it.

    One would expect a person with masters degree in communication of science to communicate a little more science and logic. Someone with a degree in the philosophy of science would not make such amateur mistakes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Melon boy wrote: “I was not proposing a counter argument at all. I was just pointing out that most respectable people who point out a logical fallacy follow up their accusation by detailing where the fallacy is committed. Simply yelling “I SEE A LOGICAL FALLACY” doesn’t cut it.”

    Dear, dear, what sour grapes. This article must have really hurt … It is obvious you only read the headline, started drooling and let rip. You missed Jo’s rebuttals throughout the text.

    Here are some of them. OK, are you ready? Here we go:

    1. Joanne states that Rudd fails to quote a single piece of evidence to prove the AGW theory is proven. Do you deny that? (oh dear, you may have to re-read all tedious 6,000 words of Rudd’s diatribe!)

    2. Rudd says vested interests are at play [on the sceptical side]. Joanne quotes the actual $$ figures “vested” on both sides. Is that “not detailing where [Rudd’s] fallacy is committed”?

    3. Jo: “ … 100,000 radiosonde readings, 6,000 boreholes, 30 years of satellite results and ice cores that go back to a time before homo sapiens was sapien.” Anyone who has followed the issue more than 10 minutes should know the science Jo refers to. Do you?

    4. Jo: “[Rudd] can’t name a single peer reviewed paper yet we can name hundreds. But we only need one, and Lindzen 2009 will do.” Do you know the paper she refers to? Or do you, like Robin Grant, only read the papers that support your world view?

    5. Jo: “Rudd could start with The Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – an enormous non-profit production of around 800 pages of dense scientific text and references.” (Same question as previous paragraph)

    6. Jo: “The IPCC even admits carbon will only warm us by 1 degree. Did you know? …” (Read the rest of that paragraph, which is densely populated with evidence …)

    Etc, etc, …. Capice?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Hewison

    Joanne, You snipped me!! I thought the comment was rather apt… anyway, i did get a chuckle as I was writing it.

    So a class action.. well my old man still packs a bit of clout in the legal world, I’ll ask him where a good starting point might be.. I doubt he’ll want to take the ball – he’s looking to slow down.. but certainly he’ll have some advice to give – typical lawyer!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Papertiger

    Oh that was so good.

    lounging on couch after Thanksgiving dinner good.

    a tall cold drink of reality.

    Ahhhhhhhhh

    Thank you ma’am. May I have another?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “One would expect a person with masters degree in communication of science to communicate a little more science and logic. Someone with a degree in the philosophy of science would not make such amateur mistakes.”

    One rather distinguishing feature of the “amateur” logician is the use of the conclusion in the hypotheses of their syllogism


    Report this

    00

  • #
    nevket240

    KRudd is after the top spot at the UN, when ‘Ban the moons’ time is up. There is no other reason for his AGW love affair. He sees himself as the new global top dog, able to dictate to all nations what their industrial policies will be after consideration of their CO2 toxin output. Numero Uno.
    In reality he is too stupid to realise that with an early monster snow in Beijing, mother nature is going to show the world what he realy is. A Thugocrat, implementing a world-wide unelected Thugocracy.
    regards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    One would think that one with so much ambition would be able to come up with methodology (or pay someone) to produce some droughts and cyclones here and there to give the appearance of a “true planetary emergency.”

    If they can put a man on the Moon then altering some local weather here and there shouldn’t be all THAT difficult


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Folke Stenman

    What a masterpiece! Here in Finland the Government has as its supreme advisor for climate and energy questions a college graduate in journalism, green parlamentarian, 31 yrs of age with the influence of TV entertainment on viewers as his special field. Our Prime Minister reportedly stands by his window waiting for the Baltic sea to perform its promised rise of 7 meters to flood the better part of our country. We who dare to question the arguments behind this arepublicly called liars.
    As a professor of Physics for 32 years I never came across anything so blatantly dishonest and incompetent as the IPCC report. Read the NIPCC report for a thorough analyis of the IPCC stuff and see for youself! One should note that the discussion in the NIPP report never can reach the objectively scientific level. That is because the methodical errors in the IPCC report are so gross that most of the NIPCC discussion must be spent pointing out deficiencies in the methods and untenable assumptions. Bear in mind that the purpose of the IPCC was to prove the human influnece on climate change, not to objectively and impartially investigate the various possible reasons for those changes.
    Now is the time to stand up against this insanity, and people like Joanne Nova are worth gold in this struggle!
    Folke Stenman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alan Sutherland

    I was a bit surprised from across the ditch to read of Rudd losing all sense of logic and reason. In New Zealand we have John Key. His approach is merely to ignore those who do not agree with him. I don’t know which is worse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Here in the USA the former President Bush was constantly criticised by the Democrat (liberal) politicals for “surrounding himself with people who told him only what he wanted to hear.”

    Actually he didn’t, and his common sense positions were rather weakened at times by people with ulterior motives.

    The situation is much worse today under the extreme liberal/socialist Obama government, and from what I read of the testimonies above, the USA is not alone.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brian G Valentine: Post 57,

    I considered publishing her letter to me in another news publication of the same district; but I do have some limits

    Brian, do you need her permission to post this letter? If not, I will! Sounds like something Glenn Beck would do…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Girma: Post 90,

    One method to find the TRUTH is to compare the computer model projections with actual observations.

    Yes, Girma, I agree but did you know the IPCC committee admited to this: See below!

    The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:

    “A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”

    This comes from: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/in-their-own-words-the-ipcc-on-climate-feedbacks/

    Girma, just thought you should know….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    91Anne-Kit Littler: Post 91,

    I was talking to a friend of mine about AGW and she said something like, “Oh, but that stuff [co2] is poisonous, we want to get rid of it anyway!” I asked her if she was perhaps confusing carbon dioxide with carbon MONoxide and she said, “Ah, I thought it was the same thing!”

    My friend is a school teacher …

    Carbon dioxide is invisible and odourless. You breathe it out all the time.

    Isn’t it sad, “A School Teacher”! This is what we’re having in America Schools. Alarmists are going in full bore teaching AGW…I always thought that Teachers should be neutral and teach the latest and “both” sides of any issue. I seems that they are following the same idea’s like Journalists have…Giving only “one” side or view, being Partisan!

    Anne, CO or Carbon Monoxide is “also” invisible and odourless. In the U.S between 1999-2004 2,631 people died from non-fire related incidents..Here’s the Web Site:

    http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5650a1.htm

    It is especially sad that Teachers don’t take the time to do their research…and she Thought is was the same thing!! Wow!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The situation was actually a more coplicated than I what I described above, Denny.

    Initially, my emails to the woman (named Joyce Denn) were met with EXTREME hostility – so much so, I was taken aback – and I wondered what could have made her so hostile? – she didn’t know of me from anyone.

    It transpired that she believed that I was sent by Republican party opponents to harass her – otherwise, how could I, from Washington, DC, have known about her small town newspaper in Minnesota?

    It so happened that I stumbled upon her essay in her newspaper searching thr Internet with the key words “denier” and Inhofe.” By the search, I ran across Ms Denn’s diatribe against “deniers, delayers, dangerous,..” and all the rest of it.

    When Ms Denn had come to understand that I was not a political opponent or minion of one, she then confided that “climate change” was actually not an issue of concern to her.

    The story is I suppose of interest only as a case of the mistrust that arises from misunderstanding


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Denny, I appreciate your comments, although my reference to my friend being a school teacher was more a reflection on ignorance and lazy thinking being a concern (in that particular profession), rather than deliberate partisan teaching – not denying that this goes on, of course.

    And CO2 as odourless and invisible was comparing it with particulate pollution, not CO.

    On another note, here’s a funny song:

    http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/rudd-the-song/20091109-i4w6.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Interestingly, CO is “pollution” only insofar as it is associated with the formation of NOx – and thus the formation of ozone, which is really the only tropospheric pollutant of any interest due to the hazards from respiratory susceptibility and damage to vegetation.

    CO by itself is too short lived in the atmosphere to result in harm to anything.

    In the wintertime, the kinetics of CO oxidation to CO2 are slowed, and thus motor vehicle fuel is enhanced with oxygenated compounds in wintertime to oxidise CO more completely to CO2 in the internal combustion engine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel Cox

    Hello Jo and All others participating here,

    I have been visiting this blog/forum for a little while now. I have to say until the beginning of last year I had largely accepted the proposition that AGW was a serious threat to life as we enjoy it. This perspective was unfortunately based largely upon watching Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” etc. Now however I am fortunate enough to have seen reason so therefore as far as I am concerned the wheels have fallen off the AGW cart.

    Till now I was happy to sit on the sidelines until Mr. Rudd felt the need to vent his spleen at the Lowy Institute. Since Mr. Rudd felt obliged to say that I and others are “utterly contemptuous” I feel in good conscience I can no longer stand by while he tries to Vandalise our Nations future with an egregious ETS.

    So now I am willing to stand up against this lunacy and contribute to endeavours against it. Apart from expressing my concern in writing to Prime Minister Rudd and others as I have today now done. I would like to do more. Since I am an Artist/Illustrator in my late thirties with a background in Photography, Graphics, Media and Perception Management. I am willing to give as much time as I can to help develop information campaigns against Climate Change Hysteria. So if there’s anything I can help with please don’t hesitate to ask, I will do what I can.

    Of course as with all of us due to work and family commitments my contributions will have to vary as time permit. Where can I go to help, what can I do to challenge the consensus.

    Cheers,

    Daniel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ray Hibbard

    Daniel, welcome.
    Many on the posters here have a science background but as you have pointed out it’s not required. Anyone even faintly familiar with the process of scientific investigation is going to take notice when highly placed politician begin to denigrate others just because they don’t buy their theory. I knew something was terribly fishy when time and again I encountered venom spewing AGW believers on the web and elsewhere. It was unlike any scientific discussion I had ever witnessed.

    I had been away from science for about 15 years but it jarred me to see what had become of my previous profession. Statements like “The science is settled” are an anathema to the science I was taught in the 70’s. Then when I heard of instances where folks were being threatened with their jobs I knew something was defiantly wrong. I was lucky enough to find this website. There were references that helped me understand the gaping holes that are present in the AGW theory and the politics around it.

    There are many people here that are very knowledgeable in fields directly applicable to climate. In short they know their stuff and they are rabidly logical. My background is chemistry but not atmospheric therefore only tangentially applicable to climate. However I did learn the do’s and the don’ts in evaluating data and how the scientific method works and does not work. I have learned a great deal here you will find people here will be very patient and respectful of anyone with an open mind and a desire to learn. They remind me that the science I learned in the 70’s is not dead but just misplaced for the moment.

    Again welcome aboard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brian G Valentine: Post 112,

    When Ms Denn had come to understand that I was not a political opponent or minion of one, she then confided that “climate change” was actually not an issue of concern to her.

    The story is I suppose of interest only as a case of the mistrust that arises from misunderstanding

    Brian, was it a misunderstanding or was it that she “really” didn’t know much about AGW and your questions were right to the point and it scared Her? You get right to it you know…You are like me in this respect. I try to be tacful but I do not cut corners. I get right to the chase..People do this also just to “go along with the Crowd” type mentality..I’ve seen it time and time again..Thanks for the response, Brian. Appreciate it as always!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Anne-Kit Littler: Post 113,

    Denny, I appreciate your comments, although my reference to my friend being a school teacher was more a reflection on ignorance and lazy thinking being a concern (in that particular profession), rather than deliberate partisan teaching – not denying that this goes on, of course.

    And CO2 as odourless and invisible was comparing it with particulate pollution, not CO.

    Anne, thank you for clearing that up…Ignorance indeed! It’s scarey to think how many more are out there influencing our Children and young Adults for it’s just as bad in College’s! This of course is not helping the “Realist” cause. Bad Science or it could be bad “Political Agenda”.

    Anne, always appreciate your input and response! :o )


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Daniel Cox: Post 115

    So now I am willing to stand up against this lunacy and contribute to endeavours against it.

    Things you can do as a “Realist”!

    1. Do you research! Joanne has a great Handbook here to help you. I advise copying it and study. She but one of many that also contribute. I would invite you to GWH.com and check it out…There’s articles there that also help promote the “Realist” cause.
    2. Constantly keep up on the latest that focus on AGW. Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Go thru the other Sites listed here on the right.
    3. Talk to People and tell them there’s more out there than what’s being told. The Media Bias doesn’t help Us either but here in the U.S. Fox News is starting to promote the “Realist” side of AGW issues to the thanks of Glenn Beck.
    4. Help “Realist” sites if there’s an important article that has come out you haven’t seen it elsewhere, then post it for them if you are able..Spread the word, I always say!

    Hope this helps, Daniel. Happy to see that you saw the “light”. Thanks for providing your “talents”! I’m sure somebody can use them. Good Luck!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin

    For some time now I have been puzzled by the alarmists fervent defence of the indefenceable in the face of mounting evidence against AGW. And of all the pollutants we routinely pour into the environment, why choose the benign gas CO2 as the chief greenhouse gas? Why not methane or nitrous oxide? Millionaire politicians like Al Gore and Malcolm Turnbull obviously stand to make several more fortunes trading carbon credits, but that does not explain the fanatical fervour of the rest.

    But last week an IEA whistleblower gave us a clue. Peak Oil is past and Peak Petroleum Gas is near, and the IEA has been covering up. The implications for Western Civilisation could not be more alarming. The rising world demand for oil is about to hit the declining world oil production level. When that happens the price of oil will skyrocket. Some analysts blame the July 2008 price spike of $147 a barrel as the trigger for the sub-prime global financial meltdown. People forced to pay high prices for fuel couldn’t afford to pay their mortgages. What will happen at $200 or $400 a barrel?

    Is AGW a clumsy attempt to dampen down demand for oil before the crunch? Why not just tell us the truth about peak oil? My guess is fear of universal riotous panic. I think it’s time we looked at Cuba’s response to the 1991 oil shock when the Soviets collapsed. They have a great deal to teach us.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter

    Jo,

    I can only congratulate you on your fantastic rebuttal of what can only be described as foaming at the mouth politically motivated neo-Religous zealotry. It makes me angry every time I remember this ridiculous attack on the fundamentals of science and in fact reasonable debate.

    There, I feel better now.

    And, if I may say, thanks for making scepticism so sexy ……… (I bought you some chocolate).

    Keep up the great work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Colin,

    If it’s true that we’re past peak oil, then what’s all the concern about CO2. CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to 380ppm after burning half of the oil. If we assume that this increase is from burning fossil fuels, then the atmosphere will top out at 480 ppm, which is even less than the hypothetical doubling that’s always referred to.

    The real danger from moving away from oil is that there won’t be enough CO2 in the atmosphere to sustain an agricultural system robust enough to feed billions of people.

    The threat of running out of oil is not the prime mover behind the AGW hysteria. It it was, the stupidity of artificially slowing down the economy with oppressive taxes in order to delay a future, even larger, slow down would be apparent to even the most radical AGW zealot. Peak oil and ocean acidification arguments are often used as secondary justifications for being stupid. The real motivation behind AGW is it’s a convenient excuse for redistributing wealth. It just happens that many with an extreme environmental agenda also share the socialist agenda. This whole concept that there’s some kind of carbon debt that the industrialized world owes to the third world is lunacy beyond belief.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    danappaloupe

    If it’s true that we’re past peak oil, then what’s all the concern about CO2. CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to 380ppm after burning half of the oil. If we assume that this increase is from burning fossil fuels, then the atmosphere will top out at 480 ppm, which is even less than the hypothetical doubling that’s always referred to.

    Did you know oil is not the only CO2 emitting fossil fuel?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    danappaloupe,

    Did you know that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas? Did you know that burning hydrogen produces only water vapor which is an even more powerful GHG than CO2?

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin

    George (122),
    That’s my point! The ‘concern’ about CO2 is a red herring. The real problem is shrinking oil supplies. There’s little point having a robust agricultural system if there’s no fuel for tractors to sow and reap, or for trucks to transport the produce.

    Undoubtedly there are many activists jumping on the bandwagon of CO2 for their own purposes, including a socialist agenda or a desire for a non-industrial society. But I believe the primary motive behind government’s actions is to slow the consumption of oil and so delay the impact of exponentially increasing oil prices.

    danappaloupe (123), yes oil is only one of the fossil fuels, but it’s the only one that has peaked so far. In Australia 80% of electric power is generated in coal fired plants and no-one is suggesting we shut them down. There is still plenty of coal but coal-fired tractors, trucks and automobiles are not an alternative to oil.

    Remember oil is not only a fuel. It is the feedstock for fertilisers, plastics, pharmaceuticals and many high tech. industrial processes. Humanity will be thrust back to the 1850′s without oil.

    I suggest you go to YouTube and search “Cuban food crisis” and “organoponico”. They have a great deal to teach us about living in a society with insufficient oil.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    danappaloupe

    unbelievable…

    Did you know that burning hydrogen produces only water vapor which is an even more powerful GHG than CO2?

    Water is the only greenhouse gas that undergos all phase changes in the atmosphere, its concentration varies widely over space and time… it not the same.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce Leitch

    Contact Nick Minchin and offer encouragement.

    Please see below, the URL for Senator Nick Minchin’s home page. I have sent him an email, expressing my gratitude for his courage and integrity to stand up to the green madness which threatens to overtake Australia.

    http://www.nickminchin.com.au/

    The ETS will most likeley be debated in the Australian senate, next week.

    So please email him and offer support.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    danappaloupe,

    What’s your point? The only effect atmospheric phase changes of water has is to convert water vapor with many narrow band absorption peaks, into liquid and/or solid water, which are both broad band strong absorbers of longwave IR. If anything, the tendency to change phase increases waters ability to trap heat. Your predictable argument will be that evaporation/precipitation regulates atmospheric water vapor content so adding more water vapor won’t matter. While this is true, what makes you believe that the same mechanism that would adapt to anthropogenic water vapor will not adapt to anthropogenic CO2?

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Colin,

    The free market will take care of this. The problem is that ‘renewable’ sources of energy are too expensive, relative to oil, despite oil’s relative scarcity. Governments promoting AGW are under the false illusion that making oil more expensive to make renewable sources seem more competitive is a good thing to do. In fact, it’s counter productive since the market is otherwise trying to push innovation to make renewables more competitive. If taxes are used to make up the difference, it removes the incentive to innovate and we end up paying more for energy then we need to.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    While this is true, what makes you believe that the same mechanism that would adapt to anthropogenic water vapor will not adapt to anthropogenic CO2?

    Quite likely the water vapour can adapt to compensate the small amount or warming coming from CO2 as those Hungarian guys claim.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Colin: Post 120

    Peak Oil is past and Peak Petroleum Gas is near, and the IEA has been covering up. The implications for Western Civilisation could not be more alarming. The rising world demand for oil is about to hit the declining world oil production level. When that happens the price of oil will skyrocket. Some analysts blame the July 2008 price spike of $147 a barrel as the trigger for the sub-prime global financial meltdown. People forced to pay high prices for fuel couldn’t afford to pay their mortgages. What will happen at $200 or $400 a barrel?

    Colin, I don’t know if the above is your words or copied from some article. You have to remember, when the “Free Enterprise” system is let alone to do it’s job, it finds ways to “better” the situation. Case in point! The use of Oil! Here are some articles you ought to check out and consider…You have to remember, this is “another Alarmist” reason to scare People into another dilemma or situation to think that Oil Supply won’t be there anyway……

    Colin, may I suggest this article: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?947.post

    And here’s another very good one by Ray Harvey who does a very good job.

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?967.post

    And another one: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?354.post

    And here: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?446.post

    Colin, I believe if there’s a need, “Free Enterprise” will find a way to produce and make it available!</em>


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin

    Denny,
    Firstly thank you for the complement. I didn’t realise my writing was good enough to be taken for a quote from some (official) article. And secondly, thank you for the links to globalwarminghoax. I read them all with interest and some surprise at their vehemence.

    As a poor Electronics Engineer I tend to trust numbers before politicians or multi-national corporations, so I try to do my own research. The numbers published for present global demand for oil are close to the numbers for global production of oil (range 70-80 mbd). But demand is increasing at 2%+ pa. while production is declining at 3%+ pa. The two must ultimately meet, and cross over. That will be a genuine tipping point.

    It is a fundamental truism that growth cannot continue indefinitely in a finite system. The “free enterprise” solution to demand outstripping supply has always been to raise prices. The immediate effect is to reduce demand, but ultimately there is no alternative to oil other than a reduction in affluence. Personally I will enjoy a more agrarian lifestyle.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Colin: Post 132,

    It is a fundamental truism that growth cannot continue indefinitely in a finite system. The “free enterprise” solution to demand outstripping supply has always been to raise prices. The immediate effect is to reduce demand, but ultimately there is no alternative to oil other than a reduction in affluence. Personally I will enjoy a more agrarian lifestyle.

    Colin, you are welcome! I have found out at this site, you have to “tread” lightly on what you say because of “Cultural” differences.

    I have to disagree with your above statement. Technology is achieve great strides in finding more Oil Reserves, more efficient Internal Combustion Engines, alternative Energy Sources with respect in Energy Storage. This of course is much needed in the “Green” solutions for at the moment, it doesn’t work to well. The next “big advancement” will be in Fuel Cell Technology. You are already starting to see pilot programs in use to see how they hold up and perform.

    Already, Brazil is finding huge Oil reserves out in the Atlantic. It’s very deep but Technology is already making things happening..It’s been stated that the Saudi Oil Reserves are “over” estimated..That they will be producing less within the next 20-30 years…I was looking for a article I read and cannot find it, that showed ever since Oil has been found that “Alarmists” in each time frame of 30-50 years would state that there isn’t enough Oil, that we will not have enough. Here we are over 150 years.

    Another reason is Oil substitute. More and more you are seeing “synthetic” Oil is being used to a much better lubrication that petroleum. I use it in my Cars. It has extended my Oil changes by 2/3rd’s.. So Colin, there’s another savings.

    Have you heard about the vehicle called “Aptera”? It sounds to good to be true but 300 miles to the gallon is nothing to sneeze at..If it’s true. As we both know, it’s usually given on all vehicles the high side…but they do state it will depend on how much you use the internal combustion engine is used..hers’s the Web Site! http://www.aptera.com/ You can purchase one for less than 30 Thousand U.S.Dollars and you can sign up with a deposit of 500 Dollars. Haven’t checked in a while but I’m sure there’s a long waiting list! Again, technology and “Free Enterprise” doing it’s job to give what is in demand to the Consumer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ben

    Hi, Jo.
    I remember holding the bionic ear prototype in my hand during a bioengineering elective in my engineering course at Uni of Melb. I recall thinking, “Wow, Australia could become a great place to work in the coming years, we have talented, intelligent and highly creative people, and a beautiful, nature and resource rich land, such prospects!!!”
    And now?
    I know those same great people are still here, so is that great land, but HOW in the SEVEN CIRCLES OF HELL did a MORON like KRUDD get to where he is? And after his criminal activity in the Goss days to boot?!! What is GOING ON??? (that’s a rhetorical question).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “If you don’t do exactly as I say the world is coming to an end within 10 years.”

    Give or take a few years of the estimates of the world’s complete and final demise, this mantra has been the tool of the religious fanatic since religion existed.

    Note that ten years seems to be the most common timeline. Fewer years are rarely credible due to the general lack of tangible evidence. Longer time lines make it appear that people don’t need to pay heed for a while, and enthusiasm for the fanatic’s cause becomes terribly to instill.

    I am certain there are sociology tomes that explore the phenomenon, although I am not immediately familiar with them


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes Brian. I regularly read warnings that if we introduce an ETS the world’s economy will be doomed within 10 years, we will all be living in caves etc, it is all a plot to instill a global socialist government, those naughty bankers will take all our money, agriculture doomed, and so on and so on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Human nature seems to be fairly predictable, Matt, though less so than physical law, the end of the world from CO2 emissions is impossible because it violates physical law, although the end of civilisation as it is known by the introduction of an ETS is not demonstrable by physical law, it is demonstrable by the consistency the known human frailty of greed, and no matter what is done to prevent people taking advantage of and ETS, people will find loopholes, and will demolish entire economies for short term gain.

    Laws are enacted to prevent people from taking advantage of others, but when a law is enacted to CREATE such a situation, it is a different matter altogether


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Peak Oil? Maybe Peak-Fossil-Oil.

    But what’s to stop us engineering a faster more efficient biological method of producing oil?
    Like Algae making biodiesal
    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70273


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I know Brian – throughout history grand science and social developments have been hampered by contrarians;) Humans Predictable – yes!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    On microalgae diesel, the Bravenewclaimate TCASE seris is off to a good start: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/27/tcase1/

    It does not look good for “renewables” I’m afraid.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    The tide is a turning
    found this on Drudge, a firmly driven nail in emperor al`s coffin.

    Gore’s presentation on climate change draws 800 as 200 protestors gather outside.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ray Hibbard

    Jo, I think it might be more accurately named Peak-Cheap-Easy-To-Get-To-Fossil-Oil.
    I think we would all agree that cheap energy has been an irreplaceable benevolent force in the world for centuries. I also think that we can agree that come hell or high water a certain X million of barrels have to be above ground each day and every day in order to make this amazingly complex, but in the same sense fragile, civilization work.

    Some here have cited large deep discoveries, and that’s fine but one discovery I was following was 35,000 feet down. That’s five freaking miles! I do not know what technology they are using to go that deep I wish I did I searched but I could not find a description. But all that aside I think we can all agree that a barrel from a 35000 ft well is going to cost a lot more then a barrel from a 8000 ft well.

    For me its not when are we going to run out or any kind of nonsense like that. There will always be petroleum available. The question will be at what price and price matters. In the U.S the energy inputs involved in putting an acre in corn into the field and harvesting it back out is a major part of the cost. In some sense a very good argument could be made that the present financial crises may have been sparked by that 147 barrel back in 2008. You can keep a crap financial system limping forward if you have a nice tailwind from cheap energy. When the tailwind turns into a headwind things start to unravel.

    Substitutes for oil are fine but I have seen none that say that they can produce cheaper or as cheap then current oil prices. It seems that one comes out every few years and we hear a lot about it then nothing. They were talking about some process of turning turkey guts into oil about 10 years ago and I never heard anymore about it again. Many have said that the market will take care of it and to some degree I agree with that. But make no mistake if oil gets very dear and the alternatives are not there to keep its market price in check we are going to feel it.

    Just to make sure that none of the above is misconstrued as supporting cap and trade or any of its variants it is not, I repeat it is not. You will not solve the above by giving mega gobs of money to the government. Give it to that guy who figured out how to drill five miles down!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB – Could you explain what you mean in more detail? I made a very specific suggestion, not a generic “renewables” one.

    I haven’t looked closely into the biodiesal from microalgae, so I’m interested in a detailed analysis, but I don’t feel like searching through some longwinded post on all renewable forms of energy to get your point.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    hi jo. i actually had a specific link to an article on algae, but realised it was from brook’s pre nuclear phase, so linked to his new series on future of energy. in a nutshell many are coming to a view that nearly all renewables are small scale, intermittent, bloody expemsive, and simply not that green. compared to nuclear even in terms of current generarion reactors. if you go to bnc and search for algae the earlier post will come up imthink second-/orry i’m on mobile so not easy to get a link to paste.

    Much of the media coverage is dominated by anti nuclear in the face of science. Im a convert, when i started posting here id be your typical anti nuke.

    I think you could do an interesting piece linking anti nuclear with those who promote cap and trade. marketing genius if you were creating a bubble.

    I,m telling you skeptics should be playing the nuclear wedge. why is turnbull and joyce not all over nuclear? well tunbull is a banker i guess.

    Did thst clairfy? will post with more coherence tomorrow. home pc is sick.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The problem with biodiesel from algae is, it is too difficult to manage.

    Immense land areas for algae ponds are required for a relatively low yield of fuel (1 Ha of pond about 0.5 m deep = about 100 lit of fuel)

    but the ponds become infected easily with everything else that is airbourne (meaning evrything else that grows in water); keeping these ponds free of non-producing junk is extremely labour intensive, and a potential environmental catastrophe if hundreds, nay thousands, of hectare of pond become nowt more than above ground sewers.

    Plus where is all the fresh water for these expected to come from? Lakes cannot simply be re-engineered to make them aalgae ponds.

    Biodiesel is a poor idea that should not be attepted on a large scale


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thanks for listening.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Mark Stevens – My favourite part about the whole article was Gore’s introduction to his audience as “President of the Planet.”

    That made my day!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ,mike

    Denny,

    “People to push the “Birth Certificate” issue, we could eliminate all what’s been done! Maybe we still can if proven afterward’s that He wasn’t a legal President in Office..This would negate all of what’s been past as I understand.’

    This is what I really hate. By tying perfectly sensible concerns and skepticism regarding the science behind AGW with the birther conspiracy, you manage to link legitimate skepticism with the wing nuts in the minds of the alarmists. Thanks for nothing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Come on, let’s not get sour, Denny is just making the point that Obama might not be as legitimate as some claim he ought to be, if you think about it, the same argument could be applied to George Washington because he could not have been born in the United States, there were no United States.

    I don’t think Obama is legitimate anyway because his plans come from a lunatic left fringe and have nothing to do with an average citizen.

    “Not legitimate” is “not legitimate” one way or another I guess


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Buster Bunns

    Great letter and I am heartened by the considered responses from those who are seeking evidence and not taken in by the rhetoric of snake oil salesmen. Recent history has not been kind to those who seek to foster and perpetuate the belief that man is responsible for global warming and climate change.

    One of the most notorious and phony pieces of data underlying global warming alarmism — the “hockey stick” graph – has been completely shattered by Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre. Despite vigorous attempts to prevent him getting access to the complete original data, McIntyre finally managed to obtain it. He then replicated it, plotted it, and the infamous hockey stick graph uptick disappeared. Not only did it disappear, it went negative. This finding has now completely undermined the central tenet of Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Inconvenient indeed!

    Then there is the recently announced research by a Scottish statistician, Wilson Flood, who analyzed the Central England Temperature record.

    The Central England Temperature (CET) record, starting in 1659 and maintained by the UK Met Office, is the longest unbroken temperature record in the world. Temperature data is averaged for a number of weather stations regarded as being representative of Central England rather than measuring temperature at one arbitrary geographical point identified as the centre of England.

    The conclusion by Flood from studying these records was that there is no evidence of global warming in the 351 year CET record. For example, Flood found that the average CET summer temperature in the 18th century was 15.46 degC while that for the 20th century was 15.35 degC.

    On a similar vein, in 2007, Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory produced a history of global sea levels rise from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from 9 tide gauge stations scattered around the world. The overall average rate of sea level rise in Holgate’s study period was found to be about 0.07 in/yr, or 7 inches per century. In addition, he made two other notable findings. The first was that the rate of sea level rise was, on average, greater in the first half of the 20th century than the second, and secondly, there was a large degree of decadal variability in the rate of sea level rise.

    Support for this finding can be found separately in data from the supposedly sinking Maldives. In 2003 before members of the Geological Society of America, Nils-Axel Mörner, a now retired professor of geology from the University of Stockholm, presented a paper that clearly demonstrated through hard physical evidence obtained over many years of observation and research, that the sea level around the Maldives Islands has risen and fallen repeatedly over the millennia and most recently from 1790-1970 the sea level rose by about 30 cm to then fall 30 cm in the 1970s to today’s level, which is the statistical norm for the region. His conclusion? The Maldives will not disappear anytime soon.

    And this belief is now tacitly supported by Al Gore. For why else would he buy an expensive condominium in the St. Regis hotel/condo complex in San Francisco, a few short blocks away from the waterfront, if he believes the sea will rise dramatically anytime soon?

    In the face of this growing body of evidence and no matter how hard they try, AGW advocates cannot table the science that proves to AGW skeptics they are wrong.

    To underscore this point, Professor Michael Economides at Houston University has a long standing offer of $10,000 for the first peer-reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates the causality between man-made CO2 in our atmosphere and global warming. It has not been claimed for no such paper exists. That right, not one!

    What alarmists fail to note is that the climate change science has irrevocably moved on, for measurement has supplanted mere guesswork, however fashionable the guesswork may have been.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    There are no such demonstrations because they don’t exist, there are lots of peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that CO2 global warming is impossible because it violates the second law, who cares, tell that to the President of the Planet


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    so just who was the last legitimate president in those terms Brian? Clinton? who was before Reagan?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    mike: Post 148,

    This is what I really hate. By tying perfectly sensible concerns and skepticism regarding the science behind AGW with the birther conspiracy, you manage to link legitimate skepticism with the wing nuts in the minds of the alarmists. Thanks for nothing.

    Mike, I hate to “pop” your bubble but this AGW conspircy you call it has to be “attacked” for all sides. If you are from the U.S. then you would know that Obama first stated that all the Science will be reviewed and a decision will be made. As soon as He took office, he started by stating “It’s conclusive, ALL the Science is in, the Consensus is AGW is real and we need to do something about it now”! So if proven, all of what the Democrats have done will be “negated” and of course Republicans. That’s the way it has to be Mike…Of course, what are the chances of this happening? I would have to say “Slim to None” because of the Democratic hold in Congress. You have to go after the Alarmists on ALL sides not just the Scientific side. This is how the Alarmists done it, and this is how the “Realists” have to do it!

    One other thing, AGW is POLITICAL whether you like it or not!!!! It’s also taking Religious overtones in my and many other People. :(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    re my post in #19. Hey Anne-Kit at least you passed my notes on to my local member:) Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    @ Brian… Yep , President of the planet!!! we can only hope that gore and his Mussolini like ambition ultimately concludes in the same fate as the Italian dictator.

    @mike. wasn`t that long ago that we Nay sayers of agw were all “WING NUTS”.
    I N.B. Mine enemy`s enemies are my friends. And. From where you sits is how you see it.

    @JO. unskeptical scientists! thats brilliant! oxymoron of the month!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    MattB, you’re not in our electorate, and as I’m not in the habit of passing notes to other Members of Parliament I doubt very much whether I’d have passed anything to your local member, whoever it might be.

    Besides, I’m very selective with the quality of the information I pass on, so I’m afraid your notes wouldn’t have made it far in any case!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    AK I was just referring to Julie Bishop’s calls for a sensible debate on nuclear energy in the party room, as reported in today’s media. I also noted a report on Crikey that linked being pro-nuclear with denialism… I guess trying to head a nuclear-liberal agenda off at the pass but I don’t think they’ll be spooked.

    If you know I’m not in your electorate… surely you know whose I’m in though?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    A whinning norwegian unsceptical scientist writes:-
    Arctic scientists deflated by climate change sceptics.

    Check out the `expedition costs` a nice little earner!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Alas, we’re not that omniscient, Matt! Each office only has access to our own electorate.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark Stevens: That article contains the line:

    “Jan-Gunnar Winther, director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, regrets that half of the population of Norway “doesn’t believe in climate change,” compared to 97 percent of scientists.”

    “97% of scientists” is a big claim. Who did this survey? How many scientists did they ask? How many journalists will repeat that line without checking…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    @ JO

    Amongst the other claims! I like the inference that the polies should `sway public opinion’; but they do have a rather large barrow to push!
    I think the climate jihadists will by default, have to plug the increasingly gaping holes in their global CO2N with the stuff of krudd, style and spin in lieu of substance and truth. with the shrill factor reaching a crescendo mid dec. you and the likes of Alan Jones (syd), Andrew Bolt, Ian Plimer et al will be looming large in the sights of the manaical mulluhs as they pusue the unholy global governance grail. Don`t think for a second that despite the failure to effect the cop15 treaty in copenhagen that this will in any way deter these people. there is much more than science at work here with stakes so high that the end justifies ANY means at all. Interesting Times indeed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Al Gore, Planetary President, hasn’t been Vice President or any other official since Jan, 2000.

    Can anyone point to anything he has said in ten years that has NOT been stupid?

    With all that has happened, he has not opened his mouth to say anything meaningful in TEN WHOLE YEARS!

    CRIPES that is a lot of stupidity. A huge pile of it – one would think he learned SOMETHING in his some sixty years on the Earth –

    As far as I can tell, he hasn’t learned a THING in his whole life and if the past is any indication he never will


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Been Looking for Leonids. But found this up to the min reportage on a subject that serves as a timely reminder of the power of spreading panic/terror through populations.
    Ukrainke has swine flu and a presidential election. check out this most (opportunist?) curious juxtaposition……….
    Swine flu infects Ukraine’s presidential elections

    Ukraine: Flu Stats, Panic, Gauze Masks (and Some Lingerie)

    Panic in Ukraine over swine flu

    Ain`t man grand? to the Leonids (maybe)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    fredlightfoot

    It is quite obvious were he gets his intelligence from, there is a post on Al Gore (and his intelligence) on wattsupwiththat
    the smart people are leaving the world in charge of idiots, why?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    intelligent skeptic

    From what I understand the US has banned exploration of oil.
    So it is no surprise that that they are having to import more of their oil.
    This course was embarked on many years ago by the pro AGW pliticians which are found on both sides of the camps.
    It appears that there sre quite huge reserves of oil that have not yet been discovered.
    But there are a new breed of billionairs that have made their money in the capitalist system and are now turning to socialism solely because they are now well poised to take over the world and will hold considrable influence in this new world order.
    Of course nevermind the average joe we are just colateral damage in the ambitious path to glory.
    By preventing the discoveries of new sources of oil,
    they are now in a position to force us to go green with dubious things like solar panels, etc.and they are doing it by forcing up the prices of power generated from fossil fuels, to make alternative sources of energy appear cheaper, which they now manufacture and sell.
    This is false economy and will only cause hardships to the average person on the street and his/her family


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    intelligent skeptic: Post 165,

    From what I understand the US has banned exploration of oil.

    Yes, only within the Coastal Boundaries of the U.S..or “off shore drilling”. Obama and Friends put the sanction back up. Otherwise, we are still searching for Oil. The U.S. alone has approximately 27 Oil Producing Companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_petroleum_companies. I did not include ones with just a “refinery” listing.

    Yes, they are finding reserves off of Brazil, Mexico and the latest in Iran to which the Chinese are helping out with developing that oil field.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Banning offshore drilling and development of the ANWR were imbicile ideas. The US imbalance of trade is about twice imports for exports, with about half of the import imbalance going to oil. It’s just stupid, that’s what.

    Sometimes I think the only thing the US is “exporting” is idiot pop music and Microsoft PC software, and even that is going away.

    The only way the US could achieve energy independence is to convert coal gas to diesel fuel and gasoline, that could be augmented dramatically with hydrogen produced by off-peak nuclear power.

    Why does the US have to become a second-world country with a third world economy? To please a handful of greeniacs, that’s why, people who don’t know a damned thing about how the world works and never will and can’t be taught anything, either.

    It’s going to take some foreful personalities with clean backgrounds and a no-nonsense (or take-no-prisoners) attitude to turn it around.

    Politicians are either Chuicken Littles or fawns when confronted by Gore and his ilk. It’s gotta stop.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    As if on cue…. the next tsunami of bullshit begins at the BBC-
    Earth ‘heading for 6C’ of warming
    . (probably wishful thinking, 6c rise would make the former gt britain habitable this time of year)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Video Link to: L Williams, The Non oil crisis The book athough almost 30 years old, provides an interesting insight/perspective on things OIL+CRISIS.Book link
    anyone tuned in to the senate? Pennys nipped out to take advice and bob brown needs sedating… At least the opposition are actually opposing…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin

    News Flash!

    World famous ethno-cultural designer/entrepreneur Hal Bore has added his voice to the crescendo warning of total global annihilation.
    “There is little time left” he claimed “to avert disaster. The fixed science predicts a global temperature rise of 16.3C by next Tuesday fortnight, with associated sea level rise of 231 metres.”
    He warned “We will all broil in our beds unless we take immediate action. The rising waters will make Noah’s Flood look like a wet Sunday afternoon.”

    He added ” My company, Community Arcs, has been working on the problem and come up with a solution just in time. We are now able to offer a range of airconditioned suites in our projected fleet of floating communities at very reasonable prices. With our low deposit and easy monthly repayments over 30 years, every family can enjoy the security of knowing there is a cool dry place waiting for them when the time comes.”
    “To book an appointment with our friendly broker, just call … ”

    Does it sound familiar? Roll on Copenhagen!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    a letter from Kampala (0°19′N 32°35′E / 0.317, 32.583)Loser Pays for redistribution of commonwealth I like this paragraph….

    So who pays the difference? The rich countries do, or at least they pay for a lot of the difference, because it is they who created the conditions in which newly industrialising countries must install expensive clean power rather than the dirty power that the rich countries themselves used to climb the ladder long ago.

    ……………. senate update: senator Birmingham annouces the apotheosis is here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brian G Valentine: post 167,

    Banning offshore drilling and development of the ANWR were imbicile ideas. The US imbalance of trade is about twice imports for exports, with about half of the import imbalance going to oil. It’s just stupid, that’s what.

    Sometimes I think the only thing the US is “exporting” is idiot pop music and Microsoft PC software, and even that is going away.

    Brian, I totally agree with you, it is a imbicilic idea…As you already know, this is what the AGW agenda wants. They say we should switch to “Green” Technologies. That’s fine but let “Free Enterprise” solve the problems. Don’t shove this “weak” Technology down Our Throats! Sure, we need to push for cleaner internal combustion engines. They have come along way but sure more needs to be done. Especially in the “Energy Storage” arena! Nano Technology is changing things at a rate that almost exceeds the electronic revolution the past 15 years. They are now designing circuits “molecule by molecule”. Nano is in practically all fields of endevor..just “Google Nano Technology” and you will spend hours going over articles.

    Back to Oil, the U.S. cannot afford to change into green technology in a robust way until efficiencies are attained. If the greens get what they want, they will chase industry away to different countries because of lack of energy coming from brownouts! More people without work…more disscent, more lost of life..It “will” get worse if we go this direction. Don’t you agree Brian..Bore Holes…Full Speed…Ahead!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Mark Stevens: Post 168,

    As if on cue…. the next tsunami of bullshit begins at the BBC-

    Mark, don’t forget Copenhagen is on the “visible” Horizon! If you have done your history, when ever a big Wine Drinking, Food Loving, Hearing the “President of Climate Talk” Alarmist Conference is coming, the “scare tactics meter” jumps up! Big Time!</em>


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Colin: Post 170,

    “There is little time left” he claimed “to avert disaster.

    Colin, didn’t James Hansen state that in Uh, lets see, Oh yes, 1988..Sorry, temporary memory loss..That’s twenty one YEARS ago! Still waiting…… :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I’m familiar with a lot of that nano stuff, Denny (google my name + nano and you’ll understand why)

    - but somewhere along the line, we’re meeting thermodynamic limitations, and all the nano in the world won’t get you past that, and while efficiency is good, it won’t substitute for the energy in a barrel of oil no matter what happens.

    If the US wants to be a global leader with the ability to help others in the world, then the US needs to have the economy to be able to provide the aid, and the US can only do that with economic development.

    And economic development can come only with a lot of affordable and available energy and my answer to greeniacs standing in the road is this:

    Run them over in with Hummers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Now why would anybody call him kruddy anyway?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Intelligent Skeptic (#165): “But there are a new breed of billionairs that have made their money in the capitalist system and are now turning to socialism solely because they are now well poised to take over the world and will hold considrable influence in this new world order.”

    Yep, two names spring to mind: George Soros and Maurice Strong. I’m sure there are others …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Brian – I googled nano and valentine and I’m not impressed with your so called credentials:
    http://gizmodo.com/347445/apple-pushes-pink-ipod-nano-in-time-for-your-valentine

    ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brian G Valentine: Post 175,

    but somewhere along the line, we’re meeting thermodynamic limitations, and all the nano in the world won’t get you past that,

    Oh so very true but when you have limitations, then you go to the next step! http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40949

    Quantium!!!</em>


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    aw, come on, Matt, don’t be such a bah humbug.

    Just hold your nose, give in, and buy one for your wife, to show her she’s your sweetheart.

    She’ll love you for it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    @ MattB…… Lol!!! nice research,dude!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Brian it seems we both accessorise!
    http://www.gizmag.com/go/5021/

    note the spell my name wrong AGAIN!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Don’t buy one for a female.

    That is not a gift a woman would like.

    [This advice brought to you by an inveterate gift shopper for wife and daughter]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joel

    It’s funny how Joanne mocks scientists (“call us heroes”), and then pretends to be shocked that they overwhelmingly recognise AGW as a problem (yes I’m sure you know exactly which survey is referred to). Science certainly doesn’t seem to be a strong point on this forum. I think what really annoys you guys about climate policy is the idea that politicians will cooperate for the the sake of the planet, and so it will not be “business as usual” for business. On those grounds, you are idealogically opposed to the the idea of climate change. It’s a bit like kids being idealogically opposed to the theory of night time, because they don’t want to go to bed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Nice one, Joel.

    Why do some people think people who oppose something do so for selfish motives?

    Personally, I am interested in the well being of humanity.

    Humanity hasn’t improved their lot in the least with junk science yet; I sincerely doubt they ever will.

    I don’t know if Joanne is “mocking” anyone, but you can be guaranteed that I am mocking you


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Hi Joel.
    The only thing worth mocking are those that are ( … opposite of sceptical…) gullible enough to believe that consensus equates to solid theory and thats good enough to sign up for whatever the illuminatie at the egregious UN have in store for you. I urge you to remove your head from your butt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    From the office of the president of the united states, nobel Laurette and true believer….The change you can believe in…roflmao cooking the books and creative accounting bazza obama style. do you trust this mob with climate data?????????


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark you follow up your criticisms of Joel with a random link to some none-issue of administration in the US, revealing your obviously deap-rooted dislike for President Obama, and I suggest the left in general, and expect to be taken seriously?

    And Brian… well if you want the best for humanity, but most people who want the best for humanity have a different point of view, well you just have to grin and bear it don’t you… unless you think that those of the opposing POV don’t want the best for humanity? but of course that would require the asumption that they are doing it for selfish motives, but why would you assume those who support something do so for selfish reasons?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joel

    Brian,

    “junk science”…with just two words, straight from the mouth of your idol, you can discredit the work of thousands of climate scientists….only not, cos no-one reads this, and you have no credibility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Realistically, the list of 30,000 does not include “countless professors of physics, chemistry and meteorology.” I mean surely they can be counted? Is it that hard?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    a non issue for those whom both faith and obedience is blind. prolifigation of manufactured statistics deemed to disinform the electorate he serves, I`d say it`s It`s an issue.
    How could I possibly dislike a man who`s battle cry was plagurised directly from Bob the builder ( Bob the builder, can we build it? YES WE CAN!) You only suspect my deep rooted dislike of the Left! no shit sherlock.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Come on, Joel – there’s no need for you to feel “inferior” and consider yourself a “nobody”; you’re a “somebody” and you count

    {“no-one reads this …}


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: “that would require the assumption that they are doing it for selfish motives”

    I would point out the enslavement of billions and the deaths of well in excess of 100,000,000 people during the last century was done for unselfish motives: the state (Germany, Italy, Japan), the collective (USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam), and the glorious other (nearly all of the rest of the world but especially Africa).

    I would also point out that the Industrial Revolution and all the life giving and life supporting inventions, products, and process created by Capitalism were done for a very selfish motive: profit. That means actual production of wealth for self and not just transfer of wealth by theft on the justification that its “only” for the bottomless pit of the *sacred* other.

    The difference is that a truly selfish person (one who is actually interested in his long term well being) will TRADE value for value and if the other party does not wish to trade, he goes elsewhere to find a more willing customer. A truly unselfish person will FORCE his version of unselfishness on others or else. The “or else” was made transparently clear during the last century. The “or else” means exactly the same thing for this century as well (See the Islamic bombers as a case in point). Except it means the enslavement of all to all with the consequential deaths of nearly all of not all.

    You can take your unselfishness and cram it where the sun don’t shine and buzz off. I am not buying your garbage. I suggest you stop trying to sell it on the bases you are sooooooooo concerned about mankind or even the earth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    Lionell I think your argument is with brian.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Matt Buckels: I think your argument is with brian.

    MattB == Matt Buckels ?
    Since the icons are the same, I presume the identity is true.

    Brian simply asked Joel the following question in #185.

    “Why do some people think people who oppose something do so for selfish motives?”

    Said question contains nothing about Brin’s evaluation of selfishness. One could infer a negative evaluation but that might be more projection than anything else.

    I quote the relevant portion of your post from #188 in context with your comment on selfishness in bold.

    “And Brian… well if you want the best for humanity, but most people who want the best for humanity have a different point of view, well you just have to grin and bear it don’t you… unless you think that those of the opposing POV don’t want the best for humanity? but of course that would require the asumption that they are doing it for selfish motives, but why would you assume those who support something do so for selfish reasons?”

    Clearly, you thought that selfishness was a significant attribute against Brian’s argument and, especially, that selfishness is against the interests of others. I demonstrated the absolute inverse that unselfishness is in fact is a prime source of violation of the true long term interests of others while true selfishness is a distinct benefit. So my augment is with you AND anyone else who thinks the label “selfish” is negative and, by implication that “unselfish” is a label of nobility.

    If the shoe fits for Brian, he will have to wear it. At this point, I have little evidence either way for Brian. However, I have patently clear evidence that the shoe fits you like a glove!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    mattybaby gushed forth….

    Realistically, the list of 30,000 does not include “countless professors of physics, chemistry and meteorology.” I mean surely they can be counted? Is it that hard?

    to paraphrase your idol “Yes They Can”GLOBAL WARMING PETTITION PROJECT I hope this helps. have a nice day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Re the harbinger of the looming apotheosis and installer of nightmares, ms Penny Wong and her latest 250,000 homes ‘at risk’ from rising seas spinner. the following may give the truth some essential buoyancy Deceived again#1: how Wong whipped up those “1.1 metre” seas… and ever the combination puncher; Deceived again #2: More evidence of how Wong faked her sea scare…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Post-WW2 capitalism made the USA one of the great benefactors of foreign aid.

    The same is true of Australia.

    Now, unless you’re Al Gore and have figured out a way to manipulate markets based on laws you demand enacted, there is no way the free market will work in your favour.

    Tough luck, say the extremists – your problems become opportunities.

    That’s like shooting someone in the leg and saying, “I just did you a big favour by creating a problem for you, which you can turn into an opportunity.”

    Krudd and Penney Wong and Al Gore and the rest of them want people to feel the weight of their behinds sitting on them – because they think it will be good for everyone if they do


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    John Watt

    Rudd’s rudeness (yes, Bill Clinton got the name right) is, I believe, driven by the frustration of not being able to be seen to be leading the world down the ETS/CPRS path. There is rational science out there that questions the role of CO2.

    Fielding asked Wong and Gore to explain CO2′s culpability. They couldn’t or wouldn’t, so why would a rational person pursue ETS/CPRS in the absence of a plausible explanation?

    Rudd should not be surprised when rational citizens refuse to swallow his dogma. Instead of resorting to rudeness he should ask himself why he is choosing dogma over facts. He needs to do a bit more homework!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yeah Lionell on my home PC the Name fills with the autotext Matt Buckels, and at work MattB. I disagree with your assessment of mine and Brian’s use of the word “selfish”…

    Personally I’m selfish, and my desire to see us deal with climate change is selfish. I’m not in denial of individual selfishness, nor do I think it is a bad thing – in fact it is exactly what evolution and progress depends on in many ways.

    Personally I think that in context Brian used the word in a negative sense, but really that was in context with the post he was replying to and I think it was pretty easy to understand without worrying whether at the core of Brian he thinks being selfish is actually a “bad” thing.

    Quite clearly though Brian has used “selfish” to mean something opposite of “being interested in the well-being of humanity”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    John, Rudd is squeezing the life out of Turnbull and causing public fracture in an already shattered opposition, and much of the political commentary is fairly of the opinion that Rudd would as happily say to the people “I tried my best but the luddite opposition stopped me” as “hooray we convinced the opposition of the values of the CPRS”. The first makes Turnbull’s leadership untenable, and he is the only politically viable option. The latter will expose great division within the libs and most likely will see Turnbull ousted or white anted for years.

    This is why they need to play the nuclear card, and play it now and play it HARD. Please don’t forget that I am pretty much 100% opposed to the CPRS in present form. I’m not a coalition supporter but this is a battle I want them to win.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Matt, are you trying to say that the only reason anybody would about ETS et al is because they don’t want to give up their “lifestyle”?

    The thought of that really makes me less sick than the thought of Total Losers like Al Gore dictating that no one should develop or improve their lot in life with the benefit of hydrocarbon energy.

    Doesn’t that make you sick to your stomach Matt?

    Doesn’t that make you a lot more sick than the idea of some “catastrophe” that no one has any evidence whatsoever?

    One is real suffering, Matt, sure as hell, quantifiable too.

    The other is wishful thinking, religious delusion, or just plain paranoid psychosis, depending on how you look at it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Brian, before I reply are you missing a word in the 1st sentence?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB @ 202,

    Yes, we disagree on the assessment and on what kind of evidence is necessary to make that assessment.

    Brian’s question was only a question. It is not valid to infer any value judgment on the part of the questioner unless the value judgment is given. Your post give a clear indication supporting an inference of negative evaluation of selfishness on your part.

    Am I to presume that you don’t say what you mean and don’t mean what you say? If so, then your posts are more akin to verbal graffiti than I had surmised.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No Lionell, I say what I mean, I mean what I say, and I mean it when I say that you are not making an unbiased assessment of the conversation, but instead are making some obscure interjection totally based on your desire to be nitpicky and to cause division, in an otherwise pleasant discussion between Brian and myself. So please move along queitly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Yes sorry the sentence should read

    “Matt, are you trying to say that the only reason anybody would COMPLAIN about ETS et al is because they don’t want to give up their “lifestyle”?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Matt,

    Lionell obviously has every right to say anything he likes, you don’t need to respond if you don’t want to,

    I will say, however, you would do a lot better paying heed to what Lionell says, than paying heed to some of the people who (I gather) have previously influenced you.

    Whatever it is that evidently appeals to people about the “go green/global warming” crap really mystifies me. It is absolutely nauseating to me, as it is to many others, and I suppose some of my reactions are the result of my complete stupefication over anyone’s apparent endorsement of it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Brian I’m sure there are many who take that approach that I find fairly nauseating too. For every mad libertarian arch-capitalist there is a greeny getting on AGW because it is the opportunity to power-down, slash global population, promote NIMBYism, or just because “big-oil” don’t like it.

    I have a feeling that even if you throught AGW science was true you’d be nauseated by much of the green movement, and would think that Obama’s approach to cap and trade (and Rudd’s) was crazy policy, and you’d not be a shrinking violet in leting people know about it.

    Also no I’m not trying to say it is the “only” reason, but I’ve no doubt it is a reason for many, just as some only want one as it will move society towards their “ideal” lifestyle.

    Now as for the science well you know which side of the fence I sit on. I’ve a university physics and environmental engineering degrees from a decent Aussie university so I don;t really fit the bill of a crazed greenie… although the latter degree was hampered because I was back then a tad caught up in some greenie arguments about sustainable energy (so you could say I have form in not letting science override my politics). You can argue the whys and wherefores of crazy postmodern science or whatever, but I’d put forward my support for nuclear power as evidence I do put evidence before ideology, and can filter spin and politics from science.

    the connection that I really don’t see is your belief that reducing CO2 is going to lead to real and quantifiable suffering? UNless it is like the DDT “ban” that has lead to real and qualitifiable suffering… in which case I think is is a belief based on your politics sorry. You would say the same about me so I don’t mean to cause offence in saying that.

    I can say however that I’ll gladly change my POV, and will feel no embarrasment about my current position, should one day I see real evidence that AGW is a con.

    Anyway I waffle. Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And Brian could you just humour me and explain in the context of my and Lionell’s chat just what you meant by selfish when you said:

    “Why do some people think people who oppose something do so for selfish motives?

    Personally, I am interested in the well being of humanity.”

    To me your use of “selfish” has “an inference of negative evaluation of selfishness”, even if you were only doing that as you’d figure that Joel would put negative values on the word “selfish”. So me you use “selfish” to mean opposite(ish) of “interested in well being of humanity”. True?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    the connection that I really don’t see is your belief that reducing CO2 is going to lead to real and quantifiable suffering?

    You’re joking. You’re just pulling my leg. Ha ha ha I’ve told worse jokes in my life

    should one day I see real evidence that AGW is a con.

    The evidence (or lack thereof) of AGW in the physical world isn’t “real” enough for you?

    The fact that you don’t “observe” this evidence is bevcause it is physically impossible for you to see it – isn’t enough for you?

    It would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics if you were to “witness” this evidence

    – you will never, I assure you, witness anything in the corporeal world that will do that, in your entire life


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I do now however, understand where your belief in the fantasmagorical arises.

    You were inclucated with it whilst attending school.

    Pity


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I can’t blame school (you mean university I think US folks call them school still?)- my honours supervisor hated cap and trade and economic solutions, was interested in the engineering solutions, and certainly was no nutty greenie (very pro nuclear – that was what did me in back then). My anti nuclear and pro-economic solutions (with economics assisting the tech solutions to emerge, as there were none back in 1996 that I could find) really didn’t go down well.

    People are a product of society and culture Brian, and I can’t deny that being a child of the 1970s in the UK with anti nuclear protests and rising green sentiments in a liberal-democrat family. Sue me:) My father thinks I’m an idiot for thinking nuclear is ok, but he is hardly a rabid greenie (ie we never went to protests, I mean on the tv).

    But we really are now at the core of the matter… you really think this is going to screw us over (and not just this bogus CPRS/ETS scheme but just reducing GHG emissions as a basic principle). Wheras I tend to think doing nothing will screw us over. You say you’ve told worse jokes, but honestly this side of things is given very little coverage, Stern says it will be OK, so did Garnaut, if it was that obvious then surely someone politically would be making this argument other than farmers (whose argument is it is bad for farmers not bad for civilisation).

    So if we can just put the science aside for a moment, and I hope I’ve not lost your interest as you slipped back in to dismissive mode just then, can you point me towards the economic analysis that supports your viewpoint. If I thought that we didn’t have the know-how to get a solution that furthers society and provided sound economic foundations I’d be far more hesitant to back action, as I’d figure the “planet” will be fine (it has been through a lot in the past with or without humans). GLobal warming may well kill us off, but maybe it is better letting 8 billion die in 100 years than 1 billion live forever (as this still means 7 billion have been knocked off)?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And just to add some perspective, my supervisor (remember this is back in 1997) was Prof Jorg Imberger the current Western Australian Premier’s Scientist of the Year, and that is a Liberal (conservative/republican) Premier with a party full of climate skeptics (ref: A-K Littler)

    To be honest I cringe to think what he must have thought of me back then:) We live and learn.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    when I say current I mean now in 2009.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Some British have tried to make seem un-British to be a “denier.”

    But with the average John Bull on Market Street, they have failed.

    John Bull’s instincts (correctly) told him AGW is a scam to relieve him of a lot of money to make him suffer more for the Government’s whims.

    I would be apoplectic if I heard Lord Stern come out and say, “the proposed answers to this are going to cause untoward misery.”

    Lord Stern would never be where he is if anybody thought, even for a moment, that he had the capacity to say such a thing even in his dreams.

    The man is obviously Orwellian in his devotion to his system, and Krudd, for whatever he is worth, would never be considered for any bureaucratic office if he had a dram of scepticism in his puling “character”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Helen Derrick

    Jo

    How do you think Labour is going to redress the enormous debt burden created by their alarmist stimulus policies? With the money garnered from ETS taxation of course. Why do you think their catawauling is increasingly shrill as the electorate wakes up to their chicanery.
    I am waiting to see the Labor faithful maintain their adulation for the Party line and Mr Rudd once they ( and all the rest of us) are paying extra taxes on energy and a legion of maufactured products whilst also forking out .7% of GDP. Any bets on the policing of the distribution of that largesse?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Oh Helen, if you think Howard or Rudd would not have done exactly the same in the GFC you are off your rocker.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Matt,

    Let me answer your question. You want to know why reducing GHG will screw us over. The main reason is because it’s only consequence will be economic harm. It will have no measurable effect on the climate. I know you want to believe that it will, but, for the reasons Brian mentioned, and many more, it won’t. The question you must answer, is what possible good would it do if it had no effect on the climate?

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Ms wong`s goffer and former comrade illuminerie of the ACTU, Greg Ivan combet, today in parliament announced that the curent high tempetures experienced in NSW this week not only

    “support the prime ministers views and indicated”

    the

    “trend is absolutely clear that the(global) tempeture is rising”

    on that note, I should like to announce I have some prime real estate atop uluru complete with boat ramps and uninterupted ocean views… Deposits in used notes please..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    well it will only have no measurable effect on the climate if it is true that GHGs have no measurable effect on the climate. But I’m not accepting a slight reduction in GDP or whatever as “economic harm” to the extent that Brian refers. FIne think I’m a fool but I’ll risk a small fraction of GDP in future years to tackle the issue.

    Clearly even Garnaut and Stern think there will be a cost involved, it is just that obviously Brian thinks the costs will be far more significant than Stern/Garnaut/Gore whoever would like us to believe. And I’m asking for sound economic research that shows this (unless there is also a consipracy preventing that research getting published).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Matty sez….

    I can say however that I’ll gladly change my POV, and will feel no embarrasment about my current position, should one day I see real evidence that AGW is a con.

    I thought that as an erudite scholar with a scientific bent that you could only be swayed by the triumph of logic and proven scientific theory. so how can you support the clearly bogus political dogma that looms so very large? oh yes…

    (so you could say I have form in not letting science override my politics)

    I see…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    lol Mark the johhny come lately liberal party parrot suggests I let politics sway my science! funny stuff. Mate Jo used to be a dyed in the wool warmist, and her hubby was on the AGW gravy train… my undergrad sentiments pale into insignificance compared to how much these two were at the trough of AGW. Do you want to comment on how that makes their opinions unrelaibale too? Thought not – because it is irrelevent.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    pieces of eight,pieces of eight. you didn`t write post 210 para 4&6 then?
    Thank you for imforming me of not only Jo`s pedegree but her hubbys, also. It`s great to know and positively reaffirms my position knowing that the woman who owns this site has such a comprehensive knowledge, not just of our anti agw stance but a well rounded intimate knowledge of this most powerful enemy. cheers matty. pieces of eight!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Polly want a cracker?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Matt,

    You still haven’t said what good can come from it. I think you’re also under estimating the costs. Don’t you recognize the massive transfer of wealth this represents? The justification is carbon guilt from the industrialized world driven by carbon envy by the third world. In effect, developed countries will be paying reparations for ‘polluting’ the planet with CO2. Given that if anything, the industrial worlds CO2 emissions are beneficial to mankind and that the third world is largely responsible for slash and burn agriculture, which is a far larger CO2 menace, this whole idea seems either irresponsibly stupid or deviously under handed.

    What’s worse, is that even if massive government intervention manages to make renewables cost competitive, the drop in demand for oil will further widen the gap. You also don’t get that government intervention is counter productive. as it eliminates the incentive to make renewables more cost competitive. There’s a lot of bad that comes from this and absolutely no good.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Terry

    @ Joel (#184)

    Joanne merely mocks the “scientists” that have turned their backs on science, on scientific rigour and the principles demanded of the profession.

    Somewhere along the line, the word “scientist” became diminished to mean someone with a science qualification instead of someone who practices science or scientific thinking.

    In short, these are not scientists at all, but political parasites leeching credibility from a profession for personal gain and to the detriment of us all.

    These people and those that support them demand ridicule from real scientists and the community in general.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    CO2… the good is stopping the planet from warming etc etc etc. I admit that is not much good to you if you think it is not warming:)

    You say I’m underestimating the costs… well I assume Brian thinks so too so I’m asking – where is the hard core economic analysis that says so? If people think there has not been enough debate about the science well there is even less about the economics. I’m not going to accept I’m underestimating the costs until you “show me the money”.

    Sorry but “the third world is responsible for slash and burn” but the “1st world’s CO2 is good” is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. Especially as you say it is a CO2 menace? Does the atmosphere say ahh that’s a good industrial CO2 but that is a nasty third world CO2???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    CO2… the good is stopping the planet from warming etc etc etc. I admit that is not much good to you if you think it is not warming:)

    It’s not much good if you go to all that trouble to control the climate then it turns out not to control the climate after all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    yeah ok or if the CO2 has nothing to do with whatever happens… that was a given. My point is I don’t think Brian et al are concerned that we are going to put a little dent in the economy, but a significant economy stopping disaster. I’d like to be shown why it is not those who think that we are going to absolutely screw the economy by limiting carbon who are the alarmists. It is their new major disaster to be averted.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cedders

    Isn’t Rudd just following other leaders and the advice of national science academies around the world? Doesn’t a global problem need a global agreement to deal with it?

    I’m not sure that the opposite of “sceptic” is gullible. What about people who are sceptical of official accounts of the WTC attacks, or that NASA put people on the moon? I’d call them sceptics, and I’m sceptical of their scepticism, based as it is on superficially inexplicable technical anomalies. Yeah, there’s nothing like a beautiful theory spoiled by a hard and ugly fact, but you quote all the usual objections and uncertainties to AGW theory, but nothing that seems to be a killer fact. A “denier” is someone who denies something, just as an “accepter” is someone who accepts something – it’s not supposed to say anything else about an individual, but “deniers” tend to be linked by common arguments.

    You imply in your comparison that Exxon is the only organisation in the US that funds “sceptical” organisations, but I doubt that. And surely you’re not comparing like with like: what is the $76bn you quote? The clean development mechanism? That money could be much more effectively spent, but it’s not to fund public relations companies and front organisations (like, presumably, “NIPCC”). How do you know Rudd, unlike his opponents, hasn’t spent “ten minutes” checking the evidence (presumably as prepared by advisers) and been persuaded by it?

    The IPCC includes plenty of contrarian voices, such as Pielke (Jr), which I presume moderates their conclusions, but I’m surprised if they’re predicting only a 1K rise. Over time period, and where is that stated? Most people seem to say 2K is practically inevitable by 2100, climate sensitivity is 3K or more, and isn’t there plenty of research saying 4-6K (7-11 F) if emissions continue to rise? You say weather balloons (radio sondes) “showed the models were wrong years ago, beyond all reasonable doubt” – but now it’s realised there was a systematic measurement error that means the findings are compatible with global warming. I read that noted sceptic John Christy now accepts that in a 2007 paper (J. Geophys. Res., vol 112). You say ice cores suggest “temperature controls carbon and not the other way around” – well, obviously CO2 is less soluble at warmer temperatures, but isn’t that a feedback effect that should worry us? And how can you generalise from a response that maintains Milankovitch effects over thousands of years to digging up and burning carbon that’s been buried for hundreds of millions over a short space of time? And as for the UK data, the five warmest years on record in 2007 were 2002-2006.

    Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t rising? Which? If, as you seem to be saying, climate change isn’t happening as the basic physics predicts, can you explain why not? Surely the IPCC makes it clear that there are natural influences on climate, both more and less understood? Have you seen IPCC graphs that show observations against “natural” effects, “anthropogenic” effects, and the two combined? Not only is the fit much better for the combination, but it’s clear the anthropogenic inputs are responsible for the long-term temperature increases. You demand evidence, but isn’t the IPCC there to provide not evidence of an effect, but evidence as to its size? They may not be perfect, but aren’t they the best we’ve got? I’d rather a metaanalysis or synthesis were done by experts in the field that by the media and PR companies.

    You “stand by Arisotle” – not one of the noted empiricists, indeed a philosopher whose notion of gravity Galileo (another of your exemplars) got into trouble for disproving with a thought experiment. Roger Bacon might be a better example of a believer in evidence. If you object to appeals to consensus of experts after discussion, shouldn’t you object even more to the 1999-2001 OISM campaign petition you refer to, a list of names mostly without any information about specialism or background? What do you make of the warning from the US National Academy of Sciences that the thousands of recipients might mistake the editorial they were asked to endorse for a NAS journal reprint?

    I don’t see any “bullying”, but there is quite a lot of noise about the facts, when it should be directed to what we’re going to do about the facts. In that way, isn’t Rudd on the right lines?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I can say however that I’ll gladly change my POV, and will feel no embarrasment about my current position, should one day I see real evidence that AGW is a con.

    Would you accept the narrower target of real evidence that current IPCC models are poor models of the global climate with severely limited predictive powers?

    * predicted hot-spot over the tropics, not corroborated by measurement.

    * past predictions of warming always been too high on decade or longer timescales to the limits of what we can measure.

    * predicted great sea level rises, not corroborated by measurement.

    * cannot explain recent increase in Arctic ice coverage.

    * never could explain Antarctic ice coverage.

    * never predicted recent cooling spree.

    * predicts CO2 isotope distribution, not corroborated by measurement.

    * predicts that CO2 should not lag behind temperature in ice-core samples (or if it does lag, then the lag should be very brief), but measurement suggests that it does lag, by a substantial amount.

    * predicts that critical tipping points exist, never found in any historic record, even when CO2 has been much higher than present.

    * predicts temperature momentum which no one can emulate in a physical experiment, nor can they discover a way to measure the hidden state variable in our present global climate system that would track the progress of such momentum.

    None of this entirely proves that AGW is a con, it does at least suggest that when I hear predictions like “Australia rising by around five degrees by the end of the century” I feel I’m entitled to be skeptical of a group with such a poor track record.

    Frankly I do believe in AGW, I merely believe that the overall effect of humans on global climate is small (and more significantly caused by changing surface albedo, land use and forest coverage than by CO2) and the natural variations in climate caused by a whole heap of other effects (including solar cycles) is larger. Adaptability is our best hope, because attempting to control the climate is at best a possible far-future concept that is well beyond anything we can do right now.

    I certainly do not believe in the IPCC description of AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t rising? Which? If, as you seem to be saying, climate change isn’t happening as the basic physics predicts, can you explain why not?

    Any back of the envelope basic physics calculation turns up a substantially different answer to what the IPCC predictions come up with. For example, CO2 is currently absorbing nearly all of available energy on the wavelengths that it can absorb. We are supposed to believe that each doubling is related to a 3K temperature rise but if double the amount of CO2 you can’t possibly double the amount of energy absorbed because that would be MORE than all of the energy in those bands. This process must meet a steep law of diminishing returns and there’s reasonable reason to believe we are well into that region already.

    Here’s another example: basic physics says that the latent heat of circulating water (i.e. the entire troposphere) should be able to transport heat across a gradient with extremely high efficiency. This technology is used in a heat pipe to cool computers and it is the same reason why if your pot on the stove is simmering then you can crank the stove right to the maximum but still not make the water boil more than one or two degrees hotter than a light simmer. We know that this process has not reached saturation because plenty of water is still laying around in the oceans and not circulating.

    By the way, the Mythbusters did a demo of dropping burning thermite onto a block of ice and they were at a loss to explain their observations. Any steam engine mechanic could easily explain it — thermite provides intense thermal energy, the ice turns to steam which converts thermal energy into mechanical energy, thus we have transport of energy over physical distance (and transport of anything else nearby, but that’s incidental).

    I would argue that climate change (as we have been able to measure it) is happening exactly as basic physics predicts — tiny variations in a system that remains trapped within a reasonably tight local range. Climate change has never (to date) happened in the way that the IPCC predicts, maybe it will next year, and when the IPCC can regularly deliver accurate predictions then I’ll take them seriously.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Matt Buckels @ 232: I’d like to be shown why it is not those who think that we are going to absolutely screw the economy by limiting carbon who are the alarmists.

    I have reproduce, in full, my answer to techskeptic from http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/13/the-skeptic-that-wasnt/#comments

    Lionell Griffith:
    March 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am

    techskeptic: Basically your whole diatribe there is comes down to this: “We can’t do it now, so we shouldn’t do it” Its a head in the sand, recipe for economic cliff diving. You want to be a follower and have to buy stuff from other countries, well thats your perogative. I think its pathetic.

    What you are evading is that we have a compounding of the following factors:

    1. The energy density and timing of sunlight is insufficient to power modern civilization today by any reasonable extrapolation of current technology.

    2. Wind, algae based oil, waves, wind, solar heat collection, photovoltaic, biomass, and hydrological sources have as their source of energy: sunlight.

    3. None of the methods of use of solar energy are anywhere near 100% efficient. By the time you capture, transform, store, transport, and consume, the net efficiency is not much higher than a few percent.

    Item 3 will vastly multiply the foot print of alternative energy sources. Add to that the likely an additional 50% to 80% of the capture area will be required for access, facilities, processing, transport,….

    If we can’t use the small foot print in ANWR, how are we going to be permitted to use the gigantic multiple foot prints of your so called alternative energies? Then if we can’t use our current high quality high density energy sources, we can’t even start to build the impossibly (partly because its prohibited) huge alternative energy sources.

    The result of prohibiting the use of carbon based energy AND of requiring only alternative (ie solar energy) be used is the stopping of modern technological civilization. The ONLY real alternative that will work is to continue to use our carbon based sources of energy and nuclear fission energy while working on inventing a nuclear fusion source of energy. The so called alternative sources of energy are capable of only of fringe application. At best, they could provide 10% or so of the required energy. Even then it would be at a totally uneconomic price – as we have already experienced.

    I don’t know about you but I live in a real world where goals can be met only by using the specific means necessary to achieve them. Wishes, fantasy, commandments, desires, and temper tantrums don’t impress the real world. This real world requires that one encompass a wide and deep context so that your decisions and actions will be coherent with it. Otherwise, your decisions and actions will fail to have your desired result.

    PS: Even the all but useless Mojave Desert recently has been put off limits to the development of a rather modest solar electricity project. This demonstrates that even the *sacred* alternative energy projects will be prohibited because it will “injure the environment” for a few useless bugs, plants, and turtles. See: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7139140 for details of prohibition in process. Even the environmentalists can’t agree: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/science/earth/24ecowars.html I would be praising this to call it idiocy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Matt,

    The problem is that you think that reducing CO2 emissions will stop warming, when in fact it won’t. You even cite this as the one and only benefit of CO2 regulation, yet when asked, you can’t cite a single paper or physical law that supports your conclusions. You cite plenty of evidence that CO2 is a GHG, that man is putting CO2 in the atmosphere and that the climate changes, but none of this establishes a causal link. Moreover, none of this is even controversial, yet for an unknown reason, the AGW faithful seem to think that AGW skeptics think the facts are in dispute. It’s not the facts that are in dispute, it’s the speculative conclusions drawn from those facts that are disputed. Meanwhile, your intransigence continues, despite a large number of very convincing papers and physics that supports only a minor climatic role of incremental CO2. You simply presume a strong effect exists and believe accordingly, most likely because you want it to be true.

    You also need to recognize sarcasm.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Matt,

    The reason carbon regulation will screw the economy is very simple. In the US, over 1/3 of our electricity comes from coal and all of our cheap electricity does, primarily because coal is a plentiful, domestic resource. The projections are that the cost per KW to produce electricity from coal will at least double as the result of cap and trade. Coal costs about $40/ton and carbon offsets are expected to cost between $30 and $70/ton. This added cost will trickle up to affect the costs of everything we consume. Much of the manufacturing base in the NE US relies on cheap, coal fired electricity. Transportation is one of the costliest components of every product made and delivered (taxes are probably the only cost that is larger). Transportation is built on fossil fuels, which will also see a dramatic increase in cost. This will also trickle up to affect the cost of everything.

    We are talking about doubling the price of energy. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the effect this will have. Why do you deny the effect this will have?

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Buster Bunns

    It has been estimated that here in the US we will need an additional 4 terrawatts of additional electricity production by 2030. That translates into the need to be completing one nuclear power station per week for the next 20 years. This is not being done or even considered because of legislation that essentially killed the nuclear industry and is only now being slowly repealed or by-passed. In the meantime the needed electricity can only be provided by coal and gas fired power stations.

    Gas is preferable for its lower emissions but yet again we need to overcome transportation issues. We have plenty of gas in the Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma fields. The problem lies in the size of the pipes bring the gas to its markets. They are too small, having too been restricted by ill considered legislation.

    So in the short term, that leaves coal. Given the current mood of the American worker and the middle-class, it is highly unlikely that any legislation from any source will be passed to restrict this energy source as a means to generate electricity. If the Greens really want to relegate coal to the history books they had better get on the nuclear bandwagon and fast. Otherwise gas and coal will be with us for many more decades to come.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Coal gasification to syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and CO), then syngas to Fischer-Troepsch oil as diesel fuel, OR, syngas to methanol, and methanol to gasoline (Mobil process). The process can be carried out cogen so that electricity from the combined cycle can be used in a cryo separation of oxygen from air to enrich the air used in the gasification step. (Probably sell electricity back over the fence too.)

    The yield can be enhanced considerably with additional hydrogen, and that can come from a nuclear operation sited nearby and running electrolysis with off-peak electricity, and the oxygen from the electrolysis can be used for the gasification step also.

    When everything is optimized everything carefully then about 0.4 kg of CO2 are produced per FINAL litre of 89 RON gasoline, using a good grade of anthracite coal. For bitum coal, the CO2 waste gets a lot higher because the heat value of the coal just isn’t there to get the processing temperature up.

    That is the best one can do with best available technology right now, the final CO2 is waste, let it out in the atmosphere. Good for plant life.

    So why aren’t we doing this now? Because, of course, the Communists would scream worse than they would for a 2 mm rise in sea leavel; Greenpeace activists would chanin themselves to the ground before a bull dozer could move any Earth.

    [It would make a fine final resing place for some Greenpeace activists though, wouldn't it. Burial costs are minimised. Dedicate the site in their name, I say.]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Matt Buckels: Post 230,

    If people think there has not been enough debate about the science well there is even less about the economics. I’m not going to accept I’m underestimating the costs until you “show me the money”.

    Matt, here are some articles for you!

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1174.post

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?762.post

    Of course, until the “final” Bill is passed then more can be as to how World economies will be affected. I disagree with you stating not much has been discussed..Realists one of many main points is the “costs” concurred if “Cap & Trade” is passed! I will try to find more articles later. My Cousin needs my Computer!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Go one then CO2 which bit was meant to be sarcastic?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Matt, you claim there has been little debate about the economics of an ETS – do you read The Australian newspaper?

    Please check their archives, or go to the library and ask for back copies. For the last 3-4 months there has been ample information and debate there.

    George (#238) puts it better than I ever could, but really, common sense dictates that if you are trying to stop or reduce the use of fossil fuels by making it more expensive, then … errr … it will be more expensive.

    How much more expensive? Enough to make us stop using it or shift to more expensive renewables.

    What will be more expensive? Everything affected by the cost of energy – which is pretty much … everything.

    Who will pay? Why, anyone who consumes energy, or partakes in any activity or process, or buys any goods that involves the use of energy: Consumers = all of us.

    Or perhaps you think, like some folk, that “the big polluters” will bear the cost and grit their teeth? If so, you’ve bought the spin, I’m afraid.

    As I’ve said before, there is no way around each of us thinking for ourselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    “Go one [sic] then CO2 which bit was meant to be sarcastic?”

    Now, now, gotta use your own noggin, Matt. Don’t ask us to do your thinking for you;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    AK believe me I’ll never ask you to do my thinking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    AK post 243 yes thanks Einstein I’m well aware there will be a cost. I’m asking for evidence it will be significantly more expensive than everyone is aware of.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    To everyone else other than Matt, who is evidently incapable of grasping much anyway:

    The cost will become astronomical, because there is nothing to prevent the middleman from buying CO2 permits at low cost and then holding business ransom at exhorbitant cost. This feature is inherent in the system and cannot be prohibited or eliminated.

    People doing business paying for “carbon” are going to pass all carbon costs right on down to the consumer who cannot pass the costs along to anyone else. All of these costs are going to wind up right on the bottom on the people who can least afford to bear them.

    This is obvious to a third form day student at an ordinary inner-city school, it is beyond Matt, and it will remain beyond his grasp in perpetuity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Matt,

    Anybody with a brain is already aware that the costs will be significant. Even those on the side of carbon taxes readily admits that the the costs will be high, but go on to justify the expense under the populist banner of ‘saving the planet’ The point is that the planet doesn’t need to be saved, nor is it even within our ability to do so if there was a danger. There’s no pending carbon catastrophe, except perhaps running out. The solution being proposed is worse than the problem, and this is even if you buy in to the alarmists conclusions about consequences. If you’re like me or the many other readers here who can actually follow the science, there can be no justification whatsoever for carbon regulation. It’s all cost, consequences and no benefit.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brian G Valentine:

    Imagine this! Just visited the site. Using the “Spin” of an Electron to create dense memories in quantum computing…The strides are breathtaking to say the least!

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/40758


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    co2isnotevil: Post 248,

    It’s all cost, consequences and no benefit.

    You forgot one other word co2 and that is “Pure Politic’s”!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    What they aren’t telling you there Denny is that the errors in “quantum computing” grow exponentially with the number of qubits, you can get that down to something like error proportional to N**N – N! with some algorithms, but suffice it to say, even if quantum computing can ever be made to “work” (I don’t think it will frankly) it’s dead at the starting gate anyway.

    No matter. Moving a ton of dirt is moving a ton of dirt, no matter what else, that’s that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry Brian I don’t accept the middleman argument, or not such that it can be applied to carbon more than any other marketable commodity, like Oil for example. Sure there are ups and downs, occasional bubbles, but I don’t see businesses being held to ransom leading to “astronomical” costs.

    Of course costs will pass down to consumers. Like “Duh”. I never picked you as a communist Brian.

    “obvious to a third form day student” and “anybody with a brain”… hmm you guys are plumbing the depths of intellecual arguments.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    yeah yeah i misspelled intellectual sue me:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Welp, as they say in the USA – maybe you can get a job in the PM’s office as a “point man” to confront ordinary folk with fears that the Government programme will impoverish the Nation.

    Such a job will require a thick hide, make no mistake of that


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Oh – to answer your issue about costs, Matt.

    Oil is a commodity; if someone jacks up the price, someone else can sell it cheaper and it keeps the price at what a free market will bear.

    Permits are not commodities. Either a business has them, or they don’t. There aren’t substitutes for permits –

    and the unique character of them, Matt, is why they are incompatable with a free market economy.

    [it's just crappy dealing with sceptical sixty year olds isn't it. They're so damn smug, they think they know all the answers, they stink]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    I agree with Brian about quantum computing. It seems promising from the magnitude of the numbers, but suffers in the implementation. Something like the human brain seems to have gotten the error down quite a bit by imposing structure on the underlying randomness. I think the next breakthrough will be nanometer scale self assembly of centimeter scale computing structures, i.e. chunks rather than chips. It would be some kind of hybrid between biology and machine. The fact that brains exist is the proof of concept.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I used to like computing.

    But there’s no substitute for insight, and the greatest computer in the world can’t produce a drop of it.

    It won’t produce two cents worth of common sense, either, and given the lack of 0.1 cents worth of common sense in today’s world, I am not real hip on computing


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Matt: “I’m asking for evidence it will be significantly more expensive than everyone is aware of.”

    Define “significantly”, and tell us please what it is that everyone is aware of. Personally I am only aware of the government spin that “it won’t cost very much”. If we’re all still talking about the ETS, given that it will be market driven, and that the Government will guarantee increasing scarcity by removing credits from circulation annually, this will be every trader’s wet dream of ever increasing profits, and ever increasing cost of energy for us.

    What Brian said above is exactly right: You can’t compare with actual commodities like oil.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ok AK – lets say the Garnaut Report and take that as “everyone is aware of”… so public realm and high profile analysis that has looked at a lot of economic models etc.

    So say Garnaut says cost will be $X, and that it is manageable. I was to see where it says $10X or $100X and it will floor the economy.

    Also I don’t agree, there are a number of permits and they are traded… the permits act just like a commodity surely. Businesses either have a commodity or they don’t. If they need more they buy on the market, if they need less they sell.

    But given the theme of this blog in general, is it too much for me to ask for some sort of reference to genuine economic anaylis that backs up your concerns Brian.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    A few people with some common sense will save the free world from disaster, I’m pretty confident of it;

    Rudd is a fool who will say anything just to be UN top dog, Obama is a patsy who will say anything to please the people who inflated him from nothingness to the Presidency,

    Both of them are transitory, what is left is the will of the People not to demolish themselves with certainty over hare-brained schemes.

    Civilisation has survived world wars and other acts of lunacy, we’ll be all right in the end


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “A few people with some common sense will save the free world from disaster, I’m pretty confident of it”

    actually Brian I could not agree more. maybe that is why I’m not too concerned. I figure the chances of AGW burning us to a cinder are slim as when push comes to shove we’ll figure a way to wean from carbon(blind faith in human endeavour perhaps but as you say we’ve gotten through stuff in the past). SImilarly I can’t imagine that a scam (if it is one) could lst long enough to seriously derail the economy in any meaningful long term sense.

    Is it wrong to be optimistic about humankind?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ray Hibbard

    MattB post 261

    Is it wrong to be optimistic about humankind?

    That depends. What is your definition of an optimistic outcome, that we won’t annihilate ourselves? If so, I would be inclined to be ‘optimistic’ in that regard. Past that my optimism melts like a snow cone on a beach. There can be a lot of damage done between not doing something stupid and self annihilation. Just a casual stroll down through history should prove that to the casual observer.

    Brian is correct in pointing out that sooner or later when mankind embarks on a lunatic path the grownups eventually take over and sanity returns. But that does not diminish the value of staying off the lunatic path, and I don’t think he means to say it does.

    Something about the conversation, whenever we talk about humanity and the things it does has always struck me as strange. You hear and see these statements such as “Everybody wants peace” and “Nobody wants war” and “War never solves anything”. The first two statements are patently false because if they were true there never would be any wars. The third is false because history would teach that just about everything in the 20th century was decided by war. And the 18th and the 17th and the 16th, I could do this all night.

    Don’t intend on changing the subject to war but just using it as the most drastic example of stupid human tricks.

    I don’t think that the fact that we will most likely survive yet another stupid idea from on high is justification for unalterably changing the life trajectories of vast numbers of people and possibly causing their early demise. If you want an example of how permits have great effect on the price of the underlying commodity look no further than zoning laws. In some areas zoning is the prime mover of real estate prices.

    I have to ask you a question MattB what function has Government performed so brilliantly and with such efficiency that it compels you to want to give more power, in this case a great deal more power, to Government?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Marek

    Some time ago, to provide evidence in the discussion on one of the environmental blogs, I did quick research about financial institutions involved in the carbon market.

    In my post from “Wed 28 Jan 09 (06:22pm)” I’ve listed almost all world biggest financial institutions involved in “trading hot air” if someone is interested.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    melanie

    There are a lot of people blogging and they all should tell evrrone else they know and so on to heap emails ph calls etc to all the politicians telling them we know its a fraud and to stop it ,a call for a class action against the fraud for money ,scare stories frightening our children and teaching the fraud science is in order i think ,this says it all ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gefSwMCTjuc ive converted this to phone and spreading it to all the kids.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    nevket240

    Brian G V
    Krudd is after Ban the Moons job. He sees himself as Kev the First. Imagine that Thugocrat as the final arbiter of anything to do with ‘thinking’. Beggars belief but that is his goal. Hence his jumping on the AGW bandwagon to prove his loyalty to the cause.
    regards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Thank you Jo Nova, you have summed this up perfectly. I wonder if any of the Journos in the room were as astounded as all of us are. Kevin Rudd is just getting stranger and stranger.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You know.. I have given this some thought. IF they where serous about this, instead of CAP and TRADE, it would JUST BE CAP!!! sorry about the caps… Anyways, Merry Christmas!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mick Augustus

    Anyone capable of reading…with an open mind..can see that the ETS is a tax based on global warming that is not happening. Talk is cheap..action is required. What can we do? Actively build a large email list,and encourage those on the list to do the same…gather the information..send it on…for those who don’t have email..print and post it. Next step..contact your local,state and federal member..state your concerns, ask for their position on the ETS and global warming. Teach those on your email list to do likewise.The only thing that will get the notice of politicians is voters who control their destiny. This issue goes beyond party politics,self interest or wanting to be acclaimed on the world stage.( Kein Rudd}.It is my experience that some people don’t have the time to do the research, or the motivation to find the time..but when the facts are laid out for them..they will listen. No one else will protect Australia..we must do it ourselves. I have over 50 on my email list and building…you can make the difference. Mick A.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So paradise you’d prefer cap and government allocation of carbon rights?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Malcolm Miller

    I don’t see how I could possibly vote for a Rudd government at the next election. His delusions of future grandeur as President of the UN or of the World are just too much. Tony Abbott actually seems a lot more realistic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mary Alderson

    Have any schools been told of the existence of The Climate Sceptics?
    My husband is a teacher and Climate Change is taught at Year 11 or 12 level. His school makes use of Al Gore’s self aggrandisement DVD and The Great Global Warming Swindle DVD and I think the school would buy multiple hard copies of at least one of your books because the teachers at his school believe in encouraging students to question and to find answers that make sense on all topics, including Climate Change.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] to use clean energy.  Awkward. To complete Rudd’s pratfall, the fabulously named Jo Nova takes Kevin to the woodshed for his attack on skeptics. Kevin herds tribbles. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] publicly scold until they start thinking correctly. Australian climate skeptic Joanne Nova’s spirited reply to Mr. Rudd is well worth [...]


    Report this

    00