JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

The new threat of a weak-Green carbon deal

The shifting ground in the climate debate means that now some of the Greens may realize they need to set their sights lower and accept a weaker ETS deal or get none at all.

Where before they would not accept Rudds proposals because they were too ineffective, they are now suggesting it’s possible. (I’d call them the “pragmatic Greens” except that the need for an ETS is based on out-dated science, stone age logic and fraudulent malpractice. )

The government needs 7 votes in the Senate. If they get the 5 Green votes, they need 2 others. There are rumours the last two votes could come from the two Liberals who crossed the floor to vote for the ETS in December (and against their new leader wishes and against the majority of their party).

The email campaign was a major success in November and December. I’m still hearing about it from members of Parliament. It burned an impression on Senators and their staffers that thousands of emails arrived, each one crafted individually, not “cut n paste automated emailling”. They had not seen anything like it before. They are still going through them.

These two Senators need to know how you (and your contacts in QLD and Victoria) feel about the introduction of a new tax system based on corrupt science. This is legislation that’s guaranteed to help large financial houses increase their profits, but not make any difference to lakes, wetlands, trees, birds or coral reefs:

Senator Boyce’s (Queensland) email address:  senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au
Judith Troeth (Victorian): senator.troeth@aph.gov.au

We can focus on Green politicians soon too. I’ll write more about that because it needs a different kind of email. There are good people in the greens too. I don’t think they have any idea how damaging these rules-based-on-fraud would be.

Please write politely.


Thanks to to Dennis for the info, and Gregory R for the update.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The new threat of a weak-Green carbon deal, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2bh4g49

50 comments to The new threat of a weak-Green carbon deal

  • #
    David S

    You need to watch that very carefully, as from what I can see of KRudd he is capable of committing you to a one-sided treaty like the UK’s extradition treaty with the US, in which they can extradite our nationals without presenting prima facie evidence, but we cannot do the same to theirs.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Troeth and Boyce may be the conservatives’ weak links but there are a number of less than convinced Labor Senators who may well be disposed to err on the side of pragmatism. If ever crossing the floor was a vote grabber it will be over this ETS. Politicians are on notice that they will be remembered for how they voted on it. I think we need to keep up the Senators campaign with a view to informing those of all political persuasions. As we have just seen in the US nothing is certain in politics and the same thing applies here in Australia. By all means write to Troeth and Boyce but I would CC the other Senators and the Leader for greater impact! This vote needs to be based on public sentiment rather than a KRuddy deal behind the scenes so we should keep it in the open, just like the Tea Party movement in the US.

    00

  • #
    RexAlan

    Here we go again, once more into the breach my friemds.

    Must admit I thought the greens would do something like this, especially with the whole AGW theory collapsing around their ears.

    00

  • #
    Allen Frod

    “Politicians are on notice that they will be remembered for how they voted on it.”

    Good point, Treeman, and it needs to be brought home in any email campaign. Threat, perhaps, but so be it. Too much is at stake to shilly shally around niceties.

    A little off topic, perhaps, but related. One option to offer the pollies is that if we have to have some sort of carbon tax, then let it be raised on an objective measurement, verified by proper science, not the phony stuff we have been bombarded with.

    Ross McKitrick has proposed such as scheme based on the tropospheric hot spot that is supposed to exist, per favour of CO2. If the greens are right and the spot temperature does, indeed, go up with rising CO2 levels, the tax could follw suit. However, they would be caught in a bind in that if it remains static or goes down, then so would the tax.

    The greens are really caught with this one since all the models predict the spot, but as we sceptic deniers know that it does not exist, by failure of direct measurement, and cannot exist, as Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory asserts, then the sceptic denier position is secure.

    00

  • #
    Alan S

    You are in the Vanguard Australians, we poor b***tards in the UK have already given up our Sovereignty.
    Fight the bu**ers with all you’ve got.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Good luck with that email to the Greens.

    The email I sent to them last year received a response that they don’t actually read.

    Sent (Nov 28th):

    I suggest that you take 10 minutes to view the following message
    Link

    We must stop the useless waste of resources expended at the CO2 windmill.

    The environmental movement has helped to cleanup the environment in developed nations since the 1970′s. The results were remarkable.

    Let’s focus on propagating those improvements to developing countries; encourage them to leapfrog technology to at least the level of the mid-1990′s. The developing countries form a substantial and potentially-devastating environmental burden. Devastating if they do NOT rapidly adopt those viable technolgies.

    Most importantly; keep in mind that the environment is only worthwhile preserving if there are people who can enjoy it freely. Those in developing countries struggle against nature every hour of their lives. In doing so, their subsistence land-use denudes forests and turns plains into deserts.

    After our species becomes extinct; as there is a time for all species; nature will erase all trace of our existence on this small blue planet.

    Response (from Sen. Ludlam’s office Dec 14th):

    Thank you for contacting the Greens with your concerns about climate change.

    The Greens stand for meaningful action to deliver a safe climate. We have consistently promoted policies to achieve that aim, such as our Safe Climate Bill, and we do not shirk from opposing policies, such as the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which will hold it back.

    Rest assured that we did not lightly take the step of opposing the CPRS. We did so after extensive considered analysis of the legislation and many months of attempting to negotiate amendments with the Government to turn it from a barrier to action into a positive step. These attempts were rebuffed on each occasion by Minister Wong and the Prime Minister, neither of whom would consider any of the sensible amendments we proposed. Nevertheless, we are once again actively seeking to negotiate with the government for its third attempt to pass the legislation.

    While the government frames climate change as a blunt choice between action and inaction, even they acknowledged as they negotiated with the Opposition that there comes a point when action becomes so weak that it is useless. Even so, if the CPRS were merely too weak, the Greens might have supported it as a start. But we recognise that, when faced with a serious and complex problem, it is the choice of the right action that is vital, not the decision to act. Prescribing the wrong treatment to a seriously ill patient can hasten death rather than prevent it.

    The Greens oppose the CPRS in its current form not because it is too weak but because it would actually point Australia in the wrong direction. Its woefully weak targets and perverse design would actively encourage investment in coal infrastructure, and it would have set a terrible example to the world in advance of the Copenhagen summit, giving cover to other rich nations who, like Australia, prefer not to accept science-based emissions reduction targets. We received legal advice that says that, if a government chose to lift the targets to beyond the current 5-25% range, even more compensation to polluters would be payable.

    This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure.
    [snip]

    00

  • #
    Albert

    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av This interesting site confirms mean wind speeds were lower in the past before massive clearing of Victorian lowland forests, that’s why wind generators are used there.

    A few months ago, I sent Senator Judith Troeth an email giving my explanation of why Victoria has suffered droughts longer and more intense than usual.

    This is a brief summmary of what I said,
    The following is in reply to your comment “droughts are lasting longer and rainfalls have dropped, In short, I believe there is global warming. We need to take steps to remedy this.”

    Extensive land clearing has led to the part desertification of country Victoria, just as it does anywhere on Earth, the accepted formula being, less forest leads to less rainfall and soil erosion. Huge areas with no windbreaks as seen in satellite photos(what doesn’t speak doesn’t lie), are exposed and damaged by the hot dry summer desert winds from South Australia and the cleared smooth landscape has led to accelerated wind speeds which further dry the land and in bushfire situations they fan the fires with wind speeds probably not seen before, as in the 2009 fires.
    There are humongous eucalypt trees in Victoria that need humongous fires for seed germination, they resemble plantations with many trees the same size, this tells us they rose together after catastrophic fires and the smaller trees amongst them rose following catastrophic fires 20-40 years later, why do we live amongst them? Ash Wednesday with cinders landing in N.Z. taught many people nothing, nor did the previous catastrophic fires.

    Deforestation has certainly altered local weather, huge built up areas have raised local temperatures, some thermometers still remain in “heat island effect” areas with no consideration given to correcting the data, not just cooking it! In these circumstances there will always be new “record highs”, always.

    Unless we repair the landscape, these local climatic changes will remain until the day when the animals wake up and ask “where are the humans? they’re gone.”

    During the past decades as roads have been built into our forests, the incidents of bushfires has increased, some by negligence, the Police say most by arson. More access roads into forests gives arsonists more opportunities to light more fires, no CC induced fires from AGW here.

    00

  • #
    LINDA

    Ministers are elected and appointed to carry out the peoples will,and what is a benefit for the Nation.
    With logical and prooven policies and programs, that have been thouroughly researched and are truthful in facts.
    As to Ministers own personal thoughts ,and feelings when voting on bills,it has little importance, ministers are the spokes persons for the people.
    When ministers ignore the will of the people , one must look to who will benefit and who the Minister acts for.
    When Ministers vote against what the constituents directions are, and the response to a bill is ignored,they should stand down, resign and allow a Minister who speaks and acts for the people of Australia.
    Ministers when coming to the end of term in office, and going onto bigger and better places should be excluded from voting on Bills of National importance .
    Voters in Australia it is your duty to inform Ministers on every issue , that will affect you and your Country.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Done… Sent polite, but firm emails asking them to reject Kevin Rudd’s Great Green Tax on Everything.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Thumbnail

    Oops. I want to encourage people to watch this youtube. If you like it make it go viral. We need to stop this ETS.

    We did it once, we can do it again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc8mTwO3CA4

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    HERE ARE THEIR ONLINE WEB CONTACT PAGES ALSO:-

    Contact Senator the Hon Judith Troeth – Senator for Victoria
    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/contact.asp?id=GX5

    Contact Senator Sue Boyce – Senator for Queensland
    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/contact.asp?id=H6V

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Here is my email to the Greens Senators:

    Hello Greens Senators,
    I am thankful that you care about our environment, and there is more responsible government because of your efforts in other arenas.

    Please do NOT support the ETS in any form.

    Whilst I am aware of the possibility that many of you will back Kevin Rudd’s scheme, the Green Party will not get my vote without thoroughly informing the Australian people of the exact global temperature change expected as a direct result of this policy.

    I am confident that we can protect our habitat and the basic democratic property rights at the same time. A win/win. Why pick a lose/lose position?

    All Australian farmers have suffered because of our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

    I have attended a meeting in Goondiwindi of about 200 farmers earlier this week. Many of them have had their property rights taken off them by Queensland government, and then the Federal Government is using those ‘carbon credits’ to say we have met our targets as set out by the Kyoto Protocol.

    Other public meetings are planned. Some have attracted more than 400 people, including city folk like me.

    Speakers are lined up for events in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. This is a juggernaut that is just getting started.

    Go here to learn more.

    I am personally committed to supporting the farmer’s rally for their property rights, and educating young people about the real issues surrounding the Global Warming debate.

    Please view this video, which is a short description of the horror stories told by many farmers.

    Please don’t mistake main stream media ‘cooperation’ with Labor for any public support whatsoever for this ETS.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Thumbnail – good video – seems we might get a tea-party movement starting up here.

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Here is my email to Labor Senators:
    Hello Labor Senators,
    Please consider the political consequences for the Federal Labor Members and prospective Labor Senators in the upcoming election, if you choose to support any CPRS or ETS presented to Senate for voting.

    Whilst I am aware of the possibility that many of you will back Kevin Rudd’s scheme, the Labor Party will not get my vote, as they did at the last election should this legislation get passed in any form, without thoroughly informing the Australian people of the exact global temperature change expected as a direct result of this policy.

    Please put me down as a voter who will definitely change their vote on this issue.

    All Australian farmers have suffered because of our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

    I have attended a meeting in Goondiwindi of about 200 farmers earlier this week. Many of them have had their property rights taken off them by Queensland government, and then the Federal Government is using those ‘carbon credits’ to say we have met our targets as set out by the Kyoto Protocol.

    Other public meetings are planned. Some have attracted more than 400 people, including city folk like me.

    Speakers are lined up for events in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. This is a juggernaut that is just getting started.

    Go here to learn more.

    I am personally committed to supporting the farmer’s rally for their property rights, and educating young people about the real issues surrounding the Global Warming debate.

    Please view this video, which is a short description of the horror stories told by many farmers.

    I follow politics in the USA – Obama’s Democratic “left wing” government has been dealt a body blow. The very Democratic state of Massachusetts has only just elected Scott Brown, a Republican for Mass. Senator. Scott Brown ran on commonsense center issues and won handily.

    Issues like: Smaller government, less legislation, no cap and trade, stop spending, protect our veterans.

    Please take heed of what the Australian people are asking for, or you may do the Massachusetts ‘shuffle’ out of government, for a long, long while.

    Please don’t mistake main stream media ‘cooperation’ for any public support whatsoever for this ETS.

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    And finally, my email to Liberal and National Senators.
    Hello Liberal and National Senators,
    Happy New Year!
    Thank you for voting against the ETS in the current form, and under the current political situation.

    You have my full support for rejecting any CPRS/ETS bills presented to senate for consideration in 2010.

    It is my will that this legislation not be passed in any form, without thoroughly informing the Australian people of the exact global temperature change expected as a direct result of this policy.

    I am also very confident that we can protect our habitat AND basic democratic property rights. I don’t know of any astute political party that would ignore an opportunity to look good on two fronts at the same time.

    All Australian farmers have suffered because of our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

    I have attended a meeting in Goondiwindi of about 200 farmers earlier this week. Many of them have had their property rights taken off them by Queensland government, and then the Federal Government is using those ‘carbon credits’ to say we have met our targets as set out by the Kyoto Protocol.

    Other public meetings are planned. Some have attracted more than 400 people, including city folk like me.

    Speakers are lined up for events in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. This is a juggernaut that is just getting started.

    Go here to learn more.

    I am personally committed to supporting the farmer’s rally for their property rights, and educating young people about the real issues surrounding the Global Warming debate.

    Please view this video, which is a short description of the horror stories told by many farmers.

    I follow politics in the USA – Obama’s Democratic “left wing” government has been dealt a body blow. The very Democratic state of Massachusetts has only just elected Scott Brown, a Republican for Mass. Senator. Scott Brown ran on commonsense center issues and won handily.

    Issues like: Smaller government, less legislation, no cap and trade, stop spending, protect our veterans.

    Please don’t mistake main stream media ‘cooperation’ with the current government for any public support whatsoever for this ETS.

    Please be assured that I fully support and am indeed very grateful for the current position that the Liberals and Nationals have on an ETS.

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    I am also planning on emailing Labour MP’s – and let them know that THEIR political future rests with their senate colleagues.

    In my humble view, politicians understand one thing and one thing only. Votes.

    00

  • #
    Keith

    An encouraging poll found on the Canberra Times website today.
    Yes, I know it’s only an online poll, but not bad for a town full of shiny-bum public servants.

    Q: Do you want a global climate change agreement, with meaningful goals, at Copenhagen

    No, the science is unsettled, acting as a cover to impose new taxes
    (55.2%)

    Yes, this is our best hope to solve the pressing climate change challenge
    (44.8%)

    Total Votes: 5012
    Poll Date: 08 December, 2009

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    Senators Sue Boyce & Judith Troeth discussion

    Here is the AGMATES DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS:-

    http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/senators-sue-boyce-judith?commentId=3535428%3AComment%3A58958

    00

  • #
    Dinah

    I would like to know if there are any labor senators will be retiring in the next year or so. If there are then I would contact them as it won’t matter so much if they are dismissed by Rudd for voting against an ETS (as he has threatened if they don’t follow the party line)

    00

  • #
    Keith

    The Rudd media cycle seems to be getting back into full swing.

    First, we get more of the drip feed from the Tax Review.

    Then we get a carbon tax.

    Looking on the bright side, I expect new legislation will need to be introduced into parliament (will have to go through the Reps first), allowing plenty of time to pepper the pollies with emails.

    I simply cannot believe a government would even talk about introducing a new tax in an election year. Rudd’s hubris is off the charts.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but in the case of a tie, a vote is lost.

    There are 76 Senators:
    Libs 32
    Nats 4
    CLP 1
    FF 1
    Ind 1
    Total 39

    It needs 2 Libs to defect to pass the ETS Bill (assuming the others here don’t). Senator Troth is 70 and will not be standing again. Ergo, only convincing argument is likely to sway her. Senator Boyce is 59 this year and maybe is looking forward to another term.

    I had a feeling the Greens would try something like this. Maybe it’s time to remind them about the fate of the Democrats after only a couple of them supported the GST. Zealots that they are, it wouldn’t surprise me to see them commit political seppuku in support of their Luddite cause.

    00

  • #
    Matty

    Rudd is a huge coward and I go along with the view that he is not keen on this bill getting up himself. I’m not expecting him to do anything that increases it’s prospects. Hopefully those renegade Libs have an eye on the polls.

    00

  • #
    BJM

    This International Con Job just gets better and better – at coming apart.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

    However, they are trying to fight back. Ho Hum.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Thumbnail #11

    Nice little movie. Does anybody know what the music is? I can’t get it out of my head (like “Hide the Decline”) :-)

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Keith #18

    I am not sure that any media outlet could mount a valid survey, without sending it to a taxidermist.

    From the questions (and the response figures) you quote (I have not seen the article), this one forces a “yes/no” response. How many people looked at the survey and did not have an opinion? How many were not sure? How many wanted to vote “yes”, but did not agree that an agreement was the, “best hope to solve the pressing climate change challenge”?

    I think it is great that you brought our attention to it, but as an indicator, it is probably meaningless. Beware of surveys that do not quote a margin of error.

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #

    There are good people in the greens too.
    There might be a few, Jo, and maybe they’re only in because they haven’t yet found the courage to jump ship as you did. The rest would be happy ideologues and supporters of the party line no matter what.
    Hardcore Greens aren’t interested in bringing about change. They don’t want their policies achieved. On the contrary: the more remote and unrealistic their policies, the happier they are. Promoting ideas that are impractical or just plain stupid gives them a perverse sense of moral superiority. By keeping themselves out on the fringes they ensure that they will never be tested by the hard realities of holding political power.
    Matt Price summed this attitude up perfectly when he wrote “Bob Brown can posture and pontificate, knowing he’ll never have to legislate.”

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Whilst on the topic of things political:

    http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm

    The UK Parliament has announced an inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

    The committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:

    1) What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

    2) Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3rd December 2009 by UEA adequate?

    3) How independent are the other two international data sets?

    The committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon Wednesday 10 February 2009.

    Any interested party can lodge a submission, you do not have to be a UK citizen, or even a scientist (although I think that would help).

    As UK Parliamentary inquiries tend to be fairly rigorous, this could be very interesting.

    Perhaps we all need to start pressuring the Labor Government to delay the CPRS Bill until AFTER the results of the inquiry are released.

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    SUBJECT: Time for Meds? NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’

    This is the lunacy that this global warming issue has reached!

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4993/Time-for-Meds-NASA-scientist-James-Hansen-endorses-book-which-calls-for-ridding-the-world-of-Industrial-Civilization-ndash-Hansen-declares-author-has-it-rightthe-system-is-the-problem?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29

    00

  • #
    Black Duck

    ANGRY said:NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’.

    By his calling coal trains “trains of death” in the US & his advocacy & personal support of over the top protests in England he has already revealed his true colours. A psychopath. This latest confirms the diagnosis.

    00

  • #

    ANGRY wrote in #33

    Time for Meds? NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’

    As far as Hansen’s concerned, I suspect we ain’t seen nothin’ yet! And the delicious irony is that it is Hansen’s system which has played a very large part in constructing/suporting the invention of “the problem”

    Lurking AGW Alarmists (and I have no doubt you are legion) read it and weep:

    CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
    And if – for some unfathomable reason – that link doesn’t work for you, try:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/22/american-thinker-on-cru-giss-and-climategate/

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Climate scam, ClimateGate_RT. ClimateGate_RT said: #JoNova : The new threat of a weak-Green carbon deal http://bit.ly/6KcsYF #HideTheDecline [...]

    00

  • #
    Carrie

    Re the Greens and your comment There are good people in the greens too
    I challenge your assertion that these people are “good”
    Why should anybody go soft on them just because they individually might be socially “nice” people and present “good” faces to the world?

    They are supporting stealing money from me that I cannot afford on a scheme that is solving a non problem, and they are getting well paid for sitting on their respective behinds and spouting their religion. I don’t call that “good”. In Britain the green policies have forced the price of electricity and living so high that now poorer people are starting to get off the grid and are going to burning coal to get warm and candles to see by at night.

    I don’t think they have any idea how damaging these rules-based-on-fraud would be.
    Well they are voting on this legislation, shouldn’t they be doing the work of finding out? How much are they paid?
    These green people are not “good” at all.

    Jo, these supposedly “good” people are in the extreme green party for a reason, and that’s not a nice reason. They would walk over you with hob nailed boots to follow their religion and impose it on you. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what they are doing to the rest of us, and the industrial base of Australia. Never mind that people will lose jobs, homes, standard of living, with closure of the coal industry, and have to work harder to pay the taxes to pay for all these green initiatives.

    00

  • #
    Carrie

    Re Being Polite to Politicians. I think it is about time we stopped the politeness and started to shout really really loudly.
    This was my email to Qld Liberal Senator Macdonald after I received his press release the other day.

    Dear Senator Macdonald,

    You will NOT get my support while you are pursuing ANY emissions scheme. Daily it is being shown to be a crock. See the latest on the IPCC having to retract on the predictions about the Himalayan glaciers. See the latest on the march of the thermometers towards warmer areas and away from cooler ones. This has all skewed the figures. Solar, geothermal, wind or tidal programmes have ALL been shown to be costly and ineffective. Coal is best and we have millions of tons of it in Australia.

    I am disgusted that the coalition, and yourself, are still pursuing this costly crock. You are on a big salary, you can afford the increases in costs. I cannot. People are Britain are now talking of getting off the grid and going back to candles, they can’t afford the electricity charges. This is a disgrace.

    I am as MAD AS HELL about the coalition and this stupid costly policy being pursued instead of knocking it on the head. YOU WILL NOT GET MY VOTE UNTIL YOU CHANGE THE POLICY. You are betraying your liberal base, your business base, with crock science. Go after the green voters, see if they care about you in the long run. I am FED UP with the Coalition. Do NOT send me any more of this stuff until you can tell me you have changed that policy.

    MAD AS HELL ABOUT THIS. WILL BE CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THE COALITION IF IT KEEPS THIS UP.

    00

  • #
    Carrie

    What I am saying is that the Coalition’s scheme is going to be as costly as the Rudd Wong scheme, but instead of hitting us with the costs immediate, it will gradually creep up on us.
    I feel disgusted that the leader, Tony Abbott, although on record as saying this is a crock, is still supporting the introduction of schemes to combat global warming, so where is the point of difference for us voters?

    Oh, and good luck with the polite letters and emails to politicians. The only ones that consistently reply to letters and emails are the Nationals, to a member. I have sent Tony Abbott a large submission and letter with heaps of information about the climate, by registered post, and have received no answer. Also no answer to three emails also, merely an automated reply saying if I did not have my name and address I would not be read. (I already had this on but rather a cool message to constituents, poor public relations, hardly conducive to getting anyone’s vote).

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Carrie,

    Tony Abbott seems to be hedging bets in the face of uncertainty (not entirely a silly strategy) so he starts out slowly and makes tiny steps. If it turns out that the whole world is determined to go in the direction of a carbon treaty then he makes a few bigger steps, if everyone wakes up that the whole thing is a crock, then Tony’s position is easier to unwind.

    A straight-out Carbon Tax position is the best one if you need to unwind, especially if the tax starts out small. If you throw away the tax a week before an election then the public will be so amazingly happy to not be taxed quite as hard, they will forget about everything else that was done to them. A simple Carbon Tax also has far better potential to reduce CO2 production.

    Unwinding an ETS is messy once the banks buy into it, they onsell the indulgances to investors and the investors scream blue murder unless they make the profits that they were promised. Then they sue the government for changing the rules and demand to be paid off. Ugly stuff. ETS has much stronger lock-in potential than a simple Carbon Tax.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Carrie:

    My experience is similar to yours re response from Libs and Nats.

    I have received in return from various Libs the same rubbish about “fighting climate change”, but by other means. They have to be made aware that we have not been drinking the “Kool-ade” and that the whole notion has no basis in science. Make no mistake; they do know all about the CRU business; they just want to have a dollar-each-way in order to appeal to the “doctor’s wives” and other assorted “touchy-feely” types.

    It’s possible to be very firm without being abusive and it can’t be overstated that the spontaneous letter carries much more weight than mass-generated one. Except, of course, if you are represented by a Labor member. Caucus rules state that they must vote the party line or be expelled and lose their “meal ticket”. Fat chance of that!

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Tel @ 40.

    You beat me to the punch, but that’s fine.

    I remember Senator Joyce commenting on radio about the impossibility of repealing the ETS once enacted. All to do about property rights. Pity they aren’t so punctilious about Peter Spence’s property rights is all I can say.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    People are Britain are now talking of getting off the grid and going back to candles, they can’t afford the electricity charges. This is a disgrace.

    I suspect this is the Green Luddite agenda coming to fruition. Destroy the benefits of technology (in this case by taxing until the price is unworkably high) and force people back to a more primitive existence. The problem is that using candles actually increases the amount of CO2 produced by a substantial amount, which is the annoying thing about Earth Hour. Thus, the Green Luddites are forcing people to operate at a lower resource efficiency and hence consume resources faster. The end result is making the effect of high populations worse and pushing us closer to resource exhaustion disasters. If we continue to follow this path, the conclusion will be depopulation in very ugly ways (presumably, that is the Green agenda as well).

    http://lnx-bsp.net/news/2008/03/29/

    That’s my take on the Earth Hour nuttiness. Note that in terms of CO2, each small candle burning is equivalent to 250W of coal-fired electricity.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Even the normally witless State minister John Robertson commented about the stupidity of creating electric power that nobody could afford to buy.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    All to do about property rights. Pity they aren’t so punctilious about Peter Spence’s property rights is all I can say.

    The big banks would not bother with sitting up a pole to get attention, they would no doubt find more direct ways to twist a few arms :-) On the one hand there’s rule of law, on the other hand there is rule of whoever is powerful, you can’t please everybody.

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    SUBJECT: James Hansen: Would you buy a used temperature data set from THIS man?

    Have a look at what this LUNATIC HANSEN IS ENDORSING!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/

    This fellow is advocating TERRORISM in the name of the Church Of Al Gore!

    And he works for NASA!

    Obviously in this case NASA means Not A Science Agency!

    00

  • #

    Angry 46 – thanks for the link. Lots of useful material in the comments there.

    00

  • #
    Chris in Australia

    Hi Jo, A week ago, I drew up a letter pointing out my objections to the ETS and noting this legislation was wholly based on junk science and fraud.

    This letter was emailed out to all the Liberal and National Senators.

    A day or so after the mail out, I sent an email to my brother and found it had been blocked and received this message.

    This is the mail system at host rosberg.vc.bravenet.com.

    I’m sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It’s attached below.

    For further assistance, please send mail to

    If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.

    The mail system

    : host mx2.tpgi.com.au[203.12.160.123] said: 550 5.7.1
    … Client address [65.39.211.66] blocked. Listed
    on Barracuda Reputation Block List (BRBL). See
    http://www.barracudacentral.org/lookups?ip_address=65.39.211.66 (in reply
    to MAIL FROM command)

    I see in the above email that I’m on a “blocked list” so enquired to why this was so, and this is the email I received back.

    Thank you for contacting Barracuda Networks IP address: 65.39.211.66

    The Barracuda Spam Firewall has rules that apply to email sent from an IP address known to Barracuda Central with a “poor” rating. The Barracuda Spam Firewall has an option to decline email from these IPs. This is an option that the Administrator of the Barracuda Spam Firewall may enable. If the Administrator chooses to enable this option it may block email from your IP address.

    This IP has been seen by Barracuda Central to transmit spam email in the past 30 days.

    We have removed your “poor” rating. The IP will be automatically rechecked several times each day and may be adjusted again if issues are observed.

    Please allow between 12 and 24 hours for changes to propagate around the world to all Barracuda Spam Firewalls — at which time you will be able to send email from the IP address. This is the last email you should receive about this issue.

    Thank you for your time and understanding.

    Barracuda Central by Barracuda Networks
    http://www.barracudacentral.com/
    intent@barracuda.com

    Seems to me that someone in the Liberal or National Party, does not like getting lots of emails, mine plus all the others you claim to have been sent.

    Looks like there are another million questions to be answered on how we are being controlled and censored.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Chris,

    you might consider that you could have a genuine problem where your IP is being used for spam or port scanning. Possibly you have some virus software in your system somewhere that you don’t know about. One of the honey-pots seems to have picked up a bunch of the bravehost IP addresses, see here:

    http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ip_87.210.8.9

    This does not necessarily point to any bad behaviour on your part, it could be a lot of things that triggered this off, but that’s the sort of thing that will make the Barracuda firewall block you when someone has turned the dial up to “paranoid”.

    If those servers are out of your control, then probably have a chat to your ISP helpdesk and mention the incident.

    00

  • #
    Kevin

    I will post my analysis again in the hope that it will expand peoples thinking about this question. Please note that I have NOT replaced the term “reflected” with the more accurate term “re-emitted” in this text.

    I present this as an “alternative” interpretation of the “Man Made Global Warming” hypothesis. Comments and peer review welcome.

    The “Greenhouse Effect/Man Made Global Warming” Revisited;

    Much has been made for the last few decades of the “Greenhouse Effect” and the “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect a.k.a. Man Made Global Warming”. So, let’s review:

    Let’s start from basic principles, let’s follow “A Day in the Life of a Global Warming Photon”;

    1. A Photon of Visible Light (a.k.a. Sunlight) arrives on the surface of the Earth. Nothing spectacular here, this happens all the time when the Sun is shining.

    2. This Photon is either reflected or absorbed by the surface of the Earth. The visible reflected portion is not of much interest to the Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis, so we will ignore it for now.

    3. This absorbed Photon raises the temperature of the Earth by a small amount, no dispute here.

    4. The warmer Surface of the Earth then releases some Infrared radiation, no dispute here. The energy content of this emitted radiation is LESS THAN OR
    EQUAL TO the amount absorbed.

    5. This infrared Radiation MAY be absorbed (the chances are about 450/1,000,000) by a molecule of a “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere, no dispute here.

    6. This molecule of a “greenhouse gas” will be warmed by a small amount, no dispute here.

    7. This warmed molecule of “greenhouse gas” will emit something less than 50% of this energy back towards the surface of the Earth as infrared radiation, no dispute here.

    8.Some of this infrared radiation emitted back towards the surface of the Earth will be absorbed by the surface and thereby warm it, (ignoring for a moment that some is reflected), no dispute here.

    9. The surface of the Earth having been warmed by the radiation reflected by the “greenhouse gas” will thereby re-emit this as infrared energy back towards space, no dispute here. The energy content of this emitted radiation is LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO the amount absorbed. Note that the “Man-Made Global Warming” Hypothesis clearly admits that a warmer surface of the Earth emits infrared radiation, see step 4 above.

    10. This infrared radiation emitted back towards the cold vacuum of space MAY again be absorbed by a “greenhouse gas”, the chances of this occurring is now (450/1,000,000)*(450/1,000,00).

    11. This cycle continues ad-infinitium…

    12. Simply calculate the following equation to find the chances that a Photon is forever “trapped” by the alleged “greenhouse effect”; chances of being “trapped forever” = 450^N/1,000,000^N, where “N goes to infinity”. N represents the number of times a Photon is absorbed by the surface of the Earth and is ALSO absorbed by a molecule of a “greenhouse gas”.

    13. The chances of an individual photon being absorbed by a “greenhouse gas” TEN times is:
    450^10/1,000,000^10 = ~ 3.4×10^-34 = 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,34 !! (I have to admit I counted the zero’s several times, but I may be mistaken by a few)

    14. So, as N approaches infinity the chances of a Photon being “trapped” and forever after causing a “permanent warming” of the Earth quickly approaches NOTHING, or as we in the engineering field call it “ZERO POINT S–T OVER INFINITY”.

    15. Oh, by the way this simple calculation ignores the fact that something less than 50% of the energy absorbed by the “greenhouse gas” is emitted back towards the surface of the Earth.

    16. A more accurate equation is: 0.50^N*450^N/1,000,000^N, which for N=10, is even WORSE at ~3.3×10^-37, hurry up and add three more zero’s.

    17. The value of 450 (“greenhouse gas equivalent” in ppmv) is largely immaterial, it could be 100ppmv or 5000ppmv, the outcome is the essentially the same. The chances of TEN “greenhouse gas” absorptions at “100ppmv” = 1×10^-40, the chances at “5000 ppmv” = ~ 9.8×10^-24. Either way, that’s a WHOLE LOT OF ZERO’S

    18. In Fact, even if the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere is 100% (BTW, we’d all be dead) the chances that a photon is ”trapped” and forever after causes a “permanent warming” of the EARTH is: 0.50^N*1,000,000^N/1,000,000^N, for N=10, this evaluates out to 9.8×10^-4. This case does of course become more complicated since no clear path from the surface of the Earth to the cold vacuum of Space exists. So there are many more absorptions and reemissions occurring.

    19. This final example is in fact the situation present inside a man made greenhouse. Glass replaces the “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere. Last we checked common glass is the same as a 1,000,000 ppmv “greenhouse gas”. In this case the glass is partially heated by the infrared radiation reflected from the ground. It then radiates from both surfaces of the glass (inside and outside), 50% to space, and 50% back towards the earth. In the meantime the restraint of convection causes the temperature inside the greenhouse to climb, until the Sun goes down.

    So in summary, we can suggest a few salient points:

    As predicted by the laws of Thermodynamics, no heat is ever “trapped” in the atmosphere of the Earth.

    The surface of the Earth (a.k.a. A WET ROCK) is not particularly well known for it’s intelligence. It is not capable of figuring out if it was heated by visible light, or by infrared light reflected from a “greenhouse gas”. Regardless of how it was heated the Earth emits this heat back towards the cold vacuum of space as infrared radiation, WITHOUT ANY NET GAIN IN ENERGY CONTENT.

    The fact that some of the Thermal Insulating Gases surrounding the surface of the Earth are heated only by conduction and convection (Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.), and other gases are heated by conduction, convection and the absorption of infrared radiation is INCONSEQUENTIAL! All of these gases participate in a huge heat transfer problem which still follows all of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Note that all of these absorptions and reemissions happen within time frames of microseconds, or less. So the thought that heat has been trapped and will show up in a decade, or two decades, or one hundred years is RIDICULOUS !!

    So the final result of a change in the proportions of gases heated by convection and conduction versus the gases heated by convection, conduction and radiation is that the response time of the climate of the Earth is ever slightly slower as “greenhouse gases” increase. This is the basic definition of a thermal insulating material (gas, liquid or solid), IT SLOWS THE FLOW OF HEAT. Since the ultimate forcing function is the Sun these changes (approximately one part in ten thousand) are overwhelmed by the changes in the Sun’s output (approximately one part in a thousand). Of course, there are likely to be other physical processes identified (i.e. the cosmic ray – cloud connection) that may expand our current understanding of the very complex system known as the “Climate of the Earth”.

    Further, we should discuss empirical observations. Much has been made of the observations of many events including the retreat of some glaciers, the alleged unusual melting of icecaps, delayed seasonal snowfalls, extended droughts, etc. etc. In general, empirical observations should not be used as a substitute for a sound, logical explanation of a physical effect. Empirical observations may be used to reinforce or refute a proposed logical explanation of a physical effect. IT CANNOT BE STRESSED STRONGLY ENOUGH THAT AN OBSERVED CORRELATION BETWEEN OBSERVATION “A” AND OBSERVATION “B” DOES NOT IN ANY WAY PROVE THAT “A” CAUSES “B” !! Or for that matter, THAT “B” CAUSES “A”.

    If the “greenhouse effect” does indeed exist, we should expect Man-Made Greenhouses to slowly heat up and eventually reach a “Tipping Point” and burst into flames. Of course this presumes the doors are kept closed to contain the hot air. Little empirical evidence of these observations exists. However, perhaps the government should immediately start a program to indentify our oldest greenhouses and prepare plans to open the doors everyday before people get hurt? This would of course align with the precautionary principle.

    Finally, yes, we know that a photon is defined as the smallest unit of light. We are aware that 50% of a photon is not a meaningful unit, but the logic of this argument is still sound. If you are concerned about this, you can rephrase this logical argument in Step 1 as: “a flux of 1 photon per second arrives on the surface of the Earth”. The conclusions are not changed. The original logic was written to make the sequence of events more readable.

    Cheers, Kevin Klees (New York State, Electro-Optical Engineer)

    00