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 Climate Spectator joins the gravy train

Here we go again. I like Alan Kohler, the economic reporter on the nightly ABC news. He likes numbers, graphs and hard data. Yet here he is, setting up a new project which looks like it ‘s another climate clone site analyzing everything carbon-related in the harsh light of day except the assumption about climate “feedbacks” that the whole error cascade is based on. (This is the same assumption that the empirical evidence has shown was too high by a factor of six.) [See here for my latest demolition and  here where a Dr of Paleoclimate comes unstuck.]

The Business Spectator wrote so sagely and incisively about the Super Profits Tax, I’d love to think they would apply the same sharp brainpower to the issue of climate. But Kohler writes:

“We were initially despondent when the CPRS was kicked into the long grass by Kevin Rudd,…”

Despondent? Imagine them saying “Interest rates were raised and we were despondent?”

But Kohler and the other economic commentators have been caught watching the money instead of the reasoning (they’re watching the wrong money too, here’s the money that speaks volumes). If upper tropospheric water vapor doesn’t increase as the world warms, the reason for the worldwide carbon market is null and void. And the radiosonde evidence, for example, is pretty insistent that it doesn’t. This is good news for the carbon shorts, but I guess the Climate Spectator won’t be reporting that universal cataclysmic systemic risk.

Will investors who are long on carbon (or renewables) be able to sue commentators after-the-fact when it becomes obvious that they were not given both sides of the story…

Will investors who are long on carbon (or renewables) be able to sue commentators after-the-fact when it becomes obvious that they were not given both sides of the story, were never informed about the empirical evidence contradicting the theory, and that thousands of scientists were shouting that carbon is a minor player?

The clue is in the Spectator’s inaugural post. It’s true both our major parties have policies to reduce our carbon emissions by 5% by 2020 (such is the power of the name-calling bullies that neither side is brave enough to stand up to them), and it’s true that with population growth that innocuous aim actually translates into a shocking 25% cut per capita in only 10 years. But that’s just it. It’s very ambitious, and very expensive.

Economic commentators like Kohler can see how much money that involves, which is why the idea of an economic commentary on climate beckons. But it’s also exactly why more and more people oppose it. Sure the financial houses are shifting course so they can tack into that climatic cloud of money that carbon trading represents. But that low hanging cumulus-cash is coming from the people, and that’s exactly why we-the-people are waking up. The more money that the bureaucrats and bankers want to take from us, the more we sit up and pay attention. Kohler thinks the need for carbon trading won’t go away; instead it’s the skeptics that won’t disappear. (Not unless there is an extraordinary new development in empirical evidence.)

The man-made global warming theory is falling in polls all over the Western World. It started slowly in 2007 and dropped off a cliff with ClimateGate (see US, UK polls and Australian Polls).

It’s good to see that a few skeptics have already left a plea in the comments for some impartial journalism. Will the Climate Spectator write about the unfolding scientific scandals and the doubts that arise over the science? Surely these doubts would be the most useful thing that any business magazine could write about, so that their investing readers were not caught blindsided and hocked up in a project which was based on an unfounded assumption. Surely there is a lot of money to be made shorting carbon permits, and in shorting renewable companies dependent on subsidies from government who believe in man-made global warming.

Here’s the announcement of the Climate Spectator, and here’s the new site itself:

The Climate Spectator

Pop in and make sure the editors know that many investors are also skeptics.

Engineers, doctors, lawyers, geologists and mining experts are too smart to fall for argument from authority. Kohler and others might be surprised at how many people who were with them all-the-way against the mining tax, are totally against any fiat currency based on data-sets that have been lost, and are unverified and unauditable, and are managed by guys who talk about hiding declines, deleting emails, and fobbing off FOI requests.

The groundbreaking paper.  July 2009.

Let’s try to save Kohler from investing his own good reputation in this sorry saga and painting himself into an embarrassing corner.

All together now: The opposite of Skeptical is …Gullible.

NB: To the Climate Spectator crew, if you want to get a summary of the scientific uncertainties that affect the risks of investing in carbon credits, I’m happy to help. As well as the Skeptics Handbook, I’ve written for the ABC, The Spectator, and The Science and Public Policy Institute. (See Climate Money.)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The Climate Spectator joins the gravy train, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/29ym96e

No comments yet to The Climate Spectator joins the gravy train

  • #
    val majkus

    I’ve left a comment on that site today but haven’t gotten through the mods yet
    But they have published a great comment by Cameron Hoare a retired scientist who asks why spend all that money when there’s no evidence that it’s going to solve anything
    Terry Cardwell has a great post which he’s sent in and I have suggested to him he might send it to here as well

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I love Business Spectator, and will follow Climate Spectator with a keen eye. Personally I’m glad we have these types crunching the numbers on the policy implications and “trusting” the science as otherwise bad policy will be implemented to deal with the problem without scrutiny.

    They are too kind on the CPRS however, it surprises me as I don’t recall them speaking of it in glowing terms. I think the despondency they felt was the fact that the climate agenda was being dropped, and they think that is bad policy from an economic perspective – they have written at length about the uncertainty in the energy investment arena.

    Business spectator regularly runs editorials by one of the Guys that Clive Hamilton lists as part of the Greenhouse Mafia (Keith Orchison), so certainly they have given both sides plenty of space before now – my assumption is that Climate Spectator would be no different.

    They are clearly on very strong ground, however, when they say that if we want to control carbon we should implement a trading system.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Alan Kohler is just another ABC zombie. The day the mining stocks shot up after Gillard’s coup d’etat he had the nerve to sneeringly report that the mining equities rose because of “all the money they would save” by ending their anti-super tax advertising campaign! Slanderous slime. It’s not the first time I’ve watched him blatantly mislead (that’s the nice word for it) the ABC audience about financial affairs.

    As an investor I use the ABC and Kohler as a contrarian indicator. For instance, on predicting the US/AU exchange rate, these idiots have a consistent track record of punting in the wrong direction.

    And you know if MattB loves ‘em…LOL. What’s that saying about a fool and his money?

    00

  • #
    Wayne

    Subject: What unprecedented warming?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_unprecedented_warming/

    Geology journal discusses the recent scare claims about “unprecedented” warming on just one small part of an otherwise cooling continent:

    Rapid warming and consequent ice-shelf collapse have focused attention on the glacial record of the Antarctic Peninsula…. Moreover, the data indicate that present reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented (http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/missing-news-nothing-unprecedented-in.html) and is similar to that experienced during at least three periods in the last 5600 yr.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    The opposite of Skeptical is …Gullible.

    The opposite of Skeptical is gullible.
    The opposite of Skeptical is gullible.
    Got it stuck in my head now.

    MattB:
    July 13th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
    “….if we want to control carbon we should implement a trading system.”

    Speaking of opposites:
    So if carbon dioxide levels fall too low for nature to thrive then the carbon trading price would go negative and the banks would subsidise a tax on carbon reduction schemes…Right?
    Sea surface temps are falling MattB.

    00

  • #
    Michael Cejnar

    I have posted some hopefully reasonable questions; lets hope they get published and answered.

    Post1:
    As a scientist independent of climate funding, I have watched climate models and CAGW consistently contradicted by actual measurements, Copenhagen fail, IPCC partly discredited, and a steady fall in belief in CAGW amongst voters.
    CAGW is being discredited and both parties have in fact side stepped an ETS – why would that be?

    In line with your clean start, you should explain to us why you think “..price on carbon .. is inevitable”.

    Have you examined the science and concluded CO2 will warm climate any more than the harmless 0.6 DegC argued by non-establishment scientists?

    Or, is it need for energy renewability and security?
    Or is it the pressure of billions of dollars in investment subsidies up for grabs?
    Or is it the need for a second consumption tax?

    I hope you brek new ground and don’t jump on the climate gravy train abandoning all reason as many have.

    Post 2:
    In advocating for imposition of carbon trading on Australia, it would seem imprudent for you not to review the already 20 years of existing experience with carbon trading.

    1. What has been the success of the European carbon trading – in CO2 reduction, effect on climate, effect on energy security?

    2. How prone to corruption is trading in CO2 and has there been massive corruption in Europe – how can this be avoided in Australia – or do you propose importing this corruption.

    3. How verifiable are and can ever be international carbon credits.

    4. What has been the experience with alternative energy in Spain, Germany and other high uptakers – which is presumably the objective of carbon pricing?

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    ColinD

    What gets me about this is that the markets are always so flighty on the slightest sniff of uncertainty yet carbon trading is being rushed into as a certain thing- probably the only ‘settled science’ in all history! Maybe they should remember that if it sounds too good to be true then it probably isn’t.

    00

  • #
    Wayne

    The Madness Of An ETS…..

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Siliggy

    The man-made global warming theory is falling in polls all over the Western World. It started slowly in 2007 and dropped off a cliff with ClimateGate.

    Newsweek “A green retreat” Kevin Rudd stars in this story about why “environment is no longer a surefire political winner”
    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/12/a-green-retreat.html

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    I bravely but naively posted on the announcement piece for Climate Spectator along with about six others at the time. Five were hoping for a free and open debate, one was a warmer. My post didn’t make it. The disclaimer states that not all will be published because of the quantity of posts. I went back 24 hrs later and there were fresh posts but mine was obviously one of the too many.

    By contrast the SMH has published every one I’ve submitted. Also noticed there that the balance between pro and anti AGW fairly well equal. Good to see although the journalism is still very biased.

    The only question religiously being avoided is the main one: where is the proof that CO2 causes warming?

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    They are clearly on very strong ground, however, when they say that if we want to control carbon we should implement a trading system.

    The EU experience suggests otherwise, increased emissions, inequitable wealth transfer between nations, small to medium companies bearing the economic burden while the big guys convert free credits in shareholder dividends, trading in “hot air” and various other forms of corruption, those most vulnerable in society suffering the most while those who visited the GFC on us get the opportunity to exploit us once again.

    I have absolutely no idea of how to control carbon, is there a course for it, a carbon whisperer that one can consult, a carbon deity that one can placate.

    00

  • #
    Frank Murray

    Jo,
    Why don’t you try to become one of the regular contributors to Kohler’s Climate Spectator. Briefer versions of your current blogs would be most informative to the unwashed financial types.
    Frank

    00

  • #

    Lawrie, interesting. I would not have expected that. (But I guess it would be a downer for the first day to have 5/6 counter-comments.)

    Please copy your comments as you make them, and post them here… rest assured, even if they have to delete your comment, that someone there is noticing that the readers are not impressed with their one-eyed approach.

    I think it’s very useful (for us and them) to give them feedback at this early stage. I really sincerely hope they will broaden their scope and leave themselves an escape route from the Global Warming bankwagon.

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    In the early 1800s Arthur Schopenhauer commented on the shifting perceptions of truths. First they are ridiculed, then violently opposed and thirdly, they are accepted as self-evident. I think we are seeing plenty of activity in the second phase and as the solar/CRF cooling wears-in, we will move, with pain and embarrassment, to the final stage of acceptance.
    We expect newspapers to be emotive and inaccurate and we know that kruddy politicians are ephemeral, but the Kohlers of the world might be well advised to focus on what they are very good at because they still have to face the cameras ‘tomorrow’. My guess is that the loudest trumpets of catastrophy will become the most tarnished.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Hey, I got an idea about how we could control carbon emissions! ;-)

    Why don’t we let technology simply evolve on the path that it is already upon? After all the pace of technological evolution is steadily accelerating. Charles Moore of Intel wrote a paper in the 1960′s predicting the pace of semiconductor evolution would double about every two years and it has ever since. Buckminister Fuller coined the term “ephemeralization” to describe the fact that the actual physical weight of the GDP was declining even while the value skyrocketed. It still is. Today the amount of “work” one can do on an iPhone sitting butt naked on a remote beach would have taken an office complete with a staff and a ton of metal machines to accomplish in 1965. There’s a talk of a “singularity” in the near future where the pace of technological evolution goes so vertical that it becomes impossible to predict anything beyond that point. The universe is unfolding in a just-in-time fashion. If only government would get the effing out of the way!

    Instead of taxing carbon, why don’t we lower the taxes on everyone across the board to increase the pace of productivity growth and therefore innovation. Instead of trying to micro-manage everyone’s lives from a technocracy located in Canberra or the UN, why don’t we distribute the decision making process to every individual in the nation. Instead of concentrating authority lets redistribute responsibility to people for their own lives. For instance, instead of giving one person, Julia Gillard, $250 million who then decides to buy every kid a new school uniform. (After the election and only if parents of those schoolies vote her back in…) Why not give that $250 million back to 20 million Aussies and let them decide how to spend it in 20 million ways?

    Hey, why don’t we do that with like 5,000 million dollars? Instead of a hand full of technocrats in Canberra deciding how to spend our billions, why not give it back to 20 million people and let them redistribute it as they see fit. Want to bet which would generate more innovation? Sure, we might have to close down some bureaucracies and lay off 20,000 government employees but it’s all good – you’ll never miss ‘em – and it would allow the economy to expand and productivity to increase without a labour shortage or inflation.

    Our government has yet to build a divided highway between Sydney and Brisbane. They can’t provide adequate staffing in most of our nation’s hospitals or manage a minor immigration problem humanely, yet somehow they want us to believe if we just gave them more authority over our lives and more of our hard earned capital that they could legislate fine weather for our grandchildren from the parliament building.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xNnRBksvOU

    00

  • #

    I just posted (?) this on this page.

    Trade carbon credits and help save the bankers

    Submitted by Jo Nova on Wed, 2010-07-14 00:32.

    Assuming carbon is a problem for us (which I don’t) the obvious thing is to set limits and fine those who go over. Why trade? The only ones guaranteed to profit, no matter who buys or who sells or what the price is, are the bankers.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/climate-spectator-joins-gravy-train/

    This is not about the environment.

    00

  • #
    Ben Smith

    While reading your post today, it occurred to me that we already have active carbon trading in the commodities markets (crude, coal, natural gas, etc.) where taxation occurs at every step in the process of bringing energy to markets. Adding a cap & trade market for carbon credits is actually a redundant taxation market (for carbon credits) out of the minds of ENRON where it of course originated. In effect, it is an attempt to bring a commodities mentality to taxation where profits can be made on exchanging rights to taxation.

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Jo, Climate Spectator has lost me already as I just can’t be bothered, even to read the thing, with the registration process .

    I know, I’m just getting old and cranky, but if I have to jump through hoops, they can shove it.

    BTW, there is a post at WUWT where the Gorists are moaning that the Wall Street Journal is giving unfair coverage to sceptics. Well… I have listened to the BBC as I drive to and from work every day for years, and didn’t even know that sceptics existed and that there were dissenting voices out there until I (happily) chanced upon your site, and had my eyes popped open as if I had been tasered.

    The sterling reputation of the BBC now lies in tatters, and when/IF!! they finally wake up, it will take decades to regain their credibility.

    Thanks, Jo, for your work, I, for one, really appreciate it.

    00

  • #
    Annie

    Amazongate proven: IPCC based their claim of rainforest sensitivity on a “probably” sentence in a now defunct activist website

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/10/amazongate-proven-ipcc-based-their-claim-of-rainforest-sensitivity-on-a-probably-sentence-in-a-now-defunct-activist-website/

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    I welcome a business site (if that is what it is) that looks at how the climate madness affects business. What I have seen there so far is rants talking up CC potential for business. You also get such rants throughout the whole of the business environment. I have a concern about electricity costs since a damaging bill has already passed (by both Parties) into law. Power companies must buy 20% of the power from renewables by 2020 see Climate Rort on Quadrant. This is serious stuff which seems to be under the radar for this and other blogs. Business Spectator stated that electricity prices will probably triple by 2015 because of it. I believe business does not have morals and in a sense neither do I in this. If I can see a way of making money out of this rort using information from Climate Spectator I will do so. I need to offset the coming tax rip offs justified by the futile attempt to change the climate. Shares in Solar and Wind may be worthwhile but it depends on the whim of government so watch out as Spain has found it is risky.

    BTW Does anyone on this blog a good reference to the use of Molten Salts for power storage? Is it viable?

    00

  • #
    Ross

    While it would be nice and clean if the AGW theory could be proved incorrect and accepted as such by science it will unfortunately never be the case. It will have to come down to the politicians begrudgingly giving up the case and I think this will happen but it will be economics/ financial failure that will drive it. Given the economic situation in Europe and the USA at present –its going to happen.Even in the last few days news is coming out how economic forecasts are wrong or have been manipulated to look better. If the idiot politicians see a “carbon tax” as a means of overcoming other economic woes then there will be revolt. End of the game.
    The speculators referred to by Jo’s piece will have their play but they are getting burnt in Europe already and will continue to get burnt –some will make money but hopefully not for long.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Yeah, I don’t like registering to read stuff, especially from a pro-humongus raise-our-taxes groupthink hack-tank. They’ll just use the registered reader numbers to tout how popular their particular brand of delusion is.

    Try reading this:

    “…as Milton Friedman once wrote, even after the demise of socialism, “the bulk of the intellectual community almost automatically favours any expansion of government” if it is sold the right way to punish evil corporations, to relieve poverty, to protect the environment and so on.”

    Freidman, who wrote the introduction to (Friedrich von) Hayek’s book, (The Road to Serfdom) best described the four ways we spend money…”

    “You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hey-big-spenders-hands-off-our-money/story-e6frg6zo-1225891374336

    Hayek and Friedman are heros of the resistance!

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Oh yeah, must see the Hayek vs Keynes rap video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

    00

  • #
  • #
    Annie

    This demonstrates very clearly what an enormous boost to plant growth increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are!!!

    Carbon Dioxide: The Breath of Life…..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA&feature=player_embedded

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Re Jo # 20

    I just had a look a the link. FWIW Shell has the ad that shows

    00

  • #
    janama

    MikeO @ 24

    There are experimental solar power stations using molten salt to store heat.

    http://www.torresolenergy.com/en/index.html

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    From

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13728

    Jeff Id at The Air Vent posted this excellent summary about energy sources and why the fossil and nuclear fuels work and the so-called renewables are too limited to support our modern society. Jeff brings to the debate an understanding of the general physics behind energy use, that is important in understanding why liberal fantasies about energy are based mostly in ignorance (if not, misinformation).

    links to

    Greenthink
    Posted by Jeff Id on July 9, 2010

    First there is no such thing as renewable energy, it’s kind of fitting that the very word greenies have coined is itself a lie. I say that because there are so many lies and exaggerations in the world of green energy that it makes ‘renewable’ a perfectly fitting term.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I can hardly wait for Obama to suffer the same fate as Rudd. Unfortunately in our republic we can’t just toss someone on a vote of no confidence so it has to wait until 2012. Impeachment would be impossible as would recalling enough representatives and senators to put in people who would have the nerve to make it happen.

    This is the first time I’ve wished we had a parliamentary system instead of a republic.

    Unfortunately for Obama he doesn’t know when to let well enough alone and he’s likely to keep pushing for cap-and-trade as hard as ever. And the more he does that the more people will see the light and oppose it.

    Jo,

    I’m still trying to find a way to get you a live interview here in the U.S. You’d be hard blow to the AGW bunch. Just an airing of how things have gone in Australia would be a lot of good background that no one here ever gets exposed to.

    00

  • #
    pat

    do people understand the cost?

    14 July: Australian: Annabel Hepworth and Patricia Karvelas: PM faces climate compo claims
    JULIA Gillard could face multi-billion-dollar demands from big business for compensation and other measures.
    This would be to mitigate the costs of complying with the government’s climate change policies.
    Cabinet last night signed off on a list of measures to tackle climate change and resolved to build industry and community consensus for a workable carbon trading scheme if re-elected…
    Some energy retailers would have to reduce energy usage by their customers.
    BlueScope Steel chairman Graham Kraehe said he was concerned Australia’s competitiveness against steelmakers in Asia would be undermined by a carbon price or energy efficiency measures in the absence of measures globally…
    Mr Kraehe said the company would be arguing for incentives to shore up projects such as a $1 billion co-generation plant at the Port Kembla Steelworks, to take gases that are currently flared and use them to generate electricity, which has been on hold.
    “We will be arguing to government that if it is going to bring forward proposals that increase the cost of electricity substantially, then in order to maintain our world competitive position, incentives for investments like this ought to be available.”
    Energy companies, which estimate they need about $94.1bn worth of capital investment over the next five years, also indicated they wanted “support” to cope with carbon reduction measures…
    Energy Supply Association of Australia chief executive Brad Page called for “engagement between the two major parties with industry to design an efficient and enduring set of carbon reduction measures”. He said the industry would want the first 10 years of a carbon reduction scheme to be treated as a transitional period “because we will need time and support to phase out and form the capital to bring in low-emissions technology.”…
    Tony Abbott tried to capitalise on Labor’s indecision and lack of a climate change announcement, arguing the Coalition was the only party with a plan to reduce emissions.

    A report to be released today says the outback played a vital role in absorbing and storing climate pollution and, if better managed, could be a key factor in reducing the nation’s greenhouse emissions. It’s findings are supported by the opposition.
    The report found that 9.7 billion tonnes of carbon is stored in the forests, grasslands and woodlands that stretch across Australia’s outback.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/pm-faces-climate-compo-claims/story-e6frg6xf-1225891380534

    00

  • #
    pat

    13 July: Reuters, Sao Paulo Brazil: Reese Ewing: World Bank, IDB say carbon market is maturing
    Editing by Lisa Shumaker
    (The Kyoto Protocol)Its expiry date, after which
    participating countries are not bound by it to cap emission,has concerned investors in green project development. But Gouvello said that the dozens of bank representatives at the event at the swank Mofarrej Hotel in Sao Paulo were evidence of the growing interest in green financing from financial institutions. “Only a few years ago, you would not have seen these banks at this event,” Gouvello said. The World Bank has a $5.7 billion fund from which it helps finance green technologies in combination with regional development banks such as the Inter-American Development Bank…
    (Maria Netto, the IDB’s climate change specialist)”Trade in carbon credits will go on beyond 2012.”
    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN134660620100713

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 July: FinanceAsia: Deutsche Bank’s Josef Ackermann at the IMF in Korea
    While fiscal stimuli are being withdrawn, governments will need to focus on creating the right conditions to promote greater private investment in low-carbon sectors and industries. This includes putting a price on carbon — but also will require risk reducing instruments (e.g. loan guarantees, insurance products, investment grants), and interventions to address incomplete or weak domestic capital markets and start-up barriers (e.g. technical assistance and capacity-building programmes). Small amounts of public funds can leverage large sums of private capital…
    Climate change is a tremendous opportunity — both for the growing economies of Asia, and for financial services firms like my own
    http://www.financeasia.com/News/219740,deutsche-banks-josef-ackermann-at-the-imf-in-korea.aspx

    00

  • #

    The Business Spectator regularly has articles by the green carpetbagger, Giles Parkinson. I always wonder what planet he is on. Never had one of my comments published by him though they did publish a comment of mine about Paul Gilding where I claimed he “had form” on green scams.

    As for Alan Kohler, if he’s such a great market and economic forecaster, why is he spruiking his stuff on the ABC and Business Spectator instead of retired somewhere with a huge pile of money? You need to ask yourself this about all market forecasters and financial consultants. I rate them up there with gypsy fortune tellers, astrologers and other scammers who claim to able to tell the future.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hmm with political friends like Wilson Tuckey…

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    O-o I guess my comment made it, although I cleverly disguised myself under my real name. I might have to re-register (assuming I want to post on that site again) to be consistent across blogs.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    whoops wrong thread sorry Jo.;

    00

  • #

    Interesting. The Climate Spectator site doesn’t like climatescam as a password.

    Reading the articles has an emetic effect on me. A bunch of know nothing about what they are talking about business types hyping a non solution to a non existent problem. Gah! WOFTAM.

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    janama #31
    Thanks for the link. “Zero Carbon” has more info than that but not enough. They reckon they can convert OZ to renewables in 10 years, I would be still laughing but stupid politicions might try it. Their plan would depend molten salts for storage. So I am trying to find more about it.

    00

  • #
    John Elliot

    The appearance of Climate Spectator should come as no surprise; Business Spectator has always argued for the necessity/inevitability of controlling CO2 emissions and the growth of renewable energy. Don’t expect to see any discussion of science on that website and because comments are moderated don’t expect to see many comments contrary to those of Business Spectator; they appear to believe that the science on AGW is settled.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    One of the ironies of the financial guy’s support of AGW and its spinoffs is that the one major newspaper that prints many articles from skeptics is the Wall Street Journal.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    I notice Mike Borgelt has a similar belief in financial gurus as moi. I would also include stockbrokers who so far have made one bad call after another. I am familiar with WOFTAMs as well since I was one for 28 years and thoroughly enjoyed the experience and my contribution.

    Now I know this is terribly simplistic but do we really care if the glaciers are retreating or the Arctic has less or more ice? Is it important to notice if the world’s temp is .6 degrees warmer than 150 years ago and thus the accuracy or otherwise of reporting stations? The main fact is that the IPCC stated that as CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere there would be a consistent and correlated rise in temperature. It happened for a short period and now there is a significant divergence. The postulation is wrong. The temp did not follow the rise in CO2. That should be the end of the story right there.

    Our campaign to be effective has to be simple, so simple that Joe Average gets it. As well, everytime we see or hear a news item that claims that CO2 causes warming we have to respond immediately. Where is the proof? Make sure they know that even Phil Jones knows the world stopped warming 15 years ago. If every time a TV station, newspaper or radio news makes a contentious claim about the climate they received an e-mail from even this small band of brothers it would eventually sink in. The fact that the warming press led by the ABC and SMH receive so many anti warming contributions when they emit a climate story is having an effect. They at least print the responses.

    I am also an optimist(have to be if you farm) and we should take heart that the pollies are aware that there is no consensus, hence the talk of mitigation and adaptation rather than an ETS. Within a few years mother nature will have silenced even the loudest drum and make the BoMs adjustments look ridiculous.

    So folks ensure that Climate Spectator is your first response each day. Make sure the money men know that when the connection between climate and carbon is eventually broken their connection to money will also be broken and the taxpayer won’t bail them out as they did in 2008.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Jump in one and all for the usual rubbish debate on the ABC at:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2952229.htm

    I have had a dabble, but comments are slow to emerge. I guess there has been a paucity of climate science stuff lately and this one got swamped.

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 July: Express UK: TAXES SQUANDERED ON NAGGING PEOPLE OUT OF DRIVING CARS
    MILLIONS of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been spent on sending council snoopers into people’s homes to hector motorists into giving up their cars.
    Under the Scottish Government’s latest initiative to drive cars off the road, tens of thousands have been lectured on their own doorsteps about public transport and climate change.
    Four local authorities, Dundee, Dumfries and Galloway, East Renfrewshire, and Falkirk, have lavished £10million on a string of “insulting” green projects, which included sending officials on door-to-door visits…
    But it was later revealed in the Government’s own evaluation of the project that “the vast majority of respondents (78 per cent) strongly agree/agree that they like travelling by car.”
    Figures reveal that the four councils made almost 23,000 visits since 2008 with a further 14,000 householders due a call this year…
    Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, added: “This is an outrageous waste of money.”..
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/186807/Taxes-squandered-on-nagging-people-out-of-driving-cars

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Pat – that article is absurd, that kind of Travel Demand Management project is highly sophisticated and great value for money even if you just consider offsetting the need to build new peak hour road capacity. The key is that it would be highly unusual to visit the home of someone who says they really like their car and are unlikely to change behaviour – that would be a complete waste of time. you may be interested (ok only a remote possibility if you are just a cut and paste a newspaper headline on a random thread kind of troll) in the following: http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/travelsmart/14958.asp – Perth/WA is again a pioneer in the field.

    00

  • #
    Pete Hayes

    “Will investors who are long on carbon (or renewables) be able to sue commentators after-the-fact when it becomes obvious that they were not given both sides of the story”……

    Ah! You mean the BBC pension fund! Interesting thought though Jo. As the BBC is both a commentator and an investor…..Payback is a ***** ;-)

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    MattB #49:

    Travelsmart at the linked page argues that it’s “Cost effective”.

    But they always assume that the time of the individual is worth nothing. Use of public transport requires a larger investment of personal time in a trip. Depending on the trip, that can be a substantial penalty.

    Cutting the claimed 13% (no doubt based on assumptions applied with a broad brush) would reduce distance travelled a year by about 1000km. Which in my car is about $70 worth in fuel. There are no cost savings in maintenance, insurance, depreciation, etc. for most car owners.

    RoI for a good bicycle is well over 10 years. Maintenance cost of the bicycle could easily exceed $70 a year if the owner is not mechanically adept. The purported “saving” barely buys a good (mandated) helmet. And the increased risk to health and safety has not been taken into account.

    It’s a false economy.

    The other “3″ arguments are null/circular.
    They say it’s popular simply because they assert that it is.

    FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Bernd:

    I think someone posted an article once claiming that the increased CO2 emissions of a family of four cycling (heavy breathing, that is) was greater than the emissions of an SUV. I wonder if it is true, but given how inefficient the human body is in terms of converting energy etc… then one would have to factor in the extra food we need to fuel the bike’s engine… an interesting problem.

    00

  • #
    janama

    MikeO – I’d look in the direction of French nuclear – they’ve been experimenting with molten salt as a heat transfer system to turbines instead of water in their nuclear reactors but I understand it’s riddled with problems.

    00

  • #
    janama

    like corrosion!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Janama the nuclear molten salts is different to what Mike O is discussing. In Solar it is a case of using solar magnifiers and mirrors to literally melt salt when the sun is shining, and then use the heat from the salt as a baseload power overcoming solar’s problem of the sun not shining at night.

    BravenewClimate is a good start: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/06/tcase7/ with a lot of links from that post.

    Janama’s case in the nuclear industry is still a great way to go though, and is a key component of the Integral Fast Reactor, Gen IV nuclear power. Again Brave New Climate: http://bravenewclimate.com/category/ifr-facts-and-discussion/ start with IFR FaD1.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Thank you for the clarification MattB – but the outcome is the same – It’s pie in the sky technology.

    the next energy breakthrough will not come from regular power production ideas but from a new system as yet undiscovered. Check the crazies on the net for the first indications :)

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    Thanks janama and MattB I will look there. My interest is that without someway to store large amounts of energy wind and solar is hopeless. So is important to know about what they are proposing. In my link of @24 reference is made to alternative energy companies having wind turbines and gas generators. When the wind inevitably stops they switch to gas. Sounds good but they can then charge a motza for the electricity. These companies are also pressing for deregulation! Methods like this are being devised to extract money from the consumer.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    MikeO then Bravenewclimate is your one stop shop for coming to terms that warmis or not nuclear power is our energy future.

    Janama.. pie in the sky… hmm I doubt you are worth trying to convince otherwise.

    00

  • #

    I like Alan Kohler, the economic reporter on the nightly ABC news. He likes numbers, graphs and hard data.

    C’mon. That’s a bit naive Jo. Alan has been pimping his media ‘credibility’ for over a decade now. The only thing the public should be despondent about is how Alan is allowed to make biased business and money market reports on a public broadcaster without disclosing his business interests. Alan Kohler is a genuine, bonafide salesman for any business that wants him to swing his bat for them. At least we get some disclosure on this new venture:

    And they’re not shy about their motivation:

    Why a new website?

    Simply because the issue is so broad, and the business implications and opportunities so immense. The scale of new investment will run to the trillions of dollars, driven not just by climate change, but also parallel issues such as energy security and energy costs, food security and the desire of the world’s most powerful countries to seize the initiative in a low carbon economy.

    And don’t bother trying to post anything sceptical about AGW in the Business Spectator article, they won’t let any actual intellectual though disrupt their new business. Would they?

    00

  • #

    I notice Mike Borgelt has a similar belief in financial gurus as moi. I would also include stockbrokers who so far have made one bad call after another.

    Stock brokers are like taxi drivers. You don’t ask them where you want to go, you tell them. Any knucklehead can and does get a stock broking license. You think they’d be brokers if they had any idea about the markets? Same goes with any business analysts. Those that can’t do, teach.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I don’t know how many of us posted to the Climate Change conversation on Business Spectator; I posted yesterday but didn’t get through the mods and I notice there were only 2 comments posted today
    How about Jo sets up a Climate Change conversation on this site in competition

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    The old theologans would argue about how many millions of angels could dance on the head of a pin.

    Alan Kohler is simply suggesting ways for people to sell the angels dancing shoes. Which is a lucrative business. But unless the – I just wish he’d make sure those “angels” were there…

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    janama

    Yeah – ‘pie in the sky’ might have been a bit harsh MattB. But so far they can just hold on for another 6 hours which still leaves half the day without power. Plus there’s the sun don’t always shine problem.

    00

  • #
    janama

    How about Jo sets up a Climate Change conversation on this site in competition

    um…isn’t that was this blog already is?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Janama – the solar andosol one is in operation now – but I agree generally that the idea of rolling out in a worthwhile manner being unlikely.

    I thought you were referring to the GenIV nuclear, it appears to be sound but will take 10-20 years to roll out in large numbers so in the mean time just go with the nuclear we use today… GenIV uses GenII and III waste as fuel.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Yeah – we could really enjoy and amazing new generation nuclear powered society – everything possible will be electric – your toothbrush – lawn mower – your car.

    I must say I was very impressed with the solar plane.

    http://player.video.news.com.au/news/#eAlMm4W8SxdTl7iYPTc9YQQZ0RyQtOeV

    00

  • #
  • #
    MikeO

    janama I agree it seems very much like pie in the sky. This website http://windfarmperformance.info/ shows what they are doing day by day. Going to the site MattB provided it seems one needs 28500 tonnes of molten salt to provide a GWh. Our current installation is 1.6 GW. Now the rub is if this is to be effective at reducing that “evil” gas you should not be relying on gas or coal. The grid does not take well to intermittant power so really these wind farms should feed into this storage and then that should supply the grid. You need data on output over a long period to work it all out. I suspect extremely expensive but an argument can be made for it, damn! Can’t as yet find arguments regarding corrosion etc. You can eat one of the salts.

    00

  • #

    I think you’ll find that corrosion with molten salts at high temperature is a different thing from corrosion by hot concentrated salt solutions(one of the many problems with geothermal).

    For off the wall energy sources search for “polywell fusion” or Dr Robert W. Bussard (inventor of the interstellar ramjet concept and engineer of the nuclear thermal rocket motor). The US Navy is funding a small research group who are building and testing actual hardware. The lead researcher, Richard Nebel, can’t say much but it seems there have been no show stoppers so far and considerable progress has been made. If it all works out we can look forward to 100MW electricity generators located in suburban sub stations running the proton-Boron11 reaction with helium as a waste product. And a mighty fine spaceship propulsion system.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    lawnmowers, toothbrushes and cars are already electric?

    00

  • #
    Francis

    Something useful for Penny Wong………..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYgahkfKvP8

    00

  • #
    blizzard

    jo,

    I have experienced Lawrie’s issue in reverse; the SMH does not like “difficult” news that sits inconsistent with their blogs editorial and they have some serial pest bloggers that take deliberate and specious positions with any other blogger views that they do allow in but they view as contrarian.
    As an example I tried sevceral times to get this blog comment or similar up on Tuesday without luck: “They have “Foxes review security at the IPC CRU chicken farm and find it totally secure!” this is the quality of the IPCC’s honesty and these weasels playing in the wriggle room and invisibility of the SMH’s climate blogs.”

    I have just attempted again this morning with this and I will let you know later as to my success: Woody,

    michaelw, david_fta [alias David Arthur], think big, patj, et al but please note as I wrote about them Tuesday “They are running defense on every AGW blog out of the SMH and the only thing unclear about their allegiance is who is paying for them to waste well intentioned bloggers time”.

    What they do not like is the truth that is now starting to flow out of the International concern around the 3 whitewashes of Climategate e.g. Labour MP Graham Stringer’s summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry. He states not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails he further confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. This is a serious charge.

    Further cause for concern as to independence and an honest review one of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

    They have “Foxes review security at the IPC CRU chicken farm and find it totally secure!” this is the quality of the IPCC’s honesty and these weasels playing in the wriggle room and invisibility of the SMH’s climate blogs.”

    blizzard.

    00

  • #
    blizzard

    Hi again jo, the weasels are still hard at it and would be quite funny if it was not for the fact that the SMH either condones or supports the behaviour.

    blizzard

    00

  • #
    Bunyip

    You are quite correct, Joanne, to question Kohler’s wisdom in becoming involved with this, but I suspect it really isn’t his initiative. Eric Beecher, Crikey publisher and enabler of many attacks on Andrew Bolt by his keyboard tickling stable of spotty youths and dotty gals, is a genuine, bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool, brewed-in-the-wood Climate Catastrophist (religions are proper nouns and deserve capitals).

    It would be Beecher who is driving this, no doubt hoping to do well by doing good, at least by his standards.

    Set up the site, book many ads from corporations eager to promote the sacred green image and, if he gets really lucky, government “information” spots and ads as well.

    What’s not to like if you are Beecher? You get in good with the smart crowd, feed on corporate largesse and, with the return of a labor government, take desert at the public trough. Then you feel virtuous all the way to the bank.

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    I don’t suppose anyone is reading this any more but to complete the molten salt storage thing. Victoria has a wind capacity of 439 MW. This has been known to drop to below 5 MW for 37 hours. To keep up supply you would need about 14000 tonne of molten salts for each hour. For 37 hours about half a million tonnes! This might store the required 16000 odd MWh of energy. Previously you would have to allocate a large amount of energy to storage. An interesting thought but I do not think it is at all possible on the scale required to match coal and nuclear. Perhaps as Homer Simpson said we can live intermittantly after all it could be easily paid for in only 18 lifetimes.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m still reading and while I’m not going to check your figures I agree generally with the conclusion that you reach.

    00

  • #

    TELLING FAIRYTALES.
    What’s that old saying we used.–‘Telling Fairy Tales’. Another one—-‘Out of the mouths of babes.’ And that’s what we got from Julia Gillard about Tony Abbott—‘Telling Fairy Tales’.
    How about another one we know—–‘The pot calling the kettle black.’
    If ever it applied to anyone it certainly applies to Gillard, Rudd, Garrett, Wong and their cohorts.
    For years they have lied and deceived the Australian public, who were naive enough to believe all their endless lies. Trusting a government that was built on deception and ‘Fairy Tales’.
    Where do you start?
    Perhaps with the so called Global Warming lies or the new name ‘Climate Change,’ because they fell on their face over global warming; now it is completely disproven.
    Even though they were well aware of the I.P.C.C.s deception and from the American and European experiences, that Global warming and Renewable energy was the biggest scam and failure this world has seen or ever will see, they continued to tell ‘Fairy tales’ about Thermal power generation and the capabilities of renewable energy sources. i.e. Wind generators and solar power generation farms.
    Even with thirty one years of proven results that there is no such thing as manmade global warming or the fact of spending billions of dollars to building thousands of totally unreliable and very expensive wind generators and solar farms have achieved absolutely ZERO.
    Not ONE nation has reduced its thermal generation output and in fact they have continued to increase at the normal growth rate.
    After thirty one years not ONE of their ‘fairytale’ predictions has eventuated.
    Yet knowing this the Rudd/ Gillard Government still tell ‘Fairy Tales’ about thermal power station emissions and the so called pollution from cooling towers which is pure condensation.
    They have spent billions of dollars on home insulation programme, domestic solar power generation, solar hot water, wind generators and solar array farms and the whole intention was to reduce thermal power generation. Thus reduce the CO2 output from the chimneys.
    The final achievement in carbon dioxide reduction after all of these is NOTHING.

    Power generation demand continues to grow at 4% per year and over 85% of this is thermal power which is where the growth rate is. The percentage increase in renewable energy is miniscule in relation to the overall power generation figures.
    Because of their desperate efforts to retain the green vote they continue to pander to their ridiculous demands. Wasting billions of dollars ‘chasing butterflies’ and telling ‘fairy tales’ and worse still deliberately ‘telling porkies’ to the Australian people.
    If anyone doubts that, have a look at the past few weeks when a member elected by the people of this country to the position of prime minister was ‘assassinated’ by a Gillard and here gang because his ratings had fallen.
    They went into panic mode in a desperate bid to stay in power.
    Not since Roman times when Caesar was assassinated on the steps of the Senate has there been such a devious and sadistic attack, without the slightest compunction or consideration for their former leader.
    Yet all they are doing is ‘moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic’.
    What were some of those fairytales Gillard recently told;
    A. I’m more likely to go to Mars than to be Prime Minister.
    B. I’m more likely to sail round the world than to be Prime Minister.
    C. I’m more likely to play for the Carlton football club than to be Prime Minister.
    D. I have no ambition for the leadership I’m happy where I am.
    The best ‘Fairytale’ was the latest one from the mining super profit tax agreement that the government’s resource rent tax regime only reduced the revenue by $1.5 billion.
    What she didn’t say was that commodity price forecasts were revised between the two taxes to make it look less. —–Another ‘Fairy Tale’.
    ‘At the end of the day’ ‘it is not a level playing field and the goal posts have been moved.’

    This government has wasted billions of dollars on crazy schemes like the ‘clean coal’ technology where on one ‘clean coal’ experimental’ power station alone they spent fourteen hundred million dollars and it was an admitted failure.
    Also they have spent five hundred million on a thirty megawatt power station out west that is supposed to pump the CO2 underground. It uses sixteen of the thirty megawatts to do it. i.e. 14 megawatt output. Which is ’beyond a joke.’
    When is all this madness going to stop and they get back to some form of reality and spend it on our major infrastructures where is should be spent. Roads, water, dams, health, hospitals, etc.
    The great farce of the home insulation program that achieved absolutely nothing, cost four lives and spent thousands of millions of dollars. Now they have to undo a major part of it.
    Over that alone the government and Garrett should be ‘Hung out to dry.’
    Even after all of this they are planning to build many useless wind generators costing billions of dollars throughout Australia even though they know it is a waste of time and your money.
    All these decision were made with the input and approval of Ms Gillard and her associates. Now Ms Gillard; says ‘It wasn’t me; I didn’t do it. It was Kevin Rudd. He made those decisions on his own.’
    And they expect us to believe it. Another ‘Fairytale. They must think the Australian public are fools.
    ‘Fair suck of the sauce bottle’.
    If it goes ‘pear-shaped, it is no good ‘throwing our toys out of the pram or our teddy in the corner.’ But that’s exactly what they did.

    If they get back after the next election they will;
    a. Reintroduce the ‘global warming’ scam.
    b. Reintroduce the ridiculous carbon credit scheme.
    c. Continue to build more useless wind generators and solar array farms.
    d. Try again to force the E.T.S. ‘down our throats.

    If the Australian economy was compared to a house. That house would be vandalized, wrecked and garbage strewn everywhere.!!!
    Yet when the Howard Government left it was in pristine condition.
    If this government gets back into power the Australian public will not get another chance.
    Next time will be too late and the great country we once knew will be gone forever.
    Handed over to extreme greenies and extreme muslims who want to remove our democratic way of life and replace with the horrendous Sharia law.

    This is the Australia we love. Without doubt the finest country in the world –That our parents and grandparents fought for.-Lets keep it that way.
    Don’t let their efforts be in vain.

    Terence Cardwell
    Email; terrycar@iinet.net.au

    00

  • #
    Paul Rand

    Fascinating commentary. And now after the deals were done with the “Independents” and the Greens, the programs that Gillard promised to cater to their wishes, apart from the NBN, have all but gone as a knee-jerk reaction to a phenonenom (flooding) that has been, and always will be, a part of living in Australia. It’s fascinating how these guys just feel that they have to continually succumb to hysteria of this nature, and yet, when push comes to shove, these programs which cater to the minority are shelved as if they never mattered in the first place. I think the term “Politics of Convenience” is appropriate at this point. Once these guys get serious on how we manage our population, I’ll know they’re serious about the climate.

    00