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

Does the lie matter? Only if you think Democracy does.

Thank you Julia Gillard. Nothing could have put the fire back into the carbon debate like promising not to tax us during an election, then barely scraping in by the thinnest of “wins”* (with hang-nail support of two men in some of the most conservative seats in the country) and then doing what you said you wouldn’t.

This is much more than just a lie.

Imagine if Gillard had announced the Carbon Tax as part of her election platform. How many voters would have changed their vote? It wouldn’t take many.  The two party preferred vote in Australia was split by only 0.12%.

Would the Labor Party have won?

Back in August 2010 Julia Gillard obviously thought the Australian people would not have wanted a carbon tax, or she would have run her campaign on it. Instead she thought we’d want an ineffectual climate committee and the certainty of knowing a carbon tax would not be imposed before another election.

Seven ALP seats were won with less than a 2% margin.

In Corangamite, a mere 769 voters who didn’t want a carbon tax could have changed the leadership of the nation.

This is not just a “lie”, it’s deception writ large. The Australian public were never given the chance to vote on this issue. There was never a discussion about the benefits. It was not a debate topic. The commentators and opinion writers did not thrash out the costs and risks. This is not how democracies are supposed to work.

The Pendulum will swing.

When John Howard said “Never ever a GST” he went to an election after that saying he was going to bring in a GST, and then he still won. There was no deception, no trickery, no hiding an issue during the election campaign. Julia’s action buried this topic, kept it from critical views, and hid it from the light of day. She bypassed democracy.

People hate being lied to. Nothing fires up the crowd more than knowing they’ve been actively deceived or taken for a ride. Behind the scenes here emails are running, people are abuzz. Suddenly everyone has the energy to fight back. Bets are shifting rapidly on who will be the new Prime Minister. And Jooliar is (unfortunately) the label du jour.

This Labor government barely scraped into control, and yet instead of being circumspect, they are abusing that honour and treating citizens with disdain. They got a mandate for nothing, yet think they can sneak in the beginnings of one of the largest economic reforms in history without so much as asking the people.

They think if they make 14% of Greens voters happy, they can rule over the other 85% of us? They can’t add up.

Part of Tony Abbott must be delighted, even as the rest of him, like so many of us, weep as the country shifts closer to the waterfall.

(*For non-Australia readers — this election was so close that out of Australia’s 150 Parliamentary seats, the tally ended up with 72 : 72 split and 6 “independents” — 4 of whom eventually sided (after weeks of deliberation) with Labor.)

UPDATE:

A string of new groups and projects and websites are springing up in response to the carbon tax. Many are in proto-type stage. I’ll add the links as they come in.

Petition at Stop the Carbon Tax

Petition at Come On Australia

Stop Gillards Carbon Tax (Facebook)

Revolt against the Carbon Tax (Facebook)

Petition against the Carbon Tax (Facebook)

March 23rd is being touted as the date around the country.

I have names for organisers in Brisbane and Sydney (see The Climate Sceptics site).

POLLS

http://7pmproject.com.au/home.htm

Herald Sun Poll (! 31,000 votes and 85% say NO).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Does the lie matter? Only if you think Democracy does., 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/47k9vch

264 comments to Does the lie matter? Only if you think Democracy does.

  • #
    Martin

    Spot on Jo!
    Democracy (the western variant) is becoming more and more autocratic, govern by “expert” bureaucrats.
    The fact is we never had democracy only the illusion of it.
    The 2 wings are part of the same bird.
    From Canada i salute you.

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    It’s no wonder that opinion polls regularly find that politicians are the least trustworthy people.

    00

  • #
    john of sunbury

    You are absolutely right Jo. This act of treason will stir the conservative beast like nothing else could have. 80% of Australians voted for parties that specifically ruled out a carbon tax. As you rightly point out, Gillard has by-passed democracy. Labor will be brought to account.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Martin: #1

    … autocratic, govern[ed] by “expert” bureaucrats

    G’day Martin,

    What a lot of people don’t realise, is that politicians in the Westminster style parliaments don’t set policy (except in the broadest terms).

    They actually choose between different policy options presented to them by the senior Bureaucrats. These come from Policy Units in each government department, who in turn “commission research” from “non-government sources” – lobby groups, professional researchers, and the like.

    Of course, the different policy option choices are never simple. If you want “A”, then you have to have “B” and “C”, and having “A” would make “D” impossible …

    The actual way these policy options are set up forms a labyrinth, that quietly steers the politicians towards an optimum compromise between all of the competing demands identified by the original “research”. They really have few, if any, options at the end of the day.

    Is that system open to abuse by a Bureaucratic cabal? Yes it is, and we are now seeing some evidence of that.

    The situation in Australia is made worse by the fact that the capital city, Canberra, only exists to be the capital city. It is therefore a “bubble”, not only socially, also geographically. The only reason to go to Canberra is for politics! Intellectually therefore, the place is highly incestuous, with reality often being the first victim of various political “memes” that take on lives of their own.

    Some Australian Prime Ministers have been strong enough to say, “I don’t like any of these options – try again”. But that was when “leadership” was fashionable. The current lot are seriously into “consensus”, which means they try to be all things to all people, and are thus suckers for punishment.

    Of course, this opinion is brought to you by a Kiwi, and what would I know …

    00

  • #
    Martin

    My vision of our “democracy” is close to the one describe by Allan Watt.
    Politicans are paid liars.
    They put their signature on the treaty crafted by bureaucrats.
    The policy crafted by bureaucrats is set by private think-thanks like the Club of Rome (no surprise for the readers of this blog).
    Also the multiple tax free foundations (Rockeller, Bill Gates, etc.)
    have a big role in funding so called NGO’s to steer the public in the direction they want.
    And ultimately it come to international bankers who control the currency’s.
    Very few people know where money come from. Wonder why we don’t learn this at school?

    Of course this is a crude description. But i think it will be understood by many of the readers of this blog.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Martin:

    You’d be surprised mate. I work for Government, albeit at the State level, and you’d be surprised how many decisions are actually made by Ministers. Sure the day-to-day small stuff is pretty much run based upon departmental advice, but active Ministers often have a hand in the big decisions, especially policy-oriented ones. Government departments merely give them the options, but Ministers ultimately make the choices and sadly that’s where things often run awry. Departmental staff expertise varies widely, of course… and don’t get me started on political appointees… I choose my positions wisely so that I am surrounded by competent colleagues.

    Back on topic… I was making this same point on a blog yesterday Jo, albeit a tad more bluntly. Jooolya did signal all bets were off right after the election, but she wasn’t pushing an agenda of any sort at that stage or there would have been calls to go straight back to the polls. Why has she waited until now? Maybe for the electorate to cool off a bit, or the Greens have been pushing her behind the scenes … Who knows?

    Fact is, she would have lost the election promising a carbon tax. The Labor primary vote would have been a bit higher, and the Greens lower, but overall the Libs would now be in power, despite the handicap of Tony Abbott as leader.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> Another thing to remember is that the policy section in many Government departments is often very small, a couple dozen people perhaps. The majority of Government departments operate subject to Acts of Parliament:

    Department of Planning –> Planning acts
    Department of Mines and Petroleum –> Mines Act and various Petroleum Acts
    etc… you get the idea.

    Full list for WA here: http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_actsif.html

    The Acts are usually very prescriptive so there is not a lot of policy work around them, merely interpretation of the relevant sections for particular scenarios. The majority of staff are usually involved in the day-to-day implementation of the various aspects of the Acts.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PPS> The most dangerous thing is probably when you have a Department (like Climate Change) in search of an Act. You can guarantee the bureaucrats in that space will be dreaming up all kinds of ways to increase their powerbase and justify their existence… BTW many Government bureaucrats tend to think size is the measure of departmental power. In industry you tend to want to operate with the most efficiently-sized (i.e. smaller is better) workforce… in Government it is all about size, so larger is better. Bass-ackwards, I know.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bulldust: #5

    … decisions are actually made by Ministers … Government departments merely give them the options, but Ministers ultimately make the choices …

    Yep, that is the point – choose from this list …

    Bulldust: #6

    … the policy section in many Government departments is often very small, a couple dozen people perhaps …

    So the list is made up of options, each of which has been put together from the results of a research project that has been farmed out to so-called “experts”.

    Policy units may be short on staff, but their departments always seem to have access to “research funding”.

    Of course, to get the funding as a researcher, you have to consistently get “the right answer”, so it is sometimes difficult to know whether you are the dog, or just the tail.

    In climate change it is easy to get the “right answer”, because everybody is already singing from the same song-sheet, even if the audience has wandered off.

    The Carbon Tax was inevitable from the moment that a decision was made to establish a Department of Climate Change. The organisation has to be funded from somewhere.

    IMO, Gillard has decided that imposing an unpopular tax will be less politically damaging in the long run, than dismantling a whole department that should never have been established in the first place.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The Australian has a Bleak cartoon which captures the nuances of the OP beautifully:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gallery-e6frg6zx-1111119669474?page=1

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Didn’t I read somewhere that the Greek translation of “politician” is literally “lie to the people”..?

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Bulldust,
    You obviously don’t support Abbott as leader yet fail to suggest an alternative. Turnbull? We should buy him life membership of the ALP. Hockey? We would have an ETS. Robb? Too old. Pyne? Weak. Abbott did the impossible. He came within a whisker of toppling a first term government and he did it when he himself had the slimmest of a majority, one. He is honest and that alone puts him above everyone in the ALP with the possible exception of Martin Ferguson who is also an honorable man.

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Funny video on saving the planet by George Carlin:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

    Enjoy.. ;)

    00

  • #
    Ross

    The situation in Australia is made worse by the fact that the capital city, Canberra, only exists to be the capital city. It is therefore a “bubble”, not only socially, also geographically. The only reason to go to Canberra is for politics! Intellectually therefore, the place is highly incestuous, with reality often being the first victim of various political “memes” that take on lives of their own.

    Rereko — this is so true, just like Washington. I believe the “bubble” applies to most capital cities and I suppose it is why a good lobbyist is worth his/her money
    (unfortunately)because they know their way around the bubble.

    00

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    Shock finding!
    Politicians lie to get elected.
    The big problem, is that all the major parties share the same opinions by & large. They all need the money that the various taxes based upon AGW bring in.
    They all think that they’re acting on our best behalf, we’re but simple idiots who are unable to understand these serious issues and to act in the best way for all mankind.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Sign the “No election: No carbon tax” ePetition

    http://www.epetitions.comeonaustralia.com/petition/sign/pid/9

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Juliar lied but the unbelievable deceit and hypocrisy of her argument is mind bogling.

    She states that we must have clean green energy but then exports increasing tonnages of coal to China etc to increase emissions to higher and higher levels.

    So unless labor and the greens are as stupid as they look this can mean only one thing, they are deliberately trying to hurt the Australian economy and the Australian people and it has nothing to do with reducing global emissions.

    If the goal was to reduce emissions globally you would obviously ban coal exports and promote and sell uranium to every country who wanted it, but the reverse is true.

    The milne idiot is on the record effectively saying that the tax must be high enough to hurt and make us ( the peasants) use less carbon based fuel.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    I think Adam Gallon has nailed it. In the US where free speech seems to be more highly valued than here there is, it seems, not the same general across party consensus on things like ACC that exists in Australia.

    Abbott carries the burden of maintaining that consensus within his own party though he seems to have a skeptical if somewhat blurred and compromised understanding of the science from our perspective. Noticed somewhere a headline that in effect read Abbott wont say whether he would repeal a carbon tax. I don’t think we can expect too much from him given he is trying to hold a disparate group together. Also he seems to be in thrall to the bureaucrats and doesn’t have too many personal ideas about anything. Perhaps a bit of a weather vane?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    This whole fiasco clearly demonstrates the blind incompetence of Gillard and her government.

    She actually believes she can convince the electorate this tax is a good thing, that she is not a LIAR and that she will come out a triumphant champion.

    Talk about Ivory Tower syndrome.

    What does this say about her advisers?

    They seem to have WAY too much faith in their ABC’s ability to sway sway peoples opinions with propaganda.

    Or alternatively, they think the ABC IS actually representative of community opinion.

    Both views are WRONG…

    00

  • #
    A C

    In my experience government, in South Austrlia at least, was never as portrayed in “Yes Minister” Much more of the power resided with the Bernard – press secretary character – who operated with and on the Minister. Short term news cycles and political cycles controlled the minister’s political appointees have much more power than the departments they oversee. There is a long and sordid story about the undermining of the role of the Sir Humphery Applebey – permanant head – frank and fearless advice from the department and all that, but at a state level his role was essentially emasculinated by them being put on short term contracts and becoming a more political appointment.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    they think the ABC IS actually representative of community opinion

    I think that is what happens.
    SO, change the ABC and you change politics.

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Here is Julia Giliard’s facebook page so you can post a message telling her what you think of her carbon tax.

    http://www.facebook.com/juliagillard?v=wall

    I kept my comment polite, but some people haven’t :-)

    00

  • #
    matty

    If this tax doesn’t get through will Gillard shed a tear? I doubt it. She may even be assuming it falls down. If it gets up it will heralded as a triumph of the “new paradigm”. It all makes her a dangerous idiot.

    00

  • #
    A C

    One should always remember that, to the Left, the end always justifies the means. Was it Scneider who told us that it was OK to lie about global warming scenarios in order to frighten people into activity. The end justifies the means. The left-wing journalists understand this, which is why they see no problem with what Julia has done. Similary, if the end is to undermine Tony Abbott they would have no difficulty taking the exact opposite view if it was him caught lying.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Lawrie:
    I think Abbott’s main failing has been knowing when to keep his mouth shut and let Labor self-destruct by itself. I agree… there is a paucity of talent on all sides of politics. Looking at WA State politics, for example, there are probably a handful of good operators that have a clue what is going on. But it’s pretty much like that in most walks of life. Look to a social or sporting clubs and usually it is the same half dozen people who do all the heavy lifting.

    The biggest shame was Costello pulling out of politics … he was a solid operator IMO. He could have waltzed into the Lodge against Julia.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    A C

    And, as I like to remind people, the two-faced Schneider was telling everyone in the ’70s that we were all gonna freeze! Then he and his ilk saw another more lucrative caravan to join.

    I can feel some sympathy for Abbott; he won the leadership by just one vote over the unctuous Turnbull. This means that the opposition has its share of Warmista. Chris Smith asked him three times yesterday if he would repeal any “carbon tax” should he win government and he avoided the question until finally pinned down. He said he would have to consult with his shadow cabinet.

    This bodes ill. Very few taxes have been repealed in the history of Australia to my memory. Abbott won’t (can’t?) even give a commitment. If it eventuates, we’ll be stuck with it.

    00

  • #
    ColinD

    An interesting contrast: popular uprising going on where the people have finally had enough of tyrrany and in the west and OZ in particular we are slowly but increasingly being dictated to. I wonder how far this has to go before the equal and opposite reaction. Maybe NSW election will give us a clue.

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Just to remind people in case they are idly nostalgic for Turnbull, he would have us into a carbon trading system faster than the speed of light.

    Once a merchant banker, always a merchant banker…

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    There is another interesting insight I will give you from having worked a few years in the WA Government. We are in a second major mining industry upturn and the first one sucked 60% of the staff (obviously mostly good operators) out of our branch of the department to private mining industry companies. Some stayed on because of the lifestyle (yours truly – money isn’t a major motivator for me) or because they are close to retirement (not so in my case), but obviously a lot of dross is also left behind. The dross gets promoted to fill holes and some fresh recruits fill the remaining holes. We are now in a second phase and losing people at a rate that will result in 40% going for this year.

    WA is a mining state and has therefore gone through many such boom & bust cycles. Like a jigging machine (I am a mineral processor by first degree) this tends to seperate the lightweight (dross) and lift it to the surface (i.e. promotion) while the heavyweights pooften go to industry.

    Hence, in Government, there is a tendency for “stuff” to float. It is a problem as you can end up in a situation where a lot of it is wedged at the top end of government departments. Remember that government employees have a tenure not unlike university academics so it’s not like you can summarily dismiss them.

    00

  • #
    Andromeda

    A public servant by definition serves the public.

    A bureau/crat by definition rules from a department.

    Bureaucrat is made up of two Greek words meaning department rule.

    The two terms are in opposition to each other.

    “He who would be great among you ,let him be the servant of all.” said Jesus, the Christ.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I think Jo is correct.
    The degree of animosity over a CO2 tax is high and will get higher.
    Expect a blast of spin from the MSM supporting the tax. This spin will do nothing more than make the electorate angrier than they already are.
    The first event that will return things to some balance is the result of the NSW election, it will be interesting.
    The AU electorate have shown themselves to be a tolerant bunch. They put up with most of the garbage organized by our politicians, except gross impcompetence(mild incompetence is ok).

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Excellent post Jo….. As far as I am concerned, for Democracy to work, it must be seen to work.

    It must be a transparent process. The people must be able to question those in power, There must be a consenting majority and they must reasonably believe that what a political party promises will in spirit, be carried out if they win office….. Gillard has utterly failed here.

    In a Democracy a government only ever has a small majority, and this particular one, technically doesn’t even have that…. So by announcing this deceit, Gillard has unleashed a situation that damages the integrity of our democratic processes. If she deceitfully imposes the extremist ideology of one party upon a dissenting population and the mainstream media refuses to question and investigate…. Then who knows what will happen.

    To be honest I think Julia Gillard has destroyed the credibility of the Labor Party in the eyes of the Australian public….. The Greens are nut cases, everyone already knows that, but few would have thought that Labor was so weakened as to fall victim to extremism and so lacking integrity as to lie in order to get their way.

    This Government has become a blot on the Australian political landscape…. Oakeshott is in a world of his own, his bizarre antics and brand new Leninesque beard notwithstanding…. I think Tony Windsor is the only man who can bring this terrible situation to a quick end. He should retire and force this government into dissolution. Being the representative of a conservative electorate, and if he has any sense of patriotism, then he would do this.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    “New opposition leader John Howard pledged to never ever introduce a GST and stuck to that for his first term in government following his 1996 election victory.

    But he went to the 1998 election promising a GST and won.

    Howard said that victory gave him a mandate for the GST, although he only succeeded in getting it through a hostile Senate after doing a deal with the Australian Democrats to exempt food.

    It came into existence on July 1, 2000.”

    From http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gst-on-john-howards-agenda-in-1979-20100101-ll77.html

    To me, this shows that politicians never let go of an idea and will ultimately say anything to get their proposals implemented.

    Howard at least went to an election on his proposal and it did cost him some votes, but not enough.

    Gillard is showing that she has no credibility at all and anything she says can only be applied at the time she said it but has no relevance at any other time.

    It might be me but quite often I think she looks to have aged ten years in the last six months.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    J.Hansford @ 31

    Oakeshott is in a world of his own, his bizarre antics and brand new Leninesque beard notwithstanding….

    He had to grow that beard so he has something to scratch other than his head.

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

    00

  • #
    John Watt

    What we have in Oz is a default version of democracy caleed “representative” democracy which is further handicapped by the custom of banding together into groupings of representatives who see their main purposes as grabbing power at all costs and “opposing” the other group.(Policy and clear thought about the issues confronting Oz come a poor second to the fundamental need for power over the opposing group) The 2010 election exposed a major fault. No single proup was strong enough. The groups scrambled for power.The winning coalition is driven by minority opinion. Unfortunately the minority is skewed and the legislative outcomes will be similarly skewed.

    In the particular dilemma Oz now finds itself the open minded approach pursued by Steve Fielding has become just a faint glimmer of light on a very distant hill.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Julia Gillard. Prime Minister of Australia. And a liar.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Michelle Gratten has the hide to say that Juliar is right in declaring a carbon tax!! I don’t recall Michelle saying she was wrong when Juliar announced there would never be a carbon tax under her government.

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Lawrie
    It is hard to pick anyone honourable in the current ALP. But Martin Ferguson is not your man. For those of us who know him he is simply a shill for the uranium industry. Even his own brother Laurie (thats not you mate?) doesnt trust him. Has all the characteristics of a dog except loyalty.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    She’s one letter away from spelling LIAR (R) what more can you say? Ask the native meaning of one’s name……….

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Some RELEVANT articles about this topic and about joo LIER the leader of the ALP( australian LIERS party)………

    Next: a green tax on petrol, too

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

    Gillard refuses even to explain her big lie

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

    Journalists agree: politics “requires” this deceit – WTF!!

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

    Lying Gillard must give us a new election before her tax

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

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    In joo LIER gillard’s DEMENTED world DIAMONDS must signify the ultimate symbol of pollution as they are pure carbon !!!

    00

  • #
    pat

    what on earth is going on?

    26 Feb: SMH: Stuart Washington: Tax homes and control mine boom, CEOs urge
    A TAX on owner-occupied homes to arrest soaring house prices is among extraordinary measures proposed by five of the country’s most admired chief executives to address the dark side of the resources boom.
    The bosses have said the impacts of the boom, including a higher cost of living, a shortage of staff and other industries withering, are the greatest challenges facing Australia…
    Among those calling for a broader debate about the dangers of the boom is the chief executive of the goldminer Newcrest, Ian Smith…
    The chief executive of CSL, Brian McNamee, said his global biotech business was facing challenges to hire the best and brightest in Melbourne because the boom was pushing up the cost of living. A capital gains tax on owner-occupied homes was needed to cap prices. This would attack one of the sacred cows of the tax system.
    The top rate for capital gain on investment properties is 46.5 per cent, reducing to 23.25 per cent if the property is held more than a year…
    Other chief executives in the top five of the survey who were concerned about the effects of the boom were Grant King at Origin, Chris Roberts at Cochlear and Richard Goyder at Wesfarmers…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/tax-homes-and-control-mine-boom-ceos-urge-20110225-1b8kh.html

    electricity: gillard keeps repeating that electricity prices are going up anyway, without a carbon tax, but no “reporter” ever responds that surely, therefore, electricity will go up even FURTHER with the tax.

    water: soon people up my way will not be able to afford to use water, yet we look like releasing megalitres of it in order to prevent further floods in brisbane.

    i make no excuses for Abbott’s refusal to say his party would repeal any carbon tax the Gillard Govt implements. and i make no excuses for the Opposition not drawing the public’s attention to the websites and books that would help to inform them about the AGW scam.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I’m pretty sure it was a non-core promise ;-)

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    We see the same thing in the US all the time.

    A politician promises during a campaign “not” to do something. Gets elected, then does what they say they weren’t going to do.

    When called upon it, their usual story is: “I didn’t say I “wouldn’t” do it, I said I “didn’t want to” do it, “unless” I had to do it, now I “have to” do it, it’s “out of my hands” and I’m not responsible.”

    00

  • #
    Mark

    We are accusomed to sneering at latin american countries. Would that we could develop the intestinal fortitude of the Bolivian Cochabamba water protesters in recent years.

    “Their” government sold off the water resources to a multinational which promptly hiked the prices to an unaffordable level. Riots ensued and the situation became so tense that the executives of the company had to flee. Eventually, the contract was nullified after protracted negotiations.

    The management and the infrastructure is as hopeless as it was previously with little likelihood of improvement. But at least those who have access to the water can afford it.

    00

  • #
    Harry The Hacker

    The trouble with all this is that the Liberal opposition are a bunch of warmies as well.

    Abbott is a complete nut-case, but at least on this issue he’s not Turnbull.

    But if not Abbott, then who? The only other one there who seems to have credibility as a leader is Turnbull, who incidentally is somebody who makes my skin crawl. Abbott might be stupid, but Turnbull speaking makes me feel dirty. He’s have us even worse off with an ETS, courtesy of Garnaut and his various friends in investment banking. (You want to see the joy in Fakebook from the carbon trading and audit companies after Joolyas announcement. Course they are happy, they just got a legislated revenue stream.)

    Remember it was Turnbull who banned the incandescent lamp in Australia (and Labor who carried through the implementation). It was also Turnbull who got all the people in place in what became the Climate Change ministry, back when it was all being done in the commonwealth environment dept.

    So unfortunately we have a choice here between dumb and dumber. And it’s hard to tell which is which.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Brian V @ 46

    Read my lips……

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    John Brookes:
    February 26th, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    I’m pretty sure it was a non-core promise ;-)

    Haha kudos to you John.

    That core-noncore promise thing is why I never voted for Howard.
    Though I disliked the man, he turned out to be not too bad a prime minister. The war on Iraq thing was his worst mistake.

    Keating was the best PM we’ve had for a long time. Though he spent a bit to keep the factions at bay (lots of very very strong charachters in them days) he had vision. I liked him and would vote for him again.

    Anyways John, tell us, are you happy for a PM in waiting to lie about an important issue before an election?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Percival Snodgrass @ 41.

    Oakeshott a princess????

    NO…he’s a real MAN…..surely???

    How many princesses do you know that can grow “Leninesque” beards….?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    For those that enjoy poking a bit of fun at the PMs here’s a brilliant web site:

    http://www.convictcreations.com/history/primemine.htm

    I notice that they added Youtube clips, and also edited the last dot point for Keating to put in “happy” instead of “gay.”

    The current crop are political pygmies as Laurie Oakes so aptly put it.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I’m gonna raise a real wild scenario.

    We all know that Joolya has a long association with the far left but I sometimes wonder if there really is a semblance of reality in there. She finds herself as PM and likes it. She also finds that she has a coalition partner that has ambitions far beyond their electoral support. Joolya hatches “a cunning plan” that will “white-ant” the Greens whilst absolving herself of any possible charge of abandoning their agenda. She knows that their agenda will be as popular as a t*rd in a telephone booth and will generate a tidal wave of public outrage. Thus, fellow MPs in not so marginal seats will wilt and tell her in no uncertain terms to dump the toxic policy. Joolya goes to Bob Brown and tells him to “shove it where the sun don’t shine”.

    What’s Bob gonna do then, join the Coalition in a No Confidence motion? Not bloody likely: He knows that by this time that his watermelon party will be annihilated in an ensuing election so he’ll just enjoy the perks of office for as long as he can.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Chris Pearson in the Australian today put a small paragraph in regarding the recent Galaxy Poll saying that only a 3rd of Australians now believe that man-made Co2 is causing warming. Quote below:

    “Julia Gillard’s announcement on Thursday that she intends to press ahead with a carbon tax is a folly that will prove to be her undoing. No endorsement from Labor’s so-called three wise men — Bob Carr, Steve Bracks and John Faulkner — can lend gravitas to the decision.

    No amount of government-funded propaganda and committees of experts headed by the likes of Tim Flannery can reinvent it as a major economic reform, let alone the greatest moral challenge of our time.

    On the same day, the Institute of Public Affairs released the findings of a Galaxy poll it had commissioned. The poll was taken last week and replicated the results of another taken eight months ago. Only one-third of Australians think the world is warming due to human carbon dioxide emissions”.

    Is this the equivalent of breaking rank in mainstream media?

    IMO, what that Galaxy Poll shows is that the majority of Australians have something our politicians don’t. Common sense and the capacity to smell a rat! What it also shows is that despite the overwhelming, uncritical, imbalanced support the media has given to this scare theory, their readership are not buying the propaganda. The media has a choice here. Continue to unapologetically ram catastrophic global warming/climate change down our throats, in which case more people will do what I have done, turn off the TV and seek out independent blogs, or they can start asking the tough questions. Here’s the first that should be asked of Gillard and co. “PM can you provide empirical evidence (not computer modelling) that man-made C02 (as distinct from natural sources) is causing warming beyond natural climate variability leading to catastrophic climate change?” That is the question she will dodge and it seems that is the question our media don’t have the guts to ask!

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-plot/story-e6frg7ko-1226012238537

    Also, I’m a Kiwi and have been here, with my wonderful Aussie partner, for many years. I work and pay taxes and really, there is no reason for me to become an Australian citizen, as I get treated like an Australian. This issue has changed my mind (much to my partner’s amusement). I’m going to become a citizen so I can vote!

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “The Loaded Dog” (51),
    Maybe oakshit the GENDER BENDER…….

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Interesting comments about Abbott. Gillard is nothing but a semi articulate union solicitor. Her nasally patronising voice is best taken in very small doses.

    If she is as dumb as she sounds she is probably too stupid to understand climate science. So like Abbott she relies on the experts to tell her what to think about the curse of carbon (not knowing of course, because no expert has told her, that every human is a little hydro carbon generator/polluter churning about 0.8 tonne of CO2 each year, whilst ingesting about 4% of that output). The problem is the experts have been selected on the basis of their acceptance of ACC. Thus it was not surprising to hear her say yesterday that she, in contra distinction to “Mista Abbott” believes in climate change. Which of course is a further indication that she is pretty dumb. I mean who doesn’t believe when for a start there are four seasons every year.

    Abbott is an Oxford educated Rhodes Scholar who has dabbled in philosophy and politics, getting him an MA at Oxford and did a bit of economics and law at Sydney. Despite all that he goes out of his way to give the impression he is a dinkum Aussie yobo. One can only surmise he has grasped that we Aussies are anti intellectual and in a patronising way seeks to meet us all on a level playing field.

    Come on Mad Monk you can do better than that. Begin undermining the warmist climate experts and if you are successful you will take her dumbness and the ALP down with the experts and carry the electorate along with you. It is getting a bit sick of an intellectual “science” that provides a rationale to impoverish it.

    p.s. as an after thought we can be thankful the experts have not told her dumbness about humans being intrinsic carbon polluters. Who knows what law, to reduce carbon pollution, she would back.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “Stop Gillard’s carbon tax!”

    The conservative Menzies House is running the petition here:-

    http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/

    Send it to everybody you know and get them to sign it!!!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Llew Jones

    Just noticed a heading: “polluters to pay”.

    Who are the polluters?

    The energy companies? We the users? Should be pretty obvious that if we voters didn’t use the stuff, or buy things made with fossil fuel produced energy, there would be no energy companies and no “carbon pollution”.

    Just another way in which our politicians use lying propaganda to get to us hate the “polluters” for what we use and make us feel we are not at fault and to make us feel good about the government financially punishing the “criminals” (who of course exist only to provide what we want). The joke is that we the little people and users, one way or another, will pay every single cent for the “pollution”. Another con for the unthinking.

    I know we are too bright here to fall for that but I’m surprised how many, in response to media articles, vent their anger on energy companies for polluting the the environment.

    00

  • #

    Harry The Hacker @48
    I wonder why you have this “pox on both their houses” attitude and call Abbott dumb. If nothing else, is it not this trendy smug attitude that I see amongst the young that has brought us the disastrous Green’s policies?

    Perhaps you mistake verbal stumbling in trying to give a meaningful answer in interviews with being dumb. ‘Clever’ people have smooth politically correct answers, they know an empty answer is safe, or they know how to ignore, evade or spin…like, say Gillard, Rudd or Turnbull.

    Perhaps you consider him dumb for being a Christian, rather than being clever enough to just go to Church on Sundays for a photo op, like Rudd.

    Perhaps he lacks the forward looking vision and grand design for Australia, which Labor can pretend to have at will, like Gillard’s NBN or Rudd’s AGW – the greatest moral challenge.

    The ‘dumb’ Abbott I know:

    - “..graduated from Sydney University with a double degree in Law and Economics. Abbott received a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University where he obtained masters in Politics and Philosophy. Here.

    - Brought Liberals out of wilderness of defeat within 6 months and disposed of Rudd and nearly Gillard.

    - Is withstanding the most sustained and vitriolic hate campaign by our socialist press, out to catch him out at every opportunity. When he quickly learned to give guarded empty answers, the likes of Mark Riley on Channel 7 trawled through old videos and made up the ‘Shit happens’ vicious slander that even some Labor politicians had no stomach to support.

    - is a respected father of 3 successful doughters, a volunteer fireman, and volunteer lifesaver.

    - has been called the ‘mad monk’ for having considered priesthood – but did not do it because he did not feel religious enough and liked secular life too much, and has never suggested imposing any catholic ideas on the electorate, other than that abortion should be “free, legal and rare”, a most sensible statement.

    I would like to know why people love to hate Abbott. Is it, as I suspect, that being ‘conservative’ is today equated as being backward and dumb?

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Another Poll.
    “Will the carbon tax hurt the Keneally State Government?”
    The Daily Telegraph. Greens pay for tax on carbon in NSW.
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/greens-pay-for-tax-on-carbon-in-nsw/story-e6freuy9-1226012224473

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Mark @ 53.

    As a Kiwi I don’t have enough knowledge of Aussie politics to know if your senario is a possibilty or not. But after watching the video on Andrew Bolt’s blog with Christine Milne claiming all the credit for what has been announced, it was obvious that there is a strong possibilty that this will create big division’s between the Greens and Labor. The egos are going to clash here for sure.
    I also note on the news that there is a possibilty of a separate petrol tax under the same “scheme”. Rekero’s comments,above, about them living in “bubbles” is proven again.

    00

  • #
    elsie

    I have been around the traps for a while now. I can’t recall and election lie as big as this. It would be quite true to say a significant number of voters would not have voted Labor if they knew what they now learn. Clearly, the Greens are in control. The smirk on Brown’s face was only wiped off when Windsor said he was not sure which way to lean. However, he will support Gillard no doubt. Now we go downhill from July 1 2012. Even old Bob Hawke favours nuclear power. But he has sense. Already I have sent off letters to the HR members and will send more. I was against conscription in the 1960s (Liberals idea)but I am even more irate over a useless tax levy. What Australia ‘saves’ in a year will be emitted by China alone in less than a week. Why don’t the Greens hop on a plane and confront some Chinese officials about co2 levels?

    00

  • #

    All this could be solved if an MP in a marginal ALP seat would resign.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Warwick

    Given the comments by Mr Howes about trade protection about 10 days ago a retirement by a true believer may not be too unrealistic. There would have to be more than a few ALP die-hards working in the steel & coal industries to let the consequences go unchallenged.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tel

    The smirk on Brown’s face was only wiped off when Windsor said he was not sure which way to lean. However, he will support Gillard no doubt.

    Tony Windsor will wait till the NBN fiber is firmly in the ground and lit up before he disrupts anything. He got paid his pork and don’t the rural voters love it when someone else pays for their Internet? Let’s see how those cow pokes like it when the methane tax comes round…

    00

  • #

    How about a national campaign to leave outside lights on during Earth Hour ? A message to the PM to resign.

    00

  • #
    janama

    “How about a national campaign to leave outside lights on during Earth Hour ? A message to the PM to resign.”

    I like that :)

    00

  • #
    Norfolk Dumpling

    I wish you could run a UK blog-site as well!
    Democracy is about people power, autocracy is about power over the people and seems to be the chosen contrary route of socialist dogma.
    Keep up the good work Jo. You and your democratic team have technically expert and inexpert devotees here in the UK because the real truth shines out like a beacon in the night.

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Enough of the politics. Bring on the science!

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    The science (and the truth) appears to have no influence on our politicians.

    00

  • #
    hc

    To most in the environmental movement climate change is the most serious global threat the world has faced. A tax or charge must be sustained to be cost effective so that Abbott will have his chance to throw out the charge. A charge is the most cost effective way of cutting emissions.

    We cannot base climate policy on the ravings of anti-science delusional blog sites. The science is too compelling. Well done Julia. Finally Labor is showing some intestinal fortitude.

    00

  • #

    There is another aspect to this story. Would the Greens have won as many Senate seats? President of The Climate Sceptics party, Leon Ashby, was the last elimination in the senate race in SA. Several of our other candidates went fairly close. Our major policy was “No carbon (dioxide) tax.”

    Both Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott said before the election: “No carbon Tax.” That virtually eliminated our raison-d’etre and greatly reduce our chances. If Ms Gillard had said, before the election, (like John Howard did before the GST election) a vote for me is a vote for a new tax, The Climate Sceptics (TCS) party could have possibly has three senators to counterbalance the galloping greens.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Michael Cejnar @60

    My complaint is not with his “conservatism” but rather his lack of it on this issue.

    The starting point in considering climate, for a conservative, surely should be to begin with (internal) natural climate variability and eliminate all the massive known factors that drive climate before even thinking of a role for CO2. That particularly when the only generally accepted, credible science tells us that there is a law of diminishing returns operating between temperature increases driven by increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

    The mad monk, a term of endearment as I understand it given to him by his uni colleagues, is as you say very well equipped in the smarts department and thus has the capacity to undermine the scientific arguments of the CACC brigade. That he concentrates on the tax angle alone is a disappointment.

    Now more than ever, when the voting public is realising where the warmists intend to take them in terms of the enormous costs to them financially and in loss of modern facilities and comforts and thus is receptive, is the time to intelligently chip away at the foundations of a very flimsy science. That is the challenge for a true conservative.

    As a footnote I guess I must have been genetically programmed in such a way that I have never voted for any party but the Liberals. The only exception would be if Turnbull was leader. Primarily on his embrace of CACC but I’m also a bit of a social conservative, on rational rather than religious grounds and Turnbull leaves me cold there too.

    On the other hand this cultural Protestant would be happy to recommend Abbott for sainthood, to the powers that be, if he uses his courage and brains to eventually save Australia from this destructive path.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Andromeda @30
    February 26th, 2011 at 10:48 am

    A public servant by definition serves the public.

    A bureau/crat by definition rules from a department.

    Bureaucrat is made up of two Greek words meaning department rule.

    The two terms are in opposition to each other.

    “He who would be great among you ,let him be the servant of all.” said Jesus, the Christ.

    The difference I think is in whether they want to be great in their own minds or great in the minds of others. Heads too big for their hats seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Tel @ 67. A little bit of colour to slander rural voters like that. You will be downgrading us from cowpokes to rednecks soon. I live in regional Australia and I can tell you that most of us would like the NBN money spent on some descent roads instead. I live in Central Queensland and the governments response here to the deteriorating roads over the past few decades is to lower the speed limit. I spend most of the 550 Ks drive to Brisbane now at 80 and 90 Klms/hr. I would really appreciate the QLD government diverting the many millions of dollars that they now spend on this climate change nonsense and the waste the federal government intends to spend on the NBN on highways. The mis allocation of capital here shows total incompetence.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Is this the correct site to discuss CAGW (Catastrohpic Australian Government Waste)?

    It would seem the proposed tax is real and happening now.

    For your childrens sake, do something!

    00

  • #
    Tim

    This is a measure of the woman’s integrity. Selling out our country to international powers, without even bothering to explain ‘why’ to her own constitunency. What are the ‘carrots’ and what are the’sticks’ that have been applied in order for you to nullify a promise to your people, Julia? We deserve to know. It’s our lives, our children’s lives, our future and our money at stake. We deserve a full and frank explanation on your unconsionable backflip.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    While Julia is a little loose with the truth.The fact that she said that this tax is meant to hurt should be hammered home every day until this tax is dropped.YOUR GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO HURT YOU.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Gee… the Greens want petrol/diesel to be caught under the carbon tax.

    Well, brace yourself for the greatest revolution to come in the motor vehicle industry. Carbon based fuel is out and hydrogen will be in… and car manufacturers are going to experience bumper fortunes as the world dumps the combustion engine for hydrogen fuel cell electric powered vehicles.

    Ever since the motor vehicle was invented, petrol and diesel have been the primary source of power. Because of the man-made global warming scare, the motor vehicle industry was encouraged to develop and manufacture “green” vehicles. Perhaps the type of green vehicle with the most potential for future success has been the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric vehicle such as the Honda FCX Clarity

    http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/how-fcx-works.aspx

    The FCX Clarity FCEV is an electric car. The fuel cell combines hydrogen with oxygen to make electricity. The electricity then powers the electric motor, which in turn propels the vehicle. Water is the only byproduct the FCX Clarity FCEV leaves behind.

    The biggest hurdle facing this technology, however, has been the difficulty in storing the hydrogen fuel because the hydrogen atoms are so small they can slip between the spaces in molecules of other materials and the gas can be a hazard if it escapes.

    Not anymore!

    A cheap and practical way of storing hydrogen has just been developed by a British company that has everyone buzzing with excitement. Cella Energy used nanotechnology to develop microbeads – about the size of a grain of sand – that can trap hydrogen and release it when heated. The energy can then be used to power vehicles.

    http://www.cellaenergy.com/

    Oops… but I forgot… governments will no doubt tax hydrogen!

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Check out the latest guest post by journalist John Coleman at WUWT. He sets out how and why the AGW scare campaign came about expresses the frustration we all feel at not being able to get through to the gullible people who have swallowed it and expose the bad science behind it, even though he’ll keep trying.

    He thinks that the only way to do it is politically, saying “Just as “the climate according to Al Gore” has become the Democrat Party mantra, “global warming is not real” has become the rally call of the Republican Party.”

    (If only we had journalists in Australia with even half the integrity of John Coleman).

    I think he’s correct and that here in Australia we should intensify a campaign putting the real facts before Coalition MPs until they realise what a scam AGW is and gain the guts to actually come out and say that it really is crap! I think they would be astounded at the way their stocks would rise in the electorate. They must be brain-dead if they are unaware of the frustration, the anger and the momentum to fight back that is building out here in voter-land.

    Let’s make them aware of it !!

    00

  • #
    James P

    Mass protests. All capital cities.

    Wednesday 23 March 2011. 12 Noon. Your city’s parliament house.

    Enough is enough. Gillard Must Go!

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    MS @ 81

    I believe the energy cost of generating H2 by electrolyses is greater than you can get back by either combustion or proton exchange (anecdotal).

    However I have heard that termite gut bacteria, which breaks down cellulose does give off H2.

    If this action could be harnessed & or enhanced (GE?), all the process would need would be an environment optimised containment to keep the little boogers happy & the right kind of cellulose feed. The carbon would be short cycle & pretty close to neutral. It could be a high-fibre hairy-legs & sandals brigade dream!

    On a more realistic & contemporary note; why is any country with coal reserves continuing to be hostage to a Middle East dominated oil market when GTL is real &, if my understanding is correct, not only competitive but cheaper than crude?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    pattoh,

    Honda offers a hydrogen home refueling station that makes the hydrogen from natural gas. It supposedly also heats the house. No word on its initial price or cost of operation. From the picture it needs a lot of space too.

    Come to think of it, I was all over Honda’s FCX Clarity site and no word on the eventual cost of the car either. They do offer a three year lease at $600 a month to “select” customers who meet whatever the requirements may be (they don’t say that either). Maintenance is included in the lease. Take your car to the Honda dealer for service and they take it to a special service center for the work. Then you can pick it up at the dealer again. Sounds like you’ll be without it for a day or two.

    Need help out on the road somewhere? Good luck!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I came across this column by Dellers (James Delingpole):

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100077736/freeman-dyson-v-the-independent/

    Freeman Dyson is one of the exceptional theoretical physicists of our time and more than a tad skeptical of climate science as it is presented by the CGW true believers. There was an exchange of emails with The Independent’s science editor Steve Connor here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html

    Short version: Let’s just say Dyson wins the day and Steve clings furiously to his security blanket of consensus.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Roy

    My limited understanding of the thermodynamics has the generation of H2 as a greater energy cost than any recovered from its use. I’d like to know more about Honda’s technology though(as long as they can explain it in words smaller than “wheelbarrow”).

    As above, if you can get the boogers on side doing the work well & good, but I suspect I’ll be long dead before it becomes a real possibility.

    Anybody who believes there will be a viable high energy mobile power source to replace liquid hydrocarbons which enable the functioning of the worlds agriculture, industry & transport by tomorrow, next year or any time soon has read too many comics, watched too much sci-fi or listened to too many politicians( without questioning the motives of the message).

    00

  • #
    Andromeda

    The Horvath water powered engine that was displayed in Australia a few years ago did not rely on electicity generation to convert water into combustible gas but used low radiation nuclear technology to do the job.

    Water was conveyed much the same as in a petrol engine – the harder you put your foot on the accelerator the more gas was produced.

    The patent was bought out by the Horvath Energy Company who had an address in Sydney however it ended up in Hong Kong and has never been heard from since.

    There are plenty of copies of the patent floating around Australia. If you seek them they can be found. Nexus magazine would be a good place to start.

    00

  • #
    mike williams

    Has anyone ever asked the greens on what day exactly did they do a back room deal with Julia about the carbon tax.
    To cut to the chase, I assume they did it before the election to assure their preferences.
    Did they know she was lying when she was telling us there would be no carbon tax.?
    And, since we did not vote for a carbon tax, the greens must be aware that the govt has no mandate/will of the people for this disaster.
    I am still waiting for someone in the media to actually ask Green Senators decent questions about how CO2 effects the climate.
    Is there not one $#@!# “journalist” out their who has the wit to do this.?
    Because I believe the Greens do not have a clue about how $#@#$ the “science” is.

    00

  • #

    Hydrogen is a complete bust.There are no hydrogen wells and it is horribly difficult to store.

    We need nukes to generate cheap electricity and process heat for GTL. Our politicians are wasting heaps on schemes that are failures by any reasonable analysis even before they begin while leaving this country vulnerable to oil supply disruption.

    The best way to store hydrogen is to tie the atoms to some carbon atoms. I hear there is a whole suite of technology which is then available to store, transport and use it. :-)

    When even the single stage to orbit folks think kerosene is a better fuel than hydrogen you know hydrogen is a loser.

    Warwick, a heart attack or getting run over by a bus would do.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    pattoh,

    Exactly! More in than out. Always!

    00

  • #

    You folks down under seem to have the same problems we have with our rulers. Check out this article by Angel Codevilla: America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution.
    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the

    He also has a book on the same theme: “The Ruling Class”
    He says there are two classes, the Ruling Class and everybody else; they belong to the “Country Class”. The takers and the makers.

    00

  • #

    Andromeda @88
    ..water powered cars – just electrolysis:

    Patent 23: Stephen Horvath’s Hydrogen Car Patent 3,980,053. This patent shows a method for water electrolysis which it is claimed is able to power an engine. It shows the construction parts for adapting an existing car.

    Hydrogen is only a way to store and transport enery – unlike ready made fossil fuels, hydrogen (and electricity) for cars needs to be generated from a primary energy source with a second loss in efficiency, from fossil fuels, nuclear/thorium or renewables.

    BTW, I wonder what happend to the Rossi and Focardi LENR ‘cold fusion’ device, they claim had been heating their building for 18 months?

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    MC @93

    How about farting termites?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mike Borgelt @ 90:

    The best way to store hydrogen is to tie the atoms to some carbon atoms. I hear there is a whole suite of technology which is then available to store, transport and use it. :-)

    Brilliant!

    It’s organic, it’s natural it should be a boon to the average Green.

    What the hell is the problem?

    00

  • #
    brc

    Just read an article where Bob Brown wants fuel in on the carbon tax, but insists that motorists won’t pay. He says they will be compensated so that the polluter pays.

    More rubbish from the towering intellect of Brown, he of the ‘coal mines cause floods’ thesis. How exactly is one supposed to switch to a non-polluting source of petrol? His argument is that a person with extra funds from a carbon tax rebate will choose a different power source for their, um, petrol powered vehicle, thus the polluters(?) will be enticed to offer pollution-less, er, petrol? And in any case, surely the polluter is the person who turns hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide – which in this case is the motorist, when they switch their car on.

    I can see how you can torture this argument into shape with electricity – the true common currency of energy – but with petrol. Bob Brown is a seriously delusional character. Note no journalist has the forward thinking skills to be able to dissect his argument.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Keith H #82

    I think you’ll find that many in the Coalition know the uncertainties of the science. Turnbull is different in that he was ready to sell out Australians so his merchant banker cronies could make a motza, and is the reason he had to go! My understanding (can’t remember where I read it) is that under Howard they were all briefed by sceptic scientists. What Abbott could have done with last year is access to Jo’s Handbook as he got snookered by classic alarmist tactics. The Coalition will try and steer clear of the science bit, for now, and will keep the ‘heat’ on Gillard by making this about the economy. With the exception of the Greens, the majority of Australians care that we maintain a strong economy – this is about our jobs and well-being.

    This is why they have Hunt saying he believes (and perhaps he does as galling as that is from our viewpoint), but that the Coalition approach is better for the economy and will cause less pain for Australians. This takes away Gillard’s preferred tactic – ridicule and personal attack. I watched Hunt in action against Wong during the election, and she was out of her depth completely. She went into meltdown and resorted to personal attacks on Abbott’s (justified) scepticism. That’s all she had. I have no doubt it is the reason she was pulled off that portfolio, as the only people that appeals to the small percentage of those who hate Abbott, irrespective of what he does or doesn’t do. To the swinging voter and everyone else it was a BIG turnoff.

    As sceptics, it is our job to do our bit educating people as to the uncertainties around the science. Even Garnaut admits that there are uncertainties and lashed out at sceptics for making people aware of this (as if that is a bad thing?). The science is beginning to filter through and at least people are willing to listen now. I got Jo’s handbook to 4 people in our office last week! But there is a lot of de-programming to be done and in the meantime the Coalition need to take a course of action that will cause the least damage, economically, may benefit our local environment and allows for the fact that eventually public opinion will catch up. We’re already seeing that with recent polls.

    The problem with what Gillard is doing, is that it will be difficult to unravel once it’s in place. That is what she is aiming for.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    CameronH: There’s a lot of cattle out on the New England plateau. I’m no expert but I’d guess someone gets the job of giving them a poke from time to time (maybe dogs do all the manual work).

    Anyhow, the NBN was getting a good response from the people of Armidale, and Tony Windsor really doesn’t need to worry much about how Queenslanders are voting.

    By the way, the New Englanders got a very nice highway too… pays to be a marginal electorate or a swinging independent. I’ll leave it to the rural voters to slander themselves by voting him back in next time round ;-)

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Andromeda: @88
    Stephen Horvath’s Falcon was shown in Brisbane to Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen on July 14, 1980. It was the biggest laugh of all time. It arrived with its engine running. No one was allowed to look in the boot where the engine was. Joh said it would be produced in Brisbane and take the world by storm. The shielding from any nuclear source would have required tonnes of concrete. It was and is a snake oil sales stunt.

    00

  • #
    brc

    lmwd : the coalition needs to stay away from the science completely. The best response is that the result from science are mixed, and not certain enough to know for sure.

    The greens and others want to draw them into the science tar-pit. They want it to become like an expert-testimony trial, where the winner is the one who produces the scientist who has the best appeal to the jury. They know the complexities are too much for the general public to understand, that’s where Flannery comes in with his homely manner and reasonable-sounding explanations. The coalition (and Abbott, especially) needs to stay right away from the science and just concentrate on the futility of carbon taxing, even if you are a fervent believer. Because even the most rusted-on ‘take action on climate’ believer knows this is a token effort with no effect. They just want the tokenism to score a moral victory over the ‘deniers’ – no rational person actually believes it will fix the weather. This is the weak link – apart from the lying, which will wear out with repetition. The tax will not change the weather, but it will make you worse off. This is the correct strategy, for everyone who wants to fight the tax, not just the liberal party. You can still hold your climate change views but oppose the tax.

    People will work out the science is poor in their own time as the predictions fail to happen. We know this is true as the public supports drops year-on-year, and government after government begin to walk away from it. The main task is to stop any ridiculous policies being enacted in the meantime, that we get stuck with long after the scare has died away. Stick to the tax – that is the current threat to society. Leave the ‘co2 is wholly responsible’ science to die of its own accord.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Elsie @ 99

    I heard at the time that there was a hydrogen cylinder in the boot. That was why it was off limits.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Don’t know if any of you watched Laurie Oakes on the Sunday morning show on 9, but that was the weakest interview I have ever seen him give. He kowtowed to Julia all the way. All she could do was keep repeating the slogans over and over and over again.

    The Greens are calling the shots and it is painfully obvious.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Update – ironing my shirts for the week and caught an update on channel 9. They have had plenty of people email them and not one was supportive of Julia’s position. Not happy Julia!

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    brc #100

    Agreed! The science bit can be a tar-pit. The Coalition pollies need to leave that to the scientists to argue and wouldn’t it be grand if we could have a real public debate? A sceptic scientist of our choosing versus Gillard’s.

    I’ve been referring to Gillard’s carbon pricing as her ‘all pain for no gain tax on plant food’, or as her ‘Deception Tax’.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    “Has anyone ever asked the greens on what day exactly did they do a back room deal with Julia about the carbon tax.To cut to the chase, I assume they did it before the election to assure their preferences”.

    It is easier to think of the Greens and the ALP as the one and same political group – both have the same ideals and goals.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Imwd: #104
    “A sceptic scientist of our choosing versus Gillard’s.”

    Science is not done by debate – this IS the problem.

    CAGW has been roundly falsified, yet they continue promoting it – why? Because it is a belief system couched in scientese to make it “modern”, but it’s still the age old environmentalism it always was – a misanthropic hodge-podge of wacky ideas.

    00

  • #

    You can now dance to Gillard the Liar’s “No Carbon Tax”, featuring the dulcet tones of Ms Gillard herself.

    00

  • #

    Betrayal of promises is to be expected and welcomed if to meet changed circumstances. For instance new taxes to close a deficit brought on by a recession. But in this case nothing has changed.

    The political argument is that we should meet international obligations. OECD countries “need” to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 to constrain CO2 levels to around 550-600ppm. It is claimed by the IPCC & the Stern Review that this can be achieved at a cost much less than the costly consequences of global warming. My example below suggests that a gasoline tax of 6.5 cents a litre would be almost totally ineffective. It would only serve to reduce living standards. Yet this is the start of CO2 reduction policies, when there should be some easy wins. It is as bigger inroads are made that reductions in CO2 should become more costly. Unless more effective policies can be devised, the CO2 reduction policies will leave us and future generations worse off than if nothing was done. Therefore, those who believe in the impending climate catastrophe, but are policy realists, should join the climate sceptics in opposing the introduction in Australia of a carbon tax and carbon trading.

    I try to explore these policy issues graphically at http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/climate-change-policy-in-perspective-%e2%80%93-part-1-of-4/

    A Carbon Tax on Gasoline
    Consider a motorist in Australia who travels high distances in an old, inefficient truck. He travels 30000km a year and consumes a litre every 6km (6km/l or 17mpg in British terms). So the cost of 5000 litres used will increase the fuel bill by AU$325. If there are no gasoline taxes in Australia, fuel prices will be around $1.20 per litre, so the motorist will already be paying $6000 per year for fuel and (if he is lucky) $2000 for insurance, other taxes, maintenance and depreciation. So the tax will add 4% to his motoring costs.
    At a more moderate level, consider a British example (in Australian dollars). Somebody has a medium sized car that is three years old, travelling 10,000 miles (16,000km) per year at 40mpg (14km/l). Fuel is $2 (£1.30) per litre , so costs $2280 for 1140 litres. With no serious maintenance issues, tax, depreciation, insurance and servicing cost around $4500 per annum. Total costs (rounded) are $7000 per year. A 6.5 cent carbon tax will add $71.25, or 1% to this bill.
    For a newer car the percentage increase will be lower. Upgrade the specification and the percentage will be lower.
    As real incomes rise people are able to afford more luxury. Compare the typical car in Australia with say Brazil, or Brazil with an African nation. In Brazil the best-selling cars have mostly one litre capacity and low specification. Many cars new cars still do not have air conditioning or electric windows. A carbon tax will take people in the reverse direction a long way before they will give up the utility of a private vehicle.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Last year General Motors (US) sold more cars in China than in the US!

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/104390/20110124/gm-china-us-sales.htm

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Has anyone checked out the results of the Irish election? The Green Party took a bit of a whacking, and it would be very interesting to understand why.

    Any ideas?

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Gillard continues to lie. I’ve just seen on the news that she tried justify her change on the basis that she did not envisage being in a minority Govt. situation. Absolute rubbish — weeks out from the election most people were predicting a “hung” election result being a very strong possibility. But she made her promises of no carbon tax from any govt. she lead, just a few days from election day.
    Unless she means that she is just figure head for the Government and she is not actually leading it.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey Baa Humbug@50, I liked Keating too. And, strangely enough, find Howard less objectionable in hindsight than I did at the time.

    Could Malcolm Turnbull rise again? He is the most interesting of the current crop of pollies.

    Was it wrong for Julia to say one thing before the election and decide to do another afterwards? As a rule, I don’t like this sort of thing. However, on certain issues, it may be merited. For example, capital punishment is a bad idea. Politicians understand this, and so it is never an issue leading up to an election, even though there is always a significant number of the public who would vote for it. If for some reason, capital punishment were to become an election issue, I would hope that both Labor and Liberal say that they will introduce it, and then after the election, break the promise. Maybe action on climate change is one such issue.

    Go on, tell me all about democracy and the will of the people, and the elites who think they know better – you know you want to.

    00

  • #
    Ted

    Lets not forget the other constantly repeated lie “carbon pollution”
    Obviously intended to convince the masses that there is such a thing.

    00

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    Jo, since we are using the two party preferred system one vote lost by one party is one vote gained by the other party. So, it would only have taken half of the 771 vote margin (margin as per the ABC election website) to overturn the result in the Victorian seat of Coorangamite. That is, just 386 people who could very plausibly have changed their minds but for the blatant lie by our illustrious Liar-in-Chief. Looking even more like a stolen election – and not that different from the machinations of the mullahs in Iran or in other despotic countries. Time for a citizens revolt.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    brc @ 100

    The best way to evaluate the science is on the results of its predictions. A politician like the obviously intelligent Abbott should be able to refer to that part of ACC science that led to the scientists getting their predictions wrong in so many regions around the world. I don’t think your average Australian could care two hoots what pro or con scientists say and most would ignore any debate. As you say that is likely to be a futile approach.

    Here is the sort of approach, I suggest, discredits the CACC science, in the eyes of most Australians as well as showing the enormous, unnecessary costs to the tax payer. And very relevant in the context of Gillard’s new equally futile in making one iota of difference tax.

    In my home state, Victoria, we were told by the past Labor government that due to ACC we would have more progressively severe and longer droughts. That advice can only have come from ACC science/scientists via the various government funded organisations like the Department of Sustainability and Environment with input from the BOM.

    Because of that now proven to be inaccurate and certainly false advice the Wonthaggi desalination plant was tendered out to Theiss at a cost of about 6 billion dollars. There have been suggestions it may yet cost twice that.

    There was never a hint from the ACC crowd that heavy rains might make this plant an unnecessary white elephant.

    This is a perfect example of a hopeless prediction made on the basis of advice from scientists, who besotted with the certainty their ACC based models were convinced a permanent change had occurred in the cyclical nature of Victoria’s weather patterns.

    If that sort of monstrous and costly stuff up cannot be used by coalition politicians to discredit the science and show how costly taking any notice of them can be then they are in the wrong job.

    Incidentally it has been raining in Melbourne most of last night and much of today. And it has been raining on and off, sometimes very heavily, since about the middle of spring or for almost five months. So this is no small rain event but a major cyclical shift away from drought that should have been predicted by any climate scientist worth his salt.

    That I suggest is what the man in the street would understand.

    00

  • #
    pat

    resurrect turnbull, the minister for goldman sachs as rudd called him?????
    he was the one who nearly got the ETS up, so why on earth would anyone be calling on him to return to the leadership?
    however, is it so difficult for abbott to hire someone like Jo to put out press releases which explain to the public we’re talking about taxing carbon dioxide, not black carbon as most folks think, and enlighten the public about the rest of the scam?

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    John Brookes:
    February 27th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    …Was it wrong for Julia to say one thing before the election and decide to do another afterwards? As a rule, I don’t like this sort of thing. However, on certain issues, it may be merited….

    So if you think that CO2 is going to bring about a big global warming catastrophe and you were in a position to nudge up some recent temperature data or cool the past or get rid of the 1940s blip you would do it right? Is saving the planet an issue for which it may be merited?
    Then if your data manipulation hides a coming cooling castastrophe and worsens it many ways, all the extra burdens death and mayhem you cause would also be ok right?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Sliggy@117, I don’t think that at all. If you are doing work on something reasonably important for the future of humanity, you have an obligation to be as honest as you can (subconscious bias being a bit hard to control). The same goes for skeptics. By all means be skeptical, but be honest at the same time. And if you are going to call yourself a skeptic, be as skeptical of things which support your position as you are of those things which go against your position. Its like footy – if someone on your team fouls the opposition, don’t try and pretend it didn’t happen, just face facts (and be happy if the ump didn’t notice).

    As scientists, you should never try and “get rid of” results you don’t like. They point to something you haven’t fully understood or something that you haven’t managed to accurately quantify yet. That the scientists are reasonably honest is demonstrated by the way the several different measures of recent global temperatures are reasonably close to each other, even though one of those records is produced by a “skeptical” scientist.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Michael Cejnar @ 60,

    You are so on to the game.

    Any rising conservative star is doomed to be made an object of ridicule by the MSM today in a way that would be completely unacceptable if the tables were turned. Take Abbott’s pretty modest commitment to Christian values. It’s been turned into a vile fear, smear and doubt campaign—he’s a Papist who takes his marching orders from the Vatican. The Left has no problem with pissing on Abbott’s religious values, but woe to the “Islamophobe” or “Climate Denier” who dare question our Green Multi-culti state-sponsored religion.

    That’s how the Left argues. When the facts aren’t on their side (as they rarely are this century) then they seek to end the debate through insults and lies.

    Lying is OK when you are of the Left, because you are morally superior and your political opponents are scum, therefore a it’s OK to use whatever means necessary to secure your morally righteous end. This logic is used to justify any crime from ballot box stuffing to union thuggery. Thus descends our democracy towards chaos.

    It’s time to understand clearly and concisely—Labor and Greens do not give a rat’s hind about democratic process, civil rights or our economy. It’s whatever it takes to secure power and lock it in for themselves that matters. A few lies are just the beginning of this process.

    You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    00

  • #
    pat

    just did as thorough a search as possible to find any mention of manmade global warming in the coverage of the govt’s “carbon tax”. NOT A SINGLE MENTION ANYWHERE IN THE MSM.

    anyone who imagines murdoch is on the side of the sceptics needs to check out his media outlets wordwide. u will find his media empire is totally in on the scam. even on fox news, when they have “fox extra”, u often get some absurd “climate change” nonsense:

    27 Feb: Sky News: Documentaries a green tinge at Oscars
    Two out of five documentaries vying for Oscars on Sunday focus on the environment, reflecting Hollywood’s interest in addressing pollution and climate change…
    Green groups hope a gold statuette for either film will boost public interest in a much-ignored issue, just as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth placed global warming in the centre of public consciousness in 2006…
    The challenges facing such films are ‘telling the truth while offering an upbeat story; dealing with anti-intellectual skepticism; confronting the fact that wealthy consumers continue to want to drive cars, fly planes, eat meat – and go to film theatres,’ explained Toby Miller, chair of the media department at University of California at Riverside…
    http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=582498

    jo can rip this Cubby piece apart, without thinking:

    25 Feb: Brisbane Times: Ben Cubby: Common myths about climate change
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/common-myths-about-climate-change-20110225-1b86f.html?from=smh_ft

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Elsie @ 63:

    The smirk on Brown’s face was only wiped off when Windsor said he was not sure which way to lean. However, he will support Gillard no doubt.

    I live in Mr. Windsor’s electorate.

    Elsie notes that she can’t remember a political lie as bald-faced as Julie’s climate tax flip. But if Tony Windsor signs on to this tax it will be a betrayal of his entire career and the forfeiting of the district that has loved and respected him for decades. At least on a local level, Windsor’s betrayal of us hurts far more than anything Julia could lie about.

    Mr. Windsor is retiring at the next election so he won’t have to face his electorate’s wrath at the polling booths. There is no way he could win another term now. Tony Windsor is considered a traitor in his own home district. We’ve trusted and relied on his man for decades to Independently represent the New England region and protect us from the greedy hands in Canberra that are forever scheming new ways to steal wealth from the countryside to distribute to their urban constituencies.

    There are those of among us New Englanders who might have been able to forgive Windsor’s twisted calculus in supporting the Gillard’s coalition government last year. But if he sells us down the river with a bloody “carbon” tax, he’ll be retiring a disgraced, fallen man.

    00

  • #
    Andromeda

    “….coal combustion wastes more energy than it produces……the energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is more than that of the coal consumed! Clearly, coal powered power plants are not only generating electricity but are also releasing nuclear fuels whose commercial value for electricity production by nuclear power plants is over $7 trillion [1993], more than the U.S.national debt……

    In short, naturally occuring radioactive species released by coal consumption are accumulating in the environment along with minerals such as mercury, arsenic, silicon, calcium, chlorine, lead and sodium as well as metals such as aluminium, iron, lead, magnesium, titanium, boron, chromium and others that are continually dispersed in millions of tons of coal combustion by products. The potential benefits and threats of these released materials will someday be of such significance that they should not now be ignored.”

    Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    John Brookes:
    “…However, on certain issues, it may be merited…”
    “Maybe action on climate change is one such issue.”

    “I don’t think that at all. If you are doing work on something reasonably important for the future of humanity, you have an obligation to be as honest as you can.”
    Wow that was a good example! It is very hard to tell the difference between your confession at 112 and your practice example at 118.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I’ve heard today that Gillard told Laurie Oakes that she always intended to introduce an ETS if she was elected
    How deceitful is that to deny she was not going to introduce a carbon tax but failing to mention that she intended to introduce an ETS
    AND I understand she was one of the gang of four who recommended to Rudd that he drop the ETS

    Whichever you call it carbon tax or ETS the result is the same and she has deceived the Aust public who voted for her

    BUT I’m afraid she’ll get away with it, the MSM are on side; look how careful they’re being of her; whether the Aust public are more savvy than the MSM remains to be seen; I hope they are but the tax is now being sold as a division of wealth – no lower income earner is going to be worse off; well if they believe that they will believe anything

    WHAT’S happened to the politicians who believed in the national interest; this current ALP mob believe in nothing other than keeping themselves in power

    AND that goes for Windsor as well – he’s a climate change believer

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    AND Wes @ 121 I used to live in Windsor’s electorate – no longer do – never found him an active policitian – and he is a climate change believer so … you know how he will vote – the only reason he is not saying so at the moment is he wants to keep clear of the heat

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Wes @ 121 . Don’t give up on your man just yet.
    Copied the following another site

    http://www.tonywindsor.com.au/releases/110225.pdf

    It looks like Mr Windsor could be playing a few games.

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Andromeda @ 122 are you a real person. This post lacks lucidity. Any atom has the potential to be split, so anything could be considered nuclear fuel. Have you ever looked at the list of toxins, carcinogens and chemicals released from simple wood fires? See: http://www.burningissues.org/car-www/tables/health-effects-table.html Are you going to suggest the third world stop burning wood to cook food and make water drinkable?

    Back on topic: What value is Jooliar’s promises about how the carbon tax will be spent when she discards promises so easily?

    Judging by the latest photos of the newly bearded Rob Oakeshott, Gillard’s ‘Jesus complex’ is rubbing off on him.

    00

  • #

    So what? These elements already exist in abundance in the biosphere.

    The only way to reduce Australia’s CO2 emissions is to generate electricity from nukes. There simply are no transport fuel substitutes. Electric cars are a bust right now and need electricity for re charging. If you want to pay 3 x as much per kilometer be my guest. I haven’t seen any credible proposal for electric semitrailers or farm machinery. This is a problem if you want to continue to grow and distribute food.

    Not that I’ve got any belief that reducing CO2 is a good idea. It’s just that I’ve flown over the Hunter Valley at 5500 feet.

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Ross @ 126.

    If Windsor believes his own press release he is even more stupid or scheming than he appears.

    He says Gillard’s announcement rules nothing in or out. How could he be so naive? The only thing Gillard has not told us is what price the carbon tax will be set at. Perhaps Windsor plans to resign just before the next election to take up a plumb Government appointment before endorsing a Labor candidate for his seat? Why not, he’s already sold his soul?

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Ross; Windsor is playing games to keep out of the heat; he’ll vote with ‘it’ whatever ‘it’ turns out to be

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Andromeda @ 122. Are youy serious. All of the elements that you mention are abundant elements. You should be aware that there is more mercury spread about by sea spray , for example, that emitted from coal fired power stations. Grow up and do some real research.

    00

  • #
    David

    A few thoughts from the Mother Country (yeah – right…)
    Firstly, we had a similar situation in the UK before and since the 2010 General Election – the leader of the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg, vowed that ‘if elected’, he would do away with university fees completely. Having finished up at David Cameron’s right hand, as Deputy Prime Minister (be careful what you wish for), he had to stand in front of the country – and his party supporters – and give his embarrassed support to a swingeing INCREASE in student fees – from £3000/year previously to a maximum of £9000/year..!
    Back on topic – I note from the ‘warmist’ BBC’s website – that the ‘bete noir’ is NOT now carbon dioxide – but CARBON itself (i.e. soot)..! New ‘research’ (yawn) has apparently shown that soot blocks out the sun and can – get this – adversely affect plant growth.. Quel surpris…
    Even closer to topic – our previous government passed (on a Friday afternoon – tactical move – too boring for detail) the Climate Change Act – which means BY LAW the UK has to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by EIGHTY PERCENT by 2050.
    Break out the horse and cart, and the spinning wheel, folks…

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Andromeda @ #122

    Buried vegetation contains all that radioactive material in it? That’s a bit odd isn’t for something that is believed to be simply compressed vegetation.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Andromeda @ #122

    If you bothered to use a few minutes to think, most of the elements you are trying to make sound scary are constantly moving through the environment naturally. More than half ( if you are a normal person) are in your diet.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Oh Sliggy, I meant the scientists had to be honest, not the politicians! You deliberately ignore my point that the populace sometimes needs to be misled, if you don’t want total dickheads to end up running the country.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Who exactly qualifies to do this misleading John? What makes them more able to make wise decisions? Is it the heavy metal content of the vegan diet that Louis and Andromeda just mentioned?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Difficult problem Sliggy. I say that politicians should be given that role. We elect them based on our assessment of their character. After that, there is an element of trust, counterbalanced by Wikileaks.

    00

  • #
    Lionel Aspden

    As the great J M Keynes said, “When the facts change, Sir, I change my mind. What do you do?”

    Instituting a carbon tax would seem to be a brave move by PM Gillard, and one she should be applauded for. However, it really is matter of too little, too late. The chairman of the IPCC is on record as saying that global emissions must peak by 2015, and this plan will not see Australia any near to doing its share.

    It’s ironic that a country that is being hit early and hard by the effects of climate change should be so laggard in its actions.

    Still, like New Zealand’s ineffective ETS scheme, it’s better than nothing and something future governments can build upon. But it’s well understood that the longer we leave it, the harder it becomes to avoid runaway climate change where increasingly desperate adaptation is the only option.

    If that is the end result, it will be messy.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Ross,

    Thanks for the link http://www.tonywindsor.com.au/releases/110225.pdf

    My reading is that Julia is simply going through some motions so she can say the tax was introduced in a transparent way. Windsor is simply covering his backside but after a “bitter” struggle will agree to whatever Gillard proposes.

    His demand on page 2 section c for briefings by climate scientists is also a sop to those thinking the process is open. I bet Bob Carter is not waiting to be invited,nor is Ian Plimer or Jo for that matter.Will Flannery be telling the parliament about cooling oceans or cool phase PDO? We are being taken for fools. Windsor claims to know little about the internet and might I suggest neither did Mubarak. The MSM may toe the government line but the web is where freedom of speech now resides as does real information.

    PS I am heartened at the civility expressed on sceptic sites when compared to sites such as the Drum or warmist blogs. Breeding shows.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Dang I hate not having a computer.

    @John Brookes #various

    Way to go with some pearlers of inconsistency there John.

    So let me get this straight. If the circumstance suit you, you’re OK with pollies lying to the electorate before an election, correct?

    If we all had the same attitude, how would we get the “good character” polly you mention at #137

    What if the lie suited me but not you? e.g. Abbott says he will introduce an ETS, plus subsidise renewables at the highest rate in the world plus etc etc. he gets elected by winning the vote of some lemmings (though probably not you) then after the election tells everyone to get stuffed and “talk to the hand”. You be happy John?

    I ask you, how will you be able to discern which of Juliars promises at the next election will be kept after the election? You care?

    How about if teachers or scout leaders lied to your kids? You OK with that?

    As you can see John, you’re on a hiding to nowhere here. You might as well just state that Juliar should have gone to a new election with this one instead of treating all of us, including you, as irrelevant irritations.

    You know it makes sense

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Tel: #98
    February 27th, 2011 at 10:22 am

    CameronH: There’s a lot of cattle out on the New England plateau. I’m no expert but I’d guess someone gets the job of giving them a poke from time to time

    What’s wrong with cow pokes Tel? Just today I had to “poke” my cattle into the crush so as I could drench them. So I’m a cow poke lol

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Lawrie:

    I bet Bob Carter is not waiting to be invited,nor is Ian Plimer or Jo for that matter

    Gee, why would you not invite Plimer? Have a look here and see what you think.

    Jo of course would acknowledge that she is not an expert in any aspect of climate science, and wouldn’t go. Hell, if they asked me, I’d have to decline, much as I feel my presence on this blog has given me an insight into the minds of the skeptics.

    You guys need to realise that the odds are pretty well stacked against you being right. The evidence just keeps going the other way. The credibility of skeptics is very low, because of the way any number of more or less pathetic arguments are raised by skeptics. Attempts to come up with a structured alternative view to AGW have been unimpressive so far.

    I appreciate that you guys are motivated by a desire to save the world from a totalitarian socialist government, and think that your efforts would be better spend doing that, rather than belittling the work of legitimate scientists.

    00

  • #
    brc

    John Brookes @ 141

    You guys need to realise that the odds are pretty well stacked against you being right. The evidence just keeps going the other way.

    [Citation Needed]

    What evidence going the other way, John? Are you going to talk of migrating species, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, drowning polar bears? Perhaps your meme du jour will be comparing to cancer doctors or imploring us to think of our children. There is no evidence that supports the proposition that constantly rising co2 levels leads to dangerous positive feedback and increasing global temperatures. None. No evidence whatsoever.
    Or are you going to talk about actual measured temperature increases in relation to constantly rising co2 levels?

    Even the precious computer models predict heat that isn’t there, and temperatures that haven’t eventuated. They have zero predictive capability over the short term, and likely zero capability over the medium to long term. You might as well employ a witchdoctor from central Africa.

    You might argue that some skeptics put up poor theories – and I would agree with you. But you must also admit that the warmist side is jam-packed with idiots and fools, people who have taken leave of their common sense. One look at ‘the list’ is enough to confirm that. Al Gore made a video showing Florida inundated with water. Something which couldn’t possibly happen for thousands of years. I would argue his credibility boarded a carbon neutral flight and left town forever.

    You keep banging on about the need for an ‘alternative view’. You don’t need one. Nobody needs to provide an alternative hypothesis. It’s perfectly acceptable to say ‘well, the co2 hypothesis is wrong, so we don’t know’. It’s not acceptable to say ‘well, it doesn’t look right, but we’ll run with it until something better comes along’. co2 does not drive dangerous climate change – it is disproven. The game is up. But the scientists aren’t going to fold their tents and return their grant money, so they keep chipping away, keeping it alive, doing their best. There’s even a name for that type of activity – irrational escalation of commitment – also known as throwing good money after bad.

    The odds are stacked perfectly in terms of ‘us being right’. Because ‘we’ maintain that the warming world is part of natural variability, causes unknown and partially and poorly understood. There could be a million reasons why this is. You, however, present one and maintain absolute certainty on that one reason for a warming world – an increase a single gas, measured in the parts per million. A million possible other reasons against one reason you’re putting forwards. I’d say that’s a million-to-one odds that the warmists are right, wouldn’t you? [edited]

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Imwd @ 97

    I agree. Some in the Coalition are fully aware of the uncertainties: Peter Jensen, Corey Bernadi and Barnaby Joyce to name three and I think they are all very actively organising opposition to the carbon tax. None of the Coalition need argue the science but they should be hammering the message that the science is far from “in” or “settled” which is the mantra of Labor and the Greens.

    brc @ 100

    I understand why you feel the Coalition should stay away from the complexities of the science as it’s been presented but but no-one should be so afraid of “the science” as to not try and help the substantial number of uncommitted people who are completely confused and desperately looking for answers. I believe that group (and doubting politicians)can be helped with a simplified approach.

    For example:

    Anyone can point to the fact that even after 20 years research by the UNIPCC and the expenditure of billions of dollars, there is not one peer reviewed paper on any climate matter or event that rules out the possibility that it could have been as a result of natural variability.
    Even rabid activist scientists like David Karoly are always careful to put in that little proviso,
    especially with their most outlandish pronouncements!

    If you need more weighty support, just point your enquirer to respected scientist Dr.Roy Spencer’s website and his Feb 2nd 2011 open challenge to the Climate Research Community. Quote:

    “The vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is manmade. It in no way “proves” it. If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:

    Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

    The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.” unquote

    http:/www.drroyspencer.com/

    If they ask about the stories of Antarctica “melting” just point them to the NASA GISS site and check some of the surface station sites used by James Hansen’s Gistemp(hardly a sceptic site): e.g., Davis, Mawson, Syowa, Mirnyi, Vostok, Novolazarevsk and Casey. They’ll just find normal “ups and downs” with currently more evidence of cooling rather than warming!

    For my own part, I actively encourage people to investigate for themselves and make up their own minds. As I’ve said before, it’s pointless trying to discuss common sense with the true evangelical AGW “believers” but it’s the uninformed waverers that we need to help and get onside to defeat this proposed destructive carbon tax.

    00

  • #
    brc

    ach. Correction. Time for bed.

    ->
    I’d say that’s a million-to-one odds that the warmists are right, wouldn’t you?

    [corrected] ED

    00

  • #
    brc

    Keith H – definitely people should speak about the science in their conversations, but someone like Tony Abbott is going to get wrong-footed trying to talk science. Hence the Liberal party needs to leave the science to others, and just concentrate on defeating legislation on carbon taxing. You don’t need to change someone’s mind on ‘acting on climate change’ to convince them that the carbon tax is a bad idea. The latest thing coming out from Labor is that low income people will be better off. This whole thing is littered with orwellian newspeak, but now we’re apparently going to pay people money to keep their lights on, or something.

    The one thing the Liberals haven’t pointed out (and they need to) is this : what if the Carbon Tax works perfectly and all the coal fired power plants in the country close down and are replaced by a combination of natural gas, wind and solar plants. What happens to the rebates then? With no more carbon tax coming in, the rebates will have to go away. So then you’ll be stuck paying more for the same electricity, but now you don’t get any help to do it. So the tax either fails and carbon dioxide keeps going into the air (no big deal, but anyway), or it succeeds and everyone gets stuck paying more. There is no scenario where emissions come down and bills stay where they are.

    It’s so easy to make the public see the stupidity in this – it’s why the ‘great big new tax’ line got such traction in the first place – that I think the Labor party has got rocks in their head to try. The Mining Tax looks like a simple transaction in comparison, and they botched that one up while Kevin Rudd had polling much higher than Gillard has now. It’s the biggest case of last-ditch-efforts I think we’ll see. Having seen Greg Combet on Insiders trying to explain it, I think they are doomed. That guy could put a drunken lorikeet to sleep.

    The good news is that Labor are starting from way behind with this ambitious sell, and, unlike a vampire, two solid kills to a policy is enough to bury it dead forever. If Howard had failed with the GST the second time around after it killed Hewson, no party would ever touch it again. So all it needs is a lot of grassroots effort and Labor will get tangled in their lies and tortuous descriptions that Combet seems intent on boring people to death with. The Carbon tax will die and take Gillard with it (and hopefully Swan, though he is being very cagey and keeping a safe distance), and all future parties will distance themselves from the rotting corpse.

    And, as a bonus, if the death of the carbon tax is really good, it should trigger an election somehow. And that will rid us of this shambolic minority parliament once and for all. I for one will be toasting the day that Oakeshot has to admit he screwed the pooch big time and that his constituents are actually the one who decides whether he has a job or not.

    00

  • #
    Denis of Perth

    Hi Jo

    I have tried to send this point you have made to other blogs.

    Can you work out, or ask, how much do insurance companies charge us for AGW, or whatever it is now called, now?

    Thanks

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    It is getting harder to avoid making a comparison between the poltical musical chairs for the last few years in the NSW State ALP Parliament & the circus in Canberra.

    00

  • #

    Denis of Perth: February 28th, 2011 at 3:42 am

    Might I help answer your question on insurance?

    Roger Pielke Jr has looked at Munich Re, a large reinsurance company, specialising in major disasters. It paradoxically benefits from a major disaster like Hurricane Katrina. Although they lost money on the payout, the heightened awareness of disaster’s increased demand for policies. People’s perceptions of the risks were greater than the actual risk, so they over-insure. They therefore can profit from alarmism.
    See http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/02/tall-tales-in-new-york-times.html

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    John Brookes @ 142:

    And there it is… you could only hide your utter contempt for skeptics for so long couldn’t you? Must have been painful not to use the “D” word repeatedly in that rant.

    Meanwhile here we see some of the truth:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/

    Yup, I really like the idea of the Gillard Rainbow Coalition raising a “tax on carbon” to help balance the books so that they can afford to send billions overseas to help poor island nations avoid the ravages of climate change. Perhaps we can spend some fo that money educating these people that some of their practices are completely unsustainable… like sucking the small aquifers of sweet water under atolls dry, mining coral reefs, or overbreeding (yes, looking at you Seychelles).

    I am sure I shall sleep well knowing that the responsible SE Asian/Oceanic governments will spend our money well… such caring governments like those in Fiji, Myanmaar and Indonesia.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    What’s wrong with cow pokes Tel?

    I never said there was anything wrong with cow pokes.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Oh Sliggy, I meant the scientists had to be honest, not the politicians!

    John, can you describe an objective test to resolve the difference between a scientist and a politician?

    00

  • #
    Denis of Perth

    Thanks ManicBeanCounter My point exactly.

    However, I have no where seen in the Australian press, whether opinion or blogs, the point that Jo is making which is,

    Would you have voted for green/labor if you knew they were going to introduce a cost on carbon dioxide on the 1/7/2012?

    I believe that if green/labor is going to make the carbon dioxide cost neutral for low income earners then they will have to double the pension rate!

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    where are the reporters who will challenge the language?

    26 Feb: Callgary Herald, Canada: Tom Harris: Deceptive climate poll should be ignored
    news release from the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity last Wednesday began, “A poll released today shows that Canadians believe that climate change is happening and would be willing to pay for government policies that reverse or slow the damage…
    Respondents were not asked if “climate change is real.” Neither were they asked if they “believe in the science behind climate change.”
    Pollsters actually inquired: “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?”…
    In the “Key Findings Report” discussing the survey results, one of the principle problems underlying this work becomes clear — the report authors treat “climate change” and “global warming” as if they are synonyms. They are not. Climate change includes warming and cooling, drought and flood and variations in all of the other factors that define our complex climate system…
    Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (climatescienceinternational.org).
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Deceptive+climate+poll+should+ignored/4353635/story.html

    when i reported yesterday that there was no mention of “manmade global warming” in any of the coverage, i should have added there was not even a mention of “global warming” of any kind.

    while Jo concentrates on saving the scientific method, i am just as concerned about saving the language.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    With respect to this tax once it becomes law it assumes a didactic dimension so that whenever it is paid or thought about it is a reminder of its supposed purpose and acts to teach that it is really there to fight global warming. That in the long run will make the uncommitted or uncertain feel they are helping the environment and making a worthwhile sacrifice for the long term future of the planet and thus very likely marginalise skepticism.

    That is why I suggest it is necessary for the coalition to zero in not only on the tax but the science behind it. This, I suggest, is where the battle will be won or lost so this is the time to link the two. The electorate will eventually forgive the taxers unless it can be shown convincingly to it that the predictions of the science are grossly inaccurate and the science for that reason must be regarded as suspect and the tax will be a futile measure, except as a revenue raiser for a spendthrift government.

    If that approach is successful the tax will keep reminding the electorate that it has been had and maintain public pressure to repeal the it.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Re 156

    When it is shown that the short term predictions of the science don’t match the outcomes one response is that the science is predicting long term outcomes (also changing the predicted outcomes to match what actually happens is a transparent trick used by these crooks) and that will always be their rationale for failures. That is why ACC needs to be nailed in the public’s eyes on all its present failed predictions.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I see the Greens were sent packing in the Irish elections.

    It seems Bob Brown is keen to spend all his new tax before he’s even got it. I hope he remembers that Rudd signed up to Kyoto so there is going to be a high financial cost to those commitments and will he have enough left to reimburse those disadvantaged by the tax? Or perhaps a better question would be , does he really know what he doing from the financial perspective?

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s the obvious question for Brookes to answer.

    What difference will Gillard’s new tax make to the temp, when will it make that difference and by how much?

    I mean if this is such a good thing you must be able to quantify it for us, I mean you must have thought about this many times?

    Just to throw in a problem though, China alone intends building at least 1000 Coal fired power stations by 2020, that’s just ten years.

    Of course the rest of the developing world will be building 100′s as well, just makes our hotly contested closure of Hazelwood during the Victorian election seem like embecillic nonsense doesn’t it?

    So come on John you’re the supporter of this nonsense give us your answer in degrees C, is it 0.0001c or .00001c by 2050, just tell us?

    00

  • #
    ceres

    Great summary. “Sneak in the beginnings of one of the largest economic reforms in history”. This should read “sneak in the beginnings of one of the largest economic FRAUDS in history”.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Neville @159,

    I agree. Any reporter worthy of the name should be asking for the payoff of any tax. They can’t answer it. Since they can’t accurately confirm the relationship between emissions and temperatures, particularly now it is so obvious there is a divergence, how can they say with certainty that a tax led reduction of emissions will lead to a specific temperature reduction?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Neville.

    Sorry mate but you’ve just proposed an easily falsifiable hypothesis, that John Brookes is capable of thinking.
    His never ending (not to mention boring) appeals to authority are irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    brc @ 146.

    Couldn’t agree more nor said it any better myself.

    The AGW scam has moved on to phase 2, the carbon tax scam, with all the earmarks of every other shonky money-wasting harebrained scheme that has become the hallmark and legacy of first the Rudd/Gillard shambles and now the Gillard/Swan farce illegitimately calling itself the Government.

    Rush,rush,rush – we’ve got no details, we don’t know the price to be set, we don’t know what’s in what’s out, who will be compensated and who won’t, we don’t know the costs, the effects on the CPI or on interest rates, we don’t know what it will achieve (if anything), we don’t know this, we don’t know that etc.,etc., ad infinitum, but we do know it will increase power and other prices ‘cos that’s what it’s designed to do!! Oh – and we want it to start July 1st 2012 !!

    How can anyone swallow such unmitigated rubbish currently emanating from Labor and the Greens !

    The Coalition should be having a field day!

    It’s cringe material to hear the Prime Minister of our country and the temporary Premier of NSW standing in front of the public with the look of people who have just received a divine revelation saying “I believe in Climate Change”. Who doesn’t? It requires no “belief” as it’s round us every day, has been since time began and will be till the Sun goes cold!

    Now the unproven hypothesis of AGW is another matter. If that’s what they mean why don’t they say so? Methinks they speak with forked tongue!

    And where are the Unions and workers, particularly in the coal-mining industry? How can they stay silent while all the Union hacks they have put into Parliament Combet, Shorten, Ferguson etc., are leading the charge to destroy their jobs and their industry and those of all the other people and businesses who depend on it?

    It is tragic to think of all the money that has been thrown away on useless hugely expensive self-perpetuating Depts of Climate Change, numerous other organisations and people like Flim Flammery, junkets round the world to places such as Copenhagen and Cancun, together with costly subsidies to developing forms of energy that probably will never be able to provide more than a fraction of the baseload energy our growing nation will require.

    What a waste, especially when we have such vast reserves of uranium, coal and natural gas.

    We must be a laughing-stock around the real world.

    PS. Ive just heard that Bob Brown, Christine Milne of the loopy Greens are urging that the carbon tax should be put on as much as possible! My computer nearly went through the screen!!

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    You could ALMOST forgive her if you found out that this was a sticking point in negotiations with the Greens. If she had to hold out day after day and finally caved in order to form a government. But even then, she ought to betray the Greens ahead of the public.

    She is unforgiven. If she has any substantial future in politics after this it will be a bad precedent for the country. We ought to never mention her name in a sentence without saying “The liar Julia Gillard…” first up.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Now the unproven hypothesis of AGW is another matter.”

    Disproven. Refuted. Debunked. Not “unproven”

    Language is everything in this rumble. Qualifications to do with a potential, hypothetical, tiny positive effect, can be admitted to after the fact, and need take no part in any shorthand.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Mark I’m sorry but you’re wrong.

    I’m not referring to the science at all , just simple primary school sums.
    If the developing world is replacing the developed worlds reductions of co2 by many times in the next 10 years then how can we reduce either emissions or the temp?

    The greatest disgrace of course is the lies and hypocrisy involved in their scheme.

    They will deliberately hurt Aussie companies and jobs, but willingly sell more coal overseas to produce more emissions of co2.

    So in the future more of our jobs and industry will be exported to other countries costing us countless billions to try and fix a problem ? that we are helping to make worse.

    That’s if you believe in CAGW and of course that’s what all those wasted billions and time and effort is supposed to be about.

    Are you starting to see my point?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Neville:

    I think you’ve entirely missed the point of my post.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    No Mark you’ve missed all points. The main one being that no-one is exempt from logic and intellectual honesty in science and public policy debates. No credentials can give anyone that exemption. No-one is excused. Not you nor that proven liar Julia Gillard.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    John Brookes:
    February 27th, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    You guys need to realise that the odds are pretty well stacked against you being right. The evidence just keeps going the other way. The credibility of skeptics is very low, because of the way any number of more or less pathetic arguments are raised by skeptics. Attempts to come up with a structured alternative view to AGW have been unimpressive so far.

    And what evidence would that be, John? You have yet to cite any empirical data to bolster your argument for CAGW. Maybe I had gone walkabout or something? Speaking of pathetic, your illogical incoherent ramblings are never supported or substantiated by evidence.

    We skeptics do not need to come up with an “alternative view” to CAGW. Either the theory is falsified or it continues to gain traction. Perhaps you can get the climate scientists to reveal their raw data? Then, we can see if it can withstand scrutiny?

    Here’s a question for you, John: since CO2 levels were lower during the holocene maximum, what caused temperatures to be 4 to 5 degrees higher then than they are today? Don’t forget to page Mr. Blue! You know, me holding my breath waiting? ;)

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    your … incoherent ramblings

    Ahem…

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Maybe I should have used a “smiley” emoticon at #162. I wouldn’t have thought in a million years that my comment on John Brookes’ cerebral processes could be so easily misinterpreted.

    Some people really did get out of the bed on the wrong side today. Must be the “global warming causes cooling effect”.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Thought this might help others; it’s a comment I’ve sent to The Aust today under the story “Tony Abbott hints he’d roll back carbon tax if he wins the 2013 election’
    hasn’t been published yet but I’ve sent an e mail to Tony Abbott; Tony Windsor; Oakshott; with copies to Hunt and Combet (copy)
    I’m entirely with Tony Abbott.

    The question whether any of this vast expansion of taxation is scientifically necessary is not addressed. Instead, there seems to be a religious fevour that deep cuts in Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions are required to save the world from unbearable warming.

    Then there’s the economics. There’s no assessment of the extent to which the proposed carbon dioxide tax will mitigate “global warming” by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide or whether to adapt to its consequences would be more cost-effective. Nor has there been any discussion or consultation between the cost effectiveness of mitigation or adaptation. What seems to be proposed is taking money from the ‘big carbon dioxide polluters’ and giving it to other people to compensate for rises in the price of electricity, fuel etc. How does this mitigate anything.

    And can this Govt even do this effectively, it hasn’t done anything in a manner anything like effective so far. This is a pure and simple tax grab in my view and what’s more it will put Australian industries on the backfoot so far as international competition is concerned.

    I’ve been a swinging voter in the past but haven’t voted Labor in the past 2 elections; think I’ve been put off for life.’

    Now I realise there’s plenty wrong with the letter; was drafted in a hurry for a start but might help others; if it does I’m glad

    00

  • #
  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I appreciate that you guys are motivated by a desire to save the world from a totalitarian socialist government, and think that your efforts would be better spend doing that, rather than belittling the work of legitimate scientists.”

    But they aren’t legitimate scientists. They are liars or incompetents. If you have some evidence Brooks, give-it-up. Its not a question of odds its a question of evidence. And you don’t have any.

    Its not a difficult thing. All that is needed is the best CO2 record you can get, and the best heat content record you can get, and being able to relate these two in a way that goes beyond mere correlation. Its a straight-forward data and attribution question … no dirty data to be considered on any level.

    Now you haven’t done this. And these science workers that you so wrongly describe as “legitimate” have not done this either.

    So you are a dupe, a dummy, a moron. This wasn’t even a tough gig.

    00

  • #
    Tony

    I am amazed at this. We have real world cases stating this system is NOT GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or THE ECONOMY. Its not like they have to look that far afield. Just look at New Zealand.

    And it doesn’t take a certificate in economics to work out that even if “every dollar goes back to Australians” there will be a cost to the economy JUST TO ADMINISTER the thing. How many more pencil pushers (I am one btw) do we actually need.

    And as ol’d Hayek used to say – Governments do not spend money as efficiently as a free market does (Cough BER Cough).

    Shameless plug – if you live in West Melbourne, please help us fight this undemocratic action: http://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-to-Carbon-TAX/156744814378715

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Graham Bird@174:

    But they aren’t legitimate scientists. They are liars or incompetents.

    I usually avoid being blunt, but you are an illegitimate, incompetent liar.

    Or is it only ok to label other people with these epithets? I think you should take a politeness course from Eddy.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Graeme, not “Graham”. OMG I’ve descended to skeptic level, first with abuse, then with getting people’s names wrong….

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ John Brooks

    If you really want to impress most of the people who comment here you may want to provide evidence to support your belief in CAGW. Again, I have yet to see you post anything other than a fallacious argument, usually from authority. The closest you have come to profundity is a comment you posted to the effect that a double blind study was impossible because there is only one Earth.

    I have a few questions for you, John. Lets assume that the IPCC is correct. Since reducing the anthropogenic level of CO2 output to preindustrial levels would only reduce the amount of global warming by a minute fraction of a degree, why bother at all? After all, a fraction of a degree wouldn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things, would it? Wouldn’t we be better off preparing for global warming rather than destroying the world’s economies?

    00

  • #
    brc

    Hey Zorba – I have a couple of weather measuring instruments on my roof.

    And you know what? The wind sensor measures wind and the temperature sensor measures temperature. Funnily enough, I’ve never been able to use the wind sensor to measure the temperature. Weird that. You’d think just by measuring wind-shear I’d be able to get a better reading of temperature than using the temperature sensor. /sarc

    Suggesting that the data is buried in the noise is somewhat astonishing. I’ve never seen an assertion like it. You can’t find the signal in the noise, but you know the signal is in there. Could it be that it is just not there? I guess you could always feed it into Mann’s statistical hockey-stick generator. You’d probably find some rising temps if you did that.

    Just to let you in – the models predicted the hot spot would be there. It’s not there. This argument was over a long time ago. Even Trenberth and his buddies admit this to each other. Why can’t you admit it to yourself?

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Give it up Brookes. One of us is a liar. And I think its you. And all you have to do to prove that its me is to come good with a legit CO2 record, and a legit heat content record, and show that the two are related causally. That the CO2 causes a very substantial amount of the heat content.

    GO!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Eddy, I try not to engage people here on the science. Its called learning from experience.

    Just the other day, my natural naivety got the better of me, and I suggested to someone here that the rainfall in south western Australia had started its decline in the 1970′s. We then got into an exchange which basically consisted of, “I looked and it did”, “Well I looked and it didn’t”, “Look at these, see”, “No I don’t see, I’m still right”.

    There are people interested in finding things out, and broadening their understanding, but they aren’t here.

    If the IPCC is correct, than you are both right and wrong. Of course we should prepare for global warming. But we should also try and limit the extent of that warming. If we ultimately go up 2 degrees rather than 4, that will certainly be a win.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Graeme Bird:

    Ha ha.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    You are a proven liar Brooks. You cannot come up with the goods and you know it. One of us was lying for sure. Turned out to be you.

    00

  • #
    Andromeda

    “……The fact that coal fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal fired power less economically competitive….”

    Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

    00

  • #
    Mark

    John, what’s it like going around trying to block your ears and hide your eyes at the same time. I hope you don’t drive like that.

    You’ve been posting your inanities here for months now and I even note that you’ve spread the coverage of said inanity to WUWT. Over and over, it’s about what you “think” or “feel”.

    Maybe you should go to a “believers” meeting John. I’m sure they’ll praise such missionary zeal . Privately, they could begin to wonder if they’re on the right track with one such as you in the ranks.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Brooks. Proven liar and/or science incompetent. Well what do you think of that. Shooting blanks. A moron. A fool.

    If the advocates were serious they would have at least compiled the most honest and best collections of CO2 time series graphs they could. And the most honest and best heat content estimates that they could. Not one but many compilations. And then they would have stared at them long and hard to figure out if one was influencing the other. If the first was adding to the second. They would have applied all the tools they had to hand.

    But oh no. The last time anyone tried to put together an honest CO2 level history he was abused and no follow-up or corrected CO2 level graph was attempted.

    These guys are all frauds or incompetents Brooks. Live with the reality.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    John I’ve asked for an answer explaining how our sacrifice can fix CAGW.
    I’ve tried this in the past and again today but I never ever get a reply and certainly not an answer.

    I’ve explained the reality of the increasing emissions of the developing world and Gillard’s lies, stupidity and hypocrisy, now please tell me where I’m wrong.

    Here’s all the charts and graphs you’ll need out to 2030, so come on show us the way. Sorry to ask you to respond to facts, it’s a bummer I know.

    http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Here is a graph of the last time someone tried to put together an honest CO2 record.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/images/beckco2.png

    Now were it a matter of simple disagreement, why did not the advocates come up with a corrected graph? The answer is that the advocates aren’t interested in evidence.

    The case for the global warming fraud cannot be made without a CO2 record. You might think it can Brooks but it cannot. You might suggest it can but you would be wrong in this suggestion. And the attempt has not even been made.

    There is an ice record but it doesn’t show what the advocates say. There is an ice record but the ice is a proxy and no measured record. Its also a lower than relevant estimate since the ice is formed mid-troposphere.

    They could set to it and put together an estimate based on three or more proxies but they won’t do it because they aren’t interested in the truth.

    On the matter of the other graphs that they need they are continually showing themselves to be frauds, liars and incompetents. They have monopolized on the CO2 readings so they cannot be checked. They have compiled bullshit data-sets using every childish artifice imaginable to concoct warming trends. They won’t hand over their data though legally required to do so and still their dishonesty is manifest.

    Imagine people so dishonest they don’t own up to the loss of the Soviet Union measuring stations in the early 90′s. Did it not occur to you Brooks you moron that Siberia is a pretty cold place and that the loss of Siberian weather stations would jack up the averages?

    You are a dim bulb Brooks if you haven’t noticed the lying and the incompetence. A dim bulb or a proven liar or both.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Neville @ 187 Thank you for that link! It has some very good graphs.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    John Brookes and/or any other true AGW “believers”

    Hot off the presses and nary a mention of CO2. Among other natural factors, just the natural variability of the PDO where the 1976-77 jump can be seen in almost all the temperature graphs of Alaska and the Arctic. The current fall in temperatures now noted can be seen in many temp graphs from all over the world and has been occurring for the last 3-4 years. Check it out with the “Surface Station Selector” at James Hansen’s NASA GISS Gistemp site.

    In your quest to “find things out” and “broaden your understanding”, have you done that John Brookes? Sure’ly you must have done the Antarctic too by clicking up Davis, Mawson, Syowa, Mirnyi, Vostok, Novolazarevsk and Casey bases; you know, all the places AGW was supposed to show up first?

    Alaska Climate Research Center http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/

    Decadal Climate Change in Fairbanks

    “Climatological data of the first decade of the 21st century are now available, and we analyzed the data for Fairbanks (see graph). Related to the temperature, the warmest year was 2002 with a mean temperature of 30.3°F, the 7th warmest in our records of more than a century. Higher temperatures were observed during the following years in order of decreasing values: 1926. 1987, 1928, 1993, 1940, and 1981. The coldest year of the last decade was 2006 with a mean temperature of 25.7°F. Numerous values below that level were observed during the last century. While the overall trend since 1906 shows warming, the best linear fit of the data points of the last decade displays a fairly strong cooling of 1.8°F. Recent cooling has also been observed in other parts of the world, and some climatologists have attributed this trend to the low solar activity we have experienced over the last few years. Another symptom of this can be seen in the aurora activity, which has decreased over the few last years here in Fairbanks. It is worthwhile to point out that during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), a time period of very low solar activity, Greenland froze over and the Vikings had to leave, as agricultural activities became more difficult.

    The temperature has varied widely over the last century, 1926 being the warmest year. In 1976/77 a sudden and substantial temperature increase was observed in Alaska, which we attributed to a change in circulation, which is expressed in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The PDO shifted from dominantly negative to dominantly positive values. Since that change, the temperature trend has been fairly flat for Fairbanks.”

    Crank up the CO2 levels everyone. I think we’re going to need them to stay warm over the next few years! OOps, I forgot. The late much quoted AGW guru S.Schneider also wrote a book in the ’70′s about the imminent Ice Age which was going to be caused by – you guessed it, rising levels of CO2!

    Sheesh! We just can’t win!

    Our only hope may be John Brookes’ pals, the modern day King Canutes, but will we finish up burnt or frozen?

    00

  • #
    Billy Bob Hall

    ABC comments in ‘lock-down’ again… Worse, some of last weeks comments have been ‘edited’ from the comments sections ‘completely’… ;-)

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Instead of this Cave Man “Earth Hour” we celebrate HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT HOUR.

    WE turn ON ALL of our lights and contemplate all of Human Beings achievements.

    The GAIA WORSHIPPERS want you to turn off your lights to experience life with a carbon tax.

    Nobody will be able to afford electricity and it will be earth hour for 24 hours a day!!!

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    [snip]. Percival, take a deep breath mate, please?

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Percival, you are resorting to alarmist tactics

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Moron, cretin, liar, dim bulb, science incompetent, fool!

    The witty put downs here are incredible. Paul Keating could have learnt a thing or two from Graeme Bird and associates.

    Many of you start from the position that the scientists are corrupt or incompetent. I don’t. With these two different starting points, we won’t agree, and I don’t mind that. I just drop in here to give you the occasional reality check, and to give you someone to argue with and abuse so that you aren’t reduced to arguing among yourselves. Its a thankless task, but it needs doing.

    Occasionally you repay me by telling me something I didn’t know, and I’m always glad for that.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Look. Have you got the two records? Or are you just going to sit there with egg on your face? You ought not be on the public tit if you lack the ability to even so much as identify what would constitute evidence. [snip] And its a great shame that I have to pay for your continued sustenance. [snip]

    Have you access to two good non-corrupted records, one for CO2 and one for heat content? Yes or no?

    If not get snappy with the retraction. I wasn’t lying. You were.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Dear Johnny,

    I hear your pain, man. But don’t try to paint Birdie as the Poster Boy for Skepticism. It’s a blog, mate. You get to comment here too, and you ain’t no “associate” of mine.

    I have always found anyone who uses Senator McCarthy’s picture as an icon begging to be offensive. As for Graeme Bird, I’ve known him online for years. He’s really a nice guy, but he suffers from coprolalia and is obsessed with calling anyone he doesn’t agree with a liar.

    You see, Birdie always thinks that everything he knows is true is true. And if he knows it’s true, it must be pretty bloody obvious it’s true to everyone else, since even Birdie admits that he’s not exactly the sharpest piece of cutlery around. So if everyone knows that what Birdie thinks is true is true then only a liar. -a Big fat STINKING LIAR-could possibly ever disagree with Birdie.

    Ain’t that right, Birdie?

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    ” since even Birdie admits that he’s not exactly the sharpest piece of cutlery around ….”

    This I cannot agree with. I always admit that the other bloke is a blunt non-knife. I’ve never applied such an estimate to myself.

    Never mind. I’ll find out who the imposter is. I’ll find out who has been stealing my identity and leading you astray. But tell me something. What exactly do you disagree with? Don’t molly-coddle these people. I would have respected Brooks in 2005. But its 2011 and we have been subjected to Soviet style propaganda too long.

    I think you are going soft Wes. Battle-fatigue. Thats the word. Wes going soft. Wes gone native. Sorry you had to hear it from me.

    00

  • #
    Sam

    You guys seriously need to stop your groupthink.

    The country’s chief scientist just resigned, stating that Australia’s commitment is not enough to stop dangerous warming, and you think you’ve got the slightest understanding of the science.

    Oh, brother.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Nicely put Wes! And I had no idea that was Joe McCarthy’s face – you see I do learn stuff here.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    John you’re in good company,( ? ) you see poor old Luke over at J. Marohasy’s blog can’t answer me either, but at least you haven’t abused me.

    You just resort to coward’s castle and just totally ignore my challenge, ah well to use a keating term ( to Hawke) you are indeed a jellyback.

    Luke won’t respond on the facts either but just resorts to the foulest abuse I’ve seen for some time.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    February 28th, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Many of you start from the position that the scientists are corrupt or incompetent. I don’t. With these two different starting points, we won’t agree, and I don’t mind that.

    Actually, many people here start with open minds and a belief in data and logic, and then let the evidence sway them one way or another. If this is the way your mind works, it really doesn’t matter where you start — you’ll end up in a similar place eventually. (Sometimes, of course, there just isn’t enough evidence to justify taking any particular stand, and so you keep an open mind — a situation that many people can’t tolerate.)

    Just because you start by assuming what you want to believe, and then not questioning it, doesn’t mean the rest of us do. IMO, you could not be a successful engineer, in any field, if that was how your mind worked.

    I just drop in here to give you the occasional reality check …

    Don’t flatter yourself, John. What you give us is not reality, but an example of the True Believer’s mind.

    … and to give you someone to argue with and abuse so that you aren’t reduced to arguing among yourselves. Its a thankless task, but it needs doing.

    Thanks John. I’ll admit you serve a purpose.

    00

  • #
    brc

    Well I refrain from calling people names just because they disagree. Can’t stop other people from doing it.

    However, John Brookes – a challenge was laid out to you to present evidence how a carbon tax can stop global warming. I think it’s fair enough that you do so because you do defend it quite vigorously. Are you for the carbon tax, even though you know it will not have any effect on the global co2 ppm measurement?

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    It seems I’ve been away too long. Wes has gotten my identity mixed up. Well I don’t want to defend Brooks. But at least he’s showing some human humility. But Luke appeared to be some public service tag-team. Sackings sackings and more sackings. This racket stops then and not before. If you sacked enough public servants you might get 4 out of the half dozen Lukes that were such a problem.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “The country’s chief scientist just resigned, stating that Australia’s commitment is not enough to stop dangerous warming, and you think you’ve got the slightest understanding of the science.”

    Good Lord. Thats the evidence we’ve been waiting for. Time to invest in carbon credits and algae jet fuel. How could I have been so mislead?

    00

  • #
    pat

    great news:

    27 Feb: WUWT – Voted Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/27/wuwt-voted-best-science-blog-in-the-2011-bloggies/

    at last!

    28 Feb: Abbott promises to repeal the tax Gillard promised not to pass
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_promises_to_repeal_the_tax_gillard_promised_not_to_pass/

    laugh so you don’t cry:

    27 Feb: Bishop Hill: Natural Histrionics Museum
    The Natural History Museum has set up a climate change quiz, which has to been seen to be believed.
    See it here, (but be warned, you will need a strong stomach).
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/27/natural-histrionics-museum.html

    let’s get this thread and others (WUWT, the Bish etc) to everyone on our mail lists today, so they can enjoy the serious and the fun side of CAGW sceptics.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Abbott’s starting to talk my language now. Not sure how he intends to bring emissions down. Thought he was more into getting the trees to absorb the already emitted stuff but he’s on the right tram. One can sense it’s all crap is not far from his thinking and may soon be on his lips.

    “Mr Abbott warned there was no guarantee that a carbon tax would reduce emissions and said the Coalition’s direct action approach would be more effective in helping the environment.

    “We will actually bring emissions down. They will simply make emissions more expensive,” he said.

    He accused the Prime Minister of announcing a carbon tax without the approval of the cabinet, or the Australian people.

    “The truth about this carbon tax is that it will drive up your prices, it will threaten your job and it is based on a lie,” Mr Abbott said.

    The Opposition Leader said he would not simply “roll back” the tax, as Kim Beazley promised with the GST, but would scrap it entirely.”

    The Australian

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Oh, and just for the record…

    When I first encountered the Grim Birdie sowing ad homs in online climate forums, I reckoned he had to be a Moby (a sockpuppet) of a far-left Greenie black ops funded by George Soros. His whole kitsch is a brilliant parody of a wingnut John Bircher out looking for commies to lynch updated for the climate debate..out to make our mob look like a bunch a nutters with a speech impediment…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOA3aYRSy_k

    But no, Birdie is the real thing.

    Occasionally, when he’s on his meds he makes a really coherent comment laced with less than a dozen ad homs. Problem is that when he’s on his meds he chills by taking his Hummer out for some off-road hooning in an ecological sensitive national park rather than writing online commentary.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Unless, unless, UNLESS. Oh, my God, Neville. I think you have inadvertently hit upon the hidden clue. It was always there before our very eyes.

    It all makes sense now! The bad syntax, the faulty logic, the delusional rants, the ad hom avalanches. The icon monsters…

    LUKE IS GRAEME BIRD!

    Moderator! Moderator!

    00

  • #
    brc

    Sam @ 199

    You guys seriously need to stop your groupthink.

    The country’s chief scientist just resigned, stating that Australia’s commitment is not enough to stop dangerous warming, and you think you’ve got the slightest understanding of the science.

    Oh, brother.

    Bad case of projection there, Sam. Who, exactly, has got the groupthink? Just read through these comments – the only commonly held opinions is that Gillard lied and co2 doesn’t cause catastrophic global warming. Those two particular facts have plenty of evidence to back them up.

    As for the chief scientist – well, I would be worried if she actually had studied climate science instead of astronomy. This may come as a surprise to you but she probably had advisers and they might have been wrong. Unless you think every single person becomes infallible once employed by the government?

    If a skeptic got appointed to the chief scientist position tomorrow, would you believe there was no longer a problem? No? Well stop trying to argue from authority. I could appoint myself ‘grand commissioner of planetary climate’ and my opinion still would mean nothing when compared against actual evidence.

    00

  • #
    Sam

    brc @ 199:

    According to this, yes, she had advisors such as CSIRO:
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44434.html

    I see your point, but are you seriously stating that they are giving her bad scientific advice?

    00

  • #
  • #
    Sam

    Mark @ 211,

    Oh come now – that’s a pretty extreme position. Sure, Julia lied. I accept that (what else do you expect from pollies though?) CO2 causing warming… it’s pretty scientifically solid, having been known for over 100 years.

    Whether it will cause ‘catastrophic’ warming is not known so well. It partly depends how much we emit and how much the planet will soak up naturally.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Look Wes. I’m going to have to sit here fuming because there is no way that I can present to you my posts with all the polemics taken out to prove you wrong.

    I was the first person to suggest that the fact that water was more viscous when cold helped explain the step-fashion nature of cooling and warming on a multi-decadal basis. I was the first person I can find who hypothesized a direct relationship between the resistance-to-circulation of the currents, and the equilibrium heat content of the globe ((((holding energy input constant)))) via Stefan-Boltzmanns law.

    Others have mentioned this but not before me as far as I know. And I plugged this concept all over the place

    In philosophy I was the first person I know of to articulate that only convergent evidence gave us rightful certitude and not deductive exactitude or anything else. I know that everyone with any commonsense already acts like they know this but its a serious philosophical point.

    I was the first person to make the heater-in-the basement versus the heater-in-the attic analogy to show that not all DELTA-JOULES are equal. And that therefore the INCOMING Joules that the CO2 was absorbing or scattering (ie the joules that extra-CO2 negated from the lower atmosphere) may well be more important than the theoretical extra joules through back-radiation.

    Wes I don’t think you conveying to strangers and interlopers the fear and regard I’m due, and the worst thing of all is you calling me a nice guy. Because as Reagan said (from memory)

    “….. we’ve been conducting foreign policy as if we want to be liked ……….

    Well ….. its nice to be liked.

    But what you really want is to be respected.”

    The fraud side of the argument do not fear us. Only when they do will they feel the need to be straight up with us.

    As far as I can see I’ve originated a whole string of contextual ideas on this subject and climate is only a part-time gig for me.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “CO2 causing warming… it’s pretty scientifically solid, having been known for over 100 years.”

    Its not the least bit solid. See the above post for just one reason why it may not be true. It may be true in the arctic summers and untrue most other places. You don’t have the data. The only thing we know for sure is that positive or negative the effect is slight either way, AT OUR CURRENT AIR PRESSURE.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    I was the first person to bring marginalist thinking to the problem and showed why we have to assume that the effect of the CO2 will be less than if we were in an aggregated and averaged environment as in the models.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I notice that once again it is up to The Australian to post something which makes common sense:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/unilateral-action-creates-costs-without-benefits/story-fn59niix-1226013133637

    You don’t even have to address the “science” to realise that a unilateral move on “pricing carbon” is pure folly. Economists can be ruthlessly pragmatic at times, but no doubt the true believers will ignore this piece simply because it is at The Oz.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I see your point, but are you seriously stating that they are giving her bad scientific advice?”

    Thats her only saving Grace. If they are lying to her like they are lying to everyone else.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Sorry Mark. I thought you were …. I thought you were … You know. One of…. I thought you were one of THEM.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “When I first encountered the Grim Birdie sowing ad homs ….”

    They are not ad homs Wes. They are observations. Observations and if you want to be bold about it INSULTS. An ad hom is something else. Like asking me what my degree was in. There is a difference.

    Good scientists know that the global warming fraud is wrong because they check the empirical evidence. Honest scientists like Jennifer have been martyred and hated because they stridently stuck with the idea that the empirical evidence is necessary for a scientific case. Loved by us but hated by others.

    But still, one time or another we’ve all FELT that the theory must be right haven’t we? It ought to be right, so we thought, and we just have to wait for the evidence to come in.

    But see that post 213? Do you see it Wes? Do you see it? Post 213.

    Post 213 gives us about half the context of why the evidence is never going to show up. The other half is given to us by dudes like Louis Hissink and the electric universe crowd.

    Its important to have the reasoning right and not just to know that the opponents don’t have the data.

    And post 213 is all my stuff as far as I can make out.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I finally got a chance to sit down and read Henry Ergas’ piece at the Australian carefully (see link on previous post). My response:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. You have precisely and concisely decimated the pseudo-economic arguments being touted by Labor and the Greens. As a fellow economist I was becoming increasingly annoyed at the utter gibberish being spouted by the PM on this issue. Their arguments from economic ignorance are extremely hard to take.

    As if it isn’t bad enough that the whole “price on carbon” issue is based on pseudo-scientific advocacy, now they are spouting pseudo-economic gibberish. I can guarantee that there would be better advisors than that in the relevant Commonwealth agencies, so that fact that the PM & the cabal keep pushing this rubbish means that they long since left rational scientific and economic thought behind in favour of political ideology.

    I highly reccommend a read of Ergas’ piece, because it is easy to digest, even for non-economists… I think. Hard to tell because it is second nature for me.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Sure, Julia lied. I accept that (what else do you expect from pollies though?

    Nice, Sam.

    That’s the sort of high standard we’ve come to expect of Labor voters here in me home state of NSW.

    Bloody bald-faced lies? Pffft. Whatever. As long as the lies are Labor lies, we forgive and forget.

    The end justifies the means. And our democracy swirls down the drain.

    Thanks for courageously claiming the moral low-ground for your side, Sam.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Bulldust that piece of Ergas’s is very well explained,but the simple problem is the developed world has been flatlining for years so we can’t change co2 levels no matter how hard we try.

    Contrary to us China and India have about 1.5 billion people at least who have yet to experience proper electricity supplies plus all the basics we’ve taken for granted for multiple gerations.

    You can’t house and educate that extra number of people with wind and solar farms and as they are already planning to use coal fired power for the foreseeable future, so the die is caste.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    A comment for those in Aus:-

    What’s the bet if HerRanganus takes a dive in the polls the ABC/PRAVDA has another encore showing of “Bastard Boys”?

    The trotted it out again for Greg C in 2007 if my memory serves right.

    Perhaps they already have a serialized drama planned to show the coming generations how valiantly the “champions” struggled! They could bring the Choo-choo Boy in for some consulting & walk-ins.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    methinks (as Jo’s document indicates) that the govt has snookered itself.
    They can’t drop a carbon tax, they can’t pursue it.
    If they drop it, they have backed down, no principles etc.
    If they pursue it, time will catch them. The AGW fraud will be further exposed in the period before the next election.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    When ya think of it, all it would take is a significant number of the good electors of Lyne to front up en masse to the office of Oakeshott and let him know in no uncertain terms what his real duties are

    And they are not to indulge his peurile fantasies.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Bulldust # 216

    I got a comment published to Ergas’ piece in the Oz today. I wrote

    Thank you, Mr Ergas, for approaching this with intelligence and rationality. I won’t hold my breath for the “sensible answer” as this Govt’s Green-tinged course of action is an ideological crusade with little foundation in science, not that they will be honest with the people of Australia about that. It really does beggar belief, especially in light of troubling world economic conditions.

    I also got another comment published to the story about McKibben’s concerns a GFC Mark II could be on the horizon. I wrote

    Yet another reason why this Govt’s ‘all pain, for no gain’ tax on plant food is a bad idea, of stupendous proportions! Not only have they squandered billions on other dud projects, they continue to spend money we should be saving trying to make carbon dioxide into the ideological bogey-man of our generation. If McKibben is right then we may be headed for hardship anyway, and as such the Govt’s Green-tinged desire to irreversibly hobble Australia’s economy and its people is irresponsible in the extreme.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Someone already reported that the Greens did badly in the Irish election. How badly? They lost ALL their six seats.

    Most gratifying. Bob and Christine take note!

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    I wanted to share with you all a beautiful moment I witnessed today. It was the birth of a brand new sceptic!

    I gave some people in my office Jo’s handbook last week and one today came to me wide-eyed and said, “I just didn’t know all this stuff”.

    Then came the look of horror as it dawns on her what Gillard’s tax is all about…..

    Apparently she’s been sharing her new found knowledge with husband, friends, family!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ju-liar liar pants on fire

    If my daughter tells a lie, there’s no way to reprimand her now, is there? She’ll just say,”But the prime minister lies too, and it’s ok.”

    00

  • #
    brc

    Sam @ 210

    I doubt she is taking advice from the entire CSIRO. I would imagine she has one or two people that feed her climate change information.

    If those one or two people are activist scientists, the likes of Hansen who might be giving advice to a US counterpart, then it’s highly likely that the adverse affects are exaggerated, and the uncertainty downplayed. I often see people talking of catastrophic ocean level rises in our lifetime, which are pretty much an impossibility due to the time taken to melt all the ice. The raw data is correct (x cubic kilometers of ice melted will rise the ocean x metres) but the crucial third piece of data – timeframe – is omitted for the scare factor. You don’t have to be completely wrong to put across the wrong impression. You said yourself the catastrophic side is not well known or understood. It wouldn’t be hard to mislead someone if they trusted your advice. I don’t know who in the CSIRO provided information, but just one person in control of a research team could easily put across vague information leading to incorrect conclusions about sensitivity and certainty.

    Besides, she said herself she had never been called upon to provide scientific evidence to the PM, so what she believes is pretty irrelevant. When the time came to get someone to talk to the public, they chose Flannery instead.

    One day the truth will out why she left. Maybe it was benign and she wanted to do something else. Maybe she found it untenable to push the climate scare with the sort of certainty everyone else was and thus stepped down. Like a board member who doesn’t like the accounting practices of a company, but can’t do anything to fix it themselves, remove themselves for reputation protection and to avoid the fallout.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Percival Snodgrass:
    February 28th, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    [snip]. Percival, take a deep breath mate, please?

    Percival, If I am correct you used to post here under a more feminine tag. Allowing that I am right, Baa Humbug and others hinted at your overzealous ridicule of those that take a different path to the majority of Jo’s regulars. You do nothing to boost the reputation of this blog when you are rude with your post and only turn true sceptics off.

    Please show a little more tolerance with further efforts.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Sam @ 210

    Sadly, in the opinion of many and on the facts available, the scientists directly involved are giving bad advice.

    As far as any climate change debate is concerned, our once highly respected CSIRO and BoM have been forced to become propaganda mouth-pieces for the grants-controlling Labor Government and the whole AGW push.

    Enter “BoM & CSIRO Report” in Jo’s Search Box and follow all the links. Their Report, based on less than 50 years from the low start 1960 reads like a manifesto for the AGW lobby!

    The same thing has happened world-wide and is symptomatic of the UN/Governmental corruption that was evident from day one of setting up the UNIPCC when it was promised unlimited ongoing funding and all necessary promotional support, not to investigate all possible factors and/or causes of climate change, but as per the ‘Framework Convention on Climate Change’ to specifically find :-

    “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

    Probably the worst feature of control imposed on scientists has been the mandate that Government approval had to be given to all Reports to make sure they conformed with the imposed “consensus”.
    This was what caused such a furore when the Government reps had one of the lead authors,Ben Santer, alter the Final Draft Report of the Second Report (1995).

    Google “The Triumph of Doublespeak” by UNIPCC reviewer Dr.Vincent Gray for what many regard as the best and most incisive insight into how the UNIPCC operates. It’s a real “eye-opener”!

    00

  • #
    Sam

    thanks for the thoughtful comments. certainly some food for thought.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Sam:

    I would quote the old Roman advice.

    Cui bono? (Who benefits?) or, in the present vernacular. Follow the money.

    Governments can’t possibly compensate everyone who needs it. Said compensation will (must) be phased out and more and more people from the middle class down will find their living standards drastically reduced. High level public servants, politicians and merchant banksters will laughing at the way they conned so many people.

    The stupidest thing of all is that ultimately, the climate will do as it damn well pleases. I have stated before that this gang was desperate to get an international agreement in place before the ocean cycles start into their cooling phase so they could claim “success”.

    According to Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and their has been cooling though not statistically significant in the last few years. I’ve no doubt he would have been crowing at the slightest indication of any warming!

    I say to you in all sincerity Sam, this has never, ever been about science. It’s only ever been about international politics at its worst. I won’t provide links as in the words of Christopher Monckton: “Trust nobody, not even me. Do your own research.”

    I’ve never heard a “warmist” say that.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    John Brookes:
    February 28th, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Eddy, I try not to engage people here on the science…

    And therein lies the problem, John!

    Just the other day, my natural naivety got the better of me…

    Really, you don’t say? Wow, you could knock me over with a feather!

    If we ultimately go up 2 degrees rather than 4, that will certainly be a win.

    John, perhaps you should read my post again (@178) and you will see that I wrote a “minute fraction of a degree.” So, do you want to wreck the economies of the world and acquiesce in the death and suffering of many to reduce the world temperature by one or two-tenths of a degree? If the temperature rose 3.8 degrees instead of four degrees would it really make a difference? Remember, I was speaking hypothetically and do not believe that man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere will have anything but an almost immeasurable effect on temperatures. The point is that destroying the economies of the world will have no tangible benefits EVEN IF THE IPCC IS CORRECT!!! SO, WHY DO IT?

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Sam @ 234 and Mark @ 235

    Thank you Sam. Your comments are like finding a diamond to me! All I hope is that more open-minded people like you will continue seeking answers for themselves because we sure as hell don’t get any through any forms of our biased MSM!

    I agree with Mark about “Trust nobody, do your own research” but I like providing links to help people like you do that research because I know (as an originally computer-illiterate older person), how much I appreciated such help when I first started to question statements such as “the science is settled” and there is “overwhelming consensus”.

    I also agree with Mark that the desperation of Governments and the AGW lobby to get global agreements in place ASAP is driven by the knowledge that based on previous climate history all the observable indications are, world-wide, that a very cold natural phase is coming and in fact has already started.

    Just look at how the warmist language has changed from never-ending heat, drought, decreasing rainfall, decreasing and vanishing snow etc.etc to “we predicted heavy snows, heavy rains, freezing conditions”, in fact every climate or weather event that happens, but it’s all still consistent with and due to Anthropogenic Global Warming!

    Good luck with your research, however it leads you to think about AGW.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    John Brookes:
    February 28th, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Many of you start from the position that the scientists are corrupt or incompetent. I don’t.

    Your argument is arrogant presumption at its worst. Many skeptics have concluded, after an unbiased and objective consideration of all the pertinent facts, that a small group of climate scientists have falsified data to maintain the taxpayer funded gravy train they have been riding for years. You have once again employed a straw man!

    I just drop in here to give you the occasional reality check, and to give you someone to argue with and abuse so that you aren’t reduced to arguing among yourselves. Its a thankless task, but it needs doing.

    In order to give a “reality check” you would need to be in touch with reality. Also, you would need to be willing to discuss the science! You have already posted that you are not willing to do!

    Occasionally you repay me by telling me something I didn’t know, and I’m always glad for that.

    Judging by your illogical postings it appears you either did not read about rhetoric and logic at the link I provided you previously, did not comprehend what you read or read it, comprehended it and still continue to disingenuously post here! Which is it, John?

    00

  • #
    Sam

    Keith H@237 and brc@231,

    Yes! I think we should be able to have sensible discussions about all this. Let’s face it, there are extremists on both sides of the case. I have done my own research on this, and have come to my own conclusions (that the mainstream science is in fact correct, although there are still huge uncertainties) but your own research may lead to other conclusions.

    I think it’s important to read widely and approach this topic with an open mind.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Eddy:

    Your argument is arrogant presumption at its worst. Many skeptics have concluded, after an unbiased and objective consideration of all the pertinent facts, that a small group of climate scientists have falsified data to maintain the taxpayer funded gravy train they have been riding for years.

    And I disagree. If I actually started from your assumptions, then I’d probably draw conclusions much like yours – but I don’t.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I think a lot of these people just got caught in a wave and convinced themselves of things that aren’t true. If someone believes someone else’s delusion, what can you do. Nothing. Especially if the delusion is consistent with chic liberal politics.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    John Brookes:
    March 1st, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    And I disagree. If I actually started from your assumptions, then I’d probably draw conclusions much like yours – but I don’t.

    Another non sequitur again, John! Try articulating a coherent and lucid thought, John. The change would be most welcome. What did I assume? Are you offering another straw man?

    00

  • #
    brc

    Eddy, John

    Might I humbly suggest that you both take it outside? I think your conversation thread is slowly falling to levels of a flame war and no longer improving or upholding the quality of the comments. It’s clear that you don’t agree and are never going to.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Eddie and Brian,

    You blokes seem to be really struggling to understand how Johnny and Sam can maintain their fragile faith in spite of the fact that the world hasn’t seen any global warming in over a decade while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.

    Sure, the so-called “real world” can be a pretty cruel place sometimes, but why sit around all day worrying about the way things are when, with a little imagination, determination, and blinding denial, you can convince yourself that everything is great?

    It may sound crazy, but I’m telling you, if you put your mind to it, you can make yourself believe just about anything!

    Don’t let annoying little hang-ups like logic, reason, or even reality stand in the way of what you want to be true. Your mind is the most powerful tool you have, and if you use it correctly, you’ll be amazed at all the incredible things you can deny.

    Lose your job due to gross incompetence and whispers of corporate malfeasance? No, you didn’t. You left your job voluntarily and without incident, because it was stifling your creative energy. Wife hate you because you’re a pathetic shell of the man she used to love? Wrong again. In fact, you don’t even have a wife.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/if-you-put-your-mind-to-it-you-can-believe-anythin,17168/

    You see it’s all in your perspective of things. AGW theory fails to explain why it was warmer in the medieval and Roman times with no human produced CO2?… Not. Yesterday was the warmest day ever since the Jurassic era. Extremely cold winters in northern hemisphere?… Obviously CAGW induced colding. No tropospheric hotspot as predicted by AGW theory???… Wrong. It’s there all right, but no one has measured it yet. Climategate shows scientists conspiring to hide the decline in global temperatures?… Not. Inquiries were made and found nothing but propriety. IPCC fraud and conflict of interest?… LA, LA, LA, I can’t hear you. LA LA LA LA. US Congress defunding of the IPCC…. BusHitler did it! Julie lies to steal an election? …Whatever, democracy is overrated.

    As Johnny says:

    If I actually started from your assumptions, then I’d probably draw conclusions much like yours – but I don’t

    So true. If you start from the assumption that CAGW is true, then ignore all evidence to the contrary you’ll end up like Johnny. What’s most interesting though is that Johnny and Sam are very careful about sequestering their rather “special” assumptions about the world into a realm where it doesn’t really matter in daily life.

    If they were to share the same reckless disregard for empirical evidence while navigating daily life that they show in evaluating the evidence for AGW, they would have sadly been eliminated from the gene pool by now. Perhaps run over by a bus that they imagined was merely Trenbreth’s missing heat, or died of thirst, refusing to drink water in order to help out during the last drought… They certainly wouldn’t be in any shape to hold down a job.

    The end result of delusionally ignoring reality in one realm is often madness in others as well. Sam, Johnny, you kids are playing with fire…

    Witness this poor sod, cowering in his basement with a pump shotgun and petrol generator (oh, the hypocrisy) awaiting the CAGW End of the World:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022503176_2.html

    Climate Change Delusion has been a recognized mental illness since 2009 in Australia:

    Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of “climate change delusion.”

    Robert Salo, the psychiatrist who runs the inpatient unit where the boy was treated, has now seen several more patients with psychosis or anxiety disorders focused on climate change, as well as children who are having nightmares about global-warming-related natural disasters.

    http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ wes george 244

    Thanks for your comments. I really enjoyed reading them. It is sad when the CAGW scaremongering causes some to go off the deep end.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Eddy, John
    Might I humbly suggest that you both take it outside?”

    brc don’t be laying out the equivalence between the two of them. The problem comes where John won’t retract. He’s wrong he’s got to retract. Not continue a global evidence filibuster.

    Failing to retract when you are wrong is ignorant, piggish and uncultured behavior. [snip]

    These are really smarmy liars these people. And they could not get away with their superficially polite condescension and dishonesty if they were trying this sort of thing on in the coffee houses of traditional intellectual debate.

    They would be getting beaten up relentlessly and we may note in passing that CO2-bedwetters are not world-famous for their physical courage. So its really the internet that has allowed for this incredible explosion of worldwide obsessive dishonesty.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    brc #179

    I see you responded to my moderated post but refused to publish it. What are you so fearful of? What is obvious is that as the deniers’ influence is slipping, the moderators on this site are becoming increasingly selective about the posts that they publish.

    [not really but if you can't stop using the "D" word then you'll be moderated permanently.] ED

    You also failed to provide evidence that rules out the existence of the troposphere hotspot.

    Do you think the wind speed as measured by the anemometer on your roof is a good proxy for troposphere wind shear? Notice the term wind shear as opposed to wind speed. Note also that the measurements to detect presence of a troposphere hotspot, and hence the shear measurements, are meant to be performed in tropical areas, where the troposphere hotspot is supposed to exist. Or didn’t you know that?

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Giving some global warming fraud believers a really satisfying dusting up on their own turf. Catch it before the thread is diluted and my posts are taken out.

    http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/skeptic-faux-pas-and-epic-fails/#comment-4749

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    zorba@247 THS rebutted:

    http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

    As for wind shear which was the basis of the infamous Sherwood modelling effort which proved [sic] the existence of a THS based on the fact [sic] that extra CO2 would cause variations in windshear patterns:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/sherwood-2008-where-you-can-find-a-hot-spot-at-zero-degrees/#more-9225

    00

  • #
    brc

    zorba – I’m hardly going to quote a moderated post, otherwise my post would get moderated as well. In any case, I would have been operating off the email feed rather than what was published, and you get unmoderated comments in the email feed. It’s not hard to avoid moderation- just avoid calling people names and you’ll sail right through. Trying to avoid moderation on climate progress or realclimate – now that’s a black art in itself.

    As for the content of my post. Perhaps my tone wasn’t obvious enough. It was sarcasm. I was poking fun at the whole ‘we used wind shear to measure temperature because the temperature probes didn’t give us the result we liked’. Of course I know my wind meter doesn’t measure temperature. Others have linked the actual rebuttal so I won’t bother. If you want to get more information download the sceptics handbook from this site and read it, I can’t improve on that.

    The most satisfying part is when you can make a joke and then someone comes out frothing at both being moderated and taking the joke seriously.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Yeah, Graeme.

    All the usual suspects are there: maple leaf, norwegian rat, sharper00. Wish i hadn’t gone there now, spoiled a nice dinner.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    If Australia were to go to the polls in the next few months, what happened in the US mid-term elections would happen here.

    In the US mid-term elections, some 60 Democrats lost their seats… and virtually all those who were staunch supporters of the failed cap-and trade legislation, that Obama tried to get though, were dumped by voters.

    This is what would also happen to Gillard and her green team… they’d be unceremoniously dumped by Australian voters.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Jo of course would acknowledge that she is not an expert in any aspect of climate science, and wouldn’t go.

    Another Brookes jewel of thought, from the individual who insists that he is “qualified” to decided “who he’ll believe about what” and “who he won’t believe” because of “professed” expertise.

    This is nonsense, he believes the AGW charade because it appeals to him, for whatever reasons, so he will rationalize his beliefs any way he can.

    I have reached the point where I can’t even be CIVIL to these people any longer. How bad is that?! My wife advises me to “be nice to these people, even though you disagree with them, you share a lot in common with them starting with the fact that you’re all human.”

    Which is true, but for me, humans were given a mind so they can think things out for themselves. The mind is there to discern the truth from the noise. If facts don’t add up, thinking people don’t defer to “experts” who make up stories that don’t make any sense to cover up obvious facts.

    I just can’t bring myself to be nice to these people, because they are fascists and they make me sick. Maybe it’s an abnormality in me, I don’t know.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The most uninspiring news of the week:

    UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon took time off from the skirmishes in Libya and other bothers to fight the real threats facing the planet – those coming from the global warming deniers who have thwarted the UN plans for Kyoto II.

    “I need your support,” he admitted last week in a pitch to 400 Hollywood movers and shakers in a day-long forum that played up the doom and gloom message — floods, fires and drought – that only Hollywood can sell to a sceptical public.

    “Animate these stories!” Ban urged. “Set them to music! Give them life! Together we can have a blockbuster impact on the world.”
    The Hollywood crowd, subjected to a day filled with panels with titles like “Making Global Warming a HOT Issue,” seemed sceptical itself. A vice president from Walt Disney, unimpressed by the UN’s two-decades long effort to market climate change to the public, said that it “feels like an early step,” asking “How do you make it marketable, palatable and engaging without preaching?” Another executive noted “the best messaging on climate change by far is by the deniers.”

    Ban remains hopeful that he can swing Hollywood his way: “You have power and influence to send to millions and billions of people around world,” he said, adding “Some believe we have 2 or 3 planets, but we don’t. This is the planet we have to preserve and hand to future generations.”
    Ban’s visit to Hollywood was part of the UN’s Creative Community Outreach Initiative, a major marketing effort starring himself that counts among its successes its role in the movies, The Interpreter and Che.

    Comment: The movie Che glorifies a two-bit wannabe socialist dead-ender who made an occupation of killing people he didn’t like because it was the “revolutionary” thing to do

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    “Some believe we have 2 or 3 planets, but we don’t. This is the planet we have to preserve and hand to future generations.”

    Gee whiz Ban you are saying to Hollywood people “some people believe…..”. These are the very people who peddle fantasy.

    You get the impression that BKM has come under the spell of His Eminence Charley Sheen ( or acquired his taste for chemicals!).

    00

  • #
    alex

    A letter to my Federal member….

    “I am am an enrolled voter in your electorate, and writing to voice my opposition to the ALP’s carbon tax policy, and its climate change policies in general.

    I challenge you to inform yourself better on the scientific issues surrounding the greenhouse theory and convey those to the government.

    For example are you aware the main greenhouse gas is water vapour ? That the entire alarmist edifice of catastrophic global warming is based on an assumed positive feedback in climate models of increasing atmospheric water vapour which has not been observed in reality ? That a 2% change in global cloud cover can account for ALL of the observed warming in the last 100 years? That NONE of the climate models used by IPCC have been subjected to the conventional scientific test of falsifying an hypothesis? That Australia’s fossil fuel-burning contribution to the annual global C02 emissions is just 0.045%? (ie less than 1 part in 2000). ? If all of this is new to you, I am not surprised since only a small part of the public would be aware of it. However, you have access to advisers and an excellent library to confirm these facts, and I would even be happy to meet with you to explain further if needed.

    Even if those facts are ignored, how can the government in any case justify taxing Australian business and household emissions of CO2, when the major global emitters are not doing so? The five biggest “polluters” are China, USA, Russia, India and Japan, accounting for nearly 60% of global fossil fuel emissions. The first four do not have carbon dioxide emissions taxes or controls, the fifth has turned it’s back on the Kyoto protocol. China is building additional coal-fired power stations in the next 10 years that are the equivalent of Australia’s ENTIRE coal-fired electricity capacity. Your government’s policy will simply export the emissions, along with jobs and investment, and do enormous damage to the economy and people’s lives while doing absolutely nothing at all to reduce emissions.

    There are ample other environment problems that are real and deserve policy attention and resources. A carbon tax is a smokescreen and an expensive, wasteful, damaging and futile diversion.

    I demand that your government seek a mandate at the polls before making the biggest-ever change to our national domestic economy and our international trade position. Otherwise you and the government are unconscionably diminishing my children’s prospects for their future.”

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Alex good letter; and I had this comment posted on The Drum today (Glen Milne’s column)

    Professor Carter in Quadrant Online this week says it best ‘Despite this lack of evidence for dangerous, or potentially dangerous, warming, and despite the lack of efficacy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions as a means of preventing the trivial warming that is likely to occur (cutting all of Australia’s emissions would theoretically prevent, perhaps, around one-thousandth of a degree of warming), the political course in Canberra is now set on carbon tax autopilot, and the plane is flying squarely into the eye of a storm that is labelled “let’s spin a regressive new tax as a virtuous environmental measure”.

    That’s the first question; where’s the evidence of AGW.

    AND taking money from the ‘big carbon dioxide polluters’ and giving it to other people to compensate for rises in the price of things doesn’t mitigate anything.

    This is a tax grab and it will put Australian industries on the backfoot; jobs will be lost and people will be poorer

    00

  • #
    alex

    Thanks Val. I also added at the end of 2nd last parag

    “I challenge you and the PM to state publicly how much temperature reduction will be actually be achieved by her carbon tax, and how soon.”

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    good thinking Alex!

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Just as matter of interest I have written to the PM a few times; I never get a response; I never get a response from Tony Windsor’s office either; the only response I receive from Oakshott is that ‘my office is currently receiving a high volumn of e mails’ and giving a phone no if it’s urgent electoral office business; I always get a response from Tony Abbott’s office and Barnaby Joyce’s office;
    wondering how everyone else is going with responses to e mails objecting to the ‘carbon’ tax

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Clive Hamilton tried to run me down in his scheming to create a fantasy of an alternative co-ordinated “deniers” conspiracy.

    You may get a laugh out of it because the forces of evil are yet to coalesce. This is no request for assistance since the thread has a certain purity to it as it is. No telling what will happen in the future.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/02/windsor-receives-death-threats-as-climate-of-hate-ramps-up/#comment-123900

    00

  • #

    I, like ALL Australians should be, am absolutely OUTRAGED that ANY party was elected to Government in Australia based on a CLEARLY CALCULATED OUTRIGHT LIE!

    It does not matter whether one’s political persuasion is Labor, Liberal or the Ding-Bats party – that should be irrelevant in this situation.

    It also does not matter at all whether one agrees or disagrees with a carbon tax – that is not the point either!

    We are in danger of our whole democratic political system being destroyed if we, collectively, do not send a clear & decisive message that we will not put up with clear deceit any more from political parties just so they can gain power.

    Whether all politicians lie or not is NOT the question here (although there’s never been one as bad as this one) – this outrageous example of lying to get into power must be the LAST STRAW and we need to warn ALL POLITICIANS that it will not be tolerated.

    There is no doubt that Gillard Government knew they wouldn’t get into power if they made it part of their policy leading up to the election. The evidence on this is proven by the fact that Gillard & Swan so passionately denied it only AFTER it was brought up by the opposition during the campaign.

    We cannot allow this sort of thing to get worse in our political system – it’s bad enough now without this.

    I stress again – It does not matter whether one’s political persuasion is Labor, Liberal or the Ding-Bats party – that is not the point here! The BALD FACED LIE is the ONLY point!

    We must not be as laid-back as we all traditionally are (me included), this outrageous lie just to gain power cannot be tolerated! What’s next? One could only imagine what lies may be used to gain power if this one is allowed to slip through!

    Carbon Tax? No Carbon Tax? The public already decided on that at the last election – we were told there wasn’t going to be one and that’s what we voted on the basis of. We also did not vote Bob Brown as Prime Minister either!

    If the PEOPLE want a Carbon Tax, let the PEOPLE vote for it! Election or referendum – don’t care, but it MUST be one or the other.

    We must act – don’t sit on yr bum this time – ACT!

    There is a peaceful rally outside Parliament House on 23/3/11 at midday and YOU SHOULD be there. I’m taking the day away from my business to be there as this is So IMPORTANT. Email cata@hotmail.com.au for details.

    Secondly, there is a “poll” website where you can join a petition to stop this rubbish and force it to go to a vote of some description. There are over 15,000 signatures already and it’s only a couple of days old. Go to http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/ and sign the petition. Remember, it’s not the tax, it’s the LIE.

    A chance to vote is all we should be insisting on here; tell us your going to bring in a Carbon Tax but let the PEOPLE decide at an election BEFORE you bring it in!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It’s certainly no consolation for you in Australia and I don’t mean this in that way but many of us here in the U.S. know your frustration. I can’t begin to enumerate the lies by commission, omission and distortion that were told to the voters in order to put Obama in office.

    I’m encouraged to see protests being organized. We’re all in this together and I hope you succeed, not only for the sake of Australia but for the message it will send to the rest of the world.

    ———–

    Brian @254,

    Ban remains hopeful that he can swing Hollywood his way: “You have power and influence to send to millions and billions of people around world,” he said,

    How interesting — the UN admits defeat! The invincible man was not so invincible after all. Hollyweird notwithstanding, I think the point where alarmism will no longer work is now behind us.

    [sorry Roy, was caught in spam filter for some reason. mod oggi]

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Now both the wiki and the Australian Academy Of Science are lying that water vapor is only half of greenhouse. How long has this lying been going on? Its caught me by surprise.

    00