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

Garnaut: spend billions! Why? So they don’t say nasty things about us.

Photo: ABC

Gillard condemns us to the carbon tax plan (commencing 1 July 2012), and the future emissions trading plans (2015), setting Australia up to be the last dumb-patsy-standing as the rest of the world heads the other way and bails out of the carbon facade.

Australia must immediately pour billions into government coffers, and the man who can justify it all is Ross Garnaut.

For all the expense, the effort, and the pain, what reason did Garnaut put forward?

a/ It will reduce world temperatures. (No.)

b/ 20th century temperatures were perfect. (Says who?)

c/ Australia won’t be so “popular”. Correct answer!

That’s right, the prof of economics has studied it all, crunched the numbers, been paid a stack, and it boils down to “tut-tut-tut, nobody will like you if you don’t do what I say”. (Well, actually it is just foreign “intellectuals”that won’t like you — shucks!)

Garnaut the schoolyard prefect is telling us off. From The Australian:

Australia risks a backlash from the international community if it fails to make “proportionate” efforts to cut its carbon emissions.”

But wait, it gets worse, we might confuse them too. God forbid:

Australia’s emissions growth would be caused largely by the expansion of the resources sector and would “not be easily understood by other countries”.

Except of course, they are not misunderstanding us at all. If they didn’t want the darn resources they wouldn’t be paying for them. If they could sell them instead, they’d be selling them. And in any case the Chinese and Russians are laughing at us, even as they nod and say Yes Yes, sir that’s important and can we sell you a quadrillion more Carbon certificates? Ka-ching.

Now I’m scared. Unpopular AND misunderstood!

The only point where Garnaut talks about anything resembling international economics is when he threatens us with being left out of the club:    

He said last year that France was leading a movement to restrict trade from countries without a carbon emissions trading scheme and warned of potential trade imposts on Australia.

Oo-ee. I say “let ‘em”.  Total Australian exports to France are $1 billion per annum, but we import  four times as much back from them. If they knock back Australian goods, they stand to lose more than we do. Even if it did cost us $1billion, it’s still cheaper than grovelling to the UN and selling our soul to Goldman Sachs. Gillard and state-governments-et-al have wasted more than that just on solar subsidies (not to mention the BER, Pink Batts or argh#$% — the NBN).

Garnaut admits the bleeding obvious, that emissions are tied to economic growth:

The paper says the 2008 global financial crisis had pushed developed countries of the northern hemisphere on to a lower long-term economic growth trajectory and this would result in lower underlying emissions growth in those countries. But this would be fully offset by emissions from the developing world.

Translation: We have to eat-less; have-less; do-less, and worse, when we do, the emissions will be put out by the third world in any case. The balance of power, lifestyle, and influence shifts East. Let’s all sit around and sing Kumbaya (while saving up for  those nuclear attack subs because we, ah, live in the East.)

Don’t get me wrong, the Chinese and Indians deserve better living standards, but it doesn’t have to come with the voluntary hair-shirt sufferance of the West.

The bottom line is that, according to the appointed expert on the topic, the main reason to sacrifice Australian lifestyles, wealth, power, and opportunities and to risk more massive government waste or bankster extravagance is because the foreign “intellectuals” might say not-so-nice things about us.

“More fundamentally, any failure of proportionate mitigation effort will invite critical and, in some circumstances, damaging international response,” Professor Garnaut writes. The warning of damaging international responses echoes those of former prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Who the heck cares?

Full story, The Australian: Garnaut tips global backlash on carbon

Image Credit: ABC 2008

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Garnaut: spend billions! Why? So they don't say nasty things about us., 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4aerbr7

1 comment to Garnaut: spend billions! Why? So they don’t say nasty things about us.

  • #
    Harry The Hacker

    Garnaut has been spouting codswallop for at least a decade. Nothing has changed. Time for the dinosaur to go.

    00

  • #

    Good one Jo. Garnaut should steer clear of comments on climate science given his past record, now its clear foreign policy is not his forte. I feel for the guy, trying to sell a cow, and a lame, bony one too.

    00

  • #
    Nick

    I must bore you all with a little story…

    I gave a fella that works for me a list of jobs for which to pick up material. I was going ahead to start on other jobs for which I already had the gear, not wasting 2 mans time by standing around waiting to be loaded with material. I told him to pick up the gear and meet me at one of the jobs I had material for. The plan was to leave his car at the first job, do a “Lap” of jobs that would bring us back to his car at the end of the day. Nice and productive :-)

    Well this idiot went and completed the first job on his list, rendering my planning useless and throwing a spanner in the travel plans. Oh, and the first job he did was cancelled just as he ws finishing it. A fact he would have known had he met me at the job I told him to. So he wasted his time and money. IDIOT!!!

    Why does this situtaion remind me of this government? Incompetent & innept. When they do make a decision and take the initiative it based on incomplete information and a lack of communication coupled with a complete lack of skill.

    The bloke working for me is now millimeters from being unemployed. He can’t keep costing me money like that.

    Why is this gevernment still here? how much will they cost us? I’m not sure Australia will get over these incompetents?

    THEY HAVE TO GO!!

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    A Happy Clappy by any other name!

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Garnaut has been caught out exposing the politics behind the warmist religion. Orders must be coming from ‘High Priests’, otherwise why would normally intelligent people sell out their souls and integrity and make such illogical and dangerous proclamations?

    We await the referendum.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It is really sad when you see someone who actually has a brain and knows how economics works have to double back on all their training and kowtow to a Government agenda.

    We saw the same gibberish coming out of Ken Henry about the RSPT before he’d had enough of it (and no doubt the abuse of economists that knew what they were talking about) and quit his job… at least he still has some integrity. Garnaut is flushing whatever he had down the dunnie as we speak.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    In USA in contrast!

    “BREAKING: House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 source
    Posted on February 11, 2011 by Anthony Watts

    House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs

    By Andrew Restuccia – 02/11/11 07:33 PM ET
    A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.

    The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.”

    More at WUWT

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/11/breaking-house-bill-unvieled-late-friday-cuts-epa-budget-by-3-billion-block-funding-for-all-current-and-pending-epa-climate-regulations-for-stationary-co2-sources/

    00

  • #
    observa

    Dear Ross,
    I can handle the overseas criticism without the need for any stress counselling and can even handle less boat arrivals that may result. Toughen up sunshine.
    Regards observa

    00

  • #
    Ivan

    @Bulldust #6
    “It is really sad when you see someone who actually has a brain and knows how economics works”

    This are both joke comments, right?

    Ross Garnaut – October 17, 2008:

    “The veteran economist predicted the current crisis would have run its course by December 2009, when a new global deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol is due to be reached at a United Nations meeting in Copenhagen.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/financial-crisis-will-pass-climate-change-wont-garnaut-20081016-52ee.html

    Sorry. No sale.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Jo I implore you to submit this to the Australian as a rebuff to Garnauts piece.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Another excellent piece Joanne.

    I really don’t think that many of those proposing carbon taxes actually believe their own propaganda.

    Their political masters have fed them a list of these pathetic excuses to trot out for the masses.

    Pathetic as they are, it’s all they’ve got!

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Depressing. I think the sceptics have one the argument (the battle) and lost the politics (the war).

    Brave politicians are now required to respond to Garnaut and Flannery.
    Their incentive to do so? My vote.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Here I will tell Mr Garnaut how the Australian economy works and it won’t take years and a 700 page report.

    You put a price on CO2 the workers and welfare recipients demand a pay rise no one reduces their use and life goes on with a higher CPI.
    If you think taxing things to stop people using them works how come people still smoke and drink.

    My prediction for 2013 Abbots battlers will sweep him to power.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Another Ian @7,

    In USA in contrast!

    “BREAKING: House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 source
    Posted on February 11, 2011 by Anthony Watts

    House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs

    I commented on this bill in a previous thread and apparently I misunderstood exactly what it was. But it will never get through the Senate, at least not without a bitter fight. Democrats and the White House will accuse Republicans of shutting down the government. And the Republicans will point exactly the same finger back at the Democrats.

    In the end there will be a compromise, probably unpalatable, simply because not all House Republicans are of the same mind.

    So this will be the acid test for Republicans. If they hold their course the Democrats and White House must eventually cave in and Obama will probably give another “wonderful” speech. Yuk! And if not then I hope we get something worthwhile out of the compromise. Obama will then give another wonderful speech.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    This American at least, will love Australia even if you don’t implement all this nonsense. You don’t deserve any of it.

    Do build those submarines! I wish I could say we might even sell them to you readymade. But that seems unlikely.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Googlyfish Australia, Robert James. Robert James said: Garnaut: spend billions! Why? So they don’t say nasty things about us. « JoNova http://goo.gl/iM9UQ The plundering gets seriously stupid [...]

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    If Garnaut really believes in catastrophic, carbon caused AGW he should have Australia do the right thing – stop mining and selling coal.

    00

  • #
    Alan

    Hi Jo, You picked some good quotes from Garnaut’s speech but missed this zinger: “This growth (from our resources sector) was also likely to bring Australian mitigation policy under close scrutiny and it was unlikely that Australia would meet international expectations of emissions cuts without getting credit for substantial international purchases of carbon abatements.”

    Does this mean that we will also have to buy those useless carbon credits from other countries? Or we will look bad? In other words, being stupid is better than looking bad. Not only will we tax ourselves to death, but a lot of this tax will just be thrown away to other deserving, “developing” countries based on their, well … made-up environmental needs. Foreign aid is already abused by many recipients, this is a further extension of that scam.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bulldust: # 6

    It is really sad when you see someone who actually has a brain and knows how economics works have to double back on all their training and kowtow to a Government agenda.

    The brain is a tool. Having one is not the same as using it. Anybody who knows “how economics works” is a charlatan by definition – not my words – words of a couple of economists I work with. Economists can only really tell you what has happened in the past, and what may possibly happen in the future assuming that the future is exactly the same as the past, it is not a predictive science except in the minds of politicians and the media.

    Baa Humbug: # 10

    I am with you Baa.

    We need to go onto the offensive. The warmists have lost the battle in the area of one pseudo-science, now we need to win the battle in the other pseudo-sciences.

    Doug S: # 11

    Nobody believes the propaganda any more.

    But hey, if it ain’t working, why not try doing it harder? It can’t do any harm, right?

    incoherent rambler: # 12

    the sceptics have one (sic) the argument (the battle) and lost the politics (the war)

    Not yet, we ain’t.

    Roy Hogue: # 15

    I wish I could say we might even sell them [submarines] to you readymade.

    Nice offer Roy, but Australia will probably buy reconditioned, ex-Russian, subs from the Chinese (velly cheep).

    Just don’t tell anybody that they are nuclear powered. :-)

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Alan: # 15

    Does this mean that we will also have to buy those useless carbon credits from other countries? Or we will look bad?

    It all depends on timing. The international credits are AAU’s that were defined under the Kyoto protocol. That protocol runs out some time soon – next year I think. What happens if it is not replaced by something else? Who knows?

    What interests me in all this, is why this Labour government is so determined to implement measures that are based on the Kyoto protocol when it expires next year(ish).

    Is the idea that they can implement a tax, based on Kyoto, and then just continue pocketing the money when there is no longer any need to trade carbon credits? Shirley Knot. That would be illegal, wouldn’t it?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    What is so annoying about carbon trading is that it is inequitable. The “rich” countries pay, and the “poorer” countries do not. And that depends on your definition of “poor”.

    China is currently vying with Japan as the second largest economy in the world, but with a significant proportion of its mainly rural population on or below the UN’s official poverty level, it is classed as a “poor” nation, and is therefore exempt from carbon trading.

    If you are interested in seeing the underbelly of “Green” technology, have a look at:
    http://extrinsic.blog.com/2011/01/1437/china-the-other-impact-of-new-technology-2/

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    An interesting piece of information re this ANTIHUMAN Kyoto…….

    Cancún climate change summit: Japan refuses to extend Kyoto protocol:-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/01/cancun-climate-change-summit-japan-kyoto

    00

  • #
    elsie

    All the non climatologists such as Al Gore, Ross Garnaut, Tim Flannery, etc, want us peasants to live austere lives to ‘save the planet.’ Yet they each use more and more energy saying it is necessary to spread the message of using less power. Someone else has said that if these messengers believed their own propaganda then they would show more willingness to live as if we were really facing a planetary crisis worse than WW3. Until then, while they fly around in swish surroundings being paid super high salaries, I will refuse to believe in their ’cause’. Instead of congregating at rich resorts why don’t they use video conferencing? After all, this means of communication has been trumpeted as low cost and energy saving for years.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    TonyfromOz has a very timely post at http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/shh-misconceptions-about-placing-a-price-on-carbon-dioxide-you-wont-hear-about/
    (quoting the opening paras)
    Here in Australia, the Labor Government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard is seeking to impose a ‘Price on Carbon’.

    Some of you may think that this is exclusively an Australian problem, but the same applies everywhere something of this nature is going through the processes of implementation.

    There are many misconceptions about placing a price on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions, and what I hope to do here is to explain some of those things, because the bland term ‘A Price On Carbon’ is easy to understand, while what it actually means is almost impossible to try and explain.

    The single most difficult thing to even attempt to explain is just how much money something like this will raise for Governments who introduce it, and that is what is most definitely not being explained to people, because if it was, then people would see it for exactly what it is, nothing more than a new revenue raising tax, and a whopping great huge tax at that.
    (end of quote)
    check out the post; it’s all about the money

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Jo , I note Garnaut refers to France and possible trade retaliation. Is he correct –I’m sure France was one of the first to change tact after Copenhagen and abandon its proposed ETS type scheme. ( I’ll have to do some digging later today to try to find the reference)
    I agree with Baa Humbug @ 10 — try to get this piece in any other media you can.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Climate Alarmists Take Ownership Of The Word “Change”

    Posted on February 12, 2011 by stevengoddard

    Climate scientists know that nothing ever used to change, so they can now attribute all change as being a direct result of change. Anyone who disagrees is a denier, and of course it follows that all change is due to CO2.

    The inevitable conclusion being that change must be stopped through taxes.”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/climate-alarmists-take-ownership-of-the-word-change/

    00

  • #

    Perhaps Garnaut is suffering from early onset of dementia? Or he’s deeply corrupt and will say anything for money? I’m open to other theories.

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Proposed carbon taxes are not so new an idea. yesterday I was browsing through a book about 17th century England. To raise revenue the king taxed the number of hearths in a house. To spoil this people would brick in the hearths when the tax collector came. So, another tax was started. A window tax. That’s right, the more windows in a house the more taxes you paid. This resulted in many windows being bricked up and some can still be seen that way today. Glass makers said they would be shattered,pun intended. Naturally, this tax headed quickly to the rubbish bin. Let’s hope the same fate awaits any carbon tax.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Rereke Whakaaro:

    I beg to differ somewhat. In broad terms it was pretty obvious that if the RSPT was to be implemented it would have hurt mining investment in Australia as compared to the business as usual scenario. I think that’s a fairly safe prediction from common sense and basic economic theory. Yanking $12 billion out of an industry over two years cannot possibly result in increased levels of investment over a non-RSPT scenario.

    Yet this is what Henry was saying in the media. This was as basic an example as I have ever seen and Henry’s comments were laughable. He said the data was based upon modelling… and therein lies the duplicity. You can prove anything you want with econometric models. I make the (bot so bold IMHO) assumption that the same can be said of climate models depending on how you tweak the parameters. Given that many of the parameters are not known with much scientific certainty, it is not a bold assumption IMHO to think they can predict whatever they want, and be as confident of that opinion as the next one… which is to say not confident at all.

    I am no better at predicting the economic future then the next person, but if you tell me the Government is going to levy a huge tax/levy on an industry I can tell you unequivocably that the industry will be worse off in the future.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> I recall the comment by a colleague who’s task had been to assess the impact of the RSPT in WA. Given that something like three quarters of mining company profits (for the majors, I forget the exact amount) gets ploughed back into new projects, having the government tax away a large proportion of those profits directly results in a reduction in investment, let alone the decreased desirability of investment due to the harsher taxation environment and sovereign risk.*

    * Sovereign risk means to what extent you can trust a government not to change the rules of the game… the reason we have no electricity generation investment in Australia is NOT because we lack a certain carbon price as Joooolya would like to preach, but rather because the Labor Government keeps flip-flopping on it’s “carbon price” policy position. Industry hates uncertainty like that with a passion. It is a total investment buzzkill. The most certain “carbon price” is a price of zero – I can absolutely guarantee there will be investment under that scenario.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PPS> Now I think about it the whole year-long exercise with the climate change committee (or whatever Flannery and his henchmen are called) will just add to the uncertain investment environment further forestalling investment. Joolya in her infinite investment will keep on carping how this is because we lack a certain “carbon price” therefore making it imperative to come to a quick deceision. Some things aren’t that hard to predict ;)

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Bulldust #30,

    Have a look at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/wsj-no-weather-weirding-worries/#more-33708

    e.g. this bit

    “But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

    As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”

    In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.”

    But “using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present” – is this the beginning of “The Battle of the Models”?

    00

  • #
    Albert

    On the ABC’s 7.30 Report last year, Garnaut’s name was connected to serious environmental damage from a gold mine in PNG in one of the most pristine areas on Earth.
    Garnaut was offered the right of reply on the same show, he refused. He did write a letter of complaint to the ABC but those who viewed the show needed to hear his reply.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    POLL – Should a price be put on carbon emissions?

    http://www.skynews.com.au/

    The obvious answer is “NO” !

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Crossposting as evidence in case the ABC decides to censor (in answer to the Greenie who keeps persisting with the line that fossil fuels are subsidised):

    Simple fact is that you won’t address (and neither is the ABC keen to post my replies on this) the fact that fuel excise taxes are far, far greater than any subsidies and therefore the net result is a tax on fuels, not a subsidy. So Julien you lose for improper accounting. I have asked you this exact question days ago and you refuse to touch it because you know I am dead right.

    * what’s the betting the ABC does not post this or waits an inordinate time to do so? No worries, it has been crossposted as evidence.

    Another Ian: Pretty sure I read that one already (I check Jo Nova and WUWT pretty much every day) but I shall double check. I totally agree with the basic thesis, but newspapers sell very little copy if they say everything is normal, and therein lies much of the problem… that and the fact that most people are ignorant enough to believe most of what they hear and read in the media.

    [Please keep posting these comments, but please keep the ABC link in as well!. Obviously I need that thread... JN]

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Report finds that “weather is not getting weirder”.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

    “The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out (if recent extreme weather events are becoming unusuall frequent), using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
    As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    This has been posed previously on another thread, but it is worth reposting.

    It concerns garnaut’s mining company and the ENORMOUS amount of enviromental damage it is causing!

    Quadrant Online – Mining Garnaut:-

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/09/mining-garnaut

    GARNAUT IS INDEED A HYPOCRITE!

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Frequent Flyer Flannery says it’s the green way….

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/frequent_flyer_flannery_says_its_the_green_way/asc/#commentsmore

    This tim flannery is yet another HYPOCRITE!

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Following on from proposals to curb funds to the EPA in the US of A, comes this:

    LUETKEMEYER BILL SEEKS TO PROHIBIT U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS TO UN CLIMATE CHANGE PANEL

    States News Service
    February 11, 2011

    The following information was released by the office of Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer:

    U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today reintroduced legislation that would save taxpayers millions of dollars by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.

    00

  • #
    matty

    Garnaut’t remarks as reported by Graham Lloyd on 5/2/11 in the Australian are desperate nonsense.

    “I don’t think there is any major area where, unfortunately, sceptical views of the science can draw anything from the real science, peer-reviewed science, that has been done in the past five years”.

    If he actually believes this (I doubt it)then he is a high paid mushroom – kept in the dark and fed shit! If he doesn’t believe it then he is advancing an agenda outside his expertise. Takes me back to Garth Paltridge lamenting the paucity of good advice in the govt agencies regarding Climate. Where within the official apparatus was Rudd meant to go for proper advice?

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Elsie @ 29

    I am pretty sure the pedestal tax was a Westminster System fisc.

    You can guess where the expression “Tight-Arse” came from.

    I have a theory that most of our pollies hang on till they get a stint down in the Great Round-about( the home of tax-payer funded pedestals). However most of them leave too late & it flows out both ends.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Let me be PERFECTLY CLEAR

    Anyone who thinks that the tax revenue will go towards helping households pay their bills (which will go through the roof) and into green schemes should consider the fact that we’re about to pay a levy on our Medicare system to pay for flood relief instead of unwinding the Billions of dollars in pork barrelling promised to the independents to purchase their votes.

    Anyone whois deluded enough to think that this revenue is going to where they think it should go is as Naive as they are blatantly and irrevocably Stupid and Dense!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Rereke @18,

    Roy Hogue: # 15

    I wish I could say we might even sell them [submarines] to you readymade.
    Nice offer Roy, but Australia will probably buy reconditioned, ex-Russian, subs from the Chinese (velly cheep).

    Just don’t tell anybody that they are nuclear powered.

    In that case I hope Australia can buy every last sub the Chinese have. I’d much prefer them in Aussie hands than Chinese.

    But really, at the rate Obama is willing to spend money I’d think he would sell brand new top of the line U.S. Navy attack subs at a 50 or even 75% discount for such a good friend and ally as Australia… …and then I woke up!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bob Malloy @40,

    Following on from proposals to curb funds to the EPA in the US of A, comes this:

    LUETKEMEYER BILL SEEKS TO PROHIBIT U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS TO UN CLIMATE CHANGE PANEL

    Where’s the one that prohibits sending any money to the UN or any agency or arm of the UN of any kind whatsoever? We might as well kill all the birds with one law.

    We pump millions into that trashcan on the bank of the East River in Manhattan every year and it does nothing useful for us.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Not sure if this mini “debate” between Stewart Franks and Mark Diesendorf has been referred to here. There was a poll after with the skeptics well in front:

    http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/weekend-sunrise/

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Roy Hogue:
    February 13th, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Where’s the one that prohibits sending any money to the UN or any agency or arm of the UN of any kind whatsoever?

    Exactly, it’s about time the politicians of all nations realized the U.N.(unproductive nutters) are a drain on the worlds resources, “mainly monitory”.

    They are Unproductive Nobodies who in all it’s years of operation have not solved any of mankind’s problems, War, Poverty, Famine, and always on the lookout for the next world catastrophe to screw us for more millions.

    It should be disbanded as quickly as possible, until a better more accountable model can be established.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    agenda 21 EXPOSED……………

    THERE IS NOW A FACEBOOK SITE DEVOTED TO AGENDA 21

    TO EXPOSE THE SOCIALIST AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT FOR ITS PART TO PLAY

    IN SIGNING OUR COUNTRY UP TO A UNITED NATIONS TREATY without our knowledge and without consultation

    Part of Agenda 21, is to take your property rights away from you. (and much more and much worse-)

    ROZ KELLY signed Australia to this.

    If you are a facebook member just punch into search AGENDA 21 EXPOSED

    AND START POSTING!

    This is the way that Australians can fight Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Agenda-21-Exposed/150975061627200

    00

  • #
    Campbell Swift

    Garnaut is, quite evidently, intelligent. Which can only mean that his intentions and integrity are contemptible. Please keep at him Jo, and thank you for all your efforts.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Llew Jones @ 46

    Thanks for that link. Enjoyed watching Franks. I wonder if we can suggest that next time they try and do a debate that they give each debater a time limit as the pro-guy kept jumping in and trying to cut Franks off, which was frustrating and then he rambled, which took up time. Still, great to see that Franks came out with a higher score, despite this.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    lmwd @ 51

    Yes I saw the genesis of this “debate” Saturday week back on the TV in my doctor’s waiting room when OKeefe was rubbishing the same lady’s skepticism so it was encouraging to see him give her the opportunity to show that the science is far from monolithic, through her proxy.

    Noted on checking that Diesendorf is a heavily involved Greenie activist with an axe to grind. That makes his science a little sus on that ground alone. Franks played the gentleman by not exposing him on that score.

    It is surprising how many CAGW scientist/activists exhibit mild to full on paranoia directed at opponents and imagined ones. Hansen being an example of the latter. Perhaps Garnaut fits somewhere in that spectrum. Tim certainly is well up with Hansen. Also got a whiff of it with Diesendorf.

    Heard Dessler get a thorough doing over by Lindzen. About his only line of attack, in a response, was to tell the audience he saw Lindzen having a fag, out the back, before that debate. Which must mean something to warmists but that’s another story.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy………

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Readers should read the following article regarding the UK’s energy minister admitting: “We still don’t know when wind power will break even”. The article shows the ridiculous situation the UK now finds itself having embarked on its greening policies

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1355010/Energy-minister-Charles-Hendry-We-dont-know-wind-power-break-even.html

    Even more worrying is this alarming article by John O’Sulliavn titled “Global Panic as Green Sector Collapses and Investors Face Ruin”. It’s frightening…

    http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/30603.html

    After reading all this, would you bother listening to economist/climate commentators like Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery?

    00

  • #
    UK Sceptic

    At least you’ll eventually get the opportunity to vote these lunatics out of office. Living under the skeletal umbrella of the EU doesn’t offer any such opportunity. We are governed from afar by unelected and unanswerable to anyone bureaucrats intent on micromanaging the lives of all residing within their aegis. This is because we in the UK have a political “elite” who think their treasonous actions are for our own “good”. Some of us are constructing large tumbrels as I write this because there doesn’t seem to be a peaceful way out.

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Meanwhile, in Britain, things take a turn for the worse, as Huhne recieves a visit from a representative from the power industry. How will things proceed? Time will tell. A report from the BBC (Beagle Blog Cartoons)…

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    Garnaut admits the bleeding obvious, that emissions are tied to economic growth:

    The paper says the 2008 global financial crisis had pushed developed countries of the northern hemisphere on to a lower long-term economic growth trajectory and this would result in lower underlying emissions growth in those countries.

    Looking at German and American stocks, they have rebounded very nicely in 2009 – the “lower long-term economic growth trajectory” is wishful thinking by the Green anti-growth brigade. (Granted, Obama does his best to keep unemployment numbers up, but that effect will vanish in 2012 as well.)

    00

  • #
    Jim Barker

    Everyone needs to see this post at WUWT. 1000ppm CO2 would be a great thing,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on-climate-and-energy-security/#more-33809

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    DirkH:
    “Looking at German and American stocks, they have rebounded very nicely in 2009 –”

    Sorry, i meant in 2010.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    rukidding @13: “My prediction for 2013 Abbots battlers will sweep him to power”.

    Looks like you may be right!! Latest Newspoll (story linked below) has Coalition at 54% of the two party preferred vote. The swing is coming from Labor with Greens vote steady. It seems it’s the so called “battlers” swinging to the conservatives. These are the aspirational working class voters who are beginning to feel disenfranchised by Labor cowtowing to the Green inner city left types and the resulting cost of living increases of late including electricity charges which will only get worse under any carbon tax. The best hope for a Carbon Tax to be stopped despite a friendly senate after July 1 is for these polls to continue to worsen for the government, but even better would be a loss in Green votes.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/landslide-happens-team-abbott-takes-electionwinning-lead-20110213-1as4p.html

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It [the UN] should be disbanded as quickly as possible, until a better more accountable model can be established.

    Bob @49,

    Two Comments:

    1. This UN we have is accountable. But the majority is willing, no eager to destroy us out of [pick your term, I'd opt for jealousy]. Anyway, I don’t think it’s replaceable with anything workable. If there’s nothing in its place how can we be worse off?

    2. I always thought that big building overlooking the East River in Manhattan looked a lot like a headstone. We could hire a good painter to put RIP across the front and back of it. Or better yet, put up a big neon sign — red letters — so it can be lighted at night. That big meeting hall should become The International Museum of Foolishness with guided tours every hour.

    00

  • #

    It’s time we said that ‘if the price of electricity goes up, we will vote against the present governments’.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Is this the UK’s most useless wind turbine? It cost £130,000 in subsidies last year… to raise electricity worth just £100,000

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355419/UKs-useless-wind-turbine-Cost-130k-raise-electricity-worth-100k.html

    00

  • #
    Graham Richards

    “backlash from the international community if it fails to make “proportionate” efforts to cut its carbon emissions. ”
    Wrong, the only backlash will be from a few useless governments which are waiting for for $$ billions for the non existant “climate debt” that the UN promised them.
    Funny how the UN promises all these $$ billions of other peoples money to useless dictators & others.
    Maybe this is where our ALP is learning to spending money on useless projects.

    00

  • #

    I’ve been posting at the named site for three years now on the ramifications for the electrical power generating sector if the hoped for requirements of the (original) Kyoto protocol are to be adhered to, why that original Protocol is now becoming almost impossible to replace, and why so many Countries argue so strongly against any proposed decision at those Climate Change Conferences in recent times.

    In that original document, there was a tiny little added statement in brackets after that UN body, the UNFCCC made their two lists of World Countries, and what they needed to do.

    There are 192 Countries which are subject to this Protocol. Of those Countries, 40 of them have been categorised as Annex 1 Countries, and the remaining 152 Countries as Annex 2 Countries. From that first list of 40 Countries, 23 of them were further culled into a sub group, and after that group of highly developed Countries came those ten fateful words.

    (Developed Countries which pay for all costs of developing Countries)

    The UN and Climate Change – Ten Fateful Words discusses this and gives an idea where (at least some of) that money raised from any tax on Carbon Dioxide might be going.

    When two and two are added together, you might also find that ‘light bulb in the head’ blinking on, and why the former PM might be angling for a job at the U.N. when thought about in the same context as to why there seems to be this mindless rush here in Australia to impose this ‘price on Carbon’ (Dioxide).

    00

  • #
    Nick

    A quick footnote to my boring little story @ 3…

    I have been guilty of having the statement of “He can’t keep costing me money like that” directed at me and subsequently sacked through mistakes all of my own doing.

    I hope and beleive I have learnt a little from that experience.

    I cannot say the same for this lot of lunatics we have in government.

    They continue to repeat the same the behaiviour and expect a different outcome.
    They continue to ignore history (Others experiences) and not head or learn from it.
    They continue to be the subject of people who pay no attention to what is said and watch what they do. (Which is repeat the same, unsuccssful, behaiviour most of the time)

    Keeping my last 3 points in mind…. What the hell is Garnaut doing, medelling in government policy? to then acheive outcomes such as he has?

    Mind boggling

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    For a long time economists have been the butt of jokes

    Eg: ‘If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they still
    wouldn’t reach a conclusion.’ George Benard Shaw

    The reason is their “skill” is one of prediction about something they really do not much about. It is not an honest job even those in it delude themselve into believing they know a lot about it.

    If I were to meet Gaurnaut I would say to him, humans can not stop the climb in the level of CO2. It rose 10ppm since 2005, no matter what Australia does it will have gained about further 10ppm by 2015. I might bet him but he is either dishonst or delusional so maybe not.

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    “Well, actually it is just foreign “intellectuals”that won’t like you — shucks!”

    I wear the fact that people like Monbiot etc hate me as a badge of integrity on honour!

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Percival Snodgrass:
    February 14th, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Is this the UK’s most useless wind turbine? It cost £130,000 in subsidies last year… to raise electricity worth just £100,000

    Afraid not Percival:

    Blyth Harbour – not far from where I live, is the worst performing wind farm in the UK.

    Nine WTG’s with an output of 4.9% of installed capacity.

    That’s half a wind turbine and 8.5 ornaments.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Pete H:
    February 14th, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    “Well, actually it is just foreign “intellectuals”that won’t like you — shucks!”

    I wear the fact that people like Monbiot etc hate me as a badge of integrity on honour!

    How true – to attract the hatred of the Great Moonbat is surely one of the highest accolades known to mankind!

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    When you look at the statistics in relation to any potential risk that CO2 emissions from human activity could cause catastrophic global warming, the statistics indicate that the probability of such a risk is immaterial… statistically insignificant. And Ross Garnaut would know this.

    Ross Garnaut is simply wrong about man-made global warming. He is not a climate scientist. He is an economist… an economist that could not even see the signs of the global financial crisis that subsequently hit the world, yet he now wants us to believe he can see the signs of a man-made global warming crisis! Ross Garnaut is as right as the claim that pigs can fly!

    The IPCC’s mantra is based on the greenhouse gas theory… just a theory, which is contrary to the first and second laws of thermodynamics… proven laws in physics. The IPCC still cannot point out what proportion of its claim about global warming is caused by human causes as opposed to natural causes. The truth is nobody knows but it certainly borders on the insignificant, based on the fact that our CO2 emissions only amounts to between half of one percent to two percent of the total CO2 that enters the atmosphere each year.

    But I’ll say this, if the article in the following link is anything to go by, I think the NOAA picture accompanying the story says it all:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353073/Winter-storm-Map-shows-Northern-Hemisphere-covered-snow-ice.html

    00

  • #
    klem

    Since when have Australians ever given rats-a#% about what other countries might think of them? Here in Canada we had a candidate running for Prime Minister in the last election, he said basically the same thing, that if we don’t have Cap&Trade or bring in a carbon tax, other countries might not like us and there would be repercussions. Well he went down to the worst defeat in 40 years, he has since left politics completely. Expect a similar result in the next election in Australia.

    00

  • #
    Alexander K

    Jo Nova, I read a very nasty comment that you do ‘drive-by shooting instead of science’ on Bishop Hill’s blog today. I was impelled by outrage to comment in your defence.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Guess what ross GUANO????

    Aussies don’t give a S.IT about what other countries say about us!!!!!!!!

    What a PATHETIC comment from the LOSER garnaut!!

    00

  • #
    David McCallum Mohr

    Garnaut is an economics professor who knows little or nothing about the so called “Climate Change” of the 21st century.
    Ross Garnaut is an environmental “Traitor” to all Australians paid $300000 as chairman of Lihir Gold and as a director of OK Tedi Mining Papua New Guinea the cause of massive pollution in New Guinea. This “Amoral” [snip] person is still employed by the Australian Government.

    Any possible concern by Garnaut in relation to climate change is a Joke!
    Except the $$$$ he is paid!

    00