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

New Poll. More skeptics than ever and yet the carbon tax is coming

The good news is that skeptics are the majority, the bad news is that we’ll all have to pay the tax anyway. The IPA commissioned a Galaxy Poll in Australia and only one third of Australians believe that man-made global warming is real. Despite the advertising, the propaganda, the Nobel Prizes, the support of major institutions, the ABC censorship of skeptical science news, and the educational indoctrination at schools, most people are unconvinced.

Despite the falling polls, today the Gillard Government committed itself to getting a “carbon price” – the nice way of saying “tax”. (Note the poll attached to that story: Do you support a carbon tax? 84% say NO.)

It’s a question of youth

From the full results it’s clear that belief is mostly a “young” naive thing, and that by the age of 30 people are waking up to the truth.  Half of the 18-24 year olds think that man is to blame, but only a quarter of the over 50′s do.  The old cats who’ve been there and done that are wiser to exaggerated scare campaigns. Half of the 25 -34 year old group answered that they are not sure.

It’s also a socio-economic thing. Blue collar workers were more likely to say the cycle was natural than white collar workers  (33% versus 22%) and white collar workers were more likely to blame man (37% versus 28%). The fans of The Big Scare would say that because the more highly educated know more about the science, but we skeptics know that this is not about science any more. If it were about the science the believers wouldn’t run scared from public debates, the media wouldn’t be too intimidated to interview people with other opinions, and people who asked polite questions wouldn’t be called rude names. When skeptics asked for empirical evidence for positive feedbacks the alarmists would be able to provide some (and from several sources and over long time spans).

Skeptics won the science years ago (back when the hot spot went missing, and the ice cores showed a long lag). Belief in man-made global warming is about the fashion, the meme, the religion. Since this is a fashion meme which is used as a substitute for an IQ test and a measure of someones “compassion”, this is a test that university educated people most want to pass.

But the crunch point is that the failure of the climate predictions is so obvious (where are those droughts?!) people don’t need a university degree to know that the scare-meisters got it wrong.

Dr Alan Moran, director of the Institute of Public Affairs’ Deregulation Unit said, “The Gillard Government‘s desperate efforts to sell its carbon tax are failing. It has funded the Tim Flannery headed Climate Commission, the advisory group to the Parliament’s ‘Multi Party Committee on Climate Change’ and the Garnaut review exercise. These come on top of the 600 strong Climate Change Department and taxpayer subsidized think tanks.
“Compounding this, well‐publicised claims by climate activists have linked recent floods with manmade global warming.
“Yet, in spite of the abuse of taxpayer funds, last weekend, people gave almost identical responses to the same question eight months ago.

Essentially in 2010, 20% of the population shifted from believing to being unsure.

The IPA points out the the responses haven’t changed in 8 months, but in a larger poll commission by the Australian Science Coalition a year ago, 54% of Australians “agreed that man-made emissions were contributing to global warming”. Which tells us that somewhere around 20% of the population changed their mind soon after.

In January 2010, 1737 people were asked: Would you agree or disagree that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere through man’s use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are significantly affecting earth’s temperature? Before Copenhagen and Climategate 58% agreed, in Jan 2010 that fell to 54% and now that’s down to 24%, and the big category that’s grown is the “don’t know’s”. In January 2010 only 18% of people were unsure or didn’t know, but now it’s 38%.

The Windsor Card

There is still hope that one of the crucial independents will not vote for it.

Independent Tony Windsor, also at the announcement, did not declare his hand: “Nothing’s settled in my view.”

The Government is still funding The Federal Climate Change Department to the tune of $90 million a year. If only the Conservatives would be brave enough to suggest that the funding could be spent better elsewhere.

The full poll results (PDF).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
New Poll. More skeptics than ever and yet the carbon tax is coming, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6zy4pmo

1 comment to New Poll. More skeptics than ever and yet the carbon tax is coming

  • #
    Bulldust

    Good stuff Jo… I sense the push for a carbon tax price will amplify the debate in the next few months as the Green tail starts wagging the Rainbow Coalition (RC). I would almost be willing to put serious money down that this will cause the destruction of the RC (not to be confused with unRealClimate of course) before the Greens get the balance of power in the Senate. The wildcard is whether Abbott or the original Coalition self-destruct before the RC does.

    Incidentally a stirrer (fellow skeptic colleague) dropped a hard copy of the following document on my desk from the Australian Academy of Science:

    http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html

    I haven’t read most of it but I had to laugh at some of the audacious comments on the back page relating to the question “How do we deal with the uncertainty in the science?” Here’s a small quotation from the “answer”:

    Another important conclusion is supported unambiguously by all the evidence so far: “business as usual” emissions, with continuing high reliance on fossil fuels, will lead to a significantly warmer world.

    Unambiguously… all the evidence… significantly warmer… these are very courageous (in the Yes Minister sense) words indeed. I wonder if they mean statistically significant (which can be a low value after all) or significant in the traditional English sense. Or, more likely, they mean statistically but want the reader to interpret it in the English word sense… i.e. big. The word disingenuous springs to mind.

    Not surpring when you see the line up of scientists that pushed out this advocacy piece… our friend Karoly is in there for example.

    00

  • #

    You say that Tony Windsor is reported to be undecided. At Julia’s announcement he was up there with Gillard, Combet, the Greens and Oakeshott. See pic HERE..

    00

  • #
    Rodzki

    The battle lines have been drawn. Let the games begin. The warmists brag about Australia leading the world with Earth Hour. Let’s now lead the world with the outright rejection of a carbon tax. The famous Aussie b****it detectors are set to high sensitivity, and the AGW campaign is smelling to high heaven. Should be a doddle …

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Hey Joolya was going to be more likely to go for the Bulldogs full forward position than contest the Labor leadership against Rudd*. How quickly we forget, eh? She still hasn’t showed up for practice. Has she actually promised anything and kept it yet?

    * http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-makes-her-mark-as-aussie-vice-captain/story-e6freuzr-1225867940725

    00

  • #
    Billy Bob Hall

    I see their ABC is in ‘comment lock-down’ there again today. Nothing like open ‘debate’ is there ! :-(

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    The question isn’t what are the warmists doing, the question needs to change to be “what can we skeptics do to educate the un-educated public” I believe we all need to start conversations with “believers” and ask them to tell us why they believe and then try to get them to see the evidence (or lack there of).

    I have come the decision that I want a bumper sticker that reads “emit more carbon….. the plants love it!!!”

    00

  • #
    Campbell Swift

    Can you host a large-scale Petition on this Jo? Against of course!
    These really are some misguided people.

    00

  • #
    pat

    the fact we were told six days ago that it would be months before the Committee decided anything, i have a funny feeling it was brought forward because -

    24 Feb: ABC: Gillard to visit US in March
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard will address a joint session of the US Congress and meet US president Barack Obama on a visit next month to mark 60 years of alliance, officials said today.
    Ms Gillard, paying her first visit to the United States since taking office last year, will meet with Mr Obama on March 7, a White House statement said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3147502.htm?section=justin

    00

  • #
    brc

    Forget petitions. Jo – you know people. Get together and organise protest marches. Politicians need to start finding out they can’t lie to people and introduce pointless taxes based on deceit.

    Who is going to be the first journalist to ask how many degrees of warming will be saved by the carbon tax?

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I’m A kiwi and have watched some of the annoucement and follow up interviews on Sky News. If it is all ” done and dusted” for the Government why is Flannery’s group needed ??
    I also do not understand how this tax will work –it seems alot of money will be collected and a major part of it will go back to those adversely affected. It must be out of the Labour Government guide book because we had similar stupid “money go round” exercises introduced by our previous Labour lead Govt

    00

  • #
    scott

    I think its time to start bombarding our elected officials again.

    At the end of the day it’s their vote that will carry the tax or not.

    And its up to all of us to send emails and letters rather than a petition lets inundate them and let them including the independents know we are not happy.

    Jo if I remember correctly one of your posts from around the time of the last vote, had the email addresses of our politicians. Maybe a concerted joint effort from yourself posting these, along with Andrew Bolt and Anthony Watts (yes I know not Australian but there is nothing like a world wide Audience) will generate enough anger towards them that they will sit up and take notice.

    As a bit of self criticism I think the warming believers got the jump on the science with their religion because they have been more willing to get up and do something about their belief. We have stood on the belief that the science is on our side and will prevail and yes it will, but at what time and what cost.

    We have left it to too few, for too long, so lets use our widespread power to do something positive about getting rid of this farce once and for all.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    brc @ 9 — I think you are right. Australians need to learn from what is happening in those North African countries.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Bulldust @1

    our friend Karoly is in there for example

    Whilst Karoly is a known for his unstantiated musings, I have never understood why his University employer does not understand the damage that he is doing to current and future enrolments and end his employment.

    00

  • #
    Harry The Hacker

    I’ve just been emailed by the greens (can’t get off their damn email lists no matter how I try to de-spam from them… don’t ever send a green an email, you’ll never escape.)

    They’re all happy about TRANSFORMING Australia from DIRTY to GREEN.

    Shame they don’t say anything about economic destruction.

    If we have to have something I’d rather have a tax than a trading system. Because one day when the con job is worked out, a trading system will require massive compensation to the bankers and other vested interests. Trouble is, governments get addicted to tax revenue too, so we’ll never get the monkey off our backs. But the less goes to bankers the better.

    Must be time to start a campaign on the independents to try and persuade them of the madness.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    As I said over at AB’s blog, I suspect the 34% is an overestimate. The first statement should have been:

    “The world is warming dangerously and man’s emissions are to blame.”

    That would be the true measure.

    Spencer and Lindzen‘s empirical 2XCO2 measurements suggest there is some human derived CO2 warming, but it is never going to be dangerous even if you burned all the coal and oil in the whole world. This would still be consistent with the first statement.

    Sigh. One day someone somewhere will write a poll question which doesn’t distort the story.

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    So Joolya’s gonna chuck virgins into volcanoes after all. Maybe she should start with Penny W[r]ong – although her virginal status might be suspect, except in science and truth. Hopefully it’s all just hot air, but eventually when the real truth is discovered the “price” will be removed. I’m wishing WAY too hard ain’t I..?

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Jo says:

    …Since this is a fashion meme which is used as a substitute for an IQ test and a measure of someones “compassion”, this is a test that university educated people most want to pass…

    Professor Lindzen, in a Quadrant essay, noted the same phenomenon:

    ….there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake….

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    After the early closure of the NSW Parliament to flog off the power generators one would have got the impression that the public was being kept in the dark & the electorate being taken for granted.

    Todays performance in Federal Parliament is probably worse.

    I for one can not see Mr Bandt accumulating too much Parliamentary Super.

    Before this goes through there may even be a “Little Egypt” in the ALP.

    00

  • #
    pat

    24 Feb: Australian: AAP: NSW Liberals to oppose carbon tax if elected
    Ms Keneally said putting a price on carbon emissions was the most efficient thing to do for the nation’s economy and environment.
    “The most efficient thing we can do as a nation is establish a price on carbon,” she said during the debate.
    “It’s the most efficient thing for our economy and it’s the most efficient thing we can do for our environment.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/nsw-liberals-to-oppose-carbon-tax-if-elected/story-e6frgczx-1226011392654

    and look how the incredibly unpopular ms. keneally wins the exit poll while supporting a tax that the public does not want!

    24 Feb: SMH: Alexandra Smith: Keneally the winner in leaders’ debate
    O’Farrell rules out a price on carbon
    An exit poll of the studio audience at today’s televised leaders’ debate delivered a clear victory to Premier Kristina Keneally over Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell.
    While the independently selected audience of 75 featured one third Labor voters, one third Coalition and one third undecided, almost two thirds said Ms Keneally won the debate.
    She polled 46 of the 71 votes cast and Mr O’Farrell polled 12, with 13 undecided…
    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/keneally-the-winner-in-leaders-debate-20110224-1b6io.html

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bob Malloy

    I am a bit of a troglodyte when it comes to legal matters. So I might be out on the end of fragile limb here, but is it possible to sue Jooolya and the labor party for breach of contract. Does her and Swaneee’s assurances preceding the election of no carbon tax, amount to a verbal contract with the people of Australia.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I notice that comments closed before I even saw this rather funny piece at the ABC:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3147918.htm

    Talking of carbonn price legislation:

    Rob Oakeshott volunteered that he would vote for it tomorrow, his enthusiasm seemingly undimmed by the fact that there is – as yet – no “it”.

    Some classic stuff by Annabel Crabb. Odd that the ABC was so very, very quick to close comments… perhaps it was a tad too un-PC for their taste.

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    I won’t be concerned unless they introduce a carbon DIOXIDE price/levy/tax.

    It still galls me that the terms “Climate Change”, “carbon pollution” and “global warming” can be so glibly spoken by the warmistas, repeated by the media, as these are generic weasel words designed to obfuscate the real issue – whether ANTHROPOGENIC generated CO2 causes global warming, what is the effect (if any) and do we need to do anything about it.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Oh looky, looky … right on cue with Government policy the ABC puts up some new pro-AGW blogs:

    Graham Readfearn tosses in the “denier” tag for good measure:
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44454.html

    Steve O’Connor on the recently departed Chief Scientist and climate change:
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44434.html

    I am sure there’s more but I shall leave it at two for now.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Abbot misses the point. It is not essentially a new tax we should be worried about but rather, in the Greens intention, it is the repudiation of the Industrial Revolution and the enormous present material benefits of which it is the primary cause. Gillard and the independents are, at best, ignorant fools and Abbot, it seems, is not much better.

    Gillard and her ALP cronies are traitors not only to the working class but to every Australian. Abbot should know better and expose the real agenda of the Greens and Gillard’s connivance with them under the spurious guise of “healing” the Earth’s climate……… which according to deep Green Ecology has been ravaged by the IR.

    Maybe it is in deference to the warmist lefties in his party, like Turnbull, that makes Abbot tread softly but he needs to use the word crap a lot more often directed at the doctrines of these would be destroyers of the main stay of our economy.

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Independent Tony Windsor, also at the announcement, did not declare his hand: “Nothing’s settled in my view.”

    Let me rephrase : “What’s in it for Tony Windsor”.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Bulldust @22

    Yes, Annabel is starting to sound sceptical, just a touch. Her previous one on the carbon tax hit a few heights of sardonicism like:

    Nowadays, the fear factor is not that your grandchildren will boil to death while snorkelling over the bleached skeleton of the Barrier Reef, but that the Australian economy will miss this chance for growth.

    I think she’s been around politicians too long. They likewise closed off commenting on that one after a few microseconds probably to save the server from melting.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    I’m furious and frustrated at the gullibility and /or stupidity of unthinking supporters of both the Green tail and the Labor dog it wags, and the weak-kneed selfishly motivated independents who chose to support Julia Gillard. As to the dishonest “no carbon price (tax) under any Government I lead” Julia Gillard (one day before the last election), there are no words to express my contempt!

    Australia deserves to be the laughing-stock of the world because of these troglodytes who are afraid of their own shadows.

    We are blessed with huge reserves of uranium but won’t build clean and safe nuclear power stations.
    We have vast reserves of coal which have helped to give us the standard of living we used to enjoy but the Gillard,Green coalition are trying to wreck the industry. The amazing part of this is that coal industry workers seem prepared to stand by and take it when the former Union bosses they put into Parliament oversee policies and a tax leading to increased costs for all Australian families already struggling with increasing prices, and destruction of the worker’s own jobs!

    Many states have water running to waste in their wet seasons but the minority Greens have Governments too frightened to build more dams for water storage and hydro-electric schemes.

    The carbon tax will achieve nothing but it will burden and cripple this nation in so many ways and to an extent that no other piece of ill-considered legislation has ever done.

    The fact that it is based on arguably the greatest scientific and financial con ever perpetrated on suffering citizens of the world absolutely beggars belief!

    As to my opinion of those scientists who have trashed the credibility of science, I leave it to Dr.Roy Spencer in his Feb 19 blog “On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC” as he says it so much better than I could!

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Of course even if you believe the CAGW nonsense the developed countries reductions won’t keep pace with the developing countries increases in emissions.

    China , India etc destroyed Copenhagen and Cancun and yet the green idiots keep repeating the mantra about the huge increase in Chinese renewable energy.

    Of course China became the world’s largest emitter in 2007 and incredibly increased emissions by 57% between 1997 to 2004 according to Wong.

    Martin Ferguson also explained how China would be completing at least 1000 CF power stations by 2020 and yet the green’s wet dream was the closure of Hazelwood PS during the 2010 Victorian election, what hopeless, useless morons.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Garth Godsman, WB. WB said: Top read over hard liquor from JoNova. (What else ya gonna drink when the govt is taxing carbon!!) http://bit.ly/ecQIcT #carbontax=wrong [...]

    00

  • #

    I’m not impressed. That poll is rubbish. We all know the questions that need to be asked. This just adds to my pollititus.

    00

  • #
    Edward

    Here in Britain the indoctrination of school children into the warmist religion is widespread and has been for a while. It has more or less replaced proper teaching of geography .So I’m not surprised that younger people are more “on message”. They have been given the message long before acquiring the critical faculties which would enable them to evaluate it.

    Three people whom I know very well tell me that their grandchildren are all true believers. This unscientific sample includes one family which is in private education in England, one in state education in Scotland and two others in state education in England. You may recall the children from Northern Ireland in the film “Not Evil, Just Wrong”. They were terrified and depressed by what they had been taught. Their artwork (in my inexpert opinion) showed evidence of mental distress. This is a form of child abuse.

    My next door neighbour told me that he asked his grandson (age 14 I think) if he had any idea what he would like to do when he left school. “It’s no good thinking about that, granddad” he was told “We’ll all be dead if we don’t stop climate change”. He is common sense youngster and will be talked out of it. Other children, I am told , respond to any expression of scepticism with phrases such as “That shows you don’t care”.

    This is the soft underbelly of public opinion and the authorities are attacking it with determination, presumably because they think that “tomorrow belongs to us”.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    What’ll it cost?

    Certainly more than a few cents a day. A lot more than Kevin’s dollar a year.

    Based on Australia’s energy consumption alone, and not the “embedded” emissons of imports, with a price of CO2 set to actually make it too costly to use carbon-based fuels (i.e. $80/tonne or more), the average household cost would be around $1/hour, based on ABARE energy consumption figures and a few fudge factors to turn it all into CO2-equivalent.

    Picture that… every hour of the day, somebody in every household takes another dollar coin and feeds it into Julia’s tax-hole.

    This would result in the destruction of Austalia’s economy; if not avoided by a public revolt.

    A lower price on “carbon” has no effect on personal consumption and therefore emissions. As one may observe by what’s happening overseas in the countries that have foolishly gone down that dark alley.

    e.g. Germans are paying (not very happily) over $2/litre of fuel and their electricity costs are about 50% higher than in Australia; over 30c/kWh. But the Germans’ hunger for energy has not abated. Not in the residential household.

    Their manufacturing industry has however gone away to where energy is cheaper so that goods can still be made at a price that ordinary folk, without a subsidy from government, are prepared to pay. And it’s the smaller businesses, the ones employing the most people productively that shut shop domestically; either give up completely or relocate to a more sane business environment.

    If the PM earnestly believes that such a tax will do Australia any good, then she doesn’t deserve to be running a lemonade stand, let alone the country.

    Do we really have to scarpe the bottom of the barrel to come up with our politicians?

    00

  • #
  • #
    pattoh

    How long before a smart lawyer will test any legislation with a call for a rebate on the weight of the O2 in the CO2? They do insist on calling it Carbon Polution.

    Wouldn’t the ATO just love that homework. They thought the GST was of dogs breakfast beacause of the exemption on basic food. Imagine the legislation, ammendments & shear weight of words to be interpreted with all the definitions of who is exempt, who gets relief & appeals!

    Shiney Bum Fat Cat Nirvana!

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Re overseasinsider: #6

    I reckon the best bumper sticker I’ve seen was the one that said

    “If Dolly Parton was in farming she’d be flat busted too”.

    Afraid I haven’t got an equivalent for this job, but this might prompt other suggestions

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Overseasinsider #6

    Trying to find out why believers believe wouldn’t make any difference and from what I’ve read about confirmation bias and attitude polarisation, you wouldn’t change their minds. They believe what they believe because it fits with their pre-existing worldview.

    No, the battle here is over those who were never ‘true’ believers and those never really cared either way. A little like the swinging voter. That’s who Gillard wants to influence with Flannery and the CSIRO propaganda initiative (Energymark). A lot of people I talk to are just really unsure what to believe, but it is amazing how just a little bit of history helps switch on the BS detectors. I believe that the recent floods and even cyclone, because the media were forced to provide historical context, has actually helped the sceptics’ cause, especially when Brown and Milne came out blaming Co2 and the mining industry. I was almost hoping they would blame the Chch earthquake on AGW/CC just to drive home the message these people are extremist and unhinged.

    Interesting in the Sun Herald today that Penny Sackett gave some hint as to why she was quitting. Personal reasons, of course, but to quote:

    “Professor Sackett expressed frustration about a blurring of the distinction between science and policy. In this country and in other countries around the world, that line has been blurred to the detriment of science and those in government charged … with making policy decisions,” she said

    Maybe her conscience got the better of her?

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/chief-scientist-not-invited-to-brief-pm-senate-hears-20110223-1b5o1.html

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Politicians have 2 priorities:

    1) Make self rich
    2) Get your name in the history books (which aids #1)

    JG 3.18 obviously thinks a carbon tax will assist in both 1) & 2).
    I suspect the decision will limit not only the short term income, but methinks the history (in 10 years time) of the great carbon (AGW) scam will view the politicians who were most gullible in a very dim light.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems the better educated are more sceptical than the less well educated. Of those who agreed that man was causing the warming 19% had year 12 and 41% had less. The figures were somewhat reversed when it came to the question of natural cycles. I also notice that fewer country folk buy the scam compared to city folk.

    To me this is a good result and I think Julia will have an impossible job selling it. Considering the propaganda for AGW and the absolute silencing of it’s opponents (except for the blogs and that may explain the disparity between belief and education)the fact that so few agree means many are educating themselves. If that is the case it seems few would review their position no matter what Tim Flannery says.

    00

  • #
    funtart

    Ouch, you’re getting hammered now luv.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

    [Ha ha ha. Yes sir. The old rehashed arguments about how it's not unique don't wash - it's still missing - the models are wrong whichever way you look at it. And now things are so desperate that they can't find the hot spot with thermometers that go right through the zone, but it's implied by patterns in Sea surface temps? Sure. -- JN]

    00

  • #

    Llew@25. I have emailed the last three Coalition leaders- Howard, Turnbull and Abbott – to say that they should expose the Greens. Policies like Global Governance means a vote for the Greens is a vote against Australia. (LINK)

    Principles

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.
    2. effective means of global environmental governance are needed to halt and reverse the current trends towards environmental decline across the globe, especially with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change.

    John Howard would have beaten the ABC Journalist if they exposes the RED green policies. Belinda “do you know who I am” Neal won on Green Preferences.

    Everyone says that Barry O’Farrell is sure to win the NSW election next month. Disgruntled Labor voters won’t vote Coalition, it could lead to a Green/Labor Coalition and NSW will slide further into the abyss.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    You can always count on Ross McKitrick to put an argument very succinctly.

    Link.

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Speedy

    Labor is in government and the Greens are in power. If you voted Labor last time, how do you think you’d feel?

    Betrayed, perhaps?

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Few comments earlier asking Jo what can we do to help. Well Jo has already done more than her fair share and I assume she will continue the excellent work in this blog. The rest of us can keep responding to the warmers wherever they appear. Climate Spectator can be received via e-mail for free after registration. Lots of warmist stories there to respond to. There is a small but vocal group and we can usually present solid rebuttals to the many spurious claims. I write letters to the Land and occasionaly get a thank you phone call for puting the facts. So write to your community newspapers and letters to the editor of major newspapers. You won’t always be published but people take notice when you do. Respond to news items that are often press releases from warmist groups. Make sure no spurious claim goes unchallenged. It requires time and dedication and adherence to facts. Quote from NOAA and NASA and reputable papers, most found at sites like this, WUWT, Climate Audit and such. And be polite. Nothing gets up a warmers nose more than facts given in a civilised manner. We have about four months hard work ahead but we did it once before and we can do it again this time.

    [Good on you Lawrie... Yes, there is a lot of work to do, but letters to the editors, and to MP's, and talking to the guy next door will get the message through one way or another -- JN]

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    MASSIVE PROTEST RALLYS AND MARCHES MUST BE HELD TO STOP THIS CARBON TAX BASED ON THE FRAUD OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

    THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WILL MAKE THOSE HELD TO PROTEST AGAINST WORKCHOICES LOOK LIKE A FAMILY PICNIC!!!

    FAILING THAT………..CIVIL UNREST/WAR!

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Lay off the caps key Perc. Don’t you realise you’re shouting at us?

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Percy

    I’d rather leave the violence and anti-social behaviour to the lefties. They’re better at it…

    Cheers

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    PS. Overstates the issue just a little.
    But the point is taken. With no voice in politics or the media, people tend to frustrated. Anger follows.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    If I was the opposition I would be showing an ad about how the government is coming for peoples SUV’s as I see more and more of these on the road there must be a good sized vote there somewhere.
    Maybe an ad of a Hyundi Getz being pulled backward down a boat ramp by a 12ft tinnie.:-)

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Gillard’s carbon tax is based on the IPCC’s mantra… in turn based on the supposition of the greenhouse effect.. concocted in the 1800s to try and explain why earth is warmer than it ought to be. Remember, the greenhouse effect is not a law of physics like the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics… it’s not even a real theory… it’s only a supposition.

    If scientists in the 1800s had known at the time about the direct relationship between atmospheric pressure and atmospheric temperature, the idea of a greenhouse effect would never have been concocted.

    Readers should refer to the following link, and in particular, read the section headed “Record low atmospheric pressure in Moscow”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/moscow-heatwave-update-yet-another-coldest-winter-ever-every-five-years/

    It simply makes a mockery of the idea of a greenhouse effect.

    Now about Gillard’s stupidity…

    Gillard, and all her fellow alarmists, want you to believe the most ludicrous bit of nonsense. This is what they want you to believe:-

    The IPCC claims that 97% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere each year comes from nature… and the remaining 3% of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year comes from global human activity. Fair enough.

    But they want us all to believe that the 3% CO2 contributed by global human activity each year is absolutely too dangerous for the future of planet earth, while the overwhelming 97% of CO2 contributed by nature each year is not dangerous at all.

    How bloody stupid is that! These people are mad!

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    A question of youth : what do you expect from a generation of kids brought up watching cartoons like “Captain Planet”?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    You guys have done pretty well. 34% of people either believe what they are told, or understand what is going on :-) You characterise these people as young and naive.

    38% are told one thing by “skeptics” and another thing by “the team”, and are fooled into taking the “skeptics” seriously. Now that really is naive.

    But clearly there is a conspiracy going on, because there was no option for “There has been no statistically significant warming since 1998″. Nothing for “Arctic ice is recovering”. Did “Its just the urban heat island effect” get a gurnsey? No! Even “Its a communist plot to form a world government and take away our liberties” didn’t get up. No sign of “Its all a beat up by corrupt scientists with their snouts so far into the trough they have trouble breathing”.

    You guys need to work harder! The mainstream media aren’t getting the message.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Hasbeen

    What is Gillard, a lyer of a fool?

    I suppose she could be both, in fact that is probably so.

    I can’t believe that, with the information available to her, that she could possibly believe this rubbish.

    Could she really be that dumb?

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    They are probably as feedback-proof as Muamar Kaddafi is. I pretty believe if you compared speeches of him and of your establishment leaders you would find there are great invariants.

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    The Energy Minister Chris the Huhne still believes it here in the UK. Although his own constituency Hampshire, strangely does’nt have any oversize wind follies…… The Huhnatic rides out….

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Speedy:
    February 24th, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Labor is in government and the Greens are in power. If you voted Labor last time, how do you think you’d feel?

    As posted at bolt’s.

    It’s a crying shame when the tails got more bite than the dog. Joolya is the perfect lap dog to the greens.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Well I guess it’s time to get the remaining undecided people across. Of course, all that is needed for that to happen is for there to be an opportunity for a well moderated, unbiased correspondence on the matter.

    It’s a shame the lamestream media oxygen thieves are probably going to continue to block the the evidence (well actually the lack of evidence of AGW as it turns out).

    Anyone who believes Joolya when she says every cent will go to you to help pay for the increases has to ask themselves the following questions:

    1) Think about the medicare levy – wasn’t that levy meant to be used for medicare?
    2) The whole point of carbon trading is to punish consumers for using what the priveledged ones deem as too much. It is not about punishing the polluters. It is all about punishing us the people and taking the opportunity to get more of our hard earnt into the governments coffers
    3) Even if they do provide discounts to the consumers, I would bet a large sum of money in a few years time they will eat away at that discount. Why wouldn’t they? It’s a revenue stream.

    If people are naive enough to believe Joolyas spin on this then I say they will deserve to have more of their income going to the government. They can’t say they haven’t been warned.

    This is Nothing more than an opportunity to tax people more – and yes, this tax will come out of your family budget!

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    RESUTS OF :-

    Poll: Do you think Australia should introduce a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-tax-plan-a-betrayal-abbott-20110224-1b6hl.html#poll

    yes 44%
    NO 53%

    total votes 11846

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    gillards NEW NAME………

    jooLIER

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    An interview by one of the top IPPC men given to NZZ am Sonntag on November 10 2010.

    Ottmar Edenhofer is a German economist who deals with climate change policy…….. He is currently professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research…… In 2004 he was a lead author for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.

    In the interview Edenhofer freely admitted that the goal of Climate Policy is to transfer wealth from the West to the Third World by imposing economy eviscerating carbon caps on the West.

    http://www.libertarianadvocate.blogspot.com/2010/11/ottmar-edenhofer-co-chair-of-uns-ipcc.html

    =============

    IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

    THAT SAYS IT ALL!

    THE TRUE AGENDA IS REVEALED !!!

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Well done, Jo, for sticking with this blog. When I first came across it a year or so ago, I wondered how anyone with a science degree would ever get involved with this issue. It has taken me more than a year of quite intensive study to understand a) the AGW science doesn’t work; b) the IPCC cabal is a bunch of not-very-good scientists who’ve jumped on a gravy train, achieved notoriety and betrayed every moral principle that the best in their fields spend their entire professional lives observing. Now, we sit and watch as the real world continues to give up the climate data that shows CO2 has little to do with it.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Keith H

    I apologise in advance for the long cut and paste (slightly modified) from http://www.rag.org.au/rag/mywillet.htm

    However, I believe this matter is so important for Australia’s future and so many frustrated people are searching for ways to try and stop this destructive carbon tax, that rather than just providing the link (courtesy of a recent poster to this site whose name escapes me) that the C & P was warranted.

    The CAPITALS are not mine, but I have changed the subject of the sample letter. If you can come up with something better – feel free to do so.

    “The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear implication that those laws, in their subject matter and detail, will reflect the WILL of the people.

    By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your members and senators fully informed of your WILL in relation to any issue or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that you believe should come before them.

    It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your Member and Senators can properly fulfil their judicially defined function and duty in their Houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you do not keep your members and senators fully informed of your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your laziness to blame.

    How do you correctly inform your members and senators of your WILL?

    It is so simple that only laziness and indifference on YOUR part stops it from working. You writean INDIVIDUAL letter to your Federal Member, and each of your 12 State Senators, such as this:

    Dear Sir,

    I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.

    IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to oppose introduction of the proposed carbon tax .

    Yours Faithfully,

    (signed)

    (insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.)

    Should your Member or Senators try to side-step (and some of them are extremely adept at doing so) taking positive political action on your behalf (i.e., they rattle on about about what their party is or is not doing, instead of agreeing to act in accordance with your WILL), you simply write back and say:

    Dear Sir,

    Further to my letter of (insert date of your original letter) and your reply of (insert date of their inadequate or fob-off reply), and in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, I again inform you that IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to oppose introduction of the proposed carbon tax.

    Yours Faithfully,

    (signed)

    Above all, don’t enter into written argument with a politician. Politicians are masters in the art of avoiding what they don’t want to face up to, and are experts in manipulating words to their own benefit.

    Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what worries them most irrespective of their electoral majority or their party is the percentage trend in electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.

    To illustrate the above point further. Opinion polls claim to reveal THE TREND of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given number of people selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend shown is reasonably accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change their opinions as often as they change their clothes.

    The principal of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by the above simple “MY WILL” letter is an entirely different thing, and certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple “IT IS MY WILL” letter, then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion , but knows what he wants to say in a no nonsense way. It is doubly impressive upon the politician’s mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a straight “IT IS MY WILL!”

    Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the evaluation of same, reveals that one such “IT IS MY WILL” letter indicates the mathematical probability that a minimum of four (4) other electors are of the same conviction but have not written.

    Even the least intelligent politician, where his SEAT is concerned, can multiply four (4) by the number of such “MY WILL” letters he receives , and if he gets two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to come up with a mathematical stomach twisting figure showing that he is not in tune with his electorate.

    Self preservation, even with a party ridden politician, is always of the highest priority and particularly motivating to that politician.

    On a subject like the imposition of a destructive carbon tax with the farcical stated intention of keeping down possible rises in global temeperatures allegedly caused by AGW, it is obviously something on which most people will have strong convictions, not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people to get together in their various electorates and, after writing their own “MY WILL” letters get out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in their own electorate inviting them all to write such “MY WILL” letters to their Federal Member and 12 State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also have relatives and friends in other electorates and can invite them to do likewise.

    Thus, in no time, the work of say 3, 4, 5, or 6 people can spread like wildfire through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed over one thing. To get two or three thousand individually signed “MY WILL” letters is not a hard task for such ordinary determined people.

    It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if they wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends, acquaintances and others inviting them to write such “MY WILL” letters to their Members and 12 Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no street marching, no formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts of names and titles. No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in fruitless arguing and discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.

    All that is required is an individual with the necessary initiative and determination, to act lawfully to right or alter something he doesn’t like. He simply writes his “MY WILL” letter, and shows it to others and encourages them to do likewise. There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong convictions and the simple “MY WILL” letter is their lawful, simple and powerful way of driving their message home to their M.P.

    Don’t argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel strongly enough about something, don’t just moan and talk about it, write your “MY WILL” letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so, not someone else’s. It is no use bleating “THEY OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT”. You have to be your own “they”.

    It is worth stressing again and again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the “WILL” of his electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and set about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty. He is freed to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a mere “yes man”. The “MY WILL” LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

    When your Member of Parliament, State or Federal, does something that pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO. As centre of watchfulness for his electorate, he should be at all times, left with no alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and duty, no matter the protests and pressures of his party.

    Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support, possessed of the written “MY WILL”, can be freed from control of the party manipulators, for the party should lose control over his voice and vote on all issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians would do well to continuously seek the written “WILL” of all their electors on every issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a secretary in their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have research Officers, so they have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors’ “WILL” before casting their votes in the House of Parliament.

    To sum up this Chapter:

    It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Member and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your “WILL”. This is your true lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.”

    Based on, and containing text from:

    “YOUR WILL BE DONE” by Arthur A. Chresby 1979
    (Arthur A. Chresby was a Research Analyst of Law and Federal Member for Griffith)

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Rodzki:
    February 24th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    The battle lines have been drawn. Let the games begin. The warmists brag about Australia leading the world with Earth Hour.

    Lets lead then!
    At 8.30 PM on Saturday 26 March 2011,Turn the aircon on to max cool while the column heater old bar radiator and every element on the stove keeps it warm. Run the hot water taps, vacuum the floor, charge all those flat batteries, Let every light shine and blast the stereo to draw attention with Arc welding flashes under flood lights to boot.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Blue collar workers were more likely to say the cycle was natural than white collar workers (33% versus 22%) and white collar workers were more likely to blame man (37% versus 28%).

    The Australian Labor Party are driven by the unions, and put themselves forward as a working man’s party. However, they have gradually been taken over by the middle-class white collars who know how to be organised (for that matter, the unions are also run by such people). Because the latte sippers tend to be more marginal than the working class, the party feels more need to pander to them, and the support of the blue collar workers is basically taken for granted.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Recent statements by Julia Gillard bring her mental competency into serious question.

    Some weeks ago she publicly stated “I believe in Climate Change”!

    Since climate change is around us all the time and always has been it requires no belief, what did she mean?

    Did she mean the hypothesis of AGW which 20 years expenditure of billions of dollars in time and resources has failed to prove?

    Yesterday she publicly stated ” the people of Australia voted for a change and voted for a carbon price”!

    Pardon? As late as day before the election she solemnly promised Australian voters “there would be no carbon price under any government I lead”.

    Opposition leader Tony Abbott categorically ruled out imposition of a carbon tax!

    The Greens were the only Party threatening to introduce a carbon tax and only one member was elected!

    There is absolutely no mandate from the Australian people so is she mentally competent?

    00

  • #
    Binny

    This is just more of the same along the lines of ‘the debate is over the science is settled’
    They are announcing the tax as if it is a done deal, but nothing is further from the truth.

    This needs the Independents to pass and the Independents would like to have a job after the next election. Without a party to hide in they stand or fall on their own.
    Do you really think they want to go to the next election with their name, and their name alone stapled to the front of a GREAT BIG NEW TAX.

    Julia just wants to be able to say to the extreme left. That she tried as hard as she could, so that Labor doesn’t lose any more votes to the Greens

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    As an expat, Julia’s/Labor’s/Green’s decision doesn’t surprise me. I’ve been away for nearly 20 years, but on each visit back home, I come away shaking my head in wonderment at how the entire country appears to be replicating Isaac Asimov’s “I Robot” plot with the government assuming the role of the ultimate computer/robot.

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    I wonder when companies like BHP, GM, Ford and other manufacturers that rely on heavy power use are contemplating taking their operations offshore after the carbon tax is introduced.

    00

  • #
    elsie

    In the latest COSMOS magazine online Feb 25 2011 there is a good editorial giving a more sane, balanced view re’ climate change. It challenges the alarmist side and even suggests that at worst the changes are far less than is often claimed. A piece of fresh air once again being shown in science quarters.

    00

  • #
    Skeptic Rich

    CO2 is green

    STATEMENT OF H. LEIGHTON STEWARD CHAIRMAN, PLANTSNEED CO2.ORG AND CO2ISGREEN.ORG. The statement is being made in response to statements submitted to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives, February 9, 2011 by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and American Public Health Association representative Lynn Goldman, M.D.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Interesting the flavour of SMH and the Australian websites this morning. Here is my count of the headline links that clearly talk about the carbon tax:

    The Australian: 14 (more than half as banner headlines at top)
    Sydney Morning Herald: 1 (buried in the National section)

    The one article at SMH on the carbon tax makes NO mention of Ms Gillard’s broken promise at all, with a flavour of ho hum, nothing to see here. SMH’s ‘hot topics’ are Julian Assange and Kristina Keneally. There is one other piece about Alan Jones giving Ms Gillard a hard time on air yesterday, but no mention of carbon tax in the headline.

    Biggest tax on ordinary people in more than a decade, and worst political lie in my living memory, and SMH just about ignores and buries it. Typical.

    00

  • #
    Graeme M

    I wonder if people like John Brookes have been following Judith Curry’s blog? There are some pretty heavy hitters on there these days debating and discussing for and against views and to be honest, though I don’t follow the technicalities, I think the message anyone would draw is that the science is hardly ‘settled’. And anyone reading the detailed discussions trying to establish the actual true state of radiative physics in the atmosphere and its effect on our climate would be pretty clear by now that it is by no means well agreed.

    I think the take home message is that while there may indeed be some warming attributable to man-made emissions (and that is not at all established from what I can see), it appears to be rather less than has been hitherto claimed and its effects are wide open to debate.

    So Julia’s decision appears well and truly precipitous at best.

    00

  • #
    Tony

    Hello Guys

    This is a cut and paste I sent to someone, equally valid here.

    Like most Aussies, I have woken up today, utterly disgusted at what has been pushed onto us by Labor/Greens/Independents.

    Not wanting to sit down and let this go, I think its time we put a face to the “mass” of people that will be affected. So I have knocked up the below concept to make a doco out off. (Note this will be done on the smell of an oily rag). It may cost me my ability to go into festivals etc… (being so hell bent to stay on the left) but this issue is too important.

    So I thought I’d ask, would you know some experts able to donate some of their time, to appear in a Documentary based on the below pitch? (If you could forward this through to some people, that would be great – my contact details are below). I am no expert, far from it. But I can smell a rat a mile away…

    The Pitch -> Death by Carbon

    According to Terry McCrann, “The Gillard carbon tax will devastate business.”

    In 2009 the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) commissioned Castalia, to model the impact of the proposed emissions trading scheme on Small to Medium Enterprises (you know, those little guys having a hard enough time staying afloat due to Big W, Coles, Amazon and Ebay). It found that the ETS would erode SME profitability by between 4 and 7 per cent, and in some cases, it could “erode firm profitability entirely”. In other words, they would bite the bullet and die.

    Today we have a very soft retail sector, still trying to claw its way out of the post GFC economy. Sure Australia as a whole did okay, but talk to any retailer and they will say times are tough. Many other firms exist off the back of the retail sector, from signage company’s, lawyer firms, accountants, newspapers, not to mention suppliers. Borders current woes demonstrate just how much damage can be done by ill informed government.

    This alarming development, when coupled with the fact that SME’s, as a group are one of the biggest employers in the country, sends a very clear signal. An ETS or Carbon Tax has the very real possibility of driving more people out of their work, out of their homes, than any other economic event in recent history. And it will be entirely the blame of the Labor and Greens parties.

    This documentary is not an attack on the concept, it is an expose on small businesses in Labors heartland (Western Melbourne), and where they see themselves and their staff, post a Carbon tax implementation.

    If you are interested, drop me an email at tony_in_bendigo@hotmail.com

    00

  • #

    In economic theory, in a closed economy and zero transaction costs, with all other things being equal, a carbon trading should work quite well to reduce carbon emissions. In the real world consider these points.

    1. The oil price has more than tripled in the past decade. There are enough incentives to improve energy efficiencies from this alone. The marginal impact of carbon trading will be much lower than if the oil price had been static.

    2. Those businesses which can most easily pass on the extra costs to the customer are those with no competition from abroad. Supermarkets, which consume huge amounts of energy, are a good example. Australians cannot hop over to New Zealand or Singapore for their weekly groceries. The biggest burden relatively, will be borne by the poor. Manufacturing businesses will be incentivised by the profits from selling carbon credits to ship production abroad to China. High polluting, old production processes will gain a new income stream. New, efficient, competing ventures will have to pay the incumbents to enter the market.

    3. The energy trading schemes are highly complex and need experts to set up the rules. Or rather people who read up on the theory, and know more than the naive punters elected representatives of the people. Enron was bidding to be a big player, before it went bust. Lehman Brothers was bidding to be a big player, before it went bust. With mortgage securitisation now so out of fashion, this presents a new way for the masters of the universe to make extraordinary profits.

    I do not keep up with politics much, especially on t’other side of globe like. (I am from Manchester, England). So have I got this reet? A socialist government in Australia is bringing in a regressive policy that could cause consumers to subsidise the movement of manufacturing jobs abroad, and help a return to the multi-million dollar bonuses in the financial services industry. All this, in the name of a policy that will be near impotent in constraining CO2 emissions.

    If you follow the UNIPCC or Stern Review line, the policies to combat climate change are highly cost effective. But that requires correctly identifying the low-cost alternatives and successfully pursuing those options. Politicians have not the skill-sets, the incentives, the staying power, the knowledge, the longevity, the power, nor the incentives to achieve these aims. They may inadvertently undermine the very things in which they originally believed.

    00

  • #
    Mike Whelan

    As the science is settled our beloved Prime Minister could not possibly object to an formal debate between the protagonists, but then again, as there is “Consensus” there would be nobody to argue against AGW, would there?

    00

  • #
    Frank

    The PM & her partner Bob have no ethics, no morals, no conviction and both are out & out LIARS.

    00

  • #
    Jannes Kleintje

    Helen Clark was in a big hurry to implement a 10% ETS in New Zealand. She could not because she was voted out. But she was found to have a very juicy job lined up at the UN, the masters she was pleasing all the time before her election defeat.
    Nick Smith, who followed her up as far as the ETS was concerned, bullied the rest of the caucus to carry on with the ETS, probably also aiming for a job like Helen.
    What is your Gillard up to???? Who is pulling her strings?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The Alan Jones interview with Juliar is priceless:

    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8186

    Juliar is rude beyond belief and clearly out of her depth… it’s a must listen folks. This is the death rattle of a leader on the way out.

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova reports that a Carbon Tax is coming to Australia. This is to be followed by carbon trading. Comment [...]

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Bulldust:
    February 25th, 2011 at 10:14 am

    The Alan Jones interview with Juliar is priceless:

    point 1) I’m jooolya, and I’m important, therefore not expected to be prompt for appointments, stiff cheddar Alan.

    point 2) It may be your show Alan, but I’m just going to talk over you because as mentioned in point 1, I’m Important.

    As you say Bulldust, rude beyond belief.

    P.S. I’ve got very little time for Alan Jones, but on this occasion Jooolya was just disrespectful.

    00

  • #
    GBees

    Snodgrass .. I’m ready to march on Canberra. I want to oust all the lying thieves destroying our country. the bastards wouldn’t lie straight in bed …. taxation at this level is theft. we are being run by criminals.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Topic, but may be of interest to many.

    While listening to ABC overnight radio, Tony Delroy took calls on support or opposition to a carbon tax. Having caught several such sessions on ABC I thought forgone conclusion, overwhelming support.

    My jaw almost hit the floor after Tony’s 40 minute or so short poll. He only took approx 10 calls. all but 2 opposed the tax, of the 2 in support one was a 4 minute ad hominem against any body that had the hide to think differently to herself, the second supporters only justification for the tax was the tired old precautionary principal.

    When did the ABC last have a poll go against CAGW, four to one?

    00

  • #
    pat

    another whitewash:

    24 Feb: The Hill: ‘Climategate’ report clears scientists
    By Andrew Restuccia
    A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data.
    “In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures,” said the report, which was authored by Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145913-report-on-climategate-clears-government-scientists-of-wrongdoing?page=3#comments

    18 Feb: Office of Inspector General, US Dept of Commerce: Response to Sen. James Inhofe’s Request to OIG to Examine Issues Related to Internet Posting of Email Exchanges Taken from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, UK
    http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2011/001688.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    worth reading all for more cronyism:

    24 Feb: Washington Examiner: Timothy P. Carney:
    New Soros investment fund, profiting off Obama’s ‘green energy’ push, hires top Obama energy aide
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/new-soros-hedge-fun-profiting-obamas-green-energy-push-hires-top-

    00

  • #
    July

    Fair shake of the sauce bottle Jo, I’m a farmer and apart from the past couple of seasons we had about 10 years of drought. Maybe you should ask farmers in western China or Brazil where the droughts are? By the way, 2 years of normal rainfall (normal??, monsoonal rain in the southern summer?)does not reverse a longer term trend. Ask your fellow farmers in WA.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    It has been said before but just to put it out there again:-

    How many taxes once enforced get repealed?

    When the Howard Government was selling the GST to the State Governments he offerred the lot to be distributed in lieu of removing Sales Tax ( which the feds did) & the States were supposed to repeal a whole raft of taxes & charges.

    Who out there can rattle off a list of the State Fiscs which went?

    00

  • #
    pat

    my final word on the matter. not only will everything cost more with a carbon dioxide tax. in SE Qld we have an out-of-, highly-paid, newly-created bureaucracy handling water, and the price has already gone up considerably.

    now there are plans for another increase – a whopping 23%.
    the company is Allconnex and it is owned by the Councils, and supposedly profits will be used to keep rates down! yet in the news this week we have the hypocrisy of the Councils saying they want Allconnex to try to lower the increase!

    23 Feb: Gold Coast Bulletin: Matthew Killoran: Allconnex staff fear abuse
    The three shareholder councils in Allconnex Gold Coast, Logan and Redland are yet to agree to lower water prices for the next bill, but have told Allconnex that a previously flagged rise of 23 per cent was unacceptable.
    http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/02/23/294005_gold-coast-news.html

    proof it is all about revenue-raising:

    25 Feb: Gold Coast Bulletin: Matthew Killoran: Water returns could reach $218m a year
    In that scenario, the council would earn about $97 million each year over the next five years.
    But Cr Clarke himself has hinted such an outcome could be difficult, with Logan and Redland councils looking for more income.
    http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/02/25/294861_gold-coast-news.html

    23 Feb: Gold Coast Bulletin: Matthew Killoran: Allconnex staff fear abuse
    The three shareholder councils in Allconnex Gold Coast, Logan and Redland are yet to agree to lower water prices for the next bill, but have told Allconnex that a previously flagged rise of 23 per cent was unacceptable.
    http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/02/23/294005_gold-coast-news.html

    and here’s our taxpayer-funded reporters, saying Abbott would not say he would repeal such a tax!

    25 Feb: ABC: Gillard comes out swinging in carbon war
    Earlier, Mr Abbott told AM the Government does not have permission from the electorate to introduce a carbon tax, but refused to say if he would repeal it…
    Mr Abbott called the plan a historic betrayal of the Australian people.
    “We will fight this every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month,” he said.
    “I think if the Prime Minister wants to make, politically speaking, an honest woman of herself she needs to seek a mandate for a carbon tax and she should do that at the next election,” he said…
    Mr Abbott also dismissed an attack from Ms Gillard, where she quoted him supporting a carbon price before he became Liberal leader.
    “I never said one thing before an election and a totally different thing afterwards,” he said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/25/3148452.htm

    00

  • #
    pat

    a different perspective on the Inspector General report posted above:

    24 Feb: US Senate Ctee on Environment & Public Works:INHOFE HIGHLIGHTS COMMERCE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT
    IG Finds NOAA Climategate Emails ‘Warrant Further Investigation,’ Top Scientist Thwarts Transparency Law
    “I want to thank the Inspector General for conducting a thorough, objective, and balanced investigation,” Inhofe said. “NOAA is one of the nation’s leading scientific organizations. Unfortunately, in reading past the executive summary, this report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation. It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze. Her justification for blocking the release was contradicted by two career attorneys in the Office of General Counsel. This is no doubt a serious matter that deserves further investigation.
    “Also, the IG recommended that certain NOAA-related emails ‘warrant further investigation,’ so I will be following up to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent according to federal law, and that the public will get access to the science NOAA produces.” …
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=597ab372-802a-23ad-468b-765a651134b0&Region_id=&Issue_id

    00

  • #
    pat

    am so angry today i have to post this as well, another spin by SMH on the NSW leaders’ debate:

    25 Feb: SMH: Josephine Tovey: O’Farrell sincerer but rattled, voters say
    Ms Keneally was the clear winner of the debate, but it probably won’t help her get re-elected…
    The Herald surveyed the audience after the debate…
    ”A better debater, and seemed more sure of herself ,” said one man, who nevertheless said he would vote Green on March 26…
    The results were damning for Labor. Among the responses given for why people were moving away from the ALP were:
    ”Labor have gone too far right. It is time for a change…
    A couple of traditional Liberal voters said they would not vote for the Coalition this time. One was switching to the Greens.
    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/ofarrell-sincerer-but-rattled-voters-say-20110224-1b75z.html

    i have voted Labor all my life and will continue with a Donkey vote indefinitely, but the spin by SMH is sickening.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    They say a picture paints a thousand words… there is a lot of merit in that statement. In that vein, here’s the people that govern this fine nation of ours theirs:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/these_people_govern_australia/

    It’s a worry…

    00

  • #
    bunny

    GBees

    A rally in Canberra is in the planning stages by a man named Jacques from an organisation called CATA. He is looking for people who are prepared to march on Parliament House on Wednesday 23rd March and 12 noon.
    If you’re interested, send him an email. cata at hotmail.com.au (I didn’t want to put the actual email address in).
    Chris Smith from radio 2GB in Sydney is hoping to be able to broadcast his show that day from Parliament House on that day.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    alan jones interviews gillard………..

    Gillard Vs Jones
    worth a listen, especially to the man that rang up on Jones’ show.
    He was pretty angry.

    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8186

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Meet New Zealand’s ETS: costly, corrupted and useless………

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/meet_new_zealands_ets_costly_corrupted_and_useless/P60/

    Alan Jones talks to Rodney Hyde – New Zealand MP on the impact of an ETS:-

    http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneshyde120810.mp3

    00

  • #
    grumpy

    In the warmy SMH there is a poll following the story on Alan Jones calling Julia “Ju-liar” currently running at 54% “No” to 46% “Yes” to the question “Do you accept that we need to put a price on carbon to tackle climate change?” I can’t wait to see Mike Sheahan, Ross Gittins, Mike Carlton et al have a hissy fit that their readers aren’t as smart as them!!!

    Maybe readers here can vote on that poll too and see if we can push the No vote up past 60 or 70%.

    Poll here http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/alan-jones-lets-rip-at-juliar-gillard-20110225-1b7km.html#poll

    00

  • #

    I just listened to that radio interview, Gillard totally pwned Jones. That guy has the social grace of a two year old and the wit of a coma victim. Sceptics of CAGW don’t need morons like Allen Jones broadcasting their emotional diarrhea. We need to present qualifiable facts to the true belivers using civility and understanding. Anything less sabotages the sceptical position.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Pity to see the editor of the Australian supporting this tax. Better position from the editor of Melbourne’s Herald Sun. Must be Andrew Bolt’s influence:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/prime-ministers-hand-in-our-pocket/story-e6frfhqo-1226011598116

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Two things about Gillard.

    1.A lawyer’s stock in trade is lying. She passes that test.

    2.She desperately wants to remain PM and she is willing to lie to the electorate and sell it out to keep the vote of the one Green MHR that keeps her in power.

    00

  • #
    A C

    The observation that blue collar workers seem to be more sceptical than professionals seems to hold true in my line of work. The drillers are inclined to be sceptics and believe that scientists are corrupted by government grants. They dont need to understand the science to understand gravy trains and self interest. The geologists tend to be AGWers partly because they have a rosey view of the peer review system and cant accept there is a problem.
    In my personal experience I think the drillers are right, the grant process has surely corrupted the university earth science faculties, I think everyone knows it, but I doubt that anyone would admit it out loud.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Tel @ 67

    The parliamentary party would appear to be taking the Blue Collar support for granted, but Paul Howes(the latter day answer to Richo) had some very telling comments about the state of trade protection particularly in the steel industry a few days back. I think it was around the day HerRanganus was addressing the NZ Parliament welcoming their apples.

    If the coal miners suffer from a carbon tax as well as a MRRT I get the feeling there will be some very interesting conferences on the hoirizon. ( You could probably chuck in the angst of the NSW power workers in for good measure too!)

    Woooo Hoooooo!

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    AC @93

    I contract work in the exploration industry & over the last few years most of the geologists I have discussed AGW with are firm if not strident sceptics ( 2 cagw believers, ~3 fence-sitters V >100 sceptics)

    & all but one of the landholders ( & that one thinks he is going to retire on his carbon farming profits!)

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Channel 9 poll:

    Will the carbon tax create jobs?
    As at five minutes ago

    YES: 8,300
    NO: 58,147 (87.5% and rising)

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I was hoping (in vain) not to see Brookes, the Creep from the Blue Lagoon, weigh in to prove once again what a misanthrope he is.

    I was wrong, and he really is that stupid, and he really does hate the society he lives in that much.

    00

  • #
    brc

    July @ 88

    Yes drought happen. Now explain how a carbon tax fixes that. I would have thought a tax on all inputs to a farm would be more dangerous to farming than the weather.

    ManicBeanCounter @ 77

    Any market that is not real will fail, as it is only bound by the rules holding it together, and rules are just moral flavours of the month/year/decade. You can’t trade things that aren’t real – how can one possibly enforce delivery of a couple of tonnes of co2, or 50 tonnes of abatements? Goal, oil, coal, wheat – these markets have existed for a long time. They do not need governments to create them, or even to regulate them. They exist because people freely trade the physical goods. The idea of a pan-global emissions trading system is an academic pipedream that will never exist. Ask yourself if fleeing despots in North Africa paused to take the gold and artwork, or the carbon credits and their own paper currencies? Even a dictator knows what is real and what is not.

    The European emissions trading market is closed because of fraud, the American one collapsed due to lack of interest.

    Carbon dioxide emission trading is an elaborate thought experiment gone wrong, because no-one was adult enough to say ‘what a load of academic BS’. But hopefully some adults will show up soon and call everyone on the whole charade. No economy of the world ever prospered from people trading imaginary bits of paper back and forwards between themselves. The whole sub-prime mortgage collapse should be enough warning about the perils of that. But then we’ve been repeating these errors ever since the Mississipi scam, each set of politicians and economists thinking they can fine-tune the inherent problems out of a system based on nothing but confidence and lies.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    I have emailed my (ALP) MHR, and every Queensland Senator.

    This is the text to the Kirsten Livermore:
    We note that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced that a Carbon Tax will be introduced, despite her pre-election promise.

    We are both opposed to any Carbon Tax and will not vote for any party that seeks to introduce it. We urge you to do what you can to argue against this within Caucus, and fight for the interests of the people of Capricornia. This Carbon Tax is not about science or economics, but pure politics.
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Waffle @98 You picked the wrong site to attack the person and not the argument

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    AND if you want to know what it’s going to cost to keep the lights on
    check out
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/02/%e2%80%98carbon-price%e2%80%99-won%e2%80%99t-reduce-emissions-from-power-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-474100
    and I’ve put a comment there linking a letter from Terrence Cardwell also an expert in the electricity industry

    Andrew Bolt is right ‘she’s leading us over a cliff’

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Lookout Joolya Dullard – We may have handed in our guns at the last amnesty.. but we still have rope..!

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Percival @ 62 Thanks
    Bob Brown in an interview with Brisbane’s 4BC radio mentioned Ottmar Edenhofer from your link. Bob never gave too much detail except to say he was an economist from Germany. I now have the full picture, the facts Bob did not reveal.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    So our Prime Minister of Lies and her new Green mates are going to stick it to us with a carbon tax? But don’t worry, says Gillard, about higher electric and petrol prices…No worries, because the gubberment is going to distribute the money raised from a carbon tax back to “families” so that they can continue buying electric and petrol just like they did before the tax!

    And just how is that suppose to cut everyone’s carbon footprint? It’s not. That’s just the con you’re suppose to buy into.

    The carbon tax will only accomplish three things.

    1. The price of everything will go up and the Australian economy will become less competitive internationally. But no worries, that’s the whole point of the tax! Cripple the Australian private economy by shifting its wealth and autonomy to the government. The carbon tax will increase the power of government to pick economic winners and losers at the expense of our individual autonomy. Everyone becomes poorer except those chosen by the Labor/Greenies to become richer. This is much fairer than a free-market economy, because Labor/Greenies are so much more wiser than us little people. They know how to spend your money better than you do, so just hand it over.

    2. The Labor/Green coalition will redistribute the windfall from this tax in cash to socio-economic groups it thinks it can buy off to win the next election. By expanding the great mobs of people dependent upon the Labor/Greens for money, they believe they can lock the Libs out of power, perhaps forever. Every election thereafter the Labor/Green coalition plans to steal more money from those who don’t vote from them and distribute to those who do. Eventually, the economy will be more “publicly owned” than private and our carbon footprint will resemble East Germany’s in 1985. And everyone lives happily ever after.

    3. The Australian people will figure out that the carbon tax was all along the ultimate end game purpose of the whole climate change fraud and vote the Labor/Green parasites out.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Petition To Stop The Communist Gillard’s Carbon Tax…………

    http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Roll up! roll up!! ROLL UP!!!

    Git yur snout ‘roun’ the good ole barrel o’ pork:

    http://www.nccarf.edu.au/node/601

    Yep ladies and genteelmen that’s how we get world leading research.

    Oink!

    Any questions?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Ahhhh Friday afternoon and I find myself waxing lyrical… not sure this one will make the cut so I crosspost it here from this story at The Oz:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/julia-gillard-fends-off-accusations-she-has-broken-a-promise-on-a-climate-tax/comments-e6frg6xf-1226012064134

    Govinda, our friend in Nepal wrote:

    Govinda Paudel of Nepal Posted at 4:33 PM Today
    I strongly support PM’s action. The opposition may go against her but before going against Julia, they should think about their children’s, grand children’s or the next generations’ future. Our action today MUST NOT hamper the future generation’s future.

    I felt somewhat mischieviously compelled to reply:

    Govinda Paudel of Nepal
    Firstly, if you are in Nepal why would you give a flying, continental, rat’s proverbial what Australia does? We represent 1-1.5% of global GHG emissions and your friendly neighbours (China for the geographically impaired) will swallow up any cuts Australia makes in the proverbial two shakes of a lamb’s tail.

    I do think about future generations mate (as we call our friends down ‘ere), and therefore I do not want to fleece the economic growth that would benefit them by channelling the money into wasteful government bureaucracies. Once again, coming from a centrally-planned economy I empathise with your fate but find myself somewhat unwilling to share it.

    I wonder if that one will make it up … I am somewhat hit-and-miss with The Oz lately.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Unbelievable; every country in the World which has gone down the green coolaid path has had the economic guts torn out of it: Spain, California, most of Europe, Britain. The agitprop in support of the carbon tax is going to be non-stop with the largest lies being that new jobs and economic prosperity will follow the tax; are there any idiots out there who actually believe this garbage?

    Waffles@98 raises an interesting point; which is sceptics and opponents of the carbon tax and anything those misanthropic ratbags, the greens, do should conduct themselves with decorum and not resort to name-calling or insults. Good manners may help convince the lurkers and fence-sitters and its true that the acolytes are getting more strident and puerile as their rotten AGW decays; so I guess we’ll have to content ourselves with mordant wit.

    00

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    SENATOR JOYCE on Tony Windsor & carbon tax ‘WHITE FURY’
    25 February 2011

    PICTURE: Minister Julia Gillard with Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown and Greens deputy Christine Milne along with Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott announcing their agreement to pursue a carbon price. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet (obscured behind Ms Gillard) Picture: Kym Smith Source: Herald Sun

    “They are the people who are going to bring in the carbon tax because they have the quite evident expertise, despite all the history to the contrary ,to cool the planet from a room in Canberra.”

    “In the background, literally and photographically, are Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott. Mr Oakeshott, well you can just make your own mind up about him, but Mr Windsor’s statement at the press conference is peculiar. He said, “and please don’t construe through my presence here that I will be actually supporting any scheme”. Well, Mr Windsor, what were you doing there? Did you get lost on the way to the toilet and just stumble across the Prime Minister doing her press conference and decide to stand in on it?

    Please don’t tell me that we have to go through this teeth pulling agony as you stand at the front of the political church in the big white fluffy dress saying ,” I don’t know how I got here and I don’t know whether I shall say I do. Don’t construe that this dress means I’m getting married to another Labor/ Green party decision.”

    Alice (in Warmerland)

    00

  • #
  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Beware of Bob Brown’s “green jobs”…….

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

    “green jobs” are a MIRAGE!!!

    Don’t be conned by the idea!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Annabel Crabb snuck (past tense sneak… anyone?) this pearler through the ABC mod squad:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/25/3149177.htm

    I think with Jooolya’s new-found courage she is starting to resemble the Red Queen:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eobuu-IexvI

    Whaddaya think?

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    For every green job created in Spain, 2 other jobs were lost.
    The Spanish Socialist-Green government is ensuring that the 20% official unemployment rate remains at that level (or higher) by over-regulating (like Gillard’s new labour laws are forcing the 17.5% holiday loading to be included in worker’s termination pay).
    Australia appears set to follow the Spanish model which is summarized as follows:
    Labour costs in Spain are very high for employers — a consequence of strict laws that protect workers. Four weeks’ vacation a year is the mandatory minimum. An artificially high minimum wage places a floor under the supply of workers and the demand for jobs, creating a devastating imbalance. This means there is a huge demand for jobs and little desire on the part of employers to fulfill it.
    Additional reasons for the lack of job offers in Spain include the excessive “finiquito”, the final pay a worker is entitled to under Spanish law when fired: 45 days of salary for each year worked at the company. Furthermore, taxes on employers are very high — at least a 50 percent of each worker’s annual salary, which means that if someone is paid €20.000 a year, it costs their employer at least €30.000 a year to hire them. All this makes an employer very reluctant to hire an employee, which creates a high rate of unemployment and a huge number of “garbage contracts.” These taxes also promote black-market activity, which either sidesteps the established rules or ignores them altogether.
    The taxes on employee wages are very high as well, which brings in the “mileurista” social status where over 50% of the working population can never earn more than €1.000 per month which is a poverty wage.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Another poll to vote in lads:

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

    00

  • #

    Bulldust@120

    Annabel Crabbe (I enjoy her writing even if she’s from the dark side) says that “the morning’s opening hand-to-hand encounter was Alan Jones.”

    If Annabel was one of the Canberra Press Gallery following JuLIAR today and she says the AJ interview was “the opening encounter,” was JuLIAR lying again when she told AJ that a previous interview had gone longer than she expected.

    Does this mean that the smarmy SMH writer was also wrong?

    When are we going to see a poll that says:

    Did Joolya Foolya?
    Do you want a new Election?
    Are The Climate Sceptics party an alternative to the duck-diving major parties?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Loved the fourth option in that poll.

    By the way cohenite, your able self, Louis, Nasif and others saw off Luke, Gavin and SoD over at Jen’s. Been no rejoinder since Monday. They must be burning the midnight oil searching for that elusive paper which they believe will turn the tide for them. Oh, they’re not allowed to burn oil, are they.

    Fair dinkum, these blokes need to get and smell the roses, coffee… anything!

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Yes Mark it is interesting; luke’s hero Philipona has written many papers purporting to accurately measure LWd, the deus ex machina of AGW, however, the fundamental flaw remains: how much contamination from the measuring devices is there.

    00

  • #
    Luc Hansen

    I’m truly bemused by this site and the angry, deluded people who inhabit it. I’ve only scanned the comments above, but I see few credible science references and many red herrings.

    For example, there is lots of room for debate about the effectiveness of any carbon trading, carbon tax or sustainable energy initiative, and such debate is entirely valid and valuable.

    But, look here, the planet is warming. Glaciers are melting. Sea level (on average) is rising. Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity – Australians should know that better than many! Polar ice is decreasing in extent and mass. Species of all types in the Northern Hemisphere are migrating northwards, the opposite for the Southern Hemisphere (In Kiwiland, we are now catching tropical fish in recreational fishing outings!). People are being displaced through climate change. Conflict has already occurred because of climate change. And it was all predicted by credible scientists and skilled analysts.

    Every single national and regional science academy, every single government worthy of the name, almost (retired octogenarians, paid lobbyists and habitual contrarians aside) every scientist, especially those actively engaged in climate research, agree that it is largely caused by our fossil fuel emissions.

    And this during a time when our orbital settings dictate that we should be heading towards another ice age in the very, very, distant future.

    I’ve got a two year old daughter, who hopefully will have (more) grandchildren for me to enjoy in my very, very old age, and you (mainly) guys are intent on destroying her future!

    Talk about doing our future generations a disservice!

    In closing, this is typical of the nonsense posted here:

    Jannes Kleintje:
    February 25th, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Helen Clark was in a big hurry to implement a 10% ETS in New Zealand. She could not because she was voted out.

    The Labour-led government DID pass an ETS scheme, which was subsequently modified by the current National-led government, itself led by someone who once, in parliament, called global warming a hoax. I guess he changed his tune.

    What the Labour-led government initially wanted, correctly, in my opinion, was a simple carbon tax, enabling the free market to plan with certainty on a post-fossil fuel economy. That failed, not the ETS. We have an ETS in place.

    Anyone with an alternative explanation for all the observed natural phenomena I detailed above should rush it into print in Nature, or Science or any credible peer-reviewed journal and go down in history as the person who let us carry on exploiting our fossil fuel reserves to the max!

    Please, do me a favour!

    I love Formula One!

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Cohenite 122, Sorry proper nouns and all that. Vote almost level pegging on the first two options.

    Bulldust @ 120, I thought it was a good article with wit and erudition. I noted the responses too. Overwhelmingly bad for the ABC. So bad they stopped comments shortly after they were opened. They just can’t stand competition. I wonder will Annabelle be asked to write again and if she is will she do a mea culpa piece to appease the volcano godess?

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Here are the email addresses of the two Australian independent Federal politicians, both of whose vote is required for the carbon tax to get through the lower house. I have emailed both (politely) asking them not to support this huge new tax.

    Robert.Oakeshott.MP@aph.gov.au

    Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au

    Remember what happened when Turnbull tried to force through the ETS.

    00

  • #
    John M

    Aside from the obvious political manipulation of the tax denial to gain votes and then tax inserted after election victory…

    This is just a tax !
    - Nothing to do with emissions control & everything to do with bankrolling a socialist agenda.

    This only cements the common public views:
    - who is the leader – Bob Brown
    - Julia’s word means nothing – she lies without emotion
    - The mainstream / leftist media are part of the Labor/ Green marketing arm and remain silent on these sins.
    - Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshot have sold out their rural battlers to a life of poverty and hardship.
    - Alan Jones is a lone figure of wisdom fighting a lost cause. The damage has been done and it will take generations to repair, if that is possible from here.

    And further raises the Question.
    - Why did we vote out the most successful and responsible government in our history, and in the process destroy all that was good and prosperous ?

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Worried about rising CO2 causing catastrophic man-made global warming?

    New UN research determines cutting CO2 emissions has little impact on future temperatures.

    The projected rise in global temperatures could be cut in half in coming years if world governments focused on reducing emissions of two harmful pollutants – black carbon and ground-level ozone, including methane – rather than carbon dioxide alone, according to a U.N. study released Wednesday.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022306885.html

    And what about this…

    Latest study rejects IPCC’s “Consensus Climate Science” – Droughts & floods are not caused by CO2. It seems El Niño/La Niña climate patterns are the culprit

    http://www.news.pitt.edu/news/Abbott-wet-dry-cycles-American-West

    00

  • #
    janama

    So why didn’t Annabel just state it clearly – Jooliar has lied.

    Actually Jooliar set Alan Jones up. She was purposely late just to rile him some more, then she took the full brunt of his accusations and retired to meet the other press who could do no more than what Annabel eventually did, i.e. try desperately to find another angle cos Jones had fully covered the obvious one.

    00

  • #
  • #
    John Brookes

    wes george says:

    So our Prime Minister of Lies and her new Green mates are going to stick it to us with a carbon tax? But don’t worry, says Gillard, about higher electric and petrol prices…No worries, because the gubberment is going to distribute the money raised from a carbon tax back to “families” so that they can continue buying electric and petrol just like they did before the tax!

    And just how is that suppose to cut everyone’s carbon footprint? It’s not. That’s just the con you’re suppose to buy into.

    It bugs me so much when such easy concepts get so badly misunderstood. The point of a carbon price is not to get people to use less energy. It is to change the relative price of different types of energy. So it is not the consumer who nobly says, “I’ll buy this renewable energy because its good for the environment”. Its the producer who says, “The price of carbon emissions makes it cheaper to go gas, or wind, or solar, or nuclear, so that is what we’ll do.” Compensating the consumer makes absolutely no difference to the producers motivation to find the cheapest way to produce energy. Compensating energy producers is, unfortunately, totally counterproductive in reducing emissions, and the sooner the government gets the guts to face up to that, the better.

    There is a little truth to what Wes says. The average consumer will be worse off, because the producers are using inherently more expensive means of generating energy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and in this case, changing from using carbon emission intensive energy which warms the atmosphere to using other safer forms of energy will cost more. Future technology may change that, but for now, no, it will cost more.

    I hope you realise that what is explained above is far simpler than climate science. If you can’t get a hold on this, there is no hope of you ever understanding more complex things.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Give it up John

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Good advice, incoherent rambler.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    John Brookes @132,

    There is a little truth to what Wes says. The average consumer will be worse off, because the producers are using inherently more expensive means of generating energy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and in this case, changing from using carbon emission intensive energy which warms the atmosphere to using other safer forms of energy will cost more. Future technology may change that, but for now, no, it will cost more.

    Well, John, it’s time for the truth. Their objective is not cleaner energy but less energy; with a government strangle hold on everyone in the process. Just try to get your government to allow building of nuclear plants (the only worthwhile effort you could make). It won’t go any farther than it has here — a dead end street unless those who control you now are thrown out in favor of people with a good grip on reality. It has begun here and I hope that you in Australia can develop the commitment to fight back as well. Otherwise, John, you are on your way down the drain. And it’s painful to see.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes @132:
    There is no such thing as a free lunch, and in this case, changing from using carbon emission intensive energy which warms the atmosphere to using other safer forms of energy will cost more. Future technology may change that, but for now, no, it will cost more.

    Actually, current and near term technology (state of the art in nuclear reactors) has a solution to the “problem” of “cleaner, safer” energy — also, certainly more reliable and cheaper than solar or wind. No need to wait for future breakthroughs, if the goal was really what you say.

    I hope you realise that what is explained above is far simpler than climate science. If you can’t get a hold on this, there is no hope of you ever understanding more complex things.

    If you say so, John. Realize, however, that you have failed to explain the most glaring contradiction in what you presume is the Green agenda — why they are vehemently against nuclear power. Of course, if you simply listen to what they say (like Maurice Strong: “Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that [the collapse of industrial civilization] about?”, or Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace ), you would be able to see that the real goal is social control and the suppression of freedom (as embodied in the Western Democracies).

    Actually, most of us have given up hope of you understanding “complex things” — you have said that you don’t even try, but simply depend on “Expert” opinion (however you choose the experts). However, your statement does illustrate a persistent delusion of yours: You apparently think that, in order to criticize current climate theories, you have to have a better theory. This is false — it is perfectly possible (and is consistent with the Scientific Method) to show that current theories are false (which Jo’s blog has done time and again) independently of the existence or non-existence of a better theory.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    John it IS hopeless (that you’ll ever understand)

    @ 133: The point of a carbon price is not to get people to use less energy.

    That is the worst case of double-speak I have ever heard. Read Orwell would you? Or maybe you have and are trying to bring that diabolical world to reality?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Luc Hanson @ 126

    Every single national and regional science academy, every single government worthy of the name, almost (retired octogenarians, paid lobbyists and habitual contrarians aside) every scientist, especially those actively engaged in climate research, agree that it is largely caused by our fossil fuel emissions.

    Heard all that crap before you know it’s called argument from authority and you didn’t even list the authorities! Just a long moaning diatribe…..

    Save the children save the grandchildren blah blah blah. I have children, they ALL have been indoctrinated, by me, to watch out for idiots claiming the “end is near”. I don’t worry one bit about climate and their ability to live long and be fruitful. I worry a great deal about how governments, propagandists, false authorities, liars, cheats, “reformers” and all sorts of narrow thinkers (like yourself) might limit my children and their hopes.

    Bother to look around the site and read some of the past threads (you can find links on the sidebar) before you post again.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Luc Hanson: Yet another troll who drops by, reads a couple of comments, and undertakes to “set us straight” with argument from (unsourced) authority. (Plus name-calling, of course: What would a CAGW argument be without name-calling?)

    Boring, Luc. Why don’t you try to get our attention by posting a logical critique of the main thrust of this blog; conveniently available here?

    Many of the scientists you think are authorities have tried but, take away the name calling and fallacious arguments, and they have accomplished nothing. Perhaps you can do better? (It wouldn’t be hard to best your efforts so far.)

    00

  • #
    RobJM

    Luc Hansen @ 132
    Here is the ultimate argument to authority!
    You may have a few computer modelling mathematicians posing a scientist on your side, but the universe is on the side of the sceptics.
    Also 100% of scientists are sceptical of AGW because all scientist are trained to be sceptical of all theories!
    As for the science, The Earth Budget Radiation Experiment clearly show that the world is warming due to it absorbing more short wave radiation, obviously caused by the satellite observed 5% decrease in cloud cover. The amount of energy escaping from the earth has been increasing, not decreasing as demanded by AGW. At the same time the dominant greenhouse gas H20 has been decreasing when temp increases, again the opposite of what AGW predicts and depends on.
    If CO2 is a pollutant then all life must be destroyed since all life is derived from CO2.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    luc@126 says this:

    “I’m truly bemused by this site and the angry, deluded people who inhabit it. I’ve only scanned the comments above, but I see few credible science references and many red herrings.”

    This sort of patronising dismissal is de rigueur for the alarmists, as is the rest of luc’s dumb litany of ‘reasons’ for supporting AGW such as deference to authority [the UN!! via its handpuppet, the IPCC] and the ultimate and most despicable example of alarmist tactic in luc’s use of his offspring to invoke shame and repentance in us sceptics who obviously are quite prepared to sacrifice children in support of our… what? Respect for proper science, evidence, rational discussion and preservation of the progress made in Western society?

    Luc’s invocation of the possible fate of [his] children if us sceptics don’t wake up to ourselves is really despicable given the way children have been used as propaganda tools by the alarmists; see this:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html

    Have a look at how children are used in the videos to promote AGW luc; what about that? And you reckon the commentators here are angry and deluded; well, have a look at these charmers;

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44454.html

    The top dozen or so provide the tone and pathology; I especially like this one:

    “The Planet :
    25 Feb 2011 3:23:15pm
    Dear Population,

    The quicker that you hasten your demise, the better off I’ll be.

    Love, The Earth”

    And you reckon there is anger and delusion here! Mate, your backside is on your shoulders.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @Luc Hansen 126

    YAWN!!!

    I’ve only scanned the comments above, but I see few credible science references and many red herrings.

    Translation: I didn’t read the comments thoroughly so I am going off half cocked because I am a troll.

    You then make a slew of unsubstantiated claims with no scientific references yourself! Thet have a word for that, hypocrisy!

    But, look here, the planet is warming.

    The planet has warmed a measly .7 degrees since we came out of the LIA in 1850. It has been much warmer during this current interglacial (MWP, RWP, MWP, Holocene Maximum (during the Bronze age) and yet CO2 levels were lower. Since CO2 did not cause the warming, what did? There has been no warming in over a decade. Jim Hansen has failed at his prediction of a warmer world. See http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-past-is-the-key-to-the-future/

    Glaciers are melting.

    Some glaciers are and some aren’t. The LIA is the coldest it has been during the current interglacial. As we recover from the LIA the glaciers in the Alps are receding and evidence has emerged of medieval civilization because it was warmer during the MWP while CO2 levels were lower!

    Sea level (on average) is rising.

    You are correct in that they have ben rising since the end of the pleistocene ice age. In fact, the rate of rise has slowed. See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/

    Polar ice is decreasing in extent and mass.

    The Arctic is fine and has been ice free in the past when CO2 levels were lower. The Antarctic has gained ice mass.

    And it was all predicted by credible scientists and skilled analysts.

    They were wrong and so are you.

    Anyone with an alternative explanation for all the observed natural phenomena I detailed above should rush it into print in Nature, or Science or any credible peer-reviewed journal and go down in history as the person who let us carry on exploiting our fossil fuel reserves to the max!

    You didn’t “detail” anything. All you did was to regurgitate the warmist’s talking points without a shred of evidence to substantiate anything you wrote! There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that challenge CAGW orthodoxy.

    Fossil Fuels? I bet you use hundreds of petroleum based products every day. If you want to lead by example then do without any of the benefits of fossil fuels and earn our respect. You wouldn’t last an hour let alone a day!

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Gents, I have to imagine that Luc feels a bit like the shoreline of France on D-Day when at the “business end” of several battleships.

    I sure hope he isn’t a Bot although I am pretty sure I’ve read the same words before….probably cut and pasted from RC or Delteroid.

    00

  • #
    Luc Hansen

    Eddy

    Your reply is but one amongst the predictable responses I have received.

    But first, addressing the Argument from Authority complaints above your post, there are two types of authority:

    1. Those with the power to decide. They may not be right, but they decide. For example, Gaddafhi deciding to declare war on his own people, and that actually happening. That’s authority, I’m sure you will agree.

    2. Expert opinion. By definition, expert opinion carries the most weight. You and others here appeal to the writings (but not necessarily science writings) of others here all the time. Your problem is that they are basically seen as cranks. Hey! They may be right! But their problem is, they keep getting shot down in flames! The credibility gap is huge. One of them may be the next Galileo, but he/she has to put in the hard yards.

    I will concede that my opening gambit was a little inflammatory, but as I explained, I have deep concerns about what the future holds for my children and grandchildren at a time when I won’t be around to help them.

    And a problem with sites like this is that people are free to post distortions and even complete and utter lies. The thread of the Hockey Stick is a good example, but I won’t go off topic. I may post over there later.

    Eddy, all of your arguments above, which only scratch the surface of the evidence for AGW (regardless of what conspiracy theorists allege, the terms global warming and climate change are pretty much interchangeable, although the latter could be considered more descriptive)are all rebutted by the science community.

    Visit http://www.skepticalscience.com or http://www.realclimate.org and run your arguments past them, if you can’t already find it covered in a search of their sites.

    For your information, I was previously a skeptic in the sense that I thought the planet and the atmosphere were so huge that surely we couldn’t be doing such damage. “It can’t be our fault”. But a little while ago my new wife challenged my views so I sat down for some serious research over time. I chased down every skeptic argument I could find, including the ones you posted.

    And I’m sorry, Eddy, I became horrified at the duplicity of the skeptics and convinced by the overwhelming evidence presented in all credible science journals (I didn’t go looking in Economics or Paranormal journals, sorry).

    Eddy, I’m saddened by your accusation of trolling. I try to make a relatively informed (from a voter’s perspective) contribution.

    And I’m trying to save my daughter from a world that will go to hell in a handbasket if we don’t act soon.

    Even though NZ is very well situated to withstand 2-3 or even 4 degrees warming, we are sparsely populated and it’s obvious we will become a prime target not only for climate and climate conflict refugees, but nearby countries losing land mass to sea level rise will be casting a covetous gaze over us, surely.

    When my previous wife became ill with cancer about 15 years ago, we spent a lot of time with well paid cancer specialists who, at that time here, were coming under attack by quack remedy promoters for protecting the “cancer industry.” Our specialist said once, very gently, “Your wife is dying. I’m the one who has to tell her this. I would love to be doing something else. If a cure was found, we would all party and I would move on to another field in a blink”

    I believe our leading climate scientists would feel exactly the same about our current planetary predicament.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Mmm, how to respond to this? Luc has come out of personal adversity with a fierce desire to protect his family; he is trying to save his “daughter from a world that will go to hell in a handbasket if we don’t act soon.”

    This is commendable but let me reverse what is the only argument which AGW has, the precautionary principle, which says even if there is uncertainty about the science [which luc apparently does not concede] it is still better to err on the side of caution and as a sensible insurance policy put in place measures as though AGW is real; what’s the harm in that? Well luc should read this which explains some of the harm in this approach:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43878.html

    The precautionary principle is based on Pascal’s wager and is used by such people as Garnaut to justify the vast expenditure in transferring the economy from a fossil fuel based one to a wind and solar one. As explained at the link Lomborg has shown the falsity of this process with expenditure far outwaying any benefit EVEN if AGW is real. One only has to look at the money spent in Australia on AGW, at least 6 billion and world wide over a trillion. That is money which could be spent on real issues, real pollution problems, real lifestyle solutions and real ways of alleviating the hardships many people in the world now find themselves in. How many young girls, like luc’s daughter, live in the third world and suffer or die now through the want of a little money for basic health care, sanitation, medicine or food? Money that is now going into the pockets of the likes of gore, flannery, all the spivs who, like leeches, are gorging on the government allocation of monies to fight AGW. There is a real disaster that misues valuable resources and I would like luc to comment on that.

    I know that AGW is not real; it has been disproved to my satisfaction; that does not mean that humans do not pollute and unnecessarily spoil the Earth and that we should be vigilant against such waste.

    I think the AGW fear is a kind of neurosis, a phobia which involves a loss of perspective and felxibility of mind. This planet had a natural disaster 65 million years ago; that asteroid strike expressed energy the equivalent to 10 million times the combined nuclear arsenal of all countries and created a nuclear winter for 5 years. Yet it was a mere hiccup in the evolution of this planet; and people claim that a byproduct of industrialisation, slightly elevated levels of CO2, which has created the most civilized living conditions in mankind’s history, is likely to cause the destruction of this planet.

    That is nuts.

    The best thing you can do for your daughter luc is to make sure the ratbags who want to take humanity back to the stoneage don’t win this war; that is a real prospect and would be a real disaster, not like the neurotic disaster of AGW.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “Luc Hansen”,
    You support the following kinds of DISGUSTING PROPAGANDA!!

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

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/life_suddenly_too_hot_for_the_eco_fascists_of_1010/

    How can you sleep at night?
    You say you have a family and a daughter!
    Is this the stuff you play to her at night?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXdUW3-7Qyk&feature=player_embedded

    GOD HELP THEM, before you really lose the plot and this happens….

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,26793969-952,00.html?from=public_rss

    YOU “Luc Hansen” are seriously in need of professional help!

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Luc; I think it is not advisable that you import your wife’s cancer to AGW
    I have gone through a similar experience to the one you have indicated
    BUT I have not ended up a AGWarmist
    SO what is the difference between us
    IT’S certainly not emotional
    IT’S scientific
    LOOK at the sciencise
    AND I have dependents aged the age of your stepdaughter – or is it daughter
    SORRY LUKE don’t rely upon emotional stuff
    this is sciencise
    NOT EMOTION

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Luc, I would like to suggest a line of inquiry for you:

    I see you are promoting RealClimate.org. Perhaps you aren’t aware that RC censors comments to prevent any real discussion of the science and to maintain the illusion that they are the only rational ones. Many of the frequent posters here have been banned from RC for presenting too rational of arguments.

    In contrast, JoNova’s site allows anyone to post any arguments pro or con without censorship. (She does insist that defamatory remarks must be supported — I understand you are under moderation until you can either specify what it is that we here are “denying”, or apologize for slinging empty insults.)

    If you want more technical discussions, Anthony Watts site, WattsUpWithThat and Steve McIntyre’s site, ClimateAudit are both good. You will often find that RealClimate posts a counter-argument to something on these two sites, then refuses to let Steve or Anthony respond, pretending that they have dispatched the subject. In contrast, when Steve or Anthony (or one of their guest posters) dissects the hand-waving over at RC and demonstrates that it is specious, anybody (including Gavin, and the others at RC) are welcome to respond. Usually the gang at RC doesn’t bother, because they haven’t fared so well in open discussion (as opposed to their tightly controlled discussions on RC).

    You might ask yourself why that is, if all the facts are on their side. (In fact, if all the facts are on your side, why can’t you engage in a discussion of them here?)

    I’m not saying not to read propaganda sites like RC — but also read sites that allow open discussion and start using your mind to come to your own conclusions.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I will second the motion for putting all the money that has been wasted on AGW in the pockets of my children and their peers. In AU, I figure that is at least $2000 (hard to estimate what number of 20-24 year olds we have), hey $2000 I know they will appreciate.
    So we can start with the cash bonus for the kids. Compared to what we about to spend on a CO2 tax we can give them all well paying jobs (at the taxpayers expense) studying atmospheric physics (or their navels) for the rest of lives.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Re bulldust @ 93

    About that picture…

    … it could be a scene from that cantina in Star Wars.

    Easy to spot the ape scratching his head!

    Yep… it’s certainly scary to think that these characters now have control of our future.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Luc Hansen,

    You complain too much about skeptics. We’re not the ones with anything to prove. We need only sit back and point out the glaring holes in the AGW theory. It’s you who believe AGW who need to offer some real proof before you demand that the world do things your way.

    You fear because many people with high sounding credentials say this, that or the other disaster awaits us and humans are responsible for it.

    Good! You should be afraid! You deserve to be afraid! You haven’t asked the one simple question that AGW proponents can’t answer. Where is the empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for any harm? Where is the evidence that CO2 is responsible for anything that happened in the past, is happening now or is projected by computer models to happen in the future? Answer: there is none. It’s all just opinion. And opinion is not evidence, no matter how hard they try to convince you it is.

    The case for AGW has been so thoroughly debunked that believing it requires suspension of one’s critical thinking ability. It’s built on a foundation of doctored up data, distortions, omissions and lies. It survives only because it is and always has been a political gambit to grab power, make money and subjugate the world to the agenda of people who don’t give a tinker’s damn about New Zeeland, you or your daughter.

    Yes! You should be afraid. But you’re afraid of the wrong thing.

    00

  • #
    Len

    Luc Hansen. It is not uncommon for men to be converted to a new faith by the new woman in their lives. Some call it a snatch conversion.

    00

  • #
    brc

    Luc Hanseon @ 132

    I’ve only scanned the comments above, but I see few credible science references and many red herrings.

    Then please englighten us with credible science references. Too hard for Luc, instead we get this rehashed diatribe straight from the 2006 playbook:

    But, look here, the planet is warming. Glaciers are melting.

    Planet is warming, as you would expect after rebouding from the little ice age. I’m glad it’s not getting colder.

    Sea level (on average) is rising.

    By a couple of millimeters. I’m so scared.

    Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity – Australians should know that better than many!

    Incorrect. Many studies show this to be false. The BOM data shows this to be false in the case of Australia. If you have contrary evidence, we’d all be delighted to read it.

    Polar ice is decreasing in extent and mass.

    Antarctica is getting colder and increasing mass. Not sure what your point is.

    Species of all types in the Northern Hemisphere are migrating northwards, the opposite for the Southern Hemisphere (In Kiwiland, we are now catching tropical fish in recreational fishing outings!).

    Please name three species that have been found in location that they have never been seen in. During recorded history will be fine, we won’t bother going to the fossil record.

    People are being displaced through climate change. Conflict has already occurred because of climate change.

    Name one group of people who have left their homeland because of climate change. Name one conflict caused because of climate change.

    And we come to the conclusion of the ‘scientific evidence’ (as opposed to ‘red herrings’). None of the supposed effects of warming actually implicate increase co2 emissions. Notice none of my evidence demands are actually that onerous – it should take you no time at all to answer. If you had actually been keeping up, you would find that there is no evidence that co2 causes the warming seen. The models have not only predicted higher temperatures than have been seen, they have also predicted atmospheric circulation and heating that hasn’t eventuated – I’m referring to the ‘hot spot’.

    Every single national and regional science academy, every single government worthy of the name, almost (retired octogenarians, paid lobbyists and habitual contrarians aside) every scientist, especially those actively engaged in climate research, agree that it is largely caused by our fossil fuel emissions.

    And now we come to the ‘consensus’ argument. Governments are only worthy if they agree – quite a circular argument, that one. I could say the same ‘all sane scientists agree that co2 doesn’t have major sensitivity’. I also like the ageist slur – anyone at the age of 80 is obviously a dithering buffoon, instead of someone with a lifetime of experience. Think of that when you’re 80 with your grandchildren around your ankles. I think you’ll find that many active climate researchers aren’t quite so sure. But they are the ones who don’t depend on government funding and obtaining the next grant. But it doesn’t matter on the numbers anyway – you only need one correct scientist to tip the whole thing over. But AGW is non-falsifiable, didn’t you know? Droughts, rain, floods, fires, cyclones, blizzards and cold weather – all are proof.

    And here’s some news for you : consensus is an artefact of a theory, not the proof of the theory. There is no voting mechanism. Just about all major breakthroughs in science overturn an existing consensus. It only takes one person to destroy a complete consensus, no matter how much government money and organisations agree with them.

    AS for the scientific bodies, if you’ve been absent from the debate, you’ll notice that quite a few of the esteemed ones have mutinies on their hands, where experienced and concerned scientists have tried to get the official position changed to increase the uncertainty in the statements. But these people have been shut out of their own organisations and have had to leave in protest.

    I’ve got a two year old daughter, who hopefully will have (more) grandchildren for me to enjoy in my very, very old age, and you (mainly) guys are intent on destroying her future!

    And now we come to the theme du jour – ‘won’t someone think of the children’. Well, I’ve got twice as many kids as you have, and my greatest fear for them is growing up in a society where free thinking and speech are squashed, where socialist governments crush innovation through nationalised institutions and businesses. Where winning technology is picked from political ideaology and economic meddling instead of letting the best solution win in a free market. Where they will leave their schooling into an economy with high unemployment and massive taxes, bound in regulations. Where they will spend their lives paying taxes to a government to make up for the colossal waste of money that occurred when they were children and had little say in the matter. I fear that my kids will learn the truth in 15 years and ask me what the hell were we thinking, as if you could pass a tax in order to change the weather. The thing that crosses my mind the last is what the weather will be like. Because I will (and have) staked my financial fortunes on the fact that the weather will be broadly the same in 30 years time as it is now. You see, when it comes to the weather, past performance really is a predictor of future results.

    So Luc, when you get back from wherever the latest ‘denier alert’ has taken you, we’d all appreciate if you answered my questions regarding evidence. Let us know of these mysterious wandering species – these alligators in the arctic, tucans in the tundra. Let us know of these new extreme weather events – we’ve all been so busy denying the climate we haven’t had time to look out the window. Let us know where these climate wars are happening – surely there must be some pictures up on the internet? Let us know where these climate refugees have been forced to flee their homelands from rising sea levels, or melting glaciers, or migrating alligators, or whatever it is that makes them a ‘climate refugee’.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Luc @ 132

    The following article shows how stupid the defenders of AGW have got. Note who wasted the money doing the computer simulations and National Geographic joins Nature and Science Journals in the race to utterly trash their once great brands.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/?source=link_tw20110225news-nuclear

    Is this what you want for daughter?

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Poll the blue collar workers in the Port Kembla steelworks. Ill wager my modest renumeration against Julia’s weekly hair and beauty treatment bill that the poll will be 98% against the man made global warming myth. These workers are facing forming the biggest dole queue since the Great Depression entirely the result of the ALP/Greens Axis.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Ross Re156:
    Do you imagine a warmist group launching the “bomb” using the Precautionary Principle to ameliorate CAGW and a good side benefit of reducing the population too?

    Thanks National Geographic…………..

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Ross, Mark D.,

    I’m not going to chew my fingernails off worrying about nuclear Armageddon, not even regional in scope. The ones that worry me are the dirty bomb possibility; Pakistan’s arsenal, now much too close to falling into radical hands (need I mention Iran?); and the waste that has to be hidden away for several thousand years.

    North Korea is all about blackmailing the U.S. into sending money. They now seem to regret their mistake and may be looking for a way to back down without losing face. We should give it to them.

    India and Pakistan will hate each other forever but they won’t launch any bombs. It’s what happens if Pakistan’s bombs fall into jihadist hands or Iran’s getting a credible bomb that we need to worry about. Beware of those who want martyrdom for their cause.

    As for National Geographic, they trashed their brand long ago when they decided to give up science and become advocates instead. What’s to worry about in one more trip off the rails into the cornfield after they’ve made the first one? I never watch such stuff anymore and don’t pick up National Geographic in a doctor’s waiting room, much less read it.

    Sadly, many more useful publications like Time Magazine and Business Week have also gone down that road.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    #40, Jo Nova’s comment re troposphere hotspot:
    “The old rehashed arguments about how it’s not unique don’t wash – it’s still missing – the models are wrong whichever way you look at it. And now things are so desperate that they can’t find the hot spot with thermometers that go right through the zone, but it’s implied by patterns in Sea surface temps? Sure. — JN]”

    You seem to misunderstand the troposphere hot-spot, JN. Thermometers do find the hotspot at single points in time, but the climate science hotspot refers to a multidecadal positive temp anomaly in the troposphere. Any global forcing that causes multidecadal warming is expected to cause this positive anomaly, after all, with higher average temperatures there is more water evaporating; the hotspot is caused by heat released when this additional water vapour condenses in the troposphere.

    The problem with detecting a multidecadal hotspot seems to be noise, specifically El Nino noise. The only way to detect a signal out of noise is to continue to accumulate data, and when more data exists, then it will be better known whether or not a hot-spot, as predicted by models, exists. So far proxy measurements (eg wind shear) and noisy temp measurements seem to be consistent with what is expected.

    I’d suggest that instead of saying things like “no unambiguous unequivocal hotspot has been found, therefore it does not exist” (this would be like, pre-1995, physicists saying “no top quark exists because it hasn’t been observed, even though it has been predicted for decades to exist”), you need to temper you hyperbolae.

    I suspct that if the trosphere hotspot is unequivocally unambiguously shown to exist, skeptics will say, “but it is a consequence of natural warming, it is not a unique signature of GHGs, we know there is natural warming, therefore one would expect a hotspot to exist”.

    00

  • #
    connolly

    O really zorba. Your “If my grandmother had wheels”argument is inadequate. Whatever you “suspect” the FACT is that the data don’t show what the models say they should show. There is nothing wrong with the measurements. The hotspot isn’t there.And the climate models which form the basis of the warmist dogma show it should be there. So on the basis of your warmist hypothesis and a suspicion a public policy is being imposed. I’ll make you a fair offer. You go on the dole queue with the thousands of steelworkers who are being condemned into poverty for the duration of the period at which you accumulate “data”. That should concentrate your mind wonderfully to determine the period of data accumulation. At the end of this process when no data has been found to verify your hotspot hypothesis, you stay on the dole and we go back to work. Fair enough. Thought so.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The real hyperbolae is to claim:

    “… when more data exists, then it will be better known whether or not a hot-spot, as predicted by models, exists.”

    Then in the very next line avow faithfully the received groupthink:

    So far proxy measurements (eg wind shear) and noisy temp measurements seem to be consistent with what is expected.

    Amen for that, brother.

    Zorba admits that we can’t find the hotspot, but, no worries, Zorba says this is just the usual “noise” one finds in a science that is completely settled where the consensus is in and the time to act is, obviously now, because it ain’t gonna get any better, at least not on a “multidecadal” time span to tax the very air we breathe!

    With logic like that, who needs enemies?

    Q—What do you call a hypothesis that makes predictions that cannot be tested today (according to Zorba) or have failed to be verified by the empirical evidence (according to Jo Nove, el al) ?

    A—Useless.

    00

  • #
    David Harper

    Luc@132

    I have a message for your daughter, she should be careful because people like you used to burn witches. Your logic is about as good as the witch trial in Holy Grail. I despair for the youth of today if people like you are reproducing.

    00

  • #
    Jannes Kleintje

    Luc Hansen @ 127

    I wrote:
    Helen Clark was in a big hurry to implement a 10% ETS in New Zealand. She could not because she was voted out.

    I stand corrected. I should have written: She could not follow this through…. because she was voted out.

    But do you really enjoy kicking a hornets nest the way you do? There is simply no evidence of warming but increasingly there is evidence of cooling.
    And there is an increasing disdain for the subsidy sponges and gravy train riders who constantly try to force us to believe the unbelievable and accept proof of the unproven. And they want us to keep coughing up money to help to “fight” that phantom called Climate Change (under varies names).
    Money that is now also being claimed by countries as Saudi Arabia because their deserts are so perfectly suited to absorb so much CO2 that we have to pay them for that fantastic service….

    00

  • #
    Joe McGinn

    Really quite amusing to see you people talking about the “religion of warmists” when there are large corporations spending millions to convince you that global warming is not real. Looks like they’ve been pretty successful. All this article tells me is that people are sheep, easily led by corporate marketing disguised as anti-scientific think tanks, and that the only thing I should really listen to on this subject is scientists.

    00

  • #
  • #

    Len:
    February 26th, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    Luc Hansen. It is not uncommon for men to be converted to a new faith by the new woman in their lives. Some call it a snatch conversion.

    aka “pussywhipped”

    David Harper:
    February 28th, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Luc@132

    I have a message for your daughter, she should be careful because people like you used to burn witches.

    “yeah but she’s *our* witch” :-)

    John Brookes: thank you for taking the time to leave an indelible record on the internet documenting your idiocy.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Joe McGimp is right, people.

    I’m a paid lobbyist with the Single Flush Toilet Cartel. We strive to keep the public well informed about the latest developments in hydro-engineering projects, such as dams and toilet tanks, which everyone should be in favor of more. Lots of dams on every river. “A loo or two for every citizen!” That’s our motto.

    Of course, climate change is on our agenda. We’re all for it!

    For the record the Single Flush Toilet Cartel joins with our comrades at Big Tobacco and the International Conclave of Sausage Dogs to oppose the impending Climate Stasis.

    Why? Because a global warming climate catastrophe is great news for our share holders. The rising sea levels, crop disruptions, super-storms and massive populations dislocations that will ultimately result in the collapse of western civilization is a great environment for growing market share and profit margins. Sly Joe only pretends to be a dolt, actually he’s an economic genius, right up there with Ross Garnaut and Whitlam!

    Or haven’t you seen all those old war movies? Everyone smoked like chimneys and would have given their first born for a proper single flush loo with a nice spool of Tasmanian wood chip produced TP!

    Ah, the good old days when a shyt was a shyt.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Another “drive-by” troll, Joe McGinn, (at #165 & 166) undertakes to “set us straight” by claiming that no one here
    could possibly have heard of UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), the organization that lobbied the government in the 1950s to create the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder Colorado.

    Joe McGinn:
    February 28th, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    By the was here are some FACTS on global warming. Non-profit, not corporate sponsored nor controlled by the government, an objective scientific community in existence since 1960:

    My prediction is that no one commenting here – especially people saying such factually wrong things as there is no evidence of global warming – won’t spend five minutes on this site. You will see the facts contradicting your silly little marketing-driven opinions and run away rather than allow yourself the discomfort of being exposed to the truth.

    Joe has probably been recruited by one of these rent-a-troll sites; who suggest that we be told devastating information like:

    Theres [sic] any number of angles you might want to take but pointing out that the vast majority of climate scientists are sure that man made climate change is happening is not a bad one. Or how the fossil fuel companies are funding “think-tanks” whose job it is is to try and undermine the science of climate change. Or ..(I could go on forever).

    Of course, if Joe had spent a few minutes looking over this site before shooting off his mouth, he would have found out that we are well aware of all these false and lame attacks. We know that the “evidence of global warming” (yes, Joe, we are no longer in the Little Ice Age) is independent of, and irrelevant to, the evidence that Human emissions are responsible (AGW) — of which there is essentially none. As for the “marketing-driven opinions”, Joe probably can’t figure out that everything UCAR (and NCAR) do is aimed at getting more government money to perpetuate their organizations — and that the government has paid over $80 billion exclusively for research over the last 20 years that promoted AGW; More than 5,000 times as much as “Fossil fuel company funding” for any research on climate at all.

    Joe’s idea that we have never hear of UCAR is charmingly naive — FYI Joe: I have built instruments for NCAR, written and received grants with UCAR (when I was in a company that built instruments for NCAR’s aircraft) and have many friends (and some family members) who have worked at these organizations. I have personally received vastly more money from the government support of these organizations than I have from “fossil fuel companies”, for which my balance sheet is depressingly negative.

    Joe’s original idea that UCAR is not “controlled by the government”, when they are entirely funded by government grants brings double-think and toleration of cognitive dissonance to a breath-taking new level, even for the population of trolls who have posted here.

    Quite making a fool of yourself, Joe, and do a little reading before you post. You’re making John Brookes look like an intellectual giant.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    What we all think about global warming is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the science.

    If we look at the science… the real-world climate observations and measurements, the evidence shows contrary to the IPCC’s model-based predictions.

    This is what is important… not what some poll says.

    Science is not about polls, or what people think. Science is about observations. And right now the observations do not support the IPCC;s pseudo-science.

    Now read this:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science

    00

  • #
    BobC

    zorba1: You are committing the classic fallacy of “mistaking the map for the territory”.

    You seem so sure of yourself as you explain the reasons for the tropospheric hot spot:

    zorba1 @160:
    February 28th, 2011 at 9:49 am

    You seem to misunderstand the troposphere hot-spot, JN. Thermometers do find the hotspot at single points in time, but the climate science hotspot refers to a multidecadal positive temp anomaly in the troposphere. Any global forcing that causes multidecadal warming is expected to cause this positive anomaly, after all, with higher average temperatures there is more water evaporating; the hotspot is caused by heat released when this additional water vapour condenses in the troposphere.

    But here comes reality. According to that notorious denial organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), tropospheric humidity has been decreasing steadily for 70 years. According to the AGW hypothesis, then, we should expect that

    1) there would be no hotspot — check
    2) there would be no warming — check
    3) The small increase in CO2 concentration has had no detectable effect on the climate — check

    Hence, the AGW hypothesis is falsified. You can go home now.

    00

  • #

    People smoking in adds has been banned for a long time so Julia says ok it and send the message it`s ok to smoke but not to produce carbon. She is a disgrace to proude australians. Any tax for the labour party is good but they will never balance the books unless Carbon Tax Mining Tax pays the way so they squander more.

    00

  • #

    MIT professor Kerry Emanuel is among a rare breed of conservative scientists who are sounding the alarm for climate change and criticizing Republicans’ ‘agenda of denial’ and ‘anti-science stance.’
    January 05, 2011 | By Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau
    According to the conventional wisdom that liberals accept climate change and conservatives don’t, Kerry Emanuel is an oxymoron.
    Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan…
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
    The following text is extracted from Professor Emanuel’s book “What We Know About Climate Change,” published in 2007. It appears to be apposite to the current situation:
    The global mean temperature is now greater than at any time in at least the past 500 to 1,000 years…
    He says that most scientists believe that:
    • Rainfall will continue to become concentrated in increasingly heavy but less frequent events.
    • The incidence, intensity, and duration of both floods and drought will increase.
    • The intensity of hurricanes will continue to increase, though their frequency may dwindle.
    All these projections depend, of course, on how much greenhouse gas is added to the atmosphere over the next century, and even if we could be certain about the changes, estimating their net effect on humanity is an enormously complex undertaking, pitting uncertain estimates of costs and benefits against the costs of curtailing greenhouse-gas emissions. But we are by no means certain about what kind of changes are in store, and we must be wary of climate surprises.
    Even if we believed that the projected climate changes would be mostly beneficial, we might be inclined to make sacrifices as an insurance policy against potentially harmful surprises.

    00

  • #

    Is this a case of history repeating itself?

    Seventy years ago, an intense controversy developed between those who wanted to take action against Fascism and those who wanted to refrain from getting involved. It was essentially a Right/Left divide:

    Isolationism and America in 1941

    …During the summer of 1941 Lindbergh made a number of large speeches sponsored by America First. At a May speech in Minneapolis/Minnesota he said that Germany would not be defeated by the United States unless it became a military nation and that it would be nearly impossible for the U.S. to mount an amphibious attack against mainland Europe. At another May speech in front of 20,000 people in Madison Square Garden, Lindbergh called for a “change in leadership”. Lindbergh was still popular with the public and an April Gallup poll found that 83% of Americans were against the U.S. joining the war
    http://www.traces.org/charleslindbergh.html

    After Pearl Harbour:

    …To millions of one-time admirers, Charles Lindbergh’s lustre had been fatally tainted by his words and associations during the 1930′s and early 1940′s. Historian William O’Neill spoke for many Americans when he offered the opinion that “In promoting appeasement and military unpreparedness, Lindbergh damaged his country to a greater degree than any other private citizen in modern times. That he meant well makes no difference.” It would be years before the words Lindbergh and hero were again uttered in the same breath…
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html

    A somewhat similar controversy, certainly in terms of the intensity of passions, has now developed. Think hard before you come down on one side or the other. Read Kerry Emanuel’s book.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Magnon, what are you doing?

    It seems you have picked an old thread with the intent of soiling it with your propaganda. I also notice recently that warmists are bringing out the “conservatives” and “religious” members to confuse people.

    Guess what? it isn’t working!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Magnon,

    Come back when your Vortex Engine is putting out commercially viable amounts of power sustained over a long enough time so no one is tempted to laugh at the idea.

    Yes, I read it all. And it sounds a little too much like a free lunch to me. And then there’s the very bad neighbor aspect of the thing…

    And yes, it isn’t working!

    00

  • #
    Magnon

    If you don’t like hearing from conservatives, tune out now:
    [snip]

    [Magnon, you don't get a free ride here.

    Bring your 'stuff' to a current thread or go away.] ED

    00

  • #
    Kristian

    Love to say that the poll result at the top of this website is completely false it is 57% oppose a carbon price (because details have not been released). Second, opposing a carbon price is different from denying climate change is real. Climate skeptics are in the significant minority but that unfortunately will never stop them from trying to force their wacky views on the rest of the public.

    Jo Nova claims that “Essentially in 2010, 20% of the population shifted from believing to being unsure”. All this means is that skeptics have been able to deceive people with simple arguments based on falsehoods against truths based in complicated science that many people have trouble understanding. This is exactly what Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has hooked onto and will not let go despite clear evidence climate change is happening.

    If climate change deniers expect people to believe them then they must somehow explain how they the so few are right but thousands of renowned climate change scientists are wrong. Law of democracy – majority rules.

    00

  • #
    brc

    Interesting how there seems to be a lot people snooping around old threads and trying to post the last word.

    Kristian –

    If climate change deniers expect people to believe them then they must somehow explain how they the so few are right but thousands of renowned climate change scientists are wrong.

    Please list these ‘thousands of renowned climate change scientists’. I would be interested to read that. Or perhaps you’re talking about a much smaller group of people, about equal in number (but not voice) to scientists who aren’t quite ready to believe the planetary thermostat is just one giant knob with ‘co2′ embossed on it. I’m surprised you didn’t hit us with ’97% of climate scientists agree’.

    law of democracy – majority rules.

    Indeed it does. And the democracy of Australia doesn’t want a carbon tax imposed on them. Yet we have an undemocratic situation where a minority government wishes to impose legislation which is clearly against the wishes of the majority, and further, the leader and deputy leader of that minority government explicitly ruled out the legislation prior to the last election.

    Unless of course you meant ‘majority rules’ in the case of climate science. As though science is some type of gigantic democratic process. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s not. Skeptical scientists may ‘be few’ (they aren’t, but whatever) – doesn’t matter. Only takes one person to disprove the entire scientific consensus about any one topic. And this has happened time, time and time again. Very few hypotheses have stood the test of time, and most theories have some type of consensus during their brief lifetimes. Up until recently, the consensus was that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. You weren’t called an ulcer denier if you didn’t believe it, but you certainly wouldn’t have been welcome at an antacid manufacturers convention. Yet one person disproved the entire theory, proved the correct one, and won a nobel prize (a real one in science, not a joke ‘peace’ prize).

    You see Kristian – the entire ‘catastrophic climate change caused by co2 hypothesis’ rides not on whether co2 warms the place up – it does. What it rides on is whether or not there are significant positive feedbacks that occur. The predictions and models for these feedbacks were made some time ago. Long enough for predictions to be made about future climate. Emissions have exceeded projections in most cases, largely because of the rapid energy uptake of developing countries. Every single one of those models and predictions – all of them, no exceptions – have turned out to be completely wrong. Not a bit wrong either, at least 100 or 200% wrong. Wrong enough that the people who came up with them should be admitting they need to go back and start again. The conditions that these models all predicted have not come to pass. Now, you might want to give it another 10 years to see what happens – but you certainly don’t want to be passing punitive, unilateral legislation on the off-chance that these dreaded positive feedbacks are going to start kicking in any time soon. The science might be complex, but making predictions that don’t come true and pretty easily understood by anyone.

    Right now some serious scientists are following other theories as to what might be driving the climate. These people have moved on from the ‘co2 is everything’ hypothesis – because it is clearly disproven – and are looking at other causes. Ocean circulation patterns, cloud formation from cosmic rays – there are many possibilities. I don’t personally believe in any of them – it will take decades to see whether a theory is right or wrong.

    So getting back to the main topic – the poll is clearly not wrong. The poll is correct because many others corroborate it. You’re right, rejection of a carbon tax is not rejection of the catastrophic climate change theory. But it’s certainly not a vote of confidence either. Ask yourself Kristian – if your beloved Labor/Greens leaders are correct about climate change – if they are right it’s going to be catastrophic – why do they not only allow coal exports to continue, they are actually wilfully trying to expand the industry?

    You don’t have to support Tony Abbott to realise this is a massive mess that some politicians haven’t worked out how to back out from. Get wise, Kristian, and think it through. Go back to greens/greenpeace/getup, or wherever you were sent, and ask some difficult questions about not only the failure of IPCC predictions to come true, but also the failure of carbon pricing in any country making any difference at all to global emissions. Now if you’re a down-with-progress-I-hate-humans kind of person, that’s fine, whatever floats your boat, come out and make your arguments. But don’t try and fight a proxy war over co2 emissions, because you’ve got no arguments left. The whole movement is a rudderless, directionless mess about to implode under the weight of it’s own failed forecasting.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well said BRC

    Kristian is just another Green idiot.

    00

  • #

    “You should never try and teach a pig to read for two reasons. First, it’s impossible; and secondly, it annoys the hell out of the pig!” Will Rogers

    00

  • #
    BobC

    brc:
    June 15th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
    Interesting how there seems to be a lot people snooping around old threads and trying to post the last word.

    Seems to be a new tactic of the “rent-a-troll” crowd (also known as “drive-by” trolls). They have no real arguments that would stand up to anyone who has read the background material (like the “10 second guide”, for example), so they’re trying to slip their ad hominem stuff in undetected in dead threads.

    Good to keep an eye on the “Latest Comments” page.

    00

  • #
    Danii

    We are not the biggest polluters in the world if the other countries who are, are not forcing carbon taxes on their people then why o why is Julia Gillard, the answer is quite simple isnt it. Australians shouldnt be treated as idiots ans we shouldnt have to pay for other countries use of carbon.

    00

  • #

    [...] 5. As evidence mounts that authorities are lying about the severity and consequences of climate change, climate skeptics and those who are unsure now outnumber believers by a wide margin. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/new-poll-more-skeptics-than-ever-and-yet-the-carbon-tax-is-coming/ [...]

    00