JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The ABC notices the anti-carbon tax rage

Lateline reports on the rising anger among Australians on the carbon tax issue. Though as usual, it does’t actually spend a lot of time talking to the people who understand what drives this movement. Instead the reporter, John Stewart,  tries to link it to the Tea Party (but only because presumably he thinks that’s a bad thing, and bear in mind, many people downunder don’t know anything about the Tea Party either). The editor makes sure to throw in Tea party file footage of heated anti-communist remarks  — rather than any of the tea party’s carefully considered party platforms. We wouldn’t want to accidentally offer some insight there now would we?

Lateline then tries to suggest the new anti carbon tax movement could be a Liberal Party* front – but that ends up looking rather half hearted when they run out of any substantial connection.

Then they manage to allow someone to throw in the biggest ad hom they can find — wait for it — these protesters are linked (how vague is that) to … skeptical bloggers. And yours truly got a nanosecond of fame with a blog header on the screen (the ABC noticed us:-)). These devious nasty bloggers of course deny the basic science… –that’s the “science” according to one political online activist anyway.

JOHN STEWART: Most of the websites promoting the anti-carbon tax rally in Canberra also contain links to climate change sceptics. There are sceptics T-shirts and caps for sale.

The online activist group GetUp is planning to stage counter-demonstrations.

SIMON SHEIKH, GETUP NATIONAL DIRECTOR: What they’re calling for is driven by climate denialism. They do not believe in the basic science of global warming. They’re anti-progress. But if you look on their websites, they’re also anti-Islam, they’re anti-refugees. These are people who fundamentally don’t support Australia moving forward.

To get a skeptics T-shirt (as mentioned above) visit The Climate Skeptics Shop. I’ll tell you more about this shop soon, but let’s just say I know the business owner — a fellow pro bono skeptic in arms — he’s not doing this for profit, but because he wanted a classy way for skeptics to identify themselves. Any profits will be used to help skeptics like myself keep running. (Thanks).

Lateline ABC program: Conservative uprising targets carbon tax

At the end of the day, the ABC coverage is helpful, but what specifically did viewers learn about what is driving the anti carbon tax rallies? Err… We found out it’s being linked to the Liberals, but they are not driving it, and that left leaning commentators who don’t understand the tea party think the two movements have something in common. (They do, but only that they’re both driven by  grass roots anger at the political class of rulers who have pushed voters too far.) We also found out that the opposing political group (Get Up) can always front someone to say ad hominem attacks that the ABC will dutifully repeat, on air, with no substantiation, or right of reply.

That’s because the ABC “thinks” (I’m being generous) that ad homs are the way to understand the climate.

*Liberal Party in Australia, perversely, is  a conservative party. It’s wierd I know.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)
The ABC notices the anti-carbon tax rage, 7.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4r2e6vw

170 comments to The ABC notices the anti-carbon tax rage

  • #
    Paul

    “Liberal Party in Australia, perversely, is a conservative party. It’s wierd I know.”

    Actually, it’s more technically correct. Liberalism was originaly a term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. In other words, today’s conservative is yesterday’s liberal.

    As is its Orwellian wont, the left usurped this term in the public sphere to give their agenda a momentary additional aura of respectability, such that what was originally just ‘liberal’ is now referred to as classical liberalism. Of course once that coat was worn out others were adopted, like progressive, and so we have people today who are so ‘progressive’ that they won’t be happy until we all learn to make do with a pre-Industrial living standard. Well us, not them.

    Unfortunately the left’s ability to be the one to define terms, largely as a result of public education and the media, has allowed for so many charades to be perpetrated on the public, of which global warming is merely the latest.

    00

  • #

    What is Simon Sheikh (of the Labor privateer group “GetUp”) on about, seriously? I have been reading skeptic websites for years: Watts Up With That?, Joanne Nova, Climate Audit, Australian Climate Madness etc., and I’ve never seen anything – even in the readers’ comments – that talks about Islam, refugees or anything else other than the science in question. If anyone knows of a bona fide skeptic website [one that deals primarily with the science], that is anti-Islam and anti-refugee, please direct me to it.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Simon Sheikh, Getup National Director thinks sceptics are “anti-progress”. So what does that make people who want to tax us back to the pre-industrial era? Anyhow, nothing that the ABC reports on the Carbon Tax surprises me. Any open-minded person knows the ABC is left biased and does not represent the views of mainstream Australians. The recent polls are proof of this.

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    So to be pro-islam and pro-refugee is to advanc Australia?

    01

  • #
    Dave N

    “What they’re calling for is driven by climate denialism”

    I’m sure that alarmists would wish for that. Sadly for them, the movement comes also from people that believe in AGW. Did they honestly think that if people believed in AGW, that they’re going to bend over take it up the rear in order to save them from it?

    Their stupidity is worse than we thought.

    01

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo
    My feeling is that the anti-carbon tax rage is really part of a wider disillusionment in the Australian electorate. Federal and State Labor governments have been pushing the boundaries of credibility for some time with a patronising view of the electorate that the Left leaning media have lapped up and indeed promulgated.

    The greatest irony for me is that an old family friend recently labeled the ABC as an instrument of the Right. Bear in mind he was one of the first to join the Australian Communist Party. He’s now a Green voter and in complete denial that warmist scientists and ideologues have massaged data and distorted the facts. For him the ABC is not Left leaning enough!

    We should expect more and more ad homs as the debate we needed to have years ago warms up!

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    On 22 I will be attending a small audience talk by Dr Glikson who will not really be facing an opposition speaker. I have challenged him to circulate his speaking notes before the talk and instead he has circulated a list of papers. Having read some of them I find them extremely turgid, rich on assertion and short on references. I think I will find myself taking him on. Any suggestions

    johbcoochey@yahoo.com.au

    00

  • #
    Andy G

    This constant use of the word “denial” is really a tad annoying,

    Methinks that we ought to start using the word “extremist” for those actively pushing the AGW/anti-carbon agenda.

    This is, after all, what it has become… a sort of climate religion, and the word “alarmist” is rather soft.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    THE LAURIE OAKES SONG……

    Ode To Laurie Oakes “If You Don’t Agree With Me You’re A Wingnut”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui2itd2KLx8

    00

  • #
    Rodzki

    I watched Lateline, and found it quite extraordinary viewing. On the one hand Tony Jones was actually asking some difficult questions of Greg Combet, albeit mostly about the silly way the ALP tried to launch the proposed carbon tax. Normally Mr Jones, as the leading media cheer squad member for the AGW scare, grills and belittles skeptics, but bowls slow full tosses to AGW proponents.

    But the really extraordinary bit, as you point out Jo, was the lengths to which the report tried to analyse which evil force was behind the anti-carbon tax protest – who was stirring up all those dupes who were turning against the idea of burdening the Australian economy with extra cost so we can get a warm fuzzy feeling about doing good for Gaia.

    Talk about ‘denialists’! The ABC just can’t get their collective heads around the idea that there is a genuine grassroots skepticism of the AGW scare in Australia.

    The famous Australian bullsh*t detector has been misfiring a bit up until recently, but now it’s coming back in service. The more Australians learn about the AGW scare, the louder the beeping on the detector is getting.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    THE CHARLATAN MICHAEL MANN………

    The net around Michael Mann (hockey stick) begins to tighten.
    So much for the Investigations that were clearing him.
    Another ended last week finding nothing suspicious.
    Not anymore.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-mann/#more-35440

    Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.
    That is a Crime under his funding obligations. He will be charged for this.
    It may also be enough evidence for investigators to claim there is a conspiracy happening
    and request Data and Interviews with all Manns contacts including Jones and Hansen.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    I was just thinking as I watched the ABC 7 o’clock news/7:30 report that this was the third day in a row that the ABC has neglected to report on the so-called Carbon Tax. Same dearth of coverage on Radio National. Lots of updates from Libya though. If you only watched the ABC you’d never know Julia Lied or that the Carbon Tax was causing great disconcertion across our fair nation.

    This is a great propaganda technique because the ABC isn’t seen violating their code of conduct with this sort of bias. Their editors can always argue editorial discretion. Libya, price of tea in China, Gillard’s luncheons in Washington and mob families simply pushed the Carbon tax debacle below the fold as they say.

    Auntie’s rule number one, if you don’t have anything nice to say about the Green/Labor coalition say nothing at all.

    Another thing I was thinking is that at long last a section of the mainstream media has caught up with skeptical blogs like Jo Nova’s.

    Clive Hamilton’s and Terry McCrann’s (Sunherald) latest work brilliantly articulate ideas to vast public audiences long ago innovated right here. They represent the mainstreaming of a conscious awareness pioneered by Jo Nova and other skeptics . It’s all very flattering, but as the MSM opinion writers finally grasp our talking points, we’ll find it more difficult to have anything original to add.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Well said Wes!

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Perhaps the anti carbon tax rage is because voters realize that the recent “climate change” flooding could have been avoided, had the tax been in place sooner ;)

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    John Coochey #6

    John – you might ask Andy can he disprove that 2XCO2 (ie CO2 doubling temperature or sensitivity) is between 0.4 and 0.6 C as determined experimentally from satellite data by Lindzen and Choi 2009 (who got 0.5 C) and Spencer & Braswell 2010 (who got 0.6 C; ie 6 W/m2). Both papers were peer reviewed successfully, and they are in respected journals.

    This single value torpedoes the whole CAGW fiction, since these values are so low that CO2 cannot possibly be a danger to mankind (you’d have to increase CO2 more than ten-fold to get even near to 2 C of warming, there isn’t enough fossil fuel in existence to do this).

    Another question is: is he aware that both the 65 year PDO and AMO cycles peaked in the last decade, and that as they fall the world temperature will cyclically fall by about 0.27 C. And that because these same ocean cycles were at their bottoms in 1900 they contributed an illusory 0.27 C, 1/3rd of the 0.82 C temperature rise between 1900-2000. (The 0.27 C peak-trough range comes from sine wave fitting to HadCRUT).

    Then if you are really brave you might ask him to comment about the CERN particle accelerator finding which gave preliminary confirmation (or at least support) of Dr Svensmark’s hypothesis about the secondary effect of the solar cycle (which is more than just total solar irradiance). The variable solar cycle is the reason for about half of the ‘warming’ over the last century, since active solar cycles occurred disproportionately in the last half of the century.

    00

  • #
    Mack I Avelli

    Wes George at #10 I presume you meant Clive James in the Weekend Australian and not the leftist Warmista Clive Hamilton who has been mentioned with despair on this blog.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    John Coochey,

    If you are going to “take on” Dr. Glikson please be exceedingly polite as you will be representing the entire skeptical community.

    The new meme that the Greens are trying to develop is that any opposition to Julia and Bob’s Carbon Follies comes only from semi-literate bogans who quite possibly are prone to violent outbursts. They’ll be trolling for any evidence of rudeness to shut down the debate from here on out.

    This advice to be polite is good for Percival Snodgrass to follow as well in his comments here at Jo’s. Supporters of the Carbon Tax have plans to amplify any single example of “uncivil” discourse they can find to smear the whole skeptical community. They’re here right now watching, lurking, waiting for one of us become the Alena Composta of the skepticism…

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Had to laugh just now… there was a clip of Joolya addressing the US Congress and she was talking how Aussies “talk straight” and “mean what they say”…. priceless in light of the broken “carbon price” promise. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Mack Avelli

    Whooops, Yes. I meant Clive James. Waiting for the coffee to kick in. Sorry.

    I was thinking about Alena Compostas and must have free associated Hamilton…;-)

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

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    the transcript is up now http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3159805.htm
    Gotta love this:
    SIMON SHEIKH, GETUP NATIONAL DIRECTOR: What they’re calling for is driven by climate denialism. They do not believe in the basic science of global warming. They’re anti-progress. But if you look on their websites, they’re also anti-Islam, they’re anti-refugees. These are people who fundamentally don’t support Australia moving forward.

    ‘climate denialism’??? that’s a newie!
    and as for moving forward check out TonyfromOz’s post on Dr Marohasy’s blog http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/the-base-load-misconception-part-1/
    and in particular Tony’s comment
    March 10th, 2011 at 12:32 am about ‘the end result of moving away from CO2 emissions that we are told ad infinitum are the cause of this Climate Change/Global Warming.’
    Tony continues
    Currently in the U.S. they have reached a total Nameplate Capacity for Wind Power of 41,000MW.
    This is the same Nameplate Capacity of every plant in Australia that emits CO2 from the process of generating electricity, Black and Brown Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil derivatives.

    So if that same Wind total was transposed to Australia, there would be no CO2 emissions at all.

    However, what that actual real time data proves conclusively is that it can only deliver one third of the power to consumers that all those current Australian plants do.

    One third.’

    As Tony says ‘That level of power will destroy Australia, and that’s not figuratively speaking either, that’s actual.’

    00

  • #
    July

    Why so grumpy about the ABC? Don’t you guys have an off switch? Or is it because there is no other broadcast service that offers anything remotely approaching intelligent debate? The state of the news services on the other channels is nothing short of a national disgrace, they should hang their heads in shame (SBS excluded).

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    There is a lot at stake for individuals at the ABC. The likes of Tony Jones have a career predicated on the success of the AGW scam, on the success of the ALP. IF both of these (for example) were to fail, he would find a world where no one in a position of power would talk to him. This will see the end of his career.
    With basic belief systems threatened you would expect the cornered animal to become rather agressive.
    As it is, I happen to personally know a few ABC management and program staff. They believe that they are simply enhancing community awareness of socially progressive causes that any “thinking person” would support.

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Interesting how the ABC went to such lengths to attempt to portray the anti-carbon tax movement as a Liberal Party driven organisation, even going so far as including Simons purile little rant. And yet they some how forgot to disclose that GetUp is funded by the Union movement who fund & provide the majority of candidates for the ALP.

    00

  • #
    xyzlatin

    With reference to comment 7, when I emailed this person with some tips, I got a message as follows:
    : host l.mx.mail.yahoo.com[74.6.136.244] said: 554
    delivery error: dd This user doesn’t have a yahoo.com.au account
    (johbcoochey@yahoo.com.au) [0] – mta1235.mail.sk1.yahoo.com (in reply to
    end of DATA command)

    00

  • #
    Jannes Kleintje

    Hi, Jo

    Not much to do with this post, I know, but this is one way of contacting you.

    I’m not sure if you have noticed this little elite group called “Parliamentarians for non-proliferation and disarmament”.

    http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/index.html

    If you look through the list of “People of PNND” then you’ll find a nice list of Aussie politicians there, including your beloved PM. Can you check what these people have in common with the AGW crowd?
    The NZ list shows just about all of the current MPs here.
    Helen Clark, previous NZ MP used to be on that list. What connection do they have with the UN? They seem to be an affiliate of the “Global Security Institute”

    http://www.gsinstitute.org/

    They are pushing the AGW agenda. See their article: Nukes, climate change and the Arctic – new Cold War or a NWFZ?

    00

  • #
    brc

    I posted a warning about the linking of the anti-carbon tax rallies to the Tea Party some days ago. Their strategy is so obvious it is very easy to predict. And now we have the first ABC piece to further connect the dots. The meme in progressive circles is that the Tea Party activists in the USA are all bigoted, racist, under-educated fools. This was carefully constructed and built over a series of months, with the USA media zeroing in on any flareups in the thousands of meetings across the USA. It largely failed (see the percentage of people who accept the Tea Party), however, it does provide a ready-made meme, complete with footage, for the people of the ABC and Fairfax to import. And there’s nothing Australia media love more than a fully-formed library of footage to import and run in Australia. You’ve only got to think of the drowning polar bears footage that used to be on high rotation to recognise this.

    Thus we get these pieces which are to discredit the carbon tax rally before the event has taken place. The idea is to link it to the Tea Party, to link it to the Liberals, and especially the outspoken Liberals like Cory Bernadi. So that when it happens, the ABC can point at it and say – here are all these people who have been brainwashed by Bernadi, Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. Here is the ugly racist side of Australian politics. Here is the Australian Tea Party. That is the headline they are itching to use – ‘violent racist tea party protest in Canberra’ thereby sidelining the actual message of carbon tax rejection. They are hoping they’ll find some racist signs or some violence within the crowd. I wouldn’t put it past some GetUP or other Green-left-weekly-reader operatives to turn up with same. Once they have a link, they’ll segue into all the pre-prepared footage used to try and discredit the movement in the USA and fill the airwaves with this instead of the actual footage from the day. Thus an entire grassroots political movement in Australia will be railroaded to the side. I’ve been watching news media for long enough to recognise the pattern.

    So if you’re planning on going to one of these rallies, this is my suggestion for ‘rally rules’
    - stick the single topic – no carbon tax.
    - no violence, even if someone is baiting you. Stand tall and walk away.
    - if you talk to the media, stay on message. No Carbon Tax, or ‘election now’. If it’s your first time protesting anything, say so. Don’t stray into science unless your name is Bob Carter or Ian Plimer. Even if you are Bob or Ian stick to the message. The raally is to protest the tax and the lie that led to the tax. Single message protests are more effective. The Egyptians had one demand – Mburrak out – that’s what made that protest so powerful.
    - the rallies are party-neutral. Politicians are free to march but it’s not a party march.
    - watch out for plants and troublemakers. If someone has a sign on burkhas or immigration or anything like that, call them on it and tell them to go home or ditch their sign. Recruit others around you to ask them to leave but no violence. I have no interest in representing immigration issues, and I know plenty of others feel the same way.
    - Tidy up after yourselves, for goodness sake. Put your rubbish in a bin and respect the police. The rally is about pointless environmental legislation, but everyone should be environmentally aware and leave the place clean and tidy.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    July: @21.

    Don’t you guys have an off switch?

    Yes, it’s on my tv remote, and I use it frequenlty to spare myself the leftist ABC’s propaganda efforts.

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    Similar theme on Q & A program. I suspect that in mind of my urban GenX/Y compatriots, “Tea party” corresponds to “redneck”. So it is easy and convenient for purposes of diminishing an opposing point of view with minimum of fuss and effort as an Australian Tea party. Nothing to see here, just rednecks whinging.

    A cracker of a tweet on Q&A that cut through the typical idiotic tweet noise. Paraphrasing: “We should create a Green Tea Party”. By all means; have a go. Otherwise known as Green Malthusianism.
    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/lind_five_worldviews

    00

  • #

    John at #7: Get in touch with Brice Bosnich at ANU Chem. He’s taken on Glikson before. (I wrote a thread about it). http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/glikson-decends-to-pseudo-psychology-and-projection/

    When I debated Glikson he had no answer to the evidence for the positive feedbacks issue, but got quickly “informed” about Sherwood and Santer, (windshear and dodgy color scales for Sherwood – look in my INDEX, and for Santer see McIntyre and McKitrick http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/.)

    Good on you — thanks for trying to stop them get away with poor reasoning and biased unscience.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    One thing chaps and chapettes… we should stop referring to Julia’s broken promise on a carbon tax as a “lie”. It is only a lie if one assumes to know her state of mind at the time the statement was made – i.e. that she knew in advance that she would break that promise.

    Hence it should be referred to as a broken promise, which is beyond debate. By calling it a lie you are giving the AGW mob ammunition. It helps to have tight, dare I say robust, arguments when dealing with the AGW scaremongers. Don’t give them any openings.

    00

  • #
    pat

    briefly turned on Radio National’s Bush Telegraph last nite only to hear Mr. Green on wood high rises. wondered why the bush would want high rises in the first place:

    9 March: ABC Bush Tele: Greg Muller: Housing the world with wood
    It’s lighter and has a much smaller carbon footprint, indeed it can even store carbon…
    Michael Green is a founding principal of Vancouver’s Mcfarlane Green Biggar Architecture and Design in Canada.
    He’s currently in Australia promoting wood as the building material of the future and says thirty story buildings made out of wood are possible…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2011/s3159230.htm

    Green made much of this nine-storey building:

    StructureMag: Building the World’s Tallest Mixed-use Wood Structure
    “Disregarding fire, the panels could have been thinner, perhaps three layers instead of five.” However, the existing thickness combined with a layer of drywall allowed the design team to achieve fire resistance ratings of 60 and 90 minutes.
    http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=947

    previous nite the program apparently had the following, with no option of leaving carbon dioxide alone:

    8 March: ABC Bush Tele: Greg Muller: Carbon tax or emissions trading?
    Emissions trading, carbon tax, or regulation? There is still no consensus as to which strategy will best protect jobs and lower carbon emissions…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2011/s3158173.htm

    how silent is Maurice Newman? if he is truly unhappy with the groupthink, the man could resign, after all.

    00

  • #
    brc

    With regards to johbcoochey@yahoo.com.au

    It’s obvious to me that this is a typo. H and N are adjacent on the keyboard and the display name is John Coochey

    Try johncoochey@yahoo.com.au

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    Percy- (Comment No 9) on Sunday I sent a post to the Sun Herald that Laurie Oakes could be forgiven his immoderate tone because of his understandable concern for the habitat of the bubble-bellied toad (Bufo oakesii), but they didn’t publish it.

    When the ad-hominem argument is the best argument they have- take them on squarely.

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Bulldust.

    “we should stop referring to Julia’s broken promise on a carbon tax as a “lie”.”

    Disagree, her defence has been that Labor has constantly said they intended to price carbon. Therfore, a tax being one of the methods of applying a price, she is now implementing a method of pricing carbon that she said she wouldn’t. Therefore she lied.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Somewhat off topic, but breaking news:

    James Delingpole says, “Aussie sceptics destroy EU carbon commissioner (Possibly the best radio EVER!)”

    And he is right. Andrew Bolt had her speechless – priceless.

    http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8095

    A bit long, but well worth sitting though. Unfortunately, the player did not have a timer or the means to fast forward (advertising dont-ya-know).

    00

  • #
    MattB

    There really is no reason to link you guys to racists etc. Although I’d wager there is a strong correlation between being a Hanson voter and a climate sceptic, it is neither here nor there.

    Of value is showing that most folks who actively oppose the tax, and lobby Abbott etc, are out and out climate sceptics. There is a line in the sand here that you guys don’t shy away from… it is a key message the ALP needs to work on, that essentially everyone who opposes the tax vocally, from Abbott to blog posters, believe that AGW is a scam. That there is no scientific credibility behind it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Paul M how to you reconcile a lie with Tony’s admission you can’t believe anything he says?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Rereke given that hapopened yesterday is it really breaking news, or is it just breaking news that a UK based skeptic who has time and time again been shown to be regularly incorrect has written a column about it?

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    “…Media manipulators are playing for real and they are upheld psychologically by the ‘masters of infinity’ through the Military Industrial and Religious Empire. This MIRE has a vested interest in keeping our attention on fear. Fear of each other, fear of the unknown, fear of the elements that surround us, fear of deprivation and fear of annihilation.

    Paradoxically the MIRE are reflecting their own fears, for without us to support their system, they realise they have no wherewithal and will therefore die. And so via the media they present us with a mirror image of their own fears…..

    …..To label the people who ask questions as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and belittle their questioning by the clever use of ridicule and scorn does not mean that there is no such thing as a conspiracy. We should really point our fingers at the ‘masters of infinity’ as being responsible for the conspiracy of silence concerning the physical realities of our universe……”

    Source: Dark Moon, Mary Bennett – David S. Percy

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    MattB.

    Now I realise this might tax your intellect a bit, but please try to keep up.

    Julia Gillard is the appointed Prime Minister who went to an election saying “No Carbon Tax under a Government I lead.”

    Tony Abbott is the Opposition Leader who went to the election opposing a carbon dioxide tax.

    Julia Gillard is now introducing a Carbon Dioxide Tax that she says will run for 3-5 years before transition to an ETS, dependant on International Actions (ie if the rest of the world still hasn’t implemented ETS, Cap & Trade etc policies our Carbon Dioxide Tax will remaing in place).

    Tony Abbott still opposes a Carbon Dioxide Tax.

    Simple analysis of this quandry,

    Tony Abbott has maintained the stance he went to an election with, no Carbon Dioxide Tax.

    Julia Gillard is introducing a Carbon Dioxide Tax that may become an ETS, in direct opposition of her stance prior to the election, SHE LIED TO THE ELECTORATE.

    Or to be more specific.

    Of the 150 elected members of the House of Represetatives, Adam Bandt went to the election supporting a Carbon Dioxide Tax. Katter, Windsor, Oakshott & Wlikie went to the election with no clearly ennunciated policy on a Carbon Dioxide Tax.

    Labor (as quite clearly stated numerous time by both Gillard & Swann) went to the election on a no Carbon Dioxide Tax platform.

    Liberal/National Coalition went to the election on a no Carbon Dioxide Tax platform.

    The only electoral mandate given to this government was to not introduce a carbon dioxide tax as per their election platform, as 144 of the 150 elected members in the House of Representatives were elected on that platform.

    Now to counter your argument on political reality, it does not matter that the political reality for Gillard changed, the mandate of the Electorate didn’t.

    Do you understand yet, or do I need to break it down into grunts & whistles?

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Bulldust@30

    Good advice on Gillard’s broken promise. A broken promise is as bad, maybe worse, than a lie. We all assume our pollies are to some degree dishonest with us. But so incompetent to as to fail to deliver on a promise??? Unforgivable.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Good advice from brc @ 26

    When talking to uncommitted or less informed people about the carbon tax one should always lower the level of rhetoric. You can’t expect someone bathed in the daily drip drip indoctrination of the ABC/SBS to have your same level of fierce moral urgency on the topic.

    Saying that Gillard lied and she’s a lying so-and-so, is the same sort of shrill, over-the-top rhetoric that the Howard and Bush haters pour on thick. The myth of the lie about the weapons of mass destruction still lives today. In fact, I was never a big supporter of Bush or Howard and certainly not their Iraq policy, but the hateful and violent rhetoric of the moonbat left revealed a repulsive side of humanity and drove me to defend and support both Howard and Bush.

    A confrontational approach hardens positions however illogical they may be. We can afford to give a little now.

    The skeptics are winning the CAGW debate worldwide on all fronts both in the science and the politics. Make no mistake about that. It’s the mainstream media and our elite institutions which are in denial of the evidence now. Our task now is to talk the Alarmists down off the ledge. Obviously, many Alarmists have already invested their ego, reputation or career in CAGW fear and so would rather jump then response to reason. But most people aren’t nearly so committed.

    Since we’re winning this debate we need to begin to make the psychological shift from being a minority under siege to an emergent consensus. This will require the ability to accommodate a diversity of opinion that we found so dismally lacking in the Alarmist consensus. Most of all it will require forgiveness and kindness. The Christian ability to turn the other cheek will win more friends then a take no prisoner approach.

    We should be magnanimous in victory in order to allow all those who wish to come over to our side an easy face saving route. We should find the kindness of heart and the open mindedness of reasonable discourse to listen to everyone’s fears and concerns because after a decade of apocalyptic climate visions, we wouldn’t expect everyone to approach climate science policy rationally. Some people are literally in need of therapy on this issue. Be gentle. Hear their fears out. Our message is ultimately a very, very good one.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    MattB: #38

    … given that hapopened yesterday is it really breaking news …

    Ah, good point. The little blue birdie told me about it, as soon as James Delingpole told the birdie, but given that he is some 12 hours behind us, and given that we are 12 hours ahead of him, it was really yesterday today, when the little birdie arrived tomorrow.

    It is all to do with the space/time thingy.

    00

  • #
    brc

    The funny thing is that during the election all the focus was on the fact that Tony Abbot was lying about his declaration not to introduce WorkChoices. He was signing pledges, repeating it over and over again.

    Now that Gillard was the one making promises she either didn’t intend to keep, or promises she didn’t respect enough to even ask the public to allow her to change her mind- the entire fiasco of hammering Abbott about Workchoices seems a little quaint and daft in comparison. Everyone said at the time ‘as if he would be stupid enough to break a pre-election commitment like that’. Not realising that ‘the others’ would be doing the exact same thing.

    If Abbott had won and just made an announcement with the support of the independents that Workchoices was coming back, can you imagine the storm of fury in the media? It’s the same level of promise breaking, lying, deceiving, whatever you want to call it. Yet the ‘lie’ part of the Carbon Tax is already last weeks news as far as the media is concerned.

    However, as Wes George says – people need to be brought into the tent slowly, not yelled at and slapped around the face with facts. It’s obvious the public knows the carbon tax is a stinker, there will be a huge thirst for information as time goes on. The ones providing the information without the hectoring, lecturing and shrill screeching are the ones that will win the debate in the long term. Remember a lot of these people are your friends, family and colleagues and you will hopefully have to speak with them for a long time yet.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Off topic, but for anyone who thinks the global economy is not in for a rough few years ahead I would suggest trying to wrap your head around the following:

    http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2011/03/07/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-it-all.aspx

    There are at least a handful of economies in the world that are about to pass the debt event horizon where servicing their public debt becomes impossible based upon government revenues. The largest of these is Japan. The only possible solution for Japan is not culturally palatable, that is to say massive immigration to boost the working population.

    A couple of selected quotes to whet your appetites:

    With “Helicopter Ben” {Bernanke – Bulldust} printing $3.3 billion per day ($2.3 million every minute), the consequences of this financial experiment could be staggering.

    and

    For instance, Japan currently maintains central government debt approaching one quadrillion (one thousand trillion) Yen and central government revenues are roughly ¥48 trillion. Their ratio of central government debt to revenue is a fatal 20x. As we discuss later, Japan sailed through their solvency zone many years ago. Minute increases in the weighted‐average cost of capital for these governments will force them into what we have termed “the Keynesian endpoint” – where debt service alone exceeds revenue.

    and

    In one of the more comical meetings we have ever attended, one chief economist at one of the largest banks in Greece surmised that if the sovereign could transfer €100 billion of government debt to the personal balance sheets of the population that it would be a potential “magical” fix for the state’s finances (and subsequently pointed out that Greece would not be such an “outlier” as a result). When asked how the Greek state could accomplish such a feat, he said he did not know and that maybe Harry Potter could find a way. It is hard to believe, but he was completely serious.

    Jooolya will need some of that Harry Potter magic to get her out of the carbon tax terminal decline…

    00

  • #
    Grumpy old fart

    Agree with BRC #26

    Be very very careful around linking anti-AGW with Tea Party. You may agree with the Tea Party personally (I don’t even get a clear idea of what they propose, apart from ‘less government’), but Tea Party politics and Climate Skepticism are not the same thing and are not natural bedfellows. Climate Skepticism must be kept politically neutral, it’s the science we’re finding fault with, and the push to legislate based on the science. As I see it, it’s our job to oppose any political party that attempts to create legislation based on the assumption that man-made carbon emissions are causing an apocalyptic increase in global temperatures, and since that is currently every mainstream party in Australian politics, we’re picking quite a large fight ;)

    The Tea Party may be a grass-roots movement, or it may be a right-wing billionaire-funded attempt to get government oversight of business reduced. I have no method of cutting through the layers of misinformation coming from everywhere (but I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle). I don’t like the rhetoric coming from Tea Party spokespeople, but I have no way of determining if I’m hearing a balanced representation of their views. Either way, their fight is their fight, and not linked to my opposition of flawed science driving flawed policy here.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    PaulM in 40. Not sure who you are arguing with. I don’t disagree. As someone who wants a price on carbon I can assure you I’m not impressed with the current approach. At most Gillard could have developed a policy to take to the next election, rather than 2012 introduction.

    My comment, however, is that to win this debate she needs to isolate the climate skeptics and argue the science – but more importanly the economics and effectively demonstrate that a tax/cap-trade is superior to direct action as touted by Abbott, and try and force his hand to having the Libs adopt out and out climate scepticism as policy. She could win that fight.

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    MattB

    So if you agree that Gillard lied & needs a mandate for her Carbon Dioxide Tax/ETS proposal, why not just say so? Why introduce a strawman argument about Tony Abbott?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    March 10th, 2011 at 11:39 am

    There really is no reason to link you guys to racists etc. Although I’d wager there is a strong correlation between being a Hanson voter and a climate sceptic, it is neither here nor there.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I am not sure why people refer to you as one of the more balanced and/or polite AGW supporters. I will not stoop to associating you with a widely disparaged political figure simply because you support the CAGW hypothesis, but somehow you can’t resist that lure. Therein lies the huge gap between us on the debating front.

    Dog whistle much?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Exactly – Abbott’s “direct action” and current hoo-ha is indeed dog-whistle politics.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Paul M I’m not introducing a straw man, I’m merely discussing a political option Gillard could take. Lie is a harsh word, and mandate – well meh some could say she is doing what elected to do – make decisions, and she’ll be judged on those decisions. I don’t think she needs a mandate, I just think she will cop a hiding for the way she has gone about it.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust in #49… I’ll just note that I didn’t say that there was a strong correlation between being a climate skeptic and a Hanson voter… I said it was the other way round. Do you not believe that your average One Nation voter would be more likley to be a skeptic than a Green voter, for example?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bulldust: #45

    … debt approaching one quadrillion (one thousand trillion) Yen …

    I hate this … the numbers are meaningless unless you know if you are referring to American or “British” “billions”, “trillions”, and “quadrillions”. (See here)

    And, I have no idea what system the Japanese use! OMG!! The article could be comparing apples with oranges and it could all be much worse than we thought!!!

    But on the other hand … WTF?

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    The Tea Party movement in the USA originated because of an inability of several elected governments to be fiscally responsible. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if there’s more going out than coming in, then something’s gotta give. It’s nice for politicians to “buy” votes; it keeps them in power, but it many cases, it’s throwing money away with no return on investment. It’s culminaed in Obama continuing to spend even though there’s nothing in the bank. If the US government had a mortgage, it’d be living under a bridge by now. The private sector in the USA is working their butts off and continually asked to do more with less. In the meantime, bankers who skimmed billions off the top, get away from the financial crisis with a “get out of jail free” card and the public sector continues to grow with benefits far exceeding the equivalent in the diminishing public sector. The Tea Party is in effect a retaliation against a feeling that the government is wanting to increase taxes to pay for its sins. Aside from a few nutters that the media loves to highlight, most Tea Partiers are just plain concerned citizens. Unfortunately, as with much that comes out of the USA and portrayed by the Aussie media, if there’s an opportunity for a tongue-in-cheek video grab of the token “loudmouthed, uninformed, belligerent yank”, then it will lead the nightly news.
    If nothing else, the Tea Party has sent a powerful message to Washington that the voters control the government, not the other way round like Julia imagines it.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Rereke:
    I think the ratios are the important things to focus on… debt/GDP or better yet (debt interest)/(government revenue).

    MattB:
    My point stands any way you look at it and you and I (as well as all the other readers here) see it as well. You made the association. Like I said, dog whistle.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Cross-posting from Tim Dunlop’s latest bi-weekly rant at the ABC:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44926.html

    You’d almost think he was a sceptic plant to discredit the AGW arguments … but he isn’t AFAIK.

    The simple fact is that this should have been the platform for an election mandate, end of story. By going to the last election promising no price on carbon (dioxide) Julia has made a crucial mistake by breaking that election promise.

    It is much like surveys where people are asked what they would be willing to pay to preserve heritage site XYZ… when people actually knock on the door and ask for the money all the good will magically evaporates. So it is with climate change policy… now that real dollars will be paid at the bowser and on the electricity bills people are demanding more accountability, and rightly so.

    To his credit Mr Dunlop got something right when he said:

    “What’s more, journalists – you know, that body of professional communicators – would present the discussion in a way that was both intelligible and engaging for what we might call the average reader. People like you and me.”

    He may be the “average reader” but I am certainly not… I understand the economic impacts of taxes and recognise false and deceptive political rhetoric when I hear it. Labor and the Greens have been chock full of it lately, but I shall blog the economic detail elsewhere… the ABC doesn’t like facts to get in the way of a good ideological rant.

    Seriously Mr Dunlop, you are doing nothing to raise the tenor of the debate. Heed your own advice please.

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    Change to a sentence above: “…the public sector continues to grow with benefits far exceeding the equivalent in the diminishing private sector.”

    00

  • #
    Mad Hatter

    MattB # 38

    IMHO you are right, re yesterday. But the sad fact is that despite Team hokey schtick having been exposed for some time now, the debate should remain there until their less than honourable behaviour is correctly addressed.

    As to Bolts questions of one Jill Duggan from the directorate-general for climate action at the European Commission, they went as follows…

    Q:How many billions will Europe spend on this scheme to cut its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020? A:’crickets’
    Q:How much will that cut the world’s temperatures by 2100? A:’crickets’

    “Best radio ever” too right as it seems Ms. Duggan exposed herself as another useful idiot with her snout in yet another UN manadated collectivist trough.

    If we parse that across to the Australian perspective we get the Pryme Ministuh of Orstralia and leeduh of the laybur pardy whose answer to “the greatest moral challenge of our time” is to use cherry picked psuedo science from activist scientists funded by a UN mafia gravy train to propose yet another f$%&^g TAX…. how original.

    In light of what could have been done for the benefit of mankind with all those billion$ over the past thirty years instead, yep it’s all SOOOO YESTERDAY.

    Hmmm…maybe it’s time to revisit the political modelling, seemingly written by the Australian Council of Thugs Unlimited, since current output always produces ‘floaters’ /RANT

    00

  • #
    brc

    MattB : paraphrased, this is how it reads ‘I don’t think you guys are racists, but I’ll bet most racists are also skeptics’.

    The bit about Hanson wasn’t necessary – not your finest work.

    Bulldust : it would seem looking at the world with wide-open eyes and really looking at the data creates both climate and ‘public debt is ok’ skepticism. Belief in AGW and the ‘government debt doesn’t matter’ theories requires one to ignore history, data and to have an unfailing belief in the authority of experts. Tie that all up with the never-fail explanation of ‘this time it’s different’ and you get the full picture.

    The greatest current threat to both society and quality of life is not the weather. It is the anti-social outcomes of runaway inflation or loss of sovereingty arising from unmanageable public debt. This might not happen to Australia at the moment, but it’s very possible in at least two of it’s major trading partners. It’s funny how the Labor party maintains that carbon taxes are necessary and believes in the issuance of public debt alongside those taxes.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Agreed Jack T:

    From what little I have seen of it the Tea Party is effectively a libertarian movement that simply wants less government & taxes (as you say). No doubt there will be politicians that seek to subvert that social uprising to suit their own agendas, but that is the nature of politics. Just like Greenpeace was subverted to become ultra-socialist. This is why one of the co-founders left in the first place and in 2005 said:

    In 2005, Moore criticized what he saw as scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

    00

  • #
    Campbell Swift

    And to think that we get to pay for the ABC!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I hear you BRC. Australia is well positioned, but once some of the bigger economies topple we will all go over the edge with them… we may be the best of a bad bunch, but the whole bunch will go rotten soon enough.

    Humans will bounce back, as we always do, and I don’t think it will be a bad thing for the current younger generation to taste a bit of recession. It will hurt a lot, but valuable lessons will be learnt*. For example, I think Australian house prices need to drop by a third or thereabouts… they are extremely overpriced. Why a third? That’s my considered gut-feel.

    * Being a late baby boomer (or early GenXer depending on who you ask) I haven’t experienced much recession first hand either… though I still remember empty streets in Holland in the 1970′s when we had “carless Sundays” to help reduce the country’s oil consumption.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Racist, tea party, climate “sckeptics” – are they related?

    My bet, for what it is worth, is that climate “skeptics” (i.e. people who are reasonably certain that AGW is a load of hooey) are, on average, fatter than AGW proponents.

    All I need now is for someone to do the research……

    00

  • #
    manfred

    I am surprised that nobody on this thread has mentioned the glorious hoax perpetrated on the ABC by the faux-blogger Alene Composta. If you’re not following it, google Blair + Composta and/or Composta + Bolt and follow the links.

    Everything you need to know about what is wrong with the ABC right there. And you’ll laugh yourself silly at the same time. Not only is the ABC corrupt, they’re top editors aren’t too smart either.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m pretty skinny… that seems like enough evidence to back your hypotheses John. I hear Bulldust is a fatty boomba too.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I’m 1.85m of height and 70 kg of mass and so I suppose would skew the distribution to the left.

    Anyway, AGW advocates are well-known to have low intellect. They are a drain on society, which is bad enough, but their main drawback is their insistence that everyone become a drain on society.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    There you go again John Brookes… trying to subvert the language to suit your agenda. Draw two circles… call one “climate sceptics” and the other “people who think AGW is hooey.” There will be some overlap to be sure, just as there would be in any two sets that are not mutually exclusive. To suggest that “climate sceptics” are all people who think “AGW is hooey” is more than a tad disingenuous. But then we have come to expect that from you.

    I am a “climate sceptic” but I am what should be classified a “luke warmer.” I have no problem accepting CO2 concs in the atmosphere have risen, that this rise is attributable to man made emissions to some degree, and that increasing CO2 concs causes some warming. What I do not accept is that the likely outcome is what the IPCC models portray, and I also have a major issue accepting the feedbacks assumed in those models.

    Therefore using only me as an example your definition that all “climate sceptics” believe “AGW is hooey” is demonstratably wrong. I think CAGW is hooey, I have no issues with the basic science underlying AGW.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry Brian according to my research you must be a dyed in the wool warmist.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I have no issues with the basic science underlying AGW.

    That makes one of you. Until someone demonstrates to me how the stratosphere cools concomitant to troposphere warming by the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere I’m not sceptical I’m right out there in DENIALVILLE

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Come on John Brookes and MattB, I’ve been a regular attender at this blog for the 2 years and have yet to ONE BIT OF ACTUAL SCIENCE from either of you. You both defer to the “science” on a regular basis, but NEVER back your retoric up with ANY proof. We, on the other hand, have repeatedly and continually quoted and cited reputable science that PROVES, beyond reasonable doubt, that CAGW is a “load of hooey”. At least TRY to be objective!!!!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    I thought of posting something … but again I am uninclined to stoop to name calling. I am curious what evidence you would have to suggest I am grossly overweight. You are certainly brave in anonymity.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    not seen much science from yourself insider. keep your blinkers on mate. Get a sense of humour bulldust.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Brian G Valentine:
    I am willing to accept there is also a possibility that there are fatal flaws in the basic AGW hypothesis… my point is that as a layman I find the basic science somewhat compelling, but draw the line at the massive positive feedbacks and resulting exponential warming predicted by the models. Common sense and geological evidence suggests to me that those are impossible unless the earth has drastically changed in recent years, and I see no empirical evidence for that.

    I have never had a satisfactory answer to the basic question why the earth has never toppled in a frozen or fiery abyss despite previous (geological time scale) temperatures and CO2 concs being both higher and lower than today (as suggested by various sources of evidence). That is where the CAGW models lose all credibility for me. It seems pretty darned obvious that the distinguishing feature of this planet is the large oceans, and it seems a reasonable assumption IMHO that these oceans provide the climatic buffer that allows us to be here and discuss this point today.

    Now the scientists merely need to discover how the oceans do that voodoo that they do.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Senses of humour clearly differ… I like subtle wordplay. Let’s just say your sense of humour is a tad more basic and leave it at that.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Brian, I’d like to see you up against Lisa Meredith who has taken to posting on the ABC. I think you might have a good opponent in her (again by my estimation on the science layman sidelines). Unlike many an AGW supporter she is polite in her arguments, relying mostly on the science. Who knows, maybe you’d wipe the floor with her…

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Today’s rambling about what has happened over the past 30 years:

    1986: James Hansen studies Mie scattering of the clouds of Venus, attributes anomalous heating in the lower atmosphere to CO2, doesn’t know enough chemistry to figure out that the heat came from the formation of sulphuric acid clouds

    1988: Liberal activists in the US Senate have Hansen make up fairy tales to attempt to control the US economy, Hansen promulgates meaningless AGW projections amidst an El Nino that has made the US West hot and dry for a year

    1990: Clinton elected US president, with Vice-Preident Al Gore still fantasizing about CO2 but Clinton recognizes Gore as a “flake” and sidelines him. Democrats were the ones who made up the term “Ozone Al,” not Republicans.

    2000: Al Gore loses to Geo Bush, and Gore is left with no meaning in life, and is left to find meaning through his childhood fantasies about CO2

    2003: Bush invades Iraq, alienates all liberals by doing so, European pinkos decide to slap Bush by giving Gore a Nobel “prize”

    2011: Despite proven and admitted deceit amongst some “scientists” about the recent “global climate” AGW remains a Cause Célèbre for liberals and that somehow defines them.

    I don’t have the imagination to make up such a scenario. I honestly could not write a novel with such a fantastic plot

    00

  • #
    wes george

    So Johnny dropped by to exchange grade school insults:

    Climate skeptics are FAT and RACIST! Nah, Na, Nah, Na, Na!

    It’s all they got, folks. Fact free bigotry and self-righteousness. Zero calories and gluten free. No wonder the Warmists are starving to death, intellectually, that is.

    Johnny and MattB are perfect examples of how we should never, ever behave when confronting Alarmism here or in any other forum.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I take it you mean rationally and with good humour Wes? what’s not to like about that.

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    MattB,

    Sorry, I didn’t realise that I had to explain basic english to you. By “we” I mean the collective “we” not necessarily “me”. And by the way, you are still avoiding the main thrust of my comment in that you have yet to provide ANY evidence for your stance. Just retoric and attack. Let’s try again…..

    (I feel like I’m beating my head on a brick wall here…)

    00

  • #
  • #
    wes george

    Brian Valentine:

    Truth is always stranger than fiction. If you wrote a novel like that you wouldn’t find a publisher. Defies suspension of disbelief, they’d tell you.

    I once dated a quite successful artist. She liked to watch clouds and I still remember her saying, “Do you see that sky? You see those clouds? You could never paint a picture like that. It’s too ridiculously beautiful. It would look fake!.” Art and Science are always reductionist. They have to be. For our puny minds can never holistically grasp the outrageous majesty of nature cognitively…

    Nevertheless there is a psychological subtext that connects the dots you have observed:

    …In his book “The Liberal Imagination,” published in 1950, Trilling pointed to the “dangers which lie in our most generous wishes.” Progressives, Trilling observed, believe that through the “rational direction of human life” they can alleviate misery. But the reformers, Trilling showed, are too often oblivious of the truth of their own motives….

    …In his 1947 novel “The Middle of the Journey,” Trilling probes this hidden impulse in his portrayal of Gifford Maxim, a character modeled on his Columbia schoolmate and legendary Soviet spy-turned-anti-Communist Whittaker Chambers. “And in the most secret heart of every intellectual … there lies hidden … the hope of power, the desire to bring his ideas to reality by imposing them on his fellow man,” Maxim says. This hope tempts the progressive to embrace coercive policies in the name of social equity. “The more we talk of welfare, the crueler we become,” Maxim says. “How can we possibly be guilty when we have in mind the welfare of others, and of so many others?”

    The “ultimate threat to human freedom,” Trilling wrote in an account of George Orwell, might well come from a “massive development of the social idealism of our democratic culture.” Such idealism is dangerous because the idealists have disguised their deepest motives even from themselves. In his essay on Henry James’s novel “The Princess Casamassima,” Trilling described the willfulness of the progressive reformer “who takes license from his ideals for the unrestrained exercise of power.” In today’s ostensibly benign social policies, there is more than a whiff of the coercive “will” Trilling dreaded, the “will which masks itself in virtue.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0309/Before-NPR-scandal-a-warning-about-elite-liberals-compassion-turns-to-coercion

    00

  • #
    tony s

    On the day the carbon tax was announced, ABC Melbourne radio drive show didn’t even mention that Gillard broke a promise. The discussion was about Abbot’s typical negative response and his leadership being challenged!

    After 2 weeks of denial about the public revolt, the ABC finally woke up when 16% of ALP voters switched their vote (6 of 36%). Of course they have to blame right wing media and a poor communication of the policy, not the policy itself.

    For instance Tony Jones on Lateline last night was unrelenting about getting an answer as to why the govt announced a tax with no details. He was looking for someone to blame for the mess. Two days ago it was a non-issue.

    This is not a bias issue, but one of groupthink. If no one in your wide circle is angry about the tax, you genuinely don’t believe the public is angry about it. They actually believed the anger was fabricated by right wing radio and the Liberal party. This is an indication of how out of touch the ABC is, and most canberra opinion writers.

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Oh Matt, Matt, Matt….. I do recall that I asked for “scientific” evidence. The IPCC kind of FAILS that test as proven repeatedly on this site, so “F” for effort on that one. Same for Real Climate and Brave New Climate…. they both pointedly ignore anything contrary to the stated mantra of “global warming is real and we are causing it”. Try again….

    (head getting bloody now…. must stop trying to get thru to people with the shutters up and the “closed” sign on the door!!!)

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Garnaut has just posted some nonsense in the Australian about global warming!

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-science-may-have-underestimated-damage-from-rising-levels-of-carbon-dioxide/story-e6frg6xf-1226019239310

    comment I posted below:

    More nonsense from Garnaut! It is now officially cooling and he well knows this! Talk about blatant propaganda!!! No doubt it helps out the Govt, who he is paid by. Even Dr Phil Jones, of Climategate infamy, admitted that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1998. We are now in a natural cooling phase, largely thanks to both a solar minimum and a negative Interdecadal Oscillation. We were in the same climate pattern between 1947 and 1977, which also saw declining temperatures.

    Let’s see if they publish it

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes: @63

    …..skeptics” (i.e. people who are reasonably certain that AGW is a load of hooey) are, on average, fatter than AGW proponents.

    Well John, I think I can safely say that on average our wallets would tend to be a lot fatter.

    How could a person be expected to maintain any robustness of wallet at all when their tendency is to naively and unquestioningly open them up to allow governments to rummage around inside and siphon the contents off?

    And in this case, it’s allowing Governments free access to siphon the funds in the name of controlling the climate of the planet????

    Blimey…how naive is that?

    Hey, I have no problem with you draining your wallet for such a stupid cause, but why should I be forced to drain mine?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ah ok OSI – you want the evidence other than that which has been produced by all the scientists to date. Hmmm… that could be a bit tricky. I confessed here at least two years ago that I don’t have access to any pro-warming science that the IPCC is unaware of… funny that.

    $10 says you’ve never read the IPCC reports, and are talking out of your ass.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Trouble is, LMWD, regardless of whether they publish it, your post is an incoherent collection of skeptical hogwash you’ve cobbled together on the fly.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    I’ve been watching the exchange with great interest since JB weighed in.

    Just now Tom Harris sent me this link

    The ICSC is a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages assisting vulnerable peoples to adapt to climate variability and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.
    ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not be limited to, the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy sources with wind turbines, solar power, biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.

    I’m really looking forward to helping move the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. I’m equally looking forward to helping publicise the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    So Mattb, once again it’s back to personal attack….

    You have been told and shown repeatedly on this site multiple examples of ACTUAL evidence that CAGW is “hooey” and you contiually refuse to even RESPOND to it. All you do is attack the commenter, refer to authority and set up strawmen. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, we (anti-CAGW) do NOT have to prove it’s not happening, you (pro-CAGW) do have to prove that it is happening and that we (all of us) can do ANYTHING about it. Still waiting for that….

    (consciousness slipping away… concussion imminent….hole appearing in wall….)

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Just off the press for you guys.

    Conclusion
    Climate changes are only marginally caused by greenhouse gases. The main heat transfer process is convection, strongly increasing with sea surface temperature. Climate changes are caused by changing sea currents, and in the long run by Galactic Cosmic Radiation variations.

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Oh and by the way Matt, I have read significant and relevant portion of AR4 and AR3. I found most of it quite condescending in that it assumes “we” (the public at large) are stupid enough to buy into their scam.

    You can donate the $10 to Jo…. Not that I expect you will…

    00

  • #
    MattB

    It is fairly well established on here that I shirk from paying my gambling debts OSI.

    You ask for evidence, I give you all the evidence in the world. What more do you want?

    In other news OSI you’ll be happy to hear pauline is running in NSW.

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Sorry, Overseasinsider has passed out from his head injuries and will not be able to respond further. If you have any further completely unsubstantiated personal attacks, please hold them for when he regains consciousness…..

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    overseasinsider:
    If you want some real fun you should read the reviews of the chapters which include the comments from non-IPCC scientists:

    http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/

    It’s a real eye-opener to see some of the sceptical reviewer comments that are dismissed despite being from experts in the field.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    You’ll not be missed.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    In order to avoid being lost in a maze of competing rhetoric, from time to time I like to remind myself what this grotesque global warming, climate change, climate disruption, climate challenge edifice is built on viz….

    “most [ over 50% ] of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century [ 0.7°C allegedly ] is very likely [over 90% likely] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

    …that’s it.
    Over $100 B spent worldwide on climate research since 1990 and that’s the best they have or are ever likely to come up with, the rest relies on dodgy computer models and a plethora of ‘could’, ‘maybe’, ‘possibly’ studies by self-perpetuating scientists trailing a long tail of politicians, bureaucrats, carpetbaggers et al.

    Will the tottering edifice come crashing down or be quietly, gingerly, dismantled bit by bit so no one gets hurt?

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Thanks Bulldust…. Consciousness returned miraculously due to someone with a cogent thought in their heads…

    I’ll have a good read of it. I’m sure others (he who will not be named) won’t read your cited material.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo

    It’s a shame that the tail end of some threads become nothing more than sawing sawdust and exchanging anonymous insults.

    I’m happy that you have no replies to comments. where each original comment has the potential to become a feud between two or three bloggers, sometimes clearly with the motive of getting close to the top of the thread.

    Keep up the good work, I feel that we are starting to win. It will be interesting to see how the PM’s teary address to Congress is received when the electorate wises up to the Bono inspiration.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Mattb@86 posits the IPCC as scientific evidence of AGW; the problem with the IPCC reports is that there is so much kitchen-sinking going on that the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing; so, we find loads of evidence in the IPCC contradicting AGW; for instance, the MWP in 1990, Fig 7c:

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/lambh23.jpg

    Again, 1995, Fig 3:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/R0bUzxqFBgI/AAAAAAAAAG4/s8Hpo9G-kSU/s1600-h/Picture+28.png

    2007, Fig 6.10:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.png

    Presto, the MWP was warmer than today as shown in the IPCC; good call MattB!

    On another tact, that monumental hypocrite Garnaut has released his 2nd update to his original review, supposedly dealing with the science; has anyone got a link?

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Sorry Treeman, I did get way OT. But in my defense I WAS provoked….

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    MattB

    Hmmm, put-downs and personal attacks. I’ve always ignored what you’ve written.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Thanks for the support overseasinsider.

    I’m still seething over Garnaut! How low will this Govt stoop? More scare tactics to get the masses into line.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Where were these personal attacks from me btw?

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    overseasinsider

    Not at all, I found your responses completely justified.

    Imwd

    I’m seething over garnaut also. Not sure who I’d nominate for worst Australian of the year, there are so many to choose from. Clive Hamilton must be up there with garnaut but I suspect garnaut will take the gong on the basis of collateral damage!

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Sorry Matt for accusing you of personal attack….

    you only had a couple today….

    please see comments 36, 38, 65, 68, 72, 86, 87, 92 and 95. Does “typing turrets syndrome” run in your family? must have been involuntary on your part. Sorry…

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crikey – OSI is a sniper with not an iota of science to post, clinging to the apron-strings of thoses chosen to follow, then one post in starts “yet to ONE BIT OF ACTUAL SCIENCE from either of you” then “Sorry, I didn’t realise that I had to explain basic english to you.” then “(I feel like I’m beating my head on a brick wall here…)”

    need I go in, it is all bluster and bravado and no attempt to engage, which I’ve rightfully and deservedly given a complete lack of respect.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    How is 68 even remotely a personal attack. That was a 100% good natured gag with Brian, making a prediction from a totally substadard experiment. As for the rest – here’s a glass of concrete – drink it and toughen up sunshine.

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    Hey Matt… I need to remind you that YOU asked where you had made personal attacks and I merely answered YOUR question. I know it’s a hard concept to follow, but….

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    With regard to ABC bias. You can lodge complaints on specific matters, have them investigated and gain some semblance of justice. I apologise in advance for the long post but felt it important to show the value of maintaining the pressure to try and keep the b…..d’s honest.

    My email:- Subject: Distortion of Tony Abbott comment in Afghanistan.

    In the headline news your newsreader stated the following:

    “When told of the death of an Australian soldier, Tony Abbott said ‘shit happens’”.

    This was a blatant and deliberate distortion of the context and circumstances under which the comment was made and equates with the disgraceful conduct of Ch 7′s Mark Riley in making a media beatup of a not inappropriate comment on a tragic situation, in the full knowledge it could only further hurt grieving families of a fallen Digger.

    The ABC should apologise first to those families, then to Tony Abbott and the general public. Those responsible for making up those headlines should be either sacked, demoted or severely reprimanded. There is no excuse possible!

    ABC reply:-

    Thank you for your emails of 10 and 13 February regarding a news story which went to air on ABC Radio at 10am on 9 February.

    As I mentioned in my first email to you, your complaint has been referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. We have the role, under the ABC’s Editorial Policies (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm) of examining the compliance of material, about which a complaint has been made, against the relevant editorial standards. In the course of these examinations, we seek and consider material provided by the relevant Division, in this case, ABC News.

    On review of the story, we note that ABC reporter Latika Bourke incorrectly stated, as you point out, that “Mr Abbott says ‘shit happens,’ after being told about the death of Australian Soldier”. ABC News also acknowledge that this statement is incorrect. They are of the view that it would have been better for Ms Bourke to state, words to the effect, that Mr Abbott made the comment in discussion with soldiers about the circumstances surrounding the death of the young Australian soldier.

    ABC News regrets this error which amounts to a breach of the ABC’s factual accuracy requirements as set out in the ABC’s Editorial Policies at section 5.2.2 (c). They would like to assure you that this matter has been discussed with Ms Bourke.

    With regard to your comment that this was a “blatant and deliberate” attempt to distort the story, we have no evidence that this was the case. Indeed we would point out that the story contained a quote from Liberal MP Don Randall in which he criticised Channel 7’s coverage of the issue. The report notes that Mr Randall felt the story by Channel 7 was: “dirtbag reporting”. The story also includes the following quote from him: “I want to call on Kerry Stokes to do something about the disgraceful reporting by Channel Seven and Mark Riley”. The piece also included the following statement from Independent Senator Nick Xenephon: “Any journalist worth his or her salt with that footage would’ve been derelict in their duty not to raise it as a story, I can understand that. But I also understand and accept that I don’t believe Tony Abbott in any way intended to upset, besmirch or minimise the death of Jared MacKinney.”

    Thank you again for taking the time to write and drawing our attention to this issue.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yeah yeah OSI… ok I’ll give it a break and come back in a while… it has been 6 months maybe it takes me a bit of time to get in tune with the blog.

    00

  • #
    tony s

    Garnaut update on science here
    http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up5-the-science-of-climate-change.pdf

    he has changed from “real data is tracking at 6C warming” to
    “global temperatures continue to rise around the midpoints of the range of the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the presence of a warming trend has been confirmed”

    He hides 21st cent cooling by getting analysis which confirms a long term warming trend.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Here is the profile for this Communist Traitor “Simon Sheikh”, the national director of this alp (australian LIERS party) funded “getup”….

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/simon-sheikh/5/363/a51

    Look at his background.
    • Analyst at NSW Treasury
    • National Vice President at United Nations Youth Assoc

    A real scumbag!!!!!

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening All.

    I see there has been some discussion on Ross Garnaut. Were you aware of Ross’s environmental credetials as Chair of Lihir Gold? See below:

    In 1995, Garnaut was offered the Chairmanship of a new PNG mining company, Lihir Gold Limited. The company’s main mine is on the island of Lihir, 700 kilometres north east of Port Moresby. This large open-cut gold mine generates huge taxes and export revenues for PNG. It is also a serious polluter of the coral reefs and ocean floor around Lihir Island, as mine tailings which contain traces of cyanide and heavy metals are loaded on barges and dumped on the nearby ocean floor. Meanwhile, post-processing waste is discharged by pipeline 1.5 kilometres out to sea. In June 2000 there was a cyanide spill at the mine.

    Full article – see

    http://newmatilda.com/2008/02/25/who-ross-garnaut%3F

    Perhaps yet another case of do as I say, not do as I do?

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Did I mention that Ross is also the Chairman of the major shareholder in the OK Tedi mine in New Guinea? Key words to look up are –

    OK Tedi, Fly River and Riverine Tailings Disposal…

    I hope this isn’t the future he envisages.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Mr. Snodgrass!

    Please come into my office.

    Could you scroll back up this thread and read some of the comments made earlier about the value of civility. If you’re so drunk you can’t spell liar maybe you should go to bed and post comments tomorrow. OK?

    Meanwhile, you might consider Godwin’s Law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    …which doesn’t specifically mention communists. But Nazi, Commie, what’s the difference?

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    wes george:@116

    Please Sir, Mr George (he asks politely through the open office door, while fidgeting, and looking nervously at the floor)

    What about the term “pinko”??

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Tonys@111, thanks for the Garnaut link; there has been a previous critique of Garnaut’s 1st update:

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

    Garnaut’s 2nd update, if possible, is even more egregious; I started to swear at the screen after reading Box 5 on page 19 where Garnaut completely misinterprets the Breusch and Vahid paper on temperature trends;

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tb6BoSKF3pwJ:cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp495.pdf+Trevor+Breusch+and+Farshid+Vahid+Global+Temperature+Trends&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESixgB7GEYqXzFo10fDhx4faufBq-6DpfyTJSqnUFS9byKi3ONRR_ZdXCfEcJEdPQXTeojlf7vIKBbUESs9tQjq9O0Ha5FNqGH-jKX4CSY_XtA1etq62Fk-giFK4Gj4nXfGLhSnL&sig=AHIEtbSbAHtfIg9bAEtHjDkFqujKvwNG3g

    B&V conclude that temperature over the last 130-160 years does have a warming trend but that such trend is informed by a unit root due to endogenous factors of the trend itself; that is it is not deterministic or determined by an exogenous factor such as CO2 forcing.

    When B&V do a comparative deterministic test they find that there is a significant break in the temperature trend at 1976; this break is also inconsistent with CO2 forcing as explained in this paper which Garnaut did not consider:

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf

    The 1998 contrary break found by Stockwell [also found by Tsonis, Seidel, Lindzen, Knox and Douglass etc] is not found by B&V which they conclude is due to the data length.

    The point is B&V use 2 mutually exclusive statistical analysis which cover all possible stochastic and determinstic properties of the temperature trend; their unit root/stochastic analysis precludes CO2 as a causal factor; their determistic analysis confounds CO2 as a cause because of the 1976 break in the trend.

    Garnaut has highlighted a paper which completely contradicts AGW.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Don’t worry MattB, all here (except the rather skinny Mr Valentine) are a tad sensitive about their expanding girth – its not the sort of thing they joke about.

    Science eh? If I want that, I go to Real Climate, Skeptical Science, Tamino etc. I only come here for fun. Unfortunately its a bit boring here lately, its a bit of an echo chamber, as the defenders of freedom step up the fight against the carbon tax.

    And yes, I divide skeptics into one group, those who aren’t sure about AGW who need to learn more (ok, thats a weak joke). Those who are convinced that AGW is absolute hooey, I call “skeptics”. Anyway, I’m still skeptical about AGW. You know why? I can’t believe that it is going to keep getting hotter. I’m fully expecting that in the next 10 years it will cool down. Given each of the last few decades have been warmer than the preceding one, it just can’t keep on and on like that, can it?

    The trouble for me is that the AGW scientist types have me convinced that they are right. So I’m going to watch the next decade with great interest. Every warm year is going to increase my belief that the scientists are right, and every cold year is going to make me think that the scientists have got it wrong. But, unlike you guys, I think that the probability the scientists are right is too high to defer action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    JB. Do I detect a touch of scepticism?
    May I suggest that you check the credentials of the “scientists” (dispassionately of course).

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John B

    You’re not suggesting that Jo needs to lose a little weight, eh? That would be a particularly poor way to express your gratitude, as she has given you the opportunity to explain, once and for all, why you think a carbon tax is such a good idea. For example:

    You might like to explain how it will improve the climate.
    You might like to tell us how you will measure that success.
    Perhaps you’d like to tell us where the money is going to come from -after all, everyone seems to be getting “compensation” under this regime.
    You can explain where the money will be spent, and why it will be spent so wisely. This government appears to be so good at spending wisely – look at Julia’s BER scheme. (Sarc/)
    Perhaps you can do a cost-benefit analysis on the poofteenth of a difference that you, even in your wildest dreams, would hope to achieve.
    And perhaps you’d like to tell us why Julia Gillard, or any warmist for that matter, has any credibility in the light of their actions.

    John, I conclude that anyone with a brain would be asking critical – nay – sceptical – questions of this tax. We are being asked to swallow it on faith alone – a faith that a lot of people don’t share. It is a great pity that “Our” ABC, the one we mug taxpayers cough up for, doesn’t have the brains or the courage to do so.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes: @119

    The trouble for me is that the AGW scientist types have me convinced that they are right.

    Yes folk, it goes to show you there’s plenty of truth in that old saying:-

    There’s a sucker born every minute.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I wonder if weird is wired to be wierd? I always have to look that confounded word up in the dictionary!

    00

  • #
    brc

    But, unlike you guys, I think that the probability the scientists are right is too high to defer action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    John Brookes – that’s fair enough. You think the scientists have a higher chance of being right than being wrong. Fine, someone else has to take the other side of the bet.

    But why do you support a Carbon tax when it is plainly obvious that it will not work in reducing carbon dioxide emissions? The only way a tax will work is if it raises the price of power to such a high point nobody can afford it, and industries and consumers stop using power. Sure, that’s what Bob Brown and Christine Milne have in mind, but there is no chance of this ever being passed into law all the while this country is a democracy. So I’ll repeat my question – why do you support a Carbon Tax when you know it will not achieve the stated aims? Do you admit that you’d prefer looking like you’re doing something to actually doing something?

    Please answer the question, because it will stop this place being an echo chamber.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    So far as I can see, our future looks pretty screwed up.
    Poor subsidizing the rich. Food prices skyrocketing. Research and development is non-existent. Regulations to prevent manufacturing.
    Farming gone to corporations. Taxes and service charges everywhere.

    Where is the brighter future?
    Can you afford the future of further taxes and more charges to keep our current system going?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    BRC it will achieve the stated aims, almost at lowest cost (technically a cap and trade is lower cost), and certainly more effectively than direct action.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    March 10th, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Racist, tea party, climate “sckeptics” – are they related?

    My bet, for what it is worth, is that climate “skeptics” (i.e. people who are reasonably certain that AGW is a load of hooey) are, on average, fatter than AGW proponents.

    Time to start ignoring John Brookes and MattB? They are becoming parodies of warmists.

    My bet is that climate skeptics are, on average, smarter than AGW proponents.

    All I need now is for someone to do the research……

    Well, we know for sure it won’t be you — I’m not even certain you know what “research” is.

    00

  • #
    brc

    MattB – what are the stated aims? Details please. I’m talking about the Australian Carbon Tax. Tell me what the stated aims are. What reduction in PPM are they hoping to achieve?

    Surely you don’t think the Australian Carbon Tax is going to achieve anything, do you? You are just behind it because it feels like it is going to do something.

    00

  • #
    Florida

    Oh well, our own hateful President Obama trashes Tea Party members and calls them racists, blah, blah, and the MSM goes right along, selectively choosing film footage of cranks (or, more likely, plants), instead of ordinary Tea Partiers.

    This constant attack by partisan hacks isn’t working too well. I’m finding myself thinking about attending Tea Party rallies, and signing up, something I would never have done had the pro-Obama robots not kept spewing their vitriol.

    I do wish the Tea Party people would start suing the media for slander and libel. Enough is enough.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    BRC asks “What are the stated aims”

    Good luck getting an honest answer but in a typical new taxing scheme, they will establish the taxing system with only enough public explanation to get it “sold” to you. Then as time goes on there will be “necessary adjustments” together with additional increases in the tax amount.

    The type of person that is willing to go along with such things is the kind of person that supports statism.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    lmwd @#84,

    Garnaut is back in overdrive pushing support for climate action to help keep his government paid job. This time it’s in the SMH, link provided below. Garnaut claims temperatures and sea levels are rising faster than IPCC predictions (??) and get this, he argues the media give too much time to sceptics! Can you believe this guy?

    The other point he makes which irritates is his claim the public debate (from sceptics) “had become divorced from scientific rigour, quality and authority”. Appreciate thoughts on this from the scientists amongst you?

    Unfortunately its not posted in the Opinion section so no opportunity to reply, perhaps we could write to the letters and hope to be published?

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/garnaut-lambasts-climate-debate-20110310-1bpsv.html

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Some backgrounf info about this Traitor ross GUANO (Garnaut)………

    Garnaut’s dirty secret:-

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

    Quadrant Online – Mining Garnaut:-

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

    ROSS GARNAUT – Trilateral Commission Membership – 2008:-

    http://www.augustreview.com/knowledge_base/getting_started_with_globalism/trilateral_commission_membership_-_2008_20081010103/#

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    penny wongs sea level SCARES………

    Deceived again: how Wong whipped up those “1.1 metre” seas

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/deceived_again_how_wong_whipped_up_those_11_metre_seas/

    Deceived again #2: More evidence of how Wong faked her sea scare

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/deceived_again_2_more_evidence_of_how_wong_faked_her_sea_scare/

    Deceived again #3: more proof that Wong faked her sea scare

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

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Cooster @ 131

    Garnaut is really making me grumpy! I posted another comment to his propaganda piece in the Oz, even though they’re not putting comments up – cowards. It was more a cathartic exercise for me. Comment I posted below:

    And I thought the Labor Govt couldn’t stoop any lower. Now they have Garnaut misrepresenting the science to scare the people back into line. Sick! These tactics would make Stalin proud!!!

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    IMWD, Cookster

    You can comment on garnaut here
    The Australian is very tough on comments so try to keep it civil and related to specific points.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Jo,

    Is it possible to organise a challenge to a public debate with Mr Garnaut? Could we get someone like Carter? It could be an sceptical economist with great understanding of the science. Create a situation like the Monckton/Gore debate?

    I posted this comment to Garnaut’s other piece in the Oz

    How much did this propaganda piece cost the Govt? I think you need to be challenged to a real, live debate Mr Garnaut. A debate with a real climate scientist, which the people who are sceptical of the alarmist position on climate, choose.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/i-was-right-about-climate-change/story-e6frgd0x-1226019336376

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Treeman, thanks, yes I left a reply in The Australian article under a different alias. I did my best to keep it civil referencing specifics made by Garnaut in his article so hopefully it gets posted.

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    My post to The Australian:-

    “‘an interested non-scientist must draw on the publications of experts in the field”. Wrong Ross on three counts. Firstly, in the Western climate science a vested interest between governments, the environmental lobby and climate science research has developed. Secondly, there is still ample peer reviewed literature that refutes the alarming projections of computer models upon which your arguments are based. Thirdly, at Copenhagen it was obvious the Chinese do not share your alarm otherwise they would have been much keener to commence meaningful CO2 reduction measures. Any action taken by Chinese to date is driven largely by their desire for future energy security.”.

    00

  • #
    brc

    The Australian doesn’t appear to be publishing comments on the Garnaut articles but the Courier Mail is publishing comments.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/seas-will-swamp-sydney-yearly/comments-e6freooo-1226019439913

    I struggled to find one positive comment among the 41 published when I looked at it. I think one might be in support, but it could also be sarcasm. I don’t think wheeling Garnaut out was a good PR move by the government.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Ah, thanks brc @ 139. I feel so much better for reading all those comments :-)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “MattB – what are the stated aims? Details please. I’m talking about the Australian Carbon Tax. Tell me what the stated aims are. What reduction in PPM are they hoping to achieve?”

    To reduce Australia’s emissions by 5% by 2020 – same as Tony.

    00

  • #
    brc

    Ok, MattB : 5% reduction by 2020. Fine, that’s the aim.

    What price/tonne do you think will be needed to achieve this?

    Because at the talked-about value of $25/tonne and with promised exemptions for high-emissions trade activities, do you think this will work at all? $25/tonne is not enough to make wind or solar pay, and at any rate, wind and solar cannot replace baseload. So what we’re essentially talking about is replacing coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants. Do you believe that at $25/tonne you will see wide-scale replacement of coal-fired power with gas fired? Because none of the other industries (cement production, steel production, etc) actually have alternative energy sources to use.

    Next question : do you think 5% by 2020 is a worthwhile goal, given it will have zero effect on the PPM of co2 in the atmosphere? Or do you have another reason for supporting this goal.

    Please note : I don’t support Tony Abbott’s plan either. It is equally as futile but more preferable because it is easily cancelled and isn’t a direct tax. So when the climate scare becomes passe it can be easily walked away from by a future govt. My preference is for a co2 price of zero and money spent on dams and power stations to provide cheap water and electricity for all. And second to that I would like to see a doubling or tripling of coal exports from Australia to make money for all before new technology makes coal redundant.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    brc asks:

    But why do you support a Carbon tax when it is plainly obvious that it will not work in reducing carbon dioxide emissions? The only way a tax will work is if it raises the price of power to such a high point nobody can afford it, and industries and consumers stop using power.

    A carbon tax does not work by making power so expensive that we stop using it. It works by making low emission power generation competitive. This will involve an increase in the price of power. You say, that $25 per tonne won’t make wind or solar viable, and no doubt you are correct, at least with todays versions of those technologies. However, there will be places and situations where even at $25 per tonne, solar and wind will be viable. I’m not sure what price gas becomes viable, but clearly gas is preferable to coal (particularly brown coal), so I do hope we change from coal. Of course hydro and nuclear should come into the mix, and research on nuclear fusion reactors is ongoing in Europe.

    Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest way of of reducing our emissions. Any other plan will cost more.

    Why should we start now? Well, it will become obvious over the next 10 years if urgent action is needed or not. If it is, then starting early will give us a head start – the adjustments to our economy can be more gradual, and hence less disruptive.

    00

  • #

    [...] Lateline reports on the rising anger among Australians on the carbon tax issue. Though as usual, it does’t actually spend a lot of time talking to the people who understand what drives this movement. Instead the reporter, John Stewart,  tries to link it to the Tea Party (but only because presumably he thinks that’s a bad thing, and bear in mind, many people downunder don’t know anything about the Tea Party either). The editor makes sure to throw in Tea party file footage of heated anti-communist remarks  — rather than any of the tea party’s carefully considered party platforms. We wouldn’t want to accidentally offer some insight there now would we? [...]

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Every warm year is going to increase my belief that the scientists are right, and every cold year is going to make me think that the scientists have got it wrong

    John; for someone who professes to follow the science this is a rather strange statement. Warming since the LIA has been in the order of .5C per century and this warming has not been constant with flips between warming and cooling at approx. 30 year intervals. It will be interesting watching you oscillate between acceptance and skepticism of the AGW hypothesis.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    5% is a preparatory goal that should see the economy adopt sensible efficiencies and technologies in order to be better prepared for a larger and more scientifically reasonable emissions reduction when and if an international reductions scheme is agreed.

    I don’t know what price/tonne will be needed to achieve this, to be honest, with between $10 and $40 being a range I’ve seen mentioned over the course of discussions. That is the difficulty with a tax vs cap and trade, in that you have to make a best guess regarding what level of tax will achieve the desired outcome, rather than setting the desired outcome and have the market set the price.

    I can’t comment on whether $25 per tonne will be sufficient, sorry. The porioce will be set based on the price that is needed to deliver the reduction in emissions. Where production costs increase without a viable alternative, those costs will be passed down the chain, and whoever consumes those goods will have to decide if the new price of the goods is something they are willing to pay and may decide to use an alternative that was previously too expensive. Just as an example someone may decide to build a roof with a timber frame rather than a steel frame if the steel costs rise. This is how markets work.

    Next Q: 5% is an interim goal, which will have zero impact of AGW whatsoever, but that is not the aim of 5%, which is a target set to prepare our economy better for any ultimate agreement. Should that agreement not be reached, or the science suggest that maybe AGW is not such an issue, then we will most likely only have done things that ultimately make sense anyway. Should an agreement be reached then we would be better prepared than had we done nothing and built a couple more brown coal power plants.

    But lets get it straight, no one is arguing that 5% is a target that will lower atmospheric CO2 levels by any meaningful amount.

    It is like weighing 130kg. You set a target to be 120kg at the end of the year as part of a long term program. At 120kg you will still be massively overweight, but it does not make it a meaningless target.

    If AGW is ever demonstrated to be a scam, the tax would be dropped, I see no obstacles to this.

    “money spent on dams and power stations to provide cheap water and electricity for all” – do yuo have a magic wand? Or do you simply want the govt to massively subsidise your electricity and water costs… if we build more dams and power stations I’ll give you the hot tip, you’ll be paying for it in your power bills, and the oversupply required will mean you will pay plenty more than you do today.

    I seriously doubt that there are any Liberal pollies who think the solution is to just pay a heap of taxpayers money on dams and power plants and give you the energy and water at way below cost… those days are gone.

    00

  • #
    brc

    So you both agree that $25 / tonne is not high enough, and that 5% achieves nothing. Both are just softening up exercise to introduce later pain. Yes?

    Now, how do propose to get the higher prices and higher cuts past a democratic public? This is where the plan goes from difficult to ludicrous. It’s like asking the public to swallow a doubling or tripling of the GST on the promise of some far-off future benefit.

    Or do you simply want the govt to massively subsidise your electricity and water costs…

    Subsidising the elements of civilisation is preferable to paying welfare. But that’s not what I said. I said dams and coal fired electricity are cheap. That’s why we should have both – a low cost for a high standard of living. I fail to see an issue with that. All I’m asking is to buy electricty and water at cost price, without any ridiculous subsidies for inefficient technologies like solar or desal. Like it was for the first 100 years of this nation. You’re arguing against $1 billion dams and for $5b desal plants which have higher running costs and lower water output.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    but clearly gas is preferable to coal (particularly brown coal), so I do hope we change from coal

    John; this was clearly not the case with the previous labor government in WA who were happy to commission a new coal fired plant while exporting gas to Asia.

    Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest way of of reducing our emissions. Any other plan will cost more.

    but pricing or trading carbon will not lead to a reduction in emissions as the EU experience has shown. EU emissions have only reduced due to economic contraction so I suppose a carbon price is a step in the right direction for you but forgive me if I don’t share you enthusiasm for a low carbon future at the expense of our economy.

    .

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So you both agree that $25 / tonne is not high enough,
    That’s not what I said

    and that 5% achieves nothing.
    That’s not what I said

    Both are just softening up exercise to introduce later pain.
    Glass half empty kinda guy yeah?

    Now, how do propose to get the higher prices and higher cuts past a democratic public?
    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. It is a democracy after all.

    Or do you simply want the govt to massively subsidise your electricity and water costs…
    Subsidising the elements of civilisation is preferable to paying welfare. But that’s not what I said.

    This is what you said:
    “My preference is for a co2 price of zero and money spent on dams and power stations to provide cheap water and electricity for all.” Cheap electricity from coal relies on subsidy, just like any other cheap electricity. Look at WA – big power price hikes nothing to do with AGW, everything to do with governments deciding the days of cheap power on the public purse are g-o-r-n.

    without any ridiculous subsidies for inefficient technologies like solar or desal.
    ummm – desal is hardly some green utopia… I’ve not seen many strong arguments demonstrating we have amble sites for an abundance of dams. Have you?

    Like it was for the first 100 years of this nation. You’re arguing against $1 billion dams and for $5b desal plants which have higher running costs and lower water output.

    I’ll not answer this, as I realise you must be talking to someone else, someone who is arguing in favour of $5b desal plants? maybe you’ve got confused with another blog conversation you are having?

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Matt B #146

    Matt, AGW is already falsified. Read my post at #15.

    For AGW to be more than miniscule you’d have to drive CO2 up over 3000 ppmv, and even then you’d STILL be less than 2 C above the pre-industrial baseline. Do the sums: we have 2XCO2 measured by several groups using satellite data at ~0.5 C, since it is logarithmic you have to double 4 times to get to +2 C.

    And now were in the coldest solar cycle since the Dalton period, lots of snow and cold records falling in the northern hemisphere winter, and the PDO is in downslope mode. If Ms Gillard goes forth with a carbon tax in this climatic period her party will be absolutely wiped at the polls.

    00

  • #
    tony s

    If you had doubt about the evidence for AGW, the solution which uses fewer resources, less energy, less labour and less consumption, is the renewable and sustainable solution of doing nothing.

    00

  • #
    brc

    You’re right, you didn’t push desal plants, but Labor and the Greens did in response to ‘climate change’. The argument is against the whole madness in general, not your points specifically. My point is that cheap here is a relative term, not cheap as in subsidised cheap. Coal is cheaper than solar or wind power or gas, which are the proposed alternatives. No amount of technology is going to change this. Coal powered electricity at cost price will always be cheaper than anything else. There are no ‘subsidies’ for coal, unless you’re using ridiculous green-politics accounting, which says that things like tax deductions for business costs are subsidies, or that the fact that they originally got the land for low cost, or something. There are no line items in the state or federal budgets for ‘subsidising coal mines’. Quite the opposite, actually, as there are line items for mining royalties and taxes. It’s terribly ironic to line up coal for subsidies when every electricity bill I pay includes some money for my neighbour to have eco-bling on their roof and crow about their overpriced rebates.

    There are hundreds of years worth of coal available to power Australia right through this century and into the next. By then it’s reasonable to expect that some type of alternative will be cheaper and/or Nuclear will finally happen in Australia. The emissions from burning this coal will not even be a rounding error for worldwide emissions, even if co2 concentrations are as bad as the IPCC predict (which they aren’t). So we should continue to burn the coal and provide cheap electricity for a high standard of living and to provide electricity-hungry industry a cost advantage over other countries, especially those ones that decide to hobble themselves. No, this wouldn’t be popular at the next IPCC convention. But is that really a reason to deny cheap and plentiful energy for all?

    You might try and push semantics around about what you do and don’t agree with, but basically anyone rational agrees that 5% achieves nothing except a starting point, and $25/tonne achieves nothing but a starting point. I have seen wind needs at least $50/tonne – this might be right, it might be wrong. To make electric cars feasible economically you’d need to double or triple the price of fuel, and they still wouldn’t reach between rockhampton and mackay without running short of charge. And there would still be no replacement for diesel for trucking, so the price of everything would still climb. 5% cuts in Australia does nothing but setup the rules to introduce higher targets. To do anything at all, you need (and this is the plan, ask Bob Brown) to increase the price/tonne above every year above inflation for a long time and gradually introduce higher targets. At some point in the future, this will introduce very high cost energy to the public, and the standard of living will go down. And still it will achieve nothing in the climate, because Australia is too small to make a difference.

    All this. For what? What benefit? The only concrete benefit any supporter of the tax can answer is a vague statement about clearing the way for higher prices, and positioning Australia for the future. I’m sorry, but predicting the future is ridiculous. Could you have predicted widespread use of Nuclear power in 1850? Radiation hadn’t even been discovered or named yet. Yet within 100 years Nuclear power was operational. Or as a society, have we reached the point where we now know it all – so we can safely legislate the future?

    Do you understand why people hate this tax so much? Does nothing, can’t possibly achieve anything unless it is drastically increased to the point where it is a crippling cost. Double your power bill, your electricity bill, increase your food bill with no change in take-home pay. Lower the value of your car so it’s not worth selling and reduce the value of your high-energy requirement suburban house and so you have negative equity (and your city apartment, for that matter, with its lifts, air conditioning and lighting). Increase the size and reach of the government because they are the only one who can protect and inform us. This has nothing to with the science – for the sake of this argument I’m assuming the IPCC science is 100% correct.

    And how, precisely, is the public supposed to vote for these crippling increases in price? If Abbott or Gillard campaigned on an above-inflation indexing of the GST for the next 10 years how many votes do you think they would get? How many politicians will get voted in on promises to increase the price of electricity, fuel and general living year on year? It’s going to take a lot more than parading Garnaut and Flannery around saying ‘trust me, the alternative is worse’. At some point people are going to say ‘I’ll just take my chances with the weather, thanks’. I’d rather increase the chance of my house being blown away by a cyclone in 10 years by 10% than live 10 years in misery because increasing amounts of income go to purchasing the basics of civilization.

    The public might vote for a starting point (unlikely, says the polls). But there’s no way they will vote for much higher than a token amount. The only way to introduce something like this is to remove the public ability to vote against it. Surprise, surprise, that’s what the Greenies want. Suspension of democracy, wartime rationing, china-style autocratic government. These have all been called for by green politicians and AGW zealots like Hansen and Clive Hamilton.

    I’m happy to let people believe what they like about the science, but this whole argument for increasing the cost of power until unreliable renewables are competitive is just ridiculous, and even more so when Nuclear is ruled out. If you want to put in solar panels and a windmill, knock yourself out. Stop making the rest of us fund your green utopian vision.

    This might come across as a rant, and it is. People backing this tax make me feel ill. They sit there, the fruits of industry and technology creating the most comfortable existence in the history of the planet, and they want to start winding it back because they feel guilty about it and want to be seen to be ‘doing something’, even though it is worthless.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Bruce of Newcastle:

    Matt, AGW is already falsified. Read my post at #15.

    Oh well, you’ve proved it then. Move on, nothing to see here.

    But seriously, you will pardon me if I don’t quite believe your evidence?

    brc@152 – good rant. Basically, “lots of pain now, and benefits down the track”, vs “easy street now, and lots of pain down the track”. No doubt you, like me, will be dead before the worst of global warming hits. I still think we should get started on tackling the problem now.

    Allen McMahon:

    John; for someone who professes to follow the science this is a rather strange statement. Warming since the LIA has been in the order of .5C per century and this warming has not been constant with flips between warming and cooling at approx. 30 year intervals. It will be interesting watching you oscillate between acceptance and skepticism of the AGW hypothesis.

    Yes, I think the trouble with this argument is that scientists have worked out that CO2 is not the only thing that drives climate, and that the LIA can be explained in terms of those other drivers. Its just the rapid modern warming which can’t be explained without CO2.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Brc – nice rant – worth a read I’m not being a smart ass.

    Just one question – where are these greens shouting for de-sal plants?
    Just to quote their policy #6 on water:
    “water efficiency and recycling measures must be considered before expensive, environmentally damaging and greenhouse gas intensive alternative water management strategies.”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    As for coal subsidies, you may like to read this from Climate Spectator… before you claim bias it is a spin off Business Spectator which is a very well respected website that regularly features commentary from say Keith Orchison, listed by Clive hamilton as part of the Coal Mafia or something, so they have a good range:

    Key sentences, referring to NSW:
    “Thermal coal, which is used for electricity generation, is currently attracting prices of around $100 a tonne on the export market, nearly triple the amount the generators are believed to currently pay for their coal supply.”

    “The government will not reveal the price it will guarantee to the power stations, but even at $45 a tonne it represents a potential $300 million annual saving for the generators over the price proposed by Whitehaven, and some $1.5 billion a year below export price levels.

    These are numbers that dwarf the subsidies offered renewable energy developers. As one CEO lamented this week: “The more you emit, the more subsidies you get.”

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/cobbora-coal-mine-subsidy-utilities-power-electricity-price-carbon-price

    00

  • #
    brc

    If the price of coal is provided not at market price, but perhaps at close to cost price, I don’t see that as a subsidy. It’s a discount and precisely what a government should do when it is sitting on resources like this. Make the foreigners pay full freight and provide it cheap to the people who live there. Saudi Arabia does the same with petrol – sells it at cost rather than market price. To me, a subsidy is only when someone is actually receiving money or the government is making a loss on purpose. Selling coal to generators at around cost price of extraction is completely sustainable because nobody is losing actual money – they are just foregoing potential money. But a government is there to provide services to it’s citizens, not gouge them for every last dollar. You can go on doing this forever without making any government or person bankrupt as long as costs are covered.

    Solar power put on your roof with a government rebate on the price and above-market price rebates on the power produced is a subsidy. First it is subsidised through taxation (rebate on purchase) then through charging everyone else more and providing the excess to those with Solar. That’s a subsidy. While user-pays subsidies are ultimately sustainable because the funds come from other users, government subsidies like fixed-price solar rebates coming from general revenue are not. Hence the cuts in subsidies in NSW, Spain, UK and elsewhere. When you start giving away $10 notes for $5, the government are suddenly surprised when a lot of people turn up with their hand out. That’s not sustainable (and I mean that in the non-environment term)

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Its just the rapid modern warming which can’t be explained without CO2.

    C02 has little to do with explaining recent warming. The IPCC projections are based on GCMs that use arbitrary aerosol off-sets to have high climate sensitivity matching historical temperatures. The chosen amount of aerosol off-set for each model is roughly proportional to the projected diagnosed sensitivity eg. high sensitivity/high offset low sensitivity/low offset. Using such a blatant fudge factor casts serious doubts on IPCC projections.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Allen McMahon:

    Maybe aerosols are a fudge factor, but given the temperature dip following Pinutobo, you obviously do have to take aerosols into account.

    I’m not well enough versed in the science to know if it is being done in the best way.

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    John Brookes @ 158.

    You are perpetuating Hansen’s myth that the early 90′s cooling was due to the eruption of Mt.Pinatubo. Check the surface station graphs for any location in the world and you’ll find the cooling started in 1989, dropped further in 1990 and the first half of 1991 before the eruption in June 1991 which no doubt then contributed part of the continued cooling.

    Interestingly in 1992 and 1993, Hansen’s Gistemp instituted “the great dying of Thermometers” when hundreds were dropped all over the world allowing Hansen and his crew to apply so many adjustments to the greatly diminished base of raw data that it became virtully useless for any real interpretation of Temperature trends.

    00

  • #
    brc

    I can pitch in on the Pinutabo cooling. The cooling effects of high level sulfur dioxide are quite well documented, with this particular eruption well recorded due to all the instrumentation already looking at atmosphere/climate when it happened.

    However, in order for sulfur dioxide to have the correct cooling effect, it has to be put high in the atmosphere and spread out globally (we did have very nice sunsets that year). Without a very large volcanic plume, it doesn’t reach high enough to cause the cooling or to get spread out enough. Thus the Iceland volcano last year (not going to try and type the name), while a large eruption, didn’t get any sulfur dioxide high enough into the atmosphere to have any effect. The whole plane-grounding thing was over airborne ash, not sulfur dioxide.

    If this is true, I think it’s unlikely that (a) aerosols from industry are the exact right type (has to be sulfur dioxide) and (b) had no mechanism to transport them up into the upper atmosphere. It’s also a bit convenient how the introduction of a clean air act immediately reduced the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere and started the warming trend pretty much straight away. All in all, I think the aerosols explanation is just a bit too cute for it’s own good – it switches on and off just like that. More likely is an ocean cycle switching – we know that sudden changes in ocean currents cause big differences in weather.

    Happy to be told otherwise but that’s my understanding as I have read.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    No matter what they attribute it to, the ABC at least recognizes that something has hit them hard right between the eyes. It’s amazing how much power an angry electorate really has.

    Now the pressure must be relentlessly kept up.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    And MattB,

    Why are you worrying about CO2? Didn’t you start a business? Where do you get all this time to pontificate about things you (still) clearly don’t understand? One way or another your government has been stealing from Australians. It’s just outright theft and lust for power. Take off your blinders and look at the situation instead of the ideology before it’s too late. They mean you harm, Matt. They’ll bleed you as dry as they think they can and still get more money out of you.

    WAKE UP!

    00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    I don’t like medicare.

    It seems is ridiculous to pay some public servant to take money out of my pay, then pay some other public servant to pay my doctor about half his bill for me.

    I can think of something worse, however. Pay some bureaucrat to tax the power generator, so they have to charge me more for my power, then pay another bureaucrat to put some of that money into my bank a/c, to help me my power bill.

    I suppose it makes sense to the Labor party, as most bureaucrats vote Labor, this just may increase their dwindling voter base, but even some of them will see the stupidity of the whole process.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    brc@160; you are right about the aerosols; if the aerosol cooling effect/dimming were correct we would see a more pronounced cooling in the Nthn hemisphere where most of the industrail aerosols were:

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4516241538_42160b3455_o.jpg

    00

  • #
  • #
    allen mcmahon

    John @158; Unfortunately there is no best way to handle aerosols it is a major area of uncertainty, the real answer is we have no idea of their effects. In GCMs climate sensitivity is impacted by assigning an arbitrary figure to aerosols and this in my opinion creates such uncertainty that the supposed best fit of 3 degrees per doubling of C02 is simply guesswork and not evidence based.
    Go to any of your preferred science blogs and ask them for an explanation, I tried but the best I got was initial hand waving and further questions were met with silence. The only way that GCMs match the historic T record and forecast sensitivity is through the manipulation of aerosol effects. It is speculation not science.
    There is insufficient information to assign a figure to sensitivity (high or low) all we can be guided is proxy evidence for past T to place current T in perspective. There is a substantial amount of evidence that indicates that the MWP was at least as warm as today. It featured in the IPCCs first assessment report. More telling is outside of the “team” reconstructions, limited to a few NH locations, there is virtually no paleo evidence discounting an MWP. Given this, and while I accept that human activity has led to increased T, I find it highly improbable that recent temp rises are unprecedented and that our contribution will have a catastrophic effect on future T.

    00

  • #
    brc

    The previous results for the Drum Polls make for interesting saving for later date:

    Question 685
    Who will win the carbon tax war?

    Julia Gillard 64%
    Tony Abbott 36%
    2522 votes counted

    Somehow the opinion polls and betting markets don’t quite share the Drum readers optimism for ‘ole Julia making the distance.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “If the price of coal is provided not at market price, but perhaps at close to cost price, I don’t see that as a subsidy.”

    Come on guys, you can’t leave comments like that to me! Lets just admit coal is subsidised!

    00

  • #
    Dan Lewis

    As a general guide, any political movement which calls itself “progressive”, isn’t.

    Change for change’s sake, destruction, demolition and backwardness do not amount to progress.

    SIMON SHEIKH, GETUP NATIONAL DIRECTOR: What they’re calling for is driven by climate denialism. They do not believe in the basic science of global warming. They’re anti-progress. But if you look on their websites, they’re also anti-Islam, they’re anti-refugees. These are people who fundamentally don’t support Australia moving forward.

    Islamist groups wish to see the word revert to a seventh-century model. Remind me again how this coincides with “Australia moving forward”?

    Ditto undoing the industrial revolution.

    00

  • #
    Mal

    Very interested in who is funding your anti-science campaign. I trust that the anti-islamic nonsense spouted by your commenters are not your own?

    00