JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Nearly 80% of Chinese people are skeptics*: world wide poll

Gallup has done a world wide poll, about whether people believe the theory of man-made global warming. Though don’t stake too much money on the results, they only interviewed “approximately 1000 people” (what’s an approximate person?).

*So we’re talking about a survey of about 10 people per country.

The headlines are outrageously ambitious , “most of the human race”, yet having surveyed 111 countries it’s sort of  half-way believable (with caveats). What’s striking is that the great man-made global warming theory has left no corner of the globe untouched… 10% of Somaliland believes it fergoodnesssake. (Well OK, so one person said “yes”.)

But it begs a few questions — like how do you phone poll accurately in countries where there are not many phones, and hardly anyone speaks English?

The China statistic is interesting. For all the talk that the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is “speeding to take up renewable energy” it ranks 105th out of 111 countries. “79%” of Chinese people are skeptics (well, more or less).

The question: “How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?”

The options:  “not at all serious”, “not very serious”, “somewhat serious” or “very serious”.

Overall 42% ticked “somewhat serious” or “very serious”. Impressive reach for the AGW meme eh?

Gallup: Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat

Source:  CNS NEWS

By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) – Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat, according to a Gallup poll released last week that surveyed individuals in 111 countries….

In the United States, 53 percent said they believed global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat to themselves and their families. That was down from 63 percent in polling that Gallup did on the question in the United States in 2007 and 2008.

Of the 111 countries that Gallup polled, Greece ranked as No.1 for popular fear of global warming. In that southern European country 87 percent said global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat.

That was a far higher percentage than across the Mediterranean in Egypt, a desert nation, where only 18 percent said they believed global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

Somaliland ranked dead last—with only 10 percent of local residents saying global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

Yemen ranked second to last with 13 percent.

China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, ranked 105th out of 111 among the countries polled by Gallup. Only 21 percent of Chinese said they believed global warming is a somewhat serious or very serious threat to themselves or their families.

H/t To Bob Ferguson at the Science and Public Policy Institute

—————————————————————————

For those that are curious: I’m surprised they bothered to report individual country rankings. Are some of these countries based on a survey of only three or four people?

Survey Methods

Results are based on face-to-face and telephone interviews conducted in 2010 with approximately 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older, in 111 countries. For results based on the total sample in each country, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranges from ±1.7 percentage points to ±5.7 percentage points. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Nearly 80% of Chinese people are skeptics*: world wide poll, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3qtwadp

110 comments to Nearly 80% of Chinese people are skeptics*: world wide poll

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Nor, more importantly, does the Chinese government, practical people that they are.

    They’re going to milk this guilt-ridden scare for all it is worth:

    * ‘Mitigation’ funds from the West
    * Selling carbon credits
    * Attracting industries which can no longer survive in the West
    * Selling vast quantities of solar panels and wind turbines to the crazy foreigners.

    One year’s carbon credits alone should build a few aircraft carriers…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    I think if you mapped out those countries by GDP per capita, you’d find the graphs very similar.

    Conclusion : global warming is a concern only held by those with comfortable lives and access to lots of affordable energy. It takes satisfaction of all othere needs including food, shelter, health and security before people start worrying about these types of things.

    Implication : co2 emissions reduction in developed nations is futile as those who have the least access to energy are the most likely to move towards the cheapest and dirtiest forms. Future co2 reductions would be cheapest by developed western nations building nuclear power in developing nations and running them for free.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    So we’re talking about a survey of about 10 people per country.

    The population of China was 1,336,718,015 as at midnight on 31 July this year, and “only” about 75,000,000 of them have telephones.

    With such numbers, the tiny sample size, and the inbuilt selection biases, makes this survey totally meaningless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Oops, the population of China refers to 31 July last year.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I think they mean that the survey was done with about 1000 people in each country. Otherwise the results are not worth the paper they are written on. They mention the sampling errors of between 1.7%-5.7% with 95% confidence which could only be true with a decent sample from each country. China would be at the 5.7% end and countries with a small population at the 1.7% end.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    As the warmists might say- 300 million Chinese can’t be wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    You’d think the people of Grecee would have more immediate things to worry about … i.e. their entire economy disappearing down the S-bend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Edward

    I am not surprised that a Somali said he was concerned about global warming. The word is getting round that Western idiots feel guilty about it and may be ready to deliver huge funds as a sort of conscience money – as was the intent of Copenhagen.

    During a sleepless night I listened to a BBC World Service broadcast which included an interview with a Kenyan pastoralist. These are people who move their cattle around the bush. He said that “ancestral wisdom” used to tell them where to move their cattle to find grass. This was no longer working so it must be due to the carbon in the atmosphere, so he could do with some compensation and he’d like it quickly please.

    Of course, there have been unusual lengthy droughts in Africa at least since the days of Joseph and the Pharaoh – but Western post Christians no longer read their bibles, so they are ready victims of the aggressive begging bowl.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Why don’t we do a quick poll here:

    Is AGW a serious threat?

    My answer: No.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Ian Hill: #5

    I think they mean that the survey was done with about 1000 people in each country.

    Perhaps you are right. But compared to a population of 1.3 billion a sample of 1000 would still only be marginally better than 10.

    And I would bet dollars to donuts that this survey will have been done in one or two cities on the coast – the most densely populated areas – and therefore will not be representative of the entire Chinese population, as implied in the article.

    It is a crock.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This survey result
    again shows how wise and intelligent the Chinese are!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    “Perhaps you are right. But compared to a population of 1.3 billion a sample of 1000 would still only be marginally better than 10.”

    You’d be surprised. Getting 1000 randomly sampled responses to a simple question gives a surprisingly decent result. Statistically there is not much difference if your total population is 30,000, 300,000, 3 million or 1.3 billion to 4 billion. I mean obviously there is a difference.

    If it was actually only 10 from China then indeed the result for China would have zero statistical relevance and yu may as well ask 10 guinea fowl.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Matt b: #12

    You’d be surprised. Getting 1000 randomly sampled responses to a simple question gives a surprisingly decent result.

    Not in China it won’t.

    Question: How many of those 1,336,718,015 people actually speak Chinese?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    Cohenite – my vote is NO for “Is AGW a serious threat”.

    Another Poll should be “Should CO2 be classified as pollution?”
    My vote again is NO.

    The Chinese will be laughing all the way to the new ETS Carbon Credit Banking Scheme – and still this government will make us feel guilty.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Here is the result per country.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147203/Fewer-Americans-Europeans-View-Global-Warming-Threat.aspx#2

    Funny but only 56% of NZers think so but 69% of Aussies and yet Nzers already have a carbon scheme.

    Perhaps they have more experience and understand what a load of crap it really is?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Rick Bradford # 1

    Couldn’t agree more. Our current weakness is their future strength. Sure they will make all the right noises, but they have no intention of shooting themselves in their economic foot. The Chinese will continue to rapidly build power stations and factories that the West will come to completely rely on.

    Also, the Chinese are currently on a global spending spree, and in the US are trying to pick up financially distressed but technologically innovative companies, which has some US Senators worried (and actively trying to block the sales) as the type of technology the Chinese are after will enable them to leapfrog ahead, and could even enhance their rapidly expanding military.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    I must mix with the wrong crowd, I’d say no more than 25% of the people I’ve talked to think that AGW is a problem.

    Of course when I ask that one in four how they’d fix it I am yet to find anyone who can provide an answer.

    They claim they know the proper fix but under pressure most haven’t got a clue about the real numbers involved and when enlightened most show genuine surprise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    1000 people in 111 countries? Maybe, but I don’t really think so. No-one does that sort of work without a serious payoff in the offing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Neville # 15

    Unlike Australia, NZ was hit hard with the GFC and on top of a poor economy they have a carbon scheme that has made basic living hard. For example, cheese is a luxury. I know because my pensioner Mother comes here and goes nuts, busy comparing prices etc.

    The National Govt there also has a coalition partner whose current leader, Rodney Hide, is an out there sceptic. He’s a highly intelligent man, has a background as an economist and from what I’ve read, has been campaigning up and down NZ against their ETS. Below is one of his ‘polices’ for getting NZ out of the economic poo.

    5.Dump the man-made obstacles to economic growth; the cost of doing business in New Zealand is beyond belief
    1.Resource Management Act.
    2.Nutty regulations.
    3.The Emissions Trading Scheme.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Neville: #15

    New Zealand didn’t really have a debate.

    From what I remember, the ETS was introduced to Parliament by the outgoing Labour government, and everybody assumed that an incoming National government would bin it. But they didn’t, and allowed it to go through, probably due to back room deals with the Maori Party.

    National also put the GST up from 12.5% to 15%, and that has taken a lot more flak than the ETS. In fact, the ETS is not even seen as a tax, for some reason, although the effects are probably the same at the end of the day.

    If the ALP had managed things in the same way that New Zealand did, the outcome may well have been different.

    But Aussie politicians just love to grandstand, and show how tough and feral they are, so they always over dramatise things, and that gets them into big trouble. Referring to Carbon Dioxide as Carbon Pollution, won’t actually fool anybody who has done even a single year of science at high school. And your average Digger can see right through the b*llsh*t, ’cause they are cynical b*st*rds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    And your average Digger can see right through the b*llsh*t, ’cause they are cynical b*st*rds.

    Damn straight….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    IMWD I’ve listened to Rodney Hide on 2 Gb with Alan Jones and he makes a lot of sense and he knows his stuff.

    NZ only emits 0.1% of global emissions, so why oh why did they ever bring in their ETS so ridiculously early?

    But if Rodney can’t explain the brainless folly of this nonsense what hope is there?
    People shouldn’t be that bloody stupid but alas they are.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?”

    Talk about a loaded question! It predicates the existence of such a thing. It’s a tad more obvious with a tweak.

    “How serious of a threat is the alien invasion to you and your family?”

    The Chinese attitude at the government level is summarised by the link below. The piece is pre Cancun but still very operative.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/cancun-and-the-chinese-perspective-on-it/

    At the popular level, a translation of an interesting Chinese best seller on the global warming caper.

    http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/low-carbon-plot-or-why-cancun-has-already-failed/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Is AGW a serious threat? No!
    Should CO2 be classified as pollution? What are you nuts? NO!!!

    Should the scientists behind AGW fraud be held personally responsible?…..hmmm……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    In fact, a Chinese government sanctioned book called The Low Carbon Plot sums up the semi-official Chinese view on this huge Western folly.

    Whether they really believe it (that CAGW is a Western plot to keep ordering other countries about) or whether they’re simply posturing, the message is crystal clear; they don’t buy it.

    Excerpt:

    The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    I personally want the key members of the IPCC to face a criminal trial for fraud. It can be demonstrated that, long of after they knew AGW was not a credible hypothesis, they persisted with it to fulfil the policy objectives of the UN and the IPCC – i.e. to create a taxation economy to solve a non-existent problem. To allow Trenberth, Jones, Mann et al to walk away from this scam without accountability would be a travesty of criminal justice, in my opinion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nick

    Edward @ 8

    It was Chesterton that said…

    “Those that don’t beleive in anything, will beleive anything”

    I beleive ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Yet the gravy train keeps chugging away. As I was on his mail list I received a personal invitation (as I am sure thousands did), from Rob Oakeshott to attend an up coming Climate Commission Forum in his electorate. I was invited to:

    “Join the climate conversation. We want to hear and understand your concerns about climate change, share with you what we know and together learn more.”

    My Response:

    Dear Mr Oakeshott,

    I’m sorry but I have seen two televised Community Forums and they are not what I would call ‘conversations’. For instance, a so called sceptic asks a question, an invited scientist gets up and goes through multiple slides which don’t address the question and simply point to some interesting correlation, not causation information, some of it (such as CO2 v temperature already disputed with a greater in-depth analysis of the Vostoc Ice Core records); then when the questioner asks for an answer to their actual question, or asks a relevant follow up question, they are told by the AGW sympathetic moderator that they have had their go and it’s time to move on.

    I have written to the Climate Commission and a number of Government Ministers and raised issues and concerns regarding Climate Change Science and a tax on CO2 emissions and simply got an acknowledgement of receipt and a URL to the Commission’s propaganda website. Mr Oakeshott, I am sure you haven’t got where you are by being stupid, so I can only assume that you are on board with the Government’s justification for the tax on CO2 emissions. I don’t mind paying more tax as long as it stays in the system to help fellow Australians, but you guys can’t even be honest about what it is you plan to tax and trade. Instead of calling it a tax on CO2 you refer to it as a ‘carbon tax’ or a ‘tax on carbon pollution’ or a ‘tax on the big polluters’.

    A large slab of the tax will go on creating a huge Government bureaucracy. Another large slab will go into supporting uneconomic industry and technology. Much of the rest will go on income redistribution increasing the welfare class and welfare dependency to their long term detriment. Since when did increasing government dependency help anyone?

    Industry costs will increase because they will have to employ a whole new class of auditors and counters to make sure they are complying with the government’s new requirements. More legislation, legal interpretation, and Government auditors will add to growing bureaucracy.

    Then we will transition to emissions trading opening up a whole new area for fraud and manipulation by the financial markets, (as already happened to the tune of billions of Euros in Europe). It will also open further leakage of Australian industry to the developing nations like China who can make money buying, for instance, failing steel company’s and the like in Australia. They could then close them down and claim carbon credits for doing so and then use the sale of those carbon credits to open two or more factories in China with 1950′s pollution controls. Then, when they retro-fit the pollution control technology currently available to them, they can claim hundreds of millions of dollars in new carbon credits for ‘reducing’ their emissions! You think that is a fantasy? It has already happened with the UK and India being the participants.

    Our Prime Minister Gillard has already acknowledged herself that the so called carbon tax will not lead to any meaningful reductions in global CO2 emissions. In her statement yesterday she said that she expects our mining sector to continue expanding under the growing demand for Australian resources from mainly developing countries such as China. That being the case there will be no global reduction in CO2 emissions, whether or not that would be beneficial, so why even bother going through this whole ‘carbon tax’ charade? Just raise our taxes, redistribute the money and be honest about it!

    While I am writing Mr Oakeshott, I would like to raise your own lack of transparency. After the election, while Gillard and Abbott were trying to form Government, you told the people of Australia that your concerns were for the Nation, and stability of Government. You then built into your agreement to support the Gillard Government a number of commitments which directly benefited your electorate entirely or almost exclusively. I know you are elected to represent your electorate, so I don’t criticise you for doing that, but I can’t reconcile the electoral act which states it is illegal to offer inducements to secure an individual’s vote in an election, but it is apparently not illegal for a potential Prime Minister to offer an Independent Member inducements to secure their support to form Government! And the process is fully supported and endorsed by you under the shallow claim that you have the nation’s interests at heart. Give me a break!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Jaymes: #28

    Nice letter.

    But I do hope you realise that you will now have been added to the “Cranks List”. You will be in good company.

    Please share the reply with us – assuming you get one, that is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Pointman: #23

    “How serious of a threat is the alien invasion to you and your family?”

    Now I do like that! Brilliantly simple, and simply brilliant!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Good stuff from Lomborg exposing the “Green China” nonsense.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hold-the-accolades-on-chinas-green-leap-forward/2011/04/19/AFLdZMEE_story.html

    Just one interesting point made, China produces 50% of the world’s solar panels but exports 99%, what a joke.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Gary Johns absolutely (and rightfully so) slams the economic arguments for a carbon (sic) price being put forward by Jooolya’s stooges:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/dodgy-figures-wrong-questions-plague-debate/story-e6frgd0x-1226045829429

    Gary argues, much as Lomborg does, that adaptation is the most economically efficient route (if one assumes there is anything to which we need to adapt).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Speaking of people shifting stances on the carbon (sic) price, here’s some comments from BHP head Albanese who, you will recall, famously championed said carbon (sic) price a year ago:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bhp-billiton-heat-on-julia-gillard-over-carbon-compensation/story-fn59niix-1226045899703

    Seems he is in line with the rest of the export exposed industries asking for protection now. Scratch BHP Billiton off the supporters list…

    Meanwhile Swan still thinks it is OK to spruik complete and utter economic gibberish:

    The Treasurer said the government was “determined to ensure that those trade-exposed industries that are energy intensive receive the essential support and protection”.

    “What I’d say to unions and employers and the public in general (is) that we’ve got to put in place a price on carbon to get the investment which will drive renewable energy in this country, and which will give all of our industries the chance to compete in the future, and the steel industry is part of all of that,” Mr Swan said.

    “The fact is that if we’re going to keep our economy prosperous we have to make the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Everybody accepts that, and in making that transition there will be transitional issues, and there will be issues to deal with particular sectors for which we’ll work with workers, unions and employers, and that’s what we’re doing.”

    Does he think future steel mills will run off f*cking windmills and solar cells? I don’t swear much, but this kind of utter garbage makes my blood boil. A man of such demonstratbly marginal intelligence should not be in charge of the country’s treasury.

    Swan is a complete stooge.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Bulldust I agree, at times I feel like using the F word but I don’t, although it’s tempting.

    How a nong like Swan can be in his position and sprout that absurd gibberish in the article above is beyond belief.

    This whole CAGW govt industry is mad, bad and sad and we the taxpayers are paying for the entire corrupt , fraudulent mess.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barrie

    OK, so we take the lead from China which, has vastly lower levels of education or media transparency than Australia, and say that global warming is not an issue. What would it take for people to turn around and ask the question “why is the world heating up” or even better “is the world heating up”?

    The fact that sea levels have been increasing steadily in line with temperatures over the past 100 years and that 80% of this increase is explained by CO2 alone – a proven greenhouse gas – obviously means nothing, as does the fact that we can now measure the reduction in heat loss from the earth to space in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses over the past 40 years.

    I am interested to see what further temperature increase it will actually take for people to decide that there might be a problem. Would it be a 0.1 degree increase, 1 degree, 2 degrees, 5 degrees, or perhaps 10 degrees??? The trouble is, once you get past 1 degree it would be pretty well impossible to do anything to reverse the effects of global warming even if you did decide somethng needed to be done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Barrie prove to us that the rate of warming is different than any period since 1850.

    Of course Phil “climategate” Jones has conceded that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 or 15 years.

    Sea level around Australia was 1.5M higher 4,000 years ago, so obviously the temp was higher as well during the earlier Holocene.

    Here’s real abrupt warming for you 11,500 years ago at a rate of 1c per year for 10 years straight.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

    Our present slight warming comes at the end of the LIA, so you perhaps think it should have flatlined or actually continued cooling do you?

    But most importantly the question is what would you do to reduce the temp by 0.7C, tell us please.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    I read somewhere recently that China retains 1% of the solar panels that they build, the remainder are exported.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Meanwhile the US dollar is getting slammed:

    http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AUDUSD=X&t=5d&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

    (trading at over 1.094 against the USD when I checked it)

    This is a result of Bernanke’s recent indication that nothing was changing any time soon in US Fed policy:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/australian-dollar-hits-at-new-record-as-bears-claw-the-greenback/story-e6frg906-1226046131350


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barrie

    G’day Nevill,

    Well to show whether there has been a change in the rate of warming since 1850, it’d be a good idea to have a look at the data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html

    The charts show that temperatures from 1850-1900 were around 0.2-0.4 degrees less than the average for 1951-1980 (14 degrees). There is no warming trend until around 1910 when the current trend takes off. There is a slight interuption from 1940-70, as a result of increased sulphate emissions from coal burning (these have a cooling effect because they tend to reflect solar radiation). However, from 1970 the trend takes off again – coinciding with commencement of measures to reduce sulphate emissions from coal burning and increasing emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

    Of course you will note that, like the share market, temperatures do not follow a straight line, but vary from year to year as a result of factors such as the El Nino cycle (which expalins 40% of variation over the past 10 years), volcanoes (which emit sulphates) and variation in solar radiation. However, the overall upward trend is clear and is supported by a similar trend in sea level (which is not so subject to periodic variation) as seen here http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html

    Cheers,

    Barrie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Rereke in #13.

    This website has a sample size population calculator:http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

    Enter 95% confidence level, and a 5% confidence interval, and a population of 1.4 billion, and it tells me I have to ask 384 Chinese people the question.

    THe survey says that the confidence interval ranges from 1.7% to 5.7%. TO get 1.7% in China I’d have to ask 3300 folks. To get 5.7% I’d have to ask 296.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    O/T but a really good analysis of Flim Flams new book by Michael Kile.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/4/mammoth-fantasies

    It’s a long review, but the last couple of paragraphs summed up for me the current psycho-social situation.

    “So dawns the postmodern Age of Storylines. It is an age where science can morph into a new art (or religion) before one can say carbon sequestration; where obscuram per obscuris arguments (“explaining” an obscure and complex phenomenon—such as climate change, the Earth, or the universe—by evoking something even more obscure and complex—such as a climate model, or Gaia, or God) are fashionable again; where facts are fluid and theories fuzzy; where metaphors multiply like cane toad colonies; where the rhetoric is deep green; where prophets of doom rely on dodgy differential equations in place of entrails; where high anxiety triumphs over pragmatism; where the political atmosphere can be polluted by a “you ain’t seen nothing yet” confirmation bias; where public discourse is corrupted by semantics; where speculation struggling with its own contradictions can be packaged as a thought-experiment and promoted not only as a plausible glimpse into the future, but also as sufficient justification for a national carbon (dioxide) tax and the fundamental restructuring of Australia’s—and the world’s—energy economy.

    Arthur Schopenhauer defined hope as “the confusion of desire for a thing with its probability”. Flannery’s vision may or may not be persuasive or wise, but it does illustrate another insight of the late German philosopher, one worth remembering at this strange-disposed time: “It is natural to believe true what we desire to be true, and to believe it because we desire it.”

    But it doesn’t make it true! Believing a theory because it fits their existing world view, often misanthropic, is not evidenced based science. And they can’t just put their fingers in their ears, singing tra la la when the truly awful impact of this new religion reverberates around this country. Flammery really is shaping himself up as some kind of messianic figurehead of Australian Evangelical Environmentalism. How on earth did this guy get appointed to influence Govt policy? It is not even funny anymore!

    And to think we have troops overseas fighting the spread of the Taliban, all the while we have our own eco-fundmentalists busy at work in the Labor Govt! Why use bombs and guns, when you can more effectively use belief based policy to implement a repressive regime.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Tom@26:

    I personally want the key members of the IPCC to face a criminal trial for fraud. It can be demonstrated that, long of after they knew AGW was not a credible hypothesis, they persisted with it to fulfil the policy objectives of the UN and the IPCC – i.e. to create a taxation economy to solve a non-existent problem. To allow Trenberth, Jones, Mann et al to walk away from this scam without accountability would be a travesty of criminal justice, in my opinion.

    But what if you are wrong, Tom? What if this warming continues until the only possible explanation is the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Do we then put you on trial for ignoring evidence and causing immense damage for delaying action? Just saying…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Barrie there are 4 warming trends shown in this interview with Jones from the BBC.
    The trends are essentially the same with the shorter 1995 to 2009 trend only showing .12C per decade.

    I notice that you skipped over the extreme 1C warming per year for 10 years after the younger Dryas.

    With sea levels around Australia 1.5m higher 4000 years ago we know there must have been higher temps then than now as well.

    Our slight warming of 0.7C coming at the end of one of the coldest periods for the last few thousand years is another problem for warmists to overcome.

    Our slight warming is just a recovery from a very cold period that lasted for centuries and was preceded by the MWP.

    There is nothing unprecedented or unusual about the slight warming of the last 100+ years.

    But more importantly what can we do about it, please tell us?

    Here’s that Jones interview, check the trends.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    John Brookes you’re the one showing the utmost concern, so please tell us how to fix the problem?

    Don’t forget that for the next 24 years the EIA projections show us that the OECD countries co2 emissions ( 0.1% per year) will be swamped by the non OECD countries by 20 to 1.

    Of course by 2035 the non OECD emissions will be almost double the total of the OECD.

    Don’t forget to factor in this stunning conclusion when you provide your answer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    John Brookes @42

    John, if there really was a catastrophe in the making the politicians wouldn’t be fluffing around with micky mouse measures like a carbon (sic) tax or ETS and the scientists wouldn’t be wasting time doing peer review or name calling. They would all be as one watching the growing evidence carefully and working out the best way forward, sort of like what happened when the Titanic struck an iceberg. You can bet no-one on that ship was discussing what caused that iceberg to be there. Now that isn’t happening. The only direction the scientists are moving is towards a skeptical position. None are going the other way that I know of.

    An outsider looking at the behaviour of the alarmists and skeptics would conclude that only the skeptics are behaving rationally.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    File this one as O/T but it annoys me when people talk complete rubbish. I happened to read a story about a proposal to scrap the “Baby Bonus” and how that idea was roundly criticised in Parliament by both major parties, ACOSS yadda, yadda, yadda:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9270191/baby-bonus-here-to-stay-says-govt/

    This quote from an ACOSS rep immediately jumped out at me:

    “Australian Council of Social Service chief Dr Cassandra Goldie said there was no evidence that the baby bonus was motivating people to have children.”

    That is because I distinctly remember all the fanfare when Howard’s Government (and particularly Costello) were jumping up and down saying it had been a success. A quick Google found one such article:

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Howards-baby-bonus-sparks-jump-in-birth-rate/2005/06/12/1118347641050.html

    At this stage being reluctant to accept anything in the mainstream media I thought I’d check it out myself. ABS has this statistic in Catalogue 3301.0 – Births, Australia, 2009:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3301.0Main+Features12009?OpenDocument

    I downloaded Table 10 which has fertility rates and plotted the total (Australia) fertility rate (number of births per woman) against time for the years available (1975 to 2009). The rate drops off and plateaus around 1.7 at 1999 through to 2004. Then, lo and behold, there is a rapid rise in fertility rates to over 1.9 for the last three years of the data, just at the time the “Baby Bonus” was introduced. This was a fertility rate not seen since the 1980s.

    So unless there was some other change in 2004 which coincidently increased fertility rates I think we can safely say Dr Goldie is talking rubbish, but clearly she is there to defend entitlements for the poor (not that there is anything wrong with that).

    Having read Freakonomics, however, I would like to point out a couple of things. The chaps in Freakonomics clearly demonstrated that US crime rates dropped about 16 years (IIRC – give or take a couple years) after the Roe vs. Wade court decision and introduction of the associated legislation in the US states.

    What we have in Australia, since 2004, is a milder but opposite version of the Roe vs. Wade situation. You have to ask yourself the question: “Who changes their reproductive decision-making based upon a grant of a few thousand dollars from the Government?” Again please note: this is an objective question… I am not passing judgement on any group, but simply asking the obvious questions.

    It follows therefore, that Australia is likely to see a spike in crime-related activity in another 10 years which is likely to last for as many years as the baby bonus remains in place. Such are the unintended consequences of poor policy decisions.

    Needless to say, I am against such a policy because of its negative social impacts in the long-run. Politicians, on the other hand, think only in the short-run and what will get them elected in the next ballot.

    I am happy to debate my argument as long as people keep to the positive economics (i.e. “what is?” not “what should be?”). This poor policy serves as an example when considering all the political decisions that will influence the potential makeup of a carbon (sic) price system.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Imwd@41; that is a very good appraisal of Flannels and the intellectual simpering that passes as AGW science; still Flannels is not all bad, he wants space exploration; and it takes a special sort of idiot to want to bring back the Mammoth while predicting drastic increases in temperature; perhaps the poor big thing can have its fur shorn off; I mean the Mammoth not Flannels.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Bulldust I personally think much of the baby spike was a result of a lot of women who had deferred childbirth simply hearing their biological clocks a ticking. As a 35+ something father of two young kids I can assure you that all my 35+ mates have a couple of young kids, and at pre-primary my nearly 35yo wife is one of the youngest, so there are a lot of women for whom it was a case of “now or never” and it happened to coincide with the baby bonus.

    In fact one could cynically suggest that it was a middle class welfare policy introduced at precisely the moment that birth rates would reveal it to be a success because the trend was clear that all these women who had deferred children were at the point of no return.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Re China and Wind Turbines.

    This site is must see for everyone and a particularly vital one we can direct Green and other AGW believers to visit, especially if they are spruiking “clean renewable energy from wind farms”!

    http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2339-the-true-cost-of-britains-green-obsession-pollution-on-a-disatrous-scale.html

    or simply Google “Baotou and pollution” for links to many more differently sourced articles.

    I am tying to place the links on as many Green websites as I can!

    John Brookes, Barrie, Matt B and/or any other warmists who visit this blog should have a look and perhaps then enlighten us with their thoughts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Sorry. Missed out the ‘s’ in disastrous.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2339-the-true-cost-of britains-green-obsession-pollution-on-a-disastrous-scale.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Just have a look at the mess Labor is in pandering to the policies of the elites.

    This is REAL PROF. polling and you can follow through issue by issue.

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


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Bulldust I don’t have a problem with your analysis that the baby bonus trigger an increase in the birth rate. I know this to be true because I’m in that category. Of course the baby wasn’t born in order to get a cheque (and the money was invested for the kids future anyway) but it was as a result of timing of a lot of things. You see, for a lot of people there are a lot of reasons why couples with two incomes don’t have kids. One is they are enjoying having two incomes, and having kids doesn’t match the lifestyle because none of your friends have kids so you always put it off. It sounds shallow in hindsight but that is how people think. THe baby bonus did two things : 1, it removed the ‘haven’t got the money’ argument for many people, which is usually a man’s response to a request for kids and 2, it snowballed, because all of a sudden a few of your friends start having kids, which then makes people re-assess their lives and decide to have kids as well. It’s a similar effect to when people start getting married – one good wedding and before you know it 5 more engagements have happened. It’s also similar to when the first-home owners grant started- suddenly people started buying houses again, then it became the thing to do. Yes, it shows we are mostly sheep who follow others.

    Second, I don’t agree with your analysis of the introduction of abortion laws with the introduction of the baby bonus. Abortions are largely about getting rid of unwanted children for a host of reasons. It’s true that a whole raft of poor kids were born for a lack of access to legal abortions. But I don’t equate this with a raft of kids born for the reasons I’ve outlined above. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the baby bonus created a bulge in the lower income end of the demographic to exclusion of all others. I would say that the lift in birth rate was evenly distributed across all income groups and geographical regions. So I don’t agree with you that this will necessarily create a group of unwanted youngsters who end up in a life of crime. I really have trouble seeing a large enough group of people short sighted and stupid enough to bring a child into the world for a small lump sum. Sure, there will be cases where it happened but not enough to create a large demographic of these children.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Barrie” (35),
    Is that short for Barrie Mundi.
    They say that fish aren’t very intelligent…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “John Brookes” (42),
    And what if YOU are wrong (which you are!) and our economy and standard of living is reduced to that of a Third World African Country?????

    Thanks for your daily dose of BS!

    Ignoramus!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    thRealUniverse

    The Chinese govt doesn’t believe it. (in AGW)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Gee Barrie and John have become real coy and shy and don’t want to try and answer my question.

    They say CAGW is true because ahem, because they say it is.

    So tell us your remedies for your climate fix, but remember the numbers have to add up. But I’ll give you a clue boys you can’t do it, except via BS and fantasy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Barrie” and “John Brooks”,
    Please quote one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon DIOXIDE, are/is responsible for global warming……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    BRC:

    I would love to see the stats for your assertions. To my mind is stands to reason that a progressive (opposite of regressive?) Baby Bonus would impact decision making far more at the lower income end of the spectrum than the higher end where the marginal impact of the bonus on their incomes would barely be noticed. It is intuitively obvious, but I shall be happy to be proven wrong if the statistics exist. Let’s face it … neither party wants to know the truth on this one…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> BRC grab the stats and plot them … it’s pretty obvious that the blip is from the Baby Bonus. Baby Boomer bulges in the population are a lot flatter now after three generations. Run the animated population pyramid at the ABS to see this:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/population%20pyramid%20preview


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Hi Neville
    Maybe Barrie has given us his solution to AGW:

    There is a slight interuption from 1940-70, as a result of increased sulphate emissions from coal burning (these have a cooling effect because they tend to reflect solar radiation).

    So clearly we need to increase our coal burning to increase the sulphate emissions and remove the measures we took in 1970 to reduce sulphate emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Bulldust – I don’t have any stats for my assertions re the baby bonus. If you cross examine me in a courtroom my position is quickly going to fall apart because I’m not working from numbers, just a vibe. On balance I think it creates more positive outcomes than negatives. The main need was to increase the birthrate was to create more taxpayers to pay tax when all the Baby Boomers retire. There might be a few more unloved youths getting about and causing crime in 10 years time but it’s still better than importing a large group of people from another culture to make up the shortfall IMO. I just don’t think it’s OK to assume that a large group of young people is necessarily going to mean more crime. In most cases I don’t like government intervention but in terms of creating more future taxpayers it does make sense.

    No statistics, just working on vibes, hopes and wishes and unproven theories. Maybe I should become a client scientist after all.

    I agree nobody really wants to try and work it out, and the policy is going to be very hard to stuff back into the bottle. At any rate it’s being replaced by paid maternity leave, which essentially works the same way.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    Rick @ 1

    They’re going to milk this guilt-ridden scare for all it is worth:

    * ‘Mitigation’ funds from the West
    * Selling carbon credits
    * Attracting industries which can no longer survive in the West
    * Selling vast quantities of solar panels and wind turbines to the crazy foreigners.

    One year’s carbon credits alone should build a few aircraft carriers…..

    You mmissed out on nuclear – the Chinese own 66% of a Uranium mine in NT Australia – and our smart government gave them the rights to export! (Enough GREEN Energy for the next century)

    When do we say no to all the lies, CO2 Tax, and double dealing that is happening with educational institutions, CSIRO, and the banks that this government is spreading.

    Even Mr. Marius Kloppers BHP Billiton has had second thoughts since his deal with the ALP has been rejected by Bob Brown (defacto PM).

    I’m off to Shanghai – greener, cleaner, NOT but less taxes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Rereke Whakaaro @ 26

    Nice letter.

    But I do hope you realise that you will now have been added to the “Cranks List”. You will be in good company.

    Please share the reply with us – assuming you get one, that is.

    I’d wager he’ll get a letter just like this one Rereke.

    I sent an email to Shayne Neumann just after Gillard announced the tax registering my disgust. He has only just got back to me today with a standard B/S letter full of nothing but spin, lies and half truths reproduced below your reading pleasure:-

    Thank you for taking the time to contact me in relation to the issue of carbon pollution and carbon pricing.

    The Federal Labor Government accepts the science of climate change. Carbon pollution is damaging our environment and causing climate change and we need to reduce carbon pollution now. CO2 levels are now about 40 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. Of the total amount of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere per year, human activities are responsible for approximately 3 percent. However, the CO2 that nature emits is balanced by natural land and ocean absorption processes. Accumulation of human produced CO2 has resulted in man being responsible for 28 percent of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. Put simply, the planet cannot cope with the levels of CO2 we are producing.

    Australia, as one of the highest carbon polluters in the developed world, needs the industries that are causing this pollution to clean up their act. This is why the Federal Labor Government plans to introduce carbon pricing. The Government knows that cheapest and fairest way to stop businesses polluting is to charge them when they pollute. Businesses with the highest levels of pollution will have a very strong incentive to reduce their pollution and invest in clean energy.

    The Federal Government has a two-stage plan for a carbon price mechanism, starting with a fixed price period for three to five years before changing to an emissions trading scheme. The Government will propose that the carbon price commences on 1 July 2012, subject to the ability to negotiate an agreement with a majority in both houses of Parliament and pass legislation this year. The Federal Government will argue the case for carbon pricing because tackling climate change is the right thing to do.

    Initially, carbon pricing will impact financially on households. That is why over 50% of revenue raised by carbon pricing will go towards supporting households, with a particular emphasis on pensioners and low-income households, leaving millions of households better off. This assistance will be permanent.

    We will work with the energy sector to support the development of climate change programs that might support, for example, the development of low emissions technologies or clean energy sources. We need to make sure that industries which are associated with high levels of pollution remain competitive internationally and to support the people who are working in those industries and the money raised from the carbon pricing will go towards that too. Over time, only businesses which emit thousands of tonnes of carbon pollution will directly pay a carbon price.

    The Federal Labor Government is finalising the details of these assistance packages but I can assure you that every cent raised by carbon pricing will be reinvested in the community: to help low and middle income families; help businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy; and tackle climate change and invest in clean energy.

    Yours sincerely

    Shayne Neumann

    Here’s my reply to Shayne:-

    GET STUFFED

    yours faithfully

    Loaded Dog

    just kidding….

    although they ARE my sentiments!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Oh, further to my last, this little gem is the MOST nauseating bit in the whole letter:-

    The Federal Government will argue the case for carbon pricing because tackling climate change is the right thing to do.

    It’s the “right thing to do” folk.

    Are we sick of hearing that phrase yet?

    Bucket please…..

    somebody?

    NOW….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Bulldust@46, I heartily agree with your comments regarding the baby bonus. I know some nice middle class people (like me :-) ) who regarded the then $3000 payment as sufficient to pay their baby doctor (they have a special name, to justify their fees, but my brains gone blank). We missed the baby bonus, and my wife went through the very nice public health system at virtually no cost to us.

    Freakonomics was a good book, looking at what really motivated people, and strangely enough it wasn’t always money. Being a lefty, I was particularly taken by the fact that upper management were slightly less honest than everyone else when it came to paying for their bagels.

    If you’ll permit me to rant on something other than AGW, we need a far better media than we have. Instead of doing proper analysis, Freakonomics style, we have a media that can’t get past appearances and human interest stories. So any media coverage of the future of the baby bonus will not focus on the actual costs, benefits and public policy issues, but on who said what and when, and struggling young families will be dragged in front of the cameras, as will boggy teenage single mothers. And even that might not hold their attention if Donald Trump says that Obama got a speeding ticket 10 years ago… Right now, we are getting the democracy we deserve, but how do we make it better?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    John Brookes @42

    But what if you are wrong, Tom? What if this warming continues until the only possible explanation is the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Do we then put you on trial for ignoring evidence and causing immense damage for delaying action? Just saying…..

    Ignoring what evidence John?

    Models?
    Doctored data?

    WHAT EVIDENCE JOHN!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Loaded Dog I think the worst term is “we are tackling climate change,”what a load of crap.

    That response is the silliest load of old fanny I’ve read for a long time, just think these are the hopeless donkeys that hold power over us.

    You can just see the money, jobs and businesses disappearing overseas, billions and billions lost forever, for a zero return.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    John again: @65

    If you’ll permit me to rant on something other than AGW, we need a far better media than we have. Instead of doing proper analysis, Freakonomics style, we have a media that can’t get past appearances and human interest stories. So any media coverage of the future of the baby bonus will not focus on the actual costs, benefits and public policy issues, but on who said what and when, and struggling young families will be dragged in front of the cameras, as will boggy teenage single mothers. And even that might not hold their attention if Donald Trump says that Obama got a speeding ticket 10 years ago… Right now, we are getting the democracy we deserve, but how do we make it better?

    I almost shudder to see that we agree on something. I’d give you a thumbs up but I don’t know about Freakonomics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Ian Hill@45:

    Your Titanic analogy is a bit unfortunate. I don’t know if there were any alarmists on board saying that maybe they should take the iceberg threat seriously, but if there were clearly no one listened to them. Of course everyone acted after this ship started sinking. AGW is about trying to act before the ship starts sinking, and its always going to be a tough call asking a ship to change course before it hits an iceberg.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Well John one of the ways we get a better democracy is we acknowledge that simple maths must really mean something.

    Like if you only produce 1.3% of something you cannot have much influence over the future larger pie by trying to reduce that 1.3% by 5%.

    Trouble is we are led by donkeys who can’t even do simple primary school sums, yet will sacrifice our economy on an alter of pig ignorance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Here’s my response to Shayne Neumann. I kept it short. I’ve got more important things to do.

    Dear Shayne,

    I won’t thank you for your response. I must say it made me sick and is just the type of response I would expect from the arrogant and out of touch government that is now the Australian Labor Party.

    A government that chooses to stubbornly ignore the will of the electorate and represents itself to the voter instead of the other way round.

    I am well informed and am up to date with the Climate Change (previously Global Warming) debate, having followed it closely for a number of years. As such I am able to recognise the numerous flaws in your response.

    I will not bother to respond to these flaws and half truths as I have better things to do and the information is readily avaiilable on numerous science blogs such as Jo Nova or Watts Up With That for any who are interested in finding the truth.

    I will instead make my protest at the next election.

    I will not be alone.

    regards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Neville@70:

    Well John one of the ways we get a better democracy is we acknowledge that simple maths must really mean something.

    Like if you only produce 1.3% of something you cannot have much influence over the future larger pie by trying to reduce that 1.3% by 5%.

    Trouble is we are led by donkeys who can’t even do simple primary school sums, yet will sacrifice our economy on an alter of pig ignorance.

    You eloquently highlight exactly what I’m talking about. You are rehashing a tired old argument as if it somehow proves something. Of course our efforts on our own will be miniscule. Does that mean we shouldn’t act? No, because if everyone applied that logic, no one would act. Our 5% commitment is clearly simply a signal of good faith to other countries, saying, “We are prepared to act, and hope that you do to.” The world needs cuts of much more than 5%, but until the world acts, we’d be fools to go for cuts of 40% or more. Ultimately, China and the US will have to show leadership and start setting sensible goals. This will probably only happen after more evidence of problems related to climate change emerge in the form of “natural” disasters.

    Do the media get even close to explaining this? Do politician dare explain this and risk the media having a field day scaremongering and distorting? Suggest any change, no matter how sensible, and the media will dig up a 98 year old widow who will be worse off, and put her on the front page.

    The CIA, apparently, once had a project where they looked at why empires fell. Maybe it was when they became too scared to do what intelligent people knew needed to be done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Shorter:

    Dear Shayne,

    I subscribe to the conspiracy theory of global warming, and you don’t, so I won’t be voting for you.

    regards…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Neville @67

    Loaded Dog I think the worst term is “we are tackling climate change,”what a load of crap.

    Yep, that bit’s pretty crappy too. I missed it when I first read it.

    Mind you, it’s hard to read when you’re blinded with rage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    My original was shorter Johny boy!

    The words “GET STUFFED” really captured the essence of my feelings…and voting intentions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Well John I hope that you get some personal warm inner glow because you think we are showing good faith. I think Gillard’s attempt is an exercise in absurdity.

    Trouble is your top man, climate commissioner Flannery doesn’t agree with you either I’m afraid.
    He told Bolt that we couldn’t expect a change in temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years even if the whole world stopped emissions of manmade co2 now.

    Isn’t this transperantly obvious enough for you to understand?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes: @72

    The CIA, apparently, once had a project where they looked at why empires fell. Maybe it was when they became too scared to do what intelligent people knew needed to be done.

    Or, maybe it was when they started being run by people so stupid that they wasted all their resources on fads and useless crusades? This is the same CIA, after all, that — just months before the USSR fell — predicted that it was as strong as ever and in no danger of collapse in the forseeable future.

    Of course our efforts on our own will be miniscule. Does that mean we shouldn’t act? No, because if everyone applied that logic, no one would act.

    But’s that exactly the correct logic to apply, if the actions of everyone would still be miniscule. Even the IPCC’s models, if we are so reckless as to take them at face value, predict no detectable effect due to CO2 reduction (well, maybe in a thousand years, as Flannery says).

    When I was a child, my mother scolded me once for throwing rocks into the Grand Canyon: “Don’t do that! If everyone threw a rock, the canyon would be filled up.”

    What she neglected to say was that it would take a couple of hundred million years for that to happen, and likely much more effective natural events would occur by then. Of course, she wasn’t really worried about the canyon filling up — she only wanted to control my actions.

    Come to think of it, that’s pretty analogous to what is going on today with AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    John Brookes@72

    Suggest any change, no matter how sensible, and the media will dig up a 98 year old widow who will be worse off, and put her on the front page.

    I would think that if the media had to “dig her up” she was probably already dead and buried so I guess she couldn’t get any worse off.

    You are a strange man John, but you really know how to turn a phrase. Keep twisting mate, you’ll become a corkscrew soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    So this is what Oakeshott thinks Democracy is all about:

    “Mr Oakeshott said he would have failed his electorate if he followed his constituents’ views over those he thought were right, and that he was not scared of losing his seat as a result.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/oakeshott-to-rest-carbon-vote-on-the-evidence-over-voters-wishes/story-e6frg6xf-1226046578077

    So who cares what the electorate wants, we politicians will do what we want.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    John Brookes @69

    The Titanic analogy only applies after the disaster had occurred.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    For those interested, Freakonomics was a book released by Levitt and Dubner (the former being the economist, the latter a writer) which makes economic issues an interesting read, which is no mean feat. There was a sequel “Superfreakonomics.” They have a web site:

    http://www.freakonomics.com/

    There is also a blog:

    http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/

    and columns at the NY Times:

    http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/features/magazine/columns/freakonomics/index.html

    What places Levitt apart from many economists is that he is a self-professed novice in the more technical areas of the field, but he has a knack of asking interesting questions and spotting the human motivation being driven by incentive systems. Thus, and with the aid of a good writer, he makes the subject field intuitively approachable for the lay person. I am sure he’d be an excellent teacher.

    The sequel book made him particularly unpopular in CAGW circles because he had a chapter looking at geoengineering solutions to global warming. Needless to say he was immediately set upon in the media by the usual suspects. The chapter was so controversial is because he came to the objective conclusion that it would be far cheaper (orders of magnitude cheaper) to geoengineer a solution to warming than to tax away the CO2 emissions.

    This fact should be intuitively obvious, but clearly threatens the basis for the preferred taxation system for various world governments. The temerity of the man!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Now it seems we are guilty of “Scientific Bastardry”:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/scepticism-is-bastardry-says-head-of-acf/story-fn59niix-1226046544056

    Yeah, keep them insults coming, I’m sure they’ll convince me soon. Your logic and reasoning is just sooooo impressive.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well Max, they are guilty of “Scientific Blasphemy” so let’s call it even?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Here’s a video where they discuss the chapter:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RsrRpjAGi8

    Note:
    1) They assume that warming is taking place as the premise for the chapter.
    2) It is not so important what the individual solutions are, and whether they are crazy fixes or not … it would be, in a warming world, more important to look at the most efficient way to deal with such a problem.

    You can criticise any individual possible geoengineering solution, or the need for them in the first place, but it is more a thought experiment about the best possible solutions, should the problem exist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    I thought I’d get in first before John and Barrie etc start to claim a CAGW influence on strong to violent tornados.

    Here is the record from NOAA for the last 50+ years.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Oakeshott decides he won’t represent his electorate any more !!

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

    OakSHIT and his ilk are Communist Traitors to all Australians !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    MaxL # 79

    Reading that left me quite speechless! Absolutely explains why and how he thoroughly deceived his electorate. He had no intention ever of representing their views or wishes. No wonder he’s detested and it’s quite chilling! He knows he’s history and his only option will be on the Labor ticket or with the Greens. He’ll be making deals with Gillard but his more comfortable home would probably be the Greens actually as they have the same kind of values. That is, they don’t value democracy and would really prefer a benign (in their view, but not to the majority of Australians) dictatorship. Democracy doesn’t allow them to ram their minority ideology (religion) down our throats and prescribe how they think we should live our lives.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    On the basis of that kind of admission, does his electorate have any recourse? Or do they have to wait until the next election to give him ‘feedback’?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    lmwd.

    As you state, Oakeshott is totally toasted. He’ll have to satisfy himself by political discourse with his “four year old and six year old” after the next election. There are too many Labor party faithful waiting in the ranks for political spoils for him to ever get a guernsey there.

    Not to mention that his treacherous behaviour would have been well noted by all members of all parties. He’ll be so far out in the cold that he’ll be praying for some of that “global warming”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Tony Maher disassembles the whole BZE plan to save Australia from CO2 emissions:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/where-are-jobs-in-carbon-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226046535916

    Yes, where are the green jobs? Oh that’s right, China will probably be building the windmills and solar panels that we would be paying billions of dollars for…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    why give grants, Coalition? why come up with an “alternative”, Windsor? the Coalition’s refusal to expose the CAGW as a scam is why i will continue with a donkey vote.

    29 April: Age: Adam Morton & Tom Arup: Business gives cold shoulder to Coalition climate plan
    The opposition’s policy emphasises storing carbon in soil and trees as central to meeting the bipartisan target of a 5 per cent cut in emissions below 2000 levels by 2020. It would not force businesses to pay for their greenhouse pollution, but they could tender for a grant to cut their emissions…
    Independent MP Tony Windsor, a member of the government’s climate committee, yesterday challenged business leaders who did not like the carbon tax to come up with an alternative, saying he was sick of mixed signals from business.
    ”My challenge to the industry is … you come up with a scheme and I’m more than happy to take that into the multi-party climate change committee,” he said. ”Put up or shut up – and come up with something that’s better.”
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/business-gives-cold-shoulder-to-coalition-climate-plan-20110428-1dywm.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “pat” (91),
    This Tony WINDBAG is a Fool of the highest order!
    Businesses Do Not have to “come up with an alternative plan”
    There is NO Problem and therefore NO Plan of any description is required……..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Barrie” and “John Brooks”,
    I love how you green communists totally IGNORE requests for real proof of your global warming Hypothesis, yet you expect intelligent thinking people to swallow your continual Lies and BS !!!!!!

    By the way, Computer MODELS do not constitute Proof and Evidence!!

    Stop wasting people’s time.

    The game is up for you and your ilk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John F

    I know this is off subject but the ramifications are massive

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    Joanne and readers please open this document and view it at 600% and see what you see,
    Anyone who knows anything about creating documents can clearly see this is doctored,
    Why Would they be so stupid? The weird part is there seems to be no explanation, other than that the original was extremely damaged, if so say so
    Take a look here is a list of the edited part of the doc (pixilated) with an original scanned doc all the text is pixilated identically)
    No 1 in main number Health Dept 10641
    Sect 1. r in Barack
    Sect 3. g in single, p in triplet
    Sect 5a. Comma in Day
    Sect 5b. M in PM
    Sect 6c. N in Name, H, a & l in Hospital, I in Institution, If in If, H, a & l again in Hospital, Add in Address
    Sect 7a. d in Residence
    Sect 7c. d in and, S in State, Co in Country
    Sect 7e. the X in the box
    Sect 11. K in Kenya
    Sect 13. S in Stanley
    Sect 16. K in Kansas
    Sect 17a. Colour variation in the e in None
    Sect 18a. Mothers Signature – First Bracket OK then Stanley Ann D replaced rest original (weird) and tick in Parent
    Sect 19a. Attendant Signature – all added later as well as scribbling in MD
    Sect 20. Colour variation in the 1 in the Year 1961
    Sect 21. Local Registrar – added later.
    Sect 22. More Colour variation been doctored
    As well as lines on the form added later

    The main problems are the edited signatures in 18a, 19a and 21. That does not look good the rest could be justified.

    I still think he was born in the US but has a lot of explaining to do, not the end of this.

    What this video below also, has the whitehouse gone mad, this is big news

    http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/barack-obamas-birth-certificate-is-fake/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    I think I speak for many on this site when I say that there are plenty of places on the internet to discuss the Obama Birth Certificate issue. I don’t think there is much to be gained by hijacking comments on this blog. I feel guilty enough with the sidebar into birthrates.

    The prior wandering off onto the moon landing conspiracy was bad enough.

    [agree.] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    ahh well fair enough.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    John Brookes: #72

    The CIA, apparently, once had a project where they looked at why empires fell. Maybe it was when they became too scared to do what intelligent people knew needed to be done.

    Having had some experience in this area, I would be interested in knowing when the project took place, who the participants were, and which empires they reviewed. Do you have some references I could look at?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    BobC: #77

    This is the same CIA, after all, that — just months before the USSR fell — predicted that it was as strong as ever and in no danger of collapse in the forseeable future.

    This was not the message that the Agency was getting from their NATO “Allies”, but still they would not believe the evidence.

    Which actually goes to show that even people who are trained to be cynical and sceptical will stick to a well established party line, especially if their superiors still hold to the old paradigm. Of course, as soon as the President changes his mind, the rest of the hierarchy does as well, and they all try to claim credit for providing “the analysis and advice”.

    Ah! The bureaucracy bird, ’tis a wondrous beastie.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    For those who wish to do some writing, the Department of Climate Change is requesting written submissions “from interested stakeholders and members of the public on the proposed architecture and implementation arrangements for a carbon pricing mechanism.”

    Due date is 10 May.

    Link here.

    Perhaps something like:

    Proposed Architecture: Closure of the Department of Climate Change; redundancy or transfer to productive positions of all employees.
    Implementation Arrangements: None. Cease all work on development of the carbon price and ETS.
    Carbon Price Mechanism: Carefully set the carbon price to exactly zero and repeal the mandated 20% renewable energy legislation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    If Lewandowski has the facts, why resort to such smears?

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

    Here is his email contact so that you can tell him how ANGRY you are with this global warming FRAUD!!

    lewan@psy.uwa.edu.au


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    ANGRY

    yeah!

    Right on man!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bruce of Newcastle: #98

    I think your suggestion, although excellent, will prove to be too hard to implement.

    Bureaucrats cannot be expected to manage to an absolute number. So I suggest softening the targets somewhat.

    Lets set the Carbon Price Mechanism to zero, plus or minus 20%. That should be more attainable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Subject: GetUp exposed: George Soros’ tentacles reach into Australia

    The left-wing activist group, GetUp claims it is “an independent grass-roots community advocacy organisation.”

    GetUp’s founders David Madden and Jeremey Heimans are heavily involved in a number of similar US and global left-wing activist groups, each of which is tied to the shadowy billionaire, George Soros.

    GetUp was inspired by, and modelled on similar US groups, such as MoveOn.org and Win Back Respect. Madden and Heniman were co-founders of Win Back Respect. According to public records published on CampaignDonations.com, when they were drawing expenses from the group in 2004, the major donor that year, with a contribution of $150,000 was George Soros.

    Madden and Heimans are also involved with another Soros-financed left-wing activist group, MoveOn.org. Public records reveal that between January 2003 and December 2004, Soros contributed $2,500,999 to MoveOn.org.

    Madden and Heimans are co-founders of the global activist group, Avaaz.org, an organization that the Canadian Minister John Baird in 2008 labelled as “shadowy foreign organization tied to billionaire activist George Soros.”

    Madden and Heimans can hardly claim that GetUp is non-partisan when its original board members included Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten, Australian Fabian Society secretary Evan Thornley, green activist Cate Faehrmann, and left-wing trade union researcher and “community organiser” Amanda Tattersall. The largest donor to GetUp in 2010 with a donation of $1.1 million is the CFMEU.

    GetUp’s benefactor, George Soros is clearly partisan. Of the $3.5 million in recent campaign donations made by Soros, 99.84% was donated to Democrat candidates and organisations.

    The $3.5 million is just the amount declared as political donations. Soros has poured untold millions into numerous political, activist and media front groups. In 1973 in an attempt to defeat George Bush at the forthcoming election, Soros gathered a group of left-wing activists and Democrats at his mansion and helped found, with a donation of $10 million, America Coming Together (ACT), a grassroots activist group designed to co-ordinate all his other front groups.

    When the US brought in laws limiting political donations, Soros used his considerable clout to circumvent the laws by inspiring new legislation allowing the so-called “527” organisations to raise funds without breaching the laws. Hence the myriad of Soros activist groups can raise funds without limitation on the basis that they are not political groups. So while they may not donate to political parties they can run very effective advertising campaigns and stunts that clearly target one party and favour another.

    It is clear that GetUp follows the Soros model in Australia. It is set up as a “non-partisan” activist group to harvest donations that are exempt from Australia’s political donations laws. The corporate entity, Getup Limited does not appear on the Australian Electoral Commission’s list of “associated entities”, even though it claims on its website that is legally obliged to disclose donations over $11,200 to the AEC.

    The group utilises the funds together with the energy of its well-meaning activist members to target the conservative parties with stunts and advertising campaigns whilst pushing left-wing agendas such as global warming scaemongering, the carbon tax, same- sex marriage and the release of illegal refugees from detention.

    http://www.australian-news.com.au/Soros/GetUp_exposed.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Panasonic Professor Flannery has flag lowered

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

    It is interesting that Panasonic has announced that it is cutting 17,000 jobs worldwide…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    nnNomnom

    The conspiracy theories in various countries do differ though.

    For example in the West the conspiracy theory is that global warming is just a socialist tax grab for wealth redistribution.

    In the East a contradictory conspiracy theory exists – that global warming is an imperial plot by the west to prevent their carbon based economies growing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    nnNomnom, who is talking conspiracy here? Or did you just say that to denigrate the site?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    105; both are correct but neither are conspiracies since neither are being done surrepstitiously; the UN is completely open about its intentions to reduce the living standards in the West by redistributing the West’s wealth to the the 3rd world; China, India and the like are also quite open about this plan which will benefit them but they want to make sure the UN idiots don’t take away the cheap energy sources.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bruce @ #98

    The anti-dismissal regulations etc make it next to impossible implement. These have to be repealed first.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Louis Hissink: The anti-dismissal regulations etc make it next to impossible implement.

    Natural law cannot be amended or modified. However, they can be misunderstood, distorted, or misapplied. Human law starts out that way even though it can be amended, modified, or repealed without end. The goal of the anti-dismissal regulations is to convert human law so that it has the same absolute power as natural law. It fails but failure never stopped a politician’s attempt to grab more power and control over others.

    To outlaw carbon is to outlaw life itself!


    Report this

    00