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



Canada – $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree!

I thought the Canadians had gotten over this type of insanity. Environment Canada apparently wants to cut the coal industry in half. (At least that’s as much as they’ll admit too. Presumably they’d feel like they’d completed their life’s work if they could only wipe it out completely.)

Christopher Monckton has analyzed the Canadian regulatory action on “Coal Emissions” and finds that, as usual, legislators are choosing the most expensive option possible with other people’s money. Environment Canada wants to spend $6 billion to reduce the atmospheric concentration of a trace molecule by 0.01 ppmv, and assuming there is any advantage in doing so, it would still cost one-eighteenth as much to just do nothing, suck it and see, and pay for all the theoretical damage that could ensue.

Like so many other Western Nations, there is not even the pretense that the legislation makes sense judged by any numerical outcome, yet Canadian citizens may have to pay thousands in tithe to witchdoctors and carpetbaggers in a futile attempt to change the weather. It’s as if the highest echelons of  Western leadership are stone-age innumerate.

As per usual with these type of posts, I expect no real challenge to Monckton’s figures. Environment Canada are not going to pop up and announce a specific accurate target — not in dollars, ppmv, °C or Watts per metre. The fans of these symbolic feel-good policies will respond with overwhelming silence. I mean, the numbers are so damningly small that even if they found an order of magnitude in a correction (“oh look, now that’s 0.007 °C!”), the policy still doesn’t make any sense.

I used to be reluctant to publish these type of figures, they just seem so incredibly small and too-hard-to-believe. But now we know, it really is that stupid.

If there is any consolation for Canadians, it’s that schadenfreude sense that at least things are more stupid in Australia.

– Jo

 


Canadian Coal Regulations, Monckton analysis PDF

Guest Post by Christopher Monckton

Why the regulations would not work

The reasons why abandonment of the regulations is recommended. At the minimum market discount rate of 5%, it would be almost 18 times costlier to implement the regulations than it is to meet the cost of climate-related damage that may arise from taking no action to control CO2 emissions at all.

Table O ………………………… Parameter

Value

Total cost of the regulations at present value:

$6.4 bn

 

Fraction of global CO2 emissions abated:

0.03%

 

Business-as-usual CO2 concentration in 2030… and after the full effect of the regulations

437.676 ppmv

 

437.665 ppmv

CO2 radiative forcing abated 2015-2030:

0.00013 W m–2

 

Global warming prevented 2015-2030:

00007 C°

 

Mitigation cost-effectiveness:

$84 tr/C°

 

Cash Global abatement cost:

Cash

Per capita

As % GDP

 

$29.4 tr

$4000/head

3.89% GDP

 

 

Cost of damage arising from climate inaction

0.22% GDP

 

Action-inaction ratio: the multiple by which the cost of action exceeds the cost of inaction

(3% disc.) 7.6

(5% disc.) 17.6

 

 

 

The reasons why abandonment of the regulations is recommended. At the minimum market discount rate of 5%, it would be almost 18 times costlier to implement the regulations than it is to meet the cost of climate-related damage that may arise from taking no action to control CO2 emissions at all.

Summary

  • The cost of abating global warming as cost-ineffectively as the regulations would be 8 to 18 times the cost of damage from inaction.
  • The present value of the global cost of climate-related damage arising from failure to act on CO2 emissions is little more than 0.2% of global GDP.
  •  f the proposed regulations were brought into full effect, only 0.03% of global CO2 emissions would be abated over the 16-year term of the regulations.
  • CO2 concentration, projected at 389.2 ppmv in 2014, would rise to 437.676 ppmv by 2030 without the regulations, and to 437.664 ppmv with them.
  • 16 years of regulation would abate only 0.012 ppmv of CO2 concentration, representing just 0.002% of the projected CO2 concentration in 2030.
  • The regulations would abate 0.00015 W m–2 of CO2 forcing & 0.00007 C° of global warming – a little above 1/14,000 C°, or less than 1/700 of the threshold below which no change in global temperature can be detected.
  • Warming abated would be 0.03% of the projected 0.25 C° warming to 2030.
  • The CO2-mitigation cost-effectiveness of the regulations, expressed in dollars per C° of global warming abated, would be $92 trillion/C°.
  • The global cost of abating all of the 0.25 C° warming projected from 2015-2030 by methods of equivalent cost-effectiveness would be $29.4 trillion.
  • This global abatement cost would represent $4200 per capita of global population, or 3.9% of global GDP over the 16-year regulatory period.
  • For many reasons, it is very likely that the above figures make the proposed regulations seem very much more cost-effective than they are.
  • The regulatory impact statement is silent on the CO2 concentration, CO2 radiative forcing and global warming the regulations are expected to abate.
  • Environment Canada’s use of “the social cost of carbon [dioxide]” rather than of a scientific measure of the cost of climate inaction is inappropriate.
  • The “social cost of CO2” is an inappropriate metric, in that its fixed price fails to represent the logarithmic decline in CO2 forcing as concentration rises.
  • Environment Canada uses a 3% pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate for costing the regulations, but the minimum market discount rate is 5%.
  • The low discount rate unduly favours action over inaction, yet it would still be many times as costly to implement the regulations as to do nothing.
  • Environment Canada has not made explicit its discount rate for the cost of inaction, which appears to be different from its rate for the cost of action.
  • The cash “benefits” of the regulations are wrongly calculated and exaggerated.

Since the cost of taking action under the regulations exceeds that of inaction 8 to 18 times over, the regulations should be abandoned.


The questions Environment Canada should have asked

The regulatory impact statement that prefaces the Canadian Government’s proposed regulations on Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity (Environment Canada, 2011) suggests cutting Canada’s coal-generation industry by more than half.

Before so grave an assault on one of Canada’s major industries could be justified, many serious questions should have been asked and answered. Environment Canada did not ask them, still less answer them.

1. How much global warming would the proposed regulations abate?
2. How cost-effective would the regulations be in abating CO2-driven global warming?
3. How would the cost-effectiveness of the regulations compare with that of other CO2-mitigation schemes worldwide?
4. What would be the worldwide cost of abating all global warming projected to occur over the lifetime of the regulations?
5. What is the cost of the climate-related damage that might arise if no mitigation were attempted?
6. Would it be more cost-effective to take no mitigation action at all?
7. Are the IPCC’s global-warming projections proving accurate?
8. Is the scientific and economic analysis in Environment Canada’s regulatory impact statement fit for its purpose?
9. Should these or any CO2-mitigation regulations be implemented?

It is striking that Environment Canada did not ask these questions. They must now be asked. It is the purpose of this paper to ask them, and to answer them as objectively and as accurately as possible.

To many, the conclusions in this paper may seem startling, even incredible. Accordingly, a full Technical Annex explains the derivation of every result in enough detail to allow independent verification, and refers to the sources.

Though the methodology deployed here is simple, it is not simpliste. It is certainly more sophisticated than that of Environment Canada. It is designed to allow non-specialist policy-makers rapidly but reliably to appraise this or other existing or proposed strategies to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: Regulation without Reason (PDF File 30p).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.3/10 (42 votes cast)
Canada - $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree!, 8.3 out of 10 based on 42 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3p9wlky

169 comments to Canada – $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree!

  • #
    Pita

    It’s not the climate, it’s never been about the climate, it’s the opportunity to gather revenue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    klem

    I live in Canada and I cannot beleive that we plan to spend the much money closing coal power plants. I understand that it can be construed to be part of some stimulus package, but I beleive there are much better ways to spend $6 B’s in this country. I will email my representative about this, perhaps he can influence the department of the environment. Where I live we have chronic high unemployment and they are trying to re-open a very large coal mine, this would put all of those miners out of work before they even get hired. Ottawa is always trying to please some other part of our country, we always get kicked around by Ottawa.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Perhaps you Canucks felt bad for the Aussies having to weather both a CO2 tax and a mining tax, and you are meeting us half way. Isn’t that what mates do? At least this way you won’t take all the future mining projects from us … now we will send them to Africa together.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Agreed, and as far as “protecting the environment” goes, just another utterly futile exercise which makes pissing into the wind look like a sensible policy.

      You can reduce some of the emissions all of the time. You can reduce all of the emissions some of the time, but you can’t reduce all of the emissions all of the time.

      As Pita said in #1, it’s just a camouflaged revenue-raiser, attempting to fool all of the people all of the time.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    2SoonOld2LateSmart

    And the province of Alberta alone is committed to a $2 billion Carbon Capture and Storage scheme.

    http://bit.ly/ocf86q


    Report this

    00

    • #
      klem

      Almost every geologist I know says that captured CO2 pumped underground will simply leak to the surface again. And since CO2 is heavier than air it will collect in low lying quiet areas. If you happen to live near one of these carbon capture and storage facilities, just be sure you don’t sleep in the basement of your home, you might not wake up again.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MaryFJohnston

        Reminds me of a disaster in Africa where people suffocated in low lying areas near a lake.

        The lake had large pockets of gas trapped in sediments in its floor and on application of heat from a geologic “event” the gas bubbled up and suffocated people in the immediate vicinity.

        It, of course, dispersed when the sun rose, leaving a mysterious gruop of deaths to be explained.

        It is believed that a biblical precedent exists where the first born of all families would die under a curse.

        The first born did die but probably in similar circumstances to the unlucky African Lake dwellers.

        The first born had privileged sleeping arrangements on the ground floor of houses while everyone else slept up on the roof.

        The curse was probably invented after the fact of course but it sounds good two or three thousand years later.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Two points Klem,

        CO2 is a well mixed gas, repeat after me CO2 is a well mixed gas………..

        Also it has already been tried somewhere in the US, they were getting to the end of an oil reserve so they pumped it full of co2 to store it but also to get the last dregs of oil out.

        They got the last dregs of oil as expected then packed up and went home. No long later the farmer said there are bubbles in the water on his land, sure enough the CO2 was escaping back into the atmosphere.

        The thing as Klem these experts though the geological structure of this oil reserve was perfect for the storage of CO2 but yet it leaked like a sieve.

        CCS is nothing more than a red herring just like wind mills and cheap solar panels from China.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    The final proof that Mankind is the most amazing organism on Earth.

    Years ago I saw the link with the old fairey story of “The Emporer’s New Clothes” and wondered why so many people are unable to break free of the emotional comfort of group think.

    It is a timeless tale and the present situation tells us that it has not been read out loud for a couple of generations.

    We can’t see a scam anymore, reality doesn’t exist anymore, we live in the shadow of pop music and political TV soundbites and truth by consensus.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      I am also reminded of the Ripping Yarn called “The testing of Eric Olthwaite.” He talked incessantly about the weather and bored everyone to tears. At one point his parents pretended to be French just to avoid talking to him.

      In truth this is a tactic used by many bureaucracies, and the UN are the tenth-Dan black belt masters of the technique. They write volumes upon volumes of dense bureaucratise knowing that 99.99999% of people wouldn’t be stupid enough to attempt to ferret out any meaning from the tomes. In this way they sneak in the policies that will ultimately dissemble “dissident”* sovereign nations.

      Of course, if you whisper even a word of this people think you are a conspiracy nut, because they haven’t read the dense tomes either. Don’t forget for a second that the UN reps are mostly retired politicians… they are the past masters of smoke and mirror techniques.

      * Any who do not bow to the authoritarian rule of the unelected UN.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        Bulldust
        Must be something about British comedy that brings out the analytical best in all of us. I well remember the first or second episode of Yes, Minister when Sir Humphrey set about bamboozling Paul Eddington’s minister with 6 ‘Red boxes’ of trivia. Near the bottom of the 6th box was the only piece of relevant policy information for his perusal, which he would inevitably fail to read over and process as a result, and therefore just sign it off because he had been worn down by mindless drivel by that stage- tallies very well with your quote below-

        They write volumes upon volumes of dense bureaucratise knowing that 99.99999% of people wouldn’t be stupid enough to attempt to ferret out any meaning from the tomes. In this way they sneak in the policies that will ultimately dissemble “dissident”* sovereign nations.

        Hidden amongst the laughter is a message for all of us, don’t you think?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Can you fit into the analogy the fact that Eric also collected shovels and became a famous criminal?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Popeye

    YOU BEAUTY!!

    At least we now have another country on the same bus as Australia – you know that bus that is about to drive over a cliff and destroy their economies.

    Nice to know we’re not alone and the rest of the world will soon follow – just like Juliar said “we want to lead the world”.

    The socialists must be having wet dreams – for the rest of us it’s a bloody nightmare that won’t end.

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    Jo, I am currently in Ialy and cannot take the kind of direct action I will when back in Ottawa. But I can assure you that NO Conservative believes this carp.

    This comes from the liberal-created government bureaucracy of Environemnt Canada. I was working on another project in the 1990s with EC and the guy who was EC project manager didn’t give a darn about the final result, he had moved on – he said “it’s all about climate change now”. This whole thing is a fix up by government bureaucrats and NGOs.

    I will contact my conservative party when I get back and make it abundantly clear that it is either EC or me! And I work FOR, not AGAINST, the current government.

    FIRE THEM ALL!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Lawrie

      Robert,

      Will another very cold winter help to change minds? Will early and late frosts shorten the growing season enough to reduce the Canadian wheat crop? The latter could be a fact if David Archibald is correct. Surely such reality should convince even dumb politicians that the world is not heating dangerously but simply wandering within normal parameters. The coming cold will bury the AGW scam aided and abetted by increasing government and national debt.

      Wishful thinking? I hope not.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Suzannah from Canada

    Thanks for this – I will pass it along to MPs!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant Church

    I live in Cayuga, Ontario, Canada, directly downwind from Nanticoke Generating Station, the largest coal-fired station in North America. People move here because the air is so clean.Our provincial government has been on a coal closure plan for several years.Power rates are up at least 30% from 2003-2010, with a further 46% to come by 2015, doubling by 2020. We already have the highest price power for large industrial users. We do a lot of mining, but smelting has largely left the province for the Province of Quebec, where power is less than half the price. It seems like politicians of all stripes are bent on ruining this great country (Conservatives federally and Liberals in Ontario).


    Report this

    00

    • #
      klem

      I live in Nova Scotia and we are already paying 13 cents /kwh for power. It is expected to go up another cent by 2013. Perhaps all provicial governments see increased power rates as a way to generate more tax revenue without raising taxes, they just force power companies to raise the cost of everything.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Twodogs

        What?! Ours are more than double that for peak times! Whether CO2 cause global warming is irrelevant to them. That we be involuntarily frugal with our energy use assuages their guilt, and that’s all that matters to them.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross

    Is it a coincidence that two of the resource rich countries of the world are going down the same track ? It just shows that the bureaucrats that have been insulated from the Global Financial Crisis because of the resources their country is blessed with follow each other like sheep and live in a cacoon not linking with the real world.
    When the inevitable downturn in the rest of the world starts to gather momentum they will come unstuck with their crazy schemes.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MaryFJohnston

      Interesting that the main beneficiary of Australian and Canadian businesses being faced with huge “climate related” cost increases will be Africa.

      Africa is owned by China the main current importer of our raw materials.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] Canada – $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree! Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin Moore

    http://www.tirnasaor.com/08/09/legal-vs-lawful/

    Legal Versus Lawful -

    …..There are only three basic LAWS we could or should be accountable for :

    1) Injury to person (covers murder, assault, rape, slander, libel defaming ones name etc. etc)
    2) Injury to property (includes physical property, intellectual property, income, loss of revenue etc.)
    3) Mischief (fraud) in our contracts verbal or otherwise: (Speaks for itself)

    All others (statutes, and by laws) do not apply to us (such as accidentally running a stop sign at 3:00am with no resulting injured party). Statutes are for those in commerce. All government, and government departments are “Corporations” Federal, provincial, municipal, example the corporation of the City of Toronto.

    Corporations exist in name only, on paper. You can find the listings of the Corporation of Canada, the Corporation of British Columbia etc. etc. listed on the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) website [As also the Commonwealth of Australia and State Treasuries].

    Humans live in geographical areas like the area known as the Province of British Columbia. Alternatively a human cannot exist within the “Corporation of British Columbia” because it exists in name only. When you get a violation ticket it tells you that you were speeding in British Columbia what they do not tell you is that they are referring to the Corporation of British Columbia, and that difference can be, and is detrimental to you. To research this check out Robert-Arthur: Menard’s video “The Magnificent Deception”

    Summary:

    Three things that influence our lives to a greater extent than all others is, Politics, Law, and Banking (the money system). Yet they are three of the most neglected subjects / topics in our education system. How many students graduating today can recite what their basic rights are? How many can give at least two extracts from the Magna Carta how many could explain the meaning of Habeas Corpus how many people reading this page could explain it?

    It is not my intent to write a book here, only to provide some alternative avenues of thought. Individual research, and verification, is the order of the day. The status quo is based both on our choices, and our ignorance. And as they say “ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law” Taking the time to become informed, and by not being silent is the only way to change the status quo.

    An excellent site to start your research is http://www.natural-person.ca/
    [Above article from: http://www.fortruth.org/legal.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Lawrie #4.1, no cold winter will change their minds. I’m sure the destruction of the wheat crops with an early winter will play into the hands of a pro-AGWer’s media release. “It’s just as predicted.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Now that we have yet one more example of why AGW cannot possibly be about global warming/climate change/[put your favorite name here]. How much longer will it take for everyone to admit that it has been, is now and always will be about power?

    Once that realization sinks in you stand a chance of fighting them. But letters, submissions, convoys, complaining and whining are not going to do any more in the future than they’ve done in the past. It no longer matters what the public thinks about the science. What do they think of becoming serfs in their own country?

    If we aren’t willing to get our hands dirty in this fight then we’ve lost it because our enemy is quite willing to put on brass knuckles while we wear kid gloves. It’s long past a fair fight.

    So the question now is how much of your fortune your lives and your sacred honor are you willing to invest in getting free of this scourge (and yes, that’s from the American Revolution — it still means something)? If you sit home writing letters you’ll lose even what you still have.

    The cost of stopping this will be great but the cost of not stopping it will be even worse. Decide to get your hands dirty and take some risk or lose!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SaskGarry

    I can only hope that the newly elected cons gov’t we just elected here in Canada will take this Environment Canada pulblication & toss it in the garb..er, recycle bin. A small indicator this may happen is the gov’t here has significantly slashed the Environment Canada(EC)budget. Hopefully they’ll cut some of the junk science we’re all familiar with. I’ve been watching with great sadness the circus you good people have been enduring over there & can only say that things will get better. We in Canada on the other hand don’t have it near so bad by having more or less kept our socialists in check. Your BHP is building a huge mine/facility locally but it’s potash so I don’t believe we’ve ‘stolen” any of your industry. Keep up the battle, you will prevail


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Does anyone from Canada know whether that is a maple leaf at 4.1.2 above?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob of Castlemaine

    Discount rates of 3% and 5%? Surely my Lord must realise that conventional economic theory just does not apply to expenditure on “climate change” mitigation matters.

    Clearly in such matters the laws of Morgan le Fay are applicable. Namely discount rates of near zero.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Posted today for Raven .
    Raven has been injured a little while ago and is making a slow recovery , he wishes to apologize for anything unanswered or left undone ? .
    As most would be able to read between the lines I will go no further , except to say we hope he will be back online soon .
    PS I am not sure if this is the place for this comment , please move or remove as required .
    Best wishes and keep up the stirling work .
    Ravens partner


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hawkwood

    Environment Canada is being systematically de-fanged by the federal Conservatives, so I’m not overly concerned yet about this proposition. Bear in mind that electricity production is a provincial matter, so in order to get enact this type of legislation it would require agreement by all 10 provinces. I live close to Nanticoke (Port Colborne) and am concerned about all pollutants that are emitted from that coal burning plant but not CO2.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      klem

      Can you imagine what would happen if a giant catalytic converter were fitted on your power plant? It would clean the air completly, but enviromental lefties would not give a hoot because it is CO2 which is the devil.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    of course it has nothing to do with climate science.
    after listening to ABC Radio National’s “Australia (CAGW believers) Talks”, i’m convinced the ABC is in the hands of high-school students. the lies told in this program must be heard and countered somehow. this is the most shockingly naive radio program evah.

    the Australian economy is now in the hands of lunatics. on certain issues, such as reduction of CO2, guests explain rightly, some of these aims are bipartisan (backed by the Coalition from way back), so only total public outrage and a warning to the Coalition that it must drop all support for the pretense of CO2 reductions and the ETS, if it wishes to become the next Govt.

    Note: no Business spokesperson or economist as guests, a host who can’t answer questions from the public cos they’re “a bit tricky”, who doesn’t even refer public comments to his guests (e.g. why are we still selling coal to China?, will partial pensioners receive the full compo? etc).

    18 Oct: ABC Radio National: Australia Talks: CARBON PRICING
    What does it mean for the economy, business and consumers? And will it survive the next election, given Tony Abbott’s “pledge in blood” to repeal it?
    GUESTS
    Martijn Wilder
    Partner, Baker & McKenzie
    Dr Lorraine Stephenson
    Principal Consultant, Lightning Consulting Services
    Giles Parkinson
    Editor, Climate Spectator
    Anna Skarbek
    Executive Director, ClimateWorks Australia
    Host
    Paul Barclay
    Story Researcher and Producer
    Melanie Christiansen
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2011/3339630.htm


    Report this

    00

    • #
      J Knowles

      Pat, you say

      why are we still selling coal to China?

      Good point. China’s annual increase in coal burning exceeds Australia’s total domestic consumption. As I understand it, we are not discouraging China and India from burning our coal so this leads me to think that the tax is aimed at the industry and level of development of the user nation.
      At the ABC they must be a bit dopey or conniving in this deception.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    the New Australia, according to ABC:

    Baker & McKenzie: Climate Change
    For more than ten years, our dedicated team of over 60 lawyers have worked on numerous pioneering deals, including writing the first carbon contracts, setting up the first carbon funds and advising on the first structured carbon derivative transactions. We continue to be the adviser of choice on market developments advising on the first REDD project, post-2012 carbon funds and legal regimes around carbon capture and storage. From governments to financial and multilateral institutions — including the World Bank, EU, and UN — we continue to advise the world’s climate change policy and market makers…
    http://www.bakermckenzie.com/climatechange/

    18 Oct:ABC: The World Today: Businesses spooked by Opposition carbon tax pledges
    MARTIJN WILDER (Baker & McKenzie): Should there be an Opposition win the next election, there’s a lot of uncertainty as to what that actually means for the implementation of the scheme going forward…
    ASHLEY HALL: And in fact, Martijn Wilder says businesses who pay attention to the Coalition’s tactics are likely to suffer a financial cost.
    MARTIJN WILDER: If people invest early in domestic offsets then there’s ability to get those at a cheaper price. By not encouraging that investment in those domestic permits it means that if people hold off there’ll be a greater demand towards the compliance period and the price will be higher…
    ASHLEY HALL: Gary Cox is responsible for carbon trading at the big commodities broking house, ICAP Australia.
    He says a number of companies moved quickly to adopt new strategies in anticipation of the Government’s earlier Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But they’ve learned from that scheme’s collapse…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-18/businesses-spooked-by-opposition-carbon-tax-pledges/3577234?section=business

    Lightning Consulting Services
    Our business is built on 30 years experience in the energy sector and a specific focus on climate change business impacts since 1998…
    Strategic clarity to navigate the complex world of climate change policy and regulations – with 14 years embedded in the Australian debate on how to transition to a lower emissions economy whilst maintaining strong economic growth.
    International insights into carbon markets and greenhouse gas mitigation options – developed through participation in 10 United Nations climate change conferences since 2000, regularly contributing to international dialogues, consulting to global businesses and working with professional colleagues in multiple jurisdictions…
    http://www.lightningconsulting.com.au/

    ANU: Lorraine Stephenson
    Dr Lorraine Stephenson is the Principal Consultant for Lightning Consulting Services, an independent energy and climate change strategic advisory business. Lorraine has over 30 years experience in the energy sector and has worked on climate change policy and strategy issues since 1998. Lorraine has been a regular participant in international climate meetings. Lorraine is a Member of the NSW Climate Change Council, has been an active member of International Emissions Trading Association and the Global CCS Institute, and was invited to several national summits on climate change and broader policy issues…
    http://ccep.anu.edu.au/people/index.php?surname=stephenson

    19 Oct: Hobart Mercury: Nick Clark: Carbon tax blame for smelter
    THE Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has blamed the carbon tax for Rio Tinto’s decision to get rid of its aluminium assets, including the Bell Bay smelter.
    The smelter, which employs about 550 people, will be part of an Australian and New Zealand smelting division to be known as Pacific Aluminium that will be sold.
    Chamber chief executive Robert Wallace said the Australian Government’s clean energy futures scheme imposed immense costs on the Tasmanian economy.
    “The Bell Bay smelter is the single largest consumer of clean hydro power in Tasmania, yet it will be heavily penalised by the carbon tax, along with other costs such as the Renewable Energy Target,” he said.
    “The Tasmanian Government should be under no illusion that the state’s employment base is under attack, despite our clean energy profile.”
    Online commentator Giles Parkinson, of Business Spectator, said the Bell Bay smelter and one at Tiwai Point in New Zealand would close.
    “The hydro-powered Bell Bay smelter goes because it is old and small, as does the Tiwai smelter in New Zealand, but the coal-powered Yarwun stays because its significant co-generation project can reduce emissions,” he said…
    Chamber chief economist Mark Bowles warned that a cut in industrial power consumption after the smelter closed would mean rising electricity prices for households.
    http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/10/19/269911_tasmania-news.html

    17 Oct: Latrobe Valley Express: Jarrod Whittaker: Action plan could save millions
    GIPPSLAND has the potential to save millions of dollars through energy efficiency measures while dramatically reducing its total carbon emissions, a new report has revealed.
    The Low Carbon Growth Plan for Gippsland report identifies almost $100 million in annual savings through energy efficiency measures and, if fully implemented, would lower the region’s carbon footprint 10 per cent below 2000 levels.
    ClimateWorks Australia executive director Anna Skarbek, whose organisation compiled the report, said the savings were assessed by applying technologies available “this decade”…
    http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/news/local/news/general/action-plan-could-save-millions/2327812.aspx

    ABC Paul Barclay
    He followed a well trodden path to radio journalism – a national affairs enthusiast, he completed an arts degree in media studies and politics, worked in community radio, and eventually found himself at the ABC, which now feels like his natural home…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/about/

    the idea this woman researched the program is laughable:

    Melanie Christiansen Twitter page
    http://twitter.com/#!/melchristiansen


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PJB

    About 2 years ago, I contacted EC (Environment Canada) to inquire as to how much tax-payer money was being spent on studies, surveys or other activities related to climate change and the environmental impact of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    I was assured by them that not one cent was allocated to such activities. That was to say, not directly to those activities. (National Research Council and other recipients of Government largesse are not restricted in their expenditures.)
    I will be contacting my MP (sadly, an NDP whose party sides with the Green initiative) to express my displeasure. That the Conservative Party allow such an expenditure amazes me. They even denied the utility of Kyoto II. Should I get a sensible answer, I will provide it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barrone

    Only when they have stripped the world of every last resource will stupid , greedy , brainless humans realize ,,,,, ” You Cannot Eat Money”

    Try telling is braindead Prime Minister


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    OT,

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15199065

    An interesting study that shows the UV from the sun is varying a lot more than first thought and suprisingly this UV may have a connection to our varying climate but never fear it has nothing to do with global warming.

    The researchers emphasise there is no impact on global warming.

    Of course they would know this………………..how? Up until now the IPCC and its discredited band of fraudsters have repeatedly said TSi is the only thing that affects the climate so they would have absolutely no idea what the UV rays effects are as it was never seriously looked at (like most things).

    I realise that these Neanderthals must incorporate such statements to stay in the good books so they can continue to suck on the teat of the AGW band wagon but enough is enough.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Damn! Just when I thought I could escape the madness of the Gillard Government and that Canada might accept me as an ‘anti green AGW refugee’, this insanity arises.

    As the planet enters into a cooling period, watch the greenies and environuts claim credit for halting global warming. It appears the western world can’t live without self flagellation and punishment in the way of a bygone religions. It is up to us to continue to educate others that the UN and our Governments are lying to us. This is not about the planet, it’s a brazen redistribution of wealth. The ‘cure’ is far worse than the disease, especially when the change to the temperature is unmeasurable.

    The billions of dollars being spent on this junk science is an obscenity and future generations will remember this period in history as the Age of Insanity. Unfortunately for Canada, Australia and NZ, the insanity has permeated both sides of the political spectrum. We must be vocal in our opposition to this madness as our apathy is being misrepresented as approval.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    oops…

    19 Oct: ABC: Car catches fire during world solar race
    Organisers of the World Solar Challenge say the Filipino team was stopped at Tennant Creek in the central Northern Territory when their car’s battery blew up.
    No-one was injured but the car was destroyed…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-18/solar-car-explodes/3577708

    17 Oct: Tribune Democrat: Windmills to shut at night following demise of rare bat
    Night operation of the windmills in the North Allegheny Windpower Project has been halted following discovery of a dead Indiana bat under one of the turbines, an official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Monday…
    The find is significant because the Indiana bat is an endangered species and is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act…
    http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x345569257/Windmills-to-shut-at-night-following-demise-of-rare-bat

    2008: New Scientist: Wind turbines make bat lungs explode
    The risk that wind turbines pose to birds is well known and has dogged debates over wind energy. In fact, several studies have suggested the risk to bats is greater. In May 2007, the US National Research Council published the results of a survey of US wind farms showing that two bat species accounted for 60% of winged animals killed…
    In fact, a new study shows that the moving blades cause a drop in pressure that makes the delicate lungs of bats suddenly expand, bursting the tissue’s blood vessels…
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593

    so will the Wind Turbine companies be charged?

    August 2011: AP: Oil companies charged in ND migratory bird deaths
    Seven oil companies have been charged in federal court with killing migratory birds that died after allegedly landing in oil waste pits in western North Dakota.
    The charges involve 28 dead birds that were discovered in oil waste pits between May 6 and June 20. The maximum penalty for each charge under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is six months in prison and a $15,000 fine…
    Court documents show that all seven companies have been previously cited for similar violations…
    http://news.yahoo.com/oil-companies-charged-nd-migratory-bird-deaths-213924170.html

    anyone whose Super Funds are with Fabian’s group needs to remove it asap so it won’t get wasted. that is where the public’s power lies:

    19 Oct: Age: David Wroe: Power bills tipped to lift as tax row rolls on
    Nathan Fabian, chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change, representing super funds and investment managers with more than $600 billion under management, said: ”There are consequences in terms of price impacts in electricity markets. Prices will rise because of uncertainty.”…
    For the first time yesterday, the Coalition vowed to scrap the $10 billion green fund as quickly as possible, arguing that green technology investment should come from the private sector and was no place for government…
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/power-bills-tipped-to-lift-as-tax-row-rolls-on-20111018-1lyrb.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    The Ministry-of-we-know-best (ruling elite and bureaucrats) can smell the money and indeed, the control – to actually pay tax for the gas we exhale because ‘we know it is best’ – for you and for virtually any conceivable reason we might dream up. AGW has become a straw man argument. It hardly matters anymore. Roy Hogue in an earlier post (October 19, 2011 at 8:57 am) gets it about right – “The cost of stopping this will be great but the cost of not stopping it will be even worse. Decide to get your hands dirty and take some risk or lose!”

    I think it predictable that the reality of such impoverishing policies is likely to provoke a range of highly undesirable and socially ‘unintended consequences’ for the orchestrators. The French or American Revolutions spring to mind, though this time energy starvation could be a suitable catalyst.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The Australian has revealed that the Government budgetted for a highly paid spin unit before the CO2 tax was even announced:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/coalition-complains-of-propaganda-unit-set-up-to-sell-labors-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226170412504

    The carbon price implementation team is staffed by five Labor operatives, reporting directly to Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.

    The unit’s senior adviser-level head earns up to $170,000 a year, while its four adviser-level staffers draw salaries of up to $115,000.

    More taxpayers money well spent…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Slightly off topic but Martin Durkin is a great writer and his latest is worth a read

    http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/green-superstate-what-global-warmers-really-want


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    18 Oct: Observer Canada: POINT OF VIEW: Turbines created ill wind for green energy Liberals
    Opponents of industrial wind turbine farms in rural Ontario believe they sent a message to Premier Dalton McGuinty on election day.
    Now, they’re waiting to see if he listened.
    The Liberal leader came within a hair of returning to Queen’s Park with a third straight majority, but fell short thanks to the loss of several rural ridings in which there was vocal opposition to the wind farms promoted by Ontario’s Green Energy Act…
    Grassroots opponents to industrial wind projects who watched massive turbines rise in farm fields around rural Ontario, and didn’t like what they saw, decided to flex their political muscles during the fall election.
    They’ve been getting at least part of the credit for the Liberals loss of several rural seats…
    http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3337855


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    The first rule of scepticism is that if somebody’s been caught telling porkies over and over again, then they should not be regarded as a credible source of opinions.

    Monckton has never been a credible source.

    A credible source on this would be an economist with expertise on Canada.

    What does *The Economist* say about Canada’s carbon taxes?

    http://www.economist.com/node/18989175

    “We have a winner
    British Columbia’s carbon tax woos sceptics”
    ” “The carbon tax has been good for the environment, good for taxpayers and it hasn’t hurt the economy,” says Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.”

    ‘Nuff said, really.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Craig,

      this is an opinion piece with no stated author, a small number of quotes from economists (who, as you say support a different view from this blog) and little in the way of substantiating data. It is no better or more convincing than the rhetoric of his Lordship.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Way to go Craig.

      You are presenting as a “credible source” on a carbon tax, an article by an unknown author, in a magazine sponsored by the Canada Carbon Trust, quoting a professor who specialises in Environmental Law and Policy, who is head of the University of Ottawa’s Environment Institute, and who was one of the instigators for, and authors of, the very same law, which he now proclaims “is a winner”.

      Who’d a thunk?

      Can you spell “biased” Craig?
      Okay, how about “vested interest”?

      No, I didn’t think so.

      I suggest you go back and read the “comments” section of the article (like I did), and find what Canadians ACTUALLY think about this “carbon tax”.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Crakar24

      The first rule of scepticism is that if somebody’s been caught telling porkies over and over again, then they should not be regarded as a credible source of opinions.

      I love the smell of Irony in the morning


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Sorry Craig but i cant help myself

      The first rule of scepticism is that if somebody’s been caught telling porkies over and over again, then they should not be regarded as a credible source of opinions.

      Now read this

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#comment-771315

      How some people can still be sucked in by Al Gore jibberish amazes me.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      This has been done to death. The majority of power in BC comes from Hydro, all built with state money. All carbon-free (forgetting all the co2 created pouring those massive dam walls, mind you)

      Putting a carbon tax on this is like putting a snow tax on the QLD government. Interesting but not much revenue raised or cost impact.

      The BC carbon tax is a ‘winner’ in their eyes because (a) they designed it and (b) it was never going to raise the cost of energy much, as most of the energy was already carbon-dioxide free. What little they have in the province they plan to ditch and buy in from neighbouring provinces and US states. For a professor to say ‘good for taxpayers’ is a complete pile of rubbish. No tax is good for taxpayers.

      As for Moncktons piece – it’s all backed up with calculations and references. Kindly do us the favor and point out where he is wrong or acknowledge you can’t be bothered, but withdraw your statement either way. You can be wrong 100 times in a row, but if you get it right on the 101st attempt, it’s still right. Especially if you provide workings, calculations and references.

      Your type is really quite quaint. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that carbon taxing is an outright scam and a pointless exercise, people like you still pop up to try and say it is a good idea. I can only conclude you will get a direct financial benefit from it. Maybe you’re one of those businesses peddling solar power, maybe you’re a staffer, I don’t know. But a rational taxpayer would never support carbon taxing idiocy on the basis that it will cost a lot and achieve zero.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    they weren’t joking:

    17 Oct: Ninemsn Australia: Camel cull could limit climate change
    Killing feral camels to reduce the amount of methane they emit into the atmosphere provides an exciting opportunity to tackle global warming, the federal climate change department says.
    Private company Northwest Carbon has put forward a proposal that could result in farmers and others paid for culling camels on their land and selling offsets under the federal government’s carbon farming initiative (CFI)…
    But Northwest has developed a methodology for determining the extent of the reduction.
    “Camels like cattle do in fact produce methane as part of their digestive processes,” Ms Thompson told a Senate estimates hearing on Monday.
    “The idea is that one can take action to reduce camel populations off a set baseline and hence create carbon credits as a result of that activity which does benefit the atmosphere.”…
    Any reduction in emissions resulting from a camel cull wouldn’t count towards Australia’s Kyoto targets.
    Northwest notes that its approach to determining the emissions reduction benefit from killing camels is “completely novel”.
    It says the reduction would be based on “the difference between the estimated age of the animal at removal and the predicted average age of natural mortality.”
    Camels would be shot from helicopters or four-wheel drives.
    Alternatively, they could be mustered and killed on site or taken to an abattoir.
    An additional benefit would be that less vegetation was trampled – enabling more carbon to be stored in the land…
    The government’s domestic offsets integrity committee has provided Northwest Carbon with feedback and it’s now up to the company to finalise their methodology.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8361436/camel-cull-could-limit-climate-change


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Pat,

      Where does one start with such a story.

      First thing that springs to mind is if the planet is in such dire need of saving that we have to resort to killing camels then what or why are we even bothering?

      Camels live in the desert so there are no trees to trample, if they lived in the QLD rain forest then he may have a point.

      I noticed he failed to subtract the amount of carbon produced by the 4Wd and or helicopter used to kill the camels and of course the production of a 7.62 mm NATO round will produce some carbon.

      I can see the scam unfold before it has begun:

      There are so many camels (as they breed like rabbits) that they wil never ever be able to be erradicated so we now have a scam that can last forever.

      I remember when i was in the RAAF i should of had two water bottles but i lost one somewhere between Timber Creek and Tindal so my mate in logistics simply ripped the lid off one and now i had two broken water bottles which makes me wonder how many times one camel will turn into.

      Though you cannot blame these guys for trying to scam the scammer can you?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      klem

      In Canada we take alot of heat for the East Coast Seal hunt every year. All we need to do now is tell the greenies that seals produce too much carbon and they’ll be out there with the seal hunters killing them with their bare hands.

      Kill a seal to save the planet. These people will believe anything.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Yes it is a fascinating situation, it reminds me of that quote by some Us soldier in Vietnam when he said “We had to destroy the village to save it”.

        40 ears later we are saying “in order to save the planet we have to kill the camels” WTF then who are we saving the planet for? For the cows? Only a pea brained idiot would swallow this crap. It all gets back to what i have said somewhere else on this thread “Why are we doing this” because if we have to start killing animals then what is the point.

        No we are doing this for a hidden reason but most are stupid to know why they actaully believe this shit which is why you get “lets kill the camels” ideas. The gov has no choice but to play along saying “gee thats a good idea kill the camels”.

        Here is a complete list of introduced animal species in Australia

        Camels
        Rabbits
        Foxes
        Cows
        Sheep
        Donkeys
        pigs (both wild and domestic)
        Buffalo (Asian not American)
        LLama
        Goats
        Cane toads
        Cats
        Dogs (Dingo’s are technically an intrduced species)

        The list goes on, now they all breathe out CO2 and they all shit methane so lets go and kill all of them as well why only camels?

        Once some pea brain comes up with the idea then it will be a good one.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MaryFJohnston

        Not that I want to kill seals but that is the funniest thing on here for a while.

        Blood-spattered Greenies with cudgels.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Hasbeen

      Doesn’t methane break down into CO2, to feed new grass the camels will eat to produce the methane in the first place?

      I wonder what dead camel, & the dead [now it's not eaten by the camels] grass at the end of the season, will produce as they rot?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    19 Oct: Stock&Land: Carbon farming to stay, opposition says
    Yesterday, shadow environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the Coalition’s promise to repeal the carbon price scheme would not affect carbon offsets generated through the recently established Carbon Farming Initiative.
    Under the initiative, landowners are able to generate carbon offsets through revegetation, reforestation and improved tilling practices. It was supported by the Coalition when passed by the Parliament ­earlier this year. The Coalition’s direct action policy relies heavily on abatement generated through improved soil carbon.
    “I said on the floor of the House at the time that the Coalition will continue the carbon farming initiative,” Mr Hunt said. “The Direct Action Plan supports abatement through putting carbon back into soil in what could be a once in a ­generation opportunity to replenish the land.” ..
    http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/carbon-farming-to-stay-opposition-says/2328995.aspx


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    I dont normally post on topic but i thought i might give it a go.

    I think we can all assume that the Monkton figure is pretty well correct i say this because this is a similar piddling amount quoted from our carbon tax legislation.

    Now this begs the question why do we bother? If the legislation has no benefit, in this case reducing GT then why bother?

    Unfortunately whenever this subject is discussed the hardcore believers scurry back under the rocks so i know i wont get an answer but i do believe if they were here they would say “but if everyone did it then we would save the planet” or in this case the camels.

    So ok lets do the math:

    Lets say there are 21 countries (COP15 was it) that must reduce emissions so we simply multiply 21 by lets say 0.0007 and we get 0.0147C, Ok thats not much so we ALL now know that we are not doing this to save the planet because this difference can be measured between 9:00 AM and 9:01 AM.

    So why are we doing this?

    Global Government? I dont think so………..sure there are some like Bob Brown (Hi Bob) who think this may lead into something like that but seriously this is not how you control a planet if you want a lesson on how to control a planet look at Libya.

    So why are we doing this?

    Tax revenue………..yes i can see this maybe an enticement for some but still there are better ways to increase the coffers, no need to do it in such a way that you commit electoral suicide.

    So why are we doing this?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      To kill people.

      A LOT of people, particularly in the NH as it turns colder.

      What’s happening down here and in Canada is to ensure we can offer as little help as possible when the dying starts in earnest.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Here’s the answer …

      Head of IPCC, Mr Pachauri: “I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible form the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.”

      The actions of Juliar et al are to ensure that they have elite jobs at the UN when this comes to pass. Helen Clarke ex NZ PM is a good example of moving on to socialist Greener UN pastures.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        I know we are not doing this to save the planet, if so then we would ban coal exports, we would produce policy that actually achieved what it was intended to do.

        The emphasis seems to be more on a “clean energy future”, is this the real goal or is this just a red herring? I suggest a red herring because if the world must act and we are leading the way then why do we act as China’s enabler by continuing to sell coal to them?

        So its not about saving the planet, its not about a clean energy future, so why are we doing this?

        I believe the key lies in not what pollies tell you but what they dont, which part of the tax/ets legislation have they not talked about?

        Well as far as i can tell they have told us we will reduce our emissions by 80% come 2050 however this is a lie we will reduce our emissions by 2% the other 78% comes from carbon offsets. The cost of these offsets is at least 650 billion (in todays dollars).

        This is the bit they dont tell you about, so this is the lie, why do we NEED to send 650 billion OS by 2050?

        What does this 650 Billion buy us?

        Is it a down payment, is it a show of faith that we are in this (whatever this is ) for the long haul?

        What happens if we choose not to participate?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Madjak

    A few billion here, a few trillion there, you’re so petty.

    The canadian and australian economies must be bankrupted like the other western countries have done to themselves.

    After all, who would want the canadians and the aussies having a better quality of life than everyone else?

    We’ll teach them to actually pay down their debts during the good times.

    You cheeky buggers almost got away with it – responsible fiscal policies ( pre 2007). Now we can’t let them get away with it now can we?

    Yours,
    The E.U. division of G.S.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    The trouble with planned economies is they invariably fail. Economists generally seem to be people who presume to know what certain actions will result in. Like with soothsayers, they never seem to learn & we never seem to learn, when things turn out differently. Then they all become experts in hindsight.

    There seem to be very few policymakers who have much grasp on economic reality. They are mostly comfortably off enough to survive very well while the rest of us bear the cost of indulging their economic fantasies.

    Families, &housewives generally have a lot more economic sense than our economists & politicians because, they have to to survive.

    I have a lot more confidence in Monckton’s figures than in the pronouncements of some conventionally trained economist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Don’t you just love that “science is settled” mentality?

    NASA and our scientists were too lazy to measure the latitudes of our planets rotation and calculate out what are the speeds at each point.
    I just finished this from the pole to the equator and to the pole. Very interesting speed changes that decrease fairly quickly as you reach the poles. The poles rotation is at 150km/hr while the equator is at 1653.6km/hr.
    Could not find any formula to help with this, so I had to measure out this planet manually and calculate out the speed to distance in the 24 hour period.

    Strikes me as extremely silly to have a simple single formula for a planet with changing speeds in every region.

    As for publishing, when you get stung, do you go back to be stung again?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      That calculation is not that hard is it Joe?

      You’d be needing to know the angular speed of the earth’s rotation, and the radius of the earth. Then you could get a nice little formula which would give you the speed of any point on the earth’s surface – it should depend only on latitude.

      If you wanted to go into more detail, you could allow for altitude and that the earth is not a perfect sphere, but those would be very minor corrections.

      One fascinating thing about the earth’s rotation is that the rate of rotation is nowadays measured very accurately, and has some systematic seasonal variations – absolutely tiny of course. Now if ice is vanishing from the poles and is helping raise sea levels, it should slow the earth’s rotation very slightly. No real sign of this yet – makings of a “skeptical” article there….


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        John,

        That does not quite work as the planet is not a perfect sphere.
        What I had to do was to measure EVERY 5 degree latitude distance to come up with the measurement of circumference and with the simple division of 24 hours, came up with the speed of rotation per hour.
        The speed drastically drops off closer to the poles and is more close between around the equator.

        And thanks, your the only person to ask.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bulldust

          There’s a lot of factors affecting the earth’s rotational speed, and the following are a couple of the smaller ones as examples:

          1) seismic activity – I heard it quoted the other day that the Indonesian quake a few years ago dropped or added a couple microseconds to the earth year.
          2) Change in mass distribution around the planet – e.g. man made change through massive dams, or the slower tectonic changes.

          Geologists tell us the number of days has changed over geologic time, with a decreasing number of days per year, so all in all the forces affecting the earth’s rotational speed are gradually causing it to slow down.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Joe Lalonde

            Bulldust,

            Many, many times I hear that the MODELS by scientists say that the planet has shifted it’s axis and NOT the actual measurements.
            Pretty hard for a small,hard shell of surface crust to shift the magma mantel to the planets core.
            Now if they said a possible shift of the surface crust with actual measurements backing this up, then I can accept this but I’m NOT an idiot to follow strictly with models.
            The physics of motion is settled by scientists even when they NEVER measured the planet surface to find it all moves at different speeds. Yet we have all these theories that are absolute and should NEVER be questioned.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          MaryFJohnston

          Jo I had thought of this but am happy to note you did take hemispheric differences into account.

          Good stuff.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Numberwang

    I also live in Canada. I’m not sure about the division of powers in the Australian Constitution, but in Canada the provinces usually have a dummy-spit whenever they think the federal government is encroaching on their territory. Each province has its own environmental regulations, and resources (including coal) are a provincial, not federal responsibility. I predict a major fight from the coal-producing provinces if this comes to fruition. On the other hand, China will gladly buy all of the coal (and oil) we can sell them while we freeze in our solar and wind-powered log cabins in a -25 C winter.

    Canada is really something of a joke with its interprovincial rivalries and trade barriers. Here in Ontario, the government is pushing a major de-industrialization program by shutting fossil fuel power stations and massively subsidizing wind and solar through feed-in tarrifs(correction – we are through our rates). Maenwhile, next door, Quebec is earning buckets of money every year selling surplus hydroelectric generation to the northeastern U.S. Ontario could close all of its fossil fuel power stations, scrap the so-called green energy program and buy cheap hydro from Quebec for a fraction of the cost, but palm trees will grow in Ottawa before that will happen.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      I feel your pain!
      I too live in Ontario.
      Been bugging our provincial and federal government for the last 10 years on technology shelved due to the massive hoops you have to go through for assistance in bringing new technology to market. In this day and age, you cannot do it on your own.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    It’s like a disease, isn’t it… and they’ve caught man-made global warming fever!

    Sadly, we already know what it is all about. It is not about science or climate change. It is the new way of extracting billions of dollars from taxpayers to achieve the UN’s plan of redistributing the wealth of the rich nations to the poor nations via the Green Fund.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    This one is priceless… windmills in Pennsylvania appear to have killed one endangered bat and can now only be run during the day:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/holy-irony-batman/

    So save the planet … kill a bat … oh wait, the other way around … arrrggghh

    We need to genetically alter the feral camels so they can fly, so they naturally get culled by the windmills. Yes, by golly, I think I have the solution!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Oh my the news is full of funnies today … over at the Australian the head of the ABC is patting his organisation on the back for being pluralist:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/as-easy-as-abc-to-be-partisan/story-e6frg6zo-1226171071996

    There’s no delusion like self-delusion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin Moore

    “It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did,I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm [and clamourous to be led to safety] by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins,all of them imaginary.” – H.L.Mencken


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      The issue with having a real problem to deal with is that a solution can be derived that eliminates the problem.

      But once the problem has been eliminated what do you do with the agencies that were created to address it, the groups that were funded to study it, the industries created to profit from protecting you from it?

      Much easier (and far more lucrative) to deal with an imaginary problem as the solutions will never eliminate the problem (since it never existed to begin with) and thus the agencies can continue sucking money from the taxpayers, the study groups can continue getting their grants, and the industries can continue getting their subsidies and other revenue.

      It is after all how we got Anthropogenic Global Warming (or whatever the hell it is they call it now as they have to keep changing the name and supposed cause and effect each time it becomes apparent it was never a problem to begin with).

      Climate does change, always has and always will until there is no climate to change. A stable climate with predictable changes only exists indoors, and then only if you have reliable power.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Even Dr Judith Curry, ex warmista now luke warm, is of the opinion that the IPCC needs to be shut down.

      “I have to say that I hope that this book [Donna Laframboise's “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert: An Expose of the IPCC.]) leads to the discontinuation of the IPCC after the AR5 report (which is already well underway, and is arguably sufficiently tarnished that it is likely to have much less influence than previous reports.)
      .
      My personal reaction as a scientist is to be very thankful that I am not involved in the IPCC. I already feel duped by the IPCC (I’ve written about this previously), I am glad that I was not personally used by the IPCC.”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Neville

    JB here is your hero Gore and another fake recent experiment. Will these fraudsters and hoaxers never give up with their delusional nonsense?

    Please check out this ultimate co2 experiment and explain why Gore and his team need to cheat to get his 2C increase in the extra co2 jar?

    What a disgusting and expensive con we’ve all been subjected too and silly, gullible JB etc have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#more-49446


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Mr Combet has gone full stupid. Again. Here is a headline in Fairfax owned Newcastle Herald this morning:

    Rising threat: higher seas could swamp coal-loaders

    THE Hunter’s multibillion-dollar coal export infrastructure has been identified as at risk from rising sea levels, a climate change report has found. … The region’s coastal retiree and housing department communities are the groups said to be most exposed to rising sea levels. Climate Change Minister and Member for Charlton Greg Combet will present the report’s findings to a meeting of local and state government representatives in Newcastle today.

    Now last I looked the IPCC median sea level rise estimate by 2100 (A1B) was a glorious 35 cm or so. And global sea level has actually fallen about a centimetre in the last 18 months – something the IPCC has not felt need to explain.

    So lets assume the IPCC median estimate is right. How hard is it to jack up a handful of coal loaders by a foot in 89 years? Will there be any coal in 2100 to load? Could it be that Holland is not actually below sea level and the dykes are imaginary? A whole 35cm, such a disaster!

    Note the heart strings bit to stir up retirees and housing commission renters. Mr Combet and his department are disgusting.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MaryFJohnston

      Nils Axel Morner has estimated about 100 mm rise by centuries end.

      Even at the nominal maximum rate of 3mm per annum we can expect a further 270mm by 2100.

      By 2100 I’ll be dead but have no worries that the present safety margin at the coal loaders will be breached.

      Last time I drove past they were bone dry.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        “Maximum rate of 3mm per year”? Who says its the maximum? I think most people who actually try to make a prediction based on anything other than wishful thinking expect the rate to increase above 3mm/year.


        Report this

        00

        • #
        • #
          MaryFJohnston

          John

          Reality check.

          John ALL the available ice has melted – it’s gone John.

          IF oceans keep rising, and there is no guarantee of continued rise, the rate of sea level rise will be nowhere near the big melt which averaged 14 mm per year for 8,000 years John 8,000 years.

          Since the 1.5 kilometer thick ice-field that once covered New York’s Central park is GONE, 3mm per year is all that is left at the most.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Crakar24

            SL went down this year, their latest excuse for why they got it wrong was that it has rained sooooooooooooo much that all the water is still on land.

            But wait there’s more

            Once all that rain meanders its way down to the coast and into the ocean sea level rise will once again (just like AGW) be back with a vengeance.

            JB do you actually believe this stuff or do you just hold out hope that they are right?


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Mr Combet and his department are disgusting.

      Either Mr Combet and his department are not paying attention to what is actually happening in, like, the real world; which would imply that they are incompetent.

      Or Mr Combet and his department are fully aware of what is actually happening in, like, the real world; which would imply that they are duplicitous and acting fraudulently.

      Either way, they should resign en masse, or face a Royal Commission charged with investigating the misuse of public monies.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Reality check – sea level at Newcastle is falling – current trend is -1.75 mm/year between 1999 and end 2010 (latest BOM data). Nearest gauge to the south is Sydney (Fort Denison) – no trend since 1999, level is static.

      If anyone’s interested, I’m putting together an analysis of both long-term and recent trends around Australia, to be completed soon.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    19 Oct: Calgary Herald: Brian Burton: Alberta needs others to follow
    The problem is, Alberta’s current $15-per-tonne charge on industrial carbon emissions isn’t enough of an incentive for energy companies to invest in CCS projects, says Bob Savage, director of Alberta’s Climate Change Secretariat. It’s currently far cheaper for companies to pay the carbon charge than to build billion-dollar-plus CCS projects. Raising the levy in Alberta isn’t a practical option, Savage says.
    With no similar charges anywhere in North America, a higher levy here would simply drive industrial investment out of the province, he says…
    By 2050, the strategy calls for 24 million tonnes of reductions to come from conservation and energy efficiency, 37 million tonnes from alternative energy development and fully 139 million tonnes of reductions from the implementation of CCS technologies by industry…
    Meanwhile, Alberta has proceeded on its own, calling for CCS project proposals and selecting four projects that will receive a total $2 billion in public funding over 15 years…
    Eric Beynon is director of strategy and policy for ICO2N, the Integrated CO2 Network, an association of Canadian companies devoted to promoting carbon capture and storage. He says governments continue to work on climate change policy in both Canada and the U.S. and his message to lawmakers is that “CCS has to be a core principle” in those policies…
    This means in a carbon-tax scenario, companies would pay reduced amounts as a result of achieving CO2 reductions through CCS. In a cap and trade environment, CCS reductions would have to be given a tradable value…
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Alberta+needs+others+follow/5563307/story.html

    not all projects “scrapped”, however:

    19 Oct: WUWT: Carbon capture scrapped in the UK, “…descended into farce”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/19/carbon-capture-scrapped-in-the-uk-descended-into-farce/

    CAGW deaths increasing:

    19 Oct: BBC: Rising energy bills causing fuel poverty deaths
    Thousands of people die each year from illnesses linked to fuel poverty, according to an independent report.
    Professor John Hills has called for a new definition of the problem, which focuses on people with low incomes driven into poverty by high fuel bills.
    His report found that in 2004, fuel-poor households faced a shortfall of £256 to heat their homes and avoid poverty, but in 2009 it was £402.
    Recent bill increases may make the problem worse this year, he warned…
    His report is the first to measure the shortfall that some households face in heating their homes, which he calls the fuel poverty gap…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15359312

    of course our Govt’s compo to, pensioners, etc., will not take into account the massive increases in electricity and water bills that have ALREADY resulted from CAGW policy directives…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    20 Oct: Northwest Star: Unlocking carbon potential on leasehold land
    NORTH West graziers could benefit from laws passed in State Parliament last week to give them rights over carbon stored in vegetation on leasehold land.
    Until now, the Queensland Government held the rights to carbon on the 63 per cent of Queensland classified as leasehold land, effectively precluding Queensland graziers from benefiting from the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI).
    Under the CFI, graziers would be able to sell “carbon credits” to polluters looking to offset their emissions…
    AgForce policy director Drew Wagner said he welcomed the move by the State Government but remained sceptical of the benefits of the scheme.
    “There is still a long way to go until producers can actually sell carbon credits from stored vegetation into trading schemes,” he said.
    Only two months out from the scheme’s December start date, producers are still in the dark about its details.
    Mr Wagner said the Federal Government was sending inconsistent messages to producers about the future of their industry.
    “On the one hand they’re telling us to lock up country as carbon sinks, and on the other they have policies committing farmers to double food production in the next 30 years,” he said.
    http://www.northweststar.com.au/news/local/news/general/unlocking-carbon-potential-on-leasehold-land/2330205.aspx

    who needs food anyway!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    29 Oct: WSJ: Daniel Michaels: European Airlines to Press EU on Emission Permits
    European airline chiefs intend to press Jose Manuel Barroso, head of the European Union’s executive arm, Thursday on how the bloc will react to growing international opposition to its inclusion of airlines in its emissions-control program.
    Beginning Jan. 1, all carriers with operations to or from EU airports must hold permits to emit carbon dioxide as part of the EU’s existing Emissions Trading System. Many governments and airlines outside the EU say Brussels is overstepping European sovereignty. Earlier this week, 26 non-EU countries, including the U.S., China, Russia and Japan, filed a paper with the United Nations’ aviation agency challenging the European program. The move followed recent public and private statements of opposition by individual governments…

    High among them will be their concern that European carriers will end up as victims in possible trade wars between the EU and other countries.
    “We want to understand what he will do to protect EU airlines in the event of retaliation and to ensure European airlines are not damaged,” said Willie Walsh, chief executive of International Consolidated Airlines Group SA, the parent company of British Airways and Spain’s Iberia…

    European airline executives have been particularly upset by comments from Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate commissioner, that the emissions plan could be a financial windfall for carriers. Ms. Hedegaard said last month that carbon credits being granted to carriers under the plan represent roughly €20 billion ($27.46 billion) in financial securities that the carriers could sell to finance purchases of new aircraft.
    For any emissions above those covered by the granted permits, airlines will need to buy permits on existing markets. The AEA and other airline associations estimate the permits will cost carriers more than €17 billion through 2020.
    “The idea that a cost to the industry can be translated into a revenue opportunity is bizarre,” said Mr. Walsh. “It shows the commission is out of touch with the reality of how the airline industry operates.”
    Mr. Walsh said airlines will struggle to recover their costs for carbon permits as they are already unable to pass through to passengers all the burden of rising fuel prices…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203752604576641130302737652.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Pat,

      You do a great job with this voluntary reporting job of yours.

      I do not need to read any other blogs or papers online, I just wait for you to put it up on Jo’s site !!

      Your Post earlier stating ; “Yesterday, shadow environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the Coalition’s promise to repeal the carbon price scheme would not affect carbon offsets generated through the recently established Carbon Farming Initiative.”

      This has gone under the radar and needs to be explored.

      Let’s hope they don’t continue with the bullshit !!

      I expect Barnaby Joyce to instigate a Royal Commision into the scam when they win power.

      After the findings of that, I expect Carbon Farming initiatives will be a thing of the past!!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] Canada – $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree! – I thought the Canadians had gotten over this type of insanity. Environment Canada apparently wants to cut the coal industry in half. (At least that’s as much as they’ll admit too. Presumably they’d feel like they’d completed their life’s work if they could only wipe it out completely.) (Jo Nova) [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin Moore

    The expectation in these taxing times is that human resources will suffer collateral damage in more ways than one.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The insanity rolls on: I thought the Canadians had gotten over this type of insanity. Environment Canada apparently wants to cut the coal industry in half. (At least that’s as much as they’ll admit too. Presumably they’d feel like they’d completed their life’s work if they could only wipe it out completely.) [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oh Canada, my neighbor to the north, I used to think you were pretty smart. Now I marvel because if you don’t use your own coal, you’re going to have to buy electricity from US (or at least have less to sell to US. What with our own EPA forcing US power generators off-line, you are going to drive the cost of our (my) electricity up.

    Thanks…….NOT!

    PS, since the US dollar is now at virtual par with the Canadian dollar, and since you now require a passport to enter Canada, I’ll not be spending any more on trips to Canada. (A payback for raising my expenses)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Speaking of billions in banker largesse, we have to hand it to Clark and Dawes for being occasionally relevant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    Well you’ve got to admit we’re not that silly. No chance of us cutting the coal industry in half.

    We’re just going to make out power generators pay twice as much for our coal, as our customers, & competitors pay for it.

    You’ve got to admit, it would be very hard to get anything as wrong as that, but wait a few days, & I’m sure Bob B will think of something else for our Julie to stuff up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Now I’m really confused. I just ran across this story on Forbes and found some other links.

    If the October 28 demo of the 1MW reactor, which does not produce radioactive waste, works than why in the world do we need a carbon tax or wind and solar energy subsidies?

    Forbes:
    Hello Cheap Energy, Hello Brave New World
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/
    http://www.e-catworld.com/what-is-the-e-cat/
    http://nickelpower.org/2011/10/17/how-much-will-an-e-cat-cost/

    There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of coal. http://pes­n.com/2011­/06/23/950­1856_Nobel­_laureate_­touts_E-Ca­t_cold_fus­ion/

    Swedish Skeptics Society Review: http://www­.nyteknik.­se/nyheter­/energi_mi­ljo/energi­/article31­44827.ece

    A major US corporatio­n has bought the rights to sell the 1 megawatt Rossi E-Cat, and it will be announced October 28th in the US, with the unit hitting the market in 2011. How can any fossil fuel compete with such cheap energy (and clean to boot!).

    Current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercial­ization: http://www­.cleantech­blog.com/2­011/08/the­-new-breed­-of-energy­-catalyzer­s-ready-fo­r-commerci­alization.­html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John from CA

      shoot, I should have checked the links before posting — may give a 404 error.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Dr Rossi is beyond the pale at the moment. I’ve an open mind since I’ve seen established science overturned many times, sometimes by me and sometimes my science has been overturned. So I wish him well.

      WUWT did a write up earlier this year, which you can find here. If, as it seems, his infernal device works then the power of the market will win him the Nobel prize very like Dan Shechtman did this year (he also was beyond the pale for years and years). If it doesn’t work then it is no worse than Firepower. The little bit of money spent so far is ‘way better than the trillions spent on green tech boondoggles by governments.

      It will be an irony if the H-Ni fusion mechanism is true, because it will mean Pons and Fleischman failed only because the experiments which produced heat were due to H2O contaminating their D2O. A classic ‘close but no cigar’…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    John from CA

    fix for the 3 broken links:

    http://pes­n.com Search for Nobel laureate touts E-Cat cold fusion
    http://www­.nyteknik.­se/ Search for article 3144827
    http://www.cleantechblog.com/?s=the+new+breed+of+energy+catalyzers+ready+for+commercialization


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Good news: Signs are coming in from all over the non-Australian-and-New-Zealand world.”

    Yes, people are waking up around the globe. Now they must decide whether:

    a.) CO2 caused any part of the global warming since the last Little Ice Age (~1300 to 1870), or

    b.) World leaders used global climate change to take control [1], remove the right to self-government [2], and rule through tyranny [3].

    Near the end of the Little Ice Age, Thomas Jefferson recognized how very fragile self-government is:

    “I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it.” [2]

    1. “Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)”
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    2. “Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Holmes (22 April 1880)”
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=461

    3. George Orwell’s 1949 book on tyrannical government, “1984″
    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin Moore

    http://www.free-energy-info.com/

    Appendix Part 3.

    Stephen Horvaths water engine patent – controlled thermonuclear reaction.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And here I thought the USA was the only country that loved to spend a billion to save a penny! Sadly, it looks like the craziness has been exported to our northern neighbor.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    What_a_joke

    Alas Janama – Lindzen’s latest papers have been shot to pieces. So I don’t think we’ll be taking his views soon thanks all the same. Tim Ball – well how desperate.

    Alan Jones could do well as working with the WA police. His verballing skills are magnificent. If you thought that Will Steffen interview was anything than some ill-informed science delusional silly person at in the interview chair well you’re easily hoodwinked by bogosity. Fancy someone of Steffen’s stature having to endure Jones running a net versus flux argument on global CO2 growth. How utterly pathetic. Is this the sceptic standard of debate?


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>