JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

The people fightback against the ABC (re: Wendy Carlisles Hatchet Job)

The voice of The Ben Bernank debunks the ABC.

This was posted in Sept 2011. I don’t know why I didn’t see it til this week (h/t Jennifer Marohasy’s).

“They want to regulate every aspect of your life, and they are prepared to lie to do it…”

Great job here from 1984Report. (Do please contact me “1984″ :) )

On this Monckton tour Carlisle spent hours listening to David Evans and myself talk about errors in climate models, with peer reviewed evidence that the models are wrong, yet she didn’t think it was worth mentioning that to the people of Australia whose government was proposing new taxes based on those models. She interviewed me for an hour and asked for references, and presumably she couldn’t find holes in them, because she didn’t mention them either. She wanted to know where I got my money from. When I explained how pure and untainted my funding was, that I essentially hardly have any, she forgot to mention that too. Character assassination, anyone or is it just a form of ABC Alzheimers?

My thoughts on Wendy Carlisle and the ABC were here last year (This is not journalism, Wendy Carlisle). She’s the science journalist who thinks ad hominem attacks help people understand the climate. (She went right out of her way, to the other side of the world and back, to dredge up spurious, tenuous slurs about people who weren’t even on this tour.)

… it’s what they don’t say that matters

 

This video returned serve…

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (87 votes cast)
The people fightback against the ABC (re: Wendy Carlisles Hatchet Job), 9.1 out of 10 based on 87 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/blqh7ea

83 comments to The people fightback against the ABC (re: Wendy Carlisles Hatchet Job)

  • #
    MadJak

    As mentioned previously,

    I challenge anyone looking at the ABC Drums Poll results to even try to claim that the ABC drum isn’t the hangout for rusted on ALP Fanatics:

    The Drums Polls here

    Talk about detached from reality – Our taxes should definitely not be assisting this!!

    10

    • #
      Bulldust

      I’d like to see someone use the proposed new media regulation to tackle The Drum head on. The comments posted there are more feral than most blogs on the net and somehow the ABC thinks this is appropriate for a tax-funded media entity.

      00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Its clear from the list of ABC poles, the choices available, their wording, and the results that ABC is simply the marketing arm of the ALP.

      The ABC is Australia’s “Pravda”.

      10

  • #
    Ross

    Madjack,
    [.]

    Looking the results you are absolutely right and there must alot of double/multiple voting.

    [Ross. This has been fixed for MJ at his request] Yoda

    00

  • #

    The disconnect between the perceived plight of the Polar Bear and reality, is a triumph of green propaganda.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/polar-bears-going-extinct-yawn/

    Pointman

    00

    • #
      brc

      Visited the Sea World polar bear exhibit recently. To be fair to them, they stressed that the Polar Bear is not endangered, and that it is called the ‘Sea Bear’ because it lives in the ocean.

      They did mention climate change in their spiel, but more from the fact that the planet has gotten warmer, and didn’t try on the guilt trip of people driving cars whot dun it. I guess they realise that insulting the guests that have driven to their park isn’t a good idea.

      If you ever get the chance, the Polar Bear exhibit is definitely worth a visit to view the awesome size of these creatures.

      00

      • #

        Hi brc, I’ve seen them in Zoos. Truly magnificent creatures, which I’ve taken the trouble to learn more about. If we’re really heading into a cold period, they’re more likely to be around at the end of it than we are.

        Pointman

        00

      • #
        Streetcred

        I visited the exhibit a few years back and the ‘bears appeared exceptional stressed … swimming up and down in their little pool in front of the viewing panels.

        00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      Hi Pointman, in your very good commentary you quote

      If at this point, you’re expecting me to go off on some rant about the decline in educational standards, you’re going to be disappointed.

      I suggest you reconsider in the light of the comments made by Ms Carlisle she obviously failed English comprehension a rant about education standards may have been warranted :)

      00

      • #

        Hello Bob.

        I was thinking more of the teachers, many of whom I know have real reservations about teaching some of the party approved crap in the syllabus to their pupils. They’re such an easy target in skeptic circles and usually get an undeserved kicking. They’re neither paid well enough nor encouraged to be the Serpicos of their profession.

        Carlisle is not a victim of education but rather an activist masquerading as a journalist. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of her. “Misunderstanding” what people have said or written is SOP for wretches like that.

        Pointman

        00

        • #
          Tom

          And so say all of us journos, who are alarmed at the collapse of professional standards exposed by the climate hysteria of the past five years. That’s not to say that climate change has been an easy story to cover, but the fact that “science” has thrown out its rules of evidence when it comes to the new, politicised field of climatology means too many non-specialist reporters should have done much more reading to get a grip on the technical issues involved. That so many lazy reporters and producers at the taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation have not only become propagandists for a highly contentious scientific hypothesis, but also brainwashing agents for a radical government detested by most of the population is a mass desertion of duty. It’s also no coincidence that this has occurred at a time when traditional media editorial budgets around the world are under attack after the emasculation of revenue at the hands of the insidious Google global online advertising monopoly.

          00

    • #
      gbees

      According to Bjorn Lomborg in his book Cool It! (pg5) – “Polar bears numbered ~5,000 in the 1960s and have increased to ~25,000 today. Two areas where bears are in decline are the coldest areas ….. where they are increasing is in warmer areas …. moral of the story, if you want to increase polar bear numbers crank up global warming :)

      00

  • #
    Neville

    This is a bit O/T but is very important and very good news for a change.

    Newman is cutting back on green funding idiocy in Qld already. That a new govt can start to address this fraud so quickly is a wonderful bonus for all Aussies and strengthens Ted’s arm here in Vic.

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

    Abbott will have plenty of room to slash spending on this fraudulent nonsense and help poorer Aussies cope with heating and cooling their homes at least.

    Problem is we need an early election to start to properly wind back this idiocy, but Juliar will try her best to delay it as long as possible.
    Likewise all independents except Katter are frightened witless by the prospect of facing the people and with good reason.

    00

    • #
      brc

      Attn Jo – I know you WA people are probably still in bed but this topic needs it’s own post I think. Newman has opened a very broad front against the green waste and boondoggles. So far I think the luvvie crowd is stunned into silence, but I can see
      the smear campaign starting up in earnest very shortly.

      Absolutely the most bold anti-Green move by any Australian Politician, ever. Absolute music to my ears.

      00

      • #
        Winston

        He deserves a medal! Even if he does nothing else. Could be T.A’s influence perhaps? Dare we to dream?

        00

        • #

          Winston,

          I’m beginning to think this is in fact a precursor as to what we might see.

          There seems to be a lack of grumbling about what is happening here in Queensland.

          While the concentration is on Victoria rolling back its programs, what the Premier here is doing is in fact bigger than what is happening in Victoria, and again, this shows how Campbell Newman actually seems to have put some thought into the manner this may be reported.

          I fully understand that the ABC (if it does get around to reporting on this at all) is already two days behind what is happening. However, always the Labor supporting ABC, all they have latched onto is the fact that Newman offered to keep Greg Withers on, without actually seeing what is behind that decision.

          There was even some minor and short lived grumbling that he didn’t mention this in the campaign, but people have now found footage where he said exactly what he would do, and now he’s doing it, again, effectively defused by Newman.

          The more I see, the more I like here, eg, the fact that he’s starting on ‘root and branch’ culling of these programs.

          Now, having happened in Victoria, and to a lesser extent in NSW, and now patently obvious in Queensland, perhaps this is in fact a precursor as to what will happen at a Federal level once Labor is dumped.

          Notice specifically how the whole AGW meme founders when their funding is removed.

          Hey, don’t every try and tell me this was NOT just about the money.

          Tony.

          00

          • #
            Lawrie

            The apparent silence of the left regarding both Ted’s and Newmans assault on the Green madness leads me to speculate that they are aware the scam is just a scam. They could not in all consciousness terminate the schemes themselves but are only paying lip service to their horror at the conservative rollback. This scam is going to simply die out and the perps will slink away unscathed unless we keep reminding the people of the great waste and futility of going green. As Gough reminded his followers “maintain the rage” until the next election. The scientists and the ABC flagwavers will escape but the real villains are the politicians and they should be hammered.

            00

        • #
          Dennis

          Tony Abbott did spend a lot of time in Queensland campaigning for his friend Campbell Newman, the socialists were quite upset.

          00

          • #
            JimD

            It would be hard for anyone not to be upset with Tony Abbott. He attracts it. He deserves it.

            [Jim, if you are going to turn up late to bomb a thread (4 comments in 4 minutes) with baseless-PR-assertions, don't bother. You'll need to actually add some reasoning and content. -- Jo]

            00

    • #
      JohnnyinNQ

      Brisbane’s Courier Mail today…

      http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/campbell-newman-assures-job-for-anna-blighs-husband-greg-withers-asking-him-to-undo-work-of-past-four-years/story-fnbt5t29-1226311500919

      As another commenter said, this news needs it own post. I’m hoping to see it all over the blogosphere by tonight :-)

      This is the best I’ve felt about being a Queenslander in a LOOOOONG time! :-) :-) :-D :-P

      00

      • #
        Ally E.

        I’m in NSW. I WANT TO MOVE TO QUEENSLAND!

        :)

        00

      • #
        brc

        Boy aren’t the ratbags and climate catastrophians squealing in the comments! But but but this means he doesn’t believe in climate change!! They didn’t bother to read the justification, which was that this was all being replaced Federally with a carbon tax, so they are eliminating duplication.

        It’s just so inane that people say ‘oh yes the LNP want to kill the planet’, when Bligh was trying to open up the state to mining just as fast as the next bloke, it’s just that her government was incompetent. But seriously – do any of these believers really think that a government program to hand out free squiggly light bulbs is going to save the planet? I mean, really. The LNP should put up a ‘Save the Planet’ facebook page, and all the hair-tuggers can click ‘like’ and save the planet that way, if they’re into futile token gestures.

        Newman always danced around the ‘climate change’ question during the campaign. But, taking this on board and seeing that he is an engineer (and thus not likely to be fooled by dodgy data) I’d say you have your answer right here. He’s not fooled, and won’t be spending 10 minutes worrying about the climate.

        Well may we say God save the Dept of Climate Change, because nothing will save Greg Withers.

        For the first time in a long time, I’m looking forward to watching the news nightly for further developments in the madness rollback.

        00

    • #
      Streetcred

      The best part of this is that Newman has instructed b-LIAR’s husband, the bloke that concocted up the shemozzle, to undo it. That is just priceless … to be a fly on the wall in b-LIAR’s house, what I wouldn’t give for the experience ! ROTFLMFAO !!!

      00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/winning-battles-losing-war.html

    The Weekly Standard – much cited elsewhere, is running a piece telling us why the climate sceptics (or “deniers”) are winning. And indeed, they probably are – they have never really recovered from Climategate 1, and all the other “gates” that piled in on top of it.

    It is said of the British, however, that we tend to lose all our battles except that last, thus winning the war. Climate sceptics, on the other hand, now seem to be in danger of reversing this process – winning the battles but losing the war.

    This thesis is tried out in an important piece by Autonomous Mind who notes that the battle over climate science is by-and-large meaningless. The climate agenda, he says, is but one front in a much broader campaign involving the centralisation of power, the erosion of democracy and liberty and the transfer of wealth.

    Thus says AM, no matter what the “science” reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political – and economic corporatist – agenda. On that front is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change.

    Exactly the same sentiment is reflected in a report by Dennis Ambler.

    Whilst the continual scientific rebuttals of the climate reports produced by the IPCC may make many people think that this charade cannot continue much longer, behind the scenes it is quite irrelevant, he writes. The long-term process marches relentlessly on as if there had never been any challenges at all.

    As the advocates throw in yet more spurious claims of the “hottest year on record”, or record cold caused by CO2 emissions, they occupy the debate, and determine the daily agenda in the media, whilst those who know that the claims are spurious, are driven to waste time, effort and resources on refuting them.

    Further evidence supporting this thesis comes from our continued trawl of the Hewlett Foundation grant database (above). This throws us some interesting data about the Bipartisan Policy Center, which started in 2002 under the aegis of Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, George Mitchell and Howard Baker.

    Having evolved from the National Commission on Energy Policy, it claims to be a bipartisan group of twenty of the nation’s leading energy experts representing the highest ranks of industry, government, academia, labour, consumer and environmental protection.

    But what makes it so interesting is that it ranks amongst the beneficiaries of the Hewlett Foundation, as seeking to promote climate change policy – advising Congress, the Executive Branch, States and other policymakers regarding long-term US policy. For that, it has received $42.85 million, having in 2009 pushed strongly for climate change legislation, delivering a major report on the issue.
    .
    But now, against the same agenda, the main pitch is not “climate” but “energy security”. Like any good strategists, this power grouping is capable of shifting the schwerpunkt when it encounters resistance in any one sector. And by such means, the climate sceptics end up winning the argument, only to find that the opposition has moved on and is fighting (and winning) a different battle.

    00

    • #
      Lawrie

      I have often wondered the same since every time we prove a point or destroy their argument they simply ignore and move on. However the carbon con promised huge profits for trading an elusive commodity. To show that the elusive commodity is worthless removes the financial incentives. The sustainability argument does not offer the same incentives. CO2 was selected because it could become a tradable commodity, sustainability cannot be traded only encouraged. Farms are generally sustainable because it makes financial sense to the farmer but is hardly a driver for the local finance house. Killing the carbon scam is important for there is nothing else with the same potential for profit. CO2 was always about money; dearer power, scarcer fuel but the people want cheaper power and plentiful fuel and the people vote. Ask Anna.

      00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    I no longer bother with the ABC, (Absolutely Beyond Contempt) in my opinion, the last time I looked at the Drum, someone here linked to one of their rant pieces, by Graham Redfern, if memory serves me correctly. Whoever linked to the piece noted that the bulk of the comments were critical of the piece but no new comments had been posted for some time.

    On visiting the site I made one comment that never surfaced again, lost in the either that surrounds aunty, and not the first of my comments to go missing at the drum.

    On visiting the site the following day, new comments had appeared in great numbers and mostly attacks on anyone critical of the article, It seems to me new comments had been delayed until they could muster the usual suspects to do a hatchet job on anyone critical of the piece. Ad hom central, no thanks, not for me.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bob

    ABC, (Absolutely Beyond Contempt)

    How true!

    00

  • #
    Winston

    In the suppression of freedom and democracy, there are always people like Ms Carlisle who rationalise their support for ruthless totalitarianism as some kind of common good or common purpose. I’m sure many in Germany circa 1932 or so, or in Vichy France, could justify the suppression of freedoms and horrendous injustices being perpetrated on the basis that their nation’s “best interests” and the “welfare” of it’s citizens was at stake.

    The fortunes of war decree that some may suffer cruel injustice and inhumanity, but that the majority would be better off, so therefore they acquiesce. So they just fall meekly into line, pander to the loss of principles, turn a blind eye to suffering, and duly march to the beat of the drummer, whose aims are far from the best interests of those they pretend to serve.

    How is the current situation any different, Ms Carlisle, in this Green Totalitarianist Agenda you support?- How will you rationalise this to your conscience? Once you give up your moral compass and your over-riding principles in favour of an idea, no matter how outwardly noble, you are consigning yourself to the seventh circle of hell, and unfortunately taking alot of innocents with you.

    00

  • #
    pat

    before getting into the ABC, take this!

    28 March: SMH: Vince Chadwick: Event disaster as Weaver pulls out
    ACTRESS Sigourney Weaver has pulled out of a $995-a-head sustainable business conference to be held in Melbourne next month, prompting organisers to cancel the event and consult their lawyers…
    The Corporations, People & the Planet conference at the Melbourne Exhibition centre was billed as ”a once in a lifetime opportunity to see Sigourney Weaver, Bob Geldof, Dr David Suzuki and Prof L. Hunter Lovins in one day of keynote presentations, case studies and discussion exploring a sustainable future”….
    Tickets ranged from $175 for students, to $9500 for a Diamond Table of 10 tickets, including VIP entry to a cocktail party attended by the keynote speakers…
    A potential replacement was former US vice-president Al Gore, but Mr Brazil said extra costs for security and poor timing meant that he was unavailable…
    Samantha Gavin of PR firm Red Agency, which was promoting the conference, said organisers were all disappointed. ”They are telling David Suzuki today,” Ms Gavin said yesterday, adding that the prominent Canadian scientist had already booked his flight…
    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/event-disaster-as-weaver-pulls-out-20120327-1vwm6.html

    00

  • #
    David Davidovics

    Wendy’s condescending tone reminds me of gillard. Birds of a feather I suppose.

    And on the other topic, congrats to all you Queenslanders out there. The defeat of anny in itself was not surprising, but the size of the routing was delicious.

    00

  • #

    Kevin Moore makes a very good point in referring to the article:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/winning-battles-losing-war.html

    “Winning the Battles but losing the war.” However economics is still on our side as well as Nationalism. As we see in the fall of Communism, the mantra of “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”. can go on for only so long (70 years). The World Government/CAGW Meme is costly and like the EU is at odds with National Identify. Eventually people notice these things and revolt, especially when they see their wallets drained by bureaucrats. These things do not die quickly, but eventually they do die.

    00

  • #
    Andrew

    Yes. I have said it elsewhere and I will say (and keep on saying)it again: when did the the ABC morph into the Orwellian-esque ‘Ministry of Truth’ ?It seems to hav ehappended so quickly. That it now seems to see its main prupose is to propagandise and to disseminate lies, deceptions and disinformation ought to be of grave concern to all democracy-loving Australians.

    As such, in my view, the ABC now represents a clear and present danger to Australian democracy. The Abbott Government, when it gains office at the next election, should give serious consideration to dismembering this taxpayer-funded group of pernicious propagandists.

    I agree with your message: people should make it very clear to their MPs that they do nopt appreciate the constant stream of ABC lies and deception on important issues like climate science or any other matter and that they will vote accordingly at the next election. The near annihilation of Labor in Qsld on the w/e is now top place in teh thoughts of Federal Labor politicians. So be assured that every letter or email they get will on this issue not be wasted. They know they can not afford to ignore the ground-swell against their duplicity.

    Lastly, I am grateful that there are people like you Jo who have the courage to speak-out. Thanks. A

    00

    • #
      Hasbeen

      I want to see the ABC sold to GINA RINEHART, when Tony takes over, for 4 main reasons.

      She has displayed an interest in media ownership.

      As a successful business woman, she just may be able to make it work properly.

      It would be a wonderful opportunity to offer reeducation to all those harpies.

      We can no longer afford the waste, even if it was bias free.

      So come on Tony, I’m told you like a good joke, as well as the next bloke, & this one would be good for a real belly laugh, for months.

      00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    How fortuitous that this post would be posted by Jo today.

    How many saw the 7:30 pm report last night about solar projects and felt as I did.

    It was an extremely unbalanced report. They interviewed two of the most extreme renewable energy proponents in Australia (Matthew Wright and Tristan Edis) but did not get anyone to explain the cost of renewable energy and what the costs do to the priice of electricity (and therefore to Australia’s economy).

    Metthew Wright was the lead author of the Beyone Zero Emissions which claimes Australia could have zero carbon emissions from energy by 2020. I’ll tell readers some more about that below.

    Tristan Edis is the editor of “Climate Spectator”. He is an extreme and strongly biased proponent of renewable energy – and of changing the electricity system – including the transmissions sytem and the electricity companies that have to remain profitable in order to provide us a reliable electrity supply – to suit the needs of renewable energy advocates.

    But no one was interviewed who could explain the costs. So below I’ll explain the costs of Matthew Wright’s plan for Zero Carbon Emissions by 2020.

    00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Matthew Wright is the lead author of the Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 report. The report has been critiqued and completely discredited by many people including by Martin Nicholson and me:
      http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

      The analysis assumes that Australia’s domestic air transport would cease, people would move by train, bus and some electric cars by 2020. Electric trains would run all over our grain growing areas collecting wheat stalks and transporting them to the solar power stations to burn them to produce heat for when the sun doesn’t shine enough. There are many other highly optimistic to completely unrealistic assumptions underpinning his analysis. Here are the conclusions from our critique are:

      • The ZCA2020 Stationary Energy Plan has significantly underestimated the cost and timescale required to implement such a plan.

      • Our revised cost estimate is nearly five times higher than the estimate in the Plan: $1,709 billion compared to $370 billion. The cost estimates are highly uncertain with a range of $855 billion to $4,191 billion for our estimate.

      • The wholesale electricity costs would increase nearly 10 times above current costs to $500/MWh, not the $120/MWh claimed in the Plan.

      • The total electricity demand in 2020 is expected to be 44% higher than proposed: 449 TWh compared to the 325 TWh presented in the Plan.

      • The Plan has inadequate reserve capacity margin to ensure network reliability remains at current levels. The total installed capacity needs to be increased by 65% above the proposed capacity in the Plan to 160 GW compared to the 97 GW used in the Plan.

      • The Plan’s implementation timeline is unrealistic. We doubt any solar thermal plants, of the size and availability proposed in the plan, will be on line before 2020. We expect only demonstration plants will be built until there is confidence that they can be economically viable.

      • The Plan relies on many unsupported assumptions, which we believe are invalid; two of the most important are:

      1. A quote in the Executive Summary “The Plan relies only on existing, proven, commercially available and costed technologies.”

      2. Solar thermal power stations with the performance characteristics and availability of baseload power stations exist now or will in the near future

      Matthew Wright was sent a copy of our critique and invited to post a reply and/or to participate in online discussion and/or debate. He did not reply to any of the offers and invitations.

      00

      • #
        Hasbeen

        That’s really interesting.

        I wonder how many actually know the story of biomass power station we did have.

        It was at the Rocky Point sugar mill, just south of Brisbane. Designed to run on the waste matter from the cane crush during the season, & on “OTHER” biomass for the rest of the year.

        We never were told much about it’s success with cane waste, although I’m sure if it had been economically viable we would have heard loud & long. What we did hear about was extreme difficulty with other feed stock.

        The entire plant was auctioned off, at great loss to the tax payer, & the memory of the thing buried as deeply as possible.

        I wonder if Tony knows anything more about it?

        00

        • #

          Hasbeen,
          Not just Rocky Point, but in fact 23 of these Plants, one at (nearly) every Sugar Cane mill in Queensland, and some in NSW as well.

          These Queensland Plants supply just a tick over 300MW of Nameplate Capacity, and while each plant generates enough to supply the mill during the ‘season’ they also supply surrounding areas via the grid as well.

          Now these plants are considered as renewable, a bone of contention with me, as they still emit CO2 from the plants, at the rate of around one third CO2 emissions on a watt for watt basis when compared to coal fired power.

          The principle is exactly the same. Stuff being burned in a high temp furnace to boil water to high temp high pressure steam to drive a multi stage turbine which drives a generator.

          Exhaust, including the CO2 comes out of the (thin) stack, and into the atmosphere.

          Why it can be (loosely) termed as renewable is that the CO2 being released from the plant contains the Carbon element that was sequestered in the cane during the previous cane growing season.

          Having visited the Bundaberg Sugar Mill (er, ulterior motive here, and think Polar Bear) I noticed that the power plant was just as filthy dirty as a coal fired plant.

          The list of the Queensland Plants only is at the following link.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_power_stations_in_Queensland#Biomass_combustion

          Tony.

          00

          • #
            brc

            As soon as I was old enough to handle a pool vacuum, I was handed the job of cleaning the pool on a weekly basis.

            We lived within sighting distance of a cane mill, which had it’s large and visible smokestack. A primary school visit had already informed me that the mill produced all of it’s own power by burning the refuse left over from sugar crushing.

            I knew about this personally, because when the wind blew from a certain direction, the entire surface of the pool was covered in black ash from the exhaust of the mill. This eventually sank to the bottom and sat like a fragile layer of soot on the bottom. You had to move the pool vacuum at a very slow pace so as to not stir up the mess, or else you had a 30 minute wait for it to settle back down again. This was my weekly job for a long time.

            ‘Clean energy’ my left foot.

            When I left home after my schooling was complete, my parents first bought an automatic cleaner, then sold the house entirely.

            00

      • #
        rukidding

        Peter Mr Wright has an op ed piece running over on ABC’s environment site sprooking the great benefits of renewable energy.

        00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      The cost of renewable electricity for Australia

      Researchers at the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets (CEEM), University of NSW, did a desk top study called “Simulations of Scenarios with 100% Renewable Electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market” (Elliston et al., 2011).

      The authors claim their study demonstrates that renewable energy could supply 100% of the Australian National Electricity Market’s electricity and meet the demand with acceptable reliability.

      However, they did not estimate the costs of the system they simulated. I have critiqued the paper and made a crude estimate of the cost of the scenario simulated and three variants of it

      Using costs derived from the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET, 2011), the costs are estimated to be: $568 billion capital cost, $336/MWh cost of electricity and $290/tonne CO2 abatement cost.

      That is, the wholesale cost of electricity for the simulated system would be seven times more than now, with an abatement cost that is 13 times the starting price of the Australian carbon tax and 30 times the European carbon price. (This cost of electricity does not include the costs for the existing electricity network).

      Although it ignores costings, the study is a useful contribution. It demonstrates that, even with highly optimistic assumptions, renewable energy cannot realistically provide 100% of Australia’s electricity generation. Their scenario does not have sufficient capacity to meet peak winter demand, has no capacity reserve and is dependent on a technology – ‘gas turbines running on biofuels’ – that exist only at small scale and at high cost.

      http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
      and
      http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1339

      An Excel file is provided which you can download, change the inputs and do your own sensitivity analyses.

      00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Further to the above two comments both critiques provide cost estimates for powering all or most of Australias electricity with rnewable energy. However, it so happens that any amount of renewable energy is expensive and raises the cost of electricity. The more renewable energy we add to the grid the more expensive electricity becomes.

      Put another way, no amount of renewable electricity can be added to the grid without raising the cost of electricity.

      Furthermore, renewable energy does not reduce CO2 emissions by much.

      This is what the ABC 7:30 pm report should have made clear – but didn’t!.

      00

      • #
        rukidding

        In Saturday’s West Australian there was an article on how grid connected solar was having a destabilizing effect on the grid and that is with very little penetration.

        00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      If we decide, for whatever reason, that Australia must cut its CO2 emissions the least cost way to do so wis with nuclear energy.

      If we substitute nuclear for solar and wind power in the analysis above, the capital cost would be 1/4, the cost of electricity would be 1/3, the CO2 abatement cost would be 1/3 the cost, and the CO2 emisisons would be 1/3 those of the renewable energy option. You can read all about it by downloading the pdf from here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1339

      00

    • #

      This report on last night’s 7.30 program on the ABC was so laughable, and even failed as a ‘puff piece’.

      Here’s the link, and why I’m providing it is to highlight some of the blatant propaganda from the program.

      http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3465055.htm

      Peter has touched on some of the points already, but if you don’t have the time to watch the whole seven and a half minutes, just scroll to the 58 second mark and watch just 5 seconds of it.

      Lane Crockett of Pacific Hydro says that the Moree solar plant would power a city the size of Darwin.

      Wow!

      That’s huge.

      Umm, this is a Solar PV plant, where the cells generate electricity only while the Sun is shining. While the cells, and the Plant as a whole will generate power across the whole daylight period, the equivalent power generated at ‘full power’ level amounts to around 4 to 4.5 hours of power a day extrapolated across the whole year.

      Even when considering that levels of power are generated for the full daylight period only, a large city like Darwin WILL require power on a 24/7/365 basis.

      Now, it could be said that I’m using this example to make a point, because, after all everybody just knows this is only used as an example, averaging the power output of the plant and then comparing it with the total power consumed by (as big a target as you can find, in this case Darwin) it shows that these people will use anything they can latch onto to make their own point.

      The Chinchilla Solar Dawn (Concentrating Solar, different from Solar PV) is now dead in the water, as Campbell Newman, as part of his dismantling of Greg Withers Department of Climate Change sees the Queensland part of the funding also now canned.

      The Moree Plant is also gone with the wind, as the backers also cannot raise public funding, and that of itself must be a pointer to all people looking at things like this.

      Pshaw! Governments can throw hundreds of millions of other people’s money dollars at Plants like this, but the remainder has to come from Companies willing to back it.

      Now, if they were such a good thing, those Companies would be falling over each other in the rush to fund these projects.

      A Company will not commit without due diligence, so they get their people to investigate it to see what sort of return there is going to be on it, and the fact that no one is rushing to throw into the pot speaks volumes of itself.

      When you listen to Matthew Wright and Tristan Edis, be very careful. They have their own ‘barrows’ to push, and they will not tell you that Plants of this nature are relying on Government subsidies, and private funding. (none of which is forthcoming)

      The grand BZE plans have been (literally) destroyed by Peter Lang. Their fantastic plan is just that, absolute fantasy that will never be implemented.

      Their biggest snag is that the providers will not buy the power they generate, mainly because the wholesale price is close to (or in most cases higher than) what those providers have to sell that power to consumers at retail, and here is again where government steps in to further subsidise the power. These Plants will require subsidies also at the unit cost of electricity sale to the providers.

      Again, if you watch the 7.30 clip be aware of what is not being said.

      Oh, there’s also some light relief in the form of comedy in the clip as well. Christine Milne gets a few seconds.

      Your (unbiassed) ABC. Oh! Give me strength.

      Tony.

      00

      • #
        Peter Lang

        Good poins Tony.

        I suspect Christine Milne was interviewed to provide some balance :)

        00

        • #

          Balance.

          The see saw was already tipped so far left it was dangling in the water. All she did was make sure whoever was on that end of the see saw drowned.

          Speaking of which, I remember the old method of detecting witches.

          They would suspend them over water and then dunk them.

          If they floated, then they were a witch, so they burned them at the stake.

          If they drowned, as they all did, hey bad luck, they were already dead, so the only concession they got was that they were buried in consecrated ground.

          A version of this is explained in the following video, and note especially right close to the end, (at the 3.45 mark) after the crowd have gone off to burn the witch, good Sir Bedevere asks a question of Arthur:

          Who are you who are so wise in the ways of Science.

          This may be satire at its best, but note the mob mentality and refer that to mob understanding of AGW, and keep in mind this clip is from the movie made in 1975.

          There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

          She’s a Witch

          Tony.

          00

  • #
    Tim

    There must be a lot more work behind the scenes than just one ABC presenter. I’ve done some research, and I think there would be many researchers beavering away tirelessly to dish up the information – and then skew it into ‘believable’ propaganda, well before the presentation. And WE are paying for them.

    00

  • #
    pat

    let’s just call the whole thing off, Alan:

    28 March: ABC/Drum: Alan Kohler: Losing our lead: emissions targets increase ahead
    Australia will have to increase its greenhouse gas reduction target from the current 5 per cent by 2020, to at least 15 per cent within two years under the policies of both the ALP and the Coalition…
    The Opposition has signed up to both the 5 per cent and 15 per cent targets, although it hasn’t mentioned the second one for a while…
    It’s clear that science is beginning to reassert itself on this subject after a few years on the sidelines following the debacle in Copenhagen in 2009.
    Current advanced country pledges already suggest a 10-20 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. China has imposed quotas on carbon emissions and is likely to have an emissions trading scheme in place by 2015; it already has them in nine provinces. The action being taken by other developing countries is already sufficient for a 15 per cent reduction in Australia…
    The recommendation on Australia’s target will come from the Climate Change Authority, to be chaired by for former Reserve Bank governor and industry super champion, Bernie Fraser.
    Even the 5 per cent reduction from 2000 levels is starting to look nearly impossible given the increase in emissions since the target was set; 15 per cent would represent a crushing burden for Australia’s businesses.
    Australia’s carbon emissions are already 5 per cent above 2000 levels. At the current rate of increase, they will be 23 per cent above the 2000 level by 2020, or 690 million tones of CO2 equivalent.
    That means the 5 per cent reduction target to which both parties have committed is already a 23 per cent, or 160 million tonne reduction from business as usual. Reducing by 15 per cent from 2000 – which looks like being the target – means we would have to cut emission by one-third from BAU.
    If that were achieved by cuts in Australian emissions, it needs a carbon price in the hundreds of dollars, or direct action that bankrupt the Government…
    It’s possible that a new Coalition government will dismantle the whole thing next year, but that would be a Humphreyan courageous decision: first the rest of the world clearly is taking action to reduce emissions, so that if Australia just dropped out of the project and dropped its targets the cost would be very high; and second, if the Coalition tried to use its “direct action” plan to meet the targets, the cost to the budget would be horrendous.
    That is especially true on both counts if the target is 15 per cent by then. If the world is doing enough to justify a 15 per cent target according to Bernie Fraser’s CCA, which it almost certainly will be, then the Coalition could hardly dump Australia’s targets altogether. “Direct action” to meet even a 5 per cent target is unaffordable; 15 per cent is laughable.
    Emissions trading is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions because businesses can buy permits from overseas. At the moment European permits cost less than $15 per tonne and certificates from the Clean Development Mechanism, which will qualify as Australian permits, cost around $5 each.
    On that basis the cost to Australian businesses will immediately fall to the floor price of $15 a tones when emissions trading starts in 2015.
    At that price, the cost of meeting the 5 per cent reduction target would be $2.4 billion in total. A 15 per cent target would cost $3.2 billion.
    But the question is whether Australia can or should meet its emissions target simply by buying permits from overseas. It’s true that climate change is global not national, so it doesn’t really matter where a tonne of carbon is removed, but would it be acceptable politically, here and overseas, for Australia not to actually reduce its emissions and simply pay other countries to do it?
    This is a question that is exercising the minds of the policymakers in Canberra now – how to pitch Australia’s scheme so that the targets are met without crushing our industries but without, in effect, simply buying and preserving forests in Borneo while continuing to produce most electricity from coal…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/kohler-emissions-targets-increase-ahead/3916840?WT.svl=theDrum

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Meanwhile, over in London, at the Planet Under Pressure Conference, 2012, Professor Will Steffen, along with 2,999 other scientists, serves up some steaming, hot compost tipping points to scare the s#@* out of the children.

    But the biggest dump of compost from our good perfessor is that man has (might have) destroyed glacial/inter-glacial periods:

    Prof Steffen said that this period of climate change caused by humans, known as the ‘anthropocene era’, could ultimately cause the whole system of ice ages followed by warm periods, that has allowed life on Earth to flourish, to be over.

    What is next?
    That cO2 has stopped the world from spinning?
    Human sacrifices so the sun will rise tomorrow?

    This even beats James Hansen’s claim that, ”We have taken over control of the mechanisms that determine the climate change.”

    Is this the point when climate science ‘jumped the shark‘?

    00

    • #
      Winston

      I have one word for Prof Steffen- “Good”.
      Hard to believe we could be so incredibly clever as to ward off glacial periods which would decimate large percentages of the human race.
      Just exactly what is to lament about New York City not being submerged under 1km of ice and snow? Obviously not a Knicks or a Yankees fan there Willie boy!

      00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      “What is next?”

      To answer that you have to look at Prof Steffen’s own words:

      ‘The prosecution will therefore maintain that humanity must work towards global stewardship around the planet’s intrinsic boundaries, a scientifically defined space within which we can continue to develop’, claimed Professor Will Steffen


      In short global government by scientists like him. I sigh over portrayal of scientists in media (ie megalomaniacs in white lab coats) but sometimes you can see a giant compost explosion worth of truth in the cliche. And he’s a chemist too. /facepalm

      00

  • #
    pat

    no taxes for me, but plenty for thee:

    28 March: ABC: MP to withdraw guilty pleas on tax charges
    South Australian Greens MP Tammy Franks will push to have tax charges thrown out of court after being given permission to withdraw her guilty pleas.
    Franks had pleaded guilty to 10 charges of failing to lodge tax returns between 2001 and 2010 but has now asked that her plea be withdrawn, based on legal advice…
    The court has also been told $21,500 Franks owed had been revised down after she lodged her outstanding returns and it was possible she may now be due a refund.
    The matter has been set down for pre-trial discussions in May.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/tax-tammy-franks-pleas-withdrawn/3916724

    27 March: Ninemsn: SA court allows MP to change tax plea
    She blamed her omission on stressful personal circumstances and a marriage breakdown, but pleaded guilty at the first opportunity…
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8442229

    25 March: ABC: GE chairman praises ‘gutsy’ carbon tax
    GE’s vice-chairman John Rice says there needs to be a cost associated with producing carbon, whether it is through a tax or a type of trading mechanism.
    GE makes a range of products, including wind turbines…
    “I think that will help companies like ours shift more resources to the carbon-reducing technology.”
    Mr Rice says it is important that countries such as Australia take the lead on carbon emission reduction.
    “If you wait for the world to act in unison, it will never happen. Look at the leadership that the Europeans provided in the nineties that basically resulted in today’s wind turbine market,” he said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-25/ge-chairman-praises-carbon-tax/3910974

    25 March: Alternet: GE Unleashes Propaganda Campaign To Hide Its Tiny Tax Burden and Mass Layoffs
    GE paid an average of 2.3% in taxes over the last ten years, while slashing its US workforce by 32,000 jobs. But its new ad campaign aims to whitewash all that.
    No corporation has surpassed General Electic’s mastery of profit-maximization, or its use of public-relations (“corporate propaganda”) to mask its true aims behind the widely-supported goals of expanding scientific horizons, “bringing good things to life” and rebuilding America’s industrial base…
    For example, the disclosure that GE racked up $14.2 billion in profits in 2010 while paying no federal income taxes was not well-received by the American public. GE not only avoided paying any taxes, but even managed to collect $3.2 billion in federal tax credits. This occurred against a backdrop of GE continuing to slash its U.S. workforce by 32,000 jobs, from 165,000 to 133,000 over the 2004-2010 period…
    http://www.alternet.org/story/154688/ge_unleashes_propaganda_campaign_to_hide_its_tiny_tax_burden_and_mass_layoffs/

    00

  • #

    This video is not very good because it uses too many ad hominem attacks against the ABC. Let the evidence speak for itself. Of course, the ABC reporter who did this piece in an overly zealous effort to debunk, made a terrible fool of herself, getting confused over the various claims being made.

    00

    • #
      Tom

      Agree, Will. It is a very odd amateur video production that has gone to great lengths to look and sound professional. Here’s a tip for those wanting to fight back against smears by the ABC and others: keep it factual, simple and honest and don’t attempt to use tricks or sophistry, viz. the excellent response of Jennifer Marohasy to the media watch smear. As Pointman says above, Wendy Carlisle is an activist pretending to be a journalist and has zero credibility outside of the small Australian university-based milieau of environmental fanatics and political radicals.

      00

      • #

        Tom, Will, fair points, but in the big picture, most productive conservative libertarians don’t go to the effort of producing anything at allfor youtube to reach the millions who use it. Sure, 1984 could tone this down a tad, inject some wry witty remarks, tighten it up. But they are in the game (more than can be said for most), and they did do their research. It deserves support. I’d like to see more.

        00

        • #

          I do appreciate it when people go to that sort of effort. But one can’t help but despair when after doing all that work, such basic mistakes are made. Your opponents will focus on and criticise your weaknesses, not your strengths.

          I am hopeful that once this latest of fads has passed, the “climate sceptic community” will turn their attention to scepticism in general over other types of nonsensical scientific claims. There are certainly plenty of them out there. It’s all rather depressing in the short term.

          00

  • #

    Hey, way way off topic I know, and sorry, but has anyone noticed the deafening roar from Bob Brown about the Queensland result?

    Tony.

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      He thought it was ‘fantastic’.

      Greens have no problem spinning black is white because they’ve already spun red as green.

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    Whats that Tony?????????? I cant hear you on account of all that “squealing like a pig” noises from Canberra. Did you say the coal mines caused Labor to lose the election?

    00

  • #
    Sally

    This blogger http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2047364082320718555&postID=237244204072579008 (Post “Geoffrey Palmer – good man”) is a Councillor on the Southland Regional Council in NZ (Environment Southland) and is no fan of Lord Monkton.

    Mr Guyton says that it’s not facts he needs, its nimbleness of mind.

    He is not interested at all in reading “The Delinquent Teenager: an IPCC Expose by Donna Laframboise”

    He thinks that he has amassed more than enough facts to anchor his case. From this point on he wants to be active in preventing it, not forever squabbling over it’s validity.

    The term ‘denier’ comes to mind.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ambler_un_governance.pdf

    SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL AT CANCUN
    On 26 and 27 November 2010, the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society gathered in Mexico City to discuss their strategy for the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC that was held in Cancún from 29 November to 10 December.
    The points were familiar UNFCCC objectives and included:
     “To define an outline of an international financial architecture to combat climate change, putting into place the proposal to create the Copenhagen Green Fund in order to mobilise 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to assist developing countries.”

     “In the short term, the commitment to provide 10 billion dollars in 2010, 2011 and 2012 for this purpose must be realised through a multilateral framework, in a manner that is transparent.”  “To support the recommendations of the UN High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, including a suggested carbon price of 20-25 USD per ton of CO2 by 2020 and referring to the potential for revenue generation of both a carbon tax, as outlined in the Commission report, and a global tax on financial transactions, (Tobin Tax), as proposed by our International.”
    The website stopglobaltaxes.org has a comprehensive discussion of global taxation and governance:
    “The first known endorsement of world government appearing in a U.N. publication came in the 1994 Human Development Report, published by the U.N. Development Program. In a special article in the report, Jan Tinbergen, winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize for Economics, declared that, “Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national governments. What is needed is a World Government.” Although the report did not call for a global carbon tax, it did endorse the Tobin tax on foreign exchange movements “as a potential source of financing for a more effective United Nations.” It also endorsed “a world income tax.”
    “The 1998 edition of the Human Development Report proposed “eco-taxes” as a way to “provide incentives for consumers and producers to change to more efficient and sustainable use of resources.” Examples of such taxes included taxes on carbon dioxide emissions and taxes on consumer energy bills. Another carbon tax advocate is John P. Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.”

    In a special article in the report, Jan Tinbergen, winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize for Economics, declared that, “Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national governments. What is needed is a World Government.”
    
    Another carbon tax advocate is John P. Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/forget-climate-change-we-must-focus-on-the-real-issue/

    Forget climate change, we must focus on the real issue

    Over at Bishop Hill there is a post titled A Study in Groupthink that looks at an exchange of Twitter comments between Maurizio Morabito (@Omnologos) and Bora Zivkovic (@BoraZ), the blogs editor at Scientific American.

    The author of the Bishop Hill blog, Andrew Montford, explains in his post that Zivkovic is clearly very much out of the same mould as Peter Gleick, which I take to mean an unswerving true believer, a rigid in his views who sees anyone dissenting from what he chooses to believe in and argue for as ultimately evil or corrupted by vested interests. Montford’s take is that Zivkovic perhaps views his cause as beleaguered by wicked big business, and opines that reading Zivkovic’s tweets it’s a fascinating study in groupthink.

    Strictly speaking, when looking at the cabal of proponents of man-made global warming theory (AGW) and the band of sceptics lined up against them, you can see they are all in fact caught up in a groupthink. Because both sides act as if the issue at hand is about whether mankind really is causing the planet to warm significantly and therefore endangering the earth. Which is why I left the following comment on the blog:

    Ultimately it is all meaningless. While people like Zivkovic, Gleick, Mann, Trenberth, Briffa, Jones etc try to make this into a scientific argument, because they are funded to churn out hypotheses about the climate and the ecosystem, it is nothing of the sort. It is all about politics.

    Sceptics, and scientists who dissent from the ‘consensus’, could falsify, debunk and disprove every element of the AGW narrative and see off every member of the ‘team’ and make a laughing stock of the ’cause’, but we will still come under assault. For this is all about politics and ideology, even if the prominent actors don’t realise it.

    Ultimately if it is not climate change it will be some other vehicle connected to ‘sustainability’ that will be used as a means of controlling the population and redistributing wealth from the industrialised world to the developing world in a way that enriches the corporates.

    From the United Nations down, every tier of governance has been tasked with executing the ‘progressive’ agenda, which in reality is regressive for all of us. It’s not some crackpot conspiracy, it’s just the way those with power and wealth are steering the ship.

    This direction of travel will not be defeated by butting heads with a small band of AGW blowhards who are lavishly funded to continue producing ‘findings’ and ‘projections’ that fit in with the actions needed to further the overarching agenda. Until people start to tackle the root cause of the disease instead of the symptoms, we will continue to go round in circles playing ‘he said, she said’ while our democracy, liberty, wealth and individual rights ebb away.

    Expose the distortions, errors, scientific flaws all you like, but don’t lose sight of what is really going on and why.

    Politics has changed. We no longer have a left-right paradigm, even if many who are politically active but unaware of what is going on around them still define themselves in such terms. Today we have an authoritarian mix of progressive and fascist corporatism (rule by and in the interest of government and corporations) on one side, and mix of classical liberalism and libertarianism (limited government and individual liberty) on the other.

    We can see the evidence of the corporatist approach. It makes me laugh when the global warming fanatics try to undermine opposition to them by arguing the sceptics are in the pay of ‘big oil’. One of the worst propagandists for spinning this line is Bob Ward, mouthpiece for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Australian Journalist Jo Nova reported that Exxon-Mobil had paid $23 million to sceptical groups over a ten-year period. Big corporate Exxon-Mobil are therefore considered evil personified by warmists like Ward.

    Ward’s employer is named after its benefactor – the uber wealthy fund manager, Jeremy Grantham. In 2011 Grantham held 11,309,048 shares of Exxon stock. Why would Grantham fork out to fund an institute researching climate change when he is making a fortune from the very company cited by his minions as evil big oil? Perhaps because as a corporate animal his only interest is making money, and his hypocritical fence straddling is a means to that end.

    Let’s compare Exxon’s oft cited $23m funding of sceptics to money poured into environmental interests. How about another big corporate, BP? They were investing $8 billion in biofuels, wind power and solar while building long term options in carbon capture and storage and clean technology. Five billion dollars of that had already been invested by 2011. That money is funnelled into delivering exactly what the environmentalists want and also supports lobbying and activism. But they are still considered ‘big oil’.

    There are plenty more examples of these kind of inconvenient facts, where the supposed enemy is a friend and supposed ally is an opponent. The bottom line is these companies will support whatever helps their bottom line. They are super powerful and influential corporates, and with the subsidies on offer utterly committed to keeping the climate change gravy train on the tracks. And we, the taxpaying consumers, foot the bill to increase the wealth of these corporations.

    To believe the corporates have anything other than a vested interest in the centralisation of power and control that coordinates global action, to erode democracy and liberty which thus enables the transfer of wealth, is to reside in a realm of delusion. No matter what the ‘science’ reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political – and dare I say economic corporatist – agenda. This is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Gee Aye

    Is this the “any topic” thread? Even I can’t compete with the spacer paste-fest above. Maybe a moderator can put an asterisk against the comments related to the topic to help those interested in it. Shouldn’t take long.

    00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      So GA nothing to really add to the topic or do you just want to complain for the sake of it ?

      00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        well, yes actually, complaining was the thing I felt most able to do.. I have nothing to say because of the point I was making: it is hard to read and comment in a morass of irrelevence. None of the pasters and spacers bothered to take me to task (perhaps they hid behind a downturned thumb). I note that your only comment in this post to date was a response to an on-topic comment, so well done you.

        00

  • #

    This is again way off the topic, but please please forgive me people. I just couldn’t help myself.

    Today in Queensland both Political Parties held their first meetings in Parliament House, and I just had to post a link to the image of both Party meetings.

    Post Election Party Meetings

    One thing is worth noting since this result came in. Notice how the AUSTRALIAN Labor Party has suddenly become Queensland Labor, and all Canberra based Labor pollies refer to it as such.

    You have to smile.

    Tony.

    00

    • #

      Hey Tony, notice someone missing in the Labor photo?

      The RAT deserted the sinking ship.

      Cap’n Bligh? Nah, Captain Anna Schettino of the Australian Costa Concordia Party more like it.

      00

  • #
    KeithH

    Almost the entire complement of Left-wingers at Gillard’s ABC, along with the well placed moles who have infiltrated or been placed in the CSIRO, BoM, Climate Commission and all the other climate change spin-off alarmist groups reliant on taxpayer funded grants, are in full cry now as I predicted a few days ago. Scarcely a day passes without some new dodgy tweaked climate-modelled disaster scenario being faithfully reported unchallenged on the ABC “World Today” and/or other ABC “flagship” programs. As for any alternative view being presented for balance, forget it. This situation will only increase and worsen in the effort to brainwash the gullible until the disastrous carbon dioxide tax comes in July 1st!

    However, I do take heart from the Queensland election result and the very real anger widespread in the community against the policies of Gillard, Swan, Combet, Brown and Co.,, in particular the carbon dioxide tax. We can only hope the damage will be limited until the next election! We must try to maintain and increase pressure on ABC employees to try and shame them into once more becoming something like real investigative journalists!

    00

  • #
    Matty

    Wendy and Co are getting very uncomfortable, and their ignorance is amazing. Many are waking up to the fact the sceptics are far better informed than they thought. I remeber one ABC presenter scoffing at Monckton’s assertion that CO2 in the Cambrian was 7000 ppm!! There they sit dumb while the news is getting out. I see that only 34% of Austrlians are convinced of man-made warming now. 36% unsure and 29% sceptical, 1% don’t know(IPA-Galaxy).

    00

  • #
    J Jefferson

    Australian Broadcasting Communists.

    The ABC should be abolished along with all these carbon frauds, and the costs forced onto all those who supported them. That might give them pause next time they dream up another of these fatuous scames.

    00