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

Who’s running The Big Scare Campaign?

Just which Big Scare Campaign is the worst?

Thanks to Thanks to Steve Hunter h/t  Andy’s Rant.

The Australian Labor Party has been crying “Tony Abbott’s Scare Campaign” in every second interview on the carbon tax. I guess we could call this whipping up a scare about the scare campaign. Except that Abbott was responding to the primary scare, so cries of “Scary Abbott” are the counter scare to the scare that counters the real scare campaign.

We’re not just talking of job losses and electricity bills. The ALP forecasts Hell. The prophesies are for centuries of killer heatwaves and mega-fires –  seas may rise 7 m threatening 700,000 houses and melting Greenland; the houses that aren’t inundated might be razed by fire; acid will leach through the oceans wiping out the Great Barrier Reef (and 60,000 jobs). The entire agriculture industry of the Murray Darling irrigation basin will disappear….and deadly mosquito plagues will spread and put more than a million people at risk.

The Labor Party are The Primary Scareholders

Here’s a member of Parliament doing his best to scare the pants off Australians (guess who?)

Excerpted:

“The massive stores of heat in the world’s oceans means climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries.

… if we fail to control global greenhouse gas emissions global average atmospheric temperature could rise by up to 5 or 6°C above 1990 levels by the end of this century. These are dramatic temperature increases. To provide a point of comparison, the difference in average global temperatures between the last ice age and today is about 5°C. These temperature changes would be accompanied by significant and ongoing rises in sea level, heat waves, bushfires and droughts, disruptions to ecosystems including the extinction of many species, disease threats, and social and geopolitical destabilisation. 

More than 700,000 residences across Australia are estimated to be at threat from the effects of climate change including storm surges and extreme weather events.

Bushfires are expected to become more intense, and the interval between them will shorten. The mega fires in Canberra in 2003 and Victoria in 2009 are consistent with these expected changes in fire regimes…

Under a worst case scenario irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin would virtually disappear by 2100.

Climate change and population growth are likely to increase the number of people living in areas suitable for supporting dengue fever by up to 1.4 million by 2050.

Assuming no adaptation, there could be an additional 5000 heat related deaths in our five largest cities by 2050.

A tipping point is where the climate is effectively flipped into a new state with no way to recover. Some of these flips can occur rapidly with little advance warning. It is possible that a temperature threshold will be crossed later this century that will see the eventual disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet. If this happened, it would lead to 7 meters of sea level rise. Such a change would be irreversible in any timeframe meaningful for human societies”

 Source: Greg Combet in Parliament , 13 August 2009. (my emphasis added – the full speech is at the link).

———————————————————————

Steve Hunter is a freelance cartoonist and illustrator and lives in Buderim Queensland. Check out his site and Andys Rant too.

H/t to the excellent Kerry W in 2009 for the Combet link.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (65 votes cast)
Who's running The Big Scare Campaign?, 8.7 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7e2upsk

329 comments to Who’s running The Big Scare Campaign?

  • #

    Pol-reviewed science …

    Pointman

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Bic Mac Combo errr Buddy Holly err Knucklehead err Mr Greg Combet.

      The biggest scaremonger of them all.

      Under a worst case scenario irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin would virtually disappear by 2100.

      Let us rewrite this for accuracy.

      Under a worst case scenario irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin would virtually disappear by 2020 if the ALP and Greens win another election!!

      Pointman, as always is correct, it is Politically driven CRAP by people who know nothing.

      I would hazard a guess, Buddy Holly is in it for the money!!

      There must be a lot of Union Super Funds in all those Green schemes that are about to close! or go Bankrupt!

      Ha! Bring it on, We ain`t scared of you Big Mac Combo !!

      :)

      00

      • #
        Mawashi

        You’re being a bit unf likening Combet to Buddy Holly! Holly had talent.

        00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        A repost from previous article, with modifications:

        Buddy Holly…errr..Big Mac Combo?

        I take exception to that comparison. Holly is a legend, Combet is a dipstick, dwells in dark places, oily to touch and leaves a stain on whatever he touches.

        Rock On Peggy Sue!!!

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          I actually shook his hand once…………….it felt like a cold dead wet fish which of course should come as no suprise

          00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            I actually shook his hand once.

            I had the same experience, Wallsend High School, election day 2007 even wished him well, oh how I wish I could take that moment back.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Student or teacher Bob?

            When i meet him he was wandering the halls of a RAAF base looking for ways to pinch a few pennys not many of us were there to “wish him well”.

            00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Student or teacher Bob?

            Neither, I was just there to vote, although two of my children were students there.

            00

    • #
      old44

      Pol Pot reviewed science.

      00

  • #
    Kneel 8250

    Looks a lot like Combet is a Climate Scientist.

    If the Labor Party are sooo sure the Climate change is man made and Carbon Dioxiode is the driver, and a tax on the Australian people will fix the Climate, then call an election and lets see what the Adults think.
    This is the most childish Government I have ever seen. And I thought the Whitlam Government was the worst I would ever live through.
    Kneel.

    00

    • #
      Cookster

      It’s Combet’s job to be a scare monger. But as usual he fails to tell the Australian pubic that even if Australia reduces it’s CO2 emissions to zero it won’t have any effect on the climate as Australia only produces about 1% of global emissions. Scare mongers like Gillard, Combet and the Greens can carry on all they like about rising sea levels and so on but for Australia the Carbon Tax effect is economic, not environmental. The economic effects are bad and will get worse the longer our trading partners and competitors fail to take similar actions.

      00

      • #

        “…as Australia only produces about 1% of global CO2 emissions.”
        And, of course, it’s important the we note, in addition, that CO2 doesn’t do squat as far as the climate is concerned. Remember, the ipcc founded the AGW theory on a false claim that there is a causal correlation between CO2 & temperature. The ipcc claim has since been debunked! But maybe 98% of the public doesn’t know this about CO2 (they just see the Venus propaganda…), so that’s why it’s important that we spread the word about this must see 3 minute video that exposes Al Gore for repeating the ipcc deception on CO2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

        00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Looks a lot like Combet is a Climate Scientist.

      Actually Combet’s background is in mining engineering.

      00

      • #
        gytr_r1

        Interesting Agent Smith…

        Apparently he didn’t graduate…

        So more distortions of the truth:

        He was later educated at the University of New South Wales where he studied mining engineering,[4] and then graduated from the University of Sydney with a Bachelor of Economics

        Nowhere dies it say he graduated as a mining engineer.

        Not much or a real working history either, apparently:

        Clicky to wikipedia

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Interesting Agent Smith…

          Apparently he didn’t graduate…

          So more distortions of the truth:

          HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

          He has TWO degrees! ONE in mining engineering and ANOTHER ONE (1 + 1 = 2) in ECONOMICS.

          The fact you can’t even accept that he has two university degrees suggests you aren’t really interested in the truth.

          00

          • #
            gytr_r1

            The fact you can’t even accept that he has two university degrees suggests you aren’t really interested in the truth.

            ——————————————————————————–

            I don’t accept anything without evidence. Where’s the evidence? Your word means nothing to me.

            00

          • #
            gytr_r1

            The fact you can’t even accept that he has two university degrees suggests you aren’t really interested in the truth.

            Here’s my list of evidence:

            From his page (bolding is mine):

            He studied mining engineering at the University of New South Wales, working in the coal industry and later in community organisations. After working in the field of occupational health and safety, he went on to become a union official, at the same time graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Sydney. He also has a Graduate Diploma in Labour Relations and the Law.

            1. Mining Engineers are and were generally White Collar (staff, salary workers)
            2. OH&S reps in that era generally came from the blue collar workers
            3. As did Union reps and officials.

            So, where is your evidence again?

            00

          • #
            Bite Back

            Adam Smith re Greg Combet

            The fact you can’t even accept that he has two university degrees suggests you aren’t really interested in the truth.

            I can accept that he has two degrees. What no one can accept is that those degrees make him anything beneficial. The truth is he’s dangerous! Watch what he does, not his degrees. :-(

            00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Not to mention the Labor Government threats to fine companies up to $1.1 million and individuals up to $220,000 if they dare to blame the carbon tax for price rises and don’t get the calculations exactly right when audited by the ACCC.

    Remarkable that the Government insists businesses get their price increases precisely accurate when the Government with their huge team in Treasury can’t get within a bulls roar of their budget forecasts!

    00

    • #

      From their point of view, they don’t forecast or predict reality, they create it by their words. So, obviously, anyone going counter to their word is trying to create a reality that will defeat their words. Hence, they see it as their right and duty to force others to make reality obey the words.

      Such people have no conception that reality is what it is and that it is the primary task of the human mind to discover what it actually is. Words are irrelevant to reality except for the slight increase in entropy that occurs as they are produced. These are the ultimate truths they wish to evade and are willing to destroy modern technological civilization and all of mankind to do it.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Words are irrelevant to reality except for the slight increase in entropy that occurs as they are produced

        But words still have a power of their own.

        “In the beginning was The Word”. A lot of wars have been fought on religious grounds, many of which stem from those six words.

        And and a lot of people have died over the interpretation of words, in the name of one or other belief system.

        Combet is an evangelist, in the true religious sense of the word.

        00

        • #

          Words have power over men due to the meaning and intent they overlay on the sounds or marks on paper. That they kill each other based upon what they attribute to words is simply how the entropy of reality is increased. Reality does not care about the words or meaning man assigns to them. It simply is.

          00

    • #
      Bulldust

      The Carbon Gestapo is already threatening bakers … yes, those evil merchants of sugary death:

      http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/accc-puts-brumbys-carbon-tax-claims-under-microscope-20120704-21gj6.html

      Don’t you think the ACCC could better utilise its powers to examine genuine abuse of monooloy power in Australia like … I dunno … the fact that we basically have only two supermarket chains, and the pricing BS that goes with it?

      00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Wow! With all that at stake I wonder if I should be skeptical any more. I mean $23 per ton is cheap to fix all that. Hell, it will have to be much higher to stop all those bad things from happening.

    Keep up the example Australia, the whole world is watching.

    (Disclamer: the above post may contain elements of wry humor, sarcasm and twists of irony.)

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You don’t say?

      00

    • #
      crakar24

      But Mark if the situation is as dire as you (and Greg) say then surely, surely, surely if i ask Greg exactly how much biblical calamity would be forestalled by the introduction of this tax he would have an answer?

      Surely he would not respond with a “Ye of little faith” remark?

      00

    • #
      Bite Back

      In lieu of thumbs up…

      :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

      00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Meanwhile back in reality.
    “For Australia as a whole, June minimum temperatures well below average; at 0.94 °C below average it was the 12th-coolest year on record.”
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
    No stretching or tweaking of numbers can hide the cold.

    00

  • #
    mwhite

    “The massive stores of heat in the world’s oceans means climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries.”

    We’re gonig to have to ban water and tax anyone who uses it.

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Judge: You may make your opening statement.


      Barrister:
      What the prosecution shall prove, in very short order your Honour, is that on the night of 28th June 2012, this defendant took a hot water bottle to bed with him!

      Jury:
      (GASP!)


      Barrister:
      Not only has the defendant proceeded to conceal this proscribed material within his dwelling, but he has admitted to consorting with the enemy in the most intimate manner!


      Jury:
      (GASP!)


      Judge:
      How do you plead?


      Defendant:
      Guilty. You betcha. It was cold that night!


      Jury:
      (GASP!)


      Barrister:
      He confesses! He confesses! (turns) Did you give even a moment’s thought to how the fruits of your nocturnal infidelities could be supported? Do you expect society to mop up after you in 9 months’ time when we hear the pitter-patter of little raindrops? Have you no concern for the consequences of your actions?


      Defendant:
      Nah, it’s cool, man. There won’t be any new water out of this, we did it Trenberth’s Travesty style!

      00

    • #
      mullumhillbilly

      CO2 tax is just the fizz. Why not go for the real money? Since DiHydrohen Monoxide is actually the main GHG in both effect and volume, why aren’t we taxing steam? You know, all those derdy polludin chimneys in the powers station photos? And all the steam coming out of Jo’s blog reader ears, and the wet bits behind the Greens ears. It’s our duty as good global citizens pay 2c to the UN for emissions from the morning cuppa. Now that we’ve started by taxing breathing, next step is to tax the clouds… got to be a winner.

      00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Nothing to worry about then. None of their prophesies of the last 20 to 30 years has been realised so the chances they have these ones right is pretty slim.

    It is Biblical to stone false prophets. Though maybe these guys were stoned before they made their prophetic utterances.

    00

  • #

    Let’s remember that to the international collectivist set behind the carbon tax and IPCC and polar bears are endangered and ALL glaciers are melting is a desire to make the social sciences a political tool for control and power. Sociology, psychology, pedagogy, and cultural anthropology are just tools to try to control human behavior going forward. Without it being so apparent on what is going on.

    Which is why it is so galling when American share info with the British who talk Down Under and we all start noticing the commonalities.

    Their desired goals matter. Power and control over people and the money to be generated by an economy. Which they wrongfully assume is a fixed pie.

    The other thing that matters are their intentions. Which is the opposite of what most of us dwell on who have to live with reality.

    Consequences get ignored. The beauty of OPM I suppose.

    Means are something you use with a better slogan than what you actually intend.

    Education is a means. Climate change. Biodiversity. Overpopulation.

    Preferably broad transnational concepts that appeal to emotions and are hard to disprove.

    00

  • #

    Suppose the medical profession had a similar approach to the Labor Party.

    You go to your doctor over a minor cough. He says this is the onset of a rare form of cancer, getting his mates (fellow professionals) to confirm this. The doctor also says the only form of treatment is new and expensive. Claims it might cause a bit of discomfort, but all his fellow professionals agree it is necessary.
    You end up in extreme pain, loss of hair and suffer weight loss. Some outside the profession say that the diagnosis is wrong, and even if it were right, the treatment is untested, ineffective and highly addictive.

    This will not happen in medicine as
    1) Medical professionals have a duty of care towards their patients. In treating a patient they will have a reasonable expectation that the patient will be better off being treated than not. They are not infallible, but they (as a body and individually) learn from errors, and look to a wide body of research and knowledge.
    2) Treatments are developed under competitive environments. Bogus or unsubstantiated claims, or faulty science, are rigorously rebutted.
    3) If a medical professional causes harm through willful ignorance, they can be sued and disbarred. If a pharmaceutical company makes false claims about its products, and suppresses evidence to the contrary, they can be sued and potentially bankrupted.

    But when it comes to “climate science” only the most extreme voices are heard. With respect to policy, there is willful ignorance about the adverse side effects, and the effectiveness in treating the disease. The Labor Party is self-interested in their quack medicine, as it is their means of holding onto power. The opportunity to disbar these political practitioners from office cannot come soon enough.

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      What you describe is an interesting proposition.

      Doctors are professionals who are trusted (except by some odd sects).

      Science is essentially the basis for medicine, so people presume that Scientists can be trusted as well.

      That is the link we need to break, in order to bring the whole shonky edifice into stark relief.

      What we need to do is start talking about “the duty of care required of scientists”, and start outing those who do not conform to that principle.

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Permit me to extend this thought. Medical doctors and dentists are perhaps the closest scientists to the average person (voter). When one looks at national health initiatives (a paranoid one) might consider the ulterior motives of those that want to control these scientists. If their income is in jeopardy, they will likely be silent or worse become artificially vocal and in step with those that control their income.

        Yes that is scary, no this is not sarcasm or even wry humor.

        00

      • #
        ceetee

        Politicians seem to love to use scientists to justify their actions and reward them accordingly. Scientists are human like the rest of us and many seem to have strong political persuasions and egos and are hopelessly compromised. I believe this has led to a symbiotic relationship that is detrimental to both science and democracy. This is all exacerbated by Fourth Estate that is largely devoid of any sense of any rational subjective analysis and is tribalist. To put it bluntly, until we can change this, our votes are not worth shit.

        00

  • #
    spartacusisfree

    One of the advantages of being an older industrial scientist [originally a Metallurgist, hybrid engineer, chemist physicist], is that I have covered a greater range of science than any academic and have measured real problems. So, here’s why this wazzock* is completely wrong.

    1. In the late 1940s, the great chemical engineer Hoyt C. Hottell measure the emissivity of CO2 in air over various path lengths so he could predict the emissivity/absorptivity of GHG-air mixtures of various temperatures. The emissivity levels off at ~200 ppmV in an infinite optical path. All metallurgists know Hottell Charts. The data were confirmed in the 1970s by Leveck. So there can be no CO2-AGW. Full stop, end of argument and the climate sceancists with the fancy models can’t prove any of the predictions except by fiddling data.

    2. The models are based on a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind from assuming 238.5 W/m^2 DOWN at TOA forgetting that Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation only applies at equilibrium, and the transition from convection to radiation is not equilibrium. To balance this, they assume the IR UP from the Earth’s surface is that for a black body in a vacuum, and you have conduction, convection and evapo-transpiration on top. This is nonsense because I have measured it and for 0.9 emissivity, radiation only exceeds the sum of the rest for natural convection at ~100 deg C.

    They think they can do this because Houghton used Schwarzchild’s two stream approximation and the meteorologists believe in ‘back radiation’. So, they assume 333 W/m^2 DOWN from the air, more black body radiation which does not exist. This is the returned after ‘being absorbed by the earth’s surface’. Do the sums and it creates 39% more energy than comes in from the Sun.

    3. They then claim the extra warming is hidden by assuming twice real low level cloud optical depth and a variable net AIE. These are wrong because Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong. In 2004, NASA put out a fake ‘surface reflection’ claim to justify the idea that clouds with smaller droplets ‘reflect more sunlight’. Ever seen a thundercloud, very dark underneath? It’s dark because rain drops are pushed up by strong convection near the top of the cloud – high albedo is a large drop effect, not small. The same new physics explains the high albedo of Venus, which Sagan got wrong too!

    These people haven’t a clue. They are confidence tricksters. Someone needs to put a few people in jail.

    *A wazzock is like a gimp but uglier…..

    00

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      These people haven’t a clue. They are confidence tricksters. Someone needs to put a few people in jail.

      I would say not a “few people”, but one. One demonstration case of fraud, financial deception (lying to get a commonwealth grant) and a lot of the BS would stop.
      Sadly, fraudsters are being encouraged by our political masters.

      00

    • #
      Speedy

      Sparticusisfree

      Yet another Metallurgist! No wonder the government is doing its level best to close those places down! An excellent article, thank you. I’m sorry I can’t thumb it up.

      Convection currents at the top of clouds – that would have nothing to do with the turbulence you experience as you pass through a cloud layer by any chance?

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      Good post Spartacus:

      The emissivity levels off at ~200 ppmV in an infinite optical path.

      Exactly, which is why Miskolczi is so interesting; his ‘theory’ does not require an infinite optical path as AGW does; and then of course there is Beers Law.

      00

      • #
        spartacusisfree

        I explain Mizkolczi by indirect thermalisation [direct thermalisation can't happen because quantum exclusion prevents it and the Principle of Indistinguishability (Gibbs) means molecules have no memory].

        So, a quantum is absorbed and the energy in it is pushed out of local space by a random thermal emission restoring Local Thermal Equilibrium. The energy then ricochets around the atmosphere until it is trapped at a heterogeneous interface, mainly clouds, or space.

        Firstly, more absorbed IR makes clouds more buoyant so convection speeds up and they precipitate faster. Secondly above the cloud level there is progressively less trapping/thermalisation with height of the IR energy so it mostly heads off the space, hence DOWN emissivity tends to zero.

        Net result constant IR optical path length independent of [CO2].

        00

    • #
      Leo G

      “They think they can do this because Houghton used Schwarzchild’s two stream approximation …”
      That wouldn’t be Sir John Houghton would it. The same who claims the global warming catastrophe was a revelation to him from God acting through his scientific skills, and who suggests that Christians who fail to accept the truth of the revelation are risking their eternal salvation?

      00

      • #
        spartacusisfree

        Houghton made a key mistake [p 11 of the latest edition] when he claimed that a gas in LTE [the lower atmosphere] emits as a black body. It cannot do unless it is at such a high temperature that all molecules emit, and then it’ll be SW.

        Thus we have Trenberth and the other meteorologists imagining in the IPCC energy budget that you have back radiation at 3.7 deg C which is then absorbed by the earth’s surface and returns as bb from 16 deg C, only possible in a vacuum for emissivity = 1.

        If you see the APS work on this, there is an attempt to fit a lower atmosphere emissivity of 0.76 to get rid of the Perpetual Motion Machine, but that would not give the desired scare story so Trenberth at. al. assume it’s unity.

        The other mistake made by Houghton is understandable in that the two stream approximation is common in Physics. It’s OK except at boundaries, hence the Perpetual Motion Machine!

        Claes Johnson has extended Planck’s physics to show net radiative flux is the important factor. I have devised the mechanism for this which is to assume an intermediate IR density of states which then has four rate equations, standard statistical thermodynamics at work.

        Quite frankly, I am getting very annoyed at the deception in climate science, the latest being Trenberth and Hansen with the ‘abyssal heat’, the AR5 scam. There is only one physical explanation of this: it can only happen when you have the very fast Antarctic ice melt as the World exits an ice age, and if you look at the isotherms in the oceans, it’s only at that place where you get reduced salinity that it happens. The explanation is in the equation of state.

        00

  • #
    Ally E.

    Can Juliar Gillard be had up for treason? She is working AGAINST Australians and AGAINST Australia.

    How about oath-breaking?

    Didn’t she promise to SERVE the people? I suppose that can be tweaked in the definition but impoverishing the people and silencing the people to enslave the people under the “This is for Your Own Good” banner and “Shut Up, we’re saving the world from… nothing” is NOT serving the people.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I wouldn’t be taking scientific advice from an overpaid Union Lackey holding an illegitimate position in an illegitimate government who seized government based on a lie after conducting what was, in effect, a bloodless coup.

    Would you?

    00

    • #
      catamon

      Quick Maddy! Man the barricades and save us all!!

      Oh, its just you getting all over excited again and indulging in some silly hyperbole.

      Amazing how every now and again some twerp comes out with the “illegitimate govt” line. Rinse repeat, rinse, repeat…….

      00

  • #
    Joe V.

    So ‘projection’ isn’t just what Climate models are supposed to do.

    It’s also a technique used by the insincere, to hide, obscure & distract from their own behaviour , by pointing up the existence of such very behaviours in others.

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      So ‘projection’ isn’t just what Climate models are supposed to do.

      I have always been bemused by the use of the word projection, in connection with the climate.

      These are the definitions I am used to:

      - An extrapolation is a future state that is likely to occur if nothing changes apart from time. This does not happen in the real world.

      - A projection is a future state that is likely to occur if just one variable changes over time. This only happens under laboratory conditions.

      - A forecast (family of projections) represents alternative likely future states when one or more related variables change by varying degrees, over time. This is what models produce. They cannot definitively predict reality, except over very short time horizions – think weather forecast – think stock or currency futures trading.

      - A prediction is a future state that will exist at a given point of time. It is a theoretical construct used as the starting point for “backcasting”.

      Given that the climate is essentially a chaotic system, which one of the above definitions is the most appropriate in determining what the world will be like 20 years from now?

      Perhaps, in answer to your second paragraph, we need to come up with a new term … ?

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Perhaps, in answer to your second paragraph, we need to come up with a new term … ?

        I believe the word is: GUESS

        It’s been around for a while.

        00

  • #
    pattoh

    The scariest thing in my future is my disenfranchised neighbour.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Who are the ‘deniers’ now Eh!

    Big Guvmint.

    While most are intelligent enough to see it’s just a snow job of pain deferred, there are still plenty of willing, gullible psychophants to parrot it.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    I notice with Horror that the pollies have just given themselves another massive payrise.

    I’ll bet thats to compensate them for the impact the carbon tax that they imposed on us against our will.

    Oh well, that’s ok then. After all, we should pay more taxes that they impose on us so they can be made immune to the effect of their ideology.

    I also note that victorian public servants just got a 14.5% payrise over three years as well.

    To all pollies and public servants on the recieving end of this, I have these words for you.

    If you accept these excessive payments now, you are a F-(king bloodsucking a-hole.

    00

  • #
    elva

    The fear of dengue fever increasing is a bit off base. I often see the front page of “The Courier Mail” for 1942. The paper has been doing this every day to mark 70 years since the near invasion of Australia. Some time ago it showed a picture of the army spraying the Woolloongabba area for dengue fever carrying mosquitoes. That area was and is an inner suburb of Brisbane which was a little swampy back then. Since then spraying for mosquitoes is regularly done all around Brisbane by the city council.

    00

    • #
      brc

      Dengue fever risk was the reason that all the water tanks around Brisbane were carted away. As tanks fall into disrepair, they become breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

      Everyone was connected to town water and all the water tanks were removed in Brisbane for public health reasons.

      Fast forward to the 21st century (when we’re all supposed to be smarter) and the government went back to subsidising the purchase of water tanks for people in Brisbane to cover up their own planning neglect by trying to coax water infrastructure built to serve until 2000 long past it’s capacity planning date.

      Meanwhile, not too long into the future, I see a dengue fever scare and the collection of all those subsidised water tanks again, once the plastic becomes brittle and the mosquitoes start breeding en masse again. And the long-suffering tax and rate payers will be on the hook to go and round up all those water tanks they paid for.

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi brc

        You’ve very accurately described modern urban management by politics, not reason.

        My wife and I recently built a new house and we were forced to include a rain water tank and all the associated costs.

        I figured that if every household in the city paid the same for their tanks we would have enough money to build several dams so abhorred by the left “environmentalists”.

        Of course, if you wanted to believe in the CO2 menace, the provision of individual tanks to each home is a huge extra CO2 burden on the environment compared with the sensible time honored and economical solution of a great big DAM.

        :)

        00

  • #
    Morley Sutter

    Jo:
    Greg Combet as “Scareholder” is good but in keeping with Manicbeancounter’s medical analogy I prefer “Scaregiver”.

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Just a point for reference: is there any “discussion” in parliament that is NOT hyperbole? Are we judging comments on the basis of reasonableness that is inapplicable to parliamentary debate?

    I’m a Canadian. The parliament here is similar, except we have less passion, probably because we have less good weather than Australia. However, whenever a sitting member comments on what a governing sitting member suggests/will do/has done, the country is always going down the drain, facing a financial crisis, or losing any job a blue-collar worker might have had, especially those that no longer have any health-care protection because the State has thrown the little people to the wolves. If it’s straight politics, the bluster is easily just that. Maybe our elected are just speaking in the same over-the-top way about a real subject and haven’t recognized the difference.

    Woe is us.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s the graph of all models for Greenland and Antarctica for the next 300 years as used by IPCC.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    That’s 99% of the planet’s ice BTW, so where is dangerous SLR to come from I wonder? Antarctica is negative (89% of ice) while Greenland is positive (10% of ice)

    00

  • #
    michael hammer

    There is another way of looking at CO2 emissions. Because carbon is the basis of all life, the amount of carbon in the biosphere to a large extent determines the size of the biosphere. All the carbon in fossil fuel was once part of the biosphere until it accidentally got sequestered some millions of year ago. What we are doing by burning fossil fuels is returning that carbon back to the biosphere and thereby expanding the size of the biosphere.

    Environmental alarmists warn that population growth is not sustainable and will lead to famine. To avoid that food production would have to increase either by shifting more of the biosphere to edible food or expanding the biosphere. However virtually all plant material on the planet is eventually eaten by something so the first alternative means some animal species will miss out. We may not care about that but they will. Competition for food (not between humans but between humans and other species) will increase and in case no one noticed insects and fungi in particular are extremely effective in competition with humans. The more viable alternative is to expand the biosphere and for that we need more CO2 not less.

    There is evidence this is already happening. A recent NASA report showed significant increase in plant growth in temperate zones and now a report cited by both Benny Peiser and WUWT claim that the increasing CO2 levels will turn African savannah back to forest during this century. By the way it is also worth noting yet another negative or stabilizing feedback loop. More CO2 leads to more plant growth expanding the biosphere which reduces CO2 rises. This suggests that continued use of fossil fuel will not lead to monotonic rise in CO2 levels but a new equilibrium where the anthropogenic CO2 simply supports an expanded biosphere.

    I predict that after mankind has found viable alternative energy sources to fossil fuels we will see rational environmentalists strongly advocate the burning of fossil fuel not for energy production but to generate CO2 so as to maintain food production world wide and avoid famines.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    BTW Juliar’s expert Quiggin can’t do simple maths, but would we be surprised?

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

    Also the USA may return to 1990 levels of co2 emissions this year ,using new technology and easier gas extraction.

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Also the USA may return to 1990 levels of co2 emissions this year ,using new technology and easier gas extraction.

      Oh, and because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been regulating green house gases since late 2008.

      Of course if they just had a carbon price they could do the same at lower cost to the economy and consumers.

      00

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    I read somewhere that there are more pigs in China than the rest of the world combined. If pigs start to fly, it COULD cause several major aircraft disasters, so let’s spend a quizzilion dollars to buy all the pigs in China, so we can clip their wings if they start to fly. Makes just as much sense.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    A new record!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Got up this morning and my inbox was full, 190 comments of course most of them were Team Smith but still a record.

    By the way i do not beleive team Smith is a group of people, it appears to me Smith is just a loner with a cage full of monkees each with a type writer and now and again one of them produces something legible but most of the time it is just jibberish as one would expect.

    The ALP’s AbbottAbbottAbbott campaign is just a red herring its a bit like Obama saying “Ooooh look at that terrorist bomb over there” whenever someone gets too close to the truth.

    The ALP are no different and they can pay smith any amount of money to try and muddy the waters but the truth will out eventually.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    On topic.

    Over at No Tricks Zone Pierre has done a wonderful expose of the difference between “natural variability” – when it’s cold, and “global warming” – when it’s hot.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/03/to-explain-temperaturesstorms-borenstein-and-scientists-apply-a-totally-different-absurd-science-just-2-years-later/

    The article does a very good job of laying bare the selective use of both “science” and “facts” to bamboozle the public.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The problem with the cartoon is that it fails to acknowledge that Tony’s party is at the same place regarding the science and wants to cut CO2e as well. THe other difference is that the impacts of climate change ARE kinda scary, wheras the impacts of sensible economic policy are not so scary.

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      MattB,

      This is a simple equation.

      DO YOU ACCEPT WHAT COMBET SAYS AS FACT?

      If so then you are a beleiver

      DO YOU REJECT WHAT COMBET SAYS AS COMPLETE NONSENSE?

      If so then you are a sceptic.

      So which is it MattB, the blue pill or the red pill?

      Once you have answered this question we can then move on to “wheras the impacts of sensible economic policy are not so scary”

      00

      • #
        MattB

        Lol Jo is often making fun of newspaper polls that present options that only a lunatic could select. I neither accept what Combet says as fact nor reject what combet says as complete nonsense.

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          MattB says (In other words): I have no principles nor morals. I pick the Green pill

          Funny MattB I have grown to accept the above notion when reading what you post.

          As MV says: slither slither….

          00

        • #
          crakar24

          Hey i just got a “web page is too busy try later etc”

          You are very popular at the moment Jo :-)

          And now to MattB:

          YOU ARE PATHETIC, you are nothing but a troll of the likes of Smiff.

          00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        MattB,

        This is a simple equation.

        DO YOU ACCEPT WHAT COMBET SAYS AS FACT?

        I think Combet will be proven correct that the average electricity price increase for small business will amount to $5 per week.

        I’ll also make one extra prediction. When Combet is proven to be correct, no one in this forum who has said he is wrong will admit that they were wrong and that Combet was right.

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          I’ll also make one extra prediction. When Combet is proven to be correct, no one in this forum who has said he is wrong will admit that they were wrong and that Combet was right.

          ——————————————————————————–
          Which is kinda ironic because i am waiting for you to admit that you were wrong about the full stop.

          So lets get back on topic here Smith admit you bullshitted about the full stop and then lets discuss the $5 increase shall we?

          00

    • #
      memoryvault

      the impacts of climate change ARE kinda scary

      Yeah, and it’s not like it’s ever happened before.

      sarc/off

      .
      Interesting to note that June just past was one of the coldest on record here in OZ, with temperatures nearly one degree C below average.

      Climate change really does appear to be happening -
      it’s just going the wrong way is all.

      Now might be a good time to enlighten with your much awaited Plan B.

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The scariest thing, is you seriously trying to use the oxymoron “sensible economic policy”.

      You can have “sensible policy”, or “economic policy”, but they should never coexist in the same sentence.

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        The scariest thing, is you seriously trying to use the oxymoron “sensible economic policy”.

        You can have “sensible policy”, or “economic policy”, but they should never coexist in the same sentence.

        I don’t know how things work in New Zealand, but in Australia we don’t go out of our way to pursue nonsensical economic policies.

        00

        • #
          Winston

          in Australia we don’t go out of our way to pursue nonsensical economic policies.

          No Adam, we just stumble ass-backwards into them on a regular basis without even trying.

          00

        • #

          Thanks for the laugh!!!

          00

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          in Australia we don’t go out of our way to pursue nonsensical economic policies.

          No we observe other nations pursuing them for five to ten years, stuff their economies, then follow like sheep to the slaughter.

          00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      The problem with the cartoon is that it fails to acknowledge that Tony’s party is at the same place regarding the science and wants to cut CO2e as well. THe other difference is that the impacts of climate change ARE kinda scary, wheras the impacts of sensible economic policy are not so scary.

      The other thing the cartoon gets completely wrong is the use of the terms “global warming” and “climate change”.

      It was Frank Luntz, a political pollster / spin doctor for George W. Bush that proposed using the term “climate change” because it sounds less scary than “global warming”.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

      It is funny that this use of rhetoric is now somehow being blamed on centre-left politicians when it was something invented by a spin doctor for a centre-right President.

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        No, no, no, no, no, no and NO Smiff we still have to discuss your abuse of the Kings english before we let you move on.

        You need to explain and justify why you threw in a full stop to complete change the context of what combet said then you need to address the “modest” increase of $5.

        Until you do such a thing i call on all readers/posters to completely ignore you for now on.

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          You need to explain and justify why you threw in a full stop to complete change the context of what combet said then you need to address the “modest” increase of $5.

          I am yet to see any evidence why the increase electricity cost for small businesses will be greater than an average of $5.

          Please show me the modelling that proves that all the state and federal treasuries are wrong.

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            Smith,

            The first thing you need to do is admit that the “full stop” only exists in your reality and is not real world once you do that we can continue this conversation until then i and hopefully everyone one else has nothing more to say.

            00

          • #
            Juliar

            State treasury modelling predicted a much larger cost rise than the Federal Treasury. If you had done your researc, then you would know that Treasury modeled the impact of the Tax on $20 per tonne and not the $23 per tonne. At the same time, the compensation was based on the effects of the $20 per tonne Carbon price and not the $23 per tonne. St

            00

    • #
      Laura

      This. Exactly this. (Loved how the coalition got completely owned on Q and A the other night on this point.)

      00

  • #

    I mentioned on Monday night during Q and A how Greg Combet misrepresented the effect of this Tax on the costs to small business, and I mentioned that when the video was posted I would link to it.

    That video is now available and while it is 50 minutes or more in length, I can direct you to exactly where he lies does make that error. below is the link to that video.

    Q and A Monday 02 July 2012

    For context, you need to see the question that was actually asked. This is at the 10.55 mark.

    Combet is allowed to waffle a little before addressing the reply, and his direct reply to that question begins at the 12.34 mark, and the thing to look out for here begins at the 13.00 mark.

    What Combet says is as follows:

    …and a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity a week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

    Note he says the increase for small businesses that consume 10MWH of power a week will have a modest increase of $5 per week.

    I explained in detail yesterday how much those price increases will be, and due solely to the introduction of this Carbon Tax (sic) and that will be, for those people in small business on that scale of 10MWH per week of 3.2 cents per KWH, and that is just from the one provider Ergon, but they are all similar. This is the link to that Comment here at Joanne’s site.

    10MWH is 10,000KWH, and at a 3.2 cents per KWH increase, then that increase for the average small business will be $320 per week, which is significantly larger than the $5 a week that Combet quotes.

    Either Combet has (a) not bothered to find out the true facts, (b) not asked a staffer to find out the true facts and then tell him, or (c) he has just lied misrepresented the truth of the matter.

    Note also how in that vast audience, and esteemed panel, no one picked him up on it.

    Why?

    Because no one knows, and that is what people like Combet are using to their advantage so they CAN misrepresent the actual facts.

    Where he says a $5 increase per week, people will believe exactly what he has said and think … “hey, that’s not too bad at all.’

    At the true figure of that extra $320 per week, that comes to an extra $15,600 a year, and that’s not the total electricity account, that’s just the INCREASE.

    Will anyone question what he says? No.

    Will anyone hold him to account? No.

    Will he get away with it? He already has.

    Tony.

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Tony,

      320/5=64

      Maybe Combet got confused and meant IF the small business gets 64 customers a week then that will lead to a $5 increase per customer………nah he is a lying shit as you say.

      MattB wont comment on this because it would mean he would have to question his faith and that shall not do so he will ignore it.

      The reason why Combet gets away with it is because of tards like MattB, JB, Catamon et al. Still too stupid to know they have been had even after all these years.

      00

      • #
        MattB

        no, in fact MattB has politely commented pointing out that Combet must have the 10MWh per week wrong!!!! If you were not thick you may have picked up on that yourself.

        00

        • #

          MattB,

          no, in fact MattB has politely commented pointing out that Combet must have the 10MWh per week wrong!!!!

          I can’t actually believe you said that you fool, and I know that’s ad hom, but Judas Priest, you really deserve it this time.

          An increase of $6 a week at 3 cents per KWH means that the AVERAGE small business, as quoted by Gregory Ivan is consuming only 200KWH a week, which is even less than the average residential household consumes, and only 2% of that 10MWH.

          Quick, Matty, run into the bathroom and look in the mirror. You’ll see what the rest of us are now (figuratively) seeing, a very red faced MattB.

          Oh, ho ho ho!

          No, MattB, what Combet said was not wr, wr, wr, (Damn, a Fonzie moment) but carefully calculated to mislead, and misrepresent. He just flat out lied.

          See what I mean though. The worshipping sycophants will believe everything that their Masters tell them.

          Tony.

          00

          • #
            Mat L

            Tony, you excitable fellow. A few points:

            You are actually defending a 10 MWh/ week usage in a small business as reasonable (ie not a mistake)? That’s a bit ‘scare mongery’, isn’t it?

            I agree with your ballpark estimate of $6/ week increase = 200kWH/ week. Now by 52 weeks, we get our magical 10MWh figure. So it might be that Mr Combet mistakenly said week instead of year when defining his average small business? Lets see:

            In 2010, Australian average consumption per household was b/w 6.5-7.5 MWh for the year (various sources including abs).
            ATO defines small business as turnover of less than $2 million. My small business consumption is ~0.5 MWh/ year.
            So I think it is completely reasonable to assume an average small business use of around 10MWh / year – and that’s where the ~$5 figure comes from.

            Remember to step back and take a deep breath, maybe just maybe, you got it wrong.

            00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Faint, far off sound of Coalition crickets chirping.

      00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Tony,

      Just got a rates update from AGL.

      Electricity prices (ex GST) from the 10th of July…

      Peak Consumption from 32.30 to 36.85 c/kWh or a 14% increase.
      Shoulder Consumption from 22.98 to 27.16 or a 18.1% increase.
      Off Peak Consumption from 10.67 to 14.36 or a 34.5% increase.
      Supply Charge (c/day) from 87.29 to 90.05 or a 3.1% increase.

      The gas rates are broken down into 11 categories including supply charge, so I won’t detail them here, but three random checks came out at a 16% to 21% rise

      So I will estimate a rough average of 18% for Gas (matches the shoulder for Electricity).

      And CPI is supposed to be about 3% (my proverbial…)

      Cheers ExWarmist

      00

      • #
        MattB

        Rises yes, but not all of which is carbon tax related. MY electricity bills in WA have been rising astronomically for 3 years or so with no carbon tax to blame. There are harsh realities of electricity prices we have been shielded from for years by State Govts who win vites through cheap power.

        00

        • #

          Oh MattB,

          give up while you’re so far behind mate.

          Did you not read the link to the earlier comment at Joanne’s site I provided in the original Comment 27. It detailed the prices on the Friday prior to CO2 Tax Day, and then for Monday, the day following CO2 Tax Day. ALL the power Companies reflected the same changes (approximately) on the same day.

          That 2.5 to 3.2 cents per KWH is what I have consistently stated all along, and have now been passed into effect.

          ALL OF THEM ARE DUE SOLELY TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS CARBON TAX (sic)

          Oh, and MattB, Governments do not set the prices for electricity. That is now all done by those providers, who all compete one with the other, if you will, your typical market mechanism.

          You just have no idea about facts do you.

          It’s always … but, but, but.

          Tony.

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Oh, and MattB, Governments do not set the prices for electricity. That is now all done by those providers, who all compete one with the other, if you will, your typical market mechanism.

            Yes this market mechanism was set up by the Keating Labor government.

            It is very amusing to me that it takes Labor governments to set up markets in Australia, including deregulating banks, airlines, and even simply floating the dollar.

            00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            [Oh, and MattB, Governments do not set the prices for electricity. That is now all done by those providers, who all compete one with the other, if you will, your typical market mechanism.]

            Tony, you know better than this. MattB told you he is W.A. where there is a lot less competition in the generation sector than in the rest of the country because W.A. isn’t part of the grid.

            And also I notice how you just conveniently ignored MattB’s point where the Liberal Premier Colin Barnett has allowed massive electricity price increases through, something like 55% over the last 3 years.

            But now you are trying to tell us that a 10% increase THAT IS COMPENSATED FOR through income tax cuts and increases to government payments is the end of the world!

            Where were you complaining when Colin Barnett was allowing power prices to be jacked up without anyone getting compensation for it?

            00

    • #
      MattB

      Short answer to TOny:
      It is clear that COmbet’s error is in stating that the average weekly use of a small business is 10MWh. Just think about it … massive.

      Here’s a random link:http://www.makeitcheaper.com.au/about-us/press-releases/2010/04/new-service-to-help-victorian-businesses-cut-electricity-costs-11415

      “A typical small business is likely to have a bill of just over $3,400 a year” (this is in Victoria).

      Now if Carbon tax is about 10% increase… that is $340 per year = $6 per week increase = ball park Combet figure.

      Also $3400 a year, at say 20c per kWh means 17,000 kWh per annum, = 17MWh per annum. Clearly Combet’s error (and I’ve not watched the vid) would be saying 10MWh per week.

      Your calcs, however, DO accurately reflect the cost increases for a business that uses 10MWh per week – but that would certainly NOT be your average small business as the electricity costs would be $150000 p.a.!

      00

      • #

        And also, Matt, in your attempts to find an excuse for Combet, Small businesses are on a number of set plans, as you (and even you MattB) can see by linking to any of the electrical power providers.

        The average scale is for businesses is the one that is that 10MWH per week scale, and the average increase is around that 3.2 cents per KWH.

        As I mentioned above, the AVERAGE (MattB, that’s the word average there) that Combet quoted of $6 per week increase means that the AVERAGE (that’s all small businesses added together and then averaged) business consumes less power than the average residential household.

        Please Matt, don’t stand up for this guy who just has no idea, and this is supposed to be the Minister for Energy Efficiency. You’d think he’d tell his people to find out the facts and then tell him.

        Tony.

        00

        • #
          MattB

          Tony don;t get worked up. I’ve provided a link (I just googled average electricity consumption small business). Link says ““A typical small business is likely to have a bill of just over $3,400 a year””

          This is orders of magnitude different than 10MWh per week and you know it. In fact it is remarkably close to an electricty use that would see a weekly rise of $6 a week.

          I really am staggered! I’ve simply pointed out that Combet is wrong when he says 10MWh per week for a typical small business. The man is wrong, if that is the transcript. Being a reasonable guy I would assume he made a mistake. I also agree with you that IF a business used 10MWh a week then the increase would be as you suggest… but that would require annual bills of $150,000 per annum, which is not a “typical small business”.

          $6 per week increase would mean a weekly bill of $66 (they reckon about 10% increase) or $250 a month or $1500 a year. Which is just about exactly the same as an average household http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/full-coverage/carbon-tax/a/-/article/13909813/carbon-tax-adds-134-to-annual-power-bill/

          Tony I’m not sure what has you so worked up at me. I’ve said you are right. I’ve said Greg is wrong. I’ve also pointed out that 10MWh a week is absurdly high for an “average small business” which means you are wrong, in a way, as you should have figured out that something didn’t add up.

          00

          • #

            MattB.

            See now how people have absolutely no concept of electricity consumption.

            Now I know that Woolworths is not a small business, but their electricity account comes in at $60,000 per week.

            I’m just stating and showing what Combet said, and it’s not what I have said that does not add up but what Combet has said. and if you understand it correctly, it was not one mistake he made but a series of them, the wrong average power, the wrong total cost, and even if correct, then it was a wrong assumption, three deliberate errors not one mistake, and keep in mind this is the Minister, so he should know this stuff.

            This was a deliberate misrepresentation on a number of levels.

            Tony.

            00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      10MWH is 10,000KWH, and at a 3.2 cents per KWH increase, then that increase for the average small business will be $320 per week, which is significantly larger than the $5 a week that Combet quotes.

      You seem to be confused because the transcript doesn’t start a new sentence. The transcript says:

      …a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity a week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

      But the transcript should read:

      a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity. A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs

      Basically you are in a huff simply because you can’t parse this sentence properly.

      But hey, let’s see what happens. If you are right that electricity bills go up by $320 a week, which would defy the modelling done by every treasury in the country as well as power price regulators, then I will be the first to say so.

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity. A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs

        This is not very good Jinglish you are an idiot Greg sorry Smiff. Now you are just making shit up. Do not insult Tony in this fashion you moron.

        00

      • #

        Are you actually serious Doctor Smith.

        Look at the video at the link, and then click on the EXACT transcript of what he says. It’s provided there. That is not ‘parsing’. I quoted him word for word, as did the official transcript, not what you think he said you damned fool.

        Judas Priest, and here’s me lasting almost 4 days without having to respond to this person who virtually demanded that we refer to him as Doctor Smith.

        Tony.

        00

        • #

          OH, and Doctor Smith, surely you’re not highlighting your inability at simple Maths.

          If 10MWH is 10,000KWH, and the average price increase due solely to the Carbon Tax (sic) is 3.2 cents a KWH, then that comes to $320, immensely greater than the $5 you mention.

          You should know that, being a Doctor and all!

          Tony.

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            OH, and Doctor Smith, surely you’re not highlighting your inability at simple Maths.

            If 10MWH is 10,000KWH, and the average price increase due solely to the Carbon Tax (sic) is 3.2 cents a KWH, then that comes to $320, immensely greater than the $5 you mention.

            You should know that, being a Doctor and all!

            The average cost increase for electricity for households will be about $3.20 a week.

            The average cost increase for electricity for small businesses will be about $5 a week.

            You haven’t provided any evidence such as economic modelling to point out why these figures will turn out to be wrong.

            You are basically saying that all the state treasuries and the federal treasury and even private economics firms like Access are all wrong and that you are right.

            In short, you are spreading misinformation and pretending it is facts.

            If a small business can’t afford to pass on an electricity increase of $260 a year then they are clearly not a particularly profitable business and would struggle to survive with or without the ETS in place.

            00

          • #

            Doctor Smith,

            Modelling. Why would I need modelling when I have the exact published data, had you even bothered to look for yourself. Go to any of the providers sites and have a look for yourself, but be aware you will have needed to take screen prints of the costs the day prior to the introduction of the Carbon Tax (sic) as I have done.

            I guess reading was also a subject not taught for your Doctorate.

            Tony.

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Adam the problem is that Tony appears to be blind to the fact that even if Combet said it, 10MWh per week is ASTRONOMICALLY HUGE for a typical small business.

            As Tony is aware, it would mean that the annual electricty bill would be $150,000. Some “typical” small business.

            The obvious truth is that the typical small business will have cost increases of $5 a week, and that a typical small business has electricty costs of about $3400 per year (not $150,000per year which is what 10MWh per week works out at).

            00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Are you actually serious Doctor Smith.

          Look at the video at the link, and then click on the EXACT transcript of what he says. It’s provided there. That is not ‘parsing’. I quoted him word for word, as did the official transcript, not what you think he said you damned fool.

          You’re only calling me a fool because you know my point is true.

          The transcript is just written after the fact by someone at the ABC. It doesn’t make it an accurately reflection of what Combet meant.

          Judas Priest, and here’s me lasting almost 4 days without having to respond to this person who virtually demanded that we refer to him as Doctor Smith.

          I haven’t demanded anyone reply to any of my posts. I think you are imagining things.

          Tony.

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Judas Priest, and here’s me lasting almost 4 days without having to respond to this person

          And every time you do, they win.

          Stick with trolls who will at least engage, like MattB.

          .
          Unless you’re me, of course.
          Matty seems to be a bit shy these days when it comes to my posts.
          I think it’s got something to do with Plan B’s and jumpers.

          00

          • #

            And now Maths.

            Tony.

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Tony my maths is spot on. 10MWh per week is not a typical small business. You either know that, or you are a lot more stupid than I think you are, and I don’t think you are stupid.

            I really thought you’d appreciate my pointing out the 10MWh per week is absurdly huge for a ‘typical small business’ and we could all agree either the transcript is wrong or Combet was wrong/mistaken in stating 10MWh per week.

            00

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        Wow… Team Smith not only disregards the facts (and truth), but now also shows complete disregard (or lack of comprehension) of grammar!!

        Let’s go to the tape and examine what Team Smith wishes us to believe Minister Combet meant (as opposed to said):

        …a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity.

        A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs

        (Note that I’ve separated the sentences as if in a new paragraph to show the distortion that Team Smith would have us believe is what the transcript should actually say, as opposed to the reality of what was actually said).

        Now, let’s go to the official ABC transcript and review:

        A 10% increase, which is the influence on the electricity price of carbon pricing, is therefore a .2% increase in costs and a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity a week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs. Now, it’s a modest cost impact. All small businesses are affected by that.

        And let’s break that down sentence by sentence:

        A 10% increase, which is the influence on the electricity price of carbon pricing, is therefore a .2% increase in costs and a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity a week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

        Now, it’s a modest cost impact.

        All small businesses are affected by that.

        Or we can compare it to what Team Smith THINKS it should be:

        A 10% increase, which is the influence on the electricity price of carbon pricing, is therefore a .2% increase in costs and a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity.

        A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

        Now, it’s a modest cost impact.

        All small businesses are affected by that.

        Now I’m no English professor, specialising in language and grammar, so I’m perplesed at this…

        A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

        Does this mean that a $5 a week increase in costs is the resule of a week? A week of what?

        A week of chocolate?
        A week of electricity?
        A week of Klingon drasneks?
        A week of Team Smith obsfucation and misdirection?

        Or is it simply that Team Smith is desperately trying to defend Minister Combet’s gross misrepresentation (and miscalculation) after it was exposed by Tony…. and failing once again…

        Perhaps MattB (or Team Smith themselves) can explain to all of us exactly what the sentence

        A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

        actually means…..

        00

        • #
          Brian of Moorabbin

          Pah.. some of my block-quoting has obviously failed in the post above.

          The actual breakdown of the ABC transcript should read (in three parts):

          A 10% increase, which is the influence on the electricity price of carbon pricing, is therefore a .2% increase in costs and a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity a week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

          Now, it’s a modest cost impact.

          All small businesses are affected by that.

          Hopefully that clarifies the middle part of my post.

          (Mods [& Jo]: Perhaps the ability to go back and edit posts to correct things in cases like this might be a worthy addition to the blog?)

          00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Great, so you agree with Combet that the cost increase for small businesses will be $5 a week.

          Combet was right after all.

          00

          • #

            I just wish I could express the laughter on my face right now.

            Maths, Doctor Smith, Maths, obviously not taught for your Doctorate eh.

            A $5 increase for 10MWH comes it an an increase of 0.05 cents per KWH.

            The actual increase is 3.2 cents per KWH.

            Keep talking Doctor, the hole’s getting deeper, you absolute [snip snip].

            Tony.

            Post Script. They are self snips.

            00

          • #
            Brian of Moorabbin

            You still havent answered (or even acknowledged) the question Team Smith.

            What does this sentence

            A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.

            actually mean?

            I could say to you

            A week and that’s going to mean about six burgers increase in diet.

            and it would make as much sense as what you claim Combet said (if you insist on repeating the line that the ABC transcript is incorrect).

            So what is it “Adam”?

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Look Brian, you are humg up on this sentence:
            “A week and that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.”

            But it is a TRANSCRIPT, as in how the words came out the mouth, so he’s started a sentence “a week” and then paused, and rephrased. If it was
            “a typical small business uses about ten megawatt hours of electricity.
            A week, that’s going to mean about a $5 a week increase in costs.”

            all makes sense no?

            It is a transcript not a media statement.

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Adam, i think you had probably just let Tony stew in his own “conservative” and meaningless figures. He’s not quite as smart as he would like to think he is when it comes to actual reality.

            Been following the thread and its apparent that Combet did make an error when he referred to the 10MwH / wk for a small business. From kicking around and looking on the net weekly use for a small business is 230 KwH.

            So, on cost Combet was probably right, but misquoted quantity. His bad, but hardly the hanging offence Tony seems to think. Still, it does make him feel like his indignation is relevant huh?

            00

        • #
          MattB

          Brian I can’t tell you what the sentence means, but I can tell you that 10MWh per week is massively more than a typical small business uses.

          Does anyone here run a small business? If so:
          Would you please let us know what your electricty bit is per annum?
          If possible, the MWh use in total and/or per week?
          Is that anywhere near $150,000 per annum.

          Look if your electricity bill is $150,000 per annum then the carbon tax will porobably increase this by $15k per annum = about $300 per week = Tony’s figures. Fair enough. BUt that is a massive electricity bill and not one of a ‘typical small business’.

          00

          • #
            Puff Of Smoke

            Then please use your imagination. Hairdresser? Lights on through business hours, hairdryers, security systems, heat machines, straighteners, usually playing music to entertain you and some even have TVs. Corner store? Lights on, fridges and freezers on 24/7, security systems on 24/7, slushie machines, food warmers etc on during business hours if applicable. Electronics technician (repair man)? Lights on, usually lots of devices being fixed or fixed and being tested plugged in and switched on, usually security systems. Ad nauseum. Plus most if not all small businesses have at least one computer if not many running many hours of the day along with all network gizmos necessary plus printers and such. Feel free to extrapolate to any other small business you can think of and then think about what actually might be involved in keeping that small business running – and not just your business hours but 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

            For the increase to a small business to only be a tiny amount over an “average household” as you’ve been told by the government and you believe is the same as me switching all my houselights on 24 hours a day and doing no more than that over what I do already. And we know no small business just runs on lighting.

            00

          • #
            MattB

            go on then puff… google me an internet reference for a typical or average small business with 10MWh/week usage. I can;t find one… and I’ve posted a few I have found that back me up.

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Puff: http://www.ausgrid.com.au/Common/About-us/Newsroom/Media-Releases/2010/April/Hair-dressers-snip-energy-bill.aspx

            “Salon owner Khaled Elali said the downlight program was an additional bonus for his environmentally focussed business.
            “Our energy bill on average is $2,600 a quarter so anything we can do to reduce our energy bill is important,” Mr Elali said.”

            So $10k pa = $192 per week. Carbon tax would then be about $20 per week. ok that is 4 times COmbet but hair salons are apparently notoriosuly high energy users. They also charge a bucketload to give a hair do to ladies.

            00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      I’m late to this discussion, but this direct from small business owner, Pie shop country NSW.

      Estimated power increase per quarter, $1,700 dollars.
      Country Energy increase after July 1, 18%
      Carbon Tax component 9% = $850 per quarter
      850 / by 13 weeks $65:38.5 cents per week
      $5.00 a little short of the mark????????

      00

      • #
        Mattb

        Bob… what does the business do? $17,000/quarter is a heft bill, given my reference to a hairdresser which only has bills of $2600/quarter and hairdressers are meant to be energy intensive.

        Maybe just maybe he is not a “typical” small business?

        00

        • #

          MattB,

          umm, perhaps you need to read what Bob said again.

          Tony.

          00

        • #
          Dave

          .
          MattyB

          Look past the hairdressers & coffee shops for small business examples!

          This is from 2009 NSW Business Chamber:

          Businesses with annual electricity consumption of less than 160 MWh are eligible to participate in the NSW Government’s Solar Bonus Scheme, which provides payments for energy generated by solar panels used by the business. [See http://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/energy/sustainable/renewable/solar/solar-scheme

          and

          IPART estimates that a small business which uses 40 MWh of electricity a year currently faces annual bills of between $7,883 and $10,261.6 Using the pricing from the draft determination report, the estimated annual increase in average electricity bills is more than $5,000.

          Get into the small business areas that have panel beaters (paint drying cubicles), welding & frabrication shops, etc etc all on 3 phase power and high users. These are small business areas also – small business is not only hairdressers MattyB! Some of the large stand alone bakeries are upward of $30,000 per annum. You can’t bake bread with windmills and solar?

          Wonder if Gillard knows that Bicarb Soda releases CO2 when baked – few more bucks for Waynie Poo!

          00

          • #
            MattB

            Dave that’s all well and good, $30,000 p.a. I’m not questioning there are some high energy users… But 10MWh/week would be an annual bill of $150,000 … do you see that Tony’s bluster is based on an absurdly large energy use 5 times the annual use of what you just considered to be very high use for small business. So either Combet was wrong with 10MWh/week, or the transcript was a bit dodgy. Either way, if your electricity bill is $150,000 p.a. then you are not a typical small business.

            00

          • #

            Matt,
            I based what I have said here on exactly what Combet said.

            Not only did I link to the transcript, but to the actual footage of what he said, from his own mouth, Go back and look at that footage yourself.

            There can be no equivocation of what he said.

            The transcript was not dodgily recorded but an exact text of what he said.

            Everything was based around that.

            Tony.

            00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              So, obviously it was all the fault of the teleprompter, or at least the scurrilous big oil shill who programmed it. /sarc

              00

          • #
            Mattb

            Tony – I’ve already dealt with that. At worst case he was WRONG about 10MHWh/week, an alternate view is that he intended a comma as I’ve auggested.

            10MWh/week is NOT a typical small business, wheras all your posts imply that a typical small business will incur cost increases equivalent to a business that unses 10MWh/week of electricity.

            00

  • #
    handjive

    But, the ‘conservatives’ ( and I use that term very loosely ) known as the Liberal Party, are ‘believers’ in the cause as well.

    The Coalition welcomes the review and update of the climate science contained in the Climate Commission’s report issued today, “The Critical Decade”. 23/05/2011

    The Climate Commission is the source for the ‘extreme scaremongering words for the gullible’ spewing from Combet in the cartoon above.

    Sure, all readers here know that Abbott’s scare campaign is more immediate & real than the GreenLaboUr’s Combet fraud, as the purpose of the carbon (sic) tax is to close down reliable & cheap energy supplies, and shut any companies that expel carbon dioxide in their manufacturing process.

    But, again, from the mouth of the Climate Commission ‘scientist’ Will Steffen:

    “Both sides of politics have gotten together and agreed on an approach so if the government changes, the policy and approach to climate change doesn’t change.”

    A change of government WILL NOT change the direction and purpose of useless and fraudulent ‘climate change/global warming’ policies based on junk climate science as you can see.

    Let’s not lose sight of our target in this war as we squabble amongst ourselves over semantics, or we will lose much more than the money they are stealing off us under the misnomer ‘war on global warming’.

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Let us not forget this little gem from the Liberal Party Environment Policy (my emphasis):

      According to the Clean Energy Council, a combination of clean energy measures and a CO2 abatement price of $15 per tonne could yield an annual CO2 emissions reduction of 20-30 million tonnes by 2020.

      “Clean energy measures” is Liberal newspeak for the Direct Action Plan which forms one half of the Liberal Party’s Environment Policy, and a “CO2 abatement price of $15 per tonne” forms the other half.

      I remind everybody that despite “promises written in blood”, the above is the current, written Liberal Party Environment Policy.

      How immensely, coincidentally convenient is it that the existing legislation swaps to an ETS in three years with a floor price of $15 a tonne.

      .
      Wake up and smell the roses everybody.
      You are being conned by BOTH sides.

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        So what is the alternative MV?

        We cant vote green/labor, the Libs are no better and most independants are only in it for the gold so what can we do?

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          We learn from the (original) Democrats and the current Greens.

          We work towards getting a group elected to the Senate and influencing the balance of power as the Greens are doing now.

          We get them elected by employing an updated version of Don Chip’s original strategy – no policies, just a simple “keep the bastards honest” aim.

          00

          • #
            Cookster

            I cannot agree with your suggested alternative, which is simply unrealistic.

            Abbott leads the Conservative Liberal National (LNP) opposition party. LNP grass roots support includes small as well as large business and people who generally prefer small government / individual freedom, lower taxing and free markets to big government, high taxing, high regulation preferred by the Labor Party.

            Abbott assumed leadership of the LNP when his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull was about to commit the party to Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme before the Copenhagen climate farce. A grass roots revolt of the aforementioned groups over what Turnbull was about to commit Australia and Conservatives to resulted. Now we have Tony Abbott.

            I agree that current (official) Liberal Party policy (including belief in AGW) is not significantly different to Labor. But forming a new party is not the answer. That will just result in the current Labor government holding power for at least another decade (a frightening proposition). Changing the existing policy is the only way, Abbott’s very existence as Leader is proof policy can quickly change if grass roots support demands it.

            Abbott’s political strategy is to represent a small target to his many detractors which include the majority of the Australian media who decide the headlines the average person reads, hears and sees. Liberal party policy is the result of this strategy. A good way for people in this blog to assist this battle is to win the arguments against the science. If you can win the scientific arguments you empower conservatives to outright denounce AGW. Until then with many powerful and influential figures ready to pounce on Abbott a small target approach is probably the smart option.

            On talkback radio and in letters to newspaper articles grass roots coalition voters are already expressing concern on Abbott’s official climate policy and the official belief in the AGW hypothesis. If / when Abbott becomes Prime Minister if he doesn’t change his path he and his party will have a short life in power.

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Cookster

            Australian Politics 101 – Part A – Parties

            Abbott leads the Conservative Liberal National (LNP) opposition party.

            There is no such beast as the Liberal National (LNP) party federally.

            There is the Liberal Party of Australia. Its federal parliamentary leader is Tony Abbott.
            There is the National Party of Australia. Its federal parliamentary leader is Warren Truss.

            The Nationals are more state-orientated in their party structure and various formal and informal agreements exist between the Liberals and the Nationals at state level.

            At federal level a coalition usually only formally exists when the Liberals and Nationals win an election. The last formal coalition agreement lapsed when Howard lost the last election. At the moment the term “coalition” simply refers to an informal “gentleman’s agreement” between the Liberals and the Nationals.

            If Tony Abbott gets the “landslide victory” everybody expects in the next election, he could in theory tell the Nationals to go sit on the cross-benches with the Independents and have the Liberals govern in their own right. He won’t, but the extent by which needs, or doesn’t need the Nationals determines the terms and conditions of the Coalition agreement the parties will formally sign.

            In QLD it is different.
            In QLD there is no longer a Liberal Party.
            In QLD there is no longer a National Party.
            In QLD these two parties have formally become one party, The Liberal National Party (LNP).
            QLD is the ONLY place where the LNP exists.

            A person who was elected to the federal parliament from QLD as a Liberal party member, is now a member of the LNP. However, in federal parliament they sit in a group with Tony Abbott and are part of the informal coalition.

            A person who was elected to the federal parliament from QLD as a National party member, is now a member of the LNP. However, in federal parliament they sit in a group with Warren Truss and are part of the informal coalition.

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Cookster

            Australian Politics 101 – Part B – Policies versus Promises

            Changing the existing policy is the only way,

            The only way I can have the retirement I want without working is to win Lotto. It almost certainly isn’t going to happen, so I keep working.

            Abbott only last week had to shout down a revolt from his backbenchers and the Nationals. They are the ones listening the talkback radio and reading the letters in the newspapers, and they told Abbott current Liberal Party Environment policy is a giant, dead, rotting, stinking Albatross hanging around their necks.

            Abbott’s reply – stiff sh#t. That’s what you’re gonna get. Live with it.

            So if changing existing policy is, indeed, the only way, I suggest we buy Lotto tickets.
            We’re going to need the money.

            I cannot agree with your suggested alternative, which is simply unrealistic.

            Why is it unrealistic?
            It worked a treat for Don Chip and even more so for Brownshirt Bob.

            The trick is to ONLY run for the Senate, and to NOT have any policies aside from a formalised version of Chip’s “keeping the bastards honest”.

            The next election will be a landslide to the Liberals, that is a foregone conclusion. Consider it a practice run for our fledgling Senate party.

            The one after that will quite possibly be a double dissolution (great for minor parties in the Senate). It will also be after a great chunk of conservative Australians have realised they swapped Tweedle Dum for Tweedle Dee.

            They will be looking for, begging for, an alternative. They will be discussing it talkback radio and writing letters to the newspapers.

            Who could ask for a better opportunity?

            00

          • #
            Cookster

            MV, sorry for the belated reply (not sure you’ll read this) but let’s say I’m still unconvinced a new party is the best option. In this approach, any real success (in reversing pro AGW government policy) won’t come until at least 3 elections from now. Next election will be to turf out Gillard. Followed within minimum 12 months assuming a double dissolution occurs when Abbott’s Carbon Tax repealing legislation is rejected twice in the senate. Followed in another 3 years by the next election (assuming Abbott runs near full term). So you’re looking at minimum 4 years to get your new senate party…what damage will have been done by then? We could have a LNP endorsed ETS, Sustainable development and all the associated wasteful bureaucracy we both fear by then. Also, not realistic to expect a new party can be formed before the double dissolution. I’ll stick with pushing for a change in policy as long as there are people like Dr Dennis Jensen, Cory Bernardi and Barnaby Joyce on side. You’ve sufficiently raised my hackles to start writing to my local (LNP) MP asking for answers on LNP policy.

            00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        “Clean energy measures” is Liberal newspeak for the Direct Action Plan which forms one half of the Liberal Party’s Environment Policy, and a “CO2 abatement price of $15 per tonne” forms the other half.

        Of course the Coalition policy is more hilarious than this, because they say that farmers will be willing to receive just $8 – $10 per tonne for carbon abatement.

        Why would they accept $8 -$10 under the Coalition’s scheme when they could get $23 per tonne from the current fixed priced ETS?

        Does the Coalition seriously believe that farmers will give up $13 per tonne as a favour to the Coalition?

        Farmers realise the Coalition’s plan is nonsense:
        http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/farmers-reject-abbott-sums-20110715-1hi3l.html

        00

    • #

      Handjive, if hypothetically the Libs (mostly) did not believe in the religion of AGW do you think they could announce it and be treated by the ABC and Fairfax as anything other than gibbering idiot big-oil sympathizers?

      So yes, it’s not good that the Libs pander at all to the renewables delusion, but it’s still possible to believe that some in positions of power in the Liberal party are highly skeptical, but afraid to speak up.

      Those bullies in the ABC are scary.

      When the fear of being howled at for being an economic basket case outweighs the fear of being called a “denier” I predict we’ll see people speak their minds more freely.

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Handjive, if hypothetically the Libs (mostly) did not believe in the religion of AGW do you think they could announce it and be treated by the ABC and Fairfax as anything other than gibbering idiot big-oil sympathizers?
        star comment

        Jo, you know as well as I that if the Libs announced a cure for cancer, a workable road to world peace, and a technological breakthrough that would end world hunger, the ABC and Fairfax crowd would continue to treat them as gibbering idiot big-oil sympathisers.

        I believe this myth that after the next election the Coalition WON’T implement their official, written policies is based on:

        1) – a fond, but entirely unsupported hope as it appears the easiest way for all the nastiness to simply “go away” without ordinary people having to do anything much but vote.

        2) – An unwillingness for ordinary people to do anything much about their situation other than vote.

        Why people continue to cling to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary beggars belief.

        Here is a clip from the Andrew Bolt Show, where Andrew tries to get Dr Dennis Jensen to support the fairy tale that the Liberal Party is full of closet skeptics just waiting to “come out” after the next election – Jensen refuses to do so.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X4hMzNFZ1U&feature=fvwrel

        It is interesting to note that in this interview Dr Jensen states quite clearly that he has tried within his own party to push for a Royal Commission into the whole “climate change” affair – obviously without success.

        Since simply announcing such an enquiry would go a long way to belaying the concerns of people like me, Handjive and others, without exposing the Libs to any sort of intelligent criticism, the fact that they steadfastly REFUSE to do so speaks volumes as to their intent in this matter.

        00

        • #

          MV – Quite. I was making the point that we can’t call conservatives “believers” in the cause. But that doesn’t mean they are all skeptics either, which is why I didn’t say “the libs will get rid of the renewables schemes”. Absolutely we need to lobby those libs when they get closer to positions of power, and we need to let them know they are in danger of looking like gullible fools for pandering to this nonsense.

          The libs are missing the chance to “lead” by playing it safe and not taking on the bully boy media, but since they are on such a likely road to power, it’s an understandable strategy, even if it’s spineless.

          Abbott periodically “tests” the media with a skeptical statement to see what he can get away with, gets derided for it, and then “clarifies” his position the next day.

          We need to work on other libs, and yes, write about Jensen and Bernardi especially in newspaper letters and letters to other libs. They are outstanding.

          00

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        I still think the Coalition is placing itself in a bad position. Firstly, it is lending credence to the very thing that the voters dislike about Labor. Secondly it could be the party left holding the carbon bag. If it becomes obvious that the Labor party will face non-existence by continuing with the Carbon Tax, they might have no choice but to replace Gillard and abandon it. That will leave Tony Abbott as our ‘carbon’ man.

        I hope to see my local Liberal MP in the next couple of weeks. When I do I will will asking her when the Coalition is going to wake up to the fact that the Australian public want nothing to do with this ‘carbon’ nonsense. Hell, what do they think is the main reason we want to get rid of Labor?

        Abbott has the perfect excuse for abandoning his carbon abatement plans. Labor has promised that it will be prohibitively difficult to undo the tax. Abbott can at least stall abatement plans while undoing Labor’s mess. The public won’t mind, except for the rusted-on left voters.

        One reason I think that the Coalition is being so timid, is that they aren’t sufficiently edified. It is my guess that they are relatively ignorant of the falsity of the warmists’ claims, as far as details go. Over and over, they leave absolute baloney unchallenged. Take for instance the supposed evacuation of Tuvalu, to New Zealand, due to rising seas. When on the ABC they could point out the residents are not been evacuated, and that is business as usual on the island. How would the ABC come back at that? What is needed is for the Coalition members to start learning about this stuff; it’s politically and economically important. Surely they find at least one person (but not Malcolm Turnbull) in the party who knows or can learn as much about the subject as the blog participants here. The Coalition doesn’t need to worry about causing the ABC and Fairfax to treat them with contempt; they will do that anyway.

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          Dr Dennis Jensen was elected as a Federal Liberal politician in 2004.
          He’s been screaming about this stuff to his own party members ever since – eight years.
          Rather than listen, the Libs have done everything possible to alienate him from the climate debate.

          Sorry Shaun, but the “ignorance” defence just doesn’t cut the mustard.

          .
          The Liberals are going to shaft us – that’s where all the evidence points.

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            MV,

            I understand your concerns and believe me I share them but how do you explain the QLD governments actions post election if you think the fed libs will be a clone of what we have now?

            You must remember the fed libs don’t need to do or say anything as labor are doing all the shoveling themselves. Why would you say a word when you have a record breaking land slide election already sown up.

            Just read your comment….

            If QLD are a different kettle of fish then surely the NSW gov are as well so nothing to be read out of these actions.

            Our only hope is that Abbott stands by his word and gets rid of the tax, he does need to tell me why he will get rid of the tax and nor do i care as long as he does.

            If he does not then I invite you to join me MV as we storm parliament house and kick the bastards out.

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Crackar,

            The Liberals are a political party federally and in each state EXCEPT QLD.
            The Nationals are a separate political party federally and in each state EXCEPT QLD.
            The LNP (Liberal National Party) is also a separate political party in QLD, formed by an amalgamation of of the Liberals and the Nationals here.

            Unlike the rest of Australia, the Nationals were the dominant conservative party at the time of amalgamation; the LNP are much closer to the Nationals than the Libs in policy outlook.

            Hence, “different kettle of fish”.

            To complicate matters, federally elected members of the LNP revert to being either Liberal, or National when they sit in the House of Reps or the Senate. Complicated, isn’t it?

            Also, in QLD both parties were broke at the time of amalgamation, and Clive Palmer financed, and to a large extent brokered the new party into existence, so it would be safe to assume he has a fair amount of pull in it.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Ok forget all i said except for

            Our only hope is that Abbott stands by his word and gets rid of the tax, he does need to tell me why he will get rid of the tax and nor do i care as long as he does.

            If he does not then I invite you to join me MV as we storm parliament house and kick the bastards out.

            ——————————————————————————–

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Crackar,

            As to the second part of your comment, how do you revolt against a party elected with an overwhelming mandate, that then goes about implementing their official, written, publicly available policies?

            Besides, I’m afraid I’m getting a bit long in the tooth to be “storming Parliament”.
            Not even sure I could make it up the steps these days.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            You raise another thought provoking point………..i suppose its like “there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead” So when Abbott says “I will rescind the tax” once again there is no wriggle room.

            As far as storming parliament goes you dont sound as though you could not be on the frontlines? even so you could just distract them by throwing rocks at the windows whilst i and my fellow non comformists do all the storming, everyone has a role to play.

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            If you want a distraction, rather than throw rocks, I’ll sing.

            I’m told it’s bad enough to wake the dead.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            OK i will work on rewording Anarchy in the UK for you

            00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Jo – I think we need to be sceptical on this as well.

        The LNP have not proved that they are sceptical of CAGW, and really need to do so before I can vote for them with confidence that they will unwind the policy nonsense that hangs of the CAGW scare.

        I think that Abbott needs to clearly state that he will get rid of both the Carbon Tax and the ETS, close down the plethora of government departments that have erupted like boils on the body of the Federal government in response to CAGW and hold a royal commission into the science and the claims made from the science.

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Look at what the libs are doing in Vic, NSW and QLD this is what an LIB gov would do if they got elected.

          00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            I like the QLD response of unwinding the state level climate dept.

            But I’m not across what the other states have done, the Vic Libs don’t seem to have done much – just action at the margins.

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .

            Crackar

            CORRECTION

            “Look what the LNP are doing in QLD” (different kettle of fish).

            The LIBS on the other hand have done pretty-well nothing in Victoria, and in NSW they were going to outlaw standard grade petrol to force everybody to use biofuel – “to save the planet”.

            Until public outrage stopped them.
            THAT’S pretty-much what you can expect from the federal LIBS – according to their own policies.

            00

          • #
            Juliar

            MV, I would like to take you back to a question you posed to me in “The Thompsons” article ( http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/the-thompsons-fight-on-from-the-usa-a-business-ruined-by-green-tape-and-the-australian-carbon-tax/) where I stated,

            Liberal Governments in most states have either have cut a lot of the ‘Green’ programs or bureaucrats that Labor has created

            and then you asked,

            Want to give us an actual concrete example Juliar?

            And I don’t mean statements of intention, I don’t mean grand postures like Campbell Newman, which actually amounted to about 35 public servants taking redundancy and the rest simply rebranded into other departments – but still doing the same jobs.

            Actually, I’ll make it real easy for you Juliar. The veracity of Al Gore’s propaganda production “An Inconvenient Truth”, was tested in court in the UK. The court’s findings were that the film was little more than a propaganda piece and couldn’t be shown in UK schools without a warning being read to the children first, pointing out the film was propaganda, NOT a documentary.

            Your mission Juliar, should you decide to accept it, is to provide evidence of just ONE “conservative” state government in Australia imposing the same UK legal requirements on their state schools.

            Actually, I’ll make it even simpler. Provide evidence of just one “conservative” politician in just one of these “conservative” state governments, even calling for such a measure.

            No, I thought not. Trouble is, Juliar, you treat politics like Andrew Bolt does: like it was football, or rugby or soccer or cricket, and we all have a duty to barrack for our “team” regardless of the truth of the matter

            I actually did reply to that post a while ago, something which you haven’t addressed and I think this is relevant to this debate so I am going to bring it up again. Here’s my answer which is in the The Thompson’s article.

            Again, you make some ridiculous assumptions about myself which you have little evidence to support your assumptions.

            Firstly, Andrew Bolt hardly treats Politics like a football match where he barracks for the one side. He has been critical of the Federal Liberal Party on numerous fronts such as their “Direct Action Plan” Again, why do you assume that I treat Politics like a Football match and barrack for my ‘team’? If you read my Twitter page, I have been critical of the Victorian Liberal Party’s choices on what they are doing TAFE colleges, Myki and how they treated Nurses. I have also been critical of the Federal Liberal Party’s policies such as Work Choices, on the environment and how they have no strong policy to slow overall immigration down so infrastructure can catch up. So you are completely wrong on that point.

            Secondly, some examples for you on the Baillieu Government.
            http://www.theage.com.au/environment/energy-smart/green-rating-backflip-20120415-1x1u5.html
            http://www.theage.com.au/environment/baillieu-reviews-green-laws-20120311-1usn0.html
            http://www.theage.com.au/environment/timber-gets-longterm-commitment-20111213-1ot7w.html
            http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-target-scrapped-20120326-1vust.html
            http://www.theage.com.au/environment/energy-smart/tariff-cuts-eclipse-household-solar-panel-benefits-20111016-1lrlt.html

            There are some other ones for you as well.

            Newman has also shown a strong support for the Coal industry , see here > http://www.theage.com.au/environment/newman-can-do-climate-science-denial-20120607-1zxh8.html
            …and has got rid of this amongst other things http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/lnp-to-slash-real-estate-red-tape/story-e6freoof-1226322378579

            There is actually an LNP politician who has recently spoken against the CAGW doctrine, read here> http://thegwpf.org/international-news/5878-climate-sceptisim-the-new-populism-and-vote-winner.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

            I am not saying the Liberal Party are perfect on this front, but they are better than most other parties. It is amusing that you imply, that a UK court ruling that calls “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda is a declaration of against the CAGW doctrine when many conservative Politicians (not judges) in the UK have been proponents of wind farms in the UK.

            I will reiterate that strongly dislike the Direct Action Plan as well but some of your suggestions about the Liberal Party are simply inaccurate on this matter. I also reject the premise that the Vic Govt has “done pretty well nothing” but that is another matter.

            [Caught by the spam filter because of all the links] ED

            00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          I think that Abbott needs to clearly state that he will get rid of both the Carbon Tax and the ETS, close down the plethora of government departments that have erupted like boils on the body of the Federal government in response to CAGW and hold a royal commission into the science and the claims made from the science.

          Actually the Coalition is proposing to create a much bigger bureaucratic structure in order to implement their Direct Action policy.

          In order for such a system to work they will need hundreds, if not thousands, of public servants to set up all the rules and regulations to determine which businesses are given tax payer’s money to encourage them to reduce their emissions.

          If you think politicians are good at spending your tax dollars, then by all means vote for the Coalition because their entire carbon abatement system is based on the assumption that politicians are better than the market at choosing where to efficiently allocate resources.

          00

          • #
            Dave

            .

            Actually the Coalition ALP is has proposing implemented a much bigger bureaucratic structure in order to implement their Direct Action policy CO2 TAX.

            Since 2010 (Rudd era) we have paid for nearly 400 public servants with 60 of them between $168,000 and $298,000 per year!! ALP WINS in bureaucratic empire building. This is in The Dept Climate Change and they have done nothing for two years!

            But now the ALP is on track to be the governments biggest department! ALP – another world record on the way!

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Yeah I know – the lack of a clear choice is most disheartening, all I left with at this moment is this image

            00

          • #
            Cookster

            Since Rudd’s election in 2007, the federal bureaucracy headcount has grown at 2.5 times the rate it did under the previous 7 years of the Howard government. Abbott has no choice but to reverse this trend just as Barry O’Farrell has announced plans to cut staff numbers in NSW bureaucracy and I assume QLD and WA are too. Despite the unprecedented Mining boom thanks to China, the lowest unemployment rates are not in resource rich WA, NT or QLD but the ACT! Telling isn’t it.

            00

      • #

        Exactly Jo, same scenario over here in NZ. When politics is run by editorial soundbites and pompous talk show hosts, it’s too optimistic to expect rational debate. We are treated like mushrooms because unfortunately, we have been made that way.

        00

    • #
      handjive

      Ms. Jo,

      Let me take this opportunity to thank you for this wonderful forum you provide.
      I’m sure I speak on behalf of all who comment here.

      I understand that to open another front against the one & only hope we have ( the Australian Liberal/National Party ) in this climate fraud is detrimental, but, as you point out, some in the Libs are possibly highly skeptical but afraid to speak up.

      This “afraidness” is exactly what provokes me to post those comments/links.

      Politicians with the courage of their convictions is what we need, not another one who says one thing, only to do another when they gain ‘power’.

      Maybe, just maybe, by highlighting the fact that we are aware of the duplicity of their words, it might flush out the skeptics who can see the they have support and the true science on their side, and not be intimidated by theses bullies.

      Polls and marketing would/do indicate that two thirds of Australians are now aware, if not skeptical of ‘tackling climate change’.

      The ‘climate science’ of Flannery, Steffen, Karoly, CSIRO, BoM, UN-IPCC et al, is political rubbish, as is constantly shown here by you & other brilliant contributors you allow to post here.

      Thanks for your response, I am truly humbled that you did notice my comment.
      Good ole memoryvault does a fine job saying the same thing, and needs no encouragement. : )

      As for the ALPBC, watching the midday news today, they had a piece about a sea level report issued yesterday 3/7/12, by the
      Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre written to inform the governments, planners, infrastructure developers and the community.

      The relentless propaganda from the ALPBC continues.
      Possibly some of the scientists, or knowledgable here can sink their teeth into this.

      Many thanks,
      Mark M, aka handjive

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    Is this a sign of things to come

    This is a legitimate email i have just received, names etc have been redacted to protect the innocen

    Background
    1. XXX has been informed of potential counterfeit refrigerant gas cylinders, purportedly
    containing R-134a but contaminated with varying amounts of R-40. XXX Equipment
    returning from the XXX has been found to have contaminated systems traced back to
    Asia. More information is provided in Enclosure 1.
    2. R-40 or Methyl Chloride is a flammable, highly toxic substance and suspected human
    carcinogen that was banned under the Montreal Accord, and has been replaced by R-134a
    (1,1,1,2-Tetraflouroethane).
    3. XXX managed platforms may contain counterfeit R-134a (R-40). R-40 is a
    flammable, toxic gas that will form an explosive mixture when it comes in to contact with
    Aluminium or Magnesium. R-40 reacts with aluminium to form an explosive gas, which
    reacts explosively with air.
    4. Explosions have been reported in commercial situations in the USA, UAE, Vietnam,
    Brazil, Afghanistan and southern Europe.
    5. The XXX does not currently have any information regarding the brand, manufacturer,
    supplier or batch of the affected R-l34a.
    6. Through interaction with other Government agencies and departments, it appears that
    contamination of Australian manufactured stocks of R-134a is unlikely at this time.
    7. All platforms with a cooling system that are in or have been in the XXX or
    Asia in the last 36 Months that have been repaired or serviced have a higher level of risk
    exposure. Any unusual maintenance or degradation of the cooling system on these platforms
    should be considered suspect.

    So now we will get this shit flooding the market due to the idiot labor governments stupid tax………..this is serious so beware of someone selling you cheap gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … found to have contaminated systems traced back to Asia.

      I hate that. What part of Asia?

      Asia stretches from the Pacific coast of Japan, to the eastern border of Afghanistan. That is six time zones, and a hell of a big haystack to find a needle in.

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        Well the message’s purpose was to warn the myriad of users of the potential hazards it’s purpose was not to “tip off” the criminals so we say “Asia” instead of “No 10 Dodgy refridgerant road Phukett”.

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Following on (sorry to quick with the post button), we will see a flood of this crap entering the market now that our inept government has created it.

          This has the potential to be another pink batts fiasco.

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Ah, Phukett. I apologise, I seee you have already Thai’ed down some of the possibilities ;-)

          00

    • #
      grayman

      Crakar24, we had similar problem in the states back in the 90s when R12 was banned. Somebody ship in a new refrigerant that had propane in it and a lot of A/C explosions. I had a friend that was working on a car and was ingulfed in flames when he lit a cigerette while under the hood. So yes the info you have needs to be widely cirqulated. The only thing that stopped this was a company came out with a tool that can tell you what is in an A/C system and they are not cheap by any means.

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        Why the hell would someone be so stupid to light a cigarette while under the hood of a car?

        00

  • #
    pat

    ABC, Nature already pushing this one. unbelievable that these people can talk of plants “already responding to changes in climate”, as if all life hadn’t always responded to climate!

    4 July: Adelaide Uni: Shrinking leaves point to climate change
    University of Adelaide researchers have discovered that recent climate change is causing leaves of some Australian plants to narrow in size.
    The study, which is the first of its kind in the world, highlights that plant species are already responding to changes in climate. The results are published online today in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters.
    Researchers analysed leaves from herbarium specimens of Narrow-leaf Hopbush (Dodonaea viscosa subsp. angustissima) dating from the 1880s to the present…
    “Climate change is often discussed in terms of future impacts, but changes in temperature over recent decades have already been ecologically significant,” says Dr Greg Guerin, a Postdoctoral Fellow with the University of Adelaide’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences and lead author of the study…
    http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news54145.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    from the freezing, wet summer of England’s Guardian newspaper, we have:

    3 July: Guardian: Leo Hickman: Is it now possible to blame extreme weather on global warming?Wildfires, heatwaves and storms witnessed in the US are ‘what global warming looks like’, say climate scientists
    VIDEO: ‘The odds are changing’: Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, discusses the relationship between weather extremes and global warming on PBS Newshour.

    Hickman: I put this question to a number of climate scientists…

    Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…

    Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution, at the Met Office Hadley Centre…

    Professor Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at the Penn State Department of Meteorology…

    Dr Clare Goodess, senior researcher at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit…

    Dr Doug Smith, who leads decadal climate prediction research and development at the Met Office Hadley Centre…

    Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences…

    Harold Brooks, head of the mesoscale applications group at Noaa’s National Severe Storms Laboratory…

    Michael F. Wehner, staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory… http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/03/weather-extreme-blame-global-warming?newsfeed=true

    no prizes for guessing what the abovementioned “CAGW scientists” had to say.

    back in the real world:

    3 July: UK Daily Mail: Graham Smith: Washout summer could lead to rickets epidemic in children not exposed to regular sunlight needed to produce vitamin D
    Dr Nicola Balch, an associate specialist in child health at the British Medical Association: ‘People need just 20 to 30 minutes of sun three or four times a week to ensure they get enough vitamin D, but obviously with our weather it can be impossible to get this.’…
    The miserable weather has sparked calls from doctors for vitamin D to be added to foods and supplements rolled out nationally…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2168264/Washout-summer-lead-rickets-epidemic-children-exposed-regular-sunlight-needed-produce-vitamin-D.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    00

  • #
    pat

    and in case u think fox news is any better, here they are with hot weather “part of a pattern of climate change”. this use of “climate change” must stop:

    3 July: Fox News: Douglas Main: What’s behind the record heat?
    Climate change?
    The early heat waves of summer — following higher temperatures in spring and winter — could also be part of a pattern of climate change.
    “It’s consistent with what we’d expect in a warming climate, but it’s hard to quantify any effect climate change might have on an individual event like this heat wave,” Crouch said.
    While only one heat wave cannot by itself be linked to climate change, a significant increase in these types of events over time could be a hallmark of a warming planet. “An increasing frequency of heat waves —that’s one aspect of climate change you can point to,” Carbin said.
    Over the past few years, daily record high temperatures have been outpacing daily record lows by 2-to-1 on average, according to the website Climate Central. A 2009 study found that if the climate were not warming, that ratio would be expected to be even. So far this year, there have been 40,113 high temperature records set or tied, compared with just 5,835 cold records, a ratio of about 7-to-1.
    “This could be a harbinger of things to come,” Weber said
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/03/what-behind-record-heat/

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Combet,s head in the cartoon is not pointy enough !
    He needs to help smash up a gift shop occasionally to release some of that inner thug , then mellow out with Christine communist , whilst comming to terms with the word hypocrite !,

    00

  • #
    Robert

    either Greg Combet lives on another planet or he’s been smoking some seriously strong illicit urban spices. Has anyone checked whether he passed grade 8 science?

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Greg Combet has a first class Honours degree in Mining Engineering and another degree in economics.

      So I would suggest he did OK in grade 8 science.

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        And dont tell me you achieved a first class Honours degree in Mining Engineering and another degree in economics and did alright in grade 8 science.

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          And dont tell me you achieved a first class Honours degree in Mining Engineering and another degree in economics and did alright in grade 8 science.

          I did fantastically well in grade 8 science, but neither of my degrees are in science.

          But thanks for asking!

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            mining and econimics are not science degrees

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Mining engineereing requires 2nd year university level applied mathematics.

            Which means that Combet most likely fully understands what he is saying.

            Draw your own conclusions from that, about his honesty.

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            I’ve had M.Sc and PhD holders work for me (for short periods of necessity…) who showed no capability to think for themselves. They could not even follow straight forward step by step directions without completely fu….ing it up.

            I would much rather have someone who was capable of understanding what they have been told, then num nuts who can’t put 2 and 2 together and come up with four.

            Head banging material – I kid you not.

            The most recent incident occured last month with someone who was costing $900 per day to employ, who had a 30 minute step by step (all very simple and straight forward) walk through explanation of what was required and then promptly did the reverse of what was asked, which I discovered after 30 minutes when I checked on what they were doing.

            A blank look of non-comprehension was what greeted me. A 2nd explanation was required to set the guy on the right path of a task I could have given my technically illiterate wife (who is an organisational genius) to do with more certainty that it would have gotten done.

            I’ve seen PhD staff take months to become useful, it is as if their capacity to think has been evaporated by whatever it is they have done at University.

            Hopeless!

            What matters in the real world is real world capabilities and real world results – the disconnect b/w academia and the real world of work has never been wider than it is now.

            00

      • #

        There are plenty of Engineering graduates, even with Honours, who are useless in the real world. Academic qualifications are only a useful indicator if the person was gainfully employed in the relevant industry/fields.

        I was personally acquainted with several “Engineering” students who selected the field in order to jump on management ladders at the 5th rung. An academic achievement is only that; academic. One can be an excellent academic in a particular field yet dodge completely a useful understanding of the field.

        From Wonkypedia:

        Greg Combet was born in Sydney and attended Eastern Creek Primary school, then Rooty Hill High School from years 7 to 10. He completed his secondary education at Baulkham Hills High School. He was later educated at the University of New South Wales where he studied mining engineering, and then graduated from the University of Sydney with a Bachelor of Economics, and a Graduate Diploma in Labour Relations and the Law. He was a project officer for the New South Wales Tenants’ Union before working for the Lidcombe Workers’ Health Centre. In 1987, he was employed by the Waterside Workers’ Federation, now part of the Maritime Union of Australia.

        Doesn’t look like anybody thought Combet terribly useful to employ as a mining engineer. It appears that Combet fled back into academia, gaining “credibility” to become active in the union movement.

        If Combet were acting as a Mining Engineer, then he’d be following up on the rich vein of climate-BS as quickly as possible to sell for as much money as possible. Unfortunately, the runoff from industrial-scale exploitation of the climate-BS results in massive toxic runoffs which will take decades to clean up.

        Combet doesn’t care because a good little engineer only does what is required by law; even when he understands the unintended consequences of doing so.

        IEAUst used to require Engineers to abide by a code of ethics. Which IEAust (Engineers Australia) appear to no longer be be able to follow as an institution.

        It’s not just the physical sciences that’ve been corrupted by the climate scam. Any institution that’s vaguely related is in the same “planet saving” business.

        00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Rent Seeking beats Innovation, Hard Work and calculated Risk Management. (for a time – until the host organism is exhausted by the constant leeching by parasites).

          00

          • #

            Exactly. This I believe is the cause of the demise of every great civilization that ever was. Self inflicted wounds.

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Agreed ceetee, Civilisations lose their way and rot from within.

            At any time there are those who carry the torch of reason, liberty and human dignity who have the courage to fight for what they believe in.

            00

  • #
    nc

    Lets see this eastern USA heat wave covers 1% of the planet!

    00

  • #
    Abert

    Combet omitted earthquakes and tsunamis also according to them caused by co2

    00

  • #

    JoNova said:

    The prophesies are for centuries of killer heatwaves and mega-fires

    Like the record high maxima and minina and huge fires the US is undergoing right now Jo?

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Yep thems the ones Maxy baby, booga booga booga booga booga booga booga booga.

      Just waiting for the plague of frogs to arrive………..

      00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      The effects need to be Global – not Regional.

      This is well understood in Climate Science – your statements linking regional weather to Man Made Global Warming is one of the various techniques that is harming the credibility of the Global Warming movement.

      Maxine – Your capacity to kick own goals must be very frustrating for other Warmists.

      00

      • #

        No what is happening is that more and more high temperature records are being set and fewer and fewer low temperature records are being set.

        Canadian winters are now so mild pinebark beetles survive winter to emerge in spring in record numbers to kill millions of conifers and other softwood trees. That sort of thing pointing to the fact that global temperatures are increasing and have been increasing over a long enough time frame that we cannot ascribe this warming to weather and climatic variability.

        We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing because of our industrial activities.

        Unlike the Greens I am not happy to give up the benefits of industrialisation and technology. I am happy to suffer a pinprick of financial pain as part of a way to induce industry and consumers to move to low carbon energy alternatives. A government getting scientific advice from its relevant agencies like the CSIRO and BuMet is pretty much obligated to heed their advice and warning.

        Australia as the driest inhabited continent is more vulnerable than other countries to the effects of global warming.

        The Liberal Party, should they take power in 2013 will not repeal the Clean Energy package tho they will fiddle with it at the margins to the benefit of their cronies.

        This is all pretty simple and sensible.

        00

        • #

          Meanwhile, speculation is building that Tony Abbott’s entire anti-carbon-tax campaign has been a semantic trick – that he intends to repeal the ‘carbon tax’ (the fixed-price period) and retain the ETS part of the Clean Energy Future package – not least because a survey of business leaders by the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy shows that while more than half of respondents thought the ‘carbon tax’ will be repealed, 80 per cent expected an ETS to be functioning by 2020.

          http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Greens-carbon-tax-price-floor-Labor-carbon-permits-pd20120705-VVTFS?OpenDocument&src=sph

          Semantic trick = lie.

          00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            I hope that the LNP do not go down the path of an ETS. It will only be to the benefit of a rent seeking financial elite (think Enron (now defunct), Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc) who will simply use it as an instrument to suck value from all of our lives without benefit to the environment.

            In fact, once CO2 emissions are a fully traded commodity the incentive will shift to keep CO2 emissions occuring to keep the money flowing from the credits. It is just a scam, a trap to enslave ordinary people in an inescapable vice.

            The key players will be the same banks that currently lord it over the financial world such as these banks

            The trick is as old as time and is simply a variation on A Hydraulic Empire where energy use is now substituted for water.

            The key is of course to target a human necessity and by controlling that – control the people.

            Too sad about this to be happy pointing it out too you. But then again, – now it’s time for a Good Feeling

            00

        • #
          crakar24

          Hello Max this is the Chief,

          This statement nees to be justified

          No what is happening is that more and more high temperature records are being set and fewer and fewer low temperature records are being set.

          Canadian winters are now so mild pinebark beetles survive winter to emerge in spring in record numbers to kill millions of conifers and other softwood trees. That sort of thing pointing to the fact that global temperatures are increasing and have been increasing over a long enough time frame that we cannot ascribe this warming to weather and climatic variability.

          Alas as always nothing of the sort is produced just more mindless dribble from a nobody.

          This statement is incomplete

          We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing because of our industrial activities.

          We also know that we dont know what affect this has on atmospheric temps which is exactly why you failed to mention it. Omission is another form of lie Maxine.

          Australia as the driest inhabited continent is more vulnerable than other countries to the effects of global warming.

          Why? You lot cant make up your mind whether we will get more rain/less rain/more snow/less snow/ more storms/less storms and on and on it goes.

          Maybe we will get more rain what about that Maxy baby

          00

          • #

            First bit about pine bark beetles—they are here!

            Exotic bark beetle turns nasty in pine plantations

            From the Autumn 2008 edition of Bush Telegraph Magazine.

            The tiny Ips bark beetle finds dry drought conditions ideal, which has resulted in an increase in tree mortality. Photos by Dr Angus Carnegie
            The exotic North American bark beetle, Ips grandicollis, was accidentally introduced into Australia in the 1940s and was first found in NSW pine plantations in the early 1980s.
            In NSW it is generally thought of as a secondary pest, attacking recently-felled logs and trees that have been stressed or damaged, such as by fire, wind or lightning. This tree mortality tends to be to a small number of localised trees.
            Ips beetles commonly live and breed in fresh logging debris, and on rare occasions have caused damage to seedlings and young trees established within, or adjacent to, recently logged areas.
            However, Ips numbers have recently increased and are now causing large scale tree mortality and have the potential to kill newly planted seedlings.
            In several State forests near Tumut and Tumbarumba there has been a population explosion of Ips and it has reached outbreak proportions.

            http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/news/bush-telegraph-magazine/autumn-2008/exotic-bark-beetle-turns-nasty-in-pine-plantations

            Stay tuned!

            00

          • #

            More Than 4 Million Acres Impacted

            The Mountain Pine Beetle is at epidemic levels throughout the western United States, including here in the Rocky Mountain Region (Read the Forest Service’s Western Bark Beetle Strategy). Forests affected here include several in Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota and Nebraska. In northern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming, Mountain Pine Beetles have impacted more than 4 million acres since the first signs of outbreak in 1996. The majority of outbreaks have occurred in three forests: Arapaho-Roosevelt, White River and Medicine Bow/Routt.

            http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/barkbeetle/home

            Contains photo.

            Global Warming is going to cause MUCH bigger problems!

            CO2 increase is manmade, volcanoes very little comparatively speaking.

            Global warming is here and causing harm now!

            00

          • #

            Some frightening statistics of the pine bark beetle problem here:

            http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_4752743

            00

          • #
          • #
          • #

            From previous link:

            Infestation Information

            The B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations estimates that the mountain pine beetle has now killed a cumulative total of 710 million cubic metres of timber since the current infestation began.
            The cumulative area of B.C. affected to some degree (red-attack and grey-attack) is estimated at 18.1 million hectares.
            18.1 million hectares is more than five times the size of Vancouver Island.

            Newly attacked lodgepole pine trees turn red about one year after infestation. Trees can stay in the red-attack stage for two to four years before turning grey as they lose their needles.

            On a provincial level, the infestation peaked in terms of volume killed annually in 2005 and has slowed considerably since then.
            In terms of area, 4.6 million hectares of red-attack were surveyed in 2011. This is compared to 7.8 million hectares and 6.3 million hectares in the two preceding years.

            The amount of habitat available to the beetle has begun to diminish as the beetle has already attacked most of the mature lodgepole pine in the Central Plateau region.

            The rate of spread in other areas of the Interior has been somewhat slowed by more diverse terrain and forests with a greater diversity of timber species.

            Don’t kid yourselves, global warming is here now! The methane emerging from Arctic clathrates will only accelerate the warming.

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Maxine is a Spacer.

            Remember the definition of a Spacer.

            Someone whose comments are there to take up more space between to top of the page and the bottom and crowd out useful discussion.

            Who give a rats about spiny bark eating beetles and a few trees. It’s people that are important and Governments of all persuasions must be stopped in their tracks when they do wrong things for the people who give them their trust.

            Governments who milk people with ideas like CAGW that others describe it ” batshit ideas” must be held to account.

            People, especially farmers, have been savaged by these crazy looney schemes and it has to stop.

            00

          • #

            I got asked to post the info.

            As to a “few trees” you obviously haven’t dared read the stuff posted and what in in the links.

            Millions of acres of softwood forest—D E A D ! You think that doesn’t matter?

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Maxine I love the bush and trees and spend a lot of my time soaking up the energy there all by myself.

            It gives me a perspective and I am aware that I have spent more time in the presence of nature than any 100 green activists whose concern is little more than academic fantasy.

            Have you ever been in the bush alone?

            All your false concern for nature is sad.

            Have you actually been and seen first hand the trees you are talking about or are you accepting someone elses version of events filtered through the Green lens of enviroconcern?

            How much concern do you have for the many people in Victoria who were killed in bush fires that were effectively the result of Green demands that bush fire management be stopped.

            It is insulting to find myself lectured to by people who have no idea of things: recycling was there in the 1950s; it is not new. Concern for the environment was there in the 1950s ; it is not new.

            I than God that the summers we had in the fifties and sixties wwhere we had a couple of weeks where temperatures ran from 101 to 105 deg F. I am even more thankful that summers are milder now and rarely get over 100 F.

            The world is not hotter now.

            You have been duped.

            Get a life and do something useful.

            Sorry: If you are a UNi lecturer in Climate Studies or Climate Equty or cLIMATE lAW PLEASE IGNORE THAT LAST COMMENT. yOU ARE TRAPPPED IN THE BIGGEST HOAX AND NO DOUBT WILL SEE IT thROUGH TO THE BITTER END.

            sEE IF YOU CAN SORT THAT MESS OUT!

            00

          • #

            Maxine says….”oh no, we’re doomed. the pine bark beetles are chomping all the BC forests. Look I got links, lots and lots of links…yada yada yada”

            That dog in your avatar has more brains than you Maxine, you fraudulent alarmist moron.

            I checked out the bulltish about warming of a poofteenth of a degree causing MPB infestations.

            The fact is, forestry practices, including fire suppression and reservation (allowing stands of trees to reach full maturity) has caused the MPB infestation.

            Mountain pine beetle outbreaks history

            Mountain pine beetle, under epidemic conditions preferentially kills the largest trees in the stand. Under intense beetle pressure this will result in the mortality of all or almost all of the mature trees within a given stand. The trees that are killed by mountain pine beetle turn red (around 2 years after initial attack), the needles fall off leaving a denuded tree which has a grey appearance (3 to 6 years). Dead trees eventually fall to the ground and become coarse woody debris. The removal of the tree foliage allows much more light to enter lower portions of the canopy, and trees that are not killed by beetle experience an accelerated period of growth (referred to as a growth release) which is enhanced by reduced competition.
            [That's nature at work max you moron]

            We reconstructed past beetle outbreaks by looking for sustained (greater than 5 years) periods of growth release in the tree-ring record. We quantified the growth release using an increased growth factor, for example a 50% increase in mean radial growth, recorded by a percentage of trees sampled in the stand. In both even and uneven-aged stands residual trees experienced a 50% increase in annual growth during the 1930s, 1960s and the 1980s, which all coincide with known periods of beetle outbreak (Forest Insect and Disease Surveys).

            It sure wasn’t CO2 caused poofteenth of a degree increase in temps that caused the outbreaks in the 30′s or 60′s aye Max?

            If anything other than natural cycles is to be blamed for the current infestation, IT’S THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACTIONS OF ANTI-LOGGING TREE HUGGING SANDAL WEARING UNWASHED DREAD-LOCKED HIPPIE MORONS better known as Bob Browns of this world.

            Now grow a pair and stop being so alarmed about everything.

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi Maxine,

            Thanks for the Pine Bark beetle links – I now know more about pine bark beetles than I ever expected to learn.

            However the fact that there is a pine bark beetle epidemic is not a sign of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming. Biological systems under normal conditions sometime experience plague/epidemics of a particular species when conditions happen to match the optimal parameters of that species.

            The question arises would there have been similar massive outbreaks of pine bark beetle in the 1100s and 1200s during the height of the global Medieval Warming Period

            Such outbreaks occur naturally and are resolved naturally when the plague species overconsumes their resources and the population collapses. It is just unfortunate that the pine bark beetle is consuming a species that is economically important to humanity.

            With regard to your other comments.

            Global Warming is going to cause MUCH bigger problems!

            Do you have a crystal ball – or is that a computer model that you use to tell the future with – You assert certainty where there is none. The world could end up cooling from here due to a Dalton/Maunder like solar minimum.

            CO2 increase is manmade, volcanoes very little comparatively speaking.

            I have already dealt with this here with particular reference to Salby. This remains an open question. You assert certainty where there is none.

            Global warming is here and causing harm now!

            You do realise that the warming started naturally decades prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution as the world exited the Little Ice Age? Also Warming is better than Cold – try Europe and North America during the Little Ice Age, compared with now, and consider where crops are being grown in both cases.

            Don’t kid yourselves, global warming is here now! The methane emerging from Arctic clathrates will only accelerate the warming.

            [1] Global warming has stopped for the last 14 years, Latest Global Temps

            [2] You have no evidence that the warming has been caused by human emissions of CO2 as there is no quantified, measured and definitive understanding of the +ve/-ve feedbacks on CO2 – hence no understanding of Climate Sensitivity to CO2. At the moment the honest answer for anyone is “I don’t know”.

            [3] Methane Clathrates – an excellent source of future Hydrocarbons to power world industry with.

            As to a “few trees” you obviously haven’t dared read the stuff posted and what in in the links.

            Millions of acres of softwood forest—D E A D ! You think that doesn’t matter?

            It’s unfortunate, but not caused by humans, and too costly to attempt to stop it.

            Cheers ExWarmist

            00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Maxine says

          Canadian winters are now so mild pinebark beetles survive winter to emerge in spring in record numbers to kill millions of conifers and other softwood trees. That sort of thing pointing to the fact that global temperatures are increasing and have been increasing over a long enough time frame that we cannot ascribe this warming to weather and climatic variability.

          Millions – there must be whole forests of dead trees – do you have physical evidence of this? Aerial photographs of the decimated regions? Scientific papers with associated data and methods that can be independently checked? Where’s the meat of your assertions?

          We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing because of our industrial activities.

          Perhaps, are you sure that all CO2 Sources and Sinks have been fully audited and accounted for, what of Murrey Salby it is an open question how much of the rise in CO2 over the last 200 years is due to human emissions.

          You also implicitly assume that CO2 enrichment of the Atmosphere and Ocean are bad for the planet, what if CO2 enrichment is a net benefit

          Unlike the Greens I am not happy to give up the benefits of industrialisation and technology.

          Me too – in fact I think that it is a deadly step for civilisation.

          I am happy to suffer a pinprick of financial pain as part of a way to induce industry and consumers to move to low carbon energy alternatives. A government getting scientific advice from its relevant agencies like the CSIRO and BuMet is pretty much obligated to heed their advice and warning.

          The government dictates the advice that it gets through the mechanism of funding. Sir Humphrey rules. Hence not obligated.

          Australia as the driest inhabited continent is more vulnerable than other countries to the effects of global warming.

          Actually Antarctica is the driest inhabited continent (sorry, just had to go there, couldn’t resist) – Australia is only vulnerable if CAGW changes the ENSO, Indian Ocean Dipole and moonsoon patterns that govern rainfall in Australia. Regardless of the “predictions” that CSIRO and the BOM will NOT stand behind, we continue with the pattern of droughts and flooding rains that Dorothea Mackellar noted in 1911.

          The Liberal Party, should they take power in 2013 will not repeal the Clean Energy package tho they will fiddle with it at the margins to the benefit of their cronies.

          I’m cynical enough to think that you are right. Time will tell.

          This is all pretty simple and sensible.

          Provided you refuse to rigourously question your core assumptions, search for definitive empirical evidence, demand independent repeatability, engage in logical fallacies such as argument from authority, and ignore the human costs, especially to the worlds poor of the current policy prescriptions – yeah sure – pretty simple and sensible.

          Honestly – I have really missed you Maxine. I love analysing your comments and sharpening the tools of reason on the blunt whetstone of your mind.

          00

          • #

            increasing CO2 concentrations are leading to the acidification of oceans, causing the base of the pyramid of life there to increasingly be in big trouble.

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Ex W

            I think Maxine means the oceans will become LESS ALKALINE?

            The oceans are NOT acidic and will just go on dissolving Ca and other interesting bits from rock for a long time to come.

            Just in case Maxine has NO CHemistry, which I suspect, this process is called neutralisation.

            :)

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi Maxine – already dealt with here

            00

          • #

            The process of making something less alkaline can be called acidification.

            Playing with semantics because the concept is frightening, act of a coward.

            00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Playing with semantics because the concept is frightening, act of a coward.

              Maxine,

              It is you who are playing with semantics. You assume one scale, from high acidification to high alkalinity.

              Mathematically that is incorrect, because such a scale must pass through zero, which is a discontinuity where neither states exists – neither acid nor alkaline. So we have two scales.

              Because sea water is naturally alkaline, it can only become more or less alkaline, but it cannot become more or less acid, because it was never acidic in the first place.

              00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Maxine,

            WRT to Ocean Acidification (Neutralisation…)

            Have you read the links here

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            I like reading your comments Rereke.

            00

          • #
            Heywood

            Rereke,Ex and Crakar

            Re: Maxine..

            I recommend the following advice,

            “Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”

            00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Ex

        Maxine is a Spacer.

        Remember the definition of a Spacer.

        Someone whose comments are there to take up more space between to top of the page and the bottom and crowd out useful discussion.

        Who give a rats about spiny bark eating beetles and a few trees. It’s people that are important and Governments of all persuasions must be stopped in their tracks when they do wrong things for the people who give them their trust.

        Governments who milk people with ideas like CAGW that others describe it ” batshit ideas” must be held to account.

        People, especially farmers, have been savaged by these crazy looney schemes and it has to stop.

        They have caused great harm and loss of life through Green Control Measures which from their comfy lounge rooms and trendy inner Sydney

        coffee shops might seem very, very enviro tech, but in the cold, hard light of the real world are inept, ill informed and basically Kultish

        activity. They are identical to the drones used as worker bees in Tom Cruise’s Scientology Kult.

        ps. The process of bringing any solution closer to a neutral pH is called neutralisation , not “acidification”

        00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi KK,

          Read the last line of this comment here and you will see why I spend time answering Maxines comments.

          I wouldn’t do it if there wasn’t a payoff.

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Trouve:

            “Honestly – I have really missed you Maxine. I love analysing your comments and sharpening the tools of reason on the blunt whetstone of your mind”.

            One of my hobbies was woodwork and know the whetstone; nicely put.

            :)

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Ex

            We are constantly being subjected to the same old “global warming is here and now” line of propaganda.

            Baseless and scientifically unfounded assertions that are like projectile vomit: something that you can see coming and avoid much more

            easily than ordinary vomit.

            :)

            00

      • #

        Have a look here:

        http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/april-2012-temperatures-up-02.html

        Seems record high temps are all through northern atmosphere.

        Global Warming is here and now. What are YOU going to do about it?

        00

        • #
          Tristan

          I’m going to ignore it Maxine, because the hockey stick is broken. ;)

          00

        • #
          Heywood

          “What are YOU going to do about it?”

          I’ll start by ignoring alarmist twits like yourself…

          00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Maxine

          You onveniently left out any comment on the southern Hemisphere where I am in one of the coldest winters I can recall in several decades.

          What is the average temperature of the Whole Planet’s Atmoshere?

          Up or Down or just hangin loose?

          00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Maxine

          You onveniently left out any comment on the southern Hemisphere where I am in one of the coldest winters I can recall in several decades.

          What is the average temperature of the Whole Planet’s Atmoshere?

          Up or Down or just hangin loose?

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Well Maxine

            Look what happens to people who mess with you.

            I have been morphed from the previous orange/pink icon to a bright blue which is similar to Team Smith.

            :)

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            It seems someone sent my blue icon back to be spray painted its old colour thanks

            00

    • #

      cross posted from thread on WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/the-kevin-trenberth-seth-borenstein-aided-fact-free-folly-on-the-usa-heat-wave/
      Richard Holle says:
      July 3, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      Part of the reason for the bow front storms Derechos is due to solar wind inductions into the earths magnetic field, and corresponding ion charge potentials between the poles and the equator due to homopolar generator effects. The more energetic the interactions between the suns production in spots and CMEs, (that put out short term surges in magnetic and ion flux,) the more is the effected storm strength and production. When the sun is active the shifts in polarity of the solar wind keep the storms active and spread out, when the magnetic field strength of the earth weakens and becomes stable for periods of time longer than about two weeks, then the polar to equatorial air mass interaction slows down giving rise to larger mid-latitude bands of clean dry air with low ion count. Blocking highs that occur in these areas produce droughts due to there is little precipitable water vapor, and no flux of ions into or out of the area to cause rainfall.
      These spots develop low concentrations of ions due to the neutralizing effects of passing fronts, Further poleward you will find Negative ions abound (accounting for the acidic Ph of rain), and closer to the equator positive ions driven off of the ocean surface by wave action nebulization.

      When the magnetic fields of the sun and the earth weaken the areas of neutral charged air masses increase in the mid-latitudes, forming into cutoff blocking highs, when surges of ions arrive from the CMEs and solar flares they produce a cascade of free electrons which sweep down on top of the existing Mobile Polar Highs, and show up as intense events due to the ion induced wind power added to the normal temperature gradient across fronts, by these huge surges in free electrons push into the mid-latitudes.
      http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/cgi-bin/magnetometer/gak-mag.cgi (graphs of electromagnetic activity of the interactions of the sunspots and CME’s upon the earths atmosphere) you can clearly see the shock impulses these past three days of CME arrival, at the same time the Drecheos were running across the charge boundary as the free electrons came cascading down from the North pole, as long as the graphs show rapid intense fluctuation the higher rate of precipitation results.

      So the reason we are having summer droughts, and a lingering dry area in the Texas to South East of USA (for the past couple of years) is due to the decreasing strength of solar magnetic fields, resultant solar wind speed stability, and the probable weakening of the earths “permanent” fields. Thus lowering the ion content in the mid-latitudes allowing these events to occur. Drought until solar induced disruptions cause rapid discharges producing the Derechos along the periphery of the ion null, low aerosol content, zone of dry air in the blocking high pattern.

      The maps shown on my site are for the normal average lunar declinational cyclic patterns and surges in ion inductions from solar activity show up as “out of the usual” or I totally miss their presence in my “forecasts for this cycle and I learn what is solar caused and what is not, how the interaction comes down. I learn more about how the electromagnetic interactions between the sun and the planets actually works quantitatively, as well as the length of timing durations to expect.
      I built the web site as a learning tool to understand the entire system and its interactions. When I can derive algorithms to adjust the lunar declinational patterns by the expected solar activity, then I will be able to build an active weather forecasting method or model that works much better.

      00

  • #
    • #
      crakar24

      A quote

      Our Solar Flagships program is supporting AGL Energy and First Solar’s solar projects at Nyngan and Broken Hill.

      These will be amongst the largest solar projects in the world.

      The Nyngan project site alone will occupy an area equivalent to two Sydney Olympic Park precincts.

      The two projects combined will require over 2 million solar panels, they’ll cut greenhouse gases by over 400,000 tonnes each year and provide enough energy annually to supply over 33,000 average Australian homes.

      So something the size of two olympic park precincts will power 33,000 homes wow what an accomplishment but can it do it 24/7? alas she did not say.

      00

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        So something the size of two olympic park precincts will power 33,000 homes wow what an accomplishment but can it do it 24/7? alas she did not say.

        Given that the Sydney Olympic Park Precinct reportedly covers an area of 1,581 acres, this would mean an area of 3,162 acres (or 1279.616 hectares).

        The average house block in Sydney is 625m2 (or 0.0625 hectares).

        1279.616 divided by 0.0625 equals 20473.856.

        Hence approximately 20474 homes could be built in an area approzimately twice the size of the Sydney Olympic Park Precenct (not counting blocks used for dual occupancy dwellings, apartments/units, shops, churches, etc)… and completely ignoring the need for space for roads and other infrastructure.

        Thus, the Nyngan Solar project would be enough to supply the homes in Homebush Bay, plus about 60% of one of the neighbouring suburbs.

        One wonders, therefore, how large an area would be required to build a Nyngan-style solar plant to power the whole of Sydney (let alone the whole of NSW)….

        Well since the NSW Dept of Planning estimates that (in 2004) there were 1.6 million homes… this calculates out to approx. 1000km2.

        Or roughly an area half the size of the ACT.

        So to power Sydney and Melbourne, an area roughly the size of the ACT…. and once again that is JUST Sydney and Melbourne… no other cities or towns in both NSW and Victoria… or the rest of the country!

        I wonder if New Zealand would be amenable to becoming a giant solar (and wind) plant to supply Australia with our “green energy” needs? What say you Rereke? ;-)

        00

        • #

          Rack off Noddy, we’ve got enough of our own hippie schemes here thank you very much!!!

          00

          • #
            Brian of Moorabbin

            ceetee,

            I was illustrating the futility of relying on solar (and wind) power to provide sufficient capacity to power Australia’s needs.

            IE. If a plant the size of the ACT is needed to power just two of Australia’s capital cities (and nothing else), how large must the plant be to power the whole country.

            I would have thought the winking smilie would have been a clue, but perhaps if I put “/sarc off” at the end it might make it clearer for you?

            Or are you a “Green Energy” believer and upset that the calculations about the amount of area needed are accurate?

            00

  • #
    MudCrab

    Ooooo Scary Mega Fires!!! We all know that as long as you go and eat you are perfectly safe from them.

    (and yes I do hope that line haunts you to your death bed. You were meant to be in charge.)

    The claim they will increase is pure fear science. Remember some areas can go for decades without major fire, which while in itself is a good thing, also means that IF you do have a fire there is a LOT more stuff to burn.

    Now, and this is the tricky bit so you Greens might like to get an adult to help you with the bigger words, the plus side of having everything burnt to the ground is it becomes VERY hard to actually set fire to again.

    Bushfire preventative maintaince involves controlled burning to reduce build up of fuel. Unless you are going to suddenly invent native trees that can re-grow at 10 times their current rate there is no way areas are going to be exposed to constant bushfires.

    It is also worth noting that the last major bush fire in South Australia was Ash Wednesday in 1983. This is nearly 30 years ago at a time we are ‘reliably’ told CO2 levels were much lower.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    TonyFromOz

    I just wish I could express the laughter on my face right now.

    Maths, Doctor Smith, Maths, obviously not taught for your Doctorate eh.

    A $5 increase for 10MWH comes it an an increase of 0.05 cents per KWH.

    The actual increase is 3.2 cents per KWH.

    Keep talking Doctor, the hole’s getting deeper, you absolute [snip snip].

    Tony.

    Post Script. They are self snips

    Nothing here explains why the average increase in electricity cost to small business will be more than $5 a week.

    You can do all the irrelevant maths you like, but you are still utterly failing at explaining how Combet is wrong.

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Smith,

      The concept here is not difficult even for you.

      It is a simple equation.

      The cost of electricity has increased by 3.2 cents a KWH

      Combet claimed the cost for small business on average will be $5 per week

      500 cents divided by 3.2 = 156

      Ergo Combet claims small business use on average 156 KWH a week.

      Tony claims a small business will use on average 10MWH per week

      10,000 KWH times 3.2 = 3200 X 100 = 320

      Ergo Tony claims small business electricty bills will increase by 320 dollars a week.

      Now no matter where you insert a full stop it is obvious to all that a small business would use more than 156 KWH a week ergo once again Combet is wrong.

      Care to respond?

      00

      • #

        crakar 24,

        small clarification here because this is not what I claimed, but Greg Combets exact words.

        That 10MWH per week is what Combet said that an average small business consumes.

        Your 156KWH is worth mentioning though.

        An average residential household consumes 25 to 30KWh a day which translates to 175 to 210KWH a week, so that 156KWH which is what Doctor Smith claims as his $5 a week average increase is even less consumption than the average residence at the low end.

        Tony.

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          An average residential household consumes 25 to 30KWh a day which translates to 175 to 210KWH a week, so that 156KWH which is what Doctor Smith claims as his $5 a week average increase is even less consumption than the average residence at the low end.

          Tony, the CPI increase of 0.7% is based on the ASSUMPTION that businesses will pass on their cost increases.

          So you can’t on the one hand say the cost increases have been underestimated, but on the other hand say that the compensation is inadequate.

          00

        • #
          MattB

          See here is Tony surprisingly slithering. He KNOWS FULL WELL that a typical small business uses nowhere near 10MWh per week.

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Matt,

            But Tony was only quoting Combet. Don’t shoot the messenger.

            00

          • #
            MattB

            if you follow the thread Rereke I’ve agreed that 10MWh per week is wrong, but given it was a transcript of spoken word you need to look at the pauses, etc, compared to taking a literal meaning of the transcript. I’ve pointed out 10MHh is clearly wrong, and then linked to a source on what is typical use by a small business, and demonstrated that the increase would in fact be about $5 a week. But TOny still insists.

            00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        It is a simple equation.

        The cost of electricity has increased by 3.2 cents a KWH

        Well here is your first mistake. Not all of this is due to the added cost of carbon permits.

        Combet claimed the cost for small business on average will be $5 per week

        Yes, and I notice that no one here has been able to point out why this will turn out to be wrong.

        500 cents divided by 3.2 = 156

        Ergo Combet claims small business use on average 156 KWH a week.

        I have no idea why you are assuming that a cost INCREASE counts as the entire cost! I assure you small businesses will pay more than $5 a week for electricity. Combet said they will pay $5 MORE, not $5 in total!

        Tony claims a small business will use on average 10MWH per week

        10,000 KWH times 3.2 = 3200 X 100 = 320

        Ergo Tony claims small business electricty bills will increase by 320 dollars a week.

        And this is what I have pointed out is COMPLETELY WRONG. The modelling of all the state treasuries shows that the cost increase for the average small business will be $5 per week due to the carbon price.

        Now there may be additional increases, but you can’t blame these on the carbon price because that would be misleading and dishonest.

        Now no matter where you insert a full stop it is obvious to all that a small business would use more than 156 KWH a week ergo once again Combet is wrong.

        No, your maths is wrong and you are assuming that a COST INCREASE is a TOTAL COST.

        00

        • #
          MattB

          Adam, Crackar seriosuly has not an ounce of independent thought in his mind, not to mention basic maths skills, to follow what you are saying. He’ll jsut agree with Tony, who for once is missing the forest for the trees.

          00

  • #
    bazza

    have you ever noticed when combet is talking after a few words he seems to take a gulp and make a funny sort of smirk with his mouth.like he is wetting his lips or as i think he is trying to get a bad taste out of his mouth,because of all the crap he is talking.watch him for a while and you will see what i mean.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Doctor Smith,

    Modelling. Why would I need modelling when I have the exact published data,

    Err, hello! The ETS started last Sunday. How can you say, without presenting any modelling what the average rise in electricity prices will be?

    The NSW treasury says you are wrong.
    The Victorian treasury says you are wrong.
    The QLD treasury says you are wrong.
    The federal treasury says you are wrong.

    Private economic modelling firms like Access Economics says you are wrong.

    But you think we should believe you even though you won’t point out how their modelling is wrong!

    I can see you keep asserting that 100% of recent power increases are due to the cost of purchasing permits, but clearly you should know that this is just untrue because there are other factors driving increased power prices.

    had you even bothered to look for yourself. Go to any of the providers sites and have a look for yourself, but be aware you will have needed to take screen prints of the costs the day prior to the introduction of the Carbon Tax (sic) as I have done.

    If you honestly think that removing the cost of carbon permits will result in lower electricity bills you are dreaming.

    For a range of reasons power prices will continue to increase, the carbon price is just one part of that.

    I guess reading was also a subject not taught for your Doctorate.

    Well this is true, because someone who can’t read generally can’t become a doctoral candidate let alone receive their degree.

    So congratulations, you have proven that occasionally you write things that are true.

    00

    • #
      gytr_r1

      *Sigh* As pointed out previously, the wholesale electricity price is already $2 per kWH more than treasury modelling across the board…

      00

      • #
        gytr_r1

        Sorry mWH not kWH

        00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        *Sigh* As pointed out previously, the wholesale electricity price is already $2 per kWH more than treasury modelling across the board…

        Excuse me? The Treasury modelling has numerous different estimates of wholesale electricity prices. Which one are you referring to?

        Page 73 of the Treasury modelling makes an interesting point that the lack of a carbon price would drive increases to the wholesale cost of electricity because it will delay investment:

        …previous studies have estimated that continued uncertainty could raise wholesale electricity prices by between $1 and $7 per MWh by 2020. The longer that uncertainty prevails, the higher the costs of uncertainty.

        I appreciate that you omitted this because it doesn’t fit with your argument that only the carbon price is driving increases to electricity costs.

        00

    • #

      As none of you can quite obviously read, I’ll link again to the Comment here at this site explaining it.
      star comment

      Price Increases due to the Introduction of the Carbon Tax (sic)

      Read it very carefully, and note particularly that first linked image, and here it is again.

      Power Costs At The Grids

      That is not modelling by anybody.

      That is the actual price of electricity from the plants. The Providers buy this electricity, add on poles and wires etc etc and their cut and then onsell the electricity.

      Note the average price increase is around that $$22 to $30 per MWH which equates to around 3 cents per KWH.

      The providers, Ergon etc have passed it on in full, adding their bit, and those increases have averaged out to 3 cents per KWH.

      As is patently obvious, the cost of generating electricity rose on Sunday Morning, and only one thing happened there.

      This is not modelling.

      Had you even bothered to notice, I linked back to that Comment in the original comment on this new Thread. (Comment 27).

      Now even I know that most of you would not even bothered to have taken that link, but had you done so, it would have been obvious that all I have said is in fact correct.

      All calculations were based on what Greg Combet said.

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Tony, you are wasting your time mate.
        star comment

        Combet made TWO, not one mistakes in his comments.

        1) – He grossly overstated the amount of electricity used by a small business.
        2) – He grossly understated the increased cost of electricity to a small business.

        When you attack (1) the trolls use calculations based on (2) to defend Combet.
        When you attack (2) the trolls use calculations based on (1) to defend Combet.

        The fact that the whole debate is ultimately based on the fact that Combet got BOTH his figures wrong, is entirely evaded by them whichever way you go.

        Attempting to debate logic with religious fanatics hell-bent on preserving their dogma and protecting their high priests is akin to banging your skull against a brick wall to cure a headache.

        .
        Let it go mate.
        You are meant for bigger and better and more important things.

        00

        • #
          MattB

          “1) – He grossly overstated the amount of electricity used by a small business.”
          Hardly a hanging offence, if it is even accurate to say he overstated.

          “2) – He grossly understated the increased cost of electricity to a small business.”
          Tony has offered no evidence of this. All his critique has been based on 10MWh/week

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            See Tony, this what I mean:

            1) – “He grossly overstated the amount of electricity used by a small business.”
            Hardly a hanging offence, if it is even accurate to say he overstated.

            Acceptance that Combet lied, but “so what”?

            2) – “He grossly understated the increased cost of electricity to a small business.”
            Tony has offered no evidence of this. All his critique has been based on 10MWh/week.

            A blatant denial by MattB that it was actually him and the other religious fanatics that it was them, not you, who offered up all the presumed calculations of what a small business “might” have used, if Combet had got his figures right in the first place.

            So you, Tony, are eternally wrong because:

            1) – Combet got it wrong – but – to quote – “it’s hardly a hanging offence”, and
            2) – Using Combet’s admittedly wrong figures, it’s impossible to say what the true rise in electricity costs will be for a small business.

            The fact that Combet got it “wrong” (lied) twice is irrelevant to these morons.
            .
            It is impossible to argue logically against those “defending the faith”.

            00

          • #
            MattB

            full of crap as usual MV. Full of crap. why would Combet “lie” that the typical small business uses 10MWh of electricity per week? What would be the reason to lie about that? 10MWh per week is clearly a misinterpretation or an actual error. But WHY WOULD HE LIE!!!! When the truth is $5 a week.

            00

          • #
            Joe V.

            Combet is the Minister responsible for what ?

            Such an error wouldn’t seem pllausible.

            Do pollies really need a reason to lie ?
            It isn’t for us to reason why.

            00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Tony,

        MV is right. There is a saying: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.”

        00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        All calculations were based on what Greg Combet said.

        You still haven’t proven that the average electricity cost increase for the average small business will be more than $5 per week.

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          We have been over this a hundred times Smith, another example of you thinking quantity is better than quality.

          My advice, stop, take a deep breath, think about what you are going to say, then type it…..dont press post comment yet you still need to proof read….OK now you can post comment OK.

          In response to your comment,

          You still haven’t proven that the average electricity cost increase for the average small business will be more than $5 per week.

          Agreed BUT we can calculate it if we know what their usage is. Combet on the other hand has made a definitive statement that we can test/falsify hang on

          Falsify, definition

          to prove false; disprove

          Combet claimed small business costs would increase by a modest $5 a week when we apply 3.2cent a KWH price to this figure we can calculate that in Combets mind a small business uses approximately 156KWH a week.

          This figure is ludicrous would you agree?

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            Team Smith must be arguing over who gets to respond…………………

            00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Combet claimed small business costs would increase by a modest $5 a week when we apply 3.2cent a KWH price to this figure we can calculate that in Combets mind a small business uses approximately 156KWH a week.

            You just made up the 3.2 cent figure and seem to be assuming that all of recent electricity price increases are due to the carbon price.

            Answer this question. If the power generators no longer had to buy carbon permits, would the price of electricity go DOWN?

            I don’t mean “increase by less”, I mean DOWN in real terms?

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            What happened to the cute blonde? I have got the semi nasty Smith this time, still better than the abusive one that makes absolutely no sense i suppose.

            Well Smith i must admit i got the 3.2 cent figure from Tony who i have no need to question, however if you can produce documentation (screen shots etc) or some other reference to show a different figure then please produce them. Until then i will stick with Tony’s figures.

            To answer your question i would have to say yes, thats what happens when you apply a tax to something the price goes up. Take the tax away and the price should go down.

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            crakar24,
            You’re right – even a small 2 door upright freezer (fish shop style) consumes between 15 and 30 kWH per day – one week = 240 kWH per week at 20 kWH per day!

            Combet is unfrozen if he only pays for 156 kWH per week?????
            Maybe his shop only keeps one fish in an esky!!

            Why do they keep lying about this increase!

            00

    • #
      Bite Back

      Why speculate about the price increase when waiting a few months will tell the tale?

      Oops! You won’t be able to tell the tale, will you? What a sorry-ass predicament!

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        Why speculate about the price increase when waiting a few months will tell the tale?

        Oops! You won’t be able to tell the tale, will you? What a sorry-ass predicament!

        When it turns out that the cost increase for house holds is $3.20 a week (on average), there’s no way anyone here who claimed otherwise will admit they were wrong.

        They’ll just move along to some other topic.

        00

  • #
    dave ward

    According to this report: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2188424/green-businesses-line-support-australian-carbon-tax

    A group of over 300 leading Australian firms ARE in favour of the Carbon Tax!

    Sorry if this has already been mentioned – I’ve searched this thread using a variety of names and quotes, but not found anything.

    00

    • #
      gytr_r1

      gytr_r1
      July 3, 2012 at 7:02 pm · Reply
      The list…
      A breakdown of a few:
      • Furless (online shop specialising in Vegan makeup brushes and not much else)
      • Love.fish (there website is ambiguous but possibly a fish and chip shop or an sustainability consultancy that sells fish and chips )
      • Marie-Pierre Cleret (not so much a company as a Physiotherapist in Erskinville )
      • Organia Revolutuion (store selling “Elephant dung journals & writing paper in Murwillumbah)
      • “I ran the wrong way” (possibly a gift shop )
      • Byron Bay International Film Festival
      • Unfolding Futures (possibly a husband and wife team of motivational speakers )
      • WordCraft Global (some type of consultancy which teaches you how to write documents
      • NIDA
      • Shaunie P Music
      • Telstra Shop Balina (note Telstra Australia haven’t signed up – just the Balina shop)
      • The Dentist at 70 Pitt Street
      • The Family Wellness Centre
      • Young District Anglican Ministry
      • Cellian (don’t appear to exist based on an online search)
      • Damask Perfumery (shop in Woolloongabba)
      • tripple0gear (don’t appear to actually exit)
      • Jason Corporation (appears to be a house in Neutral Bay)

      Awe inspiring bunch eh?

      [when you cut n paste from another blog or article, please provide a link to that blog or article. It's the right thing to do. mod oggi]

      00

    • #

      Hey Dave, have you checked WHO these businesses are?
      If not, why not?

      Terry McCrann hears the rattle of a collection tin:

      WELL, that’s a surprise. Companies with their corporate snouts deep in the multi-billion dollar carbon tax trough think that it’s a good idea.

      The “almost 300 organisations” galvanised under the pompously and deceitfully self-named “Businesses for a Clean Economy” are voicing support for putting a price on carbon.

      “Businesses for Cleaning out the Taxpayer,” would be a far more accurate and indeed honest label…

      A visit to the BCE website is highly and amusingly instructive… There are solar companies galore, green energy assessors, wind turbine makers, plus some big ones such as Westpac and GE which know where the easy dollars are, plus the assorted ever-present useful idiots and starry-eyed planet-savers.

      Even sillier, checking by the Liberals reveals that the companies aren’t all they claim to be:

      Of the 200 companies only one, AGL is on the government’s list of Liable Entities who will pay the tax .

      Below are some interesting examples of the 200 businesses listed on http://www.b4ce.com.au/home/signatories/businesses supporting a Carbon Tax:

      • Furless (online shop specialising in Vegan makeup brushes and not much else)
      • Love.fish (there website is ambiguous but possibly a fish and chip shop or an sustainability consultancy that sells fish and chips )
      • Marie-Pierre Cleret (not so much a company as a Physiotherapist in Erskinville )
      • Organia Revolutuion (store selling “Elephant dung journals & writing paper in Murwillumbah)
      • “I ran the wrong way” (possibly a gift shop )
      • Byron Bay International Film Festival
      • Unfolding Futures (possibly a husband and wife team of motivational speakers )
      • WordCraft Global (some type of consultancy which teaches you how to write documents
      • NIDA
      • Shaunie P Music
      • Telstra Shop Balina (note Telstra Australia haven’t signed up – just the Balina shop)
      • The Dentist at 70 Pitt Street
      • The Family Wellness Centre
      • Young District Anglican Ministry
      • Cellian (don’t appear to exist based on an online search)
      • Damask Perfumery (shop in Woolloongabba)
      • tripple0gear (don’t appear to actually exit)
      • Jason Corporation (appears to be a house in Neutral Bay)

      The above via ANDREW BOLTs blog

      00

  • #
    dave ward

    Hey Dave, have you checked WHO these businesses are?
    If not, why not?

    Sorry, no I haven’t. I’ve spent a good part of the day contacting a local council regarding a repeated attempt to get planning approval for some wind turbines. This has been going on since 2002, and the applicants are clearly trying to wear the locals down. I’m part way through a 41 page PDF from the noise consultants, who are trying to suggest that low frequency “infrasound” is all in the mind…

    00

  • #
    Mark

    When you see all these Business Council “suits” lined up telling us that they like “certainty”, don’t you just know to check your wallet and bank account?

    If you put any of these “suits” in charge of a successful small to medium business it’d be bust within the next quarter if not sooner.

    On another subject:
    Just heard over the radio that Gosford Council has removed the ridiculous sections based on sea level rise from the local planning rules. Seems they got swamped by a tsunami of (revolting!) rate payers.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MattB,
    Somewhere here you wrote

    It is a shame you are on this board Crackar. You really are an imbecile.

    I am not sure what you meant by “board” but i got the imbecile bit. What i find strange is that you defend Combet by saying “Oh thats just a transcript he never said that” and “Oh he just made a little mistake”.

    You dont live in reality do you? To put it another way you think Combet is incompetent and yet you honestly beleive every small busines (on average) will pay an additional $5 a week. Your electricity bill will go up by more than that!!!! And you call me an imbecile?

    Anyway when driving to work today i learnt that the price of fish is going to sky rocket, yep bad news for all our pescetarians and the reason why? Well its obvious isnt it the price of refridgeration gas has increased from 200 to 1000 dollars. Obviously they are a small business so their power bills will only increase by a modest $5 Ref.

    Oh and of course the fruit and veg will increase as they use refridgeration aswell.

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Anyway when driving to work today i learnt that the price of fish is going to sky rocket, yep bad news for all our pescetarians and the reason why? Well its obvious isnt it the price of refridgeration gas has increased from 200 to 1000 dollars. Obviously they are a small business so their power bills will only increase by a modest $5 Ref.

      Oh dear lord! How often do you re-gas your fridge? Most people buy a new fridge before needing to re-gas their fridge!

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        I will give you credit above your fellow warmbots Smith you do reply to all comments, however the speed at which reply does seem a little odd.

        Having said that your replies are chook full of mistakes so maybe there is only one of you.

        A good example is the one above, i was quoting fishmongers and they use large scale refridgeration units (walk in freezers if you like) plus a host of other types. These systems are very expensive so they do not merely “throw them out”.

        However you responded with the mindset that i was talking about a domestic refridgeration system.

        This tardiness by you is brought about through 1) Haste and 2) You have nothing to respond with but still you feel the need to respond even if it is just jibberish.

        I suggest you take your time to respond in future (we dont mind waiting a little bit longer) and if you have nothing to add then simply say nothing.

        Cheers

        Crakar

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          A good example is the one above, i was quoting fishmongers and they use large scale refridgeration units (walk in freezers if you like) plus a host of other types. These systems are very expensive so they do not merely “throw them out”.

          A business would only pay thousands of dollars on refrigeration equipment and thousands of dollars on the electricity to run that equipment if they could do so while still making a profit.

          A 10% increase in these electricity costs may seem like a lot of money, but you have to remember the cost is amortised (spread across) their total revenue, which means for the sale of any one item (a piece of fish for example) is a tiny increase in cost. You are talking a few cents increase at most.

          But I appreciate you are more interested in spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt rather than actually keeping things in perspective.

          The rest of your post was just you bossing me around telling me what to do, which I won’t pay any further attention to.

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            Which Smith am i talking to now? Are you the cute blond with the big……. i hope so.

            Whichever version you are you suffer the same fate as your altenate personalities in that you cannot debate very effectively.

            I was talking about the cost of refridgeration gas and how this will/could/might add to the cost of fish. You responded by talking about the increase in electricty so everything you said is moot.

            Also you accuse me of spreading fear but this is not true i am merely performing my civic duty of passing on the information given to me by the fishmongers themselves.

            Once again Smith you are focusing on quantity not quality and you make yourself look foolish even though from what i have seen of you i dont think you are.

            00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Oh and of course the fruit and veg will increase as they use refridgeration aswell.

      Who has asserted that the cost of fruit and veg won’t increase?

      Your argument is straw.

      00

  • #
    Mark

    Re Craig Thomson’s electorate of Dobell.

    It has been polled with results going like this.
    ALP voters with Thomson as candidate: 19%
    ALP voters with another candidate: 29%

    Ya gotta wonder: Just who are the voters comprising the 19%?

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    You also said this crap

    Adam, Crackar seriosuly has not an ounce of independent thought in his mind, not to mention basic maths skills, to follow what you are saying. He’ll jsut agree with Tony, who for once is missing the forest for the trees.

    The irony is just too much here, independent thought? Both you and Smith altered the record to suit your own realities. You add in full stops, you ignore the written word all in an effort to reject real world reality in order to insert your own.

    What a joke the pair of you are now piss off the both of you.

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      The irony is just too much here, independent thought? Both you and Smith altered the record to suit your own realities. You add in full stops, you ignore the written word all in an effort to reject real world reality in order to insert your own.

      Actually Combet was SPEAKING and then after the fact someone transcribed what he SAID.

      Can’t you appreciate that taking speech and converting it to words is NOT a straight forward process, and sometimes requires some interpretation to determine exactly what the speaker meant?

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Can’t you appreciate that taking speech and converting it to words is NOT a straight forward process, and sometimes requires some interpretation to determine exactly what the speaker meant?

        Are you implying that Hansard is not a true and complete record of the proceedings of parliament?

        For if what you say in general terms is true, then it must apply to the specifics of both the lower and upper houses.

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          Are you implying that Hansard is not a true and complete record of the proceedings of parliament?

          I didn’t mention Hansard at all, so I’m not sure why you brought it up.

          Did you know that Hansard drafts are sent to all MPs before the final version is printed? In fact it is the drafts that are uploaded to the Australian Parliament House website before the final version.

          The reason for doing this is it gives the MPs an opportunity to ensure the Hansard transcription accurately reflects what they said.

          So thank you for providing me with an example that proves my point that I didn’t think of.

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I brought it up because I wanted to see what your reaction would be.

            I also brought it up because the record of speeches in Parliament are supposed to be a legal record of what members say in the house, rather than what they intended to say, or wish they had said in retrospect. I base this statement on my experience of observing the processes in both Westminster and New Zealand but I am less aware of what may pertain in Canberra.

            00

        • #
          Mattb

          the quote in question about 10MWh/week is not Hansard.

          00

  • #

    [...] Keep reading  → Share this:ShareDiggEmailRedditPrintStumbleUponTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    And now for a bit of comedy

    “The ironic thing about what happened on Monday night is that as we began talking about the carbon tax, the relative levels of carbon dioxide in my brain increased.
    “As a result of that I, of course, fainted. It’s a great irony,” he told reporters in Sydney today.

    Can anyone guess who said this?

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      OK maybe nobody read it or maybe they did not see the joke.

      This idiot from Getup starts out by calling it a carbon tax (an element) then claims he was overloaded with carbon dioxide (molecule) so where is the great irony of which he claims?

      Stupid, uneducated moron damn now i have gone and offended MattB, JB, etc

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        This idiot from Getup starts out by calling it a carbon tax (an element) then claims he was overloaded with carbon dioxide (molecule) so where is the great irony of which he claims?

        Well the joke is on you because businesses don’t buy permits for emitting carbon atoms.

        They need to buy permits based on the emission of a range of greenhouse gases, but for simplicity sake, the emissions are based on the equivalence to carbon dioxide, so even if the business practice emits, for example, methane, they buy carbon permits based on the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

        But I appreciate that you don’t really understand the policy that you oppose so much.

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          This new guy seems a bit behind the times, dont you guys do some sort of hand over take over at the end of your shift? Wheres the training? You cant just throw some pleb from getup into the hot seat like this, the poor bastard will be torn to shreds, whers your humanity?

          To the new guy all you have said above has already been covered you need to start a new topic to jibber on about.

          00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    crakar24
    July 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I was talking about the cost of refridgeration gas and how this will/could/might add to the cost of fish. You responded by talking about the increase in electricty so everything you said is moot.

    I don’t need a recap of your weak argument to know that it is weak.

    I pointed out to you that cost increases are spread across every sale the business makes. It isn’t like a piece of fish is going to go up 10% just because the cost of a refrigerant gas goes up!

    Also you accuse me of spreading fear but this is not true i am merely performing my civic duty of passing on the information given to me by the fishmongers themselves.

    Well thank you for doing your civic duty, but you are doing a pretty poor job because you just don’t understand this issue very well.

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Hey what happened to the other one, you know the nice one from 42.2.3?

      I dont like this version of Smith, you let the nice talk again or thats it i will never speak to you again ok.

      You see the nice one not only spoke nicely but they could form constructive debates, look at 51 for a classic example of how to talk jibberish.

      1) I wasnt recapping, you failed to address my claims, you simply ignored them

      2) You have failed/dont want to admit that the costs will rise due electricity/gas and who knows what else but this is just a fishmonger then we have fruit and veg, canned foods, electricty for homes etc etc. All these costs add up.

      3) How can i be doing a poor job all i am doing is repeating what i have been told by the people in the business. Oh i get it i am actually very effective at what i say which is why you have got all nasty.

      Put the nice Smith back on or thats it OK.

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        1) I wasnt recapping, you failed to address my claims, you simply ignored them

        None of your claims make sense; there is nothing to address.

        2) You have failed/dont want to admit that the costs will rise due electricity/gas and who knows what else but this is just a fishmonger then we have fruit and veg, canned foods, electricty for homes etc etc. All these costs add up.

        What an absolute load of crap. I have repeatedly said that or households the cost of electricity will increase by about 10% and the cost of gas by 9%. The cost of food will increase by about $1.20 a week for the average household. If you are actually interested in facts, you may want to read Choice magazine’s analysis:
        http://www.choice.com.au/green-home/saving-energy/carbon-climate-change/bringing-home-the-cost-of-carbon.aspx

        3) How can i be doing a poor job all i am doing is repeating what i have been told by the people in the business. Oh i get it i am actually very effective at what i say which is why you have got all nasty.

        If the people in businesses are telling you that the price of fish is going to skyrocket because of refrigerant gas, then they are lying to you and you should shop at a new fishmonger that doesn’t tell lies.

        00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    crakar24
    July 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Well Smith i must admit i got the 3.2 cent figure from Tony who i have no need to question, however if you can produce documentation (screen shots etc) or some other reference to show a different figure then please produce them. Until then i will stick with Tony’s figures.

    Thank you for finally admitting that you are just using an argument from authority. You aren’t using figures because you believe them, you are just asserting that since someone said something it is true.

    To answer your question i would have to say yes, thats what happens when you apply a tax to something the price goes up. Take the tax away and the price should go down.

    Ha! “price should go down” doesn’t sound very confident!

    The fact is simple, the price of electricity is increasing for a range of reasons, not simply due to the carbon price, even if you ended the carbon price in a year the price of electricity won’t go down, it will keep increasing just at a reduced rate.

    So you are wrong in about three different ways.

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Thats better “New guy” still you need a bit of work, i do not consider Tony to be an authority but the evidence he produced is. Now i see you failed to produce any evidence of your own, sorry i asked the other Smith to produce some obviously he never told you that when you took over. So Tony has provided evidence and you have not so i suggest you are the one arguing from authority.

      Crakar 1
      New Guy zip

      Ha! “price should go down” doesn’t sound very confident

      Ok let me reword, Price will go down

      Crakar 2

      New Guy zip

      Dont worry you will get the hang of it mate.

      The fact is simple, the price of electricity is increasing for a range of reasons, not simply due to the carbon price, even if you ended the carbon price in a year the price of electricity won’t go down, it will keep increasing just at a reduced rate.

      So you are wrong in about three different ways.

      You need more work than i first thought new guy, lets step through this slowly. Lets say petrol costs 80 cent a litre wholesale, then i put on excise (say 40cents a litre) then i put on GST 10%so it costs about 1.32 a litre then i take the gst off.

      Will the price go up or down?

      No apply the same logic to electricty

      Crakar 3

      Newguy zip

      keep punching slugger

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        You need more work than i first thought new guy, lets step through this slowly. Lets say petrol costs 80 cent a litre wholesale, then i put on excise (say 40cents a litre) then i put on GST 10%so it costs about 1.32 a litre then i take the gst off.

        This is a stupid analogy because the retail price of petrol goes up and down quite a lot, even though the long term trend is up.

        This is very different to the price of electricity which has been consistently increasing over the last decade.

        So again, I put it to you that if you ended the ETS in a year or two years from now (the later is more likely), then the price of electricity at the retail level won’t decrease, it will just increase by a reduced rate. There are numerous reasons why the price of electricity has increased such as the increased cost of gas and the cost of new generators and transmission networks. Ending the carbon price would remove one of these costs, but won’t change the others.

        Hence the price of electricity at the retail level will continue to rise.

        I do appreciate you mentioning the GST though. It wasn’t a Labor government that put the GST on electricity.

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          It wasn’t a Labor government that put the GST on electricity

          No. But it is a political truism that less than half of what a government has to do, is actually related to what they want to do.

          You may not want to ban a particular type of paint, but when you get rreports that it is toxic to small children, you have to pass legislation to ban it. No choice.

          Similarly, it may have been required for GST to be put on electricity to prevent some fraudulent behavior, in which case the government of the day would have to take steps to stop the practice. Labour wasn’t on watch at the time, so Labour was lucky. But it is mischievous to then imply that it was part of the Coalition policy. Unless, of course, you have proof that it was?

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Similarly, it may have been required for GST to be put on electricity to prevent some fraudulent behavior, in which case the government of the day would have to take steps to stop the practice. Labour wasn’t on watch at the time, so Labour was lucky. But it is mischievous to then imply that it was part of the Coalition policy. Unless, of course, you have proof that it was?

            Labor opposed the introduction of the GST (a tax that this year will raise about $51 billion) in its entirety.

            It was the Coalition’s policy to put the GST on electricity bills when the GST was first announced in 1998, so trying to somehow blame it on Labor is laughable.

            The Coalition didn’t even win 50% of the 2 party prefered vote at the 1998 election, but they introduced the GST even though most voters had voted against it.

            00

  • #
    crakar24

    I am bored Smith………..

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      I am bored Smith………..

      I don’t care.

      00

    • #

      Doctor Smith.

      Read this, and then get on the phone Doctor Smith.

      Price Rises Due To Introduction Of Carbon Tax (sic)

      Follow up on your convictions here Doctor Smith.

      This is not modelling. It’s the proof.

      Get on the phone right now Doctor Smith and call up the ‘Carbon Cops’

      Now, I’ve even made it easy for you by including the images of those actual price rises from one day to the next, the day prior to the Carbon Tax (sic) and the day after, so you have cast iron, absolute, incontrovertible proof.

      Show them the images Doctor Smith and demand that they prosecute.

      If you don’t do this, then it’s you who is culpable. Either that, or you believe it.

      You’ve made an absolute fool of yourself here Doctor Smith.

      I’ll reply only after you get back to us with the results of your call.

      Tony.

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        This is not modelling. It’s the proof.

        It isn’t proof that the average cost of electricity will exceed $3.20 for households and $5 for small business.

        Your assertion that small businesses are going to pay over $300 a week extra for electricity is laughable.

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Adam,

          What is the definition of a “small business”? What is the definition of a “medium-sized” business? What is the definition of a “large” business?

          If the cost of electricity for a small business is $5, how much will it be for a medium-sized business, and for a large business?

          I mean, a small business might be a kid selling pony-poo at the side of the road, how would we know? What are the definitions? What are the price breaks?

          Is that what Tony has figured out? Has he managed to join the dots? Is that why you are so aggressive on this thread?

          00

          • #
            Mat L

            Small business is defined by Tax Office as aggregated revenue bellow $2 million/ year, ie not Woolworths. That’s why Tony’s so off track, per my previous.

            00

          • #
            Mat L

            Sorry, aggregated turnover, my bad.

            00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Is that what Tony has figured out? Has he managed to join the dots? Is that why you are so aggressive on this thread?

            I don’t comment on Tony’s problems.

            The fact is that the carbon price will actually impact larger businesses less because, while they may have significantly higher energy expenses, they have higher turnover and greater revenue, so they can spread the increased costs over a greater number of sales.

            Of course if you are an unincorporated small business that pays income rather than company tax, your operation will benefit from the income tax cuts just like a regular pay as you go income tax payer.

            If you are an incorporated small business, you benefit from the new loss carry back provisions to offset a reduction in revenue in one year with tax losses from previous years.

            The compensation for the carbon price has been much better thought out than the compensation for the GST, which this year will raise something like 1500% more revenue.

            00

      • #

        Ahem MatL,

        It’s not Tony who is off track, it’s Combet who made the original assertion.

        Tony.

        And Doctor Smith, waiting waiting.

        00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I’m still more interested in the increase in the price of Coke as a result of the carbon tax. Can anyone find the old thread where this was discussed.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    I’m still more interested in the increase in the price of Coke as a result of the carbon tax. Can anyone find the old thread where this was discussed.

    I’m expecting the price of a 600 ml bottle of Coke Zero to increase by about 3 cents.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Rereke Whakaaro
    July 5, 2012 at 8:42 pm
    I brought it up because I wanted to see what your reaction would be.

    I also brought it up because the record of speeches in Parliament are supposed to be a legal record of what members say in the house, rather than what they intended to say, or wish they had said in retrospect. I base this statement on my experience of observing the processes in both Westminster and New Zealand but I am less aware of what may pertain in Canberra.

    Please refer to my earlier point. If Hansard transcribes a parliamentary speech and an MP objects by saying that Hansard’s description is misleading or at least ambiguous then it is within the MPs right to have the Hansard record amended before the final version is printed.

    However you are correct in saying that an MP can’t have the record changed simply because they said something that they now regret saying.

    But you again simply prove my point that transcribing speeches isn’t a straight forward matter and sometimes does require some interpretation.

    Hansard is aware of this, that’s why they distribute drafts which can be commented upon by MPs before the final version is printed. It is only that final version that can’t be changed.

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is also why they tape record, and in some cases broadcast, Parliament. It tends to set boundaries around how much the Hansard reporters can be bullied. It is a bit hard to deny you said something when it is already in the public domain.

      But be that as it may, I notice that you have not responded to my request to you, at comment 34.1.1.2 on the Ivar Giaever thread.

      I presume you missed it, that is why I am pointing it out now.

      00

      • #
        MattB

        Are people missing my post above where I point out that the 10MWh/week is not Hansard? Or am I wrong?

        00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        It is also why they tape record, and in some cases broadcast, Parliament. It tends to set boundaries around how much the Hansard reporters can be bullied. It is a bit hard to deny you said something when it is already in the public domain.

        Well fantastic, but this is all irrelevant, because my actual point is that sometimes it is hard to transcribe speech and still retain all the meaning.

        00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        But be that as it may, I notice that you have not responded to my request to you, at comment 34.1.1.2 on the Ivar Giaever thread.

        I presume you missed it, that is why I am pointing it out now.

        I couldn’t insert a reply at that point, but I replied at post 57. Please not however that the last three paragraphs at the bottom are not mine, they were added by a moderator who was too gutless to put his/her name to the edits.

        00