JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Did Julia really say that? She’s here to help bankers “get their share”?

Her speech to the Australian Business Council yesterday:

And the “other Presidential contest”, the Chinese leadership transition is taking place today.  In 2015, China should take its pilot emissions trading scheme national.

In total around sixty per cent of the world’s GDP is either subject to a carbon price today, or has one legislated or planned for implementation in the two or three years ahead.

International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade.  Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket.  We’re going to help them get their share.

So that’s the work of coming years, that’s what preoccupies my thoughts as I think through the agenda for this country.

I skimmed this line on Andrew Bolts blog, but it didn’t really register until a friend from Europe emailed it to me. (Thanks Stefan).  Surely it was a slip, but then she follows it by saying “that’s what preoccupies my thoughts”.

So this is the new-ALP-  out goes the workers-party, in comes the bankers-party? Ho Ho Ho

How this for a hypothetical test? What if she knew of poor workers funds going missing, say, being misused through union corruption, would she launch an investigation immediately to recover the funds? Would she leave no stone unturned to make sure that unions were staying within the law and doing the right thing for those working families? Or could she be too busy making sure that all workers across Australia were coerced into paying a tithe to bankers and bureaucrats in a scheme to change the weather?

It’s purely hypothetical of course. Julia denies everything.

PS: As far as those tithes from workers go, Terry McCrann crunched the treasury numbers and tells us Australia will be sending $57 billion a year overseas by 2050 in order to pay for “carbon credits” to meet the atmospheric targets she has set. That’s 1.6% of GDP by 2050. Treasury thinks that won’t have any negative effect on the economy.

I think we need a new treasury.

No wonder the banks want their hand in that trough.

 

PS: Sorry, for foreign readers, some of this won’t make sense. You probably know Julia Gillard is our PM, but AWU news is front page stuff at the moment. (Bolt’s view too). AWU means Australian Workers Union.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (99 votes cast)
Did Julia really say that? She's here to help bankers "get their share"?, 9.1 out of 10 based on 99 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/amul39e

172 comments to Did Julia really say that? She’s here to help bankers “get their share”?

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    While the ‘occupy’ protesters were camped on the steps of St Pauls cathedral, I tried to point out to anyone who’d listen the major flaw in their argument. They wanted, amongst other things, a carbon tax to stop global warming, and they wanted to stop the bankers from making vast amounts of money. They seemed totally oblivious to the fact that the only group who would benefit from carbon trading would be those self same bankers that they so detest.


    Report this

    700

    • #
      Bulldust

      Not strictly true … there’s also the other carbon cowboys like CO2 credit farms, carbon tax accountants, assessors, regulators, but sure, you can guarantee the bankers will get the lion’s share.


      Report this

      250

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Just as someone invented the discipline of Climate Scientist, it is time to invent a discipline of Climate Councellor. These people will help victims of climate guilt to work through their issues, through rebirth, hypnotism and various other techniques to become more complete individuals.

        Train, loaded with gravy, heading my way. Must board it.


        Report this

        240

        • #
          Bulldust

          Wait! I know just the man! Who is a professor who has written on this specific ailment? Look no further than our homegrown legend Prof Lewandowsky!


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Bulldust

          When I say homegrown, I mean Oz, but feel free to claim him. We’ll keep Crowe and the pavlova. Actually, just make that the pavlova…


          Report this

          90

          • #
            FijiDave

            Careful, Bulldust.

            The nationality of its creator has been a source of argument between the two nations [Australia & New Zealand]for many years, but formal research indicates New Zealand as the source.

            I know, I know. It’s from Wikipedia, but sometimes they get it right :) .


            Report this

            60

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            BD

            I think you will find he is from the US of A.

            Another mate of Will.

            KK


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Ted O'Brien

          No, Grant, that is not gravy. Gravy must be produced. These policies depress production. That trainload you see coming will have a very different smell.


          Report this

          20

    • #
      The bank of Lank

      Maybe Julia could introduce a super profits tax on banks which make super profits from the superprofits made from the ‘carbon’ market.

      This could be a start of a whole new banking industry and a restructuring of our taxation system. Julia and her team could introduce many atmosphere-based markets (hot air bourse); hydrogen market, oxygen market, nitrogen market etc. Each element could be taxed by two taxes (import tax for industries and individuals putting the element into the atmosphere) and an export tax for those taking it out. Credits for each could also be traded internationally by the Bank of Lank.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      PhilR

      Why do you think the member for Goldman Sachs the Honorable Malcolm Turnbull is so keen to have an ETS.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    DougS

    How Julia must envy those Chinese leaders – none of those awkward elections to worry about where you say one thing to get elected and do the exact opposite afterwards. And people actually have the democratic nerve to keep reminding you – very awkward!

    However, if Julia thinks that China (or India, Russia or Brazil – USA looks dodgy now that Obama’s reelected) are going to hobble their industrial rise, she’s deluded.

    Still, the bankers will be pleased that she’s now on their side – I think!


    Report this

    250

  • #
    Tim

    While the world’s scientists and followers are having feverish arguments into ‘red herring’ territory of Climate Change – the real reason for the scam is emerging at last: Politics, money and power.


    Report this

    220

    • #
      gai

      That has been known for years by our political leaders but just not spread to the masses who were feed propaganda instead. Think about it. The entire western world was intentionally fed propaganda dreamed up by a ‘global think tank’

      “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

      (p.75) The Club of Rome’s 1972 publication The Limits To Growth Short Version of the Limits to Growth At the bottom of the page is a link to the original membership list of about thirty people.

      And what do you know? In the SAME year the UN held its First Earth Summit chaired by Maurice Strong.

      As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:

      It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.

      http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

      So thirty people decided what the future of the world should look like and preceded to change the course of history with the outright cooperation of our elected government AND WITH OUT THE ELECTORITES KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT! The did it with the cooperation of the news media who is supposed to investigate thinks like this and called anyone whotried to point out the truth “Conspiracy Nuts”

      I do not know about you but that makes me very angry.


      Report this

      190

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        World government has been a dream throughout history. The Tower of Bable, the Roman Empire, Ghangis Khan, Hitler, not sure about the Russians, Free Masons, Bilderberg Group, The United Nations, Club of Rome, Heck I’ll throw in the Catholic Church for that matter.

        There will always be people in the background ‘wanting’ this sort of authority.

        Screaming ‘conspiracy’ is simply stupid in the face of history and human ego.


        Report this

        51

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Terry McCrann’s estimate of Carbon Transfers of $57 billion a year means that the banks do the transfers.

    The usual fee is two or three percent for currency conversion and transfer.

    OK.

    Lets not be too hard on them, lets just use a commission rate of 0.1 %.

    The banks will scoop $57,000,000 for this “hard” work of redirecting our taxes to the carbon sequestrators of

    the Upper Amazon and Sepik Area of PNG.

    What a joke.

    people wonder WHY Global Warming hysteria continues!

    KK.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      Manfred

      KK, so many folk will do and believe ‘anything’, accept anything, embrace anything, tolerate anything including allowing bankers and the eco-green theocratic elite to become stupendously rich, and the UN to be all powerful…in-the-name-of…

      Save The Planet

      This same religious phenomena is previously well observed in Bill Maher’s iconclastic film ‘Religulous’. His parting comment as the film closes:

      “Grow-up before it’s too late.”

      I live in hope.


      Report this

      160

  • #
    PJB

    The love of money is the root of all evil.

    Love is a form of interest and interest is how the banks remove our sovereignty. They create “new” money through fractional-reserve banking practices and then loan it to individuals, corporations and countries, at interest.

    Were we to do so, arrest and incarceration would follow. Are they so far above us as to be beyond our scrutiny? The climate-scam of carbon credits, exchanges and trading is just another aspect of this phenomenon.

    Eternal vigilance may be the price we pay but it is worth every penny and that is where OUR interest must be.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Paul R

    We know they’re dedicated and work fraudulently in the positions they’ve been anointed, who exactly they’re working for is the question. We know one thing for sure, it ain’t us.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Her minders must be going spare … she needs to stay on script. That has all the hallmarks of a throwaway line … tied to a rock.

    Throwaway lines are where the truth often hides. Has anybody got that on film?


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Brian of Moorabbin

      Wouldn’t matter if anyone got Gillard on film or any other type of record I’m afraid Rereke.

      We’ve all seen the footage on YouTube of Gillard stating “There will be no Carbon Tx under a government I lead” from her (live) TV interview 5 days before the election in 2010. We’ve all also seen the footage (again on YouTube) of The Goose stating that any suggestion that the ALP was going to introduce a Carbon Tax was merely Coalition hysteria..

      Didn’t stop them from doing it… nor has it stopped their many fans (including the usual suspects on this very blog) from trying to pretend that Julia never said what she did, or defending her for the outright falsehood.

      This would be just another thing for the resident ALP Excuse Brigade to sweep under the carpet with their usual mantra of “Nothing to see here, move along”…


      Report this

      80

  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    When politicians begin to believe that there really are no consequences, they will begin to truthfully tell you their thoughts and actions. That seems to be what is happening here.

    Now, the question is, do the people have enough power left to create and enforce any real consequences, or are the politicians right in thinking that there are no real consequences anymore?


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Now, the question is, do the people have enough power left to create and enforce any real consequences, or are the politicians right in thinking that there are no real consequences anymore?

      Where is Captain America when you need him?

      I’m sure there will ultimately be consequences for them. What I’m not sure of is what the consequences will be for us.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    Between a political representation like Julia’s ALP and union bosses, who would make Jimmy Hoffa blush, it’s definitely a case of up the workers. Roll on next year’s elections …

    Pointman


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Nick

      While elections are attractive… elections wont solve the problem that the west has lost it’s values of individual independance, choice, accountability, self determination and freedom.

      While these values remain elusive, elections will only serv to deny them via tribal collectives demanding the “Government Do Something For Me/Us” and stop “Disciminating against me/us”.

      The only thing that is going to “undo” the shambles we have is collapse. Which the West is on course for with ever an increasing number of national economy’s under either stress, preasure or some stage of collapse (Greece, Spain etc).

      What will rise from these ashes?, hopefully, is the idea you need to look after yourself and stop relying on “Nanny Government”. Power may return Locally and Regionally. But this also means the breaking up of major power structures. HHmmm this could hurt. Europe and the USA could very well breakup through this idea and that spells politcal and social upheavel.

      I heard, I think, P J O’Rourke say “Don’t vote!, it only encourages the b$#tards”.

      I ask Ma and Pa…

      “You want elections”? “You can’t handle elections”! (at the moment) you keep handing morons ever increasing increments of power.

      When things can’t can’t go on forever they stop! The systems that are created at the moment can’t go on forever, they will stop.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      gai

      And in next year’s election you will be given a choice among the bankers favorites as usual. Elections are won or lost on two things, money and publicity . The bankers have known this for over a hundred years and the bankers have moved to control both. It is why the

      J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. -U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947, Congressman Calloway link

      Pick up a slimy rock and you will find a banker under it if you dig deep enough.


      Report this

      60

      • #

        Hi Gai. They did better than that. Between them, JP Morgan, Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller actually bought McKinley a presidency.

        Pointman


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Money is a corrupting influence. Politian’s peddle in influence, and are not above corruption.

        It’s a rigged system from the start. This is the reason I’ve always advocated royalty as a preferred government system (not that it’s without its faults). But I detest some slime bag putting themselves in a position of power for their own corrupted ego.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Rereke Whakaaro:

    If it is recorded, BANG goes the election.

    Though an idle thought crosses my mind – was a bank, or two, helpful in moving funds discretely from a ‘slush fund” to grateful (but innocent and ignorant of wrong doing) hands?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Cookster

    Not sure if this is on topic or the right time to post this but I need to vent.

    This week I had the misfortune of sitting through a 1-hour professional development seminar listening to a fully paid up member of the Carbon Gravy train attempt to convince me the threat of climate change is real and the international forces to reverse it are inevitable and Australia must continue to act. Amongst numerous claims was that it is actually possible for Australia to be powered 100% by Solar and Wind Power; that Solar and Wind power will be comparable in price to fossil fuels as early as 2030; and China is leading the way in reducing it’s carbon intensity due to the global threat of man made climate change.

    What I wanted to ask the Chair of Low Carbon Australia was a) how much does he think we will all be paying for our electricity in 2030? b) If the Renewable price is only comparable by simultaneously subsidising the renewable energy price and taxing the fossil fuel price? i.e.; we still pay (a lot) more for our power c) how much does China stand to receive from western nations like the EU, Australia and New Zealand to reduce their emissions and would this have anything to do with their enthusiasm to reduce emissions? and d) What is the economic impact of the world reducing it’s emissions to the extent neccesary as deemed by the IPCC to limit future temperature increases ?

    How does subsidising something that is inherently uncompetitive make it more competitive? Take away the subsidy and what are you left with? What happens when, due to artificial price increase the Demand for Coal Powered electricity falls to such a level that it can no longer effectively subsidise the renewable price? Indeed, what happens when the wind doesn’t blow and its night time?

    So many questions, so few answers!


    Report this

    220

    • #
      Bite Back

      Cookster,

      So climate change is now professional development? Remind me to be out sick on the next professional development day, will you?


      Report this

      130

      • #
        Cookster

        Bite Back, unfortunately, no thanks to the global scare, electricity costs are destined to rise for individuals and businesses. Therefore we accountants need to be aware how these costs can be mitigated through investing in energy efficient buildings and the like. Unfortunately that we should be addressed on this subject by a member of the gravy train was inevitable. The speaker’s entire professional existence and list of achievements was dependent on the continuation of the gravy train. His qualifications included being a Professor of Climate Change Law. When you come across such people earning huge amounts of money based on CAGW it’s not hard to see why it’s such a hard monster to stop.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Bite Back

          The thing certainly has a life of it’s own now. We may have to weather it rather than stop it.

          It won’t be just electricity costs that rise either.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          gai

          That reminds me of this quote.

          “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

          The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

          Same principle.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Good outline Cookster.

      The gravy, it’s everywhere.

      KK


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Some bankers will create another level of market, to trade in carbon credits that failed to go anywhere except to overflow the available market. The they can set up another level to recover property from those who defaulted on the level before.
      If you are thinking Monopoly, in both senses, we are in tune.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Tim

      Cookster, when intimidation and exclusion rather than illumination becomes the strategy of choice, you can bet they don’t want thinkers like you in the audience-only ‘sheeple’.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      gai

      All you have to do is ask Germany.

      May 30, 2012
      More than a year after pledging to drop nuclear power, Chancellor Angela Merkel has acknowledged that her ambition for a Germany that runs on renewable energy is falling behind schedule and faces a range of obstacles, not least the revamping of the energy grid at a cost of billions of euros. link

      And a few months later…

      Unable to make up for the shortfall in electricity as it phases out nuclear power and boosts its dependency on wind and solar power, Germany now faces an energy crisis of its own making. It will only be a matter of time before the nuclear phase and its ‘energy revolution’ are abandoned, because jobs are now clearly threatened.

      German born EU Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger, has just warned in a Bild interview that Germany risks a backlash against high end-user electricity prices as a result of overly munificent subsidies to renewable energy producers, as costs will “run out of control” without a price cap on electricity prices for retail customers and industry.

      Sudden fluctuations in Germany’s power grid, and the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe, are already causing major damage to the competitiveness of industrial companies – which are threatening to move production abroad if the government cannot guarantee a stable electricity grid, as Der Spiegel reports. link

      Economic reality is coming home to bite the Politicians on the butt.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Bite Back

    Off topic I know. But here’s your local renewable energy expert at work.

    I guess batteries are going to save the day when the wind suddenly stops blowing. Dirt cheap batteries too.

    Or maybe I misunderstood him. Maybe he said he was a blowhard instead? Hard to tell…


    Report this

    80

    • #

      Thanks for this link.

      Thinking and Linking.

      I can see the green ‘urgers’ right now saying here’s Tony again, naysaying just for the sake of naysaying. Perhaps pointing out the realities might be a better explanation, sort of balancing out the first rush of “Wow, this is it.”

      Just quickly though, they have gone 4 stages so far to get to the 1KWH Capacity. They have (on the horizon) perhaps a 4KWH battery.

      The next step is to hopefully scale that up by stacking these future cells together to give a capacity of 2MWH, stacking enough cells inside a 40 foot shipping container, and even the Professor himself says that this is still theoretical.

      So, 2MWH.

      With current technology for wind plants seeing those nacelles atop the huge towers containing a generator capable of producing 3 to 4MW, and with a large scale Wind Plant having a nameplate Capacity of 400MW, we will now need 200 of these shipping containers, (calculated on this claimed 2MWH) just for this one Plant alone, and keep in mind that this is just for Nameplate Capacity.

      Now, remember how I always harp on about Capacity Factor (CF). The best case CF for wind plants is around 38%, but the current average is between 25% and 30%. So now you will need three to 4 times as many of these batteries to keep the output constant, so for this one wind plant of 400MW Nameplate Capacity, you will now need at least 600 of these batteries plus a percentage to make certain.

      See now how it’s not as simple as it seems at first rush.

      Connecting all them up to the Wind Plant now adds considerable cost, on top of the (not cheap, no matter what Prof. Sadoway says) cost of these batteries.

      Then you have the inherent life of battery problems and added to this is the fact that it is now a multi cell battery, (in fact a 500 cell battery) with the inherent problems that holds as well.

      Think cost, think time, think how many would be needed, think how many can they produce, think how quickly they can produce them, considering each new wind or solar plant will require quite literally hundreds of them, and then think overall cost with these additions.

      Don’t get me wrong, this is a major advance in battery technology, but to say this is the answer is a little premature, because believe me, this is a long long way off, and has as many problems as it has answers.

      True, these batteries will have their application, but to blithely say this is the answer is sanguine at best.

      Tony.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        And like all batteries, they only produce DC current that must be used to drive a DC motor, that is coupled to an AC generator that must run at a constant speed in order to produce 50 or 60 Hertz mains frequency. You need to allow for the mechanical losses in that, plus the losses incurred in keeping the frequency constant, by either mechanical or electronic means.

        Still, it is progress.


        Report this

        80

        • #

          Thanks Rereke.

          Also, did you notice how he mentioned he has now set up a Company, and has already got private funding, and umm, Government funding.

          All going well, at the end of it he produces his batteries, end of story.

          All those additional costs will need to be made up to set up the end product, delivery of power to consumers.

          As much as he says this is cheap, this is not cheap by any means.

          However, those green followers will now be rushing around, all excited, saying that we have the answer, and what we might say in caution is just the kibbitzing of deltaechonovemberindiaechoromeosierra.

          Tony.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Winston

            I hate to be one of those naive “green followers”, but having viewed the video link, and notwithstanding the important points you bring up Tony, at least this fellow is looking at adapting already proven technology in a clever way. He is using relatively less costly materials than many advocates I’ve heard, he’s using a “ground up” approach attempting to solve a known deficiency in existing technology (which has been heavily invested in and subsidised by the taxpayer- so hence a possible cost recovery of billions in taxpayer funds thus far frittered away), with costs of adapting this particular technology that seem to me at least to be relatively minimal, and on much smaller scale than existing massive solar plants and wind farms which generate a fraction of power they are reputed to produce.

            He is only then attempting to scale up the technology, which seems a reasonable and dare I say conservative way of attacking the issue, and thus it could hopefully make wind and solar more cost effective removing the need for taxpayer subsidy to the horrific extent seen up to now. While he may be on an eventual loser when he attempts to serially upscale it, I have to say I think that his overall approach is correctly putting the horse before the cart in a logical fashion, where my criticism in the past of previous pie-in -the-sky advocates has been that they are usually impractical, that “the cart can’t drive the horse” and finally, wishing doesn’t make it so. I think his admission of the problems of renewables with intermittency being a fundamental flaw in their effectiveness, and the lack of storage capacity to make them viable was actually refreshing, because that is more than you can ever get the alarmist trolls here to admit. So, on balance, R&D along these lines is a fair investment, because he has his scaling right, and is not getting too far ahead of himself, and is responding to a clear and present deficiency and need that exists in technology currently (no pun intended- Oh OK, you got me- yes it was), for better or worse, in use.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Allen Ford

            However, those green followers will now be rushing around, all excited, saying that we have the answer …

            Just imagine the motza all those rushing greens are going to make when they invest their hard earned in this wondrous opportunity.

            Why are we flat earth deniers so lacking in imagination and entrepreneurial skill?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Affirmative


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Same here also. When I see advances like this, I’m really encouraged that people really are working towards solutions.

            I just wanted to temper what he said with some forward looking realities on the large grid style application proposed here in the video.

            Also, the side benefits from this will really be beneficial, and just one of those, provided this can do what it says, is most probably in the rooftop solar area, where it may effectively turn the cost of a non grid connected system into something actually attainable, considering that the (current technology) batteries are a monumentally huge cost impact in that area.

            Just two of these proposed next stage batteries of the hoped for 4KWH could actually supply after Sunset power for the (average) household.

            The rooftop system could power the smaller use during the daylight hours, with part of that daily generated power being diverted to charge the batteries. After hours, the batteries could then take over and be used to run the Inverter supplying power for the home, considering two thirds of residential power consumption is out of daylight hours.

            I would still be looking closely for a projected life span of these batteries, but all going well, they may be considerably cheaper than those currently being used, considering that with current technology, you’re looking at between 4 and 6 sets of batteries, at tens of thousands of dollars plus, for the hoped for 20 to 25 years life of the rooftop panels themselves.

            As was intimated in the video, it is all still a long time away yet.

            There are many more questions about this that still need to be found, let alone answered.

            Tony.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Tony;

            You might be able to run the daytime power needs with solar, but we down south would have trouble. My records for July and August indicate only 5 days where I generated excess power over usage. A total of 5.5kWh, not even 1 day’s supply (average 8.4kWh per day, but about 10% higher in winter).

            Yesterday was a lovely spring day and I used 7.7 but generated 19.2kWh. How big a battery would be needed to store the surplus for winter?


            Report this

            20

          • #

            Graeme No.3

            There’s the problem that no one wants to address about rooftop solar.

            It’s sold not as an answer to residential power, but only as a money returning thing, because of the monstrously huge Feed In Tariff (FIT) for grid connected systems.

            If rooftop solar was actually serious, then the idea should be for homes to be completely self sufficient, having all their power needs supplied by the rooftop panels.

            Therein lies the problem.

            After hours supply, which is two thirds of residential consumption.

            To achieve that, the panels need to be connected to a large Inverter, naturally, and then part of the generated power needs to be sent through a battery charger to a dedicated battery bank, and here I’m not talking about a car battery, but enough battery power to supply those after hours needs.

            Some people wimp out, mainly because of the horrendous cost of the batteries themselves, and get a cheap small scale battery bank.

            Here you need to consider that Power In MUST equal Power Out. So, if the average home consumes 20KWH per day, then you need a bank capable of actually supplying that out of hours power, which is around 13KWH.

            So, the small scale user with batteries gets the cheapest they can get, enough to cover just that 13KWH.

            The real recommendation if you read all the literature is that for effective results, you need a battery bank actually capable of supplying power for three days, in case there is heavy overcast, or even any overcast, and keep in mind here that just one cloud flitting across the face of the Sun sees the panels reducing power by up to 60%, which then takes time to build back up after that one cloud passes.

            Considering that even in Winter with heavy overcast, there will still be some light (around 10% in heavy overcast) getting to the panels, then some charge will be directed to the battery bank, but that three day supply is the recommendation, and keep in mind that this is the Minimum recommendation.

            These following are from an Australian Company SolarOnline.

            Now check this first link for a grid connected system only, (no batteries) and for that residential requirement of 20KWH, the system costs (from) $25,000.

            Now check this second link for a stand alone system (Not grid connected and with the batteries) and that same 20KWH system costs (from) $72,000.

            That extra is for the Batteries, and as you can see, that comes in at an extra $47,000 and keep in mind that because this is stand alone, there is no FIT to repay that investment. You stump up the whole cost.

            This is for the cheapest system, and for a quality battery bank, you could pay an extra $10,000 and more.

            Now, keep in mind that no matter how good the batteries, they can only accept so many charges over their life before they become well, useless. That comes in at anything from 4 to an absolute best 7 years.

            So, for the life of the panels, and here again I quote the absolute best case scenario, 25 years, you are looking at the original battery bank and between 3 and 6 replacement battery banks at around 50K a time.

            So now, your wonderful stand alone rooftop power system will end up costing the original outlay and say 4 new battery Banks (I always try and quote best case) at 50K a time, hence $270,000, a quarter of a million.

            Had you just stayed connected to the grid, then in today’s dollars that same power will cost you around $45,000.

            See now why the grid connected systems are pushed.

            Also keep in mind here that the panels themselves are rated at 85% after 7 to 10 years, and lose around 5% a year from then on.

            You can cheap out with the el cheapo grid connected systems and expect every other consumer to pay you for that system, or you can be fair dinkum and do it right.

            Now can you see why I speak out so loudly against rooftop solar power. Grid connected people are still consuming two thirds of their power from the grid, still net consumers, and the useless tiny little no count power they return to the grid is so insignificant as to not even register, and we all pay for that in increased costs for electricity, so those people who do have them can point with green pride and say that they are doing their bit.

            Well I say Bovine waste to you lot.

            Be serious. If you want to do, then do it right, pay for it yourself, and THEN, and only then can you point with green pride.

            It’s a con of the highest order.

            Tony.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Tony

            All on your own you manage to discredit the Alternatives.

            What “alternatives” we have available at the moment are completely, totally, stupendously and

            irretrievably UNeconomic.

            The Giant Con of CAGW that needs a “solution” at great expense is in some ways a parallel to previous

            world wars which also needed a solution at great expense.

            There are many ways to transfer wealth from the tax payer to the manipulators.

            We need a people’s revolt.

            KK


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Further to what Graeme No.2 says here, because I nearly missed it:

            Yesterday was a lovely spring day and I used 7.7 but generated 19.2kWh. How big a battery would be needed to store the surplus for winter?

            That’s the point. You’re never storing the excess in the batteries for some day further off, and you say here, in Winter.

            What is trickle charged back to the batteries, and here, using your example, that is the generated 19.2KWH, and then taking away daytime consumption of 7.7KWH, is 11.5KWH, and all of that is returned to the batteries, if you had them.

            At no stage are you ever storing that away for a date in the future, because that returned power to the batteries, (11.5KWH in your case) is consumed overnight by your residence, had you had batteries for that purpose. At Sunup, the batteries should be flat, or almost flat, or in the recommended 3 day supply battery requirement, partially flat.

            The Sun during the day recharges the batteries, hopefully back to full, and then overnight they are flattened again.

            Power Out (plus losses) must equal Power IN.

            Can you now see that problem I mention about batteries only holding so many charges over their lifetime. They are charged and then flattened every day, so now you can see why the batteries have only a limited lifespan, undergoing that charging process on a daily basis.

            At no stage are you storing power for some time in the future. You are storing it only for night time consumption.

            Tony.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        gai

        The only decent ” battery” are two reservoirs at different levels with a hydro-powered generator between. The windmill are used to pump the water from the lower to the higher reservoir.

        Batteries are expensive and they die after a certain number of cycles. Batteries also contain all sorts of nasty chemicals and have to be recycled/disposed of. The chemicals have to be mined.

        Windmills are of course a big cost and energy negative.
        See WIND POWER FRAUD WHY WIND WON’T WORK (a book as well) by Charles S. Opalek, PE

        He worked out all the maths on the subject.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      MaxL

      Thanks Bite Back for the link.

      Donald Sadoway selling his “giant” battery:
      “If in the time that it took me to walk out here onto this stage, some tens of megawatts of wind power stopped pouring into the grid. The difference would have to be made up from other generators immediately. But coal plants/nuclear plants can’t respond fast enough. A giant battery could. With a giant battery we’d be able to address the problem of intermittancy that prevents wind and solar from contributing to the grid in the same way that coal and gas and nuclear do today. You see, the battery is the key enabling device here. With it we can draw on electricity from the sun even when the sun doesn’t shine.”

      The most fraudulent statement here is “But coal plants/nuclear plants can’t respond fast enough”.
      On any grid supplying power by the tens of gigawatts 24/7/365, the loss of tens of megawatts is inconsequential. The baseload power sources (coal/nuclear/hydro) are continually generating those gigawatts.

      If I could use an analogy to illustrate this point. Imagine 30 AAA batteries connected in parallel. The output voltage is 1.5 volts. If the current drawn from each battery was 20mA then the combined current would be 600mA to the load. If I removed 1 battery from the battery pack, each remaining battery would immediately supply 20.69mA to the load. The voltage at the load and the current drawn by the load remain the same, and there would be no disruption of power to the load.

      The next most fraudulent statement is, “With a giant battery we’d be able to address the problem of intermittancy that prevents wind and solar from contributing to the grid in the same way that coal and gas and nuclear do today”.
      Unless the power source charging the battery greatly exceeds the power drawn from the battery, the battery will never charge. Result, the power from the battery would still be intermittent ie, not continuous.

      It’s not just intermittency that prevents wind and solar from contributing to the grid in the same way as coal and gas and nuclear do today, it’s the fact that renewables aren’t even in the same ballpark for producing the required power. It would be like trying to start your car with 8 AA (1.5 volt) batteries connected in series (total = 12 volts). It ain’t gonna work!

      Most amusing of all, he dreams of a 2MWh battery! Gosh, that’s gonna make a big difference to a 5000MW grid.
      And I haven’t even mentioned the problems associated with an inverter to produce AC power from his useless little battery.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        MaxL

        Damn, Tony beat me to it again. :)


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          He does it all the time – he can’t have a life :-)


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Bulldust

            I saw Sadoway on TED on my tablet months ago. I thought, nice work, keep going at it and you might have something useful some day. The greenies always flock to anything new thinking it is the silver bullet. I bet BZE starts pushing this as the solution for renewables. Long way to go.


            Report this

            30

      • #
        Bite Back

        But coal plants/nuclear plants can’t respond fast enough.

        Yes, I was wondering if anyone would spot that little white lie. Conventional power plants have been doing exactly what he says they can’t do for a long time.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Bite Back

        And I haven’t even mentioned the problems associated with an inverter to produce AC power from his useless little battery.

        This problem is already solved. There are numerous high voltage DC transmission systems around the world. They have significant advantages as the Wiki article lays out, along with some disadvantages.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          MaxL

          Hi Bite Back,

          As I would expect, his sales pitch doesn’t go into detail as to the output voltages, the temperatures needed within the battery to maintain the electrodes in a liquid state, the type of voltage required to recharge the battery (DC or rectified AC) etc. The application of this technology would depend on the answers to these and many other questions.

          He does state, “…the current passing between the electrodes generates enough heat to keep it [the liquid electrodes] at temperature”.

          HVDC requires voltages in the hundreds of KV range, and if his batteries can be stacked to provide this potential then that’s fine. Even so, if his battery is simply connected to the HVDC line then the HVDC source cannot be pure DC because there will come a time when the battery voltage equals the supply voltage. At this time, there will be no current flowing into his battery and his liquid metal electrodes will start to solidify. How would his battery perform under these conditions?
          Please note, I’m not saying it won’t work, I’m simply trying to illustrate some of the problems that may need to be addressed. Obviously if we were given more information, we wouldn’t have to guess.

          After viewing his pitch, I’m left with dozens of such questions, and I wish him all the best with his research. But for him to promote his battery as a solution for wind/solar power intermittency, I would agree with Tony, “True, these batteries will have their application, but to blithely say this is the answer is sanguine at best.”
          At the moment, I think he’s just jumping onto the “renewable” bandwagon, and exaggerating it’s potential use, to gain research money.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      llew Jones

      Meanwhile back in the real world away from the toys:

      “With China and India ravenous for energy, coal’s future seems assured”

      http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/with-china-and-india-ravenous-for-energy-coal-s-future-seems-assured-292365


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Neville

    Julie Bishop exposes the EU co2 credits fraud and corruption. Total corruption, total fraud and a type of super ponzi scheme.
    Just pouring billions of your dollars down the drain every year until 2100 and a guaranteed zero return.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/carbon-offsets-have-already-run-out-of-credit-20110720-1hnmv.html

    This is what this clueless donkey PM and this clueless donkey govt has allied Australia to, just barking madness.

    Of course simple maths proves that this won’t make a jot of difference to the climate or temp by 2100.
    Their waste of countless billions $ every year for another 88 years won’t change the climate or temp, or SLR or droughts, or floods, or bushfires or rainfall, or cyclones, or improve the MDB etc.

    Just total barking madness from the most hopeless PM and most hopeless govt since federation.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    Jo,
    as a foreign reader, I am insulted. Of course I know that the AWU is the Australian Union of Workers
    but what is a Gilliard ?
    is it some sort of rat, or blood sucking leech ? my wife reckons it’s probably a cute possum-like creature, but I think its more likely a shrill bird with two faces


    Report this

    230

  • #
    AndyG55

    It does help explain why so many Labor voters would prefer Turnbull as opposition leader. You can bank on it !!!


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    Neville -

    one article by Julie Bishop in the middle of 2011 does not make for a Coalition policy.

    our PM kept those comments til the very end of her speech, and i can’t imagine any MSM TV news reported them, in shocked disbelief, nor have i heard of greg hunt or anyoone from the coalition bringing her words to public attention. here’s a Conference in Scotland earlier this year, with Bank of England in attendance, and a Conservative/LibDem govt in power in the UK:

    19-20 April 2012: JustBanking: The Just Banking conference brought together over 400 academics, campaigners, policy-makers and citizens to address these urgent questions…
    The conference opened with an evening lecture from Adam Posen, member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, and a lively panel discussion with Ann Pettifor, Richard Werner and Tony Greenham…
    About the organisers
    The conference was organised by Friends of the Earth Scotland and the University of Edinburgh Economics Society, in partnership with UNISON, Christian Aid, the New Economics Foundation, the Scottish Trade Union Congress, the World Development Movement and Compass. It was generously supported by Triodos Bank, the Carnegie Trust, the University of Edinburgh Business School & Economics School, and EUSA.
    ***Q finance were our official media partners.
    http://www.justbanking.org.uk/about/

    “just banking” hates the banks, so:

    ***Q Finance – QFINANCE Strategic Advisory Board
    Sheikh Hamad Bin Jabor Bin Jassim Al-Thani, Director General, General Secretariat for Development Planning, Qatar…
    Robert Gray, Chairman, Debt Finance & Advisory, HSBC…
    Jim O’Neill, Chief Global Economist, Goldman Sachs…ETC
    http://www.qfinance.com/about-qfinance


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Neville

      Pat I’m not sure I understand your point? Bishop’s article is full of facts about the mess EU carbon trading has become over the last few years.

      It’s so bad at times that they’ve had to close it down, so what is it you don’t understand?
      The certificates issued have involved criminal behaviour, fraud, corruption etc over a large number of the Eu members.

      But the rest of the puzzle is the fact that it can’t change the weather, climate or temp by a whisker.
      Just look at the real numbers and a simple graph from the IEA out to 2035.

      http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

      If people want to protest then travel to China, India etc because that’s where the big future emission growth is coming from.

      Just simple maths and a very simple graph from the EIA proves my case.
      The mitigation of AGW is a total con and fraud.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Neville

      Sorry I should have linked this to Pat here and not where I linked above.

      Pat just to further strengthen my case about the mitigation of AGW being a total con and fraud.
      Also just to prove who the fraudsters really are.

      The Rudd and Gillard govts have repeatedly told us that “we must take action on CC” or “we must tackle CC” etc and “AGW is the greatest moral challenge of our generation.”

      But these liars or fools deliver a strange bi-polar message to back up their so called concerns.

      In April resources minister Ferguson promoted the creation of another Pilbara in Vic by processing and exporting our huge brown coal deposits.

      http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pilbara-plan-for-victoria-20120418-1x7ox.html

      You see brown coal can’t be easily exported but the Gillard govt are more than happy to see it change to black coal just so we can make more money and of course the importers then EMIT MORE CO2.

      That’s my position as well but I’m not a liar and bi-polar HIPPO like the clueless Gillard govt


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    “generously supported by Triodos Bank”…

    Triodis Bank – Energy & Climate
    For a transition from a carbon-based economy to a sustainable economy, it’s essential to reduce energy demand, to use energy as efficiently as possible, and to invest particularly in renewable energy systems, while switching to low carbon fuels…
    Our Expert – Steve Moore
    Steve has focused on renewable energy lending since joining Triodos in 2002, following 15 years of commercial banking experience. Over the past seven years he has played a significant role in the financing of over 25 onshore wind farms and 10 hydro-electric projects in the UK and Ireland…
    http://www.triodos.co.uk/en/about-triodos/what-we-do/our-expertise/energy-climate/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It could be just a classic case of telling whatever audience you’re in front of whatever they need to hear to get their support. Our fearless leader does it all the time.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    I’m reminded of Zanu-Labour fronted by Tony Bliar. The same kind of tactics, the same loony ideas… We were daft enough to think that changing the parties in government would make a difference. It didn’t.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    There is a line of thinking popular especially amongst the idealistic pure communists, that “profit” is not real, that it is a chimera that has weight only because most people believe in it. If you fake profit by printing money, for example, but people don’t know what you are doing, then the value of money stays high, and everyone trades the pieces of paper for goods and are happy. The premise has been strong enough that it was pushed during the ’30s in Canada to alleviate the Depression: the government would hand out $200 to evey working adult per month, they would spend it, and everyone would benefit. The idea was that there was not a lack of goods available, but a lack of currency with which to pay for the goods. The communists tried it by giving everyone jobs regardless of what value there was in what they were doing. The money was supposed to go around and around. Well, we know how this fantasy turns out.

    Julia and the European public seem to be stuck in this groove. As long as the money flows around, it doesn’t have to actually create anything other than itself, i.e. be without profit. The taxpayers give it to the government who gives it to the banks for loans they take out and pay for with what the taxpayers give back. ‘Round and ’round it goes. As it passes through peoples hands they buy stuff and do stuff with some of it. The government then prints more, i.e. it allows the banks to lend at a 6 – 11X ratio of their deposits, consider bad debt an asset etc., and there is more money in the system. A perpetural motion machine.

    If you are in a village and grow your own food and need no outside trade and no significant outlays of goods, production or effort, you can do this. Otherwise ….

    Slavery was invented for just this reason: a way to get effort for nothing. That is what the money circle is trying to do. Get effort for nothing.

    What a world of academics!

    If I were a governor of people, I’d make a law that no public official could hold office unless they were working in a private, for-profit enterprise for 10 years. And that doesn’t include lawyers. Ever. We need public officials who understand that effort received has to be slightly more than effort given (the difference is called profit). You build a chair and sell it for slightly more than it cost you (8 carrots), and you are paid (figuratively) with ten carrots of the 12 carrots that the farmer picked during the same time, after which he sells (or eats) the remaining carrots. Both of you come out ahead: the maker of the chair has 4 carrots with which you keep two and trade those two for something else. The farmer has a chair and two carrots.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Bulldust

      Don’t watch the Youtube clip of a US Senate inquiry about ‘green’ jobs … it would make you weep.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      gai

      A pretty good summary but you missed some very important points.

      1. The village (or nation) only produces a finite amount of wealth. Wealth by the way is only created through mining, agriculture (farming & forestry), or manufacturing. All the rest is just moving the wealth around from points of abundance to points of scarcity or in protecting the legitimate owners of the wealth (the government’s first duty.)

      This means if there is $1 billion that represents the entire worth of the wealth, if you double the money supply as the USA did in 2009 then $2 billion now represents the entire worth of that wealth and the $$$ held in saving or paid to workers just lost 50% of their value (ability to purchase goods) This ‘adjustment’ in prices of course does not happen over night and is the reason most people do not spot the fraud.

      2. Governments (and banks) get to skim a percentage off the top from every transaction.

      3. Those who have access to the freshly printed $$, the government, banks and large corporations, get the benefit of buying at the old prices before the adjustment. As Mises pointed out

      Mises concluded that money is neither a consumption good nor a capital good. He argued that production and consumption are possible without money (p. 82). Money facilitates both production and consumption, but it is neither a production good nor a consumption good. Money is therefore a separate analytical category.

      “It is illegitimate to compare the part played by money in production with that played by ships and railways. Money is obviously not a ‘commercial tool’ in the same sense as account books, exchange lists, the Stock Exchange, or the credit system”

      Because money is not capital, he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises’s theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges.
      An increase in the quantity of money can no more increase the welfare of the members of a community, than a diminution of it can decrease their welfare.

      a fundamental aspect of Mises’s monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game… One person does not benefit at the expense of another unless there has been fraud. The “pie of social value” has grown because there are two winners…[ with honest money or barter]

      Mises argued that the losses of the late-coming losers are the source of income for the early arrival winners. This inescapably identifies the monetary system as a zero-sum game Mises on Money

      This key concept, that the printing and spending of fiat money was theft (or hidden tax) was known long before Mises.

      It has been asserted by one of our profound and most gifted statesmen that–Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s fields by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation–these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. State of the Union Address Andrew Johnson (December 9, 1868) link

      And yet out elected governments around the world have legalized this rape of the “laboring classes”

      Amazing that only now, with Occupy Wall Street crowd and the rest that the ‘Social Activists’ are finally waking up to the facts that Congressman McFadden was pointing out in the US congress in 1934 that Congressman Wright Patman a democrat (served 1929 – 1976) pointed out For 20 of those years, [as] he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 and Congressman Ron Paul, dubbed a loony, also has been pointing out til he just retired this year.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Doug Proctor,

      You say

      There is a line of thinking popular especially amongst the idealistic pure communists, that “profit” is not real, that it is a chimera that has weight only because most people believe in it. If you fake profit by printing money, for example, but people don’t know what you are doing, then the value of money stays high, and everyone trades the pieces of paper for goods and are happy.

      The plain truth is that any medium of exchange, “…has weight only because most people believe in it.”

      I could say a lot but I’d have to write a book. And I’d be just one more voice in the wilderness anyway.

      I think in the end it doesn’t matter whether there’s a gold standard or a Federal Reserve Bank. One way or the other both government and private enterprise will screw things up if they can. Our job is to keep control over both — if we can.

      So far, we can’t and they can. :-(

      In the end, if people are simply left alone they buckle down to work and fix things. :-)


      Report this

      10

    • #
      ian hilliar

      Doug, are you a regular player of “Hase und Igel”? My wife Pam says the only deutsche she knows is “Friss sofort ein Salat!”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    JFC

    It’s been said many times but I’ll say it again, if you guys can knock over this AGW theory then you haven’t done much to do so. One can only conclude that you can’t.

    This from James Powell says it all really (my bolding):

    Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.
    A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.


    Report this

    133

    • #
      Bulldust

      You’ll win a lot of friends pushing the ‘denier’ tag repeatedly here. How about you post your ideas rather than the tired opinion of a CAGW advocate? After all, someone who uses the ‘denier’ tag so mindlessly can only be an advocate … no real scientist talks like that.


      Report this

      160

    • #
      Winston

      JFC,
      The quote above does nothing except further confirm that alarmists such as yourself do not know a logic fallacy when you trip over it.
      1. Managing to recently get 24 articles published in peer review literature, belatedly after years of stonewalling and constant pressure from the blogosphere, does not disprove that it is currently made inherently difficult to publish, nor that it hasn’t previously been next to impossible up to this point to publish a non-mainstream view. Logic fail.
      2. A mere 24 articles as opposed to how many pro-alarmist ones (in the hundreds?, thousands?)- some such gems as Hansen protege Kemp et al’s sea level proxy studies even defying belief (“magic realism” as science), or other nonsensical peer reviewed trash such as “clown fish losing their hearing”, and the like which seemingly fly through the peer review “net” without any thing more than a spell-check and font correction.
      3. “Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.” (my bold) This is a completely false dichotomy if ever there was one, and speaks volumes to the stupidity of the author of the statement- it potentially only requires ONE paper to disprove global warming if it is sufficiently cogent and accurate, and contradicts the theory. It does not follow that such evidence does not exist, nor that it is not contained in each and every one of those papers. And it is beholden on the proponents of a theory to prove their case, not on those providing evidence to the contrary to DISPROVE it, since that is usually an impossible task to prove a negative (like a murder suspect having to prove he didn’t kill the victim)- this James Powell clearly does not understand the basic tenets of science, or rules of evidence. Again logic fail.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      formerley_memoryvault

      . . . if you guys can knock over this AGW theory then you haven’t done much to do so. One can only conclude that you can’t.

      Let’s see:

      Stated CAGW “theory” claims CO2 UP ==> temperature UP, and UP, and UP . . .
      Observable fact demonstrates CO2 UP ==> temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . .

      Therefore CAGW “theory” falsified by simple observation.

      QED

      .
      The problem has never been in falsifying the “theory” of CAGW, Finger Lickin.
      I’ve just done it for you above.

      The problem has always been that True Believers such as yourself refuse to accept that it has been falsified by simple observation.

      .
      Now that I’ve addressed the substance of your totally O/T comment, perhaps you’d like to give us your thoughts on the actual subject of this post. Namely that the Prime Mussel just very clearly stated that the REAL purpose of the whole carbon tax fraud was profits for the banksters.

      Surely, as one of JuLIAR’s dedicated acolytes you have something to offer in her defence?

      JFC?
      Mattb?
      JB?
      James?

      .
      Anybody?


      Report this

      160

      • #
        JFC

        That’s truly great f-MV!

        Now all you need to do is write that up as a paper, submit it to a reputable scientific journal and then proceed immediately to Sweden to pick up your Nobel prize. You will be hailed world wide as one of the greatest living scientists of all time. I can’t understand why didn’t you do this earlier and save all the fuss?

        Seriously though, I do urge you to write this up ASAP.


        Report this

        022

      • #
        Catamon

        MV or f-MV. There actually isn’t anything to defend. If you’ve got an actual allegation, take it to the cops and get it investigated. Until then its all just right wing whinger circle jerking.


        Report this

        020

        • #
          Catamon

          Ah, just to address the entity formerly known as MV’s issue more specifically in the context of the OP.

          Its absolutely all booga booga booga evil Gillard stabbed her way to power stuff (ho hum).

          IF you accept Jo’s premise that “that’s what preoccupies my thoughts” is a reference to “We’re going to help them get their share.” only then its certainly a gaffe.

          Except the premise is crap.

          If that statement had been in the middle of the speech, there MAY be some justification for that assertion.

          Its not however. Its at the end, by way of closing remarks. Seems to me just a post to rattle the cage and maintain the rage. Which many blogs do have by the way.

          Still like any blog i’m sure the conversation will range far and wide.

          Like: Got out of hospital today. They have given me Oxycodene and a week off. Its very mellowing stuff. :)


          Report this

          022

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            If that statement had been in the middle of the speech, there MAY be some justification for that assertion.

            No, it is not as simple as that.

            If the statement had been made in the middle of the speech, it would be public policy, because it would have been written for her by somebody in her office. The fact that it was said at the end, when the speech was effectively finished, either means that it is classified policy, which is one sort of gaffe, or it is on her personal agenda, looking to the future, which is another sort of gaffe.

            I think it is the latter. Politicians are like Consultants, they are on fixed term contracts, and always looking for the next gig.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Catamon

            No, it is not as simple as that.

            Yes it is.

            The fact that it was said at the end, when the speech was effectively finished, either means that it is classified policy,

            Seriously? Tinfoil Time!

            or it is on her personal agenda, looking to the future, which is another sort of gaffe.

            Over analysis as a form of confirmation bias?

            and always looking for the next gig.

            LoL! Makes me think of that hammock dweller, poor Peter Costello. He certainly hasn’t done very well in that respect. :)


            Report this

            015

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            You can LOL all you like Catamon, It makes no difference to me,

            I and my colleagues have worked with politicians of all political stripes, and their party advisors, and their permanent staffs, and their personal minders, for a considerable length of time. And we just tell it as we see it.

            All political parties have policy on the back burner – classified policy – waiting for the “right” moment for it to be announced, and all politicians have their own private agendas that they work towards at every opportunity. You must be extremely naive to think that they don’t. Who is wearing the tinfoil?

            Julia, will have assessed her chances of moving into a supranational organisation, like the UN, and possibly decided that a role at the World Bank, or Asia Bank, or IMF would be more to her liking, who knows? But she will be planning ahead. And some times, in rare cases, something slips out that gives you an indication of the thinking that lies underneath.

            All politicians have two things in common, they are extremely ambitious, and they all plan a long way ahead, in the sure knowledge that they will be out of power either sooner or later. Their time in power, is their opportunity to position themselves for their next opportunity, and their next position of power.

            She may have been young and naive at thirty-something, but she sure ain’t that naive now. She is, however, somewhat accident prone.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Catamon

            You can LOL all you like Catamon,

            I certainly will at posts like this.

            It makes no difference to me,

            Newsflash??

            All political parties have policy on the back burner – classified policy

            More Newsflash? I’t may well be that you are right. What makes me laugh is is this cherry picking of one sentence out of a speech, and its placement into a context that, from my reading of the whole speech is very doubtful.

            Unless of course there is a strong desire of the reader to see something in the data (in this case the speech) that suits their purposes.

            Yup, i find it hilarious.


            Report this

            015

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            What makes me laugh is is this cherry picking of one sentence out of a speech, and its placement into a context that, from my reading of the whole speech is very doubtful.

            Catamon,

            If you read the speech, even the small piece that Jo reproduced at the start of the post, it is obvious that it has been written by a professional speech writer, the pace of the words, the punctuation, and the actual words chosen, are all designed to optimise the message, and to make Julia look “statesman-like”, confident, and in control. It is beautifully crafted, and I tip my hat to the person or team that wrote it.

            But the speech would have read, ” … International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade.”, immediately followed by, “So that’s the work of coming years, that’s what preoccupies my thoughts as I think through the agenda for this country.”, to consistently maintain the flow and pace.

            The two sentences, “Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share.”, is obviously an ad lib. It breaks completely from the formal presentation style of the rest of the speech, and is much more like the way she speaks conversationally.

            So, Catamon, it is not a case of me “cherry picking”. It is a case of me analysing what was said, and how it was said, and not just blindly taking things at face value, based on who said it.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Angry

            Rereke Whakaaro says,
            you can LOL all you like Catamon, It makes no difference to me.

            It Should Read……..

            “you can LIE all you like Catamon, It makes no difference to me.”

            There fixed it for you.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Catamon

            ok Angry, what lie where and when?


            Report this

            01

        • #
          memoryvault

          If you’ve got an actual allegation, take it to the cops and get it investigated.

          Unfortunately Cat, politicians selling out the country to the banksters, to their mates, and to each other apparently isn’t against the law in this country. If it was, there wouldn’t be a Parliament in Australia (or even a local council, probably), that could muster a quorum.

          .
          And I’m at a loss to understand why you think it has anything to do with “right wing whinging”.
          You obviously haven’t been following recent developments in QLD politics.
          If you had, you’d know they ALL bloody do it, ALL the time.

          It’s probably why the serfs inevitably revolt, eventually.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Catamon

            And I’m at a loss to understand why you think it has anything to do with “right wing whinging”.

            Because the right wing in this country hasn’t stopped whinging since they lost in 2007, and it only intensified when they lost AGAIN in 2010.


            Report this

            014

          • #
            memoryvault

            Because the right wing in this country hasn’t stopped whinging since they lost in 2007, and it only intensified when they lost AGAIN in 2010.

            And the “left wing” in this country hasn’t stopped whinging since Whitlam got dismissed in 1975. They’ve even erected bloody memorials to it.

            .
            So your point is . . . .


            Report this

            100

          • #
            Bulldust

            Catamon just doesn’t seem to get the difference between right-left issues and right-wrong issues. Good luck defending the indefensible. Your attempts to inflame the debate are in equal measures pitiful and pathetic.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          memoryvault

          IF you accept Jo’s premise that “that’s what preoccupies my thoughts” is a reference to “We’re going to help them get their share.” only then its certainly a gaffe.

          Actually cat, I don’t need to past this little gem:

          Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share.

          Remember Cat, we’re supposed to be talking about “The greatest moral challenge of our time”, not how to ensure the banksters “get their share”.


          Report this

          110

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            PS – You can drop the “formerly”.

            It was a temporary attempt to escape from the nightmarish netherworld of “moderation” the other night.

            I used a six letter word starting with k and ending with d, that means to have deceased a person. Apparently the auto-filter system here doesn’t like that word and I was sin-binned for the rest of the evening.


            Report this

            70

    • #
      Winston

      JFC,
      The quote above does nothing except further confirm that alarmists such as yourself do not know a logic fallacy when you trip over it.
      1. Managing to recently get 24 articles published in peer review literature, belatedly after years of stonewalling and constant pressure from the blogosphere, does nothing to disprove that it is currently made inherently difficult to publish, nor that it hasn’t previously been next to impossible up to this point to publish a non-mainstream view. Logic fail.
      2. A mere 24 articles as opposed to how many pro-alarmist ones (in the hundreds?, thousands?)- including such gems as Hansen protege Kemp et al’s sea level proxy studies even defying the most doe-eyed alarmist belief (ie. “magic realism” as science), or other nonsensical peer reviewed trash such as “Clown fish losing their hearing due to global warming”, and the like which seemingly fly through the peer review “net” without any thing more than a spell-check and font correction.
      3. “Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.” (my bold) This is a completely false dichotomy if ever there was one, and speaks volumes to the stupidity of the author of the statement- it potentially only requires ONE paper to disprove global warming if it is sufficiently cogent and accurate, and contradicts the theory. It does not follow that such evidence does not exist, nor that it is not contained in each and every one of those papers. And it is beholden on the proponents of a theory to prove their case, not on those providing evidence to the contrary to DISPROVE it, since that is usually an impossible task to prove a negative (like a murder suspect having to prove he didn’t kill the victim)- this James Powell clearly does not understand the basic tenets of science, or rules of evidence. Again logic fail.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        gai

        Actually it just proves to me that the activists on this blog are in the banksters corner. If their is no sense of outrage only a defense then they have bee aware of it for some time and have aligned themselves with the banksters. This is the same as the climategate e-mails and CRU funding show Climate Scientists are aligned with “Big oil/Energy”

        They are the best ‘socialists/activists’ that money can buy and they just proved it.

        BTW, Thanks Catamon for PROVING it.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It’s been said many times but I’ll say it again, if you guys can knock over this AGW theory then you haven’t done much to do so. One can only conclude that you can’t.

      JFC,

      We don’t have to knock it over. It’s your theory, not ours. All we’re doing is asking for evidence to support what you claim. Since you want us to act on your theory it’s your job to prop it up. So far you’re an abject failure.

      Sorry about that. Now take your denier label elsewhere.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Andrew

    I’ve got it – since fractional reserve “creates money” why don’t we just apply the same process to carbon credits? That way we’ll have $57bn to surrender every year, can produce unlimited CO2s, comply with our Kyoto obligations (we’ll be the only country IN Kyoto so it’s not like there’s anyone to check). And it won’t destroy the economy! Yay!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    papertiger

    I’m fresh out of bankers at my table, Julia.

    I even checked under the table cloth.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    The bank of Lank

    Clearly another slip from Julia’s tongue.
    Rather than ‘bankers’ she meant to say “wan.ers”.
    An easy mistake given the atmospheric pressure she’s under.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Left out

    I can hardly wait for the ALP Government to be defeated (although this is becoming increasingly less likely) so that we can see just what the new LNP Government will do. Repeal the Carbon Tax? Probably. Renounce any form of carbon pricing? Highly unlikely! Keep a close eye on the thimble with the pea under it.

    The Opposition has had ample time to expatiate on the scientific shortcomings of CAGW (or “climate change” or whatever). It’s been very coy on this subject.

    We all need to recognise that carbon pricing, however trumpeted by the rabid Left, is in fact a creature of the cynical Right. And, make no mistake, the ALP is a Right-wing party — just not quite as far right as its nominal opponents (and philosophical chums) in the LNP.

    Have you stopped to think of where the serious “denier” advocacy is coming from? Social media (like here) and the odd book. Grass-roots stuff. People power. The authentic Left. (And, for some funny reason, the Murdoch press in Australia.)

    Virtually every Establishment-controlled voice is preaching the virtue of paying through the nose to save the planet — or at least staying quiet. Serious money is always on the Right. If you see a wealthy Left-wing organisation you are looking at a fraud. When the money starts rolling in do you really think it’s going to be wasted on starving orphans or “climate change refugees”? The rich will become richer, as usual. Even if some money is spent on Gaia-saving causes you need to watch the spreading dichotomy between rich and poor. Keep your eye on the pea.

    Why do you think the ALP is so keen to censor the internet? To serve The People, its nominal constituency? Maybe it’s to shackle The People on behalf of its real constituency, the Establishment. (A bit too obvious if the LNP did it.) The ALP has well-and-truly betrayed its roots.

    The virtuous Right-wingers here (and elsewhere) should give some serious thought to who, and what, they are voting FOR at the next election as well who they are voting AGAINST. But, like most of the tree-huggers, I expect that they are disinclined to look beyond their prejudices.

    It now seems quite possible that the climate-change racket is about to be demolished by the climate itself. Even the best propaganda machine will ultimately fail to sell runaway global warming to a world (i.e. the U.S. and Europe) that is demonstrably cooling. This won’t stop the World Government movement; merely cause it to change tack.

    I’ll close this rant with a quote from Wendell Phillips: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few …” It may pay to keep this in mind.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      formerley_memoryvault

      .
      A thumbs up from me, Left Out. The saddest part about people who support the “Left”, or the “Right” is the naive belief that they are anything but two sides of the same coin.

      Here in Australia a “right” wing, “conservative” government gave us the principle of retrospective legislation and disarmed the civilian population.

      Meanwhile a “left” wing “labor” government used the military to destroy organised labour in this country, and cheated the entire workforce out of much overdue payrise, with their phony “superannuation” scheme, which was just another way of transferring our money to the banksters.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      gai

      Serious money is not on the right. It hates capitalism because capitalism lets the little guy become a competitor. Red tape, bureaucracy and taxes cripple the little guy not the large corporation. ADM’s former CEO Dwayne Orville Andreas said it best.

      “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

      Robert Shapiro, author of a corporate welfare report for the Progressive Policy Institute, describes ADM’s federally supported journey this way: “ADM begins by buying the corn at subsidized prices. Then it uses the corn to make corn sweeteners, which are subsidized by the sugar program. Then it uses the remainder for the big subsidy, which is ethanol.” link

      The serious money USES the Right and the Left and always have to keep the peons occupied so they do not see reality.

      A cartoon from 1911 says it all: link


      Report this

      20

  • #
    RoHa

    It’s been obvious for while that the worker’s party has become the banker’s party.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    if only we weren’t forced to vote, we could make a statement:

    16 Nov: Daily Mail: Matt Chorley: Landslide victory for voter apathy: The nation’s crushing verdict on elections for police chiefs… a turnout of only 14%
    Electoral Commission launches urgent review, warning woeful turnout should concern ‘everyone who cares about democracy’
    One polling station in Newport had ZERO votes cast all day
    Elections expert Professor John Curtice says: ‘It looks like the worst turnout ever’
    Former Labour Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott is one of the most high profile candidates standing in the PCC elections. Arriving at a count in Yorkshire and Humberside today he was swamped by journalists.
    Asked if he was feeling confident, he replied: ‘B***** off.’…
    In one of the big shocks of the night, Lord Prescott was defeated in his bid to become the commissioner in Humberside, defeated by Tory Matthew Grove…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233386/Landslide-victory-voter-apathy-The-nations-crushing-verdict-elections-police-chiefs–turnout-14.html

    voting informal seems the only option for us. surely the time is coming where people worldwide will demand referendums to decide what minimum percentage of registered voters must vote in order for an election to be considered valid.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Leo G

    “It’s purely hypothetical of course. Julia denies everything.” – JoNova

    Actually, she denies everything and nothing simultaneously. It’s her favourite fallacious argument.
    One example: “I can’t categorically rule out that something at my house didn’t get paid for by the association or something at my house didn’t get paid for by the union or whatever.”
    The template for this statement: “I can’t deny that “no wrongdoing by me” didn’t occur.”
    Julia Gillard typically responds to an accusation with a convoluted defense that she is unable to deny it.
    The direct denial appears to be the last resort- by not directly answering, she can deny that the accusation has been made.


    Report this

    60

  • #
  • #
    Louis Hissink

    She was simply ingratiating herself with business. That said, I strongly suspect that the emissions treading scheme is being implemented to replace the existing trading scheme based on money. I would have a very close look at the principles underlying the 1930′s Technocracy movement and work out whether that movement has morphed into the present carbon emission trading scheme – emission of CO2 being a good proxy for human effort. Remember that Hans Schelnhuber wants to allocate each and individual with a fixed allocation of CO2 permist, or whatever, which once used up is your allocated ration. I suspect one cannot accumulate carbon permits either, so that thrift becomes pointless.

    One way of implementing the emissions trading program is to thus wave carrots under peoples’ noses, which is what she attempted to do at that dinner speech.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Joe V.

    Government of the People, by the ALP, for the Bankers.

    We’re only doing the right thing, by doing the legal work , to enable you (the Bankers) to fleece (more from) the workers.
    We’re the Government, after all.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    UK Common Purpose politicians, those who are trying to impose this new form of Communism on us, are being harried to political death: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2233709/Sir-David-Bell-publics-right-know.html

    Cameron is senior CP and it’s based at the UEA so the CRU and climate fraud in Europe is theirs. CP is essentially Fabianism morphing into Corporate fascism, hence Shell’s carbon trading and that of the Murdochs is backing Cameron.

    The danger has been seen in the UK that this is essentially a rerun of the appeasement of the 1930s, giving support to the new Pol Pot state they’re trying to impose. So, Cameron’s power over energy is being taken away. The sop is gay marriage which he imagines will get votes from the Metropolitan elite.

    This elite wants to trash the UK countryside and enslave the rural population in order to displace the rural elite from power. CP Gillard is doing the same in Australia. CP Rudd continued on from his predecessor Fraser, a proxy for Goldman Sachs Australia.

    Piano wire and lamp posts for the crooked politicians and the bankers……


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Myrrh

    A potted history of the money changers for any interested – http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.History.of.the.Money.Changers.htm

    The Bwankers Cartel have governments allowing them to create money out of nothing. It’s gone to their heads.. They continue creating wars for the benefit of the military/industrial complex they control as well as creating the booms and busts to further fleece ownership of land and property from the people.

    Money should be nothing more than tokens of value to facilitate exchanges in financial transactions, whenever these are allowed to be controlled by private interests they can be manipulated.

    As now, when banks lend ‘their’ money to governments and the taxpayers pay the banks interest.

    As now, when more countries are drawn into their fraud when the Bwankers Cartel get governments to bail them out with billions of taxpayers money, as in Ireland which agreement was signed into effect by one man in the middle of the night, which leaves the people of the country without their money reserve to pay for services etc., so they have to borrow from the Bwankers Cartel to get with programme of enforced debt slavery. (By destroying businesses for example in stopping lending to them leading to mass unemployment etc.)

    In other words, governments are party to the Bwankers Cartel scams and Julia has simply admitted this.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    RossCO

    Where do the Greens fit in to this Gillard Vision – The must be the ultimate bankers friend, having invented another way for bankers to profit from derivatives and plague future generations with the debt.

    Bob Brownout – secret bank agent 86…


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    There is a trail of banker dollar signs heading as far back in environmental conservation schemes as you care to look.

    1987:
    According to Fourth World Wilderness Conference attendee George W. Hunt, top international banker Edmund de Rothschild hatches plans for a “world conservation bank” whose plans can be analysed as “a scheme to monetize land”. He also advocated a 300,000-strong world environmental police force. Rothschild was a trustee of the International Wildlife Foundation, attended the very first WWC meeting, and was chairman of the 4th meeting.
    (see also position 7:23 in his video for an indication of a banker’s preferred style of solution, where the public are described as “cannon fodder”.)

    1992:
    The head of the Rio Earth Summit (Maurice Strong) tells the delegates that carbon taxes should be used to pay for UN development programs in the 3rd world.

    “We also need new ways of financing environment and development objectives. For example, emission permits that are tradeable internationally offer a means of making the most cost-effective use of funds devoted to pollution control while at the same time providing a non-budgetary means of effecting resource transfers.”

    (for some other tidbits see my previous comment on this.)

    Strong then introduces his good friend Edmund de Rothschild who talks up clean energy and clean development. Edmund de Rothschild said sustainable economic development would require “a second worldwide Marshall Plan” and that

    “by thinking forward as to how to reach out to the public at large, to every corporate entity throughout the world, to put aside – hopefully tax free – a part of their profits to fund our ecological and environmental protection.”

    According to UNCED world conference attendee George W. Hunt, Edmund de Rothschild dictated (8:34) his own resolutions into the draft treaty without vote or debate.

    2001:
    The International Petroleum Exchange in London is acquired by InterContinentalExchange (ICE), an electronic oil,gas,and power trading system which makes 50% of its money from futures contracts and runs a wide range of derivatives including Credit Default Swaps. The London electronic market is renamed to ICE Futures Europe.

    2005:
    The European Climate Exchange scheme begins trading permits, with Goldman Sachs later bragging “In Europe, we have been market makers in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme since its inception in 2005.” In the “diversified investments” finance market GS has a market cap six times larger than ICE and ICE is listed as the next largest competitor to GS.

    2009:
    The person who was a director of NM Rothschild Australia between 2001-2003 is made the chief of the CSIRO in January. The fact she is also the director of a carbon sink project in Tasmania is not considered to be a conflict of interest. This adds to a small but growing list of ex-banking staff advocating for the carbon tax.

    2010:
    ICE Futures Europe was granted an Australian market licence for an overseas market on 10 February 2010, and during its first year ASIC gave it a clean bill of health. In July 2010 ICE completed its purchase of the Climate Exchange plc for 606.7 million USD. The Climate Exchange includes the Chicago Climate Exchange, the European Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange.

    Later that year when KRudd doesn’t get the ETS through parliament, it is not long before he is mysteriously replaced overnight with Juliar who promptly takes up the bankers’ task with gusto.

    2011:
    Juliar fights nail-and-tooth to pass a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme which barnabyisright noticed contains three clauses permitting banks to create carbon emissions derivatives instruments that are specifically unregulated by government. Considering banking has nothing to do with the state of the atmosphere, but a lot to do with the atmosphere of the State, one must ask whether the entire CEF bill was a banker bailout in disguise.

    2012:
    Combet announces the Australian carbon ETS will link up with the EU ETS, allowing liable Australian entities to send money to African carbon sink boondoggles via the European EUA traders (i.e. mainly via Goldman Sachs and ICE Futures Europe), thereby achieving the monetisation of land first proposed by Rothschild in 1987.

    Elisa de Wit, a climate change lawyer with the law firm Norton Rose in Melbourne, Australia, saidThe idea is that if you get enough linking of all these country and regional trading schemes, you effectively end up with an international carbon market.” A difficulty of linking schemes is “both systems will need to be consistent. At the moment, there are some differences between them that will require modifications.” So expect the ETS to be injected with even more EU red tape.

    …and now…

    Juliar G lets slip the banks are eager for carbon emissions trading fees. No surprise there, they’ve been keen on it for 25 years.

    Just this week the EU announced plans to cut emissions allowances which is likely to drive up the EU carbon price. But some environmental NGOs have smelled the rat. Joanna Cabello from Carbon Trade Watch said:

    “It has generated windfall profits for polluting corporations, postponed the needed transition away from fossil fuels and its unintended consequences are locking the EU into another generation of energy production based on fossil fuels. These structural flaws remain unaddressed by the Commission.”
    “Instead of taking their responsibility, politicians have voluntarily put their main instrument to fight climate change in the hands of the financial markets. As we know market mechanisms have their own dynamic. Profit making and not fighting climate change has become the overriding objective of the players involved in carbon trading. It is an illusion to believe that proposals like the one presented now by the Commission would be able to substantially improve the EU ETS.”

    The proposal to postpone a big chunk of permits will improve the ETS, as long as one accepts that State power and finance industry profitability, not environmental protection, was its purpose all along. With this amount of top bankster involvement, even if you believe this whole global warming meme started earnestly enough, it certainly didn’t stay that way for long. Not since 1987.

    (There were no other comments on this page when I started writing this. Sorry, I kept digging and just found more and more. Like how ABN Amro Rothschild was the investment bank that advised the government on privatising Telecom, and the links from Sydney carbon permit brokers TFS Green go all the way back to the Rothschilds in Europe via the enormous Viel & Cie company. See also my older comment on the non-scientific foundations of global warming alarm.)


    Report this

    100

    • #
      gai

      You beat me to it.

      In my reply upstream, I mentioned the Club of Rome 1972 statement ===> the UN First Earth Summit.

      Note that Maurice Strong worked for Rockefeller in the 1950′s and is not only an Oil Man but involved in the World Bank as a senior advisor. Davide Rockefeller was an original member of the Club of Rome. Rockefeller has also for many years hosted annual luncheons at the family’s Westchester County Pocantico estate for the world’s finance ministers and central following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF.

      Rockefeller foundations fund Greenpeace, Friends of Earth and the like. The connections are all there but the activists are either in denial of the facts or in the pay of the foundations.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Winston

      As your links ably demonstrate, Green groups have been played for fools, the transition from fossil fuels is actually being delayed by inhibiting technological progression through sending it up blind alleys, and the debauching of the world’s fiat currencies is deliberate with carbon trading the new global currency where human life is diminished to the level of tradable (and therefore expendable) commodity.

      The question is, when will these Eco-idiots ever wake up that they are being used, and their desires for an enviro-Utopia are merely an illusion created to justify absolute control over humanity.


      Report this

      50

      • #
      • #
        Myrrh

        Adding to Angry’s Communism connection:

        http://www.mega.nu/ampp/timeline.html

        Some early history of who and what is pulling all this together.

        A lot of the above goes into how this developed in the US, other countries have their own histories. Russia for example was taken into Communism by the Banking Cartel financing Lenin and Bolshevism and that led to the brutal mass murder of millions over the following decades. Gorbachev has always confirmed his committment to Communism.

        There are other strands which work into this too:
        http://www.ecofascism.com/review16.html

        Thinking about some of this a few days ago I think the rise of the Banking Cartel is the third, mostly hidden, strand of changes in society which took advantage of the discontent over centuries between the haves and the havenots, the haves being the untaxed owner classes of so-called royalty and lay and church nobility and the havenots the rest to be controlled and manipulated by the haves.

        The Bankers included in the havenots – it has only really been since they discovered they could keep producing notes for the gold they had stored for others that they had the money, created out of nothing as they still do now, to begin playing with the haves on equal terms.

        By lending to both sides in disputes between the haves they became even richer, a small step then in creating the disputes.. We’ve had more bloody conflicts since the creation of the UN than in any time in our known history.

        The Bankers Cartel is the problem. They are the malignant entity behind the curtain manipulating all these disparate strands of crazed eugenicists and ego-manic sociopaths, able to do so because governments have given them control over their nations’ money supply, one way or another.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    ralph selman

    Jo, saw you on WUWT TV. You did a great job. Thanks for participating.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    For a detailed disproof of the theory that human emission of “greenhouse gases” is causing “global warming/climate change” see “Slayig the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” published by Stairway Press (2011). I am one of its coauthors.
    For most recent evidence go to Humlum et al’s latest paper, which reenforces Segalstad’s earlier work which shows that the modest increase in atmospheric CO2 is coming from the Southern Equatorial ocean. Northern mid-latitude CO2 of human origin rapidly dissolves in the Ocean and recirculates within it.
    It is fitting that those Norwegian scientists are the ones correcting the record, for after all it was the Norwegiian Parliament that made the ghastly mistake of awarding the Nobel Peace Price to a bunch of frauds.
    For some reason Joanne seems to have ignored those most recent and significant findings.

    Marty hertzberg


    Report this

    60

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Interesting.

      The 50 to 1 disparity in reservoir sizes means that the ocean should determine the CO2 levels in the air; all other things being equal.

      KK


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    Micheal Smith News blog contains a substantial amount of research into the emerging union movement corruption scandals including the “slush fund” JEG created from an AWU fund for widows and children. It is looking like Australia’s version of the Italian Mafia.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Angry

    Media Panic to Control Exposure of Agenda 21 Takeover

    http://www.infowars.com/media-panic-to-control-exposure-of-agenda-21-takeover/

    Snippets:
    Opponents of Agenda 21′s local implementation in the United States have begun mounting a notable resistance. At state
    capitals and city councils, activists are showing up to educate and lobby their elected representatives about the implications
    of this United Nations’ plan for sovereignty, property rights and the future development of the country.

    It has become such a widespread phenomenon that media outlets everywhere are spinning into damage control in effort to
    ridicule the anti-Agenda 21 movement, hoping that it will go away before the general population understands the issue.

    But their efforts are fruitless. Coverage across the country begrudgingly notes that groups are opposing local “sustainability”
    initiatives and fighting back against plans to concentrate growth into dense urban centers under emerging “mega-regions.”
    oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
    Speaking out against Agenda 21 is quickly becoming a component of the larger states’ rights movement. Americans are waking up to the undue power concentrated at the Federal government level, as well as to the larger takeover by foreign corporatist interests, including those that created the United Nations and have used it as a nose under the tent to create world government and rule through regulations and taxes implemented on the pretext of environmentalism.
    Locales from Casper, Wyoming to Los Angeles and Napa, California, among others, are being inundated with activists objecting to plans being sold under the guise of “smart growth,” “sustainability” and other buzz terms.
    “Stop Agenda 21″ groups have cropped up nationwide, and several government bodies have embraced the issue, to the chagrin of the establishment. Alabama passed statewide legislation banning Agenda 21 policies, and New Hampshire passed a similar measure through the House. The Texas GOP officially put Agenda 21 on its party platform, while Chip Rogers, the Georgia Senator mentioned above, attempted to introduce Agenda 21 legislation but was defeated.

    AUSTRALIANS NEED TO MOUNT A CAMPAIGN TO STOP THIS COMMUNIST AGENDA21 FROM THE UNITED NATIONS !!!!!!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    • #
      turnedoutnice

      if you believe this you need counseling of the type given to ex-Scientologists. the CO2-cult is based on fake physics, in total, 7 mistakes, three of which are so elementary as to make proper scientists cringe with embarrassment.

      1. There has never been any unambiguous experimental evidence of any CO2-AGW. Neither is there any evidence of absorption of IR by CO2 raising the temperature of the gas mixture. The PET bottle experiments so beloved of the CO2 religionists are a fraud with most temperature rise from pressure rise, the rest being heating at container walls. This has been proved experimentally by replacing the bottle with a Mylar balloon, one twelfth the wall thickness – no detectable warming.

      2. The supposed cure for imaginary CO2-AGW, the windmills, can’t save any CO2 in our grid. This is because as the wind energy rises, the efficiency of the standby plant falls. CCGT efficiency falls rapidly when run below optimum load. Drop to 60% and you lose 25%. Go to 20% load and efficiency falls by 45%.


      Report this

      00