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



Who actually took notice of the Kyoto Protocol? Coal fired plants going up everywhere.

Guest post by Anton Lang (TonyfromOz)

(Thanks to ianl8888  for bringing this map from Tallbloke’s site to my attention)

This is a map of projected coal fired power plants that have been approved for construction. The map tells us a lot about the Kyoto Protocol, and more specifically, just how much clout does the UN really have.

Some parts of the world are increasing their coal fired electricity faster than others (Click to enlarge).

Source: Figures come from this World Resources Institute Report. (Nov 2012) Graphic? author unknown.

Kyoto was adopted in 1997, and so far, 195 Member Countries have signed up to it with that first signature. All but a couple of countries then added that all important second signature ratifying it, meaning that they were bound by what Kyoto asked for, a reduction of CO2 emissions to a level 5% lower than what they were in 1990. In 2007, Rudd added that second signature on behalf of Australia, leaving the U.S. as the only country not to ratify the Protocol. Some countries have said that they will not ratify any rehash of Kyoto, which expired at the end of last year. Only 24 countries are expected to ‘carry the weight’ and do a number of things in regard to the Protocol, and most importantly, their main task is to pay all the costs of those other 150+ Countries, considered by the UN to be still developing.

So then, now look at the map again. It shows 63 countries, all of them constructing NEW coal fired power plants, and every one of those countries signed up their original signature to Kyoto. So, they obviously took a lot of notice of what the intent of the Protocol was all about, lowering emissions.

Has the UN come down on them like a ton of bricks?

Is the UN enforcing sanctions on those Countries?

Have those Countries taken even the slightest notice at all of the UN’s call for the lowering of emissions?

Let’s now look at how much of an increase in CO2 emissions this map indicates.

77% of the total Nameplate Capacity of these new plants is just in China and India alone, and hey, I wonder how Rajendra Pachauri feels when he looks at this map.

See in the left bottom corner the total Nameplate Capacity comes in at 1,401,278MW.

This link shows the World’s current Nameplate Capacity total for traditional Thermal Power (scroll down and the number is at the bottom right, and this is for all coal fired power), and while this is for end of year 2010, you’ll notice it has been increasing by around 200,000MW a year, so a best guess total for now might be around 3,700,000MW, so the increase shown on this map comes in at an addition of almost 40% extra, on top of existing Capacity.

Note that some of these plants are only small(ish), so the calculation I have done here will be on the low side for emissions.

An average large scale new technology coal fired plant of around 2000MW will consume around 5 Million tons of coal each year, so for this total on the Map, that equates to 700 (equivalent) large scale plants. 700 plants consuming 5 million tons of coal gives us coal consumption of 3.5 Billion tons of coal. Using the average multiplier of 2.86 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal burned that gives us a tick over 10 Billion tons of CO2 Extra ….. EACH YEAR.

As I mentioned, this is on the low side, as smaller plants would burn more than larger ones with respect to MWH generated, and also keep in mind that not all plants will be those new generation coal fired plants.

It’s wonderful to see so many countries paying heed to the UN, and do I really need to say that this statement is sarcasm?

There is an obvious question some of you may ask, and that arises when you see that Map total for Australia. This includes the proposed upgrades for Mt. Piper and Bayswater, if they go ahead. Note I said Upgrades. In effect, upgrading these two large plants to new technology coal fired plants means that the existing plants will close. This effectively will actually lower CO2 emissions, and in the vicinity of 6 to 7 Million tons of CO2.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (86 votes cast)
Who actually took notice of the Kyoto Protocol? Coal fired plants going up everywhere. , 9.2 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/b775tmq

248 comments to Who actually took notice of the Kyoto Protocol? Coal fired plants going up everywhere.

  • #

    Not a map a coal plants – it’s a “map” of proposed coal based generation in MW (megawatt)capacity.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    mwhite

    No red dots in the UK.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      • #
        Quack

        those poms don’t know what they are missing out on!!!


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          Yes, we do, but “energy (lack of)” policy is suicidally left to the libdims. The soon to be incarcerated Chris “Call-Me-Chris” Huhne was our last catastrophe-on-legs as energy secretary, but Camoron managed to find a duplicate (but without the criminal tendencies, I’m happy to assume) in the person of Ed Davey. We have lots of coal, large amounts of North Sea gas, enormous quantities of shale gas, quite a bit of oil and an energy secretary who thinks we should rely on wind turbines, one of which got blown over by the wind, just last week.


          Report this

          200

        • #
          Richardd111

          Nah. We just take our electrickery from France.


          Report this

          31

      • #
        Lank strikes a match for the French

        Not in France either!

        The French have decided to turn off their lights rather than build up power capacity.

        Shops and offices throughout France will turn off their lights overnight in a bid to fight ‘light pollution’. Under a new law, which comes into effect on 1 July, 2013 lights in shop window displays will be turned off at 1am. Interior lights in offices and other non-residential buildings will have to be switched off an hour after the last employee leaves. Local councils will be able to make exceptions for Christmas and other special occasions, and in certain tourist or cultural areas.
        The move is expected to ‘save’ 250,000t of CO2. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/29/france-to-mandate-turning-lights-off-at-night-to-save-energy/

        The French light up the night sky using large torches… http://world.time.com/2013/01/03/in-france-nothing-says-happy-new-year-like-a-burning-car/


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Lank carbons the Canacks

          None in Canada either – although the Canadians actually have a town named after our big new tax…..
          “Carbon is a vibrant community of 590 residents and growing. It lies in the belt of the Canadian Badlands, just 40 kilometers West of Drumheller and one hour from the Calgary airport. Carbon is known for its geographical beauty as visitors are left breathless as they come down the hill into the “Village in the Valley”.

          http://www.villageofcarbon.com/


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Lank with a coal fact

          The Canadians have named a town after our Big New Tax…
          ‘Carbon is a vibrant community of 590 residents and growing. It lies in the belt of the Canadian Badlands, just 40 kilometers West of Drumheller and one hour from the Calgary airport. Carbon is known for its geographical beauty as visitors are left breathless as they come down the hill into the “Village in the Valley”.’ http://www.villageofcarbon.com/


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Too many reds to allow red dots!


      Report this

      40

    • #
      RoHa

      Margaret Thatcher destroyed the coal industry in Britain, and whipped up the global warming scare as one of her weapons for that.


      Report this

      44

      • #
        J.H.

        It was more about breaking the stranglehold unionism had on the Britain’s enterprise and politics than energy policy RoHa….. Margaret Thatcher was the first Politician to warn of Global Warming, but she was also the first Politician to see the flaws in Global Warming and the first to question their climate catastrophism.


        Report this

        160

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        No, as I recall, Margaret Thatcher considered that she headed an elected government and that the country should not be run by unions. So she locked them out. My own company did the same at the Robe River iron ore Mine in 1986, Charles Copeman and the “New Right” if you are old enough to remember. Then the same a Mudginberry station NT where Jay Pendarvis locked the gates, Dollar Sweets where a young Peter Costello made a mark. Now we have a Parliamentary front bench in Australia dominated by ex-union heavies with law degress, started or finished. Have a read of http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol17/vol17-6.php It mentions Margaret Thatcher, more as she was at the time than as history has distorted her. ( Declaration of interest: Charles Copeman, a Rhodes Scholar, was my boss at the time, and a fine one too).


        Report this

        120

    • #
      Albert

      and they’re paying for it!


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Lank strikes a match for the French

      Will the French police be given ‘light’ duties when this stupidity comes into effect.
      Will staff who dont comply be ‘fired’ and their employers ‘hauled through the ashes’?
      Is there a suburb of Paris called Carburn?


      Report this

      61

  • #
    janama

    I assume the unexplained figures mean MegaWatts?


    Report this

    21

  • #

    Good to see! Is this another exmple of politicians waking up?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In the U.S. Obama still intends to rain on the coal industry day and night. So those proposed coal fired plants may remain just that, proposed.

    Actually he’s watering the coal industry by a means a little less than presentable in a public forum. But you should get my meaning.

    Now that he’s been reelected he thinks he’s a king.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Roy says …

      Now that he’s been reelected he thinks he’s a king.

      Given that Obama can order the extra-judicial murder of American Citizens, or indefinitely detain American Citizens without the due process of law – he is not too far wrong if he thinks he’s a king.


      Report this

      130

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Just for the sake of debate here, would you say that someone who takes up arms against his own country while hiding behind the protection of a hostile government should retain all the benefits of citizenship?

        What if our troops encountered him on the battlefield? Could they shoot him then? What’s the difference between the two situations?

        There are a lot of unsavory things that sometimes you need to do. The Constitution of The United States of America is not a mutual suicide pact. Treason is not a joke. And another 9/11 is not acceptable. If a citizen is also a terrorist, do you leave him out there to plot murder and mayhem? You decide.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Crakar24

          Roy,

          Is it true that the NDAA allows the US government to arrest and detain an American citizen for an indefinate period of time without charge or trial?

          Is it true that the US government killed via drone an American adult and his 16 year old son in Pakistan without affording him due process and when the media requested SOT Clinton to produce evidence of their crimes she refused on the grounds that this would violate their rights to privacy?

          Is it true that Israel boarded a Turkish flagged ship in international waters and killed numerous people on board (an act of piracy in the very least not to mention an act of war), all people murdered were of Turkish origin accept one, one was an American citizen shot point blank in the chest and head. Whilst Turkish representatives raced to the UN to file a complaint the US government rushed to the aid of Israel.

          I agree Ex warmist is wrong, Obama is not a King he is a dictator.


          Report this

          137

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi Crakar24…

            Is there any empirical distinction between a King and a Dictator wrt the acquisition, maintenance, and execution of legal coercive power?

            Or are the names simply synonyms describing the same despotic, authoritarian role.

            Do I care if the thug with his boot on my throat is shouting “for the King!” or “for the Fuhrer”?


            Report this

            120

          • #
            Crakar24

            I get a thumbs down for speaking the truth must be a N Roxon supporter here somewhere.


            Report this

            112

          • #
            Ace

            The usual jew-hating bigotry masquerading as anti-Israel concerns, there was an investigation and we have seen thedamn videos, the IsraeliMarines didnt kill anybody but in fact one of their number was kidnapped and hauled downstairs by a gang of Islam-NAZIs who were arrmed to the teeth.

            Theres the reason why no Mediterranean country aside from Turkey (whose president says “the faithful are our armies, the mosques our barracks, the minarets are our bayonets”) would allow the so-called “protestors” heavily armed flotilla in any of their ports thereafter.

            Those “peace” protestors are still in the midst of being sued by their victims.


            Report this

            41

          • #
            Crakar24

            Ace,

            I understand your need to squeal like a pig when a certain country is mentioned, i accept the fact that you cannot defend the indefensible, i accept the fact that in order to maintain the facade you must lie through your teeth but one thing i WILL NOT ACCEPT IS WHEN **** ***** LIKE YOURSELF ASSOCIATE ME WITH NAZISM.

            Just for the record

            JERUSALEM — Israel faced intense international condemnation and growing domestic questions on Monday after a raid by naval commandos that killed nine people, many of them Turks, on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza

            The United Nations Security Council met in emergency session over the attack, which occurred in international waters north of Gaza

            So to sum up Israel illegally boarded a Turkish flagged ship in international waters and murdered 9 people, this is a war crime Ace, this is an act of piracy the people on that boat had a right to defend themselves.

            Enough of your lies and bullshit

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?_r=0


            Report this

            34

          • #
            Ace

            Craker 24…re his last comment not the top of the sub thread…why…why, why do you want to defend an organisation that has in its charter (no secret, anyone can read it, its translated) that all Jews on Earth must be extirminated, not just in Israerl…a gang of thugs who use “their” population as human shields,enforce the treatment of women as chattel,possessions, practice sex with children ofage nine upwards, murderr gays and anyone who disagree with them, alsomurder their supposed “allies” (Fatah), launch rocket attacks daily aimed at schools, attack school buses with Russian laser guided anti tankmissiles, send “operatives” to murder whole families in their homes (the Vogels), to slaughter a mother and children on the beach and then celebrate the murderer as a hero (Sammi Kuntar)….etc, etc, etc, the litany of shitty NAZI little dirt bag activities is too vile to gofurther with.

            ……WHY do YOU SUPPORT such SCUM?
            What kind of moronic, imbecilic, rationalising spinning feck-wit are you?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Crakar24

            Ace,

            Firstly, i would be interested in seeing the link which shows “that all Jews on Earth must be extirminated” when you get the chance.

            Secondly, you seem to have fallen for a common misconception that most people fall into, what i am asking for is that we follow national/international law, i take no sides i merely point out the hypocrisy.

            You your self have demonstrated this, i stated 9 people were murdered, you claimed this to be a lie even though you know 9 people were murdered. Why *do you* defend the cold blooded murder of 9 people? Hypocrisy Ace.

            Most of your post is disjointed venting but i get your point i dont tend to agree but let us assume their is some truth (rocket attacks etc) i agree rocket attacks are bad and should not happen but there are many things that should not happen. Are you familiar with the term UN resolution?

            Are you aware of how many UN resolutions Israel has violated? Did you know there is one that states Israel must pull back to the 1967 borders? Did you know Isreal must repatriate and reimburse over 4,000,000 Palestinian refugees it created when they forcefully took Palestinian land? Did you know that Israel has failed to comply with these resolutions?

            Here is a list from 1955 to 1992:

            Resolution 106: “…‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”
            Resolution 111: “…‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”
            Resolution 127: “…‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”
            Resolution 162: “…‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”
            Resolution 171: “…determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”
            Resolution 228: “…‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”
            Resolution 237: “…‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”
            Resolution 248: “…‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”
            Resolution 250: “…‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”
            Resolution 251: “…‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″
            Resolution 252: “…‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”
            Resolution 256: “…‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”
            Resolution 259: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”
            Resolution 262: “…‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”
            Resolution 265: “…‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”
            Resolution 267: “…‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”
            Resolution 270: “…‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”
            Resolution 271: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”
            Resolution 279: “…‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”
            Resolution 280: “….‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”
            Resolution 285: “…‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”
            Resolution 298: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”
            Resolution 313: “…‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”
            Resolution 316: “…‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”
            Resolution 317: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”
            Resolution 332: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”
            Resolution 337: “…‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”
            Resolution 347: “…‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”
            Resolution 425: “…‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”
            Resolution 427: “…‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’
            Resolution 444: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”
            Resolution 446: “…‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
            Resolution 450: “…‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”
            Resolution 452: “…‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”
            Resolution 465: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”
            Resolution 467: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”
            Resolution 468: “…‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”
            Resolution 469: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”
            Resolution 471: “…‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
            Resolution 476: “…‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
            Resolution 478: “…‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
            Resolution 484: “…‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”
            Resolution 487: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”
            Resolution 497: “…‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith”
            Resolution 498: “…‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”
            Resolution 501: “…‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”
            Resolution 509: “…‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”
            Resolution 515: “…‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”
            Resolution 517: “…‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”
            Resolution 518: “…‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”
            Resolution 520: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”
            Resolution 573: “…‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
            Resolution 587: “…‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”
            Resolution 592: “…‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”
            Resolution 605: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
            Resolution 607: “…‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
            Resolution 608: “…‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”
            Resolution 636: “…‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
            Resolution 641: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
            Resolution 672: “…‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
            Resolution 673: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
            Resolution 681: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
            Resolution 694: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
            Resolution 726: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
            Resolution 799: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

            The bottom line here is that Israel has stolen so much land from Palestine that Palestine almost ceases to exist (which is the point of the exercise), it is easy to sit back and say ah the filthy arabs have launched another bottle rocket into Israel but put your self in their shoes, land stolen, houses bulldozed, farms destroyed and settlements built on top and you are then placed into a concentration camp and starved of food and medical supplies. Millions forced from their homeland and never able to return. You cannot travel from town to the next without without having to pass through a series of check points to (show your papers).

            Operation cast lead killed over 1300 palestinians….thirteen hundred…mostly women and children how could you, how could anyone defend such aggression by Israel? Surely you Ace must agree this is terrorism.

            Do you want to talk about nuclear weapons? Israel condemns Iran for enriching uranium up to 5% for nuclear power and 20% for medical isotopes (note nuke bombs need 95% enrichment) even though they have signed and are in compliance with the UN watchdog IAEA (NNPT) however Israel have hundreds of nukes, refuse to sign the NNPT and have steadfastly refused to allow the UN in to inspect Dimona and yet they have the audacity to demand crippling sanctions on Iran and threaten them with military attack. Surely you Ace can see the hypocrisy here, surely you Ace must condemn Israel for their actions.


            Report this

            47

          • #
            Mark D.

            OOOOOH the UN as the arbiter of fairness….

            Ask the poor folks in Africa?

            From ACE:

            ……WHY do YOU SUPPORT such SCUM?
            What kind of moronic, imbecilic, rationalising spinning feck-wit are you?

            from my experience, the very best kind.

            No sarc meant


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Crakar24

            Mark D,

            lets take the statement by Ace

            ……WHY do YOU SUPPORT such SCUM?
            What kind of moronic, imbecilic, rationalising spinning feck-wit are you?

            Can you show me any evidence to support such an accusation? Let me save you the time….you cant…… and there in lies the problem, its like this statement from Ace

            the IsraeliMarines didnt kill anybody

            This is a bald faced lie but rather than berate a liar you agree with a liar, this is an interesting concept, another word we could use is denier and this is one point in which i agree with JB and MAttB there is a difference between a skeptic and a denier and i am often fascinated as to how one could claim to be a skeptic on one issue but a denier on the other.

            I suspect it is due to ones beliefs, you do not believe in AGW so you deny it but as the term “deny AGW” infers you have no idea what you are talking about (too stupid to understand the science) you find it offensive on the grounds of holocoust etc.

            In this case you want to believe Ace you need to believe Ace so you overlook his blatant lies, you overlook the facts that i present, YOU IGNORE MY POSITION ON THIS ISSUE and thereby in your mind justify the above comment.

            People like you must wander through life constantly questioning yourself, rather than have crystal clear lines in the sand that measure your moral and ethical behaviour you must constantly moves those lines depending on the issue and the result is called hypocrisy.

            Tell me Mark D if it is a terrorist act to blow up a car in a market place to randomly kill people then what do you call it when you do the same thing by dropping a bomb from a drone? I challenge you to answer this question though i doubt you have neither the stomach or the balls to attempt.


            Report this

            35

          • #
            Mark D.

            I’ll leave your own words to demonstrate. It is no breaking news that you are anti Israel, Not quite clear if you are a bald face anti-Semite (please clarify). But go ahead and ignore my comment on the UN.

            And oh I’m sorry, My most recent comment was about the feck-wit part….

            Replay our previous exchanges for background and don’t bother trying to explain.

            As you Aussies always say: Cheers!


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Crakar24

            Mark D,

            Sorry i did not respond to your point about the UN, i am not sure what you meant by the poor folks in Africa feel free to explain if you like. The UN is a toothless tiger, they issue statements which are ignored by some countries and they suffer from the construct of the SC veto system. Generally the USA and Russia play little games with each other for example the USA vetos resolution against Israel and currently the Russians are vetoing resolutions against Syria.

            The point of the post above was to highlight how many resolutions Israel is in violation of and you should take note of how many are in regards to failing to adhere to the 4th geneva convention etc.

            Anti-semite clarification:

            According to the cambridge dictionary the definition of an anti-semite is a person who hates Jews, feel free to scan my previous posts for evidence of statements or wording which may suggest i hate Jews once you discover that no such statement exists you can strike that accusation off your list. Once again i am left with a sense of fascination that you could completely ignore what i have said regarding this issue, i suspect you dont listen (like Ace), dont want to listen, you are very quick to pull the anti-semite card even though you do not understand the meaning of the word but do not despair you are not alone but i will give you the hint again…hypocrisy or if you like double standards.

            If you had attempted to answer my question about the car bomb and the drone you may have understood i suspect it was a lack of stomach rather than balls.

            Yes cheers is acceptable what is it in your country s’yall or something?


            Report this

            22

          • #
            Mark D.

            Crakar, I gave up on the idea that we could ever have a decent discussion years ago. You have a big problem with anger and identifying who you should fight and who you should ally with.

            Too late for me. But if you ever attend and graduate from charm school you might work something out for your future.

            But your question is also interesting to me. The UN has for what 22 years ignored Soudan? 22 million dead (wiki) and you play dumb?

            Fek-in. You think Israel is the only problem in the world? You think BOOOOSH was the cause of all your pain?

            I don’t need to respond to your car bomb strawwman. You hate Israel it isn’t a stretch to imagine that you hate Jews. You have also made comments in the past supporting the “peace loving” Muslim.

            Keep it up, it’ll be fun to save these comments for some later date.

            Again, you have wasted any opportunity for us to agree. You apparently support the UN, you by ignorance support the genocide in Soudan.

            Good luck convincing me that you wouldn’t support genocide anywhere else.

            Fek-……..


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            This is how I see the Jewish question from a historical and Biblical viewpoint –

            Re the end of the physical and the beginning of the spiritual Judah kingdom.

            Judah married a Canaanite woman.

            “But whereas Ham, Cush and Mitaraim took possession of the land fallen to them by lot, Canaan took with violence, possession of the land he coveted, along the sea-shore. His brothers remonstrated with him, and told him he would be accursed for having taken a lot that belonged to Shem and had not fallen to him. But he would not hearken to them; and dwelt in the land from Hamath to Egypt.”

            [Ibid. pp.44, 45.]

            Malachi, chapters 3 & 2:11,

            “Judah has done an abomination in Israel and in Jerusalem for he has profaned the Sacred Jehovah whom he loves and married a daughter of foreign gods. Jehovah will cut off the man who does it………….”

            See, “The Book of Adam and Eve”. S.C.Malan., quote – chapter 4,

            “Then after this Judah took to himself a wife whose name was habwadiya, that means, “house-wife” but in the law her name is Sewa. She was of a Caananitish family, and Jacobs heart suffered much on that account;and he said to Judah his son who had married that wife, “The God of Abraham and of Isaac will not allow the seed of this Canaanitish woman to mingle with my seed.”………. “……….Then Judah married his son Onan to Tamar, saying, “He shall raise seed unto thy brother.” But him also did God kill because of his evil deeds; on account of Jacobs curse, “That no Canaanitish seed should mingle with his own.” So God would not let any of it mingle with that of Jacob the righteous. Therefore did Tamar go to Judah her father-in-law, who had intercourse with her, not knowing she was his sons wife; and she bare unto him twins, Pharez and Zarah.”……. Chapter 6, ………… “After this, there began to issue a race from Naason [a descendent of Pharez], who was great among the sons of Judah; and from him began a kingdom and a priesthood, and the Jews became celebrated through him…….”

            “The former scribes however could not find a good lineage for the Virgin and her father, or kindred; wherefore did the Jews crucify Christ, and taunt Him, and mock Him, and say to Him, “show us the fathers of Mary the Virgin and her people, and what is her genealogy.” Therefore did they blaspheme her and Christ.

            But henceforth shall the mouth of those unbelieving Jews be closed; and they shall know that Mary is of the seed of David the King, and of that of the patriarch Abraham. Moreover, the unbelieving Jews had no registers to guide them aright, neither did they know, how the lines of kindred ran at first, inasmuch as the law and the prophets were three times burnt out from them…..”

            ……………..But after the birth of Christ there remained no more trustworthy reckoning of kindred to the Jews. For Christ was the end of generations; He took it and gave it to us.

            As the Bible says,

            “the two shall become one”, – “For this a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh.”

            Ephesians 5:31.

            “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof “

            [Matthew 21:43]

            Canaan, A son of Ham. Genesis 10:6

            Ham also fathered Cush [Chaos], Genesis 9:18 who fathered Nimrod, the founder of Mystery Babylon. Ham, the son of Noah, BROTHER of Shem and Japheth.

            “Canaanite”, Strongs Hebrew Concordance 3669, a merchant, a trafficker

            “Canaan” a pedlar; Strongs Hebrew, 3665, 3667, 3669 ; humiliated.

            A son of Ham, [Genesis 10:6]., Cursed by Noah, [Genesis 9:20-26]., Idolatrous, [Deut. 29:17] ., Defiled, [Lev. 18:24-27]

            Commands prohibiting: Intermarriage with, [Deut 7:3]., Customs of, [18:24-27]., Idolatry of, [Ex. 23:24]., Common league with, [Deut 7:2]

            Destruction of: Commanded by God, [Ex. 23:23, 28-33]

            “And what agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God, according as God said, ‘I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

            2Corinthians 6:15 -16.

            Romans 2:28-29

            “……….For he is not a Jew that is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that outwardly in the flesh; but he is a Jew that is one inwardly and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit, not in letter; of whom the praise is not from men, but from God.”

            Revelation 3:9

            ,”Behold, I give out of the synagogue of Satan those saying themselves to be Jews, and they are not, but they lie,. Behold, I will make them them come and bow down before your feet, and they shall know that I loved you.”

            Isaiah 3:8-9,

            “For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen; because their tongue and their deeds towards Jehovah are to rebel against the eyes of His glory.[9] The look of their faces witnesses against them; they have declared their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to their soul! For they have dealt evil to themselves.”

            “Apply your mind – avoid the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy”

            Luke 12:1

            Shem is from whom the term anti-Semite is derived

            A Semite is anyone who has descended from Shem, one of Noahs three sons. Shem is the ancestor of Abram/Abraham. Judah is a descendent of Shem and is thus a descendent of “Abram” to whom promises were made [Genesis 15:18-20] and whose seeds include the other tribes of Israel and the Ishmaelites—-the Arabs. Genesis 17:7-8. Abram later became Abraham [Genesis 17:5-6] ——–

            “But the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his Seed — it does not say, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, “And to thy Seed”, which is Christ”

            Galatians 3:16., Genesis Ch.17., 21:12

            Gods’ promise to Hagar the Egyptian woman by whom Abraham fathered Ishmael, the father of the Arab peoples. Genesis 21:17-18

            “And God heard the voice of the young boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of the heavens, and he said to her, what ails you Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Get up, lift up the boy and hold him up on your hand, for a great nation I will make of him.” Genesis 16:12 “And he shall be a wild ass of a man; his hand against all, and the hand of everyone against him; and he shall live before all his brothers.”

            Genesis 21:20-21

            “………and he lived in the wilderness, and became an archer.And he lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him out of the land of Egypt”


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Mark D.

            Correction: 2 million dead (not the double tap 22)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Backslider

            I think that its very clear to any casual observer that the general conduct of Israel is deplorable. The UN resolutions attest to that.

            Its also clear that Ace thinks that any muslim is a terrorist.


            Report this

            23

          • #
            Mark D.

            Kevin the shaky link Moore:

            The Book of Adam and Eve”. S.C.Malan., quote – chapter 4,

            Blah blah

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Adam

            Let me know the address of any church that actually uses that “scripture”.

            Funny that you show up in a discussion on Israel though. Need I find some of your famous comments on how today’s Jews are not the Chosen?

            You stretch the value of free speech to the max.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Backslider

            Need I find some of your famous comments on how today’s Jews are not the Chosen?

            Chosen for what? From a biblical perspective, they are chosen for nothing, as the quote from Romans above shows. Or do you mean chosen by somebody else?


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Crakar24

            Come on Mark you can do better than that your last post is pretty limp even for you.

            Whats with the charm school comment? Charm school? Says he who calls someone an anti semite even though he does not know what one is, you get told the definition and set a task to find evidence of which of course you find none but still you have the audacity to make the claim:

            You hate Israel it isn’t a stretch to imagine that you hate Jews

            For the second time you have no evidence of this but yet you still persist why do you continue to make ths accusation and i need to go to charm school?

            Oh and i love this:

            Crakar, I gave up on the idea that we could ever have a decent discussion years ago

            Why? Are we not debating, are the claims i have made above not correct i see your mate Ace has done a runner and left you holding the bag, why do you think that is? Debating is when i present evidence (make a claim) you respond to that claim with evidence to the contrary have you done this? No all you have done is make false unsubstantiated accusations. You now claim i support genocide WTF, we started by me saying Israel is commiting such things in Palestine but now i support genocide? You call this decent discussion on your part? Stick to the facts in future and you might get one.

            You think BOOOOSH was the cause of all your pain?

            Where the hell did this come from? Once again you want decent discussion then i suggest you start practising it.

            Again, you have wasted any opportunity for us to agree. You apparently support the UN, you by ignorance support the genocide in Soudan.

            I would have to write something which suggest i hate the jews for us to agree, what have i said which suggest i support the UN? I clearly stated the UN is a toothless tiger etc and you claim we cant have a decent debate i wonder why that is Mark?

            Good luck convincing me that you wouldn’t support genocide anywhere else.

            Oh for the love of God where did you pull this one from? For the last time, Israel (note Israel is a country ie a government and a Jew is a person of the Jewish faith) has killed many Palestinians, they have stolen their lands, destroyed their homes, driven them from their country the ones that stayed are now locked up in concentration camps (Gaza strip) this is consistent with what i have said above now how in the hell can you then turn around and make such a claim and you call this a decent discussion?

            You have lost the plot Mark, you really have and i suspect it is because i have criticized Israel and you have no comeback.

            You want decent discussion, my arse you do.


            Report this

            43

          • #
            Mark D.

            Backslider, read the whole of Romans not just the method of Moore:

            God’s Righteous Judgment

            2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

            5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

            12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
            The Jews and the Law

            17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b]

            25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

            28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

            BS, (funny initials) It does not mean what you have suggested. You are in a fight with real dogs. Limp away. You have no game.

            Kevin Moore WTF did you mean?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Crakar24

            Ace,

            I take it that this was just another one of your lies?

            why…why, why do you want to defend an organisation that has in its charter (no secret, anyone can read it, its translated) that all Jews on Earth must be extirminated,

            Care to retract?


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Mark D.

            Crackar, you list the UN resolutions against Israel as justification of your point then you claim you don’t support the UN?????

            I’ve lost the plot?????????

            WRT your feelings about Jews, why don’t you come clean right now with a broad statement that is clear about your love of Judaism? That you respect the followers their faith their culture and their rights?

            Then I’ll recant and even apologize.

            After that, we can begin to discuss the geopolitical aspects of Israel.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Crakar24

            Mark D i need to go so i will make this quick, you need to recant now and apologise i do not need to justify unsubstantiated accusations.


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Mark D

            Judah married and had sons to the daughter of foreign gods——a Canaanite woman. Malachi, chapter 3 & 2:11., Genesis 38:1-10

            How can those whom God has cut off , now claim to be “Jews” and “Gods Chosen People”?

            From what line of Judahs progeny are those who call themselves the physical descendants of Judah and Gods Chosen People descended, and where are the records kept? Gen. 38:11-30, Ruth 4:18-22


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Mark D

            As there are no physical descendents of Christ there cannot exist in the flesh a group called “Gods Chosen People”.

            ……………..But after the birth of Christ there remained no more trustworthy reckoning of kindred to the Jews. For Christ was the end of generations; He took it and gave it to us.

            John 20:28

            “And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God”.

            Matthew 7:16

            “You shall know them by their fruits…”


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            As there are no physical descendents of Christ there cannot exist in the flesh a group called “Gods Chosen People”.

            So let me get this right; Jesus was the only Jew, so that means when he was crucified that ended ALL of the Jews?

            Funny then, you quote from the Bible The Letters to Rome written by the Apostle Paul who was a Jew. Apparently he didn’t get your memo.

            Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people

            Kevin, Do you really believe the crap you post? (why does saying that cause deja vu…) You clearly have problems. This is the second time in as many weeks that I’ve had to set you straight on your defamation of Jews.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            People who claim that the UN is a “toothless tiger” in one comment, should not then go on to demand

            that Israel should bend it’s knee to the collective “wisdom’ of that august body in alter comment.

            While it may be true that there some religious extremists in the Jewish community the major

            difference between them and the Muslim extremists is that the Israelis are ANSWERABLE to their Government and their biggest offense seems to be the funny clothing they wear and overt religious practices.

            IF you could find an actual Functional Islamic government outside of Turkey it would still be unlikely that any Islamic hot head would in any way be subjected to any legal process from that Government.

            Turkey survives because of the work done by previous governments but if Muslim influence becomes too strong even that great country may slide back to join all the others.

            Look at the great start that this code of living has made in Egypt.

            Not going well and not accepted by the people who kicked out Mubarak.

            KK


            Report this

            20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Crackar

            yes Turkey.

            Innocent boat crew; what a joke ; martyrs more like it.

            Going well at the moment but there has been a recent turn to Muslim Government that may end up ruining all the progress Turkey has made to be the outstanding ME country that it is.

            It takes time to screw up a good country; just look at our history.

            It took 40 years to b$gg$r Australia.

            I suspect that if things get too bad they will turn on the brotherhood as those in Egypt are doing.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/who-actually-took-notice-of-the-kyoto-protocol-coal-fired-plants-going-up-everywhere/#comment-1237438

            KK


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Crakar24

            KK,

            The irony is that you have just proven my point, the UN general assembly as a collective debate and vote on matters in this case resolutions. Lets look at UN resolution 237 for example

            http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/89/IMG/NR024089.pdf?OpenElement

            At the very bottom of the page it states “adopted unaminously” and it is dated 1967 and yet still 46 years later Israel has not complied, the UN is not a toothless tiger because they dont do anything in fact it is the opposite they do do things but no one listens therefore this comment by you is unfounded.

            People who claim that the UN is a “toothless tiger” in one comment, should not then go on to demand

            that Israel should bend it’s knee to the collective “wisdom’ of that august body in alter comment.

            If the UN forced Israel to bend its knee to the collective wisdom of that august body then it would not be toothless would it. Here is another example of being toothless but first remember the UN was created after the second world war to ensure against one or more countries staging wars of agression against another unless the general assembly and the security council deemed it necessary.

            Lets look at the Iraq war, there was much debate over this evidence was presented that suggested Iraq had WMD among other things, this evidence was used to argue for an attack however some members of the SC did not accept this a vetoed the resolution thus denying others the legal right to invade. Ultimately some countries grew tired of this and decided to go it alone and the invasion of Iraq began, in other words the UN was ignored thus rendering them a toothless tiger. However as we all know what happened and what was not found where does this leave (legally) the “go it aloners”? This is what Kofi Annan had to say,

            On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”

            So as i said at the beginning the UN is a toothless tiger simply because no one listens to them and i suppose also they have no power to stop them and they have no power to charge them for their illegal acts in the international criminal courts.

            You then said:

            While it may be true that there some religious extremists in the Jewish community the major

            I dont agree i believe the problems here lie squarely at the feet of the government

            difference between them and the Muslim extremists is that the Israelis are ANSWERABLE to their Government and their biggest offense seems to be the funny clothing they wear and overt religious practices.

            Obviously i see this point as being moot (see above)

            IF you could find an actual Functional Islamic government outside of Turkey it would still be unlikely that any Islamic hot head would in any way be subjected to any legal process from that Government.

            Many islamic governments function maybe not like ours but they do function, the people of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have been protesting of late much like Egypt etc, the protests were crushed literally and the west turned a blind eye. How many arrests have Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan for example made in relation to terrorists? Quite a few i would imagine so i do not agree with this statement.

            Turkey survives because of the work done by previous governments but if Muslim influence becomes too strong even that great country may slide back to join all the others.

            This is a statement made by the uneducated, you do realise that there are many islamic countries apart from Turkey that share the same ideals as Turkey? Qatar, UAE, Jordan for example even Iran, in Iran women are offered the same rights, education and freedoms as men and these ALL have a muslim influence of course the same claim cannot be made about Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

            Look at the great start that this code of living has made in Egypt.

            I dont understand your gripe here? Egypt was in control of a brutal dictator for many years in fact a majority of the secret renditions conducted by the USA was to Egypt as they have no qualms about conducting torture which makes it kind of ironic really would you agree?, that regime was finally booted and a new government was created. This is fledgling democracy do not expect them to get it right first time, remember we slaughtered Gadaffi in the streets and look at the shit fight over there.


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Crakar24

            KK,

            Sorry for the delay in my response but my comments are now being moderated.

            Now i dont mean to quibble but can you back this claim with evidence?

            yes Turkey.

            Innocent boat crew; what a joke ; martyrs more like it.

            I have been bombarded with outrageous statements of late and everytime i have asked for documented evidence in support i have been ignored, no evidence has been presented, no retraction and in some cases no apology now to be honest i dont expect that much from those people but i do hold you in higher esteem than them so please dont disappoint.

            Heres a tip, the Turkish boat was escorted to an Israeli port where the contents of the cargo was inspected one would assume that if they were indeed martyrs/terrorists etc then the cargo would have contained numerous weapons or exlosive material etc so if you could produce evidence to show such items found on board i would be extremely thankful.


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Crakar24

            KK,

            I will make it easy for you, below is a like which shows the Israeli government paying compensation to the families of teh dead.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/israel-compensation-mavi-marmara-flotilla

            “Ramzan Ariturk said the money would have been paid to a Jewish foundation in Turkey for distribution and would be followed by a statement of “regret” for the raid by the Israeli government on the Mavi Marmara, which was bound for the Gaza Strip.”

            And here is the UN report all 105 pages

            http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

            The footnote linking the UN report states

            The reference in this article to passengers being “unarmed” is used in conventional contrast to the IDF soldiers being armed with guns. A 2011 UN report into the incident found some passengers on the Mavi Marmara were

            equipped with metal bars, chains, slingshots and staves but said “no evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons”.

            Do you still contend that they were martyrs? No of course you would not, i understand how this could come about we are bombarded by propaganda on all subjects not just AGW but it leads me back to something i said to Mark D are you a denier or a skeptic? I am a skeptic which is why I KNEW they were not martyrs now that i have shown you the truth what do you belive now?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Quoted:

            “Egypt was in control of a brutal dictator for many years”

            Unfortunately even after all of the sacrifice it is still in the control of a brutal dictator.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            KK,

            Yes Egypt was in control of a brutal dictator propped up by the US but now he is gone they held democratic elections and voted in a government which now they dislike. They will get another election and they can throw him out once again this is a fledgling democracy still finding its way.

            Quoted:

            “yes Turkey.

            Innocent boat crew; what a joke ; martyrs more like it.”

            In light if the evidence i have supplied do you still contend they are martyrs or do you wish to retract that statement.

            PS did you think i would forget?


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            From comment 5.1.1.1 down through all the miles of angry verbiage to this point the only thing I can find is a big shipwreck — a bunch of egos floundering on the rocks.

            I’ve been persistent in pushing my point of view sometimes. I’m guilty myself of going farther than I should, so I know what was happening here. And I think I’m entitled to ask, are you proud of this?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi Roy,

          See below…

          Just for the sake of debate here, would you say that someone who takes up arms against his own country while hiding behind the protection of a hostile government should retain all the benefits of citizenship?

          If encountered on a battlefield fighting for the other side – may be shot with impunity as an enemy combatant. If taken prisoner, then tried for treason. Other POWs from the other nation are simply POWs.

          If not on the battlefield – questionable… possible tried in absentia?

          What if our troops encountered him on the battlefield? Could they shoot him then? What’s the difference between the two situations?

          See above. The key point is that as soon as someone takes up arms on a battlefield for the other side – they are a legitimate target regardless of nationality or citizenship status.

          There are a lot of unsavory things that sometimes you need to do. The Constitution of The United States of America is not a mutual suicide pact. Treason is not a joke. And another 9/11 is not acceptable. If a citizen is also a terrorist, do you leave him out there to plot murder and mayhem? You decide.

          You either have freedoms or you don’t. The US public are being sold enslavement for safety – it’s an age old tactic by the power elites. There is nothing in the US constitution that shows an intention for the US to become a dominant world empire, might I suggest that if the US public had more real liberty at home, and less empire abroad – they would be safer.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          Mark D

          Paul’s ancestry was of Benjamin

          Paul’s religion was of Judah, that is, he was, by religion, a Jew until he saw the light.

          Paul’s nationality was of the Kingdom of Judah, which was politically composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and part of Levi

          Christs disciples were Benjamites bar one that being Judas who was a Jew by ancestry.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Not quite yet Ex he still needs to disarm them :-)


        Report this

        60

        • #
          ExWarmist

          That’s a key point.

          A good read on gun control is here.

          The 2nd amendment is a key example of the dispersal of the means for the acquisition, maintenance, and execution of coercive legal power. And the descent of the US into naked tyranny will never be complete until after both the 2nd and 1st amendments are destroyed.

          But given how easily other amendments were bypassed by the Patriot Act (Bush) and the NDAA 2011 (Obama) – It leaves deep questions about the future.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Mark D.

            ExWarmist, Thanks for that link. I have sent it around my e-mail lists for wider distribution. I agree completely with your additional comments and add that only recently the “light bulb” went on for me: I’ve boiled this down in my mind to exactly this one thing: The Progressive Left doesn’t want individual power. It’s too hard to control. Personal gun ownership IS individual power.

            Again, you NEVER see gun control laws start with the Right. Always with the Left. That is all the proof I need to realize it isn’t at all about public safety, it’s about a political agenda.

            The Second Amendment must prevail.

            TonyfromOZ, thank you for the PA Pundits link too.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Ex,

            I’ve read several good expositions on the subject of “gun control” but never one as comprehensive or as well argued as this one.

            I despair of getting any of his argument recognized as wisdom. It’s much too simple so it just can’t be true. Sigh!


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Ace

            In the UK we have of course extreme and draconian gun control laws. We also have gunfights in the street and in my UK town we have had periods when police foot patrols have had to openly carry sub-machine guns on inner city streets as a”deterrent”. It doesnt feel like gun control prevents criminals using guns where I am.


            Report this

            40

      • #
        Skitz

        With him playing King and abusing due process, is it any wonder the Americans (at least the smart ones) are pissed off with King Obama and his cronies wanting them disarmed ?


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I see I started quite a debate. That’s good.

      First, I admit I’m just one opinion and I’m not infallible.

      That said I want to address the main issue here which is habeas corpus, the right of an accused to a hearing in which the government must show cause for the charges against him. Would you be surprised that the constitution says in so many words that — and I don’t have my copy with me so not exact — the right of habeas corpus shall not be abridged except in times of war or insurrection?

      I’m no lawyer, much less constitutional scholar but I can read.

      Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. He was strongly criticized for it and I wonder how history would regard him had he not been assassinated. We’ll never know.

      Question: was it legitimate for our Seals to go into Pakistan and try to capture bin Laden and if unable to do that, kill him?

      It’s easy to criticize those whose shoes you do not wear. It’s also easy to blow this up into a crisis of civil liberties in which you can suppose that any citizen is in mortal danger. But in fact the targeting of U.S. citizens has been very specific and limited. Our real danger from government is much different.

      Obama’s wrath against those who piss him off is carried out by his joke of a justice department suing several states, character assassination and other things you all have seen, including a Congress, part of which is only too eager to squelch constitutional rights. But he hasn’t killed anyone to my knowledge for standing in his way. He simply can’t afford to do it. On the other hand, he abuses his power like no other president ever has!

      As for the United States’ position in the world, we had it thrust upon us. Who would have stepped in after WWII if we had not? I wish we would get out of the policing business. And even more I wish we would stop being the world’s charity ward. In the long run it hasn’t done us any favors. However, we do have legitimate interests around the world as does every nation, so I see no reason to be criticized just for that.

      Finally, no matter the current situation or the reason for it; and no matter your grievance against this country; you may not fly airplanes into our tall buildings, killing 3,000 in the space of a couple of hours, without feeling the wrath of God. You may not plot more of the same with impunity, using our own laws against us. I have plenty of reasons to dislike Obama. But killing off high danger terrorists, even if they are citizens, is not one of them.

      I’ve not given anyone a red thumb.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        In case you wonder: NO, I DON’T LIKE ANY OF IT!


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          Roy Hogue

          the right of habeas corpus shall not be abridged except in times of war or insurrection?

          Guantanamo bay and martial law as applied to Australian David Hicks immediately came to mind. The United States is in a permanent state of war. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

          Statute of Habeas Corpus, 1640
          16 Car.1, ch. 10 Whereas by the Great Charter many times confirmed in Parliament, it is enacted that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or diseased of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him or condemn him but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land; and by another statute…, no man shall bc attached by any accusation nor fore-judged of life or limb, nor his lands, tenements, goods, nor chattels seized into tile King’s hands against the form of the Great Charter and the law of the land; and by another statute . . . none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to the King or to his C. council, unless it be by indictment or presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighbourhood where such deeds be done, in title manner or by process made by writ original at the com­mon law, and that none be put out of his fran­chise or freehold unless he be duly brought in to answer and fore-judged of the same by the course of the law, and if anything bc done against the same, it shall be redressed and holden for none; and by another statute . . . no man of what estate or condition so ever he be shall be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken nor imprisoned nor disinherited without being brought in to answer by due process of law; and by another statute . . . it is enacted, that no man be put to answer without presentment before justices or matter of record, or by due process and writ original according to the old law of the land, and if anything be done to the contrary, it shall be void in law and holden for error;…………………………….


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Kevin,

            It is too bad that the United States is not bound by British (or Australian) common law or the Magna Carta. On the other hand, our founders recognized habeas corpus as something so fundamental in their foundation as British Colonies that they didn’t bother to define the term in their new constitution. It was already well understood and they simply incorporated it as a basic principle. It’s part of section 1, article 9 detailing the powers and duties of Congress. It didn’t have to wait for The Bill of Rights.

            They also recognized that they should not paint themselves into a corner with no way out.

            They also had a real knack for saying something unambiguously in just a few words that others tie themselves up in knots trying to say in several paragraphs and never manage to be clear about.

            Sorry, I don’t mean to come down hard on you. But the plain truth is that those are the words in the constitution that counts as far as what we can and cannot do under our own laws. If we had to secure agreement of other nations before we could carry out what in our judgment is required to defend ourselves, we would have fallen long ago. And that’s the way life is.

            One more thing: terrorism is not a crime; it is an act of war. That it’s not done by any recognizable state using a recognized uniform wearing army makes only one difference. It takes the terrorist out from under the protection of The Geneva Convention and makes them vulnerable to, among other things, summary execution as you must know quite well. We are not willing to be that ruthless unless there is no other way. Otherwise we could have closed Gitmo long ago. Obama’s ill fated attempt to make our guests at Gitmo into criminals and try them in civilian court was shoved back in his face so hard it took the poor man by surprise and he’s still shuddering from the blow to his ego.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Roy Hogue

            George W. Bush is quoted as saying that

            the Constitutution is just a piece of paper.

            Is this why?

            United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

            Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House: “Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise. It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

            The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the UnitedNations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States………”


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Give it up Kevin. I don’t intend to have a head butting contest with you.

            Thanks.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I don’t intend to have a head butting contest with you.

            You have a very noble sense of fairness Roy.

            I commend you.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I finally remembered to look up the habeas corpus statement in the Constitution.

        Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2 regarding habeas corpus (capitalization as it is in the Constitution):

        The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

        The Fourth Amendment basically explains the right of habeas corpus but in no way contradicts the specific exception above.

        The Fifth Amendment expands on what rights an accused has but does not invalidate the specific exception above.

        The Sixth Amendment specifies the rights of a criminal defendant but has no bearing that I can see on the specific exception above either.

        So, as I said, I’m not a lawyer but I can read. Either we’re dealing with a citizen who is in rebellion against his own government (the real bone of contention here) or we’re dealing with an outside force which amounts in every way to an invasion or its equivalent. In both cases the president is on solid ground. And remember, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for all Confederate Soldiers, their supporters and sympathizers. Bush and Obama have done it for only a relative handful of the worst terrorists.

        I apologize for beating this to death. But since I began it I think getting the exact wording down in writing is important.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    I saw a report recently that a proposed coal plant in the US has been abandoned because EPA regulations made it unviable. This is just as O’bama predicted.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    Society lives in insanity today. The current crop of world leaders cannot help.

    The root of today’s problem is their refusal to accept reality 1945.

    1. http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2199

    2. http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2204

    3. http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Society lives in insanity today.

      I would say that a root of all evil is the love of wealth and that we are being destroyed by an education system which is not providing those being educated by it with the right knowledge.

      Knowledge of the Banking system might be a good start.

      From barnabyisright.com

      There’s only $53 billion in actual cash notes issued by the RBA. In total. For the whole country.

      Versus $986 billion in Deposits that businesses and private citizens you and I think we have in the banks.

      That’s about one (1) actual dollar in face value, for every eighteen dollars fifty (18.50) that we falsely imagine is deposited in the bank under our name.

      If the money lent to you by banksters was only the money they had on deposit from other customers, then how would you explain the fact that (according to the RBAs Bank Lending by Sector Australian households owed $1.18 Trillion to the banks at December 2011 (including $721 billion for Owner-Occupier housing) and Australian businesses owed a further $773 billion?

      $53 billion in legal tender cash notes issued by the RBA.

      $1.95 Trillion in bank loans to households and businesses at interest.

      That’s $36.80 in bank loans at interest for every $1 in actual cash printed by the RBA*.

      It’s all bull$h!t folks.

      By our lazy, ignorant complicity, in agreeing to allow our governments to grant banksters the exclusive power to create money and lend electronic digits at interest, we have all agreed to a system of human slavery.

      Our own slavery. We have enslaved ourselves, by agreeing to go along with this system.

      It’s long past time that we all woke up.

      And stopped playing along with the con game of money-lending.


      Report this

      150

      • #

        Thanks, Kevin.

        I updated information on the last link and added a quote from the Bhagavad Gita 2:17 – “Realize that which pervades the universe and is indestructible; No power can affect this unchanging, imperishable Reality.”

        http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339

        Every atom, every structure, and every creature living in the sphere of influence of the Sun’s pulsar core seems to be connected physically or spiritually (non-physically) to it.

        The volume of space is larger than the volume of ten billion, billion Earths: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Earths; 10^19 Earths


        Report this

        21

      • #
        Bulldust

        I don’t use more than $100 in cash in a typical week, and yet I rack up bills of around $2,000-$3,000 a month, every month. They don’t get paid with paper money. I imagine my situation (relative magnitude of cash and non-cash transactions) is typical of many Australians.

        Do I need to explain further?


        Report this

        80

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Getting Debt free is a start.

        (more goal than actual at this time…)


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Bulldust

          I am debt free, but I suspect that wasn’t aimed at me. No mortgage and I only use the CC for convenience as it gets paid off every month. The point being that money does not equal cash.

          In these uncertain times you find individuals are deleveraging (i.e. reducing debt). That in turn causes economies to shrink further.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Skitz

        The whole problem is the interest component. It simply does not exist. Consider this. There is an island that has a population of 2. The total supply of currency is $10. A BANKER moves to the island and convinces the inhabitants to lodge their money with him which they agree to do. The BANKER then approaches the inhabitants and convinces one of them to take out a LOAN with 10 percent INTEREST. The LOAN is for $10. Assume that the subject of the load can REPAY the $10. Where does he come up with the EXTRA $1.00 ? The simple answer is, he cannot because it has not been CREATED ! This is the PROBLEM with our system today. Trillions of dollars in LOANS are being created out of thin air BUT the interest component is NEVER created. Hence the need for ever increasing taxation etc to try and cover for the inevitable shortfall of ALL repayments. This is how the BANKERS have assumed control of most of the planet. We are and always will be, slaves to the BANKING elites.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Bulldust

          The problem is when money supply increases at rates that do not reflect the long-term growth rate in economies. Economies do increase wealth (things of value) over time (barring massive wars or disasters). So it is important to have money supply growing at a rate aligned with that economic growth, not too much more or less for long periods of time.

          The US is currently debasing (devaluing) it’s currency to help the flaccid economy with “stimulus” spending and keeping tax rates low. It also helps to make debt repayments to US bondholders easier. Problem is that people are nervous and hence the deleveraging, and the increased desire for politicians to spend more to fill the gap … it is a vicious circle, and eventually you have a “Greece” moment and the music stops without a chair to sit on.

          In your island economy there are hopefully some productive activities, like fishing, shelter building and firewood collecting etc. If markets develop to pay for those services and the inhabitants work harder and produce more, what then? Put another way… if they both work for $1 and hour, and go from working 10 hours a week to 20 hours a week, what then? Numerous analogies could be created, but to say the money supply needs to be restricted to the number of dollar bills puts unnecessary constraints on the economy.

          As for interest, the removal of interest implies that no one has a time-preference for expenditure, and also zero risk in everything they do which requires money as an upfront investment. This is never the case in the real world, so a dollar today is almost invariably worth more than a dollar in a year or 10 years time. Hence the need for interest rates to reflect that time-based decrease in value. If you don’t believe me, ask any person on the street if they are happy to lend you $100 today and you will pay them in 10 years with no interest. See what they say.

          I rambled a bit, but I trust the examples are fairly self-explanatory.

          TL:DNR… money is not cash, but cash is part of money. Interest rates are not immoral devices developed by the Devil, but a necessary instrument to reflect the time-based value of money.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Man makes goods — Banks create money out of nothing.

            Put in simple language the fundamental flaw is, that while we, the people, at great cost throughout our lives create real wealth and give services,our government has permitted a privately controlled and owned institution to create nothing but money [electronic code]at practically no cost.

            Banks then lend out that electronic code at interest on the wealth we have created and propose to create.

            By so doing they possess a debt or lien, or actual ownership of all the wealth the people create.

            Banks have a government-issued exclusive licence to operate the most insidious business in the history of the human race.

            When you sign a form to borrow from a bank, the bank is government licenced to create new “money” – right out of thin air.

            Your signature, is a promise to pay from the wealth you anticipate creating. It is the authority for banks to create new numbers on a computer and issue those numbers to you as a debt – plus interest.

            Man makes goods — Banks create money out of nothing.

            The money loaned to you, does not exist.

            It is just a new number, on their books.

            Your new loan, is their new Asset.

            You are working and slaving away, to pay back borrowed binary code plus interest.

            I think that this is descriptive of Banks –

            Barnabus chapter 9 [not much heard of scripture - probably because it is so informative] “………wherefore it is not the command of God that they should not eat these things; but Moses in the Spirit spake unto them, …….neither says he, shalt thou eat the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the crow; that is thou shalt not keep company with such kind of men as know not how by their labour and sweat to get themselves food; but injuriously ravish away the things of others; and watch how to lay snares for them; when at the same time they appear to live in perfect innocence………so these birds alone seek not food for themselves, but sitting idle seek how they may eat of the flesh others have provided; being destructive through their wickedness……..”


            Report this

            51

          • #
            Skitz

            While I agree with you on some of your points about needing an increasing money supply – I object to the owners of said money supply, that being private institutions (banks). Research the history of the once PEOPLES bank (Commonwealth) in particular, 1914-1921. Money should be created by the Commonwealth at near zero interest, not by corrupt, out of control counterfeiters that are the banks. Money should be created at around the rate of growth, not at the whim of bankers looking to make a killing. John F Kennedy knew the pitfalls of the crooked FED and wanted to get rid of it via executive order 11110, look what happened to him….


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Bulldust

            There’s a concept called regulation. Australia has a fair amount of it, and clearly the US doesn’t have enough … hence the GFC.

            I don’t buy the whole …”they’re banks they are evil, the Bible says so” argument (yes I know a certain holy dude didn’t like money changers or lenders or whatever it was). Don’t like the system and how it works currently, then come up with a better one. Going back to a barter society is a massive retrograde step, but I am sure improvements in the current system are also possible.

            The real problem is fighting the vested interests that will seek to decrease the restrictions placed on them to protect society at large. As always, there is a balance in these things. Simply pointing and saying banks are evil, they create money for nothing … is not worth debating. It isn’t even vaguely helpful.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          John Brookes

          That is a poor analysis of banking. The real story is a little bit longer.

          A man gets tired of lugging his gold around to pay for things. Another man starts a business (call it a bank) where he stores your gold, and gives you certificates for the gold stored. So instead of giving someone gold, you now give them a certificate for the gold. They can then take the certificate and redeem it for the gold. But as a rule they don’t. So the bank has a lot of gold, and it just sits there most of the time. One day the banker has a bright idea. Why not issue certificates to people who *don’t* have gold? Then you can charge them “interest” for the loan, and you make money.

          It all works fine until people lose confidence in the banks certificates, and all come in to redeem at the same time. At this point the bank does not have enough gold, and goes broke.

          The westward expansion of America was apparently financed by dodgy banks. The lent too much and were vulnerable to runs on their deposits. There were books you could get that gave you the estimated value of the dollars issued by various banks. As a bank headed towards insolvency, its dollars would be worth less and less. The sound money banks of the east coast disapproved of these profligate banks, but without them, the westward expansion of European settlement of the US would have been much slower.


          Report this

          21

          • #
            Skitz

            John, as usual you have missed the point. WHO owns the money being issued ? At least with gold, someone other than the banks issued it. As it stands, ALL additional money is created and owned NOT by the commonwealth (the people) but the private banking sector. ALL money is debt money which it should not be. It should be printed by the people and issued freely – like it was between 1914 and 1921. Understand that simple concept ?


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Bulldust

            Shock horror JB … gave you another tick (green one). Some people here need to take the blinkers off and mark comments according to content and not who said them. If sceptics want to accuse the opposition of playing the man, not the ball, it helps if they do the same. Seriously… no doubt I will now get red ticks for stating the truth.

            Skitz, if the “people” were in charge of printing money it would make the Weimar Republic inflation disaster look like a picnic in the park. Everyone would like a few million of their own I am sure… and what would it be worth then?

            The main problem with the banks is granting them too much centralised power. Once they have the power they can lobby (read coerce) politicians to do their bidding. Then you end up in the US situation with a plutarchy ruling the land. Your “people” solution lies at the opposite extreme. Somewhere inbetween I am sure there is a happier medium, and I would suggest Australia is closer to that happy medium than most countries. The trick is not to let it stray too far from that precarious balance.


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Skitz

            BULLDUST – You don’t think printing money out the yinyang is what the banks are doing now ? Come off it, of course they are. I also did not say the people just print money for the hell of it like the banks do now. The Commonwealth issues enough for the economy to grow. I will state it again for those who are ignorant of history – research Commonwealth Bank, 1914-1921. Nuff said.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Mark D.

            lets see here….Brookes Bank?

            Is that where to put your money?

            OMG OMG OMG!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Skitz

            Anyone who is interested, see link. It’s getting difficult to find historical records, I wonder why…..


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            Re history of The Commonwealth Bank.

            http://www.alor.org/Library1.htm#1a


            Report this

            00

  • #
    jaymam

    The map doesn’t display the northern part of New Zealand, where NZ’s one coal-burning plant used to be. I think it might be burning gas now.
    However, at least we New Zealanders are doing our part to stop putting that nasty CO2 into the air. We also have planted more trees and grass per population than anybody.
    Can we stop paying carbon taxes now please?
    I see the NZ carbon price has dropped to 14 cents, from $25:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/8252659/Carbon-credit-price-meltdown


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Ross

      Jayman

      This is a map of proposed coal fired plants , not existing ones.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        jaymam

        I know it’s a map of proposed coal fired plants. NZ has no proposals for new coal fired plants. However it would be of interest to see a world map of existing coal fired plants. That would make it obvious that NZ is doing more than any other country to reduce greenhouse gases. Not that any emissions make the slightest measurable difference to the climate.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          In all honesty, Jaymam, we are starting from a pretty low base.

          It is pretty easy to get a 100% reduction in coal-fired generation, when we only had one plant to start with.


          Report this

          70

    • #
      Manfred

      There is, in my view, absolutely NO chance that you will NOT pay a carbon tax…which in due course will be renamed something like the ‘Environmental Safety and Sustainability Tax’.

      Newberry Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, Wallace Broecker wrote an article in published in Science in 1975: “Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

      In an interview (2012) ridiculously entitled, ‘An interview with the father of global warming’
      http://membercentral.aaas.org/blogs/scientia/interview-father-global-warming

      the venerable Professor stated:

      …some sort of carbon tax will have to be charged, when people use carbon-based fuels. Of course, the consumer will pay it. When people start feeling the real effects of global warming, they will be ready to do something.

      a statement that followed a preceding question:
      So the previous thirty years of cooling have never been explained?
      Professor Broecker:

      No, not really.

      So jayman, one way or another, even if hell itself freezes over, you will be paying your ‘carbon tax’ or whatever politically correct name this tax is given in the future.

      In the remote circumstances that it ever becomes a central electoral focus and reason not to elect a government, and if it does not survive ‘re-badging’, it will be gone. Dare I say in New Zealand, this would seem most unlikely.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Huntly was once the flagship of the ECNZ fleet. It probably had a considerable positive influence on New Zealand’s prosperity prior to the Arab oil embargo in the 1970′s.
      It does in fact now burn natural gas, since it has been converted to a combined cycle power station with a large Mitsubishi gas turbine as its core.
      The primary driver for this expensive project was the temperature of the Waikato River, albeit the CO2 myth undoubtedly played a role. The original coal fired facility used the Waikato as a heat sink for the condenser, whereas the CCGT plant uses the atmosphere as a heat sink through a cooling tower.
      I trust that your reference to “putting that nasty CO2 in the air” was sarcasm.
      If you visit this blog regularly you will have been educated about that by now.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I also understand that the cost of coal, and the cost of coal delivery, was making it less economic. IMHO the river temperature was an expedient excuse. It may also have been a bargaining chip with the local iwi. These things are sometimes hard to judge.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          “These things are sometimes hard to judge.”
          You are correct as always, Rereke.
          However, I was part of the electricity supply scene in NZ when E3P came along (Huntly Unit 5)
          Make no mistake, DOC as well as the Regional Council was up in arms about the river temperature which meant that for the summer months at least Huntly was not even permitted to operate before E3P.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Harry

        So on the South Island in NZ… up north of Greymouth, where the thumping big coal mines are (and the seams of coal are about 12 inches under the topsoil)…. where does all that coal go?


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Quack

      what’s a new zealand?


      Report this

      12

  • #
    llew Jones

    “Yields of all leading crops have been rising dramatically in recent decades, owing to higher-yielding crop varieties and farmers’ greater use of fertiliser, pesticides and irrigation. Moreover, CO2 acts as a fertiliser and its increase has probably raised global yields more than 3 per cent in the past 30 years.”

    Noticed this excerpt on Andrew Bolt today.

    Looks like those coal fired power plants are not only providing electricity for needy citizens but also helping give us unprecedented aka record food crops to help feed the world.

    Certainly nails the lying or ignorant buggers on one of their claimed negative effect of rising global temperatures, namely reduced crops. There is a little bit of human technology in there too that also makes nonsense of that alarmist mantra.

    Build plenty more efficient, coal fired power plants please.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Winston

      Apologies for O/T
      Also from Bolta,
      Prof van Kooten from University of Victoria, British Columbia,

      However, I first looked at the broader problem of climate change when, about five years ago, I was asked to teach climate economics in a new Climate Studies minor in the Faculty of Social Sciences at my university… I have now encountered a significant number of scientists and others who have been personally attacked and even threatened with violence for their contrary views on climate change (my bold), and even more scientists who have contrary views but keep such views to themselves. Indeed, I would even dare to say that there are likely as many on my own university campus who are skeptical about the human origins of supposed global warming as there are those who support the so-called consensus – and my university is noted for its climate scientists and pro-anthropogenic origins of global warming….

      Now whether you agree with his contentions that the CAGW dogma is flawed or not, his personal experiences in academia in Canada gives lie to the “consensus” fallacy, and also especially to the fallacy that it is skeptics who are more likely to attack personally, threaten or express thoughts of violence toward their opponents. Is that the sound of academic floodgates opening perhaps?


      Report this

      50

  • #
    George McFly

    Excellent article Anton and Jo…..who would have thought that the UN was as useful as a third sock?!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Brings everything into perspective – the complete and utter pointlessness of carbon taxes and cap & trade schemes in the western world.

    Whatever we do to reduce CO2 emissions is totally dwarfed by the new coal fired power stations planned for India and China. These countries’ leaders can see the crass stupidity of our attempts to curb CO2 levels and they just laugh and laugh at our stumbling economies while theirs continue to enjoy boom times.

    As always these days, green is the new goofy.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      mc

      Peter Miller @ 10

      As always these days, green is the new goofy.

      True but, if only it were that innocuous, a bit like saying Stalin was a really funny guy.
      I know, I know, there are plenty of greenies around who are basically decent people, it’s the grand green agenda prescribed and administered from on high that I am directing my lame comedy at.
      Cheers.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Neville

    Very good post Tony. Here’s an interesting post at Bolt’s blog.

    Another scientist and IPCC contributer throws a bucket of cold water on this warmest religious cult.

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

    He says that he has seen intimidation, also verbal and physical abuse hurled at scientists who won’t agree with these fanatics.
    Most scientists just put their heads down and keep quiet.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    You would almost think the political class are aiming at destocking Australia of whiteys and returning the continent back to pre 1788 times.

    I know for a fact that officers in the WA EPA etc sincerely believe Australia is over populated and that the population needs to be culled. Their quandary is over the means to achieve this goal.

    One thing is for sure, they are absolutely certain their interpretation of the facts is 100% correct, and the penetration of the Agenda 21 policy is slowly achieving this goal.

    We are living in interesting times.


    Report this

    121

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It’s a fairly common theme among the general population also.
      Those, whom I’ve talked to about it and believe it, also don’t care to tell others how to live their lives. So there’s a natural suppression at work to not take it to the streets.
      But the belief that the world (or Australia) is overpopulated is a fairly common one.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      John Brookes

      “Culled”? Really? Somehow I think you are embellishing the truth a bit.


      Report this

      09

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        John, if you care to delve into Agenda 21, you will discover that the master plan involves culling, yes culling, be a variety of means, to reduce the global population to 2 billion. All these greenies that are so excited about “sustainability” don’t seem to realise that means at least 5 billion need to be “culled”, presumably through another World War. Behind this lies much, among other things, Obamacare, and even Tasmania’s coming decision on euthanasia.


        Report this

        52

        • #
          Mattb

          I must have missed that bit when I actually read Agenda 21. Which blog did you get your interpretation from Rod?


          Report this

          03

          • #
            Len

            Is it still on the Council Agenda?


            Report this

            20

          • #
            mc

            Mattb @ #13.2.1.1.1

            I must have missed that bit when I actually read Agenda 21. Which blog did you get your interpretation from Rod?

            Mattb, do you have an opinion about the pros and or cons of agenda 21?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            MC, you must be new here. Let me answer for Mattb: Cons? There are cons?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            mc

            Mark D.
            February 7, 2013 at 2:21 pm

            MC, you must be new here. Let me answer for Mattb: Cons? There are cons?

            No Mark D, I am NOT new here. Why should you assume that because I ask for Matt B`s opinion that I don’t have one myself, I most certainly do. I asked for Matt B’s view. Your putting words in matt`s mouth does not tell me what HE thinks. Get my drift?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Mark D’s point is that I’ll not answer a direct question. the fact you ask me one and want an answer means you must be new. Not actually accusing you of being new, just that if you are not new then why would you ask.

            At the time I thought Agenda 21 was brilliant. No doubt it has flaws. I wonder if any other 30 year old economic proposals have flaws?

            How about you show me where it says “the master plan involves culling, yes culling, be a variety of means, to reduce the global population to 2 billion.” If you can’t do that then stop distracting from my question to Rod.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            mc

            Mattb

            Not actually accusing you of being new, just that if you are not new then why would you ask.

            Really simple, because I wanted to. I am not interested in what your history of answering or not answering questions may be, I gave you an opportunity to say something yourself, or not, as you see fit. Turns out you did say something about my question, not much, short and sweet, but at least something, thanks for that.

            How about you show me where it says “the master plan involves culling, yes culling, be a variety of means, to reduce the global population to 2 billion.”

            This bit matt. Is irrelevant, these are not my words.

            If you can’t do that then stop distracting from my question to Rod.

            Somehow I don’t think my asking you a question will have derailed your question to rod, I think he can answer if he wants to.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            mc I am happy to answer your question. In short what I was trying to say was “Mark D. was having a go at me, not you.”

            To me the more telling doc is the Brundtland Report. And the more motivating Doc is The Earth Charter. It is not certain whether my faults with te docs come from being older and wiser, or older and grumpier?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Yes Mattb you are correct.

            MC, sorry.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Mark D.

        JB, is Lew working with you?


        Report this

        20

    • #
      ExWarmist

      People who believe in overpopulation and culling – should always start and stop with themselves.


      Report this

      100

  • #

    In my youth, we studied past eras of fear and superstition, when dogmas stifled progress and rational thought. We read of how ordinary working people were once forced to make temple offerings to scholars and priestly elites, who saw into the future and promised to protect them from the forces of nature.

    Nowadays, of course, the fears and dogmas are real, the scholars really do know what the climate will be like next century and how it can be manipulated. Monies paid the UN, GIM, Goldman Sachs really will buy us protection from the vagaries of nature.

    We’ve really moved on…though we’re back to building those windmills!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Don’t forget that this barking mad, bi-polar Gillard govt wants Vic to develop, process and export the huge Latrobe valley brown coal deposits.

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

    Ferguson even thinks it could be as big as the Pilbara and that’s very BIG.
    So now we know this idiot govt couldn’t care less about co2 emissions, only if we emit a miniscule tonnage here in OZ.
    But why doesn’t the MSM report on this idiocy all day and every day until it gradually sinks in?


    Report this

    110

  • #
    ianl8888

    As the import of that informative map slowly sinks in, I expect the airhead greenies to attack the data from a number of directions. All of these will be the equivalent of “argumentum ad hominem”, however

    For example:

    “China’s mine safety record is abysmal”. The truth here is that China has been mining for about 2000 years and a huge number of very small mines exist, as do a very large number of high-quality, high-volume mines. It is these small mines that have poor safety records. The Chinese authorities (a convoluted pathway, to be sure) are progressing through the purchase and consolidation of these mines precisely to improve safety. The positions of General Manager and Chief Engineer are appointed (ie. no volunteers) and the incumbents held responsible for any safety breach, no matter how small. In the event of injury or death, after a thorough investigation, both these incumbents are sentenced to “mine jail” – this means forced working for many years in the more dangerous small mines to improve safety. Poetic justice is clearly well regarded !

    “China is leading the world for installation of wind farms” (Combet is particularly fond of this straw man). Two points – a) excluding hydro power, wind/solar accounts for less than 1% of China’s energy supplies; b) the scale of China’s population is simply unimaginable to most Australians. In a geographical area almost equivalent to that of Australia, there are 1.3 billion people. There is literally no room for extensive and highly inefficient wind farms, the surface is needed for food production. In the words of a Chinese engineer colleague “We have people everywhere”. Wind power is just a fart for actual Chinese needs

    “The Chinese cannot aspire to our standard of living because there are too many of them”. I’ve actually seen Obama say that in a TV interview. It’s simply too stupid to comment further

    Now let the good times roll :)


    Report this

    100

  • #

    Okay, let’s pretend for a minute or two that I actually believe that CO2 causes CAGW.

    That being the case, then could this recent major flood event actually be just one of Gaia’s ways of saying ‘Hold up on those CO2 emissions, fellow Earthlings’, and while I’m mentioning Bob Brown, I see that he has (again) come out and blamed coal mining and exporting in Queensland as the major blame for the recent floods.

    So, consider this.

    The coal is mined and then shipped off out of the Country. Now, to get from the hole in the ground to the big boat that choofs off to China India or other places, that coal goes by train. 5 Monster locomotives (three at the front and 2 of them half way down this one kilometre long train) haul 100 tub shaped carriages. Each carriage is filled with 100 tons of the lovely black stuff. So we now have each train hauling 10,000 tons of coal.

    Here at Rockhampton those trains come in from the coalfields in the Bowen Basin, and turn right to the coal loading port at Gladstone, along the Blackwater Line.

    Those trains pass just to the South of the City, and there is one of those monsters passing at the rate of one every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. So, at that rate, almost a quarter of a million tons of coal is carried each day from the fields of plenty to those huge ships, now lining up off the Port.

    This huge rain event started on the Wednesday, 23rd January, and the trains stopped on that day. They are still stopped, and that Blackwater line is not expected to be repaired for another 10 days probably. So, that’s around 25 days of no coal deliveries.

    That comes in at 6 million tons of coal not being delivered for export. At the average multiplier of 2.86 tons of CO2 produced for each one ton of coal burned, that means a saving of 17.2 million tons of CO2.

    Say, that being the case then maybe Federal Labor has it’s answer on how to save World from those nasty CO2 emissions. Just have one of these major floods every year.

    But seriously, let’s add some context to that. That amount of coal missing out on being exported is around the same amount used in just ONE new technology coal fired power plant for one and a bit years. It’s barely a hiccough on the far horizon.

    Keep in mind that this is just for the Blackwater line alone, as the line in from Moura is also closed.

    And hey, I wonder how much of a further hole this knocks in Labor’s MRRT income. Looks like another Quarter without any income, making three Quarters in all. I guess that further empties the giveaway pot for the upcoming election .

    Okay Tony, you can snap out of it now.

    Tony.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    elva

    This is off topic, I know, but I want to clear up something I posted some time ago regarding sunspot influence on climate. That is, during low sunspot activity there seems to be some cooling effect on earth and during high activity some warming effect. It was pointed out to me that we are in a high cycle now. But I omitted to stress that a high cycle does not necessarily mean high effect. Take today’s report from Spacewather.com. It says,

    DECREASING CHANCE OF FLARES: Sunspot AR1667 is decaying, and this has prompted NOAA forecasters to lower the odds of an M-flare today to only 10%. Solar activity should remain low for the next 24 hours.

    This is what I have been following for a very long time over the past 2 cycles. In short, even if there are a large number of sunspots it does not mean they are all hot spots. They are just as if there were no sunspots at all. Hence, the global temperature has been in decline over the past years and probably will continue unless sunspots become more violent again.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Bulldust

    Mr Lomborg has another excellent piece in The Australian:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/pasta-no-more-likely-to-disappear-than-polar-bears/story-e6frgd0x-1226571125388

    It is “paywalled” … use the usual tactic to circumnavigate the “paywall” if necessary.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Mattb

    Not a confidence building map for sure, but the post does seem to ignore that many countries are fully expected to increase CO2 emissions under the Protocol. The protocol is not designed to prevent developent of the 3rd world.


    Report this

    015

    • #
      Mattb

      It also ignores that many countries are hesitant to act alone considering the US’ determination to not get on board. In fact the above map is a perfect example of what happens when a global effort is undermined at every conceivable step.


      Report this

      015

      • #
        John Brookes

        Quite so Matt. I doubt if there will be any real progress until the US takes a stand. If they start limiting their emissions, then they will want to impose tariffs on imports coming from countries which don’t (i.e. China and India), thus putting pressure on these countries to start emission reductions (or at least slow the rate of increase).


        Report this

        017

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          The USA has taken a stand; they voted 96 to 0 in the Senate against Kyoto (Al Gore presiding).

          Since then the “world temperature” hasn’t risen, and now the USA CO2 emissions are dropping.


          Report this

          130

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          What’s the matter with you guys, John, Matt? If you’re so convinced that you’re right then going it alone should help… …maybe… …oh wait… …let’s see now, how tiny a difference would it make if Australia stopped every last bit of CO2 you put into the sky… …wasn’t it a number so small that we were all laughing at it not long ago?

          Why should I commit economic suicide just to help you make no difference?


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Neville

          Hey John the Yanks now only emit the same co2 as they did in 1994.
          Remember to use facts and real maths when pushing your silly nonsense.
          In 1990 OECD countries emitted 11.6 bn tonnes of co2 pa and China, India and the non OECD emitted 10 bn tonnes pa.
          By 2010 the OECD had increased to 13 bn tonnes pa and the non OECD had soared to 18.8 bn tonnes pa.

          The EIA forecast is for the OECD to increase just 6% by 2035, but the Non OECD to increase that whopping 18.8 bn tonnes co2 number by 73%.
          What is it you donkeys don’t understand about simple kindy maths?
          The OECD will nearly flatline while the non OECD will be soaring.
          Wake up to yourself or go and protest in China and India etc. Or like our Gillard govt don’t you really care at all about co2 emissions?


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Harry

          Not really allowed to impose tariffs like that…. against WTO rules.


          Report this

          10

        • #
      • #
        Ace

        Actually….the above map clearly shows that China and India are each building TEN TIMES the coal based output of the USA. So how would anyone but a complete and utter idiot think the solo twentieth party in the equation is somehow able to wag the dog?

        Or two idiots by the look of it.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Mattb,

        A simpler set of explanations is that the political and business (power) elites in India and China.

        [1] Don’t believe in CAGW.

        [2] There primary motivation is to increase their own wealth & power, and “to catch up too and then exceed” the west, because they are sick of being second class in this world – especially when they consider their own long term cultures to be superior to the upstart western barbarians.

        As opposed to – India & China are looking to the US for leadership (LOL!)… they both hold the US in contempt, they view the US as a dying empire and the 21st century as an Asian century where they will dominate. As to which of the two achieves primacy that is still to be determined.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        New York in elite circles is regarded as the Capital of the world being the home of the United Nations. The U.S.has ratified the UN Charter in full. The U.S.has no need to duplicate UN law.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        a global effort is undermined at every conceivable step

        Another attempt to “capture the language”.

        The “global effort” was and is NOT a democratic one. It’s a bunch of privileged, arrogant, rich people who think that they are smarter than everybody else; telling them how they should live their lives. Usually for the benefit of the privileged, arrogant and otherwise feckless rich.

        Of course such is “undermined at every conceivable step” by people who don’t wish to endure pointless burdens; and the few actually-democratic governnments (those few who still fear the people) of the world.


        Report this

        80

    • #

      Mattb, and also you John Brookes,

      The Kyoto Protocol has 195 signatories, (that first signature) of which 40 are considered as already Developed Countries, and from that number of 40, 24 are the Countries expected to ‘do’ everything, and Australia is on that list of 24.

      The remaining 150+ Countries are considered to be still Developing, and the only thing Kyoto asked that they do is to report their annual emissions.

      Now perhaps you can see why it becomes so easy to ignore what they signed up to.

      So, where you say here:

      …..is a perfect example of what happens when a global effort is undermined at every conceivable step.

      It’s painfully obvious that the Kyoto Protocol was specifically worded to undermine itself.

      Those 24 Countries are tasked with footing the bill, the whole bill, every cost, for those 150+ Countries. They have to introduce a tax on CO2 emissions, and from that send money off to the UN for distribution in those 150+ Countries so they can lower emissions.

      What doesn’t help is that a UN subsidiary, The World Bank is actually using a lot of that money to construct coal fired power plants in those 150+ Countries.

      So, they’re not even adhering to their own UN Protocol themselves.

      So, how easy is it to blame the U.S. when the main problem is not them, but the UN who sponsored the Protocol in the first place.

      Now perhaps you can see why they will never find a replacement for Kyoto, because when you have 150+ Countries who have such a great deal already, then they will fight tooth and nail to keep that same deal in place, and not have it tightened to include them, considering China and India are part of those 150+ Countries.

      And that crock of blaming the U.S. for not adding that all important second ratifying signature being the main hindrance for Kyoto is just that ….. a crock, and who’s to blame for that.

      Why George W Bush of course hang on a minute, that was Bill Clinton, who gave the Protocol to his Veep Al Gore, an ex Senator, to take up the hill to the Senate, because as an ex Senator, he was good buddies with them, and he could talk them around to ratifying it.

      That worked well.

      The U.S. Senate (in a very close tight ballot) just failed to ratify Kyoto by, um, 95 – 0, and you can say all you like that it was a Republican controlled Senate, but it did not garner even one vote from any of those Democrats.

      They still blame George W though, and with Obama now into his second term, and all that squealing, they still haven’t ratified it.

      No, the U.S. is not to blame here.

      The sole blame lies with the UN itself.

      And you wonder why none of those Countries on that map have not paid any attention to what they signed up for.

      Tony.


      Report this

      150

      • #
        Crakar24

        Well thats the end of this thread lets hope Jo can come up with something else to talk about.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        ianl8888

        As predicted, just “argumentum ad hominem” from the airheads

        It’s all just someone else’s fault :)

        So boring is they, when faced with facts :)


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Mattb

        Tony I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that the US were solely responsible for undermining. The protocol has been hacked since before it was a twinkle in someone’s eye. So yeah global politics and negotiations are tough… what’s new.

        It would be good to see those red dots translated in to % increase in coal fired capacity per nation.

        It would also be good to see stats on CO2E emission increases/decreases per country (as a %) – as that is what really matters. Ultimately the aim is to keepo CO2 emissions in check, not to reduce dependence of coal (although there is clearly a link).


        Report this

        09

        • #
          Backslider

          Ultimately the aim is to keepo CO2 emissions in check, not to reduce dependence of coal

          LMAO !! Mattb – have you ever pondered the word “stupid”?


          Report this

          91

          • #
            Crakar24

            This is very confusing, half the time i agree with you and the other half i dont this is a time when i do, by the way we work with a guy named Stuart, we call him pid for short.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Mattb

            I think there is a picture of you. I note you edited my next bit. The point is that global emission levels are the important thing, not the number of new coal powerstations.

            I could, for axample, triple my daily intake of creak cakes and STILL LOSE WEIGHT. Tony’s cream cake graphic would look like a big red dot on MattB, decievingly so.


            Report this

            07

        • #

          Say Mattb, you ask here:

          It would be good to see those red dots translated in to % increase in coal fired capacity per nation.

          maybe it is true what they say about goldfish We have already covered that here at Joanne’s site with its own dedicated Thread which used the same database back in August of last year.

          Then, in the main text of this Thread, I have even included the link to Thermal Power, and that lists every Country, but I understand how averse you are to taking links.

          This link shows increases for every Country, and it shows actual data for four years.

          In answer to your second question, just by navigating your way around that site, you can even do that calculation, using the average multiplier for 2.86 tons of CO2 from every ton of coal burned.

          Then on top of that by further navigation, you can do the same exercise for OCGT, and CCGT, using the multiplier of 122 pounds of CO2 for every mcf of natural gas burned.

          So, umm, knock yourself out.

          Perhaps you might get back to us with your results in a few days eh!

          (Hint. They’ve all gone up.)

          Tony.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Mattb

            Yes good, so China is doubling (from 706,000). Hardly unreasonable. US is adding 3-4% (from 780,000). Again not unreasonable given improvements in old generation, and also one assumes some older generators will be being replaced here.

            So where is the headline disaster here?


            Report this

            08

          • #
            Chris M

            Mattb

            So if the Chinese do it (+100% from a high base), it’s perfectly fine, but if the US were to do it (from a similar baseline), it’s the quintessence of evil. But you graciously allow them a 3.4% increase. Cognitive dissonance much?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            oeman50

            I just wanted to mention that in the US, unless the plant is already under construction, it will never be built. EPA has issued GHG regulations for new plants that effectively prevents any new plants from being built. Ones that are approved but not yet under construction are in a sort of regulatory limbo that will ultimately cause them to be canceled. So that 20,000+ MW figure for the US? Toss it out.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Chris M… at some stage the US did increase in a similar manner. It was not evil.


            Report this

            12

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          “as that is what really matters”
          Matters to whom?


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Tony mate, just one point (I’m lazy and so I’ll stop at one). The World Bank is not a subsidiary of the United Nations. But I agree, they shouldn’t be building any coal stations, and they sort of admitted that recently. So there’s still hope.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    debbie

    Sorry everyone… totally OT
    Have you seen this Jo?
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
    As always,
    Excellent post Tony.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Those of us who are alumni of UWA got a postcard this week about the 100th anniversary celebration. Apparently we’ll be getting phone calls from a real live current student. I’ll be sure to mention Lewandowsky and UWA’s stupidity in falling for the CAGW scam.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Backslider

      Unfortunately it suffers from the unfortunate assumption that CAGW alarmism is science and that it is somehow insulated from the things that anti warmists point out (mislabelled as “conspiracist ideation”).

      More junk science.


      Report this

      50

  • #
  • #

    So Mattb, just to back up your accusation that I ripped off that article, might you show me where anything I said is a copy of what was in that article.

    Either that, or you could always retract that accusation, eh!

    Tony.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Mattb

      Oh ok – “It’s not like you to come up with an article, 6 months later than left leaning media has covered the same issue and said the same thing.”


      Report this

      012

      • #

        Don’t worry folks, this is just Mattb using the Britney Spears ploy.

        Mattb, nothing I said bears any resemblance to what was mentioned in that article.

        The Guardian mentions Kyoto where?

        The Guardian mentions emissions where?

        And again, Mattb, that Guardian article again kicks an own goal depicting cooling towers again, and you’d think after so many years, they would have learned eh!

        Tony.


        Report this

        160

      • #

        Oh and also Mattb, what does this tell you about journalists actually knowing something about what they are writing about.

        Telling Governments to rein in their construction of these plants. You would think any good journalist would actually do some research first.

        Each new plant has a projected life span of 50 years.

        Each new plant would have to have a dedicated legal document saying that they can in fact stay in operation for that period of time to recover the original investment.

        So, and this applies here in Australia as well.

        Currently operating plants have legal approval to operate until the late 20′s early 30′s, and any Government that legislates to close them down or even to dictate lowering of power outputs would be sued within an inch of their life.

        What message would that send to any business when a Government can approve that life span, and then legislate so they have to close.

        All those red dots on that map indicate CO2 emissions for the next 50 years.

        That’s what you people don’t realise.

        They cannot just shut them down.

        Tony.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          In fine print of the forward estimates of CO2 emissions under the carbon tax the Treasury (wonder why they didn’t emphasis it) has ALL existing coal fired stations running until 2032. That’s because the CO2 emissions from coal are a flat line, and we all know that there will be no new coal fired power stations.

          We could reduce CO2 emissions more by replacing all our existing coal fired power stations with modern ones, than we could by replacing them entirely with wind turbines. Indeed we would still get lower emissions from coal than if we put 4 times the same capacity of wind turbines in place, and still get a much more reliable power supply.


          Report this

          40

    • #

      Oh, Tony, like you’d know how to sound like the Guardian!

      ‘Guy Shrubsole, at Friends of the Earth, said of the WRI report: “This is a scary number of coal-fired plants being planned. It is clear that the vested interests of coal companies are driving this forward and that they will have to be reined in by governments.”‘

      Tony, you could never get the confidence of such a specialist in whimpering and bed-wetting – with a masterpiece name like Guy Shrubsole!

      Nope. You’ll never make a Guardian journalist, Tony. Face it. On the other hand, that may be why so many of us here like to read what you write.

      As an aside, just in case any Libs read this. Make like Merkel, guys. Use those environment dollars to renew our rickety coal power gen. Emphasise the 30% carbon savings. As Jo says, it’s a shame to see a good civilisation go to waste.

      Mr. Abbott, if anybody is going to rip off anybody else’s routine, copy Angela Merkel: TALK GREEN WHILE YOU DIG BROWN.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Crakar24


    Who actually took notice of the Kyoto Protocol?

    Jo I would have to say we did we may be the only ones but after listening to a ALP pollie the other day it appears we take this sort of stuff very serious indeed. They were discussing water buy back and as usual the Lib/Nats raised thought provoking points such as why did the ALP spend over 300 million dollars on buying back water rights on the Laughlan when the Laughlan flows into the Murray on average once in 100 years?

    The ALP responded with this:

    The science tells us that the temps could rise by two degrees and the rainfall could fall by 15%, now these scientists could be 100% right or they could be 100% wrong or they could be only 40% right but even if they are only 40% right means we still need to act.

    It saddens me to see people like this in positions of power, people like this formulate policy on based on belief and it is easy to see why ths governmant has pissed away billions of dollars the way they have. So in answer to your question i would have to say the ALP took it seriously we are the only ones who took it seriously.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Does Eddie Obeid own a farm on the Laughlan?


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Dave

        No,

        He owns hundreds of farms on the Laughlan. :)


        Report this

        30

      • #

        Graeme No.3

        Maybe Eddie really does own a farm on the Lachlan, depending on if there’s a new coal tenement planned for there. If so then maybe the following might apply.

        Apologies to Andrew Barton Paterson.

        I had written him a letter which I had, for want of better
        Knowledge, sent to where I met him down the Lachlan years ago;
        He was politicking when I knew him, so I sent the letter to him,
        Just on spec, addressed as follows, “Eddie, of The Overflow.”

        And an answer came directed in a writing unexpected
        (And I think the same was written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar);
        ‘Twas his Labor mate who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it:
        “Eddie’s gone to Persisher skiing, and we don’t know where he are.”

        Tony.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          ianl8888


          … depending on if there’s a new coal tenement planned for there

          No such luck, I’m afraid. No coal deposits there, way off the basin sediments

          He might pan for alluvial gold though. Maybe some was missed since about 1880 on :)


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Juliar

    Barnaby Joyce speaking on climate change alarmism. Good watch.

    http://youtu.be/JTrPDNpSck8


    Report this

    40

  • #
  • #
    Tim

    When they hear this news, I’m sure the Sea Shepherd will sail into the port of Newcastle – the world’s largest coal-export harbor – guns blazing – with Captain Brown at the helm.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Mattb

      they got the news 6 months ago. Left types read The Guardian.


      Report this

      02

      • #

        Gosh, Mattb, most of us knew where our electricity was coming from, and will come from. The fact that the world’s daffiest rag – simmer down Fairfax and NYT! – did some moaning about it six months ago shouldn’t stop Tony from commenting or Tim from ironising.

        But thank you for pointing to another Guardian article. They’re always a hoot. Fairfax may win on narrow dogmatism, the NYT is unbeatable for snobbiness…Ah, but the Guardian! It’s just such a rib-tickler!


        Report this

        20

  • #
    David

    Note that there are none in the UK – that’s because we’re daft enough to comply with things we’ve signed up to.
    Notice also that Germany, the ‘poster boy’ of all things ‘green’ in the EU, is building 21 new coal-fired power stations – so not only ignoring Kyoto, but also the EU directive that 20% of electricity shall be from ‘renewables’ by (I think) 2015.
    Thing is, you see, fairy breath won’t keep the Audis, BMWs and Mercs rolling off the production lines…


    Report this

    30

    • #
      ianl8888


      Note that there are none in the UK

      And the UK now has their poorer people choosing between starving and freezing

      Oh I say, old chap, jolly well done, what ? You’ve played a blinder !


      Report this

      20

  • #

    The empirical fact is just this and nothing less:

    1. World leaders and leaders of the scientific community reacted in fear of the “nuclear fires” that consumed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 and Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945; . . .

    2. They lead society down a path to insanity – total loss of contact with reality – by establishing the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945; . . .

    3. And misrepresenting the Sun as a well-behaved Hydrogen-fusion reactor, instead of a Hydrogen-generator

    Every atom, every living cell, every structure in the solar system is continuously connected to the “nuclear fires” that burn in the Sun’s pulsar core – the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of lives and worlds.

    With kind regards,
    - Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    http://www.omatumr.com
    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/skepticalsciences-john-cooks-vaccine-misinformation/#comment-8509


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Ace

    I saw a discussion about coal fired power plants earlier. I came back and its let a million debates about gun control and habeus corpus flower! What happenned!

    People get rapped in proximal paramaters of reference. You need to step back and draw comparisons from history.

    Did every Wehrmacht foot soldier captured in France get a fair trial? What would they be tried for? Was fighting for their country a crime? Were they all released and repatriated to re-join the war effort?

    If the answer to the above was “no” in each case why then do we have vast shedloads of bleeding hearts wanting to set free a bunch of NAZIs who openly declare their desire to destroy us?

    In a word, decadence.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Just finished reading this in Climate Spectator “Curbing Chin’s Coal Addition

    Professor Pan of the Chinese Academy of Science told Garnaut this would mean an abrupt halt in the growth of coal consumption, which would top out at 4.2 billion tonnes in 2015 (compared to 3.9 billion in 2012

    If 2000MW will consume around 5 Million tons of coal each year then China they are saying current production in 2012 is 1,560,000 MW current installed capacity.

    And with proposed increased amount of 557,938 MW (or approx 1.4 Billion tonnes coal) this will add on top of the existing 3.9 Billion tonnes coal PA to a total of 5.3 billion tonnes of coal.

    Why is climate spectator saying it’s only going to increase to 4.2 million tonnes when clearly this would only mean a proposed installation of 120,000 MW of coal power stations.

    Thanks Tony for a great article – just wondering if my calculations are correct?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      ianl8888

      The article by Garnaut (a wishful Fairfacts journo) confuses coking and thermal coals

      The use of thermal coals for power generation will continue to rise as the map from the initial post depicts. China still has 1 billion people without basic electricity

      Garnaut’s article quotes various Chinese officials as saying that the production of steel (coking coals and iron ore) will level off as the markets for steel products contain no more growth

      The difference between the two varieties of coal has been posted here many times. Please do not confuse them


      Report this

      20

    • #

      Dave,

      pretty much spot on, really, except that second last paragraph should read 4.2 Billion instead of Million.

      What needs to be realised here is that even considering either of those figures, the average punter would think that the topping out means the end of it. The stark point in all of this is even if that is the end of coal fired power plant construction, that consumption is then ongoing ….. for at least another 50 years, the life span of those plants from new.

      Now, as to the cessation of coal fired power plant construction by the date quoted in that article, consider this.

      This effectively means that China will just more than double the coal fired Capacity that America currently haves.

      The Population of China is 1.35 Billion.

      The population of the US is 325 Million.

      Even if that power plant construction stops there, then perhaps hundreds of millions of Chinese will still not have access to electrical power on the same scale as those of us living in the already developed World.

      Barely 8 to 10% of Chinese Power generation goes to the residential sector, while in the US, and much of the developed World between 30 and 38% of all power is consumed by the Residential sector.

      Most of China’s electrical power generation is consumed by the Industrial sector, so for China to reach our levels of consumption, then those power plants, all of them, of any type, will still be moving ahead at a rate we would find blinding.

      Now, having said that about China, India will be coming hot on their heels, as they currently have barely 10% of the power China has now.

      So, even if China eases back, as this article suggests, then India will be taking over.

      Each new plant that does come on line will be there for 50 years.

      Now, consider what I have just said here.

      China and India are very gradually coming up to the levels we already have.

      If these CAGW madmen want emissions to decrease, then we condemn China, India and the rest of the Developing World to remain, quite literally, in the Dark Ages, and then expect us in the already developed World to go back and join them there.

      If you expect Australia, and America to survive on one tenth of the electrical power we currently accept as a staple of life, then you’re a hopelessly uninformed damned lunatic. That’s not just at the Residential level, but at the Commerce level, where we shop and do all our business, and the Industrial level where all the Country’s wealth comes from.

      That will NEVER happen.

      Look back at that Map now. Every one of those dots is 50 years of emissions, and that’s out to 2063+ right there.

      It’s not scary.

      It’s equality ….. that we already have, and they don’t.

      The thing I find most interesting is that people have no concept of just how much coal is actually being consumed by coal fired power. When I say that the Bayswater Plant, at full operation with all 4 generators turning, then that plant is consuming one tonne of crushed coal every 4 seconds, people look at me like I’m crazy.

      And the thing is this. People really do want to know that stuff. Try finding any of that in the Media. That’s why people want to know. After they hear what I just said, the next thing they want is for me to explain it to them. They really DO want to know. And here’s me thinking this was going to be so dull and boring, I’d be tapped out in a month or so, and that was five years ago now. People have this thirst to actually know the truth of the matter.

      Tony.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        ianl8888

        @TonyOz


        People really do want to know that stuff

        Do you really think that’s true ?

        My very long experience is quite the opposite. I’ve spent over 40 years literally all over the globe matching power station and steel mill requirements to mining outputs from deposits, and apart from the people actually charged with keeping the lights on, nobody cared until they went off. I’ve even heard a Green MLA in my district complain about loss of power caused by a strike in the mines ! I was too dumbfounded to nail her

        I agree with your comment that such data never finds it way into the populist media. Two reasons: a) most reporters do not understand or care about it; b) editors know that these data undermine the renewabubble line they have adopted

        And you are right to keep steel production and power generation separate. Very different animals, and orders of magnitude difference in supply requirements


        Report this

        20

  • #

    Here’s the conclusion to the Climategate scandal that erupted in late Nov 2009:

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339

    Conclusion: “We are connected physically and spiritually to the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of lives and worlds at the core of the Sun.

    Fear of that source of energy [1] persuaded world leaders to insert, on 24 Oct 1945, the UN between mankind and the Creator that endowed
    us with inalienable rights to establish governments to protect our Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    Details of the story are explained in the above link.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    1. Oliver K. Manuel, ”Neutron Repulsion”,
    The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012):
    http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf


    Report this

    01

  • #
    pat

    good news:

    Barclays, Deutsche Bank lose top carbon analysts: sources
    LONDON, Feb 6 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Investment banks Barclays and Deutsche Bank have parted ways with their leading carbon analysts, sources at both firms told Reuters Point Carbon on Wednesday, as banks continue to pare back activity in the battered emissions trading market…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2173589?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    20

  • #
    • #
      John Brookes

      Well, maybe when we see this again…


      Report this

      12

      • #

        John, you know how North Americans can tell that Gaia is not their mummy? It’s when Niagara Falls freeze, then they have to endure an almighty coldwave, then they have to endure THE worst known heatwave…then flood!

        John, when you’ve finally worked out when the climate was stable and non-extreme, and you are finally able to manipulate all that through taxation, modelling etc…

        …please don’t send the climate back to 1936! Pick some other year to do your magic. Please, not 1936!


        Report this

        40

      • #
        bananabender

        The Niagara Falls area was frozen solid for 200,000 years during the last ice age.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Crakar24

        As i said any warmbot care to explain


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Here’s a bit of basic physics. Heat = energy. Hotter air holds more moisture. More energetic climate systems produce greater weather extremes. There are still places around the world registering record low temperatures, but there are three times as many record high temperatures. That’s the simple version.


          Report this

          11

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Hi Jo, and others,
    Now that the traffic on this post has subsided I thought no one would mind an off-topic diversion.

    First there is a philosophical point I would like to make. It is that science is OK as far as it goes, but people have anxieties outside of that realm.

    People wanna know what happens after death. Scientists say it is unknowable – which leaves the space vacant for a whole bunch of pseudoscientists (men of religion) to claim whatever they like, and science cannot logically refute them. There can be no logical refutation of a God that is not bound to act logically, can defy all physical laws, and is not bound by rational arguments.

    People wanna know what happens in the future. Scientists say it is unknowable – which leaves the space open to pseudoscientists (astrologers and the like) to claim whatever they like and science cannot logically refute them.

    The great success of the AGWers is that they have managed to create anxiety over the future climate and an expectation of its predictability. Any rational scientist looking at the multitude of trends that are visible in the various time scales would argue that the future climate is unknowable. That leaves the space clear for those pseudoscientists who claim that it is. They can present their graphs and feed the anxiety, and any scientist who simply argues that it’s unknowable will be as successful at countering this as scientists who argue against religion or astrology. (My local paper I believe still runs an astrology page, ironically, juxtaposed with the death notices. I sometimes ponder the thought that they should run yesterday’s astrological predictions next to today’s death notices.)

    The point is that while AGWers can say mumbo-jumbo incantations and produce a scary graph that feeds anxiety, even if they have to rejig it every year – they will have a captive audience in an empty space. Until the counter-argument can produce its own predictions and make its own incantations and say “Don’t listen to them. This is our prediction. Our prediction is better than their’s” progress will be slow.

    That out the way, I would now like to add – I have just been looking at WUWT posting on the latest UAH data release. As I anticipated, the sudden rise has got everyone hand wringing about the data and yet the rise is exactly what I have predicted.
    It would appear that more focus should be placed on the temperature anomaly series so that people can be focussed on what they are actually looking at. I have looked at the data and (as indicated at the postings) fitted some curves to the data so that it is possible to see in a simplified format just what the data is saying and where it might lead. This is the best way of countering the AGWers’ own graphs which do not match the curves. We really need to ask – What can we expect? Has the data series moved out of our expectations? Is saying “It’s unknowable” just a cop-out?

    I have postings at 2:51pm, 4:18pm and at 4:33pm at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/from-uah-global-temperature-report-january-2013/
    The formulae I use are at 4:33pm.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Ricardo K

    The Chinese plan to cut their coal use, and the coal they do buy in the future will come from places like Mongolia. Bad news for the Australian coal industry, good news for the Great Barrier Reef.


    Report this

    13

    • #

      Ricardo K,

      you say here:

      The Chinese plan to cut their coal use …..

      You mention at another of Joanne’s Threads here at this site that you’re enjoying yourself here. Well, that works both ways I’m afraid. You think of it as fun, so then, let’s us have some fun at your expense then.

      When some readers come here, they have a look around and read the Posts, and then think on what has been said, and that way, there’s the possibility that they might not actually embarrass themselves by saying something stupid that will enable us to actually laugh back at you, and in this case, your statement enables us to point back at you and have a really good chuckle.

      You say that the Chinese plan to cut their coal use.

      Had you actually read some of the comments and then thought about them, you would have noticed something that could be a source for embarrassment if you run off at the mouth before engaging your brain.

      Have a read of what I mentioned in Comment 31.2, and then refer back to the map at the main text of the Thread.

      See that large red dot that indicates China’s proposed NEW coal fired power plants. That is in indicator of an increase in coal consumption, and those plants will be in operation for ….. 50 years.

      That most assuredly is not a cut in China’s coal use as you say.

      That’s 50 years Ricardo.

      Also note the increase in India as well. That is the coming further increase as India is perhaps a decade behind China, so their ramping up will continue apace, so they will be looking for extra coal as well.

      50 years Ricardo. Long long into your old age, they will be needing huge amounts of coal to run their power plants, not to thumb their nose at the environment, but to give their people access to something that you Ricardo, already have, and take so much for granted, access to electrical power.

      So Ricardo, you enjoy yourself, but look at that map and think to yourself ….. 50 years.

      Enjoy.

      Tony.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Ricardo K

        G’day Tony, it’s good to make a friend.

        Read your post. One tonne every four seconds? Really? Wow. That’s impressive. But if your point is that a lot of coal is going to be burned in the next 50 years, I reckon you’re spot on. Not sure whether you think that’s a good thing or likely to contribute to global warming however.

        A couple of things the map doesn’t show: rate of uptake of renewables, and inefficient coal plants being shut down. I’m also a bit confuzzled by the red dot on Australia. Which coal plants are those? We’ve closed a few lately. Wasn’t aware of any new ones. Please enlighten me.

        In any case, what I said was that China’s plans to cut down on coal is good for the Great Barrier Reef. I’ve been given a couple of thumbs down for that comment. Anyone care to explain why cutting coal use and saving some of the reef is such a bad thing?


        Report this

        11

        • #

          Anyone care to explain why cutting coal use and saving some of the reef is such a bad thing?

          Unless you have evidence that coal transport ships are ripping the reef apart, I don’t see the relationship between coal burning and reef health. Enlighten me.


          Report this

          22

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Okay Baa Humbug, happy to. I won’t bother with numbers but just the basics.
            1. Coal ships carry lots of oil. Sometimes it leaks into the ocean (all ships leak a bit). That’s not good but not terribly bad.
            2. Coal ports – like the ones being built along the east Queensland coast – require a massive amount of dredging. The Queensland government is allowing the dredge spoil to be dumped in the ocean, in the GBR marine park.
            3. Sometimes, something even worse happens. The Shen Neng 1 had a ‘whoopsy’ moment in April 2010 when it grounded on a reef near Rockhampton. It dragged for a bit, “ripping the reef apart” as you put it for about 3km. Luckily the ship didn’t actually disintegrate. Last year, another coal ship, empty fortunately, lost power and floated past Osprey Reef, which is even more pristine than the Great Barrier Reef.
            4. More ships = greater chance of a disaster. Fewer ships = good news.
            Hope that helps.


            Report this

            11

          • #

            I won’t bother with numbers but just the basics.

            Oh please bother with numbers. Numbers are important. Without numbers, readers might think you’re just being alarmist.

            I claim the Shen Neng 1 was the only incident of the last 10 years. As far as the damage is concerned, I doubt anyone could find the damaged area without the aid of GPS and location maps.

            Last year, another coal ship, empty fortunately, lost power and floated past Osprey Reef, which is even more pristine than the Great Barrier Reef.

            Floated past? What was the damage? Got a picture of a single coral damage?
            This is typical alarmism. Claim a tragedy has happened and more will happen, and demand the shutting down of whole industries.
            In the meantime, just a few years after the claimed tragedy, hardly anyone can tell that a particular area was damaged.

            4. More ships = greater chance of a disaster. Fewer ships = good news.
            Hope that helps.

            The good news is that the current Queensland government hasn’t fallen for the alarmism of activists.
            And yes, your comment did help, but not as you know it.


            Report this

            10

        • #

          Ricardo K,

          without bothering to check, you show that you have believed the spin that’s been fed to you about (a) the uptake of renewables, and (b) the closure of inefficient coal (fired power) plants.

          The uptake of renewables is so small as to be inconsequential, and as I mentioned further up this list of comments, any dots on that map showing new renewables would be so small and scattered that you would barely be able to make them out.

          As to the closure of inefficient coal (fired power) plants, those plants that are closing are the smaller plants, mostly ranging between 20 and 50MW, and the only reason they are closing is not because they are inefficient, but because they have reached the end of their life span, most of them aged between 40 and 50 years and many of them even older than that. For every small plant in that range 20 to 50MW that does close, and in China, that is at around the rate of one every 14 to 20 days, China is bringing on line in that same time frame two to three plants in the range of 2000MW+.

          The same is occurring in the U.S. where in the last 5 years, no plant with an output greater than 750MW has closed in the last 5 years I have been watching, and again, the only plants that are closing are also in the 20 to 50MW range, and again, only because they are time expired due to old age. Also, data shows that those smaller plant closures in the U.S. are mostly those plants used for spinning reserve, because, while the Nameplate Capacity has decreased quite a lot, the actual power delivery has decreased by a lot less.

          As to renewables, and with specific emphasis on China, While China is bringing on line between 80,000MW and 100,000MW of new coal fired power plants each year, renewable construction (Wind and Solar) amounts to less than 8% of that total, and of that 8%, almost all of it is from Wind, as Solar power barely amounts to 500MW of new Solar each year, and keep in mind China has stopped all new Solar power construction. Anyway, China’s commitment to renewables is minimal, mainly because renewables deliver so little power, and just cannot compete on a time basis with virtually every other form of power delivery. China realises that there is no need to throw immense amounts of money at a form of power generation that cannot deliver on the basis it is required.

          You also mention here:

          I’m also a bit confuzzled by the red dot on Australia. Which coal plants are those? We’ve closed a few lately.

          Might you point to me the FEW plants that have closed here in Australia. There has been one closure announcement, and even that plant is still in operation as it is planned to cease operations later this year. That plant is not a constantly operating plant, but a plant utilised as spinning reserve, in other words, it only supplies power for when the other majors are off line for scheduled maintenance, and it’s not worth running constantly just for that purpose of supplying power for small allocations of time. That is an economic decision, and has nothing to do with closing due to inefficiency or the CO2 Tax, and again, this plant is also at the end of its 40/50 year life span.

          As to the others you ask of, had you bothered to read the full text in the main Thread, I explained that almost all of that is for the proposed (approved) Upgrades at Bayswater and Mt Piper.

          You read what you want to read, and then believe what you want to believe, but the truth is an entirely different thing altogether.

          This current Government has developed Britney Spears into an art form, and like a flathead, those of you who really do want to believe, well, you just swallow the bait every time

          Tony.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Tony, you’d better tell China that hydro power of 172GW is minimal.

            Recent Australia coal plant shutdowns: Tarong (700MW), Wallawerang (500MW), Yallourn (360MW).

            And what’s the Britney Spears reference to?


            Report this

            00

  • #
    MyTwo Bob's Worth

    When exactly is China going to cut their coal use. No time soon that’s for sure.

    Data out on Friday shows a massive increase in “imports of coal amounted to 30.5 million tonnes in January, up 56.3% compared to 2012, already a record year.”

    Plus this “The country’s Coal Importers Association, recently said China’s coal imports may reach 400 million – 500 million tonnes within three years” up from “Last year China imported 234.3 million”


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Ricardo K

      China says they’ll hit peak coal use by 2015. No reason to trust them of course, they’re probably warmists as well as being commies choking on pollution.


      Report this

      00