JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Australian skeptics outnumber believers say OECD. Globally, 63% don’t want their dollars spent on the environment…

The bottom line is that a third of people are concerned enough to be willing to act, a third say they are concerned but are only paying it lip service, and a third are openly skeptical.

What matters is that 63% of people around the world don’t want their governments to take any money from them to address environmental issues.

There is constant media spin that skeptics are a tiny fringe minority. (See Al Gore deny a third of the population. See the BBC call them mavericks and say they give too much weight to “fringe views”.) The marketeers pushing the meme know that many people are swayed away from “extreme” views and towards the dominant paradigm. Life is just “easier” if you follow the herd, so the big-scare campaign scores a free kick if the public believe that skeptics are rare. If the media reported the situation accurately, more people would be happy to sit in the “skeptical” camp as it would be perceived as equally valid.

As usual, those who believe in man-made global warming use every deceptive trick to push their policy, while skeptics simply benefit if the truth is told.

While skeptics just outnumber believers in Australia, around the world about a third of the population is openly skeptical and more say they believe. Campaigners may pool the 46% of people who are are “environmentally motivated” with the 20% who are “technological optimists” (who believe technology will solve environmental problems) to get 66%. That would make two thirds of the population “believers” — but what does “believer” mean when 63% of the population does not want government policies to cost them a cent? It means they don’t believe very much.

Australians are leading skeptics and more polarized than anywhere else

The Australian reports it as “Sceptics put heat on climate change.”

CLIMATE change sceptics outnumber believers, according to an OECD study that shows how the debate has sharply divided Australians

It shows 45 per cent of Australians think environmental dangers are exaggerated and are reluctant to pay for government environmental policies.

In contrast, 42 per cent of Australians believe the environmental challenges are real and think the government should take action, which they are prepared to pay for even if the amount is not matched by other nations.

The most skeptical nations were the Netherlands and Korea. The most polarized: Australia.

The OECD surveyed 12,000 households across Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Israel, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. This survey was carried out in 2011, so the data is already a bit out of date.

There are three main groups: those who are skeptics, those who believe, and the technology optimists who think there is a problem but figure that we’ll find a way to solve the problem.

Most of the graphs here came from this OECD link.

Paradoxes upon paradoxes: We care about the climate, but not if we have to pay

Fig 2.6 is the most important. Contradictions abound. 45% of Australians think it’s overrated, yet nearly 80% say they are willing to sacrifice their lifestyle. But almost all of those people willing to make a sacrifice, don’t want to spend any money at all on it. Therein lies the rub. The ALP fell for the 80% statistic and saw a popular policy, but it’s a vaporous popularity — 7 out of 8 people who “care” won’t sacrifice a dollar for the cause. When tested, concern for the environment is more a badge than a real concern.

  • Over 40% of Australians and people from the Netherlands say “Environmental impacts are frequently overstated.” This is higher than the other countries surveyed.
  • Almost 80% of Australians say they are “willing to make compromised in my current lifestyle for the benefit of the environment.” (The least willing were The Netherlands, (~55%) and the most willing were those in Japan (90%+).
  • Almost 70% of Australians also say “policies introduced by the government to address environmental issues should not cost me extra money”.
  • Around 60% of people also think “protecting the environment is a means of stimulating economic growth.” Which shows how poorly understood the concept of “economic growth” is.

 

People are more worried about the economy than about the environment

Everywhere bar Israel, people worried more about the economy than about the environment. The Spanish are broke, and they know it. The French are worried they might go the way of Spain.  In Israel people are more concerned about incoming missiles.

 

Other environmental concerns are more important than climate change

In Australia the main environmental concern is “natural resource depletion”, then “climate change”, then “endangered species”. In France, Spain and the Netherlands, climate change is not even in the top three environmental concerns. Australians were more polarized about the order than other nations. (Graph fig 2.4). The data on age is a mess. Australians were the most split according to age, but it’s muddy and complicated. Nearly a quarter of the over-42′s thought climate change was the most serious threat, but only 10% of the younger (under 42) cohort agree (Graph fig 2.5). This implies 90% of younger people think other environmental issues are more important, and 75% of older people do too. But life is so complex that the other side to this is that younger folk were more likely than older folks to place environmental concerns as among the three most serious overall concerns (Graph fig 2.2). Young people worry more about the environment, and about a range of environmental issues. Older folk worry less, but when they do worry, it’s more likely to be about climate change. Swings and roundabouts I say.

….

About 30% of Australians are concerned about litter — twice as many as worry about air-quality.  Overall, Australia and Canada and Korea are pretty good places to live. The EU people worry more about air and noise. But Chile, Isreal and Japan seem dirtier and noisier to the people who live there. Nearly 60% of Japanese are not happy about air, litter and noise pollution.

More Australians are concerned about litter than air-quality. Many Japanese are concerned about air, litter and noise.

Old folks take responsibility

So much for the older codgers being selfish and willing to leave their pollution for younger people to clean up: the survey showed that it was the older folk who were most concerned with generational equity. Australians showed one of the strongest correlations between age and concern about generational equity (fig 2.8).

What really matters?

What matters most here is that the media reporting and government spending ought to at least vaguely reflect the population’s views.  There is obviously a high awareness of climate issues, but fully a third of the population are being ignored or called names, put in the “extremist” box of beyond the pale. The believers are in flat out denial that a third of the voters just don’t buy their story, and another third are only lip synching the ritual chant. If there is so much conclusive evidence, why are the “believers” so afraid of open debate, or even of admitting that there are just as many skeptics as there are committed believers?

If voters could vote on this issue alone, clearly democratic nations would not have large environmental slush funds. The green-gravy train survives through coercion, PR and trickery.

If we had only voluntary transactions (a real free market), the green gravy train would run out of money. It’s a moral thing.

 

REFERENCE:
OECD (2013) Greening Household Behaviour: Overview from the 2011 Survey, OECD publishing. 24th June 2013. Based on The Environmental Policy and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) survey, carried out in 2011.  www.dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264181373-en which forwards to  the OECD page.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (69 votes cast)
Australian skeptics outnumber believers say OECD. Globally, 63% don't want their dollars spent on the environment..., 8.7 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

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

144 comments to Australian skeptics outnumber believers say OECD. Globally, 63% don’t want their dollars spent on the environment…

  • #
    cohenite

    What this data primarily shows is that most people’s involvement with the environmental movement is at a lip service level. I think that represents a massive squandering of the goodwill which has carried the AGW movement so far.

    I also think the lingering support, albeit superficial, for environmentalism [which is different from genuine concern for genuine environmental issues] is because the distinction between real environmental issues and the scaremongering of AGW has not yet fully crystallised in the public’s mind.


    Report this

    292

    • #
      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yet these reports still come out…

        Of course. Nobody is expecting those on the other side of this debate to just shrug, and go away.

        The article you reference originated from APP – a wire service. I was probably written by a jobbing journalist somewhere (not necessarily in this part of the world) who is paid by the column-centimenter. It is what the newspaper industry call, “a filler”. Fillers are used to hide the blank spaces between the adverts.

        Another give-away is that the article references the IEA. To quote their own words, “The IEA is an analysis and policy forum”, or in my words, they are a paid political lobby group.

        The IEA gets traction with the media because their initials are similar to the IAEA, which is the International Atomic Energy Authority, which is an official body, sponsored by the United Nations.


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    “New Element Discovered The CSIRO announced the discovery of a perverse, perplexing atom.

    The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

    These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

    Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

    Governmentium has a normal half-life of 3-6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

    In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

    This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

    When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium.” – Author unknown.


    Report this

    621

  • #
    Robbo

    I am one of those 80% who care a lot about the environment, and I really want to do as much as I can personally: so, I Like’d the “Save the Environment” facebook site. :)


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Well this sounds about right to me. The left wing style green zealot never wants to put their hand in their own pocket, “heaven knows make the others pay” We demand the government do it is their cry!!

    but all the bucks they can get free of effort, MUST come to them!!!

    Sound right?


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Absolutely.

      I recall a time in the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) when you could buy green electricity off the grid for a couple of cents more per unit than the coal fired stuff.

      Nobody bought it, notwithstanding that Canberra has more lefty green enviro-extremists per square foot than any other place in Australia (Tasmania and Nimbin may be the exceptions – but I doubt it).


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Niff

    Hit the nail on the head again Jo. Too much truth would make the whole sorry con trick transparent.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Dennis

    The developed world commenced environmental pollution action 30-40 years ago and have had considerable success in lowering and eliminating pollution. Global warming and climate change has been a bridge too far. Climategate 1&2 for example exposed the lies and deception. Copenhagen debacle showed us just how bad that was. Common sense explained Earth Cycles. History revealed the Sun and the Moon influences.

    Bottom line: Most of us have rejected the politics.


    Report this

    181

    • #
      DavidH

      Whatever happened with Climategate 3? The password was released to various people; big noise at the time (March 14 right here) and then nothing. Or did I miss it all?


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Ace

        Yes, you spotted that too.

        Funny…we were predicting at the time that if the material wasn’t released to everyone quickly those holding it would be subjected to legal action to stop it ever being released.

        Months later the entire cast has been silenced as though it never happenned!


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Ace

          Googling “Climategate 3″ produces some intriguing (non)-results, NOTHING later than mid-March, other than these:

          “www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/010552.html‎CachedMar 21, 2013 – For Attention of Mills & Reeve – Lawyers for UEA. I neither confirm nor deny having received the password for the Climategate 3 archive.”

          and

          “Climategate 3 Password – Notice to Mills & Reeve | Politicus – UK …www.politicus.org.uk/…/climategate-3-password-notice-to-mills-reeve_1…‎CachedMar 21, 2013 – For Attention of Mills & Reeve – Lawyers for UEA I neither confirm nor deny having received the password for the Climategate 3 archive.”

          BOTH OF THE SITES LINKED FROM THOSE RESULTS HAVE BEEN VANISHED.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Dennis

    Why would any grounded human being accept wind turbines and solar based power at high cost as a solution to a problem that really doesn’t exist? Australia is a wealthy nation, so why are 1 in every 8 citizens living in poverty?


    Report this

    150

    • #

      Personal choice. It’s a wonderful thing. They could give up the fags and the booze, stop endlessly breeding, get jobs, and become rich. They prefer living in poverty.

      The soviets had a better system – 7 in 8 of them lived most of their lives on food-queues. Kept them busy as well as hungry.

      [And you really hate the poor too. - Jo]


      Report this

      210

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … 7 in 8 of them lived most of their lives on food-queues. Kept them busy as well as hungry.

        Well. it seems that the propagandist is not immune to propaganda. How droll.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Backslider

        @Maggot – You really really do not have a clue, do you?


        Report this

        20

        • #
          crakar24

          BS, when i lived in Darwin my rubbish bin would always stink because it was full of Margots.

          Comment 7.1 is right up there with the now infamous “put on another jumper” statement made by a fellow Margot who no longer visits this site.

          But lets put comment 7.1 to the test.

          There is a number of advantages in not working or having a low income (from now on to be called a breeder)combined with endless breeding and these are:

          1, You get school card which means if i pay 6K a year to send my child to a private school the “breeders” pay as little as 1.5K.

          2, You get a rather large discount on medical services and perscriptions

          3, You get a rather large fortnightly cheque from the government (apart from unemployment benefits) the more you breed the more you get.

          4, In some cases you get discounted house rental, electricity and gas bills, depending on how low your income.

          5, If you are an unmarried single mother which a large majority of them are then most likely the father of your child is off breeding somewhere else rather than being employed so you will be given additional funds to cover the shortfall.

          6, If your child upon leaving school attends a TAFE or university then they will most likely qualify for “youth allowance” which is really handy because the government give you less money for said child once they leave school. If you earn too much money and do not excessively breed you are not afforded this option.

          7, Any child that recieves youth allowance is now entitled to a whole range of financial discounts from the government and is also awarded additional ATAR points to ensure they jump the enrolment queue at a university.

          8, And who could forget the tremendous deal given to them by the current government where they are over compensated for the carbon tax.

          There are many more advantages to pissing away your hard earned and shagging everything in sight without a care in the world.

          Could it be that our government through short sighted policy making has created the very same thing that Maggot detests?


          Report this

          20

      • #
        dylan

        Similar topic- Prof. Robert Fogel died yesterday. His contribution was, rather controverstially, to show that slavery was a pretty good system including for the slaves. The standard of living for both North and South was lower after Lincoln.


        Report this

        12

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      If Australia was not a wealthy nation, 1 in 8 citizens would be dying in poverty, cf the Horn of Africa.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Peter K

    Interesting that this survey dates back to 2011. So I suspect that in Australia, the proportion of skeptics will be much higher. And I’ve long suspected that many a left-of-centre “environmentalist” is also a closet NIMBYist (not in my backyard). Wind power generators and solar farms are a case in point.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I, too, suspect that the proportion of skeptics would be much higher, not just in Australia but in the rest of the World. Since then there has been two very cold winters in Europe and at least one in the USA/Canada, Asia, South America and Southern Africa.

      Nothing like a bit of the real World to dismiss irrational theory. The costs of “global warming mitigation” would reduce support in Europe, the heartland of AGW.


      Report this

      190

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Why is the Australian media not seeking answers?

      It should be their role to keep the Government honest. And this should also apply to organisations and individuals with influence.


      Report this

      160

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        A good question RR. Why have the media forgotten one of the main tenants of their existence?

        One could speculate; laziness, stupidity, accepts the government line, time pressure for articles, publish what they agree with.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        The soviet newsagency journalists were generally not forced to provide their slanted view of the world. They served up the BS because they liked the story and many truly thought it was their civic duty to do so.
        We have a similar situation in Australia.


        Report this

        80

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    As with so many other questionnaires, it’s difficult to interpret, without knowing how some of the terms used were defined. For example, if a group were asked if mankind is having an effect on climate the warmists would all say yes, but then again so would most sceptics who are aware of issues like UHI or land use change. I’d guess that most of the readers of this blog would think of themselves as being environmentally concerned, but that doesn’t mean they swallow the eco warrior’s psycho babble. More damage has been done to the environment because of legislation, than by the danger that legislation was meant to avert.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Isn’t it ignorance or simply naive to “care more” about the economy as though the economy is not totally dependent on the environment?


    Report this

    230

    • #
      CameronH

      Actually it is the environment that depends on the economy. The countries with the best economies and the highest standard of living also have the highest environmental values and the cleanest environments.


      Report this

      480

      • #
        Winston

        Exactly, Cameron.
        But it wouldn’t be the first time that our mate Gee has got it completely ass- backwards.

        In the West we were well on the way to a well managed use of lands with marked reductions in particulate pollution, sensible forestry management, cleaner waterways, minimal chemical dumping and a good balance of wildlife reserves, open areas and urban development confined in Australia to a trivial percentage of the continent.

        Since the zealotry of CAGW doctrine, much public goodwill to environmental concerns has been lost in the face of the Greens’ obvious obstructionism, anti-development ecofascism and bloody-minded economic sabotage barely camouflaging a pro-communist agenda.

        The ecological damage of wind farms to bat and large bird populations, while besmirching otherwise pristine environments proves this, since the reason they are championed is precisely because they are not sustainable and are irredeemably intermittent and incapable of providing base load power they are supposed to provide. If wind and solar did what was claimed, the ecozealots would find a reason to denounce it, since their ambition is mass depopulation and regression of humankind to an idealized commune with nature, something a ready made clean source of “renewable” power would render unobtainable.

        When CAGW is eventually given the last rites, the fallout will be permanent damage not only to the prestige and integrity of Science and its institutions, but also to the cause of sensible environmental management. More is the pity.


        Report this

        301

        • #
          Backslider

          the ecozealots would find a reason to denounce it, since their ambition is mass depopulation and regression of humankind to an idealized commune with nature

          While its true that there are a few yurt dwellers who get off on recycling their own excrement, the truth is that most of these people would not in fact lift a finger and have carbon footprints as big or bigger than anybody.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Thank you, Winston. Very well put.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Streetcred

          The energy policy in the UK to encourage wood fired power stations has led to a new industry in chipping the forests everywhere else in the world, especially the USA. Let’s see how far this goes with the greenies “Save The Forests” campaigns … or rather let’s watch hypocrisy at play.


          Report this

          70

        • #

          plumping for naive then Winston.


          Report this

          014

          • #
            Dave

            Is it just me GeeAye?

            But what is “plumping for naive then Winston” mean?????

            So you plump naive, then you plump Winston?
            Or You plump naive do you Winston??

            I’d reduce the dosage of what ever you’re on.


            Report this

            140

          • #
            Winston

            Well I wasn’t “naive” enough to believe CO2 was the main driver of the global climate system. How about you?

            I also wasn’t naive enough to believe that politicians were anything but narcissistic scumbags hooked on mainlining CAGW as a scam to fleece taxpayers of huge wads of money to feather their own nests politically, and help fund their pet projects and line the pockets of their mates. How about you?

            And I wasn’t naive enough to believe that all scientists were completely above reproach, that peer review was anything other than a sham to entrench the status quo (and therefore an obstacle to the further scientific development of our greater knowledge and understanding), and that universities and academia in general hadn’t been heavily indoctrinated with socialist and collectivist ideology (and possibly had one too many sucks on the collective bong) that had blinded them to their obligations to maintain academic standards of objectivity and avoidance of dogma for the sake of those poor unfortunate souls that they allegedly teach, not to mention their broader obligations to the wider community they supposedly serve. How about you?

            And I’m not naive enough to recognise when someone has run out of lame excuses for the failure of their ideology, has nothing of consequence to add by way of refutation, and is desperately treading water intellectually with obscure, half-assed snide comments apropos of nothing of consequence to deflect from that fact. Is that plumped up enough for you?


            Report this

            100

            • #

              Well, point proven there Winston! Actually many points. Several dozen, but none of them anything to do with anything I wrote, and all imagining that I hold some position just so you rail against it. If you are having problems finding more uses for your extensive free time, you could drop me an email of all the things you want me to write and I’ll paste them on here as though I wrote them, and you could expend that free time ranting about them.


              Report this

              111

              • #
                Winston

                I’m sorry, was it not your good self suggesting I was “naive”, like our soon to be ex-PM in her previous incarnation as a union ambulance chaser? I must have misunderstood.

                When you are ever prepared to commit to paper exactly what you believe in, well be sure to let us all know, Gee Aye. Your faux intellectual sniping to derail discussions rather than actually getting down to the nitty gritty of debating a very important issue (some have suggested the most alarming and compelling issue to confront mankind in the modern age, with the future of humanity at stake no less!) is getting rather annoying. If you feel annoying me is a victory for you, then that is a rather lamentable philosophical stance to hide behind, don’t you think?

                After all, oceans are rising threatening to inundate large swathes of the global population, superstorms are forming at an ever-increasing rate, people are starving in the third world due to climate unexpectedly changing all of a sudden where it had once been completely stable for millenia, polar bears have lost the ability to swim, I mean it’s all very alarming. Surely you have an opinion to offer on such an issue of such significance?

                Or is nuisance value your best effort, because for the last couple of years on this site at least I cannot recall any occasion when you’ve laid your cards on the table and stated in plain and straightforward fashion what you actually stand for. A man of integrity would have no hesitation in doing that, I believe.


                Report this

                51

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Winston, you know that I am employed by her majesties opposition?


                Report this

                14

              • #
                crakar24

                Winston, you know that I am employed by her majesties opposition?

                Ok lets try and unriddle this.

                Her Majesty would be the queen so you are employed by the queens opposition, but who is in opposition to the queen?

                The IRA did try to kill her a couple of times so i suppose that is in opposition but i dont think that is the case here.

                There is no other family claiming their rights to the throne that i can think of.

                Maybe you meant things like HM(AS) or HM Prison or something but to be in opposition to thse things does not make sense.

                I know are you employed by those twits like Turnball that want a republic?


                Report this

                21

              • #

                and I thought you’d pick me up on using the plural instead of the possessive!


                Report this

                03

          • #
    • #
      Andrew McRae

      To succinctly retarget Winston’s theme to your point I would say: The social construct of private property rights promotes the economy as the mechanism by which we care about the environment. At that point it no longer makes any sense to say “we should care more about the environment than the economy”.

      A rough analogy… You may decide “we should care more about chickens than selling eggs” but without our hen houses the chickens would be more prone to foxes and in-fighting for the best roosting spots.

      If “care” is subjective it is too vague to make a general conclusion. If caring is based on dollars spent then you have implicitly brought the environment into the economy and so the above answer applies.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Sounds like you’ve got to do some mental gymnastics to make the above answer apply, with a lot of assumptions and “ifs & buts” thrown in as well.

        Better to say what you mean and mean what you say; than to write something that sounds plausible but requires the planets to align for it become obviously true.


        Report this

        10

      • #

        That was succinct? The irrelevance of your chicken analogy is astounding.


        Report this

        16

        • #
          crakar24

          What if we were to use plumped up chickens?

          The last time we “cared” for the environment we made a mess of it in Yellow Stone, we do not need to care for the environment we just need to leave it alone this trash talk is typical of warmbot believers who are the real naive ones here.

          PS Still waiting to see behind the leaf


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          The answer I described as succinct was in the first paragraph, no chickens involved.

          Plus it is quite relevant to your correct assertion “the economy is totally dependent on the environment” that in an economic activity (egg harvesting) which is directly dependent on environmental factors (hen health) that some development of that environment will improve both the economy and the aspect of the environment it depends on.

          I guess if you can’t object to the substance you object to the style. ]:->


          Report this

          40

  • #
    Joe Public

    I am not impressed with the part of the title which states “Globally, 63% don’t want their dollars spent on the environment…”

    Surely, it would be better & truer to state:-

    Globally, 63% not convinced their dollars should be spent on CO2 reduction…


    Report this

    90

    • #

      Joe, the study found essentially “…63% of people around the world don’t want their governments to take any money from them to address environmental issues.”

      See point 5 fig 2.6 for the exact wording. If I could find a better way to succinctly sum that up in the headline I would change it. They definitely don’t want governments to spend their money on it.

      There is too much in the heading as it is. I expanded the point in the second para to clarify.


      Report this

      131

  • #
    Yonniestone

    “We are a legion for we are many”
    I hope that’s evil enough for the person who called me an “evil denier” the other day.
    I have in fact been an evil denier about,
    - The greenhouse effect in the 80′s
    - Global warming
    - CAGW (climate change)
    - Agenda 21 in 1992
    And all this from someone mostly self educated but always eyes wide open.
    I guess some things you can’t teach.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You can’t teach experience. You can’t teach inquisitiveness. You can’t teach humour. You can’t teach creativeness. You can’t teach dedication. You can’t teach integrity. And you can’t teach people how to come to their own conclusions on any issue.

      All you can teach is historic fact; and if you have the some or all of the above abilities, you can always find whatever facts you need, or find somebody else who can.

      The most important punctuation symbol is the question mark.


      Report this

      132

      • #
        FarmerDoug2

        RW. I hate to disagree with someone who posts so much good stuff but I think you’re wrong there.
        People, especially kids, learn by watching. Laughter is particularly catching. Most are encouraged by seeing someone “have a go”.
        Just a friendly comment often gets people thinking.

        Doug


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I take your point, Doug.

          It was probably unfair of me to expect people reading it, to pick up on the emphasis I placed on the word, “teach” by its repetition. It would definitely be better spoken, rather than written. My bad.

          I was also trying to make a distinction between teaching and learning. I remember less than 60% of what I have been taught over the years, but I remember 100% of what I have learnt.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Ace

    Good item but shame about the headline grammar: “skeptics outnumberS believerS”. How did that get past Jo’s scrutiny? Please someone correct it.

    —–
    I definitely have too much in the headline. Thanks. Fixed. – Jo


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Tim

    “The green-gravy train survives through coercion, PR and trickery.”

    This is unfortunately what works on a time-poor population. They read, watch or listen to the quick and easily-digested simplistic MSM descriptions. No time to research the science – it’s been outweighed by the politics that in turn disseminates the PR trickery through a ‘trusted’ media via uneducated or complicit time-poor journalists.

    There is a solution, however…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU


    Report this

    60

  • #
    J Burns

    It is sad that concern about human-caused environmental damage is conflated with an obsession for the supposed, but unmeasurable ‘catastrophic’ impacts of a trace gas. My main frustration with the CAGW scare is that it has diverted attention and funding from real and pressing issues of environmental pollution, deforestation and unsympathetic industrial overdevelopment. Headlines like this show that thanks to the hijacking of environmentalism by a bunch of narcissistic self-aggrandising neo-marxists and their adoring soft-brained acolytes in the mainstream press, the environmental baby is at risk of being thrown out with the bathwater.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Joe V.

    The green gravy train lurches on. Troughergate. UK parliamentary commissioner expected to launch inquiry into Chairman of Climate Change Committee’s affairs after a Press sting operation apparently catches him in a conflicted position.
    Expect another Greenwash.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Joe V.

    BREAKING NEWS:- Tim Yeo stands down as chairman of climate committee, following a journalistic lobbying sting.

    From The Times:-
    “Tim Yeo, who has chaired the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee since June 2010, told undercover reporters that he had coached a chief executive who appeared before it and allegedly offered to use his contacts to further the interests of private clients.”


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Backslider

      I am doing so solely to ensure the smooth running of the committee during the next few weeks.

      I bet he has something very important coming up for review by the committee and doesn’t want it interrupted.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      This wouldn’t be the first time. He resigned previously in 1994 as Minister of State for the Environment, after behaviour felt unbecoming in a Minister during the Party’s Family Values campaign.
      What next I wonder. Appointment as a Commissioner to the EU beckons ?


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Joe V.

    Putting a brave face on it though.

    Here stands a man who fully expects to be exonerated. After three Climategate enquiries, why should this one be any different ?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Drapetomania

    The left wing style green zealot never wants to put their hand in their own pocket

    Exactly..!!
    But they love to be so self important when they lecture people about “we are all doomed”.
    Then hop into their cars and return to their fossil fuel powered house.
    Pox on all them all :)


    Report this

    90

  • #
    pat

    it would be 100% if the MSM, especially TV News & Current Affairs programmes, covered all the frauds:

    11 June: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: U.K. Carbon-Fraud Probe Poised to Run Through 2015, PwC Says
    U.K. regulators may take a further two years to complete an investigation into fraud in the carbon market as it seeks data from companies including Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and CarbonDesk Group Plc. (CO2P)
    The U.K. tax office is examining whether trading companies, motivated by transaction fees and discounted prices offered by fraudsters, continued buying and selling permits even as the doubling of volumes around June 2009 was suspicious, according to Cedric Andrew, a former investigator at HMRC, the British agency…
    “The carbon market was particularly vulnerable to missing-trader frauds because spot trading and the delivery of the allowances and cash can be very rapid,” Grant, who has advised the European Commission on some of its carbon programs, said June 3 by e-mail…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/u-k-carbon-fraud-probe-poised-to-run-through-2015-pwc-says.html


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    what percentage of China’s emissions are directly related to our coal exports, making us complicit?

    Global carbon emissions hit record high in 2012
    LONDON, June 10 (Reuters) – China led a rise in global carbon dioxide emissions to a record high in 2012, more than offsetting falls in the United States and Europe, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Monday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2409463

    CO2 trading firms may face big tax bills linked to fraud
    LONDON, June 10 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Several financial institutions that participated in the EU emissions market in 2008-09 could face big tax bills as British authorities attempt to recoup hundreds of million pounds in unpaid VAT resulting from carbon credit fraud…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2410281?&ref=searchlist

    Nations turn to new CO2 scheme as CDM withers: study
    LONDON, June 10 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The number of emission reduction projects seeking international aid under a new U.N.-backed program to help combat global warming has almost doubled in the past six months, as developing countries increasingly seek carbon finance outside the troubled Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) offset market…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2410118?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    20

    • #
      MemoryVault

      what percentage of China’s emissions are directly related to our coal exports, making us complicit?

      Not much.

      It is a common misconception that China is one of our main customers for coal.

      Roughly, about 40% of our coal exports go to Japan, with another 16% to South Korea. Taiwan takes around 10%, then come China and India with about 9% each.

      China is the largest miner of coal in the world, by a long shot, and they are opening up new mines every week. And they have vast, as yet untapped reserves. So for Australia it is ultimately a dwindling export market.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        ianl8888

        Thank you, MV

        I’ve posted this information many times, but the propaganda line just keeps coming back … sigh

        Aus exports very little thermal coal to China (which mines most of its’ thermal needs itself). Most of the Aus coal exports to China are coking coal for steel manufacture

        I should add that China does NOT have large, high-quality coking coal deposits of its’ own. This is why it buys coking coal from Aus, Brazil, Russia (some) and is investing heavily in coking coal deposits in Mozambique and other places. This fact is the key to understanding China’s coal imports

        Aus coking coal exports will only “dwindle” as other exporters ramp up their export production. Aus thermal coal exports to China are so small as be “dwindled” already


        Report this

        80

        • #
          crakar24

          Remember “Pig Iron Bob”?….i dont a bit before my time but apparently that was his name for a while.


          Report this

          11

          • #
            ianl8888

            sigh …

            You’ll note that about 40% of Aus thermal/coking coal exports are to Japan

            We are not at declared war with India, Japan, China, Taiwan or South Korea (these countries form the large bulk of export customers)

            Like TonyOz, why do I bother with such inanities ? Self-answer: do NOT feed the trolls


            Report this

            21

            • #
              crakar24

              Sigh?

              What a moron….ooops sorry thats not very troll like of me is it?


              Report this

              12

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Crakar,

                Ian is not a moron.
                Just a bit battle-fatigued – like many of us.

                Cut him some slack.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                crakar24

                MV,

                Am i impetuous?……..not sure maybe i am just sick and tired of having to respond to people that dont read posts before they open their mouths.

                For the record, Bob sold “pig iron” to the Japs and they gave it back to us by off loading it in Darwin. It was said as a joke but Ian18888 was too stupid (moronic) to understand it and called me a troll, is this an impetuous act by me in my reply?

                Maybe Ian is the impetouos one.


                Report this

                11

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Ian,

              Crakar is not a troll.
              Just a bit impetuous at times.

              Cut him some slack.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Ian,

              Like TonyOz, why do I bother with such inanities ?

              Because, like Tony (and Jo), you know the battle must be fought.
              I’ve had skin in the game since 1985, and I’ve walked away in disgust so many times I’ve lost count.

              Yet here we all are still.

              .
              “Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more . . . “


              Report this

              30

        • #

          pat asks a really important question here, where he says:

          what percentage of China’s emissions are directly related to our coal exports, making us complicit?

          This is really important, because it comes in at a monumentally astronomically, humungously, monstrously large amount of umm, 1.12%, around 4 days worth out of a year. That’s for both Thermal and Metallurgical Coal.

          They wouldn’t even blink if we cancelled our coal exports to them.

          As to Thermal coal we export to China, well that’s around 17 Million tons, enough to run 3 large scale new technology coal fired power plants for a year, and amounting to around 0.45% of China’s total emissions, say a day and a half’s emissions per year.

          (Do I really need to add /sarc)

          Tony.


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Neville

    More good stuff from Murry Salby. Monckton states im comments there will be more papers to follow.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/10/dr-murray-salby-on-model-world-vs-real-world/#more-87921


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    10 June: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr/Sally Bakewell: EU Should Move Beyond Carbon Market to Shut Coal, IEA Says
    The European Union needs to think of other ways to prevent new coal-fired power stations from being built because its carbon market won’t achieve that this decade, according to the International Energy Agency.
    Nations should consider measures including bans of new and inefficient plants known as “sub-critical,” unless they are fitted with carbon capture and storage technology, Maria Van der Hoeven, the executive director of the Paris-based agency that advises 28 developed nations, said today in a London interview.
    ***EU carbon permits, which have plunged 88 percent since 2008, would need to trade at 10 times their current value of about 4 euros ($5.28) a metric ton to prompt utilities to switch to cleaner natural gas from coal, according to a Bloomberg fuel switch calculator….
    Technology, legislation, markets and industry can operate together to save the climate, Van der Hoeven said.
    “When the Stone Age came to and end, it wasn’t because there was no stones anymore, but because we had different technologies,” she said. “There’s no need to use coal for our energy supply if we have other options.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/eu-should-move-beyond-carbon-market-to-shut-coal-power-iea-says.html


    Report this

    20

    • #
      gai

      If that is how they feel let them lead by example.

      NO pertochemical energy or products period. No plastics, no steel (speaking of coking coal) no electric, no medicine, no cars, bikes, trains, planes but you can use a wooden wheeled buggy (just remember to pack the wheels with pig lard every day or two modern axel grease last ~ 100 miles) and a wooden sail boat…


      Report this

      10

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Cohenite says it best up at the top.

    There is a separation between “Environmentalism’ and being concerned for the Environment.

    I believe I am one of the latter who shudders when I hear about city based Environmentalists who by their actions have caused raging bush-fires, the Global Warming Sham that has delayed the advancement to a “better” society and untold amounts of wildlife destruction by fire or poison or bird shredders.

    Their ill considered madness has also had unnecessary and damaging effects on the activities of normal innocent law abiding citizens such as the cattle export industry and farmers in general.

    And last but not least they turn their faces away from poisoning of the “Environment” when it is carried out by their political associates.

    The Hunter River was poisoned by big coal being allowed to disturb poison laden silt without necessary precautions while building a new Coal Loader. Not a peep but an environmental disgrace.

    They are hypocrites bent on shaping the world and our taxes for their own purposes.

    KK :)


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Dave

      Totally agree KK,

      These GREEN Vandals have hijacked the words pollution and environmentalism for their own agenda. Meanwhile they rake in the money and ARE destroying the environment.

      They all feel GOOD when they sprout the CAGW alarm, they scream they are helping to SAVE the planet. They are LIARS.

      * They put windmill farms in National Parks & Reserves
      * They kill off arable land with biofuel crops
      * They decimate forests for burning in their FRIENDLY power stations
      * They pay themselves 10 times the amount to produce piddly little bits of electricity.
      *THEY are the GREEN VANDALS of this century.

      They are poisoning the earth to an extend never seen before, that our children and their children will never be able to clean it up.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Dave

      KK

      Forgot this:

      Even Standards Australia are in on the act,

      NEW AUSTRALIAN STANDARD TO ASSIST IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS

      All of the following aided in this new Standards Release:

      • Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department
      • Australian Green Infrastructure Council
      • Australian Institute of Architects
      • Australian Institute of Landscape Architects
      • Australian Local Government Association
      • Australian Railway Association
      • Australian Sustainability Built Environment Council
      • Austroads
      • Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science,
      Research and Tertiary Education
      • Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development
      • Energy Networks Australia
      • Engineers Australia
      • Housing Industry Association
      • Insurance Council of Australia
      • National Seachange Taskforce
      • Planning Institute of Australia
      • Property Council of Australia

      National Seachange Taskforce???
      They’ve even got a report on THE MISSING COASTAL PEOPLE?

      What a waste of money.


      Report this

      40

  • #

    In economics there is the concept of indifference curves. When given a range of options they may make different choices based upon the relative weightings they give to the outcomes. For instance, most people would give 10 minutes of their time to help save lives at the scene of an accident, or donate a few dollars if this alone could save the life of a friend. But most would not sacrifice their life to save someone from some the pain of a minor toothache, or sacrifice their life savings to enable a random stranger blow it on a trip to Las Vegas. The level of prospective costs/benefits can often explain the contradictory answers to questionnaires.
    Another is the personal level. If you asked two questions
    1 Would you support a super-tax imposed on the richest 1% of Australians, to help save the planet for future generations?
    2. Would you support a fixed tax of $100 imposed on every Australian adult, to save the planet for future generations?
    Do you think you would get different levels of support?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Backslider

      We should ask the Greenies some questions:

      1. Are you happy to live in a yurt?
      2. Are you happy to compost your own excrement to fertilize your vegie garden?
      3. Are you happy to give up processed foods?
      4. Are you happy to grow your own textiles, weave your own fabrics and to manufacture your own clothes?
      5. Are you happy to give up all processed foods?
      6 Are you happy to travel on foot, hrseback, mule, camel or an other environmentally friendly mode of transport you can find?
      7. Are you happy to not have children, such pests upon our environment?
      8. Are you happy to chop your own firewood, since you think that bio-fuel is such a good thing?
      8. Are you happy to go without electricity, since the manufacture of wind farms is disastrously bad for the environment and besides, they are all hooked up to the dirdy coal grid, and the manufacture of solar panels is just as bad?

      I could go on all evening…..


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Ace

        So what do you say when they respond, “yes”.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Most of the greenies would probably say something like “OK ya man, sounds cool”. But they can draw on the benefits of a rich nation when it all goes wrong.
        The real question is to ask the average person in the poorest fifth or half of the world if they would swap their lifestyles for those of Australia, USA or Northern Europe, with all its “polluting” CO2 emissions, fast foods, and all those power consuming gadgets and cars, along with 20 to 40 years on life expectancy. It is these masses in SE Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the South America that must be denied this opportunities for their future generations to properly constrain CO2 levels 350ppm.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    ghl

    I think that CAGW in Australia is too strongly associated with Julia. As people have turned off her, they think that if the carbon tax was hers it must be shonky.
    I also blame education, rudimentary maths is necessary for a personal BS detector. Readers of this blog probably forget how innumerate some people are.
    I remember an ABC morning show where they were discussing the cost of a government program, and the host said “”wow, 3000 people at $1000 each, that’s…(thoughtful pause)… a lot.” What can such a person do to get through life but choose a herd and run with it. Catalyst’s most educated presenter is a vet, not a “hard” scientist. They obviously have no intention of analysing anything they present.
    /end rant


    Report this

    80

    • #
      crakar24

      Good point GHL thats why my children attend private schools, far better education without the indoctrination.

      And yes some people think Gillard is toxic ergo the carbon tax is toxic, some people think the carbon tax is toxic ergo Gillard is toxic the rest are too stupid, even the word toxic is beyond them


      Report this

      83

    • #

      It is not just maths, it is the basic logical and enquiry skills. Alarmists do not understand magnitude, or likelihood. They do not mention any weighting we should put on the quality of science, or how our understanding develops over time. It is all a massive problem that these super-expert scientists all agree upon. They don’t even have positive things to say anymore to win “converts” like their predictive successes, their building on the great traditions of science, or a concern to get the most effective policy for the least pain and economic damage.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      All those technical skills are all well and good, but I find remembering to take the effort to apply them in new situations is a habit difficult to adopt. Confirmation bias is very easy to fall into, for warmists and skeptics alike.

      Surely one of the purposes of peer review (in science or anywhere else) is that it is supposed to be somewhat adversarial, to break through the confirmation bias of the original author.
      By contrast, in the talking heads TV Land there is a predilection for being nice and agreeable to the viewer and for hosts that disagree in only controlled and unimportant ways.

      Add to this the fact that navigating a complex issue and solving the puzzle feels like work, not infotainment.

      Add to this the fact that people will only be able to understand the rhetoric at their own pace whereas live transmissions have short allotted times for programmes.

      Add to this the warmist rhetoric that anone who disagrees is a DENIER and that no TV channel wants to get a reputation as the Denier Channel.

      Put that all together and I don’t think the talking heads in TV land would choose to give a proper analysis of CAGW even if they were mentally capable of it.
      When everyone in the MSM says “that topic is somebody else’s department”, the blogs are the only remaining department.

      Compounding this is the friendship factor in which friends do not want to annoy each other by disagreement over an issue so difficult to measure reliably and so long range and remote in its consequences.

      Now considering most people are happy to “leave it to the experts”, the conclusion is that the only place CAGW will be seriously debated is online by people audacious enough to think they know better than “the experts”. :) Funny how we increasingly seem to be right about that.

      Rant more often.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    • #
      Ace

      Ich schreiben sehr wegen Deutsch BUt haben der Google Chrome Translate mit der Durch Sprung Fur Teknic output+:

      “Pakistan … the finger lift. His whining to me is a long time on the alarm clock. He plays here as the great environmental guru and on the Indian subcontinent is so much dirt that produces the clouds lose the white coloration.”

      (+ Grosse danke fur Audi innit).


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Manfred

    Those in the ‘know’ saw the writing on the wall some time ago, which is why they moved from Hansonian ‘global warming’ of 1988 to ‘climate change’ in 1998, when nature decided otherwise. The term ‘climate change’ was already in existence, though not in ascendency. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html#

    At risk of sounding repetitive, the (C)AGW hypotheses is unfalsifiable. Not only has it been elevated to a political art form but it is a central commandment of eco-theocracy.

    Crakar 24, (#26.1).
    Interesting and potentially inflammatory, like many toxins!
    If I might posit that the people you classify as ‘too stupid’ think that this is what is meant by ‘toxic’?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU

    Frankly, I could conceivably volunteer to be toxic under such circumstances.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Beth cooper

    Oz sceptics in the vanguard despite Karoly, Lewandoski.
    Gergis et al ‘n all. Bewdy! Beth the serf.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Maverick

    At least the US has 100 politicians with the gumption to question and comment against AGW.

    This is today’s propaganda from OFA

    From: “Ivan Frishberg, BarackObama.com”
    Subject: Climate deniers: The list
    Date: 10 June 2013 11:16:29 PM AEST
    To:
    Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

    Friend –

    Climate change isn’t just scary. It’s expensive.

    Over the last two years, extreme weather events cost us more than $188 billion. Yes — that’s billion, not million.

    As the effects of climate change worsen and extreme weather events become more frequent, the cost will only increase.

    And here we are, still talking about the more than 100 members of Congress — real-life elected officials — who are in utter denial about climate change.

    The thing is, we can do better. We can bring that cost down through smart changes in our policy and at home.

    But nothing’s going to change in Washington until the deniers do. The first step is getting folks to admit we have a problem.

    Find out which lawmakers near you are living and governing in denial, then join the team holding them accountable today:

    http://my.barackobama.com/Climate-Deniers

    Thanks,

    Ivan

    Ivan Frishberg
    Climate Campaign Manager
    Organizing for Action


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    A good article. But opinion polls are intrinsically flawed because people always lie. I write from Old North Wales where there are still slicks of snow on the mountains. You know, the stuff that our children would never see.
    If the OECD asked people “When letting off a ripping fart in bed do you A) Have an experimental sniff under the covers. B) Ignore the event completely. C) Blame it on the Oil Industry or D) Write a strongly worded letter to the Belgian foreign minister.” Most would answer B. But we all know the true answer is D.

    Opinion polls are crap. Somebody should tell S.Lewandowsky this.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Joe V.

      You could tell him yourself, now he’s just across the bridge from Wales, in Bristol ( but I doubt he’d listen because he knows that already and tries to exploit the crapness of opinion poles to macimum effect ).


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Peter Crawford

        I will tell him, Joe, but it is a long trek across rough terrain from Holyhead to Bristol. I will do it, however, and keep you all posted.

        PROJECT: Telling Steph Lewandowsky he is an arsehole and why. A trek across Wales.

        Seriously, I will.


        Report this

        70

  • #
  • #
    Manfred

    The OECD surveyed 12,000 households across Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Israel, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

    Had “The OECD” extended this limited survey to include other broken economies like Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Greece, they might have gained better insight into the way on which folk order their priorities.

    What struck me when reading the executive summary of this report, itself based on a survey conducted in 2011 (The Environmental Policy and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) survey), and as such, representative of old news being recycled in the current melange of Green desperation, was this important clause:


    For all these groups, governments need to show convincing evidence not only that changing behaviour is necessary to meet the challenge of scarce resources and climate change….


    http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/environment/greening-household-behaviour/executive-summary_9789264181373-4-en

    Is there there a bouquet of realism in the house?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Manfred

    The point is “…convincing evidence…”


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    U.N. climate talks break down over procedural dispute
    LONDON, June 11 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A key strand of U.N. climate talks meant to draft law forcing nations to cut emissions broke down on Tuesday after Russia, Ukraine and Belarus blocked progress for eight days over a dispute on how laws should be passed…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2412353?&ref=searchlist

    UN study reveals $15-bln price tag to save the CDM
    LONDON, June 11 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Rescuing the world’s biggest carbon offset market – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – could cost 11.7 billion euros ($15.5 billion), according to a study commissioned by the U.N.’s main climate body, up to three times higher than previous estimates…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2411888?&ref=searchlist

    EU may use CO2 permit auction cash to help industry
    LONDON, June 11 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The European Commission said on Tuesday it would consider using revenue raised from selling carbon credits to help industry cut carbon dioxide emissions, a move lawmakers say could overcome resistance from steel and cement companies to tougher climate policy…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2412287?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    for those who still think a change in govt will mean the end of “greenies”! LOL.

    31 May: Blacktown Sun: Green Army has Prospect wetlands in its sight
    Mr Hunt said the Green Army would be a key part of the Coalition government’s environment policy if elected.
    He said the wetlands was a potential local site for the Coalition’s Green Army – a group of 15,000 young Australians who would take on environmental projects under its plan.
    “We are tackling environmental issues head-on with the Green Army, which will enable teams to operate in nearly every community across the country,” Mr Hunt said.
    ‘‘The Green Army will be comprised of teams of up to 10 people, including a co-ordinator, to tackle local environmental projects.
    ‘‘Its participants will receive a training wage and supervision and each project may take up to 25 weeks to complete…
    http://www.blacktownsun.com.au/story/1541473/green-army-has-prospect-wetlands-in-its-sight/?cs=12


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    instead of wasting money on a “Green Army” how about shutting down abc…permanently…to pay off some of the debt!

    Greece suspends state broadcaster ERT to save money
    All employees, numbering at least 2,500, will be suspended until the company reopens “as soon as possible…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22861577


    Report this

    20

  • #
    crakar24

    Another impetuous statement:

    Gillard has a new plan of attack which is really just desperation on the cusp of madness, apparently now all misogynists were blue ties so as expected all the photos of blue tie wearing labor men come out of the woodwork.

    Feminist and activist Ms Cox (i kid you not) was dismayed by this latest impetuous behaviour by our PM


    Report this

    52

  • #
    WheresWallace

    I’m not surprised that most humans care more about their own needs than of long term environmental sustainability. It’s in their nature. Collapse is inevitable.

    (I’m not surprised that WheresWallace care more about environmentalist groups that push wind power that blights the wilderness area that kills birds even endangered ones than their long term credibility as good sewards of the environment.It is in their nature.Collapse is inevitable) CTS


    Report this

    33

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I wouldn’t say it was inevitable. In fact, I don’t even think it will be much of a collapse.

      Look at the numbers. Ten years ago the proportion of people who were genuinely concerned about the climate was much higher than the proportion today, that Jo mentions.

      The whole thing is a case study in Social Memes.

      In the 1970′s when there was much concern about a new Ice Age, television was the medium, and although a lot of people were concerned, the ‘panic’ never really gained traction.

      This time around we have social media, and much more interconnectedness that we have ever had before. News, and misinformation, travels through interconnected groups of groups, at close to the speed of light, so the meme (whatever it is) becomes part of the collective consciousness almost immediately.

      Of course, if the meme is about bad news, people get worried, and groups of “concerned citizens” start to lobby politicians for a solution.

      So politicians do the only thing they can do; and that is throw other peoples money at the problem. So you get research grants being thrown around, and whole new public service departments springing up to administer the grants, and to prepare legislation that will tinker with some of the perceived aspects of the problem.

      Those not caught up in the original meme, see the Government taking action, and think that the problem (represented by the meme) must be real, so they also come on board.

      Apart from the cynical Little Red Hen, who is sceptical about the origins of the meme, and asks where it came from, and wants to check the facts that for the basis for the Government spending.

      At this point the wheels start to wobble, and the meme becomes passe, and so people go back to doing the sorts of things they did before all the panic started. After a while, other memes take precedence, and eventually people start to notice that the original meme doesn’t seem to be working any more, and besides, there is a new recording out, by their favourite singer.

      That is where we are now. The challenge we are faced with is not catastrophic climate variation, but how to dismantle all of the solutions that wee put in place to address what is turning out to be, a non problem,

      Just another meme.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        Rereke, I am not so sure of your analysis. I think you are correct for much of the trivia which passes as politics. But for majestic scams such as AGW (and Y2K), there is a dawning when people realize they have been duped.
        Nearly 14 years later many corporate IT departments have not removed the stigma created by Y2K. Nor have they re-established any credibility.

        I pray for (and expect) a similar outcome for the AGWists.
        As the AGW cult falls apart and we reach peak poley, I believe that in the near future anything suggested by the green lobby will dismissed as idiocy (regardless of merit).


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          That’s a good point. Y2K is a good example.

          A lot of IT people (and analysts, such as myself) made a lot of money out of Y2K. And we found a few things that could have gone wrong with date calculations, but nothing that was going to cause aircraft to crash, or the power grid to collapse.

          It was just another meme, the way that AGW is a meme. In fact, now I think about it, perhaps Y2K was so successful as a money spinner to those in the loop, that AGW was seen as a replacement money spinner. The timing would be about right.

          Interesting thoughts.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Manfred

        I’ll go along with this RW. What is unusual with this meme is both the sheer scale and the rapidity that it has been used by agencies, bureaucracies, councils and governments to tighten the societal tourniquet with the collusion of a Green progressive MSM.

        But it may not a matter of the meme becoming ‘passe’. Here, the empirical science is catching up, though politics and belief persistently trump even the best science – endless examples of this societal phenomenon.

        I consider that in this instance and I have said this before, when the ‘resistance is futile collective’ reaches deeply into your pocket and you really feel the dank, slimy hand probing and stealing, when you shiver with cold because it’s too expensive to turn the heater on, it is then that the skin crawls and the realisation finally dawns – you’ve been screwed. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.

        It’s because the meaningless meme came with castrating price tag.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Not true, Wallace. Or at least for many. It’s not that people don’t care–they care in whatever way they think is appropriate (usually socialism and condemning the rich, which always fails and makes things worse). If others don’t agree, names are called, threats of impending doom created, and forced compliance with the idea. You see, Wallace, there are few human beings that could actually envision a way for humanity to plan ahead very far. Those stories of tribes that planned five generations ahead are LIES, or really stupid tribesmen. Five generations ago, no one envisioned going to the moon, nuclear weapons, two world wars, skyscrapers, vaccines, feeding billions of people. There are no psychics, there is not such thing as “sustainable” other than human nature itself. We either adapt or die–didn’t Darwin say that? We fancy ourselves to be very much smarter than other species, but bottom line, we really have no crystal ball.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      WheresWallace

      (I’m not surprised that WheresWallace care more about environmentalist groups that push wind power that blights the wilderness area that kills birds even endangered ones than their long term credibility as good sewards of the environment.It is in their nature.Collapse is inevitable) CTS

      I mourn the loss of many species and would wish that humans tred lighter on this planet and reduce our population until we can maintain a sustainable population.

      For the future, which will kill less species, turbines or coal? I hope future decision are planned with more thought of the future than our current stupidity in the widespread use of coal and oil.


      Report this

      10

      • #

        Does Wallace believe that turbines spring from seeds in the ground? Is he a victim of the term “farm” with wind turbines? Does Wallace have any idea how much mining, refining, manufacturing, shipping, and installation is associated with turbine manufacture? Oh, and if the blades fall off (two incidents in the US of that in the last couple of months), you have to replace them. The turbines do not last 20 years–not even close. There is a no way to mine, manufacture, or transport without using at least natural gas (no electrical haul trucks out there–probably never will be). If we use natural gas and replace coal, the cost of electricity skyrockets–new plants and retrofits are expensive. Manufacturing is no longer economically viable except in China where they dump radioactive waste on the ground–yeah, we’ve seen that too. So we either drop the idea of modern society or we use coal and NG. We drop into a Dark Ages war mentality and pillage the planet old style with billions fighting over limited “natural” resources that now only cover a few million. Your version of life is a fairy tale–the noble savage living off the land in peace and harmony. Pure fiction. You “wish” is a fantasy–always. If you envision and have a plan that does not involve the improbable, then we can talk.

        Human levels are sustainable–we’re still here. As a nature lover, you should realize that Darwin believed species survived until they overpopulated or lost habitat to the point they could not adapt. Darwin would not be bothered by the lack of sustainability in humans–humans will go on until they overpopulate and lose the ability to adapt. Then natural selection will do its thing. It’s all okay–100% natural.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Backslider

        Well Mr Wallace – the internet is powered by COAL… so what the heck are you doing here???


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Bill McKibben going all teary at the Beeb:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4748478.html

    My response for now… (assuming it gets posted):

    Excuse me Bill… how much warming has there been in the last 15 or so years? This despite unprecedented CO2 emissions.

    Broken models are not science.

    When scientists measure empirical data and it doesn’t agree with their models, they discard the models. CAGW alarmists do not do this. Ergo they are not true scientists. But this becomes painfully clear when alarmists call on peoples’ emotions, morals … “think of the children!” That is NOT science. Sorry to break it to you.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Right!

    At long last, I think I’ve finally got it.

    It all makes so much sense now?????

    UN delegate knows it’s warming, because it’s colder

    WTF

    Tony.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Joe V.

      To be fair she kept referring to it as climate change and only let slip into Global Warming at the very end. Hasn’t ‘Global Warming’ just become a proxy term for any changes from very recent experience and that politicians and journalists tell us is being caused by CO2 ?


      Report this

      20

    • #

      Why do you think they changed the name to “extreme weather”? Covers everything–also makes the “theory” unfalsifiable, but, hey, that would be unfair to mention because it’s science. :)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    http://www.thegwpf.org/prof-murry-salby-climate-model-world-diverges-starkly-real-world/

    1 hour utube presentation

    Here is a taste

    CO2 then evolves not like temperature, as it does in the model, but like the integral of temperature. In dotted blue is the integral of observed temperature. It closely tracks observed CO2 – even after the 1990s when the observed record of CO2 and temperature clearly diverged. If CO2 tracks the integral of temperature, which it clearly does, it cannot track temperature, which it clearly doesn’t.

    In the model, CO2 and temperature are related directly. In the real world they are also related, but differently. The distinctly different relationship between CO2 and global temperature represents a fundamental difference in the global energy balance between its evolution in the model world and the real world. If the global energy balance is wrong, everything else is window dressing.”


    Report this

    11

  • #
    crakar24

    Death Spiral update

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    If you look at the chart you can see that the death spiral will begin any day now and once it does we can then move on from one absurd notion (AGW is causing cold weather) to another (AGW is causing warm weather(to melt the ice)).

    Further updates as they come to hand.


    Report this

    22

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Things are getting dirty around the “Wind farm” culture http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1566287/ararat-man-pleads-not-guilty-over-vandalism-at-proposed-wind-farm/?cs=62
    I’ve got some interesting photos of a local wind farm but don’t know the best way to post them, help please!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    James X Leftie

    Exclusive: China Translates 1,200-Page Rebuttal to Climate Change Agenda

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/11/exclusive-China-rebuttal-climate-change


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I hope bob carter loses nothing in the translation.

      I’ve just pictured a Chinese counterpart of Bob Carter called Li. The two climate cops go around the world getting into hijinks and trying to catch the crooks at the bottom of the CAGW scam.

      'RUSH HOUR 5: MARTIAL WARMING'

      Carter: Li?

          Li: Carter!

      Carter: Li! You okay?

          Li: Yes Carter!

      Carter: Li my man, I didn't say she HAD a carbon bomb, I said she WAS a carbon bomb!

          Li: One more mistake like that and I bitchslap you back to Townsville!

      Carter: Yeah knock it off, noodle nut. Hey Li, we still gotta find out who's behind this CAGW scam.

          Li: I don't trust the big capitalists, they are my Academy's number one suspect. Who stands to make most money out of the scam?

      Carter: The Banks.

          Li: Okay, you go into the Deustche bank and pretend you own a wetland in Queensland and want to open a carbon trading account. Give them a low number like half a gram per square meter per year. When they say no, you shout at them and make a big scene!

      Carter: Oh! To be a distraction, right?

          Li: Yes, while they look at you, I'll use my Wu'Shu skills to sneak into their back room.

      Carter: If they try anything funny on me, I've got my geologist's rock hammer right here and I can throw my jandals like ninja stars!

          Li: Okay go!

      (TO BE CONTINUED)

      (or to be salvaged…by anybody, please.)


      Report this

      11

  • #
    D Cotton

    “Skeptics” have good reason to be sceptical …

    The statement “Heat transfer depends on difference in temperatures” is indeed correct in a horizontal plane, and also for radiation in all directions. Heat transfer is always a one-way process. In the case of radiation, thermal energy is converted into electromagnetic energy as the source emits the radiation. Then, at the target, some or all of the radiation will resonate and be immediately re-emitted without its EM energy being converted to thermal energy. If the target were at zero (0) K then all the EM energy would be converted to thermal energy in the target with no re-emission because the target is at 0K. At higher temperatures that are cooler than the source, some of the EM energy is converted to thermal energy in the target, and so we have a heat transfer from hot to cold.

    However, in a gravitational field, in a vertical plane, there is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium in which there is a temperature gradient but no heat flow either way, for the very reason that it is in thermodynamic equilibrium. If the equilibrium is disturbed, energy will flow in all accessible directions away from the source of new energy.

    This explains how thermal energy can indeed flow up the temperature gradient towards the surface of a planet by non-radiative processes. Radiation cannot achieve this, and so it is not radiation which is heating the Venus surface, or the depths of the atmospheres of Uranus and other planets. And the process contributes to the energy build up at Earth’s surface which then supports the surface temperature.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Peter Carabot

    G’day Jo,
    Thank you for a very informative blog. I haven’t managed to read the whole lot yet. (work get’s in the way…). Last week, I think, there was an article on The Australian about a group of scientist in Europe that have combined the temperature data since 1800 and some and looked at way the temperature did increase for some years and then abruptly 15-20 years ago the “Warming” stopped and now is in reverse. They came to the conclusion that the only variant in that period of time was the use of CFC (Refrigeration) gases. Remember the hole in the Ozone layer? the world banned immediately the old CFC and the hole is no more and…. the temperature has gone back to normal. What is apparent is that the new religion is chasing a problem that does not exist anymore.
    Can you please do some research on it and give all of us the insight of your discoveries…
    Thank you


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] Two thirds of people have give up on climate alarmism. [...]


    Report this

    00