Peter Lang adds up the numbers from the Treasury and leading economic commentators, and finds that decisions the Australian Labor Government has made will cost the equivalent of about $17,000 for every man, woman and child if paid in a lump sum now, or $58,000 if paid bit by bit over the next 37 years to 2050. And that’s just for the ETS, not for the RET and other measures.
By 2019 Alan Moran estimates each year citizens would have to fork out billions for Green Schemes; Labor policies tally to $22b, Coalition policies to $7b, Greens policies to $27b.
If men-in-black-suits turned up at Australian houses forcing citizens to sign cheques for $17,000 per person in order to change the weather on Earth 100 years from now, there would be a revolt in the streets. That’s $68k per household of four. (Is this how you would spend $68 grand?) But if the government disguises those charges in electricity bills, and hidden increases in the cost of every item that has to be moved, heated or cooled, then some 30-40% of the nation sees no reason not to vote for this. In fact, some really want it. It is all a PR game.
So much so, I am surprised the fans of big-government have not managed to stop news outlets and bloggers from speaking the truth yet. To maintain the cloak of confusion, Finklestein-mark-II must be high on future big-government agendas.
All this expense, for next to no benefit even if their broken models were right. Who is going to want to be associated with this financial Titanic when it goes under? (Which could be the next few years, if temperatures follow past cycles.)
– Jo
————————————
Guest Post by Peter Lang
The ultimate cost of Australian “carbon” policies
The emissions trading scheme (ETS) and the Renewable Energy Target (RET) if not repealed would cost:
- ETS = $1,345 billion to 2050
- RET = $30 billion to 2020
What will the ETS cost every Australian?
According to Treasury estimates, the ETS would cost Australia $1,345 billion dollars in total to 2050 [Henry Ergas[i], Gary Johns[ii], Treasury, Chart 5:13[iii], ‘Medium global action‘ minus ‘SGLP core’ ].
That is $58,000 for every person living in Australia now (assuming 23 million population). This is what it will cost if we pay at current prices in installments over the 37 years to 2050. However, the discounted cost ¡§C i.e., for those who choose to pay a lump sum up front and ¡®no more to pay¡¡¥ (assuming no more changes to the rules) – is $17,000 per person (or $68,000 for a family of four). In return for this up front payment you hope to get $5,400 per person of benefits, as climate damages avoided, over the period to 2050.
How many are prepared to pay $17,000 per person as a lump sum now, or prepared to pay $58,000 over 37 years, in the hope of gaining an intangible benefit of $5,400 in ¡®reduced climate damages¡¡¥ over the next 37 years?
But the ETS is just part of the cost we are committed to pay to reduce ¡®carbon pollution¡¡¥. Another is the Renewable Energy Target.
RET cost to 2020
Large Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES)
- LRET [iv] increases from 16,763 GWh in 2012 to 41,000 GWh in 2020. Assume average price over the period will be $60 for the reasons outlined by Robert Gottliebsen [v], then the total cost for 2012 to 2020 is $13.6 billion.
- SRES [vi] is more difficult to estimate. I haven’t found the budget forecasts for it so I have used the Clean Energy Regulator¡¡¥s ¡®Certificate modelling reports¡¡¥ [vii] to estimate the cost. Say $1 billion total to 2020.
Total = $14.6 billion
¡®Other Support for Renewables¡¡¥ (from DIICCSRTE [viii] and Treasury)
From Treasury, 2012-13 Budget, ¡®Securing a clean energy future¡¡¥, Chapter 4 [ix]:
- Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) = $10 billion
- Australian Renewable Energy Agency (AREA) = $3.2 billion
- Clean Technology Innovation Program = $0.2 billion
- Clean Technology Investment Program = $1.2 billion (but not all for energy and not all is government money)
Total = $13.4 billion + some proportion of $1.2 billion
Other (total costs unavailable)
- Increased cost of transmission system and hidden costs transferred to dispatchable generators: I don’t know the total cost but expect it would be substantial. For example, for solar PV alone, ESAA estimates the current cost of grid and hidden costs transferred to the dispatchable generators at $340 million per year [x]. The equivalent costs for wind power would be many times higher than for PV. These costs will increase substantially to 2020. Guess: $10 billion total to 2020.
- State based subsidies and incentive programs; I don’t know the cost but they are substantial. For example, the Queensland Solar Bonus Scheme is projected to cost Queensland tax payers $2.9 billion by 2028 (guess: $1.5 billion by 2020). That is just one program in one state. What would be the total cost of all programs in all states to 2020?
Total cost of Renewable Energy Target to 2020
- RET = $14.6 billion
- Other Support for Renewables (e.g. CEFC, AREA, etc) = $13.4 bn
- Extra transmission and costs transferred to dispatchable generators = unknown
- State based policies = unknown
Total = $28 bn + unknown
Cost of carbon restraint policies in 2020
IPA¡¡¥s Alan Moran[xi] explains the annual cost of policies to restrain carbon emissions and shows the difference between the Labor, Coalition and Green policies. Excerpt:
¡¡ãThe carbon tax-emissions trading scheme is only one of four broad measures employed to abate greenhouse gas emissions. The others are the renewables program, direct government budgetary assistance, and regulations. The costs of all these measures change year by year. The best way to compare them is to take their measure at 2019-20, when most transitory arrangements are in place.¡¡À
He summarised the annual costs in this table:
Alan Moran, The IPA | The Australian
Based on Treasury forecasts, the cost of the government¡¡¥s ¡®carbon¡¡¥ reduction policies will be $22 billion per year in 2020. This is about $1,000 per person per year and increasing every year thereafter. A family of four would pay $4000 per year in 2020.
References
[i] Henry Ergas: ‘Climate policy a burning issue‘
[ii] Gary Johns: ‘Convoy a revolt of working people‘
[iii] Treasury, ¡®Strong Growth, Low Pollution¡¡¥, Chart 5:13, NPV of ‘Medium global action‘ minus ‘SGLP core’
[iv] DIICCSRTE, ¡®Enhanced Renewable Energy Target¡¡¥
[v] Robert Gottliebsen (2013), ¡®Prepare for an expensive energy future¡¡¥
[vi] DIICCSRTE, ¡®Small-scale renewable energy systems¡¡¥
[vii] Clean Energy Regulator ¡®Renewable Energy Target¡¡¥
[viii] DIICCSRTE, ¡®About the Renewable Energy Target (RET)¡¡¥
[ix] Treasury, 2012-13 Budget, Ministerial Statements, ¡®Securing a clean energy future¡¡¥, Chapter 4
[x] ESAA (2013) ¡®Who pays for solar energy?¡¡¥
[xi] Alan Moran (2013), ¡®The real cost of emissions reduction¡¡¥
Over at Jennifer Marohasy’s site Peter Lang explains why the ETS cannot achieve anything.
$60,000?! You think that is a bargain?! That is nothing!
I just bought Sydney Harbour Bridge off some guy for $1,000!
I take delivery next week he said….
231
HEY that cant be right, I bought it over a month ago and I still havnt had it delivered yet.
I smell a rat…. or is that a polar bear ?
171
Seems to be an epidemic – I bought it’s small parent, The New Tyne Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne.
I was told that it was ‘collect’ only!
61
I heard some Texans were going to put them on display alongside the Brooklyn Bridge, the Siffel Tower and ….er…..London Bridge…..er ;-(
51
…or is London Bridge in Arizona? Anyway, same principle. Pity about the Vukovar bridge.
00
It is in Arizona, but the big joke is that when they were negotiating for London Bridge, the picture in their minds was actually one of Tower Bridge (the one that opens).
The old London bridge was a nice enough bridge, a run of the mill Victorian construction, and much better (in my opinion) that the bridge that replaced it. The problem was, it didn’t go up and down, and is not as photogenic as its downstream cousin.
When I worked in the states, I had two pictures on the door to my office, one of Tower Bridge, and one of the Brooklyn Bridge. Underneath it said. “Which would you buy?”.
20
Been there, seen the bridge at its new location, and wondered why someone would go to all that trouble. Now I know / thanks!
00
They are broadly of the same era. Brooklyn Bridge is forward looking and required true feats of engineering. Tower Bridge is backward looking and is an engineering cop out.
However…
Last year I had an incredible flight low over London in a crisp clear sky. First there was the snakey Thames. Then I noticed the Flying Saucer of Crap (the Millenium folly) ..then Tower Bridge. I express disgust with England all the time. But that was a vision free of all the clutter of everything contemporary to today. It brought to mind the romance of London and its Hollywood expression in Mary Poppins, feed the birds, Dick Van Dyke and the power of the umbrella. I wept.
00
I thought that used-polly from Qld, BeeTee, beat ewe too eat.
10
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate 101:
a) http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6451/1xx.gif
b) http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3161/zlp.png
c) http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/scd_sst_q.png
07
great graphs- be even greater if the Y-axes had labels
62
((now no y know funds to label why-axes?))
count:
359 * CO2
• y not 6 or 7 more? (so 1 for every day/year)
• ??? = record CO2 count for 1 article ???
06
Well that explains everything. So what are the residuals from these graphs and the spending forecasts Tony makes?
02
Apologies – that is Peter not Tony.
20
I can see the need for an apology there .
Apology accepted.
KK
10
Gee Aye are you really saying there is no correlation between solar/TSI/sunspots and temperature?
100
GA is a denier till the bitter end Cohenite
21
GA is an observer.
he likes to watch and pick up spelling mistakes.
Other than that he doesn’t have an opinion on Global Warming.
KK
10
Until you define a priori what “the bitter end” means you aren’t being sceptical. You can redefine the acceptance criteria at any time, as your understanding of the various hypotheses improves, but you can’t demand a condition that is more extreme than is statistically sufficient.
The cosmic / climate link is supported by independent lines of evidence, and over the last 9000 years the match-up for some tropical proxies (eg Oman stalactites and tree rings) is blatantly obvious.
The sunspot correlation with temperature is pretty darn high (up to 0.8 in recent research) but only by counting the phase of the full +/- Hale cycle of the sun’s magnetic field, it didn’t show as strongly in the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. The cosmic ray correlation with recent cloud cover is well-established for some regions over all time but doesn’t show up as strongly in proxies from other regions.
But you know, GA, there’s still hope for you yet. Maybe all this late 20th century warming really was caused by man-made pollution of the atmosphere. Just pollution of a different kind… CFCs.
50
Someone on BBC Radio 4 this morning was spouting something about the Sun not having much to do with Earth’s climate but that change was down to us. Whoever it was had to follow the cult mantra. I was still half asleep so didn’t get the name; perhaps someone else on here heard it?
20
If the sun has no effect on climate, what don’t we just turn it off?
20
The sun provides the constant energy that our planet receives, but without our greenhouse atmosphere we would be on average about 30 deg c colder. This would make the planet mostly a ball of ice undergoing daily extremes of temp. Our atmosphere both slows down the loss off and distributes the energy it recieves so that we ahve a range of temps that make the majority of the world habitable for us. It has not always been like this, and in fact for the majority of the time has not been this comfortable. Do we really want to continue destabilising it so we can find out just how uncomfortable it used to be?
“Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”
http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/
03
That is just the cost of things seen. The cost of thing unseen, such as lost opportunity and lives of great promise without the wealth to develop, will be staggering. All to save an immeasurable but imagined and over hyped increase of global temperature over the next half century.
It is nothing but the destruction of the good BECAUSE it is good.
170
“Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions–all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”
― Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Youd swear Hayek was living in our time right now and commenting on this very topic. His words continue to ring true today because they are based on the pure truth of the fact that left environmentalism and socialism lead naturally to totalitarianism. Keeping us misinformed and under-informed is all part of the game. Selling simplistic messages and perceived causal relationships via media that is bought and paid for is all part of the game.
“Probably it is true enough that the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another. In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. It certainly does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe.”
― Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Sadly the man who I regard closest to Hayek in these views, the unlikely but brilliant Neville Kennard is also no longer with us.
“Being curious may bring you back to the conventional wisdom, or it may not; but at least you’ve arrived there of your own accord and not just followed the crowd. Be a sceptic, a contrarian, an iconoclast even, if you have the where-with-all for it. Most don’t, so it will never be a crowded field.” Neville Kennard
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/eulogy-neville-kennard-had-unconventional-wisdom/
140
Like I said before…Ecos are always on about externalised costs but why are sceptics not arguing the same in respct of Eco policies.
So far the externalised costs of ECo ideology is 250 million deaths at the barest minimum over the last fifty years.
50
Has anyone worked out the $ per °c change number yet lol ?
50
Safetyguy66,
I did a calculation of $ per °c based on Nordhaus (2008) “A Question of Balance“, Table 5-3 and Table 5-8 (p89 and p106): http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf. I calculated $ per °c for three options: ‘Optimal carbon price’; ‘limit increase to 2C’; and ‘Low cost backstop’. The costs (in US $ trillion) are: 4.8, 10.6 and 0.2 respectively.
‘Low cost back stop’ policy means a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels is available right now.
The relevance of the low cost ($0.2 trillion) for the Low Cost backstop technology is it indicates the potential for low cost emissions reductions if we need to and if the blockages to progress were removed, such as if the impediments that are retarding the development of low cost nuclear power in the developed countries are removed.
50
Far out its worse than I thought. Nice work Peter thanks.
40
That is very useful. Thank you so much.
00
Yes, Monkton – but I don’t have the link. Jo has an article about his calculations on degrees “saved” Vs $$$$$
10
Yes, I did this based on the Rudd/Gillard ets at a climate sensitivity of 3. The cost is of the order of 0.5 Quadrillion dollars per annum per degree. At a climate sensitivity of 1 it’s 1.5 Quadrillion dollars per annum per degree. You see the sensitivity of the climate to dollars isn’t very high when you are dealing with inflexible goods.
This is why the ETS is a nonsense, it requires more than the GDP of the entire world to make a difference… IE it requires the collapse of civilisation to succeed. On the other hand, you could plant food crops and irrigate, and the plants would do it at a profit… Oops but then greenies dont like dams and canals, so that aint gonna happen.
30
The problems is that most people, and politicians in particular, have no concept of large numbers.
Even if you write a quadrillion as a one and all of its zeros, it would still have no impact. I you explained it in terms of crossing the entire galaxy, or even the known universe, it would make no sense.
The education system in the Western world has dumbed down mathematics, because, “It is a hard subject to teach,” and, “You can’t find enough maths teachers.” As such, the decision makers of today and tomorrow, are functionally innumerate.
Does that worry you?
It frightens the shits out of me. Thank Deity that the Asians have not made the same mistakes. They will save us – for a price.
10
You do realise that Labor are the ones that are trying to fix the education system. The libs said there was nothing wrong with it, until forced to admit they were wrong and putting in a cut down labors version. Just like the nbn, Abbott thinks the internet is fast enough for all future needs until forced to put in a cut down and inferior version.
Also the scientist witch hunt and attacks on the science so prevalent now with this so called debate against agw is turning a lot of kids off science.
05
A.G.W. has nothing to do with real science.
10
Why are YOU talking about the NBN Michael?
If we are to follow your philosophies we’ll all be living in yurts, riding donkey and using carrier pigeons.
There will be nothing like the NBN left (other than unmaintainable remains).
10
Be wary of governments trying to fix anything. Especially if it isn’t broken.
Remember that the government will either make a crisis to fix things, or take opportunity to fix things.
10
I’d like the weather to be a bit warmer, but I don’t mind it as it is. Can I have the $60,000 instead?
160
Yep, slightly warmer and a whole heap more CO2 in the atmosphere.. the Earth FLOURISHES!!
Abundance for all.
132
Unfortunately only the latter looks likely. 🙁
There’s cooling ahead, mores the pity.
122
Can we put in requests? some examples would be not to rain during crickets finals, not to rain just after i spray weed killer, not to rain moments after hanging out the washing. Alternatively i would like it rain a bit more when i plant my tomatoes but not too much mind you.
80
yeah when they are growing but not when ripening.
20
simple Ghee A when you want them to ripen you lodge a request for sunshine
70
How about rain monday & tuesday, the rest of the week and weekend perfect, clear with a gentle breeze.
20
Gentle breezes must be requested 4 weeks in advance, controlling the weather is easy but not that easy.
00
I want my money back.
They promised it was going to be permanent drought, so I bought a convertible. Hasn’t stopped raining since.
They promised the sea level was going to rise, so I bought a riverfront property, where the water was only inches deep, to more my boat at. Still waiting for the water.
I’m almost inclined to not trust them any more.
201
Well some are waking up
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/wa-treasurer-grilled-on-solar-tariff-cut/story-fni0xqi4-1226694215469
Oh by the way it is 68 years to the day that the USA dropped a nuke on Nagasaki.
60
And without in any way reducing the true historical suffering of the people of Nagasaki. You have to wonder what all the fuss was about in terms of historical predictions of the long term effects of nuclear weapons when you look at the place now.
http://www.at-nagasaki.jp/foreign/english/
I guess my point is, life is resilient and not so easily snuffed out as some would have you believe. I think it would be fair to say that if you postulated in the late 1940s that Nagasaki and Hiroshima would look like they do today, youd be regarded as a “skeptic” and a “denier”.
90
Sadly……………you have missed the point
04
Enlighten me
10
Saddam has nookular bombs
Syria is trying to build a nookular bomb
Libya was trying to build a nookular bomb
Iran is just weeks away from building a nookular bomb
Nth Korea have nooks
The Ruskies have nooks
All these countries are craaazy dictatorships and could launch their nooks at us at any time booga booga booga booga.
Ps Israel have heaps of nookular bombs but they are not craaaazy.
PPs But of course there is only one country that has actually used a nookular bomb against another people…………
01
I don’t think that is strictly correct.
The U.S. exploded a nuclear device over Nagasaki, they didn’t drop one on Nagasaki.
The is a significant difference in the type and amount of latent radiation and secondary fallout.
But there is very little difference in the percentage of people killed by the initial blast, the radiant heat, and the direct gamma radiation.
One the positive side, I note that Nagasaki now has a penguin aquarium, that they did not have in 1945.
30
The Penguin has the power of The Umbrella!
10
I like penguins. 🙂
10
Semantics RW
00
Apologies for the slightly OT question, but could someone please point me to the details of the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan. I’ve searched the Liberal Party’s website but can’t find anything. The DAP is mentioned in on p.5.
Where are the details of this plan?
01
http://www.greghunt.com.au/Portals/0/PDF/TheCoalitionsDirectActionPlanPolicy2010.pdf
10
I love this bit
“Tasmania
The Tasmanian Government has indicated that there are substantial opportunities for CO2 to be
stored in the state’s public and private forests.”
We are going to put little boxes on every tree for you to store your carbon in LMAO
100
Seeing as Australia is a net carbon dioxide sink, every other country should be paying us. !!
90
Amazing how often this fact is overlooked even by the well informed, let alone the climate anti-deniers!
00
@ dryliberal & safetyguy:
The document from link to Greg Hunt’s page seems to be based on the earlier version. The liberalorgau document would be the latest? Both are painful to read. Only merit seems to be the DAP is a bit cheaper.
Some interesting stuff over at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/an-illustration-that-co2-wont-roast-the-earth-in-a-runaway-tipping-point/
280 ppm was very close to disaster level.
We appear to have been fortunate that massive carbon sequestration occurred in the distant past, and humans were able to dig it up in time. Thanks Gaia …
110
If I was religious, (I’m not) I would be inclined to think someone planned it that way.
All that luvly carbon available just when we have the technology to access it, and just when the Earth needs it.
I just wish these stupid CO2 Nazis would get the **** out the way and let us use it like it was intended !!!!!
122
Do you have a link to this? I can’t find it.
01
Straight from a Francis Ford Copolla script, Australians subsidizing the EU mafia.
60
I’m sure there is a case for fraud here.
If a person in a position of power uses legislation to de-value something, say land, and then buys the very same property at a obviously discounted rate, isn’t that illegal somehow?
For example:
Kevin Rudd attempts to introduce a ETS, claiming rising sea levels, only to buy a discount house in the area he claims will flood.
Julia Gillard cites same science as reason to introduce a NO carbon (sic) tax, highlighting rising sea levels, only to buy a house on the beach at discounted prices because of future projections.
Isn’t this an example of garnering the system for your own benefit?
120
If we wanted to cut CO2 emissions from the power industry, the greatest reduction would come by introducing nuclear power stations. Unfortunately 40 years of hysteria from the greenies has made that politically impossible in Australia.
The next method would be to switch to closed cycle gas plants (CCGT). Cheaper and less effective but could reduce Australia’s electricity industry emissions around 28% (8.5% overall). Unfortunately current hysteria from the greenies will prevent or at least seriously delay obtaining the necessary gas via frakking.
As Tony from Oz has pointed out, building new black coal stations would reduce emissions around 12% and supply the cheapest power of all alternatives.
Trying to get all your electricity from wind and solar is lunacy. As I commented to the last article, the grid has to be functional before either wind turbines or solar panels can export electricity. No power on the grid and they switch off. So you would still need 2 or 3 conventional power stations.
And after 42 years of AGW scare tactics who has seen any scientifically sound evidence that it is happening?
90
this is the reference you need:
http://www.thegwpf.org/criminal-energy-mafia-cashes-renewable-subsidies-europe/
40
Graeme No.3
coal is king:
james hansen, uk dept of energy & climate change, george monbiot, fred pearce, james lovelock & more…has no-one been listening to their pro-nuclear talk? renewables (solar/wind etc) were simply included n the CAGW scam ito get the “greens” on board:
30 July: Fox News: John Roberts: Mini-nuclear plants the next frontier of US power supply — or the next Solyndra?
A boon to the economy? Or a boondoggle?
That’s the debate raging over a new nuclear technology that — depending on your perspective — is either a game-changer in electrical generation, or a failure-in-the-making that will fleece taxpayers for a half-billion dollars. …
In his June speech on climate change, President Obama talked about shutting down dozens of older coal plants, which left open the question of how that electricity would be produced…
TVA was expected to apply for a construction permit last year. But that application has been delayed until 2015 at the earliest.
That’s not the only controversial point with SMR’s. The federal government has pledged more than $500 million to help develop the technology. B&W has so far received $79 million for R&D, with the possibility of an additional $150 million…
That’s not sitting well with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. It points to the long history of expensive failures in the nuclear industry, backed by 60 years of subsidies.
Ryan Alexander, president of the group, sees the potential for a nuclear version of Solyndra, the solar power company that went belly up after taxpayers poured a half-billion dollars into the company…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/mini-nuclear-plants-next-frontier-us-power-supply-or-next-solyndra/
March 2012: UK Daily Mail: Nick Enoch: Britain’s (and the world’s) oldest nuclear power station closes … but it will take 90 more years and £954m to clear it completely
As well as the time factor, it will also cost £954million for the 175 acre site to be completely cleared, with the final stage anticipated to take place between 2092 and 2101…
‘The decommissioning of Oldbury will take years – our great-grandchildren will be left to finally take it apart.’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108218/Oldbury-Nuclear-Power-Station-closes-90-years-954m-clear-completely.html
10
9 Aug: Irish Times: David McNeil: Fishermen of Fukushima left all at sea as they mourn the loss of their livelihood
The working day is now spent mending nets and boats that may never be used again
Just 43km (27 miles) up the coast from this small harbour town, radioactivity from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant leaks into the ocean, and into the sardines, mackerel and squid that three generations of Ichida’s family once caught. Engineers are fighting what appears to be a losing battle to stop the leaks from worsening…
A survey by Japan’s ministry of economy, trade and industry released this week said water laced with caesium and other radioactive materials was flowing into the ocean at a rate of 300 tonnes a day. The ministry, which oversees the nuclear industry, said it could not rule out the possibility that the water had been leaking into the Pacific since the crisis began more than two years ago…
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/fishermen-of-fukushima-left-all-at-sea-as-they-mourn-the-loss-of-their-livelihood-1.1488597
nuclear is just great…not:
ENE News
http://enenews.com/
32
Thanks Pat. SafetyGuy at #7.1, care to predict what Fukushima will look like in 68 years? Will anyone be living in Chernobyl again?
10
Maybe Fukushima will become a health spa town, where people will flock to ” take the waters” – according to the theory of radiation hormesis, low dose radiation on a regular basis may prolong life and prevent cancer. See” Chen et al 2007- Effects of cobalt exposure on Taiwanese Residents”
10
How many people did Chernobyl kill?
Roughly fifty. All volunterrs who enetered the reaction facility to extinguish the fire.
Huge increases in cancer and leukemia was predicted for the fallout footprint across Europe. There has been no increase.
In the immediate locality an increase in thyroid cancer was discovered…proportionate to the increase in screening for such cancers. There have been no notable effects on the population.
Inside the evacuated area around the plant both flora and fauna florish and the latter exhibit exceptional vitality…although like in Fifties Sci Fi movie, enhanced stature. were talking over-sized voles, not Grzrrr unfortunately.
Tye worst ever imaginable nuclear accident did less harm than one airliner crashing into an apartment block in the Netherlands.
20
Read this and wonder how so much drama was drummed up.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: What Went Wrong And Why Today’s Reactors Are Safe
Tony.
20
Peter has actually nailed it here.
What nearly everyone fails to realise is that nearly every aspect of all of this is paid by you and me, all of us.
All we get is that the so called polluters will be paying.
With respect to the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax/ETS, and I’ll get back to this Point One, those alleged polluters provide an essential of life, in this case electricity, and even though they act as the middleman, the whole cost of passed directly down to consumers in the higher cost for electricity.
Every renewable power plant that gets half its up front cost paid by different levels of Government, both Federal and State, well, that is also passed directly down to consumers as well. Then, when all the (very little) electrical power they generate is also subsidised by Governments, that is also passed down to consumers in the higher cost per unit for electricity.
All those rooftop solar installations are subsidised at the front end by Government, again passed directly down to consumers in the higher cost for electricity.
For the grid to actually be able to now cope with more than a million new rooftop installations, then the grid must be upgraded, again with costs passed down directly to all consumers via increased costs for electricity.
The ultra generous FIT is also passed down to all of us via the increased cost for electricity.
So, it’s not being paid by someone else, the alleged polluter, it’s being paid by us, all of us.
So, getting back to Point One, the the biggest fallacy of all is compensation, you know, how generous it all is, again an absolute crock of bovine waste product.
The biggest thing I have found in all these last years is that people only associate electricity with what they use personally, eg, their residential electricity consumption at the household level. The wider consumption of electricity is not even in their perception. They cannot understand that even while they all sleep, Australia still needs 18,000MW of power. They cannot understand how 80% of electrical power is consumed in the non residential sector.
So, when they hear of compensation, they just assume that all of the take is given back plus some more on top.
Only 75% of households receive compensation. Yet, only 20% of electrical power consumption is in that residential sector, so that means 85% of all electrical power consumption goes without compensation, and that compensation is for the CO2Tax/ETS single part of the overall increases in every part of the overall cost of electricity. All those other points I mentioned at the start are all added on top of that one CO2 Tax/ETS.
Now I know that CO2 emissions in the electrical power generating sector make up only 40% of all emissions, but every entity that is charged that CO2 Tax/ETS, all of them pass those costs down to the consumer, so, in effect, we the people pay virtually every cent. Then there are the other 23 gases all charged at CO2 X (from 21 to 23,900) again.ll passed directly down to all consumers.
The Government is using those CO2 emitting power plants (87% of all electrical power generation) as a rolled gold cash cow. They don’t want them to close, because ….. there goes the money. They’ll drive them into the ground, and the sad thing is that there is nothing to replace them with.
Its only about the money. It has NOTHING at all to do with actually lowering emissions.
It may not seem much, a few added cents on top of the per KWH cost of electricity at the residential level, well, more than a few cents, as, in actual fact, the wholesale cost of electricity is cheaper now than it has been for years. When coal fired power can sell its power for 3 cents per KWH, and the retail price is around 25 cents per KWH, then you can see how all those added extras have added to the overall cost of electrical power.
We are being fleeced rotten, and those warmists with their CAGW religion don’t even realise, and in fact gloat that this is a good thing.
Tony.
223
I despaired twenty years ago when I realised this. It is literally beyond my understanding how unaware most people are. Even more bewildering is that they actually wish to remain so
My fallback now is that the demographic of stupid most assuredly has the numbers
30
That’s why you can still buy cigarettes. More pople killed by cigarrettes that global warming I do belive, but hey!…. because its SO BAD they just get taxed more and more.
I would love to see the treasurer’s face go ghostly white if they were told that from tomorrow, cigarette sales are banned outright.
I remember when I was a kid.. they brought out those little packs of 10 cigarettes, so we could all afford them with our lunch money and still get a bite to eat. Then we graduated to packs of 20… Did it stop there?…. NO! Then they brought out packs of 25, 30…. then 50…. FIFTY!!!!…
But hey, I still only smoke a packet a day…….
20
Thers far more money to be made out of a “war on” a controlled substance than taxing it. The crazy US “war on drugs” puts billions of tax moneys into the pockets of contractors and various agncies. Thats why they have it.
00
Tony I realized many years ago that all this AGW stuff would result in all of us paying more. Long before now I took the figure for electricity consumption and divided it by the population. That resulted in a figure of 27kWh per person per day so a family of four is responsible for 108kWh of electricity a day. As you say the accepted household consumption is about a fifth of that.
At the core of the green faith this is not expected to lower emissions it is expected to suck up money and generally lower the lot of us all so that populations are reduced. I think it is a vain hope but never the less that is the war that is being fought at many levels. Looked at in this light the successful campaign to change the way our forests are managed can be understood. It creates a fear of living in forests and conclusively showed their policies will kill if ignored. If Australia builds a nuclear power station I would have heart that this war against misanthropy is being won. It will be but there is a long way to go.
00
While it is obvious that climate change is natural – after all, it has been around for many hundreds of millions of years. The subject then is man made climate change, which has never been accurately quantifiable, or even demonstrated that it exists – please treat the thumb suck estimates of the IPCC with the contempt they deserve.
So it must warm every Australian’s heart all this money is being earmarked to tackle a non-problem and even if it were a problem, the impact it would make on global temperatures would be negligible.
So, I have an equivalent scheme: “Save the Australian Zebra from extinction”. I am a good guy, you can trust my cronies and I to properly look after the billions of dollars in annual funding, to conduct realistic research with lots of models and to try and make a real difference for the future of the Australian zebra. If we fail in our quest, at least we can say we tried.
Saving this beautiful mammal, the Australian zebra, is no less a noble cause than saving the planet.
Hey, if ‘climate scientists’ and dodgy activist groups can do this, why can’t i?
112
Won’t work Peter. Whatever you want to save has to be soft and warm and cuddly – the sort of thing that girls want to take home and … no, I am getting confused with Justin Wotsisname – but soft and warm and small and cuddly, anyway.
71
I briefly shared the same hotel with Justin Bieber at Water World. Fortunately not the same room. It was an interesting experience to have to leave by the other exit one evening when the main one was shut and find myself flanked on both sides by a vast throng of teenage girls leaning over barriers to get close to…me.
52
Whakaaro, you are absolutely right. When saving the world, or whatever you are saving, the concept of ‘warm and cuddly’ is paramount. As a result I have decided to save the Australian panda instead.
As for warm and cuddly, how did Michael Mann get so far in his field/fantasy/fabrication?
82
Dimwitted and grumpy and smelly. Don’t get close to one, their temper is unpredictable.
As for Michael …well I think I can’t say anymore.
10
Talking of saving stuff, I was once approached by a woman who asked me if I wanted to save the whales.
I told her I did. I said I wanted to collect the whole set, but had nowhere to keep them.
She said something rude.
152
You need an old swimming baths.
There was this other sea-mammal collector who went to enquire about buying an old municipal lido in Birmingham. He was a Brummie billionaire. Never lost his original Brummie accent. anyway, the property said “You do realise it will never again be licensed for its original purpose?” So he just said: “Never mind lov (thats a deliberately missing E there)…never mind lov…it’ll suit my porpoises.”
30
TonyfromOz –
are u able to outline a plan for an coal future for australia, where coal-fired power stations should be located, how many, & what the cost would be? why aren’t the Coalition announcing they will build coal-fired power stations? if we had something we could send to ALL politicians, demanding an end to the CAGW scam, we could become pro-active instead of passively allowing this nonsense to continue:
this aap/austn piece didn’t even show up in news, on a “coal” search, yet SMH’s “Palmer’s $6.4b coal project approval sparks Greens anger” did. apart from the bare facts, the rest of this aap piece is pure UNESCO/World Heritage Fund/botanists unhappy:
9 Aug: Australian: AAP: Clive Palmer mine, rail project approved by Queensland government
THE Queensland government has approved Clive Palmer’s $6.4 billion coal mine and rail project in the state’s west.
Mr Palmer’s company, Waratah Coal, is planning a massive new mine and associated infrastructure near Alpha in the Galilee Basin.
He says the project will create 6000 jobs during construction and 2460 jobs during operation “in a massive boost to the state and national economies”.
A rail line between the mine and the Abbot Point port, south of Townsville, is part of the project…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/clive-palmer-mine-rail-project-approved/story-e6frg9df-1226694193746
reality:
8 Aug: SMH: Gerard Wynn: China’s coal growth has peaked as emissions goals kick in
(Gerard Wynn is a Reuters market analyst.)
But the target also suggests that emissions and coal consumption will continue to rise through the 2020s, even though at a slower rate, barring a major intervention including a shift to cleaner burning gas from coal…
It also looks likely to miss various energy and carbon targets under the five-year plan…
Even under a trend which meets the intensity target, it would appear extremely difficult to halt growth in either carbon emissions or coal demand before the mid-2020s, which may then mark the earliest date for the launch of a cap and trade market in emissions allowances…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/chinas-coal-growth-has-peaked-as-emissions-goals-kick-in-20130808-2rhgm.html
total CAGW insanity, apart from these few facts:
8 Aug: Fairfax Brisbane Times: David McKnight: Might as well face it, we’re addicted to coal
(David McKnight is a research fellow at the University of NSW and co-author of Big Coal: Australia’s Dirtiest Habit. His co-authors are Guy Pearse and Bob Burton.)
We encourage the use of green energy in Australia, yet we export dirty coal like there’s no tomorrow…
Coal exports have tripled in the past 25 years to more than 300 million tonnes and coal corporations now want to double that figure…
However, it’s time Australians thought much more about coal. Our future is increasingly tied up in it. About 75 per cent of our electricity is from coal-fired plants. Australian coal exports constitute one-third of the world’s seaborne coal trade. This increasingly feeds the power plants and steel mills of India and China, both responsible for much of the increasing global greenhouse emissions. Because climate change is global, the consequences of burning coal in Mumbai or Shanghai are the same as burning it in Victoria. That is why it is important to take a critical look at Australian coal exports, as well as the domestic burning of coal…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/might-as-well-face-it-were-addicted-to-coal-20130808-2rkkk.html
40
Why should we worry about what other countries do? Under the rules if emission is offshore it doesn’t count.
That’s why shipping and airline emissions haven’t been counted under Kyoto. The recent attempt by the EU was stomped on by the rest of the world.
It is also why the DRAX power station in the UK can get away with its plan to burn wood chips (in 3 of its 6 units) instead of coal. The chips will come from the USA and the estimate is that 14% extra emissions will result from shipping to the plant. (the coal could come from the local mines). Then there are those emissions associated with planting, growing and harvesting the trees. GREAT – at least 20% EXTRA emissions of CO2 from a “green” power plant, which then gets SUBSIDIES for being green.
Don’t worry about AGW worry about infectious lunacy in the UK.
70
Graeme No.3
Thank you for posing that question. For those interested in understanding why no carbon pricing schemes anywhere will survive unless there is a global carbon pricing scheme, and why there will be no carbon pricing scheme, could I refer you to this week’s post on Jennifer Marohasy’s web site:
“Why the ETS will not succeed“
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
50
The most important thing to remember about all of this money is this.
Some people call it “waste”. but I think they are either involved or not too smart.
This is NOT waste.
This money is going somewhere are doing something for politicians.
It is buying votes and helping Friends or others of influence who, in turn, can help keep them in power.
It’s a big spinning wheel that is driven by spin.
Nothing is wasted.
It’s just not us that gets the benefit of our tax money art work.
Is there a word starting with T that describes this process I have outlined.
Should we call the police?
KK
80
KK good point, if someone takes my wallet full of money I don’t say “Well I hope they don’t waste it” hell no! I’d be angry that someone acquired that money by criminal means aka THEFT, so why do people think it’s par for course with the powers that be?.
Do people really think that highly of bureaucracy that their willing to just roll over when spoken harshly to?, have a look at the average punter and you will see the years of conditioning at work, the other night I had the misfortune to watch a few minutes of Big Brother before it ended and the people I saw came across as insipid drongo’s devoid of any real character, it’s a bit harsh but I’ll call it as it is.
100
That’s the word. Theft not Waste.
Waste implies a mistake or misadventure out of the control of our elected reps.
As you say, too many are conditioned to roll over for authority and they are being abused and they don’t know it.
That is the tragedy of all this.
KK
50
No it’s waste, really. Who put these drongos in charge of the exchequer anyway?
In a dictatorship it would be theft.
30
They take what is not theirs to take so it is THEFT!
30
Waste by the Left is called Investment. It can be paid for on the never-never. The idea of actually having something before investing it is just something that accountants do.
30
Joe, they do have something: inflated wages for “workers” on unionised government public works.
Buildings, roads and Desalination plants were loaded with good if not barely legal “working” conditions.
The transfer is instant and much appreciated by the recipients.
ps I was in a union but didn’t get anything of value for all the money I paid, not even a sense of security.
KK
30
Speaking of buying votes (what a segue) I got a call this evening from a lackey of the local ALP candidate. They asked if I had decided who to vote for. They were quite interested to hear that I did not have a party that I always vote for. So they have identified me personally as a swinging voter (if they hadn’t already), so I predict I will be phone polled at least once per week from now until the election.
They asked if there were any local issues in the seat of Bonner that I wanted addressed. Local issues? We’re deciding which puppet party gets to mouth hollow words in democracy theatre for the next 4 years! What on earth have traffic congestion, bike paths, and public transport got to do with the health of the nation at the federal level? Smells like misdirection. i.e. please don’t think about the federal deficit.
Wikileaks is not running any Senate candidates for Qld, only in the money-making states such as WA, NSW, VIC.
All you new south welsh JoNovians should tell Kellie Tranter that she’s wrong on #climatechange alarm.
Won’t have any idea who all the election candidates will be until 16 August.
Ah, good old Mr NUNNOV is sounding pretty good right about now. But it just feels wrong to throw one’s vote away. As they say… “Democracy; use it or lose it!” Well we used it and we still lost it, so that’s that aphorism dusted.
41
Yes KK, but not going indirtectly as you suggest…lots of it will be going directly, as bribes via the contractors seeking the contracts.
In the UK its endemic. Graft culture.
20
I’m willing to take moderate sized bets that neither the Anthropomorphic Global Warming scam, nor the Australian Labour Government last another 37 years.
120
If I read you right Tell I would assume you expect AGW to die in the next few months.
Maybe that’s too much to hope for but it could, at least, enter the terminal stages of its’ existence about then.
KK
50
KK, good to see a fellow kinkster again…but I continue to b dismayed by the rosy spectacld optimism of sceptics wherever I visit them. Yes, evidence the CAGW meme is wrong keps piling up, but no…I see no evidence of any kind that its getting any weaker.
20
ehhh, ummm, when did this ever, I mean EVER, have anything to do with evidence?
40
…the local Minister of Climate Change speaks of multiple lines of evidence that humans are casing GW yet the policies designed to ‘address’ the non-problem like the RET / ETS are implemented on the basis of a ‘balance of probabilities’.
It’s the greatest apolitical money grab in history in the name of…well who the hell cares…we’ll call it GW, CC or save the planet, it really doesn’t matter.
And yes, I agree with an earlier writer, it is likely the meme will die soon…but what it has installed is no less than a Tape Worm in the guts of progress and civilisation. This requires removal with a red hot poker (the method of approach is open to all but the briefest of discussions – superior or inferior end of the alimentary canal?).
50
See The Australian today http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/europe-pulls-the-plug-on-its-green-future/story-e6frg8y6-1226694405337
It’s pay walled so try typing europe-pulls-the-plug-on-its-green-future into Google.
The money is drying up. Soon you will amazed by all those who always had their doubts about AGW.
70
Whoops missed this post and posted down the bottom of the thread…
Here is a link to un paywalled version
http://www.thegwpf.org/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/
30
Trouble is, from an actuarial standpoint, I would not likely be around to collect even if I agreed to wager.
20
Id put a fiver on the “Climate Change” ideology and some political powers far worse than anything you have at presnt having a complete grip on your society for following century.
You’ll see if Im right when scptical comment starts being banned as “hate speech”
11
…a fiver is a lot to me.
10
Good point, they only *intend* to spend that money. But you won’t have to wait 37 years.
If cooling continues, it will still be 4.5 years until there will have been 17 years of cooling.
Not just a period of “no statistically significant warming” but actual cooling. We may reach the magic “17 years of no statistically significant warming” before that time, depending on year-to-year temperatures. We already know it’s bunk but the diehards won’t accept anything less than a sustained cooling while CO2 rises.
Assuming there is an AR6, the caveats and excuses that have always been put forward by the scientists will in AR6 actually make it through the editing process to the final document.
After that it will take probably another four years for the truth to sink in because that gives enough time for politicians who anchored themselves to the issue to jump into a lifeboat.
That’s another 8.5 years of this nonsense, tops. Abandoned by 1 Jan 2022.
Whether the government of the day can cancel the tax/insurance scam is yet to be seen, because by then the UN will have switched over to Ocean Acidification as the fallback plan for carbon indulgences.
60
andrew McRa…it wont make a blind bit of difference what happns or for how long. The warmist narrative is now part of the fabric of Western societies. It aint going anywhere until that fabric is itself shredded over the coming decades.
40
The vulgar fact that certified cures at Lourdes are not the serendipitous outcome of a visit by the vast majority, or that the massive amount of cash spent today or in the future getting there and participating in the process, has no diminishing effect on the faith of the believers and hopeful despite the intellectually appreciated likelihood of a beneficial outcome.
Is there a lesson? All that the faithful experience is a reinforcement of their faith. The adversity proffered by evidence or by ‘deniers’ is simple affirmation that they must be right.
One answer could be to displace the faith with an alternative focus of transcendence.
30
Th other way of looking at it Manfred is that the expulsion from our societis of that other focus of belief allowed this scular religion to fill the void.
At a sociological level I believe that is what happenned.
You know what CS Lewis said…..”stop confusing me with Lewis Carroll”
00
If I’ve understood you correctly, the promised benefit may be “intellectually appreciated” but is depreciated empirically.
The warmists treat the pause in warming the way creationists treat a transitional fossil; It’s not evidence of a real event, it’s just been placed there by Gaia to test their faith!
The proposed supernatural substitution therapy highlights an old dilemma. We are animals, but animals seemingly like no other. What does it mean to be human and can we change what it means to be human? There seems to be a propensity for people to indulge in supernatural beliefs. I had thought that with Enlightenment and mass education we would have eradicated the religious business franchises (ie religions) by now, yet they still boast a significant market share.
Considering the cult of CAGW as a religion makes it seem bizarre as compared to the cults of, say, Catholicism or Islam. Most obviously the CAGW cult offers a rough equivalent of heaven and hell without offering an afterlife. The carbon cycle is about the closest it gets, but this speaks of material only and carries no connotations of soul transfer and reattachment in the manner of Hinduism. The heaven and hell are to be experienced in this life as a result of the collective action. This is not supernatural but a hypothesis of physical cause and effect.
Gaia is spoken of by the gurus as a superorganism, but this is less a supernatural belief and more of a high level abstraction of the biosphere, no more supernatural than the belief that the mitochondria in a mouse are unaware of the activities of the liver and T-lymphocytes, no cognition implied.
According to the above comparison, CAGW is not a religion. I think you’re right to call it a “faith” but the transcendentalism is nothing more than a dead-end scientific hypothesis.
However the cult of CAGW adopts many of the practices of organised religion, such as appointing gurus, regular meetings, consensus on dogma, sermonising to the unbelievers, protecting gurus from prosecution, repressing individuality into conformity, unification of church and State, demonising their opponents, wearing club member clothing, and the sacrifice of one’s self and others.
There’s some similarity between CAGW and multi-level marketing schemes, but that analogy deserves more scrutiny before it can be useful in debunking. Certainly some of the behaviours of CAGW adherents are shared by any group wishing to propagate any meme, so they are tactics shared by guerilla marketing companies and climate skeptics. Hardcore warmists are SIFs, but the regulars in this blog risk becoming SIFs simply by taking up the fight. The same methods are multi-purpose.
Okay, if people still want to have faith in something, why can they not have faith in humanity and in the combination of co-operation and technology to improve our lives? The success (so far) of the CAGW cult actually shows that non-religious faiths are possible. We’d just have to substitute it with a more constructive one.
It’s quite bizarre that just for a change I seem to have been the optimistic one regarding the demise of CAGW. To borrow one of Bob Brown’s phrases, people will “withdraw the social licence” of governments to price carbon once the public are alerted by skeptics about the scientifically and ethically bankrupt nature of CAGW. We should not be fatalistic.
I’m not saying we should merely hope for the best, I’m saying the more we spread the word of The Lord the closer the Promised Land really becomes, dear brethren. 🙂
00
Gee you talk a load of rubbish. No the realists treat the temperature record by looking at all of the data and science available.
* Fact, the long term trend is up, despite many ups, down and pauses in the record due to natural climatic variations.
* Fact, the 2001-2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, in the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere.
* Fact, 2011 and 2012 where the hottest la nina affected years on the record
* Fact, The atmosphere is not the only part of the system that uses and accumulates energy. You have energy moving into the deeper oceans, record Arctic ice melt and record Greenland surface melt.
* Fact, all the consequences and fingerprints expected of AGW are occurring and most occurring faster than expected.
* Fact, other consequences of AGW like ocean acidification are also occurring
and how do so called skeptics like you respond? You cherry pick periods and data sets that fit your confirmation bias. You ignore science not favorable to your confirmation bias. You ignore the many trends in the climate system and even the many current observations pointing to a changing climate due to AGW. You only accept as out of the ordinary weather events that confirm your story and your religion such as European cold snaps and extreme weather and ignore the science that points to changes to the Arctic jetstream due to AGW.
So realists accept what the science is telling us and willing to make changes for future generations, while so called ‘skeptics’ promote delay for their own benefit because they only care about themselves and their own short term needs.
04
What benefit, in degrees Celsius, will Australia’s mitigation strategies create?
10
Ouch! I must have hit a raw nerve there.
No, here’s how this skeptic responds.
* A pause in warming after 2001 is not contradicted by the Fact the long term trend is up, despite many ups, down and pauses in the record due to natural climatic variations.
* A pause in warming after 2001 is not contradicted by the statement the 2001-2010 decade was the hottest on the modern instrumental record globally, on every continent.
* Fact, The atmosphere is not the only part of the system that uses and accumulates energy. You have energy moving into the deeper oceans and the oceans did not suddenly switch on in 2001, they have always been there.
* IT IS NOT A Fact, all the consequences and fingerprints expected of AGW are occurring and most occurring faster than expected.
• Predicted increase in cyclones did not occur.
• The tropospheric hotspot was not as strong as predicted.
• The incidence of wildfires did NOT increase.
• Claims of extreme heat often turn out to be untrue.
• The Australian sea level did NOT rise at the rate the BoM predicted and the world expert on sea level shows global sea level did NOT accelerate, it’s decelerating.
(Quote from Dr Mörner: an IPCC member discussing subjective adjustments to the instrumental record told me: “We had to do so, otherwise there would not be any trend.” No trend means no sea-level rise.)
• The UN’s predicted 50 million climate refugees are missing in action.
• The western Himalayan glaciers are expanding not contracting.
• Predictions that 3 degrees of warming would be unprecedented and result in catastrophe are disproved by ice core measurements showing previous interglacials being up to 6 degrees warmer. (Watch a video.)
• Temperatures have dropped below the IPCC predictions!
• Your side is already IN RETREAT on climate sensitivity to CO2.
* Fact, other consequences of CO2 OUTPUT UNRELATED TO AGW like ocean acidification are also occurring.
Which is a red herring. OA is a separate issue to warming and studies show the ocean species have varied responses which are not uniformly bad as some might have you believe.
In normal science, counterexamples to the theory would disprove the theory. Since you dismiss any counter-example as cherrypicking, you aren’t being scientific, you’re being dogmatic and it only reinforces my point.
Your continued dogmatism makes me wonder if should continue to make the effort to educate you on the matter, or just throw abuse at you like the others here tend to do.
30
Good post Andrew.
Funny that warmists are having such a bad go of it they are changing their name to Realists. (did you notice that?) Just like Global Warming had to change to Global Climate Change and recently to Extreme Anything, these paranoid delusional, irrational, Green Warmists just can’t stick with one name can they?
00
Why cant people have faith in Humanity…because of Original Sin, every person is a sinner and only the divine can both truly believe in Humanity and also be worthy of faith in return.
00
What will be the cost from the next generation educated to ignorance in physics basics?
70
If you want to see societies free of the yoke of Big Green, then you’ll have to put your hopes in China continuing to shrug off democracy, and India continuing to place her own interests high.
I wouldnt want to live in either place. But more to the point, whilst happy to export their citizens Im pretty sure they aint going to welcome a flood of refugees from the Western Green tyrannies that are emerging.
30
…I should have phrasd that better: the emergent tyrranies of the Green West.
I believe the real power of Green ideology is only just emerging.
00
We are already changing the weather by our global geo engineering project of increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. What people who are listening to the science are trying to do is mitigate the damage and limit the amount of expensive adaptation we will already have to do. How much do floods and droughts cost us, storm surges, increased hurricane intensity and other extreme weather events?
020
2011
“2011 will be remembered as a year of extreme events, both in the United States and around the world,” said Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. This annual report provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120710_stateoftheclimatereport.html
2012
“Review of 2012 – environment: shrinking Arctic sea ice, record temperatures, flooding, droughts, hurricane Sandy and super-typhoon Bopha; the year abnormal weather became normal”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/dec/18/weekly-review-2012-weather-environment
“It was another year of incredible weather extremes unparalleled in American history during 2012. Eleven billion-dollar weather disasters hit the U.S., a figure exceeded only by the fourteen such disasters during the equally insane weather year of 2011. I present for you now the top ten weather stories of 2012, chosen for their meteorological significance and human and economic impact.”
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2316
023
It is time for you to put the hashish pipe down, you have had quite enough.
110
“Frankenstorm/Super Storm Sandy” was not even a hurricane when it made land….
What increased hurricane intensity Michael?
110
It has been pointed out to AAD before, with peer reviewed evidence, that it wasn’t Sandy’s intensity or size that was the issue, it was its track.
But that information didn’t conform to his bias so it was ignored.
80
Coupled with a king tide…..
60
Well actually it was all of that.
* It was the widest(largest) category 1 on record, therefore its damage far exceeded its intensity. Increased water vapor and energy in the atmnosphere helps to feed storms.
* Its track was influenced by a blocking pattern that has been linked to AGW, storms that time of year normally went out to sea.
* The storm surge was exacerbated by rising sea levels.
So you guys continually try to downplay Sandy but in all the ways that count its damage was exacerbated by AGW.
03
You do not have a shred of scientific evidence to back up your bullshit.
The fact that it’s “intensity” was less than a hurricane falsifies your argument that storms will be more intense. IF it was a hurricane the damage would have been far far worse.
20
Michael, roll out the precautionary principle and tell these massive coastal cities to stop all building and move back from the coast. This is the reality Michael. So start being real. The damage is done already (your words) the warming is already upon us and can’t be quickly turned around. (your words), therefore you should be spending your time getting people to safe higher ground.
Sandy was a perfectly normal weather event that came ashore in a region that normally has been impacted by tropical storms. The only reason Sandy was news worthy is that fate put her ashore in a highly populated area at a King tide. If you claim anything “extreme” or Man caused you are an outright
purveyor of propagandaperverter of truth.Shameful really, your children should be ashamed of your behavior. They’ll have to pay for your stupidity.
00
Are you not in the slightest, tiniest bit interested to discover for yourself – on your own – out of your own curiosity – independently – for yourself, are you not slightly piqued, just a insey-winsey bit, to surf about, check the literature and explore the ‘debate’ to see why it is that these peddled ‘facts’ you throw about are contested so strongly by so many in the face of more compelling alternative explanations or interpretations?
110
Yes I have, many times. I used to spend a lot of time examining the merits of skeptic claims. What I found was that they normally had very little if anything to do with science and basically had no evidence. I long ago discovered that opinion is just that, opinion.
Have you ever had the tiniest bit interested to discover for yourself – on your own – out of your own curiosity – independently – for yourself, are you not slightly piqued, just a insey-winsey bit, to surf about, check the literature and explore the actual science, the data and the observations to see why the vast majority of the scientists, the science and all the scientific organisations accept AGW? You may find that all the opinions, cherry picked data sets, cherry picked periods, non scientific assertions (ie, CO2 is just a trace amount so can’t hurt anything), vague statements not contested by anybody (climates changed before) and the many other ridiculous assumptions are just put forward to sow doubt into a science that has been largely accepted a long time ago?
03
“Michael”,
Go back to your “basket weaving” class !
30
You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has caused any of this.
70
The stated events over the past 10 years aren’t even vaguely representative of the past 50 years. The NOAA went berserk over the past 4 years, due in a large measure to a single individual by the name of Tom Karl.
Tom is Doctor Honouris Causa from someplace that doesn’t even offer PhD programs and Tom calls himself “Doctor.”
This is the first case I know when someone has an honorary doctorate only and calls themselves “doctor.” If you encounter any more such people, beware.
80
Seriously you only need to open your eyes to the global weather events to see things are not normal.
“The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.
Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
“2012 was warmest and second most extreme year on record for the contiguous U.S.
2012 was a historic year for extreme weather that included drought, wildfires, hurricanes and storms; however, tornado activity was below average“
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
“”The last decade brought unprecedented heat waves; for instance in the US in 2012, in Russia in 2010, in Australia in 2009, and in Europe in 2003,” lead-author Dim Coumou says. “Heat extremes are causing many deaths, major forest fires, and harvest losses — societies and ecosystems are not adapted to ever new record-breaking temperatures.””
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130114101732.htm
02
No, it did not.
Which proves what Michael? Oh yes, it proves that its not unprecedented.
In what way was it “historic”? To me this just sounds like hyperbole.
No, it did no such thing. There have been far worse heat waves in the past.
You Michael just like to fish around for statements that play up the meme. That’s a very simple thing to do. The only problem for you is THE LACK OF SCIENCE to back any of it up.
00
Assuming there is even an increase anyway.
20
Thats the main thing Annie. None of these events are unusual.
00
Only if your eyes and mind are closed. Look at the post above Annies.
02
Michael…you appear to live in a fantasy world.
10
So Michael, tell us all:
The plan is to cut Australia’s CO2 emissions by 90% (yes NINETY PERCENT!!) by 2050.
How will Australians live in such a scenario? Yurts?
How will Australians travel?
How will Australia produce anything?
How will Australia feed it’s people?
By how much will global temperatures come down? <<<<< This question cannot be avoided Michael.
When are YOU going to start your reduction to 90% Michael?
90
*Correction: When are YOU going to start your reduction BY 90% Michael?
And we are all going to pay for this Michael.
Every man, woman and child in Australia will PAY to have their lives and country DESTROYED.
And you have the gall to jump up and down screaming “Think of your children and future generations!!!”.
You and your ilk are simply fucked in the head Michael.
150
Michael,
You are a very very stupid person.
70
So AAD,
How much temperature rise, in degrees celsius, will Australia’s ETS offset by 2100?
A figure in degrees celsius please, I don’t want a diatribe about other countries doing it too or figures about emissions. Cut the shit, I want to know the temperature ‘benefit’ of my $60, 000+.
I’ll even allow you 3 decimal places.
80
“I’ll even allow you 3 decimal places.”
roflmao.
Because all our industry will have moved to China, …..there will be an INCREASE in global CO2 emissions!
91
The aim is to cut CO2 emissions by 90% by 2050, not 2100…..
50
That is only the suggested target by Flannery and his minions. I am referring to the actual targets currently in policy.
Perhaps he can provide figures for both.
50
My understanding is that the current target is 80% reduction by 2050. Were Labor to retain power you may rest assured that whatever Flim Flammery and his minions advise will be adopted.
30
You guys are still not getting it. Nobody is expecting to be able to drop temperatures globally anytime soon. The damage has already been done and the consequences are already occurring. The idea is to mitigate and adapt at this stage. To try to not let it get so bad that it is above our ability to adapt without major hardship and pain. It is a global problem and every country has to do their bit. Most countries are doing things but the more countries that do the more incentive and clout there is to get other countries to do more. The wait and see approach is a wait and do nothing approach because everybody is waiting for everybody else. That is how a primary school child would understand responsibility. (I won’t pick up my rubbish because everybody drops rubbish)
Somebody needs to grow up here, the reality is that there are a lot of countries doing much more than us, even though we are one of the worst per capita and 12th out of 200 for total historical emissions. We are a significant polluter for the problems already occurring.
03
You total lame arse hypocrite! This is EXACTLY what you said when you were challenged to drop your own emissions.
20
Strawman.
I repeat, in degrees celsius please…
You say that emitted CO2 is causing the earth to warm and causing extreme weather. The ETS aims to reduce emissions in order to mitigate further warming. So, how much warming, in degrees celsius, will be mitigated by Australia’s ETS??
Surely someone had done a cost benefit analysis on the ETS haven’t they?
20
To you guys it is all about money isn’t it. You are the one promoting a strawman. The climate system is not an experiment in a lab, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we have increased it by 40%, it has already caused warming that has already changed the climate. There are a lot of conflicting feedbacks and natural variations but the broad consequences as predicted are occurring and occurring faster than expected. What this tells us is that our uncontrolled geo engineering experiment is likely to be more sensitive to changes in temps than we expected, and it is precisely these unintended and unknown consequences is why we need to reduce emissions as soon as possible to mitigate further damage. We know the broad strokes, they tell us that things are already getting bad and will continue to get worse for a long time even if we stopped today, due to lags in the system. So we can continue the uncontrolled experiment and know for sure once we have caused a lot of pain and suffering, or we could reduce as soon as practicable and then evaluate how much damage we have done.
If you have a crystal ball that can tell us exactly what will occur, and your actions certainly seem to suggest you have one since you are certain the consequences of altering the atmosphere are zero, then can you please send it to the IPCC. Those of us in the real world wish to ensure we do not cause our children and grandchildren to much unnecessary suffering and pain.
02
So the answer is no then. You can’t quantify any benefit that Australia’s ETS will have and therefore, you can’t be sure if it will make ANY difference at all. So we will go ahead and change the structure of our economy, because it MIGHT be a benefit, not that we can quantify it.
So how much % of GDP do we spend on mitigation and adaptation? 3%? 10%? 50%? How much would achieve any benefit? Oh, we haven’t QUANTIFIED the benefit, so we DON’T KNOW!
Kindly point out where I have stated this. Another misrepresentation.
20
The carbon tax one year on has already seen emissions fall by around 7%, renewables increase by 25% and because the impact was less than expected, a family with 2 children and earning 100,000 was still better off.
So I would say a pretty good result that is succeeding and a hell of a lot cheaper for the average taxpayer than the libs direct action policy, with its main plank being soil improvement, which has little scientific validity in achieving its stated aims. So 2 choices a policy that works, paid for by polluters, or one that doesn’t paid for by the taxpayer?
04
Well considering that you are advocating doing nothing, I suppose (without looking) it is an assumption. So then, can you kindly tell us what you think the consequences will be for us increasing atmospheric concentration by 40% since industrialisation and still increasing by roughly 2 ppm/v py?
03
So how much warming, in degrees celsius, has this effort offset?
20
I never said that either. I simply asked you quantify the benefit of the plan that YOU endorse..
Is there a figure or not? A wild arse guess even?
20
Strawman. The purpose of the tax was to reduce emissions, that is the goal, that is the reason.
Your evading. You said I was wrong in accusing you of saying that you believe the consequences of changing CO2 in the atmosphere are zero. So I asked you to clarify. A specific question that you should be able to answer if you are on here arguing day in and day out so vociferously.
So then, can you kindly tell us what you think the consequences will be for us increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 40% since industrialisation and still increasing by roughly 2 ppm/v py?
01
Michael, you say here, and I’ve put it in Bold:
You lying turd.
Prove this. Prove it.
No obfuscation.
Proof Michael, PROOF.
Tony.
10
Double Strawman. The purpose of reducing emissions is to reduce temperatures.
Or was it just to raise revenues?
20
And the reason we are reducing emissions is what?
To mitigate future warming maybe?
So, if it is to mitigate future warming, how much warming will be mitigated under the current ETS policy arrangements in Australia? It is a “specific question that you should be able to answer”. Since we are restructuring our whole economy to do it, surely someone has done the sums.
”
No. You’re evading. This tells us that there you have no idea what the benefit will be, or the result will be so small it is a little embarrassing.
20
Michael, you have absolutely no scientific evidence to show that “we have increased it by 40%”. None.
You march around here harping on about emissions since the beginning of The Industrial Revolution, claiming that this is what pulled the Earth’s climate out of the LIA.
I’ll say it again (again) that YOU CLAIM that industrialisation pulled the Earth’s climate out of the Little Ice Age.
I have already asked you numerous times and will do so again (again!): WHERE is your science in support of this preposterous nonsense????
If we are to believe you Michael, then it’s clear that you are advocating to take action to bring us back to LIA temperatures. Do you have ANY idea what that would do??
Hmmmm…. you probably DO have an idea…. you know it would cost millions of lives and THAT is the green agenda.
Are you by any chance related to Ehrlich?
00
Michael,
Policy options analysis and decisions are informed, to a large extent, by what you can afford. Cost benefit analysis is part of the decision making process.
The government’s GHG emissions reduction policies would cost $22 billion per year by 2019. That is about the same as the total Defence budget, more than Disability Care and Gonski. But the taxpayer funds spent on the GHG reduction policies will deliver probably no benefit. Governments have to make a choice about what is most important and distribute the available funds among the competing priorities for the funds. If we waste $22 billion per year on a program that will deliver little if any benefits we’ve missed the opportunity to do a lot of good if the funds had been spent where they would deliver benefits. Options analysis and cost benefit analysis guides the government (i.e. a responsible and competent government) towards using the limited funds in the way that will provide the greatest benefit to society. Unless you can show that the benefits of the GHG emissions policies will exceed the costs and do so by more than other choices for the use of those funds, then we should not be wasting the money on these programs.
Do you have any serious issues with the figures quoted in the lead article?
30
Michael,
You seem to have missed the point. There is no credible evidence to show that the policies being advocated – carbon pricing, renewable energy and other policies – will deliver any benefits. but the costs of implementing them are huge. If you are interested in understanding more about this issue, can I refer you to my post on Jennifer Marohasy’s web site:
“Why the ETS will not Succeed“
50
You seem to have missed the point that the consequences of doing nothing will change the habitability of this planet. This will cause hardship, pain and suffering to countless millions. The consequences are already kicking in and the costs of floods, droughts, storms, crop losses etc already dwarf what we put into it. Also wherever a decent carbon tax has been put in has seen a drop in emissions for less cost that expected. Australia being a case in point, as well as Norway, BC in Canada and New Zealand. You are overinflating the cost while minimising the damage. Did you enjoy your flood levy?
04
You Michael are one crazy uninformed nitwit. There is no credible theoretical science that tells us anything except that our CO2 emissions can, according to the theoretical mathematical relationship between global temperature and increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, be anything more than trivial.
Your so called signs of AGW such as floods, droughts, storms plus melting ice etc, etc have always been a part of our weather and to suggest that these have anything to do with ACC caused by Western industrialisation is not scientifically deductable but rather is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Perhaps your problem is that you haven’t lived on the Earth long enough or your reading is very limited or like Will Steffen you are a foreigner who has not lived in Australia long enough to know that all those false signs of ACC you mention have been occurring in the lifetime of many long before atmospheric concentrations were much above 280 ppm. If you are a youngster then read a bit of Australian weather history and you will soon discover that along with the alarmist climate “scientists” you are making a fool of yourself.
30
Your eyes and your mind are closed to the reality around us. All the trends are pointing to increasing extreme weather. We have made changes far in excess and in a much faster timeframe to what is normal over the planets evolutionary timeframe. Yes climates changes before, and anybody with a modicum of understanding could see that for 99.9% of the lifetime of this planet it has been uninhabitable for 7 billion humans with our current wants and needs. What that also tells us is that their is no natural state of the planet and that it can shift to very uninhabitable states very easily. It is a planet, it doesn’t care what happens to us, it will just react to forcings upon it, just as it always have.
You guys are naive, and the type of naivety that is seen in most religions, that some supernatural being is looking after you and won’t let anything bad happen to you. Join the real world. Well newsflash, insulting one, actions have consequences, and there are no white knights.
“”The last decade brought unprecedented heat waves; for instance in the US in 2012, in Russia in 2010, in Australia in 2009, and in Europe in 2003,” lead-author Dim Coumou says. “Heat extremes are causing many deaths, major forest fires, and harvest losses — societies and ecosystems are not adapted to ever new record-breaking temperatures.””
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130114101732.htm
“Monthly temperature extremes have become much more frequent, as measurements from around the world indicate. On average, there are now five times as many record-breaking hot months worldwide than could be expected without long-term global warming, shows a study now published in Climatic Change. In parts of Europe, Africa and southern Asia the number of monthly records has increased even by a factor of ten. 80 percent of observed monthly records would not have occurred without human influence on climate, concludes the authors-team of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Complutense University of Madrid. “
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/monatliche-hitzerekorde-haben-sich-durch-die-erderwaermung-verfuenffacht
“The outcomes are that statistically significant increasing trends can be detected at the global scale, with close to two-thirds of stations showing increases. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant association with globally averaged near-surface temperature, with the median intensity of extreme precipitation changing in proportion with changes in global mean temperature at a rate of between 5.9% and 7.7% per degree, depending on the method of analysis.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00502.1
03
Last time Earth was at 400ppm
“Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”
http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/
03
Strawman again…
If Peter is wrong, provide the evidence. What quantifiable benefit will the ETS produce by 2100 ???
20
Not as much as I enjoyed the news that the WA govt is slashing solar RETs for theives.
20
Yes, I hope the whole of Australia can see how little you can trust a liberal government. The election was only months ago, but did they tell us they would tear up the iron clad gaurantee that they would keep their promise (in writing to every owner) for 10 years? Nope. Outright liars and cheats.
Also they brought in a fee for park and ride. An obviously anti environment and anti clean air government. I take a bus and train to work for environmental reasons but it already cost me more than petrol. On top of that they just raised public transport prices a month ago and now charge for parking. I hope the freeways can cope with the increased traffic, because it is already ridiculous.
Finally they halved the amount for first home buyers buying established homes, already over the top because of the resources boom. So what have they done with the boom money? Every budget time its price rise on top of price rise until election time…
Look Australia, if you don’t think the libs are going to hit the GST, think again. How else are they going to pay for their 70 billion dollar black hole?
04
Oh. Poor Micheal has to start paying for his electricity. Boo F%&king Hoo.
Boo Hoo again. It’s for your kids and grand kids remember. Pay for your own green indulgence.
Ahh. Perpetuating the ALP lie huh Michael. Whatever suits your bias I suppose
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/04/penny-wong/coalition-return-federal-budget-good-position-gove/
Another lie?? Abbott has promised not to. If he does, I am sure you will scream from the rooftops just like you did when Gillard promised not to introduce a carbon tax and did. oh. wait…….. That was deafening silence from you and your kin. It was ‘for the cause’ right?
30
The libs made a promise in writing, they broke it. Also the freeways are already congested, if I take the car it takes me 2 hours to get home in peak hour while only 30 minutes at other times. That is the kind of extra pollution and stress that causes respiratory problems and road rage. There are many reasons to encourage public transport as well as CO2.
The libs do have a 70 billion dollar black hole. They do fudge their costings. They did lie to the Australian people and release what they said were audited costings at the last election that weren’t. The budget dishonesty is all over their side and they have clearly not changed and still fudging figures. An easy way to stop the speculation is to come clean and be honest about where the money is coming from , we are supposedly in a budget emergency and need to balance the budget but all they do is spend.
Julia always promised a price on carbon.
01
What the fuck are YOU doing driving a car??? You CO2 polluter and hypocrite!!!!!
10
LMAO!! And YOU Michael have the gall to call us blind and naive.
10
Prove it. I linked to an assessment by an independent body but obviously you have some evidence they aren’t aware of.
So it’s more convenient for you to take the train anyway. Suck it up princess.
10
[…] […]
00
Thank you Ms Nova and Mr Lang for spreading the word. It’s a shame, and in Australia you have the Labor doing this, in the US we have the Dumbocrat Party doing it at about the same rate. After they have destroyed all industry, where are they going to get revenue to put the population on welfare?
There is little Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch in the US, and there is little restraint of their greenie activities, which have been an untoward and completely avoidable disaster.
I think I prefer the Italian Communists to progressive politics. The Communists are crazy, but they have always been crazy, they don’t pretend not to be crazy, or pretend to “save” everything and everyone by ruining everything.
50
A crazy person who understands they have a problem is at least a little bit sane.
Only true crazy can maintain complete isolation from reality, and remain convinced there is no problem.
20
I’m sorry Peter, it’s all over. The global warming debate has been resolved. There is no such thing. Spending anything on it is wasted investment of your time and mine.
I find myself visiting the sites I used to visit regularly such as this site, WUWT, Jennifer, James Delingpole etc etc. but it’s become boring. I no longer need to feed the passion because it’s all over. Anyone who tells you it’s still on bores you, there’s not more need to discuss or even argue. It’s over and out.
50
Who’s Peter. I dont see a Peter.
Anyway, you are sooooooo wrong. The “argumnt” may have been “won” but look what ideology is still in charge.
Green ideology is in plac for th long run.
too many powerful people are making too much money out of it for it to change.
30
Oh I see now…thanks for clariung that upo….its the way th messags are stackd.
00
Janama,
I agree. But we still have to spread the word. When the ABC stops advocating renewable energy, carbon pricing and other costly policies to address dangerous, catastrophic climate change at every opportunity, that’s when I’ll be persuaded the issue is down to a stable level (like a bush fire that is said to be ‘under control’).
By the way, did you see this article on Quadrant:
“The Age of Global Warming is over”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/7-8/the-age-of-global-warming-is-over
30
Janama,
Have you seen this chart showing the interest in a number of issues such as climate change renewable energy, carbon pricing.
Select Climate change from the menu at the top and Scroll down to the activity chart. It shows the number of MSM articles, web posts, videos and twitters for every day in the English speaking media throughout the world. Notice how the interest in climate change has been decreasing for the past four years. Hardly a hearbeat remains – but not dead yet!!!
50
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/7-8/the-age-of-global-warming-is-over
50
well you had better tell New York University:
http://minx.cc:81/?post=216688
Looks like Brooksies finally up against his own ideology.
But really, Jamama, if you think its all over….then why the feck are we even discussing the fact that one of your principle parties is planning to cripple the economy for the sake of the “argumnt”
There is no argument. Green ideology rules.
50
I dont get why the red ink of the link then runs on to the entire remainder of th mssage.
[fixed] ED
00
Well thats attention to detail. Salutes to you!
00
(party)
00
How true is that?
50
The Age of Global Warming is Over – Paul Collits
It’s a reassuring read. But I suspect it may be about 5 – 10 years ahead of its time?
Indeed, it is the ‘costly’ part that is going to prove the most difficult aspect of the whole stinking mess from which to extricate ourselves. I’d rather like to see ETS monies transferred to the legal eagles en masse to formally test the accountability of the politicians, bureaucrats, UN, IPCC, NGO’s, MSM and “climate scientists” in what some might describe as their ‘Nuremberg moment’.
60
Thanks for the reference Manfred. Another book to find and read.
I reckon this topic would be a good thread in its own right, and quite timely.
00
Janama, so you have seen it. 🙂 Sorry, I didn’t see this comment when I posted my reply above.
00
http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20130806-51249.html
00
Ace, they’re pushing back from more nauseating ‘goodness’ from the Ministry-of-we-know-best.
I note a corollary is drawn with 1939 and the desire of the Third Reich to reduce the dependence on imported wheat.
Does that mean we have about 5 years left to put up with the clap-trap, or does it mean, we have 5 years left to put up with the clap-trap and endure a monumental World War of ideology?
There’s an itch for a ‘bring it on’ kind of moment! If there ever was an opportunity for a spleen venting cartharsis…
20
Well I know noone here likes my opinion on this. Basically, I think the only reason to fight the Green ideology is moral. I really dont pay much attntion to articls by sceptics saying sceptics are winning. The Eco meme is too good an excuse for those with power to screw everybody else on the planet. So it aint going to budge until something major happens.
I dont claim to be a seer and I do change my opinion. When I was 23 a Vietnamese lady promised me that “when the communists have gone” and she returned with her husband to set up a new business they would give me a job and “…you like it in Vietnam, plenty girl”.
I was amused at this unwitting evocation of one of the staple cliches of VietNam war movies. But I almost laughed out loud at the idea of “when the Communists are gone”.
To be fair, to believe the USSR was an immoveable mountain that would exist until Doomsday…one way or another…WAS I think normal then. Which is why Ronald Reagan and his circle represented such a revolutionary vision. Yes, thy could defeat the USSR without Armageddon. And they did.And even though Communists in name still rule VietNam, Nike and dozens of other Western companies are welcomed there. And the US Navy now uses Saigon as a port again. Oh…Ho Chi Minh City.
My point is, tremendous things seem to come out of the blue. But we dont know what.
In the UK one thing is utterly certain. The % of British citizens who are Muslim doubles every decade.l Inside fifty years the UK will be a Muslim majority country. Whether it remains one country we do not know. I think Yugoslavia is the example we ought fear.
In that environment…ha…whither “environmentalism”? People will be more concerned with simply staying alive.
Maybe that wont happen, and Britain becomes peacefully a Muslim society. Again, where does the secular religion of the Gaiaists fit into that? Will schools still be pumping children with Eco propaganda when Koran lessons become more important?
But more likely than either of those, not incompatible with either, is that the second shoe of the financial collapse drops and most of Western Europe completely collapss into a kind of Afghanistan / Mediaeval war-baron anarchy.
Maybe ten to forty years, THEN you can expect Eco Fascism to lose its grip. And science or sceptics will not have had anything to do with it.
The SKS wallies tried to be funny using that image from The 300. But its an interesting choice. Th Spartans lost, valiantly. Was it not worth the fight? it was much later at Platiaa that the Greeks finally obliterated their invaders.
History (or a bit of history here and there) can help one to take the long view. Eco will pass but so will everything we know. Its what we have in common that lasts.
Maybe nothing is worth fighting for unless its worth fighting for even if you are going to lose. At the moment though, sceptics arent fighting for anything, apart from a handful of full-time bloggers they are just sitting at computers congratulating each other.
31
Well I read over my above. I admit it looks pessimistic on steroids with it. I hope a Berlin wall moment does happen and freedom erupts without the misery. The misery will hit m more than most if these bleak prospects do com to pass. But what I see I failed to convey is that there is the basis for a broader optimism, in taking the longer view.
Not that that is going to be much help when the UK winter comes and like last one Im freezing my …snip-crass off because I cant afford the Green-inflated power bills!
40
In line with your comment Ace, many vapid comments spring to mind. Bluntly and as a précis…I simply loathe being taken for an institutionalised ride by those that venerate or identify with ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘ for whatever reason – take your pick – moral, political, financial, religious or straight out opportunistic.
This moment in the history displays all that is intrinsically good and bad in humanity. In this way it is like many other pivotal moments in history.
It will likely unfold uncomfortably.
10
Manfred…the fight for what is right is intrinsically worthy…what I was saying is not that sceptics dont have such a cause…but that they are not actually “fighting” in any but an unintentionally ironic sense, sat at computers chatting to each other. They talk a big fight…but aside from the few who run blogs or actively campaign, the overwhelmming majority of sceptics just talk about it. Armchair war heroes.
00
Well said Manfred.
Being taken for granted is, I think, the final irritation for most of us here.
Whether we talk constantly to everyone we meet about the social decadence inherent in the Global Warming Scam, or exchange ideas that will be put out in the blogosphere to help bring rationality, we are all doing something useful.
I have said before, the biggest agent for change is knowing and feeling you are being hit up for lots and lots of MONEY via costs or taxes.
Educating “believers” about the economic scam that is “Global Warming” is how we will bring it down.
KK
00
Europe Pulls The Plug On Its Green Future:
Published in the Australian.
link to Benny’s article without paywall.
http://www.thegwpf.org/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/
30
Thank you for that link AndyG55.
20
And how true is that? While the Agenda makes a pretense of distributing wealth to the poor, the truth is that the money always goes into the pockets of the well to do….. It is the less well to do who are always the sucker.
40
Europe is waking up. Too late. They missed breakfast. And lunch.
50
This is awesome stuff.
You seem to be the only one really covering the heart of the CAGW scam, the financial motivation.
All that money is going to someone, and it ain’t the government.
20
The Steamy Video – it’s steam stupid!
A short video on how they make steam(water vapor) from power stations appear to be sooty smog rather than steam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOv_4-KeeKI
20
I want you all to think about those images of steam coming from the stacks they show there, and it’s easy to pick the stacks.
The big fat ones are those constructed over the large cooling ponds, and the tall thin ones are the ones supposedly emitting that deadly CO2.
Superheated and pressurised steam is used to drive the three stage turbine which then drives the electricity generator.
That steam turbine looks (basically) like a jet aircraft turbine, only bigger, and that’s the closest I can describe it, and here’s an image of just part of one stage.
Stage One sees this steam straight from the boiler driving this stage. Between stage one and stage 2, some steam is sent back to the boiler for reheating, and some drives stage 2. Then some back to the boiler for reheating and some to stage three. After that some is again sent back to the boiler and the remainder goes to a large cooling pond where it too is recycled back through the boiler, a continuous loop if you wish. The big fat stack is directly over this cooling pond.
So, some steam vents away into the atmosphere, replaced by new water at the front end of the coal burning furnace/boiler complex.
Now, take an image of the big fat stack on a stinking hot day, or for that fact, any day in Summer, and you’ll see virtually nothing coming out of that big fat stack, even though exactly the same process is occurring.
Why?
Because the ambient air temperature is high and the cooling steam does not show as vapour.
On a cold day however, the hot steam does show as vapour in the surrounding, now cold atmosphere.
Now, I want you to think about that for a minute, and then refer it to the tall thin stack where that supposedly rotten stuff, that deadly CO2, is being emitted.
That is coming from the furnace side of the furnace/boiler complex.
Again, take an image on a hot Summer day, and you’ll see absolutely nothing coming from those tall thin stacks, even though the process is still exactly the same.
Take an image on a cold day however, and the now hot exhaust (same as for any time during the operation) from the furnace heats up the surrounding cold air and now shows as a plume, basically also vaporised water around the area of the exhaust.
Again, on humid days it shows up even better, and note in most images the surrounding sometimes cloudy conditions.
There’s no punch in taking an image on a dry hot day, because there will be no sight of the vapourising steam from the fat stacks, and certainly no sign of the exhaust from the tall thin stacks either.
So, what they need to do is use tricks to make people think there is something coming out and then use word association to further trick you, and then add even further to the images by having the Sun in just the right place, and even then, perish the thought even, using photoshop to digitally enhance even further those images.
It’s all just a con.
Tony.
40
Twenty years ago, the Wallerawang power station (now used just as backup) felt compelled to plant a large sign on the nearby Castlereagh Highway: “Cooling Tower exhaust is only WATER VAPOUR”
This sign was removed in under 12 months – wrong message, of course
20
I knew I had another image somewhere of a close up of the cooling tower with the cooling pond underneath.
This one is from the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant on the Schuylkill River, and is close to Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.
Now, while this is from a nuclear power plant, the cooling tower principle is the same. The superheated pressurised steam has now converted back to hot water after passing through and driving the three stages of the turbine itself.
It’s a huge image so, as it loads, you’ll see a small + icon showing where the mouse pointer usually is. Click again, and an even larger image will open on your screen.
You’ll need to scroll down a little to see the base of the cooling tower, and you can plainly see the cooling pond that the structure is constructed on top of.
Cooling Tower
Tony.
20
So power stations do NOT emit any CO2? Can I have proof of that?
03
You are also lame arse stupid.
Do you think that images of “smoke stacks” which are in fact steam stacks are an accurate way to portray power plants? Do you think that photoshopping the images to make the “smoke” look dirty is an accurate way to portray power stations?
Ultimately, do you REALLY think that CO2 is this nasty dirty black smoke going up into the atmosphere?
40
$60,000 in 37 years! Honestly Jo, it’s but a mere trifle. I may have run off the back of the envelope working it out but I came up with 0.3 cents per minute.
A miserly 0.3 cents to save the planet from the thermageddon of a 0.0000 rise in temperature over 37 years sounds like a real bargain (apologies about truncating at 4 d.p. but I really do need to get bigger envelopes)
A couple, or three, million dollars investment in Solar and Wind Power should be enough to provide a guaranteed return of at least 10% pa in public donations.
If that’s not enough for your average Bruce and Sheila then I throw my hands up at the greed of the current generation!
I’m saving your planet and you’re just whinging.
What is the world coming to?
21
Roy, havnt you got a slide rule…yet 🙂
30
Unfortunately Phodges, like so many here, you have missed the point. Financial motivation is not the “heart” of the CAGW scam, it is merely one of the primary drivers, the petrol in the tank, so to speak.
Back in the late 60’s or early 70’s a group of very influential and powerful people got it into their heads that there just too many humans, and that, left unchecked, the situation was only going to get a lot worse. They decided what was needed was a major culling of the herd. Much of what has happened in the last 40 years is a direct result of that decision.
.
Back in the 60’s we were taught in Senior High School Science that climate went in roughly 30 year cycles of warming and cooling, and that these cycles, in turn, fitted into larger cycles of warming and cooling, as evidenced by the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age.
We didn’t quite know why climate went in these cycles, but we did know it correlated with sunspot activity, or the lack of it. We also knew that sunspot activity too went in clearly defined cycles. This was all accepted, established science, back then.
Back in those days less than 20% of kids went on to Senior High School, and of those, only about a half did sciences or advanced maths. So not that many people learned these accepted, established, scientific “facts”.
But the people intent on “culling the herd” knew all this. All that was necessary was to use the next warming cycle to panic the herd into taken actions that would thoroughly ensure their unpreparedness for the cooling cycle that would inevitably follow, then sit back and let nature take its course.
And that is precisely where we are now.
History will record the next fifty years as the “Time of the Great Dying”.
50
NZ CO2 mkt rules trigger huge rise in deforestation, windfall profits
BEIJING, Aug 9 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Rules that allow New Zealand firms to use U.N. carbon credits to meet government carbon caps have led to a vast increase in deforestation in the past 12 months and allowed landowners to book huge profits without taking any action to cut emissions, government figures showed this week…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2507115
Coal-reliant Ohio has tools to meet E.P.A. carbon rules: report
WASHINGTON, August 8 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The coal-dependent state of Ohio, one of the top five U.S. carbon emitting states in recent years, can meet or even exceed future federal emissions standards for existing power plants using current policies and infrastructure, according to a new report…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2506189?&ref=searchlist
10
Ukraine to come under fire for $500-mln carbon deal
LONDON, Aug 8 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A $500-million deal for carbon permits meant to lead to huge cuts in greenhouse gas emissions has fallen way short of expectations, a campaign group will allege this month, claiming governments involved spent too much public money on buying officials hybrid cars and not enough on improving energy efficiency…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2505989?&ref=searchlist
LOL:
Britain seeks flexibility to fine firms for breaching CO2 law
LONDON, Aug 8 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Britain’s government is seeking to change national legislation to give it more leniency when dealing with companies that breach EU climate law, a move that could potentially benefit airlines that have so far failed to comply with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2506129?&ref=searchlist
00
9 Aug: Bloomberg: Carolyn Bandel: Swiss Re CFO Sees Catastrophe Bonds Cutting Prices
“Over time, we will see a growth in supply of all forms of capital to the natural catastrophe market, because it simply needs it,” (Swiss Re Chief Financial Officer George) Quinn said.
While buyers risk forfeiting their investment if catastrophe bonds are triggered before they mature, they get a relatively high interest margin for holding the securities…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-09/swiss-re-cfo-sees-catastrophe-bonds-cutting-prices.html
00
more proof – as if any was needed – that the CAGW-ers want nuclear. when will the Greens wake up?
9 Aug: ABC: Ben Heard: Renewable versus nuclear is the wrong battle
Ben Heard is director of ThinkClimate Consulting and a PhD Candidate at the University of Adelaide.
Perhaps the most pernicious discourse, the one that is holding us back from a truly visionary response to climate change, is the one pitting renewables in opposition to nuclear power. This fake dichotomy sends some activists and energy hobbyists in pursuit of 100 per cent renewable solutions, while others make a mission of poking holes in the case for renewables. In that fight, the only winners are coal, oil and gas…
Nuclear power is in the best position to replace coal-fired electricity: it’s reliable, proven and the infrastructure already exists.
We need to start the nuclear pathway immediately, instead of waiting for some future point of total desperation…
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/08/09/3821327.htm
10
Thanks for this pat,
I can’t wait to see the comments on this at the ABC.
I know I’ve posted it before, but for those of you who wonder, I have a series at my site explaining the use of the nuclear process for electrical power generation. The link is to the Intro, and all 11 Parts in the series are linked to at that intro.
Nuclear Electrical Power Generation – Why The Fuss?
Tony.
30
It is the only thing available if they really do want to get rid of durdy coal.
Michael! Where are you?? Surely you MUST agree?? If not, then please answer my questions above.
30
it took 3 academics at Uni of Sth Australia to write this!
8 Aug: TheConversation: Accountants: The unlikely environmentalists?
With an increasingly complex assortment of green tape and initiatives such as emissions trading schemes, environmental issues are no longer solely associated simply with a corporate conscience; they are synonymous with business strategy and economic survival.
With their financial acumen, accountants are arguably best positioned to redress the deficit of data for corporate greening…
Latest research in the Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability (CAGS) suggests graduate accountants should be trained in Environmental Management Accounting (EMA)…
Environmental costs (such as waste, contingent liabilities and fines) place a significant, material burden on contemporary organisations and it is safe to assume these expenses will continue to rise well into the foreseeable future…
http://theconversation.com/accountants-the-unlikely-environmentalists-16040
helping themselves, not the planet:
29 July: from Reuters Point Carbon: UN rejects call to slash CDM fees, opens regional centres
The price of the credits has plummeted to around 50 cents from over 20 euros five years ago, nearly bankrupting companies that invested in projects, after countries failed in 2009 to agree a global climate pact that would have triggered demand for credits…
Project developers that request more than 20,000 carbon credits a year must continue to pay 20 cents per unit, more than a third of their current value, after the board said scrapping fees would only lead to small savings for investors but would have a huge impact on U.N. revenues.
The CDM administrator has amassed a cash pile exceeding $216 million from collecting fees, but the U.N.’s climate arm said the revenue is vital to ensuring it retains the staff and systems needed when demand for carbon credits returns…
http://www.trust.org/item/20130730083210-gmntk/?source=hptop
10
In a nut shell!
10
hilarious. it only costs trillions of dollars:
5 Aug: LivingGreenMag: Bringing the World Back to Zero-Carbon Output [Infographic]
http://livinggreenmag.com/2013/08/05/climate-change/bringing-the-world-back-to-zero-carbon-output-infographic/
trillions again!
8 Aug: ScienceNews: Jessica Shugart: Emissions could fuel global warming for millennia
Zeebe incorporated these slow effects into a climate scenario in which humans emit 2.5 trillion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere over 500 years, a conservative estimate of how much carbon humans will burn through before fossil fuels run out or become too costly to extract. Considering the slow feedbacks bumped the projected temperature change up by 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with standard projections, to nearly 6 degrees by the year 3000. Zeebe’s calculations, published August 5 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predict that in 10000, long after the planet’s fossil fuels have run out, it will still be 4 degrees hotter than today, versus about 2 degrees warmer in scenarios that consider only fast feedbacks…
The predicted sustained warming could even cause the disintegration of continental ice sheets hundreds or thousands of years from now. With slow feedbacks factored in, Zeebe calculates that 1 trillion to 1.7 trillion metric tons of carbon emissions could cause the Greenland ice sheet to disintegrate…
Humans have released more than 365 billion metric tons of carbon over the last 250 years, and currently do so at a rate of 10 billion metric tons per year.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/352235/description/Emissions_could_fuel_global_warming_for_millennia
20
So, if the level of CO2 gets up to 3-4000 ppm. then we could get as hot as in the Ordovician..oops, that was an Ice Age.
00
In 8000 years the Earth will be in the next glacial period! It’s astronomical in origin and is overdue already so it’s as sure as clockwork the Holocene will be finished. They must seriously believe 1150ppm CO2 will be enough to cancel the next ice age.
That’s (400−280)×(2500÷365)×1.4=1150, the resulting ppm if the economy increases CO2 concentration at the same rate per tonne of carbon, plus allowing for a 1 degree rise in temperature to reduce the ocean’s absorption of CO2 by 4Gt/yr and so increase present accumulation rate by 40%. Note that they never mention a ppm figure in the article, pretty sneaky eh?
When I roughly fit an exponential curve to the MLO data, a simplistic extrapolation says 1150ppm will be reached around the year 2125. So we’ve got some time then…
What’s ironic about the climate mitigation scam is that if every other organism on this planet had spent as much time worrying about future generations as we are supposed to do, most species would have gone extinct through self-sacrifice. (Didn’t 99% of all species die out anyway?)
The predictions made in the 2007 AR4 didn’t predict the flattened trend of the 12 years they were already halfway into, but don’t worry I’m sure the models will get the temperature of 10000AD just right.
10
So in other words you don’t care about future generations? Aren’t we supposed to be more evolved than a snail or an Orangutan? Obviously not.
05
Models are projections under certain scenarios. Actual observations in context with the natural environemnt tell the full story.
“A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
04
OMG what an own goal! We can quote trends just ten years in length? That just gives me EVEN MORE precedents to choose from to demolish this UN fiction of “unprecedented” rates of warming.
Rate of increase 1 Jan 1991 – 1 Jan 2001 : 0.0235°C/y
Rate of increase 1 Jan 1932 – 1 Jan 1942 : 0.0275°C/y (HADCRUT4 chart)
Rate of increase 1 April 1909 – April 1919 : 0.0237°C/y
Rate of increase 1 Jan 2001 – 1 Jan 2011 : 0.0026°C/y
How can you believe a word these UN bureaucrats say, Michael? You are being led astray and you’re not fighting them back very hard.
Where was “Natural climate variability” when there was warming? The UN does not accept “Natural climate variability” as an explanation for the warming, but they accept it when there is a pause in warming! How did “Natural climate variability” SUDDENLY switch on in 2001? It didn’t, the warming which preceded it was mainly “Natural climate variability” the whole time. But the UN and the IPCC are NOT scientific bodies, they are political bodies, so like politicians they are “staying on message” and repeating the team slogan.
If you really cared about your children you wouldn’t embarrass them by posting demonstrable nonsense on the Internet! No wonder you don’t use your last name.
You should stick to the 30-year WMO definition of climate to be on the safe side, no matter what their bureaucrat boss says. The longer the averaging period the less opportunities I have to
disprove your pet hypothesischerrypick short natural variations.Now if you had stuck to 40-year rates of warming then I would be really stuffed, because I cannot find a precedent for the 1960-2000 rate of warming…. unless I go back to the year 1700. 🙂 Gosh those 17th century coal power plants warmed up a lot more than the castle walls, eh?
Do I really need to say it? Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Unprecedented warming in a short history doesn’t prove it is either truly unprecedented or caused by industry.
Enough of this.
Here is my old definition of what evidence I would need to see to convince me that drastic cuts in CO2 emission would be justifiable.
Until you define what evidence you would need to see to convince you that CAGW is exaggerated and drastic cuts in CO2 emissions are unnecessary, I will make no further replies to you because you aren’t being serious about scepticism.
40
It is already costing a lot of money and this is only the beginning…
‘Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP’
‘Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.’
‘Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5m people a year, the report found.
The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.’
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy?cat=environment&type=article
http://daraint.org/about-us/what-we-do/
05
“A new Oxfam report released today hopes to close this understanding gap between climate change and global food prices, arguing previous research grossly underestimates future food prices by ignoring the impact of severe weather shocks to the global food system.
The report, “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices,” argues current research paints only some of the picture by relying on steady increase in temperatures and precipitation. To get a more accurate picture, researchers threw down wild cards — the crazy weather events like droughts, hurricanes, and floods we’ve come to increasingly expect — to “stress-test” the system.” http://grist.org/food/how-extreme-weather-supersizes-global-food-price-tags/
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/extreme-weather-extreme-prices
06
Food prices are higher because you Green dumbasses are pushing for the insane by using valuable croplands for biofuel. We have been pointing that out to you for years here.
You are in denial.
20
Where is that warming? Is cooling next?
This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-age-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/
carbon DIOXIDE is PLANT FOOD AND NOT POLLUTION.
man made global warming is the biggest FRAUD in human history !!
10
Throughout history there have been scams. Stories in the Bible discuss various scams, Jacob cheated Esau, and Joseph is scammed by his brothers. I dare say everyone at some time or another has been cheated through deceit.
Reading the nonsense that this “Michael” is inclined to write spurs me to contemplate what categories of people there are that are completely sucked in by this scam. It seems to me they might be:
a) Stupidity
Some people simply do not possess the capacity to recognise the deceit. This category does not include meek and gullible people, but is confined to those who lack reason and logic to the extent that acceptance occurs without an ounce of logic. An example might be acceptance when told that variation in temperature of a fraction of a degree is catastrophic, when at the same time they are aware that some geographic locations experience a change of 100 degrees (F) in a few hours.
b) Ignorance
The world is full of people who are so preoccupied with entertainment, sport, or sex that they are simply oblivious to the world around them. In this category one would find people that either can’t or don’t read, never listen to anything of value on radio, or never watch the news. The snippets of information these people pick up are rumour and gossip that overhear in conversation.
c) Misinformed
In this category we find people that read the preponderance of misinformation and disinformation that exists on nearly every subject. These are the sort of people that are devoted to such web sites as SKS or 350.org without realising that they are being presented with propaganda. In this category I would place a cleric I know. He insisted the other day that coal fired power stations cause breast cancer. When I challenged this, he referred to some report from Lisa Jackson’s EPA, as though this must be Gospel. Never once would it occur to him that this is one of the most corrupt organs of one of the most corrupt governments on the planet.
d) Academics
In this category we find those that are so immersed in the dogma, so infiltrated with the nonsense, so devoted to the business of obtaining grants, that they have become completely detached from reality. I wouldn’t put Lew in this category. Lew is in a category by himself. I suggest that folks in such socialist hotbeds as ANU or Macquarie University might be in this category. Certainly not stupid. Certainly not apathetic. Simply exposed solely to the propaganda cultivated by their peers.
e) Crooked and fake academia
This is the world of ex-weather underground David Karoly, or Tim Flannery. They know damned well that they are peddling propaganda, and either enjoy the prosperity that propaganda rewards them, or cherish the evil which that propaganda achieves.
There must be more categories than this. “Michael” doesn’t appear to fit neatly into any of these boxes. Perhaps Andrew Macrae or Kinky Keith have some ideas.
40
Wow, if you actually spent as much time presenting some real science instead of spending a humungous amount of time fabricating new ways to attack me and other realists with long winded and boring character assasinations you might have a point. As it stands, you just prove how little actual science you have. Lets see, main game plan, cherry pick the temperature record, if that doesn’t work flounder about with non scientific comments like climates changed before or its only a trace gas etc. If that doesn’t work attack the models, finally try and look clever by attacking the other person.
Pathetic.
06
You wanted to know what would happen at higher CO2.
Here it is. So long as it doesn’t’ get too cold.
CO2 has no effect on temperature.
30
Rod Stuart, I think Michael does fit nicely in e. above:
Time after time I have pointed out Michael’s use of propaganda. I don’t think he’s evil so he must be gaining prosperity. So Michael, who’s paying you?
10
I support the science, no propoganda here. I point out what the science is, I explain why your cherry picking is wrong by providing sources and explaining the reality of the warming. You guys respond by endless, and some of it very nasty, personal attacks and character assassinations. This I have noticed is a common tactic when you have been proven wrong. The personal attacks on famous climate scientists and associations so that they can be discredited and therefore dismissed are well known. If you could prove your point with the science you would, that you can’t should tell you something, that it doesn’t is very sad for all of us and future generations.
03
Great more denial from you. I’ll be happy to haunt you and point it out when you do so and refer back to this lie of yours.
Likewise you warmists with thread bombing, and refusing to answer difficult questions. I’ll repeat mine:
Where is your empirical evidence that water (in all forms) is not fully able to mitigate and overwhelm the effects of a trace gas (a mere .000400)? You have completely avoided a response in the past.
20
That’s it, Michael! The missing category.
Quasi-religious zeal
Religious zealots are so connected to the faith that they actually BELIEVE that it is getting warmer when it’s not, they actually BELIEVE that the sea level has risen when it hasn’t, and they actually BELIEVE that the ice is melting when it’s freezing. So married to the faith and the dogma of the priests of the religion, they actually believe that the emperor has clothes. As GK Chesterton said “If a man does not believe in God it is not so that he believes in NOTHING, it means he will believe in ANYTHING.” Belief is so strong, and the character so narcissistic, that the obvious can be easily ignored to the point that even when expensive and clever measurement apparatus such as satellites, RSS, argo bouys, etc. indicate that temperature, sea level, and ice vary ever so slightly within a complex system that is regulated precisely, the zealot ignores reality and instead turns to the adjusted and twisted mantra of his religion. Damn the nay-sayers, and crush the infidels; the non-believers must PAY. There is no sacrifice too great for the Sky Dragon and his heavenly choir. Only then will the green nirvana be achieved.
10
Global lower atmospheric temperatures:- 44 of the latest climate models versus REALITY…….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
In other words the models are RUBBISH !@@#$
00