JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission.

Thanks to Steve Hunter. See more of his cartoons at Andys rant.

Taxpayers rejoice! The science-propaganda agency is gone for good. One down — scores to go.

Tony Abbott was sworn in yesterday. Today Greg Hunt rang Tim Flannery to tell him the commission is closed. His $180,000 3-day-a-week job as a sales agent for “climate change” is over.

BREAKING (ABC):  The Abbott Government has abolished the Climate Commission, pushing ahead with its plan to scrap government bodies associated with Labor’s carbon pricing scheme and climate change policy.

The commission was set up under then prime minister Julia Gillard in February 2011 as an independent body “to provide reliable and authoritative” information on climate change.

Jo Nova applauds the Abbott government decision to cut waste and to stop funding an inept unscientific agency which was unbalanced to the point of being government advertising in disguise.  Today is a great day for taxpayers. This agency propped up billions of dollars in pointless futile government spending trying to change the weather. Nothing will bring back money spent on desal plants that were mothballed when the floods came that real scientists predicted. Likewise the money burned on solar panels and windfarms is gone for good too, and still going.

Emma Thompson reports on this from the ABC. As a fan of big-government she doesn’t challenge Flannery when he says the commission was independent and apolitical, despite it being completely dependent on government funds, not just to run, but to carry out its plans. And despite the fact that the commission omitted every inconvenient fact it wanted to, presenting a continuously one-sided story that served their own personal agendas. She interviewed no citizens or scientists who might have expressed a view that this move was wholly beneficial, a good step scientifically or very sensible and popular.  (See my bolded quote above).

Tim Flannery speaks plain unvarnished nonsense:

“”We’ve stayed out of the politics and stuck to the facts,” he said.”

“As a result we’ve developed a reputation as a reliable apolitical source of facts on all aspects of climate change.

“I believe that Australians have a right to know – a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change.

In 2011 he compared “climate change deniers to flat Earth believers “. Another Flannery apolitical fact?

The Abbott government has these in their targets too, but needs to pass legislation to remove them:

“The Coalition Government also wants to dump the Climate Change Authority, which was set up in 2012 to provide independent advice to the government on the carbon price and emissions reductions targets.

Mr Hunt yesterday instructed his department to begin drafting repeal legislation to abolish the authority, in keeping with its over-riding plan to scrap the carbon pricing scheme.

In what is likely to be a harder task, the Government has also announced it is preparing legislation to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

Also set up in 2012, it has been provided with $10 billion in funding over five years to support private investment in renewable energy.”

It is not over yet. The Labor Party and Greens have left toxic bombs in the legislation they hope will stop the voters being able to remove unpopular, wasteful programs.

“…the Australian Conservation Foundation has released legal advice that the CEFC is “obliged to follow its legislated mandate and cannot be frustrated in that regard by attempted ministerial interference”.

It also says the board “would be obliged to ignore” any direction to cease operations.

The Greens have said they will oppose any bid to abolish the CEFC.

Full story ABC

If the Climate Commission had served the public they would have helped the public understand the limitations of models, their failed predictions, their weak assumptions, and they would have revealed that renewable energy rarely reduces CO2, and that even if it did, Australian’s were not likely to reduce global temperatures by even 0.01C without spending exorbitant sums. If they had served the public, they might still have jobs.

H/t to Tim and Marcus

Related posts:

Thanks to Steve Hunter. See more of his cartoons at Andys rant.

* * *

Those who work to cut government waste don’t get government grants. Join us and help stop corruption in science with donations or support via mail and transfer. Thank you.  – Jo

Current site tally: 9,928,480 page views

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (157 votes cast)
A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission., 8.9 out of 10 based on 157 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pju742y

279 comments to A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission.

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    He has a little list,
    of things that never will be missed.

    321

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/18/climateer-tim-flannery-sacked-in-oz/#comment-1420993

      ‘Philip Bradley says:
      September 19, 2013 at 2:03 am
      Flannery, or as I like to call him Flummery, was an embarassment. Graduated in English Literature. Some how got a tax payer funded gig digging up Kangaroo bones, which resulted in him getting a PhD in paleontology, and then went on to be a museum bureaucrat.

      He knows bugger all about the climate, and bugger all about basic science and the scientific method.’

      651

      • #
        Ian

        Possibly a bit off topic but I’ve just been listening to the ABC’s PM who had John Cook spruiking one metre sea rises and the general gloom and doom about to be presented in the soon to be released IPCC report. There was no discussion about the discrepancies between the models and the observations, no comment on the probability that sea levels will not rise anywhere near a metre just the same old memes from Cook. Even though Flannery has exited stage left there will be no shortage of willing volunteers just itching to pick up where he left off. John Cook appears to be first cab off the rank. In closing just why is the ABC so reluctant to give both sides of the Climate Change debate? Probably I guess as they believe the 97% of scientists etc etc a misbelief that has been further promulgated by a flawed paper from John Cook.

        334

        • #
          turnedoutnice

          When you have a large nest of pseudo-scientific termites, it takes time for the poison to spread……..

          During that period, the remaining termites scurry around as they try to repair the damage.

          241

        • #
          Steve

          Ian. I agree, it’s like trying to fight a cancer that has metastasized. As soon as you think you’ve cut out the main tumor another pops up … and another. These Eco-Fascists are like a cancer. A bureaucracy that only knows one way forward … to get bigger in an uncontrolled fashion.
          $180,000 a year for 3 days a week??? This almost makes me want to set up a gallows, that is obscene. Of course Flannery would find nothing but extreme warming with a deal like that. Find no warming you have no job. Find warming then you keep it. Nothing biased about this situation… ahem!
          Go Tony. Rip this filth out and start an investigation into Union corruption, that should keep the ALP infighting and imploding for at least another decade, and I sadly was once a Labor voter. I hang my head in shame daily, they stabbed the Australian people in the back big time, and they might as well officially marry the Greens. They should get it over and done with and stop acting like they hate each other when they are 100% aligned on all policies except boat people which was only changed because of an election in the first place.

          251

          • #
            Olaf Koenders

            I’m surprised the Guv Gen didn’t do to Labor as what happened to the Whitlam grabbermint and sack the lot. Probably some sexist bias in there.

            On the destruction of the commission, our biased ABC even has David Suzuki doing crocodile tears about it. I was hoping the commission would be scrapped. Looks like we got one of our wishes.. :)

            63

            • #
              Backslider

              I’m surprised the Guv Gen didn’t do to Labor as what happened to the Whitlam grabbermint and sack the lot.

              No way, she is Shorten’s mother in law….

              51

        • #
          Tim

          Listening or watching the ABC can lead to symptoms of anxiety and anger. Personally, I am asymptomatic now, since I have found the cure: total abstinence.

          252

        • #
          Robert JM

          Up to one meter sea level rise, what happened to the 2m or more from previous reports.
          Someone needs to create a table of the difference between the 4th and 5th report with the actual data alongside.

          32

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    News Flash: Adults take arrive at the playground and take over the playtime. Several children are asked to leave for “bringing the game into disrepute”.

    And that about sums it up. Who knows what long term damage people like Flannery have done to the name and standing of science in the community?

    Hopefully this is the beginning of a reaffirmation of the basic tenants of good scientific practice and an end to the concocted, pseudo scientific, political agencies and the perversion of formally sound agencies like the CSIRO.

    Tims carping should be heart warming.

    405

    • #
      Sephen Harper

      No, this is not “a reaffirmation of the basic tenants of good scientific practice”. Nor is it “a reaffirmation of the basic landlords of good scientific practice”! That word would be tenets.

      I know what you mean and concur with the sentiments wholeheartedly. I find it interesting though, how that archetypal schoolmarm, Julia Gillard, who always fancied herself the smartest person in the room, has grabbed a vicarious guernsey as a commenter here.

      It was Gillard who popularised the word tenants instead of using the correct word tenets. I believe it’s all the range now among 20-somethings to drop that word in polite conversation to prove just how smart they are.

      Of course, Julia, being Julia, didn’t stop there. Oh no! She has a left us whole suite of words and phrases so that we will never forget her. For all the right reasons.

      Try these little beauties on for size:

      Comtempful instead of contemptible
      Tasmania instead of Tanzania (embarrassingly used on a visiting head of state)
      Taliband instead of Taliban
      Hyperbowl instead of hyperbole (hy-PER-bow-lee)

      And my all-time favourite:

      High dungeon instead of high dudgeon.

      The last is where Gillard belled the cat. Few people would know the expression “to be in high dudgeon” as in “Tony Abbott is in high dudgeon” – meaning that Tony Abbott would be feeling very indignant or would be filled with righteous anger. Gillard tried the expression out on Abbott in parliament and got it woefully wrong. Instead of showing how clever she was to use a highbrow phrase that almost no-one would know, Gillard proved herself to be the classroom dunce, crashing and burning in the most spectacular way. Sums up Gillard very neatly I think.

      Gillard represents a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. I know that she’s been gone for a while now but I just want to feel the pleasure of saying it again: Good riddance! There. I feel much better now.

      171

      • #
        crakar24

        You forgot mysoginist (Gillard version),the Dept of Defence is now enacting gender discriminatory changes in order to get more females into the defence force, they have even given it a catchy name “Positive Discrimination” in order to justify it.

        So we have a situation where there is no misogyny in the DOD but because of it being percieved so we go out of our way to create misandry.

        This is her true legacy.

        141

        • #
          Leo G

          Since the prefix myso- means dirty, and gin can be either a snare or trick (or an alcoholic drink) a mysoginist might be someone who uses dirty tricks (or drinks Gin from a dirty glass).

          11

          • #
            George Horn

            An apt description of that lot, I would have said, given:

            1. The long list of dirty laundry they do not air
            and
            2. The fact that washing involves the additional use of treated tap water (gasp!) and animal-killing, algae-promoting detergents (the horror!).

            21

  • #
    David Cooke

    The departure of Flannery from his political job will give him more time to speak and write on the subject in which he has expertise (i.e. palaeontology).

    101

  • #

    Edith Cowan University researchers are frightening the possums right out of their trees, invoking 3-4C of warming and 40% less rainfall in the South West. More cuts are needed!

    183

  • #
    David

    Oh frabjous day. Callooh. Callay. [with thanks to Lewis Carroll]
    Some days the sun just shines brighter.

    443

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    We in the UK have our Flannerys, sucking off the public teat to create climate lies.

    402

    • #
      Steve

      @turnedoutnice Yeah, thanks for giving the world the University of East Anglia UK … Brits need to riot and flush their toilet as well. We can do it together … one … two … three … FLUSH!!! That feels better … so go riot on the Uni lawn and demand [SNIP. Tone down the language. Essentially saying that the UK needs a serious inquest looking for fraud and malpractice] (not that the BBC would cover it, they’re too busy running alarmist rubbish or protecting internal pedophiles to care about exposing treasonous fraud)

      100

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        What is needed is a license to practice as a scientist advising government and business. It means the instant lying is proved, that job is ended.

        At the moment the University bureaucracies protect the crooks because they income comes from giving fake science to politicians. That in turn means the scientists giving that fake science, like Flannery are politicians who can’t be booted out except by other politicians.

        So change the rules of the game.

        50

        • #
          Robert JM

          That is a terrible idea, it just give the controllers another way of dismissing critics.
          What science needs is a clear definition, ie science is a methodology and a scientist is a person who uses that methodology in their studies.
          You then make up a hypocratic like oath around the scientific method.
          That is the only way of stoping pseudoscience posing as science.

          30

          • #
            Owen Morgan

            “Sir” David King suddenly popped up, a couple of days back, to spout even more of the drivel which was his metier, when he was the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Blair government, over here, in the UK. He lied his socks off about fracking:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10313679/Fracking-could-have-enormous-environmental-consequences-senior-scientist-warns.html

            This character was paid pretty serious munnions, to justify the Blair regime’s idiotic energy policy, which has beggared thousands of British pensioners. Now, he returns from the grave, to try to condemn thousands more to the same fate. Having enjoyed a six-figure salary and now receiving an indestructible, gilt-edged pension, King, a native of South Africa, doesn’t need to worry about the extreme policies which he wishes on the population of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

            20

    • #
      ads

      I really dislike this flannery

      All he keeps saying is “Climate change is happening! abbott doesnt believe!! Anyone who wants carbon tax gone is a non-beleiver!!” …b.asically

      No, thats wrong.

      Yes ok maybe humans are effecting the climate somewhat……however the point most so called “skeptics” are trying to get across is (at least open minded ones) , that even if australia was a ZERO emission country, it would DO NOTHING to save the world……nothing…….at…..all……..

      CHINA / USA / INDIA / EURO, if they went to 0% emissions THAT would “fix” the pollution or “climate change”. Australia is like a grain of sand in terms of relevance here………..

      No point bothering trying to slow australias emissions by taxing. Just use incentives… IE DIRECT ACTION. Hell, australia should be the solar capital of the world. (production im talking). If we can make the best solar panels in the world or some new solar tech through research, then export it……………………….badda bing, badda boom…..

      00

  • #
    David

    “I believe that Australians have a right to know – a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change”.

    I agree whole heartedly with you Timmie. It’s just that you didn’t provide it.

    Hope you weren’t relying on that $180K per annum to fund your new water level property.

    534

    • #
      Allen Ford

      I agree whole heartedly with you Timmie. It’s just that you didn’t provide it.

      Exactly what I thought when I read Timbo’s lame brain response to losing his institution and livlihood.

      Full marks, David!

      40

    • #
      Hat Rack

      David, that could be one of the Terms Of Reference of a Royal Commission into Global Warming and Climate Change – ‘the publics right to authoritative, independent and accurate information.’

      Senator Nick Xenophon was pushing for a Royal Commission a few years ago but, unfortunately, the idea never got off the ground. I still think it is a good idea, especially now that people have had an opportunity to read, learn and think more about the subject. And if it was proven that CAGW is a fact, surely it would be better to spend money on adaptation rather than trying to change the climate?

      30

  • #
    scaper...

    More good news to come. Was telling Bob about this at his Brisbane book launch a couple of days before the election.

    He came up with a cunning plan, commission Flannery to disband all the climate qangos. Sounded good at the time but there will be nothing left to disband.

    100

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Another tipping point! The end is in sight! Finally they get it. Snouts in the trough no more. The death spiral of the preachers to the converted. The scam is unraveling. The models are wrong. Where is the academic integrity? No more fake carbon market. Beginning of the end! No more fountain of cash. Greens wet themselves. The world is cooling. CO2 is not a gas.

    722

    • #
      ianl8888

      CO2 is not a gas

      Entirely dependent on ambient temperature and pressure – ooops !:)

      280

      • #
        Gee Aye

        dry ice is not a solid.

        Strangely my paymasters are still paying me. Oh yeah, they are in power.

        121

        • #
          Manfred

          suck for your life

          80

        • #
          ianl8888

          I did not say it was. That’s just you being superficially superciliously silly, jumping to populist conclusions

          AMBIENT temperature and pressure – at -273K, no Brownian motion occurs (that’s physical theory of course, Ive never seen that empirically)

          Golly gee, by aye

          92

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Yeah, so what’s the problem?

      40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I agree that CO2 is not a normal gas.

      It has been a Celebrity Gas and is about to lose it’s status as a token Coinage.

      KK

      473

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘I agree that CO2 is not a normal gas’

        ‘we should teach…the broad history of the globes climate…and when we do that co2 keeps inserting itself everywhere we look, if you leave co2 out nothing makes sense’

        AGU, global warming and co2, with Richard Alley.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPLjx5JSUI

        ———-
        REPLY: So in order to put an advert in for his youtube channel (do those views earn him money?), BA takes a funny comment out of context, responds to it as if it were serious (and on topic) and writes a three line minimum — making a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance) to pretend that he is taking part in a normal conversation. BA – your motives are totally transparent. I’m passing this one, but you are clearly not responding to the discussion, and unless you can do better you are still headed for the auto-spam bin where you can whine to yourself about how Nova is terrified of posting a boring video of Richard Alley that you have already posted twice before. – Jo

        27

        • #
          Gee Aye

          I’m just chuffed that someone found it funny.

          21

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          So if he’s got a “youtube” link in his post, auto delete him, simple as that.

          81

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘So if he’s got a “youtube” link in his post, auto delete him, simple as that.’ so that applies to further down? No I don’t think so because it is politically correct with this site!

            pat
            September 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm · Reply

            Oh Happy Day
            http://www.youtube.com

            04

            • #
              Heywood

              Pat is a long term and well respected member of this site whilst you have been here 5 minutes and are nothing but a one liner troll who links to your own propaganda videos.

              Big difference.

              60

        • #
          AndyG55

          “the broad history of the globes climate”

          I agree.. particularly the Holcene with its gradually decreasing peaks,
          this current small one being significantly lower than the previous two,
          and certain a long way short of the Holocene OPTIMUM.

          We should also note that these warmer periods are when the human population on Earth thrived.

          And if we go back a long way, when there was a decent supply of CO2 (unlike the minimal amount we currently have), we get to the most PROLOFIC biosphere the Earth has ever had.

          31

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … warmer periods are when the human population on Earth thrived

            But that is the problem, Andy. The intellectual Greens ask, “What is mankind doing for the planet, as opposed to taking from the planet? They come up with the answer, “Nothing!”, and therefore see us as a scourge on the face of the world, that needs to be drastically reduced in numbers, leaving only those who will tenderly nurture nature, and help it meet its full potential.

            For once, I am being serious. I have had to sit through conferences where this was the constant theme: “How can we drastically reduce the size of the global human population over the next two or three generations?”

            They do not see people living in mud huts, burning animal dung for cooking, with a life expectancy of thirty years, as a problem – they see that as one ideal solution – “Because they are at one, with their environment”.

            40

        • #
          AndyG55

          Greens and real environmentalists should be WORSHIPPING CO2.

          It is the gas of all LIFE on Earth.

          Without our current TRACE levels, life would not exist.

          41

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘(unlike the minimal amount we currently have)’ well the normal co2 level for the atmosphere to about 280ppm, in between ice ages, and has been so for several millions years at least!

            But the Co2 tipping point is not far off!

            http://www.youtube.com

            07

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              … the normal co2 level for the atmosphere to about 280ppm

              I don’t agree. Where in the scientific literature does it definitively state that?

              The climate is cyclic, and was before mankind came on the scene. What point on a cyclic curve is “normal”?

              You are totally and utterly clueless.

              You also have to crash conversations with your unwelcome and inane comments. I bet you have to crash parties as well. You have such poor social interaction skills, that I can’t imagine anybody wanting to invite you.

              60

        • #
          Heywood

          Oh look! RichardAlleysBoyfriendthe4th is back with another YouTube link for us to ignore.

          Got to admire his tenacity.

          61

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Got to admire his tenacity.”

            No, you don’t.. Its just pest value.

            61

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Worse.
            He reveals that he is a teacher. I pity his pupils, they will have to learn everything by rote and never think for themselves at all.

            I wonder what he teaches? Can’t be science, as there is no evidence that he studied any. Can’t ask as the reply button has gone.

            By the way, he seems to think that a strong absorber of IR is a weak emitter of the same. Just a comment as he has lots of other strange ideas.

            00

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          FAO JO

          ‘a boring video of Richard Alley that you have already posted twice before’ well if posters keep posting untruths then it is my duty to put them right and inform them of the truth!

          PS I told you if you wanted text it would only be a repeat of what’s in the vid, but in short hand really, because I’m not going to repeat it word for word! What would the point be?

          ——————————————–
          REPLY: Read my last reply c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y. You missed the point. Timewaster. *THIS* Close.- Jo

          01

  • #
  • #
    turnedoutnice

    I perceive a great danger once all these climate commissioners and associated pompous scientific detritus are dumped into general society. The heat from their motormouths will create oodles of global warming.

    You see, just like Bliar’s Chief Scientific apologist for fake IPCC science, David King, Flannery will go round shooting his gob about every climate issue under the Sun.

    King has just entered the fracking issue with dire warnings. Like he, Flannery needs a gag.

    232

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    And just who will employ these people now to fling dung at a public they despise?

    122

    • #
      Jon

      “And just who will employ these people now to fling dung at a public they despise?”
      National or international Marxism, true or dressed up in green?

      41

    • #
      MemoryVault

      And just who will employ these people now to fling dung at a public they despise?

      No problem answering that.

      Here is the page listing the recently “retired” Commissioners at the Climate Commission.

      Four tenured professors at taxpayer funded universities, one Executive Director of a multi-million dollar company, and the recently retired President of BP Australasia, who, I’m fairly certain, isn’t exactly on the bones of his bum.

      Here is a link to the Climate Commission’s Science Advisory Panel, which is now, presumably, also disbanded.

      Six professors, and two Doctors. Six at various Australian universities, one at the CSIRO, and one at the BoM – in other words, ALL on the taxpayer’s teat.

      .
      So, in answer to the question “who will pay them”, the answer is, “you and me – same as always”.

      50

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I wonder if someone can explain how and why the various Climate Change laws/legislation are so difficult to remove?
    I know there is a mandate needed for some laws but which ones? or has it become too much of a legal minefield to explain?

    101

    • #
      Steve

      Only the Senate stands in the way. Tony will have to utilize a double dissolution … too many micro party and independent morons got elected and they are all now supporting the tax and opposing a repeal … even Palmers Senate hopeful Jackie Lambi from Tasmania said she doesn’t want to axe it just reduce it!!! Totally clueless people everywhere, why would we keep a monolithic bureaucracy if it wasn’t having any perceived impact at all because the price per tonne is reduced to nothing. Palmer ran on an axe-the-tax platform, and now he is saying that he will block EVERYTHING that the Abbott Govt wants to pass through unless he gets everything he wants. So Australia’s biggest Coal Miner is putting his ego before his #1 Policy prior to the election … couldn’t see that one coming (NOT). Abbott needs to expose the fact that every other party is opposing his mandate, take it to a double dissolution and clean out all the scum bags that are showing their true colors as humanity hating pro-eugenicist constituent ignoring slimy globalist tools. God please give us our country back! Pray people, you need to pray long and hard.

      90

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Thanks Steve, instead of a minefield it’s more a S&%T fight and the MSM doesn’t help, Flannery is on the Today show this morning, watch and vomit.

        20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Yonnie.
      Schemes, funds, programs 33
      Agencies 8
      Departments involved 7

      e.g. Treasury controls the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is?was connected to the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission (both under the Dept of Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
      Also controlled by Treasury is Low Carbon Australia and the Energy Security Fund.

      Above the Climate Change Authority (and under the spaghetti dept as above) is the Clean Energy Regulator with its offshoots the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, the Carbon Pricing Mechanism, the Renewable Energy Target, the Australian National Registry of Emission Units, the Carbon Farming Initiative and NGERS (which presumably we can’t do without).
      Also under the same Department are The Steel Transformation Plan, Clean Technology Focus comprising Supply Chain/Technology Innovation Program/Investment Program/Food and Foundries Programs.

      Also involved are the Departments of
      Resources, Energy and Tourism (Energy Savings Initiative, Coal Sector Jobs Package, Energy Efficiency Opportunities, Coal Mining Abatement Technology Support Package)

      Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Land Sector Carbon & Biodiversity Board which SURPRISE! has offshoots for the Biodiversity Fund, Carbon Farming Futures, Carbon Farming Skills Program, Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund and the Regional Natural Resources Management Planning for the Climate Change Fund).

      Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

      Infrastructure and Transport and

      Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

      I haven’t listed all the offshoots (like the Clean Energy Regulator or Low Carbon Australia) but you can perhaps guess why the incoming Government wanted the lot simplified. Otherwise almost half the Cabinet would have had some resource guzzling mob behind them.

      You can perhaps guess why the outgoing Government were saying that the whole lot couldn’t be untangled and removed. I hope they were wrong.

      30

  • #
    warcroft

    OT. . .

    Hey JoJo, you (and others) will get a kick out of this.
    My favourite sci-fi news site, io9, keeps pushing climate change scares.
    Just today we have this:

    This map shows the regions of Earth most vulnerable to climate change
    io9.com/this-map-shows-the-regions-of-earth-most-vulnerable-to-1342477982

    And this:
    What would happen to Earth’s climate if all the carbon that’s currently sequestered as fossil fuels were to be dug up and burned?
    http://observationdeck.io9.com/our-calculated-global-warming-in-this-case-is-16-c-1343534309

    Its just more face palming, head shaking, nonsense!
    The first link is from Scientists from Stanford University and the Wildlife Conservation Society in Australia.

    80

    • #
      warcroft

      Hmmm, have to copy/paste the first link.

      Keep up the good work JoJo!
      Today, with Flannerys sacking, must feel like a great victory. Im proud for us all.

      And sorry about the name JoJo. Every I know called Jo or Joanne is called JoJo. Its a kids show my daughter use to watch. JoJo’s Circus.
      Heres a link. Now get the tune out of your head :p
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgIfUlT-W4Q

      Hey yo, its JoJos circus!

      60

    • #
      Steve

      >>>This map shows the regions of Earth most vulnerable to climate change

      Isn’t it amazing that even though the words Climate Change mean that things could get Hotter, Cooler, Wetter or Drier, that the specific change implied is never explained? Technically the climate changes every day sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst.

      It would be like going to a quiz night and getting asked
      DOES THE CLIMATE CHANGE?
      A. Yes
      B. Yes
      C. Of course it does dummy!

      50

  • #
    Carbon500

    It would have been a wise politician who, faced with all the doomsday prophecies, decided on a ‘wait and see’ policy, and given the sensationalist claims made had looked further into what was being claimed.
    A rise in Co2 concentration of about 1 to 2 ppm per annum is hardly a drastic increase.
    It’s heartening to see that the proverbial chickens are now coming home to roost, and that all the shock horror nonsense we’ve been fed over the years by the climate activists is at last being questioned.

    142

    • #
      Matt Bennett

      “A rise in Co2 concentration of about 1 to 2 ppm per annum is hardly a drastic increase.”

      What a stupid, ill-informed ‘argument from personal incredulity’… Given that the natural average background rise in CO2 from glacial to interglacial periods is 1-2ppm every 200-500 yrs and considering the current rise is well over TWO orders-of-magnitude greater than this, on what basis do you make this stupid claim?

      As any rational person will tell you, the absolute size of a given change or concentration of a substance tells you nothing of its effects, independent of information that gives it context. Would you argue that 5mg of botulinum is harmless just because it’s only “5mg”?

      339

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Yeah, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up.
        And to date, the only observable, measurable effect has been that crop yields have increased.
        Oh, and that global temperatures have stopped rising.

        .
        So, your point is . . .

        380

        • #
          Steve

          @MemoryVault
          Don’t start trying to tell warmers that the temp hasn’t increased. They will hold their hands over their ears and run around in circles making strange noises trying to drown out the sound of the truth. Best to let them go crazy bouncing off the walls and drag their own butts to the psych ward.
          I love how all the biggest scientists who dramatize the sea rise claims all live in nice beach front property that only a fat govt or quango salary could afford, it always makes me laugh.
          The fact that they also believe that paying the Govt more money could change the long term weather forecast is even more of a joke. Utopians are always crazy people who’s ideas end up killing way more people and causing way more misery than they start out to avoid. Crazy Greenies are like Marxists on steroids. Marx wanted centrally managed economies and central banking … how’s that working out in the US, UK, EU and Japan??? Govts couldn’t manage their way out of a wet paper bag, it’s best to keep them as small as possible and build strong community lobbies to fight for local environmental issues that actually matter; true environmental issues are being sidelined by this false debate/war against CO2, the most important trace gas in the atmosphere … they call it a pollutant even though it is the building block of all Carbon based life … weirdoz, cooks, and quackery. But dangerous cooks!!!

          191

      • #
        llew Jones

        Rationality is useful only when one is sufficiently informed. Do you have any idea of the relationship between increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and its effect on Earth’s temperature?

        Here is about the only bit of established climate science that tells us anything about the effect of that increasing CO2 concentration on temperature:

        Temperature(b) minus Temperature(a) is proportional to the natural logarithm of the ratio of CO2 concentration(b) divided by CO2 concentration(a).

        symbolically: T(b) – T(a) = K ln (CO2(b)/CO2(a)).

        If you understand junior high school maths you should know that the tangent to this curve asymptotes to zero. That means the rate of change of temperature driven by rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 trends to zero as CO2 concentrations increase.

        That precludes any idea of a runaway CO2 greenhouse effect and that is why alarmist climate scientists postulate, seemingly contrary to the evidence, that there is a positive feedback mechanism via water vapour that by passes what is effectively a law of diminishing returns that, according to the science, is in play.

        So the nonsense you parade about small volume increases still being dangerous indicates the likelihood that your expertise is not in climate science and the associated mathematics. More a sort of Gaia Flannery response.

        191

      • #
        AndyG55

        You truly are a non-intelligent species, aren’t you Matt. Non-carbon based, I assume.

        You obviously have ZERO understanding of the role of CO2 in the functioning of ALL life on Earth.

        112

      • #
        Carbon500

        Matt Bennett: My comment is not based on as you put it “personal incredulity”.
        It’s a simple matter of fact that a one in a million rise is vanishingly tiny.
        Having worked in medical biochemistry for many years, I can’t think of one instance where a 1 in a million increase of a substance would make a scrap of difference to an observed reaction.
        Only in the bizarre world of ‘climate science’ is so much made of such infinitesimally small changes. As I have asked on so many occasions, where is the laboratory experiment which shows how much warming 1ppm of CO2 is expected to cause in the presence of varying concentrations of water vapour?
        Your comment regarding botulinum toxin is spurious. CO2 kills at a high concentration, but is harmless in the atmosphere. Botulinum toxin kills at high doses, but also finds therapeutic uses.

        120

      • #
        Backslider

        As any rational person will tell you, the absolute size of a given change or concentration of a substance tells you nothing of its effects, independent of information that gives it context

        So you would agree then that a 0.4% / decade decrease in cloud cover is a far better explanation for warming than trace amounts of CO2.

        70

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          What? Cloud cover has been decreasing at 4000ppm per decade? Clearly the government must build giant kettles in the ocean…

          40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Matt Bennett:
        “What a stupid, ill-informed ‘argument from personal incredulity’… Given that the natural average background rise in CO2 from glacial to interglacial periods is 1-2ppm every 200-500 yrs”

        Actually the rise after the The Younger Dryas (a period of cold climatic conditions and drought which occurred between approximately 12,800 and 11,500 years BP) showed a rapid temperature rise and a rise of about 50 p.p.m. in CO2. This latter rise was supposedly the cause in warmist literature and the basis for claims of tipping points and the coming disasters. Various believers competed to “find” the most rapid rise in CO2, with a 100 years being a slow rise, and some claiming a much as 4-5 ppm. per year (30 ppm in 5 years is the fastest I saw). The last resulted from the “need” to have the CO2 rise precede the rise in temperature.

        So ‘orthodox climatology’ disputes your claim. Watch out, you’ll be labelled (if not libelled) as a heretic.

        50

  • #
    Cookster

    All those that said there was no difference on climate policy no matter which side won the recent election – what say you now?

    There is a long way to go e.g. announce a review of all the science but the steps taken so far by Mr Abbott would never have occurred under the previous Labor / Greens government. There clearly was a choice and thankfully the Australian people made the right one.

    Lets see what happens when the Carbon Tax repealing legislation meets the Senate.

    240

    • #
      MemoryVault

      All those that said there was no difference on climate policy no matter which side won the recent election – what say you now?

      I say, these announcements will save $500,00.00 this year, and $1.2 million next year, and will score Abbott a thousand times that in feelgood nonsense publicity like your comment above.

      Meanwhile, Abbott, Hunt and the LNP have reaffirmed their support for the Renewable Energy Target Scheme (RETS), of renewable energy (solar and wind) providing 20% of Australia’s total electricity generation by 2020.

      THIS, and not the Carbon Tax (or the Climate Commission), is what has caused electricity prices to double in the last five years, and will cause them to double again in the next five, costing ordinary Australian households billions of dollars a year. Not to mention the fact that these methods don’t generate power that the grid can use in any meaningful way anyway, meaning chronic shortages, rationing, and scheduled, rolling blackouts and brownouts within the next two years.

      .
      I could write a lot more, but what’s the point? You are all like starving dogs thrown an old bone – The Climate Commission – while your Masters dine on the multi-billion dollar Sirloin of the RETS, while plotting how to separate you from the $1.4 trillion of your Super funds.

      374

      • #

        Spot on, MV.

        RET’s have long been the driver for escalating energy prices.

        Those who were/are selling electricity into the grid at 40 c/kWh would baulk at paying that much to have it supplied to them, but they want to force others to pay that price. Moreover, they expect others to pay for the upgrade of the grid and conventional generating plant, to accommodate the sporadic, disruptive generation of a little bit of electricity from domestic PV systems.

        330

      • #
        Dave

        MV,

        I totally agree, Abbott will have to scrap the RET totally as the next few years this will drive up Kwh price by over 100%.

        This is the RET target graph to 2030, and by 2020 we will have a target of 45,850GWh in renewable energy. What windmills and solar are going to do this????

        Starving Dogs are we? Yes, but only in the fact of learning, from all the posts by Jo and the comments by probably the biggest political spectrum of views from all over the world, experience, knowledge and life. People from Big oil , Skeptics to Alarmists, Idiots, Windmill engineers, give me the thirst or hunger for more information on everything, from your viewpoint to our lovely Micheal the Fruitloop. But it is a positive that everyone has their own views, mine is still developing after nearly 6 decades, and shlt I’m having fun.

        Today was just a little victory of common sense over stupidity with the Flim Flam Man gone.

        Windmills and solar aren’t going to achieve anywhere near this, but they will achieve the monetary equivalent of renewable energy by paying these stupid fuc.ing sources of energy 9 to 12 times more than coal or gas fired power plants. On paper we will achieve the target, but by 2020, the average price per Kwh will be close to 85 cents or more.

        Tim Flannery is only a symbol like you said, but a start, and I have just emailed stupid Greg Hunt that he must reduce not stabilise, the electricity prices as HE promised, (without RET excuses) or he will be annihilated by Liberal and National Party supporters. I told him I don’t want a normal rant of policy etc, just a guarantee that he will reduce electricity prices now, and they will only rise with CPI.

        260

        • #

          Man, how I just love it when I see graphs like the one supplied by Dave above.

          Note how it reaches WTF, 45,000GWH in 2020 and then stays there.

          Note how it has already reached 20,000GWH now in 2013.

          Oh dear!

          Let’s actually look at that shall we.

          The renewables that graphs like this would have you believe are Wind Power and Solar power, both commercial and rooftop.

          In reality, wind and all solar currently deliver 8000GWH.

          The remainder is made up of ….. umm, hydro power.

          So now, the (forlorn and utterly unachievable) 45,000GWH comes sharply into focus.

          So, taking away the already supplied Hydro of 12,000GWH, because (believe me) there will be no more major hydro schemes between now and 2020, because even if there were plans for that, they would have to be underway now.

          So that leaves us with 33,000GWH from just Wind and Solar, and when we take off the existing amount of 8,000GWH, that leaves us with 25,000GWH of SUPPLIED power, not just the Nameplate Capacity, but actual power supplied to grids.

          Which is three times what we currently have in operation right now.

          So that’s three times the rooftop solar we have now, and the, umm, fundament has fallen out of the rooftop panel business let me tell you.

          On top of that, that also means three times the existing wind power, which is 2660MW (Nameplate) or around 1300 of those huge towers.

          So now we will need another 4000 wind towers or around 30 to 40 new Wind Plants, large scale wind plants at that.

          Now they range between five and seven years in the planning from proposal to power delivery.

          So effectively, that means these 40 to 50 new wind plants are currently in planning, so they can be up and running by the due date 2020.

          Well, no, they aren’t.

          This was always just a bunch of lines drawn on a page, because it was never going to be done, even under a Labor Government willing to sink the requisite $45 to 60 billion into such a harebrained scheme as this.

          To say that there will be 45,000GWH of renewable power by 2020 is, as one person once said ….. Hyper Bowl, and in fact the single most extreme case of hyperbole I have ever seen.

          Read My Lips.

          45,000GWH of power from renewables by 2020.

          Bovine Waste ….. or words to that effect anyway.

          Thanks Dave. Best laugh I’ve had, well since the news of Flannery’s demise came through.

          Tony.

          380

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Dave,

          you have hit on the great value of this site,

          lots of intelligent, well informed exploration

          that eventually leads to sure and certain Enlightenment.

          KK

          60

        • #
          Cookster

          I have just emailed stupid Greg Hunt that he must reduce not stabilise, the electricity prices as HE promised, (without RET excuses) or he will be annihilated by Liberal and National Party supporters

          Great comment. And the bold part is the factor that will force the new government to do the right thing by those who elected them.

          100

          • #
            Steve

            or he will be annihilated by Liberal and National Party supporters

            That is sooo funny. WOW so their supporters are going to now vote LABOR. HMMM didn’t they foister this on us. Ha Ha Ha, or even GREEN Ha Ha ha hahahahahahahah

            07

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              It only needs to be in his electorate, the next time there is a poll.

              I have heard that several groups are preparing balanced score cards (for all seats in all parties) that will be maintained over this current term, and then put up on the web just prior to the next election.

              Just so people can show how honest and capable and effective the politicians have been.

              It is probably just as well that it wasn’t done following the Gillard election, otherwise Labour would probably now have a lot less seats than they do now.

              30

      • #

        MV bless you, you are a complete wet blanket, though you speak the truth.

        Crack the champers anyway I say. The world is a little less stupid than it was yesterday. Let us enjoy a small Victory. It sure as hell beats electing a government that kept this propaganda unit going.

        Turnbull could have been our PM.

        590

        • #
          MemoryVault

          MV bless you, you are a complete wet blanket, . . .

          Yeah, Thumper says the same thing – often.

          In my defense, I was only answering Cookster’s challenge – what say you now?
          Well, I said it.
          If the challenge had not been made, I would have remained silent.

          .
          I’m learning.

          190

          • #
            Cookster

            Ha ha, credit to you MV :-) ! I admire anyone who sticks to his or her guns. Yes $500k a year is very small beer in a government with an annual budget of close to $400 Billion. But as I said even these small steps would never have happened under Labor. Yes this is just a small battle – even symbolic as you put it. Lets see where the science goes as cracks now seem to be appearing via the IPCC. My guess is if we reach a tipping point on the science the RET will go too. It’s the so called “consensus” that every Western government of whatever political persuation hides behind to justify the great wealth redistribution scheme that the scare campaign represents. Yet, thanks to our Democracies, it would be political suicide if the weight of public opinion starts to think we are not in danger of being roasted or drowned after all.

            It’s only a gut feel – yet to be realised – but I actually think you underestimate Abbott – just like Labor did. You certainly wouldn’t be the first person of intelligence to do so.

            100

            • #
              MemoryVault

              but I actually think you underestimate Abbott

              Make no mistake, Cookster, I’m expecting this government to do a lot more than most commenters here are expecting of them. It’s just that the things I’m expecting them to do are vastly different from what the rest of you are expecting.

              And far less pleasant.

              .
              Did I mention getting your Super out into a self managed fund as soon as you can?

              91

              • #
                Cookster

                If you are alluding to the Conservative desire to look for “easy” targets to balance the government books after Labor blew the proceeds of the Mining boom, then yes I can understand your cynicism.

                But again, where do conservative votes come from? A large portion of supporters include self funded retirees. So logically if they do what you suspect, it would be political suicide. No – the way to balance the budget is to allow the private sector to regain confidence to invest, grow and innovate. Three factors that have been sadly lacking for the last 6 years and also sadly lacking in Obama’s America. There is no need to raid super funds. Growing the economy, improving productivity and therefore tax revenues will do the trick nicely.

                110

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Nobody is going to “raid” anything, Cookster.
                Neither is anything being done “behind the scenes” to cause anyone any shocks.
                The plans are being announced even as they unfold.

                Joe Hockey, the new Treasurer, ran his part of the election campaign on the need for “prudent spending”, and “returning the budget to surplus – as soon as possible”.

                The day it was obvious his side had won, Hockey immediately changed tack – now what is needed apparently is “stimulus spending”. But what is there to spend with State and Federal governments broke and in debt? Hockey gave us an answer to this – the government will create “Infrastructure Bonds” with a government guaranteed return, that will allow “institutional investors” – you know – Super Funds – to safely invest in them.

                Of course, these will need some form of return on investment, which rules out mundane things like roads and bridges, which don’t actually “return” anything measured in dollars.

                But solar panels and wind farms with guaranteed subsidised feed-in tariffs DO offer a guaranteed return on investment – at least for a while – until the taxpayer goes broke. So that is where the money from the Infrastructure Bonds bought with YOUR Super will go, which is why the new government has no intention of scrapping the RETS. Ready-made, captive market, you see.

                Meanwhile “The Man From Nowhere”, our new Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, is working overtime to find ways to ensure Australians’ entitlement to a return on their Superannuation investment is “protected and guaranteed”, regardless of market fluctuations. Dare I point out that the easiest way of ensuring this is for the government to control the market? Via investment in subsidised renewables, perhaps?

                As an aside, it is interesting to note that, in a BING search on [Mathias Cormann] (without the brackets), the first four hits are all paid responses obviously generated by the keyword [superannuation], even though the word is not part of the search. Am I the only person who finds this “interesting”?

                At the same time, former State Premier, Joe Brumby, who is the head of a couple of major super funds, is working on “retirement package” that offers a guaranteed lifelong pension, regardless of market fluctuations and their effect on superannuation returns.

                .
                I have an advantage. I have lived through this once already – in the early 1960′s. It will all be done with the inevitability of gradualism. By 2025 those working today who thought they were going to retire comfortably will find themselves dependent on an assets tested, means tested, poverty-level welfare payment.

                .
                Just like toady’s Aged Pensioners.

                .
                The more things change the more they stay the same.

                140

              • #

                Cormann was on the news here too: he was born in eastern Belgium, where German is spoken. That is about 1% of the population in Belgium, some 60% speaks Dutch/Flemish (the northern part) and 40% speaks French (the southern part). When he was student he met his future wife in Perth during a student exchange. That made him migrate to Australia… Although a lawyer (from the Flemish University of Leuven), he couldn’t validate that in Australia, but politics and lawyers are quite similar professions…
                Because of the quite unique (similar for Switserland) composition of Belgium, I am quite sure that he speaks at least four languages (German, Dutch, French and of course English)…

                I have no knowledge of his financial ideas, but his work in health insurance may give some ideas about how to earn a lot of money with a minimum of expenses…
                http://www.mathiascormann.com.au/

                50

              • #
                Cookster

                now what is needed apparently is “stimulus spending”

                When did Hockey say this?

                The real return on investment for roads and bridges is not direct to roads and bridges but through boosted tax revenues from increased productivity in the overall economy. So yes I understand all those useless Green schemes or subsidised Renewalble energy producers supported by the RET might demand a return on investment. But I think you wil find any honest economist will tell you the boost in total government tax revenues from investing in real productive infrastructure will far exceed the return on any Green schemes or renewable energy. By axing the RET, you stop the bleeding and the need for increased taxation is greatly diminished.

                Labor has locked in about 100 Billion a year more Federal government spending then what they inherited from the Conservatives in 2007. You can’t just turn off the tap without ensuring a smooth transition from government dependance back to free enterprise and innovation. It will take time – probably the first 3 years at least to turn the ship around.

                It comes back to one side who wants central control of everything (Labor & Greens) against the new alternative who generally supports the idea of free enterprise and the support of greater individual freedom (the conservatives). I know which side I still trust more despite your efforts to convince me otherwise. Time will tell.

                40

              • #
                Cookster

                It’s not just $500k a year now. They have already moved to ditch the $10 Billion a year Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We didn’t need to wait long :-)

                The changes to the commission came as the government pursued plans to wind up the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, created by Labor to fund renewable energy projects that would otherwise struggle to get commercial backing

                http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-winds-of-political-change-blow-away-climate-bureaucracy/story-e6frg6xf-1226723161774#sthash.n8L3jlej.dpuf

                50

        • #
          ian hilliar

          Jo,-”we don’t know, how lucky, we are..”

          40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          At least he is a warm wet blanket and thankfully The Turnbull is Not President of our country.

          KK

          40

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          Jo said:

          Turnbull could have been our PM.

          Shudder!! Jo, please don’t utter things that might encourage him and/or resurrect our fears. Remember Rudd? Well I trust Malcolm as much. If he had take over the Opposition just before the election, I would have wanted Rudd to win. That way we would still have been left with one major party that might not carbon tax us when in government. If the Coalition had won with Turnbull, carbon idiocy would have won big time and giving up would have been an attractive option for the sceptic. Why does one think the Left were so keen on him?

          80

        • #
          Rohan

          I disagree Jo, Turnbull would never had been PM as he is literally the equivalent of the Labor right. As opposition leader he had 2PP polling in the high 20′s range. With Turnbull there was no point of difference to Rudd at the time. My belief is that this would’ve been reflected in the polls.

          40

        • #
          Greebo

          Wee bit OT,but Piers Ackerman reminds us

          Labor and the Greens have made much of the Abbott government’s decision not to name a separate Minister for Science but the coverage this has received has not mentioned the fact that the last Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, quit in 2011, midway through her five year term, and revealed that she had never once been asked to brief then Prime Minister Gillard.

          10

      • #
        Winston

        I’m sorry MV,
        Name any other politician who has set more of a cat among the pigeons in the climate mafia than Abbott has done, only 2 days into the job. Give credit where it is due. No one with any realistic chance of running the country could be more of a pragmatist and a climate realist than Tony. Methinks he has only just begun, and if he is smart, which I think he is, he might just surprise you. Don’t give up on your only and best chance we have just because he hasn’t achieved all you would like in a mere 48hours.

        300

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Name any other politician who has set more of a cat among the pigeons in the climate mafia than Abbott has done . . .

          Well, I can’t Winston.
          But I think that reflects more on the abysmal state of Australian politicians and politics generally, than any great kudos for Abbott.

          Let’s be blunt. At a very minimum saving (in the grander scheme of things), and at no great hardship to the people involved, Abbott shut down a Committee with a website that occasionally produced Reports and press releases, that had become so ludicrous that they had become an embarrassment to even the outgoing government. It is doubtful the Commission would have survived much longer, regardless of who won the election.

          Meanwhile the RETS, with the full support of the new government, continues to bankrupt the nation.

          .
          And everybody’s celebrating?

          141

          • #
            Cookster

            It is doubtful the Commission would have survived much longer, regardless of who won the election

            I doubt this MV. Fairfax posted a story about Abbott’s move today on their website. It was rabid with anti Abbott drones and the Poll was about 2/3 against what Abbott did – no surprise with the generally left leaning readership of that masthead. And the fact all these comments, as usual, were posted in the middle of the working day – no doubt by many public servants who I am paying taxes to do such things while they are ‘working’. These are the types that Labor depends on for political survival and is the reason why the Climate Commision was in no real danger of shutdown while even Labor held the reigns of power.

            http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-shuts-down-climate-commission-20130919-2u185.html#poll

            80

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            > And everybody’s celebrating?

            Why not celebrate, MV, I just did.

            When they asked how I wanted my celebratory steak, I told them I wanted it “Flannery Style with chips”. ;-) The cashier didn’t know what this meant but I assured her the cook would understand.

            Well I had not long to wait before the dish was brought to the table cooked exactly the way I had asked:
            burnt by Liberal application of heat,
            still Red on the inside, and
            surrounded by perennial Earth huggers! :D

            130

  • #
    handjive

    TCoB. One slice of humble pie for me, as I have been critical saying they/Abbott wouldn’t do this. More pie to come.
    .
    Now, to reminisce on some finer moments of un-biased, independent quality scientific debate:
    December 4, 2009: Tim Flannery sets the record straight: I am not a climate sceptic.

    August 30, 2009: It’s not drought, it’s climate change, say scientists

    April 27, 2012: It’s Official: Australia is drought free!

    March 4, 2013: Weather is now climate change

    60

  • #
    AndyG55

    I feel good..

    Like I knew that I would .. Yeah..

    I feel fine..

    etc (ie I can’t remember the words)

    gunna get a bottle of wine !! :-)

    72

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Yup, just heard Flannery on Melbourne radio.
    While not exactly weeping, he was clearly not at all pleased. Kept pushing the line that, though paid by the Gilliard/KRudd government, his Commission was always totally independent (“Just like The Reserve Bank of Australia”!!).
    Three years, very part time, at $180K, plus superannuation and other perks. I make that more than 0.5mil – pretty good work, Timmy. Pity it had to come out of my and everyone else’s wallet, though.

    221

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Maybe he will decide to save the planet for free now hes not getting paid for it, after all it is a fairly worthwhile cause.

      140

    • #
      MadJak

      The Climate Commission has just achieved 0% Carbon emissions.

      Of course, we were encouraging them to decarbonise for a long time.

      100

  • #
    Stacey

    We have a long way to go in the UK . Ed Davey, our climate change impresario stated to the Dog Lover’s Party conference that people were going to bed at night wearing life jackets because of their fear of rising sea levels?

    50

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    There will be immediate economic benefit to the scrapping of the Climate Commission. Restaurants, pubs, clubs, and numerous recreational businesses will receive a sudden revenue boost this week as the nation goes out to celebrate this collective casting off of credulous climate commissars.
    Now that’s an economic stimulus package with no repayments nor strings attached. Here’s to the new GFC: The Greenhouse Financial Crisis. Skål!

    Waiter? Waiter! I’m ready to order. Bring me the dish with the largest carbon footprint you can find… :D

    212

    • #

      Waiter? Waiter! I’m ready to order. Bring me the dish with the largest carbon footprint you can find

      Sir, that would be 16 ounces of fresh Russian Beluga from the Caspian, flown in overnight.

      Thank you waiter, I’ll have one serve each for me and my three friends here thank you, oh, and say, 2 Magnums of the Krug Brut 1988 thank you!

      Tony.

      230

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Oh dear, I appear to have upset two people with my comment. They are too chicken to write a rebuttal or explain their thumb-down, so allow me to read tarot cards, ask the ouija board, and write down what the disgruntled were thinking:

      What a callous denier. You may not like the sacrifices we must make to prevent 800-odd calamities befalling future generations, and you may be happy the Climate Commission is scrapped, but that’s no reason to overcompensate by going out of your way to actively poison the oceans and fry the planet with extra carbon pollution. Hope you choke on your Big Oil-subsidized Norwegian salmon, Japanese Wagyu beef, and Patagonian yak cheese. Anything more resource-intensive than hydroponic lettuce grown on your patio is a crime against Gaia. Your gas-guzzling car probably even has big brown baby seal eyes for headlights, a-hole!

      Is that pretty much it?
      Paraphrasing the immortal words of Conan…
       “Michael the Surrealist cannot cry, so I cry for him.”

      151

      • #
        AndyG55

        Does Michael the Puerile still exist ?

        20

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Who knows, but one can hope for small miracles.

          10

        • #
          Heywood

          Yes. You can still find him lurking in threads that we got bored with weeks ago. Hasn’t quite got the balls to front up to the latest thread.

          31

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            You realise from his point of view it is exactly the mirrored argument: that we don’t have the balls to go back there and debate him any more. From his point of view he is staying on target, sticking to the (junk) science, and having the last word.
            Fortitude or dogmatic?

            If the decade of 2011-2020 is cooler than 2001-2010 then he will admit he was wrong. It’s a shame we couldn’t get him to adopt a falsification criteria that is already met by extant evidence documented in numerous places.

            51

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Actually, he appears to be arguing with himself on those threads – and loosing.

            10

          • #
            Backslider

            He has got to the point now where he cannot accept very simple, every day common sense things such as “you get warmer when you step out from the shade into the sun”, demanding peer reviewed science to prove it.

            00

        • #
          Backslider

          With a bit of luck he tried my experiment and got nailed by a semi…..

          20

  • #
    Maverick

    After a quick perusal of the Climate Change Authority Act 2012 I reckon they can get around it easily.

    The Minister appoints the Members, so his first offer should be to pay-out the current members terms and appoint a new five members, members without a warming bias.

    The minister also appoints the CEO, so he pays out the current CEO and appoints a new CEO whose job is “deliver on the legislated role of the authority but in the lowest cost way possible”.

    So charged with mandate to deliver the legislated mandate for the lowest possible amount, the CEO sacks everyone.

    Then the new CEO/Report writer/Bookkeeper/Cleaner, goes about doing the Authority’s job which is to conduct reviews of five pieces of legislation including the legislation that created itself. It does not say how often the reviews have to be done who what they are to look like, so that could one pagers submitted the week before the Coalition calls the next election.

    It will simply become a low cost government authority costing $200,000 per year (wages, some electricity, some coffee), that’s still meeting its legal obligations and no need to go near the Senate to wind-it-up.

    121

    • #

      :-)

      Remember what I said before the election about being able to immediately negate most of the “clean energy” legislation without having to use Parliament, but by (newly sworn-in) Ministers simply exercising their powers under that legislation?

      We must remain vigilant to ensure that those bad laws are repealed/nullified so that a future election cannot result in zombie laws being revived.

      110

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      and/or make funding 100% repayable within 12 months at 50% interest rate.

      20

  • #
    stbeare

    If you have problems repealing the legislation try depopulating and defunding the
    departments in question.

    30

    • #
      Mark

      stbeare:

      Yup, that usually does the trick!

      10

    • #
      Tim

      Unfortunately, defunding also means those overpaid propagandists will need their contracts paid out.

      A built-in farewell bonus from Green-Labor to their eco-mates because they knew the writing would be on the wall.

      10

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Interesting to see the Australian Conservation Foundation getting legal opinion!

    51

    • #
      Michael P

      I’d very much like to see their “legal opinion”in detail. How do we know it can be trusted? We have no idea who gave them this advice,for all we know,it could be anyone.

      10

      • #
        Angry

        They will probably get their “legal opinion” from the corrupt and anti human being “united nations”.
        In other words it will be worth diddly squat.

        10

  • #
    LevelGaze

    I vote we name the Wonthaggi desal plant ‘Flannery’s Folly’, never minding the fact that it’s all us Victorians, not charming Timmy, who will be paying for it for the next 30 years.

    “Lest We Forget.”

    181

  • #
    MadJak

    I do enjoy having the adults back in charge

    Anecdotally, my real boss (Mrs MadJak), although not really liking Tony Abbott, is starting to warm to him with his first moves in government. I suspect many others who may have seen tony abbott as the best of a bad pick may come to warm to him as time goes on.

    He is definitely fitting himself into the stable statesman role required of a PM – as opposed to the attention craving self centred immature opportunists we have endured over the lat few years.

    If he keeps this up, I won’t feel quite as resentful about paying taxes in this country. I will always be resentful, but I don’t mind it so much if I see value for money for the country as a result.

    171

  • #
    Manfred

    Jo, thank you for your prodigious and positive output over the recent while, culminating with this current epiphany. For once, I felt the relaxed expiration of CO2 laden tidal air, with an extra contribution from the dead space. Bravo. Flannel face is history.

    91

  • #
    graphicconception

    I have always had a sneaking respect for the Aussies because (and they may well disagree!) I see them as a bit like us Brits but with much of the cr*p removed.

    That has just been demonstrated again.

    Congratulations!

    110

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    The Bedwetters were right. Only days into their term of office and the Coalition policy is contributing to unemployment.

    just in case: /sarc

    170

    • #
      AndyG55

      Some sorts of unemployment are GOOD !!!

      These ones particularly. :-)

      61

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps, but you KNOW that Flannery will always suck on the government teat..
        .
        .
        even if it is only unemployment benefits.

        51

    • #
      MadJak

      This is an unpopular truth, but there is a certain percentage of any populace where it is best for them to not be working. They just cause more work and problems for other people.

      Even if it means they get paid to stay at home and watch TV, it works out cheaper for society.

      50

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    Well done The Aussies. Showing the world the way to go.

    111

    • #
      Matt Bennett

      “showing the world the way to go”….

      Yeah, if you want to be looked upon as the anti-science laughing stock of serious thinkers, scientists and rational policy makers worldwide. Not that most of you mob would even know how to assess the relevant literature, relying as you do on cherry-picked nonsense and twisted ‘logic’ (a la David Rose) ‘interpreted’ for you by 3rd rate failed meteorologists. The ‘adults’ are most assuredly NOT in charge, and the government of the day, particularly Cabinet, is not at all representative of Australians in general. (Unless of course you think Australian means old, white, male, Christian and scientifically illiterate and proud of it)

      What a shameful day for Australia.

      258

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .star comment
        I do love the sight and sound of watermelons exploding in the evening moonlight.

        .
        I reckon Matt Bennett’s comment above should win some sort of prize for the most ad-homs and logical fallacies crammed into one statement ever, while remaining utterly devoid of any scientific fact.

        560

      • #
        AndyG55

        Is that the same brain-washed, ill-educated MattB that we are accustomed to?

        Yes, it shameful that the RET still exists and was not amongst the climate CRAP that will soon be DUMPED.

        So… basically…… your messiah, Flim-Flam has been dumped.. first cab…

        diddums, little boy !! :-)

        Please tell us your scientific education… primary school yet ??????

        ———————————-
        REPLY: NOPE. That is not The Mattb we know and love. Jo.

        110

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Thanks Matt, that little hissy fit capped off a good day for science and brought a wry grin to my ruggedly handsome face.
        Yes that’s right, rapier wit, good looks and I contribute to society, jealous yet? :)

        130

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          You’re “ruggedly handsome”?
          Lucky bastard.

          According to Thumper, the best I ever managed was “windswept and interesting” – like Billy Connolly.
          And that was a long time ago.

          110

          • #
            Dave

            Lucky bastard.

            You sure are lucky, I’m still in moderation again, two comments over 2 and 1/2 hours ago?

            I’ve figured it out, any more than two links, and whooosh – off you go to the bin, like Tim Flannery.

            I’m in GAIA, until the collective organism releases me.

            10

      • #
        Cookster

        What a shameful day for Australia

        Really, why? Don’t tell me you think a taxpayer funded propaganda unit to support a tax that has vitually zero measurable effect on global or Australia’s climate was a good idea?

        Save your breath for China, USA, Brasil and so on. For somewhere like Australia with less than 1.5% of global emissions the Carbon Tax (and the RET) are Economic issues – not science issues. Economically it never made sense to introduce the world’s biggest Carbon Tax when we already were at a competitive disadvantage with most other regions thanks to our remoteness, small population and relative high wages. And yet mindless drones complain that Tony Abbott is somehow endagering our grandchildren by axing the pointless Climate Commission propaganda dept. What ignorant or downright dishonest nonsense.

        180

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Cookster:
          “somehow endangering our grandchildren by axing the pointless Climate Commission propaganda dept. What ignorant or downright dishonest nonsense”.

          Look at from the mindless drones point of view. The end of huge rewards for mindless drones will mean that their grandchildren will have to work for a living, not rely on the family millions.

          And given that they tend to interbreed, their descendants could well need that subsidy.

          60

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Matt Bennett despairingly said:

        Yeah, if you want to be looked upon as the anti-science laughing stock of serious thinkers, scientists and rational policy makers worldwide.

        Fear not Matt, where the rest of the world is not turning its collective back on CAGW, it soon will be. This must hard for you to realise of course, so indoctrinated by the very propaganda and priests you wish to save. But given time the reality of the collapse should set in. Remember Baghdad Bob? He eventually came around, didn’t he?

        100

      • #
        Winston

        Matt Bennett,

        You are seriously deluded, dishonest or (I actually believe) both.

        For starters: “Anti-science” would I think better refer to people in Climate Science who hide their data, make furtive adjustments to the temperature record without explanation or justification, graft low resolution data to high resolution data (as per the Hockey Stick), omit inconvenient data and replace it with a different data set that conforms to their theory, pretends certainty when they are unsure of the magnitude of many or most of the parameters in a system, prefer computer simulations over observations, play word games and use semantic tricks to deliberately avoid admitting error or uncertainty, or attacking those who question their data instead of calmly refuting with rational argument and evidentiary support of their conclusions, rather than abuse or attempt to diminish the credentials of those who have the temerity to point out the flaws in their arguments (for which they often seem to mount poor &/or illogical counter-argument). Truth is the shield against anti-science, yet consistently alarmists like yourself are caught short, or being economical or fast and loose with the truth. Yet you wonder why you don’t inspire belief in those with the ability to critically appraise what you contend.

        Second, nothing could be more embarrassing on the international stage than to have a leader in Mr Rudd with an obvious, DSM IV criteria defined Narcissistic personality disorder (his “concession” speech confirmed the diagnosis, for any who had lingering doubts). Also, our recent former treasurer, Mr Swan, consistently ran huge deficits, in spite of record receipts, and presided over budgets which consistently underestimated the deficit in our fiscal situation by $20-40 billion, and in spite of his “world’s best treasurer” award (by Euromoney magazine- whose previous recipients of said award similarly shared the singular ability of ruining each of their economies also- Keynesians are great judges aren’t they!) was completely incompetent and repeatedly embarrassed his own treasury officials with his ineptitude and inaccuracy. Then we have Ms Gillard, a failed and dubious lawyer for Slater and Gordon (Ambulance chasers to the stars) who witnessed a stat dec while in a different state to the signatory, and adopted so many different personas in her brief tenure as P.M that by the end of it even she didn’t know who she was (of course consistently she was Pinocchio to Bill Ludwig’s Geppetto, but she couldn’t really own up to that could she?). Meanwhile her partner, Tim, was selling hair products using the government’s vehicle and was consistently prevailing upon every sporting organisation for a freebie pass to AFL, V8 Supercars, etc etc. (Nothing to be embarrassed about there, surely Matt). Then we had Craig Emerson, who in spite of being Minister for everything, considered himself a “performance artiste” with his little song and dance number that brought back fond memories of Chuck Barris and “The Gong Show”.

        Compared to that lineup, the Liberals, with the exception of Hunt (who is a fellow member of your eco-catastrophist religious cult), are fairly measured, sensible and reasonable- they don’t fawn to the MSM for their next photo-op, constantly look to indulge in their next “selfie”, or twitter bite, or thought bubble policy brain explosion as their opponents have habitually done for six years. Instead they seem to be efficiently getting rid of several phantom and dead wood bureaucratic entities whose sole purpose is to shuffle mountains of paper from one side of the desk to the other, report on various community “plans” which enact nothing for no purpose for nobody, and otherwise serve to keep these hapless stooges away from gainful, useful employment.

        Clearly you are an ageist, racist, sexist and an anti-religious bigot ( and I am an atheist, in case you are wondering) by your bracketed comment- and I think that alone shows your mindset as one of the pseudo-intellectual elitist types, who having been brought up in a privileged society founded on the sweat and meritorious efforts of your forebears, thinks nothing of ungraciously and ungratefully spitting in the face of those whose shoulders you have ridden upon, and who have allowed you to attain this level of unwarranted and smug self-indulgence, through provision of a society where even such egregious character flaws are at least tolerated.

        350

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … you want to be looked upon as the anti-science laughing stock of serious thinkers, scientists and rational policy makers worldwide.

        Oh dear, oh dear. You have drawn the short straw, sunshine.

        Many of the people who comment here are working scientists who are sick of the political clap-trap. Some of us also give policy advice on the actual science, which then gets overridden by “political imperatives” (i.e commitments to the UN, et al).

        You really have no idea how the world works, do you? So sad.

        10

  • #
    Sunray

    It would be wonderful if a cunning legal eagle could devise a way to get the GreenLabor saboteurs in the dock before a conservative, that is, non activist, bench.

    40

  • #
    Phil Ford

    As a Brit, marooned in a country still very much under the thrall of CAGW propaganda (mostly due to the relentless misinformation and misdirection of the ever-willing BBC), and with a man like the witless Ed Davey (LibDem Minister for the comically-named ‘Department for Energy and Climate Change’) who is every bit the true believer, I’m afraid the UK is still very much mired in the depths of the CAGW scam.

    I can only feel every joy for my Australian friends that your country at least now has someone in charge who is prepared to dismantle the fiction of CAGW and to face down his sneering critics on the ‘green’ Left. Well done to Mr Abbott for setting about his task with immediacy! If only we could take the same action against UK politicians and, more importantly, the EU – still a huge promoter of the CAGW meme (via Agenda 21) across the whole of Western Europe.

    I can only hope that one day their turn to fall will surely come. In the meantime, the good news from Australia helps to keep the rest of us elsewhere in the world still strong.

    250

    • #
      Manfred

      As Churchill once said, something along the lines that in the darkest hour the Commonwealth would come save the day.

      Little did he not know.

      60

      • #
        Angry

        A good quote from Churchill…..
        We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

        10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Phil,

      I do worry a bit about the UK will cope if there is substantial cooling over the next decade or so.
      Your electricity supply system is now in almost complete disarray, with way too much reliance on wind turbines that will not work on cold still days, and will actually have to consume power to stop them from freezing.
      I hope for your sakes that the cooling is slow enough for your politicians to wake up and restore some sort of reliability of supply.

      We may indeed very soon start to see climate refugees, as people leave the UK in droves in an attempt to survive. Back to the African countries and the middle east. !

      61

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Andy,

        As in most things, the Brits will feel it in their wallets.

        While the Brits were scattering the North Sea with hazards to navigation, the French were upgrading their Nuclear generation capacity, and will undoubtedly be happy to sell power to the Brits, at a premium, on those days when wind power sucks.

        20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          As they do every winter when the turbines aren’t working.

          The 2 cables from France run at full capacity. Indeed it has been seriously suggested that the quickest, fastest way, and the only possible in the time available, to save the UK from major power disruptions is another cable to France.

          ( of course the French give a special low rate to their beloved neighbours. sarc off)

          10

  • #
    Dave

    Tim Flannery the Honest Australian:

    1. Dec 2006, Tim Flannery talks about the benefits of GEOTHERMIA and harnessing energy.
    2. 25th Jan 2007 named Australian of the Year.
    3. Accolades for Tim Flannery from Hot Dry Rocks Geothermal Energy Consultancy firm.
    4. Late 2006 – Tim already owned shares in Geodynamics.
    5. 7th Feb 2007 – Tim Flannery goes on ABC’s Lateline, and sprooks geothermal energy.
    6. 7th Feb 2007 – Geodynamic shares 95 cents.
    7. 9th Feb 2007 – Geodynamic shares $1.10.
    8. 9th Feb 2007 – Tim Flannery on ABC radio says “There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run the Australian economy for the best part of a century.”
    9. Shares by late 2007 up to $2.00. Amazing increase.
    10.6th November 2009 – Rudd gives $90 million grant to Geodynamics for 25MW power plant.
    11.ASX chart for GDY from 2004 to now.
    12.Notice the failures showing in the charts late 2008, yet upswing early 2009.
    13.They get the Rudd funding and the charts go up.
    14.Ever since it’s a downhill slide and a failed exercise. – now 10 cents.
    15.Feb 2011 – Geodynamics down to 35 cents. Shareholders livid.
    16.10th Feb 2011 – Tim Flannery appointed as Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission.
    17.19th Sep 2013 – Tim Flannery sacked as Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission.
    18.Result – Tim Flannery extremely wealthy through greed.

    There is nothing at all nice about this man, a greedy little user of Tax Payers, shareholders, and our money [snip] without regard for anyone else on the planet. This is one selfish little shallow man who should be locked up very soon. Ross Garnaut is of the same ilk.

    Tim Flannery made a lot of money out of this deception by utilising his Howard granted “Australian of the Year” and all the publicity that flowed from that.

    [snip] Was it worth all this TIM Flannery?

    Oh, I forgot [snip] artist.

    [if you wish to bring on law suits, start your own blog. mod oggi]

    110

    • #
      Dave

      Seems a comment I wrote at 8.50pm is still in moderation.

      Was it something I said in the content?

      10

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Let him talk, Flannery has a lot worse to say about anybody who gets in his way.

      So why would Jo Nova be “sued” if someone correctly says that Tim Flannery is a puling little disgrace whose greed and arrogance became too much for the Public to bear?

      30

    • #
      Angry

      Well said Dave.
      Keep up the good work mate !
      All true about tim FLUMMERY.
      At the very least flannery should be jailed for the term of his natural life !!!

      10

  • #
    hunter

    Congratulations. Flannery down; Lewandowsky to go? When I read how much Prof. Flannery was being paid to do the damage he was doing I was not really surprised. Climate hype is a very good business. And business, until 2009, was very good indeed.
    Congratulations to Australians for standing up to flim-flam Flannery and his ilk.

    90

  • #
    pat

    the arrogance!

    20 Sept: Age: Tom Arup: How far will the climate purge go?
    Having institutions such as a Climate Commission to distil such complex and confusing information is critical for a functioning democracy. To quote Thomas Jefferson: ”Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”…
    But in removing the commission – which cost just $5 million over four years – the onus is now on the Abbott government to ensure its role is replicated elsewhere…
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/how-far-will-the-climate-purge-go-20130919-2u2mg.html

    if the MSM wants to regain credibility, & save $$$, drop the alarmist shills for CAGW, like Arup.

    111

  • #

    Well, it is a first step, where Europe still is far behind. Congratulations anyway!

    I am sure that the late John Daly would have celebrated this too as a first step. His site was my first meeting with other skeptics, until his untimely death.

    150

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      True Ferdinand, Europe is still in a hole regarding the effects of the Global Warming game. Energy generation costs probably at the top of the list.

      KK

      10

    • #

      Germany’s Greens are heading for a gravy train wreck spilling the toxic cargo that they’ve accummulated over the past 3 decades all over the media. And it’s not a pretty sight as Pierre Gosselin documents in the demilitarised NoTricksZone.

      That isn’t the least of their scandals and silly policies that even attack their demographic base of well-to-do middle-income earners who want to be seen to be doing good, by promising to raise taxes.

      In this conversation on German TV (in German), former Greens member unloads on the party she left in 1991 in an exodus of members that began in 1989, grossly dissatisfied with the party’s new directions and operation. In the conversation, Jutta mentions that the Greens blame their current failure to attract support as being due to a lack of vision¹. There’s a brief summary of her involvement with the Greens on Wikipedia.

      Elections on Sunday will show how far support for the Greens has fallen in Germany from about 20% in 2009. Opinion polls on Wednesday indicated below 10% and yesterday, heading South of 5%.

      ¹ Former German President Helmut Schmidt is reputed to have said «People who have visions should go see a doctor.»

      40

  • #
    Robbo_Perth

    Very predictably, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the ABC and The Conversation. The article on The Conversation celebrates the climate commission (no mention of their failed predictions, cost, and conflicts of interest), denounces Abbott (no mention of the fact that scrapping the commission was a core election promise and we voted for it) and spitting bile on climate deniers… written by no-one else than a PhD student in media studies! How can we not take her seriously!

    120

    • #

      They also showed a master chef… erm Cook; as though his contributions to (climate) science were anything but to call it into disrepute.

      20

    • #
      Angry

      Yet more justification for selling the abc (Australian BULLSHIT COMMISSION).
      If they want to spew forth this BS they they should be made to do it on their own dime and not that of Australian taxpayers !

      10

  • #

    Wonderful interview with Professor Flannery on Lateline tonight, as sycophant Tony Jones bowed down before his graven idol.

    When pressed for comment on the upcoming IPCC Report, one thing Professor Flannery said was to not make comment until you actually had the report in your hands.

    So Tony Jones the people who programmed his autocue proceeded to make comment on the unseen report.

    One of the things that really came over really well was the following Tony Jones statement, and the only way I can highlight it is to place it in block quoutes, because that’s the only way that bolding actually shows as bolding. What was said in bold was, umm, enhanced, a little better for the emphasis you know, with the three following words almost as an added on in lowered tones.

    blah blah blah ice sheets melting blah blah blah, sea level rise of 1 Metre in this Century and Seven Metres in this Millenium.

    Millenium!

    So where Salvador Dali Michael The Surrealist is worried about rising sea levels effect on our children and grandchildren, he’s thinking, umm, 24 generations away.

    Tony.

    141

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Tony

      I watched a little of TJ on one occasion where he explained to the audience, no doubt all under 25, that their plight was caused by the greed of the baby boomers who had taken all of the wonderful benefits of this country for their own selfish interest and left a huge burden for the youngsters.

      For those of us oldies who have actually worked our butts off this was an incredible slap in the face.

      But he is still there sowing division and envy — I can’t imagine any 25 year would being envious of my life given the work I have put in.

      The Climate Commission may be going.

      What’s next?

      Their ABC?

      KK

      60

    • #
      Angry

      Tony Jones, a spiv and a shyster, just like his idol flannery….

      20

  • #

    [...] As Jo Nova notes, while it may be a good day for the Australian taxpayer, it is far too late now to recoup the billions which have already been wasted on the "expert" advice of Flannery and his alarmist chums David Karoly and Will Steffen. This agency propped up billions of dollars in pointless futile government spending trying to change the weather. Nothing will bring back money spent on desal plants that were mothballed when the floods came that real scientists predicted. Likewise the money burned on solar panels and windfarms is gone for good too, and still going. [...]

    20

  • #
    AndrewWA

    Heard a wonderful quotation attributed to G B Shaw from a talk-back contributor on 2GB tonight that is so appropriate to the absolute garbage we’ve been getting from the Climate Commission:

    Beware of false knowledge as it is more dangerous than ignorance!

    130

  • #
    hunter

    Andrew WA, that is a great, profound and spot-on quote.
    It says so much in so few words. It is fer sure worth repeating.
    “Beware of false knowledge as it is more dangerous than ignorance!”

    30

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Regarding: “. . desal plants that were mothballed . .”

    The Wonthaggi plant is said to be in “standby mode” but are the others also?
    There is much rosy-scenario stuff on the web about AU desal, and much from the anti-factions, but finding an objective report seems impossible.

    Was the 30% reservoir fill tipping point a site-by-site criterion or was in Nation wide? How did that work out? I found a reference that it was ignored – I think for the Kurnell plant – but that was on an activist “anti” site.

    Maybe someone could link to a good report. Thanks.

    Wasn’t Wonthaggi damaged by flooding during construction?

    20

    • #

      If the Wonthaggi Desal Plant is to be mothballed then the Victorians should be shouting “Hallelujah”. They will be seeing their water bills come down. Not to the level if had never been built in the first place, but still lower than if it were operating. Oh, and CO2 emissions will come down as well.

      20

  • #
    J Martin

    A day to celebrate.

    Lets have more.

    20

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    Good riddance to bad rubbish! Yay! The end is near for the incompetent climate scare industry! I wish the same thing was happening in the US because Obama is about to embark on a “kill the coal industry” campaign and Crazyfornia is about to embark on a cap and trade carbon as well as green and renewable energy programs! These stupid bureaucrats don’t learn from other country’s mistakes!

    90

  • #
  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    A relevant article

    Here in NZ we have a “Minister for Climate Change”. It must be gratify to wake up every morning, pull the blinds and say to oneself “Job done”. And before anyone scolds me for confusing weather with climate, what I mean is that everyday in ever so imperceptible ways, the climate changes. It is not now, nor has it ever been, static. So if your job is to achieve change in the climate, you don’t have to lift a finger (except to spend your salary).

    80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’ll have to leave you all to worry over the minutia of Australian politics. But it is refreshing to see a politician with the balls to overthrow something that is bound to generate even greater resistance and if I may say it, hatred from his opposition and throw it right in their face. And he did it on his first full day in office too. Simply marvelous!

    Now who knows? It may be that absent the government propaganda mouthpiece the push for “renewable energy” will lose some steam. Remember, the law of unintended consequences can work for good as well as bad.

    Bully for Abbott! :-)

    Double bully for Abbott! :-) :-)

    110

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      You’ve nailed it there Roy!

      KK

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        No, not me. You all did it. I just called it like I see it.

        So double bully for the voters of Australia too! :-) :-)

        40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Meanwhile, back at the ranch.

      Looks like the experts are finally beginning to sweat a bit. Note that they used the word haunts in the URL. As Jackie Gleason used to proclaim,

      How sweet it is!

      But it’s not over yet. They’re still out there with the same old spin doctors crying over the last decade being the hottest on record, ad BSeam (I hope Latin will forgive my coining another word, I couldn’t resist).

      50

  • #
  • #

    In the cartoon showing the tangle of wires to represent the bureaucracy and regulation of Labor’s climate change policies is appropriate. But to carry the analogy further is a term that Abbott needs to apply from Ancient Greece – “Splicing the Gordian Knot“. If you want Abbott to succeed, it is not a screwdriver he should be holding, but tools used in England for Hedging. For the stronger individuals, a long-handled Yorkshire Billhook soon demolishes the most tangled overgrown hedgerow, if applied ferociously and manically enough. For the more timid a mere slasher would suffice.
    But seriously, this is a multi-headed hydra. If Abbott just chops off some of the heads, they will regrow many more. He has but a few months to kill the entire beast.

    60

  • #
    crakar24

    Thank God Tony got rid of that idiot and hopefully in time all the rest of the WOFTAM and not a moment too soon just look at the global cooling

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

    http://iceagenow.info/2013/09/europe-coldest-winter-100-years/

    Our Russian readers may be able to translate for us

    Cheers

    51

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Here is the simple version- MODELS predict that the coming northern winter COULD be the coldest in 100years.

      Does adopting the rhetoric you loathe in those you disagree with sit well with you?

      27

      • #
        crakar24

        Typical jibberish from GA,

        Lets take a closer look at how he/she does it.

        Firstly we ignore hard evidence of another record set in the Antarctic

        Secondly we attempt to align a computer model that predicts weather 3 months in advance with this

        Sea levels could rise a metre by the end of the century, according to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

        “Eventually we can expect to see more intense heatwaves, stronger downpours of rain, longer periods between rain.

        The draft report says the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is likely to have been 0.05 degrees, smaller than the trend since 1951 of 0.12 degrees.

        Note how they fail to mention the amount of carbon dioxide (oops sorry i am talking to an idiot) pollution that has been emitted and the actual rate according to their computer models should be way above 0.12C.

        In short GA you have not changed one bit, despite all the evidence, despite all the fraud, despite all the failed predictions, despite of the promises you still cannot inderstand where you have gone so seriously wrong

        102

      • #
        crakar24

        Thanks for the red thumbs GA……..does it make you feel better?

        92

        • #
          Gee Aye

          no thumbs from me although I’ve more to give away than you. I can email you a screenshot showing that my thumbs are not greyed out – or maybe a the thumbers are logged and a mod can confirm.

          I have no idea of how your comment follows mine so I can’t comment on it. I’ll reword my comment instead – do you believe that the models referred to in your links are a good predictor of the severity of the coming northern winter?

          25

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … do you believe that the models referred to in your links are a good predictor of the severity of the coming northern winter?

            Having worked, or a time, as a modeller, I can say that models of natural phenomena have no predictive ability whatsoever, especially when it comes to the future. There are just too many “unknown unknowns”.

            Models are great for identifying what it is that you don’t know, and giving you some indication of the magnitude of the effect of these unknowns, and their cyclic or dependence characteristics. But a crystal ball, they ain’t.

            And I am talking here about models of electronic circuits, where the theoretical physics is well known. With the climate, the theoretical physics is not well known, and the gaps are filled in with various hypotheses, in an attempt to plaster over the cracks.

            If predictive models were as accurate as the climate scientists would have us believe, then they would not need grants. Modelling the field in the Melbourne Cup, would be more than sufficient to keep them in funds for another year.

            70

            • #
              Backslider

              Models are great for identifying what it is that you don’t know, and giving you some indication of the magnitude of the effect of these unknowns, and their cyclic or dependence characteristics. But a crystal ball, they ain’t.

              Too true, if only warmists would realise this truth. Models are a tool for scientists to use for exactly this. They are not science in and of themselves. You cannot look at model output and say “the science shows….”.

              30

            • #
              gee Aye

              thanks for the support. I know what models are too first hand poor old craker thinks he can pick the “good” ones.

              01

          • #
            crakar24

            what email me well that would be a first dont bother GA you had your chance

            21

      • #
        AndyG55

        At least they predict something that within a TESTABLE time frame.

        At least we can say.. let’s wait and see..

        You know, like the Arctic ice predictions made around 2007. ;-)

        21

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        GA,

        Your comment #50.1 has 7 red thumbs as of 8:17 AM, Pacific Daylight Time (the state of California). None are from me by the way.

        I hope that’s useful to you.

        Although I haven’t been your critic in the past and if I was I probably wouldn’t be as harsh as Crakar, I really do think you’re missing the point.

        Roy

        20

  • #
    pat

    how revealing:

    19 Sept: UK Daily Mail: Tamara Cohen: World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 yearsLeaked United Nations report reveals the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years
    Politicians have raised concerns about the final draft
    Fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change
    A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft…
    But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
    Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries…
    Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
    Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
    The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter…
    Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington, said yesterday: ‘I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying: ‘Look the IPCC is silent on this issue.’…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.

      And there you have it.

      The IPCC Reports cannot, in any way be, “a summary of the worlds best science”, when “representatives from all 195 governments” can make alterations to the text.

      It is a political document, no more, and no less.

      60

      • #
        Phil Ford

        “…It is a political document, no more, and no less.”

        Absolutely. What happens next is that the main 2000pp IPCC report is distilled down into a much, much smaller document intended for ‘Policy Makers’ (that means Government departments and, by extension, the world’s ‘meeja’ who are all, like most politicians, too thick or too lazy to grasp any of the actual science).

        In the end, the main report will be chucked on a shelf and left to gather dust; the UN (aka various governments) has actually paid for the much smaller and sexier ‘policy document’ that is derived from it. This is the thing they will gleefully wave about in front of the cameras, claiming it as ‘consensus science’ – because the experts told them! It is also the toxic document upon which governments will then justify egregious ‘green’ legislation, policy on ‘renewables’, ‘sustainability’ and rising taxes.

        As soon as the Policy Document is released it’ll be champers all ’round for the common purpose trolls of the EU and the UN – another seven glorious years in which to cause havoc with the CAGW meme – unless, of course, reality intervenes and reveals the true nature of the scam for what it is.

        20

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Rereke Whakaaro quoted:

        The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.

        That manifestly shows the ‘science’ to be political, manipulated and manipulative. This dead giveaway needs to be made widely known. I’ll be alerting Andrew Bolt and others.

        The whole article can be read here.

        00

    • #

      I wonder who it was which posed the objections from Belgium. I know that one of the Vice-Presidents of the IPCC is Van Ypersele from the UCL (the French branch of the Catholic University of Louvain/Leuven), who is a strong defender of the “consensus”…
      http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jean-Pascal-van%20Ypersele/1044084623

      10

    • #
      Angry

      Obfuscation of the truth is the modus operandi of the global warming nutjobs….

      10

  • #
    ianl8888

    Flannery, Steffen, Karoly et al have had their “legitimate” platform destroyed, so the relief from their constant propaganda is welcome enough, but the Climate Commission was a very soft target, of no great consequence … low-hanging fruit to be sure, but already spoilt

    As has been noted downthread, the unconscionable subsidies of renewabubbles comprise the core of the poisonous ALP/Green mischief. Removing or spiking these subsidies is not at all easy – at the very least, compensation for cancelled contracts and investments will cause inordinate grievous squealing. Abbott will want to avoid this mess. I expect the same caveat applies to the $10bn R&D funds

    The SPM for AR5 is not yet released, only a draft. When the final version is released in about a week, the MSM will not highlight any contradictions between the SPM and the actual papers it is supposedly based on. I’m keeping my powder dry

    50

  • #
    pat

    Guardian also has this rather orwellian piece by Bagley. odd choice of accompanying photo!

    20 Sept: Bloomberg: Katherine Bagley: Climate Skeptic Groups Launch Global Anti-Science Campaign
    PHOTO CAPTION? – Indian Nobel Peace Price laureate and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, speaks during a press briefing about the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland on June 7, 2012.
    InsideClimateNews.org — Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming skepticism are doubling down on trying to discredit the next big report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they’ve been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public’s mind before the report is published, with no end in sight…
    Because the IPCC’s conclusions are produced by a consensus process, they are inherently conservative…
    Environmental activists told InsideClimate News they believe skeptics’ attempts to sway public and media opinion will fail to resonate with people. They say the spate of costly and deadly weather events over the last year has turned climate change into something tangible for many Americans…
    In addition, scientists have become more proactive when it comes to squashing scientific inaccuracies pushed by skeptic groups…
    Kevin Trenberth is part of that team as well as a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an author and editor on the forthcoming IPCC report. He explained that nearly every time there is a scientific paper linking man-made carbon dioxide emissions to climate change, the “denial-sphere” immediately responds with accusations that the research is wrong.
    “The scientists get nasty emails. Certain websites comment. … So a bunch of us formed this rapid response team to deflate these arguments.” The group has been very busy in recent weeks…
    ***The popular skeptic website Watts Up With That has also picked apart leaked drafts of the report and is publishing multiple stories a day chronicling how the new IPCC report is filled with “dodgy statistics” and “serious frauds.”…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/climate-skeptic-groups-launch-global-anti-science-campaign.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    rehashes all the flannery stuff, but scroll down for the following:

    20 Sept: SMH: Tom Arup/Peter Hannam: Climate warrior an early victim of new government’s axe
    The moves to shut the institutions came as the Abbott government faced hurdles with closing another body, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
    Treasurer Joe Hockey wrote to the corporation this week ordering it to cease investing in clean energy projects, such as wind farms and solar plants, while the government prepared legislation to close it.
    Since the Coalition was elected the corporation has voluntarily ceased signing new deals.
    But legal advice obtained by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Victorian Environment Defenders Office from Stephen Keim, SC, said the corporation’s board was obliged by law to ignore Coalition demands that it cease making loans.
    ”The [corporation's] activities cannot be terminated by executive action,” Mr Keim’s advice says.
    ”If given some unlawful direction by the responsible ministers (or anyone else) to cease operations or some aspect of its operations, the board would be obliged to ignore that direction.”
    It is understood the corporation has obtained similar legal advice…
    Australian Conservation Foundation climate change campaigner Tony Mohr said the corporation could not be shut down ”holus-bolus like this”. ”The directors and the board of the CEFC are legally obliged to keep on … investing in projects because that’s their purpose as written in their act,” he said.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-warrior-an-early-victim-of-new-governments-axe-20130919-2u2me.html

    00

    • #
      Redress

      CLEAN ENERGY FINANCE CORPORATION ACT 2012 (NO. 104, 2012) – SECT 3
      Object

      The object of this Act is to establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector.

      CLEAN ENERGY FINANCE CORPORATION ACT 2012 (NO. 104, 2012) – SECT 65
      Limits on Investment Mandate
      The responsible Ministers must not give a direction under subsection 64(1):

      (a) that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly requiring the Board to, or not to, make a particular investment; or

      (b) that is inconsistent with this Act (including the object of this Act).

      CLEAN ENERGY FINANCE CORPORATION ACT 2012 (NO. 104, 2012) – SECT 64
      Investment Mandate

      (1) The responsible Ministers may, by legislative instrument, give the Board directions about the performance of the Corporation’s investment function, and must give at least one such direction. The directions together constitute the Investment Mandate .

      Note: For variation and revocation, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .

      ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 – SECT 33
      (3) Where an Act confers a power to make, grant or issue any instrument of a legislative or administrative character (including rules, regulations or by-laws) the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to repeal, rescind, revoke, amend, or vary any such instrument.

      It would seem to me that the overriding act is the ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 – SECT 33 as noted in the CLEAN ENERGY FINANCE CORPORATION ACT 2012 (NO. 104, 2012) – SECT 64…..
      and that the relevant minister can “repeal, rescind, revoke, amend, or vary any such instrument.”

      40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well done.

        Politicians in 1901 had more nous than politicians today, it would seem.

        The another course of action, would be to allocate them zero operating expenses in the next budget. That should make them wince.

        40

      • #
        Maverick

        Good work Redress. In my honest opinion, just stating a matter of triviality that your advice is probably better advice than the legal opinion that the Australian Conservation Party received. It would be interesting to know if the ACP paid for the legal opinion. I have seen companies and organisations pay between $30,000 and $50,000 for legal opinions.

        Whether it’s fact or not I note in an purely innocent dissemination of information that the Wikipedia page about Mr Stephen Keim, which of course I did not publish and have no opinion or view to its accuracy says that:

        Stephen Keim, SC is a Brisbane barrister who represented Indian-born doctor Mohamed Haneef

        and

        Keim’s actions drew sharp criticism from then-Prime Minister John Howard and then-Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. Keim was also the subject of disciplinary complaints brought against him by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Mick Keelty, and a Brisbane solicitor, Russell Biddle, for having leaked the transcript.

        I am absolutely certain that Mr Keim would not hold a grudge against a new Coalition government. And I am absolutely certain that Mr Keim would not prepare a legal opinion that was biased by his and his clients ideological beliefs.

        20

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    “Beware of false knowledge as it is more dangerous than ignorance!”

    Cannot be repeated too often.

    20

  • #
    PowerToThePeople

    With regard to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), all that needs doing is to have their selection criteria (for potential clean energy projects/companies/ventures) now to be made on a Commercial basis – instead of the current crazy basis of providing the money after these people have been knocked back by the Banks and Others.

    So, if they have already been knocked back by the Banks and Others, then, they get knocked back the CEFC.

    Simple really. No change of Legislation required.

    QED

    50

    • #
      ianl8888


      … instead of the current crazy basis of providing the money after these people have been knocked back by the Banks and Others

      That IS the legislation, I’m afraid

      Such a change needs to pass through both Houses to be legal … most unlikely until July 2014

      10

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      How about Abbott simply put out a press release explaining that the current government cannot do very much about the CEFC until the new Senate is sworn in, in July, 2014. That being the case, the CEFC cannot be prevented from continuing to invest taxpayer’s funds, even though they have been asked not to.

      However, the second act of that new Senate (after repealing the Carbon Tax) will be to pass legislation making the Board of Directors of the CEFC personally liable for all financial losses incurred by the CEFC, retrospective to the date of Joe Hockey’s letter asking them to desist from making investments.

      Let’s see how many billions they are prepared to gamble if the resultant losses are likely to come out of their own pockets.

      160

      • #
        ianl8888


        nstead of the current crazy basis of providing the money after these people have been knocked back by the Banks and Others

        Now that I like !! :)

        20

        • #
          ianl8888

          Meant this quote:


          However, the second act of that new Senate (after repealing the Carbon Tax) will be to pass legislation making the Board of Directors of the CEFC personally liable for all financial losses incurred by the CEFC, retrospective to the date of Joe Hockey’s letter asking them to desist from making investments

          Dunno how the earlier quote was repeated – I’ve copied much more in my various work reports since this morning

          Anyway, I like MV’s suggestion above greatly … should scare the underpants off them

          30

      • #
        Truthseeker

        MV, while I like your idea, I do seem to remember a comment from yourself about the evil of retrospective legislation ….

        30

        • #
          MemoryVault

          You are absolutely correct, Truthseeker.

          I rank retrospective legislation right alongside disarming the civilian population, as the two most evil and despicable acts possible by any so-called “democratic” government, and the two most important foundation stones required for the establishment of a dictatorship.

          However, we now have both (courtesy of John Howard and two former Coalition governments), and since I seem to be alone in my views on the matter, we may as well use them to our advantage – while we can.

          61

    • #
      AndyG55

      Gees, why not just freeze the CEFC accounts!

      I assume it’s government money until its invested.

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        Ps.. governments are always co-opting funds for one purpose or another back into “general revenue”.

        even when the money isn’t theirs !!!

        21

  • #
    crakar24

    Heard on radio this morning:

    ABC Journo: So do think in hindsight abusing and belittling Abbott by calling him a condom was not a good idea?

    Flannery: No not at all………………

    92

  • #

    [...] A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission. « JoNova [...]

    11

  • #
    pat

    needless to say this Bloomberg piece portrays the following as NEGATIVE, but one can only marvel at how Australia is potentially LEADING the world back to sanity:

    19 Sept: Brisbane Times: Bloomberg: Abbott’s win seen stoking anti-carbon price sentiment elsewhere
    Electricity futures prices show the implied costs of emitting a metric ton of carbon in Australia plunged 18 per cent in the two days following the September 7 election, bringing its monthly decline to 55 per cent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. At their lowest, prices indicated an 80 per cent probability that Abbott will overturn the law that charges the nation’s polluters for their CO2 emissions, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
    The failure of Australia, the biggest emitter per capita among the world’s richest nations, to entrench its carbon price is emboldening opponents of fledgling emissions markets from South Africa to California and dimming prospects for a new global climate treaty. About 200 negotiators are set to meet in Warsaw this year to discuss how to ratify promises from the US and China, the world’s largest economies, to reduce greenhouse gases linked to climate change.
    “People who want a reason not to implement some form of emissions reduction would be able to point to Australia and say: they haven’t, why should we?” said Grant Anderson, a Melbourne-based partner specialising in carbon regulations for electricity, LNG and coal at Allens, a global law firm. “That’s the whole thing about international agreements. Once one party decides not to put forward a stronger commitment that was expected, it’s an excuse for others.”…
    Abbott’s victory has strengthened the case against a carbon tax set to start in 2015 in South Africa, Nazrien Kader, head of Deloitte LLP’s local taxation practice, said in an e-mail. The country delayed the plan in April after metals companies such as ArcelorMittal South Africa Ltd. and Gold Fields Ltd. objected…
    “We can only hope that it strongly influences the South African government’s stance,” Kader said. “A carbon tax has virtually no support from business.”
    The American Energy Alliance, a Washington-based group that promotes fossil fuels, posted a note on Facebook on Sept. 11 saying “poor energy policies won’t get you re-elected” above a map of Australia. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Sept. 5 statement that US lawmakers should learn from Australia’s “carbon tax failure.”…
    Abbott’s victory jeopardises Australia’s agreement to link its carbon market starting in 2015 with the world’s largest emissions-trading system in the European Union. The EU continues to strive for a robust international carbon market, Isaac Valero-Ladron, spokesman for the EU Climate Action Commissioner, said when asked about prospects for the EU-Australia link….
    The outlook for carbon in Australia remains unpredictable, with 2014 electricity futures vacillating, said Mike McKensey, head of carbon trading at Westpac Banking Corp. in Sydney. The price, as high as $A10 in August, fell as low as $4.50 in the days following the election from $5.50 just before, he said. The figure has since risen to $6, he said…
    Repeal of Australia’s carbon price would discourage cap-and-trade programs worldwide, Frank Jotzo, director at the Australian National University’s Centre for Climate Economics and Policy in Canberra, said…
    “Australia is much more important internationally in these matters than its share of global emissions might suggest,” Jotzo said…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/carbon-economy/abbotts-win-seen-stoking-anticarbon-price-sentiment-elsewhere-20130919-2u2ek.html

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      ““Australia is much more important internationally in these matters than its share of global emissions might suggest,””

      GOOD, then perhaps once the carbon tax is abolished in Australia,
      other parts of the world will start to see some common sense as well !

      And the whole stinking edifice will come tumbling down. :-)

      41

    • #

      I know it’s off topic here, but where pat mentions the cost for electricity in his comment above, I want you all to take out your latest power bill and look at it, and see how much you are being charged for the electricity you consume. Now, I don’t want you to look at the bottom line, the total for the bill, look at the area showing consumption and the charge for electricity ….. eg cost per KWH shown in cents.

      Here where I live, in Rockhampton, the current cost per KWH is 26.73 cents per KWH.

      That’s around the average for most States here in Australia.

      Now, having said that, take this link and look at what they pay for their electricity in the U.S.

      Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector

      Now, some of you may say that this is not a fair comparison, but it would surprise you to see how close power generation sources really are.

      In Australia we have 69% of our power coming from coal fired sources, and 20% from gas fired sources, hence 89% from CO2 producing sources.

      In the U.S. they have 39% of their power from coal fired sources and 29% from Gas fired sources.

      Now, straight away, you say, see, unfair comparison, because here in Oz we have 89% from CO2 producing sources, while in the US, it’s only 68%.

      However, we have no nuclear power plants in Oz, so for that level of huge power we need Coal fired plants. So, when you add on those U.S. nukes, 19%, the US total comes up to 87%, and now can you see the equality comparison.

      In the U.S. Hydro comes in at 6.8% while here in Oz, it’s 6%.

      Wind is the U.S. comes in at just under 3%, and in Oz, it’s just a tick over 2%.

      So, again, see how relatively similar both Countries are.

      So then, now back to the price comparison chart. Right at the bottom of the chart there, look at the U.S. average cost per KWH for the residential sector, 12.54 cents, less than half what we pay here in Australia. Note the expensive States (not including Hawaii) mostly in the North east, you know trendy yuppie central. Well some of those States import all their power from other States, hence the extra cost, and still they are considerably cheaper than here in Australia. Note the cheapest States, three of them less than 10 cents per KWH.

      Note the difference between the cost in each of the 3 sectors, residential, Commerce, and Industrial, and in the Industrial sector, the power cost per KWH average is just on a quarter what we pay here.

      In Australia, power costs are now so finely tuned, that the gap (here in Oz) has narrowed and almost equal in some cases, for both Commerce and Industrial.

      Now why is it that the US can have its power so cheap and yet here in Oz it’s not.

      Most situations are indeed similar.

      As recently as 2 years ago, the Natural Gas percentage in the U.S. was 20% while coal fired was 47%. In those last 2 years old, and in some cases ancient coal fired plants have been replaced by gas fired plants, and the percentage total are the same, verifying that direct replacement change. (67% in 2011, and 68% now.)

      Gas is now so cheap in the U.S. and so readily available, as, unlike Oz, their gas is for home consumption, while here it is all for export, with very little reserved for home consumption.

      So, gas is cheap in the U.S. making power cheaper.

      Coal fired plants, all of them old, as the average age is around the mid 40 years mark, and they can generate their power cheaply as well, hence cheap power.

      Nuclear power, all of them existing, and all of them also old, as their age also creeps up, with no new Nukes opened for nigh on 30+ years, well, that power from them can be generated even more cheaply than coal.

      They have similar wind power, so all their subsidies are the same as here.

      So, combined with cheap power from the 3 major sources, they also must have ‘poles and wires’ as well.

      However, unlike the US, here in Oz, there is a greater amount of rooftop solar power, and keep in mind that here in OZ rooftop solar accounts for less than 1% of power. However, that 1% accounts for what needs to be spent on our Oz poles and wires;, upgrading that system to cope with more than a million+ separate, minute, little, tiny, generators.

      Then we have the exorbitant FIT much more than is paid for the minute amount of rooftop systems in the U.S.

      And then, on top of all this we have the CO2 Tax, which they don’t have.

      Now perhaps you can see why power here in Oz costs more than double what they pay in the U.S.

      We’ve been had ….. and there are people out there cheering this on and saying that we need to keep it up, and even extend it.

      And when they kill off the CO2 Tax, power costs will drop ….. by between 2.6 and 3 cents per KWH only, so power will still be expensive.

      Virtually all those added costs are sheeted home directly to green policies. A spin campaign has effectively negated this, but you only need look at this price comparison to see how expensive electrical power is.

      Tony.

      110

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova, in her website, screams, “Taxpayers rejoice! The science-propaganda agency is gone for good. One down — scores to go.” [...]

    00

  • #
    sophocles

    Loud applause from the cheap seats … may that axe stay sharp and accurate.

    10

  • #
    pat

    nothing left for IPCC, but for the factions to battle it out amongst themselves. nonetheless, no to geoengineering – just shut the IPCC down:

    20 Sept: Guardian: Russia urges UN climate report to include geoengineering
    The Russian government is asking for ‘planet hacking’ to be included in the climate science report, leaked documents show
    by Martin Lukacs, Suzanne Goldenberg and Adam Vaughan
    Russia is pushing for next week’s landmark UN climate science report to include support for controversial technologies to geoengineer the planet’s climate, according to documents obtained by the Guardian…
    Such ideas are increasingly being discussed by western scientists and governments as a plan B for addressing climate change, with the new astronomer royal, Professor Sir Martin Rees, calling last week for such methods to buy time to develop sources of clean energy. But the techniques have been criticised as a way for powerful, industrialised nations to dodge their commitments to reduce carbon emissions…
    Responding to efforts to discredit the climate science with a spoiler campaign in advance of the report, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K Pachauri, said he was confident the high standards of the science in the report would make the case for climate action. He said: “There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change.”…
    Observers have suggested that Russia’s admission that it is developing geoengineering may put it in violation of the UN moratorium on geoengineering projects established at the Biodiversity Convention in 2010 and should be discussed on an emergency basis when the convention’s scientific subcommittee meets in Montreal in October…
    Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director of the technology watchdog ETC Group, said: “We have been warning that a few geoengineering advocates have been trying to hijack the IPCC for their agenda. We are now seeing a deliberate attempt to exploit the high profile and credibility of this body in order to create more mainstream support for extreme climate engineering. The public and policymakers need to be on guard against being steamrollered into accepting dangerous and immoral interventions with our planet, which are a false solution to climate change. Geoengineering should be banned by the UN general assembly.”…
    Sweden, Norway and Germany expressed more scepticism about geoengineering and asked that the report underline its potential dangers.
    “The information on geoengineering options is too optimistic as it does not appropriately reflect the current lack of knowledge or the high risks associated with such methods,” noted the German government.
    Geoengineering is expected to play a much larger role in the next IPCC reports coming out in 2014. Observers were surprised that it had turned up in this first major report – meant to assess physical science rather than mitigation strategies.
    Russia’s climate negotiators did not respond to a request for comment.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/russia-un-climate-report-geoengineering

    10

  • #
    Anton

    Senior politicians from various countries urged IPCC to cover up the good news of little warming:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

    NOT IN MY NAME!

    30

  • #
    Tim

    “In what is likely to be a harder task, the Government has also announced it is preparing legislation to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).”

    As I understand it, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation provides finance for renewable energy project applicants that need little or no real world financial compliance to gain access to our (borrowed) taxpayer money.

    An applicant must have first been refused finance by the commercial sector – that is, rejected by normal, intelligent financing sources as a financial non-starter that nobody will touch with a bargepole.

    Forget the share market, folks. The ALP invested it for you in the CEFC.
    ‘Maaate, no wukkers’

    20

  • #
  • #

    [...] Jo Nova, in her website, screamed, “Taxpayers rejoice! The science-propaganda agency is gone for good. One down — scores to go.” [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] Australian government scraps Climate Commission (joannenova.com.au) [...]

    00

  • #

    May the United States and Europe follow Australia’s wise leadership!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    30

  • #

    [...] JO NOVA BLOG A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission. Taxpayers rejoice! The science-propaganda agency is gone for good. One down — scores to go. September 19th, 2013 http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/australian-government-scraps-climate-commission/ [...]

    00

  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    Jo, a big congratulations and thanks to you for your role in bringing about this victory of truth over power.

    01

  • #

    [...] A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission. « JoNova [...]

    01

  • #
  • #
    Pope

    I just don’t understand how all you idiots managed to find each other to carry out such unhelpful conversations about the inaccuracy of climate projections. Are you all avid John Laws followers?

    None of you believe climate change is humanly induced. It is too late for any realistic mitigation methods to stop this now anyway (even if you did believe it was humanly induced, which you are fools not too). But some of you seem to at least acknowledge that the climate is and/or will change. So how can you not at least be in favour of adaptation methods and infrastructure? Is it because your afraid of ‘big government’ intervention? Do you want to wait for the more regular effects of climate change before you act?

    You all argue that the carbon tax is the most heinous thing ever created, yet for years both sides of politics tried introducing a carbon pricing mechanism. The COALITION first came up with the idea of an Emissions Trading Scheme. The only reason Abbott ‘pledged in blood’ to get rid of the Tax is for political gain and to get further into bed with mining corporations. Even Abbott believes in climate change, despite the ignorant facade he displays so morons like you vote for him.

    14

    • #

      Dear Pope, We idiots, incredibly, can read. Stick around, you might find out why the climate models overestimate the amplifying feedbacks of water vapor in the upper troposphere which doubles their projections.

      I realize this will blow your mind, but you’ve tripped over the hard nosed numbers-people on the internet, the ones who check to see if things add up. There are professors of physics, nuclear chemistry, statistics and math around. You may be used to hanging around the cheer squad where the gullible think that we can control the weather. Grow up and join us, or maybe you do believe your solar panel will stop storms in Bangladesh?

      21

    • #
      Mark D.

      Hey Pope: BWaAAAAHhhhHHhHhhhAAAaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.

      Humanly induced? WTF is that?

      What is wrong with small government intervention?

      I hate all taxes..

      11

      • #
        crakar24

        I am going to try a different approach here Mark,

        We found each other by following the visions of an old black woman sitting on a porch near a corn field, the others had visions of a man in Las Vegas (The Stand, Stephen King).

        Nope not one of us believe in such tripe as man made global warming, that is correct and yes it is too late for any mitigation which means we won and you lost….loser!

        We all believe climate changes Poop not just some but all.

        But some of you seem to at least acknowledge that the climate is and/or will change. So how can you not at least be in favour of adaptation methods and infrastructure?

        I understand you confusion Poop most people like yourself dont have the higher cognitive abilities to understand.

        when we say we dont believe in AGW that means there is no problem ergo we dont need no mitigation and as i said earlier we all “believe” climate changes we also “believe’ that anyone who thinks they can control the weather is a fool much like yourself poop.

        Once again poop we dont “believe” in AGW so if faced with a choice of two parties, one wishes to tax us based on a non problem and the other promises not to then it is a no brainer who we will vote for………….oh sorry poop we will vote for the party that promises no tax on a non problem.

        So in summary your side lost, you are a loser, now you can continue to be a loser or you can change your mind about the non problem and come and join us over here and be a winner, what do you say poop, remember winners are grinners and all that.

        20

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      * A paid announcement for the Committee to Reelect Christine Milne

      10

    • #
      Heywood

      Speaking of morons, one appears!

      “None of you believe climate change is humanly induced”

      Really? How do you know that? Some here don’t believe that human activities have had even a small contribution to AGW, but they are a very small minority. Most here agree that human activities have had some impact, just dispute the amount and impacts.

      “So how can you not at least be in favour of adaptation methods and infrastructure?”

      Who said we aren’t?? How is carbon pricing or a carbon tax possibly interpreted as ‘adaptation’?

      “The COALITION first came up with the idea of an Emissions Trading Scheme”

      Yep, and were smart enough not to implement it. What is your point? Are you just playing the political partisan?

      “Even Abbott believes in climate change, despite the ignorant facade he displays so morons like you vote for him”

      As opposed to the leftard morons such as yourself who supported the most dysfunctional government in Australian history for the last six years? Give me a break. So Abbott believes in climate change. So what? It doesn’t mean he thinks that a useless tax can fix it.
      Idiot.

      20

      • #
        crakar24

        Speaking of morons, one appears!

        Do you think they are using some sort of voive recognition software?

        10

        • #
          crakar24

          FFS this is embarrassing, i was going to try and bull shit my way out of this but even google had no idea what voive was.

          Obviously i meant voice……..

          10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            There, and I was just about to tell you about my auntie who used to breed voives, to feed to her bats.

            10

      • #
        ads

        Exactly.

        Its not that most don’t beleive it is happening…..at least to some degree……, its just the way labor + greens + climate facists go about trying to shove silly ideas down our throats that is the problem.

        A carbon tax does jack all but increase cost of living. Add to that australia alone can do nothing to change the world….at least through just cutting emissions. Even a 0% emission australia does nothing for climate change at all. China / India will take up what we cut in no time at all.

        Innovation / Research is the way imo. Australia should be producing / selling green energy systems to the world. (solar and other methods) Basically, become the worlds best at it. Like japan was for electrical parts etc in the 80s etc.

        00