JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading as environmentalism”

The UN wants $100 billion from wealthier countries (about $2.4 billion from Australians or $100 a person). The Australian government has produced a position statement for the Warsaw UNFCCC conference. It is unusually brutal. I don’t think I remember seeing the phrase about socialism “masquerading as environmentalism” in an official statement before. (I’m sure readers will correct me). It’s good to see some recognition that the science has become less clear, and that it may become more so.
Essentially, the new Australian government ‘s message to the UN is: we are reducing CO2, but we’re not giving you a cent. Furthermore, if the science becomes muddier, we might drop it. We don’t think this UN meeting is remotely important and we have better things to do. And when it comes to wealth transfer through the UN the answer is No. Thank. You.
The Australian has seen part of the document and it declares that, while Australia will remain “a good international citizen” and remains “committed to achieving the 5 per cent reduction” by 2020 of the 2000 levels of emissions, it will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes. - The Australian

The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

The document’s commitment that the government “will review its commitment in 2015 in light of the science and international developments” deliberately allows a range of policy outcomes.

In the unlikely event that all major economies move in a concerted way, Australia could join in. However, the language provides that if the science becomes more unclear, and if nations move away from their earlier enthusiasm for action, then Australia also could wind back its efforts.

The timing of the Warsaw conference on climate change is difficult for the government. It has decided that neither Environment Minister Greg Hunt nor Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will attend.

The Abbott government does not expect any significant progress to occur at the Poland meeting.

Ms Bishop will be at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting while part of the conference is on, and then at the annual AUSMIN talks as the Warsaw conference draws to a conclusion.

The government regards AUSMIN, the annual foreign and defence ministers’ meeting between Australia and the US, as vastly more important.

Mr Hunt will be in parliament supervising the introduction of the legislation to repeal the carbon tax while the Warsaw conference is on. However, the government would most likely not have sent a minister in any circumstances as it does not believe the meeting will be of great significance.

Mr Abbott has been strongly critical of agreements in which Australian funds are used to buy permits that are meant to fund cuts to greenhouse gas reductions in other countries – a key mechanism in the global talks.

The Coalition based its criticism of Labor policy on official forecasts showing Australian emissions would rise over time and that the 5 per cent target was only reached by purchasing overseas permits at an eventual cost of $150bn a year in 2050.

“This is by far the biggest wealth transfer from Australians to foreigners that’s ever been contemplated,” Mr Abbott said of purchasing offshore carbon permits.

Read the full story at - The Australian

It is unfortunate that dropping the pointless 5% target for reductions by 2020 is not on the table. Nonetheless, this position statement is most definitely not what the UN is hoping for.

Remember all those polls about how Australians want Climate Action?

Newspoll has the current government at 55% to Labor’s 45%.

 

UN logo image from ElectionNow Blog

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Australia says "No" to UN wish list of billions - will "not support socialism masquerading as environmentalism", 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

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

480 comments to Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading as environmentalism”

  • #
    tim theous (@timtheous)

    lol interesting ausmin meeting that will be considering pentagons views on climate change


    Report this

    110

    • #

      Yes, it will be very interesting. I’m guessing the Americans won’t be going into it with the expectation of it being a useful use of their time.

      For example, when the US DoD says,
      “Climate change will generate greater need for humanitarian and disaster-relief aid, Chiu said. He referenced extreme weather events that are intensified by rising sea levels and warmer waters associated with climate change”,
      The Australian delegation will say, “A-ha! Socialism masquerading as environmentalism! No!”.

      Naturally, the Americans, and the world in general, will accord Australia all the respect such an approach to real-world problems deserves.


      Report this

      7113

      • #
        Backslider

        He referenced extreme weather events that are intensified by rising sea levels and warmer waters associated with climate change.

        What extreme weather events and rising sea levels Maggot Margot?


        Report this

        694

        • #

          Seems like fairly straightforward physics to me.

          Are you saying the Pentagon and the DoD are wrong?


          Report this

          486

          • #
            Backslider

            I am asking you: What extreme weather events have been intensified by rising sea levels and warmer waters?

            Seems like fairly straightforward physics to me.

            Oh goody. Then you now have the opportunity to enlighten me on the physics of it, once you have elaborated on exactly what these extreme weather events have been.


            Report this

            831

            • #
              AndyG55

              “the opportunity to enlighten me on the physics of it”

              followed by………………………………….deafening silence… :-)


              Report this

              601

            • #
              Backslider

              *crickets*…..


              Report this

              400

            • #

              Not my area of expertise.

              Is it yours?

              Do you think the Pentagon should sack their analysts and advisors and instead rely on the opinions of unqualified people off the internet?

              I see you’re skating around the question here, though – maybe you are embarrassed?
              Please tell us – is the Pentagon wrong?


              Report this

              288

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Please tell us – is the Pentagon wrong?

                Historically, almost always.


                Report this

                800

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Is it yours?’

                Pretty close to.. Yes. !!

                And Saying that the Pentagon does what the CIC tells them to, and that the CIC is an idiot…

                that’s skating around the subject .. really ???


                Report this

                460

              • #
                cohenite

                Not my area of expertise.

                Is it yours?

                Surely you can read a thermometer.


                Report this

                460

              • #
                Backslider

                I see you’re skating around the question here, though

                Not at all. I had already answered the question before you even asked in post #1.1.2.1.3


                Report this

                130

              • #
                Konrad

                You attack with “straight forward physics” and then hide behind “not my area of expertise”.

                Sorry, your squealing leftardulence will not wash. No way, no how. It’s time for your education in atmospheric physics -

                1. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

                2. Radiative gases play a critical role in driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation.

                3. Tropospheric convective circulation governs mechanical energy transport from the surface, high above the level of max IR opacity, where it is then radiated to space. (by, guess what? Radiative gases!)

                4. Increasing radiative gas concentration in the atmosphere increases the speed of tropospheric convective circulation, it cannot cause atmospheric warming.

                5. The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

                And now for your education in political physics -

                1. This is the part where every single public figure of the Professional Left gets their public face, metaphorically speaking, punched to custard.

                2. No, there is no “2”. Every activist, journalist, ALPBC apparatchik, or politician who ever voiced support for this inane hoax, and worse vilified sceptics, in the age of the Internet is finished. You will not be bouncing over to “bio-crisis” or slinking off to “sustainability”.

                The Professional Left have not shot themselves in the foot. You have not even shot yourself in both feet. You have been tap-dancing on an anti-tank mine. For the Professional Left it’s pink mist time.


                Report this

                731

              • #
                Felina Flash

                You are quoting what you believe to be ‘facts’ in an area that is not of your expertise. So are you simply being a parrot? That is what is looks like. Everyone I have ever talked to who is a believer in the alleged global warming thingy has no facts, no proof, no evidence and a very little understanding of physics, nature, climate and science in general. They are also very bad with math and have no idea where most countries are on the planet or anything much about them.

                You are simply sucked up in a global effort by the lazy, stupid and envious of the world, to grab the assets of the smarter more productive members of the human race namely us in the western world. We are the victims of this insanity.

                The environment has been used as a club to stop real human progress for the past forty or more years. Counties with socialized healthcare use that collective cluster-fukk in the same way. You must behave and comply or you will cost your neighbors unnecessary expense when you are damaged or sick. However, it is perfectly fine to have half the population waddling around with collapsing knees, hips and vascular systems. More hypocrisy from the very same people.

                Almost any human activity can be used to persecute other members of society … none has been so brutish as the environmentalists and their zombie followers.

                Good on the new Australian government for calling a spade and spade.


                Report this

                270

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Maggot,

                Welcome back.

                A Pentagon is always a Pentagon.

                Triangles and frustums are something else entirely.

                As to Man Made Death by Incineration due to CO2. forget it.

                The con is well and truly exposed and NO scientist with any thought to their future will back CAGW theory for fear of being caught on the wrong side in the big-flip flop when it happens.

                KK


                Report this

                130

          • #

            It is not basic physics. Climate science is an applied science. It takes the principles of pure science and applies them. Consider the statement

            Climate change will generate greater need for humanitarian and disaster-relief aid

            To arrive at that conclusion the following needs to apply
            - That greenhouse gases cause higher temperatures (the pure physics bit)
            - That greenhouse gases are going to rise to have a significant affect on temperature (Computer modelling and testing of the models. The modelling part happens, the testing not properly)
            - That such temperature rises could cause non-trivial and adverse consequences (The track record on short-term predictions by the climate community is pretty appauling.)
            - That such non-trivial adverse consequences cannot be adapted to. For instance a metre rise in sea levels in non-trivial. According to the offical satellite data this will take 300 years to achieve at current rates of 3.2mm per year. For most vulnerable coastal communities it is well within planning horizons to build sea defences and normal coastal erosion will be far more significant.
            - The vulnerability of communities to disasters is dependent on the level of economic development. For instance earthquakes in California and New Zealand cause far less loss of life or adverse economic consequences than in Haiti or Pakistan, due to better building design and economic wealth.
            So, to fully comment on potential risks of climate change needs a knowledge of basic physics and the application of this to scientific computer models with empirical estimates. These outputs need to be then analyzed and interpreted by economists and beancounters to gauge the likely real-world consequences.


            Report this

            170

            • #

              Well, Manic, in response, I can only say that it is pretty clear that:
              – Greenhouse gases cause warming (basic physics)
              – Greenhouse gases are rising (basic observations)
              – (The track record on temperature predictions is appalling in the case of John McLean, Don Easterbroook, Lindzen, Akasofu who have all got it completely and utterly wrong. The professionals on the other hand are doing just fine).
              – Current sea level rise of 3.2mm is not the only thing you have to consider – the acceleration in that rise is also a fairly important factor.

              The observations of increasing CO2 levels, our knowledge of physics, our predictions that temperatures will rise, and consequently sea levels also are all borne out in the observations. The Pentagon has analysed this situation and they say climate change is very real and is having very real impacts, with more impact to come.
              That is reality.

              There is a tiny minority of people who for some reason reject the facts that underpin that reality (the science, the observations, or both). Whenever I suggest that some on this blog are part of that minority, I am told that “oh no, nobody questions the reality of climate change, we just say the feedbacks are different, climate sensitivity is some very low value and thus the impacts are negligeable”.
              Unfortunately, no professional scientific body supports this idea of low sensitivity and negligeable impacts.

              Meanwhile, there’s always some dill posting about how the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, the sea level isn’t rising, CO2 levels aren’t rising, and no end of other similarly stupid assertions that make no sense.


              Report this

              025

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Margot,

                I’ve said it before in this thread, but I’ll say it again.
                Margot, you’ve become a joke, and we’re all laughing at you.

                Obviously you missed it the first time, so here’s the link.


                Report this

                120

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Margot,

                MBC was using shorthand (which tends to happen on this blog, where most folks know what is intended).

                His first point should be interpreted as “greenhouse gases cause higher temperatures under constrained laboratory conditions (the pure physics bit)”.

                This is self evident to scientists, since pure physics can only be done under controlled laboratory conditions. (Theoretical physics is maths in its sunday clothes, and applied physics is engineering).

                As soon as you look at an open and dynamic atmosphere, the number of extraneous, but highly significant, variables that can impact “the experiment” makes any predictions too complex to contemplate, so we therefore need to rely on computer models, and include what extraneous variables we know about. Of course there are also extraneous variables that we don’t know about, so can’t be modeled, and this is why the models have no reliable predictive ability.

                Observations show that the models are only accurate by chance, and even then, they tend to get the magnitude wrong.


                Report this

                90

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                And, while I think of it. I would be interested in knowing your source for saying:

                The Pentagon has analysed this situation and they say climate change is very real and is having very real impacts, with more impact to come.

                I would argue that saying that, would be very untypical, and not part of their mission.

                From memory, there is an office within the Pentagon, with responsibility for reviewing actual weather patterns around the world, on an ongoing basis, so that they can give an assessment of likely weather conditions over a specific target area, within a specific time window (Meteorology). But they are very pragmatic in their views, and I really can’t imagine them taking any official stance on climate change.

                There will also be a strategic planning office, somewhere, that will consider the effects of climate change, as published in the public proclamations by the regular jobbing climate scientists (that we criticise on this site, from time to time), on the political stability of various volatile countries, to see if it presents potential threats or advantages to the United States, or to Governments friendly towards the United States.

                I presume from your assertive tone, that you have access to information that I do not. I would be interested to learn about it.


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Ernest Bush

                The Pentagon is now riddled with Obama appointees and generals who toe the Obama progressive agenda line. They recently tried to have conservatives and “right-wing Christians” labeled as possible terrorists in an army manual, but were forced to remove the statement.

                It is no surprise to find the same bunch following the progressive agenda with respect to the
                AGW scam. The Secretary of Defense also directed the army to meet a quota on using biofuels in military vehicles at a horrendous cost per gallon. Apparently, Democrat senators are not content with the amount of money they made investing in this stupid scam, also. The stuff screws up vehicles not specifically designed to use it.

                The point is, the Pentagon is perfectly capable of ignoring all factual data in pursuit of an agenda. It has been doing this with respect to weapons development for decades.


                Report this

                30

            • #
              Ernest Bush

              Sadly, Rereke, the Pentagon did make that statement through a spokesman. It has scared the hell out of some of us because there is no reason for the DOD to make a statement like that, as relates to it’s mission.


              Report this

              10

        • #

          Classy post, by the way. I bet you impress the girls no end with that kind of approach.


          Report this

          583

        • #
          Anthony

          Ahhhh, the memories….:-)


          Report this

          10

      • #
        AndyG55

        As the old pommie soccer chant goes..

        WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH !!!


        Report this

        181

        • #
          AndyG55

          That was obviously a reply to the wastrel’s post at #1.1


          Report this

          130

          • #

            Sure, the Pentagon analyses are “A LOAD OF RUBBISH”.

            Why not have a read ?
            http://www.cnas.org/node/5557

            The Pentagon thinks these are real issues. Are you *really* so sure your belief trumps their careful scrutiny of the facts?


            Report this

            170

            • #
              AndyG55

              Obama .. careful scrutiny of fact.. roflmao..

              You are SERIOUSLY DELUSIONAL !!!!


              Report this

              553

            • #
              AndyG55

              And the Pentagon will always pretend to believe what ever that think is prudent at any particular point of time.

              That is their job !!!


              Report this

              301

            • #
              Backslider

              Here is what its really all about:

              Congress required in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act that the Department of Defense consider the effects of climate change on all of its “facilities, capabilities and missions,” and called for the Department to incorporate such concerns into the QDR.

              In order to comply with the law, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services have all had to designate officials to study climate change, which has effectively created a new, nascent intellectual infrastructure of military and civilian officials who are well informed about the security consequences of climate change

              Its not at all about what the military thinks, but rather what is required of them by law.


              Report this

              410

              • #
                AndyG55

                For a couple more years they still have the lunatic wannabe Obama as President.

                Maybe by then the black community in the US will wake up to the fact that he is a user and a waste of space.

                Until then the Pentagon has to follow the rules and obey him.. unless he goes totally burko !

                He is borderline at the moment. !!


                Report this

                362

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                You forgot to mention that they were also tasked with investigating whether climate change could be used as an offensive weapon.

                Margot really has no idea. She is so far off the ball, that she is totally outside the ball-park.


                Report this

                340

            • #
              Winston

              Naturally, the Americans, and the world in general, will accord Australia all the respect such an approach to real-world problems deserves.

              Serious question, Margot.

              Do you really think that the Pentagon, or the US in general, has ANY interest in the welfare of any other nation, or any “real world” problems, whatever they may be, at all?

              Or are they merely interested in ensuring the ongoing global hegemony of the US government (even at the expense of the welfare of their own people, I might add), the ongoing buoyancy of the stockmarket, the profitability of companies like GE and Oil companies like Chevron, the maintenance of the petrodollar at all costs, and the ongoing actions to destabilise the Middle East politically and consign as much of the Third world as possible to perpetual poverty?

              Why then should we be worried whether the US (or the rest of the world for that matter) approves of us or not? They can stick it where the sun don’t shine as far as I’m concerned.


              Report this

              402

              • #

                I’d say preserving that hegemony would rely on making accurate plans based on a full appreciation of reality, wouldn’t you?


                Report this

                152

              • #
                crakar24

                What you need to understand Margot is that the Pentagon did not commission a study into the effects of AGW on military conflict or some such. They just listened to the EPA, believed every word and then developed scenarios based on what they said……..its like Tim Flannery telling us it will never rain again based on what he was told by some clod hopper in a white coat.

                The point is this, the Pentagon outcomes do not support your views on AGW in any way, shape or form and best you stop embarrassing yourself and give that pea a rest.


                Report this

                411

              • #
                Winston

                I’d say preserving that hegemony would rely on making accurate plans based on a full appreciation of reality, wouldn’t you?

                Margot,

                I’d say preserving hegemony has nothing whatsoever to do with “reality” (particularly your version of it) and everything to do with perception. I would also suggest that control through distortion of the facts to suit a specified agenda would be the modus operandi of every intelligence organisation and governmental instrumentality striving to maintain power over others.

                Our needs as global citizenry, our safety, our health, our well-being and even our survival are all utterly irrelevant to them and would be sacrificed in a heart beat if it maintained the pre-eminence of their position.

                Pres. Obama has already flagged that the third world can’t be allowed to develop because of CAGW. It is therefore pretext for keeping them poor and restricting their access to power to help them progress beyond the subsistence stage, while allowing people such as yourself to placate their conscience with a false belief that perpetuating this parlous inhumanity is somehow for the “sake of the planet”.

                And you and your warmist brethren are giving them carte blanche to do it.


                Report this

                350

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Morgot said “I’d say preserving that hegemony would rely on making accurate plans based on a full appreciation of reality, wouldn’t you?”

                No, Not long ago there was this little tiff called the Iraq war, which did exacttly the opposite.

                Is this how you view the US. All seeing, all knowing?


                Report this

                51

              • #

                Crakar, I’m sure I’ve corrected you before when you have previously mistakenly asserted that Tim Flannery said, “It will never rain again”.

                You should probably be more sceptical of thser urban legends that proliferate on the internet and only believe stuff you have checked for yourself.


                Report this

                010

              • #
                Dave

                Marcot,

                Tim Flannery said;

                “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

                Wivenhoe Dam 95.1% full
                Somerset Dam 98.4% full
                Hinze Dam 94.6% full

                Tim Flannery lied outright to the Australian people, and as a result desal plants sit rusting around the country. But we won’t go into his abuse of the ABC sprooking his GeoThermal experiment unless you want to. He is has been criminal in the abuse of his position, and cost Australia billions of dollars.

                Marcot, go to the BOM Water Storage site, and check for yourself.


                Report this

                70

              • #

                Thank you, Dave, for confirming that Crakar’s fabricated “Flannery quote” was indeed a fabrication: Flannery never said what Crakar said he said.

                As you can see in the Bureau of Meteorology’s data, rainfall in Eastern Queensland is indeed in steep decline:
                http://tinyurl.com/ommxkbl
                Which is exactly why Flannery is one of many educated commentators who are observing that the future for Queensland’s dams is not very bright.

                Incidentally, Dave, unless Flannery (for some reason) told us that those dams would be empty in November 2013, then the figures you provide don’t appear very relevant. I wonder if you understand that?


                Report this

                04

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Margot,

              Have you worked at the Pentagon? Have you worked at the DoD? Do you know the difference?

              Or are you just using the Pentagon and the DoD as vague appeals to authority?


              Report this

              380

            • #
              cohenite

              Margot; the Pentagon also produced this satellite based graph used by the 1990 IPCC FAR. The graph clearly shows Arctic ice peaking in 1979 and being much lower in 1974 in direct contradiction to the prevailing IPCC Arctic ice scares.

              So, do you believe this Pentagon information as well?


              Report this

              221

            • #
              Felina Flash

              The pentagon will believe in anything that will have more tax dollars allocated to them.


              Report this

              40

      • #
        Brett

        Well, we won’t have anything to worry about at AUSMIN, AGW won’t be on the agenda. If it were the meeting would be held somwhere like Ibiza.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        William

        EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE (ie. increased extreme weather events), money would be far better spent, in terms of saving lives, in encouraging economic development of poor nations (eg. free trade) than futile attempts at climate manipulation by CO2 emissions reduction. Oh all right then….nuclear anyone?


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Debbie

          Well said William,
          As Jo has often pointed out, the billions spent on supposedly mitigating the climate/weather could be far more productively invested in practical measures that create beneficial outcomes and better protection from extreme natural weather events for all. . .including environmental assets.
          I have lost almost all respect for environmental politics (as opposed to the actual environment). . . most of these people have attempted to take disrespectful ownership of natural disasters and inappropriately used them to point political fingers and claim there is such a thing as a ‘climate criminal’!
          It is truly absurd and disgracefully wasteful behaviour.


          Report this

          60

      • #

        One member of the DoD quoted that Margot, how is that related to the rest of the organisation. You seem to tar everyone with the same brush ..grow up !


        Report this

        120

      • #
        Tim

        Of course we will be given due respect. Perhaps with the exception of the environ-mental/sustainability science mercenaries, the hordes of cause-seeking trolls, the socialist MSM, the government trough-feeders and the internationalist globalist billionaires-on-the-bandwagon.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Orang Putih

        Who gives a toss what the rest of the world think about us. Corruption, waste, bias and racism are rampant in most governments of the world and how much difference does it make to them what Australia thinks about it.
        NOTHING!


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Margot,

        … the US DoD says,
        “Climate change will generate greater need for humanitarian and disaster-relief aid, Chiu said. He referenced extreme weather events that are intensified by rising sea levels and warmer waters associated with climate change”

        So you are quoting the US DOD. But the US DOD is quoting somebody called Chiu. Who is Chiu? What is Chiu’s relationship to the US DOD? You are silent on this matter, so we don’t actually know who or what you are referring to, and whether or not you have quoted something out of context.

        That aside, the statement about the need for humanitarian aid, is a regular DOD consideration, since the USAF regularly provide the air transport for all manner of humanitarian responses. In the context of your quote, we can assume that Chiu has made an assertion that climate change will be a disaster, in some country or other, or any number of reasons. In answer to which the DOD response would naturally be, “In that case, and assuming you are correct, then climate change will generate … etc.”

        I suspect that you have cherry picked that part of the text that suited your argument. But I would be happy to be shown wrong, by a presentation of the full context of the quote.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        doug

        The Australians are correct and will garner great respect, you lemming.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

    With full credit to Abraham Lincoln who said it first, please find out what brand of whisky your govenment drinks and I’ll buy a case for my US representatives. Great to see at last that some government on this planet has the stones to label UN extortion for what it is.


    Report this

    1060

    • #
      DT

      Maybe now attention and money will be directed towards the real global problems and here in Australia to the 1 in every 8 citizens who now live in poverty, and others not far from it who struggle to pay electricity bills and cope with the rising cost of living generally. Carbon tax out and hopefully renewable energy surcharge too.


      Report this

      790

  • #
    AndyG55

    Just out of bed, and this is the first thing I read.

    Is it Dec 25th already, or every Australian’s birthday at once !!! :-) :-)


    Report this

    702

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    Oh you lucky people.


    Report this

    720

  • #
    Ross

    Well done Australia !!!


    Report this

    710

  • #
    AndyG55

    I simply cannot wait to see warmists’ heads go “POP” !!! rofmlao !!!

    Popcorn supplies need to be bought in.

    I really hope that this will help other countries to grow some *alls !!


    Report this

    893

  • #
    Bruce

    The Abbott government seems to have the climate change nonsense under control.

    No more lunatic spending and taxing on a non-existent problem.

    The political packaging may not be completely to our liking- when they say they believe in AGW, want reduce GHGs, etc- what they do is what counts.

    Good to see the CSIRO get a recent work over after it joined the CAGW campaign of the previous government.

    More is to come, I believe.


    Report this

    721

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It’s curious that the Abbott government has targeted everybody this blog highlighted. I wander if Abbott or someone close to him reads this blog? Wouldn’t surprise me.


      Report this

      440

      • #
        AndyG55

        I know that I constantly feed Greg Hunt, and have often got replies.

        He does actually reply to email personally.. or was before the election.

        Probably a bit busy now though, getting rid of the Lab?green climate scam.


        Report this

        362

    • #
      DT

      Hopefully ALPBC/SBS too.


      Report this

      251

    • #
      Peter C

      good to see the CSIRO get a recent work over. …..More is to come I believe.

      Well I hope so. That organization needs some serious changes, starting with a management that requires integrity from the organization. So far they have only had a freeze in funding increases, which as Jo says equals a “cut in funding”, when reported in the media.
      BOM also needs a bit of work. I would like to see the government require them to explain the “adjustments” that they have made to the Australian temperature records.


      Report this

      500

      • #

        Those adjustments are detailed in the academic literature, going back many years.

        Let me guess – you’re complaining because the data disagrees with your preconceived opinion? And you want BoM to be forced to produce data that fits your preconceived notion?
        I know you guys can spell “Lysenko”, because you are so very fond of projecting that word at other people.

        It’s perfectly simple: if you can devise a better method of getting all the separate data feeds into a coherent whole, all you have to do is publish your work, thus updating the current methods which have been reached over 3 decades of very serious work.

        That’s how science is done. Not by browbeating scientists into producing the result you want. That’s how the commies did it.


        Report this

        151

        • #
          Brett

          Not by browbeating scientists into producing the result you want. That’s how the commies IPCC did it.

          - Fixed it for you.


          Report this

          330

          • #

            …a not-so-original variation on the old schoolchild’s favourite – IKYABWAI.

            Got any substance to go with that, Brett?


            Report this

            036

            • #
              Brett

              The models, the hockey stick, the peer review process, the funding, etc
              Basically 30 years and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on finding ways to find CO2 to be the culprit, rather than 30 years of research into what is causing the problem (IF it is a problem).

              But if you want to compare nursery rhymes, I can’t offer anything.


              Report this

              370

              • #
                ROM

                I gather Margot was asked to produce evidence backing her claims some many posts back.

                As such concrete and proven evidence for her claims is yet to be produced for our perusal we can only come to the conclusion that due to the lack of such proven evidence being produced, the court of public opinion here can only dismiss her claims as nothing more than a public nuisance claim unsupported by any proven evidence.


                Report this

                230

              • #

                What “evidence” is it you are after, ROM?

                Did you want your hand held to find the published academic works that describe how disparate data sources are homogenised in order to be successfully combined?

                I can help you get started – here are the first four you should look up and read:

                Torok and Nicholls (1996); a high-quality homogenisation for reliably monitoring climate trends and variability at annual and decadal timescales.

                Nicholls et al (1996); describing the 1 degree drop associated with new screening at measuring stations.

                Peterson et al. (1998); “…a suite of quality control tests are justified and documented …”

                Della-Marta & Collins (2003); updating the temperature record to take into account improvements in methods.


                Report this

                036

              • #
                Brett

                Way back up at 1.1.1 she was asked to elaborate on a comment. Beyond her skillset apparently. It seems scrutiny is a one way street. Question the church and you need undeniable proof. Forgetting the fact that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. But I’m sure Margot wouldn’t just make statements without substance, like 2 coal plants have already been shut down.

                You would think that if she were so concerned with saving the world with her keyboard, she would at least attempt to show the unenlightened ones where they have strayed from the path. Rather than ‘I know i’m right because these others said so, but I don’t know why, so you must be wrong’. Doesn’t really accomplish anything.


                Report this

                290

              • #

                My comment obviously implies I trust the result of a Pentagon analysis more than I trust (for example) some random nonsense typed by a kook on an internet blog.

                Surely you have been taught how to rapidly evaluate the comparative worth of diverse sources of information?


                Report this

                031

              • #
                ROM

                Well actually Margot , you really do have a problem.
                You see, you just aren’t old enough to have seen all those climate and weather changes down through the ages that are identical to all those oh so dangerous changes in the climate that you and your hand wringing golem mates are so terribly het about now .

                [ Golems of course a clay figures from Jewish legend that were manipulated and given life like animation by their creators and controllers ]

                Nowadays of course as you have pointed out, all those changes in the weather and climate are supposedly recorded and fed into the data mincing machines which then spits out the results that fit the menu the data butchers desires.

                And which the finished product meant for our consumption may bear little resemblance to the original product after it has been homgenised, sliced, diced and mixed according to the global warming butcher’s requirements.
                Up till now the global warming data butchers have controlled the data mincing machines and we, the public would like to know just how those data mincing machines sliced, diced and homogenised, ie ; beat into pulp, all that data before we are forced to digest it but those global warming data butchers have just refused to tell us what they have done to that data.

                So many of us are skeptical of the probably contaminated mix those global warming data butchers with their homogenised data that has been beaten to a pulp, are trying to feed us on and have refused to swallow it
                And keep asking just what the hell have you done to this data and how have you mixed it.?
                But they refuse to give an honest answer as there is too much money to be made with a contaminated ie ;a corrupted data mix when it can be sold to the naive politicals particularly when the butcher’s mates in the media and bureaucracy put in a good word, in fact many words in their support.
                And besides their reputations as data butchers would then be at stake and they can’t have that can they?

                Nope Margot, try living for a couple of centuries and you will see all of those changes in the climate that you are so fearful of and want to convince everybody that your worship of the data butchers and their product is the politically green correct way of doing everything even to the rotten homogenised, beaten to a pulp data mix that your manipulated Golem mates are attempting to force down our’s and the publics throats .
                Strangely all those who lived through what, if we believe you , must have been terrible climate changing times of the past, seemed not to have noticed and just got on with building a civilisation .
                Nobody told them that they should stop building a civilisation because they would wreck the planet forever if they didn’t do something to save the planet instead.
                If only they had had a Margot there to tell them to stop building that civilisation before they wrecked the planet.
                Having Margot there would have been their loss and our gain..

                I hope you can read this in the light of your whale oil candle and that exclusively lentil and vegetarian fondue diet gives you enough energy to keep .pedaling that bike generator to run your low tech, energy saving Atari computer.


                Report this

                270

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Margot said “My comment obviously implies I trust the result of a Pentagon analysis more than I trust (for example) some random nonsense typed by a kook on an internet blog.”

                You do realise we are in exactly the same position with your comments?

                Many on this blog are scientists, engineers, geologists. They know who they are, but who are you? And who are you to tell use we are wrong?

                So far you avoid this question and anything like it completely. Appeal to authority does not cut it…


                Report this

                120

              • #
                Mk Urbo

                AGW = Humpty Dumpty

                ..and all the spin cannot put AGW together again.


                Report this

                50

            • #

              Greg, that is why I reference proper sources rather than simply relying on mersonal assertion.

              You will see that the people who get the most wound up by the facts I quote are also the ones who seem unable to resist the urge to post fabricated quotes and who link to blogsites on those rare occasions they attempt to justify to us the things they are trying to pass off as facts.


              Report this

              04

        • #
          cohenite

          BOM temperature has some issues as this Audit Application spells out.

          The Audit Application was for the HQ network; the same issues still apply to ACORN.


          Report this

          140

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    We had all better keep our heads down.

    Michael the Realist (sic) will explode over this … not to mention Margot …

    But in all seriousness, I have to tip my hat to whomever is advising Tony Abbott on strategy. That was just enough, but no more.


    Report this

    570

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      Do you think Tony needs a collective of advisers to pore over every statement before it’s released or he’s just shooting from the hip ?


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I honestly don’t know anything about the way the NLP works. In fact, I have never worked in Canberra.

        But most large corporate entities and significant political parties, in places where I have worked, employ researchers and professional strategists to give them advice.

        This is no different from a military General wanting as much intelligence about enemy capabilities, location, and the geographical conditions as possible, before deciding what action to take.

        In the case of military action, not having a robust strategy costs lives. In the case of politics, it costs votes.


        Report this

        150

    • #

      Actually, Rereke, Tony Abbott is fulfilling my expectations. He and Greg Hunt are doing a great job. Looking forward to plenty more of the same for the next 3 years. Playing to a peanut gallery of conspiracy theorists and cranks makes for great entertainment, and should only be embarrassing to anybody who is somehow involved or responsible for the new circus they have just brought to town.


      Report this

      146

      • #
        AndyG55

        “He and Greg Hunt are doing a great job”

        They sure are.. Just what they were elected to do by the majority of Australians.

        Well done guys !!!


        Report this

        311

        • #

          You mean….45% is a majority now? Who knew!?

          Maybe this explains some of your beliefs about the possible range of sensitivity values?


          Report this

          031

          • #
            Heywood

            “….45% is a majority now?”

            Playing pick-a-poll again like a true leftard watermelon?

            45 is more than what your fellow Green watermelons can muster.


            Report this

            270

            • #

              So I get to say “the Greens were elected by a majority of Australians”, too?

              Or does majority mean, “less than 50%, but more than what the Greens got”?


              Report this

              028

              • #
                Heywood

                So not denying that you are a Leftard Watermelon?


                Report this

                190

              • #

                I don’t know that I should – would you feel compelled to deny that you are something that sounds like Joe Hockey’s buttocks just hit a whoopee cushion?


                Report this

                024

              • #
                AndyG55

                I think Margot just marked herself/himself as a pre-pubescent teenager.

                Well done, deer.


                Report this

                151

              • #
                AndyG55

                Margot, I really must THANK YOU for partaking in the discussion today.

                Although my sides hurt a bit from laughing at your inane, stupid comments,

                You have brought frivolity and absurdity to a dreary, overcast day.

                No other clown could have done as well.

                (Except perhaps Michael, sorry, but when he is around you have to play second fiddle)


                Report this

                161

              • #
                abt

                Margot, any chance that you could actually acknowledge that you and your lefty loonie mates lost the election? Our democracy does actually work and the population voted against our 6 years of socialist experiment. Let it go!!


                Report this

                150

          • #
            AndyG55

            What’s the seat count again ?

            90 to 45 or something like that..

            weep it up, little child. ! :-)


            Report this

            180

            • #

              So we’re playing, “subnormals-on-the-bleachers-basking-in-imaginary-reflected-glory”, are we?

              Judith Curry has a few things to say about the intellectual worth of tribalism:
              http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=161


              Report this

              125

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Margot, some fairly recent developments you may have missed in the news:

                1) – Labor lost the recent federal election – the LNP won – by a healthy landslide.
                2) – The Labor/Greens axis lost control of the senate in the recent federal election – effective 1/07/2014.
                3) – The planet’s atmosphere is no longer warming – reference any of the reputable records.
                4) – The planet’s atmosphere is, in fact, cooling, and will probably do so for the next 20 years or so. Reference the IPCC.
                5) – Arctic ice is returning to within normal variation.
                6) – Antarctic ice is at record levels for this time of year.
                7) – The newly elected government is quietly dismantling the worst of the “climate change” excesses of the previous government – ask Tim Flannery.
                8) – The newly elected government has just announced it has no intention of playing the UN-inspired “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” wealth redistribution game.

                .
                There’s a lot more, Margot, but that is sufficient for now.
                The point is Margot, with these developments, you and your pathetic rantings are now more or less redundant, irrelevant to the current grander scheme of things, at least for the time being.

                Accept it Margot, you and your ilk have ceased being a threat, in fact these days you’re not even a problem anymore. Today you are little more than a minor irritant, like the little moth that keeps landing on the bright spot on my laptop screen.

                In short, Margot, in light of recent developments, you’ve become something of a joke, and whether you realise it or not, or accept it or not, we’re all sitting back, having a giggle at your expense, as your ravings become ever more shrill and divorced from anything remotely connected to the reality of the situation.

                .
                I mean, a died-in-the-wool socialist leftie such as yourself, invoking the Pentagon’s alleged concern for the environment to support an argument?

                Really Margot, how low can you go?
                How desperate can you get?


                Report this

                410

              • #
                AndyG55

                Then you obviously must forsake YOUR tribalism.

                Well you would if you had any intellectual worth.


                Report this

                101

              • #
                AndyG55

                MV says.. “How desperate can you get?”

                We shall see, MV..

                We shall see..

                .
                .
                .
                .
                and won’t it be fun to watch :-)


                Report this

                110

              • #

                …and Memoryvault descends immediately into the most abject and pitiable tribalism there is.

                As for Andy – can you show me where I have exhibited tribalism, just out of interest?

                We should all hope to have our faults pointed out to us so we can try to correct the errors of our ways.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                MemoryVault

                …and Memoryvault descends immediately into the most abject and pitiable tribalism there is.

                So Margot, in the parallel universe you appear to live in . . .

                1) – Labor lost won the recent federal election – the LNP won lost – by a healthy landslide.
                2) – The Labor/Greens axis lost retained control of the senate in the recent federal election – effective 1/07/2014.
                3) – The planet’s atmosphere is no longer warming continues to warmreference any all of the reputable records are wrong.
                4) – The planet’s atmosphere is, in fact, cooling continuing to warm, and will probably do so for the next 20 years or so. Reference the IPCC got it wrong.
                5) – Arctic ice is returning to within normal variation continuing to disappear.
                6) – Antarctic ice is NOT at record levels for this time of year.
                7) – The newly elected government is NOT quietly dismantling the worst of the “climate change” excesses of the previous government – ask Tim Flannery did not get fired.
                8) – The newly elected government has NOT just announced it has no intention of playing the UN-inspired “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” wealth redistribution game. PM Tony Abbott is currently in Warsaw just itching to tackle the “great moral challenge of our time”.

                I think I’m beginning to see your problem, Margot.

                .
                How many fingers am I holding up, Margot?


                Report this

                60

          • #
            bobl

            Margot,
            Ill tell you what bothers me… Let me give you some specifics.

            It bothers me that you make these pronouncements without checking. Eg work this out.

            If C x ln (400ppm/280 ppm) = 0.7 degrees
            then
            what would the temperature rise at the current rate deliver for a doubling. IE work out C and then substitute that into
            C x ln(2) =?

            Once you do that please explain to us why the observed warming sensitivity is less than half what the IPCC forcasts, given that the IPCC only admits that half that 0.7 degrees is anthropogenic?

            Then explain to us why you think grannies should die in the cold because they can’t afford to run their heating.

            Please explain to us why you think its better that we burn food in our cars instead of feeding the poor.

            Please explain to us why thousands of people should die of cancer waiting for cures, while the money that could go to their treatment is instead spent on preventing a temperature rise by my calculation of 0.000024 degrees C.

            Please explain to us why it is better to squander our cash on expensive and inefficient solar and wind power instead of immunising babies and treating malaria breeding habitats.

            Please explain why you support the forced removal of indigenous people from their lands (or slaying of those people) in order to clear the way for carbon sequestration projects.

            Explain to us why you think burying oxygen in the ground for millenia is a sensible way to deal with CO2.

            Please show us why you think carpetting the earth with 15 square killometers of solar panels for each GW of power is remotely environmentally sound for the biosphere.

            Please explain why the fertilisation effect of CO2 up to 4000 ppm isn’t helping to stave of world famine, and why reducing the rate of growth of plants with lower CO2 would be a good thing to do given the level of starvation in the world today.

            Please Margot, I want to believe you, but I just can’t, because these inhuman results of decarbonisation stand in the way of me believing that reducing CO2 is even remotely good for us.


            Report this

            360

            • #

              It’s called the lag. How did you ever miss that basic fundamental fact?

              We’ll know the lag is over when equilibrium is reached.

              However, so long as CO2 levels continue to increase, the forcing is increased, and the equilibrium temperature continues to climb ahead of us.

              Having corrected you on your mistaken proto-thoughts surrounding sensitivity, I will hasten to commend you on your most laudable concern for the grannies, the poor, the cancer sufferers, etc… You *sure* you aren’t some sort of bleeding-heart leftie?


              Report this

              010

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Is this the 800 year lag between Temperature and CO2?
                Or another lag you just invented on the spot?

                Could you make a stab at answering any of the other questions, please.


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Could you make a stab at answering any of the other questions, please.

                Apparently not.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                bobl

                Since there has been no global warming, and a cooling trend over the last 15 years, then the overshoot – lag as you put it, is demonstrably on the negative side at the moment. Secondly, you are implicitly postulating that the last 150 years of mild temperature rise contains no lag effects but suddenly we do have a lag. You are seriously trying to say that the sensistivity of 1.35 includes no lag effects? Surely it is what actually happened – lag and all.

                You didn’t answer my other questions?


                Report this

                20

              • #

                I’m not sure what it is you find confusing about this, bobl, the increase of greenhouse gases increases the equilibrium temperature. That is very basic physics.

                The heat required to reach the equilibrium temperature has to accumulate over time – there can’t be an instantaneous leap to the equilibrium, it just isn’t possible. In the meantime, there is an imbalance in the energy budget is the incoming energy doesn’t change (unless the Sun brightens, or the Earth’s orbit changes, etc…) while the outgoing energy has been reduced by the greenhouse gases’ absorption on the relevant spectra.

                You also mistakenly characterise the sharp increase in temperature over the last 150 years as “mild”. I know of no professional scientific body that would call it “mild” in the light of it being an increase of unparralelled rapidity in the recent temperature record.
                Can you give me a reference to any reputable published work that would call it “mild”?

                You also err in repeating the urban myth of there being some sort of “cooling trend over the last 15 years”. Again, I am not aware of any reputable science that backs up that story, although I am aware of disreputable media figures who delight in making up stuff like that to sell more papers.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                bobl

                Margot.
                Firstly you are correct that in theory CO2 will cause a change in the rate of transport of UV wavelengths in BOTH directions in/and out, however that is only known to be true in the most trivial case – IE Svante Arrhenius’s test tube. That is a small, closed, non chaotic system. The Atmosphere is a massive, open, chaotic system so Svantes law wont apply. Over 80 % of the extra energy is radiated right back out of the IR hole (the region where the atmosphere is transparent to IR) read how frost works. You’re right in that there cant be an instantaneous leap in temperature, but CO2 is NOT rising in an instantaneous leap, it is rising rather slowly, so slowly that bioproductivity alone soaks up 50% of the CO2 rise each year, meaning in 2 years its 75% absorbed, 3 years 88%, from this one would expect the equilibrium time for a step change in CO2 is about 5 years. But remember its NOT a step change its a linear trend, much easier to follow so the equilibrium time is shorter. However, if there is lagged energy being retained as you posit, that is the real temperature “set point” is above the current temperature then we should see a monotonic upward shift in temperature, any downward shift in a lagged system means that the set-point in such a lagged system must conversely be below the actual temperature. Our Current situation going from a warming climate to a plateau, implies that our current temperature is ABOVE the equilibrium temperature.

                It’s Mild, the historical trend represents about 0.5 degrees per century, nothing to write home about, but thank goodness it happened. I wouldn’t want to be living in the little ice age – when half of Europe starved to death.

                There is a cooling trend, we went from warming at a rate of something like 0.5 degrees per century to a rate of approximately zero, with that cooling overcoming your so called lag / intertia, the Atmosphere can’t leap to a cooler temperature any more than it can rise and therefore the actual underlying temperature “Set point” (equilibrium), must be below current temperature for that to happen, it is in fact cooling.

                Nor do you understand the temporal question, let’s suppose the temperature rises by 2 degrees, then how, where and when will it rise, night day, equally, at sea, over land or at the poles where noone lives or in the tropics? We know by observation that in the tropics higher average temperature leads to more evaporation and a tendency to cloudiness. Over most of the tropical oceans temperatures never exceed about 30 degrees, and typical minimums are 23 degrees (an average of (23 + 30)/2 or 26.5 degrees. In Melbourne though it varies between about zero and 40 degrees, (an average of 20 degrees) so despite the tropics being an average of 6 degrees warmer than Melbourne, the maximum temperature in the tropics is 10 degrees lower than Melbourne – A Higher average temperature does NOT mean a hotter climate, it means a more moderate tropical climate Higher lows, lower highs. CO2 fertilises plants and improves the human condition, warmer temperatures are good for humans and most other life on earth. Even if you could prove Anthropogenic warming you still need to prove harm. The IPCC says itself that moderate warming such as we are likely to see and the effect of CO2 on plants is likely to be good for mankind. The increases in crop yields and plant life bioproductivity in general is about the only measurable outcome of any of this.

                Despite all that, the more important problems are in the rest of my comment that you totally ignore and obviously aren’t going to answer – regarding the anti-human effects of the actions taken to waste money on global warming VS the important work that needs to be done to improve the lot of mankind. Regardless of intellectual debate about whether or not the science is right, the demonstrable fact is that decarbonisation policies hurt vulnerable people and divert money away from curing acute but solvable problems to something equivalent to holding back the ocean with a teacup – your slavish adherence to a failed doctrine implies that you are happy with all the misery I listed that your failed taxes and mitigations cause. We take it from your silence that you are happy with all these consequences of “decabonisation”

                So go on spend your money on windmills and solar panels trying to prevent the next storm in the Phillippines – me, I think I’ll help them build some storm shelters instead. That’s the difference between us Margot, I care about People, you seem to want to make them suffer.


                Report this

                30

      • #
        Brett

        The circus was shut down, it cost too much money. The adults have come in to clean up.


        Report this

        190

        • #
          AndyG55

          but isn’t there still a lot of green slime still spraying about !

          going to take a while.. high pressure hose.. etc etc


          Report this

          271

          • #
            Brett

            Some of it sticks around for generations. It’s as if it leaves a ‘footprint’


            Report this

            210

          • #
            GregS

            Lots of bleach and disinfectant.


            Report this

            170

          • #

            Amusingly, here are the election results in the NSW senate:

            No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics 0.18%

            The Greens 7.79%

            Oh dear, looks like the Slime wins, with 4330% stronger support than the climate cranks.

            As usual, we find Andy and Brett paddling around in the pool of their own delusion.


            Report this

            134

            • #
              crakar24

              Liberal/Nationals (no carbon tax policy) approx 55%, so whats your point dingbat?


              Report this

              251

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I’m calling foul on that Margot.

              You can quote the actual proportional results, if you think they are meaningful in any tangible way, but you cannot extrapolate that into a numerical comparative statement, and quote it as a percentage. That is just bad math.


              Report this

              220

              • #

                I’m sorry, Rereke, for doing the comparison, expressed as a percentage, in my head.

                Here it is more accurately:

                Climate Cranks vote is the reference value. 7913.
                The difference in votes achieved is 333028.

                The accurate comparison value is 333028/7913, expressed as a percentage=

                4209%.

                So, not 4330%, 4209%. Completely different. Therefore the cranks won, I suppose.


                Report this

                028

              • #
                AndyG55

                The cranks lost ?

                So why is the Carbon Tax being removed ?

                Why are the UN climate boondoggle payments being stopped ?

                Why was Flannery’s little group told to go jump ?

                Sounds like a pretty decisive win to me. :-)

                Next major stop.. the Renewable Energy Target,

                with lots of other climate trash being thrown out in the interim :-)


                Report this

                240

              • #
                Popeye

                Andy – Abbott has already stated this morning (to Alan Jones) that the RET is the next “thing on the agenda”

                You bewdy!!!

                Cheers,


                Report this

                180

              • #
                Dave

                Popeye,

                Music to my ears. You Little F….. Bewdy.

                They’re going to go ballistic now, the little GANG of GREEN.


                Report this

                170

              • #
                AndyG55

                popeye..

                SWEEEEEEEET !!!


                Report this

                140

            • #
              Brett

              Such a large ballot paper for those two options. Must have been a very large font.


              Report this

              120

            • #
              AndyG55

              Poor little girl, can’t even admit that the Liberals have achieved a WHOPPING MAJORITY,

              and that the green slime has been greatly reduced. What will you wade in now ?


              Report this

              160

            • #
              Snafu

              I can play numbers games too Margot.

              Amusingly, here are the election results in the House of Representatives….you know, the part of the Commonwealth Parliament that actually runs this country.

              Coalition – 45.54%

              Greens – 8.65% ( -3.11% from last election)

              More importantly, seats won (out of 150):

              Coalition – 90 (60.01%)

              Greens – 1 (0.67%)

              What was that you were saying about paddling around the pool of ones own delusion?


              Report this

              260

              • #

                No mention of the “Climate Sceptics” party there?

                Too much of an abject failure to rate a mention, I see.


                Report this

                027

              • #
                bobl

                Until you come to understand that the climate sceptics party’s stated aim was to redirect the senate vote away from the greens to the majors and therefore reduce their representation in the senate. Please update us on the number of green senators, and their effectiveness as a voting block come 1 july 2014 thanks Margot


                Report this

                230

              • #
                AndyG55

                With the Liberals obviously very much anti-AGW, why would any sensible person risk diluting the Liberal vote.

                But if you want to keep voting for a irrelevant minority party.. keep going.

                We will just laugh as the slime vote keeps diminishing.


                Report this

                150

              • #
                Brett

                Sorry, I didn’t read the fine print where it said that all Skeptics MUST vote for the allocated Skeptical Party. Who’s delusional?
                You do realise there is only one vote allowed, right?


                Report this

                170

              • #
                AndyG55

                What was that Snafu ????? did you say Greens – 1.

                Gees, they did well didn’t they. :-) irrelevance, thy name is Greens !

                Especially after the new senate comes into effect :-)


                Report this

                131

              • #
                AndyG55

                Margot…. how does it feel to see your irksome little religion coming crashing down around you. :-)

                poor little petal. ! :-)


                Report this

                131

              • #
                AndyG55

                And who was that Green.. why Little Adam Brant of course.

                Voted in by inner city Melbourne troglodytes sipping soy decaf lattes.

                Probably never seen any decent biosphere except in a gardening magazine.

                Buy their flowers from the flower stall at the corner, flowers grown in 1000+ppm CO2.

                Poor little trogs :-)


                Report this

                151

              • #
                Dave

                AndyG55,

                Little Greenie Adam CANT and local voter Marcot buys fresh flowers that are also imported from:
                Vietnam, South Africa, Ecuador or China.

                They often take between 3 and 7 days to hit the shelves and last for under a few days. The carbon footprint of these flower bunches are bigger than Michael The Master Debaters exude each year. Inner city trendy latte Melbourne is the biggest market for cut flowers, and these Greenies can’t get enough of them. The flowers are mainly lilies, roses and orchids, but do you think the GANG GREEN GROUP could give a stuff about this.

                Each cut flower (stem & flower) has over 1/2 a kilo of CO2 emissions. Over $28 million dollars of imported flowers arrived in AUstralia last year, with the biggest growth of imported sales (16.4%) in Inner Melbourne.

                These fruitloop nut jobs don’t give a stuff about the environment, they are the new GREEN I want crowd.


                Report this

                180

              • #
                AndyG55

                Dave…

                and that soya.. let’s not forget about that soya :-)

                And do you know what chemicals go into creating decaf ?

                CO2 process

                This process is technically known as supercritical fluid extraction. Pre-steamed beans are immersed in supercritical carbon dioxide in a pressure chamber at 73 to 300 atmospheres. After a thorough soaking for around ten hours, the pressurized CO2 containing dissolved caffeine is removed from the chamber which is returned to atmospheric pressure, allowing the CO2 to evaporate. The caffeine is removed from the CO2 using charcoal filters and the CO2 is recycled for use on another batch of beans. This process has the advantage that it avoids the use of potentially harmful substances


                Report this

                140

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Go Clive Palmer… Whooo Hooo!


                Report this

                00

            • #
              abt

              I repeat, Accept the fact that you lost in a landslide. It’s over


              Report this

              120

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      It’s certainly fun tweaking the weasel’s tail but by repeatedly responding you are playing “Margot”‘s game. Stop feeding her (or he) as they are incapable of changing from their emotive viewpoint to one which considers all the facts and sciences. Instead use that energy to educate ill informed politicians and get buckets of money redirected to the millions in genuine need.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Manfred

    Finally, the clarion call of reason! It is tremendous.
    The key to disempowering the theatrical Green melodrama lies in calling it out.
    Exposing the Emperor’s naked ideology is precisely what is required.
    And as the UN cracks, so will the EU. Perhaps this signals an infection of rational self-determination. The fervent hope is that it will turn into a global pandemic.


    Report this

    620

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    “Warsaw climate talks expected to deliver loss and damage mechanism”
    Ha, ha. Don’t they wish ?

    Loss and damage , eh ? Is that the best they could come up with ?

    What happened to what were they calling it before “Climate Debt”

    They’re still at it :-

    …. setting up an international mechanism under a standing body or committee that would then be charged with working out how it would operate over the next year or so – …

    proposing more b***** bureaucracies to sit around and dream about wasting more billions.

    While hurling implied threats :-

    “You’re better off agreeing on limited liability under a U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change rules-based approach,” he said. “If you don’t agree (rules) in advance, once harm is done and harm can be attributed, then you’re opening yourself up to unlimited liabilities… We know this problem is going to happen – let’s deal with it now.”

    Thank Friday some Government finally had the cojones to call out the real ‘C’ word, in the UNFCCC and be proud that its yours Aussies.


    Report this

    560

  • #

    Well done to the Abbott Government. Like all true Australians, they are not afraid to tell others that they are wrong. So much better than most other countries who will duck their heads avoid signing up to such nonsense.
    Wait for a climate activist to respond by calling for sanctions against Australia.
    I believe this idea of wealth transfers was very strongly pushed by then British Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown. If you suffer from insomnia, I suggest you listen to this short speech about it here. Alternatively at watch Gordon Brown at Copenhagen leading Al Gore into and out of a closet.


    Report this

    510

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Great start to the day.

    Unusual to see such blunt language, but evidence that the end of AGW in Australia is coming. Intelligent thought like this has been missing for too long in our government.

    Of course Margot and Michael will scream, but soon they will be parading the street with boards claiming that “the end is nigh” and getting all the attention they deserve.

    Don’t worry about the RET; note the comment about possible policy changes in 2015. Meanwhile the effect of this announcement will increase pressure on the UK and German governments for a start.


    Report this

    400

    • #
      Michael P

      If I had anything to say I’d be cautiously cheering from the rooftops over this. After all it’s early days yet and I’m not exactly a fan of the Direct Action Plan, I’d like to see that dropped as well,as a waste of money.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    DT

    The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”. The truth is out at last, officially.


    Report this

    610

  • #
    diogenese2

    On this Remembrance Sunday I visited the graveyard of my local church, were are buried six Anzac soldiers (one a maori, another a pacific islander). They are buried here because my town then, (1914-1920), hosted an Anzac military hospital. Ironically these men survived the horrors of the conflict but died of flu in 1918.
    Few remember that Anzac losses per population base were exceedingly high and the sacrifice made for the sake of the mother country was so severe, for what had the European conflict have to do with them? But they came anyway and did what was necessary.
    Now basic common sense and practicality, lost elsewhere, has survived here and broken out of the stifling delusion that has beset the “developed” world by stating the harsh truth that the emperor has no clothes. Do not underestimate the effect of this. Now, because you have asked the questions, others will do so, and answers will have to be given. The argument from authority can only hold whilst the authority goes unchallenged. Oz has now offered the twin fingers of scorn to the green behometh. You always were contrary bastards!
    You won’t get the ashes back though.


    Report this

    810

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Gold Star from me diogenese2. I hope New Zealand takes a look over the fence and slap themselves awake.
      BG is too psychotic to notice, America is commited, but perhaps the smaller countries may take another look at independent thought.


      Report this

      340

    • #
      JohnRMcD

      The Ashes?? Who gives a great rat’s ass about The Ashes? This is just another of those pastimes intended to keep the plebs’ minds off the important things. And leave those things to the people who are qualified/permitted to sort them. Cannot have the peons concerning themselves about subjects reserved for their betters, now, can we?


      Report this

      11

  • #
    jon

    Is 100 billions really enough to pay for tomorrow UN “workers” pension funds?


    Report this

    230

    • #
      Joe V.

      UN peacekeepers & technicians do some excellent work to stabilise barely-functional countries. These bureaucratic boondongles shouldn’t be allowed to continue or to be confused with what the UN was established for.


      Report this

      190

  • #
    jon

    Is 100 billions really enough to pay for tomorrow UN “workers” pension funds?

    90

  • #
    Joe V.

    If you can believe this duplicitous little lot, the UN’s Flagship Climate Castropharian’s Conference in Warsaw is being sponsored majorly by Big Coal, and Big Oil.

    Watch more Greenies exploding as Executive Secretary Comrade Figueres is forced to eat her hat ( the same one she was talking through not so long ago).


    Report this

    380

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Congratulations to the people of Australia for electing a government no longer prepared


    Report this

    180

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      …to give houseroom to the AGW scam. Australia have shown genuine leadership in this area and I hope that other Nations will force the breach in the citadel of Common Purpose made by your courageous example


      Report this

      550

  • #
    clive hoskin

    I think this is why the green commies and their supporters have been pushing anything that has to do with AGW,since the Adults took over here.The Abbot Gov’t have opened the Flood Gates.This will give the other countries around the world,the B..ls to do the same.

    We need to encourage the rest of the World to do the same.

    DEFUND the UN!


    Report this

    450

    • #
      DT

      How the socialists and fellow travellers have been able to greatly expand the influence of the UN since the 1950s and use it as headquarters for their control the world plan to get rid of sovereign nations is difficult to understand, they have created an unelected defacto government organisation funded by sovereign nations with elected governments and have caused far more damage than good.


      Report this

      440

  • #
    Robert

    I am sure Australia has many more important things to do with its money than waste it elswhere; God we are still paying lots for the UN’s economic refugees, perhaps we ought to suspend this convention and let the rich Arabic countries look after their Muslim brethren as well.


    Report this

    440

  • #
    Fenbeagleblog

    Yay!!!……. Well done Australia!…… Showing Britain how it’s done.


    Report this

    460

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    Diplomacy is difficult and can be infuriatingly frustrating, but handing powers to Global Governance Structures, or whatever they currently masquerade as, is just an easy way out that will cost us all dearly in the end.


    Report this

    300

  • #
    Chuck L

    Bravo, Australia!


    Report this

    230

  • #
    PeterS

    I wouldn’t generalise and say that it’s just one type of socialism masquerading as environmentalism. There are also other versions that support this insane and illegitimate agenda to control a country’s CO2 emission. The Green Wing of the Golden Dawn movement (neo-Nazi Party) in Greece also would support such an agenda. Also note the Green Wing is much like the modern Greens movement. That’s one reason of many why I prefer to label the Greens as neo-Nazis, not as communists. Communism is dead against such an agenda. So, on this topic, the communists and conservatives like Abbott are more in agreement. The socialists (Neo-Nazi, Greens, etc.) are in favour of this corrupted form of environmentalism.


    Report this

    172

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Once again, Fantastic news.

    Keep it up, Australia.

    Now I want to clone Tony Abbott and crew more than ever. Sigh!


    Report this

    310

  • #

    This is the most exciting news – What a wonderful day!

    I have been hugely impressed by Tony Abbott and what this government is achieving. Not only turning it about for Australians, but maybe even leading the world away from the nonsense of CAGW cash-gathering, and back to sanity.

    Thank you, Jo, for this news – I get all my news from science and political blogs on the net (I don’t trust the MSM). :)


    Report this

    410

  • #
    clive hoskin

    Tony Abbotts Gov’t have made the first move.It’s up to Us,to spread the word far and wide,that Australia doesn’t beleave this AGW bulls..t.If the UN want a fight,then bring it on!I’ll be the first one to put my hand up to defend MY country.


    Report this

    341

    • #

      Jo says AGW is real.

      And what’s with the rest of your nutty stuff? Do you think the UN is going to invade and you are going to shoot people to defend your right to believe in nonsense?

      I do hope you do not have a gun licence, and I do hope you talk to your therapist about your problems.


      Report this

      144

      • #
        Heywood

        “Jo says AGW is real”

        As do I, but just like Jo, I don’t believe that pissing billions of dollars up against the wall by donating it to the UN just to give leftard watermelons such as yourself a warm fuzzy feeling that you are ‘doing something’ is going to make any difference at all.

        Donate your own money, not mine.


        Report this

        360

      • #
        Mark D.

        I do hope you do not have a gun licence, and I do hope you talk to your therapist about your problems.

        HAAAA Ha ahahaha hah hah hah ha ha ha hah herm hrrrrr r he he he.

        Lets see Margot, have you heard of the UN small arms treaty?

        The UN needs to be UNfunded and UNassembled.


        Report this

        210

        • #

          “UN small arms treaty” – I tried to find it, but apparently it doesn’t exist.

          Another delusion?


          Report this

          031

          • #
            Paul Lake

            Evidently you didn’t even try. Many relevent links came up immediately.
            Try this one, speaking to the matter:
            http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/claire-wolfe/can-the-u-n-ban-americas-guns/


            Report this

            170

          • #
            Mark D.

            Fortunately Margot, you are irrelevant as well as inept.


            Report this

            220

          • #
            crakar24

            Go to google and type in “Un small arms treaty” surely it cannot be any easier than that?

            Just in case you are still too stupid let me summarise for you, NATO which is the militant arm of the UN dont like invading and taking over countries where its inhabitants have the capacity to shoot back. Its fine to bomb them from 40,000 feet but as we all know the only way to win a war (or in recent times humanitarian induced invasion) is to have boots on the ground which is were the problems begin.

            Most of the shooting back is done via “small arms” therefore in an attempt to make the job of NATO even easier the UN have/are trying to establish a new law to outlaw small arms.

            See here

            http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

            This should start that lone pea to rattle around in that empty void for a while.


            Report this

            211

            • #

              Sorry, I still can’t find any “UN small arms treaty” there.

              You sure you didn’t dream it?

              Seeing as *two* of you now imagine there is such a thing, that would be less likely a “dream” and more likely a “mass delusion”.

              Please show me where this “UN small arms treaty” exists in reality, will you? Can you?


              Report this

              027

              • #
                crakar24

                Looks like we got a live one here, denialist to the end.

                http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117%20(2013)

                This is a UN resolution, you dont get much better than this……..mind you some countries just ignore them like Israel for example but still that lone pea in your brain must be working over time by now.


                Report this

                221

              • #
                MemoryVault

                This is a UN resolution, you dont get much better than this……

                But Crackar, has it been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal . . .


                Report this

                200

              • #
                Yonniestone

                Do you really think when wars are fought each side makes sure everyone has a gun license?
                LMFAO
                From now on you shall be known as Margot Kidder.


                Report this

                200

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Margot is obviously “research challenged”. Perhaps we should go easier on her/him/them.

                It is actually becoming quite common. People think that if they can’t find it on the first page of a Google search (or second if they are serious), and if it is not currently being talked about on social media, then it obviously doesn’t exist.

                This is the reason why scams take hold so easily. People simply do not know how to independently verify or reject what they are told, so they have to believe in consensus and appeals to authority.

                No conspiracy here, because I don’t believe it was planned. But it is certainly a manifestation of the Law of Unintended Consequences, so why wouldn’t the savvy promoters of ‘stuff’ make use of it?


                Report this

                180

              • #

                So…..not a treaty, then?

                Nobody here can find any “UN small arms treaty”, and yet noone here can bring themselves to admit that there is no such thing.

                Delusion AND denialism.


                Report this

                025

              • #
                Mark D.

                Margot dear, you won’t be able to find much because your mommy and daddy have parental controls enabled. It is much too troubling to a young undeveloped mind to find truth. Now run along and play with your dolls….


                Report this

                100

          • #
            Susie

            It’s called The Arms Trade Treaty and covers small arms as well as other weapons.

            http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/


            Report this

            210

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              And the Delusion and Denialism of Margot reads, and I quote:

              “On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools.”

              To which I say, great, it will push the price of illicit arms and ammunition through the roof, leading to an increase in the drug trade, prostitution, money laundering, child exploitation, extortion, and hijackings, robberies, et al, in order to pay for the higher prices. But it won’t stop the bad guys who want ordinance from getting it.

              Especially since you can actually make a perfectly functional weapon on a three-D printer, if you have one you can use as model.


              Report this

              140

          • #
            Neville

            Jeez Margot, how difficult could it possibly be?? Or do you simply not WANT to actually ‘look it up’?? Would it interfere with your ideological zealotry, or is it a function of your apparent status as some kind of incompetent [snip, enough OK :- )]

            I googled the words, and there LOTS of (relevant) links. Here’s the google search page.

            Have a go – unless that is, you prefer pontificating from the lofty heights of your pedestal of profound principles?

            [snip]


            Report this

            80

  • #
    AndyG55

    For those who want a fun day.

    https://www.getup.org.au/get_togethers/climate-catchup

    We need some placards ! Any suggestions ?


    Report this

    142

    • #
      AndyG55

      I like this line “the majority of Australians want stronger action on climate change.”

      YEP.. and they just got it ! :-) :-)


      Report this

      532

    • #
      Popeye

      Andy,

      Hope Nov 17 is a day like yesterday & today in Sydney – COLD, RAINING (hooray) & MISERABLE.

      We can only wish that it “rains on their (pitiful) parade”.

      Cheers,


      Report this

      160

      • #

        “Nov 17 … ” Up here it will be at 4pm on the Strand, so probably pleasant, starting to cool off with that dependable airflow off the Pacific. I might turn up just to audit what’s left of the believers. Won’t risk a placard (recently pulled a tendon in my right arm) but maybe take a nice hardwood placard handle (aka walking stick) just in case?


        Report this

        100

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      How about joining in with placards for:- ‘ Tony’s Direct Action on Climate ‘ , whatever that means it seems to be working so-far.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      PeterS

      So is he and all the rest will support the new government? After all it’s promising more direct action than Labor ever did. Of course they won’t because they are hypocrites.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Backslider

      We need some placards ! Any suggestions ?

      Sure:

      The Biosphere LOVES CO2!!!


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It looks like they are expecting 20,000 in Brisbane. I hope we get coverage commentry after the event, I’m still stuck with analog TV (meaning none).


      Report this

      90

    • #
      ROM

      Thanks Andy. A good opening to fit this in

      May i take the oppurtunity to congratulate Jo whom i assumed created that UN Hammer and Sickle logo at the top of this thread .

      that UN Hammer and sickle logo is a pretty good and accurate depiction and rendition of how that great dream of October 24, 1945, at Lake Success, New York in the United States has deteriorated into a great abyss of authoritism and corruption tending dictatorialism on a truly grand scale.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Maverick

      Water plus CO2 = Oxygen

      CO2 is Essential to life on earth

      No warming for 15 years

      CO2 rises – world does not warm

      Science is not consensus

      Only 0.3% of scientists believe Global Warming

      Increased temperature = more food for the poor

      Lower energy costs = less poverty

      Save millions of lives with cheap access to electricity

      Lower electricity Bill Shortern’s for everyone

      Say No to Greed Greed lower our electricity bills

      UN get your hands off Australia’s money

      Life before socialism


      Report this

      110

      • #
        bobl

        Actually Maveric its

        Electricity Bill Short-Term

        thanks…..

        Tony A, I release all copyright to the above description, copy away.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Michael

        I don’t quite get it. In your list you write that the world is not warming and that increased temp means more food. Are you suggesting that rising temps would be a good thing?
        Where do you get the figure of only 0.3% of scientists believing in GW. Do you have a link?

        [Michael, you appear to be a new poster. We have several Michaels posting here already and you probably don't want your posts to be confused with theirs. I suggest that you add an initial or something to your name to distinguish your posts from the others. Thanks in advance. ] ED


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Brett

          Widely known that there is no current GW. Rising temp equals more food, rising CO2 equals more food. Google Growing Degree Days. Larger areas able to produce food, higher yields.
          Frosty Fruits and Frosted Flakes aren’t grown in frosts. I remember vaguely it was put by someone that even if we could control the temperature, why now? Why has this particular temperature been chosen, when the last 100 years has seen significant benefits from increased temperature, why any more has a detrimental affect? And who gets to decide? Let millions starve so a few villagers can enjoy their tropical island?


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Popeye

    HOORAY!!!

    At long last Australia is going to LEAD THE WORLD in the march away from this SOCIALIST SCAM!!

    Watch the rest of the world follow in Australia’s footsteps now.

    Next – a Royal Commission into the degradation & politicization of science into a religion and the SHAMING of those fervent religious instigators/followers who promoted it as “science”. Maybe, even some jail time just to send a message to any future perpetrators that think the tainting of science for the sake of money is acceptable.

    Can’t wait to see the rest of the world follow us down that path as well.

    Cheers,


    Report this

    361

    • #
      PeterS

      If we did have a Royal Commission it would implicate politicians on both sides. Howard would also be brought into the mix and asked why he supported some sort of tax on CO2. His recent revelation of where he stood in his mind won’t be a defense. What we really need is an international court to judge those who have direct financial interest in the scam, such as Al Gore. That would be far better. Such people should then end up behind bars. However, I doubt that will ever happen in their lifetimes, which is unfortunate. The scam still has some legs to go before it’s proven to be such.


      Report this

      220

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        A good idea in theory, however there are simply too many people involved. A court could never get through half of them before they died of old age.

        A better idea is to hold a court hearing on specific Global Warming claims. Few in number but central to the ——theory claim.


        Report this

        51

        • #
          PeterS

          The Nuremberg Trials were swift and effective and involved a lot more people than the top leaders of the AGW scam. We only need to target those top few and the rest will scurry away.


          Report this

          80

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            I think their questions would have been a lot easier to answer though.
            “Did you round out people and confine them in any way?”
            “Did you kill any person, or did you order the killing of any person?”

            The CAGW is a lot more incestuous and laws have been put in place to support fleecing of the system. A lot of hide and seek with companies and policies. I do think it would be a protracted exercise.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        DT

        Just this past week John Howard explained why his government signed the UN Kyoto Protocol but refused to ratify it and expose Australia to ridiculous penalties. He pointed to what he called a perfect storm, the socialist’s global warming propaganda believed by the majority at a time when a severe drought gripped Australia and to go against public opinion would have been political suicide. So the Coalition found ways to work around their problem politically. As it turns out they made the right decision.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Cookster

          DT – The Howard government DID NOT sign the Kyoto protocol – that was the Labor Rudd government. Howard proposed an Emissions Trading Scheme to head off political risk of taking a sceptical position at a time when Al Gore’s science fiction movie was receiving accolades. I think what Howard has said recently (‘perfect storm of events’) gives Tony Abbott and the LNP wiggle room to continue to deconstruct pointless carbon abatement schemes in this country.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    Tony continues to ‘lead the World while embarrassing‘ the self important Green, Leftoid Guardianistas :-)


    Report this

    350

  • #
    Dave

    Well Christiana Figueres,

    You can stuff your hat & title in a bag, and don’t comment again on Australia.
    Come to think of it, don’t even bother coming here at all.

    Well done Tony Abbott.
    What a beautiful day it is on Remembrance Day.


    Report this

    350

  • #

    My hat is off to Australia and Tony Abbott. If only in America we had such a man as leader.

    stan stendera, Marietta, GA, USA.


    Report this

    340

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes I feel for you over there. Obama is a con artist for sure. Never did trust him, but then what choice did you have? At least we got rid of our two biggest political con artists we’ve ever had; Rudd and Gillard, and their comrades.


      Report this

      110

  • #

    PS: Monday USA time is Veterans Day, analogues to your Remembrance Day.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Speedy

    Well done Tony! You’ve recognised that the UN gabfest is a waste of time and money. “Socialism masquerading as environmentalism”. Maybe.

    But, even if we did pay up, I wouldn’t expect to see much of the “green” money going to the poor who need it. Corruption and political favouritism is alive and well in all of those poor couontries. More likely, it would be the poor people in the rich countries sending money to the rich people in the poor countries.

    I’m just amazed it’s taken so long for a government to have the courage and integrity to do this.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    290

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Completely gobsmacked.

    Presumably this means Abbott is on collision course with Obama in terms of the priority of “fighting climate change” and “carbon pollution”, at least on the public rhetoric level.

    Hmmm, keeping those USA defense relations all shipshape at AUSMIN suddenly seems like a better use of time.


    Report this

    220

    • #
      llew Jones

      I’ve noticed Pell has an intelligent grasp of the scam we call CAGW. I’m not a “mick” but if Abbott is getting his lead from the Cardinal there is a pretty good chance we are in for plenty more fun.

      Iconoclastic fun of the sort that we agnostics love. Just goes to show the Pagan warmists haven’t got religion all to themselves when it comes to interpreting climate science.


      Report this

      131

  • #
    Brian Johnson UK

    Well done the Aussies.

    Still hoping you lose The Ashes once more though. :)


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Obama is a lame duck president, but he still has the support of the US media. His universal healthcare is impacting Democrat polling numbers. He might still hold some support, but Democrats in swing states are not confident and are making noises. The Republicans are quietly confident at present as Obamacare continues to whiteant the support of the Democrats. His changes that the EPA will attempt to force on coal fired power generation are going to be tied up in court for years.
    Congratulations Australia. I didn’t think the Libs would have it in them, but seemed to have gained assertiveness since the election. The Labor party painted itself into a Green corner. I anticipate the AGW hoax and its supporters will be relegated to a tiny, inconspicuous corner of world politics. I’m hoping, anyway.


    Report this

    220

  • #
    Chistery

    From The Greens policy on Climate Change and Energy

    Australia is a wealthy nation and is therefore ideally placed to lead the world in addressing climate change

    Finally we are actually leading the world in addressing climate change … climate change rent-seeking and con jobs, that is.


    Report this

    341

    • #
      DT

      Read: Australia is a wealthy nation and we socialists want to steal the people’s monies and use it for our own purposes. Accordingly, we had comrades in positions of power and influence on the inside to help us.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    handjive

    A most opportune time to read it “straight from the horse’s mouth“:

    ☞ Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III:

    ❝ But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.

    One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.

    This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.❞

    Link to quote with original german article linked.

    ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈

    Or, UN-IPCC boss Rajenda “voodoo science” Pachauri, Deakin University, Australia, Feb. 2013:

    Dr Pachauri has said previously that the West needs to make major structural and policy changes in the way it goes about economic development – wealth needs to be shifted from the developed to the developing nations.❞


    Report this

    210

    • #
      handjive

      2°C.
      NB: Ottmar Edenhofer constantly refers to a 2°C limit to temperature.
      This is NOT a scientific statement.

      Quote:

      ❝ Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

      “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant.❞

      Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

      “Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist.


      Report this

      160

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    And now for something astoundingly ridiculous.
    This German warmist article laments that the cold winter that Germans have come to expect results in the consumption of more coal, oil, and gas, thereby thwarting plans to fight global warming. Google will translate it for you. It’s so cold now that it makes it difficult to battle the global heat!


    Report this

    310

  • #
    Michael The Idealist

    This is just typical of right wing GWD, dependent on the large corporations, neglecting the developing world and the globe at large. How disgusting, sick and incorrect. This will be to the detriment of us all, our children and our grandchildren.

    Righto – So GWD = Global Warming Denial, and you can’t help yourself- you have to do the petty namecalling. How “disgusting, sick and incorrect”. Don’t use it again if you want to be posted here unless you can name that paper you have failed to name in hundreds of comments. -Jo

    Maybe look a little deeper than your pointless love affair with climate changing globe polluting profit motivated fossil fuel barons. Maybe then you could actually put humanity first for awhile…

    A typhoon just wiped out 10,000 people in the Philippines. How much more evidence do you need that drastic measures need to be taken to save our planet. We need to stop carbon pollution NOW!

    And no storms ever occurred before we built a power station did they? No one ever died from climate change before 1880. You believe this stuff? – Jo

    How sad they cannot see that the whole point of this is for our children. Unless you only care about your short term needs then the problem is the world we are leaving future generations, otherwise it doesn’t matter.

    Our kids are in trouble from mindless irrational name-callers. We are burning away their income before they’ve earned it in a futile attempt to change the weather. What kind of life do you want for your kids? Serfdom to witchdoctors? – Jo


    Report this

    636

    • #
      Backslider

      Hey Jo…. it was only a spoof. :oops:


      Report this

      60

    • #

      “Nobody ever died of lung cancer before asbestos was mined?” – therefore asbestos doesn’t cause lung cancer.

      Somebody with scientific training should understand the fallacy in this statement.

      Equating respected, professional scientists with (irrational name-calling alert!) “witchdoctors” whilst lauding drivel-merchants like Monckton is a curious approach, to say the least.
      What kind of a reputation are you cultivating for future generations to remember you by?


      Report this

      237

      • #
        AndyG55

        “What kind of a reputation are you cultivating for future generations to remember you by?”

        That’s a question you should be putting firmly to people like Mann, Flannery, Karoly etc etc etc…..

        they are making a laughing stock, and a mockery of science.

        Thankfully they use the name “climate science” so that it can be removed from the list of genuine sciences at a later date.


        Report this

        174

        • #

          So…you deny there is such a thing as the “greenhouse effect” in climate science?


          Report this

          05

          • #
            AndyG55

            There is a thing they like to call the greenhouse effect.

            Tell you what little twerp….. off you go and study atmospheric physics for 5 years,

            then come back and explain how it works. ;-)


            Report this

            40

            • #

              Not sure about your wording there – there is a physical process which is called the greenhouse effect. This is a fact. You some troubled by it to the point of apparently trying to deny its existence.


              Report this

              02

          • #
            AndyG55

            ps.. you do realise that all reputable real scientists (and some of the more reputable climate scientists)refer to it as….

            “The Greenhouse HYPOTHESIS“,

            …..don’t you ???

            I don’t deny that this is a HYPOTHESIS, and that this HYPOTHESIS exists.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            AndyG55

            You really have forced me to the conclusion that you basically know NOTHING about climate science, atmospheric physics, data analysis etc etc.. and that all your comments come from reading ideal-illogical sites put together by trough dwelling cretins.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      Micheal;you are a sad case.And stop wheeling out the children as some sort of offering to your cause!


      Report this

      81

    • #
      llew Jones

      Margot check out a real climate scientist like Roy Spencer who actually designed, along with John Christy the UAH satellite data set.

      If you check you will discover most of the alarmist climate scientists are academics who wouldn’t know their arse from their elbow when it comes to understanding how Earth’s complex, chaotic climate system works.

      If you delve a bit deeper you will find most of the alarmist scientists are first and foremost environmental activists whose motivation comes from their attachment to that faith rather than the scientific method.

      That is one reason informed “skeptics” are far more concerned with the destructive effect limiting the use of fossil fuels will have on the welfare of our children and grandchildren that a scare campaign about CO2 that has no real basis in physics. (Clue: the “real physics” requires positive CO2 to water vapor feedback to have any significant effect on global temperature).

      Intelligent climate scientists acknowledge how little is at present known about the Earth’s climate and that admission is what distinguishes the frauds, who for example are looking for the lost heat, (refer to no significant global warming in a decade and a half when human CO2 emissions have been rapidly rising , so the fraudsters tell us it is hiding at the bottom of the ocean…. where it can’t be measured) Honest climate scientists, like Spencer, are prepared to admit not enough is known about Earth’s climate system to be definitive about the role human emissions of CO2 play.

      Check Spencer out here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ then get back and try to say something intelligent about genuine Climate Science which you clearly are presently at a loss to understand.


      Report this

      140

      • #

        [SNIP. Just helping you Margot, so you don't look like a fool tossing an ad hom - Jo]

        Enough said? Maybe, but his climate-related work is embarrassing. [According to whom? - Jo] His climate model is faulty from the very outset, because he builds into it an exponential decay to equilibrium: if you fit his model to temperatures a century ago, it diverges wildly from 20th century reality. Or, if you fit it to the late 20th century reality, it hindcasts to ridiculous exponentially rising past values. It is nonsense.
        Worse than nonsense, it is designed specifically to fit a low value to sensitivity to late 20th century temperatures.

        And you know what is worse than nonsense, don’t you?

        [No doubt Margot would like to see all universities purged of all professors that have Faith. I wonder how many wars were started with that kind of thinking. At least it's nice to see she has a skeptical mind about climate models.] ED


        Report this

        111

    • #
      Popeye

      What BRAINLESS moron would give this BS artist a “thumbs up”?

      WTF!!

      Cheers,


      Report this

      31

    • #

      Ha Backslider, y’got me. I did email MTR before the election over and over, and you have the lingo down to perfection. Cheers :D


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Carbon500

      Michael the idealist: You say: ‘A typhoon just wiped out 10,000 people in the Philippines. How much more evidence do you need that drastic measures need to be taken to save our planet. We need to stop carbon pollution NOW!’
      I can’t make up my mind whether your posting is serious or not.
      If you are serious, then it really is time for you to buy a book on the subject of meteorology and stop relying on websites.
      You’ll find that hurricanes (also termed hurricanes or cyclones) are nothing new. You’ll find that one such storm devastated Galveston, Texas in 1900, resulting in 8000 (possibly as high as 10 or 12,000) deaths. Katrina is thought to have resulted in some 1300 deaths, and the years in between have seen other deadly hurricanes hit the USA – for example, Louisiana in 1915. Florida in 1919 and 1928, New England in 1938 – and the list goes on.
      The North Pacific has the greatest number of storms, averaging 20 per year.
      Let me finish with a quote from a meteorologist. He’s William James Burroughs, and for part of his career he spent seven years in the UK researching atmospheric physics. In his book ‘Climate Change’ (2001) on page 113 he states that ‘overall, there is no clear evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased in a global sense during the twentieth century’.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Carbon500

        Correction to a ‘typo’ – hurricanes are also known as cyclones or typhoons. My apologies!


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Carbon500

          ‘Michael the idealist’ – a Backslider spoof? A good one! – so my suspicions about it being a joke were correct! But maybe some of the ‘warmists’ might enjoy a few of the facts I used in reply anyway…


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Fred

    Oh please please let New Zealand join Australia as another state, then we can also start looking after our own people and not all the other pigs in the trough sucking the life blood out of the western world.


    Report this

    221

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      New Australand ???

      Still, think of the international cricket and rugby teams . . .


      Report this

      120

      • #
        crakar24

        MV,

        We could be just like the carribean, compete at the Olympics as individual nations but have combined cricket and union teams its a win win for both of us.


        Report this

        51

    • #

      Hmmmm. The best thing New Zealand ever did was stay out of the Australian Federation way back at the start. Apparently there was some talk of it – never very serious – that NZ might be invited to join in. If New Zealand had joined the Federation, the country would have been reduced to something like the status of Tasmania by now. Bigger and bigger political entities (such as the former Soviet Union, the current EU and the quasi political entity of the UN)are not the way things get done. It is many of the smaller political entities that are most successful – Singapore, Norway and the like. New Zealand can be most influential in the global warming issue by being an independent nation that voices an independent view. Just a thought.


      Report this

      92

      • #
        Manfred

        It worries me rather that NZ appears wedded to the UN and is currently aspiring to hold a place on the Security Council. It also has a former socialist prime minister who is now regarded as the third most powerful person at the United Nations.

        Clark is also the first female to head the United Nations Development Program, overseeing 8,000 staff in 177 countries, and an annual budget of $5.8 billion.
        Her vision is a big one: “Eradication of poverty and tackling exclusion and inequality in our world — and doing it in a sustainable way.

        In NZ, it appears sustainability and UN Agenda 21 mean about the same thing. Disagreeing with 21 means you acquire the title of an ‘anti-person’. I can’t quite make up my mind where this revolting term sits in relation to the word ‘denier’. The implication and insult is clear enough though.

        The thing the anti-people don’t like is still part of NZ’s Hamilton City Council policy. The name Agenda 21 has been dropped, but all the relevant principles of the UN’s old plan have been incorporated in the new Sustainable Hamilton scheme council adopted last week.


        Report this

        100

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      NZ could annex Oz, and then it would have a West Island, and a Southwest Island. Just call it a hostile takeover.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Judy Cross

    Interesting that you still have real conservatives. Canada has NWO robots who have given $1.2 Billion to the UN because they signed on for Canadian taxpayers to be fleeced at Copenhagen. Meanwhile, the Climate Crazies scourge them for dropping out of Kyoto. http://climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=5F50D3E9-1
    They all play their scripted parts.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Ouch!
    Bad choice.
    Australia will be better defended by sending a Minister to Warsaw to vote ‘No’ than by attending a defence conference.


    Report this

    113

  • #
    Hasbeen

    On the weekend labor & the media were saying our new government were doing nothing, & their policies were in disarray.

    Meanwhile they were taking the most meaningful policy action undertaken in 50 years by any government.

    I’m talking about the start of the emasculation of the UN. Yes that most corrupt, self serving organisation ever seen on the planet. I know that is saying something, but others too timid to be the first will now pick up the cudgel & start belting the monster into a minor bump on the world stage.

    Thank god for a government worthy of the name.


    Report this

    350

  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”

    Oh fair dinkum that is music to my ears, to hear a government, any government, say anything like that. It’s been a long time indeed. And who’d'a thought the Abbott government had it in ‘em?


    Report this

    280

    • #
      Backslider

      socialism masquerading as environmentalism

      Not only a good description of the UN’s agenda, but also the entire Warmist/Green movements.


      Report this

      260

    • #
      DT

      I did, this is just the start. The Coalition has the most talented team of cabinet ministers and many others than any other federal Australian government including the Howard Coalition that ranks high on the list of achievers.


      Report this

      80

  • #

    It will be interesting to see what the new Tiger of Europe, lignite-rich Poland, will be offering to help twiddle the climate dials. I understand that it is middle Europe which is manipulating the carbon price down while the other EU members are wanting to manipulate it up. (Curiously, the mechanism for all this is called a “market”, and Rudd wanted us in this “market”.)

    Maybe Poland has looked about, then looked over its shoulder at Russia and Gazprom – and remembered a thing or two about what can go wrong.


    Report this

    120

  • #

    Hi Jo, this news is simply music to my ears.

    Funny how an un-electable Prime Minister could formulate such a strong message and yet remain very diplomatic about it. You have made my day :)


    Report this

    220

  • #
    pat

    er…talk here of NZ, Canada, UK, Germany, all being with the CAGW program. all of them conservative govts. EU, the heart of the scam, almost entirely conservative governments. left/right paradigm still alive & well, sadly.

    i call it crony capitalism & TPP would exacerbate it (tho it’s hard to find an aussie with the slightest curiosity to even discuss TPP. why? because so-called left & right parties are both pro-TPP. meanwhile, in Victoria, Labor Party surging in the polls, while Coalition voters are still celebrating victory in the Federal elections!

    “Caring for Climate Business” Forum:

    11 Nov: BusinessGreen: Jessica Shankleman: What role for business at the Warsaw Climate Summit?
    The voice of business is expected to be more prominent than ever at this year’s United Nations climate change talks, as ministers look to the private sector to help deliver the trillions of dollars needed to tackle global climate impacts…
    But, as is often the case with efforts to improve links between governments and corporates, questions are being asked about whether Poland has attracted the kinds of businesses who will help to deliver an ambitious deal or those who seek to delay or water down diplomats’ efforts.
    While corporates will not get a seat at the negotiating table with ministers, they will for the first time be invited to discuss their ideas with UN leaders at the inaugural Caring for Climate Business Forum. The forum, which takes place in the second week of the summit, just ahead of the final few days of formal negotiations, will be opened by Marcin Korolec, Poland’s Minister of Environment and president of the COP19. “It’s for those organisations that are climate friendly”, a spokesman for the Polish Presidency told BusinessGreen. “We are inviting them; we want to listen to them. So if the question is are we open for business? Then yes we are. We want to talk to them.”…
    The growing problem of how to deliver the finance needed to both cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate impacts is likely to be one of the most pressing issues discussed at the Warsaw Summit and there is a broad understanding among climate diplomats that mobilising private investment will be key to delivering a successful treaty in 2015. In 2009, rich countries pledged $100bn per year from 2020 to help poor countries deal with climate change, but cash-strapped governments are increasingly looking to the private sector to deliver on that commitment.
    A report by analyst firm Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) last month warned climate change investment plateaued at $359bn in 2012, raising serious questions about the failure to mobilise the level of finance required to build a sustainable global economy.
    ***Meanwhile, the Green Climate Fund that is expected to channel the $100bn per year of funding by 2020 has so far raised just $7.5m…
    US Climate Envoy Todd Stern reportedly told a conference last month that no one should expect to see a step change in overall levels of public funding from developed countries any time soon, again suggesting they will instead be looking to use existing funds to trigger investments by businesses.
    Ahead of the latest COP, some ministers have been preparing the ground for greater business involvement. On the same day as the first Caring for Climate Business Forum, Danish minister Martin Lidegaard and Ugandan minister Maria Kiwanuka will co-chair a ministerial meeting looking at the need to scale up private climate finance. Lidegaard already met with a group of institutional investors in Copenhagen last month, concluding it would be possible to raise $100bn per year from 2020, but only if governments created the right frameworks for businesses to invest.
    ***The key question for businesses and investors looking to shape their long term plans to prepare for the delivery of a new international climate treaty is what will those frameworks look like? Corporates know that governments are working to deliver an international treaty by 2020, but those with longer investment timelines are also seeking a steer from ministers on the finer details of the policies that will be delivered by such a treaty. Can they expect assurances that subsidies for renewables will not be changed retrospectively, will promises to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels finally be honoured, will proposed emissions charging schemes for international aviation and shipping materialise, how will the still fragile global carbon offset market be reformed?…
    Ed Davey, UK Climate and Energy Minister, chaired a high level summit last month with institutional investors and other industries, as part of the Northern European Energy Dialogue. That too concluded with the need for a stable and predictable investment climate to support the financing of energy infrastructure…
    “If we want to get serious money as we need to into responding to climate change, both for mitigation and adaptation, then we need to be looking at the big investors – the financial institutions,” Anderson (head of climate change for the International Institute for Environment and Development) told BusinessGreen.
    ***”A lot of talk is around involving the private sector in delivering as if finance could be channelled through them. This is also something that needs to be very carefully thought about. What is their comparative advantage? Can they really deliver? Would it be profitable for them to be part of those channels?”
    But Stephanie Pfeifer, chief executive of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), whose more than 85 members represent €7.5tr in assets, says investors need to see political leadership from Poland and others. “We will be explaining why investors are taking an interest in climate change and what they need in terms of policy frameworks to invest,” she tells BusinessGreen…
    Polish spokesman (anonymous): “When we talk to business, they are not against reductions but they want legal rules that will be applied to all that are long term. They are keen on those negotiations, they are helpful and supportive and it’s obvious we have to fight climate change.”
    Hopefully, everyone in attendance in Warsaw can at least agree on that.
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2305659/what-role-for-business-at-the-warsaw-climate-summit

    no-one was ever giving over $100 bn a year to poor nations (their govts or their people). at best, poor nations would be obliged/coerced to buy renewables & the like from the developed world. as Australia has little to sell in that regard, it’s true there’s nothing to gain by our being a contributor.

    for now, the public (left, right or independent) are saying NO to more DIRECT public funding of the CAGW scam, yet the actual cost of the BusinessGreen scenario outlined above would still be borne by the public.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Alan Davidson

    I hope my Canadian Government is paying attention to what the Australians are doing. Conservatives have an overall majority here so could easily take the same positions as Australia with parliament support. About time they stood up and took positions that oppose US, UK and EEC etc.


    Report this

    190

  • #

    Great news! And a nicely judged statement from our federal government, clear but not undiplomatic. It might give some other countries the encouragement they need to take a similar stand against socialism masquerading as environmentalism (ooh, that just slipped out).


    Report this

    220

  • #
    Jack Sprat

    Best news going and there are a lot more things that the UN and all the spin off groups should be told NO to. eg:- gun control, every gun owner in Australia has tight regulations on them, the crime world has none and have higher weapons that we are allowed to hold, are the yanks giving up there guns NO
    Gareth Evans signed everyone’s right to have a gun and stated that Australia would be disarmed by 2000. Parents rights were signed away by this person and many more rights that we don’t even know about as he wanted to get a seat on the UN the same as Kevvie baby. Can we turn every thing around for or own country????????


    Report this

    120

  • #
    crakar24

    132 comments is beyond the no off topic comment threshold so here goes.

    I have started playing Battle Field 4 of late and there is one map which you run around tropical islands and at first it is quite idyllic, however after a while a storm blows up and ships get grounded etc. In the background there is a large wind farm and when the storm blows up some of the wind turbines catch on fire it is a glorious sight looks like DICE dont believe in AGW either.

    Cheers


    Report this

    141

  • #
    Dave

    Amazingly on cue as predicted above by Rereke

    Michael the Realist (sic) will explode over this … not to mention Margot …

    The CAGW nutjobs have slowly been changing their modus operandi, the more desperate they become. It used to be detailed links to blogs, 97% beats a full house, quotes form GAIA lovers and the IPCC etc.

    As with any business you have to have a USP, or Unique Selling Point, that has to fix in everyone’s cerebral cortex for it to be effective. But with the screaming GREEN nutjobs, they have ranged from one lie to another lie, with different presenters carrying the ball each time.

    1. Tim Flannery – the dams will never fill.
    2. Robyn Williams – the oceans will rise 100 meters.
    3. Will Stefen – Brisbane Airport will be underwater.
    4. David Viner – Snowfall is a thing of the past.
    5. Al Gore – that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013.

    But now their USP has turned to using fear only, always bring in the context of children, grandchildren and future generations. They have used up all their CRY WOLF excuses and now are concentrating heavily on this scare tactic along. The anger of having their unlimited credit card taken away is akin to tantrums by spotty faced spoilt teenagers.

    How predictable they have become, from the very top like Christiana Figueres and Dr Choo Choo down to the low troll GANG GREEN that visit here.

    Well, folks, there’s a big boot waiting that will suit the size of GANG GREEN asres in Canberra at the moment, go down an visit Tony please. :)


    Report this

    171

    • #

      Nice collection of fabricated “quotes” there.

      If you had a point, that point would be undermined quite severely by your reliance on fabrications to support it.
      On the other hand, if those are the best “facts” you can find to support your belief, then…..good luck to you.


      Report this

      222

      • #
        Dave

        Marcot,

        How about one at a time:
        1. Tim Flannery:

        “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

        Landline interview with SALLY SARA ABC 11/02/2007.

        N.B. Tony Abbott booted Timmy out some time ago Marcot, in case you hadn’t heard.

        Or is this a conspiracy where the voice has been dubbed into a video of Tim Flannery talking to Sara on the ABC. Those shockers at the ABC will do anything to cover this one, you know that ABC mob just follows the current government politics. :)


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Dave

          I forgot,

          Turn around and take a great big Tony Abbott boot up your clanger Marcot.

          That’s 1. Heaps more available.


          Report this

          60

        • #

          Thanks Dave, I take it you admit that your Flannery, “the dams will never fill” was a fabrication?

          Incidentally, the BoM keeps rainfall records, so we don’t have to rely on cranky 70-year-olds telling us, “rrgh, in my days, there was waay more/less rain/frosts/sea level/etc…”

          Here is the rainfall trend map:
          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQmap=rain&tQarea=aus&tQseason=0112&tQperiod=1970

          Now, notice Eastern Queensland? In the past 40 years, rainfall in some of the most populated areas has fallen by 50%.

          That massive reduction in average rainfall presents a serious challenge. This is the real-world situation that Tim Flannery was very sensibly alluding to.
          Flannery was entirely correct to highlight the reduced rainfall in these areas.


          Report this

          07

          • #
            Dave

            Marcot,

            Funny that all Queensland dams are full, and the wet season hasn’t arrived yet?

            Queensland dams running at 82.6% already.

            Your spokesperson and information source Tim Flannery said:

            “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

            He lied.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            Exact, precise, and correct quote by Dave:

            “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

            Followed by Margot bleating:

            Thanks Dave, I take it you admit that your Flannery, “the dams will never fill” was a fabrication?

            As I said – twice now Margot – you’ve become a joke.
            A somewhat self-embarrasing joke.

            Oh, did I mention the “global warming” isn’t, and hasn’t for a decade and a half now?
            Ah yes, I see I did.

            But that’s alright Margot, you just go on playing with yourself.
            For the time being it remains mildly entertaining for those of with nothing better to do.


            Report this

            60

            • #
              Heywood

              Margot is playing the leftard gotcha game. She (He/it whatever) waits for someone to comment on something, then jumps on them for a wording error. This ‘fabrication’ is much like the ‘majority’ argument made above.

              Fact is, Flim-Flam stated that the rain that falls would not fill the dams, ergo the dams will never fill. That is, unless, there is another way to fill the dams that doesn’t involve rain. Greenie tears pehaps?


              Report this

              50

              • #
                MemoryVault

                That is, unless there is another way to fill the dams that doesn’t involve rain.

                Well, given that the arguments put forward by watermelons like Margot are mostly just p*ss and wind, maybe the problem is we’re locating the windmills in the wrong place. If they were erected around the edges of catchment areas the greenies could fill the dams and generate power at the same time.


                Report this

                40

            • #

              Not sure what your point is, Memoryvault – Flannery did not say “the dams will never fill”. That is a fabrication. The need to fabricate that reveals that the genuine quote doesn’t say what Dave’s fabricating source wanted it to say.

              The reason Dave’s source had to fabricate it was because Flannery inconveniently didn’t say, “the rain that falls isn’t going to fill our dams in 2013″. He didn’t say that, hence the fabrication.

              The dams being full in 2013 has nothing to do with the rainfall trends that Flannery is referring to, which, if they continue, will indeed threaten the security of the water supply, as Flannery is pointing out.

              But maybe the idea of context is all above your (and Dave’s) head? You just want a snappy soundbite regardless of its accuracy?


              Report this

              04

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Hey everybody, I think Margot has invented a new game – “spin the semantics”.

                It’s a bit like spin the bottle, but you start with a phrase, spin it like crazy, and then claim the resultant paraphrase* means precisely the opposite of the original phrase.

                .
                * You DO know what “paraphrase” means, don’t you, Margot.


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Heywood

            Nice cherry pick of Eastern Queensland. Is that representative of global warming?

            If we had made a similiar statement to support a sceptical position, you would be apoplectic. I guess it’s only hyporcrisy when a sceptic does it though. Leftard activists can do no wrong.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            crakar24

            Margot,

            You crack me up you really do, i love to watch you thrash around in the dark after being cut loose by your pay masters, left stranded to defend the indefensible whilst they bask in the glory of making another billion while you duped to the end relentlessly cling to a now forgotten faith, poor, poor margot how will you ever be cured of such deceit?

            Lucky for you you have come to the right place so lets begin the long process of healing you from your afflictions.

            Lets start with the Flannery quote kindly provided by Dave above:

            “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.”

            You responded by stating

            Thanks Dave, I take it you admit that your Flannery, “the dams will never fill” was a fabrication?

            Obviously if you were not afflicted by the intense indoctrination you received you would easily recognised the two statements are infact in agreement with each other. The only way you could distinguish a difference between the two would be if you applied linguistic gymnastics. You cannot see just how stupid and foolish you look here margot but please trust me when i say that you do.

            In regards to your link, it in fact shows us the mean temperature of Australia not the annual rain fall, now i know this is a small matter but it shows the depths of your indoctrination ergo people like you are sloppy with your work. Lets continue and select the appropriate display (rain fall).

            This is another trait of the indoctrinated, if you look closely at the rainfall map you will see other parts of the continent have had increased rainfall, so much so you can see it in this graph

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQmap=rain&tQarea=aus&tQseason=0112&tQperiod=1970&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=0

            However i do digress, you then made this statement

            Now, notice Eastern Queensland? In the past 40 years, rainfall in some of the most populated areas has fallen by 50%.

            That massive reduction in average rainfall presents a serious challenge. This is the real-world situation that Tim Flannery was very sensibly alluding to.
            Flannery was entirely correct to highlight the reduced rainfall in these areas.

            Exaggeration…..another classic symptom of the indoctrinated……..if for example Flannery had of made that statement clearly stating he was referring only to Queensland then you may have a case however he did not.

            Also remember Flannery stated that the rains will not fill our (not just QLD) rivers and dams, to put this into context Flannery was stating that Australia will suffer drought conditions (like the drought we were experiencing when he made this statement) will continue through a lack of rain due to AGW and the rain that did fall will not be enough to “to fill our rivers and dams”.

            However when you look at the map i produced you can clearly see the rain fall is NOT reducing so Flannery was wrong on two counts.

            In the end Margot the map you attempted to display is a shift in rain fall pattern (regional/local climate change) now the question is are you so indoctrinated and deluded that you will now try and blame regional/local shifts in climate on co2?


            Report this

            60

            • #

              Crakar, your graph is not relevant to Flannery’s statement.

              Can you figure out why?

              To help you, here it is in full:

              “We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.”

              The intelligent reader will notice that while Flannery is talking about a specific subset of the Australian continent, your graph includes other subsets, making it a fairly incompetent attempt at a comment in reply to Flannery’s.


              Report this

              02

          • #
            AndyG55

            Cherry-pickin mamma…. now look at rainfall 1960 compared to today.

            and guess what

            AUSTRALIA HAS DROUGHTS !!!

            Then it rains.

            the worst droughts by far were WELL BEFORE the 1950′s,

            WELL BEFORE any human CO2 effect could have possibly happened.

            Learn some Australian history, fool. !!


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Brett

            This map makes it look horrible…

            Congratulations you have proven the climate changes. Now show us who did it super sleuth.

            Tim Flannery Straight from the Jackass’ horse’s mouth


            Report this

            30

      • #
        Maverick

        March 2007:

        Andrew Bolt: Dean of science…suggesting rising seas this next century of up to 100 metres, or Al Gore six metres. When I see things like that I know these are false. You mentioned the IPCC report; that suggests, at worst on best scenarios, 59 centimetres.

        Robyn Williams: Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.

        Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?

        Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they’ve noticed in Greenland and the amount that we’ve seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge.


        Report this

        100

        • #

          I don’t see anywhere in that snippet Robin Williams saying, “The oceans will rise 100 metres”.

          Dave’s list obviously fabricates that one.


          Report this

          06

          • #
            Dave

            Marcot,

            Robyn Williams was asked the following question:

            Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?

            Robyn Williams replied:

            It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they’ve noticed in Greenland and the amount that we’ve seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge.

            So states that 100 meter rise is possible. Robyn Williams is a liar. He should apologise.


            Report this

            40

            • #

              I don’t see anywhere in what you’ve written Robin Williams saying, “The oceans will rise 100 metres”.

              I see him saying “It is possible, yes”. What perceived question is that in reply to?
              If you want to accurately know what it is he thinks is possible, you should contact him and ask him. I believe others have and I believe Robin Williams doesn’t believe for a second that there is any danger of a 100-metre rise in sea levels in the immediate future. Which is obvious, really.

              Or, you can just stick with the fabricated quote that provides you with your non-reality-based narrative.


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Heywood

                “I believe Robin Williams doesn’t believe for a second that there is any danger of a 100-metre rise in sea levels in the immediate future”

                If he didn’t believe, even for a second, that there was any danger, then why did he say it was possible?

                If it isn’t possible, and he “doesn’t believe for a second that there is any danger of a 100-metre rise in sea levels”, then he is a liar for saying in an interview that it is possible.

                Why is it that most activists have comprehension issues?


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Heywood

            Comprehension is a bit of a problem with leftard activists. Michael the AAD is no different. It’s a bit like a child who only hears what they want to hear.


            Report this

            40

      • #
        Maverick

        This presentation by Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, given at the Australian Academy of Science in Canberra on 10 March 2010:

        Professor Steffen explains how in the future, while you may be able to have your coffee in the second level of the Brisbane airport terminal, your plane won’t be able to come in or take off, because with a 1 metre sea level rise, the runways will be under water.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          llew Jones

          No problem Will of anthropocene fame. Never heard of sea planes Will?

          Unless of course your study of the anthropocene has led you inexorably to the certainty that the one metre rise will occur between taking off and landing. Sort of between breakfast and dinner time…. say on the same day?

          Brilliant that should scare the daylights even out of the likes of Margot and Michael the Realist which of course is, or should we say was, the sort of caper you and the unlamented Tim Flannery got up to.

          That was until our Rhodes Scholar PM pissed you and your ALP propaganda unit off.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          bobl

          It was clear at the Ipswich climate Con-versation that Prof Steffen is mathematically challenged. He seems also engineering challenged in not understanding that we engineers have tools called land-fill and sea walls…. Should we ever need them of course.


          Report this

          50

        • #

          That doesn’t look like a quote, Maverick, that looks like something a journalist has composed and which fabricators are presenting as a “Will Steffen quote”.

          How about finding Will Steffen’s *exact words*. If you don’t have his *exact words* then it simply is not a quote.


          Report this

          08

      • #
        Maverick

        On the 20 March 200 the Independent wrote:

        According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

        “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.


        Report this

        130

        • #

          Viner did not say “Snowfall is a thing of the past”. Dave’s “quote” is a fabrication, as I correctly pointed out.

          You need to be more sceptical of the dross published in the media and on the internet.


          Report this

          07

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Margot,

        A word of advice from a seasoned pro … Facts always trump spin. Time to try a different tactic. Your current one isn’t working too well, with this audience.


        Report this

        170

        • #

          Would you call fabricating “quotes” spin, or facts, Rereke?


          Report this

          08

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            It was just a general observation. I was suggesting that you try using both, for a change. We could make it a game, but I guess you already see it as that, so what would be the point?


            Report this

            20

            • #

              Going from the general to the more specific, have you noticed me repeating fabrications, internet urban legends, or linking to anonymous blogs?


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                To be honest, I haven’t noticed you linking to anything.

                You have made assertive comments in the past, based on statements originally made by climate scientists, that have since been shown to be fabrications. But that is not your fault, and you are not alone in doing that. Standing by your original statement, in the face of evidence that shows that it is false, is a different matter though.

                And unless you have a scientific or engineering background, and the cynical will to question authority, the seductive nature of the appeal to authority logical fallacy is, well, very appealing and seductive. It is the, “I don’t personally know, but I trust those people that I believe do know”, position. It is one based on faith, and not science.

                Whereas, the scientists and engineers we get visiting this blog, who do have a background in computer modelling and computer simulations (they are not the same thing), cry foul over some of the political statements made, that are based on the output of some computer programs that have little or no connection to reality, whatsoever.

                If a computer model represents the truth, it does so by accident, and never consistently.

                I don’t really understand what you mean by, “internet urban legends”. To me, it is one of those delightful phrases that can mean different things to different people. It is a Humpty Dumpty phrase.


                Report this

                10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Poor Margot.. just realising that the WHOLE of the CAGW agenda is built on FABRICATION.

        Dear naïve little thing. :-)

        Do you need a cuddle ?.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        ..
        .
        .
        Then ask someone else.


        Report this

        140

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Margot,

        If you had a point, that point would be undermined quite severely by your reliance on fabrications semantics and spin to support it.

        There, fixed it for you luvvie.

        No, don’t thank me, just send money.
        My “Big Oil” cheque is late this month.


        Report this

        50

        • #

          I’m sorry, something is either a quote, or it is not a quote.

          If you think what David Viner or Al Gore have had to say is interesting for some reason, then you can quote them.
          If instead you fabricate a quote then you are revealing the deficiencies in your arguments and your morals.

          Essentially all these fabricated quotes are the work of poorly educated lesser intellects who just don’t understand very well the difference between fact and fiction and the reason that difference is important.

          It certainly pays to be sceptical when you are presented with that kind of rubbish, that’s for sure.


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Margot,

            MemoryVault has been on top of this subject for a long time. During that time he, and many of us, have seen and debunked a lot of political spin, and downright lies, from people who stand to gain something by misrepresenting the truth.

            After a while, you get sick of going over the same hoary and stale myths, an debunking them, yet again. So a sort of shorthand has emerged where the original quote is simply modified to act as a riposte.

            Is that professionally acceptable? Probably not. But there again, we are not acting in a professional capacity, since none of the commentators here (as far as I know) are paid to do what we do.

            Am I right in surmising that you were previously acting in a professional capacity, but are now no longer doing that?


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Hell yes,this is delicious!


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Backslider

    Ok, ten points to whoever finds the first lot of head popping in the MSM.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Dave

      Backslider,

      I reckon it will be Professor Clive Hamilton – either him or Will Steffen. But when either one of these two goes off, it’ll make a watermelon loaded with C4 look like a match being lit.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    crosspatch

    What has always caught my eye is this interesting game that gets played in government. For example, in the UK, Defra (like the US EPA, sort of) decides to “internationalize” their policy. Basically what that means is that they automatically adopt all guidelines issued by the UNFCCC. What this then does is allows the UN to directly control UK environmental policy without any input from their elected representatives. Not a single elected official has any say in this one way or the other. It is just as well from the point of view of the politicians, too, because they can’t be held to blame for anything. They can point their fingers to the UN, which can’t be sacked from office and which nobody elected in the first place. This completely absolves the politicians AND the agencies of any responsibility while the bureaucrats in the UNFCCC effectively micromanage policy in the UK.

    But it gets even MORE interesting than that. The UNFCCC makes many of their policy guidelines based on the Assessment Reports from the IPCC. A major contributor to the IPCC is the University of East Anglia through their various scientists. So University of East Anglia contributes to IPCC production of assessment reports that go to UNFCCC and turn into policy recommendation which Defra adopts automatically. Now Defra goes to a group called Fudan Tyndall Centre and contracts large sums of money with them to assist in policy implementation. Tyndall Centre is — University of East Anglia. So the “investment” spent at the IPCC comes back in the form of loads of government cash from Defra.

    Amazing scam. I am surprised they have got away with it for so long.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Raymond

    Great news Jo, hopefully this could help get the ball rolling in the ‘right’ direction. It is still beyond me how this GW insanity has got as far as it has.


    Report this

    100

  • #

    United nations! Makes me think of
    Umberto Ecco’s ‘Name of the Rose,’
    The rustling of silk in the
    corridors of power,the reach
    Of far-flung authority, of Indulgences
    Penned by industrious scribes
    Inside the stone-walled hive,
    While on the slopes outside,
    Peasants scrabble
    For scraps from the priests’ table.

    In the corridors of the United Nations’
    General Assembly, a favored few,
    Silk-shirts-Armani-suits,
    Ponder discretely a subtle extension
    Of their global governance
    By treaty and indulgence,
    Twenty-thousand Millenium Goals
    Transcribed by twenty-thousand employees
    Within the stone-walled hive.
    Cui bono?


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Well done you Aussies. Wish we had the same hopes back in the UK. Instead we have thre three main political parties full of green idiots.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    James

    Warmists are in denial about the need to adapt to a changing environment.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Over 200 Comments in about 12 hours and nearly all positive. Seems to be something of a carnival atmosphere.

    I never thought of Tony as a crowd pleaser, but he’s certainly getting the approval of the right crowd now.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    pat

    11 Nov: BBC: Matt McGrath: Mood of ‘realism’ about future deal at climate talks
    Russia has emerged as a potential problem for the process as they have tabled an amendment on decision-making at the COP.
    The process works on the basis of consensus but the Russians believe their objections were overruled at the meeting in Doha last year.
    “Decision-making in the UNFCCC process has suffered evident setbacks over the past few years,” the Russian delegation wrote in a statement.
    It goes on to state that the voting system within the meeting needs to be addressed to rebuild confidence…
    “This has been haunting the process even before the Russians brought it up,” said Norine Kennedy, who will be representing US business at the meeting.
    “We’ve had a succession of COP cliff hangers and one or two countries always get rolled over in the effort to find consensus and last year that was Russia.
    “The consensus question will have to be faced sooner or later and it’s better they do this now than in Paris,” she said…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24857163

    WUWT has this from another source on the Climate News page, but worth noting Bangkok Post has picked it up too:

    11 Nov: Bangkok Post: Kevin Watkins: Put the heat on subsidising climate change
    (Kevin Watkins is the director of the Overseas Development Institute)
    Carbon markets could provide a corrective to fossil-fuel subsidies, but they are not doing so. The European Union claims the mantle of global leadership on climate change, yet its leaders have allowed the price of carbon in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme to collapse, owing to reckless over-supply of carbon credits …
    ***By contrast, South Korea has signalled that it will enforce a greenhouse-gas cap that is projected to push prices to 20 times the EU level by 2017 and green-energy investment there is booming…
    http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/379160/put-the-heat-on-subsidising-climate-change

    Overseas Development Institute – Governance & Accounts
    James Cameron is the Chair of ODI’s Board and Council. A lawyer by training, James is the non-executive chairman and co-founder of Climate Change Capital and has spent much of his legal career working on climate change matters. He is also a member of the WEF’s Agenda Council on Climate Change, a Trustee Member of the UK Green Building Council and the Carbon Disclosure Project and, a member of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Group and of the Green Investment Bank Commission…
    Alan Beattie is International Economy Editor with the Financial Times. Prior to this he was an economist at the Bank of England.
    Sir Malcolm Bruce is Liberal Democrat MP and Chair of the International Development Select Committee. He is also Chair of Globe UK and President of Globe International…
    Richard Dowden is Director of the Royal African Society and a writer and journalist on Africa. He is the former Africa Editor of The Independent and The Economist and worked on The Times. He is also author of Africa; Altered States, Ordinary Miracles published by Portobello Books…
    Professor Ian Goldin is Director of the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford. He was Director of Development Policy at the World Bank before becoming the Bank’s Vice President…
    Nik Gowing is the main programme anchor for BBC World News, the BBC’s 24-hour international TV news and information channel…
    Lord Michael Hastings is the Global Head of Citizenship with KPMG. He was the BBC’s first Head of Corporate Social Responsibility. He is a non-executive Director for British Telecom on BT’s Board of Responsible and Sustainable Business. He is also a Trustee of the Vodafone Group Foundation and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Diversity and Talent…
    Dr Robin Niblett is Director of Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Prior to this he was the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Washington-based Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)…
    Tidjane Thiam is Chief Executive of Prudential plc and former Chief Executive of Aviva Europe…
    Chris West is the Director of the Shell Foundation…
    http://www.odi.org.uk/about/governance-accounts


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    It’s the opening day of the UNFCCC conference, just 9am over in Warsaw. Will Australia be declared as a failed State. Will a Government in exile be declared , by Kevin, from a 747. Will the UN dare to interfere on the ground ?


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Dave

      Eliza

      Will Australia be declared as a failed State by the UNFCCC?

      All the local GANG GREEN are waiting for authority from Christiana Figueres and Dr Choo Choo to protest against this anti-GAIA spirit called The Great TONY.

      Who cares in reality, what can they do, impose sanctions?

      WINNERS are GRINNERS and LOSERS can go and GAIA themselves.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Raven

    Thank you , Tony Abbott .


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Everyone keeps on referring to climate change. Get that phrase out of your system NOW.
    This has nothing to do with climate change / global warming or any other ‘label’.
    It has only to do with control, money, Marxism/socialism.

    If the socialists / UN gain control of the worlds economies thru ‘carbon taxes’ they will have achieved what the PRC, USSR were not able to achieve.
    If you look at the so called governments which advocate climate change / global warming, & are doing their best to extort taxes based on their lies, you will notice that they are all socialist / Labor / democrats. Problem is that they are fooling far too many people!!

    If anyone thinks the ‘commies’ became extinct in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall you had better think again. They are alive & trying even harder to rule the the planet.


    Report this

    121

    • #
      PeterS

      I can well understand your disdain against the global warming scam artists (IMHO the biggest scam artists of all history – and should be behind bars for life). Let’s be clear on one thing though. It’s not just about socialism/communism. If anything, communist China and socialist Russia are dead against the scam from the beginning. It’s about corporate greed par excellence via the central bankers and the UN, creating a situation where capitalism and parts of socialism were in bed together. During the early stages of the scam large companies were salivating at the idea of skimming money off the scam. It’s only lately they have moved away from it given the growing public awareness of the scam.


      Report this

      61

  • #
    Sunray

    Well, from my point of view, we might actually be seeing Australia leading World Wide Change (for The Better!)


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Dave

    The idiots at The Conversation are discussing:

    “We’ve woken up to climate change but we’re not tuning in.”

    After two hours there are two comments, and one is by Roger Tallbloke who gave them a caning. Probably be deleted later.

    This subject is exactly the problem, the CAGW Green Crew cannot see anything else but their religion. They are blinkered totally to the truth that they are lying, biased and bombastic about their money grabbing scam. Part of Rogers comment below:

    “”TV commissioners believe we find it dull, dismal and depressing”
    Not to mention biased, inaccurate and misleading. And patronising. And presumptuous. And overhyped.
    There are only so many times you can get away with telling the public that there are only 100 days left to save the planet before they rumble your game.
    Some real science looking at the divergence between model output and reality would draw a bigger audience. People are knowledge hungry. They’ve turned to doing their own primary research since the BBC has gagged those who have turned out to be right.

    Between all the Blog sites like Jo’s etc, the public ARE becoming very informed. As Roger says, “They’ve turned to doing their own primary research”.

    Tell the UN to go and jump. The GREEN followers change with the wind.

    1. The Conversation – 1 post 2 hours – 2 comments.
    2. Joanne Nova – 1 post 12 hours – 269 comments.
    3. Skeptical Science – 3 posts 3 days – 7 comments total.

    The CAGW GANG GREEN GROUP are giving up, there’s no money left in the kitty for them.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    Poland Invaded, Aussies up for a fight!!

    i’m sure I’ve heard that somewhere before


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Brett

      Well since Mann has that book – The Hockey stick and the climate wars Dispatches from the front lines, It wouldn’t surprise me. They Must think they are at war. explains a lot of the hostility. I’m not sure whether it’s against Eurasia or Eastasia though.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    another ridiculous headline. funny it’s not a regular CAGW writer:

    11 Nov: SMH: Nick Toscano: Summer weather fails to launch
    Melbourne is on track for its longest November cold spell in 40 years, with forecasts of nine consecutive days below 20 degrees.
    The mercury has failed to top 20 degrees since Friday, despite reaching 30 degrees last Wednesday and a warm 26 degrees for Thursday.
    Weather Bureau senior forecaster Scott Williams said the coming five days were predicted to be below 20 degrees, which could amount to an unusual nine-day cold spell this month.
    “It is common to get a run of five or six days like this, but we usually get the odd hot day to interrupt it,” he said…
    Five years ago, the average weather in November was 27.1 degrees. The last time there was a nine-day string below 20 degrees in November was in 1973…
    “If we did end up with this very long cold stretch, it would be unusual, but we are fortunate we haven’t had the early runs of heat that lead to an early-onset fire season.”
    Rainfall of up to 50 millimetres is forecast for East Gippsland and the Otway ranges, with snowfall above 1700 metres.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/summer-weather-fails-to-launch-20131111-2xcmj.html


    Report this

    50

  • #

    [...] Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading a… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Peter Walsh

    Advance Australia Fair Dinkum!

    Well done.

    Peter Walsh, Dublin


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    OT Sitting here commenting about a bunch of time wasters meeting in Warsaw seems no longer productive.

    Does anyone know who are the best placed Aid organisations to be delivering on the ground in the Phillipines ?


    Report this

    91

    • #
      crosspatch

      “Does anyone know who are the best placed Aid organisations to be delivering on the ground in the Phillipines?”

      Team Rubicon. These are a group founded by former military special operations forces medics. They go in deep ahead of convention NGOs and deliver aid where other agencies can’t reach. They get into very difficult areas while the Red Cross is still at the airport counting their tins of caviar.

      There is a “Donate” link here. Please use it. If you are former military or the outdoors adverturer type and have medical or other necessary skills, you might want to inquire about becoming a member of one of their teams.

      http://teamrubiconusa.org/


      Report this

      81

    • #
      crosspatch

      Here is a local news clip of one of their teams deploying. These people really ARE a worthy donation. If you earmark your donation to a particular operation and if they have money left over, they give you the option of getting a prorated portion of your donation back, too. For example, if they spend only 85% of the money they collect for an operation, they may give you the option of getting 15% of your donation back. Their overhead expenses are very low.

      http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=weather&id=9320781


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      How the hell could you get a thumbs down for that comment?

      The trolls must be getting very, very desperate…well they are as they realise they have lost (I was going to say plot, but lets leave out conspiracy theories) their way.

      crosspatch: my great uncle came back from WW1 very critical of the Red Cross. Said that the Salvos were always there first with tea etc. when they came out of the line, but that the Red Cross were back near the Head Quarters and any troops wanting a mug of tea got charged for it.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        crosspatch

        There are stories from Haiti that are just amazing. Team Rubicon in their founding operation could not secure permission to get in through the main airport so they went in “the back way” from Dominican Republic. That is actually how they got their name. Once they crossed the border into Haiti, it was crossing the Rubicon for them because they were sort of a renegade relief organization at that point. None of the conventional NGOs had got out past the airport tarmac at that point. They discovered that there was a network of Jesuit missionaries that had been operating in Haiti for many decades and knew where help was needed in many of the most isolated villages and hamlets and had contacts with locals who had working transportation and had a rudimentary radio communications network between their outposts.

        They collected up some of the more seriously injured who needed immediate hospital care but could survive transport (broken limbs and the like) and started toward the capital to get them to a hospital. What they found was the main city hospital in complete disarray and nobody in charge and neglected patients in the wards. They then went to the airport to collect supplies for the hospital and the Red Cross steadfastly refused to let them have any. There was also a stack of military medical supplies but a certain US Army major said those were “HER supplies” and would not let them have any. So they somehow rounded up a company of US Marines and took them into the city, constructed shade outside and got the worst of the patients out of the sweltering hospital out into fresh air and started triage on people. They were eventually able to scrounge expertise to get some of the hospital facilities back up and running again and before the Red Cross even got out of the airport perimeter (they were afraid of “security concerns”) they had that hospital up and providing services. They also organized some convoys of supplies from the airport for drinking water and other supplies to the people under the assumption that any security problems were going to get a lot worse if you had people in the verge of dying from thirst/hunger. Eventually they were able to turn the hospital over to others and head back out into the hinterlands again and deliver emergency medical services to people in towns in the mountains and valleys deep in the country.

        Some of their operations in other parts of the world have been equally amazing like when they went deep into Pakistan to deliver relief during flooding a few years ago or went into the jungles of Thailand to train Burmese medics who were sent back into Burma to help their own.

        These people are nothing short of AMAZING and worthy of your donation.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Manfred

          Excellent account – thank you CP – and thanks for highlighting TR.
          Official organisations, institutionalised organisations if you will, embrace the usual range of official constraints imposed upon them by their native Ministries of We Know Best and no doubt, by agreement or extension, through the ‘host’ counrty. Such official ‘native’ and ‘host’ constraints appear to include the usual immobilising array of political, security, health and safety, and military edicts. The net result: the frank inability to execute the task immediately.

          Nothing like holding a mirror up against our own society.


          Report this

          50

    • #
      Lennox

      From: “Natural News”

      “Today we donated $10,000 to a non-profit that buys and delivers emergency supplies directly to the victims. Here’s our announcement and a link where you can also help donate:

      http://www.naturalnews.com/042850_Philippines_typhoon_victims_donation.html

      [Jo, Please advise; do we want to make this public without scrutiny?] ED
      [Reply: We can't investigate and ratify groups and make no endorsement. Readers will have to check. - Jo]


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    Thank you Crosspatch. That seems just what is needed, who can get in first & fastest to make the difference in these critical first days of aftermath.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ratt

    Hey Margot, I have heard the Russians and the Canadians are pulling for AGW.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    MadJak

    I must admit, that I find the wording “not support socialism masquerading as environmentalism” being used as being quite remarkable -not because I agree with the premise that this is what has been happening, but because it is such a completely idiotically macabre situation for the green movement to be in.

    Honestly, unless the green movement purges completely the socialist influence, i fear that appropriate advocacy of real environmental issues will simply not be represented. This makes me sad as I really do want real environmental issues to be represented.

    At this stage, the green movement has lost all credibility as it appears to have become a puppet for the communists. And I despise communists.


    Report this

    90

    • #

      How about making the environment fit for humans rather than worrying about some totally useless sub sub specie not surviving at the edge of their thrive zone? That is an environmental issue I could go along with.

      This business of “the environment” being an environment without visible evidence of human use is the ultimate abomination. The premise behind that is anything that represents the result of the application of the human mind is evil and must, at all costs, be prohibited. According to mythology, Eve ate the apple from the tree of knowledge. Man is all the better for it because man cannot live without knowledge and the freedom to use it to sustain and advance his life.

      It may surprise the ecology bigots but man and what he does to use and modify HIS environment is just as natural as an ant digging a tunnel to live in.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        llew Jones

        Lionel speaking in the context of Eve another way to put your intelligent environmentalism is for mankind to: “subdue the Earth…… and have dominion/sovereignty/control over all the non human species”.

        Now that edict or your version is what sends the “ecology bigots” around the twist. A wondrous sight to behold.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      crosspatch

      “unless the green movement purges completely the socialist influence, i fear that appropriate advocacy of real environmental issues will simply not be represented.”

      I don’t see how that can happen because the entire movement is not about the environment in the first place. The whole thing is about USING concern for the environment to get people to buy into implementing socialist policy. If you get rid of the socialism, there is no point to their environmentalism because the environmentalism is a means to a different end, not an end in and of itself.

      For example. Lets say I am a group of socialist bureaucrats at the UN and I want to effect a “global redistribution of wealth”. I am challenged with moving industrial production from developed economies to developing economies. I can’t do that with policy because if the developing countries had policies that were more favorable for economic growth such as open trade, fair land ownership, low corruption, fair courts, fair banks and investment, they would already have greater economic growth. But the UN can not dictate policy on a country against their will. So the way they choose to do it is to first create the global warming boogieman and make people scared to death of it. Once you have done that, you can regulate CO2 production. Regulating CO2 production is how you regulate economic growth. CO2 output is directly proportional (more or less) with energy production. Energy production is directly proportional to economic activity. I can not double my production of apples without trucking twice as many to market, washing twice as many, picking twice as many, tending twice as many trees, etc. To increase production means I must expend more energy. By making energy more expensive, I have effected a “tax” on economic growth in that area (and I must be sure to strongly oppose any power sources such as nuclear energy in developed countries while having no such opposition to it in developing economies).

      On the other side of the coin, I exempt countries where I want economic growth to occur from those regulations. Business at some point finds it impossible to build a factory in California due to the myriad of “environmental” regulations and instead builds their factory in Brazil. Could you imagine trying to build a car factory that requires paint to be used in California? That is why the world’s largest car market has no car manufacturing plants except Tesla.

      So what eventually happens is that the expense of regulation and energy in developed countries exceeds the inefficiency of corruption and trade barriers in developing countries and economic production begins to move. The net result is higher prices for everything as those regulations are basically a transfer tax. The people in the US, for example, pay the additional overhead expense of environmental regulations and higher energy costs while the third world country collects money in the form of additional wages, taxes and graft. The difference between the two amounts being the amount of general global inflation felt in higher prices for things.

      By making the US population afraid of CO2, they can get regulations through the government to limit it but the real purpose has nothing to do with CO2, the purpose is to increase regulatory burden USING the fear of CO2 to do it.

      Example: California recently enacted mandates that 30% of energy must come from renewable sources in order to reduce California per capita CO2 production to some idiotic level in the past. Sounds wonderful and the greenies bought it. Now at the same time, San Onofre nuclear power plant discovered a problem with some heat exchanger tubing that was installed relatively recently, was too small for the racks that carry the tubes, and vibrate when steam passed through them causing increased wear on the tubing where they are supported in the racks. The plant operator discovered the problem and went back to the manufacturer to get the correct heat exchangers installed. Then the state of California stepped in and created such an onerous re-testing and certification for the plant that it would more than eat up the profit from the remaining life of the power plant because profit margins for that plant were already pretty tight. So basically it became less of a loss to simply shut down the power plant rather than fix it because of state regulatory tyranny.

      Result? In 2012 California’s CO2 emissions increased by 35%. This will more than offset the entire amount of CO2 reduction from the mandates. California will end up with higher cost electricity, MORE CO2 emissions, and an increase in the rate of flight of industry from the state. Which actually meets the goals of the greenies. It is about chasing out industry, not about really lowering CO2. It is about USING the pretense of lowering CO2 to effect a global socialist agenda.

      If you remove the socialism aspect, there is really no purpose to the environmental aspect.


      Report this

      131

    • #
      AndyG55

      The Greens are NOT and never have been, an environmental party.
      (Although many of their members join, thinking that they are.)

      Environmentalism is a front to lure the genuine environmentalist.
      (Been there, until I saw what they really were)

      The are, and always will be, a far-left socialist party, out to sponge as much from the public trough as they can. And always “do as we say, not as we do”.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    crosspatch

    Meanwhile, China is exempt from CO2 regulations / targets and currently has 30 nuclear power plants under construction. They will have cheap, abundant, 24×7 energy production while the US is re-installing turbines and solar panels after every hurricane.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      Oh nyuk nyuk nyuk! Crosspatch says here:

      Meanwhile, China is exempt from CO2 regulations / targets…..

      The original Kyoto Protocol, still the only LEGAL document, specifically says that the ONLY thing those still Developing Countries have to do is to report their emissions.

      That’s all. Just report them.

      See now why Copenhagen failed so comprehensively, and why that original Kyoto ….. signed and ratified by all but a couple of Countries will NEVER be effectively replaced.

      Tony.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Lennox

    When will the last coal-fired power station shut down and we are all left in the dark?

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/28/in-an-insane-attempt-to-prevent-co2-induced-bad-weather-world-bank-acts-to-make-poor-peoples-energy-more-expensive/

    In an insane attempt to prevent CO2-induced bad weather, World Bank acts to make poor people’s energy more expensive

    World Bank plans to limit financing of coal-fired power plants: ‘The World Bank plans to limit the financing it provides for coal-fired power plants to “rare circumstances” as part of the global financial body’s efforts to address the impact of climate change’

    Obama ban on foreign aid for coal plants would leave poor without energy


    Report this

    50

  • #
    crosspatch

    “In an insane attempt to prevent CO2-induced bad weather, World Bank acts to make poor people’s energy more expensive”

    But their regulations do not actually reduce CO2 emissions, they increase them. Look at Germany, for example. The result of the regulations imposed to “reduce” CO2 actually did the opposite. It isn’t *really* about CO2 at all.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    crosspatch

    The “global warming” con is the largest, most sophisticated robbery scheme ever pulled off in the history of mankind. Every dollar spent to “fight global warming” lands in someone’s pocket and we are spending hundreds of billions globally. The Obama administration in the US is the second largest robbery in history but overlaps somewhat with the first.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      MemoryVault

      The “global warming” con is the second largest, second most sophisticated robbery scheme ever pulled off in the history of mankind.

      Fixed it for you, Crosspatch.

      Undoubtedly the CAGW scam is a very large, very sophisticated con job.
      But it pales compared to the con of our private, fiat money, created out of thin air, interest bearing, fractional reserve banking system.
      Every single dollar currently being spent to “fight global warming”, was created out of thin air, as an interest bearing loan, by a private bank, somewhere.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Lennox

        MemoryVault

        The way I understand the following is that all debts to banks are a legal fiction – we don’t owe them anything. We dumbskulls have allowed two loans to be exchanged from which we borrow from a loan we self financed and then pay back usury as well.

        http://www.iicpa.com/articles/Open%20letter%20accounting%20perversion.pdf

        “…Banks do not have pre-existing funds in the form of legal tender to lend, except in miniscule amounts relative to the size of their loan portfolios.1 In other words, banks create demand deposits out of nothing, and it therefore remains a nothing. The malpractice continues because public accountants as auditors sanctify the aforementioned practice by “certifying” the banks’ financial statements, provoking credit expansion, moral hazard, asset bubbles, liquidity-stressed financial markets, bank runs, and eventually global financial crises……”

        http://www.usa-the-republic.com/banks/The_Great_Banking_Deception.htm

        http://www.msfraud.org/law/lawarticles/Securitization-101.pdf

        “………Recoupment – (1) The recovery or regaining of expenses Applying the setoff so you can get back what you gave and what you are entitled to. (2) The withholding for the equitable part or all of something that is due. This is all equitable action in admiralty style instruments.

        Blacks Law Dictionary:

        IOU – a memorandum acknowledging a debt. See also a due bill.

        DUE BILL – See IOU

        SIGHT DRAFT – A draft that is due on the bearers demand; or on proper presentment to the drawer. Also termed a demand draft. A draft is an unconditional order signed by one person, the drawer directing another person, the drawee, to pay a certain sum of money on demand or at a definite time to a person, the payee, or to bearer.

        This is colorable. Who is holding the debt? A due bill is like a sight draft. They are not saying from which perspective it is a debt, from theirs or yours. The party receiving the IOU is the debtor, because the IOU is an asset. It is an instrument, and you are the originator. You have …………”

        http://www.nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/ucc/credit.card.truths.htm


        Report this

        10

      • #
        crosspatch

        I am familiar with that line of rhetoric. It really isn’t true, though. Might want to take an economics class. All currency is fiat currency, even “Gold Standard” currencies. Reason is that if you simply pegged to a value in gold, you can only grow an economy at the rate at which new gold is discovered / obtained or you must constantly change the valuation of your currency to gold. That valuation is a fiat.

        For example. Say you have $1 backed by gold and you deposit it in the bank. Now the bank lends it to Bill. Bill buys a shovel with it from Bob and Bob puts it in a different bank. That original $1 is still on deposit at the bank so you think you have $1. Bill owes $1 to the bank but also has a shovel worth $1. And Bob has $1 in his bank — that the bank might be in the process of lending out.

        How can that happen? Gold standard and other such schemes do not take into account how money actually works in the economy. It was fine before the invention of banks and compound interest, and the like. But when an economy really starts to grow, it can’t keep up. You must have fiat money, either a fiat currency or a currency valued in something else with the valuation set by fiat.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    crosspatch

    It would likely be more effective to take the entire global amount spent on “fighting global warming”, converting it to $1 notes and burning them in a conventional power plant.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    crakar24

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_feed_on_another_disaster/

    The greens are despicable, preying on the misfortunes of others they should be disbanded as a political party


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Lennox

      Greenies need to understand that it is differnces of temperature which drive climate,not CO2 or temperature average.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

      Average without meaning
      .
      “It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth”, Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    J Martin

    Love the graphic, the true UN.

    I vote we move the UN to Murmansk. The Russians have a way with troublemakers.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Lennox

    Capitalism and Socialism are the two wings of the same bird.

    “…..Thus, when Brabeck and Nestlé promote “water sustainability,” what they are really promoting is the sustainability of Nestlé’s access to and control over water resources. How is that best achieved? Well, since Nestlé is a large multinational corporation, the natural solution is to promote ‘market’ control of water, which means privatization and monopolization of the world’s water supply into a few corporate hands……”

    http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2013/04/22/human-beings-have-no-right-to-water-and-other-words-of-wisdom-from-your-friendly-neighborhood-global-oligarch/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Warsaw cheerleading:

    6 Nov: Canada 2020: New poll: Canadians want federal leadership on climate change
    http://canada2020.ca/latestnews/new-poll-canadians-want-federal-leadership-on-climate-change/

    8 Nov: hro001: Hilary Ostrov: The Canada some people want … and stats for the statistically-challenged
    I was somewhat curious to learn what particular policy Canadians might be “willing to pay for”. Mind you, knowing Rivers’ background, affiliation and biases, I could certainly take an educated guess! So off I went in search of Canada2020‘s “polling results.” Today, their spiffy site features this enjoyable – at least according to Rivers – polling results “event”:…
    Wow! Look at that banner slogan, folks! “The Canada We Want in 2020“. Strikes me that it has more than a faint echo of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)’s Rio+20′s outcome document‘s The Future We Want slogan.
    Notwithstanding Rivers’ omission of any link to the actual results of this poll, it wasn’t too difficult to find on the Canada2020 site. The link can be found on their “Interactive Survey Results” page. This “interactive survey”, btw, seems to be modelled on and/or using software that is a variant of that which underlies the survey being conducted by the UN (where the results still indicate that “Action taken on climate change” remains at the bottom of the world’s priority heap).
    Surprisingly, I’ve seen no sign of Canada2020′s pre-event Press Release on the CBC site (yet!) however, it was dutifully churned by the Globe and Mail and the ever-green Huff-Po. But I digress …
    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/the-canada-some-people-want-and-stats-for-the-statistically-challenged/

    11 Nov: National Center forl Science Education: Polling climate in Canada
    Canadians are more convinced that climate change is occurring, more concerned about it, and more willing to pay to address the issue,” according to a researcher quoted in a November 6, 2013, press release from Canada 2020 — a thinktank offering “progressive policy for a modern Canada” — describing the results (PDF) of the Canada 2020/Universite de Montreal National Survey of Canadian Opinions on Climate Change…
    http://ncse.com/news/2013/11/polling-climate-canada-0015168


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    BBC’s Matt doesn’t bother naming researchers, but would no doubt argue u would find the info at the link they provide:

    10 Nov: BBC: Matt McGrath: Ozone chemicals ban linked to global warming ‘pause’
    The research is published in the journal Nature Geoscience…
    One report earlier this year suggested that it was caused by long-term changes in the warming of waters in the eastern Pacific.
    Now this latest piece of research says that it has been caused by attempts to protect the ozone layer…
    In a commentary on the research, Felix Pretis and Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University suggest that the CFC ban is “unlikely to be the whole story”, but they acknowledge it did make a difference.
    “The impact of this change is small but not negligible: without the reduction in CFC emissions, temperatures today could have been almost 0.1C warmer than they actually are.”…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24874060

    10 Nov: Japan Times: AFP/JIJI: ‘Pause’ in warming credited to ozone pact
    The paper, led by Francisco Estrada, an atmospheric physicist at the Autonomous National University of Mexico, is a statistical comparison of carbon emissions and warming during the 20th century…
    In a comment on the study, Alex Sen Gupta, of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia, said the cooling benefits from the Montreal Protocol “are going to be short-lived. . . . The continuing rise in other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, will keep temperatures marching upwards.”…
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/11/11/environment/pause-in-warming-credited-to-ozone-pact/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pause-in-warming-credited-to-ozone-pact

    some background on the Uni:

    Dec 2010: Nature: Mexican climate reports under fire
    But according to a group of researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico’s Atmospheric Sciences Centre (CCA-UNAM) in Mexico City, the country’s climate change programme may be based on flawed science.
    The group, led by climate-change economist Francisco Estrada, is questioning the set of regional climate-change scenarios produced by Victor Magana, a well-known climatologist also based at the CCA-UNAM who is one of the key academics advising the government on climate impacts…
    The group is arguing that the scenarios are an example of the misuse of statistical downscaling — a tool that allows scientists to calculate local effects of larger-scale patterns predicted by global circulation models (GCMs), mathematical models of planetary atmospheric or oceanic circulation. GCMs work at resolutions of 150–300 square kilometres, and downscaling may allow estimating information at scales of 50 kilometres or less.
    Using this technique, Magaña obtained results that were markedly different from projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the main body assessing climate-change science.
    When such differences arise, they need to be explained, says climatologist Eric Salathé, who works with regional climate-change models at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington in Seattle…
    A further problem, both scientists say, is the lack of a strong national observational network, which diminishes the quality of field data…
    Like the UK government, Mexico does not ask independent bodies to peer-review its technical reports. But Estrada argues that the review process for all these documents should be at least as rigorous as it is for other scientific publications.
    Magaña disagrees. “You don’t need peer review in official reports to be sure that you’ve got science good enough to make the right decisions,” he says…
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101202/full/news.2010.640.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    See the Philippines is jumping on the weather is climate gravy train:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/end-this-climate-madness-philippines-tells-global-warming-summit-20131112-2xd4f.html

    Don’t get me wrong, what happened is tragic. But news reports also mention the nation gets pummelled by 20 typhoons in the typical year. Sure this one was particularly bad, but at the risk of sounding obtuse, this happened while Australia had the highest CO2 tax in history. Clearly the tax isn’t working…

    Yea, my line of reasoning makes as much sense as claiming your neighbour’s SUV caused the typhoon’s intensity.

    We should help the people of The Philippines because it is the right thing to do, not because of some misguided self-flagellating penance to Gaia. The Libs understand this, and the socialism masquerading as environmentalism effectively states this. The Green-Laborites are a little slow of learning it seems.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Australia needs to grow up to its responsibilities as the second highest per capita emitter.

    This speech from Yeb Sano at the climate conference was amazing and says it all. What we do now will say a lot about us as the human race.

    “To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of you armchair. I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water becomes scarce. Not to forget the massive hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of North America. And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now.

    The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.

    This will have profound implications on many of our communities, especially who struggle against the twin challenges of the development crisis and the climate change crisis. Typhoons such as Yolanda (Haiyan) and its impacts represent a sobering reminder to the international community that we cannot afford to procrastinate on climate action. Warsaw must deliver on enhancing ambition and should muster the political will to address climate change.

    In Doha, we asked “If not us then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?” (borrowed from Philippine student leader Ditto Sarmiento during Martial Law). It may have fell on deaf ears. But here in Warsaw, we may very well ask these same forthright questions. “If not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not here in Warsaw, where?”
    - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/11/its-time-to-stop-this-madness-philippines-plea-at-un-climate-talks/#sthash.uH3VgyUx.ui4ObqIm.dpuf


    Report this

    116

    • #

      “To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of you armchair. I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific…….

      Says Michael the Surrealist, his last comment here, as he writes from the airport, ready to board his flight for Manila, so he can help with the recovery operations there.

      Thanks heavens. That’ll keep him bust for a couple of months.

      Tony.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Tony,

        Have you seen that text that Michael quotes before? I am sure I have.

        I am convinced that Michael has never had an original thought in his head


        Report this

        10

    • #

      And Michael, stop using that laughably discredited ….. per capita emitters quote.

      Even you know it’s fake.

      Tell me again the population of China, and India, by comparison with Australia.

      Tony.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Gee Aye

        for my own amusement I am taking you literally (I know your comment is more nuanced) and using the also highly (Tony, “laughably” discredited, means not discredited) discredited but very accessible wiki entry on the subject -

        For 2009 where there is data for China and Australia, Australia’s (11th) per capita emissions 18.2 metric tonnes of CO2 and China’s (55th) is 6.2. A ratio of about 3:1 compared to a population ratio of ~ 1:50. The emission ratio was about 8:1 in 1990.


        Report this

        04

      • #
        AndyG55

        And Michael, stop using that laughably discredited …. “realist” tag.

        You are a fraud as long as you attempt to use that title.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Them words, per capita is yer basic Latin init, an that means that it is special like, and not meant for the likes of us to understand wot it means.

        But I knows, ’cause I ‘ave a dictionary that ‘as latin words in, so I looked up and it means “by ‘ead”, an’ emissions means “give orf”, so i rekon that young mikey is talkin’ abart thems folks who is goin’ to War sore to that big booze up. Thats wot I fink.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yeb Sano.. seriously..

      Rabid climate politician, trying to use the guilt trip to squeeze as much as he can from basically everyone, and using a totally natural disaster to do it..

      What a truly irksome piece of work he is. !!

      Every one of those “issues” he mentioned has happened BEFORE, even in our short life times.

      They are nothing to do with climate change at all and are just being used by the CAGW slimebags to try to further their agenda.

      But most people have now woken up to this most evil of practices.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        This guy would give Bandt, Milne and Di Natale a run for lowest of the low.

        That they would stoop so low as to exploit these poor people, who have nothing, and have had to experience this devastation, is totally pathetic to say the least.!


        Report this

        50

      • #
        AndyG55

        But we do expect Michael to follow their lead.. that’s just Michael….

        …. a truly pathetic piece of inhumane #########.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Backslider

      I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels

      There are absolutely no “impacts of rising sea levels”. The problems these counties face are either from storms or mismanagement, eg. sand mining in Grenada. Nothing whatsoever to do with sea levels, which are in fact falling.

      to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods

      Glaciers have been melting during all the time we have been coming out of The Little Ice Age. Nothing new here, just alarmist squarking.

      to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned

      People have drowned in these areas for millenia. They have always been subject to flooding. Nothing new here, just more alarmist squarking.

      to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes

      These areas have always had hurricanes. Yet more alarmist squarking.

      to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water becomes scarce.

      Africa has suffered from droughts since recorded history. Nothing new here, just more alarmist squarking.

      Not to forget the massive hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of North America. And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now.

      These areas have always had hurricanes and typhoons. Again, nothing new here, just more alarmist squarking.

      So Michael, are you saying that there is something that we can do to stop natural disasters which have been happening for millenia?


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Michael is very hot on effect, and seizes on his favorite cause, but cannot explain how they are linked. He (and nobody else, either) can explain how a few more ppm of CO2 morphs itself into a massive typhoon, and why the same or higher ppm of CO2 will not cause an identical typhoon next year.

        As you say, it is just squarking – love the word by the way.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Heywood

      *Yawn*

      Still coming back AAD? I thought you despised this blog?

      Coming here is the only bit of ‘action’ you get these days huh?

      Plugging away with the standard watermelon scare method too I see. Oooh look, a bit of rain and some wind… CLIMATE CHANGE!

      Cold, hot, storm, lack of storms, ice melting, ice recovering, dry, wet, Michael getting some, Michael not getting any, hail, drought, wind, lack of wind, locusts, earthquakes, dogs and cats living together… All evidence of CAGW acording to you leftard watermelons.

      You know you might even get some traction with the public if you didn’t blame EVERYTHING on climate change. People are sick of hearing it. The problem is that you leftard activists can’t help yourselves. You have to push your agenda no matter what, sometimes to the point where you cop abuse, and then you have a big sook about it.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Steve

      My hope is the all climate change nonsense bureacracy is slam dunked into a dumpster….

      Just think of how much money has been wasted – the knockon effect is staggering

      A hypothesis was born

      A hypothesis was born, which spawned models which are wrong

      A hypothesis was born, which spawned models which are wrong, which spawned an organisation that produced reports

      A hypothesis was born, which spawned models which are wrong, which spawned an organisation that produced reports, these reports reported on a problem that didnt exist.

      A hypothesis was born, which spawned models which are wrong, which spawned an organisation that produced reports, these reports reported on a problem that didnt exist, that then created govt policy.

      A hypothesis was born, which spawned models which are wrong, which spawned an organisation that produced reports, these reports reported on a problem that didnt exist, that then created govt policy which implemented a tax that killed our economy.

      A hypothesis was born, which spawned models which are wrong, which spawned an organisation that produced reports, these reports reported on a problem that didnt exist, that then created govt policy which implemented a tax that killed our economy and sent jobs off shore and lined the wallets of a few.

      A hypothesis was born, which spawned models which are wrong, which spawned an organisation that produced reports, these reports reported on a problem that didnt exist, that then created govt policy which implemented a tax that killed our economy and sent jobs off shore and lined the wallets of a few.
      This spawned massive green “industry” that was ( oh the irony ) unsustainable ( ROFLMAO )

      And it was all based on a single lie.

      Shame.

      Bring back the stocks in the middle of the village square..


      Report this

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      “to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned”

      seriously.. that has to be probably the MOST MORONIC comment I have ever seen.

      IT’S A DELTA ……. FFS !!!!!!


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Don’t worry, Michael, superstar George Clooney is on your side! (Except even he’s not sure.)

      In wake of Typhoon Haiyan, Actor George Clooney declares global warming skeptics to be ‘stupid’ and ‘ridiculous’

      “Well it’s just a stupid argument,” Clooney said on the red carpet, referring to the dissenters of man-made global warming.
      “If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you ‘you are sick’ and 1 percent that says ‘you’re fine,’ you probably want to hang out with, check it up for the 99. You know what I mean? The idea that we ignore that we are in some way involved in climate change is ridiculous. What’s the worst thing that happens? We clean up the earth a little bit?”
      “I find this to be the most ridiculous argument ever,” Clooney explained.
      Clooney added that he was unsure whether global warming was responsible for the Typhoon that devastated the Philippines.

      I can understand why someone who got rich doing comparatively little work, is insulated from any climate-related self-sacrifice by the same, and has never had a lesson in logic and rhetoric, would not see any problem with pretending they are saving the planet by wasting everyone else’s limited money on non-problems and forcing them to forego more tangibly productive activities. But Clooney is a rich actor, Michael, so what’s your excuse?

      Maybe Clooney can put on his old Batman mask and scare the clouds away.
      You can be his sidekick, Michael. I think you’d look great in a cape.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      bobl

      Which is why we should increase taxes and reduce availability of cheap energy so that the poor people just die instead of eeking out an existance. Yep Michael, you yet again demonstrate your inhumanity.

      What is it with you and Margot, while prattling on about climate change, you steadfastlty refuse to accept the obvious – that mitigating CO2 kills people and diverts money away from important things – like medicine and real environmental improvement, while the worst effect of more CO2 is that you need to mow the lawn more often.

      Also you carry on about per capita emission, you are full of it. You only bother to look at one side of the books. Australia is among the largest per capita net ABSORBERS of CO2 on the planet, due to our small population and large area. Our forests alone absorb more than 10 times what we emit, and the mere 6% increase in bioproductivity due to CO2 fertilisation since 2000 offsets much more than our emissions. Australia is absorbing the worlds emissions … we do not Emit!

      I have just about had enough of your inhuman obsession with using the weather to impoverish and kill people, Me I’m concerned about people and by any measure CO2 is a pretty good molecule to have in our atmosphere when you think about the welfare of people. It’s good to see we finally have a governmemt that cares about people too.

      Frankly I am disgusted that you want to continue to waste money on this fools errand while people continue to die from disease and poverty. There are far more important things to do.

      Sorry about the rant Jo, but I’ve had enough of these anti-human *[snip - self edited]*


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        You think Australia is a net absorber, you should see what New Zealand can do, on a per capita basis, with only 4 million people, and tree and bush covered mountains from one end of the country to the other. I reckon the UN should be paying us. I might send them an invoice …?


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Lets assume for a moment I take up your dare and go to these places.

      Will I bump into you there?

      Or will you forever live in the big city having never seen a stary sky away from city lights.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    [...] Report This Post! Doug; the Aussies are putting an end to the scam as far as it concerns them… Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialis… [...]


    Report this

    30

  • #
    crakar24

    GA made another stupid comment (sadly this is becoming the norm)in response to one from Tony but too many comments ago and scrolled off the page and i cant be bothered searching for it (it is only GA after all) so i have cut and paste it from my email
    —————————————-

    Author: Gee Aye
    Comment:
    for my own amusement I am taking you literally (I know your comment is more nuanced) and using the also highly (Tony, “laughably” discredited, means not discredited) discredited but very accessible wiki entry on the subject -

    For 2009 where there is data for China and Australia, Australia’s (11th) per capita emissions 18.2 metric tonnes of CO2 and China’s (55th) is 6.2. A ratio of about 3:1 compared to a population ratio of ~ 1:50. The emission ratio was about 8:1 in 1990.

    ———————————————–
    Whilst your math may be correct GA you common sense and logic has deserted you when most needed once again.

    Statistically China is ranked 88th and Australia 19th when it comes to child mortality and when you compare the population living in poverty China is right up there however Australia does not even make the list.

    So IDIOT would you like to go and live in China so you can reduce your co2 foot print????? Be my guest [snip, bit over the top]

    41

    • #
      Gee Aye

      thanks Craker. My comment is just 5 comments above yours at this moment – your browser has a find function if you have problems like this in the future.

      Anyway, your rhetoric aside, what has anything you wrote got to do with what I wrote. You just made up an agenda to my comment (through mind reading?) and then used got angry about the thing you made up and then further wasted space bringing down the thing you made up. I’m hoping that Tony took my comment for what was written and did not make up something just for the purpose of making an angry response.


      Report this

      05

      • #

        I’m just puzzled you even went to the lengths of distraction, when you mentioned that you knew exactly what I was saying.

        Tony.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Gee Aye

          I just wanted to see the numbers claimed and I amused myself multiplying tonnes of CO2 and population sizes and thinking about linked factors. Then I “wrote out loud” in response to you which provoked an interesting response from Craker.

          So much poverty at the lower end of CO2 usage and so much population growth and young biased demographics at that end too. The top end outliers have characteristics that are almost unrepeated among other countries.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      In your rage you also managed to waste further space by including irrelevant parts of your email, and inducing me to waste more space, although I can at least claim to be defending myself and besides everyone here already believes me to be a waste of space.

      —————-
      I see GA. I have edited to remove that from #87. And I appreciate your ability to bring a different view and provoke discussion. – Jo


      Report this

      04

      • #
        crakar24

        You are a complete and utter nutjob GA, you pulled the old “emissions per head of population” argument against Tony, such arguments are childish and ridiculous, you know it, i know it and everyone else knows it but still you use it as a point of difference simply to ignte a stupid argument.

        However what you are your ilk never mention is the large proportion of the Chinese population living in abject poverty and the main reason why is due to a lack of power.

        But you already knew this which is why i claim you are an idiot and a moron.

        Even now your piss poor defence is reduced to whinging and whining about segments of the email i copied, as far as warmbots go you are the most pathetic i have ever had the displeasure of meeting even AAD runs rings around you.


        Report this

        51

        • #
          Gee Aye

          no craker. I made no argument to Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            no craker. I made no argument to Tony.

            Here we go again, we are now being dragged down the rabbit hole of the blurry, fuzzy, psychedelic world GA lives in.

            Tony from Oz

            And Michael, stop using that laughably discredited ….. per capita emitters quote.

            Even you know it’s fake.

            Tell me again the population of China, and India, by comparison with Australia.

            Tony.

            GA responded with

            for my own amusement I am taking you literally (I know your comment is more nuanced)(

            definition of nuance: a subtle difference in meaning or opinion or attitude

            and using the also highly (Tony, “laughably” discredited, means not discredited) discredited but very accessible wiki entry on the subject -

            What is this gibberish supposed to mean GA?

            For 2009 where there is data for China and Australia, Australia’s (11th) per capita emissions 18.2 metric tonnes of CO2 and China’s (55th) is 6.2. A ratio of about 3:1 compared to a population ratio of ~ 1:50. The emission ratio was about 8:1 in

            I believe it is very clear (granted maybe not you GA) what you have said here is in support of AAD’s claim, a claim which Tony disagrees with. I know you are as dumb as a box of hammers and perhaps that is why you make stupid statements at regular intervals but surely even you can see you are suggesting Australia has a very large co2 footprint compared to reality.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Gee Aye

          Oh look I mentioned poverty just above.


          Report this

          03

    • #
      crakar24

      Why is it over the top, if GA wants to compare co2 emissions per population with China in an attempt to portray Australia as a high emitter then i merely suggested it goes and experiences life in China ie experience what life is like in a low emitting per population country.

      When it realises just how low a standard of living they have it may just learn something though i doubt it has the capacity to learn but you never know miracles do happen now and again


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Gee Aye

        craker, I’ve been to China, poor China, on 2 extended stays. I don’t need a lecture about human welfare thanks.


        Report this

        05

        • #
          crakar24

          Wow you have been to China twice well that tears it then you must be an expert on co2 emissions, by the way can you tell me what plush hotel you stayed in during your two extended stays?


          Report this

          50

          • #
            • #
              crakar24

              You dont remember which plush hotels you stayed in or you dont wish to divulge that information?


              Report this

              30

              • #
                gee Aye

                craker you are a difficult one but there were plush hotels near airports which were a small portion of the trips (5 days out of 70 or so). The rest was not plush, some good and some difficult, and the nature of the residence was the opposite of hiding away in western enclaves. Amazing experience, confronting, enriching and, I hope, the interaction was of mutual benefit.


                Report this

                10

  • #
    Steve

    Jo – *love* the UN hammer and sickle symbol….

    Perfect…..

    Should be flying on all UN buildings.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Trouble is, the hammer and sickle is a Russian emblem..

      and as far as I can see, Russia doesn’t have much faith in the UN !

      Especially when it comes to the UNIPCC !!!!

      (and yes, MV.. I’m being gentle :-) )


      Report this

      32

      • #
        crakar24

        AG55,

        I think the “Hammer and the Sickle” represented communism (United Soviet Socialist Republic) the USSR no longer exists and we simply now have Russia which does not use the Hammer and Sickle emblem

        Cheers


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Steve

        Ironic, considering both behave like Soviets….


        Report this

        20

        • #
          crakar24

          Well technically they are, the USSR was a group of countries, Poland, Russia, Georgia etc (the iron curtain) then it collapsed all the little countries went their own way and that left Russia on its own (some countries still have political ties with Russian and some dont)

          Before the collapse of the iron curtain they were soviets and they still are, communism on the other hand is an ideology kind of like environmentalism, the communism part collapsed along with the iron curtain. Russia now has elections that are considered as free and fair as the ones in the United States.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … elections that are … as fair as the ones in the United States

            So that is where all the old Florida voting machines went … I was wondering.


            Report this

            20

  • #
    Steve

    i.e. the russians are still communists, and the UN behaves like a communist organisation.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    The Pentagon a very few years ago was buying hammers for $500 that could be bought in a hardware store for $20. Never underestimate the incompetence of the Pentagon.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Scott

    “Science tells us” – or some variant – is the standard insertion in most every climate alarmist’s post e.g. Michael’s assertion: “The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus…”

    The fact is that “science” has done nothing of the sort. “Science” is mute on the subject, because science is not an arbiter or a judge or a referee or some kind of August Authority-On-All-Things; it is a quest for knowledge, nothing less and nothing more. Here’s what “science” had to tell us about the Black Plague in 1348 (Paris Consilium): “The celestial cause was the result of the conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, under the moist sign of Aquarius, that took place in 1345, following both solar and lunar eclipses. The Paris Consilium cited Aristotle’s notion that the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter would bring disaster. According to Albert the Great, the conjunction of Jupiter and Mars would bring plague. Jupiter, the sanguine planet, was hot and wet – the two qualities that led to rotting or putrefaction which in turn led to plague.

    The terrestrial cause was air poisoned from noxious gases released during earthquakes. Further unfortunate conjunctions of constellations brought on thunder, rain, and wet south winds that dispersed the poisonous vapors caused by carcasses rotting in swamps. When the poisoned air entered the body, it went to the heart – considered, in medieval times, the organ of respiration – and then contaminated the body’s vital spirit and caused its organs to rot.”

    That science was the best they could arrive at given everything they knew, and they were examining a little bitty germ. The trouble is that their models were wrong, because it was a multivariate equation and their input assumptions were wrong. They knew certain things – that when exposed to the sickness other people got sick – just as we know that in a closed laboratory setting the addition of CO2 to an atmosphere will cause a greenhouse effect, but when they tried to take that observation out of the lab and into an open system, they didn’t understand what they did know…never mind that they had no idea what they didn’t know. Climate science is at that stage today. The global climate system is the big daddy multivariate equation of all time…there are literally trillions of trillions of variables involved, which probably explains why the models the alarmists swear by bear not even a vague resemblance to observed reality. We don’t understand even the systems we do know about, but that pales in comparison to the fact that we don’t have a clue what systems we don’t know about. And some people actually have the gall to claim that a high school experiment conducted in a closed system somehow “proves” something?


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Brett

      But this thread is full of :
      Seems like fairly straightforward physics to me.
      I can only say that it is pretty clear that
      The observations…our predictions…is very real…That is reality.
      the facts that underpin that reality (the science, the observations, or both)
      their careful scrutiny of the facts
      rely on making accurate plans based on a full appreciation of reality
      some careful professional experts
      considering this wealth of professional academic work
      detailed in the academic literature
      published academic works
      respected, professional scientists

      Anything contrary is either a fabrication, delusion, denialism, etc.


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That’s right Brett. Both sides use much the same tactics. In war, both sides fire bullets at each other, it happens.

        The difference is the stridency in the alarmist presentation. They try to convince by sheer force of words, concentrated on the imagined effects of climate change. “The sea wall was washed away on some remote Pacific Island.”

        The sceptics tend to use logic, reason, and humour to make the alarmists look vapourous and slightly retarded. “The sea wall was dismantled by the Islanders because a local hotel developer offered them a good price. The islanders are now applying to the UN for funding to replace their ‘missing’ sea wall.”


        Report this

        30

  • #
    James R. Halifax

    Welcome to the Party, Australia !!

    Actually, there was one world leader who also decried the environmental policy of the UN as a simple wealth transfer. Canda’s current Prime Minister, before he was a politician described Kyoto as a socialist schemed designed to transfer wealth from western nations to third world countries”

    After elected as PM, one of the first things Stephen Harper did was withdraw Canada from Kyoto.

    If anyone wants to know what controls climate change, tell them to go outside during the day and look up. It’s that giant ball of burning Hydrogen in the sky. That’s your climate control device.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Joe V.

      … and withdrawing Canada from th Commonwealth head’s conference in Sri Lanka, in protest at alleged genocide and ongoing persectution of the Tamil minority by the ruling Government regime there, to be followed by the Indian President.

      You are right, we should be handing it to Canada, under Harper for remaining steadfast throughout. Always we’re a canny lot these Canadians.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      llew Jones

      Abbott sould emulate Harper and withdraw from Kyoto then scrap his 5% 2020 emissions target.


      Report this

      40

  • #
  • #
    llew Jones

    Looks like not only the Canadians but also the Poles agree with our gutsy well informed PM:

    Not Welcome: UN climate summit in Poland greeted by 50,000 angry Poles rallying against UN

    As more than 50,000 enthusiastic Poles gathered in downtown Warsaw on Monday to celebrate National Independence Day, with millions more watching on live television, CFACT president David Rothbard was invited to the stage to deliver an impassioned address celebrating freedom and warning against the dangerous and oppressive climate agenda of the UN.

    More here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/12/50000-at-rally-against-climate-agenda-in-poland/


    Report this

    30

  • #
    llew Jones

    Beat me to it Tim.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    [...] In complete contrast to the UK, the Australian presence at Warsaw will accordingly be minimal. [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Forgivenman

    Thank GOD Australia is at least one country that is now awake to the globalist agenda. Here in the U.S.S.A, we have been taken over from within by mister “hope and change” and his minions. Nothing sticks to the teflon don who should have enough dirt on him to be impeached 10 times over. Corporations see “sustainability” as another cash cow and couldn’t care less whether or not global warming has any basis is fact. Pure evil has been unleashed. Turn to Jesus while you can. There isn’t much time left before he returns.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    [...] Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading a… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading a… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Even though Australia may have gone against this action, they are still thinking of raising our debt ceiling from 300 billion to 500 billion, which follows in the socialistic footsteps of keynesian economics


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Theodore

    Good to see an Aussie PM standing up for Australians! I wasn’t sure about the Bondi budgie-smuggler when I voted for him recently. But am now more than pleasantly surprised! Ruddy should be rapt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    FrankC

    Greetings from an American,

    I have always seen global cooling\global warming\climate change as a money-making extortion tool that is attempting to impose socialism on a global scale. The Australian Government position is good and I hope they stay with it. It is absolutely possible to look at your own situation, and then make your own decisions concerning air and water quality. It is not necessary to subscribe to an international “plan” or to fund such a plan. Do what is best for your country, your people, your environment, and your future.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Darrell

    From America, Hurray for Australia. The “Science” shows that even if “Man-made global climate change” were real, all of the money that is pured down this rat hole makes an unnoticeable difference in the whole thing. But it sure makes a lot of people rich.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] of Tea Party demise are greatly exaggerated Liberal wishful thinking doesn’t always pay off AU: “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading as environme… Ouch! Valerie Jarrett Lowers Bar for Obamacare Website Fix We lowered the bar as a nation when she [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DennisA

    “Socialism masquerading as Environmentalism” is totally accurate.

    Find out a lot more about Socialist International, the UN and politicians in the UK and the US here:

    “United Socialist Nations”
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Flashback: Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading a… [...]


    Report this

    00