The Koch Brothers have “distorted democracy”, held a “war on climate”, built a vast network of “climate disinformation think tanks”, and we can apparently blame them for “congressional inaction“. But now (oh No) Greenpeace, DeSmog, Think Progress, Naomi Oreskes and fan-followers must be in meltdown, for it turns out there are 58 more powerful forces in US politics! Donations to US political parties were tallied from 1989 – 2012 by Open Secrets and the most powerful donors by far are the unions.
Washington Examiner: “Six of the top 10 are … wait for it … unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats.
These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).
In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.
Others in the top ten were AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and ActBlue. Three quarters of the top 16 donors sent most of their money to the Democrats. The other quarter split it between both sides of politics. All up, the unions dominated the donor table — there are 18 unions putting in more money to politics than the Koch Brothers.
But the Koch’s are doing a corporate takeover of government from position 59:
Greenpeace: “Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented.”
Presumably Greenpeace is now protesting about the union takeover of government? Or rather, since the Kochs achieved so much with so little, and from number 59, Greenpeace is telling the unions to stop giving money to the Democrats — it’s obviously a waste.
Strap yourself in, the Koch brothers are so influential, they are the excuse for why Obama “should” override congress. Who needs voting any more? (In fact, the US could skip the congress part, just make the Big O a throne and call him King.)
Koch Brothers Pledge Helped Kill Climate Change Legislation: Report
When President Obama rolled out his climate strategy last week, he made a point to sidestep Congress and take executive action — and with good reason. A two-year study conducted by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University offers some insight into how Charles and David Koch have helped systematically derail climate legislation on Capitol Hill. [Huff Post]
Meanwhile the Washington Post laments that there is no Democratic version of the Kochs.
But for the Democratic professionals who actually run campaigns, the thing that frustrates them most about the Koch brothers network is that there’s no real equivalent on their side.
That’s because big Democratic donors and big Republican donors are motivated by different types of issues, and therefore give differently, according to Democratic strategists who deal frequently with high-dollar donors.
Apparently the Republican donors only want to make profits, which means it’s easy to find donors. It’s an “investment” for them. Democrats, we are told, care about social issues, and they pay tax too. It’s not like donors to the Democratic party make money off government handouts, or depend on subsidies and environmental laws for their very existence? Heck no.
On the Democratic side, the opposite is the case. Heavyweights in the Democratic donor community pay the same tax rates as their Republican counterparts, and cuts to the capital gains tax or the higher brackets of the income tax benefit them financially, too.
This reasoning is quite spectacular:
If fiscal issues were the only things driving their giving habits, Democratic donors would support the same politicians that Republican donors do.
So fiscal issues are the same for all businesses, whether they compete in the free market or feed off the handouts? An entire side of the economy is invisible here: the idea that one type of business might want to hobble competitors through environmental rules that favor their product is not even on the radar. Or how about financial houses that might want the government to invent a spurious market in an invisible product and then make participation compulsory. The brokerage on a $2 trillion dollar market is pretty neat. Neither could there be scientists whose careers and junkets depend upon solving a scare which might not be so scary.
Big-government loving commentators hate the Koch’s.
The collectivists need their enemies don’t they? Just as they need to invent messiahs.
h/t Marc Morano Climate Depot
IBEW no surprise. The Boston locals, 103/104, got paid off by First Wind/UPC/IVPV/Evergreen. Follow the money.
91
I guess we deniers need to change our political views
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/science-vs-politics/
Here is some background:
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12012/obama-contributors-and-the-stimulus-scandal-page-244/
First Wind – Received $232 million in stimulus funds. An audit revealed the money only created 125 jobs.
David Shaw: Founder of DE Shaw. Obama bundler and one of the top 3 donors to the Democratic Party. Largest shareholder of First Wind.
Larry Summers: Part owner of First Wind. Obama’s Chief Economic Advisor.
David Canning: Part owner of First Wind. George W. Bush bundler, Barack Obama donor, Rahm Emanuel donor.
———-
Where in the world is Larry Summers?
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/lawrence-summers
Google search UPC/IVPC/First Wind/ Evergreen.
121
John, I just found time to read your links. Quite a few “dots” connected there!
10
[…] Australia’s JoNova has the take: […]
13
Many union contract are tied to the minimum wage, so most of the Democrat special interests just got a raise.
61
Gee whiz! It’s the unions? I’d never have guessed it.
Where has everyone been?
131
I could have gone on but you’re probably all glad I didn’t. 🙂
Suffice it to end by saying unions are no one’s friend but their own.
182
31
Bones,
I’ve been wondering if Obama will turn out to have been such a friend to the unions after all. There appears to be a whole lot of double dealing and just plain cheating going on and I don’t think that ends well for anyone. Of course the final verdict isn’t in yet. So for now, yes, let’s count Obama and unions as steadfast friends.
20
You get the impression that we will see exactly how much the unions have controlled the Australian Government in the coming Royal Commission.
If the taste testers with the HSU, the AWU, the ETU & the TWU are anything to go by it will be interesting.
Of particular note, the people behind GetUp & the sources of their money should draw some attention.
The tentacles of George Soros go wide & deep.
Donations are never free ( unless you can have your mates in government return them with interest after the election).
121
Especially in the case of global warming, the political money is predominately on the side of alarmists since “big oil” is in the business of actually physically producing, whereas the leftist groups are about fighting an ideological/political war. An oil company doesn’t have 100% of its revenue dependent on selling a story to the public (and some anti global warming measures raising energy prices might even help its profits). In contrast, Greenpeace and unions have their revenue, their success, and their very existence dependent not on producing a physical product of intrinsic value but upon a battle of memes.
And so it is unsurprising that, for instance, the top publicized versions of history today give the leftist/alarmist versions of climate history, like the double peak history of temperature in the 20th century being rewritten into a hockey stick (allowing activists to turn around and claim it doesn’t match the double-peak pattern of solar history meanwhile). As I was noting elsewhere, I challenge anyone to find *any* plot published in the mid-1970s (before the motive for adjusting data arose) which doesn’t show major decline in global/NH temperature during the third quarter of the 20th century (as illustrated in http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg along with much else).
The publications of the 1970s still exist in libraries, like one of the plots in the preceding link I’ve seen in non-rewritten paper form. The global cooling scare then didn’t happen for no reason.
The entire foundation of the modern CAGW movement is data rewriting allowed by superior funding and support, letting its form of history dominate; without that, with such as the plots in the prior link, it is simply ludicrous.
161
A 1940’s peak is found in basically all records published before the 1990’s, even from Hansen himself. And this peak is usually around the same value as the 1998 ElNino peak.
In Australia there is also a very warm peak around 1910-1912 in most inland raw data, higher even than the 1940’s and certainly higher than now.
These peaks have been “cooled” significantly by Giss/Hadcrut, and BOM to create the global warming story.
121
The Green/Left’s infantile thought processes have got it into a terrible jam.
First, they believe that almost everyone agrees with them (97% consensus etc).
Yet even with this overwhelming firepower, they are unable to make much headway for “climate action”.
There can be only two explanations:
1. The few forces opposing them must be immensely powerful, rich, evil, organised and manipulative or,
2. People don’t buy the Left/Green’s shrill rhetoric and arrogant moralistic hectoring on climate.
Which would you choose if you were a good little Greenpeace acolyte?
61
“Soros Put” Hits Record As Billionaire’s Downside Hedge Rises By 154% in Q4 To $1.3 Billion
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-17/soros-put-hits-record-billionaires-downside-hedge-rises-154-q4-13-billion
A curious finding emerged in the latest 13F by Soros Fund Management, the family office investment vehicle managing the personal wealth of George Soros.
Actually, two curious findings: the first was that the disclosed Assets Under Management as of December 31, 2013 rose to a record $11.8 billion (this excludes netting and margin, and whatever one-time positions Soros may have gotten an SEC exemption to not disclose: for a recent instance of this, see Greenlight Capital’s Micron fiasco, and the subsequent lawsuit of Seeking Alpha which led to the breach of David Einhorn’s holdings confidentiality).
The second one is that the “Soros put”, a legacy hedge position that the 83-year old has been rolling over every quarter since 2010, just rose to a record $1.3 billion or the notional equivalent of some 7.09 million SPY-equivalent shares. Since this was an increase of 154% Q/Q this has some people concerned that the author of ‘reflexivity’ and the founder of “open societies” may be anticipating some major market downside.
61
If he isn’t anticipating it, that would be a surprise as I have no doubt he will be principal (among others) in orchestrating it when it happens. Wealth concentration serves the elite like Soros to a nicety, and when it happens we can all blame his little sheep like followers, who no doubt won’t acknowledge their complicity in destroying western civilisation for the benefit of the oligarchs.
81
No no Winston! Its not the Soros’ and Koch’s of the world that are the baddies, its the unions! You know those filthy rich working bastards who are making life hell for ordinary non-working folk everywhere.
19
It seems the real problem is the AGW crowd are poor money managers and really mad that those questioning this make so much headway with so little money. Maybe a remedial course in money management would help…….
20
The Left has always been confused or disingenuous about what makes a “big business”. Unions are among the finest examples of what is big business and are at least as evil. Lefties either ignore the reality or are in denial.
Unions frequently donate to candidates without consulting their rank and file members. With Business you can dump stocks if you don’t like the politics of the management. Dumping your union benefits in protest rarely ever happens. Members are hostage to the whims of the union bosses.
111
And dumping your union membership mostly means you dump your job too. For a long time unions have worked only for themselves, not for their members. If a real benefit accrues to the membership it’s just the cost of doing business. And if anyone thinks inflating the price of union labor continually above what the market could sustain, as in the recent United Auto Workers case, I’d like to hear from you. But I probably won’t because bad times were their very just comeuppance and you know it.
Fortunately for them they had Uncle Obama to steal GM from its rightful owners and simply give it to the UAW as some compensation for their mistake.
I dare anyone to make an argument countering this that can withstand the light of day. Compare how Toyota operates first if you really want to reply.
I’ll get a red thumb for this too, I reckon. And like the unions actually doing any benefit for their members, it’s just the cost of being
in businesshonest.161
I know, I know. Look at the medical specialists union. Strict control over who works. Keep number of workers low so they can charge a fortune. Stop non-unionists from doing their work.
Someone ought to stop these bastards!
16
Yes, someone definately should.
(Does Australia have “right to work” laws or is union membership mandatory in a unionized business?)
20
John,
You seem to think I’m anti union. I’m not. I’m anti dishonesty, no matter where it happens. And unions are among the most dishonest organizations I could point to at the moment. There are numerous others too but unions are the current topic. And they’ve been able to get away with their dishonesty because they have a lot more legal protection here in the U.S. than business and industry has. The scale is way off balance.
20
Interesting news from the US about their United Auto Workers:
When are union members here are going to wake up and realise unions of today are destroying jobs.
132
Not many Australians seem to remember or know about Whitlam Labor signing the UN Lima Protocol (agreement) in the early 1970s that effectively provided for the developing world to become the manufacturers of the future, as we are experiencing now during the end days. The unions did not oppose this and have as far as I am aware never explained the plan to their members.
41
Those silly unions. Without them, the world would be a workers paradise!
17
I’ve just written a book. It’s a children’s story similar to Alice in Wonderland but the hero is an adult man. I call it John in La-La Land. Our intrepid hero spends his week days shepherding university students around and his evenings and weekends trying to figure out why. My publisher thinks there’s a good market for it. After all, nonsense has always been a best seller.
Oh nuts! I just realized that my hero resembles one of the more respected and admired contributors to this blog. I hope that won’t spoil my publishing deal.
… …
Hi john! I didn’t notice you there at first, lurking in the shadows. How’s life treating you these days. Is your blog working out for you? Any lucrative advertising deals yet? You gotta keep your friends up to date ya know.
40
Oh John, never mind unions linked to organized crime I’m sure you support organized crime. Then the reality that workers aren’t represented politically because the bosses don’t agree with them. Very Democratic eh John? You support union dues being distributed to fund candidates that the rank and file don’t want to support? You support that unions donate to elect and keep Green Leftist politicians in power who then push for laws that shut down mining operations as is happening in coal, iron, copper and lead mining as we speak?
You support that construction unions work to fix labor prices by limiting the number of people who are “in” and locking out other able bodied workers from having a chance? That Unions work tirelessly to eliminate free trade and free markets? That compliance with labor laws and regulations are overly burdensome on small business? Do you think it’s healthy that Big Business collaborates with unions to squash competition from small business?
Right John, you make perfect sense…… for a dumbass.
40
Add Aluminum to my list as well http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/now_alcoa_closes_too/
10
There is apparently a back story to the UAW defeat in Tennessee that I just found out a little about last night from, of all places, the Fox News Channel. Volkswagen had been openly telling the union to go on in and organize, a surprising move for a non union employer. But it appears that VW and the UAW had already worked out the collective bargaining deal before hand without the benefit of even holding the election. I’m guessing here a bit but it’s not too hard to put 2 and 2 together and what it looks like is that the union made concessions to VW to get a foot in the door. If VW didn’t already know what they would get, why go so enthusiastically for the union organizers? This, of course is not anywhere near legal as far as I know. But with Obama’s Department of Labor being so willing to ignore the law it certainly looks probable.
The unions have been losing out for a long time and they’re desperate to get a real foothold again.
There may be more news about this before long. And if what I heard is true I do hope VW management can handle the employee anger they’ll soon be feeling.
20
While people see this as a form of hypocrisy, it isn’t. Liberal politics says anything they do is right. If anyone else does it, it is wrong. It’s very simple. Plus, conservatives have a moral base at times, so the immoral, baseless liberals hold the conservatives to the conservative’s values. Since liberals have no moral base (it’s all about winning, nothing else–being in power) they can lie, cheat, steal etc as long as they say it’s for the good of the people. There is no objective standard in liberal politics. It’s all in the moment. They can use the Koch brothers against skeptics because the Kock brothers are conservative, nasty capitalists that stand in their way. If the Koch brothers wrote them a huge check tomorrow, the Koch brothers would no longer be evil and bad. It’s all about agreeing with the liberals.
144
Without an opponent to project their evil onto, these oh so liberal progressives would turn on themselves.
Nothing says self-loathing like the anti-humanist cause.
81
Can TV provide a laugh, or at least a wry smile? Almost certainly.
And so it goes, from Big Tobacco to Big Food, the march to control-for-your-own-good continues. In a trailer for the News (is there anything more absurd? /rhet) the announcer states: “You’ve heard of Big Tobacco, well now it’s Big Food. With the rising numbers of obese and diabetic, The Government have declared that self-education is not working. What is needed is legislation to address the gowing epidemic.”
The News ‘trailer’ was followed by the programme ‘Big Brother’.
81
Yeah. I mean, if trans fats make the biscuits stay crunchy longer, then who needs some do-gooders pointing out that they are poison for your arteries?
And how many times do we need to re-brand chicken nuggets? Just because people found out how we made them. So its popcorn chicken, and chicken zingers… I mean after you’ve eaten the breasts, wings and drumsticks, you’ve still got a bit of meet on them bones! Grind ’em up, add some flavour, put in some stuff to turn the sludge from grey to white, deep fry blobs of it, and you’ve got good wholesome food! Just re-brand it whenever people remember how it gets made.
And have you noticed how you can make things sell better by putting more salt, sugar and fat in? And guess what, those are really cheap ingredients. Whats not to like?
21
It would only be a “do-gooder” if the item was actually poison for your arteries. However, there have been notable mistakes by “do-gooders” using shoddy studies and stats that resulted in banning non harmful subtance. For example, saccharin. It’s now even off the list of nasties in California, known for having the longest list of cancer-causing and harmful substances in the US.
I suppose if people weren’t so totally stupid and ate things that are “bad” for them, we wouldn’t need nannies to protect us, would we? Too bad everyone is so very stupid, right?
60
John must be conflicted. On one hand, there are too many people in the world-so many that we can’t keep using energy like we used to cause we’re so bad for the enviroment. On the other hand John doesn’t want us to die young after eating salted chicken bits or from tobacco use and needs the full weight of the Nanny State to make certain that we live to very old age and suck up even more scarce commodities.
Hell John even supports euthanasia, abortion and the right to die but we shan’t be permitted a Happy Meal cause it might make us dead too soon.
F off John. Everything you post makes it clear how messed up Leftists are. You could be the Poster Child for all things LEFT and NOTHING at all RIGHT.
70
Well said, Mark D.
20
Thank you Sheri.
10
Life is fatal, John. Get over it. Live a
littlelot. Enjoy a few vices. Instead of worrying about everyone else, worry about how you’re going to view your life as you lay there dying. I promise you that trans fats will not seem like a significant problem when you’re on death’s door when compared with missed opportunities to take a risk, enjoy a meal and think for yourself instead of swallowing every complaint, hook, line and sinker.Oops! Those sinkers I used to fish with were pure lead. How much sleep do you think I should lose over that?
Bottom line: If you really worry even half as much as you complain, you’ve got a pretty sorry life and really ought to change your attitude.
10
Unfortunately for anyone who thinks hypocrisy can be simply redefined to suit the need of the moment, reality still wins out. The UAW may be a good case in point. If you walk off a cliff you may be OK for a while. But the bottom comes up eventually.
As far as I can see, this election year is the acid test for far left politics. We shall see soon enough whether I’m right or not.
71
I am not redefining hypocrisy. The liberals do not criticize themselves for breaking rules because they don’t have any. But they hold conservatives to the rules conservatives preach. Is it hypocrisy if a Buddist holds a Christian to the rules of Christianity, even though the Buddist’s beliefs are not the same? Is it hypocrisy if an anarchist holds a law-and-order type to the law? No–you are being held to your own standards. I cannot see how holding someone to their own standards is hypocrisy. Now, if you want to talk about the useless Republicans who preach one thing and do another, you would have a point there. Hypocrisy implies the liberals actually have standards when in reality, they don’t want standards and prefer situational ethics over all else. I don’t think it’s right to attribute to liberals something they lack and are proud of it.
Now, if you want to discuss how difficult it is to be the lawful amoung the lawless or what happens if enough people embrace lawlessness, that’s different.
94
You are 100% correct in your explanation of hypocrisy, and the examples you have provided prove that point. Where you are wrong is stating that liberals have no standards. BTW, which definition of liberal are you using? The US kind where it’s equated to communism, or the traditional kind? Of course they both have standards, although they do change from time to time, as do for other political persuasions, be they Marxist, national socialist, etc.. As for “situational ethics” that’s a different matter. That’s more about breaking standards in the name of love. I do not see any political party following that ideology where love is paramount at the expense of all else.
20
The US kind–I should have been more clear. In watching liberalism in the US, I have found no “standards” in any of them. The goal is to get and hold power–to win. They will lie, cheat, steal, threaten or whatever it takes to get power. Even the so-called conservative/republicans in the US have taken this up, threatening and ripping apart the tea party. I am not familiar with situational ethics where it’s about breaking standards in the name of love. My understanding was situational ethics meant every case was different and there is no absolute. This is often seen in politicians, who as senators say “increasing the debt ceiling is immoral and unpatriotic” and as President say “Raise the ceiling or we’ll default and it will be the other party’s fault.” Now that said person is president, the situation is different and the prior rules no longer applies. Society is different, everything is different. Situations change and things that were right can now be wrong and vice-versa. That’s what I meant.
30
“They have no standards. The goal is to get and hold power to win.”
Hang on, you are talking about Republicans aren’t you?
22
Both parties, actually, I believe the US Liberals tried to patent the method, but it seems the US Republicans are holding up the patent process while they cash in on it too.
20
Sheri, and Roy,
Firstly, I am Buddist, and so I respect all philosophies equally, for all are equally valid. This includes both religious and political philosophies.
Having stated that, you seem to be comparing conservative politics to liberal politics, as though they were two diametrically opposed poles.
But doing so leaves no room for the libertarian view of society, in which the rightness or wrongness of a persons actions, is solely determined by their own conscience and personal sense of moral values. For example, when we were presented with the Ten-ten “snuff” movies, I saw evidence of libertarian thought, within the UK conservation movement.
From my viewpoint, Conservatives (Republicans) want a predictable, and well ordered society governed by the rule of law. At the other extreme, Libertarians, want an anarchic, and highly dynamic society (or no real society at all). In the middle, seems to be the liberals (Democrats), who are not really sure what they want, but are prepared to fight the two extremes, in order to get it.
I would be interested if both you and Roy, could comment, especially in terms of Koch, as representing one extreme, and the Unions representing … ?
40
I suppose I leave out libertarian because there are few, so far as I know, true libertarians. Libertarian ideas only work if your population is very disciplined. In most cases, libertarian politics would be equivalent to anarchy if taken to the actual “leave us alone” philosophy. The libertarians I know are for the least amount of government as possible. Democrats, since Johnson, have been for as much of a nanny state as possible. People cannot function with massive government support and regulations. FDR also held this philosophy. Kennedy actually seemed more republican…..Republicans used to be for as few regulations as practicable and letting the free market work. Now they just seem interested in getting re-elected. I have no idea what they stand for, though at this point, it’s looking like they stand for nothing.
I would consider Koch to be libertarian (though I don’t know how much he opposed regulation of his industry) and the Unions represent Democrats. The Unions (or the ones I have been familiar with) argue that workers are helpless on their own against the evil management people and must have someone to represent them or the workers will be taken advantage of. Their theory runs to “people are helpless”. I don’t believe they started out that way–it was necessary at first. Unfortunately, the unions did such a good job they worked themselves out of being needed and have to keep fabricating needs and raising incentives to get people to join. They no longer care about the workers, only about themselves. (Which could make them republican now…..)
It’s very difficult right now to tell what party stands for what. All seem only interested in re-relection and care nothing about fixing problems, representing the people who elect them, etc. Any that do happen to stand up against the current direction are vilified. We seem to have only one party at the moment.
(I used the religious example because I thought it might help. It matters not which religion. It’s holding people to their standards or lack thereof. If you hold all religions equally valid, then you would be held to that ideal. Same for political philosophies.)
40
Thank you sharing that Sheri. I have worked in the States, several times. Well, actually in California and DC, so not quite the real America. But I could never really see a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.
On the West Coast I worked for a guy who was a reformed “Sex, Drugs, and Rock n’ Roll”, type hippy. He claimed to be a Libertarian, but was one of the most moral people I have ever known. He once jokingly said that it was all about self discipline (and never sharing needles). 😉
40
Speaking of politics, i see Italy has its third PM in a row that has not been democratically elected, they do this in Nth Korea but it is called a dictatorship maybe they are right and the globe is weird?
60
A better example using religion would be the Unitarian Church and the Fundamentalist Islamic (the far radical side).
20
If you are for liberal thoughts, then hypocrisy is OK. They shouldn’t complain about conservatives, except that its OK to complain unreasonably if you want to.
What the rest of us that are sitting on the fence should be angry with is the fake indignation. If a liberal (not Liberal in Aus) complains, it should be ignored.
10
US Liberals, yes. Again, you can’t be a hypocrite if you are not preaching one thing and doing another. Libs are not preaching that lying is bad, cheating is wrong, etc. They are saying that conservatives believe these things are wrong and are pointing out that the conservatives are not practicing what they preach.
I agree there is perhaps an element of fake indignation. Perhaps the Libs need to be more precise, saying “you believe in this and don’t follow it”. We don’t believe, so we are not bound by it.
30
Sheri,
As far back as human history goes there is the word hypocrisy. The Greeks had a word for it. It’s mentioned in the Bible.
This from Wiki sums it up nicely.
Liberals, conservatives and everyone else I can think of have done — and still do — this. They may think their cause or position justifies it, they may rationalize it away, they may be President of the United States or senators or street thugs. But whoever they are it’s hypocrisy when they say they do one thing but in fact do another instead.
A liberal trying to hold a conservative to the conservatives standard, for instance, has nothing to do with it. It’s defined solely by the individual’s behavior. It’s a pretty much universal human failing too. Obamacare is a perfect example. The first thing the governing class wanted was no part of what they invented for the rest of us and they tried to get out of it without being caught. And every yes vote on that bill was from someone who more than meets my definition of liberal.
20
And I think we have a misunderstanding. I thought you were saying that liberals are redefining hypocrisy. But not so and I apologize for that.
30
Just to let everyone know, it is getting difficult to keep up with all the press these idiots get.
Senators to Host Climate Change Slumber Party
http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/senators-host-climate-change-slumber-party
A group of U.S. Senators is planning a slumber party to discuss climate change. So, bring your sleeping bags, pillows, and blankets because Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D- Rhode Island) told activists at Organizing for Action that these plans are a go!
And, don’t forget to bring an extra alarm clock for a congressman you think needs to “wake up” to the threat of climate apocalypse:
———–
Some background on Sen. Whitehouse.
http://www.ri.gov/press/view/19491
Deepwater Wind:
http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/13/9421079-who-is-deepwater-wind-secure-our-ports
50
One of the basic rules of medium and long term economics is:
Strong Unions = Weak Economy
Unions support the parties of the left, which are usually economically inept. The unions support those parties because they want something in return, and that is to be left alone to create their own little, but powerful, fiefdoms, without any interference.
And when that happens, economic ruin is not far behind.
Why do unions support ecoloon policies?
Answer: because they can see a bureaucratic boondoggle when they see one and will want to milk it for whatever they can.
111
Really? Strong unions actually need strong businesses. What is really profitable in Australia? Digging things up. And where are the strong unions? In mining.
And which country did best in the GFC? Why that would be Australia, with a lefty government.
But I guess you must be right about something.
22
John Kerry’s speech in Jakarta, of which many here are aware, babbled away in high octane catastrophism. Blame of the nature described in Jo’s post was rife:
Once again, the use of the favourite word ‘big’, a prelude to the introduction of the demon of the moment.
Kerry also stated that those less convinced of the party line were:
He also lied through his teeth, blatantly and agressively:
Despite all the usual flag waving and the predictable attack construct that included the lamentable: “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible,” the article at CNSnews.com ended with a pleasant glimpse of reality:
100
Either John Kerry is lying, or he fervently believes what he is saying. If he believes what he is saying then he has lost the capacity to observe facts and to reason. Maybe that is why he is a Democrat.
121
My bet is that he’s at least in serious doubt about it but sees political advantage in it. After all, he also wanted to be president.
50
PS:
His being a former naval officer does not imply that he has the educational equipment to figure it out for himself.
40
Socialist Democrat.
20
John Kerry flies around the world to “arrive in Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest economy, on Feb. 15 after a day and a half in China, where he won agreement on five joint actions to reduce greenhouse gases.
The speech came against the backdrop of the eruption of the Mount Kelud volcano that disrupted air travel in the region.
. . .
Belief in Man Made Global Warming.
Only logical if you are illogical.
40
Its one set of rules for the already wealthy West and another for the developing world. Kerry couldn’t lay straight in bed. Especially not without his million dollar face lift falling off.
http://slimcelebrity.com/uncategorized/john-kerry-plastic-surgery-before-and-after-photos-botox-face-lift-facial-fillers-brow-lift-and-nose-job/
And as for Obama. I made this little reminder of what sort of person he is.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxUZq-oWGcY2TFZtdjVrMno3SG8/edit?usp=sharing
20
Kerry is just another Muppet following the script he has been told to follow, or else. No different to Short-on-brains here, still pushing the carbon tax despite the clear evidence it will not alter either the local or global temperature one iota. The basic rule politicians often use is flip language and logic on its head, demonise whatever it might be on the daqy as “the bad guys”. If one understood little or nothing about the rigours of science methodology, as opposed to political activism, one could nearly assume he was talking about the charlatans, the alarmists (and other) rent seekers, not the legitimate (and sceptical) side of science. The core principle for understanding politicians: “If his lips move, he’s lying”, clearly applies to Kerry. He has an agenda to try and sell.
Change sceptic to alarmist and he would be correct; the kettle is now calling the pot black. His tactic is create a myth that he is on the “little people’s” side by demonising the “big companies”. If the alleged “big companies” were asked who or what was their core problem, they would probably say big government, in other words Kerry and the rest of the socialists in the bureaucracy.
On the topic of language, I feel it’s important not to use the term “climate change” just because the alarmists do. It’s intention is to divide and confuse: “Do you believe the climate changes”? Obviously yes. “Then do you (also) believe in climate change”? Clearly it’s neither accurate nor descriptive: AGW is the core hypothisis, with DAGW the big scare, and pay tax and other retribution to make it go away is the “fix” to maintain the gravy train. If the fence sitters and ambivalent are to be enlightened, confusion in terminology is of no help. But don’t expect their ABC to be of any help here.
Just imagine the following: If the USA Democrats called their party, “Socialist Democrats”, it would identify their core philosophy, socialism. If the Labor party here was called the Commie Union Party, would it be more descriptive and then how many would vote for them? If the Greens were called “Totalitarian Greens”, would they go the way of the Australian Democrats, into oblivion? Call it what it is, and then others understand the true meaning in the communication.
60
Perhaps poor old John does not understand where is wife’s money come’s from – the Heinz Company “57 Varieties” of ketchup. he probably really is that stupid.
00
That would be the engineers and geoscientists who happened to work in the petroleum industry, wouldn’t it? How very surprising that they would hold “skeptical” views.
11
No more surprising than academics holding a “believer’s” view.
10
Someone needs to tell these guys about George Soros. He is funding socialism around the world.
80
Of course big unions fund Labor and Greens to the hilt at every election in OZ. But ZIP $ to the Coalition.
Meanwhile Dick Warburton isn’t backing down on his scepticism about co2 being the major factor in any ? recent NATURAL climate change.
He is absolutely correct of course , just look at all the recent studies on SLR, bushfires, droughts, floods, polar bears, extreme weather events, global sea ice extent, Greenland 20th century temps, earlier warmer Antarctic climate from 141 to 1250 AD etc.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sceptic_dick_warburton_out_and_proud/
Burchell Wilson head of ACCI has some interesting numbers at this Bolt link about the true cost of our carbon tax madness. I hope Tony from OZ has the time to have a look.
30
Dr Des Moore was a senior treasury officer during the Hawke and Keating Labor government years in Australia, he wrote a book about his experiences (title I cannot recall) including how that government (and all Labor governments federal and state) between 1983 and 1996 made grants to unions amounting to almost $100 million, much of which was returned to the ALP as donations and campaign funding. Moore refers to this a “laundering taxpayer’s monies”.
In those years the Labor government arranged for the Audit Office to move into an ALP owned office building in Canberra with way above market rental and a ratchet clause that increased rent every year with no review to market over 15-years. The rent was higher than the average in Manhattan, New York, USA. The building was sold after the lease period for a substantial profit. In recent years Labor in government moved offices into a union superannuation fund owned building in Sydney.
The Union Labor movement deserves the Royal Commission that will commence soon.
40
Its hardly surprising.
This debate has been based on utter duplicity from the get go. People like Naomi Oreske, the empress of Ad Hom. and Co. do not have a shred of credibility or moral fiber. They present themselves both as the unassailable majority opinion and at the same time as a poor little group of disciples under siege from fossil fueled corporate greed.
What continues to amaze me is that the general public clings on to a 1960s view of how the worlds of politics and business work. “Its the corporations maaaaaaan, they are ruining everything”. This has not been true for at least 20 years. The global era of left leaning Governments (which thankfully seems to be drawing to a close) has made Government and Unions the power brokers of the first part of the 21st century, not business.
Peter Miller
February 18, 2014 at 5:45 am · Reply
One of the basic rules of medium and long term economics is:
“Strong Unions = Weak Economy”
And we see the results in the global economy. 10+ years of backwards basically.
I have had a bit of a saying (its mine you can use it) for about 10 years now and please keep in mind this is coming from someone who regards unions as essential. “The greatest achievement of modern Australian unionism has been to price their own members out of the market” SG66 2001…. lol quoting myself.
Paul Howes, who I until redcently had very little time or resp[ect for has had a lightbulb moment on this front. He has realised that if you get everything you want as a union, you also get unemployment along with it. His recent speech to the NPC showed great maturity and common sense. The fact that the rest of Australias union bosses immediately denounced him as a heretic says stronger than anything that hes on the right track.
“Why are our key industries in the doldrums?
Why can’t we be at the top, with other wealthy nations?
Some will tell you that our industrial relations system is dragging us down.
And I won’t be popular amongst my friends in the labour movement for saying this – but I agree.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/paul-howes-speech-to-the-national-press-club-20140206-322hv.html#ixzz2tcamq4a1
50
I apologies for my lateness with update III from ground zero but you must understand it is chaos here.
Despite the fact that this was the wettest day since 1969 and the fifth wettest February on record many scientists viewed this event as weird therefore officially throwing their support behind the new name change for the theory “global weirding”
This of course makes sense because whenever the latest theory is replaced with a new one you need to give it a new name.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australias-rural-towns-cop-a-drenching-after-adelaides-wettest-day-in-45-years/story-fni6uo1m-1226825879645
As any journo knows you need to do due dilligence, i tried to check the historical weather and compare it to this years but alas the only records i could find dated back to 1977 because this is when Kent town began operation it is as if prior to 1977 had been stricken from the record.
Any info dating back further would be appreciated
Cheers
30
Wettest day in 45 years.. :lol
Do they listen to themselves?
Its all happened before.
It is not weird. !
70
Yeah spot on Griss.
If it was 46 years… well that would be different lol
But seriously. The 1898 record was the funniest one. It was one of the coolest years on record globally and a year when Adelaide set its hottest consecutive days record. The planet had extremes with around half the CO2 in the atmosphere we have today.
Move along folks…. nothing to see here.
50
Delingpole lists the 10 lefty lies about the recent floods in the UK.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Lefty-Lies-UK-Floods
50
Delingpole is back! Hooray. Just a change of jobs and pay, that all.
40
Steve McIntyre has a fresh look at the Mann HS fraud. He notes in the comments he has already had a meeting with Steyn and his Lawyers in the US.
Things are starting to warm up.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/#more-18874
50
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/ret-reviewer-dick-warburton-im-not-a-climate-sceptic/story-e6frg6xf-1226829905020#
The ABC interviewed Dick this morning. No not Tim Flannery, Richard Warburton. Dick, not “the” Dick.
ABC focused of course on 10 minutes worth of trying to trick him into saying something controversial about his ability to think objectively on the RET target.
I mean FFS, would they have asked Flannelbrain if he was going to think independently if he was running the RET review? Of course not because to the ABC “independent” means agreeing with the ABC left green agenda. Your only not independent if you have another view.
Dick (Warburton not Flannery) to his credit stated that he certainly believes in climate change, but is skeptical of the part man made CO2 plays in warming the planet. The interviewer was clearly having a conniption, but he held firm. Its worth a listen if you come across it.
20
Radio interview I should have added.
10
Dick Warburton to review the MRET. Gee, I wonder what result the government is hoping for?
00
2012: Tim Flannery to head the Climate Commission. Gee I wonder what “advice” the government is hoping for?
Let’s just say one of these guys has been appointed because he knows what he’s doing, and the other was already known to be an activist who got his predictions wrong.
40
There is quite a parallel in the current paradigm of the man made catastrophic climate meme to that of many similar ideologically motivated catastrophe predicting movements of past history.
Down through history they all have the very similar theme that man is evil and will destroy all that is good and just if he is allowed to continue his disastrous ways and unless he is forced to follow the dictates of those who believe in and promote these self flagellating ideologies.
In all most every case with these do-gooder promoted catastrophe predicting and idealistic, impractical ideologies and belief systems, the carpet baggers soon move in and the movement becomes self serving, self indulgent and increasingly distant from it’s original purpose.
It ultimately becomes increasingly corrupt until a breaking point is reached and society and the political process under intense pressure circumscribes the entire movement which without its very reason to exist anymore and as the fatigue of those promoting the movement thins their numbers the entire rational for maintaining the fiction that supports the movement and what it represented just disappears. To become nothing more than another footnote in history exemplifying all over again the stupidity and ultimately the complete gullibility of a most of the populace who believed and were led to believe in the infallibility of both the catastrophe predicting ideology and those who led it.
With the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate catastrophe/ extreme weather meme we, the skeptics, wave our arms around and shout out in frustration that despite all the evidence to the contrary and total lack of substantiated evidence demonstrating any such catastrophic climate trends, so many still believe the hype of the evilility of mankind in the way we as a species are claimed to be destroying the very world we live on.
It is a theme and a meme that is one of the fundamental underpinnings of just about every similar end of times, catastrophe predicting ideology of past history .
In modern times just go and read the history of alcohol prohibition movement that was to be, according to the promoters of prohibition, the ultimate solution to the instinctive inbuilt depravity of all of mankind.
This is a similar thread to that of the global warming catastrophe belief which runs right through the prohibition themes where all will be corrected that is wrong with the world if only all opposition to alcohol [ climate action ] was suppressed and the strong highly censorious actions against the entire alcohol industry / skeptics of the global warming meme demanded by the promoters of the prohibition / global climate action were immediately implemented.
There is the same authoritarian / dictatorial streak running through each and every one of these movements.
After Prohibition and despite it’s total failure to achieve any of the goals it claimed to be aimed at and instead the creation of immense corruption of the entire government, political. legal and business sectors of the societies who adopted prohibition, a new even more straitjacketed ideology arose and that was National Socialism which was based on the belief in the total superiority of the Aryan races to all other races and the ideology that the world’s troubles would be for ever corrected and solved if the Aryans were allowed to govern as the supreme race on this planet.
We know well where that led to and what it cost in human lives , some estimated 70 millions in a world that had less than half the global population of today.
WW2 intervened and gave the populace a focus that if they lost it would mean the end for them as both individuals and as a society.
When the great global conflict was over, a new ideology appeared in the late 1950’s and it had all the hall marks of all those other past violent catastrophe predicting ideologies along with the at times casual violence and threats to individuals and society unless the demands of the anti bomb, anti war ideologists were met without question. That was the “ban the bomb movement” and the rise of the anti war movement which despite it’s claims to be a peace loving movement often resorted to violence to achieve it’s aims.
The ban the bomb and anti war movement morthed seamlessly into the so called Green movement of the late 1960’s again with the same identical themes of the sheer utter evil of mankind and his role in the destruction of the planet which could only be saved by following the dictates of the professed nature loving, often violent green movement ideology
The green movement was dying in the 1980’s as corruption and and assorted and increasingly corrupt carpet baggers [ carpet baggers; a term of total contempt ;The northerners who after the end of the American Civil War went south with the intent of exploiting the defeated southerners. They generally carried their possesions in cheap bags made out of carpet ] took advantage of the changes that the governments had made to accommodate the ideologically based frenzies of the greens.
But the slowly dying now political and increasingly irrelevant green movement was saved but in a far more ideologically and politically based form that was and is highly exploitive of the it’s position and power and of the concessions that had been made to it by governments and the populace when the predictions of future Catastrophic climate and it’s supporting ideology appeared on the scene with Hansens quite corrupt presentation to the American Congressional committee in 1988.
It seems that it is something inherent in human psychology that we as a species have to have some ever changing, ever present predicted disaster hanging over our species for reasons I have yet to quite fathom.
As with the global warming catastrophic climate meme and based on past history, the catastrophe ideologists in their twisted mind warping belief systems are incapable of rationally thinking through their belief systems and will never change except in the focus of the predicted catastrophic disaster which was according to them as always, created solely by mankind alone.
Nothing has changed and given human nature, I doubt very much whether it ever will.
80
Well done ROM, excellent piece.
Your writing goes to the heart of the nonsense spouted by Kerry during the week. Likening AGW to terrorism and WMDs was a masterstroke of personal foot ballistics for Kerry. His attempt to seize control of the economies of developing nations under the guise of moral high ground was disgraceful and disingenuous. As you correctly point out, every movement who espouses their deep knowledge of what ails mankind and how only their ideology can fix it is nothing new in the context of the CAGW debate.
Comparing AGW to terrorism is brilliant actually because it serves only to undermine the catastrophic predictions of the alarmists. We are told by the deep greens all the time that the likely outcome of going over 400ppm CO2 is global extinction. However terrorism is responsible for only thousands of deaths world wide, not billions and depending on which end of the sword you happen to be on, you may be a freedom fighter, not a terrorist at all. Lets face it the MSM was quite happy back in the day, to portray Mandela as a terrorist when it suited them. As for the USA and terrorism, the actual numbers show that Americans are at a far greater risk of suicide than they are terrorism on their own soil.
“Suicide is a major, preventable public health problem. In 2007, it was the tenth leading cause of death in the U.S., accounting for 34,598 deaths.1 The overall rate was 11.3 suicide deaths per 100,000 people.1 An estimated 11 attempted suicides occur per every suicide death.1”
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror-rate.html
Then on the topic of WMDs, well if anyone would know about slaughtering innocents with weapons of mass destruction, it would be John Kerry. The USA has easily been the biggest user and abuser of WMD’s in recorded history. Only one nation has used nuclear weapons on another sovereign nation and they did it twice, with even the most hardened patriots agreeing, the second bomb was utterly unnecessary. Additionally the numbers of civilians killed by the USA using conventional arms in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, dwarfs the number of people killed by so called insurgents during the same periods.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-killings-of-innocent-civilians-in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/31395
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
America is a nation of obese morons, hypocrites and nationalistic ideologues with a culture so fundamentally broken they have the highest rates of incarceration both in terms of total numbers and percentage of population in the world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/incarceration-rate-per-capita_n_3745291.html
If there was one country on the planet you would not want crusading around the globe enforcing its culture on others by means of arms, its the USA. Yet here they go again on the topic of AGW. How long before we see them proposing armed interventions into 3rd world countries to stop pollution? If history is any guide they will find an excuse to belligerently attack someone within the next few years, maybe AGW will be part or all of that trigger. The one thing that s certain is the USA knows whats best for everyone and like any garden variety lefty intellectual, they are prepared to attack and kill you to prove it.
50
SG66 – Don’t sugar it up … give it to us straight!
20
so far, no transcript.
u gotta realise – Warburton is sceptical of “climate”, simple as that! and Warburton’s appointment is “controversial” … according to the ABC, that is:
18 Feb: ABC Breakfast: Climate sceptic to review renewable energy target
The Federal Government has released the Terms of Reference for its review of the ‘Renewable Energy Target’, which aims to provide a financial incentive in renewable energy sources.
The Howard government introduced the target, which Kevin Rudd then expanded, now requiring that 45,000 gigawatt hours of energy by sourced from renewables by 2020.
A review will examine the target’s effectiveness in reducing emissions, along with its costs and benefits.
In a controversial move, the panel will be headed by business leader Dick Warburton, who is a self proclaimed climate sceptic.
Guest:
John Grimes
Chief Executive, Australian Solar Council
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/climate-sceptic-to-review-renewable-energy-target/5266262
Grimes makes some extraordinary claims, which Fran accepts unquestioningly, and which TonyfromOz needs to critique…please.
10
As I mentioned above. If it was Flannery doing the review there would be no question about his ability to act objectively. The ABC continues to nail its colours to the mast of a leaky boat.
30
Thanks pat.
Near the end of this interview, this booster for the solar industry (nothing else can be said about him) says that in the recent heat wave, they did some, and how I hate this word ….. modelling and they found that solar power was doing the heavy lifting for the power industry.
WTF!
He’s talking here about rooftop solar because the commercial solar power plants here in Oz supply just on 0.005% of all power being consumed.
So then, at the absolute best, with every panel generating 100% with the Sun shining directly on them, then rooftop solar is generating around 800MW of power. The average size of all installations is 2.1KW. Half the power being actually generated is being consumed by the residence itself, so that means around 400MW is being fed back to the grids.
Total consumption at the Peak of the heat wave was around 32,000MW.
So, 800MW of 34,000MW comes in at 2.35% ….. and that’s at the absolute zenith of bright clear daylight, and barely for one hour, as any time after that power just drops right away.
If that’s heavy lifting, this guy needs a new truck!
What this guy says is so full of holes, I wouldn’t know where to start.
Tony.
40
I hit the Post Comment button too early in my astonishment at what this person says.
Here you need to realise that all the power being generated is being consumed, half by the residence and half returned to the grid.
So, that makes that 2.35% overall, but the power being returned to the grid for other consumption comes in at only half of that, hence 1.7% of all power.
Grid controllers would not even notice that.
Tony.
31
Tony,
Actually the 2.35% number is relevant because although only 1.7% is going back into the grid, the other 1.7% is power not being drawn from the grid.
00
Roy Spencer asks how much of our weather is caused by AGW? His answer is about one part in 1000. That’s 1/1000th or 0.001.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/how-much-weather-is-being-caused-by-climate-change-maybe-1-part-in-1000/#comments
But Obama’s pseudo science ?????? advisor now thinks nearly all weather is due to humans.
10
1 too many nights watching B Grade movies methinks.
http://io9.com/5815423/10-villains-who-used-bad-weather-as-a-weapon
00
**** NEWS FLASH ****
Craig Thomson found guilty of Fraudulent use of UnionCredit cards for prostitutes.
Let’s hope the sentence is harsh enough to deeter other white collar crims.
Now can we please have a public naming of each and every person who claimed that he was being smeared and that the whole thing was a beatup please?
20
And a commission of inquiry explaining exactly why it has taken son long for him to be brought before the courts – naming the individuals who helped to exacerbate this delay.
30
link dead.
00
New Link Here
20
Let’s let this settle in a little bit shall we?
The previous Labor Government was opnly able to be in power with the help of a known criminal who appears to have been protected by the Government.
The Carbon Tax was only able to be passed with the help of a known criminal who appears to have been protected by the ALP
30
Interesting….
NineMSN have a softly softly approach to Thomson – writing things in a way that almost suggests he is innoccent(ish).
News.com.au are a bit more to the point
40
Its a good point. The tax was based on a lie and enacted by a criminal conspiracy. Why doesn’t that surprise me.
30
Can’t be long before the progressive liberals seek to repeal the First Amendment since absolutely any dissent from their doctrine is so incredibly evil. To protect the children and all that…
20
The Koch families have given millions to the arts and medicine, including (among many) Lincoln Center and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
They have created wealth for many hundreds of people and those people, too, have given to education, arts, science, medicine, . . . Taxes are paid all along the way, several times.
These people create, unlike progressives that take.
Who do you respect?
20
OT. . .
Please, you have to go read this link. Its a discussion on Bill Nye’s ‘debate’ on CBS.
The comments are just frustrating!
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/02/watch-bill-nye-debate-climate-change-with-a-republican/
00
Yeah there is a bunch of people that would do the skeptic cause a favour by just shutting the hell up.
20
What did I say?
00
It seems to me that after helping Obama into power as the First non-white President, they have discovered what a terrible mistake it was, which has led to them trying to limit the damage.
10
SERIOUSLY: Dick Warburton or the Govt needs to DEMAND ABC alter the headline of it’s interview with the Solar Council guy this morning on ABC Breakfast, for which there is still no transcript. how on earth could Alan Jones be found guilty of “breaching the commercial radio code of practice by making unsubstantiated comments” if ABC can describe Warburton in its headline as a “CLIMATE SCEPTIC”? are there different standards for taxpayer-funded media?
this 56 second piece, which was broadcast just minutes prior to the Solar Guy piece, with Wayne Swan boasting about Labor’s economic legacy, has no interruptions whatsoever except for a female voice about a second before it ends (listen as the female whispers “okay”), plus Matt O’Neill has already turned it into an article.
of course, after demanding non-partisanship from the Coalition Govt, Swan spends the whole 56 seconds of audio provided being partisan.
18 Feb: ABC Breakfast: Former treasurer Wayne Swan defends Labor’s economic legacy
Wayne Swan has issued a plea to Tony Abbott to avoid partisan politics during this weekend’s G20 Summit in Sydney. The former federal treasurer also defended Labor’s economic legacy and hit out at the government’s ‘fiscal fear mongering’, writes Matt O’Neil.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/wayne-swan/5266158
Fairfax has it twice, once as an AAP piece with the headline:
SMH: AAP: Avoid politics during G20, Swan says
18 Feb – 10.02am
pumped up by Matthew two minutes later:
18 Feb 10.04am: SMH: Matthew Knott: Tony Abbott must achieve ‘concrete results’ or risk losing G20 influence, says Wayne Swan
”The G20 simply can’t afford to have an average outcome at this meeting because there are many sceptics and if the G20 loses its way we will be back to the G7, G8 or G10 and you can be sure Australia won’t be at the table in that arrangement,” Mr Swan told ABC radio on Tuesday morning…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-must-achieve-concrete-results-or-risk-losing-g20-influence-says-wayne-swan-20140218-32×34.html
News Ltd runs the AAP piece:
18 Feb: News Ltd: Avoid politics during G20, Swan says
“I saw this happen when the French were in the chair (with President) Sarkozy, some years ago, and it really tarnished the credibility of the G20, both at a finance level and leadership meeting,” the Labor backbencher told ABC Radio on Tuesday…
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/avoid-politics-during-g20-swan-says/story-e6frfku9-1226830153304
00
18 Feb: Queensland Times: APN: Qld welcomes shake-up in energy market as costs soar
THE Queensland government has welcomed plans by Tony Abbott to review Australia’s Renewable Energy Target, saying it was increasing average bills by more than $81 a year.
Energy and Water Supply Minister Mark McArdle said the days of Queenslanders subsidising energy sources that were not commercially viable should be declared over by the expert panel.
“Unfortunately the RET is increasing Queenslanders electricity bills by $81.24 per year,” the Sunshine Coast MP said.
“This is an unnecessary addition to the cost of living and along with the solar bonus scheme will increase bills by $276 this year…
Mr McArdle said renewable energy was important, but the challenge was making it cheap enough to compete with traditional forms of electricity.
He said he also hoped the expert panel would take into account the recent experience during the heatwave in Victoria where the contribution of renewable energy during the peak usage periods was very unreliable.
“This calls into account the usefulness of subsidising renewable sources of energy when they cannot be relied on, for day to day peak periods or on those really hot days when the electricity network is being stretched,” he said.
Mr McArdle said the Queensland Government would be making a submission to the RET Review…
http://www.qt.com.au/news/qld-welcomes-shake-energy-market-costs-soar/2173406/
the 13 comments are almost entirely CAGW zealots who don’t want to reduce their electricity bills!
10
As has no doubt been repeatedly pointed out where the so called smart meters are installed and as the smart meters are monitored centrally and probably have the ability somewhere in their programming to cut and / or reconnect power to an establishment if that smart meter facility was enabled, it would be relatively easy to put all those who want only renewable energy onto a program where if the renewable energy sources are not producing the demanded power the renewable output could be rationed amongst the renewable energy demanding only customers through the smart meter facility from the central dispatch point.
The constant mantra from government and business is that customers have be given a choice which in the case of power, that choice of generators or the form of power generation choice is blatantly and openly denied to customers by government mandated legislation which the voters and the power customers have never been allowed to or given the chance to express their support or otherwise for such a nefarious anti customer choice policies by the political establishment and the powerful, influential and wealthy renewable energy vested interests whose sole object is to maximise their profits in defiance of and regardless of the wishes of the customers.
In Victoria with it’s installed smart meters it would be probably be quite easy to legislate to give customers this choice of generators or the method of power generation and control and if necessary due to circumstances to ration the power amongst those who have chosen a certain generator or method of power generation through the central control of the smart meter system .
Of course to establish some stability in the system once a customer has made a choice of generator or method of generation for his / her future power demands, no change in generators would be allowed for say two years.
There is no discrimination to any customer by doing this and in fact it encourages efficiency and reduction of costs as well as giving the customer a choice, something that every business is supposed to adhere too in our capitalistic economy except the renewable energy industry where gross discrimination against the customer’s choice of power generators is mandated into legislation by governments solely to protect the profits of the renewable energy industry.
Nobody else ‘s interests including the highly reliable high efficiency conventional power generators let alone the interests of the public, industry and commerce are catered for at all under the present highly discriminatory government mandated anti customer choice of generator energy regime.
All made much worse by the total lack of any evidence at all that despite the immense public tax payer sums plus the blatantly inflated energy costs all splurged on the renewable energy industry,there is not the slightest provable evidence that the advent of the grossly inefficient renewable energy industry has made even the slightest perceivable difference to the so called CO2 emissions in any country it has been established.
Its legacy is almost entirely negative created by massively increased energy costs to the public industry and commerce , in the consequent job losses in a significant number of energy intensive industries with more job losses to follow we are told, with the greatly increased transfer of wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest through increased power prices, with a significant increase in suffering amongst the most financially vulnerable ; ie Eat or Heat but not being able to afford to do both which is quite a hidden problem even in Australia when I have looked at the social servicing sector data during my time on the WZ forum Alternative Energy Scam thread.
Giving customers such a choice would very soon sort out just how valuable the reliability and costs and the so called emmissions of the various power generation systems are regarded by customers and it would give the politicals a very dramatic indication of the power policies they should follow in the future if they genuinely paid respect to the wishes of their voters.
In short the politiicals could point out that in giving customers such a choice of generators and methods of power generation they might choose from , they, the politicals would be doing nothing more that again implementing the basic underlying themes of a capitalistic, customer orientated economic system that we all supposedly subscribe too.
The politicals would be just allowing the power generators to meet the market in all it’s forms as it was demanded by their customers,
If only some Australian politicians had the cojones to take this simple action. the world would sit up in outright disbelief and would once again applaud the cojones of the Australians for having the internal fortutude to take on the highly corrupt insatiably greedy vested interests that infest the renewable and green energy industries.
There is so much more that is totally negative and almost nothing that can be called positive about the so called renewable energies of solar and wind which the very switched on denizens of Jo’s blog are only too well aware of so I will leave it there.
10
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/secretary-state-kerry-lashes-out-at-climate-change-skeptics/
Its official we are all part of the “flat earth” club, do you think he sees the irony? What if i explained to this moron that the people he relies upon to tell him just how hot it is divides the world up into little tiny flat squares to work it?
20
Damn for got the word “out” on the end
20
And then i left a space in forgot…………….
20
speaking of accuracy at the abc.
it isn’t possible to find a podcast of the “Issue of the Day” hour from Tony Delroy’s ABC program Nightlife last nite, but i heard much of it and it would appear the topic was the RET review.
as with other times i’ve hear Delroy use this hour to push CAGW, Delroy’s & the callers’ ignorance knows no bounds. the callers can say absolutely anything, without fear of being called out by him, & Delroy throws in the population stuff, sounding concerned about how “we” are going to feed the world as the population explodes exponentially (as if Delroy would be producing the necessary food?), how 95% of scientists agree CAGW is real, how we’re living through “tumultuous” weather & so on.
callers praise Hansen, call CAGW sceptics deniers, etc. there’s even a guy who phones regularly, who said on a previous program, give him six months & some money & he’ll invent the perfect electric car for the outback because the car is destroying the country. nothing is considered silly enough to warrant a giggle, such is the seriousness of voice Delroy uses when the topic is CAGW.
a few callers last nitet tried to bring some reason to the debate, but his listeners almost to a man/woman, like to IDENTIFY with their ABC presenters & go right along with the madness.
10
I subscribe to a few different sites and newsletters to “keep an eye on the inmates” basically. This one just came in.
Lindsay, 100% Renewable [email protected] via email.nationbuilder.com
14:18 (1 hour ago)
to me
Dear SG66 —
Yesterday, Ministers Hunt and Macfarlane announced the terms of the renewable energy target (RET) review. It’s as bad as we thought – including a self-proclaimed climate sceptic Dick Warburton chairing the panel. As the ABC reported:*
“[The review] will feed into the Energy White Paper process, and a senior Liberal has told the ABC it will provide the Government “cover” for ‘let’s kill the RET’.”
In their press conference yesterday, Hunt and Macfarlane proudly unveiled the RET panel. Not only is the panel led by a climate sceptic, but it features three other members – all of whom are ingrained in the traditional, fossil fuel energy system with little impetus to ensure a renewable future.**
It’s clear that the only voices being heard now are those of the big energy companies. They’re trying to stack the review against us – but they’re forgetting the power we have when we use our voices to stand together. Take 5 minutes today to show your power by contacting your local Coalition MP and telling them you support more renewables – including an expanded and extended the RET. If you don’t have a Coalition MP, contact your local Coalition Senator, instead.
It’s been reported that Abbott is facing internal pressure to scrap the RET* – including from Liberal and National MPs. But, these MPs haven’t heard from us; they’ve only heard from big energy companies. We know that if enough local MPs hear from us, they’ll have to take it up with the Prime Minister himself – and then Abbott will be facing a different kind of pressure – people pressure.
Help us use people pressure to ensure a strong RET – contact your local Coalition MP today and let them know you support renewables and a stronger RET.
We know that Australians overwhelmingly support more renewables. We know that the RET has ensured that over 1 million homes in Australia have solar, and it’s diversified our electricity mix with clean energy through wind and solar. But, this has led to a reduction in power consumption, which scares big energy companies – who profit greatly from our traditional energy paradigm. That’s why we need to take a stand today – to show that we want more renewables, and it’s the big energy companies that need to change, not our renewable target.
Thanks,
Lindsay,
National Director, 100% Renewable
PS – Need some points on the RET? Here are the facts on the RET:
The RET is bringing jobs and investment to Australia. The Renewable Energy Target has already attracted $18.5 billion in new investment to Australia, with the potential for $18.7 billion more if the government leaves the scheme alone – creating 30,000 new jobs along the way – many of them in regional and rural areas.***
The RET costs on average $1 a week, whereas over spending on network poles and wires and traditional energy costs families around $32 a week.**** So, why aren’t you focusing on the solving the real reasons behind power price rises?
The RET panel is made up of representatives that are deeply engrossed in the traditional fossil-fuel economy and not known supporters of renewables. Why is the board not representative of the voices of the Australian community, who want more renewables?
Over 130 countries around the world now have domestic policies in place to encourage renewable energy investment. Why would Australia change a policy that’s working and makes us reputable on the international stage?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-17/government-to-review-renewable-energy-target/5265044
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australia-chooses-climate-change-denier-to-head-renewables-review-65883
https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/policy-advocacy/renewable-energy-target/why-we-need-the-renewable-energy-target.html
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/ret-review-should-keep-a-focus-on-pollution-reduction-and-investment-benefits.html
Again the staggering hide of these people never cease to bore me witless. If it was a warmist conducting the review all would be right with the world. The propensity for objectivity it seems depends entirely on which side of the debate you are on. If your a disciple then your objective. If your a skeptic, your partisan.
Heres a thought…. Warmists had their moment in the sun, it lasted 10 long years and nearly crippled our economy. Now, guess what, no one cares what you think anymore.
30
Not allowed to swear here but if Abbot can pull it off it couldn’t have happened to a better bunch of thieving, lying bull sh****g B’s
20
Napthine/Hunt/Turnbull? can you tell them apart?
18 Feb: SMH: James Massola: Alcoa denies carbon price to blame for decision to shut its Point Henry aluminium smelter
VIDEO CAPTION: Alcoa not victim of carbon tax, says Labor
Labor senator Louise Pratt has rejected claims that the carbon tax is to blame for the Alcoa aluminium smelter closure and the loss of 1000 jobs.
Aluminium manufacturer Alcoa says the carbon price was not to blame for its decision to shut its Point Henry smelter in Victoria, distancing itself from federal government claims the tax had hurt the business.
In a statement, a company spokeswoman confirmed “the carbon tax was not a factor in the decision to close Point Henry smelter or the rolled products business”.
Announcing the review in 2012, Alcoa managing director Alan Cransberg said the tax would increase pressure on the company’s operations in Port Henry but said the review had not been prompted by the tax.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten called on the Abbott government to roll out a financial assistance package for Alcoa workers…
Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine appeared to take a swipe at his federal counterparts during an interview with Fairfax Radio 3AW about the financial ”kicking” Victoria had taken in recent months, including the Victorian bushfires and the closure of Toyota and Ford.
”There has been some tough issues – whether the fires, the decision by Toyota – but I am pleased to say that where we have been able to get involved, where we have been able to have direct negotiations with a company, like SPC-Ardmona, we have been able to deliver the goods,” he said…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcoa-denies-carbon-price-to-blame-for-decision-to-shut-its-point-henry-aluminium-smelter-20140218-32×91.html
from Bolt’s blog:
Treasury three years ago modelled the effects of the Gillard Government’s “Strong Growth, Low Pollution” policies – including the carbon tax – and found the aluminium industry’s output would fall by two thirds by 2050
http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/update/downloads/Modelling_update.pdf
at least RenewEconomy isn’t afraid to celebrate, & gives plenty of space to a non-profit, no doubt tax-exempt Environment Vic spokesperson:
18 Feb: RenewEconomy: Sophie Vorrath: Alcoa plant closure delivers another blow to coal power industry
The Geelong smelter will now close in August and the rolling mills by the end of the year.
The company said that a two-year review of the 50 year-old Port Henry plant found it had become unprofitable due to “a combination of factors,” including metal prices, input costs and exchange rates…
“As a very large user of electricity, Point Henry’s closure will also have ripple effects across Victoria’s electricity industry,” said Environment Victoria’s Mark Wakeham in a statement on Tuesday.
Aluminium smelting is is one of Australia’s biggest energy consumers, using a total of around 15 per cent of Australia’s overall electricity supply. And at 10 around per cent of Australia’s smelting capacity, Point Henry is one of Victoria’s biggest consumers of brown-coal-fired electricity – around 40 per cent of which is supplied by the Alcoa’s purpose-built Anglesea coal mine and power station.
“Point Henry has an average demand of 360MW of electricity, equivalent to one-quarter of Hazelwood power station’s output,” said Wakeham…
“It is highly likely that existing coal-fired generation at Anglesea or at Yallourn or Hazelwood will be mothballed or retired as a result of Alcoa’s decision, despite Alcoa’s stated intent to try and find a buyer for the Anglesea mine and power station.”…
Controversially, Victorian taxpayers subsidised the state’s aluminium smelters for a long time, after the Cain government finalised a deal with Alcoa in the mid-1980s to build and operate the Portland plant. In 2009, research by The Age found that the eventual cost of subsidies could be more than $4.5 billion by the time the contracts were to expire in 2014 and 2016.
In 2010, Alcoa signed long-term electricity contracts with Australia’s largest electricity generator, Loy Yang Power, to supply the smelters at Portland and Point Henry until 2036. And while the deal reassured the unions – and enraged environmentalists – at the time, it has does nothing to prolong the life of the smelter.
More recently, Coalition governments have blamed the carbon price for Alcoa’s financial woes, but Alcoa itself has denied this, with a company spokeswoman confirming in a statement today that “the carbon tax was not a factor in the decision to close Point Henry smelter or the rolled products business”.
As Wakeham notes, Alcoa has instead done quite well since the carbon tax was introduced, receiving free permits for 94.5 per cent of their emissions – a package worth $1.7 billion over five years. And in 2012 Alcoa received a further $40 million assistance package from the federal government…
And it’s not just in Australia that Alcoa is struggling with cheap power supply. In Canada, it was reported in October last year that the company could be forced to close all three of its smelters in the province of Quebec, with electricity supply cost for the plants expected to jump 60 per cent.
As in Australia, the power Alcoa had been receiving in Quebec had been supplied at a discount price. But as of January 1, 2015, the annual electricity bill will go up from $C350 million to $C570 million…
In Australia, says Wakeham, the challenge for governments “is to develop a jobs agenda and plan that looks forward to the industries of the future rather” than stranding industries through policy that ignores the direction in which the world is headed.
“The rapid loss of manufacturing jobs requires a change in direction and a rethink,” Wakeham said. “Why isn’t Victoria protecting and pursuing jobs in solar water heating in factories in the south-eastern suburbs, or wind tower manufacturing in Portland, instead of attempting to develop new polluting brown coal mines?”
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/alcoa-plant-closure-delivers-another-blow-to-coal-power-industry-77925
00
24 Jan, 2013:
Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science
“A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate “counter movement” to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.”
. . .
Sounds like conspiracy ideation.
00
That would conspiracy ideation all right! I must add that if people actually know about this, rather than just supposing it must exist, then it’s not really very secret, is it?
00
17 Feb: Reuters: James Regan: UPDATE 2-Alcoa to close Australian smelter as aluminium markets reel
Underscores pressure on producers to control costs
Will bring total Alcoa capacity cuts to 551,000 tonnes
Output by Chinese producers growing
Australia was once one of the world’s biggest aluminium producing countries but has slipped to fifth as costs of production climbed and prices dropped.
Point Henry’s closure in August will eliminate around 190,000 tonnes of annual aluminium-making capacity, equal to about 10 percent of Australia’s total yearly output…
“These assets are no longer competitive and are not financially sustainable today or into the future,” Alcoa Chief Executive Klaus Kleinfeld said…
“The global oversupply of aluminium has devastated our industry,” said Paul Howes, national secretary for the Australian Workers Union, adding the union tried in vain to save nearly 1,000 jobs set to be lost at the smelter.
Goldman Sachs recently lowered its 2014 forecast for aluminium prices by 3 percent to $1,700 a tonne. — the lowest since July 2009…
At Rio’s Bell Bay smelter in the Australian island of Tasmania, union workers have agreed to forego guaranteed pay increases in exchange for greater job security.
In August, Rio Tinto accepted a NZ$30 million ($25.07 million) subsidy from the New Zealand government to help keep its Tiwai Point smelter afloat…
Russia’s Rusal, the world’s biggest aluminium producer, estimates that producers outside of China eliminated up to 1.2 million tonnes of capacity last year and further reductions of 1 million-1.5 million tonnes are expected in 2014.
For its part, Rusal cut production by 325,000 tonnes in 2013 and it plans to remove a further 325,000 tonnes in 2014.
While Alcoa and other established producers shutter old facilities that can no longer compete, China’s aluminium industry is growing.
China’s production is estimated to have increased by around six percent to 21.5 million tonnes last year alone…
Lower energy costs have encouraged higher output at smelters in China’s northwest provinces as well as restarts in the heavily industrialised provinces of Guangxi and Sichuan.
???These production increases are aimed at offsetting capacity cuts at out-dated and inefficient operations, as the government strives to achieve emissions and sustainable growth targets outlined in its 12th Five-Year Plan…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/alcoa-smelter-idUSL2N0LM12220140218
???growth in China means they are reducing emissions; nice little CAGW propaganda para, Reuters.
00
the union will still look for extra payments while ABC sounds like they are trying to incite strikes at other facilities!
18 Feb: ABC The World Today: Alcoa to sack almost 1000 workers in Victoria and New South Wales
ALAN CRANSBERG: Our operations in Western Australia are amongst the best in the world and we will do all we can to ensure that our remaining facilities, including the Portland smelter will survive this downturn and remain sustainable into the future.
PAT MCGRATH: The Geelong operation sources its electricity from Alcoa’s Anglesea coal mine and power station, further west on the Victorian coast.
Those power assets are now being put on the market.
The Australian Workers Union Victorian secretary Ben Davis says Alcoa’s employees have redundancy entitlements included in their enterprise agreements.
BEN DAVIS: Oh we’ll be obviously seeking to talk to Alcoa about additional entitlements given that the place is closing.
PAT MCGRATH: What kind of entitlements will you be seeking now that it is closing?
BEN DAVIS: Oh, well I’m not going to negotiate via the media with respect but it was never contemplated when those packages were negotiated originally that the workplace would actually be closing.
PAT MCGRATH: Ben Davis believes labour costs played no role in Alcoa’s decision.
BEN DAVIS: If the workforce here were working for free, they weren’t paid at all, then Alcoa Point Henry would still be running at a loss. This is about much bigger factors than government assistance or wages and conditions. This is about the high Australian dollar, a global over supply of aluminium and historically low international prices, throwing that in as well…
PAT MCGRATH: Now the AWU represents workers at other smelters and other Alcoa operations around the country, will this provoke some industrial action if your demands for additional entitlement for these workers aren’t met by Alcoa?
BEN DAVIS: No, I don’t think it’ll get to that.
PAT MCGRATH: Why not?
BEN DAVIS: Because the aluminium industry across the country is struggling and we will resolve our own issues here locally…
There are also doubts about the future of Shell’s refinery in Geelong, which has been on the market since last year…
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3947024.htm
reality setting in in Tassie:
18 Feb: ABC The World Today: New agreement designed to save jobs at Tas aluminium smelter
FELICITY OGILVIE: More than 500 people are employed at the aluminium smelter and almost as many have indirect jobs thanks to the plant but with aluminium production in Australia under financial pressure, the Australian Workers Union has negotiated an agreement with Rio Tinto that will see workers forego guaranteed annual pay rises.
The national secretary of the Australian Worker’s Union is Paul Howes.
PAUL HOWES: In the long term we still believe that the workers at Bell Bay should be paid the same as their mainland counterparts but the reality is since we started that campaign over four years ago, the price of aluminium has continued to collapse on the London Metal Exchange, the Australian dollar has remained at record highs and the viability of aluminium across the country has come into question.
We saw that today even with the announcements of Point Henry and Yennora and we’re not going to put our members in a situation where they’re trading off job security for pay increases.
It’s never been our modus operandi and we don’t intend to start now so whilst we still have that long term objective, in the short term whilst there is this huge amount of pressure on the aluminium industry, we will be doing everything we can as a union to ensure that our members’ job security comes first.
FELICITY OGILVIE: Worker and union representative Ross Richardson hopes the agreement will secure jobs at the smelter.
ROSS RICHARDSON: They’ll pay what they think they can afford to pay us as far as wage rises over the next four years…
FELICITY OGILVIE: A spokeswoman for Rio Tinto says the company is pleased with the outcome of the agreement and that it will be sent to Fair Work Australia for approval…
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3947076.htm
00
Leftoids are hypocrites. Nothing new to see here folks.
00
Hmmm.. article in Herald Sun Friday 21/2/2014 Page: 4 ( sorry no hyper-link)
$900M wind farm may not happen…why? fear of not being subsidised!.
That says it all about most companies into renewables!
00