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



Warren Buffett says climate change made no difference to insurance on catastrophes

A CNBC show interviewed Warren Buffett  — and in the context of talking about insurance shares — the billionaire (and Bershire Hathaway shareholders) are smiling all the way to the bank. Climate scientists may be predicting disasters, but as far as insurance goes, nothing much had changed.

Interviewer:  How has the latest rise of extreme weather events changed the calculus on Ajit Jain in reinsurance?

Warren Buffett: “The public has the impression, because there has been so much talk about climate, that the events of the last ten years have been unusual. …They haven’t. We’ve been remarkably free of hurricanes in the last five years. If you’ve been writing hurricane insurance it’s been all profit.”

 Warren Buffett: “So far the effects of climate change, if any, have not affected… the insurance market.

It has made no difference. I calculate the probabilities in terms of catastrophes no differently than a few years ago… that may change in ten years.”

Warren Buffett: “I love apocalyptic predictions, because … they probably do affect rates…”

 Warren Buffett: “Writing US hurricane insurance has been very profitable in the last five or six years… now the rates have come down and we’re not writing much, if anything, on Hurricanes in the US at all. The biggest cat risk right now.. I think is earthquakes in New Zealand.”

Watch the interview on Squawk Box CNB.

It’s worth watching. Even the interviewers are skeptics.

 h/t Willie and the Wall St Journal.(Headlined:  “Warren Buffett, Climate-Change Denier. The sage of Omaha punctures liberal myths.” So the phrase “climate change denier” is used with cachet here. How times change. No insult intended. Ouch. Soon, everyone will want to be one.My transcript (a bit rough, sorry).

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (91 votes cast)
Warren Buffett says climate change made no difference to insurance on catastrophes, 9.3 out of 10 based on 91 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nfaxn3z

217 comments to Warren Buffett says climate change made no difference to insurance on catastrophes

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Can I get a cap that says
    “I was a climate change denier before it was cool !”
    Just kidding. Along with being skeptical, I am frugal.

    Warren and Bill G. are card playing (bridge) buddies. Bill invested in a company that 6 or 7 years ago got a patent for a way to pump cold water from ocean depths and cool sea-surface-temperature (cSST – like cAGW) thereby changing the course of or reducing hurricanes. Haven’t heard much about that recently but it must be working.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      …but it must be working.

      A lot of such things are “working”, aren’t they? Judging by my spam collection there’s a magic cure for everything. And they all work. Just ask the seller if you don’t believe me.

      Funny though, I mean if they really worked why would they be sold to the gullible on late night TV and the Internet? Wouldn’t they be in every major store? Wouldn’t your doctor be writing you prescriptions for these magic cures?

      By the way, isn’t the deep ocean supposed to be where all the heat is hiding? Maybe it’s not so good an idea for Bill and company to pump it to the surface. ;-)


      Report this

      150

    • #
      Jon

      We should make an “official” diploma issued by IPCC, EU, Al Gore, Gro Harlem and Obama etc stating that “This Element with the name is one of the worst notoric deniers of Climate” further that he is very stupid or payed by Big Oil or both?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Well there you go, who would’ve thought that people could actually make money on the greatest challenge facing mankind, these people are the lowest of the low bottom feeding scum and are obviously on the take from big oil. sarc/
    Now seriously this is simply a flow on effect of smart capitalists benefitting from the ruse that has been played by very smart criminals on the population, and I suspect even more “money falling in their laps” stories will appear long after the enlightenment of AGW.

    Who’s the real denier now?


    Report this

    140

    • #
      The Griss

      Those trillions of dollars must be going somewhere…

      they certainly aren’t having any effect on CO2. (Thank goodness)


      Report this

      80

      • #

        The Griss
        March 5, 2014 at 4:46 am · wrote:
        “Those trillions of dollars must be going somewhere…
        they certainly aren’t having any effect on CO2.”

        Those trillions are hiding out at the bottom of the ocean — along with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’. :)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          The Griss

          “Those trillions are hiding out at the bottom of the ocean”

          Like any other pirated treasure. :-)

          Or do you mean “financially” speaking in which case I thought we used “bottom of the harbour” as the terminology.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Speaking of money from big oil… Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, which as far as I know grew entirely off the back of fossil fuel profits (from Statoil, the national petroleum company) is discussing whether they should continue to invest in fossil fuels…

      http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4b1c89dc-a313-11e3-ba21-00144feab7de.html#axzz2v3BUVavC

      I haven’t checked hypocrisy in the dictionary lately, but this deserves a sub-section methinks.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Bulldust

        In other news *slightly more off-topic* Qantas blames the carbon tax for making them uncompetitive:

        In a statement issued this afternoon, the airline complained the carbon tax was “among the most significant challenges we face” and that was unable to pass the cost on to consumers because of the “intensely competitive market”.
        Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-blames-woes-on-carbon-tax/story-e6frg95x-1226845877582


        Report this

        40

        • #

          So, let me see if I’ve got this right.

          QANTAS posts a half year loss of $300 Million, and it looks like a large part of that is as a direct result of the tax on CO2 emissions.

          Labor, with the Greens in lockstep, will vote in the Senate, saying no to any Government means that are designed to help QANTAS, saying that more needs to be done to save the Airline.

          Then, in the very same breath, they will vote against something which actually WILL help the airline, the repeal of this Tax on CO2.

          Labor, the (new) Party of NO, seems to have taken the word hypocrisy to dizzying new heights.

          Labor says that the dirty, filthy, disgusting, polluting bathplugs are the ones who pay the Tax.

          Every electrical power generator passes the tax directly down to consumers, who pay the full amount, just a slight worry for those power generating entities.

          Now here you have a Company, QANTAS, which cannot pass the impost down to consumers, because it would raise the cost of tickets, exactly the same situation as for foreign owned Virgin who can spread their CO2 Tax impost across their (outside of Australia) airline operations.

          The MSM, well here’s what they will say about that ….. “say did you see where in Mount Isa, that croc got eaten by a Python.”

          Look, over there, isn’t that Britney Spears?

          Give me strength.

          Tony.


          Report this

          132

          • #
            Mattb

            you’ve got to admit that croc-eating-python is quite a story!


            Report this

            32

            • #

              Oddly, I have three good friends in the U.S. who I share emails with on a daily basis, sometimes a number of emails each day. This was the first thing in my Email Inbox this morning. The story is all over the U.S.

              Tony.


              Report this

              50

              • #
                Mattb

                I honestly assumed it was a hoax. In fact I’m still not convinced. Must be something nuts going on for either to attack the other given there was a 50% chance of death. Someone was unusually hungry.


                Report this

                03

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Give me strength.

            Tony,

            Sorry, I would if I had any to give. But these days it takes all mine to keep an even keel myself. ;-)


            Report this

            11

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Bulldust:
        I think the definition is in the dictionary under “stupidity”.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Bulldust

          You are right … never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I always lose sight of that one.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I wonder if it shouldn’t be the other way around. Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice. That sounds more accurate. No sarcasm intended. I have a hard time believing anyone can be that stupid.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Forgive the omission but I include don’t give a phft in the malice category.


              Report this

              00

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              The former implies innocence until proven guilty. Yours is probably the more accurate when it comes to government. They do seem to hide behind stupid a lot (like Billary and Obama do).


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Obama is now on the road to self destruction politically. His approval is falling like a rock in spite of attempts to shore it up. And Democrats are falling with him because only Democrats voted yes on Obamacare. Our problem now is to find candidates who will be seen as an alternative to more of the same, who have a plan (a single, sound plan), can explain it and ultimately win the necessary elections. It starts with this year’s elections because a number of Senate seats now held by Democrats are up for grabs and we need to get them, all of them.

                So of course Obama will deflect the pain by unconstitutionally modifying his own Affordable Care Act to let those Democrats off the hook. Or so he hopes.

                Is he hiding behind stupid? He’s more like trying to hide behind a sheet of window glass with a big bright light on him day and night. How do people not see this man for what he is?


                Report this

                00

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘insurance has been very profitable in the last five or six years… now the rates have come down and we’re not writing much, if anything, on Hurricanes in the US at all’

    Because, as the models predicted:-

    Wind shear may cancel climate’s effect on hurricanes

    ‘Hurricane activity in the Atlantic may not increase as a result of global warming, according to a new study focusing on changes in tropical wind patterns…The new study suggests that increases in vertical wind sheer – differences in wind direction and speed between the upper and lower levels of the atmosphere – caused by CLIMATE CHANGE could counter-balance the affects of warming waters…Hurricane forecasters have long known that increases in vertical wind shear make it harder for tropical storms to form and to increase in intensity. After examining 18 different climate models, Soden’s team predict a “robust increase” in vertical sheer over the Atlantic as result of CLIMATE CHANGE.’

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11633-wind-shear-may-cancel-climates-effect-on-hurricanes.html#.UxYQEYXUcRx


    Report this

    045

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      ‘Hurricane activity in the Atlantic may not increase as a result of global warming,1 according to a new study focusing on changes in tropical wind patterns…The new study suggests that increases in vertical wind sheer – differences in wind direction and speed between the upper and lower levels of the atmosphere – caused by CLIMATE CHANGE2 could counter-balance the affects of warming waters…Hurricane forecasters have long known that increases in vertical wind shear make it harder for tropical storms to form and to increase in intensity. After examining 18 different climate models3, Soden’s team predict4 a “robust increase”5 in vertical sheer over the Atlantic as result of CLIMATE CHANGE6.’

      1. Or it may increase for reasons that are totally unconnected with global warming.
      2. How do they know? How have they excluded all other possibilities?
      3. How does looking at a model help? Shouldn’t they be analysing the output of the models? And why did they need to look at so many, did they have trouble finding one that supported their hypothesis?
      4. Soothsayers “predict”, scientists forecast. Predictions are not time-based, forecasts are (or should be).
      5. Where does “robust increase” sit on the scale of “increases” and what are its SI units?
      6. And, why did the author feel the need to put these words in capital letters – did they mean for them to subliminally stand out? ;-)

      This is why New Scientist is no longer taken seriously by anybody who actually understands anything about science. It is not even good propaganda.


      Report this

      490

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘It is not even good propaganda’, but you see that was a computer model forecast that came true and you can’t debunk it! Which just goes to prove they are on the right tracks with their forecasts, now what is the increase the models predict in temperatures by 2100? Is it 2 or 4 four degrees? Well it might be 4 and that may as well be game over.

        032

        • #
          Heywood

          “that was a computer model forecast that came true”

          You really need to understand what ‘forecast’ means.

          This was not forecast at all. It was observed that hurricane numbers had decreased, and the study was an attempt to understand why.

          The result was that wind shear may be the cause, but they have not confirmed it and it certainly not a ‘forecast that came true’. The claim of climate change causing wind shear is also based on the assumption that differences in wind direction and speed between the upper and lower levels of the atmosphere is caused by climate change. Assumptions built upon assumptions. Nobody predicted that hurricane numbers would decrease, in fact, most scientists predicted an increase in hurricane activity.

          We are seeing it more and more when warmist predictions of doom and gloom fail to come to fruition. It’s amusing to see the plethora of ‘explanations’ for the recent pause in warming over the last 17 years or so.


          Report this

          220

          • #
            The Griss

            “plethora of ‘explanations’ for the recent pause in warming over the last 17 years or so’

            Its almost like Brothers Grimm have been reborn. ;-)


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … that was a computer model forecast that came true and you can’t debunk it!

            I can debunk it, because the article itself says they tried 18 different models, so presumably one came close enough to look something like what happened, if you look at it sideways in a dim light. But it really says nothing very much about anything, and it certainly does not provide proof of anything. Proof requires reproducibility, so nothing can ever be proven by anybody about the weather.

            The researchers, from your quotation in New Scientist, put in loads of weasel words such as, “may not”, “suggests”, could, etc. I highlighted them in my response. If they were certain, they could have used, “will not”, “proves” “shall”, etc. But they didn’t, because they weren’t sure. Then they just got lucky. That will happen, from time to time, if you throw enough predictions around, and use enough different models. The laws of chance will see to that. And it is up to you to prove that this particular result was not just by chance. Off you go …


            Report this

            140

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              That should have been in response to BA4 at 3.1.1


              Report this

              30

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘they tried 18 different models’ no, what was actually said
              ‘After examining 18 different climate models’, which as far as as I am concerned means, they were in agreement with each other. Whereas you seem to indicate that they tried 18 different models until they got the answer they wanted! Not so at all, because the conclusions are ‘robust’, as you can see in the post!

              [Give it up. If the 18 models were in agreement with each other don't you think they would have mentioned that? - Mod]


              Report this

              010

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘If the 18 models were in agreement with each other don’t you think they would have mentioned that?’ and what makes you think they were not?

                [By all means prove they were. - Mod]


                Report this

                09

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘[By all means prove they were. - Mod]‘ No. the onus is on you to prove that the paper it was reported in is wrong and indeed falsified. @ post #3 and I’m betting you can’t!

                [No more time wasting BA4th. You made the statement when referring to the 18 models, at 3.1.1.1.2 "which as far as as I am concerned means, they were in agreement with each other." It is up to you to back that up. You might try reading the actual paper. -Mod]


                Report this

                19

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘It is up to you to back that up.’ the paper does that! And it is your task to disprove it!


                Report this

                19

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                … it is your task to disprove it

                No, it is not. You changed the subject as a diversionary tactic, which I am not buying.

                The Moderator asked you a very pertinent and specific question: ‘If the 18 models were in agreement with each other don’t you think they would have mentioned that?’

                If all of the models agreed, then it would have been all over the mainstream media and prime time television. The whole of the climate alarmism industry would have been throwing their metaphorical hats in the air with glee. They would have been vindicated, and able to shut the skeptics up in an instant. But none of that happened, did it? The only mention was in New Scientist, which is hardly peer reviewed literature.

                It was you who staked your reputation, such as it is, on a propaganda piece in New Scientist (Motto: Never let the truth interfere with a good story).

                In response I made six points, in comment 3.1, linked to the text as footnotes, four of which contained questions.

                Wriggle though you might, I am still awaiting answers to the questions in points 2, 3, 5, and 6.

                It is not up to us to prove the paper wrong. It is up to you to justify why you place so much faith in what it contains. So, please answer the questions.


                Report this

                61

              • #
                Heywood

                Yet another warmist activist who has no concept of scientific burden of proof.


                Report this

                31

              • #
                The Griss

                BA4, please provide measured proof of increased wind shear.

                I want to solid un-tampered measured data from the mid 1960′s (ie, not like temperature data)

                Prove that this mythical wind shear change is something more than a “maybe, could of, perhaps” thought bubble from a fund seeking trough dweller.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                Actually, since you say its caused by climate change.. you also have to prove that the climate is changing..

                Gook luck with that. because it ain’t going nowhere !


                Report this

                20

        • #
          The Griss

          If you put a climate model in an open paper bag, it would not even be able to predict the way out !

          That’s how woefully bad they are.

          Their predictions are meaningless garbage.. which explains why you love them so much.

          You must be an avid collector of meaningless garbage, because its all you ever seem to produce. GIGO !!!


          Report this

          31

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Well it might be 4 and that may as well be game over.

          Or more likely it’s just a game. Period. And worthless to even talk about.

          I guess the adder can’t add.


          Report this

          10

      • #

        7) Why did the author feel the need to state that hurricane activity in the Alantic may not increase? To contradict deniers?


        Report this

        80

    • #
      The Griss

      Wake up, you gullible fool…. Its just the climate troughers trying to justify the massive divergence from their predictions.


      Report this

      111

    • #
      James Bradley

      On the plus side:

      “University of Rhode Island and Stony Brook University for the last 20 years: measurement of the strength of the Gulf Stream. And according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers find no evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.”

      No global changes just localised variations in natural patterns.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      ‘Hurricane activity in the Atlantic may not increase as a result of global warming

      Bla,

      Your first clue should have been the weasel word may!

      From your link:

      The findings appear to contradict a number of recent studies linking warming waters in the region to an increase in hurricane intensity and frequency. The new study suggests that increases in vertical wind sheer – differences in wind direction and speed between the upper and lower levels of the atmosphere – caused by climate change could counter-balance the affects of warming waters.

      So, the findings contradicted earlier studies, eh? So much for settled science! It amazes me when their predictions fail to materialize they just invent an excuse to explain the falsification of the theory and then move the goalposts.

      All weather is created by the temperature difference between the poles and the equators. In the early twentieth century the climate was almost identical to today’s. Yet, hurricanes were much more numerous then than now. How do you explain that, dude?


      Report this

      231

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘Your first clue should have been the weasel word may!’ well you play semantics if you want to, as Rome burns!

        ‘Yet, hurricanes were much more numerous then than now. How do you explain that, dude?’ well quite easy to see if you had read the original post! ‘in vertical sheer over the Atlantic’, game, set and match!


        Report this

        024

        • #

          You didn’t understand a word of what you cut and pasted. Why do you feel intellectually superior?


          Report this

          130

        • #
          cohenite

          Rome burns!? Have the Russians now invaded Rome?


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          One more time you idiot!

          The climate today is virtually the same as it was in the early twentieth century. Why wasn’t the wind shear a factor then? Could it be that these piss poor excuses for global warming shamans scientists are wrong? Could it be possible that they are no different than any other scientific discipline in that they too are willing to put out BS papers and research findings to keep the lights on and the money flowing?

          Morons like you are so subjective that you cannot even fathom the possibility that you’ve bought into a scam. It is beyond cargo cult science, it is Jonestown science.

          Sucker!


          Report this

          211

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘ Why wasn’t the wind shear a factor then?’ because wind shear has increased due to ‘climate change’, I must concluded you didn’t read the post! Not a good idea.


            Report this

            017

            • #
              The Griss

              “because wind shear has increased due to ‘climate change’”

              What a load of total codswallop and unmitigated B***S*** !.


              Report this

              120

            • #
              The Griss

              BA4′s been reading Charles Lutwidge Dodgson again, and taken the wrong hallucinogenic mushroom.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              Heywood

              “Not a good idea”

              No. It’s a very good idea not to read your posts. People come away dumber after reading your propaganda.


              Report this

              60

            • #
              Eddy Aruda

              One again, Stupidicus Maximus, the climate “change” of the last twenty years is virtually indistinguishable from the climate “change” that occurred in the early twentieth century. You could overlap the two graphs, and they would be a spot on match.

              So, while you are taking up valuable oxygen that a real human being could be breathing, explain why wind shear is a factor now but it wasn’t then?

              I await your next feat of illogical analysis!!


              Report this

              30

              • #
                The Griss

                “I await your next feat of illogical analysis!!”

                Surely you mean his next pointless and irrelevant youtube link that nobody could be bothered wasting their time on.

                That’s the only analysis BA4 is capable of.


                Report this

                10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You need to exclude natural variation (unless you deny that exists).

          You also need to exclude random chance (unless you believe that all is foreordained).


          Report this

          00

          • #
            The Griss

            Poor little twerp, he reads a mention of the words “wind shear” and immediately swears that this is the answer to all the alarmist problems with the current benign weather and climate…
            .. even though there is absolutely zero scientific evidence that there has been any change in wind shear at all.

            Only room for one random idea at a time, is my assessment.

            And its so difficult to be alarmed when nothing much is happening.

            Imaginations run rife, probably with herbaceous help.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      cohenite

      I haven’t seen the term wind shear since Sherwood and Allen used it in their infamous paper:

      http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf

      Sherwood and Allen were concerned that the instruments showed no troposphere hotspot, so they repudiated the instrument data and developed a windshear model which showed if there was windshear there would be warming. This was really Matrix science because the instruments which were not good enough for temperature were used to establish windshear and consequent model predicted temperature.

      That paper sort of sums up AGW.


      Report this

      280

  • #
    Manfred

    With apologies to Winston and thanks to CAGW, MSM, progressivism et al….

    ‘Never in the field of human greed has so much been made by so few from so many’


    Report this

    290

  • #

    Insurance (and therefore the riskier reinsurance) is a good barometer of true risk levels. If disasters are increasing than premiums will be increasing – probably faster than the true risks as people have a propensity to over-insure following a well-publicised disaster. Roger Pielke Jnr has written a lot about this at his blog over the years.
    The other aspect is that Warren Buffet has become hugely rich – and made fellow investors quite wealthy as well – by understanding data better than nearly any other person. He is listened to because he has been made money from his superior understanding.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      James Bradley

      So the cost of adapting to the weather is far less than the cost of taxing the air we breathe to change the weather…


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That pretty much sums it up.

        And what is better, is that adaption is 100% natural. Nature does it all the time.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          The Griss

          And the world has actually had a pretty benign century of weather so far.

          Sure, a couple of unfortunate natural harsh events, (which of course got the panic, panic, panic warmist treatment from the cult and the MSM), but generally pretty quiet in the long term scheme of things.

          I suspect things will ramp up a bit when it starts cooling.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            James Bradley

            Yeah the lack of “AGW caused wind-shear” will be devastating for coastal areas around the world as cyclones adapt to normal variations to the weather.


            Report this

            10

      • #

        Much more direct as well. If storms are getting greater in your area there are 3 options
        1. Make your house more storm resistant, and get better insurance.
        2. Move to another area.
        3. Get every country in the world to introduce emission reduction policies lasting 50 years. These are hugely costly, and there is no guarantee that, if successful, they will stop the worsening storms.

        Option 3 is the one taken at present.
        If you cannot rely on politicians in at least 50 countries to keep their promises for 50 years, and be capable of reducing emissions, then it seems that battening down the roof and covering the windows is a better option.
        http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/02/23/why-climate-change-mitigation-policies-will-always-fail/


        Report this

        10

  • #
    warcroft

    Climate change advocates.
    Insurance writers.
    Snake oil salesmen.


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #
    jaymam

    If insurance companies in NZ had done their job properly, they wouldn’t have had to pay out so much for earthquake damage. They should have raised the premiums much higher for buildings on unsuitable land, and brick buildings in known earthquake areas.


    Report this

    32

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I agree.

      The facts that there had not been a significant earthquake in Christchurch in living memory, and that nobody thought that gravel plains would liquify to the extent that they did, should not have given insurance companies the excuse to charge premiums, that were lower than those in Wellington, Auckland, and the Coromandel, where the level of risk is more visible (if ignored by the population).


      Report this

      100

      • #
        diogenese2

        Ah Christchurch, I visited in 2011.Now that’s what I call a catastrophe. It survived of course although the agenda 21 process seems to be inflicting worst damage on the populous than the quake. Compare with ” the greatest challenge facing the world ” (Obama, Kerry, Cameron et al, et al, et al.) which
        is – the world may be a bit warmer in 50 years. Well I can look back 50 years and look at the “challenges” then.
        Warfare in the 60′s - the dead were counted in millions, now the areas of conflict an be counted on one hand and are a pale shadow of the past. Putins spat with Ukraine has “threatened” world war 3 – Oh please! google “Cuban Missile Crisis” when we all thought we were for the off. Even this was a fake – Kennedy had a mole in the Kremlin and knew exactly Khruschevs limitations.
        Famine: It was estimate 30m died in China consequent to Maos delusions. The only recent comparison is N.Korea, just as insane and deluded, even refusing aid! Outside of areas of military conflict and failed states (eg.Somalia) famine is contained – as long as we stop using food for motoring.
        Pestilence: We haven’t had a decent plague since “Hong Kong” flu 1968/69. The recent “Mexican swine” flu could only manage a pathetic 0.03% mortality – it was just a long lie in. The last time I saw the 4 Horsemen they were pushing zimmer frames round a donkey sanctuary in Norfolk.
        The core issue is – the world has become boring. Everyone is becoming better off and more secure and contented. This must be stopped! As there nothing to fear we must invent terrors or otherwise the bloody people will take no notice of us!
        To quote Lady Macbeth (a much misunderstood women) “It is the eye of childhood that fears a painted demon”.
        Soon people will tire of the offered choice of penury or cataclysm, as thermogeddon is postponed yet again.
        Meanwhile the faithful sit and pray for a good El Nino (which has no relation to CO2!). The fate reminds me of another blast from the past;

        Vladimir: We will hang ourselves tomorrow, (pause). Unless Godot comes.
        Estragon: And if he comes?
        Vladimir: We’ll be saved.

        Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
        Estragon: Yes, lets go.

        They do not move : CURTAIN

        (Waiting for Godot – Samuel Beckett 1955


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Kennedy had a mole in the Kremlin

          The CIA actually had several.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            The Griss

            Clinton had one in the Whitehouse :-)


            Report this

            160

            • #
              Winston

              But the question on everyone’s lips is- “Did she play the flute, or the piccolo?”


              Report this

              130

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Winston

                From some view points that comment might be seen as “disgusting”.

                However since it comes from you, a proper and sober source of comment, it must obviously refer to another completely different

                anecdote with which I am not familiar. Perhaps Hillary has a liking for wind instruments.

                KK


                Report this

                50

              • #
              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Winston you have caused me enormous damage.

                I was once able to pick out a simple tune on a flute.

                Sadly that simple pleasure will no longer be possible as it is physically impossible

                to play the flute while you are laughing, and every time I see a flute or piccolo I will loose the ability to purse my lips.

                Is there a suitable therapy program which might help my plight?

                Perhaps alternately flashing images of a flute and Julia Gillard?

                On second thoughts no.

                Every future sighting of a pic of Julia would probably return me to the image of Bill as a Sax Addict.

                There is no hope.

                KK


                Report this

                80

              • #
                Winston

                KK,
                Loose lips sink ships, my friend.

                Is there a suitable therapy program which might help my plight?

                Perhaps alternately flashing images of a flute and Julia Gillard?

                Sorry Keith, but that’s a bit too Clockwork Orange for my liking!


                Report this

                40

              • #

                A great way to ween someone off enjoying electric shocks to the testicles.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I understand that electric “stimulation” was provided by the Government for free in Russia. In the capitalist West, you had to pay.


                Report this

                20

              • #

                Why do I get the feeling RW is in the market for a bridge?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                diogenese2

                she played the pink oboe


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Yonniestone

                “Perhaps alternately flashing images of a flute and Julia Gillard?” Thanks for that KK, now I wonder if there’s a record for projectile vomiting through a wind instrument?, I reckon I’d give it a nudge. :(


                Report this

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Yonnie I reckon that flashing Julia’s photo would turn anybody off anything it was associated with.

                I definitely would not be smiling.

                It’s called conditioning and we do it all the time subconsciously.

                KK


                Report this

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                RW

                Have just finished reading Tolstoy’s “Resurrection” about the treatment of Russians by other Russians and moving them off to Siberia.

                No mention of Voltage Stimulation but that probably happened in the Kremlin.

                KK.


                Report this

                00

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “If insurance companies in NZ had done their job properly, they wouldn’t have had to pay out so much for earthquake damage. They should have raised the premiums much higher for buildings on unsuitable land, and brick buildings in known earthquake areas.”

      And thats it in a nutshell. Insurance companies can factor in anything they like. When they get it right, they save money, when they get it wrong, they make money. They cant lose by being super prudent and even a bit “dodgy”. I mean if your factoring in sea level rise damage for a property in Bondi in 2014, your probably jumping the gun by about 100 years or more given the CSIRO estimates the current annual rise to be around 3.2mm/year.

      Imagine selling insurance to frightened warmists, its like the sheep that skins itself really.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Peter H

    Reality and facts. Events and insurance. Premium cost and probability. Premium Cost and Risk. Financial Mathematics verses Political Mathematics.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Dave Broad

    Insurance premiums here in NZ have gone up close to 100% over the last few years. There are few complaints about this, as it’s always prudent to be well covered against real-world disasters.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Munich Re pushed the fraudulent climate science for profits in 2010:

    8 November 2010
    For instance, globally, loss-related floods have more than tripled since 1980, and windstorm natural catastrophes more than doubled, with particularly heavy losses from Atlantic hurricanes.
    This rise cannot be explained without global warming.
    Worldwide, 2010 has been the warmest year since records began over 130 years ago.

    Whilst climate change cannot be stopped, it can be kept within manageable proportions, thus avoiding the possibility that climate change tipping points will be reached.
    It is therefore absolutely essential for us to keep global climate change agreement firmly on the international political agenda.

    Four years later, it’s natural:

    Munich Re: 2013 Natural Catastrophe Year in Review
    7 January 2014

    “A special focus will be on the fairly low hurricane activity in the US, compared with above-average typhoon activity on the other side of the globe, and the expectations for the next few years.
    (1 typhoon called Haiyan is the sum of ‘above average’)

    We will also discuss the below-average tornado activity during 2013 and future expectations.”

    Extreme weather causes $125 billion insurance bill: Munich Re
    Direct overall losses caused by global disasters amounted to around $125 billion and insured losses of around $31 billion, but although weather-related disasters had caused “exceptionally high losses” last year, these were below the average of the past ten years of $184 billion and $56 billion respectively.
    . . . . .
    Oh dear. “This rise cannot be explained without global warming.”

    What explains the drop in activity? No Global Warming?

    We could never build a enough jails big enough to fit all these climate frauds in. But we must.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Boris

      Its just as bad as this weeks CSIRO BOM report regarding the hottest etc ad nauseum. Records from 1800 to 1900 indicate far hotter days and for far longer than anything experienced in the period from 1901 used by the CSIRO for its statistical BS. A thermometer is a thermometer in anybody’s language. CSIRO must think those living way back then were incompetent because they weren’t trained in thermometer reading. Try again CSIRO.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Hah!

    What would Warren Buffett know?

    Everyone knows it’s the offshore wind turbines that have reduced hurricanes….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/27/claim-offshore-wind-turbines-for-taming-hurricanes/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Buffett and his holdings are profiting greatly from the scare. He has a significant stake in Burlington Northern that until the KXL is built, is reaping huge profits transporting the oil by rail – even with the (by comparison) frequent accidents.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Andrew

      Gets nearly $1m an HOUR in subsidies for his wind farm after donating to Obummer and getting the law extended. Gets KXL deferred – while people die. And now he admits the CAGW hoax (while the atmosphere cools for 13 years) has seen him make a fortune. He should change the name of his insurer to Gordon Gekko.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Dave N

    Cue the alarmists who will say: “yeah, Buffet is OK for now, but for how long?”


    Report this

    20

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I don’t mind being called a MMGW denier.
    This instantly labels the other group as MMGW believers.

    Clear indication that the argument is religious rather than scientific.
    Methinks that evidence is more import than belief or denial.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    john

    You may want to read the articles I wrote in this weekly roundup which included Mr. Buffett’s Mid American and Pacificorp.

    http://dailybail.com/home/why-wind-power-wont-work.html

    P.S. Thanks Jo for bringing this to everyone’s attention. ;)


    Report this

    30

  • #
    RoHa

    Jo, I’ve warned WUWT about this, and I think you should know as well.

    We’re doomed.

    Giant Germs From The Dawn Of Time will be aroused from their frozen slumber and ravage Tokyo, Sydney, and LA.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/30000-year-old-virus-from-permafrost-is-reborn/5296436

    You will probably be safe in Perth, because most of us – including the germs -forget the place exists. (If it does, which I doubt.)

    (But you might get the more extreme weather.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/climate-extremes-increasing-carbon-dioxide-levels-rise-report/5295876)


    Report this

    50

    • #
      handjive

      Quote from 2nd link:
      “Australia is getting wetter despite drought across much of the country, a climate report has revealed.”

      Wetter droughts?

      There is not enough species of sharks left to jump!


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Peter Whish Wilson in the Senate yesterday was applauding the forward thinking of insurance companies for the fact that they have priced in the effects of climate change since the 1980s.

    What I find so amazing about either the unfathomable gullibility of Mr Whish Wilson or his bare faced deception (Im not sure which) is that insurance companies are there to make a profit and any, even slightly believable risk should be added to the premiums at every opportunity. In fact the more far fetched and less likely the risk is t be realised, the more you should pack on the price to cover it, lets face it, its all profit and the suckers (like Mr Whish Wilson) are lapping it up.

    Have a read of the comments here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/phillips-on-climate-these-guys-know-their-stuff/5296346 People are actually calling for a raise in the carbon price, this is how desperately stupid people can be when they are motivated by irrational fear. Its quite sad really.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Boris

      “Motivated by irrational fear” – come on. Uneducated incompetent fools would be a better description blindly following their party’s stupidity. Carbon trading has bit the dust. Trading has closed down in Europe, you couldn’t sell a carbon credit if you tried and these idiot greens and ALP think they are geniuses in saving the world. When the banks who control the world stop trading carbon then we know the issue is dead as a door nail. About time the greens/labor coalition and their latte sipping backers in Little Collins Street understood that.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Neville

    Sooner or later a qualified person should look at the CAGW iconography and call out the liars and fraudsters.
    There has been ZIP SS warming for about 15 years, but RSS shows none at all for 17.5 years.

    SLR trends the same from 1920 to 1950 as the more recent trends. In fact a number of new studies show a decleration in the SLR trend.

    Even the IPCC doesn’t see any increase in extreme weather events.

    Greenland was warmer for thousands of years in earlier Holocene than today as was the Antarctic.

    SL was at least 1.5 metres higher 4,000 years ago.

    The LIA was the longest/coldest period in the NH over the entire holocene. But it seems the dummies think that period was a warmist’s wet dream.

    Polar bear numbers have increased from 5,000 to 20 to 25,000 today. That 400% to 500% increase is a remarkable result in just 50 to 60 years.

    New RS and NAS report ( with input from the RC
    TEAM) proves there is nothing we can do about co2 levels for thousands of years. So zip mitigation by 3100 or 4100 or 5100.
    And that’s if the entire Aco2 emissions are stopped TODAY. IOW we could all vanish from the planet and it still wouldn’t matter at all, FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
    But what other important iconography have I missed?


    Report this

    50

    • #
      ianl8888


      SL was at least 1.5 metres higher 4,000 years ago

      I’ve posted this some years ago, but it might be interesting to repost now

      When Billy the Kid (aka William the Conqueror) invaded Britannica 1066 and all that, he landed his fleet several km inland of the current shore line

      That is, about 950 years ago the SL in that region was 5-6m higher than now. SL is affected by both rise/fall of sea levels and rise/fall of land shore line surfaces (tectonics, isostasy) in temporal combination

      Differentiating these combined factors with empirical accuracy is very tricky. Certainly the MSM are completely ignorant of this issue as are most of the population. There is obviously a sub-set of geological papers that deal with this on a very careful, detailed level but these don’t appear much in “climate science” headlines


      Report this

      60

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Ian

        I often have trouble working out whether to divide or multiply when doing a currency conversion.

        You might have mixed up effects.

        Bill the Conqueror would have landed inland ; if the level had dropped since.

        I think your anecdote confirms the 1.5m drop idea.

        Acknowledged that there have been significant small rises and falls over the last 7,000 years but overall a drop of perhaps 6 or 7 metres

        total, eventually.

        KK


        Report this

        00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Sorry I misinterpreted your comment.

        Have re-read it twice as punishment.

        KK :)


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Yes if you watch Time Team regularly you will have seen a number of episodes where they excavate hill forts that were built on hills because of the massive fresh and salt marshlands that extended into the areas at that time. Also they did an episode where they visited a peninsular now that was an island then. A lot of factors affect sea levels and the warmists seem to only want to focus on one or two of them.

        http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

        “High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. Whether or not this represents a further increase in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain.”

        CSIRO Data = 3.2mm/year, time to panic folks, if you dont hurry your great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids might have to walk 2m less to go for a swim at Bondi.

        Hardly the 60M by the end of the century that only exists in the minds of people like Flannery.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Andrew Griffiths

        I am not a trained geologist or morphologist but I have noticed sea cliffs in the Darwin NT area that are at least a kilometre away from the present high tide mark,the land in between is mudflats ,mangroves ,vine forest and grasslands,this would indicate the process of sedimentation and erosion outpaces the rise in sea level. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on the date of these sea cliffs,but they look recent in geological terms ,they look like cliffs in other parts of town that are at the current sea level. I would not want to build a house on these flats,but left alone mother nature takes care of all.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          hi Andrew

          I have looked at Google Earth and there is a straight line cliff at 25 to 30 metes above sea level dropping to less than half that near Gunn point.

          Is that the place you were looking at.

          KK


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Andrew Griffiths

            Hi Keith,the cliffs I know of are close to the suburb of Leanyer,skirting the edges of Leanyer Swamp and around to Holmes Jungle,they are not towering cliff lines ,you would only see remnants 2-3 metres. Gunn Pt was a good place for fossil spotting,heaps of fossil yabbies in the beach dunes


            Report this

            10

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Hi Andrew

              I have found the general area you describe but because it is basically a flat area it is hard to check.

              If you have google earth and go to Bar Beach Newcastle NSW you may be able to see some easily identifiable evidence of sea level falls in the last few thousand years.

              Looking from the ocean at Bar Beach if you go to the right there is a rock platform extending to Newcastle.

              This platform was made some thousands of years ago when oceans were about 1.2 m higher.

              Waves took rubble over this platform and leveled it while eroding the large cliffs behind.

              After the drop. the low tide line is shown basically as the visible edge of the platform where waves currently do their greatest damage.

              The platforms extend to the left to Dudley and Redhead where the cliffs are spectacular even though only 100 metres or so high.

              Interesting

              KK


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Andrew Griffiths

                Thanks Keith, I will go up to Newcastle sometime in the next few months and check this out, I’ve never been to Stockton Beach,which must be a sight to see for one interested in coastal landforms,regards Andrew


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                “Stockton Beach, which must be a sight to see for one interested in coastal landforms.

                40 or so km (iirc) of sand and sand dunes.. boring… but each to their own :-)

                Been a while since I’ve been up that way, but the top end, Birubi Pt, Anna Bay (?) has some similar platforms to those in the Newcastle area, I think.

                And of course the Nelson Bay, Port Stephen area is always nice to visit.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                I once did a bit of a study of the rock strata in the Newcastle area (as an adjunct to the Sydney Basin) (many years ago now)

                Its interesting trying to follow the different layers along the coastal cliffs and then trying to figure out where they re-surface.


                Report this

                20

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    After 400 years or so of background experience in costing likely weather problems, I’m almost certain (97% sure)

    that the insurance industry can assess this risk adequately without the help

    of the IPCCC or the University of NSW Climate Change Department.

    KK


    Report this

    51

  • #
    handjive

    Heads Up!

    Next warmie group think a-happenin’ in Sydney, appropriately April 1st, Sydney University.

    The 2014 IPPC Fifth Assessment Report: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability

    Co-presented with the Sydney Environment Institute and the Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law

    Get your questions in now before they all hold hands & sing Kum-by-ya and Puff the magic dragon.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    • #
      The Griss

      I suspect we will see more of this sort of glacial growth in the next couple of decades.

      The panic is really going to set in with the CAGW cult ! :-)


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Winston

        Griss,

        Don’t you know- increasing size and extent of glaciers globally, increasing Arctic Sea ice, colder temperatures in temperate regions, increasing polar bear numbers and survival- it’s all totally and perfectly consistent with MMCC.

        97% of all climate models predicted it, I tell you. What are you- some sort of denier?


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Neville

    The Great lakes are set for record ice coverage for the last 34 yeares.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/official-great-lakes-ice-coverage-headed-record/


    Report this

    30

    • #
      The Griss

      I’m a bit concerned. Quite a few indicators seem to be dropping rather quickly to mid 1970′s level.

      Let’s just hope that’s a far as they go.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Mark D.

      Tell me about it……..

      Second coldest winter since records began in the 1800′s. First coldest winter was in the 1800′s.

      Damn, tell me what do ice ages look like when they start?


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Winston

        They look a helluva lot like global warming, Mark.

        Hard to tell them apart, that’s why you need to be an climate expert to split them.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Tim

    I’ll take firm evidence like insurance statistics above rubbery computerised predictions and cherry-picked tree rings from a political organisation – anytime.


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    I have it. Not denier. Not unbeliever. Not heretic.

    I am now a Climate Change Athiest.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      We are happy for you.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Joe V.

      Can one ‘find’ Atheism , in the same way that one might ‘find’ a theism ?
      Or is it an altogether different experience ?

      As CC is nothing to get all panicked about I imagine Climate Change agnosticism may be a slightly more fitting antidote to the bed wetting fraternity.
      (Could that be cockney rhyming slang btw?)


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    What would Warren Buffet know? He isn’t a climate scientist, he hasn’t had peer reviewed climate science papers published. He probably doesn’t have his own climate model to benchmark his wild assertions to.

    Then again he ain’t stupid either.

    Hmmmm.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    4014??? are we jumping millennia ahead now to find a CAGW headline?

    4 Mar: Yahoo: AFP: Global warming may threaten World Heritage sites
    The sightseer of 4014 may have to pay a virtual visit to the Tower of London or Statue of Liberty, said a climate study Wednesday that warned of dramatic ocean encroachment on heritage sites…
    Out of more than 700 listed UNESCO World Heritage sites, nearly 140 risk being flooded in 2,000 years’ time, they projected in a study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
    These also include the Sydney Opera House, Venice in Italy, Japan’s Hiroshima Peace Memorial and Robben Island in South Africa where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 18 years…
    “Our analysis shows how serious the long-term impacts for our cultural heritage will be if climate change is not mitigated,” study co-author Anders Levermann from the Potsdam Institue for Climate Impact Research (PIK) said in a statement…
    http://news.yahoo.com/future-warming-imperils-statue-liberty-003728838.html


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Winston

      This sort of utter nonsense completely vindicates the opinion that warmists have completely lost the plot and become totally disconnected from reality. Their descent into psychosis is almost complete, and they are in dire need of psychiatric evaluation.

      Let’s put aside the greater likelihood for a second that we might actually be in the midst of another glacial period by this stage, and therefore sea level might be anything up to 120 metres lower than it is right now, but what on God’s green earth makes them think that these heritage listed buildings and monuments will maintain their structural integrity and even be standing by that time, 2000 years hence?

      Global warming was indeed a global IQ test, and the warmists failed.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      john robertson

      I think the biggest threat to these historic monuments, is progressives in control of the maintenance budget.
      Progressive as rust.
      Then of course add the help of government employees doing the necessary labour with their BA in architecture, that total lack of hand skills and construction experience.
      WE fix it real good.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ian H

    Congratulations Jo on your nomination in multiple categories for the 2014 bloggies.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    LOL. The Weather Channel’s headline is extremely exaggerated. a NYT oped pre-Climategate(Aug 2009)& pre the pause becoming public knowledge, will hint at what he really, really thinks!

    4 Mar: The Weather Channel: Terrell Johnson: What Warren Buffett Really Thinks About Climate Change
    Though it’s difficult to say with any certainty what the famed investor and CEO of Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. thinks on the topic, he has dropped hints in recent years that he agrees with the science behind human-caused global warming.
    In a 2009 New York Times op-ed, Buffett wrote that “doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions.”
    But that hasn’t stopped many observers from portraying his comments in the “Squawk Box” interview as a smackdown of climate change and its impact on natural disasters, as this commenter posted on Twitter:…
    http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/what-does-warren-buffett-really-think-about-climate-change-20140303


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Makes perfect sense Pat.

      Warren saw the crowd gathering as his wagon rolled into town in 2009, he sold them the snake oil, they paid and put in orders for his next visit. Now with the money banked, I guess he feels he can reveal that it was only Allen’s snakes in the elixir.

      Wouldn’t it be nice to be in the position to take such advantage of both ends of the stick. I love his work.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    whoa! remember The Australian headline yesterday: “Qantas contradicts govt: ‘carbon tax not to blame’”

    what’s going on here?

    5 Mar: The Conversation: Michelle Grattan: Qantas somersaults on carbon tax burden
    After declaring on Monday that “the major issues Qantas faces are not related to carbon pricing”, it now says this cost is among the “significant challenges” the airline confronts…
    In today’s statement Qantas said: “We have said that the price on carbon is a cost to our business that we have not been able to recover through fare increases, because of the intensely competitive market we operate in.
    “Domestically, it cost us $106 million in [full year] 13 and $59 million in [half year] 14. It is among the significant challenges we face, including an uneven playing field, capacity increases in the international market and record high fuel prices.”
    On Monday Qantas’s statement listed several “issues” and “facts”, including one on carbon.
    “ISSUE: Claims that the carbon tax is a key issue facing Qantas.
    FACTS: The major issues faces (sic) Qantas are not related to carbon pricing.”…
    http://theconversation.com/qantas-somersaults-on-carbon-tax-burden-24019


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Heywood

      Does anyone truly believe that the carbon (dioxide) tax hasn’t contributed to the airline’s woes?

      Really?

      I heard today that Qantas’ carbon (dioxide) tax bill for the last six months was $59m. That has to have an impact on their bottom line. In a competitive market, it would be near on impossible to pass on the full cost to the consumer.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Mattb

        REX, Virgin and Qantas all pay the carbon tax… if there was no carbon tax the price war would just mean even lower prices.


        Report this

        07

      • #
        Mattb

        Why, in a competitive market where all competitors face the same taxes, would it be near on impossible to pass on the full cost to the consumer? Ther ticket price is a reflection of the loss airlines are prepared to make now to try and preserve market share for the future. If there were no carbon tax they’d still be setting the acceptable loss at a % of total costs.


        Report this

        18

        • #
          Winston

          Because Matt, Virgin is an international brand that has profitable routes elsewhere not subject to the tax and so is better able to carry a loss in Australia than Qantas can.

          Much the same as Coles or Woolworths can make a loss of fruit and veges while competing with the local grocer until they drive them under, by offsetting their losses on produce with mark ups elsewhere. It’s really not difficult Matt.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Mattb

            Is qantas not also an international brand that has profitable routes elsewhere not subject to the tax? It’s pretty hard to argue that Qantas is not Coles/Woolies.


            Report this

            08

            • #
              Mattb

              I mean look call me a skeptic but it does seem that a week ago Quantas had no issues with the tax… a week of seeking handouts/discussions and they change their tune… one assumes a favourable outcome will be facilitated by the government in terms of debt guarantee etc.

              You don’t have to be a warmist to smell a bit of a rat here.


              Report this

              08

            • #
              Heywood

              Clearly it isn’t, or they wouldn’t be in the situation they are in would they?. Why don’t you just come out and call Alan Joyce a liar and be done with it.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Mattb

                two contradictory statements a week apart. He’s either a liar or just not a very good CEO. The latter does seem more plausible on track record.


                Report this

                06

              • #
                James Bradley

                I’m with Mattb – must be a lie look at how many contradictory statements are handed out weekly by Flannery, Mann, IPCC, etc, etc ,etc…..


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Heywood

                Last week.

                “current issues are not related to carbon pricing. We have been clear that levelling the playing field is the most important policy measure that needs to be fixed and with some urgency”

                This week.

                “We have said that the price on carbon is a cost to our business that we have not been able to recover through fare increases, because of the intensely competitive market we operate in. Domestically, it cost us $106 million in (financial year 2013) and $59 million in (the first half of 2014). It is among the significant challenges we face, including an uneven playing field, capacity increases in the international market and record high fuel prices.”

                QANTAS never stated that the ‘current issues’ were caused by the carbon (dioxide) tax, but it is saying that paying the tax is a ‘significant challenge’ and a contributing factor (along with capacity increases in the international market and record high fuel prices).

                So, in summary – The big issue facing QANTAS is the uneven playing field. The CO2 tax, fuel prices and the other factors mentioned also contribute to the airlines woes, but are not the biggest problem the airline faces.

                If you say that Alan Joyce is a liar for somehow contradicting himself, then you must admit that Gillard is DEFINITELY a liar for the classic promise “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.”


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Mattb

                “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.”

                … but I remain committed to putting a price on carbon… i believe is how the whole quote goes.


                Report this

                07

              • #
                Heywood

                And yet, we got a carbon tax.

                “I’m happy to call it a tax”… I believe is how the quote goes.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Mattb

                well it’s not really the same quote, it’s a different quote a year or so later. I’m not sure who advised her to suddenly decide it was a tax. If they weren’t sacked then at least they have been now.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Heywood

                It’s a tax.

                If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, guess what? IT’S A DUCK!


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Mattb

                unless it’s a dog dressed like a duck with a duck emulating voice modulator.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Heywood

                Ok. That made me laugh. You win. ;)


                Report this

                30

              • #
                The Griss

                Out-stupided again..

                Sorry Heywood, but when it comes to stupidity, Mattb will beat you every time.

                No contest.


                Report this

                40

            • #
              • #
                Heywood

                “Negative factors in the domestic market were the new carbon tax which is levied on domestic flights, which helped drive down domestic EBIT to AUD49.3 million (USD50.7 million), down from AUD87 million (USD89.4 million)”

                Nah. No impact on airlines at all.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Mattb

                yes – it does highlight that Qantas is engaging in an aggressive capacity and price war in the domestic market, and has made some potentially foolish alliance decisions. Ultimately their strategy seems to be to oversupply and undercut. If there was no carbon tax they’d both just be undercutting more.


                Report this

                08

              • #

                @Matt
                Matt they may well have spent their carbon (dioxide) tax on undercutting the competition, but that’s their business decision to make. It would also have provided cheaper airfares for the traveling public.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                The Griss

                Its alright for you Mattb, you get your flights paid for from the climate trough.

                The rest of us have to use our money.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Mattb

                oh yeah course I do? [snipped].


                Report this

                01

              • #
                The Griss

                Gees, seems I hit a nerve..

                It seems that little Mattb doesn’t like his trough-dwelling made public.

                But he’ll be behind his council desk again today, posting away on JoNova’s blog.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Mattb

                Wow deletion of idiot must be the lamest snip in the history of the inter webs. “You idiot” is almost an icon of Australian language. Anyway gross I don’t even have a bloody council desk there’s no such thing.

                You idiot.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                The Griss

                Wow, they don’t even give you a desk.. explains why you are always raking muck.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                The Griss

                I can see you now, sitting cross-legged on the floor, toking and singing kumbaya, while you think up puerile little comments for the blog.


                Report this

                00

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Because the consumers cannot afford it. Econ 101.

          If you have $10 to buy Avocados, and they cost $1 each, you can get 10. If they cost $2 each, you can only get 5.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Mickle

        It seems they did increase the ticket price when the carbon tax was introduced thus negating the effect.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/qantas-carbon-tax-bill-has-been-covered-by-ticket-surcharge


        Report this

        00

        • #
          The Griss

          “thus negating the effect”

          while making themselves less competitive.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Heywood

          I wonder what increasing their ticket price did to their competitiveness against non-Australian owned airlines who don’t pay the tax.

          Only an idiot would think that the carbon tax has no affect on QANTAS’ bottom line.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    pat

    5 Mar: Ninemsn: Business wants carbon tax repealed:Hockey
    Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey says business wants the shackles of the carbon tax removed and again urged the Labor opposition to support its repeal.
    Four key business groups have called on senators to swiftly repeal the carbon tax…
    The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia and Minerals Council of Australia on Wednesday released a joint statement urging the Senate to pass the Abbott government’s package of bills…
    The business groups said the carbon tax was making key industries less competitive every day it remained in place.
    “Most businesses have been unable to pass their carbon tax-related costs on to customers,” the groups’ chief executives said.
    “For small business especially, this has been a major burden that has reduced profitability, suppressed employment and added to already difficult conditions.”…
    The chiefs said both Labor and the coalition had gone to the 2013 election pledging to “terminate” the carbon tax.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/05/12/59/business-groups-seek-carbon-tax-repeal


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    5 Mar: News Ltd: Qantas piles pressure on government over soaring carbon bill
    QANTAS today is raising the budget-sapping prospect its carbon price bill will soar to $120 million this financial year as it joins the Government’s campaign against the emissions levy.
    This compares to $106 million in the 2013 financial year.
    The airline revealed that in the first half of 2014 the bill had reached $59 million and was a “significant challenge’’.
    Earlier this week the national carrier told the Government the carbon bill was not one of the central problems endangering its financial security and concentrated on its demands for relaxation of foreign ownership limits and loan guarantees.
    A spokesman at the time said “current issues are not related to carbon pricing. We have been clear that levelling the playing field is the most important policy measure that needs to be fixed and with some urgency.’’…
    This did not please the Government which is heavily pressuring the Labor Opposition and the Greens to support the dismantling of carbon pricing by backing the Coalition in the Senate now, and not wait for a showdown in the new Senate in July.
    But after cabinet rejected the loan support this week Qantas today came back to the carbon price issue and highlighted it…
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/qantas-piles-pressure-on-government-over-soaring-carbon-bill/story-e6frflo9-1226846063829


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    fix it some more!

    5 Mar: Business Spectator: EU carbon senses a renaissance
    Bloomberg New Energy Finance
    The European Emission Trading System is set to change radically on March 12, after EU ministers approved last week a regulation to delay 900 million carbon permits from 2014-16 to 2019-20.
    The measure known as ‘backloading’ will tighten the market balance significantly…
    Auction curbs will only have a temporary impact on the European carbon market, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance…
    The EU is therefore likely to turn its attention now to implementing further reforms that would have a more permanent effect on the carbon market…
    Wind energy has also seen a spate of news announcements: five consortia are competing in a $US1.7 billion tender to build five wind farms, totalling 850MW, in Morocco, the state-run utility ONEE said on February 27. The North African country aims to reach 2GW of wind capacity by 2020 compared with 292MW at end-2013, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The consortia are led by Acciona (Spain), EDF (France), ACWA power-ACPO.SE (Saudi Arabia), Nareva (Morocco’s royal holding company) and International Power (UK).
    Acciona was independently in the news last week, after it reported a surprise $US2.7 billion loss in 2013, equating to more than half its market value. The main reason was regulatory change, some of which is retroactive, in its home market of Spain. In order to combat cuts in renewable energy payments, the company agreed in December to sell 18 German wind farms to Swisspower Renewables for $US215m…
    Indeed China gave conditional approval last week to 27.6GW of new wind projects, potentially increasing its capacity by some 36 per cent. If implemented, the proposals would strengthen the country’s position as the world’s biggest wind market. The next step is for provincial authorities to assess whether the transmission grids can handle the new flows and if there is sufficient consumer demand. China is forecast to add 14.7GW of new wind power this year, up from 14GW in 2013, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/5/policy-politics/eu-carbon-senses-renaissance


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    desperate:

    5 Mar: Renew Economy: Unburnable carbon risk threatens ASX shares more than most
    Released on Wednesday by The Australia Institute in conjunction with 350.org and Market Forces, the report – Climate Proofing Your Investments: Moving Funds Out of Fossil Fuels – is the latest in a raft of documents warning institutional investors against the risk of “unburnable carbon.”…
    The report warns that the large-scale stranding of billions of dollars worth of fossil fuel investments is inevitable, if governments around the world act on their stated climate objectives of restricting global warming to an increase of 2°C.
    Currently, however, the world’s fossil fuel companies are “estimating with 90 per cent certainty that they will be able to extract freely (for subsequent sale and combustion) over three times more carbon than is compatible with the internationally agreed 2 degree limit.”
    This constitutes a “fundamental contradiction,” says the report, warning that even action insufficient to prevent runaway climate change will have “a significant negative impact” on fossil fuel asset prices…
    As the table below shows, TAI recommends investors divest from the ASX 200 companies which it categorises as Tier 1, or “substantially involved in fossil fuel extraction,” including: Origin Energy, Woodside Petroleum, Oil Search, Whitehaven Coal and Horizon…
    In Tier 2, more candidates for divestment include AGL Energy, Energy World an Envestra. In Tier 3, where companies have “large absolute direct fossil fuel exposure but less significant relative exposure, you find BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Wesfarmers.
    The Tier 4 companies – for which the action recommended is engagement, followed by divestment if the outcome of said engagement is not satisfactory – are companies with indirect fossil fuel exposure, including all of the Big Four banks, and big industrial groups like Downer EDI, Leighton Holdings and Toll Holdings…
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australia-institute-climate-proofing-investments-embargoed


    Report this

    00

    • #

      ….. and when the first major power generating company falls over, and the power goes off, these clueless idiots advocating this will be looking around with blank looks on their faces, saying …. “What theeeeee …..”

      At least we’ll know who to blame, but hey, how will we ever know?

      The power goes off. The end!

      Tony.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        ianl8888

        If I’m reading the drift of current UK energy policy correctly, we will see empirically the results of “decarbonising” an advanced economy in less than 5 years

        I’m 97% certain that AGW advocates will then carpet bomb us with post-hoc “unintended” consequence excuses


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Maverick

    Spurred on by a double-edged paranoia, the left bang on about the “looming catastrophe” and anyone who disagrees is “funded by big capitalist oil”.

    Yet in reality their “looming catastrophe” message is providing free promotion for big capitalist insurers, increasing rate hike justification for big capitalist insurers and increasing the payout odds for big capitalist insurers because the doom events are simply not eventuating at the same rate as is estimated.

    It’s priceless really, the little left warmists are helping big capitalist corporations to make more money, how cute!


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    i’m getting angrier by the minute over Clive Hamilton/Australian Institute’s naming of specific companies for institutional investors to get out of. it’s declaring war on industry.

    what do the Unions have to say?

    will the TV stations report on it & explain to the public who is behind the Institute?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    ROM

    Jo, if you read this would you please consider placing the Mail on Line’s fantastic photos of the completely frozen Niagara Falls up here in it’s full techni-colour glory.

    An icon like this which is recognised world wide is likely to have far more impact with the general public than most other climate indicators one could wish for.

    Flowing and running water has some very deep significance for the human psyche and has always been so for the term of our humanity’s existence and to see immense amounts of water cascading over a waterfall always still creates awe and wonderment in nearly every body who witnesses scene .

    To see such a spectacle of a great waterfall frozen in time is likely to have a huge impact on many of the general populace with consequences for their belief and understanding on what is changing in the climate and how
    And that how is quite likely to be the reverse of the propaganda and spin they are constantly being bombarded with by the usual suspects too numerous to mention here

    And if somebody has already posted this my apologies as I haven’t yet read through today’s proceedings here.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Joe V.

    Bloggies 2014.
    As your delightful hostess may not mention it, I see the Bloggies are open for voting, with Jo in 3 categories this time, which is more categories than any other.
    1:)Topical,
    2:) WebLog of the Year
    & 3:) Lifetime Achievement.

    Tallbloke is up for best European, Climate Audit for best Canadian & best Topical alongside Jo, GWPF for Politics, Donna’s No Fraking Consensus in for WebLog of the Year along with Jo & Watts.
    Watts is also in for best Group or Community (having pretty much aced the other categories in previous years and so is now banned).

    Of the rest only Family Adventures in the Canadian Rockies seems to have caught my eye.

    As Black Adder might say, go forth, make your selections, complete your e-mail & Captcha and Submit… Then look out for and reply to the confirmation E-mail, which may take some time to arrive.

    As for the Alarmist Bloggs, that decided they couldn’t face the competition and humiliation again, not a peep.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Shoulda Warned'em

    I think ” Finalist for Best Science and Technology WebLog”, before they had to ban it for fear of JoNova winning it, says a lot more about the state of Science and where it thinks its at. I mean who wants Science to be popular, accessible and threatening the consensus right ?


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #
    john

    Breaking Wind Energy News (no pun intended).

    High court overrules state approval of multimillion-dollar wind energy deal

    http://bangordailynews.com/2014/03/04/business/high-court-overrules-state-approval-of-multimillion-dollar-wind-energy-deal/?ref=regionstate

    HALLOWELL, Maine — A 2012 deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars to expand wind energy projects across the Northeast was dealt a blow Tuesday by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that a state agency’s approval of the complex deal was invalid.

    The transaction included prominent wind developer First Wind, Maine utility companies Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service, and Nova Scotia-based electric utilities owner Emera Inc.

    The Public Utilities Commission had approved the proposed transaction in April 2012. In June 2012, the companies announced they had closed the multipart deal to affiliate, which would provide First Wind with the cash to build wind turbines across the region.

    A press release stated the joint venture amounted to $361 million in loans and investments, adding that “the completion of the joint venture could lead to up to $3 billion in future economic investment in the region in the coming years.”

    But between the PUC’s approval and the companies’ announcement of the closing, three parties appealed the approval to the state’s highest court. The appeals were made by the state public advocate, Houlton Water Co. and the Industrial Energy Consumers’ Group, which represents large energy users and advocates for lower electricity prices.

    Their primary argument was that the deal would violate the state’s landmark electricity restructuring act. That law barred electricity transmission companies such as Bangor Hydro from owning electricity generation because it was seen as anti-competitive and contributing to high electricity prices.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    peter

    On channel 9 news last night they had comments from the bom and csiro about how the the world is warming and we we will get more extreme weather. They said we will get more droughts,flooding,cyclones,extreme heat and extreme cold.

    At work today everybody was talking about what they said and how bad it is going to be and how bad the liberal government is for trying to remove everthing that is going to save us.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    peter

    How can anyone win against globle warming when so many people of supposed reliable authority can report what they like and news programs never question their reasoning.

    I have noticed the only time the media ever seem to question anything is when someone questions global warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    Notice carefully what Warren Buffet did say: to paraphrase, he said that the media hype about climate change probably did initially cause insurance rates for the CUSTOMER to go UP, which made Warren very HAPPY.

    Now, he says that rates are going back down due to the complete lack of any ACTUAL catastrophes to support the media hype (which probably makes Warren very SAD).

    However, he did say that even any relatively cheap hurricane insurance that he has sold in the past 5 years (more like 8 or 9 years here in the US) has been pure profit, which (of course) makes Warren HAPPY.

    I prefer Warren Buffet’s nephew – Warren seems to be WAY too progressive about many things to be a true capitalist, and yet he tries everything he can to take full advantage of capitalism. His nephew, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be QUITE as hypocritical.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      By the way, I realize that “officially”, Warren Buffett and Jimmy Buffett are not, actually, related. I still like to think of Jimmy as Warren’s prodigal nephew though :)


      Report this

      10

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      I could just about see Jimmy writing a song to his “Uncle” Warren:

      Who needs your billions?
      I made my own millions,
      and that’s good enough for me…

      etc.

      Feel free to write the rest of the song, I am too lazy at the moment :)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bananabender

      The only capitalism Warren understands in crony capitalism. He was bailed out to the tune of $95 billion during the GFC.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    john

    SInce Warren Buffett owns BNSF, and the way things (wind) are being fast tracked or ‘railroaded’, this news article caught my eye.

    http://www.progressiverailroading.com/logistics/news/BNSF-Logistics-Tri-Global-Energy-team-up-to-develop-wind-energy-logistics-center–39682


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova explains why Warren Buffett loves apocalyptic claims since they are good for his insurance business, even though “I [...]


    Report this

    00