JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Abbott tells G20 that climate is off the agenda (and the EU are not happy)

Australia is holding the G20 later this year. P.M. Tony Abbott has said climate will not even be on the agenda. The EU and the UN are not happy about that, so we know this is an excellent move. Bravo Abbott.

It’s another day in the death of the climate-religion.

EU ‘unhappy’ climate change is off G20 agenda

[The Australian] EUROPE is unhappy with Australia’s decision to drop climate change from the G20 agenda and is lobbying the Abbott government to reconsider.

European Union officials say Australia has become completely “disengaged” on climate change since Tony Abbott was elected in September last year.

They are disappointed with the Prime Minister’s approach, saying Australia was considered an important climate change player under Labor.

One well-placed EU official has likened the change to “losing an ally”.

The EU has a long-running emissions trading scheme which was going to be linked to Australia’s market. But Mr Abbott has pledged to scrap the carbon price in favour of his direct action policy.

An entire continent doesn’t like Abbott’s climate action plan apparently.

Europe is sceptical of Mr Abbott’s replacement plan.

How do we know? An unnamed person reckons there are lots of scientists who say it won’t work.

“You have a huge amount of scientists and economists saying the direct action policy isn’t going to work,” the official, who did not want to be named, said in the Belgian capital Brussels this week.

Abbott merely wants the G20 to stick to topics that matter:

Mr Abbott has said he doesn’t want the G20 agenda “cluttered” by topics that would take the focus from his top priority of economic growth.

read it all

At the last three G20 meetings in France, Mexico and Russia, the G20 pandered to the climate industry. Thank goodness it’s shifting away.

H/t to Peter Miller and Kevin Lohse

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (205 votes cast)
Abbott tells G20 that climate is off the agenda (and the EU are not happy), 9.1 out of 10 based on 205 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/qdkkp5f

238 comments to Abbott tells G20 that climate is off the agenda (and the EU are not happy)

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    I refer you to comment 31 on the Lew Paper thread. Better late than never. :)

    – I do remember that. I did find it, and h/t. Thanks! I hit publish first though, boy you are fast :) – Jo

    190

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Jo. You often publish just as I’m going through the overnight RSS feeds over first coffee. Timing is all. K

      50

  • #
    Popeye

    “Europe is sceptical of Mr Abbott’s replacement plan.”

    The simple fact that someone representing Europe has made this statement makes me extremely happy.

    Those basket cases have NO right or say about what we in Australia say or do.

    IOW – p… off & fix up your own bloody mess before you come here lecturing us!!!

    Cheers,

    1040

    • #
      Jon

      It’s not about climate. It’s about a new world order and international socialism through a climate treaty(Global Government based on UNFCCC and Agenda 21(UNEP)).
      That dream that the leftist have is now being threatened more and more. Expect desperate actions in the time to come?

      922

    • #
      Annie

      As a Pom I have to agree with you Popeye! The EU needs to keep its unelected bureaucratic nose out of a lot else too!

      770

      • #
        Hasbeen

        Quote, “One well-placed EU official has likened the change to “losing an ally””.

        More like loosing a co-conspirator I would suggest.

        Good on yer Tony, go get them kid.

        680

    • #

      Those basket cases have NO right or say about what we in Australia say or do.

      EU officials mostly don’t have any legitimacy w/r to representing Europe either, IMO.

      Look up “European Democratic Deficit” on google – some of it makes interesting reading.

      350

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘Those basket cases have NO right or say about what we in Australia say or do’ I wouldn’t go that far! In fact it could be said that Oz is punching well above its weight, just what are you doing with all the co2 emissions over there, more than your fair share I would say! Remember when the Titanic went down, everybody was in the same boat, just like planet Earth!

        ‘Divided up per person, each country’s share of the world’s emissions looks a little different. Australia had the highest per capita emissions in 2012 at 18.8 tonnes. In the US, emissions per capita were 16.4 tonnes, and just behind came oil-rich Saudi Arabia with per capita emissions of 16.2 tonnes’

        http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/2012s-carbon-emissions-in-five-graphs/

        074

        • #
          Robert P

          Well, if we all die in the next ICE Age, you will have made a good analogy. And I don’t believe the passengers on the Titanic had anything to do with hitting that iceberg.

          390

          • #
            bullocky

            ba4;..” Remember when the Titanic went down, everybody was in the same boat, just like planet Earth!”
            -
            Think on the bright side: everyone survived the Akademik Shokalskiy disaster!!!!!!!

            252

            • #
              gnome

              I hear it was touch and go though, when they transferred the passengers from the Russian boat to the dry Australian one. Mutiny threatened!

              90

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Remember when the Titanic went down, everybody was in the same boat, just like planet Earth!

          Logical fallacy: non sequitur

          Australia had the highest per capita emissions in 2012 at 18.8 tonnes.

          “Australia” in this case, will be based on area of exclusive economic interest, which includes oceans, to the extent of the maritime boarders.

          “Emissions” will include all sources, both natural and anthropogenic. This will include outgassing from oceans, as it must do, in order to balance against the “known” global CO2 emissions total.

          In such terms, a comparative deduction, based on population, will always say more about population density, than it does about the subject of the comparison.

          All the quoted article says, is that Australia has a low population density level, compared to other countries. It makes no substantive comment about anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

          It is propaganda.

          620

          • #
            Heywood

            “It is propaganda”

            Have you seen a BA4th post that wasn’t just propaganda?

            Sure ways of spotting a BA4th post.

            1. Always responds to one of the first five or so posters to ensure his comments are near the top of the page.
            2. His comment almost never relates to the comment he is replying to.
            3. Has a love affair with exclamation marks, obviously he thinks they are directly interchangable with full stops.
            4. Always includes a quote from a carefully selected propganda piece, usually from the transript of a BBC documentary or a quote from his boyfriend Richard Alley.
            5. More often than not includes a link to his own YouTube channel to ensure his view count keeps rising (Apparently the more views, the more people agree with his propaganda. I suppose if it’s good for Greens senators, it’s good for him ;) )

            260

          • #
            Hasbeen

            Oz emissions in this case include a lot of coal dug up in Oz, but not used here.

            Coal used to produce power or steel etcetera in Asian countries should be included in their emissions, not ours, it is Asia where the emissions occur, & the wealth is generated.

            Unfortunately doing the math that way is too much for the fools at the UN, & the IPCC. Just another reason why we should withdraw from all UN activities.

            11

        • #
          James Bradley

          BAD, per capita means nothing – total per country is the output with any significance with America and Saudi Arabia each producing 4 billion tonnes with Australia producing 470 million tonnes (your figures).

          If you want to calculate per capita the only fair distribution is dividing the whole lot by the entire population of the planet which then becomes insignificant compared with natural source CO2 emissions – probably why you ignore them.

          When entire population of Australia is about the same as a major capital city anywhere else in the world your facts are ludicrous.

          And this years figures will be much clearer as the carbon tax has put manufacturing industry out of work in this country and with less employment and less tax payers there will be no money to fund your Centrelink Newstart payments.

          You may be forced to emigrate to a third world country to to find paid work in order to survive – imagine labouring seven days a week 18 hours a day for a subsistence wage for an employer that really doesn’t give a rats about OHS, Unions, RET, CAGW, Superannuation, Sick Leave, Holiday Pay, Penalty Rates, Workers Compensation, Lunch Breaks, Smoke Breaks, Coffee Breaks, Paid Maternity Leave, Freedom of Speach …

          In fact you would be treated in just the same way that you treat many of the contributors here – maliciously, carelessly and thoughtlessly.

          Don’t forget your crack pipe on the way down to Centrelink to cash your Newstart this week you parasite.

          300

        • #
          Jon

          BlackAdderthe4th said
          “Australia had the highest per capita emissions in 2012 at 18.8 tonnes”

          When I read this I ask myself who has the lowest CO2 emissions? So I went here
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

          And finds that Australia is by far not the highest per capita emitter and when looking at the lowest emitters at the bottom, North Korea missing? I Am not particular motivated to join them?

          70

        • #
          Jon

          And I think to be fair one should make a new list based on countries emissions pr area?

          40

    • #
      Talwin

      “European Union officials….”

      That is, of course, UNELECTED European Union officials.

      300

    • #
      Steve

      I’m just happy to see the climate change “zombie” being dropped where it stands….and it is a zombie.

      110

      • #
        Steve

        Although that said, those in the shadows running this show will use abbott as a antithesis ( EU ) against their synthesis ( Abbott ) – classic Helegian Dialectic at work and the manufacturing of a controlled “struggle”.

        90

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    There will be some of the G20 who will attempt to hi-jack the meeting for their own Green ends. Holding the meeting to his own agenda will be a true test of your PM’s political nous. I hope he’s got his ducks lined up, as he deserves to win this for the future of the world, not just Oz.

    790

    • #
      Ian

      Looking at the preliminary results of the WA Senate “re-election” it seems “Green ends” may be becoming more popular.

      414

      • #
        WhaleHunt Fun

        Perhaps, but more likely the looney green nutter section of Labor is abandoning The Labor Senate team headed by someone who hates and despises them for what they are and what they have done to the workers.

        313

      • #
        • #
          Mattb

          you keep telling yourself that Angry.

          115

          • #
            the Griss

            Disenchanted Labor voters and ABC watchers.

            Labor isn’t left wing totalitarian enough for them.

            Why some liberal voters seem to have turned to Palmer, is anybody’s guess.. some sort of WA lunacy, perhaps? Someone needs to explain that one somehow.

            This election session with show everyone what Palmer is all about, and those Palmer voters will swing back to where they came from next election.

            Not sure that the current green voters will swing back to Labor though… the fact they voted Green shows that they have a basic lack of any awareness and intelligence,

            And as we have seen in Mattb.. this lack of intelligence is very difficult to do anything about.

            81

            • #
              Mattb

              another accidental double post… looks like your standard regurgitated rubbish to me.

              014

              • #
                the Griss

                That’s what your posts make me feel like doing. They are truly spew-worthy.

                That sickly putrid smell of green slime that wafts from every one of them.

                80

              • #
                the Griss

                Are you the offspring of Milne and Ludlam, by any chance ?

                70

              • #
                the Griss

                third unwanted child after Brandt and Sarah hyphen thing ?

                70

              • #
                the Griss

                If you want regurgitated rubbish….

                READ YOUR OWN POSTS !!!

                Tell me Mattz, How does it feel to be several tiers BELOW the likes of Milne, SHY, Brandt and Ludlam in the Greens Hierarchy ?

                The scum floats to the surface, but the **** sinks to the bottom.

                50

              • #
                Heywood

                “Are you the offspring of Milne and Ludlam, by any chance ?”

                OMG Griss!!

                I just went visual.

                Eeeewwwwwwww.

                20

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Let’s hope TA has the foresight to include, on some pretext, Dennis Jensen in Team Oz.

      100

  • #
    Campbell

    Well said Mr Abbott & please don’t relent!

    680

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Good news. Serious issues do exist. Why talk about a non-problem?
    I have read much in the past year about dis-incentives to work and the rapidity with which non-working people fall behind in training in a changing economy. Why work when the government will pay you a good yearly amount to do nothing useful? Why take a job when you will begin to steeply lose those payments?
    The above is just one of a dozen things that ought to be on the G20 agenda.

    320

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    That ” huge amount of scientists and economists” is right.

    The coalition’s policy is years out of date. Unfortunately it was necessary to wait until the WA senate election had waded through the established lies to say so. Doing so previous to that would have raised very confusing further uproar.

    Now Tony Abbott must grab the bull by the horns and dump his superseded policy altogether.

    331

    • #
      vic g gallus

      I disagree with the last bit as long as it is tailored to address some more important problems (as well as AGW, of course).

      14

      • #
        WhaleHunt Fun

        Yes, if he can “misuse” some or all of the money assigned by Labor and the Global Warming collaborators for an actually useful purpose then good. He should be demanding that the green investment fund pour money into building dams in World Heritage listed areas so as to alleviate the non-existent threat of diminished rainfall. Anything to make the green whackos scream and wail.

        382

      • #
        vic g gallus

        Agree. I forgot the sarc tag.

        30

    • #
      the Griss

      A land and environment policy that tries to combat REAL pollution, and tries to combat other environmental issues like land degradation, potable water supply issues, development of the northern parts of Australia etc etc, would be a good very good policy.

      440

      • #
        Dan

        I believe many would agree with what you say Griss.
        There is a lot we can do in our own backyard.

        80

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Re land degradation.

        You would, I am sure, be aware of the problems that Australia’s farmers have been having with droughts in recent years, and also floods.

        Every time it rains too much or too little farmers need government handouts to keep them in business.

        Nobody has yet understood that the droughts and the floods are not the primary problem. The primary problem is the lack of sufficient capital to make adequate prior provisions against the calamities which come along from time to time. That same lack of capital is the cause of much of the degradation of farmland that we see.

        The cause of that lack of capital is the corruption by foreign governments of the pricing for agricultural produce, and the Australian government’s refusal to defend its farmers against that corruption of the market. This sees the world price for farm produce, the price Australia’s farmers get, set a long way below the cost of production. This is not sustainable for Australia’s farmers.

        They call the policy Unilateral Trade Reform, and it has been policy for nearly 30 years. It is suicidal lunacy.

        180

        • #
          helen brady

          The policies of death duties and capital gains tax have spelt the death of farm prosperity and the sustainability of agriculture for a long time. Your ideas should be shouted and shouted. Capital needs constant renewal but has been drained instead. Bad theories have worked against many other industries too.

          60

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          In most cases, I would bet the farmers aren’t allowed to build dams or even pump water out of a river to fill a dam.

          The government handouts to farmers almost seems to be on purpose.

          70

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            There is some truth in your assertion about the handouts. The Hawke government with its usurious interest rates hit the farmers with a “double whammy”. (Ref Al Capp).

            On the one hand it greatly increased production costs in all industry, with this felt especially in those industries with a long production cycle. On the other those high interest rates greatly inflated our exchange rate, which depressed the price for both exported goods and imported goods.

            In 1990/91 the Hawke government bankrupted the wool marketing system. However the coalition parties in opposition and the Farmers’ Federation were at least equally culpable in this. This caused the price for wool, our biggest rural industry, to collapse.

            When a severe drought followed in 1994, anecdotal evidence led governments to appoint counsellors to advise people in trouble. At first it was desperate farmers’ wives who approached them for help, and on visiting these farms they found that some farm families, who had been working to the limits of their physical capabilities to try and save their livestock, and unable to gain further finance from the banks, had not even any food in their refrigerators.

            This was the ultimate humiliation for many farmers, as they were forced “on the dole”.

            The bookworms call this “Economic Rationalism”. They refuse to acknowledge that it is driven by corrupted pricing for farm produce, and a politically inflated exchange rate, which further depresses the prices.

            00

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Correct. And whenever someone points out that this is clearly part of the Agenda 21 plan, that someone is immediately labelled a conspirator.
          And Greg, in Tasmania, (and other States as well) a farmer who invests in a bore (water well) must seek permission from Big Brother, and in addition put a meter on it and pay for the water!
          If a person keeps in mind that the clear objective of this plan is universal poverty, to aid and abet the totalitarian one world government, the lack of capital and senseless regulation, as well as the carrot of a handout, is the very essence of so-called “progressives”.

          80

    • #
      Phillip Bratby

      “a huge amount of scientists and economists”! Do they weigh them by the ton, or is it by volume? In my days when we were taught ‘English language’ people were measured by number.

      390

      • #
        gnome

        But back in those days there weren’t 7.9 gigapeople on Earth. They are a much devalued commodity now.

        70

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Most people deserve or want to be counted as an asset to a population whereas others have behaved in such an anti human manner it’s difficult to label them people.

        Rubbish/Trash is weighed by the ton so this “huge amount of scientists and economists” should be aptly described.

        90

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        My take was that it is volumetric!

        I hadn’t considered Yonniestone’s compelling point.

        00

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Here’s some quotable quotes about groupthink which applies to the UN on Mr Abbott in particular and to society in general.

    (1) “The tribe often thinks the visionary has turned his back on them. When, in fact, the visionary has simply turned his face to the future.”
    (Ray Davis)

    (2) “……..What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.”
    (William H. Whyte Jr.)

    Hooray for standing out from the crowd!

    370

  • #
    Ross

    Well done Tony Abbott !!!

    390

  • #

    Ahh! The UN.

    Wouldn’t they just love a seat at that G20 table.

    Meddling fingers in every little pie.

    As it is, you just watch the rent-a-crowd mobs at the G20. Organised naughtiness, an excuse to smash things up if ever I’ve seen one.

    Tony.

    610

  • #
    Neville

    Why talk about the climate when the two top scientific institutions readily admit we can’t have any impact on it for thousands of years? Whatever we do.

    Are these people illiterate, hopelessly maths challenged or just plain dumb?

    480

    • #
      PeterS

      Depends on who they are – some are illiterate, some are hopelessly challenged in maths and some are just plain dumb. You left out two other groups. There are those who know the truth about the AGW scam and still want to pursue it for monetary gain, and another group for power and control.

      430

      • #
        TimiBoy

        I know a very senior Scientist (who’s name and gender will remain anonymous) who told me on the sauce one night,

        “I know CO2 is not a threat, but pushing the issue will help to achieve my Political goals.”

        This person is a stated Communist. This person is also a very highly (internationally awarded) Environmental Scientist. What a grub.

        200

        • #
          Mark D.

          What a grub.

          who’s name and gender will remain anonymous

          Grubs often exhibit anonymous gender :)

          40

    • #

      Oi Neville.
      You do not understand the rules of the game. You can only quote authority in defense of the consensus. :)

      Peter S,
      There is a third group. Those who believe in the fundamental truth of catastrophic climate change. It is the purpose of climate science to discover the evidence for this fundamental truth. If evidence contradicts that truth it is false.

      110

  • #
    Robert JM

    With any luck Abbot will listen to the EU goons and drop his direct action plan entirely!

    233

    • #
      scaper...

      Why would our government listen to the EU on anything?

      Direct Action does not need legislation and if circumstances change, it can be altered or completely dropped.

      That has been stated by the coalition before they won government but it seems to have evaded many. Fog of prejudice?

      190

      • #
        scaper...

        It is most probably down the page but just got home.

        Remember last year before the election when many from the federal department for climate change were moved to the Department for the Environment?

        Well, guess what? These people will be cut from that department (480) over the next three years. Near 250 will be cut before Xmas.

        A clean out of the warmists was always going to happen and I don’t give a stuff for them or their families. Live, die and sword comes to mind.

        61

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    I’ve said before that “climate change” is the only thing that unites the rent-a-mob anarchists and the establishment.

    160

    • #
      Steve

      Damn…slam dunk , Bro…..

      Ralph Epperson, in his book, “The Unseen Hand”, showed how this type of wealthy backing for revolutionary causes exists in the United States. Epperson quotes radical leader Jerry Rubin, in his counterculture book, “Do It!”, published in 1970 by Ballantine Books. Rubin candidly writes,

      http://nymag.com/news/features/49090/index8.html

      “Revolution is profitable. So the capitalists sell it… The hip capitalists have some allies within the revolutionary community: longhairs who work as intermediaries between the kids on the street and the millionaire businessmen.”

      Yeah…you wonder who controls who, huh?

      Revolution, like war, is profitable.

      30

  • #
    janama

    Abbott seems to like playing politics dangerously – the backlash from the left will be tremendous, I hope he can withstand it.

    211

    • #
      Robert JM

      It is an intentional tactic by Abbott! Enrage the greenies to show the public just how nasty they are!
      Seems to be working a treat!

      250

    • #
      Angry

      Who cares what these scumbag communist traitors think!

      Introduce them to some Pb !!

      41

    • #
      aussiebear

      That’s what you want! You want them angry so they go on another “March in March” to display another bout of their IMPOTENT RAGE! You want their rent-a-crowds to appear! You want those Socialists, Communists, Marxists, anarchists, etc nut-job to show their face in public. You want that rage to be on the front page of Australian news outlets. You want footage of ALP and Greens members present. You want commentary that talks about the hypocrisy of their behaviour.

      Ladies and Gentlemen, the objective of politics for the centre-right of the political divide, is to keep the good guys in check and accountable…And the bad guys discredited. You discredit them by collecting footage, recordings, pictures, etc of them and repeatedly show them for who they really are. They will have no choice but to change. And if they don’t? They lose political power.

      Remember folks, they started this with their poor behaviour and “the ends justifies the means” tactics. We will end it with grace and dignity. To show the Australian people, if you pick our path, you’ll have prosperity and a good future…Every common sense adult wants the best for their kids!

      30

  • #
    PeterS

    It’s insane and idiotic for the G20 to criticize Abbott when the real problems of the world have yet to be solved, such as world hunger, disease and high unemployment. If they want to discuss esoteric issues, then there’s the possibility of a world war on which they can focus their energies. Of course the reason they like to stay focused on the AGW scam is it brings in lots of money for them. How about they clean up their act and stop wasting money in the first place, and focus on creating wealth through jobs and growth? Of course that requires hard work and intelligence, properties they are totally foreign to them.

    382

    • #

      Peter,
      It is not insane, just Realpolitics. The EU needs something to justify its existence, and for EU leaders to be able to impress their electorates. Economic growth might be Mr Abbott’s top priority but it is an area where policy has been net harmful in Europe. The EURO project has been a disaster. In the credit crunch many of the Southern European countries have been brought to their knees. Unemployment has hit 25% or more. Public workers went unpaid for months. EU leaders want to talk about something else than their failures.

      141

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Economic growth … is an area where policy has been net harmful in Europe.

        That is a good point, Kevin.

        But if Mr Abbot succeeds, where the Colleagues failed, as he may well do, then there will be a lot of omelette dans la barbichette in Brussels. Oh, those poor egos … ;-)

        60

  • #
    BilB

    Abbott’s Direct Action is simply code for “promising to give money to farmers”. The fact is that he has absolutely no intention to give anything to farmers, such is the perpetual dishonesty of this person, and it has suited him to not be able to take down the Carbon Price mechanism as it gives him a reason to keep bringing the subject up.

    The Europeans know full well that what Abbott is proposing does not work, as Europe was caught out some years ago during an extremely dry summer when the soil carbon holding reversed and the soil became a net emitter of CO2 on a massive scale.

    Frankly, Abbott is doing us all a favor in taking such a strong Mbeki “aids is not viral and can be cured with a better diet” style argument (direct action) in response to Climate Change. The louder he shouts his confused logic the sooner he can be cast aside and put in the cabinet of failed and forgotten ex “leaders”. It takes some time before people finally realise conclusively that prolific deceptionists such as Abbott are the liars that they are, but it will certainly happen and his disposal will be thorough.

    Go Tony!

    269

    • #

      Abbott is doing us all a favor in taking such a strong Mbeki “aids is not viral and can be cured with a better diet”

      You are not conscious of your delusion are you? I mean, it’s spectacular how that sentence connects two things that have no connection at all, no reality, and no possible justification.

      Abbotts dark evil plan involves planting 20 million trees. I guess you’d have to hate that…

      601

      • #
        scaper...

        Environmentalism masquerading as carbon abatement?

        Say it’s not so.

        121

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        Some might well see the planting of 20 million trees as evil. Local climates would be cooler and wetter. Over time, soils would become Carbon-rich and the Nitrogen cycle would be enhanced. Properly managed the forests would provide a constant sustainable source of timber for building, wildlife would flourish and species under threat would be saved from extinction. What an absolutely terrible thing to happen to the catastrophists.

        460

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        BilB did have some self-control. No mention was made referencing final solutions.

        110

      • #
        BilB

        20 million trees, wow! That just shows how easily people are dazzled with seemingly big numbers. 20 million trees, that is one per Australian. I don’t knoe if you have ever planted a tree and watched it grow over the years, but I have, and it is very slow. Now realise that this tree is meant to offset your fossil fuel consumption some how. So lets look at your personal fuel useage. We’ll pretend for the moment that we are all working adults. The average person driving to work for say a 50klm round trip is will consume 1300 litres of petrol per year. This is 6.5 200 litre drums at 580mm dia by 900mm high. So at end of year 1 the fuel stack (just for getting to work) is 6 metres high and .6 metres in diameter. I did some hunting to find the growth rate of Abbotts trees and the clearest evidence that I could find is that at 14 years old his trees will be nearly 200mm in diameter and be upto 40 meters high. But at 14 years our consumed stack is 84 metres high and 600mm in diameter all of the way to the top. But our fuel stack has 9 times the density of the tree. Alright the tree has a root system and lets call it nearly equal so our fuel stack is 5 times the density by diameter and twice the height, so easily 10 times the fuel equivalent of the guilt tree.

        That is just the energy getting to work. We have not begun to consider the energy consumed as a result of a person’s work.

        Do you get the picture yet??? Inadequate response by a country mile.

        145

        • #

          Bilb, everyone can see you are dodging my point entirely. The AIDS slur shows off a hatred so deep you can’t think straight.

          Do you actually think I care whether Abbotts plan would reduce global levels of an aerial fertilizer?

          491

          • #
            BilB

            Jo, the aids parallel to Abbott’s dismissal of mainstream science in favour of the opinions of ideologically warped thinktanks and a tiny handful of quak “scientists” is quite precise, and the consequences will in time be viewed in precisely the same way.

            Beneficial gas one century, deadly poison the next

            http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2011-1/fomine.htm

            ….it is all a matter of concentrations and time. Change the concentration too rapidly and everything dies. Not a “fertiliser” it is a source gas.

            What happened in Cameroon is now happening in the Arctic, only there it is methane being released and the release mechanism is rising sea temperatures.
            [Nyos was a natural disaster, caused by natural geological processes. Nobody has credibly claimed otherwise. If such a diversionary tactic is the best you can offer, then you have nothing. -Fly]

            021

            • #
              BilB

              I am pointing out, Fly, that CO2 at a different concentration is a deadly gas. This is very much what could happen if CO2 was sequestered in the Hunter Valley, as is proposed, and it leaked out at night.

              You need to take your head out of the sand, Fly.

              —-
              You are making a transparent attempt to change the point. – Jo
              [Yes, BilB gets excited by headlines like, "Thousands escape death, as 'plane flies over." -Fly]

              19

              • #
                BilB

                That is quite funny, Fly. I will be able to use it somewhere to good effect.

                18

              • #
                bullocky

                -
                bilb:”That is quite funny, Fly. I will be able to use it somewhere to good effect.”
                -
                Just like the AIDS slur!

                01

              • #
                vic g gallus

                Save the Nyos example for why you should not carry dry ice with you in an uninsulated box in a car.

                Drinking four litres of water could kill the average adult. Someone in American kindly demonstrated this with a practical experiment a few years ago. Should we use this to argue that biscuits are safer than cakes?

                00

            • #

              the aids parallel to Abbott’s dismissal of mainstream science in favour of the opinions of ideologically warped thinktanks and a tiny handful of quak “scientists” is quite precise

              Do publish the results from your Ideology-meter(TM) with the confidence intervals. OK? You could send the “observations” to Frontiers of Psychology. They like that kind of stuff.

              Otherwise, I’m happy to keep publishing comments like these as a case study of rapid Abbott-hate and logical fallacies. Prime stuff.

              261

          • #
            joseph

            mmmmmm . . . . . and . . . . . how would it read . . . . I wonder . . . . if . . . . Mbeki was shown not to be so far off the mark after all . . . . . ?

            18

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          According to the science in AR5 the response would be more than adequate, It’s only the polly’s lying hype that makes AR 5 scary. As the hypothesis of CO2-led global warming has fallen apart, by some measures since 1996 but certainly since 2003, 2 million trees will actually improve the environment of your country substantially. For a start, the measure will go a long way to replacing all those trees destroyed by bush fires as a result of the deliberate actions of politically-motivated environmentalists. On that, Mr. Abbott has been a volunteer firemen for a good few years now and has formed an opinion from personal experiencea.

          170

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Apologies. that should be 20 million trees.

            70

          • #
            BilB

            Kevin L,

            Lets put this little stand of trees in perspective. For starters Origin energy already has 20 million trees planted on 18,000 hectares

            http://www.carbonconscious.com.au/pages/what-we-do/Mallee-Eucalypt-Projects.html

            …that is just one commercial business.

            The area 18,000 hectares,…is 180 square kilometers. So you think that planting back 180 square kilometers of land out of Australia’s 7.7 million square kilometers amounts to a serious response to our CO2 emissions??? And simply because Abbott has been on a fire truck so therefore “he should know”!!!!?????

            125

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              So you think that planting back 180 square kilometers of land out of Australia’s 7.7 million square kilometers amounts to a serious response to our CO2 emissions?

              So you are suggesting that trees should not be planted at all?

              How interesting, Origin plants 20 million trees, and BilB treats it with distain, because it is not a serious enough response to the chasing the wind.

              I would claim that it is a start, and with encouragement from Abbot and the current Government, it might well prove to be a very small, but significant start, for everything has to start somewhere.

              Even if Abbot, the entire Government, all of the contributers here, and nine eights of the population agreed with BilB, he would still find something else to argue about by lunchtime tomorrow.

              150

            • #
              Kevin Lohse

              Either you didn’t read my post properly or you’re being deliberately obtuse. The Abbott comment refers to the insane policy of failing to clear undergrowth in areas close to habitation, where Abbott will have seen the devastation and human misery at first hand because of his volunteer committment to your Nation. Are you one of those who believe that bush fires are divine retribution from an angry Gaia, like other haters of humanity?

              As the events of the past 17 years and 8 months have conclusively disproved the hypothesis connecting CO2 and Global temperature as a likely cause of CAGW, I am very relaxed about CO2 emissions from anywhere on the globe. CO2 is not a pollutant, and a compelling case based on empirical observation has been made to raise the level to 3 times what is is atm.
              I notice you stay well clear of discussing the scientific basis of WG II. It isn’t very helpful to the catastrophist cause, is it?

              140

              • #
                Mattb

                “a compelling case based on empirical observation has been made to raise the [CO2] level to 3 times what is is atm”.

                what case is this?

                215

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                @ Mattb. The wealth of publicly available papers on the effects of CO2 on food crops. Levels of up to 1500 ppm of CO2 have been found to spectacularly increase production of certain plants, both in yield and decreased time to maturity, while having no adverse effects on non-responsive plants. No adverse effects of these increased levels have been reported in animals or the people who worked in the high-C02 environment.

                161

              • #
                the Griss

                Kevin, it is pointless, Mattb denies these facts about CO2 even though he seems to support the Greens.

                But then, the Greens never were about a healthy, functional, biosphere and environment.

                132

              • #
                the Griss

                Kevin, it is pointless, Mattb denies these facts about CO2 even though he seems to support the Greens.

                But then, the Greens never were about a healthy, functional, biosphere and environment.

                62

              • #
                the Griss

                double post .. not my fault ! I only hit “post comment” once. !

                41

              • #
                Mattb

                So kevin you’re telling me, fair dinkum, that you think that scientific research exists that is a “compelling case” that we should triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere… well excuse me for needing a bit more convincing for your hubristic desire to significantly change the composition of the atmosphere based upon a few studies in to greenhouse operations.

                218

              • #
                James Bradley

                MattB, your so full of propaganda that you can’t see the oxygen for the atmosphere.

                Mexico city is nice – only takes a bit to get used to the high altitude, but then nature adapts, and then we sent our Olympic athletes there for high altitude training – and it only took a few weeks.

                92

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                Mattb I didn’t say that we should triple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I said that to do so would give a net benefit with no observable downside, since the CO2-led CAGW hypothesis has been disproven by empirical observation. In any case, man-made CO2 emissions account for only about 4% of Gaia’s annual CO2 budget, so the possibility of such a level ever being reached is remote. Your side of the debate wants to significantly change the composition of the atmosphere based on a Victorian era laboratory experiment plus the data from a whole series of failed computer programmes. At least I have some empirical data to support my argument.

                111

              • #
                Mattb

                How does “my side” want to “significantly change the composition of the atmosphere”. That’s a complete furphy, codswallop, fabiracted etc etc.

                Why would you not want to do something that has a net benefit yet has no observable downside? SOrry if I misunderstood when you said “a compelling case based on empirical observation has been made to raise the level to 3 times what is is atm.”

                “In any case, man-made CO2 emissions account for only about 4% of Gaia’s annual CO2 budget, so the possibility of such a level ever being reached is remote.” Oh god not that 4% thing again!

                Never took you for a Gaia fan, I guess we all have our faults.

                111

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                That’s right, Mattb, run away.

                Ever heard of 350.org? What evidence do you have to debunk the 4% thing? Actually, on checking this source, it’s nearly 5%. Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2013.

                “Never took you for a Gaia fan, I guess we all have our faults” Very weak snark.

                90

              • #
                Mattb

                Kevin, while human emissions are about 5% of the total annual GHG emissions, those natural emissions are in a bit of a balance with annual GHG uptake, so the 5% is a much more significant amount of the “wot stays up there” number. Each year this adds to atmospheric levels.

                it’s called the carbon cycle, and your old mate emperical evidence shows we’ve been raising atmospheric CO2. So if it’s good for us to triple it then why wouldn’t we?

                010

              • #
                the Griss

                Unfortunately most of the CO2 that was around when plant life developed is now well and truly buried.

                The BEST that we can realistically HOPE for is to double the current level of atmospheric CO2.

                80

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                Mattb. Thanks for re-engaging. “…..those natural emissions are in a bit of a balance with annual GHG uptake…” Those natural emissions have been on the increase and have been out of balance since the end of the LIA, when oceans started warming and releasing CO2 to atmosphere,still an ongoing process. Science has been able to identify isotopes indicative of man-made CO2, but we still don’t know the proportions of,”good” CO2 and, “bad” CO2. By far the biggest deposition of CO2 out of the atmosphere is the process by which CO2 is used as food by minuscule marine life and laid down as calciferous deposits on the ocean floor. As there is no chemical difference between good and bad CO2 and there is no data about any increase or decrease in marine life over the past 1000 years, we don’t know how much of the increase is due to man until we can measure natural CO2 variation. Once the oceans complete the present warming cycle and start cooling, it may open up methods of C02 measurement.

                If you mustattempt sarcasm, spell-checker is your friend. Typos take away the edge and detract from your message.

                70

              • #
                Mattb

                “If you mustattempt sarcasm, spell-checker is your friend. Typos take away the edge and detract from your message.”

                And if you mustattempt to shift attention from an opponent’s argument, the space bar is also your friend. Wow that was pointless, trying to claim a moral victory because you forgot to press space… a bit like trying to claim victory because someone spells empirical emperical.

                How do you spellcheck on a blog anyway?

                07

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                Mattb . Fair point, hoist by my own petard. However you use my faux pas to ignore the meat of my reply to you. You have not attempted to press your argument at all. You spellcheck on a blog by having good software. My Mac spellchecks whatever and wherever I post. Don’t you read what you’ve typed before posting as a matter of course?

                Now how about rebutting my argument re natural emissions?

                50

              • #
                Mattb

                no I don’t TBH. sometimes. but blogs are like conversations at the pub.. the queen’s is not always required. The problem with picking up on typos is that you’ve gotta be damn sure you’ve made none yourself:)

                In terms of rebuttal, all I can do is link to the carbon cycle: http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/The-Carbon-Cycle/95 I appreciate you disagree but I see no reason that the numbers are incorrect, nor that there are the unknowns you think there are.

                07

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                Mattb. You’re right, I do disagree. That piece of “settled science” has been simplified to the point of being misleading as to the complexity of the problem we’ve been discussing. I suggest we leave things here, but at least we’ve shown that it is possible to profoundly disagree yet still remain polite (mostly). No doubt we will cross swords again.

                30

              • #
                iainnahearadh

                MattB,

                This is what happens to the Earth when you raise the Carbon Dioxide limit to five times the current level.

                Should that happen again, then it can only be beneficial to all.
                Last time it was done, life flourished. However, if you notice the previous era, you will see that the level is double again.

                As a guide, note that carbon dioxide has to get to 9000 ppm to become problematic and 12,000 ppm to start causing problems.
                Anybody familiar with breathing mixed gases in confined spaces and elevations, such as Scuba Divers, High Altitude Pilots, Submariners and such know this already.
                Although they aren’t the only ones, Farmers use the same knowledge, they are called Greenhouses.
                Average carbon dioxide levels in a Greenhouse are around 900 – 1500 ppm. They are not warm. But they sure a green, inside.

                Oddly enough, they are also the cheapest and fastest way to grow produce, year round, with a uniform size and ripeness.

                History and facts, the sworn enemy of the propagandist.

                20

            • #
              James Bradley

              Nature responds magnificently with its own carbon capture and storage system – coal – which, as it turns out, is also a perfectly reliable solar energy conversion system that produced far less CO2 for the same amount of light provided than did all the candles burnt during Earth Hour.

              70

        • #
          BilB

          In case you choose to lower the fuel stack to accont for babies and the bed ridden, I checked Australia’s total fuel consumption and that came to 1454 litres per person, every single one of us, babies included.

          So that makes the fuel stack higher to 7.3 off 200 litre drums or 6.5 metres high,……every year. Next we can look at the pile of coal that the drums are sitting on to see how big that is per person, or even more concerning, per household.

          021

          • #
            BilB

            Oops, I couldn’t help myself, I had to know. Your coal share, now this is everything including industry, is 13.8 cubic metres of cut coal or 52 cubic metres in the back yard of a family of four, every year.

            In 20 years that would cover my whole section one meter deep in coal.

            021

          • #

            BilB,

            seriously, you have absolutely no idea how that per capita emissions meme you use is so false, do you?

            Could you just refresh my memory as to the population of China with respect to Australia.

            And India with Australia.

            You don’t even understand the point do you?

            Tony.

            161

        • #
          Arrant Codger

          So what you’re saying is, that while the carbon Dioxide tax did statistically nothing, that was good; but while planting trees also may do statistically nothing(in your opinion) that is bad. In my opinion we are showing leadership to the world. If Europe is sceptical of Abbott’s plan does that make them Deniers?

          90

      • #
        old44

        A pittance, Bob WAS going to plant a billion.

        40

    • #
      vic g gallus

      Bilb- You must have popped a vein when you heard Gillard was going back on her promise to bring in a carbon tax.

      The Europeans know that nothing will change the climate except nature, but carbon trading will make a small clique rich. Why are you so passionately for Big Fat A$%se?

      240

      • #
        BilB

        Actually,Vic G, I was not incfavour of a C Tax at all. My proposal was when electrity was 13 cents per unit retail, to apply a 3.3 cents per unit levy (you know a levy like Howards levy to pay out Ansett employees) on electrity to raise 8 billion per year to install PV installations across Aust and link them with a HVDC cable. After 10 years this would be supplying 70% of Australia’s 247 billion kwhrs per annum. The advantage is that the facilities would be opperated by the existing power generators but the utilities would be fully paid for in advance. At the end of the ten years the levy is removed and the electricity price is cheaper than it was originally (minimal production cost).

        As far as rooftop solar is concerned it does not require subsidies any more, it just requires banks to accept that rooftop solar increases the value of a property and the savings from offset electricty costs assist the ability to pay a slightly higher mortgage. For example Where $1000 in electricity bill savings cover a mortgage extention of $14000 to cover a solar rooftop system installation, and the property value inreases by some 3,500 per kwhr installed. It should be a good deal for all concerned. No cost to the government and the country has a vibrant industry to replace the car industry that Abbott threw to the wolves.

        Instead the piwer companies took advantage of the confusion and disruption caused by Abbotts antics, and put electricty prices up to the tune of $24 billion per year, and with very little to show as CO2 abatement.

        039

        • #
          Yonniestone

          BilB this thread is about not exactly what your view is on CAGW but exactly the type of person who “believes” it and wont let go of a failed ideal, I’ve often wondered if people like yourself feel cheated that some other “believers” have done so much better in position and money as the wheels fall off?, oh well you can always go for the Greens top job to persue your Nationalist Socialist bent, have a nice life.

          250

        • #
          Streetcred

          I think Jo picked this bilby first time … deluded !

          110

        • #
          Backslider

          raise 8 billion per year to install PV installations across Aust and link them with a HVDC cable. After 10 years this would be supplying 70% of Australia’s 247 billion kwhrs per annum.

          Thanks for the giggle Bilbo!

          70

        • #
          vic g gallus

          Bilb – the point is that you do not care if a politician tells a lie if they are of the Left. Our Prime Minister has not blatantly lied and then told Australians that they were silly to think that he meant ‘tax’ when hhe called it a carbon ‘tax’ like Gillard did.

          Get angry with Gillard before you expect anyone to take your TA hate seriously.

          60

        • #
          Angry

          bilbys are an endangered species………..

          00

      • #
        vic g gallus

        On re-reading my comment, I wish to say that I did not mean to criticise Ms Gillard for anything other than sending the economy pear shaped.

        70

    • #
      abt

      Ah Bilbo…… the first in a long line of Abbott-haters coming out to tell us how awful he is. Fact is, since he said that the “.. climate argument is absolute crap..” he has been the personification of evil within the CAGW group-think movement. He is the first Western politician who has challenged the Left-driven climate-change scam. He has one my support, well done Tony Abbott.

      461

    • #
      Andrew

      Since soil sequestration was a Flannery policy, and Kenya’s favourite export is attracting the usual gushing from leftists for their hero for HIS Direct Action policy, there seems to be some hypocrisy at work. Is Europe (all 700m of them) abusing the Kenyan saying his plans are nonsensical and will destroy the planet?

      120

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Bilb, you have not done your homework.

      Even the IPCC agrees that the CAGW hypothesis cannot be supported by its modelling.

      Read page 743 of its AR5 Working Group 1 Report at:

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

      What is not clear about the IPCC’s confession that: “Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing” ?

      What Abbott is doing is giving the benefit of the doubt to a falsified hypothesis.

      In fact, he should walk away from his expensive and unproductive “direct action” commitments as well, since there is no need for them given that, according to the IPCC, what we are seeing “is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability”.

      230

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        The success of Direct Action depends on the objective.
        It is true that it is a total waste of money if one unwittingly thinks that the objective is to somehow change the temperature. How ridiculous is that?

        However, if you consider that it has several worthwhile objectives, including planting trees as Joanne said, actually cleaning up the the mess that the Greens have made of the environment, providing some worthwhile endeavours for bludgers on the dole, and providing an outlet for the energy of wayward youth, then it might well, under scrutiny, have a positive NPV.

        90

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Rod,

          In a world where Governments are entirely run on the principle of deficit financing, having Australia show a positive NPV may risk throwing the entire global economy into spasm. Is that really what we want?

          80

    • #
      Angry

      “BilB”,
      You are a Surplus Carbon Unit…….

      60

  • #
    LevelGaze

    I still have reservations about Abbott, but this is excellent.

    Europe, and the UK in particular, is very keen that other nations should join it in trashing their economies and ruining their populations. Nothing surprising there, misery has always craved company.

    For those here who do not frequent Bishop Hill blog, Josh encapsulates it nicely in this cartoon:

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/4/5/ed-davey-leads-the-charge-to-nowhere-josh-269.html

    Mal.

    190

    • #
      Angry

      Mr Abbott also must scrap this renewable energy target (RET) which is another reason for enormous electricity prices.
      Australia now has some of the most expensive energy prices in the World yet we possess vast amounts of cheap coal !

      WTF !!

      80

  • #
    Athelstan.

    Unelected OWG autocrats um bureaucrats [UN] and unelected bureaucrats [EU]..ah actually now autocrats are unhappy that a bloke who was genuinely and democratically elected as Prime minister tells them that man made warming is bunk – a euphemism for something – he really meant to call it.
    On the wind up, dreary long road – to UN-IPCC Paris COP in 2015 where the French have declared that there must be/will be a new global warming agreement [Kyoto move aside here comes PARIS!!] Obviously some real people [Abbot among them] have other ideas.

    I bet our lot, the political elite with their corporate mates and the quango industry with their sock puppet mates [Greenpeace, WWF, FoE] aka British EU quislings: are very glum.

    280

    • #
      speedy

      Athelstan

      And the real pearl in this is the Alarmists trying to tell us that “Direct Action” won’t work! As opposed to what they’ve done, perchance?

      Personally, I think Direct Action is just as dumb as any of the other attempts to alter the climate – it’s just less damaging to civilisation.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      400

      • #
        Athelstan.

        An astute observation Speedy, climate changes – of course it bloody does. Man affects the climate in all sorts of ways but infinitesimally via emissions of CO2 and the noise signal will never be ‘made’ – despite what the alarmist computer simulations posit.
        ‘Direct action’ is BS, mitigation and common sense policy are what is needed – ie, don’t build settlements on the Ganges Delta – and if you do; legislate, implement and then construct some sort of bloody big sea wall – ask the Dutch, see how it is done. An 8.2 earthquake off the coast of Chile caused less than 10 deaths, if that same earthquake hit Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, China even – what would be the casualty rate/death toll – that’s the difference mitigation policy brings to the table, simple really.

        160

        • #
          Star Craving Engineer

          Good points, and I think you meant adaptation where you typed mitigation. Trying to stop sea level from changing is mitigation; building a sea wall is adaptation (and common sense).

          10

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    It was about time somebody told the EU where to stick its ridiculous climate change policies. Not to mention the EU. Both the EU and the UN are unelected bureaucracies whereas Mr Abbott has been duly elected. Thank you Mr Abbott. Democracy wins for a change.

    551

    • #
      speedy

      Philip

      Quadruple triple double thumbs up! Why in God’s name would a sensible people willingly stick their necks onto a lion’s jaw!

      The EU, UN, etc neglect the people who pay them and the people they are expected to serve, but instead adopt a self-bestowed right to direct the future of these very same people.

      Would you do the very same to your own children? Me either.

      Cheers,

      Speedy.

      180

    • #
      Mattb

      is the EU unelected?

      024

      • #
        Heywood

        When it comes to their influence on Australia, yes.

        220

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        MattB There is an EU parliament of elected politicians, but the elections are run on party lines, with the MP places apportioned according to parties total vote. So you don’t get the chance to vote for an individual polly, only the part he or she belongs to. The powers of the EU Parliament are severely limited. The Parliament cannot introduce legislation but only approve or reject legislation introduced by EU Commissioners, who are unelected and chosen by heads of state. Nepotism is rife. The real power is lodged with in the EU bureaucracy, who are unelected, unaccountable (un) civil servants with enormous powers. Corruption is such that the accounts of the EU have not been passed by auditors for nearly 2 decades. Parliament is so weak that it has no powers to call the bureaucracy-through the commissioners, to account. Neither do the member nations, as this aspect of sovereignty was one of the first to be subsumed by the EU.

        All the above is part of a deliberate plan by the founders of the EU to create a bureaucratic super-state over the heads of the wishes of many in the UK and not a few elsewhere. Hope that helps. K

        310

      • #
        diogenese2

        “is the EU unelected”

        essentially yes. The Council of Ministers are member state representatives and the Commissioners are appointed by member states. The parliament is elected by local constituency by locally decided voting systems. The members sit in political “groupings” not national ones. “Unaffiliated” MEP do not have the right even to speak. The Parliament has power to approve, amend or reject legislation but not to initiate or compel the commission in any way. The MEPs are extremely well paid with very juicy expense accounts. They pay no income tax.
        The political process I always thought labyrinthine but after observing your senate election methodology it appears relatively straightforward.

        221

      • #
        Mark D.

        “is the EU unelected”

        How many votes have you cast for the UN Mattb?

        I’ve never cast any. If I have the chance it would be to UNfund it and break it up.

        140

        • #
          Mattb

          I didn’t ask if the UN was unelected. Although it does make sense for the govt to pick a UN rep, rather than have a direct elected UN rep. We do elect the government last time I checked.

          112

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The European Parliament is elected, but the European Council, like the UN, is by appointment only.

        90

  • #
    Tim

    Soon they won’t be getting 10% of our taxpaying citizens’ Carbon Tax dollars. Why would they want to rob an ‘ally’, anyway?

    150

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    I hope the Tony Abbott has the back bone to say,”Stay on topic or go home.” To the EU representative at the G20 who will just because of human nature, will bring up anything their took not to. Just wait and see they will bring it up. Hope the G20 could stay on topic but I’m not holding my breath.

    190

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Just watch their minions, peacefully protesting in the streets when its on. No barricades pushed over, police challenged or businesses effected, in a pigs eye.

      90

  • #
    scaper...

    And you people are surprised?

    “Won’t pander to socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”

    Simple really.

    270

  • #
    peter

    Tony Abott is the the first PM to have he back bone and try to stop this global warming crap. He should be commended.

    520

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Presumably there will be the usual bunch of intellectually challenged by choice* protesters demonstrating at these G20 meetings.

    These people will represent the heart and soul of the CAGW movement, namely they believe that to save the world you first have to destroy it.

    * The usual concepts of; i) ‘rent-a-mob’ is becoming cliche, and ii) the ‘ranks of the unemployable’ and ‘elements of the great unwashed’ are only mostly true descriptions.

    100

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    Writing as a UK citizen, I know full well that the EU, with its unelected officials, doesn’t like anyone to disagree with its policies. I just hope that Mr Abbott sticks rigidly to that promise, but I suspect that there will be attempts of all kinds emanating from the EU to persuade him to change his mind.
    Here there are believable reasons why “the lights will go out” in the next severe winter, but more importantly why the few high energy usage factories still remaining will cease production. The EU is a madhouse and its leaders ought to be sectioned as they clearly despise people in gainful employment who are trying their best.

    290

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I missed this first time around, the anti-Abbott comments are supposedly based on the comments of an unnamed official – great quality quote, or possibly yet another example of pro-CAGW journalistic largesse.

    the official, who did not want to be named, said in the Belgian capital Brussels this week.

    160

  • #
    TdeF

    Love it! High quality meaningless drivel. A “huge amount of scientists and economists”. The image. Can you get them by the dozen? Do they come paired, one scientists per economist? Words fail. I would like to buy a bunch of scientists and economists please. In a bunch. In a bunch.

    170

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The collective noun for a group of climate scientists, or environmental economists, is a “pontify”.

      This word recognises the faith based underpinnings of the specialities, which bypasses the tedium of having to provide anything so prosaic as evidence or originally observed data. It is all about having an inward sense of knowing one is right, through intense meditation, and the perpetual seeking for quantity in funding.

      150

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Excellent News!

    100

  • #
    klem

    Would you Ozzie folks mind terribly if we borrowed Tony Abbott for a little while, we need someone with backbone to run the USA.

    240

    • #
      Michael P

      If there was a way to clone him,we’d be more than happy as it beats the stupidity in the USA at the moment.

      170

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Wiki is already winding things up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_G-20_Brisbane_summit. There are some doubtful points about civil liberties in Brisbane that you Aussies might want to comment about.

    61

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I can’t speak for everyone, but my assumption is…
      …that 99% of people will just roll over and take it for the one week of peak disruption. Probably a few FIFO pro hooligans from UK/USA on the first day and then that will be it.
      It is difficult for most people to develop any kind of focussed resentment against the G20 when they can’t think of anything in particular that the G20 has done wrong as a group. (For me, the Financial Stabilisation Fund is the only one that springs to mind.) Leaving that aside, the G20 figureheads consider themselves VIPs and it’s easy to recall the enemies of some key members of G20 and so their quasi-marshall law demands are just symptomatic.
      It’s not that Australians are entirely spineless, it’s just that there is no value placed on individual rights in Australia.
      Simultaneously there is a perception of a disconnect between the elected politicians and the government, whereby people are cynical about politicians, parties, and politics, but believe government departments will always try their best to do the right thing. In other words, the evil is allocated to politicians and the ineptitude is assigned to the bureaucracy.
      In that model, the G20 Totalitarianism Lite™ is best viewed as an aberration that nobody in government wants to have to do but they can grin and bear it for short time due to high level external pressure. So none of these intrusions are seen as our government turning inherently bad.
      That’s why it’s difficult justify any widespread outrage.

      Or at least that’s what I tell myself.

      70

  • #
    Bulldust

    Stunning results at the AEC or the WA senate election so far, with the following primary votes:

    Libs: 33.71% @ -5.49%
    Lab: 21.76% @ -4.83%
    Grn: 15.88% @ +6.38%
    PUP: 12.49% @ +7.48%

    It shows a couple of things – the wall-to-wall advertising of PUP and The Greens and relative aparthy of the majors in this election has paid off for the former. WA is turning green? Seriously WTF? This is a party that would like to see the State’s economic backbone closed down. Are WA residents really that naive?

    220

    • #
      Bulldust

      Forgot to mention the Nats at 3.10% @ -1.97%. See the results at:

      http://vtr.aec.gov.au/

      70

    • #
      janama

      The way I see it is that there was a move from Labor to the Greens, labor is now in real trouble IMO. The people who voted for PUP were probably liberal voters in the Mining industry who want the carbon and mining taxes removed and hope that Palmer represents their industry in Parliament.

      131

      • #
        Mattb

        why would a liberal voter who wants Liberal policy implemented vote PUP? That makes no sense Janama.

        And bull dust how were the greens “wall to wall”? I think a lot of that was clear opposition to the ALP #1 on the senate ticket Joe Bullock.

        018

        • #
          janama

          Mattb – the Greens increased their vote, they weren’t wall to wall – they only get one seat which is all they got at the last WA senate election.
          As I said – many voted Pup because they knew they would get Liberal party policy PLUS they hoped Clive, being a miner, would support their industry in parliament.

          110

          • #
            Mattb

            well they only kinda got one… it was touch and go and then we went back to the polls.

            Seriously Janama, there’s no way you can paint this as anything other than a highly successful election for the Greens.

            214

            • #
              Heywood

              I must reluctantly concede that you are correct Matty, but I would consider that the Greens ‘success’is more due to the dissatisfaction of voters with the ALP and Libs more than the actual support for Greens policy. This is evidenced by the increasing PUP vote as well. When I lived in WA in 2009, West Aussies semed a bit smarter than that. Oh well.

              In reality we are in pretty much the same position Senate numbers wise as we were after the election in september. I just hope that the ALP come to their senses and do what they promised to do and axe the Carbon (dioxide) tax.

              120

              • #
                Mattb

                I agree Heywood. It is a totally different thing voting in a federal election where your vote chooses who governs, compared to one where your vote just tweaks the senate, maybe, but the government is established. People don’t like risking protest votes when it may actually harm their preferred party, but the ALP is already consigned to opposition to you may as well send a message loud and clear, the LNP is already in charge so again you are free to send your message.

                33

        • #
          Bulldust

          Wall-to-wall advertising. I saw very little Lib and Lab advertising in the weeks leading up to the election compared to the carpet bombing of Greens and PUP. One of the last two was in virtually every ad break on commercial TV. Perhaps you didn’t notice?

          80

  • #
    Keith L

    “You have a huge amount of scientists and economists saying the direct action policy isn’t going to work,”

    Does that mean that someone has actually stuck his head over the parapet and defined some sort of measurable quantitative criteria for success?
    I doubt it!
    They refuse to even discuss the concept of cost benefit so I don’t see how they can be deciding what ‘works’ and what does not.
    Unless of course the measurement is in regards to junkets and gravy trains…

    130

  • #
    Bruce

    I’m a Scot and can assure you, as many will already know, that “Europe” couldn’t give a toss about climate change being left off the agenda. The ruling class of complete, undemocratic, authoritarian, leftist tits might but that’s another matter.

    Tony Abbott’s been a breath of fresh air and has replaced Vaclav Klaus as my political hero. I just hope he doesn’t cave in to increased EU pressure. Stick it right up ‘em, Tony!

    180

  • #
    WikiWatcher

    Yep – I sent Tony the text of my book – and quite a few emails.

    70

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Interesting article in the UK press on the difference between the IPCC Sumary and the actual papers. In some cases the summary statement is diametrically opposed to the actual papers! Incredible! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html

    160

  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    As a supporter of Mr Abbott’s policy, my feelings have been hurt by what the EU has said. I don’t think I will be able to work because of this. The EU owes me a living because I am a victim of their nastiness in oppressing me…

    Actually, I think I’ll get up in the morning, get out of bed, stand on my own two feet and go and do some work to earn a living and not blame everyone else for my “problems.”

    Nice work, Tony. Keep it up.

    151

  • #
    bill

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9176121/armageddon-averted/

    Interesting interpretation of IPCC report. Hope govs take note before spending any more obscene amounts on green “renewable” energy

    60

    • #
      PeterK

      “…The received wisdom on global warming, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was updated this week. The newspapers were, as always, full of stories about scientists being even more certain of environmental Armageddon. But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all….”

      I wonder if this is a calculated change by the IPCC? They know they are losing the battle and with it billions and billions of dollars for junk remedies to fix a non-existent problem. Could they now be focusing on ‘adaption’ so that they will still remain in charge of the gravy train? Just wondering!

      90

  • #
    Tim

    Slightly o/t, but a must read. A surprisingly comprehensive overview from Daily Mail. Public awareness gaining ground.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html

    90

  • #
    hunter

    Think of the billions of dollars that could be saved if climate conferences were cancelled completely.
    The money could instead be used to provide clean water and low cost cell phone networks to third worlders, saving lives and allowing modern low cost communications to improve trade and wealth.

    100

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook

    Right on!!!

    My hunch would be that our PM Harper here in Canada is quietly thinking, “YES!!!”

    90

    • #
      PeterK

      Al: I’m sure he is but if that looney left led by the “beautiful hair” Trudeau wins the election 18-months from now, we will be in dire straits because this guy will take us down the road that Australia has gone down.

      80

  • #
    Sonny

    Why do the alarmists always walk away?
    With hit and run tactics they rarely ever stay.
    But duck and weave and dodge and deceive,
    and pop their head up to lie another day.

    111

  • #
    hunter

    This is a good start. I suspect many world leaders are quietly supporting this. Congrats to Australia.

    90

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    The use of the term ‘Forcing’ is at the heart of the IPCC’s scientific failure.

    It is a Radiation Field, a potential energy flow to a sink at absolute zero, not a real energy flux. Only the vector sum of RFs at the surface gives the maximum real IR flux from surface to atmosphere – c 0.4 of a black body – and >60% of that is coupled convection and evapo-transpiration.

    The reason is that each self-absorbed atmospheric GHG emission band annihilates the same energy band that would otherwise be emitted from the surface.

    Most real ~0.16 black body net IR goes directly to space: there is near zero CO2-AGW, no extended GHE, the real GHE is from clouds – change of area + albedo.

    70

  • #
    Jonathan Cook

    I’m posting from occupied Europe……

    I avail myself with relief of the opportunity of speaking to the people of the Australia. I do not know how long such liberties will be allowed. The stations of uncensored expression are closing down; the lights are going out; but there is still time for those to whom freedom and parliamentary government mean something, to consult together. Let me, then, speak in truth and earnestness while time remains……. thank you Tony Abbott

    (With apology to Winston Churchill)

    180

    • #
      Snafu

      More quotes from Sir Winston Churchill.

      The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.

      A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.

      However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

      It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right.

      It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time.

      It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look further than you can see.

      There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.

      We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

      70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It’s refreshing to say the least that a national leader is willing to stand up for the good interest of his country, be damned to what the rest of the world may think.

    It’s about time!

    Now if he can be convinced to scrap his “direct action plan”… But this is a good start. The EU is looking like it will accept collapse rather than good sense so Tony Abbott is doing no more than any prudent person would do — launch the lifeboats and prepare to abandon a ship that looks every bit like sinking.

    100

  • #
    motvikten

    The G20 should recognize that climate change is a minor problem, and focus on the huge problem.

    The bottom billion need electricity and clean water!

    I remind you again of the IMF conference, Africa Rising, in Mozambique May 20-30.
    http://www.africa-rising.org/

    They mention climate change, but it seems to be a minor issue.

    In Sweden we are many opposing the climate change hype. And I can see in other EU countries that opposition is getting stronger.

    The Swedish minister of finance talked yesterday for a long time about the importance of Africa for the future. I did not hear him say anything about climate change.

    Two links related to Sweden that I hope you enjoy. Listen to Hans Rosling and Bill Gates

    http://ki.se/en/news/facts-and-optimism-when-bill-gates-spoke-at-karolinska-institutet

    http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

    60

  • #
    john robertson

    Go Ozz, leading the free world.
    I doubt our, Canadian, Prime Minister has any interest in allowing CAGW/CC/GCD/UN BS to dominate the G20 meeting either.
    It is fading away from public interest, the hysteria can’t be sustained.
    After all once you are scared to death.. what is left?
    Be very very frightened, only sells once, then its Texas chainsaw massacre part 101, yawn.
    Especially when the line immediately after the terrorism, is hand over all your liberties and wealth.
    This used to be called extortion, something I have noticed the environmental consultants/watchdog agencies specialize in.
    Except they have gone from strong-arming private businesses, to seeking to extort the wealth of the world.

    90

  • #
    John Campbell

    “You have a huge amount of scientists and economists saying the direct action policy…”

    If the un-named source is a native English speaker, then I wonder how many scientists were heaped up in a possibly dismembered pile? “Amount” is a quantity. Perhaps “number” was intended?

    Signed: I Pedant

    50

  • #

    [...] Abbott tells G20 that climate is off the agenda (and the EU are not happy) [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] Abbott tells G20 that climate is off the agenda (and the EU are not happy) [...]

    00

  • #
    Roger

    It is not the people of Europe who are disappointed that climate change is off the G20 agenda – merely the alarmist officials and politicians. If you asked the people (something the EU avoids at all cost) I have no doubt they would applaud this being ‘off the agenda’.

    90

    • #

      It is not just the EU officials who are disappointed. It is also the numerous advocacy groups that the EU funds, such as “Friends of the Earth” and “Greenpeace”. If climate change ceases to be an issue then jobs will be at risk. They will not point out that the elimination of thousands of jobs on the EU gravy train, along with the associated policies, will mean tens of thousands of jobs created elsewhere. Neither will they point out that the loss of jobs will be in the prosperous Brussels, whilst the chief beneficiaries will be the unemployment black spots of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

      100

  • #
    Sean

    Screw the EU and screw the G20.

    Hold off on any more G20 meetings until Russia and the EU finish escalating to a war the EU can not win.

    As for the climate cult crooks, who cares what they think, they all belong in prison for fraud.

    71

  • #

    Well done, Tony Abbott! The EU has no right to say what we in Australia do.
    EU officials are in fact not even legitimate elected representatives of Europeans either.
    EU policies including anti-CO2 punitive measures have ruined the Southern European Economies. Un-employment runs upo to 25%.
    Increases in measured CO2 are having no impact of World Temperature which has not increased for 17 years. CAGW is a mis-guided irrelevant non-scientific fantasy and far from being a top Economic problem for the World’s People.
    The G20 should discuss real economic concerns not matter of religious belief.

    80

    • #
      the Griss

      Its the idiotic RESPONSE to the CO2 fantasy that has caused major economic problems for many parts of the world.

      So much waste, on “nothing”.

      81

  • #
    pat

    this is just the latest in a relentless campaign by the MSM, which is now resorting to anonymous quotes!

    however, it’s worth remembering:

    23 March: UK Guardian: Oliver Milman: Greg Hunt confident of ‘helping’ China, US, India and EU cut carbon emissions
    Environment minister says Australia will use G20 presidency as catalyst for new deal
    Hunt said Australia would use its presidency of the G20 as a “catalyst” to help the “G4” – the US, China, the European Union and India – complete the groundwork for a new deal to lower emissions.
    ***But the minister faced scepticism and heckling as he argued for the government’s environmental credentials at a Melbourne forum…
    Hunt said the annual G20 talks, to be held in Brisbane in November, would be used to facilitate a long-term deal even though climate change is not on the official itinerary for the event.
    “As we head towards 2050 the great global challenge is to have a real and genuine agreement and that has to involve the G4,” he told the Doctors for the Environment conference in Melbourne.
    “We are proposing bringing together the largest four sources of emissions as a catalyst for a 2015 agreement. I don’t think the US and China will bind themselves legally but I think they will make a real and genuine commitment.
    “Our task is to work towards not just the 2020 outcome but towards a global agreement through to 2030 and 2040 and leading into 2050.”…
    The G20 talks appear to sideline climate change, with the government leaving it off the official agenda in favour of focusing upon economic growth. …
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/greg-hunt-confident-of-helping-china-us-india-and-eu-cut-carbon-emissions

    ***Milman doesn’t mention it’s a CAGW-advocating “Doctors for the Environment” forum until later in the article, thereby giving the impression Hunt is being heckled by Australians in general.

    20

  • #
    pat

    ABC has been leading the campaign, naturally:

    1 April: ABC: Marshall Islands minister unsure of Australia’s stance on climate change
    The foreign minister of Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, says he’s extremely disappointed by Australia’s approach to climate change…
    Mr de Brum says he hopes Australia will put climate change on the agenda when it hosts the G20 meeting in November.
    “They must set the tone for commitment, for progressive movement on climate change and not backpedal on commitments already made.
    “We’ve heard from example that, in the upcoming G20 summit, Australia was going to leave climate change off the agenda, because it did not want it cluttered with climate change issues – this is appalling.”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-01/an-marshall-islands-urges-urges-australia-to-take-22leadership/5360510

    31 March: Radio Australia: Majuro hosting major climate change talks
    RICHARD EWART: Do you get the impression the kind of messages that are emanating from Marshall Islands and indeed other members who will be at the Dialogue next week are being listened to more intently now, certainly here in Australia, but also elsewhere in the world. The G20 agenda, for example, which will be held, of course, in Australia later in the year I gather will take a look at climate change, when that wasn’t guaranteed really was it, when it was decided to bring the meeting here?…
    TONY DE BRUM, FOREIGN MINISTER, MARHSALL ISLANDS: In the forthcoming months, will be some of the most important meetings, like the G20, like the Cartagena Dialogue, the Palau Forum, the Secretary-General’s call ?? then the UNGA itself. I think all of these should be focused entirely on the issue of climate change, so that we can come away with some solid ideas of how we move forward, other than keep talking theory or predictions, or what people are claiming maybe the source or may not be source of this problem. Leave that aside, let’s work on what we have now. The science is in, the evidence is clear. Let’s move forward
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/majuro-hosting-major-climate-change-talks/1287590

    27 March: ABC Lateline: Back tracking on carbon pricing will damage Australia
    NICHOLAS STERN: And Australia’s commitment and Australia’s perceived commitment as a rich country which has got very high emissions, carbon emissions per capita, Australia is seen as a country that really matters and of course you’re hosting the G20 as well so other people are really looking at Australia and they worry about the direction.
    TONY JONES: So do you regard it as a retrograde step, possibly even a damaging one from your point of view?
    NICHOLAS STERN: I think it’s damaging for the world and I think over the medium term it’s damaging for Australia because Australia’s a very well respected country, expected to take a lead on the issues that count. Dynamic, forward-looking and I think Australia would be a great leader in alternative technologies…
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3973198.htm

    10

  • #
    pat

    more from the MSM campaign:

    Fairfax’s “french officials” is merely the word of Destais – a sort of French Nicholas Stern!

    14 March: SMH: Katina Curtis: Climate change off Aust G20 agenda
    Australia’s mission to use its leadership of the G20 to drive global growth is being well received, but there’s some international disquiet over its refusal to put climate change on the agenda.
    However, French officials believe the issue will find its way into the final communique from the leaders’ meeting in Brisbane in November…
    But the Australian government has been unwilling to discuss climate change in G20 meetings, instead focusing on its growth target and investment and structural reforms, says Christophe Destais, the deputy director of French economic think tank CEPII…
    The US emissary to the G20 Caroline Atkinson recently said addressing climate change was an important issue for world leaders, and International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde has urged Australia to continue to be a pioneer in the debate…
    But (French) officials believe there is room for Australia to include the issue in the G20 agenda without losing face at home.
    It’s been noted the G20 working group on climate finance, co-chaired by France, has not been halted during Australia’s presidency.
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/climate-change-off-aust-g20-agenda-20140314-34qop.html

    8 March: AFR: John Kehoe: Heat on Abbott as US pushes G20 climate change action
    The United States is pushing for climate change to be an important agenda item when Australia hosts world leaders at the Group of 20 meeting this year, placing Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a potentially awkward position that conflicts with his domestic political agenda.
    US President Barack Obama’s G20 emissary, Caroline Atkinson, said “addressing climate change” was an important issue for leaders in addition to Australia’s priorities of promoting stronger economic growth and employment outcomes.
    International pressure is mounting on Mr Abbott to take climate change more seriously.
    International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde last month made a veiled criticism about the government’s retreat on carbon pricing, urging Australia to remain a “pioneer” on climate change policy.
    The latest US comments highlight a potential elephant in the room for Australia as G20 chair in 2014 and ­suggest a rare policy divide between Australia and its close US ally…
    Last year’s G20 leaders’ declaration signed in St Petersburg, Russia, dedicated a section to climate change.
    “We underscore our commitment to work together to address climate change and environment protection, which is a global problem that requires a global solution,” the statement said.
    Mr Abbott may come under pressure from other countries to mention climate change in the official communique when he hosts world leaders, including Mr Obama, on November 15-16 in Brisbane…
    Colin Bradford, a G20 expert and senior fellow at Washington think tank the Brookings Institution, said Mr Abbott may be able to “fudge” the climate change issue by incorporating it into the energy discussion.
    “The most damaging issue for Abbott would be trying to put this issue aside and ignore it,” Mr Bradford said.
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/heat_on_abbott_as_us_pushes_climate_xxma1V2KrZxQjeryKlqzQM

    10

  • #
    WikiWatcher

    Oh well, I did send Tony (and other key politicians) the text of my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.” Dare I presume he may have read it?

    50

  • #
    Scott Mc

    Oh no, they cant keep discussing the GW red herring and may have to actually talk about something that matters………..Im holding my breath :)

    50

  • #
    michael hart

    and the EU are not happy

    They may not be any happier next year either. The G20 is due to meet in Turkey, and Turkish accession to the EU is being hindered by powerful nations (Germany and France, amongst others). Turkey has been unhappy for a while. I wouldn’t care to predict what may happen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#Future

    40

  • #
    GAZ

    Bravo Abbott.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    A corollary of the idea that man is changing the planet, a place of tens of thousands of climates, is that we can actually change a climate, a purely local phenomenon. The IPCC though went for the big one which suited its UN funding and international status, that we are changing all climates simultaneously and for the worse, everywhere, even warming the whole planet carelessly and that this is necessarily the wrong thing to do. Now the planet is refusing to cooperate and clearly hiding the heat somewhere and such nonsense but it does raise a question not answered.

    If we can really change climates, should we? What would be preferable? Huge forests as in Siberia, tundra, desert, green meadows? What temperature is ideal? Cold, temperate, hot, tropical? What about rainfall? Would people agree on whether where they live should be hotter or colder, with more rain or less? So consider the situation in Australia where 50,000 years ago, the rainfall in Australia halved suddenly. The conclusions of the US team which investigated this phenomenon were obvious and even Tim Flannery agreed. So should Tony Abbott put the trees back and would that double the rainfall? There have been plenty of huge tree plantings, say in Turkmenistan with exactly this in mind. Did they work?

    This all regardless of the fact that all carbon lifeforms desperately need the source of life, Carbon dioxide, from which along with water all plants are made and thus all life on earth. Can we really change the climate, even in a small part? If we could make England or Southern Australia a bit warmer, should we? Should we extend the warm seasons, grow more crops, feed more people and live in more pleasant land? Should we try to output as much CO2 as possible and stall the coming ice age?

    When will we get an open discussion on changing climates which does end with paying shiploads of cash to the UN and its coterie of third world dictators? It is pretty certain that the objective of the world meteorological society in 1988 was not to create a source of income for the UN and European bankers and third world dictators. Even China sells carbon credits for their hydro schemes, so it all looks like a farce.

    Tony, I would like Melbourne two degrees warmer in winter with a little more rain please.

    30

  • #
    pat

    this appears to be an editorial – worth reading all:

    6 April: Wall St Journal: Second Climate Thoughts
    The latest U.N. report tones down the alarmism but ramps up the bad economics.
    More importantly, it acknowledges that “the innate behavior of the climate system imposes limits on the ability to predict its evolution.”
    All of this vindicates what we wrote about the 2007 report: “Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.” It also suggests an IPCC toning down the end-is-nigh rhetoric that typified its past climate warnings: “Vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause.” In other words, humanity has lots of problems, climate change being one of them. And as with other problems, humanity will cope and adapt.
    All good, which makes it even more of a pity that the authors venture from cautious climate science into the most politically correct forms of political science…
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579477222157281450

    20

  • #
    Michael P

    Tim Blair wrote in today’s Telegraph the following

    Speaker: Order! The Member for Sydney will stop shouting. And self-harming. The treasurer has the call.

    Hockey: Madam Speaker, it’s a mild day outside. That’s usual for this time of year. But suppose we wanted to change the weather. Labor tried to do this with their carbon tax. Seriously, Madam Speaker, a Labor government that couldn’t even run a grocery-pricing website actually attempted to change the planet’s temperature.

    We opposed that tax and in government we are trying to remove it. But we’ll go further. It is a scientific fact that reducing Australian carbon emissions will do nothing to combat global warming. In light of this, we will end all federal funding for anything to do with climate change. We’re going through every department right now and abolishing anything with the words “climate” or “carbon” in them.

    (Screams of “We’ll all be killed!”, “Who will save the children?”, “This is the ultimate madness!” and “You are the devil! I denounce thee!”)

    Speaker: Order! The press gallery will be silent.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/fair_joe/

    40

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    It is time for the children to school the parents. Europe is looking for an excuse to practice euthanasia upon itself. Well done Mr. Abbott.

    30

  • #
    DannyL

    I live in the UK, and I have only one question; when can we borrow Mr Abbot for say, 5 to 10 years or so?….My hero

    40

  • #
    jim heath

    All Climate change reports should begin: Once upon a time, it’s a complete fairy tale.

    21