Christopher Monckton reminds us of just how badly the “experts” have failed in the last 15 years, even including the recent hottest ever El Nino months. China bombed the atmosphere with record carbon “pollution” — worse than we thought. The world though, warms sedately at a mere half a degree per century. This is what 95% certainty looks like. — Jo
Introducing the global warming speedometer
A single devastating graph shows climate panic was unfounded
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
A single devastating graph – the new global warming speedometer – shows just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have failed.
Keep reading →
While Turnbull and the Liberals are attacking Labor for wanting a “massive new carbon tax on electricity,” it turns out that the Climate Change Authority is going to recommend the Liberals do exactly that but not ’til after the election. Allegedly Greg Hunt’s office are “very happy” that the report will be delayed. It would muddy up that scare campaign about Labor’s carbon tax if the punters knew the Libs planned to bring one in too. Labor and the Greens are crying foul, saying the report should be released now.
We are bizarrely reliving 2009. The public don’t want carbon trading. They have voted against it at every opportunity. They don’t want to spend even $2 to neutralize flights, yet both major political parties are now demanding we have one. If the report is suppressed in any way it shows Turnbull and Hunt know the public don’t want a carbon tax, but they’re going to give them one despite that.
The Climate Change Authority was rescued from the Abbott sabre by Al Gore and Clive Palmer. Turnbull and Hunt pointed at it on Sept 22 last year, barely two weeks after the coup, and announced carbon trading and a “cap” could begin in mid 2016. Neither of them have said anything since that suggests they are not intending to bring Cap N Trade in after the election.
Yet again, the climate non-issue for voters is causing turmoil in the Liberal Party. Turnbull is cutting out the core traditional Liberal supporters — and for seemingly no electoral gain. The Delcon / Defcons are furious. I predicted a Turnbull PM would be the seed to split the Liberal party. Maurice Newman warned the same thing and repeated it again recently. Will Turnbull offer any guarantee he will not bring in Cap N Trade in any form?
Sydney Morning Herald
A report that recommends putting a price on emissions from the electricity sector has been held back by the Climate Change Authority until after the election, prompting calls from Labor and the Greens that it be made public to inform debate.
The independent authority, whose board is now dominated by appointments made last October by Environment Minister Greg Hunt, was to have released its policy options paper for the power industry by the end of April.
The board, though, decided to withhold the report – along with the large Special Review due out by June 30 – until after the election, “assuming it is called for early July,” the authority said on its website.
While Mr Hunt and his department did not intervene, his office was “very happy” that the electricity sector report’s release was delayed, another source said.
A spokesman for Mr Hunt said his office had not seen the reports. He also dismissed the possibility that the government would have withheld a report favouring a wide-ranging carbon price on the eve of an election.
The CCA electricity report assessed the relative merits of different schemes, and found the emissions-intensive version (see “EI” in the following chart from the report) favoured by Labor to be among the cheaper options.
Labor Greens seem oblivious to how little the public want to pay for “climate change”. The Liberal Party seem oblivious that over half the Australian population are skeptical.
h/t Eric Worrall
Tony Abbott’s plan is one of the most efficient and effective programs anywhere in the world. But the Green hero is really enemy number one. Apparently giving the eco-cartel what they say they want is a disaster. Don’t look now, but green underpants are showing. Who cares about carbon reduction or trees? Givem’ power and money!
Gillard’s carbon tax cost $5310 per ton. Abbott’s plan at $10/ton this round is 531 times greener. The Direct Action plan uses a reverse auction to buy the cheapest carbon reduction in Australia. In the third round another half billion dollars has bought 47m tons of carbon reduction at an even cheaper price than the first two rounds. Most it achieved by planting or restoring greenery and trees.
The real problem with the Direct Action plan is manifold — a/ it doesn’t specifically punish the “big polluders” (those big independent companies that don’t need the government to survive). b/ it doesn’t reward the right patrons — there’s no money for the parasitic windmills and solar industries. And c/ It is more like the real free market solution the eco-fans say they want — showing that the fake free market idea of imposing an economy-wide carbon trading scheme is useless, overpriced, and inefficient. Direct Action fails to reward those financial houses and the conglomerate big-gov entities like the EU and UN, all of whom have been part of the lobbying cheer-squad for 20 years.
The Direct Action Plan delivers lot of trees:
Keep reading →
I’ve said before that the man-made climate-faith is a luxury of the stupidly wealthy. Only people with time to stress about the carbon footprint of their oranges can wallow in the indulgence of owning the idea that windmills in Alabama could reduce tidal surges in Peru. It follows then that if (or as) the economy falls apart so will the Green religion.
A new research paper backs this up, but possibly shows more about researcher’s confirmation bias than it does about the public. (I suspect the most useful part of this research was that a couple of hundred people got to see a video with Richard Lindzen in.)
That the global-eco-faith needs lots of wealth is a horrible conundrum for the Greens. The best thing they can do to encourage “climate belief” is to get out of the way and let the economy prosper, which of course is the last thing the Greens can do since “Growth” = “Pollution” in the GreenWorldView. So the more the Greens do to slow or wreck the economy, the more skeptical the population will get. It’s a “positive” feedback loop that may protect Western Civilization a little bit. Joy.
Is that motivated recall or motivated analysis?
The researchers report on “motivated recall” but use some pretty “motivated analysis” to misunderstand their data.
“A mediation analysis suggested that the tendency for conservatives to be more skeptical of climate change is consistent with a stronger motivation to justify the economic system.
I’ll translate that for them:
A mediation analysis suggested that the tendency for progressives to be more gullible about climate change is consistent with a stronger motivation to justify their anti-capitalist economic system.
To their credit, the paper does mention something on these lines — the researchers admit that they hadn’t been looking for it, but, golly, their results raise the possibility that the anti-capitalists “may possess an opposing motivation”…. and “nonconsiously exaggerate”. No kidding. The Carbon Wolf will eat the Penguin King, drown whole Cities, and unleash the God of War?
Given the historic rank failure of anti-capitalist economies, it’s only fitting that those who lean toward communism might also lean towards the Doctrine of the evil Carbon Wolf. (That’s the unlikely faith that humans can control the climate despite us making only 4% of a trace gas that is not even the dominant greenhouse gas, and the almost total lack of evidence or predictive association between CO2 and long term climate change.)
To create enviro-panic, suppress econo-panic
Their final conclusion is a typical postmodernist one advising that to “overcome public resistance to pro-environmental policies” the communicator ought to tell people how healthy the economy is at the same time as telling them how bad the environment is:
Keep reading →
Don’t turn on the air conditioner. You might make someone a racist:
Climate change is spawning injustice, racism, intolerance and wars, according to author and political activist Naomi Klein.
Got moral decay? High Priestess Naomi Klein, expert psychoanalyst, says blame the weather. John Vidal, writer for The Guardian, believes her:
“It is not about things getting hotter and wetter but things getting meaner and uglier, unless we change the corrosive values that are pitting people against each other,”…
See, some people think mums and dads are supposed to teach values, but really it’s a humidity thing.
(Obviously, the way to fight racism is with biogas.
…and maybe ethanol.)
Naomi’s thesis reminds us that when the weather was ideal — like in 1915, there were no wars and everyone liked everyone.
She urged people to make the links between climate change and conflict. “Anti-austerity people rarely talk about climate change. And climate change people rarely talk about war. Overcoming these disconnections is the most pressing task for anyone occupied with social justice.
Yes, stop ISIS now — send in the windmills!
“There is no clean, safe way to run an economy built on fossil fuels. There is no peaceful way to do it…
Because seven billion people would be at peace if they used horses, carts, ate bark and razed the tropics for the firewood.
“We are running out of cheap ways to get to fossil fuels. This sees the rise of fracking which is now threatening some of the prettiest places in Britain.”
And the prettiest places in Britain used to be 300 meters under the North Sea. They’re gone now.
Soon frakking may ruin the rocks under Lancashire.
What we really need is colder weather. It made Napolean a lot nicer.
“Fossil fuels, which are the principal driver of climate change, require the sacrifice of whole regions and people. Sacrificial zones like the Niger delta and the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, dot the world.
If we could only pave Niger with solar panels we could spare the Niger delta.
“These zones require the shredding of treaties that enable peoples to live on their land. Indigenous rights are meaningless when the land is being [destroyed] and the rivers are polluted. Resource extraction is a form of violence because it does so much damage and kills cultures,” she said.
Paleolithic people ate treaties for breakfast and burned indigenous rights to keep warm. The violence of resource extraction destroyed the Bronze Age culture and brought the horrors of ballet.
Keep reading →
There is a voting block in Australia that is ignored and disorganised, but ready to be galvanized. It’s part of a worldwide phenomenon. Readers who havent read the first post on the Delcons phenomenon ought start there.
An election is likely to be called any day. There are 15 million voters enrolled in Australia. If 4% of Liberal-Nat voters are Delcons, that’s about 2% of the total voter pool or 300,000 people who don’t matter. And that’s a conservative, pardon the pun, estimate. Another 10% of Liberal voters said they are “a little less likely” to vote for the Liberal Party at the next election. These voters are not lost from the leftie end of the Liberal Party fan club. Potentially there are another 750,000 who could be convinced to instead vote National, ALA, Lib Dem, Family First or some other option should it appear. All up, these 14% of Lib voters have a million votes and are the most passionate sixth of Liberal supporters.
What could possibly go wrong?
Picture 300,000 less Liberal donors, volunteers, scrutineers, and people to hand out how-to-vote cards at 7,000 polling booths on July 2nd. Imagine 300,000 fewer website commenters willing to defend Liberal policy, and who can explain why punters should vote Liberal at BBQ’s. And if you can explain why a Liberal supporter should vote Liberal, a lot of people want to hear that. Speak up. :- )
Sinclair Davidson’s “Not even 14%” estimate is that 14% of Liberal voters is only 6.4% of total voters. “Only”.
That 14% of people who vote Liberal or National. According to the same Essential Media report at the last election 45.6% voted Liberal or National, so the number should be 0.14*0.456 = 6.4%.
I just wonder if the 6.4% ever reflect on David Cameron’s victory in the last UK election?
The UK “Delcon” experience is very different — they have first-past-the-post voting. The centrist sell-out Cameron even shifted to the right before the election, to stem the losses to UKIP. Despite both of those factors, Cameron still lost 3.8 million voters to UKIP in a land where a UKIP vote was high risk: many voters were afraid a vote for UKIP might split the conservative side and elect Labor. (As an aside, because of the first-past-the-post system, UKIP won only 2 seats and came second in 118 seats — and there are serious calls for UK voting reform. At the same election, the UK Labor Party got 9 million votes.) But that’s the UK. Here, the voters can fine tune the degree of pain and the message they want to send due to preferential voting. Cameron’s remarkable win in the UK was partly thanks to Nigel Farage and UKIP resetting all the bounds of the debate, and partly thanks to a silly voting system.
But with the Libs scoring a big 49% against Labors 51% (or in a different poll 48 to Labor’s 52) I guess they don’t have to worry about that 2% right?
We haven’t even talked about the 35% of the “Vote other” component (which is 12% of all voters) — add another 4% to the tally?
The Liberal Party is a ghost train
Some people think the Delcon phenomenon is only about revenge, and is purely an Abbott-Turnbull coup thing. They miss the point. It’s about policy, like a rerun of November 2009.
These 300,000 were the ones who wrote letters and emails and swamped the party when Turnbull demanded the Libs support the K-Rudd emissions trading scheme. They threw Turnbull out then for the unelectable Tony Abbott, who went on and got elected in one of the largest wins in Australian politics. The Delcons don’t want to elect Turnbull now any more than they did then.
Remember too, that Turnbull could have taken a lot of the fire out of the Delcon / Defcon movement at little cost. He could have done things like getting rid of 18C, stopping subsidies to renewables, fixing up or selling the ABC and generally doing less to change the weather — they are “free” budget-wise. The cost with these is to face down the namecalling bullies. In 2009 Turnbull fell on his sword over emissions trading. Nothing has changed.
Defcons – a worldwide phenomenon
New parties are hard to form, but such is the demand that throughout the western world new parties are starting up and taking off, radically changing the voting landscape. It’s not just UKIP. In the US the Republican establishment is now threatened, and dominated by Tea Party types, like Trump and Cruz. In Germany, the AfD is the third most popular party, already represented in 8 of 16 German States and hoping to win majorities in 18 months time. In the Netherlands, Gert Wilders and the Freedom Party leads the opinion polls, and he could easily be the next Prime Minister there. (He came to Australia to launch the ALA last October, and is so “dangerous” on antipodean soil that they were not even able to find an indoor venue where he would be able to speak without wind, weather and rude collectivist hecklers! Really?)
So what’s the Australian plan? Who will harness this energy, frustration and votes?
What choice do the frustrated Defcons have? I laid out a possible Defcon strategic voting strategy, [lose the House, win the Senate, support minor parties and good Libs] and waited for the die-hard Liberal fans to explain how it was wrong and explain why people should still vote for a Turnbull government. Instead hundreds of commenters debated how to vote, but hardly any suggested Defcons put the Libs first on the ticket. The debate was about whether to go mass informal, or vote Labor. (“Vote Labor” means putting Labor third last on the ticket instead of second last. That’s the “nuclear” option with short term pain, but hopefully a longer term reward.) In the long run the Defcons need to either to set up a new party, or join a preexisting one and clean up present Partys through pre-selection. Perhaps tricky preferences are not the solution to a problem that has been years in the making?
[UPDATE: A recap of the first Delcon post -- is it better to have a fake conservative government or a good conservative opposition? It's not productive to "blow up" a party out of spite, but if the Liberal base will vote Liberal no matter what the policy or principle, then it is utterly inevitable that the Liberals will move centre left and ignore the centre right. The current situation is not just bad for Liberals, it's bad for both sides. It takes a stronger Liberal Party to bring out higher standards in the Labor Party too. Right now, both sides think they can control the weather, and are switching leaders like last weeks underwear.]
Paul Zanetti spots the political movement shifting through the web but unnoticed by the media:
Has anyone else noticed there’s a political movement underway in Australia that much of the media isn’t quite plugged into yet?
In the reader comments section of every news site, every blog, every social media post after every terror attack, every Delcon opinion post, Turnbull poll piece, Shorten policy announcement, mosque story and debt and deficit update you’ll pick up the mood swing.
“I’ve had enough of the Libs, I’m voting ALA.”
Keep reading →
Dismal failure can be rewashed as success. An outbreak of Dengue Fever could be a “hot holiday island with weight loss”.
Yesterday a study showed that the worlds sharpest fund managers couldn’t give a toss about climate change. Less than a fifth could even manage a “tangible” effort. These guys manage trillions. They assess risks for a living. They can’t see either a green revolution, nor the need for one. As I noted, most heavyweight investors are acting like skeptics.
But some poor sods reading “The NewDaily” and listening to John Hewson would think it’s a booming thing. Hewsen, by the way, ran for PM in Australia circa 1993 as the leader of the Liberal Party.
Let’s translate the marketing: When the news is bad, find a reason to cheer (don’t mention the rest):
Super funds get top marks on climate index
On an index where 80% failed to do anything at all, there are still A, AA, and AAA rated divisions of tangibility:
Three Australian superannuation funds are among just 12 institutional investors in the world to receive the top rating for climate change risk management from the Asset Owners Disclosure Project’s (AODP) 2016 benchmark index, The Global Climate 500 Index, released today.
In a barrel of rotten apples, some will always get above the bottom.
Watch this wording: the vague “tangible” gets pivoted around the weasel word “signaling” to channel the readers mind to the ideal fantasy state (my bolding):
“This year’s index sees a fifth of the world’s 500 biggest asset owners taking tangible action to mitigate climate change risk – clearly signaling that these leaders see managing climate risk as a core function in protecting their financial returns.”
In marketing it’s important to make out there is momentum. It’s a psychological thing. Quick rush, beat the pack…
Note the key sales words (bolded) direct from Financial Marketing For Dummies 101:
Keep reading →
Shame investors who manage tens of billions are not good at assessing risk. They are missing something big and obvious:
Half of leading investors ignoring climate change – study
Reuters: A report by the Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP), a not-for-profit organisation aimed at improving the management of climate change, found that just under a fifth of the top investors – or 97 managing a total of $9.4 trillion (6.4 trillion pounds) in assets – were taking tangible steps to mitigate global warming.
These include investing in low polluting assets or encouraging the companies they invest in to be greener.
How low is this bar. Less than one-fifth are doing anything “tangible”. To even get the tally up to a half “not ignoring climate change”, the researchers had to include a category called “first steps”, nothing tangible mind you. Perhaps someone sent an email?
Anyone might think that four fifths of top investors think climate change is a complete non-event.
A further 157 investors managing a total of $14.2 trillion were taking “first steps” towards addressing climate change, while 246 managing $14 trillion were doing nothing at all, the report said.
If only fund managers were smart enough to do a Diploma of Environment and Sustainability at USQ. All those students would know how dangerous climate change is. One day MIT grads and Wall St Rocket Scientists will get it too.
Try to imagine a world where a major change is coming that will kill millions, drown cities, cause death, disease and reckless fish and most of the high adrenalin number-junkie ambitious guys were not paying any attention.
21 contributors have published
2272 posts that generated