In the US there are significant moves at the highest levels to limit the carbon related power-grab. (Thanks to SPPI for the heads-up.)
Perhaps this is the point where the 2010 election results start to spoil the grandiose plans that once looked inevitable? Maybe democracy can save the day?
House republicans are trying to stop funding for the EPA “climate control” at the same time as they try to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.
House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
Source: The Hill
By Andrew Restuccia – 02/11/11 07:33 PM ET
A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year...
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.
“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”
The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.
Finally there is some sign that Congress wants to take power back from the bureaucrats.
Stop EPA’s Energy Tax
Source: IBD
Federal Authority: At a contentious hearing on legislation to keep the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, Republicans rightly called global warming a power-grabbing hoax that is all pain for no gain.
The assertion came at a Wednesday hearing before the House subcommittee on energy and power on the “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.” The measure is designed to reassert the authority of Congress to levy taxes on the American people and direct public policy — powers that are being usurped by the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency.
In a power grab that rivals ObamaCare in audacity and job-killing effects, the EPA has claimed unto itself the power to regulate carbon dioxide, a byproduct of human and animal respiration and the basis for all life on earth, as a pollutant. At least with ObamaCare, Congress — our representatives — voted to pass it.
The EPA claims science has given it the justification, and the Supreme Court has given it the authority, to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and impose regulations governing virtually every aspect of American business and our daily life almost down to our lawn mowers.
and Reader Bruce notes that:
There is also a another bill being introduced in the US to stop funding for the IPCC.
…also
The mainstream media notices that there is another side?
Meanwhile in Australia on prime time Sunrise, there was a small, but seemingly reasonable attempt at a debate between Stuart Franks and Mark Diesendorf . (Thanks to reader Llew Jones). No, they didn’t waste much money on the set, or on style consultants (as far as I can tell ), and the debate was too short and unfocused to actually come to any conclusion. But what’s remarkable is that it happened at all, and that Franks was treated on a even footing (sort of).
When Diesendorf used the old cherry picked time spans to say the trend was up up and up, I would have loved to have pointed out that that trick can be used by nearly anyone. The world has cooled since 130,000 years ago, cooled since 8,000 years ago, cooled since 1,000 years ago, and golly, but 150 years is nothing. Stuart did pretty well pointing out that the most warming was in the first half of the 20th C, and that things cooled from 1945 – 1970.
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/weekend-sunrise/
As far as I can recall, nothing like this has happened on Australian TV. There was no wash-out introduction which told us what to believe. The name-calling was minimal (though disappointing to see Diesendorf still pretending that Big-Oil has more money than Big-Bankers, Big-Bureaucrats, and the Gravy Train.)
There was a poll after with the skeptics well in front: Do you believe in Climate Change: 26% Yes, 74% No.
The EPA came about to curb the pollution that was choking the USA in the 70s, and it was a good thing. The power grab now will hopefully be stopped in its tracks, the house approves all spending and if the do not fund the EPA they cannot do it. The claim that science gives them the power is bogus!
10
Am I being too generous in assuming that they meant human induced climate change?
10
During the summer break I listened to ABC AM radio. I heard someone going on about climate change, etc. But I was surprised to hear a Professor from JCU admit that there is no evidence to suggest that climate change is happening any more or less than in times past. This was a breath of fresh air and I admit I nearly fell off my chair.
10
Greyman: # 1
The EPA is putting great store by the Supreme Court ruling which seems to me to be all about the EPA responding to life threatening situations.
I guess to use that as a precedent, the EPA will have to produce proof that atmospheric carbon dioxide is life threatening.
Since the science is built entirely on computer models, they will therefore be forced to demonstrate that the models are totally accurate, and that the input data contains no inaccuracies or undocumented “adjustments”.
Hmm, time to stock up on popcorn …
10
On a repeating theme; count the Australian Politicians who denounce AGW as a scam?
The politicians who know it are too scared to declare it. The remaining majority of politicians will not adopt a position of conflict with the MSM.
10
No evidence found that increased carbon DIOXIDE leads to more intense weather………
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/but_if_the_warming_theory_predicts_it_the_warmists_will_see_it/
10
21 words that say exactly why they have feared debate for so long.
10
There is also a another bill being introduced in the US to stop funding for the IPCC.
http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9769/DEFUND-THE-UN-IPCC-CONGRESSMAN-LUETKEMEYER-BILL-SEEKS-TO-PROHIBIT-US-CONTRIBUTIONS-TO-UN-CLIMATE-PANEL
10
Roy Hogue @ 7:
That’s excellent considering the wording of the question as everyone knows that real climate change just is and requires no belief!
As most of us know, AGW and climate change are two totally different things but the gullible AGW believers have been brainwashed otherwise and many others in the unthinking public now do not differentiate. To them, the words climate change mean AGW.
What we must do is reverse the UNIPCC and warmist language of Doublespeak and pressure pollsters to ask the real question:e.g.,
Do you believe in the UNIPCC theory that AGW is the cause of climate change?
I believe the results of such a poll in most countries in the world would really shake up the pollies and those on the AGW gravy train!!
10
Perhaps the EPA should spend their time regulating the % of Oxygen in the atmosphere as it is well established that high concentrations of Oxygen are toxic – take a deep breath.
10
There are actually people that imagine climate change is a recent phenomenon. In their limited perspective, the “climate” has been the stable until AGW changed it. How moronic is that!
10
OT – Energymark.
The CSIRO working to promote climate change.
http://www.csiro.au/science/Energymark-Trial.html
10
MDM: @ 2
Do you believe in Climate Change
Am I being too generous in assuming that they meant human induced climate change?
Yes MDM you are being too generous.
10
They mustn’t have talked about nuclear power because Diesendorf goes quite loopy on that subject. He is quite happy to simply make up “facts” when it comes to the nuclear industry. Watching that video now:
Point 1: Diesendorf claims increasing rates of warming as made famous by Pachauris graph with multiple trend lines which was thoroughly and utterly debunked by Monckton.
Point 2: Diesendorf throws out the Big Oil, Big Coal funding sceptics comment which we all know has zero validity given orders of magnitude greater funding on the CAGW side.
Point 3: Diesendorf points to flawed study that pollution was the main reason for cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
Diesendorf is quite happy to trot out gibberish on demand it seems. No wonder the poll was a resounding loss for the CAGW side.
Note: Since Andrew’s attack on Pru that led to this debate I refuse to watch Channel 7 for the most part. I imagine it is only a matter of time before Andrew goes on another bender and gets heaved from teh show.
10
1,000 References of Global Cooling………
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/12/1000-references-of-global-cooling.html
10
More at The Australian about Joolya’s plan to send Australia on an economic death spiral while the rest of the world watches on, points and laughs:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/industry-fears-doubled-carbon-price/story-e6frg6n6-1226005401733
It is a departure from rationality and a descent into pure ideology to think that any form of carbon pricing will be good for the Australian economy. People who think this are completely detached from economic reality. One can only assume that their sole intent is to generate a huge, centralised tax base for politicians to manipulate.
As we all know Australia ceasing all GHG emissions would not have a measurable effect on the global temperature.
10
I doubt the effort in the House of Representatives will meet with any success. The EPA’s mandate is to regulate pollution and substances detrimental to human health- and CO2, which we breath out, hardly qualifies as either. In any case, by regulating out front of their mandate instead of successfully asking Congress for an expanded mandate, the EPA will probably win.
If the Republican House tries to stymie them, the Democratic Senate and Democratic President will be enough to stop that effort if it gets anywhere. In this week’s proposals alone, Obama aims to cut heating assistance for the poor in half- turn off the heat- and cut education, all to meet the Republicans’ austerity wants. It’s disappointing that he can sacrifice the interests of the poor, but is probably willing to fight for carbon caps in his contest with Republicans.
10
The sudden evaporation of support amongst the general public is not a case of everyone suddenly changing their minds. What it really gets down to is the cost of believing before as compared to the cost of believing now. The CAGW pushers think they’ve stuffed the delivery of the final scene in their play – but in all truth the audience was smiling and applauding out of politness rather than true engagement all along.
Previously, the cost of belief in CAGW was zero. Actually, it was a net positive. If you agreed with the party line, you were thought of as a progressive, environmentally aware enlightened person. Speaking out against the ‘consensus’ had a cost – because people would think you were some sort of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Given those two options, only a few bothered to disagree with ‘the consensus’ (which was both social, political and scientific)
Now, the cost of belief is about to be transferred via legislation in actual dollars (in truth it already has, but these have all been indirect taxation which people didn’t realise). Now, if you believe, you’re expected to put your hand in your pocket and back it up with real dollars. All of a sudden belief in CAGW is a line item in the family budget. Answering ‘yes’ in a poll means adding your support to a government which is going to raise taxes based on majority support. In such a scenario opinions are given less readily.
That’s why there’s a sudden reversal in polls. Previously it was easy to agree – it cost nothing, did no harm and made you look enlightened. Now, if you agree, you’re expected to agree to extra taxation to back up your belief. Disbelieving has rapidly come as the no-cost option because the social stigma of being a sceptic has melted away, and is beginning to look like the smart persons position. It’s akin to buying into a growth stock before everyone else realised. People are positioning themselves to be the wise old sages who knew something was up before the theory was officially abandoned. The traffic to skeptical websites like this has reflected this change, as the traffic to the pro-AGW sites continues to sink.
I confirmed this was happening at a recent social function where I spoke out loudly that the cyclones and floods were not of record proportions, and had nothing to do with co2 emissions. Instead of chirping crickets and people looking at their feet, the mass of people agreed with me loudly. The couple of agw believers were left sitting silent as they realised their opinion now was in the minority and didn’t want to risk social friction by speaking out. 5 years ago, the reverse would have been true, when even people I respect were starting to have doubts after watching Al Gores slideshow.
Gillard and co are in for a real shock when it actually comes to a vote. Even if they get it in before the next election, it will be an easy ride to promise to repeal the laws at the first opportunity. But I suspect it will never get that far.
10
well, well, well…
13 Feb: Herald Sun: Dam release ‘won’t flood Brisbane’
By Gabrielle Dunlevy From: AAP
THE equivalent of a year’s supply of drinking water will be released from southeast Queensland’s Wivenhoe Dam with further heavy rain forecast for the flooded region.
The dam’s role in last month’s flooding of Brisbane remains controversial, with some critics claiming that earlier releases of water would have stopped the inundation of up to 20,000 properties.
It is one of the topics to be probed by a commission of inquiry this year.
From next weekend, 25 per cent of the dam’s water will be released slowly over nine days, adjusted with rainfall and the tides…
Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson said the 290,000 megalitre release was needed to make space in the dam to mitigate any further flooding, with heavy rain forecast until April…
Emptying the dam to 75 per cent capacity will be a temporary measure, with its future operation to be informed by the floods inquiry.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/dam-release-wont-flood-brisbane/story-e6frf7jx-1226005268737
btw just as it would be good if the MSM were forced to stop using CC when they mean AGW, it would be great if we could talk of 100% capacity for Wivenhoe Dam instead of all the rubbish about 225% made up of 100% water supply storage, 125% flood mitigation. surely we would all understand the figures better if we spoke of 100%.
when the 225% figure is used, i always think of sportspeople who say they give 110% or even more.
10
“janama” (12), More promotion of the global warming FRAUD from the ONCE RESPECTABLE csiro!!
It actually sounds somewhat similiar to the following article, where they want to “train” (BRAINWASH) 100,000 people to go out and preach to the community about this global warming BULLSHIT…
“Useful Idiots” is the term for these!
British Council spending millions recruiting 100,000 “international climate champions”:-
http://www.climategate.com/british-council-spending-taxpayers-money-on-the-recruiting-of-100000-international-climate-champions
IT JUST MAKES ME ANGRY AND SICK TO THE STOMACH!!
10
btw i thought i read there’s a king tide due on 17th feb. should they begin the release immediately? any comments?
14 Feb: ABC: Scrutiny steps up over latest Wivenhoe dam release
Reporting by Nikole Jacobi, Chris O’Brien, Emma Pollard, Kim Lyell and Meg Purtell
Hydrometeorologist Aron Gingis says a move to reduce water levels in Wivenhoe Dam should have happened last year.
Mr Gingis has also questioned the State Government’s reasoning for releasing 25 per cent of Wivenhoe dam’s supply from later this week and not before the wet season.
He says there should have been a 40 per cent reduction last spring.
Mr Gingis says while the State Government did not initially respond to concerns he raised, it is a case of better late than never.
“Water security was not a problem – they’ve just missed the point and even I warned them about it,” he said.
“They didn’t want to listen – now in the view of this disaster that we experienced of course they’re trying to do things that I believe they should do much earlier…
Meanwhile, Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale also welcomed the Government’s move but has stopped short of saying it should have been done sooner.
“What people don’t realise is that twice the size of Sydney Harbour was flowing into Wivenhoe every day,” he said.
“I’ll let the inquiry deal with the past – my job is to make sure that the future is going to be good for the people of Ipswich and south-east Queensland.”
Ipswich Councillor Paul Tully is calling for a permanent increase in the flood mitigation capacity of Wivenhoe Dam.
Mr Tully says storage levels should permanently remain at 75 per cent to maximise the flood mitigation capacity…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/14/3137846.htm
at the end of the article, ABC finds an “expert” to tell us there’ll still be potential for floods. so what. obviously that potential will diminish.
10
Franks did quite well.
He could have mentioned climategate in response to the Big Oil smear, but by avoiding it, only one side in the debate was doing the smearing – warmists.
At least O’Keefe put his manners in this time.
10
Jo. A request. There is definitely an awakening stirring the previously disinterested and/or uninformed public. The MSM are sidelining themselves through their own stupidity and more and more people are turning to the blogs for information.
Is it possible for you to co-ordinate with other blogs to start putting out a combined campaign of information for those previously uninformed now desperately seeking truth?
With your indulgence, I’ll give an example we posters can do, which I’ve just posted to such a person on Andrew Bolt’s blog.
As I’ve said before, arguing with the unconvinceable is, and probably always has been, a waste of time.
My Post to daj o melb
daj of melb: You give me new hope because I think you represent the views of the vast majority of people in Australia and the world.
Climate change is real and requires no belief as it has been with us since Time began, natural, cyclical, sometimes chaotic but ever-changing and it will continue.
The theory of CAGW is totally separate to climate change but the gullible and uninformed have been brainwashed into now thinking that ‘Climate Change’ is CAGW.
If climate pollsters were honest and wanted a true reflection of the public’s attitude, they would ask:-
“Do you believe in the theory that CAGW causes climate change.”
I believe the result of such a poll would shake the MSM, the pollies and those on the UNIPCC gravy train to their core!
I don’t know why the MSM is the way it is. Once upon a time, the ABC’s Four Corners or commercial “Sixty Minutes” would have been all over this.
Instead, they, many politicians, various activist scientists and certain commentators all round the world have locked themselves into a position where they would all lose face if they admitted they were in error.
daj, we all love our children and grandchildren and in that light you mention mitigation and others talk about the “precautionary principle”.
Doesn’t putting funds into the preparation for, and mitigation of natural disasters we know for certain will continue to occur in the future, make more sense than wasting more billions of $ and resources in trying to prove a series of projections based on ‘what if’ computer-model generated theory and even more foolishly, trying to ‘stop’ climate change.
Does anyone seriously believe Man could ‘stop’ it?
Who would have considered in our young days that life-giving CO2, an essential element animal carbon-based bodies expire and all plant-life absorbs because it is vital for growth, would one day be considered a toxic pollutant and actually declared as such by the EPA in America?
Who would have believed that anyone could have swallowed a theory which says the addition of few extra fractions of CO2 generated by humans to a gas which only makes up about 39 molecules per 1,000,000 in the atmosphere, could cause runaway gobal warming to a system which has proved to be overwhelmingly self-balancing over billions of years.
Has common sense become redundant?
Can we as a nation forget the politics, the hard-nosed and closed-minded beliefs either way and force our pollies to act in Australia’s best interests by preparing for events we know for certain will happen sometime in the future , rather than uncertainties that might happen if a huge number of ‘what-ifs’ coincide?
Le us concentrate on things upon which we can agree. The next four months are critical in Australia!
10
Like a few other posts, the comments at @13 are so apt….why put the question in such simple terms, yet so ambiguous in context of the subjects that really matters.
YES climate changes,
YES periodically it even changes catastrophically (usually towards colder – faster).
YES CO2 has a warming influence – aka GHG.
YES It matters to us – we live hear.
Does it justify a Carbon Tax? – NO
Will curbing our energy use make a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels? – NO
How would such a tax be used?
Will it reduce deaths from bush fires, or famine, or cyclones?
Is there a formula that separates natural disasters from man-made ones?
Are foreign lives any more worthy of Australias wealth that the most needy here?
What reciprocal aide and support would Australia get? (its a big assumption that we would suddenly drop down the list of the most livable and geologically secure places on the planet to be, so its more likely a one way street!
etc.
10
Jo and fellow posters. I believe that many uncommited people are frightened to admit that they question the warmists, for fear of being branded “deniers” and other derogatory names.
Further to my request at 23, what about a concerted campaign to all media organisations and pollsters asking or even demanding they put the following poll questions.
(Please improve on them if you can).
“Do you believe that Man can stop Climate Change whatever the factors are which cause it?”
“Do you believe in the UNIPCC theory (CAGW) that Climate Change is caused by the proportion of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities?”
The tide will turn when people see what the general public really thinks!
10
“Keith H” (25),
For evil to prosper and florish it only requires good men and women to be silent……..
10
Joanne, you say Channel 7 is finding a shred of journalistic integrity in their Sunrise?
I missed it because I bypassed Channel 7 in my tuner after their unbelievable ambush of Abbott.
From SBS straight to Channel 9 – no more anguish and one less channel to surf through.
I will let them know and see if I am missing it in a few months.
10
This blog has become a depressing place. Lots of cheering. Everyone happy that “we” haven’t been fooled by the lies. No real interest in anything other than fighting against the forces of the AGW alarmists. A good fun place to knock politicians and public servants. A place to stick pins into effigies of climate scientists. A projection booth, where the light from our inner evil is used to illuminate the actions of Gore, Mann, Hansen et al.
A place for people with too much time on their hands.
10
To know that you are depressed John eases my depression. Thank you for sharing that!
10
As a USA resident and CAGW doubter, I read Mark B’s post doubting any action against the EPA with interest. Currently the US Congress is on a path to cut anything and everything. Nothing is sacred; even the big three are in the firing line: social security, medicare and military. IMO, Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator is treading a very fine line with her comments to Congress:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/epa-responds-to-congressional-attempts-to-reel-in-greenhouse-gas-regulation/#more-33674
Those aren’t confident sentences indicative of an assurance in ongoing funding. She’s putting it on the line to defend her resources. The EPA has been on a power grab since the CAGW Democrats came into office. New power stations can’t be built because of EPA regulations that make it easier to refurbish polluting old power stations than build clean efficient new ones. It’s crazy. The unconstrained power of the EPA, the funding of the anti-capitalist IPCC and the threat of enormous tax dollars going to fund a non-democratically elected world government out of Brussels at a time when the Democrats are timid about cutting spending during a huge national debt, has just about assured a strong Republican win at the next election. The EPA needs reigning in.
10
John Brookes @28
Do you know why there is such interest in fighting the lies of the AGW alarmists? Because they want to meddle in our lives.
Tell me the last time a skeptic wanted to do any of the following:
– tax you based on energy use
– force you to change your way of life
– cede your nations sovereign power to a pan-global unelected committee
– ban you from using things which are (were) freely available today
Most of us couldn’t care less what the theory of the climate is if it wasn’t being used to try and capture our democratic institutions, our children and our wallets. But you start making up stories to help yourself to my taxes and I’ll start checking up on your facts.
I’m glad you are depressed – the depression must mean your belief system is collapsing, and you’re starting down the long road to having doubts about something you’ve committed plenty of hours and public statements in support of.
As for having too much time on your hands, I would say defending your way of life from meddlers, thieves, liars and scammers is a pretty high priority for most people.
I’m certainly happy to drop the odd reality tv show and newspaper reading and free up time to read up on climate science and politics and try to set people straight wherever I can. The combined efforts of skeptics everywhere is having an effect on true believers such as yourself. You wouldn’t be depressed if you could laugh off these opinions as the rantings of crazy people. No, instead you’ve realised that some smart people make some salient points here, and it’s starting to hack away at your belief system. That’s what’s making you upset, the prickly feeling of having backed the wrong team.
10
“John Brookes”,
Perhaps some of the following articles will explain your Psychological Problems
PSYCHOLOGY OF LEFTISM…….
http://jonjayray.110mb.com/psychlef.html
LEFT WING GENE DISCOVERED! – Scientists Find ‘Liberal Gene’ …….
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html
10
Percival:
I assume you sniggered when reading the following:
Make of it what you will but I think there is a lot of mileage to be had from the dopamine-Liberal connection.
10
Jack Taylor @ 30
well said
10
There is also this which may explain some viewpoints.
10
I’m reading Booker and North’s “Scared to Death”. It is interesting how all these scams seem to have common histories. Somebody finds something which may be a real problem – or not. Some “scientist” of dubious competence and reputation does a study which finds there really, really is a problem. It is worse than we thought. A politician on the make picks this up and runs with it. Some idiot media people publicise it. The public gets worried, other politicians decide “something must be done”, laws are passed. Billions of dollars get spent.
Meanwhile competent and reputable scientists try to reproduce the study that led to all this and fail to do so. Often it is found that the study results were fraudulent or the data did not support the conclusions. This doesn’t matter at all as there is now a public consensus which believes the original wrong study. Billions of dollars are wasted, people’s freedom is curtailed for no rational reason. Useful industrial materials are banned. We’re all poorer.
I haven’t got to the global warming chapter yet but looking at the above I don’t expect it to be any different.
John Brookes – if you don’t like this place why do you bother to post here? Instead, why don’t you FOAD.
brc has it right – they want to meddle(line from Serenity the movie – the young River Tam in school). Some of us are too ornery to put up with that.
10
“John Brookes”, time to hit the road Sport!
10
Janama @12,
When I read your link I hastened to see what it was about. Propaganda and brainwashing just like last years Climate Report. Sorry I can’t help but get upset when an organisation I once respected and was proud to call our CSIRO has decended to such depths to stay onside with a contemptible government. I wrote to them:
With Enerymark the CSIRO is indulging in government propaganda. We all know the CSIRO stance on climate change, a misnomer for man made climate change. We do know that climate changes on millenium time scales and on decadal time scales, the latter seemingly associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Solar variation also makes a contribution over both long and short time frames with the current SC24 being the weakest since SC4 at the end of the eighteenth century, a period of extremely cold temperatures and poor agricultural production. We are also aware from the AQUA satellite and UAH satellite records that global tropospheric temperatures fell .3 degrees in 2010 mirroring ARGUS oceanic cooling of .5 degrees. We also have seen in recent times the cyclones in Queensland being associated with MMCC when most would know they were created largely by a strong La Nina.
Now is the CSIRO in their training/brainwashing going to be discussing the overwhelming influence of natural cycles on our local and global climate? Or is this yet another attempt by the government to try and convince an increasingly sceptical populace to embrace a carbon tax? The CSIRO has over recent years prostituted itself to the AGW and IPCC agenda and regretably lost the confidence of many in the community.
Maybe others would like to ask in their own way why they are ignoring facts in order to promote a failed hypothesis. Grant money for sure.
10
John Brooks
So how come your here John?
10
Willis Eschenbach gives the IPCC a b-i-g spray!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/i-have-a-stake-in-the-outcome/#more-33999
10
“Bob Malloy” (39),
I think that this individual “John Brooks” is lamenting the fact that people take the time and effort to challenge his religion of GAIA WORSHIP with hard scientific facts instead of just accepting this man made global warming FRAUD like gullible morons…….
10
Janama @ 12
Perhaps the sceptics should infiltrate this CSIRO program and put a spanner in the works by being hard to indoctrinate and sowing seeds of doubt?
10
lmwd: @42
Good idea. Any takers??
10
John Brookes
No real interest in anything other than fighting against the forces of the AGW alarmists
Perhaps you think that’s a bad thing.
I don’t have the scientific background of many who comment here, but I do recognise hypocrisy when I see it. AGWs supporters are full to the back teeth with that.
If they’re getting hit with the reality stick today, it’s long overdue.
10
John Brookes @ 28
I’m sorry John, but the following may depress you even more, especially if you’ve previously been feeling all warm and fuzzy about ‘saving’ the planet and that the ‘good’ environmental forces of the UNIPCC with their CAGW theory were with you.
It’s an interview by one of your top IPPC men given to NZZ am Sonntag on November 10 2010.
Ottmar Edenhofer is a German economist who deals with climate change policy…….. He is currently professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research…… In 2004 he was a lead author for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.
In the interview Edenhofer freely admitted that the goal of Climate Policy is to transfer wealth from the West to the Third World by imposing economy eviscerating carbon caps on the West.
Edited excerpts from that interview:-
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): “The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
Time to visit the doctor for some anti-depressants!
The link is http://www.libertarianadvocate.blogspot.com/2010/11/ottmar-edenhofer-co-chair-of-uns-ipcc.html
Google NZZ am Sonntag for the original in German.
10
A while ago John, you were going to “do some maths” and check on my critique of CO2 cycle models. How’s that going? (Or, is that partially why you’re depressed?) Realizing that someone is lying to you, when you really want them to be telling the truth IS depressing.
Look John, I want people to behave rationally and be successful. I would be happy if you started your company and got rich. I would like it if you then used your wealth to help shape the world such that others could also have a chance at success. It would be a mean thing if you used your influence to limit others’ prospects.
Individuals who live in fantasy worlds generally only hurt themselves and their families.
Politicians who live in fantasy worlds can hurt everyone.
That’s why we take the time. Believe it on not, we’re working for you, too.
10
John, you seem to be clinically depressed. If you were not depressed you would be ecstatic that the truth was finally coming to light. I hope you have a moment of clarity before you spiral further downward. Remember, global warming is based on religion, not science. They use to say, “The devil made me do it!” I don’t want to see you in the paper exclaiming, “The skeptics made me do it!” Please get yourself some help from a competent medical health professional. I am genuinely concerned about you, John!
10
Keith H #45
Keith, I have referred to that very interview a few times in the past. Says it all, really. So much so that now I rarely refer to much else whenever I encounter an “AGWer”, Thrust their rotten, socialist politics back in their faces, I say.
10
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
THAT SAYS IT ALL!
THE TRUE AGENDA IS REVEALED !!!
10
I was again fascinated today by the ABC program “Big Ideas” (11AM-12). They actually had someone on board proclaiming the need for nuclear power in Australia. This was
environmental scientist Barry Brook from the Adelaide University. He opined that breeder reactors were best as they created no more waste per person than the size of a Coke can in a whole lifetime. Also, USA already has enough waste to use in breeders to last 1000 years. And the waste only stays radioactive for hundreds of years, not many thousands. He wasn’t against wind power, etc, but repeated that only nuclear can be carbon free and be a reliable base load generator. Maybe, he said, in 40 years Australia may be ready for nuclear but it is a pity that we have to wait for almost a religious fear of nuclear power to fade away. The show can be seen on
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/02/15/3138360.htm
10
Just a follow up on my previous post. “Big Ideas” can be seen again on ABC tomorrow 16 Feb at the same time, 11AM.
10
Mark @ 48. Yes it’s a great stopper when a warmist starts telling you that you don’t care about the environment or the future of your kids and grandkids. I also posted it on WUWT last night. The other thing I want to do is lobby the media to poll the questions I set out in my post at 25.
The politicians also need another campaign like the one we waged against Malcolm Turnbull’s attempted sell-out to Rudd before Copenhagen. I think that once again, the Liberal Party is missing the depth of real anger of so many frustrated members of the public, particularly as Gillard and Labor have absolutely no mandate to bring in a carbon tax, and indeed pre-election, promised they wouldn’t!
10
Keith,
My sentiments exactly. Abbott wanted an each way bet last August and paid the penalty.
Did you ever read Dennis Jensen’s maiden speech? As a former CSIRO scientist he should have been the Shadow Ministry for scientific matters but Abbott obviously has some problematical coalition members to contend with and Jensen hasn’t minced words in the past about the falsity of AGW.
Abbott gave Greg Hunt the job and he’s a mealy-mouthed, weasel-word wimp as far as I’m concerned. When are they gonna learn that they will never get anything more than a miniscule percentage of Green preferences.
10
What a bunch of total fools you all are on this comment thread! You are just a herd of greenie-hating, idiotic, half-dead twits! Your country is being trashed by such severe weather, a harbinger of the horrors that await you, but all of you are quite clearly incapable of understanding first grade physics, let alone atmospheric chemistry! [snip — enough baseless name-calling. Back up your “conclusions” if you want to comment again. We recommend references and links. JN]
10
Haven’t had one of these for a while. Allow me to do the honours, if you will.
I don’t hate greenies, though I wish they would pay closer attention to personal hygiene when they are on public transport. I think you’ll find it’s the public-policy meddlers, socialists-turned-environmental activists and rent-seekers that people don’t like. In short, anyone trying to tell me what to do based on some unproven science is someone I have an issue with. I assume you think we need to ‘act on climate change’ as though it’s a case of a bit of tax here, some electric cars there, throw up a few windmills and it’s all fixed?
Half-dead is an impossibility. More logic and originality is required. Insult grading : D-
Please nominate a period in time when the country wasn’t being trashed by severe weather. You might want to check the BOM historical records for rainfall, cyclone and flood activity, but you might be surprised to find we are actually in a quite mild time of weather-related trashing.
Surely you’ve read a financial product disclosure that says past performance is not a prediction of future results? Besides, the actual proportion of people directly affected by adverse weather is a very small percentage of the population, as is the GDP percentage the repairs will cost.
Physics is not taught until high school as a separate subject. First grade students study such demanding topics as finger painting and ABC’s. Poor semantics. Insult grading C-.
The point is, many people here understand atmospheric chemistry rather well, as well as oceanography and geology. And they find that co2 has a decreasing amount of heating affect as more is added, naturally capping any absolute amount of warming possible from a single factor. Moreover, they also find that the ‘hot spot’ as predicted by the GCM’s doesn’t exist.
If you have breakthroughs from atmospheric chemistry and physics that you’d like to share, in a polite way, then please do. Nothing will convince ‘idiotic half dead first grade physicist twits’ like some actual scientific evidence – of the kind that doesn’t come from a computer model. Go right ahead – we’ll all be waiting – and I’m sure Flannery and Combet would love to hear your results as well.
10
“MarkK” (54),
WAAH…….THE DOG ATE ALL MY TEMPERATURE DATA, SO I HAD TO MAKE IT ALL UP!!!!
What a VACUOUS and IGNORANT “individual” you are.
Clearly, as indicated by your FALLACIOUS comments, YOU “MarkK” are the one would would not even pass Primary School Science. Obviously the basic concepts eluded you.
I suggest some Adult Education Classes to get you up to speed so that you at least understand the basics.
Then, possibly (a BIG possibly) you would possess the education to post some half intelligent comments here with the adults……
10