David Evans and I are honoured to have been asked to tour with Christopher Monckton and Ross McKitrick. July (and the Green controlled Australian Senate) is not far off, and there is much to do to make the tour happen, but details are coming together quickly. Where there is a will…
Thanks to The Climate Sceptics and Leon Ashby for their tireless work behind the scenes — Jo
——
From Leon Ashby
Dear Reader,
Please find attached a poster inviting you to help bring a very important tour to Australia in July.
A small group of volunteers wish to bring Christopher Monckton and several other speakers around Australia for an important tour to explain the science and politics of a carbon tax. We believe it will complement the “No Carbon Tax Protests” happening.
The reason for the extra speakers is to cover all angles of the debate. We want to do it as well as we can with this tour. Despite some large venue costs and a modest admission fee, we believe the tour will pay for itself, but being responsible, we need to have approx $100,000 in either donations, loans or guaranteed funds before we begin booking things up.
Currently we have about $30,000 promised in the bank. This is a great start and we certainly thank everyone who has helped with a donation or loan or a guarantee so far.
If you can assist us in some way that will be fantastic. You can either direct deposit into this account or Post a cheque to Climate Sceptics: PO box 721, Mt Gambier SA 5290
Westpac Bank – Monckton Tour Account
Bank BSB: 035612
Account: 253068
swift code: wpacau2s
PS: We will need to find the funds in about the next 10 days to then be able to organize the tour properly Looking forward to your assistance if you can help.
Yours Sincerely,
Leon Ashby
For more details of the proposed tour see the Monckton Tour PDF.
—————————-
Professor McKitrick is one of the world’s leading economists. McKitrick specialises in the economics and science of global warming. In 2010 he co-authored a seminal paper refuting one of the principal aspects of global warming.
[PS: To find out more about just how important McKitricks work is read my post from Aug 2010:
The models are wrong (but only by 400%) ]
Contact:
Leon Ashby 0435423636
Dr David Stockwell 0417043732
Anthony Cox 0412474916
Dr Michael Cejnar 0417662206
Andy Semple 0412696135
UPDATE:
Yes there will be prepaid tickets this time and that will guarantee you a seat. Last time people flew or drove hundreds of kilometers, and some people were turned away at the door at many venues.
Wired donation on its way. Give ’em hell.
Pointman
10
Jo, I really wish I could help financially but I have put the family spare budget into silver coins as a defense against my governments stupid fiscal policy.
I fully support the effort though and if anyone with an ample purse would accept my added plea to help this cause!
10
This is excellent news.
Christopher Monckton is a first-rate speaker and will add weight to the opposition to this ludicrous tax.
10
With innumeracy being the international disease that it is I wonder if being wrong (the models) by only 400% will be enough.
But I jest!
Give ’em Hell!
Roy
10
Jo and David
This is great news and I hope that you make it to Queensland
10
I gave as much as I can afford. Please let this tour go ahead.
10
Monckton’s poposed tour is great news. Meanwhile, back in the Australian political arena, it appears the Unions have finally woken up and realised the C02 tax will be bad for it’s members. Not before time!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillards-carbon-hopes-up-in-smoke-20110415-1dhwc.html
10
Monckton’s proposed tour is great news. Meanwhile, back in the Australian political arena, it appears the Unions have finally woken up and realised the C02 tax will be bad for it’s members. Not before time!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillards-carbon-hopes-up-in-smoke-20110415-1dhwc.html
10
Do y’all have a PayPal account?
10
Jo, I was under the impression that Bob Carter and Ian Plimer were also to be involved. Maybe not as the two gentlemen are the nominated speakers on behalf of the organisation that I belong to and David and yourself, being free spirits, no connection can be made to any organisation.
I’ve seen both of you speak at the Pacific Rim Policy Change conference in Sydney and I know you both will do us proud.
Now this is out, a bit of history. Chris was to come out here last year to speak in sixteen marginal electorates but time got away due to a snap election being called.
There was always the intent to bring Chris out this year, securing the people to organise the tour was the sticking point. A hat tip to the Climate Sceptics for stepping up to the task.
Chris’s first stop will be Perth to speak at the AMEC conference, if my memory serves me well. His costs to come to Australia and speak at this conference are covered but the rest of the tour is not.
That’s where you guys come in. Dig deep but not too deep for the cause. Regardless, the tour will go ahead as I predict that if there is a shortfall in the funds required, this will be made up by others.
10
If the tour will pay for itself, who is pocketing the $100k? shrewd business this climate skepticism.
10
Sorry MattB but you walked right into this…
Who will pocket the carbon tax money? Shrewd business, this bleed-the-country-dry government of yours.
10
I almost feel sorry for Orwellian characters like Matt B.
(I can’t quite manufacture a feeling of “sympathy,” however.)
The Government’s job would be so much easier if everybody were like Matt B, wouldn’t it.
These people have no clue that the Jo Nova’s of the world are trying to save them from agony that they cannot at present fathom equally as much as anybody else.
10
This is very interesting, over the last two months I have posted here about receiving request from the ACTU to sign a petition in favour of the carbon tax. I wonder if next month they will become hypocrites and issue one calling for industry to be exempt.
Maybe they might even put one out against the tax, Nah too stupid for that.
10
Have just made a modest contribution. Jo, I hope you can get Prof McKitrick in the general media – interviews etc. – while he’s here. Given that the supposed economic benefits touted by Garnaut are now a large part of the govts argument, it’s important that they are refuted by one of his peers.
10
MattB: @11
Funny that you should say that but, unlike the kind of “science” you’re used to not all science is about fleecing people.
10
The proposed tour is great news. As far as the steel industry exemption demand by the unions this represents a real crisis for the Gillard government’s attempt to impose the tax. A justification for a leadership challenge to Gillard and the tax is now in place. I would give it a month after the budget. Just about the same time that Monkton and Co will be on lecture circuit. By the way it isnt about time the unions woke up. The union membership has largely opposed the tax in the steel and mining regions from day one of the announcement. It is their anger and courage (something many CEO’S couldn’t muster in the face of the government before today) that is threatening the whole shabby exercise. The lecture by Professor Bob Carter in Wollongong next month is of great importance to the understanding of steelworkers and miners. The Greens in the Illawarra are completely marginalised. As for the ACTU it has no presence in the manufacturing regions. It is an elitist nomenclature that has simply been by passed. We are at a turning point in the campaign against the tax. The ALP cannot recover any momentum to impose the tax as it is now widely seen as a job destruction policy. The Greens will not accept any exemptions or a sufficiently low carbon dioxide price that wouldnt put the steel, aluminium and much of our manufacturing industry to the wall. Love the smell of a Greens/ALP flare up in the morning. Get a packet of Jaffas and a front row seat and watch the implosion in the ALP. Wouldnt miss it for quids.
10
Connolly, the chatter commenced two days ago in regards to the leadership. It is not yet clear who will challenge, the phones are running hot to gauge the numbers.
My prediction, May 24.
10
Connolly @16,
Do you have details of Professor Carter’s Appearance in Wollongong as I live 45 mins South and would love to attend.
Thanks,
Mack.
10
Scaper@ 17
Howse is a glove puppet for Shorten. My guess is still that it is Shorten. If it happens in May I would also guess that we could have an election by September as the Greens pull out of the axis of warming catastrophy. A couple more bad poll numbers for Lucretia Borga and she will join Rudd in the retired PM club. Cant wait for the election meeting when Chrissie Milne comes to Wollongong.
10
Notice how Shorten is trying to lay low as possible?
One would think that Shorten would be the logical choice. We’ll know before Kylie Mole gets the chop.
10
Yesterday on ABC radio a guy from CSIRO said that humans contribute a third of the c02 in the atmosphere, but on this site the amount is always said to be much less.
Just thought someone here could tell me why there are such different numbers going around.
Thanks 🙂
10
Mack @ 18
Mate the lecture is on Wednesday the 11th of May commencing at 7.00 pm. at Pioneer Hall in Church Street Wollongong. If thats too difficult to get to after work etc exactly on time dont worry as no meeting in Wollongong has ever started on time. Please pass the word around as we want to pack the hall out. I am involved in a community radio program for the unemployed in Wollomngong and last November we started to discuss the fallacy of the carbon dioxide catastrophic glogal warming hypothesis and the catstrophic consequences for employment in Wollongong if ever a price was put on carbon dioxide emissions. We contacted the Greens and asked them to debate the issue on the program. They refused saying the science was settled. We went ahead and used the work principally of Dr Bob Carter and also relied very heavily on this site and Watts Up. We also criticised the Greens stance on global warming. Well they tried to get the program pulled. And very nearly succeeded. They did succeed in getting a community web site blog taken down for this (and other reasons). Anyone rejecting the carbonistas theories have basically been vilified. Of course all of that is like water off old ducks backs. But as the Greens said there will be no debate. Dr Carter’s lecture is purely about the science and the integrity of telling the truth. The decent people in the audience will take care of the politics. Look forward to seeing you in Wollongong.
10
@Connolly and @Scraper
It may then be no coincidence that Swan managed to get himself not one but two sycophantic full page write ups in today’s Telegraph. To read the puffery you’d think he was a cross between Count Metternich, Bismarck, Churchill, Einstein, Lord Keynes and Milton Friedman. Looks like they’re all jockeying for position.
10
Connolly @ 21
Thanks for the info. Will try to get there. keep up the good work.
10
To illustrate what a Monckton tour is against who better to demonstrate than Professor Hamilton to step up to the “spittle-flecked microphones”:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-nation-of-fickle-fools-20110412-1dcjd.html?comments=210#comments
10
Mattb, you know I do not understand why you are here. It may be psychopathy, it may be boredom or you may be a paid plant. What I do know is that what you say at @ 11 is crapping in your own bed. There is not a sane human that would be sympathetic to crapping in ones’ own bed.
You lose………in every way Dumb smartass
10
@Connolly:
Got a bit more info for your campagn.
Below is a link to an interview with Combet in which he states his position on compensation (Industry Average – Not per Individual Company).
When asked directly about the preservation of JOBS, his reply was: “Excuse me, the ultimate aim here is to reduce the emissions intensity of those industries.”
I also read somwhere else that Compensation only applies to Hot Rolled product.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/getting-the-price-right-on-emissions-20110415-1dhoj.html#ixzz1JeNYbcCn
PS.
I just realised that your meeting is the day after the Budget.
Nice Planning 🙂
10
So Lord Monckton is possibly returning for another speaking tour. For any who have never seen him speak in person, rather than via video reproduction I heartily suggest you do so if you get the chance. I last saw him speak at the debate set up by the Courier Mail in Brisbane and like many others have conversed with him before & since the event. It is always good to witness articulate debators carry out their craft, no matter which side of a debate they come from. It was ever so good to see the ever petulant one from the CM staff soundly put in his place, although having butted heads with with Readfern over some of his more outlandish scribblings over the years, my opinion could be considered somewhat biased. Oh well at least the ABC’s newest resident bartender/copy boy will now have Auntys protection to let his minions once again accuse Lord Monckton of being a “terrorist” guilty of “crimes against humanity” as he did in his blog prior to the debate, that is if he isn’t whimpering in the foetal position in a dark corner remembering the spanking he got last time.
Myself, I look forward to attending another entertaining and informative presentation from Lord Monckton and the other presenters and again I urge those who can attend and those who can conribute do so.
10
cohenite: @26
Ahh, Pro Hamilton. The old faithful. Never fails to inspire nausea.
I am waiting for him to just come right out with the phrase – “take me to your leader”
He has NO grasp on the reality of this world which supports the notion that he is from another.
Or more simply that he is constantly under the influence of a notorious weedy green herb…
10
Is the tour likely to include Darwin and Alice Springs?
10
TrueNews @ 28
Thanks for that mate. Great pick up. Ill wager my lunch money that Conbet’s “Excuse me. . . ” will be as infamous as Hanson’s “Please explain”. Its taken Combet three months of evasions, double speak and Goebbels propaganda to finally admit the obvious. The tax will destroy not just jobs but industries.
10
This “Matt B” sound more and more like a character from Animal Farm !!!!!!!
FOOL!
10
@ Matt B
WHERE ARE YOU?
I’m STILL waiting for the yes/no answer to my direct question to you here!
Look forward to an HONEST answer shortly!.
Cheers,
10
@Connolly; #32
Another one for the File Connolly.
Ross Garnaut said “There is a special case for steel. The effects of dumping, the effects of the dollar and the effect of the carbon price could be the straw to break the camel’s back.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/unions-join-industry-in-carbon-war/story-fn59niix-1226039964875
10
Donated to help Japan recently — consider passing the hat around the major AU industries that will be hardest hit by the eco-stupidity. It shouldn’t take very long to raise well over 100k ; )
Charity auctions are also a great approach, perhaps AU artists will donate a work art commemorating eco-stupidity.
10
Where’s all those Big Oil and Big Tobacco dollars when you need them? Unfortunately those are only in the minds of the likes of Oreskes and Lewandowsky.
Does MattB need reminding of his tax dollars that were spent to send over one hundred Australian bureaucrats and politicians on a junket to Copenhagen not long ago?
10
100K in ten days is a big ask.
Can’t tickets be pre sold (even in part) on the basis that if the tour does not go ahead the funds are refunded less admin costs?
10
Cohenite @ 26 – this is quite an eye opening statement from Clive:
He’s finally accepting that he’s become the minority.
10
Hi janama; Hamilton and his ilk aren’t concerned about monorities and majorities since they are fundamentally undemocratic; like Flannells he obviously thinks he is transcendent and has a direct channel to gaia; such higher wisdom works by pronouncement and holy writ hence deviation from the scripture is regarded as Lese majeste. He is a strange man but through the idiocy of the msm Hamilton, and the greens generally, have managed to convince people that they are like them, just average folk!
10
To me, Monkton is part of the problem. Start involving politicians and it becomes a political issue. AGW is an irrational, illigocal,anti-intuitive, misanthropic product of zombie groupthink that defiles science and those who practise it. I want principled scientists to reject the politicisation of their work by the anti-civilisationists of the Green movement. I want science to resume its place at the heart of the techologies on which our civilisation is built. However, even if it were to stop now, the IPCC’s sodomising of science has so damaged the institution I believe it will take most of the next century to recover.
10
Witness California, victim of their own eco-consciousness. Business evaporates, and what remains is:
– Drugs
– Crime
– Grime
– Gang warfare
– Trailer parks right in the street
Some of those communities look like Dresden after the war. It’s real, real pretty. All to save the population from CO2.
10
Off Topic, yet very Topical.
The 48 times Combet lied about “carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD)” Tax:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/48_times_combet_lied_about_carbon_pollution/
10
Tom
In essence I would agree with the introduction of politicians stance but would suggest that there are problems with your argument.
1 Lord Monckton isn’t a politician, he is a hereditary Peer of the Realm, and whilst he did act as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher he held/holds no elected office.
2 Lord Monckton is a mathematician and statistician, his analysis of many aspects of the AGW debate are most effective because of the ability of mathematicians/statisticians to look at concepts systematically and logically.
3 Even if he held elected office that should not automatically discredit his views or opinions, holding an elected office should never remove ones right to hold and express opinions. No matter how distastefull or dangerous a persons views are, the dismissal of views based on their position in society is much more dangerous and much more destructive of democratic governance.
4 AGW aside, you cannot acheive change across a society without ppiliticians. It is they that we elect and entrust task with the making and passing of laws.
5. The corruption and politicisation of climate science has more to do with personal interest, academic tenure and ego than politicans and their actions. Politicians have taken up the AGW cause to further their own agenda, the rot had set in long before politicans took an interest.
6. AGW is not the first, nor will it be the last time that science has been subverted, IMO this is due in large parts because of institutional refusal or reluctance to punish transgressions. Gentlemans agreements and voluntary codes of conduct will never trump ego and personal interest. If a doctor or barrister is found guilty of malpractice or malfesance there are lifelong penalties that significantly reduce the chance of such behaviour, there are no such strictures in research, AGW clearly sounds the warning that there should be.
10
@Bulldust: #37
“Does MattB need reminding of his tax dollars that were spent to send over one hundred Australian bureaucrats and politicians on a junket to Copenhagen not long ago?
Kevin 747 even took his Hairdresser to Copenhagen”.
By the look of her, Julia should take at least two hairdressers on her trip next week. (She needs to keep on top of that gray ‘Skunk Stripe’ in her roots).
10
Put me down for a Hundred Bucks the cheque is in the mail first thing Monday.
Money well spent me thinks now that I have extra money now I have cancelled my union membership. (CFFMEU)
Cheers Biglew
10
TrueNews
Many years ago a certain defence minister walked onto an exercise area to address the troops under instruction, tooling out across Pucka in an open top Landrover all dolled out in the new DPU’s. One of the instructors gained much mirth and many free drinks at the mess from his observation that “Dress an bag of s&%t in DP’s and you just make it harder to spot, but up close it’s still a bag of s&%t”.
10
“2 Lord Monckton is a mathematician and statistician, ” pardon? He’s a journalist.
10
Popeye. Until you correct statement 2:
“2 – Percentage of CO2 attributal to man’s emissions @ 4% = 16ppm”
I’ll not be replying no.
10
As one of the many who heard Monckton and Plimer in Brisbane in early 2010 I was pleased to see Dr John Nicol propose the vote of thanks to the speakers. I would be even more pleased to hear Nicol put his theory of the greenhouse effect into terms that are understandable by the general public. His conclusions are that increasing concentrations of CO2 do not contribute in any significant manner to climate change. Surely this conclusion, based on laws of physics and independent of “challengable” data, is fundamental in any campaign against the carbon tax? If Nicol’s logic can be grasped by our politicians then that is an end to the matter. We can stop the name-calling and the hiding behind Garnaut. We can stop the endless procession of pictures of power station cooling towers that our TV channels present as “evidence” of foul carbon pollution. So if we are really serious about doing something real about stopping a carbon tax then the keynote speaker should be John Nicol. In other places Nicol has said that the physics involved is about final year undergraduate level..so Rhodes scholar Abbott should able to take it in his stride and use facts to demolish the “beliefs” of Gillard, Combet, Brown and Milne. Then the political debate in this country might be able focus on something that is a genuine future problem….. aged care.
10
Garnault is an economist.
Flannery is a Palentologist.
Sackett is an Astronomer.
Paruchi is a Railway Engineer.
Al Gore is a failed politician.
Gillard is a lawyer.
Combett is a exc Union thug.
Swann is an idiot.
And Wong is a waste of space.
But these are the people we are supposed to believe on the need to act and the usefulness of taxation to control climate.
Oh, and you’re an impartial “environmenmtal engineer” whose opinion is supposed to be more important that others.
Spare me…..
10
Well done Leon. This Government must continue to be reminded of the groundswell opposing first their lies, then their arrogance & now their intransigence.
Cracks are beginning to appear so venerable speakers like Chris & Ross will help immensely. Any chance of enticing Prof Richard Muller of Berkely, to join them ?!
I see some benefit in mentioning the matter of fund raising to members of Radio 2GB & 3AW who have tirelessly supported us “extremists” !
Pre-tour publicity could also be directed to Dennis Shanahan,Paul Kelly,Andrew Bolt & Tim Blair,all media savy and prepared to speak their mind. Please try & include Angry Anderson,whose affinity with Gen Y,would be invaluable on any tour MC list.
Will forward my donation this week.
Good on you Jo & David too.
10
Damian Allen:
April 16th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
“Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—his ministerial title itself a parody of truth.”
That would be very funny if it were not so sad.
10
@PaulM: You’re right, of course. I’d assumed Monckton had at some time held a seat in the British parliament for the Conservative Party (he hasn’t). However, he is clearly identified as a member of the Conservative Party so his utterings can be immediately discredited as those of “the Right”. For me, this is not Left vs Right, but facts versus wilful lies that are being used to extort public funds, which is a criminal offence. AGW is not a faulty hypothesis; it is a demonstrable travesty of scientific method that is being used corruptly by the IPCC to achieve the policy objectives of the UN. If the human race can’t be blamed for climate warming, the UN has to fold its campaign to redistribute $100 billion per year of the rich world’s wealth to the Third World – a giant money-laundering scheme for corrupt politicians and their cronies being organised by the UN General Assembly.
10
Absolutely awesome news Jo and Leon. I will do all that I can to help this succeed!
10
Having heard Lord Monckton (and Professor Plimer) twice! on the same day (29 January 2010) at the Brisbane Hilton and at the Irish Club, I am excited that we have the opportunity to hear him again plus for the first time, Jo Nova and David Evans.
Every time Gillard, Combet, Flannery, Garnaut and the rest of them tell blatant lies “in the national interest” I always wish Lord Monckton was there to tear
themtheir propaganda to shreds.10
Monckton created a mathematical game called the Eternity puzzle and offered One million pounds to anyone who could solve it. It took eighteen months for two mathematicians to solve it. He then created Eternity II and offered 2 million pounds – no one has solved it and the game has been withdrawn.
10
Tom
You are right.
Personally I think it goes further than a “demosntrable travesty of the scientific method” and borders on the abrogation of enlightenment and the slide back into the dark ages of paganism and superstition and a complete retreat from the pursuite of knowledge and reason.
As for the UN, they have moved so far from the noble ideals encapsulated in their founding charter, and have deserted their primary mission in a much more heinous manner than the body they replaced, that is past time for Western Nations to repudiate its role in international affairs, denounce their support of the UN, cancel all funding to the UN and see how long the last without the support of the West.
10
TrueNews @ 45:
Two hairdrssers … that would be her BF and one extra?
10
Mattb at #48
As stated previously, I usually ignore what you write, but on this you have displayed complete ignorance. Monckton in his own right, is somewhat of a mathematical genius. Add to this his capacity to interpret the outcomes of policy, and he is one formidable foe to the alarmists. You might want to do some research on his mathematical ‘puzzles’. One took another mathematical wiz oh about a year, to figure out, but in doing so won about a million pounds from Monckton.
Tell me where I buy a ticket to hear him speak?
10
With the unions buckling to pressure from workers over the Labor party politics the carbon price (sci) & ETS scam has to be dead in the water along with our minority PM:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillards-carbon-hopes-up-in-smoke-20110415-1dhwc.html
10
Janama # 57
You beat me to it! I was so incensed by Mattb’s comment I flicked to the bottom and replied. I always hit back when I hear the warmists having a go at Monckton (they tend to pick on him also because of his appearance – having Graves disease, which almost cost him his life). Unfortunately, that is what we are dealing with – shallow, ignorant people.
10
MattB:
“2 Lord Monckton is a mathematician and statistician, ” pardon? He’s a journalist.
MATTYBEE – you must be a judge of abiliity then – work out this one question?
Please explain how Combet gets to the figure only an increase of $2.60 per tonne of steel manufacture as a result of the CO2 tax at $20.00 tonne. The maths is simple – and please feel free to ask any details of the steel industry MattyBee.
10
From MattB
What’s your issue here? Is it because Popeye rounded up the ppm or are you disagreeing with the consensus figure of 4% for man’s contribution to CO2
I hope you haven’t allowed yourself to take your eye off the thimble and swallow the guff about “excess CO2” and “Upsetting the natural balance” from ScepticalScience et al!
That’s a totally different scenario.
Mankinds contribution to atmospheric CO2 can, to a first approximation, be taken as between 3 and 5%
10
Last visit, my wife and I flew some 1000km and then hired a car to get to the venue. It was worth every cent. However….on arrival, we stood in the sun for about 90 minutes, and when the doors were finally opened we were amongst the last to be admitted before the doors were shut, leaving hundreds of people stranded. To his credit, Monkton went outside and gave these people a short synopsis of his presentation. My point is: If the tour goes ahead, could it be better organized, with tickets being able to be purchased in advance?
10
@zooby: #22
Ever asked a Question and Dreaded the Answer?
“Yesterday on ABC radio a guy from CSIRO said that humans contribute a third of the c02 in the atmosphere, but on this site the amount is always said to be much less.
Just thought someone here could tell me why there are such different numbers going around.”
CSIRO Quotes (are in “”) (from their latest publication)
Well, apparently, according to CSIRO, we all left our “fingerprints in the atmosphere”.
So I guess they knew it was us, and that you were partially to blame zooby.
Don’t worry yet mate because:
“Land and ocean CO2 sinks respectively removed 30% and 25% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the period 2000–2008, leaving about 45% to accumulate in the atmosphere.”
“Global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7ºC over the past century.”
So now we are only responsible for 45% of the 0.7ºC ( = 0.315ºC).
Remember zooby, they have our fingerprints, so we can’t get out of this.
As Australians, we are, according to CSIRO, and by my calculations, responsible for the following:
Australia’s Emissions @ 1.4% (of the Global total of emissions).
= 1.4% of the 0.315ºC (Australia’s % of the Global temperature increase)
= 0.00441ºC (Australia’s Total Contribution to temperature increase)
= 0.000000002ºC (Temperature Increase Per Capita – 22,000,000 population).
So, zooby, the next time some Pollie, or other Cretin, mentions Per Capita – Tell him that you personally contribute 2 Billionths of a degree to Global Warming per year.
NOW, HERE is THE COST:
Lets Extrapolate this, based on CSIRO’s following comment.
“The cumulative total amount of CO2 emitted from all human sources in the past 250 years is now around 530 billion tonnes”
530 Billion divided by 250 years,
= (2.12 Billion Tonnes per year, Global average over 250 years)
(YES – I know Australia is only 223 years old, so I will factor that in as 90% of the 2.12 Billion Tonnes, = 1.91 billion Tonnes, close enough.)
So, 1.91 Billion Tonnes per year Global average ,for Australian calculations.
Australia only contributes 1.4% of the Global average – So:
1.91 Billion Tonnes (Global Average) @ 1.4% (Australia’s contribution)
= Australia contributed 26,740,000 Tonnes C02-e per year.
Divide this by the population of Australia (22,000,000)
26,740,000 divided by 22,000,000
= 1.215 Tonnes CO2-e Per Capita, Per Annum.
At $20.00 per Tonne – You pay $24.30 per Year zooby.
Remember zooby, they have our fingerprints, so we can’t get out of this.
Mind you, if the guy from CSIRO who said, that humans contribute a third of the c02 in the atmosphere, then I reckon we should only pay a third, don’t you?
SO $8.10 a year it is then.
Perhaps, someone smart, can tell me why under a ‘Carbon Tax’, I would be paying a whole lot more.
Anyone seen MattB ?
10
Tom:
April 16th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Lord Monckton is (amongst other things I’m sure) the newly-appointed Head of the Policy Unit of the UK Independence Party.
Something that delights me, because I’m a member!
10
Final Score Folks:
Lord Monckton 1 : MattyB 0
Still working out your mathematicial and statisticial arguements MattyBee?
10
@Doug S #67
“Lord Monckton is (amongst other things I’m sure) the newly-appointed Head of the Policy Unit of the UK Independence Party.”
So he is joined up with Godfrey Bloom and Nigel Farage – Excellent.
If anyone hasn’t seen these guys, then you are really missing out.
Type GoddersVision into your search box and have some fun.
10
money went in now.
please keep us in the loop of dates and locations.
many thanks
keep up the fight
10
Bulldust:
April 16th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Those dollars are being sent to East Anglia to pay the Warmist’s salaries AFAIK.
10
Tom: #41
It needs to become a political issue or the science will be ignored.
This will only happen if, Science gets political support, a annual stipend from the king/queen, or good men cease to be silent.
Two generations after we fix the education system.
10
Hi zooby,
The confusion is the difference between the ANNUAL estimated emissions by humans at 3.5 to 4% and TOTAL estimated increase in CO2 since industrialisation 200 years ago at 30-35% or so. Note the ESTIMATED in each case. Both these numbers are subject to fairly large uncertainties and depend on what exactly you think you are counting and attributing to human activity and make the assumption that “nature” was perfectly in balance before the industrial revolution.
For example the pre industrialisation level of CO2 is generally said to be 290ppmv from ice cores. Leaf stomata give a higher number maybe 340ppmv. Current levels are 385 to 390 ppmv depending whether you believe the observations and the corrections and data selection/elimination that goes on.
10
@incoherent rambler: #72
I agree totally mate.
Three pronged attack:
Science
Economics
Politics
10
A Couple of interesting facts on the $100 Billion UN Climate Fund:
Australia contributed $605 Million USD to the UN’s $30 Billion Fast Start scheme.
This equals 2.06% of all the ‘Developed Countries’ (Annex 1) contributions.
Extrapolated, Australia should therefore contribute $2.06 Million USD per year, to the UN Climate Fund, based on its 2.06% contribution to fast start.
PROBLEM:
Japan contributed $15 Billion USD to UN Fast Start (50%)
They cannot, and have stated they cannot, contribute the same again, (for obvious reasons).
If we assume that Japan will still contribute something, and that they will ONLY contribute the same amount as the USA, then Australia’s contribution to the $100 Billion UN Climate Change Fund would rise to 3.54%.
Australia would contribute $3.54 Million USD per Year to the UN.
(for the UN Climate fund to reach it’s $100 Billion Budget)
Add this to our newly doubled Foreign Aid budget of $8 Million AUD per year, and we have a figure of approx $11.5 Million AUD.
EXACTLY the figure that Combet was talking about earlier this week. ($26 per Tonne CO2-e).
(coincidence or crime ?)
.
.
It should be about the Science.
But don’t shun the Economics and the Politics.
As a trio, they work well together for our cause.
.
.
BTW.
Guess which year our UN contributions start in.
(It couldn’t be the same year as the ‘Carbon Tax’ could it?)
And guesss who signed his name on the dotted line at Cancun to commit us to this act of Lunacy?
(need a hint – initals are GC)
10
TrueNews:
April 16th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
You’re right of course, who wants to listen to Monckton, Bloom and Farage talking common sense, when you can drool over the wise and thoughtful utterances of political giants like Huhne, Miliband, Balls, Clegg and Cameron?
Yeah…..right!
10
@Doug S #76
I have not heard of Huhne and Balls over here in Australia.
But even Cameron, Clegg and ‘Ed the Red’ make Australian Pollie’s look like pathetic amateurs.
10
TrueNews: #74
It has been a while since anyone has said that to me. Thanks!
I do like your summary.
10
# CORRECTION #
#Sorry – I got put Millions rather than Billions in Post 75#
#Corrected version Below#
@Tom: #54
“…If the human race can’t be blamed for climate warming, the UN has to fold its campaign to redistribute $100 billion per year of the rich world’s wealth to the Third World – a giant money-laundering scheme for corrupt politicians and their cronies being organised by the UN General Assembly.”
A Couple of interesting facts on the $100 Billion UN Climate Fund:
Australia contributed $605 Million USD to the UN’s $30 Billion Fast Start scheme.
This equals 2.06% of all the ‘Developed Countries’ (Annex 1) contributions.
Extrapolated, Australia should therefore contribute $2.06 Billion USD per year, to the UN Climate Fund, based on its 2.06% contribution to fast start.
PROBLEM:
Japan contributed $15 Billion USD to UN Fast Start (50%)
They cannot, and have stated they cannot, contribute the same again, (for obvious reasons).
If we assume that Japan will still contribute something, and that they will ONLY contribute the same amount as the USA, then Australia’s contribution to the $100 Billion UN Climate Change Fund would rise to 3.54%.
Australia would contribute $3.54 Billion USD per Year to the UN.
(for the UN Climate fund to reach it’s $100 Billion Budget)
Add this to our newly doubled Foreign Aid budget of $8 Billion AUD per year, and we have a figure of approx $11.5 Billion AUD.
EXACTLY the figure that Combet was talking about earlier this week. ($26 per Tonne CO2-e).
(coincidence or crime ?)
.
.
It should be about the Science.
But don’t shun the Economics and the Politics.
As a trio, they work well together for our cause.
.
.
BTW.
Guess which year our UN contributions start in.
(It couldn’t be the same year as the ‘Carbon Tax’ could it?)
And guesss who signed his name on the dotted line at Cancun to commit us to this act of Lunacy?
(need a hint – initals are GC)
10
TrueNews:
April 16th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Huhne is the (Lib Dem) Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – Mr wind Turbine/Solar panels – the lights are going out!
Ed Balls is shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer – previous advisor to Gordon Brown – helped us to get to a record deficit!
Ed Miliband brought the ‘2008 Climate Change Act’ to the table – legal requirement for an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 against a baseline of 1990!
You think you’ve got problems in Oz?
And you haven’t even got the unelected EUSSR Commissars making the laws for you!
10
WUWT has a great piece about the UN’s prediction of ’50 million climate change refugees by 2010′
And the attempted cover up!
10
Far right field for this thread but how will this sit with carbon tax?
“SCIENTISTS have built the smallest petrol engine – tiny enough to power a
WATCH.
The mini-motor, which runs for two years on a single squirt of lighter fuel, is set to
revolutionise world technology.
It produces 700 times more energy than a conventional battery despite being
less than a centimetre long – not even half an inch. It could be used to operate
laptops and mobile phones for months on end – doing away with the need for
recharging.
Experts believe it could be phasing out batteries in such items within just six
years.
Engineers at the University of Birmingham have produced the engine; minute
enough to be balanced on a fingertip. Dr Kyle Jiang, lead investigator from the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, said: “We are looking at an industrial
revolution happening in peoples’ pockets.
“The breakthrough is an enormous step forward. Devices which need re-
charging or new batteries are a problem but in six years will be a thing of the
past.”
More at http://led-world.blogspot.com/2009/04/worlds-smallest-new-nano-petrol-engine.html
10
Once upon a time in the Land of Oz there was a goose that laid golden eggs. The leaders were wise and used the golden eggs to the benefit of the people and everyone prospered.
But boys and girls, the leaders began to be greedy and wanted to get richer faster than the golden eggs would allow and get the credit for the golden eggs too. So they said, “If we eat the goose then we could all lay golden eggs as often as we want to.” And they spread this scheme far and wide around Oz until the people became convinced that it was the right thing to do.
So they began eating the goose. Oh joy! But we know better boys and girls; yes we do! Because no matter how much of the goose they ate no one was ever able to lay a single golden egg. And the more of the goose they ate, the fewer golden eggs it laid. The scheme didn’t work! But in spite of their failure the leaders wouldn’t quit. They reasoned that, “The goose is just conspiring against us. Eat a little more and all will be well.”
So, boys and girls, the inevitable day came when they had eaten the whole goose and still no one could lay golden eggs. And the goose was gone forever! Then the people began to be sorry for their foolishness but it was too late. Much weeping and gnashing of teeth began all over the Land of Oz. The people suffered greatly for a long time. But their leaders ran off to the Land of UN where they were welcomed with open arms.
Now the moral of this story boys and girls, is that you can have your goose or you can eat it. But you can’t have it and eat it at the same time. But we knew that, didn’t we?
10
That might well be true, Roy, but they can take the money they have in the short term to pass it out in welfare cheques so that people can buy some crack and some booze.
That will buy a few votes anyway.
10
There is an interesting piece in the SMH that looks at the CO2 positions of major Australian-listed corporations:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-tax-belligerence-bluffs-and-poker-faces-20110415-1dhqg.html
There are some of the usual outrageous statements in there, but most of the piece provides insight on the position of the major Aussie companies. Needless to say, you don’t have to read between the lines much to see the rank rent-seeking on display, but this is companies behaving as they should, i.e. profit maximising.
10
To balance it up the SMH printed this interview with Combet:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/getting-the-price-right-on-emissions-20110415-1dhoj.html
When he said:
I think that was probably more what he had in mind originally. You can take the militant unionist out of the union, but…
Did you know his middle name is Ivan?
10
Yes, and he’s “terrible” as well!
10
We have not heard from him yet….but did you know that the earthquake just west of Bowen yesterday was caused by the Queensland Coal mining industry ?
Yes BROWN coal !
10
Brian @84,
Yep!
This was in my inbox this morning.
The original formatting doesn’t hold up when copied and pasted. But it’s still easily readable.
I can’t vouch for all the numbers but it doesn’t take a genius IQ to see what’s going on.
10
Crack and pot needs to be free from the government!!!
Make them “polluters” pay for it!!!!!
10
Much as I’d like to, I wouldn’t get too excited over apparent “opposition”(?) of the Unions to the Carbon Tax. Read their comments carefully. They are just making sure they get in early for their share of it! Consider the following statement from an atendee at their meeting a few days ago:-
“But AMWU national secretary Dave Oliver said his union saw the carbon tax as an opportunity.”
“The way we see it is (Climate Change Minister) Greg Combet is the only minister in the government that will be presiding over an increased bucket of cash. Everyone else is getting their ankles and knees cut off,” Mr Oliver said.
However, with my belief that out of every negative one can find a positive, what a great weapon Mr.Oliver has given us to use when anyone grizzles about losing benefits or funding in Child-care, Medical Research or many other areas foreshadowed to be hit in the May Budget.
All levels of government in Australia are crying poor yet they shamelessly continue to pour millions of dollars into the bottomless AGW pit to follow the billions already wasted in a totally futile attempt to achieve their farcical stated objective of “stopping climate change”!
10
@ Matt B 49
Hi Matt,
You are questioning my numbers – I have only used commonly accepted percentages for man’s CO2 contributions – but since you HAVE disputed them I’ve redone the calculations below based on numbers NO-ONE can dispute.
1 – Percentage of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere = 392ppm – let’s say 400ppm to make it easier
2 – Percentage of CO2 attributal to man’s emissions @
4% = 16ppm5% = 20ppm3 – Australia’s contribution to worldwide levels @
1.5% (of the 4%) = 0.24ppm2% (of the 5%) = 0.4ppm4 – Gillard’s proposed reductions by 2020 of 5% (if achieved) =
0.012ppm0.02ppmSo Gillard and the Greens and ALL the other people pushing for this tax want to reduce Australia’s CO2 emissions from (wait for it)
0.24ppm to 0.228ppm0.4 to 0.38ppmThis will reduce the world’s man made CO2 contribution from (wait for it)
400ppm to 399.998400ppm to 399.98ppm by 2020?The tax is estimated to bring revenues of $12,000,000,000 (that’s $12 BILLION) PER ANNUM but let’s say $10,000,000,000 – ($10 BILLION) to stay on the right side of the ledger.
Currently 2011 – tax will start in 2012 so let’s say 8 years at $10 billion pa.
That’s $80,000,000,000 ($80 BILLION) to reduce Australia’s emissions by
0.0120.02ppm?Now that’s fixed – can you answer my original question or are you the ultimate “strawman”?
“Back to the maths – can you tell us all here if (based on these numbers) you still support Dillard’s carbon (Dioxide) tax?”
I think everyone here deserves to know your opinion on this now there’s no “wriggle room” for you.
Cheers,
10
Younger people especially need to hear Monckton et al.
They have unfortunately become so saturated, inculcated with green goo over the last 10 years that many of them are beyond rational thought about what it takes to make a society function.
I have no clue how to reach them.
10
Popeye it is a simple question, no evasion.
When you say “2 – Percentage of CO2 attributal to man’s emissions @ 4% = 16ppm 5% = 20ppm”
you are wrong. do you mean annual increase due to mans emissions, or percentage of total atmospheric content emitted by man per year, or if we took a snapshot of the atmosphere how much in it is there due to mans’ emissions since industrialisation?
10
Popeye – maybe you could ask wherever you cut and pasted the numbers from what they meant?
10
But regardless. Yes Australia’s contributions are a small % of total. The total has a temp impact (Projected), and australia is a small % of that. THe 5% cuts proposed are only 5% of that, meaning it is a pretty small impact on Temp and CO2. You seem to think I’m going to challenge that small %, rather I’m just having fun with the fact you don;t have a clue what the numbers you are using mean or how someone else came up with them.
WHAT THE CUTS DO however is prime the economy a bit in the right direction for possible deeper cuts. No one is pretending the cuts proposed have any impact on the climate, it is responsible economics action to turn us in the right direction in anticipation of yes much deeper cuts agreed on a global scale.
This is like jogging around the block as the 1st steps of training for a marathon in a year’s time. Of course if someone does no exercise, then runs round the block once, and then never exercises again, indeed the exercise of running round the block was pointless.
10
BGV @93
I suppose sexting has complications……..
You might be happy to hear that there are groups of younger people that DO get it. For example, I know that there is a significant number of students at The U Minnesota Morris, home of the radical PZ Myers who disagree with him, dislike him, and generally work behind the scenes to undo what he does. (yes I do what I can to assist)
10
MattB says
So you very clearly admit that these carbon “cuts” and TAXES are just the beginning or what we in the US call a “slippery slope”. So you yourself are at best a deceitful SOB when all of your previous posts claim how minimal these taxes will be.
Good on ya
10
Off topic. As I said on the last thread, I’m challenging Combet on his statements at the Press Club last week.
Combet said that Australians are the highest emitters of CO2 per capita. He also said that we were even higher than USA.
I sent links to prove he was telling untruths. He sent two links to backup his statements.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm#7_1
Note what was written in the first section: Australia’s emissions profile and international comparisons
“Australia’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are the highest of any OECD country and are among the highest in the world. In 2006 our per capita emissions (including emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry) were 28.1 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) per person (DCC 2008d). Only five countries in the world rank higher—Bahrain, Bolivia, Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar. Australia’s per capita emissions are nearly twice the OECD average and more than four times the world average”
The second link.
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4303.php
This essentially, is a reporting requirement under the Kyoto Protocol. Notice how I was pointed to the 2008 report. Well, I looked at the 2010 report. It’s hard reading and I’m convinced it is overstated, to be kind.
What did catch my eye was the land use section which included the burning of biomass.
Here is the link I did not send him which will be sent next week.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_co2_emissions.htm
I don’t believe Combet can dismiss this link or the organisation that produced these statistics. Most interesting is this at the bottom of the link.
“Definitions & Technical notes:
CO2 emission sources include emissions from energy industry, from transport, from fuel combustion in industry, services, households, etc. and industrial processes, such as the production of cement.
Changes in how land is used can also result in the emission of CO2, or in the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. However, as there is not yet an agreed method for estimating this, it is not included in the figures for CO2 emissions.
Burning of biomass such as wood and straw also emits CO2; however, unless there has been a change in land use, it is considered that CO2 emitted from biomass is removed from the air by new growth, and therefore it should not included in the total for CO2.
CO2 emissions per capita and CO2 emissions per km2 are calculated by UNSD.”
I know, the point I’m going after Combet is somewhat trivial but there’s method to my madness.
10
Indeed how brilliant is PZ Meyers. Great blog.
“So you very clearly admit”… you say that as though there is any sort of secrecy that these are a 1st step.
10
I think some of the anger directed at Peezee is the result of his own spitting upon mainstream religion, and not his eco pathology.
Anyway I teach Renewable Energy to senior Mechanical engineering majors at the University of Maryland.
Indeed, this is true. In this class, we learn the fundamentals, and exactly what the limitations of renewable energy technologies are, and what the status of these systems is in development and deployment.
We learn what is sensible, what is not, and we learn that CO2 is a byproduct of fossil energy consumption that also happens to be a fertilizer.
So I know there are 50 more people age 20-21 who can go out in the world and contribute something to making energy available and affordable to society.
Some of them read this web log.
Hi Gang! See you Tuesday
10
You can’t prime an economy by forcing it onto more expensive methods of power generation that aren’t capable of meeting baseload requirements of that economy.
When your economy is highly dependant on exports of raw materials & baseline materials for the manufacturing process (steel & aluminium) and you force them to use more expensive power generation methods you make then less competitive in the market. And when your major competitors have no intention of implementing any policy that will slow the growth of their economeies and raising the prosperity of their society to the level we currently enjoy, all you will do is damage the foundations of our economy and move industry and resource development offshore.
This
global warming,climate change, climate variability farce has been going on for over 30yrs and is no closer now to any form of a global agreement than when it first started. To do anything that adversly affects our economy when there is no global agreement, nor any chance of one happening is economic idiocy of the highest order.Your right direction is a fantacy, we do not have the power to change a system we don’t fully understand, to claim anything we do will have a maesurable effect on the global climate system is nothing more than presumption & arrogance and will result in the destruction of the only thing that can change things on a global scale. That being advanced, developed economies capable of generation the revenue & and technological innovation to assist the less developed nations to grow and advance their economies & societies to an equivelant level of ours.
10
POpeye I can answer the following question
“Back to the maths – can you tell us all here if you still support Dillard’s carbon (Dioxide) tax?”
Answer: Not really. But I will far more likely send my preferences to the ALP in favour of the climate skeptical coalition. I actually would trust a Turnbull style coalition to come up with a better solution a bit less constrained by the Unions, but that option does not seem to be on the table any more.
10
@ Matt B 94 & 95
You have now proved that YES indeed you are a “strawman”.
“Popeye – maybe you could ask wherever you cut and pasted the numbers from what they meant?”
Unlike you – I don’t cut and paste ANYTHING – in my original post I stated “I’m not a mathemetician and am willing to have my numbers checked but my maths is below – if anybody wants to dispute it feel free to do so!”
You are the ONLY person who has disputed my numbers but you still haven’t been able to refute or disprove them.
FYI – the numbers stated in (2) are current levels – if you want to get pedantic and question that number then do the numbers for a figure of 415.2ppm of CO2 in 2020 – I’m sure you can do the math but just in case you are having difficulty (400ppm @ 1.9ppm x 8 years = 415.2ppm in 2020)!!
This projected increase in level is DIRECTLY from EPA web site here
“The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007).”
As RoyFOMR says @ 64 “I hope you haven’t allowed yourself to take your eye off the thimble and swallow the guff about “excess CO2″ and “Upsetting the natural balance” from ScepticalScience et al!”
NOW – can we PLEASE have your answer to my question?
Cheers,
10
Matt B, Post 96 & 100 here at JoNova will live in infamy as the “Great Warmist Admission” expect them to be cross posted
I almost want to thank you for your “outing”…….
PZ brilliant? Great example of useless leftism. Is leftism brilliant? Is the left the majority? Well as Roy posted at #89, it isn’t in the USA.
10
Lol Mark D – I’m sorry you had such a shallow understanding of AGW that you think that my statements in 96 and 100 are an “admission” or some sort of unearthing of some long concealed truth:)
10
POpeye “FYI – the numbers stated in (2) are current levels”
Current levels of WHAT? Annual emissions. CO2 in atmosphere. whiskers in a beard?
10
@ Matt B 103
“Answer: Not really.”
Does this mean
a) You can’t tell us if you support Gillard’s CO2 tax?
b) You don’t support Gillard’s CO2 tax?
a) OR b)?
Cheers,
10
BGV @101 Thanks for doing that for 50 or more thinkers.
PeeZee is just another sociopath, left at that. I imagine he has signed copies of Keith Farnish books…..
10
Popeye you have to work on the wording of your question. You only asked me “can I tell you”.
I’ve actually answered “Do I support Gillard’s Carbon Tax?”. Yes out of the options on the table. But not really. I think my answer is fair and honest.
10
OT But very interesting!!!
Subject: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt
Hoo boy, bureaucratic idiocy at its finest. Not only is the original claim bogus, the attempts to disappear it are hilariously inept. Apparently, they’ve never heard of Google Cache at the UN. Rather than simply say “we were
wrong”, they’ve now brought even more distrust onto the UN.
Back on April 11th, Gavin Atkins of Asian Correspondent asked this simple question:
What happened to the climate refugees?
It is a valid question, and he backs it up with census numbers.
READ MORE HERE:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/
ALSO THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC ON ANDREW BOLTS WEBSITE:-
What climate refugees? What map? What dud predictions?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_climate_refugees_what_map_what_dud_predictions/
10
At 106….dude, these comments are about carbon
taxationpenance not AGW. AGW is a failed theory. Applying a tax to a failed theory well what would that be?10
The Peezees of the academic world can be found in the biology, ecology, sociology, anthropology, history, and psychology departments (and other topics like “Women’s Studies.”)
I know of no “Peezee” marxist radical eco maniac type in any engineering department in the USA.
If anybody knows any examples, I would be interested to know who they are
10
@ Matt B 111
Thanks Matt
At last – no more verbal semantics – have been waiting for you to answer my question for a VERY long time.
You DO support Gillard’s CO2 tax – THERFORE the statement in my original post is truly is meaningful!!
“ANYBODY THAT CAN SUPPORT THIS SCAM BASED ON THE NUMBERS ABOVE IS, FRANKLY, NOT THE “FULL QUID”
Sorry mate – can’t come to ANY other conclusion.
Cheers,
10
Oh no though popeye – I don’t agree with your conclusion – unrelated to your numbers. I note you are proof that “not the full quid” is certainly not a unique property of people in my warmist subset of society.
10
Brian @113, good point! I’d say that’s because the engineers will be legally liable for their decisions.
10
MattB: v Popeye:
POPEYE not Wrong.
“Popeye it is a simple question, no evasion.
When you say “2 – Percentage of CO2 attributal to man’s emissions @ 4% = 16ppm 5% = 20ppm”
you are wrong. do you mean annual increase due to mans emissions, or percentage of total atmospheric content emitted by man per year, or if we took a snapshot of the atmosphere how much in it is there due to mans’ emissions since industrialisation?”
OFFICIAL CSIRO Publication:
“The cumulative total amount of CO2 emitted from all human sources in the past 250 years is now around 530 billion tonnes”
530 Billion Tonnes divided by 250 years,
= 2.12 Billion Tonnes per year (Global average)
(Australia is only 223 years old, so I will factor our industrialisation in as 90% of the 2.12 Billion Tonnes, = 1.91 Billion Tonnes)
So:
1.91 Billion Tonnes per year Global average.
Australia only contributes 1.4% of the Global average.
1.91 Billion Tonnes (Global Average) @ 1.4% (Australia’s contribution)
= Australia contributed 26,740,000 Tonnes ‘Human’ C02-e per year.
NOW, To Prove Popeye’s figures:
According to Australia’s National CO2-e Accounts our emissions for 2010 were 548 Million Tonnes CO2-e.
26,740,000 Tonnes ‘Human’ C02-e as a percentage of the 548 Million Tonnes CO2-e
= 4.88% (as an average, since industrialisation)
It looks proved to me that Popeye is correct in using a 4% to 5% range for his calculations.
The CSIRO dosen’t lie (does it ?)
10
@ Matt B 115
Typical of the leftist view.
If you can’t win the argument based on fact – then try to DENIGRATE the opponent!!
VERY childish AND would have expected more from you Matt.
Did enjoy the banter though – look forward to more in the future.
Cheers,
10
TN I was asking for a clarification that’s all. Nothing to get excited about. maybe “you are wrong” should have been “you are not being clear”. The rest of that post clearly shows where I was not sure what the sailor man was saying.
10
Lol Popeye – what a great typical reaction. Call someone “not the full quid”, when they say the same of you suddenly you call it “VERY childish”… For the record I don;t expect any better from you popeye.
10
@MattB #119
“TN I was asking for a clarification that’s all. Nothing to get excited about. maybe “you are wrong””
Could be MattB, I have been wrong once before.
If I agreed with you though, we would both be wrong.
Reading CSIRO, Kyoto, National CO2-e Accounts and UNFCCC documents doesn’t tend to make me ‘Exited’, if it did, I would apply to the DCC for a job.
Can you prove me wrong?
(It’s possible – most Government documents cant get the same two sets of figures in any two publications.)
10
Looks like we have found the document that this “MattB” and his ilk get their WEASEL WORDS from!!!!!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_real_pollution_is_this_lying_words/P0/
10
@scaper: #99
“Off topic. As I said on the last thread, I’m challenging Combet on his statements at the Press Club last week.”
The following figures are available on the links at the Department of Climate Change Website.
UNFCC ACCOUNTING:
UNFCC Accounting (INCLUDING LULUCF)
1990 = 464,496 Million Tonnes CO2-e
2007 = 880,861 Million Tonnes CO2-e
http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/Chart_KP.aspx?OD_ID=16341216243&TypeID=1
UNFCC Accounting (LULUCF component)
1990 = 046,124 Million Tonnes CO2-e
2007 = 339,537 Million Tonnes CO2-e
http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/Chart_KP.aspx?OD_ID=16341042499&TypeID=1
KYOTO ACCOUNTING:
Kyoto Accounting (EXCLUDING LULUCF)
1990 = 418,372 Million Tonnes CO2-e
2007 = 541,323 Million Tonnes CO2-e
http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/Chart_KP.aspx?OD_ID=16336756321&TypeID=2
Kyoto Accounting (LULUCF component)
1990 = 131,544 Million Tonnes CO2-e
2008 = 026,617 Million Tonnes CO2-e (No Figures for LUCLUF available for 2007)
http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/Chart_KP.aspx?OD_ID=16341042488&TypeID=2
The United Nations Statistics Department figures in no way match any of Australia’s accounting.
It looks like we have yet ANOTHER set of figures.
Combet and Garnaut use whichever set of accounts suit their purpose.
Hope this helps your cause scaper.
10
@ TN 117
Thanks for your input.
I’m sure you’re aware I was EXTREMELY careful with my numbers for two reasons
1 – I didn’t want the actual percentages questioned (even if my math was wrong
2 – I didn’t want ANY warminists to have “wriggle room” and base a response on itty bitty number disagreements (though MAtt B still managed an attempt at “wriggling”)
Unfortunately, once he had no more “wriggle room” he then says this:
“Lol Popeye – what a great typical reaction. Call someone “not the full quid”, when they say the same of you suddenly you call it “VERY childish”… For the record I don;t expect any better from you popeye.”
Were he to read what I actually said he may not have taken offence.
“ANYBODY THAT CAN SUPPORT THIS SCAM BASED ON THE NUMBERS ABOVE IS, FRANKLY, NOT THE “FULL QUID”
Matt must have thought the “anybody” referred to him.
I say if the cap fits – wear it!!
Cheers,
10
TrueNews @123
I note that you are quoting Australian Govt. figures for emmissions in 1990. Has anyone asked how these figures were derived/collected ? We have the same issue in NZ where 1990 figures are quoted but when it came to supplying the UN with figures ( for Kyoto reporting requirements) in the early 2000’s it was found we did not have the appropriate data or data base so a new system was set up to collect the data. So the obvious question was where did the 1990 figures come from , in order to make the comparisons? Economically the accuracy of the comparisons are very important.
10
Popeye in124 – you clearly levelled that at me in 118. Weasel words even worse when they come from a moron.
10
@scaper
PREVIOUS THREAD
“Off topic. Yesterday I wrote to Combet… I haven’t got time to disect these reports and ask the good people here that have time, to go through them and point me to the rubbery aspects of these cough, cough, unbiased documents”
Precis of previous reply, in case you didn’t read it.
The UPDATED CO2-e WORLD EMISSIONS CHART link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data
CO2-e on a Per Capita basis is the biggest load of Crap I have ever heard, and here is the proof: (using the updated figures from the link above)
Australia
Area: 7.69 million square kilometers
Population: 22 million
Emits 417 million Tonnes CO2-e (Decrease of 1.8% – 2008 to 2009)
(19 Tonnes CO2-e per capita)
(75 Tonnes CO2-e per sq Km)
(19 Tonnes Per Capita is the same as in your UNSD document)
China
Area: 9.6 million square kilometers
Population: 1,340 million
Emits 7,710 million Tonnes CO2-e (Increase of 13.3% – 2008 to 2009)
(6 Tonnes CO2-e per capita)
(803 Tonnes CO2-e per sq Km)
Gibraltar
Area of under 7 square kilometers
Population: 29,000
Emits: 4.38 million Tonnes CO2-e
(152 Tonnes CO2-e per capita)
Gibraltar is a tiny Rock, with a population one third of the size of Tony Windsor’s or Rob Oakshits, electorate and it is the HIGHEST PER CAPITA EMMITER on the PLANET.
The Australian Government actally LOST, the equivalent of Gibraltars total CO2-e emissions, between their 2010 and 2009 CO2-e Accounts.
(ref: The DCC graph Combet sent you)
The Garnaut figures are out of date (2006), use an incorrect start year (1990 not 2000), contain inacurate information and are typical of the FUDGED and SMUDGED Accounting you get from these Intellectual Pygmies.
(UNFCCC Document Number FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1
Australia will unconditionally reduce its emissions by 5 per cent compared with 2000 levels by 2020)
Goverment CO2-e Accounts:
1. They choose between two different Accounting systems, at random, for whichever one will give them the best figures for their purpose. (Kyoto or UNFCCC)
2. They seem incapable of putting the same CO2-e figures, for any one year. in any two of their own publications.
3. They also seem incapable of using the correct Start Year for Kyoto, and will use any date span that best suits their purpose and message.
4. I give you their own text, from their own CO2-e Accounts.
“5.5.1 Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
Emissions projections are inherently uncertain, involving judgments about the future of the global and national economy, policy actions affecting emissions, technological innovation and other human behaviour….”
10
Matt B in 126
Tut tut!!
Interesting how quickly the responses turned nasty AFTER the “moron” had flattened you on your back?
Grow up!! – I can’t believe how you live on Jo’s blog watching/answering/retorting 24 hours a day with your warminist BS and don’t expect to take a bit of flak.
I’m sure you’re a very nice person – but don’t belittle yourself by staying in the gutter – pick yourself up, dust yourself off and get ready for the next round.
Have a lovely rest of the day – look forward to exchanging & discussing viewpoints again soon.
Cheers,
10
@Ross #125
“I note that you are quoting Australian Govt. figures for emmissions in 1990”
From what I can gather Ross, and it is heavy reading, the 1990 Baseline for Kyoto is caculated back from a year when you actually knew your CO2-e emissions, the year you choose as a Start Year also plays a part in the calculation.
As far as the UNFCCC is concerned, I don’t know how they calculate it, and it appears to change between UN departments.
My post to scaper at #127 has a link to the ‘Updated’ CO2-e figures published by the respected Energy Information Administration.
These figures vary substantially from Australia’s 2010 CO2-e accounts.
I personally do not have a clue as to which set of figures are correct, so until I do, I will do the same as Combet and Garnaut, and use the figures that best suit my purpose.
PS.
The links at my post #123 are worth looking at to see the massive swings in UNFCC accounting, especially regarding land use.
(In 2004 we had CO2-e emissions of 331 Million Tonnes – by 2007 we had CO2-e emissions of 880 Million Tonnes – work that one out, lol)
10
Truenews @ 103. Many thanks for your assistance. A director of IPA, on viewing Combet’s links, came to the same conclusion: “Combet and Garnaut use whichever set of accounts to suit their purpose.”
All this research is pushing me beyond my limits but I get that.
I’ve sent Combet’s links to Christopher, when I receive his take then I will construct my reply, then send it onto others.
10
With regard to the topic can I say – Joanne, I respect you for your leadership in this Battle. To David, ditto.
But I agree with a poster way back who mentioned that it’s the younger generation we must try to win. They’ve been blasted with so much green propaganda they’re almost unrecoverable.
Monckton will be preaching to the converted as he did the last time he came here.
Perhaps we need a more youthful approach to deal with this. Anyone got some activist kids?
10
Scaper at 130. Are you sure you are dealing directly with Combet or one of his staffers?
10
Len, of course he is using his staffers to reply as a shield. That’s how it is done by Ministers of the government of the day!
All my communications on this issue is CC, the leader of the opposition and the blind CC???
Madness to the method…
10
MattB @110
Are you a whirling Dervish by any chance Matt? Boy, you sure can spin!!
Well done Jo. I’m sure all your regular posters really appreciate the time you give to trying to save Australia from the conjoined twin idiocies of the AGW scam and the proposed Carbon Tax.
With a young family, it must be extremely difficult for you at times.
Will forward my contribution to the tour next week.
10
TrueNews @129
Thanks , you seem to confirm my feeeling that there has been alot of guess work imnvolved
(or dare I say that word , modelling !!). As we know there is huge amounts of money at risk with these guesses.
10
YES THERE WILL BE PREPAID TICKETS THIS TIME
In answer to selle and katio: Leon wrote back to me
10
A search on this page for the word MattB gives me 31 hits. I’ve not tried to differentiate between what he posted and use of his name by others but he’s been all over the place.
Then I read it all again and it still makes no sense. I can’t remember any other such fanatical beating of one small point over and over to the point of name calling. MattB vs. Popeye takes the cake, the Blue Ribbon and every other measure of first place for inane trivia.
Matt is quick to point out that Monkton is a journalist, with the implication that this disqualifies him to speak on the subject. So let’s examine MattB: by facts in evidence on joannenova he is some sort of functionary at a university; he may or may not still be a member of his local council; he started a business and disappeared for some time, apparently kissing his uni job goodbye; now he is back more virulent than ever and working at the uni; his science and economic background has been abysmal.
I cannot find the slightest thing in any of this that qualifies him to speak here. Yet he does. And the pot calls the kettle black.
Matt, you have two eyes and two ears but only one mouth. Perhaps you should adopt a different policy by looking and listening twice as much as you speak. You might turn out to be a wiser man that way. The first step to acquiring wisdom is to admit that you don’t know everything. The next step is to listen to both sides of an issue with an open mind.
10
Lord Monckton is a great debater. But the point of a debate is to win an argument, not to get closer to the truth. Monckton certainly isn’t interested in the truth. Time and time again, he misquotes people, uses dodgy graphs, cherry picks, and all with such sincerity!
I would definitely pick him on my debating team, and there is no way I’d pick an argument with him on anything – he would win. Can’t see myself making an effort to go and see him strut his stuff, but I’m sure it will be very convincing and very entertaining.
[Mr Brookes, please be specific about the misquotes, dodgy graphs etc. otherwise expect to be edited] ED
10
Hi, long time away, don’t know why I just stopped getting emails sent to me? Although I got a monthly report.
Garnaut is a dangerous person. Just Google him, and see what he has be quoting about. He came to New England, went to one of the best sustainable farms in the area practicing cell grazing, reduced worming, pasture management, (that costs money to adjust farming management, but productivity does eventually catch up). I’ve been there during my course ‘Cert IV Organic Agriculture’ I finished my Diploma in the same discipline but was away for 6 weeks helping Tony on his election campaign, so missed two units. He’s suggested in the past, eat kangaroo instead of beef and sheep. (Well beef and sheep are used for other things other than meat) And not forgetting kangaroos defy domestication for many reasons, but mainly they are marsupials.
He stated to the farmers that they could make as much money through
carbon credits as they would from wool! He’s off the planet, and
Tony is giving him his time and effort. I have suggested to TW, sent him material etc., over two years, the IPCC are very wrong and have hidden agendas.
If Lord Monckton is right and Australia is going to donate 600 million to a UN Fund, controlled by the UN, this country is in
dire trouble.
Carbon emission reduction initiatives in Europe and Britain are being axed, they can’t afford them for the returns they are seeing,
mainly it is doing nothing to cool the climate, or reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
If and I believe too Sen.Wong suggested at the TV coverage of the election in the Tally room, the ETS tax was scrapped as the planet
was cooling! That was her reason for axing it. Now they see some
dollars if the planet is cooling naturally, carbon taxing will be
the main reason. God give me patience.
I don’t know if a new election will bring anymore hope for Australia. I know Rob Oakeshott won’t be reelected, but I hope Tony is? Andrew Wilkie? I very much doubt he will too. Giving us
a very hung parliament again perhaps.
10
John @ 138
I bet there will lots of media coverage this time though? The media
are turning on the government over this carbon tax debacle and so are
others like the Unions and Farmers.
10
[Mr Brookes, please be specific about the misquotes, dodgy graphs etc. otherwise expect to be edited] ED
Sorry, just being lazy again. This nice bloke called potholer54 put these up on youtube. They make for entertaining viewing:
http://youtu.be/fbW-aHvjOgM
http://youtu.be/PTY3FnsFZ7Q
http://youtu.be/fpF48b6Lsbo
http://youtu.be/C3giRaGNTMA
Then there was this other bloke who took Monckton to task, John Abraham. His presentation is here: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
None of which detract from the fact that Monckton is wonderfully entertaining (I trust I don’t need sources for that assertion ed).
10
Oh, god. Johnny is that the best you got, old boy? Youtube? LOL.
Proof! As Seen On Tee Vee!
10
Meanwhile, back in Merry Olde England, Mad Men Rule and kick around the final travesty of “geo-engineering” the climate they do not own:
Tweaking the Climate to Save It: Who Decides? – ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=13284957&page=1
10
John Brookes does acknowledge the debating & entertaining skills of Chris Monckton but contrary to his assertion,Monckton’s passionate campaign was to find the truth. He has done that.The ‘holy grail’of Global Warming has been discredited & the science is inconclusive.
We would listen to agenda driven Scientists or Environmentalists if only they could have demonstrated beyond doubt that AGW was proven.Regretably,they have lost credibilty and it is refreshing to listen instead to someone who eloquently pust an alternate view.
Mr Brookes’ sample of chosen videos featuring broadcaster Michael Coren & Lord Monckton was ‘cherry picked’ just like Warming statistics.
I proffer these in exchange. These are also moderated by Coren.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgl-TwftTEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oqNA-4mc_Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPWkPkuCubU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHNxsACtrw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7LGRy3GUkw&feature=related
10
The problem with the media is they are after viewers. And dirt pays.
Prof.Gaunaut came to UNE in Armidale recently, and rebuffed all questions raised that challenged his data? (They even employed security guards, possibly because I warned Tony Windsor who I do support, but not on climate change, that I may attend as a protester). I didn’t of course. But you can Google and see what he says about methane emissions from ruminants causing climate change on the web. Just Google Gaunaut on Methane emissions. It’s ridiculous. Who in their right mind would come to a region that has fine wool, and tell them to manage kangaroos instead (the mind boggles as they are marsupials) and then offer farmers carbon credits for carbon sequestration. So they can make as much money as they do from wool production? How does one shear a kangaroo, or milk it. The man is being paid and set up as the guru of climate change and carbon tax. And in the Armidale Express last Thursday, (Union Leaders need to show the way’ Gordon Cope wrote anyone who didn’t agree with him and castigated the unions, were uneducated. Gordon was a large grazier with over 6,000 head of sheep until a few years ago, when he went ultra Green. I replied but I have found that some of my letters are not going to print.
Maybe the devotees of Green climate change and the UN Cancun submit
that Australia agreed to pay 600 million to the Green climate change fund administered by the UN of course. See Lord Moncktons
report on this. Where are they going to get that money from? Better to put it towards clean energy research if they are so worried. The Professor is the high priest of the Church of Climatology, and his devotees fear being charged as heretics and burned at the Stake if they don’t go along with his ideology. Maybe they sense that the pyres are already being fueled by common sense
eh?
10
Can’t wait. Are there any more details about the tour schedule? Will he be doing all the major cities?
10
Jo, this page is being linked by the Don’t cop it website. As it mentions Ross McKittrick it is now wrong, as we could not raise enough funds to bring Ross McKittrick from America.
The latest details for the Lord Monckton tour can be found at this post:
Lord Monckton, Jo Nova and Starvation
which has several links back to this excellent blog.
10
4 Part series on Monckton Presentations. For all the people who Monckton’s tour this year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fbW-aHvjOgM
Enjoy!
10
Appears Lord Monckton’s appearances & messages on tour so far have angered Government, their paid Scientists/Economists, ALL Warmists & their uninformed complicit followers. Even Adam Spencer of the ABC’s breakfast program failed in his bid to belittle Monckton,finding it necessary to hang-up on him mid interview. Disgraceful behaviour by an organisation funded by the taxpayer & whose charter is to be politically unbiased !
Not to mention the sordid, ugly tactics of the Union funded “GetUp’ mob to silence anyone who seeks rationale debate and who espouses a few home truths about the so called proven Science.
Long live free speech & a pox be upon those who suppress it.
10