Here’s a graph showing something about Australian, Chinese and Indian emissions (thanks to Tom Quirk). At a glance you might think we are up there with the best of them (doing our bit to fertilize the flora of the planet, and to regreen the deserts). Alas, the Australian tally (the green triangles) represents the total emissions of Australia. The lines depicting Chinese and Indian emissions just show their annual increases.
Chinese annual increases in emissions are larger than the entire Australian output. India is not too far behind.
UPDATE: TonyfromOz points out the Y-axis scale is missing three zero’s. Data source: CDIAC (Thanks Anton).
It appears the new coal fired power stations and cars coming on line in the breakneck-evolution-of-China produced twice the emissions of the entire continent of Australia.
Remember our aim to reduce our national output by 5% or so by 2020. Thanks to the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Fund, the Remote Indigenous Energy Program, the Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, the Living Greener program, the Regional Natural Resource Management Planning, the Light Vehicle CO2 Emissions Standards, the Household Assistance Package, and not to mention another 36 programs I could have listed as well as the Emissions Trading Scheme (aka Carbon Tax), or the Climate Commission, and a multitude of state based schemes, the Australian citizens will spend billions to reduce that string of green triangles by an amount less than the error bars on a graph of Chinese emissions.*
Roughly speaking (and there’s not much point in being accurate), a 5% reduction in Australian emissions undoes the effect of one week of development in China.
Ask not the value for money you receive. Rest assured that by spending this money Australians are ensuring jobs for Chinese factory workers (albeit possibly in sweatshop conditions) and Australian bureaucrats (who bid against each other for Canberra real estate). We are making sure that if competitive solar energy is possible, someone somewhere will find that and then charge us royalties to buy those products back off them.
This is your brain on big-government funding.
Alas it is not your bank balance.
__________________
*You have to imagine the error bars on this graph. This is Chinese data after all. Look at the noise. There ought to be error bars on the error bars.
And of course, any reduction in Australia will cause a further increase in China or India, as well as extra freight CO2 output.
102
This is my brain what??? Sorry my brain is having trouble.
84
With more government funding you too could come up with policies this stupid.
193
OK I sort of thought that but the wording looks odd. I have no problem coming up with policies less stupid than the average federal government policy – apart from those that I have a hand in.
32
They think its good for the leftist if they turn the clock back to as it where before Margaret and Reagan?
30
So you’re saying we need China to act and reduce their emissions.
Pretty sure most of the world already knew that.
03
China will only reduce emissions insofar as it serves their economic interest. If they have to appear to pursue a renewables policy to retain respectability in the global community, then they will have lots of investment in wind turbines and solar. But the primary interest is in having cheap, and fixed price, sources of energy to keep high levels of economic growth going. That means retaining coal as the primary source of electricity production. It also means insulating itself from high and volatile oil prices by maximising China’s limited oil output and converting coal to liquids.
11
No I don’t think that is what “you’re” is saying.
00
Would like to see Australia’s total emissions vs China’s and India’s total emissions..
And he isn’t allowed to use log scaling on the vertical axis.
90
Another way to look at it (which I did some months back) is to see how many months it would take China to make up for Australia if we managed to get 100% reduction in emissions. Based on this data it would be about half a year. This would be a great stat to throw at the BZE chaps (and chappettes) who think moving Australia to 100% would be just wonderful.
60
ooops 100% renewables (I clearly detest the word so much that my brain refused to type it initially).
40
Energy from 100% “renewables” is only currently possible at present with continual power blackouts, or having huge reserve stores of power for windless nights. In Wales they have a pump storage scheme, that can provide 2 GW of power for up to five hours. I do not believe such a solution is possible in Australia, as you lack the rainfall (2400mm pa in Llanberis, North Wales) and suitable mountainous areas.
00
So, a 5% CO2 emissions reduction by 2020 translates to a drop from around 110 million tons to around 104 million tons, so 6 million tons in all, so around a million tons a year.
With China bringing on line one large scale coal fired plant each week, there’s an increase of 320,000 tons right there, just from coal fired power alone ….. per week. Add on the emissions from the new Natural Gas fired plants, and with the electrical power sector making 40% of those CO2 emissions, there’s your million tons a week right there, just in China alone.
India close behind that, and the remainder of the Developing World similar to India.
Aren’t you just so overjoyed that our Government Billions are being spent to save the World. If this is supposed to be sending the World a message that Australia is pulling above it’s weight, then they have the wrong email address.
Tony.
161
And Africa hasn’t even got started yet. China has been investing in Africa as that will be the next potential source of global cheap manufactured goods as Chinese wages rapidly rise (about 10% p.a currently). So the current competitive advantage of low Chinese Wages is going to erode quite quickly and the Chinese know this. Within 20 years, Africa will replace China as a hotbed of global manufacture of cheap Labour intensive goods.
Only a massive increase in Coal Powered electricity over the next 20 to 30 years can support this potential growth in African manufactured goods and the Chinese will want to see their investment pay a good return. Windwills and Solar wont meet this demand or simply cost too much. It just goes to further prove Western efforts to cutail CO2 emissions are futile in the extreme.
Surely it’s about time economists like Stern and Garnaut were publically called to task in their assumption that the costs of taking action against climate change were less than adaptation ?
20
From Bishop Hill today
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/29/cuadrillas-pr-fail.html
Typical of the majority of the electorate ?
” … So rather than upset my wife by being “mean” to the nice chap I prodded him about his knowledge. It amounted to nothing. He hadn’t heard of climate sensitivity. He hadn’t heard of base load. He hadn’t heard of STOR. He had no idea that you couldn’t have 100% renewables without backup. He had no idea that you could increase food production by a third by removing biofuels. Just nothing there but a fear he obviously wanted to cling onto. His best shot was to ask me if it wouldnt be a wonderful thing if I could have a banner that hung outside my house that generated all the electricity I needed from the sun? ”
What’s the point of this post ? I’ve noted before that the majority of the populace is scientifically illiterate, mathematically innumerate and completely bereft of engineering concepts … like the “nice chap” above
So rather than re-iterate and belabour the points here, are there any sensible suggestions as to changing the status quo ? With the MSM thoroughly buried in its’ own predetermined poo, I’m stuffed if I know
90
Try telling people that a plant like Bayswater is burning one ton of coal crushed to a fine powder every 3.4 seconds with all 4 units running, hence emitting CO2 at the rate of almost one ton (900 Kilograms in fact) every second, and watch the look on their face.
They just cannot visualise it. There is no concept of scale with any of these green supporters. Even after I (attempt to) explain the Maths to them, they still think I’m talking out of my fundament.
People think that Maths is something done by the machine at the checkout.
It’s the same as looking at the graph above. Something like that is for people who know stuff, something they can then link to without understanding what it is saying.
Tony.
71
Incidentally, as of right now, Bayswater has Unit Number 4 offline for mainteneance. Now maintenance could mean anything from the coal loader, the pulveriser (the coal crusher), the coal feed, the air feed, the furnace, the boiler, the turbine or the generator. Now because of that huge weight of the generator rotor, the actual generator is kept spinning, at low revs, so the weight (at a full stop) does not bend the shaft.
Because the generator is still turning, even slowly, it’s still actually generating a nominal 2.4MW of its 660MW total.
Now, that 2.4MW is the same power fed to the grid as 1000 homes with 6 panels each on their roofs would feed back to the grid in a full day.
See how Maths makes renewable power look as stupid as it is.
Tony.
141
I know the following comment is not well understood here, or perhaps even devalued, but TonyOz certainly understands the concepts
Yes,keeping the power plants maintained and operating is constantly challenging, but they will not work if the fuel feed (coal) stops. So imagine the sustained effort involved in the constant supply of guaranteed tonnage and quality from the mining ventures – difficult geology (sometimes unpredictable), mechanical/electrical engineering, staff, unionised workforces, shareholders and Board members, constantly changing Govt edicts, infrastructure and transport issues, constant attacks from the MSM and associated greenies/nimbies … the list is endless
How critical can this be, I hear the question. In the severe 2010 NH winter in China, coastal bays froze (no ships), rail lines, airports and roads were buried in 20m of snow (no trains, planes or trucks), power lines snapped, domestic houses dropped in internal temperature to -5C. The Beijing power stations came within 36 hours of completely depleting their coal stocks. About 30 million people were within a day or so of freezing/starving to death – literally
I’d managed to get out back to Aus, but my Chinese colleagues were terrified. I understand why; Greenies seem not to
130
You have seen the movie “Idiocracy” haven’t you? Set 500 years in the future. The makers were hopeless optimists. As the movie points out we are selectively breeding for stupidity and helplessness. It really doesn’t take many generations to see the effects and we’ve already had about 3 of them.
It sure is hard to be optimistic when most Australians think you are speaking a foreign language when you talk about freedom or liberty. “Safety” is regarded as a perfectly good reason for placing ever more restrictions on what you can do, while the nomenklatura(politicians, senior public servants and the upper end of big business)loot the public. This will not end well.
See also Pohl and Kornbluth “The Marching Morons”.
50
The trouble with numbers, is knowing when to trust them. How is a numerically untrained warmist going to recognise an honest broker like Tony when they see one.
While the overwhelming scale of the stupidity should be plain for all to see, they just don’t.
What can we do about that ?
70
You are right Joe,
The fish does not see the water.
40
ianl8888 bang on the money and funnily enough just what I was thinking about today.
Years ago I downloaded the “Skeptics Handbook” and from reading Jo’s site and other skeptical material I’ve got a good grasp of the basics of climate science (and forever learning), I believe it’s time to produce another version with updated facts to debunk updated AGW lies.
Coming from a basic education with a trade I can see where the average punter will glaze over with too much math and jargon but it could be presented in a way to catch attention and imprint a phrase to memory.
40
In what way is the present Skeptic’s Handbook not sufficient. It keeps dragging the dissembling & vascilating warmists back to the few inescapable truths that they squirm to scurry from.
Jo’s Skeptics Handbook is atriumph of communication, over flannel , obfuscation & nit-picking insignificance.
20
Communication of some of Tony’s home truths, might benefit from Jo style of presentation.
Something titled along the lines of eg.:-The Metrics of CO2 Abatement : in Numbers.
All that’s missing are the cartoons to illustrate Tony’s pieces, that would get them across to a less numerically gifted audience.
30
@ianl8888. Even in a democracy, if you are cunning enough you get the government you designed and the general population deserve. Call me cynical…
30
Of course OZ could reduce emissions by 5% forever and it wouldn’t make zip difference to climate or temp for many thousands of years.
And we could all live in caves and reduce our emissions by 100% and it still wouldn’t make any difference for thousands of years.
In fact the OECD will only increase emissions of co2 by 6% by 2035 while the non OECD will increase emissions by 73% and from a much higher base.
OECD now ( 2008) 13 bn tonnes and 2035 14.3 bn tonnes.
Non OECD now ( 2008) 18.8 bn tonnes and 2035 28.9 bn tonnes. Source EIA.
So let’s hope that makes everyone feel better. Every dollar of those countless trillions may as well be flushed down the drain, because it won’t change the climate or temp at all.
BTW that’s if you actually believe in scary CAGW. Zip difference for—-ever????
60
Slightly OT but i have heard from a reliable source the government has placed a freeze on all APS employment one can only assume this has been done in a vain attempt to balance the budget.
But dont worry we will still spend billions on reducing CO2 emissions (hence the slightly OT claim), we will still piss away billions on illegal immigrants, we will still piss away billions on stupid wind mills, we will still piss away billions on flights all over the world to make us feel like a Prime Minister, we will still piss away billions to buy votes, we will still piss away billions to feather our own nests but we wont spend a cent on the defence of the country.
Rant over
Cheers
70
“spend a cent on the defence of the country”
We are still at the lowest rate of defence spending as % of GDP since 1939…
50
Speaking from experience – approximately 50% of the Defense budget is pure waste.
20
Then Defence is doing far better than the ALP !.
50
Good answer! In retrospect, obvious, but good!
Cheers,
Speedy
30
Are you guys still taking turns with the rifle? 😉
60
Yes but we ran out of bullets after 3 days, now we just make “bang” noises and shout angry slogans.
20
According to alarmists and the ALP the number of skeptics in Australia is just a pathetic few nut jobs. There is Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, half a dozen academics, a few dozen people on this site including myself. A dozen on WUWT maybe. Some other misguided individuals etc.
By comparison SS site has a self confessed following of about 80,000. (or maybe 80,000,000 if some zeros have gone missing as they sometimes do)
So on the basis of this rigorous assessment I suggest that we just make the carbon tax voluntary.
If the alarmists are happy to pay the tax despite the lack of buy-in nearly three billion Chinese and Indians then surely a few dozen Australian skeptics are irrelevant and may as well just be granted a tax exempt status.
Any thoughts?
140
There is an old saying Keith “the best way to stop your dog from chasing cars is to let him catch one”.
Our dog will catch that car when KRudd wins the election.
20
…maybe there will be a wery wery close election and the greens and some greenish independents wil get to call the shots again?
00
To commenters on this blog.
Last weekend the Prime Minister of Australia on TV said that he relied on the CSIRO’s advice about climate change. So he should.
Surely it is good that public policy is based on advice from responsible bodies like the CSIRO?
So, rather than spending your time talking and agreeing with each other on this and other blogs shouldnt you be talking to the CSIRO instead?.
If you are so sure that you are right and that the CSIRO is mistaken surely a civil dialogue would fix that.
If that doesnt work, and you are so sure that the CSIRO is giving wrong advice, why dont you take legal action?
129
You’re just a naive little pup aren’t you?
180
Awww, but little pups have such cute little pause. 😉
10
Are you serious?
Trying to talk to the corrupted CSIRO is just talking to the proverbial brick wall, and if you do that long enough you’ll end up pushing a shopping trolley full of pinecones wearing a dressing gown shouting at the sky, no thanks mate we’ll just eat away at your little green empire piece by piece and watch you fall one by one. 🙂
190
Richard the CSIRO long since became irrelevant when it was politicised by a labour government. The scientists have been not in charge for a long time and the real ones are treated less than well. Try doing some research, it is not a happy place.
170
Richard Hill,
are you serious?
There is no way on Earth that you could even get them to listen to even the most basic attempt to explain anything to them.
On top of that, look at the damned graph. A huge body that the Government actually takes notice of can’t even get their bloody graph right.
We come here and, as you say, talk among ourselves.
Why?
Try leaving a Comment on any of the Warmist sites. Absolutely impossible. If it is put up at all in the first place, it draws obnoxious flak from others who have no concept of even the basics, and I’m talking here on the subject I talk about. All that, and usually, Comments are even removed from the site anyway.
Note if you will that here at this site, virtually everyone gets to have a say, free and fair. If they’re wrong, as more often than not they are, then we snipe at them, something impossible to do at other sites.
There’s not even an acknowledgement from places like the CSIRO that they have even received anything you might send them.
I am absolutely certain that what is said here is seen by others other than those of us on this side of the debate. They know.
Tony.
222
They know who you are.
00
Tony is right, Richard.
You commented here, in the way you did, because you have read what others were saying and felt the need to interject. Good on you.
But if you have read the opinions expressed here, then you can bet others have too. We are not just talking to ourselves. There is also the hidden audience to consider, and in a lot of ways, that is the more important audience.
150
That really is Rudd’s problem. His only academic activity was to learn Mandarin. He is functionally illiterate on basic science as well as economics and a host of other disciplines one would expect in a government leader.
That intellectual disability distinguishes him from Abbott whose climate change scepticism is most likely due to his broader exposure to academia.
Given Rudd stuffs up every policy initiative he tries to implement, including the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, he would be well advised to steer clear of CSIRO as this organisation had “”climate change” input to the Wonthaggi desalination plant white elephant project.
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/sustainability/climate_change/climate_change.asp?bhcp=1
“In 2005 we carried out a major climate change study with CSIRO. This study was one of the first in the world to examine the impact of climate change on water, sewerage and drainage systems.
Key challenges include long-term water supply shortages, urban flooding, and overflows from the sewerage system.
Actions to help manage the impacts of climate change and drought began some years ago with wide-ranging programs aimed at securing our water supply.”
And of course gullible Victorian ALP politicians of the Rudd variety squandered billions of dollars on an unnecessary water source. All because CSIRO got climate change in Victoria horribly wrong.
90
Richard,
I’m not sure you are familiar with the concept
20
Lets see. The Skeptics sent in 4000 submissions before the CO2 Tax was delivered and all of them were ignored by our Labor/Green minority government and subjugated to letter status. This is the same government that actually controls the money to the CSIRO and you have the hide to say we should talk to the CSIRO.
For Dogs sake grow a brain
100
I’ve pinched this from Bernd Felsche from an earlier post.
I think it points out the fallacy of Richard’s post precisely.
100
The CSIRO is an economics unit now, or a propaganda unit, because this aint science:
Carbon tax hit small: CSIRO
20
Richard, The PM obviously doesn’t read the cover sheet. You know, the one that says right at the front of any CSIRO report on climate that any information in the report is not to be relied on and the CSIRO will in no way be held accountable.
Now I put it to you that you wouldn’t build a bridge or fly in an aircraft where the designers put this at the front of the documents describing their proposed design.
In any case the CSIRO has become a social welfare organisation to keep unemployable PhDs off the streets. I went though uni with one of them whose ambition was to get a job at CSIRO so he wouldn’t have to do any work, could get well paid and be secure. I also had some dealings with CSIRO a few years ago where they claimed to have some technology that would be useful in a project of mine. After going to the trouble of a non disclosure agreement and and wasting time I finally asked them to produce a very simple amount of data which should have been very easy to do. They never got around to replying. These guys had a nice lab (ever seen the CSIRO outfit at Kenmore?)and basically were playing with model helicopters (sorry, rotary wing UAVs)and some commercially available sensors and doing nothing detectably useful. I’d turn them all out into the street.
20
And just what kind of legal action are you suggesting?
The current meme started about a year ago now. It goes like this:
The atmosphere continues to heat up because of increased atmospheric CO2 caused by the use of fossil fuels. However, this “extra heat” isn’t being detected because it is “finding its way into the oceans”.
That’s the “official” story. The fact that it runs counter to the Water Cycle and is impossible, is apparently irrelevant. THAT’S the official story. It has been repeated by Flannery, Karoly, Steffen, Chubb, Braganza and others, speaking both on their own behalf, and on behalf of the organisations they represent – The Climate Commission, BoM, the CSIRO, and certain universities.
On every occasion that one of these “experts” has made this claim, I’ve emailed and politely asked for an explanation of just how the process works, in light of the fact that the Water Cycle dictates that the net flow of energy is in the other direction – ie FROM the ocean, TO the atmosphere. I’ve emailed their respective organisations, too. I also emailed the former Minister for Climate Change, and the current Minister for Almost Everything, Including Climate Change. Plus the Opposition Spokesman for Climate Change.
I’ve never received so much as an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. I’ve tried FOI, but I’d have to request a specific document. I’ve taken the matter up with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, but they simply point to the disclaimers tacked onto everything these organisations put out – “do not rely on this information – seek professional advice”. They also claim that they don’t have the authority to hear claims as to the veracity of information put out by the Climate Commission, BoM, or the CSIRO.
.
So, smart arse, precisely WHAT kind of “legal action” are you suggesting?
282
MV
You might be interested in the lastest post on Bishop Hill. Doesn’t necessarily answer your issue but is on that topic
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/30/a-new-look-at-the-carbon-dioxide-budget.html#comments
20
Two ways to interpret that.
It’s good in the sense that there are no authorities in Science, where measurement is King.
Not quite so good in the sense that sooner or later the edifice will crumble and if you try to make it “sooner” using the courts or parliament, uh… we’ve sorta been there done that.
Getting a court to rule that CAGW is impossible… seems a dangerous precedent. But getting a court to rule that the scientific method wasn’t properly followed when compiling reports relied upon by governments… yes that would be very useful. Worth another shot.
On a lighter note… There’s apparently an American primary school cartoon series called “Science Court” which tries to send the right message about using scientific inquiry to establish the truth (eg the Water Cycle). I’m still a bit icky about their motto being “The Court where Science is The Law“. There’s very few legal courts where the law itself is in question, usually they question only whether a fixed regulation applies to a specific situation. Their final pronouncement that “the case is closed” has too many Royal Society overtones for comfort. It definitely needs teacher supervision to keep the emphasis on the courtroom process and not the “respect of law”.
20
To MV and the other commenters who responded to my comment.
I have met CSIRO scientists and I am sure that they are sincere and honest people. As are nearly all txpayer funded civel servants.
Do you think your ‘ad hominen’ remarks about ‘activists’ and ‘bigots’ are a good way to start a civil discussion?
If you have time to comment here then you have time to…
1. Contact the Prime Ministers office and get a copy of the advice provided by the CSIRO.
2. Identify the items that you believe are errors.
3. Present scientific corrections to the errors to the CSIRO
copying the PM’s office.
4. Ask the CSIRO to acknowlege the errors.
5. Make sure that the CSIRO’s corrections reach the PM’s desk.
If the above doesnt work start the legal process based on concepts like duty of care.
6. If approaching as an individual doesnt work, it may be because politicians and public bodies have to deal with lot of strange people and a sincere individual can get lost in the crowd.
If that is the case, you should form a collective with a suitable name and work with it. How about ‘CSIRO-Audit’ for example?
If you are not willing to go to that amount of trouble, then stop rabbiting on here. It is not productive and causes a lot of social upset.
4.
06
Funny, a word search of this thread doesn’t reveal either of these words being used at all, let alone regarding the CSIRO. Who used these terms? Did you make it up?
Unfortunately Richard, this is what happens to those at the CSIRO who don’t toe the party line.
40
Oh dearie me ” causes social upset” . How terrible! Piss off you useless troll.
20
Richard Hill, are not the “sincere and honest people” at CSIRO able and willing to come here and read? (and I mean the whole blog not just this thread) Then they could deal with the issues raised here on their own? Since they are civil servants isn’t it their duty to respect and consider the constituents whom they serve?
I think you misunderstand sincerity and honesty as competency. Then too, when are sincere and honest people willing to risk their jobs by offending the powers that be? That is political reality. Social upset is a political reality particularly when people sense they are being taxed or financially screwed by their elected “leaders”.
30
guess this proves CAGW sceptics are all loonies!
(2 pages) 27 July: Courier Journal Editorial: Scare tactics and science education
Critics of new science standards for Kentucky’s public schools made a spectacularly persuasive argument in favor of them last week at a hearing in Frankfort — although it wasn’t their intent and it’s unlikely they realize it…
The comments by some opponents at the hearing were worse than ill-informed. They were outright alarming and made the most compelling case yet that sound, fact-based public education of future generations is the only way for Kentucky to combat ignorance and unfounded fear…
A Baptist pastor chimed in with one of the main objections of opponents — that the science standards include evolution, the science-based explanation for the origins of life but not creationism, the religious belief God created the world…
(Climate change deniers also hate the science standards because they recommend students consider the impact of humans on climate)…
For anyone who wants to read the 104-page standards, go to http://www.nextgenscience.org….
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130728/OPINION01/307280024/Editorial-Scare-tactics-science-education?nclick_check=1
3 July: National Center for Science Education: NGSS adoption update
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services8″Five US states have adopted science education standards that recommend introducing two highly charged topics — climate-change science and evolution — into classrooms well before high school,” reports Nature (July 3, 2013)…
But they have already drawn hostile commentary from conservative groups critical of mainstream scientific thinking.”
Such groups have long attacked the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Nature notes, “In the past decade, those who oppose evolution have sought to enact ‘academic freedom’ laws that would allow creationism to be taught alongside evolution. Increasingly, that sort of legislation also seeks to promote criticism of mainstream climate science,” and cites data provided by NCSE, which began to support climate education in 2012…
Elsewhere, twenty-one states are (like Maryland, Vermont, Rhode Island, Kansas, and Kentucky) lead state partners on the NGSS, committed to giving the NGSS serious consideration, and Nature reports, “At least five more states — California, Florida, Maine, Michigan and Washington — may take up the standards in the next few months.”
http://ncse.com/news/2013/07/ngss-adoption-update-0014887
00
We have here in NZ compliments of our much vaunted previous Labour government, a free trade agreement with China. I wonder if anywhere in the terms of that agreement the words Carbon or Carbon Dioxide are even mentioned or to put it another way, how dumb are we?. Are we being taxed on the very thing that is an engine of their growth?. I feel myself drifting back towards Ayn.
40
The text of the New Zealand China Free Trade Agreement is here
If you decide to search it, remember that there is a world-wide trade in carbon (over and above emissions), because it is used in various chemical filtering processes.
Please don’t ask me what they are, I am not a chemist.
30
Ye Gods Rereko, life is too short but I will have a look. Have you read it?
10
Have I read it?
Don’t be silly, that is what New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is for.
20
Rareke
Activated carbon is good for picking up impurities from water etc. The most common example is the carbon filter attached to the kitchen sink.
Activated carbon is also used in metallurgical processes such as gold absorption – the charcoal from coconut husks being particularly good, apparently.
So, unlike carbon DIOXIDE trading, this appears to be a commodity which is both tangible and useful.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Richard Hill,
It would be lovely to think that we, the poor unfortunate citizens of the banana republic once known as Australia, could trust anything at all produced by the CSIRO, or for that matter the BOM, the Treasury, the ABC, sundry government departments, any university you care to name, etc, etc. unfortunately, every bastion of our society has been completely corrupted by the political classes to the point where nothing emanating from these institutions bares the slightest resemblance to factual or objective information, and no longer do they serve the mere plebeians who actually provide the lifeblood upon which their survival is predicated. They have progressively, since the mid 1980s, abrogated their responsibilities to us, instead prostituting themselves to their political masters, having been infiltrated by managerial types who have rendered any genuine scientists, economists, or other professionals to the margins. These few remaining honest employees, including particularly genuine scientists, bite their lips, shut their traps and wait for retirement, knowing full well that anything deviating from the political edicts from above are doomed to never see the light of day. Since speech in such organizations is no longer free, they wait till retirement to finally speak out, by which time the microphones are turned off and no one is listening.
Makes you sort of proud, Richard, to think that in merely a generation we’ve managed to compromise the integrity of every public office and organization in this country. Fan- f@!*#ing-tastic!
131
Apologies, make that Rereke.
10
No problem.
20
If you’d like to try and change the direction of Parliament, this is an excellent article “Your Will Be Done” by Arthur Chresby. From the article:
It’s only a 10 page read and well worth the effort. I shall be writing many “My Will” letters to my constituents shortly.
40
olaf,
I write this reluctantly, as I understand perhaps more than anybody where you are coming from, and what you would like to accomplish. Unfortunately I regret to inform you, that you are wasting yours, and other people’s time.
From 1986, until 1994 (pre internet days), I published “The Inside News”, a monthly newsletter devoted to a behind the scenes look at Australian politics. In its time, the “Inside News” was the most successful non-mainstream, subscription-only publication in Australia. I also had subscribers in Great Britain, Germany, France, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Brazil.
In 1987-88 I used Chresby’s “Your Will Be Done” as the basis of a series of articles attacking the then proposed ID Card, and an estimated 150,000 letters were generated. That was back in the days when a letter actually meant a signed statement on a piece of paper, an envelope, and a postage stamp. I was generally recognised as the leader of the campaign against those laws. Nonetheless, the legislation was passed.
In 1988 I wrote a companion to “Your Will Be Done”, “You’re The Boss, OK?” which spelled out the constitutional relationship between an electorate and an elected representative. This booklet was offered to subscribers free, with a minor charge for postage and handling, plus in bulk and to non-subscribers at a charge to cover postage.
For a small extra charge it was offered with a copy of Chresby’s book, plus a copy of Bastiat’s “The Law”. All up, nearly 120,000 copies of “You’re the Boss Ok?” were distributed, leading to the largest letter-writing campaign in Australia’s political history, mostly in relation to Citizen’s Initiated Referendum and Recall.
The end result. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
.
That was a quarter of a century ago, Olaf. It didn’t work then, and it sure as hell isn’t going to work now. Understand this: the only thing today’s politicians understand is brute force. Brute force against them as individuals, and brute force against their party’s political power. They are the only two things that count.
You can unseat a sitting member by running a group of unrelated “independents” who swap preferences, and you can stop party political power by electing a power group to the Senate. Both The Australian Democrats and the Greens have shown how it is done.
.
The only reason the farce known as “Australian Politics” continues, is because nobody today is prepared to make the effort to change it.
80
You forgot the PUP mob … maybe a deliberate obliteration of brain cells to protect your intellectual integrity? It is very hard to even begin contemplating taking Palmer seriously.
30
MV:
Too early to know that MV.
I was young when Vietnam vets were coming back dejected and the average public thought the whole exercise was a waste of blood, sweat and dollars.
In my humble opinion, that war set the stage for the wall coming down and de-powering the Russian communists many years later.
One never knows exactly when the seeds will sprout.
40
Lets all be grateful that China and India with the now increasing help of the likes of that former arch enemy of carbon dioxide and global warming, Germany, who along with most other nations are all doing their bit to increase the planet’s levels of atmospheric CO2.
Mankind needs four absolute basic necessities just to survive;
1/ We need water as the number one top of the list priority.
2 / We need food in adequate amounts.
3 / We need shelter.
Humanity being hairless and relatively quite weak physically for our size, is highly vulnerable to the elements and other faster, stronger, hungrier and uglier species than ourselves. So humanity needs clothing and shelter and the means to protect ourselves at some time in every region of the planet where humanity is to be found
4 / We need energy.
For without controlled energy we are just but another version of a hairless ape species living and surviving from day to day on what can be found in raw food and sometimes, rough natural shelter.
With energy, even with possibly the lowest form of energy that humanity knows and can exploit, the dung fires of the poorest of poor we are radically differentiated, we are the ONLY species out of all the myriad’s of species of every conceivable type on this planet that deliberately uses and controls energy in a sophisticated and highly controlled fashion.
And that use of energy makes us what we are.
We are “humanity”.
With readily abundant energy we can create almost everything and anything we need and we have done so for perhaps a couple of million years past as our species became the race of “man”, the Homo sapien species of today.
And yet in their abject stupidity there are so many today on this planet who are seemingly hell bent on destroying that basic abundant supply of cheap energy that has enabled mankind to haul himself up from a lowly place in the animal kingdom into his place as the dominant species on this planet.
Well almost the dominant species as our competitors, the bacteria, the viruses, the prions, all of which are the real rulers of the planet who will as usual, have the final say when push comes to shove in fight for positions on the ladder of life and in the survival of the fittest.
With sufficient carbon dioxide from our production of energy from an energy source which itself is no more than fossilised energy sources, we are producing more CO2.
Even so we only just have enough CO2 in our global atmosphere even now as most plants cease to grow when CO2 falls to about 180 ppm and die when CO2 gets down to below 100 ppm,
Our planet is currently enjoying an oxygen rich atmosphere, the byproduct of plant’s and algae and all green photo synthesising life after they have processed that atmospheric CO2 for it’s Carbon, carbon being the energy source of all life on this planet bar for a tiny group of sulphur and other elemental processing bacteria..
Sentient life, thinking, reasoning oxygen consuming life has arisen as it has taken advantage of this oxygen byproduct largesse from the photo-synthesising carbon devourers of the plant life biosphere.
We should be grateful for the increases in CO2 from our humanity’s viewpoint for with our numbers on this planet now exceeding 7 billions, adaquately feeding those numbers becomes one of mankind’s great challenges.
The increased levels of atmospheric CO2 has been calculated as contributing around 20% of the INCREASE in global food crop yields over the last two or three decades.
The other 80% of the increases in food grain production came from better farming practices and particularly from mankind’s most important but amongst the most ignored unsung heros of the plant science world, the plant breeders and the extraordinary advances they have made in food crop yield’s, in quality, in the incorporation of the extraordinarily important disease resistance in our global food crops and in crop nutrient and fertilizer usage.
Add to all of this and assuming that the increased atmospheric CO2 has had some small at least warming effects on the planet, something that as time and science moves on, I personally think is becoming an increasingly diminishing factor as other natural variabilities are increasingly being shown to have ever more influence on so much of what constitutes our global and regional climates, then that increased CO2 induced warming has opened up new crop lands across Canada and across the great grassland steppes of the Stans of central Asia.
Those areas may not be extensive but their production is the difference between adequacy and a shortage for the world’s food grain supplies.
After all there is only a tonne or so difference between a global shortage of grain and a a global surplus of food grains.
To grab a couple of numbers from the FAO’s World food Situation 11 / 07 / 13
In 2009/10 the world’s farmers produced 2268.7 million tonnes of grain.
In 2013 /14 the world’s farmers are expected to produce 2478.6 million tonnes of grain, an increase in just 4 years of 210 million tonnes.
This increase in food grain production, only a part of which might be attributable to the increase in CO2, is another part of the now quite well known Greening of the Planet which has been steadily happening over the last few decades of global satellite surveillance.
And there is no other explanation for this Global Greening except the increase in atmospheric CO2 making it easier for the plants to obtain their needed requirement of their elixir of plant life, CO2.
Video; Greening the Planet
Somebody in the CSIRO still does science ; Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
And there are all sorts of life on this planet that nobody ever thinks off that are benefitting from the increase in CO2
Cryptogamic Covers Take Up Huge Amounts of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
One of the very intriguing questions I have often though of is if increasing CO2 is so beneficial to land plant life what of the oceans which cover that other 79% of the global surface?
Well it seems that the ocean’s algae and phyto plankton plus a whole range of oceanic plant life is also benefitting perhaps far more than anybody has realised so far by the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.
There is some work and papers on ocean productivity increases with only a few authors claiming that increased CO2 is responsible for the accepted increased ocean productivity with most authors claiming increased ocean water temperatures are the reasons. However a couple of experiments have shown just how much Ocean productivity is likely to be raised by increasing CO2
From that very useful source on all things CO2; CO2 Science a controlled experiment
Power-Plant Flue Gas Enhances the Productivity of Seagrass
If some teacher here, or anybody with an interest in doing experimental stuff for themselves, would like to do an experiment showing their students; The Influence of Carbon Dioxide on Algae Growth
Give me a warming world with lots of CO2 and the world’s farmers can feed mankind’s increasing numbers for decades into the future to a time when as the demographers are predicting, the great globally wide slow down in birth rates finally leads to a stable world population of about 9 billions around 2050 and then the beginning of a long slow decline in the global population.
All the while with increasing CO2 and hopefully increasing warmth, something that I seriously doubt we will see in the next half dozen decades, and something that I, at 75 years old will never see, mankind can also increase the global biosphere in ways that will help mitigate the enormous devastation mankind has wrought on the great forests and grasslands of this planet since his numbers started their increase nearly a thousand years ago.
So go for it China and India.
Despite all the angst and invective you might yet be shown in the times of the future that you have done the world, mankind and the biosphere a great service by increasing CO2,
A situation which will create great angst and anger amongst the watermelon cultists of the CAGW argameddon but a contribution to life on this planet which we have yetll to realise and yet to appreciate the importance of.
60
I posted this elsewhere does someone want to check the arithmetic?
Within the general scheme of things the amount of CO2 in the biosphere is in equilibrium at 0.03% to 0.04%. The total amount of air on the planet is 5.1×1018 kg. So given that we are taxing CO2 we get (roughly) 1 × 1014 kg of CO2 in the atmosphere. With 7.1 × 10 9 people on the planet, this yields about 14,000 kg of total CO2 per person. Man made CO2 is generally accepted as less than 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, so 5/100ths of 14,000 kg gives (approx.) 700 kg (0.7 tonne) of man made CO2 per person in the atmosphere at any one time.
Whilst noting the enormous tax potential of 11 zeroes worth of tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, when viewed on a global scale it does not amount to much.
I am hereby offering to purchase my share of CO2 (0.7 tonne) at the current market rate of $6USD.
This should exempt me from all future “Carbon” taxes.
Where do I send the $4.20USD?
20
The superscripts did not work.
00
Well all of Australia has less people in it than the city of Shanghai. What would you expect.Although it used to be London.
Makes you ask what kind of midget-tyrant syndrome your politicians have that they seem by what I read here to continually argue about how they are saving the planet by themselves. If they are so sure of their own immense importance and see how the suffering for Green of their people, that they have imposed upon them, is thrown away so frivolously by the Chinese…then they should surely follow through and declare war on China.
Perhaps Yahoo Serious would, maybe he’d be a better Ozzy for leader.
Might need some help from those ships in Brisbane harbour though…the Flotilla Non-Grata ones.
30
Greenie zealots in the US have stated that the only way to get China to adopt policies of mass suicide it to demonstrate how to do it.
The logic behind that assumption might not be entirely sound.
80
That’s gotta be a trick post Brian.
The logic is entirely sound. I’d love to see a mass of Greenies perform that demonstration and repeat it several times.
30
It’s not science, if it is not repeatable.
00
very impressive,China, except that 323bn/5 years is approx 60bn/year & China has 60 times Australia’s population, so that equals 1bn/year! surely we’re spending more than that on RE one way or another (incl electricity bills). oh, and we get to export all those tonnes of emissions to China as well. what a scam:
30 July: SMH: Bloomberg: China outlines renewable energy splurge
China’s spending to develop renewable energy may total 1.8 trillion yuan ($323 billion) in the five years through 2015 as part of the nation’s efforts to counter climate change, according to a government official…
China stands by its pledge to cut carbon emissions per unit of economic output by as much as 45 per cent before 2020 from 2005 levels, he said…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/china-outlines-renewable-energy-splurge-20130730-2qx92.html
10
Worse than that Pat. They aren’t even suggesting this will reduce CO2 emissions, only emissions intensity (per unit of GDP). This over a period that should see their economy grow by much more than 45%. Also note the qualifier ‘as much as’ … so no reduction in emissions intensity falls within that definition as well. Chinese bureacrats are just as good at weasel words as ours.
40
The problem in dealing with organizations like your CSIRO is that you are not seeing them as a religious organization full of zealots. None of these people are interested in the science of climatology. They will go with their religious beliefs even if glaciers are forming on the south end of your continent. In the U.S. we skeptics call this the Al Gore effect.
BTW, massive glaciers may be here sooner then you think. It has been about 11,500 years since the start of the last ice age. Ice ages have been happening about every 11,500 years in recent times. The Holocene era is about done.
Another thing – CO2 amounts have been as much as 20 times higher than today, according to data from core samples, even during ice ages. We need to burn more coal to really green this place up.
20
The greenhouse effect has been understood for over 100 years, and AGW for nearly as long. This predates your Al Gore conspiracy hysteria by a very long time. Just shows you confirmation bias when you bring everything down to one politician while ignoring the vast bulk of the peer reviewed science, climate scientists and international scientific organisations.
Totally ludicrous made up opinion. Actual evidence and science find that Glaciers, Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica are melting faster than predicted.
“The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.83 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2010. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at about 15 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2)”
http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/sum10.html
—————-
“Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance. “
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?hpw&_r=0
“Traditionally, latent energy has been considered a relatively unimportant factor, but most glaciers are now receiving far more meltwater than they used to and are increasing in temperature faster than previously imagined,” Colgan said. “The chunk of butter known as the Greenland Ice Sheet may be softening a lot faster than we previously thought possible.”
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-35.shtml
02
Ernie said, “In the U.S. we skeptics …”, but you totally missed the point of what he was saying, and went off on a cut-n-paste spree that in no way was related to what he is saying.
Reading comprehension score: 2 out of 10.
I didn’t bother reading the rest.
20
Well I read the rest of what he said and it was all totally unscientific, made up, uneducated opinion, that lacked any evidence, science, logic or reality.
03
Oh dear. Another post not up to the rolled gold standard of AAD.
Mind you if he fucked off and made his own blog, he can demand whatever standard he wants.
Opinion on an opinion blog, who would have thunk it??
10
So? Show me one climate scientist who disputes climate has changed in the past?
The planet started as a molten swirling ball of cosmic dust, at some stage early in its form it was hit by a meteor that knocked it of its axis and spewed dust into space that became the moon. I don’t think there were many humans around then (and you would have been burnt to a crisp). The atmosphere has changed drastically since then, from at some times not even having one, to one without oxygen and a lot of CO2. It was fiery, frequent big geological upheavals, there was one great big super continent etc etc. Starting to get the picture?
Initially the sun was not as bright as today, being a main sequence star it grows with time, and will eventually engulf us (but don’t worry that is billions of years away). The moon was much closer (greater gravity effects and upheavals), and is drifting away from us over time, and may eventually just fly off. At one time there is evidence it even went into a snowball stage, it has had an exciting time from a flaming ball to a ball of ice
Eventually the climate started changing, the continents seperated, oxygen started being produced and CO2 started being sequestered through natural biological long term processes. Millions of years went by to eventually give us the atmosphere, climate and continental arrangement that 7 billion people developed in and we now enjoy.
Now over a mere couple of hundred years we have emitted enough CO2 to take our planet back to where it was at least a million years ago and likely more. It was not as friendly for humans then.
Really you guys need to go and understand science a bit better. Go and learn some physics, investigate the evolution of the planet, look further, think more widely, then you will see how an argument like ‘the climates changed before’ is such a silly argument. It is not even an argument, it is a basic fact that no scientist disagrees with. Science is fascinating, eye opening and mind broadening. Did you know that we are 99% space? nothing is really solid. Or that a billion neutrinos from the sun go right through every square cm of us every second?
Please think.
“Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”
http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/
03
Where did a meteor come from if the solar system was still in the process of being formed?
You can’t have it both ways. Was there oxygen present or not?
How?
And what would that biology be?
20
Do you seriously expect an answer for that? You really need to learn some science and do some research on the evolution of planet earth. Your comments are ridiculous and shows why you should leave the science to the scientists. You obviously think the planet was created fully formed with the climate, atmosphere and continent configuration that it currently enjoys. Presumably by magic.
04
Michael,
Yes, I do expect an answer to that.
The fact that you have come back with an Ad Hominem attack, rather than one of the “accepted” theories, shows that it is you who lacks knowledge of planetary formation.
You seem to lack the comprehension skills to even understand the question. I made no mention of the planet being created fully formed at all, let alone with an atmosphere. And I didn’t mention the formation of continents. Anybody who has studied plate tectonics, or even seismology, will know that the continents are still being formed today.
So can you please answer the question I posed? It is, after all a scientific question, and a question of logic, and also a philosophical question, if you want to go that deep.
30
I never said they had stopped. That was exactly my point, which you have obviously missed. The point is that the planet has been evolving for 4 billion years, going through many changes. A statement that it has changed in the past, such as
…is not an argument, it is a statement. No climate scientist disagrees that the planet has changed in the past naturally, it has been hotter, colder and different in every way possible in the past, that does not say anything about whether man can change it now. That is about as silly an argument as saying that because fires have started naturally in the past man cannot light a match now.
So it was not an ad hominem attack, I was just incredulous at the questions. The important point is that the real question is not whether it can change but why it is changing now? It is a failure in logic to believe that we cannot affect the planet with 7 billion of us requiring food, shelter, accommodation, transport and entertainment. We change it every day.
So to fully answer your questions would require a course, a decent documentary (of which on the evolution of the planet there are many) or some web research. I am not going to go into it now as it is not relevent. You either understand the point or you don’t, any other reason just means you have seen an opportunity for a typical word game or fact twist that you think you can trick me into and I am not playing that game.
01
None of your religious beliefs and opinions have any basis in science.
” The particle size of loess suggests that the East Asian Winter Monsoon did not reach typical glacial strength until 20,000 years after the onset of glaciations inferred from Antarctic ice and ocean sediments. If the Holocene was heading toward a similar delay of Northern Hemisphere glaciations, then our next glacial climate would be another 40,000 years in the future.
With industrialization, humanity was given an opportunity to improve our lives and productivity before understanding the costs. Part of understanding the costs is in appreciating what we had. If global warming were countering an imminent ice age, we could consider our CO2 emissions helpful. On the other hand, if we could know that we were in the middle of the civilization-friendly Holocene, then our disturbance of this climate may be regrettable. The life span of the Holocene is an old question, but it remains relevant in palaeoclimate studies.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7420/full/nature11493.html
05
So lets see, we are comparing over a billion people with slightly over 20 million people. This is one of the most dishonest arguments. It is similar to when Tony from oz tried to attack the power from my solar panels with the whole suburb of bayswater. It is a global problem that sees no borders, in that respect it is every persons emissions that is important. We do not vote in a government by a single vote, but by millions of single votes. If the state needed to save water (like WA a couple of years ago with their save 60 campaign), they want every person to save 60 l pd, which does not make a dent in our dams, but the program saved billions of litres.
Hence we are one of the largest per capita emitters and we need to do our part. Historically our total emissions put us at 12th out of about 200 countries and it is the combined global effort that will start to turn things around. Chinas per capita emissions are less than a third of ours, so do you expect them to live on the streets? They are making huge changes at a rate that does not cause to much hardship for them, which is all anybody is asking of the rest of us.
“China’s decade-long boom in coal-driven heavy industry is about to end as the leadership shifts priorities towards energy conservation, say officials and policy advisers.
The advisers predict China’s coal consumption will peak at only a fraction above current levels after the State Council, or cabinet, last week set an ambitious new total energy use target for the five-year plan ending 2015.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/time-for-change-china-flags-peak-in-coal-usage-20130206-2dxrv.html#ixzz2MoKor9al
“China has laid out an ambitious road map to reduce emissions by 40-45 per cent by 2020, including the world’s largest national carbon trading scheme.
Speaking at the Australia-China Climate Change Forum in Sydney yesterday, China’s most senior climate change official challenged the “misunderstanding” that China – the world’s biggest polluter and second largest economy – was failing to act on emissions.”
http://www.carbonnews.co.nz/story.asp?storyID=6697
“China and the United States are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, Holland writes. A recent agreement between the two countries bodes well for promoting clean energy and addressing climate change globally.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0426/Hope-for-US-China-collaboration-on-climate-change-clean-energy
05
Nope, not even close. Not even on a per capita basis is Australia close.
Measured, how? If you don’t know how these things are measured, then they have no veracity, and you have no credibility. What is the carbon output from boiling a litre of water over a Yak dung fire? The answer is on the internet, try googling “yak crap”.
Well that is true, as far as it goes, but the reduction in coal use is not because the Chinese have been drinking the Green Koolaid, it is because the Chinese are about to get much cheaper gas piped in from the South Russian gas and oil fields. Shame about Australia’s coal exports, though.
Your referenced article in the SMH is a cherry pick of a much longer article on one of the news wires, with bits selected that would follow the standard Fairfax line. The original interview was recorded in Mandarin, so it also may have lost accuracy in translation.
Your CSMonitor article contains the quote, from Premier Liu, “that a more focused and urgent initiative is needed”. The words, “More focused and urgent initiative”, are diplomatic speak for doing the minimum, and getting it over with quickly. Secretary John Kerry will have got that message, but of course he will say nothing publicly because he wants people like you believe that he is winning “his side” of the debate.
I really don’t know why you try to play with the grownups here, you just end up looking foolish.
30
Good God Michael, Do you know how many Chinese do not even have electricity? Do you know why that might skew “per capita” emissions data?
Yak crap indeed.
50
We don’t read of too many “Michaels” puling over “emissions” in China, it is only people who live in a modern society, who can afford cars, food, access to electricity and modern health care, who bitch and moan about “carbon dioxide” and continue with their life style which allows them freedom to use the Internet to tell the world how awful it is.
Michael would feel a little differently I suppose, if he lived in a shack in rural China and had about 50 gm of rice per day to live on and little else.
Michaels have been around for eternity, they live in a civilisation and they despise it and their only function in life is to tell everybody how much they despise it
40
Making up stuff again are we?
Australias per capita emissions 2008-2012 (metric tons) 18.4
Chinas per capita emissions 2008-2012 (metric tons) 5.8
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
That is the real and fair comparison
02
No, I am not making stuff up.
Although I did wonder if you would cherry pick the World Bank report 🙂
You are using that report in a fallacious way. CO2 output and population are totally independent variables, and it is incorrect to compare countries (or anything) based on ratios of independent variables.
The point of the table is to indicate which countries had an increase in ratio, and which countries had a decrease in ratio on an annualised basis (last three columns). The table is not ranked by emissions, but alphabetically (that is the giveaway that they are not intended to be compared).
As you, yourself, pointed out, “… it is every persons emissions that is important” (sic). As MarkD has already mentioned, a significant number of Chinese have no access to electricity, or any fuel other than wood and plant oil for cooking and lighting. Both of those produce very high levels of CO2, and also noxious gases. Quite a few towns in the West of the country have stand-alone diesel generators (of Russian manufacture) that service the local area, for certain times of the day. Does the WTO count emissions from those, or just emissions from large scale electricity generation in the East? We don’t know. Pakistan might be supplying electricity to Southwest China, it was certainly planned. Are the emissions from generation counted as part of China’s total, or the Pakistani total? Who knows?
What all this means, is that your original comparison between China and Australia is woefully inadequate because you are not comparing like for like, except on the basis of figures in a table that were not meant to be compared in the first place.
It is you who should do some research, and not just rely on what you read from any single source, even if it does come from an international body.
It is researchers like me, who supply the base numbers to the international bodies. Does that make you want to cry? It sure as hell frightens the pants off me.
20
As is typical in discussions here, in all your attacks on my figures and base denials of my assertions, I am the only one that has actually produced a source. Again people here arrogantly think that everything they say is immediately gold and can be used to attack people with proof while they have none.
It is fairly ridiculous that you attack me using the above comment when you use a developing country with over a billion people to a country with 20 million. It being a developing country with people still without electricity is part of the point. We have been emitting CO2 a lot longer and that is plain in our figure for total CO2 emissions.
02
And it was the wrong source for what you were trying to assert. I repeat, you can draw no conclusions by comparing ratios of independent variables.
Why is it that you expect us to do your homework for you?
You come to this site, and make statements, in the hopes of proving some flaw, in the material, or in the subsequent conversation.
You do this, supported by cherry-picked figures that you have interpreted incorrectly, and so by inference you show yourself to be wrong, thereby supporting our case, and making a fool of yourself, in your arrogance.
There are no papers that can prove that something did not happen. How can we present a source for a non-event? Your lack of basic logic is astounding.
When you think of the huge differences between China and Australia, on so many levels, it makes absolutely no sense to try and make any form of comparison between the two countries, based solely on continuous variables. I trust you do understand the difference between continuous variables and discrete variables? But I am placing no bets.
10
They are not totally independent variables. China is a DEVELOPING COUNTRY. As such it does not have the standard of living Australia enjoys but is trying to get there. As such it has needed to find ways to quickly ramp up the energy it produces to try to pull the country out of developing and into developing status and increase the standard of living of its population. Obviously with such a huge population (we are only 2% pop of them), even a lesser amount of energy use per person is a hell of a lot more total energy than us.
We on the other hand are a developed nation, we have been using and producing energy for a lot longer and a lot more wastefully. Consequently our total historical emissions are 12th out of 200 countries. So our tiny population pulls above its weight when it comes to the responsibility or the pollution already up there. So we are both culpable and as human beings on a planet being affected by pollution to the state of reduced habitability for future generations, responsible for trying to turn the current wasteful and increasing CO2 emissions state around.
02
I like how you talk about CO2 in the same breath as pollution. Do you think that CO2 is pollution Michael?
Future generations have no rights Michael. None whatsoever and we are not responsible for them…. according to the law at least. You may not agree with this however that is a fact. We are not culpable for anything.
You constantly harp on about “future generations” however this is just an emotive argument. They have no rights.
00
I’m sure you’ll be happy Michael with the recent leaked report from the Australian Climate Commission.
They are now aiming for a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. How they are going to generate electricity is anyone’s guess. Of course, the good director does not elaborate on how things will be for 90%.
I know you support all of this Michael, so how will they do it?
But, the most important question is: By how much will it reduce global temperatures?
00
Oh Micheal, you poor fool:
You idiot.
Learn to read, and Judas Priest, find your way around this site.
This Comment of yours is the single most ludicrous load of crap I have ever had the utter misfortune to read. It’s so full of holes, it sank at launching.
Oh God how I laughed.
Get a life ….. No! Learn to read. Then bugger off, PLEASE!
Tony.
50
Yay. Arrogant Annoying Dickhead has found a new thread to bomb. How nice.
40
I am glad my typo gave you some amusement. Obviously I meant when Tony from Oz compared the amount of power from my solar panels with the amount of power used by the whole suburb of bayswater. That is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read. The saddest thing is yours was not said by mistake, you actually though it was a serious argument.
04
Bwahahahahahaha
You still don’t know what he was laughing at do you? There was no typo.
30
Michael, please, quit while you’re ahead:
You just made me laugh even louder.
You went from bad to worse.
Proves that you can’t even bother to read, let alone go and find out, you idiot.
You just crapped in your own nest.
Tony.
40
I live in Perth, WA. We have a suburb called Bayswater. If I have misunderstood anything then it would be due to the inadequacy of your explanation.
02
…or your inability to understand context or use Google.
Why would Tony be comparing the output of your solar with that of a suburb??
20
Its very similar to the logic of comparing Australia to China
02
Also Michael,
Could you please also answer the other three questions I asked?
Using an attack, and throwing a tantrum over the first question, might have appeared as a good diversionary strategy to avoid answering the other three questions, but it hasn’t worked.
You made a series of statements at #24.2, and I am now asking you to justify some of those statements.
30
Not a tantrum or an attack, just disbelief over the illogical nature of the questions. They do not make any sense unless you believe in creation basically. So what is it you believe? Is it based on religion? Because otherwise what I posted is a sort of fairly rough summary of the evolution of the planet. I could not go through all the science here, you would need to go and find out for yourself.
02
That is projection, Michael.
I suggest you look at some cosmology texts. A generally accepted hypothesis is based on the Big Bang, when all of the laws of the Universe, and all of the energy in the universe was created in an instant of singularity (some consider that as an act of creation, but I don’t, I am more inclined to see it as one null-point in an infinite number of cycles of expanding and contracting universes).
Anyway, after the Big Bang, we have all of this energy rushing outwards close to the speed of light, and since, at the quantum level, energy is indistinguishable from matter, we have charged particles rushing outwards.
Since they are all travelling more or less at the same speed, these charged particles eventually come together, through the force of gravity, to form simple elements – hydrogen being the first, with the other elements following on. That process is still continuing with some of the heavier elements, that have been made in the laboratory, not yet occurring in nature.
These elements then come together, through the influence of gravity, to form huge dust clouds that eventually become spinning disks of matter, which we know today as galaxies.
Each galaxy is made up of billions of stars, each of which also started as a cloud of dust that shrank, through the gravitational force, until a point was reached where it consolidated into a mass that was sufficiently large enough, and compressed tight enough, for fusion to occur. Matter that was left behind in this process, coalesed to form planets.
Now the interesting point in all of this is that all of the matter in a solar system was formed simutaniously, and hence is the same age, and is in the same stage of development, within the local environs. So to claim that the earth, which, “started as a molten swirling ball of cosmic dust, at some stage early in its form it was hit by a meteor …”, is discordant. The meteor in question, must have been harder than the earth, in order to “knock the earth of its axis and spewed dust into space that became the moon”, must have been older than the earth, begging the question, “where did this meteor come from?”
That was the first question I posed to you. You can disagree, if you wish, but do so on scientific grounds, and not by attacking me personally. As I said, the above is only a generally accepted hypothesis.
Now, the other three questions posed in my comment of #24.2.1, in response to your comment of #24.2 are still awaiting your answers. Please explain the reason and logic behind the original statements I challenged.
10
Well I do not disagree with anything you said, you just started about 9 billion years before I did. Where I disagree is the bit where you say it is all at the same stage of development. This is not likely to be correct. As the theory goes aminly hydrogen and helium were formed (the lightest elements) with a smattering of other elements. Roughly 75% hydrogen and about 24% helium (not checking exactly, so just rough). This was about 14 billion years ago.
To create the other elements needed a couple of exploding stars between then and when our galaxy formed roughly 4 billion years ago. When that occurred (likely some sort of supernova) their would have been matter flying all over the place, some coalescing into planets nicely, some already forming into big bit and hitting but merging with the planet and some into bigger bits and smashing into planets and flinging bits of etc. You make it sound like some nice orderly dance of the cosmos when that is not logically how these things occur. It is all fairly random and viscious. Therefore we have planets, moons, comets, meteors, stars etc etc out there, still flying about.
Off course these are just educated hypothesis and theories, going on how fast galaxies are moving away from each other and working our way backwards, composition of the moon, distance from us and how fast it is moving away etc. It all works out pretty well depending on the test and measurement applied in multiple different ways and they have found the cosmic microwave background radiation which give much strength to the theory and this has been mapped to give us more information about how it expanded etc. This is how science works. By the way the universe is expanding ever faster apart so a exploding, expanding, contracting etc cyclic universe does not seem likely at this stage, there seems to be extra matter (dark matter) and extra energy (dark energy) that is pushing it apart.
So does that answer your first question? What was the next one?
02
Considering we are only discussing hypotheses, I think we have jointly answered the question.
My second question related to your statement that there was no oxygen, but there was carbon dioxide. If there was carbon dioxide, then oxygen must have been present to form the molecule. On rereading what you wrote, I can see an argument that all of the oxygen was somehow subsumed in producing a high levels of carbon dioxide, although that is not a hypothesis I have come across before.
The third and fourth questions were both related to your sentence:
I asked you to explain how the oxygen was produced when you had already stated that all of the oxygen was bound into CO2, molecules. I also queried what biological entities existed at that time, given the chemical complexity of even single cell biological organisms, when compared to the elements you had been discussing.
I would be interested in your opinions on those points.
10
The atmosphere probably went through many evolutions and most likely did not even have CO2 or oxygen in it at the beginning. As the planet evolved and its highly active status of volcanos and meteorites occurred they probably gave it a strong CO2 and methane atmosphere. Single cell organisms probably formed fairly early and as an ocean formed ocean plant life would have eventually evolved to the point where it would take in CO2 and breathe out oxygen. This would have helped other plant life and animals start to evolve and would have been the start of the sequestering away of CO2. This is rough, it has been awhile since I read a book on the evolution or watched a documentary, but I think you get the rough idea.
This is a huge subject, if interested you should buy a book on it or look for a dvd series on the planet. It can be really fascinating and eye opening. It eventually gives you a different scientific perspective on things. 4 billion years can see huge changes in the evolution of anything. For instance, if I remember correctly it took the colorado river 2 million years to carve out the grand canyon, amazing.
I am hoping to do a pilgramige to the galapagos islands at the end of the year to see a modern evolution example in action, considering its many islands of different ages have a huge variety of species at different stages depending on the age of the island.
00
Oh. Just noticed the “suburb of Bayswater” comment.
Bwahahahahhha
Obviously has no idea what Bayswater is… lol.
I think I will turn up my heaters a couple of degrees in honour of that one.
50
I live in Perth, WA. We have a suburb called Bayswater. It means nothing more to me than that. It is the only ‘bayswater’ I know off.
02
And Michael,
I want you to learn a lesson from this.
For weeks now, you have bombed Thread after Thread, carpeting them with meaningless Comments, nearly all of which we have been discussing here for literally years.
You sit there on your morally superior upper branch, crapping on us mere plebs as you think of us, treating us with mocking disdain ….. or you think you are.
This Bayswater thing highlights absolutely ….. 100% ….. perfectly, your I am superior attitude.
For those weeks, you leave link after link, after link, after link, expecting US, repeat …. expecting US to go off and read it.
I mentioned Bayswater more than a week back now.
All you had to do was enter into any search engine of your choice the words Bayswater and electricity ….. and there, either at the top or very close to it is exactly what we are talking about.
We all know, because I use it as my prime example, and have been for more than 5 years now, a couple of them here.
Read this and read it carefully.
You expect us to go and look at everything you link to, and yet, when we mention something, you, because of your (in your own mind) superiority, you consider that you already know everything, so why should you even bother to go and find out.
You had a week to go and find out, then you came back, and put yourself deeper into it, and then in the following couple of comments you went in even deeper.
You expect us to go and look and then you don’t even bother.
Learn a lesson here Michael.
And once you’ve tasted that piece of humble pie, then your work here is done.
How do I put this politely.
Go ….. away.
Tony.
50
The difference being, you never gave me a link, you just expected me to know what you were talking about in your usual arrogant dismissive manner. So rather than just expect everybody to understand and believe what I say I provide explanations and links that prove and back up what I say.
I am not interested in a stupid guessing game. You guys think you are all so superior that people should just accept and understand everything you say because you know everything. You then become all superior dismissive and start playing word games when challenged. No thanks, I grew out of those a long time ago.
04
Good. Time to piss off to another big then.
20
*blog
20
There is one in London, and one in Chicago, and one in the Caribbean (although I forget which island).
10
97% of Climate Scientists (& Michael the Worldly) think:
1. Bayswater is only the suburb.
2. Taronga is only a zoo.
2. Hazelwood is a only type of timber.
This has been the best laugh for ages.
I’m going to print Michael’s comments out and hand it around. Bwahahahahhha.
10
Also,
4. Loy Yang is an Asian masseuse. Happy endings anyone?
20
Only a Pusser would know her first and last name.
20
“Her” first and last name?? 😉
The reason the Army, Navy, Air Force, squabble among themselves is that they don’t speak the same language. For example, take a simple phrase like, “Secure the building.”
The Army will put guards around the place.
The Navy will turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The Air Force will take out a 5-year lease with an option to buy.
20
LOL
10
Only a someone in the Navy would know her first and last name.
30
What happened then? First it did not work then it works well.
20
…and you know the saying,
The Army sleep under the stars.
The Navy navigate by the stars.
The Airforce rate their motels by the stars.
20
Hey now you are starting to embarrass me with facts and i would like you to stop.
10
Ask a military person the time, and they will tell you:
Airforce: Oh nine thirty hours
Navy: Three bells in the forenoon watch
Army: The small hand is on nine, and the big hand is on thirty.
10
Marines: Time for chow
20
French: Time to surrender
10
This just shows that nasty ad hominem attacks is your main source of argument. It is a suburb down the road from me, if you are now saying it is a power company then that actually makes it even more ridiculous in the context in how it was used. It just proves that fair, honest and logical debate is not part of your vocabularies.
03
Psychological projection again, Michael.
30
Michael – I am not only laughing at you, but feel sorry for your lying here:
eg. Bayswater.
Don’t try to evade the ignorance of your comment.
If you had read any of the other comments in this thread – which obviously you do not, why get upset about Bayswater, just admit your mistake. Here are some quotes from above that you did not read.
And you have the stupidity to accuse others of not providing a LINK for your error? You have in two previous links in prior comments indicated your knowledge of power generation in Australia which include Bayswater. Yet you cry wolf every time your little rants go sideways. Of course you know about Bayswater the suburb in Perth, yet know nothing of power generation in Australia, which highlights your total lack of wanting to search for facts in todays world, apart from your peer reviewed science papers.
I am not a scientist like you Michael, but I will research facts and details every time I get given them before answering. (Sometimes).
Get out and talk to people, not just travel around the world and visit 32 countries and not give a stuff about your carbon footprint. You are a very greedy hypocritical little Green parasite Michael.
10
Sure. I didn’t know it was a power station. To me in Perth it is a suburb. Also, no I do not read every post, I started this thread by just making a comment on the initial post and read up a couple. I do work for a living and have family at home, so I come on here in spurts.
Now I know its a power station it does prove my point of the unfair and illogical comparisons of the non science side of the debate. Seriously, comparing some solar panels on a single house with the output of an entire power station is pretty ridiculous. But I suppose on a par to comparing 1 billion + people in China to the output of 20 million people.
I think the constant insults and ad hominim attacks when you don’t know me and my situation from a bar of soap, very telling. It is sad that you think you are making a point by doing that.
02
What makes me sick about people like you Michael is that you give NO ONE, not one single person, any credit for having knowledge of something they actually have experience with. You seriously think you know more than anyone else about everything.
Then, when it’s pointed out that you don’t, and done as obviously as this was, you cry foul ….. YOU cry foul.
All you had to do was a simple exercise, but no, you want everyone else to do your work for you, and then, when they do, you just scoff. You don’t even bother to actually check, telling us that only YOUR knowledge is of any importance.
I’m sick and bloody tired of trying to explain things to people like you about what I have knowledge in. You don’t believe a word I have to say, you mock my knowledge, you don’t even bother to find out anything.
Well Michael, when you stray onto my turf, with less than zero knowledge about the subject, then I’ll have a go at you. Everything you have said about electrical power generation shows that you know nothing about the subject. You make wild claims about things that are so patently false, they are laughable.
I am not going to start all over again explaining it all again to someone who knows nothing, when you could go and actually find out the truth of the matter for yourself, hey, not that you’ll ever believe a word we might have to say, because you KNOW it all already.
Well, you don’t, Michael.
This Bayswater thing was was so comical. All you had to do was to go and find out. But no, nothing, just indignant fake outrage that we weren’t playing fair.
Michael, let’s look just as solar panels, since you brought the matter up.
Let’s then do a little work on it shall we. We are told ad infinitum that rooftop solar is actually making a dent.
Well Michael, the total output power from EVERY rooftop panel in Australia IN ONE WHOLE YEAR is equal to the Power generated by Bayswater in 14 days with all 4 units in operation. That is a direct comparison. Power output versus power output. Power supplied for consumption versus power supplied for consumption.
Total Rooftop Solar Power comes in at 0.3% of all Australian power being generated for consumption.
Total Wind Power comes in 2.9% of all Australia power being generated for consumption.
Total Commercial Solar Power comes in at, well, effectively zero, as there are too many zeros after the decimal point.
When people like you steal money from me, and from every other consumer of electricity in Australia, to point at your 6 lousy panels on your roof and then have the hide to gloat about stealing our money, then, Michael, you deserve every ad hom directed at you.
Michael, if you were to read more of the things shown at this site, then you might actually learn something. What you might learn is that there actually are people who know something about subjects you have no knowledge on other than biassed accounts of people speaking from the point of little knowledge themselves, and then accepting that as gospel.
Do not ever come the bleeding heart about us taking an unfair advantage of you, when, every time you come over all knowing on the subject that I do actually have some knowledge about, the only time you open your mouth is to change your feet.
I actually tossed up whether or not to reply to any further of your comments, because I’m not going to start all over again with every no knowledge idiot that comes here, patiently shooting down every false statement you make. No, you go and read up first.
You expect all of us to read your links, well, if you want to know about my subject, then go and look for yourself.
You deserve every insult you get, because it was you who made the fool out of you, not us. All you had to do was check.
Tony.
20
Excuse me? I thought that was my prerogative?
10
But seriously, I actually feel sorry for Michael.
It first I thought he was just an idiot, wanting to “do his bit for the cause of Gaia and the protection of his loved ones”, and that initial impression may be correct.
But his reliance on the peer reviewed literature (and the “pal reviewed” literature), indicates some science training at some stage, but not enough to know when to be critical or cynical about what it propounds. We have noticed a general tendency to point to references, when people know a bit on the subject, but not enough to express an argument in their own words.
I doubt that he has much political savvy, and certainly not enough geopolitical appreciation to realise the magnitude of the con being perpetrated; nor the depth and breadth of the graft going around in western governments.
I accept that he is possibly driven by a strong desire to leave a better world for his children. But I don’t think he realises that he, like most of his generation, has been suborned into aiding and abetting exactly the opposite outcome.
20
I think I know that feeling better than you do. Remember these?
“Two thirds of the electricity your home consumes comes from coal fired power. And you’re happy with that, eh!?”
“He’s one of the people from the Thunderbirds series.”
“It hasn’t improved. Costs are going up. Efficiency is no better.”
“You do absolutely nothing except (in your mind anyway) come over all the usual I’m superior to you as you, like a typical automaton, repeat everything your masters tell you to say.”
“More than three quarters of your electricity consumption still comes FROM the grid, from coal fired power in the main. You f[self snip] hypocrite. By the way. 1.5KW system. One positive power bill in 4 years. Liar!”
“You say that you make as much as you use. You f[self snip] liar.”
“let’s actually reduce this from your sublime to the actual ridiculous. You have a 1.5KW system. Let’s actually pretend that the amount of power not consumed by your residence, eg, the power that is returned to the grid is contributing towards the power available at that grid, which it isn’t, but hey, let’s pretend anyway. That amount of power you return to the grid across ONE FULL DAY is the same amount of power being generated by Bayswater in, umm 1.15 MILLISECONDS.”
I agree that you have crossed from the sublime to the ridiculous with your Bayswater comment above. I have already agreed I got that wrong. I live in Perth, Perth has a suburb called Bayswater, I would obviously then not even know to look for another option. But that actually only makes it worse that you were comparing several single house residential solar panels to a whole power station. Far out, please tell me how many houses the power station supplies.
Ridiculous is also your comment that renewables haven’t improved, costs are going up and efficiency is know better. That is clearly wrong on so many levels. Without even doing any research I know that the cost of my panels have dropped by a third before subsidy. I have read research that says renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel without subsidy now and I know for a fact (I did post 3 full posts of the significant uses of renewables in different countries) that they are becoming a significant proportion in many places. The problem is you don’t like change, you want to stay in the dark ages and so are resisting any attempts at making the world a more efficient, modern, less polluted, more self reliant and renewable place to live. Improvements are only a matter of time and penetration is only a matter of effort and costs are a matter of scaling up production.
By the way how about a source for those penetration ‘facts’ you are so happy to expound every 3 seconds.
It is sad that the science is so clear, that the evidence keeps piling up, that every single day there is information about a weather disaster here a heat record broken there, that the Arctic is collapsing, that Greenland surface melting is at record levels, that sea levels are rising, that ocean health is deteriorating through warming and acidification, species, fish and plants are migrating (proven by many actual studies) etc etc. But you guys sit there in your ivory towers, eyes closed and will not even entertain that you may be wrong while you desperately complain about the models and use your cherry picked portions of graphs to try to find excuses to deny the actual real world observations happening all around you. The consequences of you being wrong are about as huge as they get…
02
I feel sorry for me to. I try to see myself as a humanist, somebody that believes that in the end man will make rational, logical decisions for the best interest of humanity as a whole. But then I see so many people only interested in themselves and their own little worlds and will not look outside of that or make any sacrifices for future generations or even people suffering already.
02
Oh looky folks.. we have yet another one who is keeping a list of quotes.
Michael, when did you escape the loony bin?
10
Cut that “future generations” crap Michael, I already answered you on that one here.
10
Oh. Like those dying due to fuel poverty in the UK?
“Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly,”
” there will by 9.1m households living in fuel poverty by 2016 – the year the government has pledged to end the problem. “
But fatten up their bills with extra levies and taxes for Gaia. That will help.
10
Michael,
All your stories are now conflicting:
You’ve made up your whole sad little imaginary universe.
And now suddenly have a family at home working full time and a qualified scientist whole idolises only peer reviewed science papers, yet fails to understand the economics of power generation. How many panels do you have on your roof this week Michael, who hasn’t had a power bill for 3 years? But you have had a power bill (very small) a week ago? I thought your family (kids) were all grown up and left home (two weeks ago), but now they’re back.
Michael, you have to print out all your comments and keep your story straight from now on, as currently it’s full of holes.
Better still, log out and come back as another person altogether, OR, better still, just log out for good.
10
Michael claims he can run a house, with wife and kids on six solar panels and never get a power bill.
What a deadshit lying wanker!
20
How nastily dishonest of you. These power companies are private companies. I have seen several items on their price gouging for their own profits. It is also not mutually exclusive, you can have carbon taxes to make renewables more cost effective and encourage research and still look after people paying power bills. That happened here where those on low to moderate incomes were fully too over compensated for their power rises due to carbon tax and in Canada they have a carbon tax that is revenue neutral. So very nasty and dishonest of you, in the same article…
“Green party leader Caroline Lucas said: “It is completely outrageous that the Big Six energy firms are able to rake in eye-watering profits as people up and down the country are forced to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families.”
“Through over-charging customers, including the most vulnerable in society, the energy companies are driving people into fuel poverty,” she said. ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fuel-poverty-deaths-three-times-higher-than-government-estimates-7462426.html
02
Read it again Dickhead. I said ” extra levies and taxes for Gaia.”
There is NO “compensation” for levies for small and large scale renewables, which every electricity user pays for, unless you are thieving your electricity via over generous FITs.
Green?? Credibility shot right there….
10
What are you talking about Michael?? YOU want all of these durdy coal power plants shut down. Now THERE is fuel poverty!
10
I never said I did not work for a living, I never said I was a qualified scientist, only that I do have a science degree and what does that have to do with the economics of power generation, is that included in all science degrees?
Never said I had one a week ago.
I count my partner and I as a family, never said anything about kids being back.
So this is how desperate you guys are to discredit me is it? Do you have that little in the way of facts that it is ALL personal attack and belittlement now? Just a wild thought, how about we leave all the nastiness in that horrible place in the brain all your nastiness is coming from and just discuss the issues.
11
You say that you run your house on six solar panels and don’t get an electricity bill.
Its a fact that is a lie.
10
I just couldn’t resist this where Michael says this:
Micheal, what gall you have. I just cannot believe the sheer hypocrisy of what you say.
This from someone who is receiving up to 47 cents per KWH for the piddling little amount of power he returns to the grid.
You complain about the power Companies gouging for their own profits on the power that they see at retail for 25 cents per KWH.
You know why you THINK they are gouging.
Because they have to charge for upgrades to the grid so the grid can handle so many tiny rooftop solar units.
They have to charge extra for the imposition of the CO2 Tax.
They have to charge extra for the subsidies paid to renewable power plants of only the two types, wind and solar, because nothing extra is paid to the largest of all renewables Hydro, and if it wasn’t for Hydro, renewable power would be laughably tiny, and will stay that way, no matter how many new renewable plants they construct.
They have to pay extra for the up front subsidies paid to rooftop power units at installation.
They have to pay extra for the FIT paid to all rooftop panel unit owners.
Still, they sell their power for only 25 cents per KWH
YOU take 47 cents per KWH.
You’re part of that gouging you decry in those power companies.
You take hypocrisy to a whole new level.
Tony.
20
It makes no sense. There are no extra taxes and levies for Gaia. Nothing you have said displays any logic against what I said. I don’t know exactly how the UK do it, but everything I have read is that it is profit taking from fuel compnaies. But, as I said, in Australia and Canada for example the poor were overcompensated while most others were fully compensated. One does not negate the other, you can encourage the transition to renewables and look after the poor.
Only yours mate. Fact are facts, to dismiss somebody purely for their ideology is small minded.
01
I called you a liar over your rooftop panel power because Micheal, you are. So, let’s look at it then, shall we.
You told us you have not had a positive power bill in 3 years, and I called you out for that.
He has a 1.5KW installation, which is 6 panels.
The best case average power generation from any 1.5 system is 6KWH per day, averaged across the whole year, so a little more for Summer, and less for Winter.
You also mention you have a smaller fridge than most, and that you won’t allow your partner to use the oven/range, so you got one of those little bench top ovens instead.
You mention the (in general) poor little children who we (US) are killing because of CO2 emissions, and you mention children with the adjective ….. my, so I suppose that means you have children.
Your unit generates on average 6KWH per day. Your home itself will use approximately 3KWH during the day, so there’s 3KWH you feed back to the grid. So, at the maximum, 47 cents /KWH, there’s a rebate back to you of $1.40.
That’s power you never get to use again, Micheal, because you have sold it. You’ve taken the money for it, so you can’t just claim it back.
All the remaining power you use out of daylight hours comes FROM the grid, nearly all of it generated by CO2 emitting power plants.
So then, let’s actually believe that you have not had a positive power bill in three years.
That effectively means that the amount you have been rebated $1.40 is more than the cost you pay for all the out of hours electricity you consume.
So at 25 cents per KWH for the power you have to purchase out of daylight hours, then that comes in at 5.5KWH.
You only have the (tiny) fridge as you say. there’s almost half of that 5.5KWH right there. Let’s actually pretend you have hot water. That makes almost all of the remainder of that power you consume.
Then you have to cook dinner, I suppose clothes get washed. You watch TV, you turn on lights, and we know you use a computer. Your children also use lighting in their rooms, and I suppose your partner is allowd to use her own electricity.
Add all of that onto the total, and it comes to a lot more than 5.5KWH Michael.
So then, at your claimed no positive bill in three years, that means you have a consumption, (less than the out of hours 5.5KWH) of 5KWH plus the 3KWH your residence uses during the day.
That comes in at 8KWH per day.
I want all of you readers out there (those of you without rooftop panels) to look at your most recent power bill where it details your electricity consumption.
I would hazard a guess that none of you has a consumption that low.
You see Michael, when you make spurious claims. there’s every chance you’ll get caught out.
See your thinking here.
I’m a SCIENTIST. I am so mush superior to these plebs writing Comments here. I can say whatever I like and get away with it because no one will ever know.
Well, Michael, some of us DO KNOW.
So Michael, when it comes to dishonesty, as you claim in Comment 27.2.2.2.10, you take that also to whole other level.
Tony.
20
C’mon then Michael. You are the self proclaimed expert on everything. Now they are talking about a 90% reduction is CO2 emissions by 2050. That’s only 37 years away Michael. So tell us:
How will we generate electricity? We can’t use biofuel for power plants as those idiots in the UK are doing. That’s still emitting CO2 and where would we get all that wood anyway?
How will people travel?
How will a farmer sow his crops?
How will mines operate?
How will good be transported?
I could go on all day……
C’mon, tell us what will be left if we are reduced to only 10% of emissions?
I will tell you what will happen: People will migrate to Third World countries to escape all the bullshit.
20
Exactly Tony. I have lived, off the grid, with six panels. It was enough for lighting and kitchen appliances, tv, computers, plus a small pump from my rainwater tank to the house.
I also had:
Gas for cooking
Gas for hot water
I nice little one pot Lister diesel to fire up for washing, using power tools etc.
You actually way overrate what six panels are capable of – you need double for what you say.
Michael is a liar through and through.
10
I will make it simple. Carbon tax is (allegedly) compensated for. Levies for renewables are not, therefore contributing to the extra cost of energy.
I’m not your mate.
10
Most people were overcompensated, and even after the deliberate overcompensation the rise in inflation has been less than expected. Fact is most people are better off due to the carbon tax than the same situation without it.
Also, people can improve efficiency. But more efficient appliances as they need replacing, turn things off more often, don’t leave standby but turn off at the plugs etc etc. In that way individuals can even keep more of the compensation.
02
So this is your answer as to how we will all manage with a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions?
10
So says the ALP. “Compensation” was only available to the non productive members of our society. Those of us who work hard and actually EARN a living got stuff all, and I am by no means rich.
But you have missed the point. The “compensation” was for the carbon tax ONLY. The states levy a fee to fund useless renewable energy schemes, a good number of which has gone broke.
Fact is, government ‘green’ policy is contributing to increasing costs.
10
Well apart from the fact it is very nasty and hypocritical for you to use an ‘non productive members’ remark (especially since in the previous breath you were seemingly worried about the non productive members of uk) it is patently untrue. The tax free threshold was increased to $18,000 which benefited EVERY taxpayer up to a certain amount, around $80,000 I think.
This was also based on previous estimates when in reality the price impact has been less than expected.
I don’t care if you guys feel the need to insult me, call me names, misrepresent my situation and generally be as nasty as possible. But when it comes to the actual science and facts try and stay honest.
02
I suppose actually making stuff up proves your point better than using actual facts.
https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/carbon-price-one-year-on.pdf
02
No worries Dickhead. ..
Hopefully I have wasted a valuable chunk of your Saturday.
10
So my assessment at 27.2.2.2 was more or less correct. You have confirmed that you have had some science training, but are not an expert; hence your reliance on the literature.
The telling thing, for me, is your statement that you. ‘… believe that in the end man will make rational, logical decisions for the best interest of humanity as a whole’. That makes you an idealist, which laudable as it is, also makes you an easy target for those who would seek to manipulate your belief system.
You then go on to say, “I see so many people only interested in themselves and their own little world and will not look outside of that or make any sacrifices for future generations or even people suffering already”. The evidence of your contributions to this site, is that you equate Jo, and the regulars on her site, with that group of self-centred people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the techniques used in psychological programming is called societal projection. That technique takes the negative characteristics of your own society, and projects them onto an enemy. It is my guess, that you have been subjected, at some stage, to that process.
Because, by the definition societal projection, I am one of the bad guys, you will probably not accept what I am about to say. But I will say it anyway.
There is an old saying, “Tell me how I am measured, and I will show you how I perform”.
Climate science is certainly not the same as Meteorology, and it seeks to differentiate itself from Climatology. It therefore appears to be a new field, that solely exists to prove that the climate is getting warmer, and that climate variation is increasing in frequency and in severity. It primarily survives on Government funding, and it delivers as required. It is also highly unlikely to ever admit that it is wrong, for then it would risk loosing its funding.
On the funding side of the equation, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it is much easier for Governments to achieve major societal change, when the population feels threatened by an external force or by external events (such as the changes being made to American society due to “the war on terror”). It is also much easier for Governments to raise extra taxes in such an environment.
What happens to those taxes is often murky. But I can point out that, when Helen Clarke lost an election in New Zealand, and ceased to participate in New Zealand politics, she moved into the third highest position in the UN, as an unelected official, and not as a politician. For many years, New Zealand had given financial support to the UN, and that money had to have come, ultimately, from taxation, but it is the politicians who are assessed by their willingness to support the institution, if you get my drift.
So, I put it to you, that the people who are only interested in themselves and their own little world, and who will not look outside of that or make any sacrifices for future generations or even people suffering already, are not the sceptics on this site, and other sceptical sites, but the climate scientists, and the politicians for whom they work.
30
Anybody that does not rely on the literature is neither an expert nor making informed and rational decisions based in reality. What a silly statement that goes with the rest of your speel that displays a twisted view on reality designed to affirm your confirmation bias.
Everybody makes decisions based on a belief system, nobody thinks in a vacuum. My belief system most closely aligns itself with secular humanism which roughly defined says…
“embraces human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[1][2][3] It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.”
SO basically I look at all the science, data and observations and make determinations on what I think will be best for humanity as a whole, without the foggy cloud of religion or other superstitious belief systems, focussing on reason and logic. Considering the vast majority of the actual science, data, observations, scientists and scientific organisations point to and accept AGW, then so do I, and then I look for solutions to benefit humanity. I am not wedded to solutions like the carbon tax or ets, but from my education and understanding these taxes are the most efficient and cheapest way to deal with the externalities imposed on society by a product such as fossil fuel power production. My main goal is to educate people into the reality of AGW so that we can stop many of these pointless arguments about the science and focus on solutions. But I look to taxes like the one in BC in Canada that is revenue neutral and see that it works, is good for the economy and fulfilling its objectives.
To make silly claims like that above of it being a government conspiracy to make people feel threatened so that they can be taxed is ludicrous, easily shot down by logic and reason and the comment about scientists is insulting and disgusting.
Firstly the government and scientist side of the equation. This is not good for governments, a lot of the times it is difficult to sell and makes many politicians and political parties lose their jobs. There is no major upside to selling a disaster here, a lot of people don’t want to hear it. Money spent and taxes raised are very public and traceable the majority of the time and does not normally help the governments financial situation. This is also science that has been at the forefront for 40 years so it has persisted through multiple changes of governments, multiple sides of politics, in democracies, dictatorships and everything in between. There are also governments that do not agree and promoting it is a negative for the scientists such as in Canada. Despite that over the many many decades you have strong agreement in virtually every internationally recognised scientific institution in the world, on every continent and under every type of government. To sustain this kind of a conspiracy would put George Orwells 1984 to shame. So zero logic here, look at Julia Gillard, what was the upside? Did she get a bonus? did she profit out of it? No, individually speaking she personally did not benefit in it in any way and it eventually cost her her job. So why did she do it, unless she believed it?
On top of that every peer reviewed survey of the science or scientists in the last 20 years puts its acceptance as overwhelming. Then there’s the actual data and observations. It is without question that the instrumental global temperature trend is up, with dips and pauses certainly but the trend is up. Using logic and reason you can understand that there are natural variations that make it obvious that it would not be uniform, there are many drivers of climate not just one. Using logic and reason you can see that a high el nino year would artificially make a jump in temps while la nina would artificially drop temps, so that cherry picking a el nino year and ending after back to back la ninas is not saying anything on its own. But if you logically just look at el nino years you can see that they have been increasing and the wmo have 2005 and 2010 as the hottest years and if you just look at la nina years you can see that the last 2 (2011 and 2012) where the hottest la nina affected years on record. This would lead any logical observer to conclude that surface temps are still rising. Add to that the many other lines of evidence, ocean warming, acidification, glacier melting (over 80% of glaciers), the Arctic ice collapse, Greenland surface melt, species migrating, fish migrating, seasonal factors starting earlier, trends in extreme precipitation up 7% (by observation), hot days records broken over cold days increased 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 at night, satelite measurements of energy coming into the planetary system higher than that leaving the planet, lower atmosphere warming while upper atmosphere cooling etc etc all pile on to the likelihood of AGW being a correct and already occurring phenomenom.
Then look at extreme weather, any casual observer of global weather can see how haywire it is going, more severe and more often floods, bigger heat waves, more droughts etc etc. But if you need a more scientific perspective there are reports on the extreme weather put out by the WMO and NOAA. So seriously with this amount of evidence it is beyond me that people can sit there and categorically say that there is nothing to see here, lets sit and wait. With the consequences so high any moral and ethical human being would have to conclude that there is more than enough evidence to reduce this geo engineering experiment that has increased CO2 to levels not seen in over a million years. We do not know the consequences so how can we take the risk? There fore your ideology or greed must be driving your decision making (I do not know which) which is not based on any logical or rational examination of the science and the data. There has been peer reviewed studies on your type of belief system that does base it in an ideology on the free market system.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full.pdf
02
Oh! I forgot the GAS fridge 🙂
10
Oh almost forgot some twerp from the “independant” climate change commission wants to increase or 5% reduction to 15%, he claims it will not affect our economy.
I think it is high time we re enact Hitlers “Night of the long knives” where he disappeared all the leaders of the SA (brown shirts) at the demand of the Army.
20
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142420.htm
Thats it i am pulling out the carving knife………..who’s with me?
20
That’s right you guys let them take your guns.
10
Yes well we dont have a constitution or a bill of rights like you guys, having said that you have had 3 presidents in a row who have used them as toilet paper so wont be long now and you will be no different to us 🙂
20
touché
20
The difference between you and i Mark is that if we called a night of the long knives in our respective countries you would have many thousands/millions? of supporters where as here in Oz we would turn up in a mini bus.
20
At least you’d all know what the plan was.
A well armed mob of thousands with poor communications scares me a bit. I’ll stay home for the first go around.
00
That sounds a lot like NATO, to me.
From a military exercise:
With a German accent (GA): “Delta Echo Three, you are to attack the enemy emplacement to the left”
With American accent (AA): “Which one?” (There being several)
GA: “The one on the left”
AA: “The one on the far left? I have (code name for unit) on my left”
GA: “No, the enemy position on your left”
With a Scottish Accent: “Hey, we dinna ha all day, jus go an attack summat, and we can be awa”
00
5% was always a ridiculously unimaginative figure to strive for. Most countries have higher targets and are meeting that target easily.
02
And that is a good thing?
Is that worth the hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown at the problem?
Hundreds of millions of dollars that could be spent on health care?
Hundreds of millions of dollars that could be invested in education?
20
For the trillions of dollars in coping and adapting to increasing weather disasters and climate change? Hell yeh. For the amount of people dying in weather disaster, suffering from heat stress, drowning in floods, losing their homes repeatedly, whole islands sinking basically the future for those that come after us, hell yeh. Seriously it is way not enough.
02
What weather disasters Michael? No peer reviewed science I see.
20
Oh…. Michael, I eagerly await you answer to this question.
Truth is Michael that any attempt to control the climate by taxing people is just another way to tax people. It will not make one little difference to our climate. None.
It will however have disastrous effects for millions of people. I don’t know how the fuck you can harp on about “our children and future generations” when all you seek to do is ruin the future and kill people. Kill people by the millions Michael…. and you wish to talk about culpability???
20
Interview with James Delingpole about the warmists being both funded and used by Big Oil.
The Junk Science Behind Global Warming with James Delingpole [Youtube]
Delingpole doesn’t begin speaking until 4:00.
I’ll save you all some time, here’s some of juiciest bits.
6:50 – Dana Nuccitelli (Dana1981 at Skeptical Science) works for a oil and mining exploration company called TetraTech.
13:22 – “A lot of people within capitalism have given up on free markets.”
16:10 + 22:00 – The organiser of the 10:10 “No Pressure” exploding-schoolkids video, Franny Armstrong, asks if all their mitigation attempts are ignored, as a final option, whether the warmists should stockpile cyanide to kill their children and themselves to reduce world population to help prevent global warming.
24:15 – “I think it is a eugenics death cult.”
29:57 – Cat cameo. (The Internet loves cats.)
32:25 – James lets the cat in from outside. (Only the most important news highlighted here.)
35:50 – end of interview.
10
Dammit, posted this in an old thread. Now reposted on latest thread for discussion.
00
[…] Australian emissions reductions target is undone by one week in China « JoNova […]
00
[…] Australian emissions reductions target is undone by one week in China « JoNova […]
00