What once was the Greatest Moral Challenge, has now been downgraded. Not because the evidence shows it is futile, but because of the polls. It’s democracy in action, working through the fog of ulterior motives, and the inefficiency of lazy journalists informing distracted voters or not, polled with non-specific questions. But somehow, through the haze, the public realizes they are getting a bad deal, and finally Rudd realizes there is no rescuing The Carbon Pox that voters didn’t vote for.
We were told we needed a price on carbon specifically to increase our electricity prices, reduce emissions, and to cool global temperatures by zero degrees. Now, apparently the cost of living is too high — even though that was entirely predictable and indeed a mark of the tax’s “success”. Instead of admitting it was a mistake, we’re “moving forward” and now we need to copy a trading scheme that hasn’t worked, and which is called “free” but is fixed by EU bureaucrats that neither we nor even Europeans can vote for. The New Zealanders are ahead of us.
Australia – a non-voting non-member of the EU?
Thus the Australian economy is now partly dependent on decisions made in the EU, which is where the price on carbon (sic) is set. A bit over a week ago the EU voted to cut the number of carbon permits to push up the price. How much do we suppose they were considering the effect on the Australian economies — zero or none?
As I’ve said before, a tax is still better than a trading scheme — it can be removed, and there are not so many middle-men creaming money out of the money-go-round and holding onto long-lived property rights. A trading scheme can’t be unwound without paying compensation.
The people who want a trading scheme the most are those working for or owning shares in corporations with names like Deutsche Bank, HSBC, and Royal Dutch Shell. Yes, Big-Oil wants carbon trading too.
The spinners in the ALP are now claiming they will save Australians $150 a year of power bills and we are supposed to thank them, as if they were not the reason the bills got expensive in the first place. ‘…the Prime Minister will announce the plan to “ease cost of living pressures for families”.’
At least the Greens are calling him a “fake” on climate. ““It is cowardly,” [Christine Milne] told ABC’s Insiders program.”
Rudd could have changed the game
In a perfect world, if Rudd had the honesty and balls to admit that the climate scare had been exaggerated and that he now realized a price on CO2 was premature and ineffective, he would have trounced the opposition completely. He could have said “the evidence has changed”. He could have announced a new climate research centre, loaded with engineers and astronomers who can actually solve the climate puzzle.
Rudd would have proved he really had changed. The opposition would have been left looking silly and weak, with a policy to reduce carbon, caught still meekly caving in to bullies who call anyone a denier who doesn’t toe the line. The Greens would have been apoplectic, but Rudd would gain more votes from the centre than he would lose at the far left. By speaking the truth bravely, the media would have been flummoxed. The Green journalists would have come out on fire, but the left leaning, centrist and right leaning media would either agree and applaud Rudd, or at least tone down the worst of their name-calling. It would be easier for Rudd to pull the pin on the charade than Abbott, because he would carry more of the media.
Rudd could have been a leader, he could have moved the national debate. Instead he has picked a solution which pays lip service to Greens, but is completely at odds with his earlier passion but with no adequate explanation for the change of heart, and one that helps bankers make profits and does nothing for the environment. In trying to be all things to all people, he serves no one.
Does he think the people who saw through the spin will ignore the character defects on display?
Do the media think their readers won’t notice that this is a major backdown?
Andrew Bolt is gobsmacked:
I’m watching Treasurer Chris Bowen on Meet the Press telling us the carbon tax should go to meet “cost of living” pressures. Telling us that switching to world prices – now just under $6 a tonne – will cut our power bills, and that this is good.
I’m gobsmacked by the utter gall. Astonished that the reporters just nod at the latest version of wisdom from Labor.
And that is the crux of what Rudd has done.
He will commit to a trading scheme because it looks good to your average bloke before the election. But by the time of the election, the clever money will have bought up large, and will then demand compensation if and when NLP get around to scrapping the scheme, costing millions, and leaving the NLP with the blame.
I am inventing a new Maori saying that will be handed down from my forebears: It is very slippery to catch; this Ruddfish.
320
Rereke,
what you said won’t happen.
Rudd has stated that his proposed new improved policy will come into effect one year earlier than previously legislated, if he gets re-elected that is, so it will not come into effect until 01Jul2014, and he has now stated that specific date.
Either way, what he has said has to pass through Legislation, and there’s no way he will recall the Parliament prior to the election to pass Legislation.
Tony.
340
Thanks Tony,
They are good points. I am obviously showing my lack of experience with the Australian legislative system.
So effectively it is all vapour-ware to buy votes. That I can understand.
250
Tony,
But Rudd now gets rid of the big LIE “They’ll be No Carbon Tax under a Government I lead”
by promising to go to the ETS and the average Australian is buying it for two reasons:
1. $150 less off the power bills
2. They keep their little bonus compensation.
Not enough people in Australia understand what the ETS has done to the EU etc.
Rudd will win on this line alone, unless more people are educated to the truth of this total scam by the CAGW crew.
To Joe average voter, Rudd is the promise of a better world, and they are lapping up everything this fruitloop tells them.
They don’t understand that eventually coal power stations, industry, manufacturing, construction will be crippled under this, the temperatures meanwhile will not increase, the oceans will not flood us, the snow will not stop, but we (Australia) as an economy will be totally pharqued for good.
271
Dave,
Pharqued? LOL! Well that would make Kruddfish Lord Pharquwar. How appropriate.
70
rudd the DUD is king canute !
http://sppiblog.org/news/lord-monckton-replies-to-australias-canting-ranting-prime-minister#more-438
32
Oh… where is Michael?…. he really should read that.
10
Ahhh. Now he is going to astroturf this thread too…
00
I’m unsure of this. Certainly there has been no definitive statement on this, nor is one likely
I agree that if re-legislation is required, it won’t be the current Parliament that does it. Passing through the current Senate would require both the ALP and LNP voting together since the Greens will vote NO
The newly-elected Senate does not sit until July next year (2014). We can’t know its’ actual composition yet – what if, once again, the Greens hold the balance ?
70
Ruddfish is a very dangerous creature of habit and showmanship, psychiatrists say psychopath.
Check the conga line of diplomats summoned to The Lodge to meet Dear Leader KRudd.
180
Dennis he is more a sociopath. The following is a list of the traits of a sociopath – just check off the characteristics displayed by Kevni the Kruddfuehrer. Sorry its a bit long.
1. Glibness and Superficial Charm
2. Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviours as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
3. Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
4. Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
5. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
6. Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
7. Incapacity for Love
8. Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
9. Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
10. Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
11. Early Behaviour Problems/Juvenile Delinquency Usually has a history of behavioural and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviours such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
12. Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
13. Promiscuous Sexual Behaviour/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
14. Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
15. Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
140
Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
MNPD, Sociopathy, Psychopathy – all describing the same result for the rest of us.
The variations are not as important as the similarities.
80
So, to sum it all up, he’s a politician.
60
Give yourself over to the power of programmatic specificity
http://youtu.be/7wksMvWCsh4
20
This is all too much for any voter with 1/2 a brain, when you scratch of the surface scabbs of the Carbon Tax we were not supposed have you find a festering cess pool underneath! Have a look at this breakdown.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/australias-carbon-tax-an-expensive-sop-to-the-greens/
20
Wow. Yet again the “Sceptics” are exposed as merely towing a political propagandist line. The science is just a distraction. Complete cognitive dissonance over the fact that Abbott and the Coalition have a CO2 reduction scheme, which has no basis in economic reality.
Laughable – as usual.
215
You must hate democracy seeing your views are so great . Sad for you.
Science is based on skepticism and a lot of people here are guided by that.
Science can change its mind (self correcting and all) and so can we!
Sadly you will not and this explains your anger.
me 2013
30
Quoting Andrew Bolt! There’s an authorative source:
http://andrewboltliesdeceptionsonagw.wordpress.com/
018
Chester, the lies funded by governments and vested interests keep coming, but Andrew is right.
Without a dramatic change in the incoming data the lies will soon be seen to be just that.
There has been as yet no conclusive response to the rapid rise in CO2. We are now 25 years into their “by 2100”, and the climate is doing what it always did.
00
Tony Abbott has stated clearly and unequivocally ever since the carbon tax was installed that a change of government will see it repealed.
During all of that time it has been very clear that a change of government is highly probable.
Anybody who invests in this scheme does so in full knowledge of this. They take this risk with their decision.
Tony Abbott can backdate his legislation in regard to compensation to the date of his first realistic announcement. Compensation will not be payable after that date.
20
That is basically saying that Tony Abbott is trying to run policy from opposition, and use threats and intimidation to make government policies fail (it has done this over several policies). This is why Tony Abbott is such a bad choice for the country, he makes decisions that are damaging for the country in his political power grab, and puts the liberal party first over Australia. It is neither democratic or moral. A person of this natura in charge of the country would be very detrimental to the country, as all decisions would be based on keeping power and not what good for the long term future of the country. LAbor makes the big long term decisions, education, nbn, disability, climate change etc because they care about doing the right thing.
03
You must be joking
00
One would have to be incredibly stupid to not see that Tony Abbott is in fact running the ALP policy of taxing human CO2 emissions. He got Gillard sacked on this issue and he has Rudd desperately trying to distance himself from her carbon tax.
Appealing to bogans like Michael, who are completely clueless about the AGW scam, with, “hey bogans listen up I will reduce your great moral responsibility for saving the planet from $24 per tonne of your polluting CO2 to $6 per tonne” To which bogans like Michael screech, “Oh thank you great leader. Only you would know what will save our planet”.
For those who are not bogans here is a salutary warning about UN sycophants like the scientifically illiterate Rudd who would sell out their countrymen for a UN dream of wealth re-distribution from the industrialised to the underdeveloped nations. The warning is from one of the truly great physicists of our time:
Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.
So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.
Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
(Or in other words the scammers assume, with no evidence, an amplifying positive feedback between the miniscule heating effect of CO2 irradiated with infrared radiation and water vapour, the principal greenhouse gas).
http://beforeitsnews.com/weather/2013/04/paul-mulshine-climatologists-are-no-einsteins-says-his-successor-2440226.html
00
I have seen actual quotes from Freeman Dyson and he accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it causes warming and that it has been increased by 40% by man. After that it depends a lot on how well you have kept up with the science, and considering he is 89 I would presume not very well (understandably). Those beliefs are not shared by a great many of the posters on this blog that have argued with me over whether is is even mans CO2 up even whether the greenhouse effect exists (not sure were on the anti science continuum you fall).
I have agreed that models are oversimplified, and have reiterated many times that the science is not based on models, but merely projections of certain scenarios. I have posted previously a few paragraphs on what the problems with models are. I work on the actual physics of the greenhouse effect and CO2’s role as a greenhouse gas. That our emissions have increased it by 40%, that its effect can be measured in the lab and in the atmosphere and that all the fingerprints, observations and data (historically and current) that would occur in a world warming with CO2 are occurring, and a lot worse than first than predicted.
I am not wedded to an ETS, I would actually prefer a global carbon tax, but considering the materialistic and corporate run world we live in a global ETS will be more palatable and acceptable by corporations and politically. It also does have the advantage of emissions control. I have also presented numerous peer reveiwed studies looking at the issues you think we haven’t covered from multiple angles. It is claims made here by people like you where requests for actual peer reveiwed science are normally met with deathly silence or with excuses and wriggling. As toi the clouds, they heat and cool and the net effect is still up in the air, but all the evidence says that it will not materially change the overall conclusions.
02
Michael, it is Tony Abbott who is on the right track, not your “Labor”. We don’t have an Australian Labor Party any more. The modern ALP is a bunch of Marxist bookworms, dedicated to abolishing private ownersip of industry, no matter what the cost in terms of jobs and even food security for the wider population.
The whole “climate change” thing is a political exercise, where politicians and schysters have corrupted the science.
You should recall that the initial proposal for an ETS intended to tax very poorly researched emissions by agricultural activites, notably methane production by farm animals. That proposal studiously excluded the sequestration side of Agriculture’s carbon cycle. It refused to recognise that this carbon being “emitted” was not drawn from the fossil reserve, but was part of a long standing, stable cycle. This was corrupt science driving corrupt economics.
That scheme, had it been installed, would have bankrupted Australia’s entire grazing industry within two years. This in turn would have rendered the 60% of Australia’s land area which is used for grazing economically valueless, enabling the government to direct it into new ownership without compensating the present owners.
The losses for our banks would have probably caused our entire financial system to collapse. Which is what your Marxist mates are trying to do anyway.
It is very worrying that among the coalition ranks only Barnaby Joyce understood that ETS well enough to do the numbers on it.
That ETS proposal has been set aside as a result of Barnaby Joyce’s work, but Julia’s carbon tax is a Trojan Horse which can be easily modified to return to that policy when they can get away with it.
As for your education and NBN. Blocking out the sun on school playgrounds does not help the RRRs, which for all the money poured into them too many kids are missing out on. And the NBN is failing already, failing even to get built. Your Marxist mates cannot run any business without busting it. They have a long history of broken businesses. Note in NSW the two road tunnels. The desalination plants et cetera.
10
Which Tony Abbott is on the right track? The one who claims that CO2 does not exist because it is invisible or the leader of the liberal party that accepts AGW and has some very expensive policies and commitments to cater for it? Will the real Tony Abbott ever stand up? Do we really want a weather vane coward for a PM?
The science is clear, all the politics is on your side.
“2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. [7] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords “global climate change”. Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”. According to the report, “authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.””
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
An investigation of 13,950 peer reviewed science articles found only 24 or 0.17% or 1 in 581 that reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.
http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
“The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
http://www.theconsensusproject.com/
02
The phrase “97 percent of the world’s climate scientists” sounds very dramatic and overwhelming, but the truth is somewhat different. According to the figures presented in the American Academy of Sciences paper, 90% of the scientists were from the US, including federal and state bodies, 6% from Canada and 4% from 21 countries around the world.
We are also told that only 5% of the original sample responses were climate scientists, so if we pragmatically apply those proportions we end up with just 141 from the US, 9 from Canada and just 6 from 21 countries around the world, hardly a global consensus.
We find that they originally contacted 10,257 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded, less than a 31% response rate. “Impending Planetary Doom” was obviously not uppermost in the minds of over two thirds of their target population. Of that number, only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduce that by half by only counting those who they classed as ‘specialists’. There is little detail of how many peer reviewed papers are needed to qualify as a specialist, it could by their definition be just two papers, one of which needs to be on climate change. What a poor example of scientific inquiry this survey really is.
The phrase “97 percent of the world’s climate scientists” sounds very dramatic and over-whelming, but the truth is somewhat different. There were supposed to have been nine questions asked, but we are only ever given sight of two of them.
Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
This is quite banal and shows the desperation of those involved in this “unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.”. Has it got warmer since pre-1800 levels? This really depends on the time period referred to. Do they mean the Little Ice Age, when disastrously cold temperatures caused massive loss of life and untold hardship? Of course temperatures are now warmer than that desperate period in climate history. Is that what they would wish to regard as normal?
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
This is the classic closed question, in that it implies mean global temperatures are being changed and someone must be responsible. The response to this question was 75 specialists out of 77, so here we have our massive 97%.
It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.
The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions. However a headline of “0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?
10
Actually you read my claim very wrong. My post was in regards to the peer reviewed science, so massive fail in your comprehension abilities. The studies I pointed to, (3 of them) point to the fact that less than 3% of the peer reviewed science question the science of AGW.
As to your diatribe, how twisted is that? A third return on a survey is actually a tremendous response. It was then 82% of the total of 3146 scientists that agreed with the statements, then increasing as expertise in climate science grew. So in the end 97% of practising, researching and publishing climate scientists agreed with the statements that it has been warming since pre industrial and that man is a significant contributing factor. I don’t find a problem with those questions, I think it is pretty plain. It is warming due to mans actions.
This is also not the only survey out there. Survey after survey say the same thing. Here is a newsflash, surely constructing a legitimate peer reveiwed survey is not that difficult and with the resources your side have why don’t you perform one of your own, rather than poking holes. Much easier to do than proving it your self. Oh I know why, because just like Muller, you know you will shoot yourself in the foot and find that previous surveys are correct. This is why you don’t have many publishing climate scientists on your side. Just people running opinion blogs and think tanks, actually doing the science and finding the truth is not your goal.
“Our results reveal that survey respondents generally agree about the nature, causes, and
consequences of climate change, and are in agreement with IPCC findings. We also found that there is
strong support for a variety of policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://bush.tamu.edu/istpp/scholarship/journals/ClimateScientistsPerspectives_ClimaticChange.pdf
“82% of 3146 Earth Scientists responding to a survey agreed that man is contributing to warming. As their specialty in climate science increased so did their belief in mans contribution to warming to a whopping 97% for the most active climate scientists.”
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
01
On reflection, he could have just gone with the New Zealand scheme, which was at least originally based on an Australasian wide solution.
That would possibly (without doing all the numbers) been the cheapest option, and aligned with CER, etc. So the fact that Rudd has not taken that route, kind of supports my previous comment.
Mind you, he would have figures (one hopes) that I don’t have access to, so there may be another back-story, other than pure politiking..
111
Closer Economic Relations: CER.
KRuddfish has plans well beyond the dutch
50
Dennis,
Is that “Dutch” as in the context of “Ditch” with a NZ accent or the actual Dutch in Europe?
20
Jo I disagree with one comment.
The final issue for policy is not whether there is an real climate problem. It is whether there is a policy that is capable of doing anything about it. That is make a significant impact. Politicians who care about the wider society would also look at the costs to the wider society. What the theory says is that policy will be low cost and high impact (LC-HI). What Australia has is policies that are high cost and zero impact (HC-ZI). One necessary (but not sufficient) condition for policy to be LC-HI is to have near global coverage. Another is for the policies to be aggressively managed to extract the maximum benefits for minimum costs. The EU and Australia acting together will make no significant contribution to constraining global carbon emissions. It needs the emerging economies to stop their emissions growth. Further, there is no evidence in Australia or the EU of any competency in results-orientation policy implementation.
110
The ETS in NZ is a HC-ZI Policy, be aware however of the glib acronym because it has hidden side effects, Fuel poverty for the poor, higher prices for your exports, increased bureaucracy, increased food prices, and as you rightly point out loss of sovereignty. If a tax is needed at all (and I doubt that one can be justified then it needs to follow the model of linking it to the supposed hot spot in the troposphere (no hot spot no tax).
Given the smart money is on Salby’s explanation of the CO2 issue one wonders why Australians are taking advice from the Climate Commission which lacks any credibility from what we can read.
141
Worth reading….
More interesting reading regarding New Zealand and their ETS…
Meet New Zealand’s ETS: costly, corrupted and useless:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/meet_new_zealands_ets_costly_corrupted_and_useless/
AND
Alan Jones talks to Rodney Hyde – New Zealand MP on the impact of an ETS:-
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneshyde120810.mp3
32
The only difference between an ETS and the carbon tax is that the amount you will pay will not only continue to be impossible to plan for, but it will also be an unpredictable amount – dependant on Locust funds pumping and dumping the market price of an invisible and difficult to measure trace gas.
What a completely naive and desperate creature.
Seriously, Kevin Kardashian would be best advised to actually learn something about how economies work. It’s clear to me he came from the same mathematically challenged teachers that Mr Swan did.
So with all the extra money taken from our hip pockets, can we please get it all refunded now please?
Just take it out of the Australian Labor Partys’ coffers.
150
Yes, it is still a tax, no more, no less. The basis of any ETS is government regulation, not the quantity of carbon emitted, and especially not the temperature of the globe.
And yes, the price will be fiddled by trading schysters whose profits will be funded by all honest people.
00
The government regulates how much CO2 can be emitted, so by extension for the ETS to work at all IT MUST have an effect on the amount of carbon emitted. Also since CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming it must also have a difference on the temperature of the globe. So it does all 3.
01
An ETS could be changed in two steps in parliament. 1. Break the nexus with the EU price and let it float aka NZ. 2. Pass a law to mandate the price @ 1cent a ton.
When all the crap subsides abolish it completely.
This would eliminate any claims, thou I think a good government could prove that all those paying the ETS would have passed on the cost to customers, so no claims paid.
Clever speculators might miss out but they should not be a part of an honest system in the first place so no loss.
150
I fear that even reducing the price to 1c will not cut back the padding that was introduced as a part of this scheme. Many many middle men must have padded their costs accordingly -we need to raise our prices due to the CT, so let’s add a bit more than normal to cover inflation and whatever as well.
Businesses will be planning on the carbon tax as it currently is (on both sides of the equation). With a reduction to 1c, there will be winners who will not pass it on to the consumer and losers who will sue. Obviously dropping it by that amount sure would have a massive positive effect on the real economy (not the freeloading beaurocrats).
Transitioning from any command economy structure to a capitalist one involves pain. Fortunately with this one it has just cost a political party it’s future and no lives were lost.
The LNP should probably pass legislation absolving the state from claims of loss as a result of the system. Leave the padded ones to be eaten up by competitors.
80
If Rudd is going to only the trading phase of the Carbon Tax, then there’s still the legislated floor price of $19/tonne.
The EU itself, faced with a price dropping through the floor on gen3 of the EU-ETS, is considering cancelling all free permits; which’d push the price past €40/tonne. That’s what the CCS lobbyists reckon it’ll take to sell their product. (see also: Broken window fallacy.)
That would also stimulate the market for guillotines as industries en-masse dismiss manufacturing employees as the companies cannot be competitive on the world market, even with current energy costs. That’s why larger consumers of electricity in Germany, who are export-exposed, are exempt for the renewable energy levy. (There are others, such as city rail operators, who managed to sneak into the exemption as well.)
When the takers run out of makers, the takers will revolt. They don’t like to be denied their “entitlements”.
120
I continue to be staggered by the machinations of politicians worldwide!
The weasel words and cop-outs are now a feature of almost all political statements – no politician answers a question directly and logic is what they say it is, not a thing in it’s own right.
I can’t even imagine how the endgame will be played out when CAGW, the biggest scam of all time is exposed – suggestions on a postcard please!
170
Yes, the Australian Howard Coalition signed Kyoto but declined from ratifying it.
30
“The weasel words and cop-outs are now a feature of almost all political statements”
Are now? Are you suggesting that there was a time when they weren’t?
10
Emissions trading scheme, Al Gore and partners, Whitlam Turnbull & Company, Wran and Turnbull, KRudd and Associates, the list goes on of emissions trading scammers.
150
Australia discards sovereign nation status to convert carbon dioxide tax to EU emissions trading colllapsing scheme, run by foreigners.
80
Google: Rudd+Tang and check the resulting KRudd and Labor comrades business deals
40
How much more crap are we going to ignore from Green Labor Australia?
I’m watching Treasurer Chris Bowen on Meet the Press telling us the carbon tax should go to meet “cost of living” pressures. Telling us that switching to world prices – now just under $6 a tonne – will cut our power bills, and that this is good.
I’m gobsmacked by the utter gall. Astonished that the reporters just nod at the latest version of wisdom from Labor.
150
I don’t comment on this site very often because I’m not sure what to say. I read comments from both sides of the debate on man made global warming and no one for it ever seems very convincing. I work for a government department and everyone is either for Labor or the Greens. If anyone even tries to question the wisdom of of these two parties you are shot down very quickly for supporting the wrong views. I also find people in jobs like teachers, health most professional jobs support the global warming rubbish.
341
Peter I don’t envy you, the way you describe your workplace sounds like a time warp back to the Third Reich days, sorry to bring you down but if I may offer an experienced solution.
Don’t give up on your opinion just because it seems everyone else is against you, this simple step is critical as why do you think this insane crap ever got to this stage of public acceptance?
I’m not saying to risk your job but there are other ways (LEGALLY) to get your message out there.
I know all too well the ratio of people who will stand or run and honestly I’m not that confident that people are going to do the right thing on this issue or future ones, but I’ve never given up my opinion or dogmas for anyone and I’ll be stuffed if I start now.
You should take this stance also and don’t be an addition to the problem.
160
Peter, thanks for popping in. There is no getting around the fact that it’s hard for almost everyone to speak out against the crowd — even national newspaper editors won’t print photos of thermometers because they fear the backlash.
I wonder how many around you would speak out if they were free to speak?
I’d ask questions as an interested neutral bystander: can they explain the details of how an Australian ETS works. Can they to outline how it will change the climate? We want mechanisms. Be infinitely curious. Say little. “Hm mm.” I have a post coming up soon related to this… it’s an idea from a surprising source. I hear that the more detail they try to explain, the more they will realize they don’t really know. Apparently it is not about how they feel, or why they are green. It’s about how it will happen. Since they probably signed up to it because it’s a “group” thing, they have probably never been asked before. Their certainty and thus their attitude is more likely to soften. They might teach themselves how little they know. You won’t have to say it.
Perversely, (if you can pull it off without sarcasm) they might like you more because you are genuinely listening to them, and interested in what they have to say.
Remember, you just want to help the planet…
291
Just to add to Jo’s excellent advice …
The most powerful technique, in any polarised situation, is to ask simple questions.
I call it, “The power of the question mark”.
People can attack statements, and thereby attack you. But if you never express your opinion, you become immune, and slowly, in answering your questions, they must shift their reality towards yours.
Also, start questioning at the edges of what they believe, not at the core. The core will eventually collapse on its own, if you question all of the supporting opinions and ideas.
210
I suspect this is a technique I would find very difficult to implement. My tolerance for foolish remarks grows smaller with age.
140
You should try the Lindzen approach; the more alarmed/annoyed/upset your antagonist, the cooler and more collected your own behaviour.
50
Excellent advice, with a long and noble history of success as a teaching method. . Just beware the hemlock.
00
I’m aware you regard me as cynical (sorry, but golly gee whiz) – your quoted statement simply ignores a core truth about adult behaviour. Adults will do most things to avoid confronting within themselves the fact that they are ignorant on important topics
This is particularly true in the areas of science and maths, which is why most people hide in the “consensus”
Bluntly, most people do NOT want to know. So, they will not answer questions truthfully (even gentle questions) and if persisted with will then ignore the questions and dislike/avoid the questioner (again, however gentle)
The recent, very slick but absolutely disgraceful Catalyst programme understood this perfectly
60
The first question I normally ask is What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Most people are shocked to realize it is so little, then ask if they know the percentage of that which is man made, that usually gets them.
10
Ha thats funny peter i work for a government department where they will all vote Liberal, i suspect yours is more prone to philosophical thinking than mine.
Cheers
40
and what area would that be in crakar?
00
Department of Defence
10
Crakar
I wouldn’t call Marxism a philosphy – probably more a cargo cult. Excellent book by Paul Johnson “Intellectuals”, dealt accurately but apparently unkindly with Mr. Marx. Worth a read.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Speedy,
You are probably right i get a lot of the “isms” mixed up i do alright with the ones that end in “racies” etc.
00
Marxism is not a philosophy. It is an extreme doctrine of hate, which grew out of the social horrors of 19th century Europe.
Denying, as it does, the dignity of Man it is unsound.
00
Jo,
Beware of the politician who gives out “free” money…It has to come from somewhere and be accountable on the government books someway and HAS to be paid back at a later date…Grand children/great-grand children???
60
Very many Australians, like people in other democracies, will always vote for Santa Claus. They even expect rewards for being nice.
They’ll forget that they didn’t get what was promised last “Christmas”; countering the dissatisfaction with the recognition that they’ve been naughty. Santa always wins.
20
For sure the Political class are literally a law unto themselves, but lets’s not forget the role of Fourth Estate, where much of the over-due accountability needs to be sheeted. If their ABC, Fairfax and other disseminators of “news and information” were half professional, or even diligent (i.e. they had more than just a grasp of the subject), they would not just nod obediently to the blatant fraud and propaganda they are complicit in perpetrating.
If politicians and their cheer squads on the drip in Universities, CSIRO, et al were also held to account, we would not be where we are now. Is it too much to expect a change for the better? Or does it need a real crisis before the masses wake up to the truth?
60
Apparently a fraud and a scam is OK if it is big enough and sufficiently global in scope. The “moral” to this story is that it is OK to commit a crime but it has to be a really big one to get away with it.
Unfortunately, the biggest fraud and scam is government and has been since the first tribal government. Short of a total economic and social collapse, the political elite think they can get away with it. Especially if they can insulate themselves from the will of the people. That seems to work for a while but eventually it breaks down.
They are consuming not only the product of the producers, they are consuming the producers by making it impossible to produce. When all is consumed, the collapse is inevitable. You cannot consume that which has not been produced. No amount of boots on necks, guns at heads, knifes at throats, whips on backs, nor filling of gulags can make it otherwise. This is the reality that will have its say.
Man can always choose a better path and build a better future. History tells us there is an almost nil chance of that happening.
130
The wisdom of the goose which laid golden eggs fable is totally lost on this mob.
50
“…solve the climate puzzle.”
What’s to solve? It ain’t broke. Why waste time and money on it? There are many far more pressing matters which should be tackled.
150
Jimmy, bless you, don’t you think farmers and land-management folk would like to be able to predict la ninas, and floods, droughts, sea level, and wet seasons etc? C’mon. A climate model that worked would be a brilliant thing.
154
Dare I say it, if we had actually possessed the perfect climate model one supposes that ‘they’d’ be able to deduce the amount of anthropogenic CO2 by virtue of accounting for ALL the natural and ‘unnatural’ forcings, and then calculating the anthropogenic CO2 from the unaccounted for portion of dT, having of course established the climate sensitivity.
Then, they’d be able to impose a tax that had a discernible and measurable impact (aside from the reintroduction of the horse and cart) on global temperature. It would be a bureaucrats nirvana.
Mind you, having models that perfectly predicted the behaviour of non-linear chaotic systems would enable the rest of us to come up with a perfect model for human behaviour. We’d be one step ahead of them all the time!
30
Whilst I agree that “A climate model that worked would be a brilliant thing” I don’t think it is possible. Climate is chaotic and can’t be modeled. We know that there are roughly 30 year cycles of rising and falling temperatures – since the little ice age, that is.
And even if we could predict what the climate was going to do we certainly couldn’t control it.
Enough is enough, I say. Let’s concentrate on real issues.
60
Who mentioned Deutsche Bank?
http://deutschebankfraud.com/lawsuits.html
40
Note there this one:
City of Cincinnati Files Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank/Wells Fargo
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-35358-/
Not the same subject, but related nonetheless, by way of erroneous academic instruction.
As you drive around rural Australia, note that every time you see a tumbledown fence, a rusty shed, a disused house, a blackberry bush or a paddock of weeds, you see Unilateral Trade Reform at work.
And UTR is National Farmers Federation and National Party policy!
In the mid 1980s Ian Mclachlan, president of the NFF, told us that our biggest problem in Australian agriculture was intervention in our markets by foreign governments.
Now this was true. I thought most of us already knew it.
He further told us: “What we need is free markets. All the world needs free markets. If we show the way, all the world will follow our example.
So we set about cutting the already very low by world standards assistance we were getting from governments, to show the world how it should be done.
It took no more than 2 years to show that the rest of the world wasn’t the slightest bit interested in following us. They increased subsidies instead.
For more than 25 years now our lobby and reps, and all governments, have stuck to that suicidally insane policy. This has forced Australia’s farmers to sell their produce at prices a long way below the world cost of production. This in turn has denied farmers the capital necessary to undertake full, proper care of the land and the improvements thereon.
00
This posting, mercifully, doesn’t mention the muddled response of the USA to the Earth’s “Greatest Moral Challenge” although the evidence suggests US politicians are as clueless (or more so) regarding what they cannot do about influencing things none quite understands. The CAGW advocates and the in-tow politicians of this era will be remembered for 30 – 50 years of squandered opportunities. Consider all the brain power and money costs of promoting and “fixing” the issue of CAGW since, say, 1988. (Pick your own year, if you like.) Whatever this unknowable sum is, it must be astounding.
Meanwhile college students resort to thinking up oddities such as electricity generating soccer balls:
http://www.thepostgame.com/lifestyle/201104/soccer-ball-can-kick-start-your-cell-phone
Note that one of the uses of this is to power a cell phone. Hello? How is it the world has the resources to set up a cell phone tower network and power it presumably with electricity, and provide hundreds of thousands of families with a soccer ball (and kid to kick it), but not the smarts and resources to provide reliable electricity to those same folks?
When a nation’s leader explains to the citizens that a slow increase of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere has been beneficial and begins to direct resources to actual problems – diseases, malnutrition, water supply, terrorism, education, development – then we will have reason to hope the madness of catastrophic warming has ended.
101
As an interested observer, what will stop Mr. Rudd for reneging on his election promise to cut the carbon tax the day after he is elected? The Labor Party do have form on this sort of thing.
120
Mr Rudd won’t be PM the day after he is elected.
30
That was my thought, too. Too many knives in backs as it is, and Rudd’s been done in before. My feeling is Labor just wants to get through the gate, then they can shapeshift again into the Green Dream. I’m not trusting them! Enough said.
20
Plus ça change.
30
Guys, everyone in europe is a non voting member of the eu. It’s a tyranny run by ex-communists from eastern europe and russian.
I can’t even vote for the senat and congress here in france even though they take my money in taxes and control my every move.
200
The saddest thing about this whole mess is that the Australian public will buy it and the Rudd government will be re-elected…..
I miss Australia, however I won’t be returning any time soon.
30
Don’t give up. People woke up to Rudd the Fake and the Chameleon before. They can wake up to him again. But the pressure is on Tony Abbott to articulate Rudd’s failings to those misguided or forgetful voters.
No matter how dumb Abbott’s own ‘Direct Action’ policy might be I’d hate to see Malcolm Turnbull replace him. That would be a big win for all the alarmists.
10
and I can’t use denialist, why? I don’t agree you guys are skeptics or realists which only leaves me the ‘anti science crowd’ to refer to those that do not accept the overwhelming science. I don’t think that is correct.
02
You never give up, do you? You appear to suffer from peno-cephalic disorder.
20
There is a big difference Michael, in several ways:
1. You, for example are an alarmist. You cannot deny this. You astroturf this blog with all kinds of alarmist rants, pleading for us to consider our children and grand children and imploring us to do something about what you believe in.
2. You crap on about “peer reviewed science”, not realising that most of it is just peer reviewed opinion without any kind of experimental evidence or verifiable data and much which defies known scientific laws. Much of what you think is science is no such thing, but you believe it is, simply because it has been published in a journal somewhere (you seem to like that one over in India, not surprising).
3. There is mountains of peer reviewed science, real science, not opinion, which contradicts your alarmist stance. Ask yourself if you have ever tried to falsify you own beliefs and if you answer honestly it will be “No”.
4. You are unable to show what anybody here denies. This word has been misused and abused to label anybody who does not accept alarmist views such as yours. If you wish to refer to us with things like “anti science crowd” and “denier” then you will quickly find yourself among the very few people who have been banned from this blog.
I have no doubt Michael that yes, indeed you are overwhelmed, however that is something that you will need to deal with by yourself and leave us out of it 🙂
20
Mal Turnbull & his mates/Lords & Masters on Threadneedle St. will be pleased!
It is probably a cunning plan to stir a bit of conflict amongst the spectrum of deluded fools, avaricious schemers & insecure candidates in the opposition before the election.
50
Christine Milne was interviewed by Barry Cassidy on ABC. She referred to many expensive policies that would cost billions of dollars. She said the money could be gained by raising the MRT tax from around 22% to about 40%.
However, in the next breath she proposed that there be no more mining of coal in central Queensland. The Greens some time ago wanted all coal mining to stop. They also oppose mining of just about anything such as in north-west Tasmania.
Anyway, whenever this position of spending more but stopping mining comes up no journalist such as Cassidy ever seems to ask how the expensive policies could be funded if the MRT were to diminish severely because of the same party’s no mining stance?
Or am I just not understanding some nuance explicable only to experts?
81
The Greens are not a party burdened by logic. You understand correctly. It’s the MRRT by the way, Mining Resource Rent Tax. It is inherently discriminatory between the states, as most iron ore is in WA, and most coal production in QLD and NSW. Having said that I doubt the Twiggy challenge in the High Court will go anywhere.
60
What is not reported along with Twiggy’s case is that the Qld Govt is collaborating in the hearing with a far more potent argument: the variants of the Federal Mining Tax are unconstitutional, because the Feds do not own the minerals
The High Court has decided this quite a few times before (the last time being in relation to Native Title), always adjudicating that the States own their mineral deposits
It is this issue that scaring the crap out of the centrists and lefties, so this aspect is not reported. What if, as is most likely, they lose again ? Swan actually understood this, so he attempted to circumlocute it by threatening to cut GST reimbusements as a quid pro quo
20
I see now that Christine Milne is scared witless that whatever government is elected large savings may be made by abandoning renewable energy projects such as wind farms. Tsk tsk.
50
really?
RW, “Mind you, he would have figures (one hopes) that I don’t have access to, so there may be another back-story, other than pure politiking.”
Do you happen to know how much money NZ has accrued through carbon taxes in the last year and how this money has been disbursed?
10
Excellent question, Manfred, and as one who contributes through an inflated power bill (5%, and slated to double this year, and 4 cents a litre (and slated to double this year) on my fuel, I would be most interested in the answer as well.
I have asked people at random about our ETS, and they are mostly unaware that it exists, so it isn’t much use asking them where the money goes. My understanding is that the tax goes to those who own carbon-sinks such as forests/trees (which, in NZ, could be Chinese or other foreign corporations), 10% to the UN to fund the poor little put-upon countries such as Zimbabwe to extirpate our climate changing sins, with the rest going into the consolidated fund. When the National Party was in opposition, they were dead against an ETS, and decried it as idiocy, and then, when they biffed Uncle Helen out, the first thing they did was bring the thing in, whilst lauding its efficacy in lowering the planet’s temperature. The last vestige of trust in politicians that may have lingered in any outpost of forgotten synapses was therefore brutally expunged.
70
Thanks FD. I look at this tax from the point of view of money extracted from struggling communities eg. they have even less money to spend. It is also yet another inflationary influence.
The ETS in NZ flies under the radar of most as you say. It crops up as a ‘carbon tax’ on the gas bill I am told.
These policies are slid in quietly, a bit like the frog in water whose temperature is gradually being raised to boiling point. The amphib doesn’t ‘get it’ until it’s too late, probably not unlike your incipient Government Communications Security Bureau Bill.
For a more fulsome description of this phenomena: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
10
It stuck me this morning how hollow Kevin Rudd is on policy. Ultimately he shows little interest in policy, gods forbid he actually stick to one, but rather he is enamored by the trappings of the top job.
Cup-of-Kev, instant politician … just add policy.
Just as cup of soup offers much, but delivers little and leaves one wanting … an apt moniker methinks. Just like the real thing … well if you believe advertising, that is ….
60
“Cup-of-Kev, instant politician … just add policy” = Jonestown KoolAid
30
Here is my modest proposal.
Mr Rudd is thought to desire the job of UN Secretary General. Therefore he will want to be nice to the UN.
What nicer thing could he do for them but allow the ETS
victimsclients to use UN carbon credits as well as European ones?Since the UN’s IPCC has been in the forefront of saving the world, they would be chuffed by Rudd’s support of their
very well fundedselfless efforts.The current price for UN CER’s is 56 cents per tonne of CO2.
One fiftieth of what we presently have to pay.
70
Bruce
Somehow it always seems the UN gets a free ride! Something like the Politburo and maybe that’s no coincidence…
Ravie chugging along nicely, btw.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Marvellous how the ALP is prone to Damascene conversions, like unto the one yesterday by KRudd about the border problem. They create a !@##$% problem in the first place and then have the gall to claim they can fix it!
Albert’s quote, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it”, is more than apposite.
40
How does an ETS work?
This is what I need to tell friends, family, work colleagues etc so they become informed.
I copied this from TonyfromOZ article back in July 2011:
That part I’m right with, but if I’m an industry that needs 1 million permits, how does it work?
1. Can I buy some from Australia and some from the EU at the cheapest price?
2. At the end of the year, I hand these in as I’ve emitted the 1 million tonnes CO2.
3. Do I hand them to the Government, what do they do with them, put them in the bin?
4. The money I spent on the EU credits, stays overseas I guess.
5. The Aus Government is not going to get any money out of this are they?
6. Next year I’m only allowed to emit 800,000 tonnes, which is impossible, so what penalties are there?
7. This is a upside down pyramid scheme where, I and the carbon credit market will eventually go broke?
Has anyone got some good links to info for the ETS and it’s operation?
60
Captain KRudd is busy re-arranging the deck chairs on the European owned, ALP rented, Titanic class, Floating Gin Palace, the EU – CAGW.
The ALP’s red deck chairs are being moved much, much closer to the lifeboats.
The Green’s, green with heavy red trimming’s deck chairs are being forcibly removed to a remote part of the ship which Captain KRudd hopes will be the first part to sink.
The Libs and Nats are in their lifeboats well out of the way and rocking in the political swells in anticipation of the ALP’s increasingly un-seaworthy Floating Gin Palace EU-CAGW going down very soon but very wary of being sucked under by the vortex of the sinking ship. They are quite concerned that the public will sympathise with and believe Captain KRudd’s loud lamentations and his promises to stop his piracy and join a political convent and as head prefect bring order to his motley crew of dissonant desperado’s and public trough swilling pirates.
And they fear that the voting public will throw Captain KRudd a life line before he and his motley crew of dissonant desperadoes sink along with the ALP’s floating Gin Palace EU-CAGW if he promises to open the scuttling valves and ensures it sinks completely and forever along with most of the Greens who are loudly lamenting the sinking feeling of their beloved Floating Gin Palace, the EU-CAGW in their deck chairs down at the back.
50
Ruddashian, fame over country.
20
“New and improved KRUDD – Now with Enhanced Fragrance!”
Testing shows that the new KRUDD is preferred 2-1 amongst avowed socialists over the old variety, and 3-1 over the Gillard odour
40
It had to be the EU. There are few places less relevant to Australia or that we are less tied in with. So for the purposes of administrating a price for a pointless, irrelevant tax with no positive outcomes, linking it to the EU, a pointless, irrelevant part of the world with no positive outcomes, made perfect sense. Its a match made in heaven, or is that hell?
50
The EU isn’t a place: It’s a nightmare.
80
That’s an outstanding comment BF! Thank you.
It is indeed. The eminent Alistair Cooke once described America as more of an idea than a country, a union of countries within an idea.
Europe is well underway to becoming an Orwellian Nightmare. Indeed it is.
70
Correct me if I’m wrong but as a kid I can remember Pig Iron Bob bragging that he would sign up Aus to anything that the poms got themselves into when they joined the EU.
The result being that Sunny Aus is in it up to its neck.
00
Here is a link to the ETS (employment termination scheme) on the Australian federal parliament website.
Note the monitoring powers that are proposed !
Can you say the word COMMUNISM ?
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=LEGISLATION;group=;holdingType=;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4127_first%2F0020;orderBy=;page=;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr4127_first%2F0001%22;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=#6c4b9bf970104c28a70c523038ad7b26
31
This is about dividing Abbott and Turnbull who supports cap and trade.
30
speaking of narcissists!
14 July: Daily Tele: AAP: Turnbull says many prefer him to Abbott
“There are a lot of people out there who would rather I was leading the Liberal Party; it is ridiculous to deny that that’s not happening,” he told the Nine Network’s Financial Review Sunday.
“If they think I am a person of capability and quality and so forth, they should be comforted by the fact that I am part of that team in a senior leadership position.
“So if you are a Malcolm Turnbull fan rather than a Tony Abbott fan, you may prefer Malcolm … I was in the top job rather than Tony: I will be up the top table.”…
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/turnbull-says-many-prefer-him-to-abbott/story-fni0xqi3-1226679127565
i say ditch all CAGW-related research until a new generation of scientists, academics & media emerge:
13 July: Daily Mail: James Delingpole: The dirty secret of Britain’s power madness: Polluting diesel generators built in secret by foreign companies to kick in when there’s no wind for turbines – and other insane but true eco-scandals
Moving to wind power is expected to cost £1 billion a year by 2015
Official figures on the size of the green economy are extremely misleading
They exaggerate the worth of the sector by up to 700 per cent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362762/The-dirty-secret-Britains-power-madness-Polluting-diesel-generators-built-secret-foreign-companies-kick-theres-wind-turbines–insane-true-eco-scandals.html#ixzz2Z47g7HXD
10
clearest statement by Abbott to date, but SMH remember Turnbull:
15 July: SMH: Judith Ireland: Emissions scheme a trade in the ‘invisible’: Abbott
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has poured scorn on Labor’s new plan to move to an emissions trading scheme one year early, describing an ETS as ”not a true market”.
”Just ask yourself what an emissions trading scheme is all about. It’s a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one,” he said, when addressing reporters in Camden, in south-west Sydney, on Monday…
Similarly on Monday, the Coalition’s climate action spokesman Greg Hunt insisted the ETS was still a tax.
”Of course it’s a tax, it’s an impost on activities in terms of electricity, gas, use of refrigerants,” he told ABC television. ”You pay to emit carbon.”
This position appears to be at odds with shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull, who lost his position as Liberal leader in 2009 due to his support for an ETS.
Last week, Mr Turnbull told ABC’s Q&A program that he hoped the world moved towards a market-based scheme.
”I hope, I imagine, that is where the world will get to,” he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/emissions-scheme-a-trade-in-the-invisible-abbott-20130715-2pzdo.html
14 July: Herald Sun: Patrick Lion: Tony Abbott says Labor’s switch to an emissions trading scheme is a ‘con job’
But Treasurer Chris Bowen, who this morning confirmed the broad plans on Channel Ten’s Meet The Press, said Labor had long believed in an emissions trading scheme – as did Mr Abbott…
Mr Bowen said Mr Abbott wanted to tax Coles and Woolworths and other big companies to subsidise polluters, with the costs flowing through to shoppers.
“We are not going to be lectured by Mr Abbott on cost of living pressures when he is proposing a great big new tax,” he said…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/tony-abbott-says-labor8217s-switch-to-an-emissions-trading-scheme-is-a-8216con-job8217/story-fnho52jj-1226679138317
20
Judas Priest, this makes me so f****** angry.
Virginia Trioli, that bastion of even handed fairness (give me strength) was interviewing Greg Hunt this morning on Rudd’s move to an ETS. (one year early, if he can get it legislated).
I’ve linked to the video so no one can say I’m making it up, but I have never seen a case of badgering like this.
When Hunt called it for what it is ….. a TAX, she consistently spoke over the top of him that it wasn’t a TAX.
Then, and wait for this, she referred to it as the equivalent of a Speeding Fine.
Listen to the whole recording of the interview if you have the stomach, but if not, then go to the 39 second mark and listen to what this woman says, and then how she interrupts Hunt’s reply with the reference to the speeding fine at the 59 second mark.
This woman is a sycophantic [self snip, but it started with the letter M and ended with the letter oron]
Link to Video
Tony.
100
Tony,
Of course it’s exactly like a speeding fine. In a place where speed limits are set to zero and where fines for are traded on the open market.
A place inhabited by Trioli and her ilk.
40
so AI Group is “one of the few”!
15 July: Australian: David Uren: Billions in savings fund shift on carbon tax
***AI Group was one of the few business groups to welcome the shift. Chief executive Innes Willox described it as “a positive move that would cut business costs while meeting the emissions targets shared by the major parties”.
He said it would be preferable if the shift to an ETS could be backdated to the beginning of this month rather than waiting until next year. The move would save businesses several billion dollars in costs they would have found hard to recoup from customers…
Climate Change Institute chief executive John Connor said the shift to an ETS should be accompanied by greater ambition to pursue a 25 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 rather than the base 5 per cent cut – the government’s present objective.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/billions-in-savings-fund-shift-on-carbon-tax/story-e6frg6xf-1226679320817
this claim didn’t survive for long at Fairfax?
1 July: Age: Tom Arup: Business ticks carbon trading option
A significant section of business prefers an emissions trading scheme to a fixed carbon tax to cut Australia’s greenhouse gases, a survey has found…
The survey was commissioned by Businesses for a Clean Economy – a pro-carbon pricing industry group – with 570 companies approached from among its own members, the ASX 100, and those paying the carbon tax. All up, 180 responses were received…
The survey, conducted by consultants ****AECOM, suggested little support for the Coalition’s direct action climate policy. Only 3.3 per cent said they did not want any form of carbon price, and another 3.3 per cent said they were unsure.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/business-ticks-carbon-trading-option-20130630-2p5ej.html
****surely not this AECOM?
2009: AECOM sets 30 percent emissions reduction target for Australia, New Zealand
Officially launched at the firm’s Christmas event in Sydney attended by Peter Garrett, the Australian Federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the report represents another important integration milestone…
http://www.aecom.com/Where+We+Are/Australia+-+New+Zealand/_news/AECOM+sets+30+percent+emissions+reduction+target+for+Australia,+New+Zealand?languagehoice=zh_TW&Go=Go&localeHidden=zh_TW&localeFlash=es_ES
00
simple, scrap the ridiculous Carbon Farming Initiative:
15 July: ABC Rural: Caitlyn Gribbin: Scrapping of carbon tax threatens carbon farming
Mick Keogh, from the Australian Farm Institute, says that price is too low for farmers to make profits from the Carbon Farming Initiative, a scheme where farmers earned carbon credits and sell to people and businesses wanting to offset their emissions.
“If you’re in the market to sell carbon credits, you’re now looking at the potential next year that those credits will be worth $6 a tonne, rather than the $24.15 a tonne,” he said.
“That obviously has a big impact on the potential profitability of a project you might be looking to undertake.
“It would be very limited numbers of projects that would likely to be viable.”
Farmers say the carbon tax has significantly pushed up their bills, especially electricity.
Australian Dairy Farmers president Noel Campbell says a lower carbon price is a win for agriculture.
“It’s positive compared to where we have been, certainly it will make a difference,” Mr Campbell said.
“But still we will need to make sure that with whatever situation we’ve got, we’re in a competitive situation with the people that we trade against.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-15/carbon-farming-uncertainty/4820338
20
oracle google:
15 July: Business Spectator: Tristan Edis: Early move to trading – bad for Abbott says Google
The question is more about whether this might somehow make it more difficult for Tony Abbott to demonise the scheme in voters’ minds through that nasty word: T-A-X. According to the modern oracle, Google, Abbott may well be trouble…
The chart below, using Google Trends, tracks the frequency with which Australians have searched the terms ‘carbon tax’ (blue), ‘carbon price’ (red), ‘carbon trading’ (yellow), and ‘emissions trading’ (green)…
So Rudd’s announcement that he will dump the fixed price period, seems likely to make things harder for Abbott.
What’s more recent polling for Fairfax Media found that 62 per cent of respondents didn’t want the carbon tax scrapped if doing so would damage government revenue.
This comes on top of polling in June by JWS Research (detailed here) which found only 37 per cent believed the Coalition should seek to repeal the carbon price if elected. This was down from 48 per cent in May 2012 just before the carbon price came into effect. This polling suggested people were more angry with Gillard about a perceived lie, rather than the carbon price itself.
She’s since gone and now the so-called lie has gone too…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/15/carbon-markets/early-move-trading-%E2%80%93-bad-abbott-says-google
10
The Poms are now using diesel engines to generate renewable????? wind energy.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/britain_relies_on_diesel_to_produce_wind_power/
So what part of this renewable energy CON don’t the fraudulent alarmists understand?
50
>>>So what part of this renewable energy CON don’t the fraudulent alarmists understand?
The maths bit. The simple use of a calculator and the common sense to understand even the smallest con job. I think it was Lenin that said all you have to do is repeat a lie continuously and act convincing without breaking rank and any population will accept it. Just keep repeating and repeating.
400PPM = 0.0004% composition. I bet if you showed the average person a Pie Chart of the composition of the atmosphere without the gasses labelled, and asked which one was CO2, 9 out of 10 people would point to the Oxygen segment, and then when you asked which one was Oxygen they would point at the Nitrogen segment, and then if you asked which one was Nitrogen they would cock an eyebrow, pause a bit and say “Oh I get it, it’s a trick question, there is no nitra-ma-giggy! Almost fooled me ya tricksta!”.
Humans have been dumbed down! There is something seriously wrong with society, but perhaps a miracle can happen at the next election. Will the globalists use the Governor General? or will Turnbull the Turncoat Socialist in disguise be the guy to do the dirty work? … or will Abbott be our JFK?
It seems every scumbag and every moron from every corner of the planet is leaning on Mr Abbott, so if he pulls off the impossible and saves us from this suicide job then I would have to say he would be the most important leader in our countries’ history, and still the majority of Aussies would still not recognize his importance and the importance of his ‘denial’ at this moment in human history. I pray for a miracle, but fear the worst.
10
400ppm=0.04% Steve. But that aside, I think you have it right about the pie chart test. Another question that I think only about 0.04% of the populace would get right is ” what is the main greenhouse gas?” If they don’t know it’s DHMO then they’ll probably call you a crazy denier when you tell them.
00
If you go to http://www.spaceweather.com/ you will see the results of a student high atmosphere temp’ experiments. Over time it seems that no matter how hot or cool the lower atmosphere is the his not affected by one iota.
20
Not sure if this has been posted
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-12/4815736
If you were to view the environmental movement in this country as a virus then it would be construed as “not a very good one” as its actions would lead to the death of the host.
The carbon tax/ETS needs a viable coal/gas industry to make its money to enable the greens to maintain the life they have become accustomed to however there are others at play that are doing their level best to destroy the host.
The above link shows the Santos gas project is doomed.
20
I’m not happy about joining the European ETS. I presume our government will sell “our” emissions permits. Who decides how many emissions permits we issue? If we issue very few, it would force the price of permits up (which you know I think would be a good thing). But I suspect this means that we will be pressured to issue too many permits to keep the price as low as it currently is.
Also, if global emissions are to fall, then Australia and other high per capita emission countries need to actually reduce their emissions. Under the European ETS I assume that we will not reduce our emissions at all, but instead buy lots of cheap permits from economically depressed countries like Ireland, Greece and Spain.
When you have the governments of many countries needing to agree on something, then it really will take clear and unambiguous signs of impending disaster (or more likely, the disaster itself) before action is taken.
So you guys can relax, we are effectively going to keep running the “business as usual” experiment, and see what happens.
56
Hi John,
I gave you a thumbs up because you have the capacity to see the ETS for what it really is well done. Obviously by your description of the ETS you realise that the system is not market based but rather market manipulated. If in your view they are simply doing the BAU thing then do you now concede that both sides of government both here and abroad are deniers? If so, at what point do you think you will come to the inevitiable conclusion that you have been conned all these years?
60
I also gave you a Thumbs up John because you hit the nail on the head. The Carbon ETS Tax Trading Scheme Market…. whatever is just a nonsense. Its a vote buying exercise to appeal to the weak of mind that “something” is being done. No effect will be the result on pretty much every front, on money raised, nothing sensible done with what is raised, no reduction in emissions and no incentives for so called renewables. Its just taking the pi55 basically.
60
How right you are JB.
The development of fusion power offers some bright avenues http://www.iter.org/
as might thorium reactors.
I suspect that the next ice age will require far more human ingenuity than the odd windmill and sundry permutations of a carbon dioxide & flatus taxation scheme, propelled by whatever the current fear du jour happens to be.
50
Living through my first winter in Tassie right now, I thought the next ice age was already here lol
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/09/12/21/tasmanians-shiver-through-record-cold
10
Hmm! John,
it shows just how much attention you pay here, because I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve mentioned this, but you know, why would the guys on your side of the fence bother to read anything I say on any matters at all, except to criticise, as you so obviously think it’s ME who has an agenda.
When the ETS starts, Credits are issued in the exact amount of however much Carbon Dioxide is emitted (on a one credit for one tonne of CO2 basis) by an emitting entity.
Only those who actually emit CO2 will get the initial credits, which they have to purchase at day one, knowing they have to hand back (not sell back) the same amount at the end of that year. They can then trade those credits as they see fit, and hey, do you see how this can be so clearly rorted.
The Government does not issue extra credits at all.
Emitting entities can purchase extra credits from outside Australia, but these credits are valued at a lower percentage rate than equivalent Australian credits no matter what they cost. Meticulous accounting practices on all sales, how many, where to, who from where from, when traded, etc must be kept as well.
Emit more than your initial allocation, then you have to purchase extra credits to cover that excess emission, at the most expensive traded credit price, then on top of that pay a penalty 1.5 times the cost of the exceeded amount, and then on top of that again, have that excess deducted from the following years allocation, eg, you must now emit less than the already lowered cap.
As to rorting, on those designated credit trading periods, at day one, then the first credit trading period will see the fundament drop out of the price, and then near hand in time, then those people with excess credits to sell will force up the price, as entities will be screaming for credits to hand back. Provenance for each credit must follow that credit as it is traded or handed back.
It has nothing at all to do with actually lowering emissions, just making money.
John, you also mention ….. Global emissions falling. Do you live in an alternative World or something.
Have you paid any attention at all to what’s happening in China, India and numerous other places.
And John, please stop using that per capita emissions crock. You know it’s meaningless, and just shows how little you really have gone into trying to understand what is actually happening.
Oh, and John, the Legislation specifically covers the cost value of all credits issued here in Australia. An emitting entity, say, like a large scale coal fired power plant is issued (in equality with it’s CO2 emissions) 20 Million credits at the value of X amount at the start of the year. Now as the legislation says the entity has to hand back the number of credits exactly equal to that amount of X. So there’s no way around it. They detail exactly what they buy, when they buy, how many they buy, and who and where they buy them from, so purchasing cheap credits from overseas does not count towards the NUMBER of Credits, but the X value of those credits, and even then, the overseas so called cheap credits are marked down even further by this Government’s legislation. So, if an entity sells 5 million of its original 20 million credits, and then buys 5 million cheapies, then they have to make up the amount of credits to the value of the original cost of X.
I despair for you John. You really don’t want to understand what is really happening, just keep parrotting the same old meme time and again.
Tony.
151
That … is bizarre!
It sounds like this whole scheme was cooked up by the same idiots who created the 2008 crash.
60
Maybe what you are saying makes sense Tony, but couldn’t you find a better way of saying it?
01
Hmm, John,
I had this funny idea that you actually had higher education.
Surely you’re not trying to say that the legislation your people put together was never meant to be explained so people can understand it.
Hide it in plain sight, eh!
How about this then.
Government issues credits.
Emitting entities pass full cost down to the people.
The people pay for those credits.
Scamsters manipulate credit trading price to make money.
Australia, as a whole still consumes all the electrical power it always has consumed.
Government gouges power entities, lowering their emitting cap to make more money out of them, money paid for by all electrical power consumers.
Government makes a motza.
People pay that motza to the Government.
There, is that better for you?
Tony.
30
Tony if i may………….
What you have done is shit on a plate and handed it to John, John is now merely asking you to polish it a bit next time.
10
You pile-drive the nail on the head there John. Who indeed? The UN CER system is already a magnet for shonks. REDD is rorted like crazy, especially in places like PNG.
I suspect when you have no political consensus, and no real scientific basis, then you’ll get a printing war like in the EU. Sceptical parties will issue massive numbers of permits, like coal-rich Poland. Greenish parties will restrict them and face the economic consequences next election, whereupon they’ll be voted out again.
Even if CAGW was real it’d be a stupid idea. The designers of it seem to have forgotten what humans are like.
60
Well, so far, globally, it’s got colder and it snows more.
.
Curious.
70
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/09/12/21/tasmanians-shiver-through-record-cold
Seems so… I guess this is just an anomaly though, whereas if it was the warmest winter day on record it would be evidence. Isnt that how it works ?
00
Diesel generators to supplement wind turbines in UK:
Andrew Bolt – Monday, July 15, 2013 (9:28am)
James Delingpole on Britain’s great green power con – the Potemkin wind farms:
Thousands of dirty diesel generators are being secretly prepared all over Britain to provide emergency back-up to prevent the National Grid collapsing when wind power fails.
And under the hugely costly scheme, the National Grid is set to pay up to 12 times the normal wholesale market rate for the electricity they generate…
The scheme is expected to cost £1?billion a year by 2015, adding five per cent to energy bills.
This scheme is a direct consequence of the renewable energy policy adopted by the Coalition but first developed by Tony Blair in response to EU renewables directives to reduce Britain’s carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.
As more and more wind turbines are built to replace fossil fuels, so the National Grid will become increasingly unstable because wind power is intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable.
50
Just a few facts to ponder in all this:
1) – When the initial carbon tax/ETS legislation was passed, it included a floor price of $15.00 a tonne when the ETS came into effect 01/07/2015. In simple terms, if ETS credits could be purchased for $1.00 a tonne from a “market”, then the grubbermint got a windfall of $14.00 a tonne “makeup”.
2) – When it was announced that our ETS would be linked to the EU “market”, I do not remember there being any provision to remove or alter the $15.00 a tonne floor price.
3) – Despite all the rhetoric since King KRudd announced an early move to an ETS, there has STILL been no discussion about the $15.00 a tonne floor price, so, presumably it is still in place. So, the lower the EU “market” price goes, the bigger the windfall to the grubbermint. Could this be why Bowen is denying their will be a major blowout in the budget by scrapping the tax?
And just to make your day:
4) – Despite all the dribble from Abbott and Hunt and the LNP, who in two short weeks have gone from the “most unlose-able election in OZ history”, to having to play “me-too” catch-up with KRudd, the current, written Liberal Party Environment Policy implicitly supports an ETS, with a floor price of $15.00 a tonne.
.
I dunno, but it seems to me that there is a lot of wool pulling over eyes going on at the moment, with the grubbermint, the Opposition (ha ha) and the media all studiously ignoring the floor price issue. Usually, those things studiously ignored in an election campaign by all three previously stated groups means that particular issue is a “given” regardless of who wins the election.
42
Memoryvault:- Agree with your first 3 points. However, on the 4th, please remind everyone of your alternative to Abbott or the extended LNP? Would that by chance be voting for a new conservative party totally opposed to any price on CO2 emissions and outrightly denouncing the so called consensus on global warming?
The reality is this scenario (a minor party like the Greens or now defunct Democrats) would only entrench the alarmists and the ruling classes hold over the rest of us for the foreseeable future. It would be a dream come true for people like Tim Flannery and the conga line of dependants on the global warming gravy train in this country – including all those bureaucrats. Australia’s economy simply can’t afford that – the long term damage to our international competitiveness and productivity would be immesurable while we wait for your new party to become popular enough to influence government policy on climate change.
Abbott has explicitly said there will be very large cuts to many government depertments set up or expanded under Labor – and that includes the Department of Climate Change and the Climate Commission chaired by the lamentable Tim Flannery. The Federal public service has added at least 20,000 new positions since 2007 – what do you think the wages bill and impact on national Debt and Productivity is of that?
Commitment to reduce the size of government in this country is good enough for me and better than anything Labor has done or could be trusted to do based upon their record. More government is not the answer but the problem.
Sorry but I see people with your defeatist views as the best friends Labor, Climate Alarmists and The Ruling Class could ever have in Australia by wedging the Conservative vote.
To me the biggest problem is not major party collusion as you see but the role of the media in the democratic process and perhaps this is a product of our Left indoctrinated Education system. That is why Abbott has his stupid Direct Action policy. Because any hint at climate scepticism is jumped on by our king making media as extremist or even flat earthist. Yeh, the same King Making media who have suddenly adopted KRudd as their darling.
Even yesterday on the radio, on a conservative Sydney AM Radio station, the evening news announcer said Rudd’s plan would mean a drop to $AUD 6 by next year. But this is patently false as who knows what the EU price will be in July 2014. That will be determined by EU Bureaucrats in Brussels and even which course the AUD/EURO takes in this time.
You can argue Abbott should be more courageous to stand up to media bias on this issue but wedging the conservative vote with a new party won’t be the answer – it would guarantee entrenchment of Carbon Emmissions pricing in this country for the foreseeable future. At least with Abbott he has people on his side like Dennis Jenson and Barnaby Joyce plus the wider Conservative voters still associate the LNP with small(er) government than the path Labor has taken us and which is strangling business in this country (the Productive economy).
The party who wins government is the party who grabs the centre ground. Rudd won the centre ground in 2007 by promising the Earth but when he failed to live up to the promise the Polls started to fall and he was replaced with Gillard. Gillard then diverted Labor from the centre in her desperation to hold power in 2010 with the Greens ultimately resulting in Gillard’s removal. Rudd has been installed back but only because he is again fooling people into thinking he is a safe option.
10
*le sigh*
We said we wanted to “cancel the carbon tax”. I can now see we should have been more specific.
The Ruddites aren’t recognising that you can’t have a free market price on a commodity that nobody wants to put any value upon. It’s a market, Jim, but not as we know it.
The great economic Jedi Master Ludwig told us this in Human Action:
Since “a price on carbon dioxide emission” has been created overnight by government coercion, it is a tax and therefore a confiscation.
Note the combined effect of dollar devaluation (by banks) and income confiscation (government taxes) is to push people to spend the majority of their take-home pay on immediate needs, leaving little for savings and capitalist entrepreneurialism. Oh yes, the banks can’t stand competition, so the idea of people accumulating enough savings to start a business without a bank loan is simply intolerable. But it doesn’t end there, for the best place to be in a market for a compulsory product is as a wholesale broker. If Gillard knew it then so do the Ruddites.
People who prefer history to be explicable from theory will note the unsurprising co-incidence that under an ETS the confiscation of discretionary spending will be under the control of banks who describe themselves as the “market makers in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme since its inception in 2005.” In the USA the cap-and-trade scheme was concocted by Gore in partnership with GS and advice from the CEO of ENRON, no less.
Mises had no kid gloves for those who approve of such folly:
The only refuge is to claim CO2 is a pollutant, and upon this I need not say that which has been proven repeatedly.
The carbophobic fallacy is rooted upon ignorance of the first rule of toxicology: the poison is in the dose, not the substance. There is plenty of geological evidence from just the last 250 million years that CO2 is safe for the planet in doses of no less than 900ppm [2] and probably 1500ppm [3] too.
But if the mouthpiece of Bloomberg can be believed, just as Australia commences its subjugation by offshore private banks, the so-called “smart money” is now instead betting on warming being inevitable. And all without any evidence that CO2 will lead to any appreciable warming! True to form, in the war on warming as in any previous war, the smart money backs both sides:
Hey derivatives dudes, instead of spending 8 billion dollars hedging probabilities, why didn’t you just… ask the spider?
Maybe you really can believe what you see on the web.
Bubbles are created by hollow booms and hollow booms are created by Keynesian government interventionism. The carbon emissions bubble will undoubtedly burst. Ironic that the only outcome that no finance felons are betting on now looks to be the most likely option: 30 years of cooling.
Hate to burst your bubble, guys.
30
Nice blog Jo.
Bolt is Gobsmacked?
I’m just waiting for the Trade to drop to $2/tonne with 98% being used up in fees and bureaucracy, and to hear the maniac government state that the situation is a winner because power bills will go down ‘even more’ and that we are making in-roads on climate ‘action’… media pundits clapping all round!!! As usual, and on cue!
I am losing my faith in the average IQ of the human race. Carbon Dioxide is the most important trace gas in the atmosphere and is only 0.0004% of the composition. Up by only 0.00005% since we started industrializing. Instead of a debate about whether ‘400 PARTS PER MILLION’ (sounds larger that way) is even worthy of an investigation, I turn on ABC continually to watch a panel of people act like they are having a ‘debate’ over whether a Tax or Trade is the way to go. Gobsmacked is the correct word for it indeed. Betrayed would be better!
Where’s the sceptics on the ABC? A debate over Trade or Tax IS NOT a debate over whether any action is even needed at all. This is pure propaganda and constructed consensus. It is absolute media fascism. Bankers and Plutocrats run the world media, and their harlot henchmen/women work on Capital Hill. I am praying for Tony Abbott every night, we really need to buy at least 4 years grace from these globalists and their unbelievable fraud. Please God, let Abbott have 4 years! PLEASE!!! I repent! I repent!
50
One could actually make an argument with similar credibility of fact to that which asserts carbon drives our climate to say “CO2 reduces brain function”. I mean lets face it, as this debate has gone on, people seem to have become stupider and stupider in relation to it. Maybe at 500ppm of CO2 we will all end up as smart as Kevin and Granny Milne.
10
We won’t have to worry about the ETS tomorrow:
Mr Kevin Blunderbuss Rudd has fired off more news:
1. Australia will deploy 50 police in visible policing roles in PNG.
2. Australia was pressing ahead with plans to build a permanent facility at Manus Island.
3. Australia pledged $160 million over four years to provide 2700 PNG health facilities with medical supplies.
4. PNG travellers heading to Brisbane or Cairns will be allowed to use speedier immigration processing lanes.
Ok – the ETS is old news.
In the space of 21 hours in PNG more than a couple of Billion dollars has been spent.
Who cares,
* Rudd has fixed the asylum problem.
* He fixed the Carbon Tax the day before.
* He fixed Gonski the day before that.
* He’s only got NBN, MRRT and Deficit left to bulshlt over.
I just feel for those 50 cops who are selected for VISABLE roles on the streets of Port Moresby.
Rudd is now officially out of control and he has our credit card.
The MSM will lap all this garbage up in tomorrows media releases.
40
KEV 4 KEV ….. can’t hit a moving target showman actor
30
Gonski: KRudd Family company director
30
Kevin has realised that the most pressing moral challenge of our time is IN FACT, getting re-elected.
I did get a good giggle out of Grandma Milne’s responses though, she was frothing at the mouth. Its excellent to see her getting a tiny taste of what it feels like to be beaten senseless with the “nonsense stick” like the rest of us have had to tolerate for the past 4 years or so. Hearing her stammering away in rage at Kruddy’s suggestion that a move to the ETS would quote “save the barrier reef” was priceless. Its just gibberish pan fried with nonsense on a bed of double talk with a side order of bullcrap and finally, she knows how it feels to be treated like a meaningless moron. Shame it took so long.
20
Former Queensland Labor Premier Goss, former KRudd Family company director.
Got the picture now?
30
Sometimes the King/Ruler/President/Emperor has to get really bad before the peasants get jack of it all.
e.g. Czars, Chinese Emperors, Bolivia, Argentina, Charles I …
We will shortly add to the list, Kevin II!
20
God save me from idiots.
I watched that stupid Q and A tonight, and it again highlighted what fools we have in Government (Smith) and the Greens. (Ludlum)
A woman in the audience who runs a refrigerant company asked what effect this proposed floating price would have on refrigerants now, quoting one of the common refrigerants (a replacement) R404A and how the price had gone up by a factor of 4.
Both Ludlum and Smith were right onto this claiming she had been gouged by unscrupulous people and that they should be investigated because the price was only $23 and now $26.
These people are the bloody Government, and they’re the ones who passed the damned Legislation, and they don’t even know about it themselves. Their own damned legislation and they are utterly hopelessly absolutely bloody clueless.
The image at this link shows the new post CO2 Tax cost for some of the most common refrigerants.
Now, note R404A there. Look at the second cost column showing the Carbon Levy per Kg. See that cost there of $74.98 per Kg, so this equates to $74,980 per Tonne, because of the CO2 Tax.
Did you just read that correctly.
$74,980 Per Tonne.
Hey, you say, Co2 was only costed at $23 per Tonne.
Gouging, gouging, quick, call in the Carbon Cops (Like Smith and Ludlum intimated)
The image here shows the CO2 equivalent gases ….. taken exactly from the current legislation, that yes, Smith and Ludlum passed through the Parliament.
R404A is a blend of R-125 (CO2 X 2800) R-134A (CO2 X 1300) and R-143A (CO2 X 3800)
The blend is such that the final multiplier comes in at 3260, as shown in the first image.
Exactly as the price indicates, and exactly as the resultant overall price indicator the woman mentioned, that increase from $92.88/Kg to $377.71/Kg, an increase by a factor of more than 4.
All these added costs passed down to every consumer, every aircon regas, every fridge regas, (think Coles and Woolies here and their vast banks of cooling and freezing)
This cost is included in every new refrigerator in every new supermarket outlet, costs eventually passed down to all consumers, and consider that just one large drinks cooler, just that one cooler takes 10Kg+ of refrigerant gas, so you can imagine how much in an industrial cooler in a supermarket, any huge industrial aircon unit atop every building taller than two stories in Australia, every shopping mall, and on and on and on and on.
Hey nothing out of the ordinary here to call the Carbon Cops over.
This is your legislation Smith. This is what you agreed to. This is what you passed, and Ludlum you agreed also.
You idiots, and you guys, this is your damned job, and you don’t even know your own job.
Judas Priest, if anyone is this clueless in their job in the real World, they get sacked.
Tony.
91
So, umm, let me see if I’ve got this right now.
Phones up the supplier and asks for a new 50Kg tank of R404A, and here, think large barbecue gas bottle is only 9Kg.
So that comes in at $18,885.50 …… oh plus GST $1888.55, totalling $20,7774.
Government take on that ….. $5637.55
A nice little earner.
Now, see the point of the lady’s question about the new floating price.
They purchase a new tank of gas at price X, and for every transaction, they must now keep meticulous and proven records of the date and time of original purchase at whatever that floating price was at the the time of purchase, and then field complaints from all clients as to the cost at that time of purchase considering what the cost is now or then, or whenever.
Then pay auditors at Tax time to go through all sales so the relevant paperwork can be sent off to Government, along with the documented history of every ounce of that gas.
All this for each of those individual refrigerant gases.
The importer, the wholesaler, and the retailer, documenting everything.
Can you see how the CO2 Tax is a compliance, and a regulatory, nightmare, and how the Government can lay claim to creating so many new jobs.
Tony.
61
Nice work Tony. But sadly we all know there is no logic, no point and no rationale, just randomly hopping from point to point trying to find the line that has the most votes attached to it. When our mum’s first told us “what a tangled web we weave etc” people like you and I listened, people like Kevin and Granny Milne just saw it as something to ensure honest people are always at a disadvantage when dealing with them.
20
They could use refrigerant/coolant R744 (CO2) instead of R404A.
Oh wait…..doesn’t coolant R744 reverse its properties in the troposphere (for some inexplicable reason because it works fine as a coolant in the thermosphere)?
10
Hmmm,
I can see a time where the Supermarket freezers are left off and empty – just like at the fall of the USSR.
The Reason? Waiting for the AUD/Euro Exchange rate to change or for the price of C02 to come down.
Utterly ridiculous and a prime example of Ideology over practicality being performed by an illiterate class of numerically challenged half wits.
20
Simple solution: Immediately imprison the woman. She mentioned a price increase caused by the carbon tax, which is illegal in Oz, is it not?
60
EU ‘could revoke’ green German energy rules
“Free” certificates issued by countries to their own industries are to be “revoked” by the EU to prop up the price. (Their target is at least €40/tonne)
The EU only understands simple demand-supply economics. And even that, it understands poorly. So they’re trying to remove some of the supply to force up the price.
What they don’t “understand” is that that supply exists as a life-line to many industries and revoking those allowances will likely damage those industries, resulting in increased unemployment, shutdowns of industries with corresponding reduced revenue to governments while while their expenditure increases to pay for the unemployed, etc..
The result is more than an economic problem. It’s a social problem because industries that cannot afford to operate because of high energy prices are comparatively minor to ordinary people being unable to afford energy for basic life in Europe.
Germany is holding a federal election in September. New “fringe” parties like AfD and PDV that are against the EU’s overbearance, are looking like a tangible threat to the established political class in Germany.
The two parties differ fundamentally in that AfD is narrowly anti-Euro, etc and the latter is a libertarian, free-market, small-government “champion”. Relevant to this thread; the AfD (officially) doesn’t doubt that there’s evidence that CO2 is a driver of climate whereas PDV distances itself from the prevailing attribution of anthroprogenic CO2 to climate change, referencing the Oregon Petition, NIPCC and a number of science Nobel laureates.
20
The amount of free certificates have been one of the major problems. There is either a problem (and there is according to the science, observations, data and evidence) or there isn’t. If there is you need to set an emissions target and start winding down emissions. The more subsidies and free certificates and the like that you give the more the system is undermined.
They need to get things back on track for the sake of future generations.
As to your political parties bit. The oregon petition and the NIPCC. No credibility in either, the oregon petition proves that .04% of people with a science degree in the US don’t agree with AGW. How about a proper peer reveiwed survey of actual climate scientists?
Weren’t the NIPCC responsible for this report?
“(3) Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.
(4) If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group.”
http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html
03
Woops qualify that, it is about 0.3%
approx 30,000 sign petition
10,000,000 science graduates
03
This is just too bad. You know, Australia is now viewed as the carbon lunatic center of the world. You know that, right?
This is such a shame. C’mon Australia, get your act together.
40
How do you justify that? I travelled to 32 countries last year and Australia is respected and envied most of the time, as a country. As far as prices on carbon go, most of the world are headed this way, including China and India, and states in the USA and Canada.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1789584/Factbox:-Carbon-tax-around-the-world
12
32 countries??
What a carbon footprint you must have…
31
Michael you say:
What is Australia respected and envied most for the other times when, it’s not a country.
21
Namely for how well it fared through the global financial crisis. But I also came up against much support for Australia finally recognising and doing something for its high emissions per capita and accepting AGW.
04
No Michael,
I asked what are the views on Australia when it’s NOT a country?
20
Oh dear… what will Flim Flammery say?
Petratherm moves to fossil fuels
50
“Eurocrats now dictate what we pay.”
Or, as Willis Eschenbach says, “The porkoisie.”
20
Obama might be a detestable Communist, but at least he showed a spark of honesty when it came to carbon pricing, when he promised to make electricity rates skyrocket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
Pity Ruddy Ridiculous can’t even show this level of integrity.
21
Fact is that studies have shown that electricity price rises due to the carbon tax are of the order of 5 to 10%. THe rest of the increases are generally state based.
02
“The rest of the increases are generally state based.”
Yes, mainly levies for small and large scale renewables. Don’t you just love being forced to subsidise your neighbours green solar indulgence at 60c kw/h.
10
Well support for RET has both parties support. Regardless fossil fuels have many subsidies that the taxpayer funds, and I find it more ethical to fund something that is trying to protect the planet than putting money into the pockets of Austrlias already mega rich.
04
I read this today
http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/easing-attitude-carbon-tax-study-020027288.html
Are the MSM thick or just misleading again –as I understand it Rudd is not “scrapping” the carbon tax, he is just moving the transition to an ETS forward one year
(assuming he is in the position to do it AND the Greens support him and that is not a given at this stage).
This survey mentioned in the above link has to be more desperation –I’d love to see the actual questions asked.
00
Interesting piece in today’s WUWT on ETS. Could be Rudd has it right. Of course also could be he hasn’t
00
This is a new – and rather odd – demand in respect to “carbon” pricing (well it is to me anyway):
One wonders (well I do anyway), if the learned economics professor has the foggiest clue about what he is asking of Abbott if he is referring to (and I really hope he is) the degraded, low energy, non-harnessed-for-power, radiation re-emitted from CO2 in the sky that had the sun as its original source?
20
It is sad that Tony Abbott cannot be honest and upset about where he actually stands on climate change. This is why he is not trusted, he takes the side of the audience at the time and has flip flopped on most issues.
So on the one hand he makes a dismissive unscientific off the cuff statement about CO2 being an invisible substance that apparently cannot be measured or quantified (otherwise the statement is already nonsense), and giving the impression he does not believe it to be a problem.
Meanwhile his party has as policy a statement that climate change is real, has an expensive and ineffectual direct action policy to deal with it, and the same target as Labor for emissions reduction.
How can he be taken seriously? Common Abbott, take a side, be honest with the electorate on where you stand.
Richard the Greenhouse effect is real, keeps our planet 30 deg warmer than it would be without them and an increase in greenhouse gases have caused warming.
14
>”Richard the Greenhouse effect is real, keeps our planet 30 deg warmer than it would be without them and an increase in greenhouse gases have caused warming.”
Yes of course it has caused warming Micheal (except any time this century or the 1940s through to late 1970s); a perpetual motion machine based on a flat-earth model with a sun at double the actual distance from the earth. Any change to source input has no effect whatsoever, neither does the heat capacity of moist air (water vapour being the overwhelmingly more effective temperature modulator).
Round-earthers see it differently.
BYW, you seem to be implying, as does Prof Dennis, that re-emitted GHG LWIR is “dangerous”. How “dangerous” is it exactly as compared to say, UV-A/B sunburn? I don’t recall any medical warnings (like maybe our DNA might be reconfigured) advising caution when venturing out into this radiation hazard – whether morning, noon, or night.
Put another way, how do YOU think Tony Abbott should respond in terms of just how “harmful” this new-found hazard actually is Micheal? E.g. what effect does it have as a heating agent (if any) on surface material (skin seems to be immune), say water?
Given that even after 25 years the IPCC (nothing in AR5 SOD either) still can’t identify observationally or quantify and document in physical detail any ocean heating mechanism yet (they just “expect” air-sea fluxes, no more than that), I’ll be interested in what you come up with.
20
You don’t seem to understand the point that Prof Dennis was trying to make. Tony Abbott tried to make the point that CO2 cannot be dangerous or measured because it is invisible. The Professor was trying to point out that many things are invisible that can be very dangerous and measured. Tony Abbott should respond that according to the nations own scientific organisations as well as virtually every other countries main scientific organisations, and the vast majority of the peer reviewed science and the qualified scientists, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we have increased by a whopping 40% and that is having and will have consequences that will (is) affect the habitability of the planet. He should also say that as a leader and a parent he will put politics aside and accept and ask for action to protect the future habitability of the planet for his children and future generations. Instead, he has gone against what he has said previously, what Howard said previously and what his party says publicly as policy, making conflicting statements, depending on the audience, for a selfish political power grab.
Don’t you think he should be honest with the Australian people. If he wants our vote should he not tell us specifically where he stands if he expects our support? Do you think it helps him straddling both sides and sending conflicting messages on such a crucial issue? Is it not hypocritical to on the one hand say it is a harmless invisible substance while his party on the other hand supports the RET, has the same 5% target on reducing emissions and has a direct action policy due to their support for the science of AGW. A more obvious liar is hard to find.
12
Michael @#62.1.1.1
I think you are confusing the personal view of Abbott with party positioning. It does not appear to me from this side of the Tasman that Australia as a whole is anywhere near ready to completely dismantle all of the climate alarm driven measures it has in place (neither is NZ). That will take time and Abbott has to be mindful of that (as is Key in NZ) even though if it was up to him singularly (e.g. a dictatorship), he would probably wipe it all immediately given his Beaufort statement.
But that is not how democracy works unless there is a clear mandate from the electorate (as Julia Gillard has eventually discovered).
But his personal view of the trading of a contrived commodity (in terms of ETS) as being essentially pointless is reasonable because his view is evidenced by the collapse of those markets i.e. a self-imposed economic penalty achieving nothing via a flawed mechanism (as in NZ).
But the issue of dangerousness or harmfulness is unavoidable if the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere does not result in what was predicted for this century i.e. radiation from GHGs has not been harmful at all in terms of raising temperature so why should Abbott “make it clear” that CO2 is “harmful” as Dennis seems to require if it clearly isn’t.
The CO2-forced climate models are all but falsified in 2013,there’s been no warming trend this century contrary to predictions, and the hotspot is proving elusive.
These are the 3 lines of evidence for the US EPA’s Endangerment Finding (EF) for CO2. On May 23, 2013, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court (details, excerpts, links and SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT here and following). From SLF:
A skeleton synopsis (see link above for details) of the argument is:
Summary Of The Argument
I. The Conclusion That EPA Drew From Its Three Lines Of Evidence Is Demonstrably Invalid
A. First Line Of Evidence: EPA’s GHG Fingerprint (Or Hot Spot) Theory
B. Second Line Of Evidence: The Purported Unusual Rise In GAST
C. Third Line Of Evidence: Climate Models
II. Serious Deficiencies In EPA’s Process Contributed To Its Scientific Errors
This is the state-of-play in the US and a finding to Vacate the EF will obviously leave the Obama govt high and dry in its efforts to circumvent Congress and regulate CO2. Needless to say there’s a lot riding on the decision and it will impact on other national govts too including Australia and New Zealand (to their respective embarrassment if the Petition is successful).
Basically, the scientific evidence for CO2 being “harmful” and a “danger” has to withstand the scrutiny of the Court, not the opinion of Prof Dennis – or Tony Abbott.
20
and if it does it will be way to late to do anything about it.
I generally refuse to read opinion bloggers and prefer actual science and the source for all claims, but I I may be allowed to comment on you roy spencer graph. That is a misleading lie. Apart from the fact that the science is not reliant on models (models are merely projections of particular scenarios), the comparison spencer makes is of regional tropical temperature trend against global temperatures. They are not the same thing and clearly dishonest.
Current trend this century is clear but that period is to small to make long term decisions on. A much fairer comparison is on decadel time scales or the whole instrumental record. Both are very clear.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
“A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
00
“if” ?
That’s the problem isn’t it Micheal? The 21st century temperature standstill has introduced a big IF because, as Myles Allen admits, “no-one predicted
the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000”.
The second decade of this century is already on average cooler than the first so it is not necessarily a matter of course that warming will resume anytime soon i.e. the climate has already achieved by itself what mitigation measures have attempted unsuccessfully.
Rubbish. Both simulations and observations are for Tropical Mid-Troposphere 20S – 20N. Here’s global:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
Except CO2 doesn’t explain the trend since 1880 does it (I’m referring to 1940)? And why 1880? Why not 1680? Or 1080? The long-term trend is simply minor oscillations (quasi 60-70 yr/200 yr cycles) about a major cycle (quasi 1000 yr cycle), one being oceanic (PDO/AMO), the other solar. All of those cycles are now in negative phase and the flat/cooling trend this century is consistent with that.
Re WMO, the world did not end in 2010.
Lets see what the US Supreme Court has to say (if it is entirely impartial that is, I’m not at all confident it will be) about the EPA’s 3 lines of evidence. Time and the legal system are the arbiters now – not the IPCC.
20
Again, the models are not the science and short term fluctuations are not science, and cherry picking a starting date is not science. As I showed the trend since 2000 or even 1999 is up. This suggests, if you allow the random picking of a start period, that warming basically restarted straight away.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend
The instrumental record is the most accurate record we have, and the further you go back the less reliable are the measurements (based on proxies) and the less we know about natural variations. Regardless, studies of the last 2000 years show now as the hottest period globally, even though most natural factors are in cooling directions and taking into account that before industrialisation hit the world was in a global cooling trend.
Your start year of a high el nino year, and finishing on 2 back to back la ninas show how dishonest your argument and cherry picking are. Fact is the 2001 – 2010 decade was the hottest on every continent for likely 2000 years (at least) and that 2011 and 2012 were the hottest la nina affected years on record and that the oceans are taking heat into the deeper oceans. That according to research taking into account natural factors, the last 40 years of warming would not have occurred. On top of that you have record melting in the Arctic, globally ice volume falling (both takes a lot of energy) and increasing trends on all climate variables related to AGW.
“The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.png
“This volcanism, combined with a simple proxy for anthropogenic effects (logarithm of the CO2 concentration), reproduces much of the variation in the land surface temperature record; the fit is not improved by the addition of a solar forcing term. Thus, for this very simple model, solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy. The residual variations include interannual and multi-decadal variability very similar to that of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).”
http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.php
00
So what is a model? A model is A PROJECTION of what would happen under certain scenarios. They are useful and necessary because we cannot grab the climate, stick it in a laboratory and perform experiments on it to see what might happen in the future if different circumstances occur. They are not foolproof and suffer from computer power that is still inadequate. Basically the best 3 dimensional computer models today can still only bring the resolution down to cell sizes of about 100 miles with a limited number of layers in the atmosphere or ocean. Within that cell the variables need to be averaged and then you need to couple interactions with all the other cells. Even limited to this extent some of them can take many months and some up to a year to run. Even then they are only for a certain scenario under certain conditions. Obviously many variables can change such as we do not know how much CO2 will actually be emitted as well as other greenhouse gases. What aerosols will be emitted, what volcanos will explode, what the sun will do, what will happen with ENSO (la ninas and el ninos) and much more. They are not the science but a way to project what might occur so that we can plan, adapt or be aware of what may happen under certain scenarios. Even with all those limitations they have been remarkably accurate, notwithstanding dishonest attempts at comparisons like that above.
“Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.”
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
00
>”As I showed the trend since 2000 or even 1999 is up. This suggests, if you allow the random picking of a start period, that warming basically restarted straight away.”
But both GAT and SST have been cooling since 2002/3
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/mean:12/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend
It’s just a matter of time before that cooling trend becomes statistically significant.
00
Your proving my point Richard. I tried to show the ridiculousness of selecting a start period in such a short time period in relation to climate, and the next thing you do is find an even shorter period that confirms your bias. Your proving the skeptical science escalator animation. You guys ignore the long term trends and look for periods that keep you happy. 2002-2003, seriously? Shall I now produce one from 2008?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2008/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2008/trend
Heat is currently being transferred into the deeper oceans.
01
>”Your proving my point Richard. I tried to show the ridiculousness of selecting a start period in such a short time period in relation to climate,”
It’s not “ridiculous” if the start is consistent with the natural drivers (TSI/PDO/AMO etc) and planetary thermal lag
>”and the next thing you do is find an even shorter period that confirms your bias.”
It’s not “bias”, it’s the signal in the data that is consistent with the drivers. The “shorter period” is simply the change-of-phase (positive to negative) in what is to be expected given cycles of 60 – 1000 yrs overlaid on each other.
>”Your proving the skeptical science escalator animation.”
Rubbish. It doesn’t include the early 20th century warming which had the same slope as the late 20th century warming. Neither does it include temperature over the last 1000 years. If you look at the escalator it is clear that the latest negative slope is getting longer than the others and SkS will have to keep updating their animation to reflect this. That will get embarrassing for them as time goes on wont it?
>”You guys ignore the long term trends and look for periods that keep you happy. 2002-2003, seriously? Shall I now produce one from 2008?”
Rubbish. I’ve done an EMD analysis (it extracts intrinsic signal) of HadSST2 since 1850. The residual (the “long-term trend”) clearly shows a negative inflexion developing over the 160+ years i.e. the data can no longer be realistically described by a steadily rising quadratic for example, similar to the CO2 historic record.
2002/3 is consistent with the physical drivers taking change of oceanic cycle phase and thermal lag into account, 2008 is not, although in time the period from the beginning of SC 24 in 2009 onwards (with another 30 years data say) will show the onset of cooling as a result of the faster atmospheric responses to lower solar input over the SC 24 peak. The effect of the more significant but slower responses to the bicentennial component is already evident since the early 2000s but not statistically significant. We’ll have to wait until after 2014 to observe that obviously, to confirm whether solar predictions turn out correct i.e. time is testing both solar and AGW hypotheses.
>”Heat is currently being transferred into the deeper oceans.”
So what? That is to be expected. But the upper layer of the largest ocean (the Pacific) is cooling in the ARGO era (since 2003) i.e. this reflects diminishing solar input but no anthropogenic forcing to the upper ocean. And anthro forcing cannot bypass the upper ocean Micheal.
00
Wrong, it is science and needs scientific scrutiny, it has nothing to do with law, and the courts cannot decide science, unless the judges are also qualified, practising, researching and publishing climate scientists as well.
AGW is based on the established science of the greenhouse effect, that has been understood for over 100 years and is based on the basic physics, measurements and experiments. So we have increased CO2 by 40% since industrialisation. So then what would be the effects of that? Well some of the predictions include:
* Atmospheric warming, yep
* first decade of the 21st century hottest on the instrumental record on EVERY continent, so much for claims of cooling.
* anti science lobby persist in ignoring natural factors as that heat is despite back to back la ninas. Take the la ninas out and you have even more warming. TSI has been static for 40 years during the majority of the warming.
* Ocean warming, yep
* Sea levels rising, yep
* Arctic melting faster than everywhere else (and still melting, record reached last year), yep
* Globally ice volume falling, yep
* Acidification in oceans increasing, yep
* Extreme weather increasing, yep
* day heat records beat cold records 3 to 1 and increasing
* night heat records beat cold records 5 to 1
* Observations show increased extreme precipitation by 7% for every degree increase in temps
* Increase in storm surges, and some research is showing an increase in hurricane intensity
…and that is just of the top of my head. Why do people ignore all that and continuously refuse to countenance that there is a very good chance that the warming and all the associated issues the planet is having could be due to CO2, and if it is then we have a responsibility to try to mitigate further damage for the sake of our kids and future generations. You cannot predict the climate to the nth degree, and there are many ups and down in the record due to natural and anthropogenic causes, a lot of which we cannot control or predict, but the trends are fairly clear, we are at the hottest period in the instrumental record, most natural factors have been in cooling or static directions. Put your extreme bias (or pay packet) to the side for a minute, take a look at your kids and think about this objectively.
01
>”it is science and needs scientific scrutiny, it has nothing to do with law, and the courts cannot decide science, unless the judges are also qualified, practising, researching and publishing climate scientists as well.”
Rubbish. How do you think the Endangerment Finding was established?
It was decided in law. The Endangerment Finding fulfilled the Supreme Court’s mandate in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
MASSACHUSETTS et al. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al.:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
Now it’s back in Court.
00
>”TSI has been static for 40 years during the majority of the warming”
Static at the highest level in over 1000 years.
The solar Grand Maximum peaked around 1986. From then to about 2009, TSI (the bicentennial component not the 11 yr cycle) remained at near-Max level. The present SC 24 TSI peak is well below the SC 23 and 22 peaks over the 1986 – 2009 period.
Temperatures lag TSI by 10 – 100 yrs (Trenberth), 12 years (Scafetta), 14 +/-6 yrs (Abdussamatov) due to planetary thermal inertia and lag in the sun-ocean-atmosphere system. Therefore, temperatures are entirely consistent with TSI because the energy “deficit” has only now started to take effect after a period of lag (second decade of 21st century cooler than first so far and a cooling trend in GAT and SST since around 2002/3).
The deficit in bicentennial energy input since 1986 from Abdussamatov (2012):
http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2-tsi-variations.png?w=640&h=475
Only 0.5 W/m2 deficit by 2009 but the IPCC solar specialist Mike Lockwood points out that the range in studies of TSI from 1600s Grand Minimum to 1900s Grand Maximum is around 6 W/m2 i.e. predictions from solar specialists of Dalton or Maunder Minimum conditions (or something more like the early 1900s) by mid 2030s will be a much greater reduction in TSI than the 2009 0.5 W/m2.
What chance then, of resumed warming?
00
Re article: ‘Are the Models Untestable?’
This article creates a strawman that “Some global warming deniers assert that the global climate models (GCMs) used to analyze and predict climate change can be ignored because they are “untestable” or “have no predictive ability”.”
What a load of rubbish. Both links up-thread to observations vs simulations (Tropical troposphere and global near-surface) certainly are a test of the models i.e. they’re testable and sceptics know this better than anyone and have taken the test to Court. And given the divergence from reality, the models at this juncture do in fact “have no predictive ability”.
The article goes on:
“Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
* That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.”
But as time goes on, that assessment does not hold true. The majority of models (except 2 or 3) did NOT “successfully” predict the 21st century temperature standstill to date (2013).
In 2007 the model projections were one of three lines of EPA “evidence” that CO2 was a “pollutant” (an “endangerment”). At that time it was not readily apparent that simulations were diverging from reality in a radical way and the court upheld the evidence (i.e. a reasonable decision at that time – just).
But 6 years on the divergence is easily identified and it is time to review the finding as is being requested by the SLF Petition. The Court can no longer uphold this line of evidence if it is to be impartial “without fear or favour”.
This is also a test of US Supreme Court justice and impartiality as much as it is a test of the validity of the EPA’s evidence.
10
Its been flat for 30 years plus so not sure where you get your grand solar maximum from.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
Apart from that it has not started cooling. If you add that cooling to all of the other cooling trends (ENSO, PDO), it is even more apparent that greenhouse gas forcing is overwhelming all natural factors. Therefore you still have temperatures at their peak with no signs of falling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend
00
Of course it does. They have examined natural factors, the models cannot predict well things like solar and ENSO, movement of heat into the oceans etc, and when those effects are taken into account it is plain that we should have been drastically cooling. So basically when the cooling factors have pushed things as far as they can the warming will jump up like it has several times in the long term trend when pauses and even dips occurred. Its a planet, with a complicated climate, that we are still learning about, but the long term trends are obvious. That is unless you are going to cherry pick a starting point at the top of an el nino and ignore that we are currently just past 2 back to back la ninas and the temps have not fallen. So from the top of a natural heating phenomenom to the bottom of a natural cooling phenomenom and you still get a warming trend. Without confirmation bias that would make an honest observer see that temps are still rising. The last 2 years being the hottest la nina affected years on record. So taking into account natural cycles the bottoms of the natural cycles are getting higher. THerefore you cannot conclude honestly and scientifically that it is not heating until the next el nino affected year (the last 2 being hotter than 1998). So you see that making judgements on a graph without taking into account context and natural cycles is dishonest.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
00
>”Its been flat for 30 years plus”
Flat at the highest level in over 1000 years, up to 6 W/m2 (depending on estimates) higher than the Grand Solar Minimum in the late 1600s.
>”so not sure where you get your grand solar maximum from.”
‘THE RISE AND FALL OF OPEN SOLAR FLUX DURING THE CURRENT GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM’
Lockwood et al. 2009
“As well as solar cycle variations, all three parameters show a long-term rise during the first half of the 20th century followed by peaks around 1955 and 1986 and then a recent decline. Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when 25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV. Extrapolating the linear declines seen in all three parameters since 1985, yields predictions that the grand maximum will end in the years 2013, 2014, or 2027 using V SW, F S, or B, respectively.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/700/2/937
>”Apart from that it has not started cooling.”
Rubbish. GAT and SST cooling since 2002/3 as proven up-thread.
>”If you add that cooling to all of the other cooling trends (ENSO, PDO),
So now you DO concede there is cooling this century. Thank you for that frank admission.
>”it is even more apparent that greenhouse gas forcing is overwhelming all natural factors.”
Err no. Other way around, Natural factors are overwhelming GHG forcing.
>”Therefore you still have temperatures at their peak with no signs of falling.”
Wrong. Again, the cooling trends since 2002/3 are indisputable as shown up-thread. In addition, (see graph at link below) “RSS global satellite temperatures show that the current decade (2011-2013) has cooled 0.086 degrees since the previous decade (2001-2010) This makes the current decade the fastest cooling decade in the satellite record.”
‘Fastest Cooling Decade On Record’
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/fastest-cooling-decade-on-record/
10
My quote:
“But as time goes on, that assessment does not hold true.”
Your response Micheal:
“Of course it does.”
No it doesn’t. The divergence between models and observations is now unequivocal and is being shown to the US Supreme court in a request for reconsideration of that line of “evidence”.
>”They have examined natural factors”
No, they’ve only just STARTED to try to explain the 21st century standstill – they’re “puzzled” by it because nobody predicted it. Oceanic cycles are not present in the models but sceptics know perfectly well that natural cyclicity is an impportant but (until now) overlooked factor.
>”the models cannot predict well things like solar”
Rubbish. Solar is an INPUT parameter dataset that models use that is provided by external solar specialists i.e. the solar parameter is fixed – NOT predicted. For CMIP5/AR5 simulations, TSI was held constant at early 2000s level out to 2100. Obviously that is unrealistic now that solar output is declining from that level from SC 24 onwards.
>”and ENSO”
Correct, ENSO is not well predicted in the models but again, there is a quasi 30 yr cycle where domination by one state or the other (El Nino or La Nina) is evident although both occur. We are now in a phase of La Nina domination but climate scince predicted La Nina would dominate permanently at their predicted temperature levels – they were wrong.
>”movement of heat into the oceans”
Again, the models don’t “predict” this at all. The transfer of energy between atmosphere and ocean modules in an AO model is a formulaic coding exercise based on assumptions. Those assumptions are incorrect (the “air-sea fluxes”) because a) the models introduce TOO MUCH energy into the ocean, and b) what energy that is introduced is to too well mixed (“mixed too efficiently).
>”and when those effects are taken into account it is plain that we should have been drastically cooling.”
Rubbish. Planetary thermal lag is a long slow process. Read Trenberth’s ‘The Role of the Oceans In Climate’ on the net. He states significant lags of 10 – 100 years in the sun-ocean-atmosphere system i.e. The effect of the solar recession has not even started yet.
>”So basically when the cooling factors have pushed things as far as they can the warming will jump up like it has several times in the long term trend when pauses and even dips occurred.”
The most significant cooling factor (solar) is going into decline for decades. There wont be any “jump up” until well after mid-century. Here’s the scenario:
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Variations-in-Total-Solar-Irridiance.png
>”the long term trends are obvious”
And extrapolating them without cognizance of drivers is a fools errand.
>”That is unless you are going to cherry pick a starting point at the top of an el nino”
I’m not Micheal.
>”and ignore that we are currently just past 2 back to back la ninas and the temps have not fallen.”
The temps have fallen Micheal. This 2nd decade this century is already cooler than the first as shown elsewhere (‘The Fastest Cooling Decade’).
>”So from the top of a natural heating phenomenom to the bottom of a natural cooling phenomenom and you still get a warming trend.”
The bottom of the last natural cooling phenomena was in the 1600s about halfway through a quasi 1000 yr cycle. The top of the last natural warming has only just ended around 2009. There is cooling since early 2000s – not warming, irrespective of ENSO activity (it’s neutral right now, where’s the warming?).
>”Without confirmation bias that would make an honest observer see that temps are still rising.”
Rubbish. The 21st century temperature standstill is now widely acknowledged by climate science.
>”you cannot conclude honestly and scientifically that it is not heating until the next el nino affected year (the last 2 being hotter than 1998).
Rubbish (and what dataset are using?). Warming can only be ascertained if NEUTRAL conditions are elevated.
>”So you see that making judgements on a graph without taking into account context and natural cycles is dishonest.”
Rubbish. See the analysis above.
30
I point to this graph in your article
http://ej.iop.org/images/0004-637X/700/2/937/Full/apj314345f6_lr.gif
It seems to me that the maximums occurred in the late 50’s to early 60’s and that it has been fairly flat since then. I also could not find in the article any reference to what this means for actual planetary temperature or any correlation with temperature trends. It still seems to me that everything I have said is still valid, notwithstanding your clearly biased (just by looking at the name of iceagenow) opinion blogger site.
00
>”It seems to me that the maximums occurred in the late 50’s to early 60’s”
No, it’s the bicentennial component (not maximums of the 11 yr cycle) that the solar specialists refer to e.g. Lockwood et al (2009) that I referenced: “peaks around 1955 and 1986″. Basically, a line tracing the minimums of the 11 yr cycle. This is not contentious Micheal, solar specialists whether IPCC CO2-centric (Lockwood, Haigh) or non-IPCC, non-CO2-centric (Abdussamatov, De Jager/Duhau) all agree on 1986.
>”and that it has been fairly flat since then”
Yes, at the highest level for around 1000 years and declining slowly. But only up to 2009, after that the decline is becoming more pronounced.
>”I also could not find in the article any reference to what this means for actual planetary temperature or any correlation with temperature trends.”
Figure 3, Hansen and Lebedeff (1988) shows that Northern hemisphere temperature changes track solar irradiation almost perfectly over the 237 years from 1750 to 1987:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JvwXYGgFwSs/UdN6KJ-Fd3I/AAAAAAAAFTo/e3jdokBWuOU/s400/ScreenShot3554.jpg
>”It still seems to me that everything I have said is still valid”
Not in view of the above it doesn’t.
00
…and then the correlation completely breaks down due to AGW forcing overwhelming natural factors.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg
00
>”…and then the correlation completely breaks down due to AGW forcing overwhelming natural factors.”
No it doesn’t. And that’s just one solar composite reconstruction BTW, there are others e.g. this:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif
The change of phases in the quasi 60/70 yr (PDO/AMO) cycles is clearly identifiable in the temperature graph. That has nothing to do with TSI levels though. The complete correlation is PDO+AMO+sunspot integral R²=.96:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
It is not necessary to invoke AGW forcing to achieve that correlation factor. CO2 by itself has a much lower correlation with temperature (less than R²=.50)
In the global metric TSI determines the general level of temperature after accounting for lag. The analogy is heating a pot of water on a stove element, it takes time to reach equilibrium depending on the setting. The high level of TSI 1950s – 2000s is the underlying driver contributing to the 2000s temperature levels in combination with the oceanic oscillations. All of those drivers are either already in or going into negative phase now.
Again, you don’t understand planetary thermal inertia and lag (and neither does SkS although Rob Painting will concede when pressed). Look up Abdussamatov (2012) for some background on one method of calculating it (Scafetta uses stats so different method):
‘Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to
Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age’
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
You don’t have to agree with his conclusions (I don’t necessarily) but at least get to grips with planetary inertia and lags in the sun-ocean-atmosphere system BEFORE making silly statements and links that just demonstrate your own and other’s ignorance.
00
>”the Greenhouse effect is real, keeps our planet 30 deg warmer than it would be without them”
‘Greenhouse Gas Theory is False’
by Dr. Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Engineer
[…] While it is not my job as skeptic, I will offer eight objections to their GHG Theory, each of which falsify it. It is their job to prove me wrong. I will present my assertions in simple terms with justifications; I have detailed chemical engineering mathematical analysis verified by experiment to support them.
1. GHGT science is settled, consensus is established, skeptics and deniers are crackpots. Wrong.
2. GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong.
3. GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False.
4. CO2 is green plant food.
5. GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance.
6. Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget back radiation is false.
7. Thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion will never work.
8. Modeling temperature data is worthless.
GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong. Correct value is 15.0C – 15.0C = 0C. Nothing to it. Hansen, Science, 28Aug1981, incorrectly assumed Earth radiates as a black body with emissivity = 1.0, took satellite readings of its average intensity, 239 w/m2 of surface, and deduced from Boltzmann equation, K = 100(P/5.67e)0.25, it radiates at -18C. K = 100(239/5.67(1.0))0.25 = 254.8K – 273.1 = -18.3C.
While measuring average annual thermal temperature day-night, pole-to-pole is difficult, there is consensus it is about 15C. So Hanson declared the difference, his now famous GHGT effect, GHGTE = 33C, a discrepancy due to his so called greenhouse gases H2O and CO2. While calculating or measuring Earth’s emissivity is difficult, it is certainly -18C and GHGTE < 33C.
Global Climate Model says emissivity of Earth surface – atmosphere system is about 0.612. If so, corresponding global T for 239 w/m2 average emitted to space would be K = 100(239/5.67*0.612)0.25 = 288.1 – 273.1 = 15.0C. GHGT = 0C. QED.
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=248&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_July_16_2013
10
Absolute nonsense. If the greenhouse effect is wrong and our scientific understanding of how our atmosphere works based on over 100 years of science is wrong, then why not write an actual peer reviewed analysis in a reputable scientific journal. Surely turning basic physics as we understand it, that our computer, gps, mri machines and the like are based on, would be worth of a nobel prize. Why can he only get published on a website known for their views against AGW?
From the about part of the website
“Principia Scientific International (PSI) was originally conceived in 2010 after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.”
Also Hansen did not invent the greenhouse effect, that was discovered over 100 years ago. Similarly most of the ‘article’ is as fictitious as that.
Why do you guys never have any actual peer reviewed science? only opinions.
01
Hmmm, the point that has been lost here is that this proves that Julia was always misconstrued. All Rudd is doing is bringing forward by one year what was always going to happen anyway. The so called tax was always an introductory period to allow business breathing room and a chance to get used to a price on carbon before it became an ETC. This was how it was ALWAYS supposed to go and what Julia had promised before the last election when on an election eve interview she reiterated her support for a price on carbon.
Most of the world is headed this way, it allows countries to set the emissions target so that emissions are better controlled, which the carbon tax does not allow. More and more countries are moving towards prices on carbon and this is what people where always asking for.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1789584/Factbox:-Carbon-tax-around-the-world
04
You’ve got absolutely no idea how an ETS works, have you?
C’mon then, knock yourself out.
Tony.
30
“In an emissions trading system, a central authority sets a cap on how much a pollutant such as CO2 may be emitted. The cap is allocated to companies in the form of emissions permits, which give them the right to emit a certain amount of the pollutant. Firms are required to hold a number of permits equivalent to their emissions.”
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1789584/Factbox:-Carbon-tax-around-the-world
Is that wrong?
12
Is that SBS article peer reviewed?
31
Just as I thought, Michael,
You really are clueless!
Tony.
31
Three lines.
You can’t be serious!
Tony.
41
Sorry to appear like the village idiot but can someone tell me who gets caught up in this ETS. Is it still the top 500 ” polluters” or does the net widen to maybe the top 1,000 , or whatever?
00
Michael @63.1.1 It’s not wrong but neither s it very right. Companies get permits based on their past history of CO2 emissions. They may be allocated these permits by the government or may need to buy them at auction. If at the end of a pre-determined time period, say a year, a company has emitted more CO2 than it has permits for, it needs to buy permits from the emissions auction trading market to cover the excess. The permits it buys come from companies that have emitted less CO2 than they have permits for and have sold their surplus permits to the market. Intuitively one can see that the scheme may not have an impact on the steady state of CO2 emission but it may prevent increases in emissions. Of course if there are no companies that have emitted less CO2 than their allowances the government will collect cash from the companies that have buy selling more permits to the market. Naturally you can see that like any market it can be affected if there are too many permits issued or if there is a downturn in consumer demand. Of course the latter is desirable as it reduces CO2 emissions but it also is a reflection on the global economic downturn which, as you know, has plagued the world for the last 5 years and is still not resolved. Probably only the Greens would rejoice at the reduction in CO2 emissions due to economic downturn as for most the resultant economic chaos has had a damaging impact on their standard of living.
10
Thanks Ian, but as I understand it the government can also decide how many permits to allocate, allowing it to ratchett down allowable country emissions year by year. THerfore this allows more government control over emissions.
01
‘Nature-mag Hides the Decline’
Steve McIntyre
Earlier this year, David Whitehouse of GWPF drew attention to a striking decrease in the UK Met Office decadal temperature forecast, that had been quietly changed by the Met Office on Christmas Eve. Whitehouse’s article led to some contemporary interest in Met Office decadal forecasts. The Met Office responded (see here); Whitehouse was also challenged by Greenpeace columnist Bob Ward.
Fast forward to July 10, 2013. Using UK Met Office decadal forecasts, Jeff Tollefson of Nature reported as a “News Feature” that “The forecast for 2018 is cloudy with record heat”, covered by Judy Curry here.
An innocent reader would presume that a Nature “News Feature” reporting on Met Office decadal forecasts would include the current Met Office decadal forecast. However, this proves not to be the case. Tollefson showed an older decadal forecast issued prior to the downward revision of the Met Office decadal forecast to which Whitehouse had drawn attention. Tollefson showed the multi-model mean from Smith et al 2012 (Clim Dyn), which has negligible difference from the 2011 Met Office decadal forecast. Had Tollefson shown the “decline” in the current decadal forecast, Nature would not have been able to make the same unequivocal headline.
>>>>>>>>
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/15/nature-hides-the-decline/
‘More Met Office Hypocrisy’
Steve McIntyre
In yesterday’s post, I observed that Nature’s recent news article on Met Office decadal forecasts failed to show the most recent Met Office decadal forecast and that its inclusion would not have permitted the Nature headline…..
[…]
Betts’ claimed that my graphic “exaggerated” the difference between the Met Office submission to IPCC and the most recent Met Office decadal forecast. Untrue. I plotted Met Office data. In my opinion, the exact contrary is the case: the Nature News graphic downplayed the differences between Met Office versions by not showing the most recent decadal forecast and by not showing the Met Office IPCC submission. If anything was “wrong” in this incident, it was that the Met Office either signed off on the Nature News’ omission of their most recent decadal forecast (if given a chance to comment) and that they failed to write in their own objection to the omission once the article was published. And that instead of conceding the point, Betts made untrue and unwarranted allegations that I had committed errors in my post reporting the problem.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/17/more-met-office-hypocrisy/
# # #
That revised decadal prediction is really coming back to bite the UKMO on the butt. I bet they wish they’d never published it (even on Christmas Eve).
10
Do you have anything other than opinion blog sites?
“A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
00
>”Do you have anything other than opinion blog sites?”
Yes, I’ve just cited a 1988 Hansen paper showing the sun controls climate in my last comment along with the previous citations e.g. Lockwood et al (2009). You’re not blind to these papers Michael because you state that you looked up Lockwood.
Would you like me to cite some of the papers that the IPCC AR5 SOD Chapter 8 cites in respect to solar Michael? They make interesting reading BTW and not inconsistent with my solar-centric view except that they only cherry-pick the papers that minimize the solar case (ignore others completely) for in-depth analysis especially when it’s authored by co-authors of other chapters e.g. Jones (not Phil), Lockwood and Stott (2012). Still an interesting read (full of citations) because there’s no contention over the sun declining in output but only by how much in terms of W/m2 by around 2035 and will GHG forcing offset that using least solar case examples. There is enormous uncertainty in all of that but that wont be headlined in the Summary For Policymakers.
Do you have anything other than an out-of-date report? The world did not end in 2012.
00
Michael, quoting the WMO report does not address the UKMO reticence in correcting the situation Steve McIntyre has highlighted.
Neither does it address the disparity in the respective UKMO decadal forecasts. Or the fact that the latest forecast is so much lower than the earlier forecasts, the later being from a higher resolution state-of-the-art model.
And it doesn’t address the fact that the UKMO decadal forecast is radically different to their CMIP5/AR5 submission.
You’ll have to do better than that Michael.
00
I have been scouring the net without success to get a simplified explanation of the latest Australian ETS. Most search results lead me to simplified broad brush overviews with an agenda. Anyone have a link to an “idiots guide”? Also am I right in concluding that with a very low EU price available to those who over emit, this constitutes an active encouragement to do nothing? What a shemozzle!
10
The idea is kind of simple, the practice, not so. Supposedly, since the planet doesn’t care where the CO2 is emitted, if your CO2 producing factory is in Australia, you can choose to do nothing to reduce your own emissions, and instead to buy “credits” from some Chinese factory that was old, dirty and emitting a lot of this harmless fertilizer, (but have just cleaned it up so they emit less). The Chinese people supposedly would not have fixed it, except that they heard some Westerners would pay them to do it. There is no way to be sure of this, so someone audits that too, not that anyone can read anyone’s mind, so no one really will ever know. It’s called “additionality”. Not that that will help you understand it.
Ultimately, the money from the Western consumer gets paid to the western corporation, who pay it to a middle-man broker (or two) which paid some to an auditor (which supposedly checked out the Chinese factory to make sure it was legit) and paid the rest to the Chinese factory owner who cleaned up the factory. Tax collectors presumably smile with every step. Plus there are a hundred variations on this theme and undoubtedly even more middle-men. Some people would call this a scheme to create lots of jobs. Others would say that these thousands of people might as well dig trenches and then fill them in. At least they’d reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.
Theoretically it could work. In practice there are loopholes at every step, bureaucrats in every corner, it’s a magnet for corruption, and at the end of the day, it doesn’t really reduce emissions. (Not to mention that, even if it worked, the CO2 reductions would not make enough difference to the weather to be measurable).
I hope that helps, but I fear it still won’t make any sense.
10
That is a worst case scenario, and inaccurate in several respects. Firstly you claim it does not reduce emissions. In Europe the ETS has reduced emissions by 17%. It would be more, but the main problem is the amount of freebies issued. New Zealand, some states in Canada, Japan and the US, and Brazil and many other places are looking into them. It just depends on how well the scheme is setup and run. With the long term experience in Europe a lot of the old mistakes will probably be avoided, but it does reduce emissions. Personally I prefer a carbon tax but an ets seems more politically palatable.
Any CO2 reductions will make a difference in the cumulative increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to help mitigate against future damage. The more countries that get involved the more impetus there is for other countries to get involved. Its the case of building up to a critical mass, this is occurring when you look at how many countries have a price on carbon of some type.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1789584/Factbox-Carbon-tax-around-the-world
02
“Here’s a statistic that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, the former trainee Catholic seminarian who insists that no other nation is pricing carbon, might find interesting. The number of people living in countries with carbon taxes or emission trading schemes will rise to about one billion by the end of the year. There are almost as many of them in the world as there are Catholics.”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/14/obamas-new-global-warming-push-leaves-abbott-in-the-cold/
01
And the Catholic reference is relevant because???
SBS. Crikey. Guardian.
A pattern emerges.
10
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/the-start-of-the-end-rudd-ditches-carbon-tax-for-a-trading-scheme-e… […]
00