Patrick Moore in Australia – book your tickets now

Have you booked your place? He’s in Melbourne today and Monday; Canberra, Thursday; Perth next Friday and Saturday; Hobart, Brisbane and Noosa the next week. Post bumped up as a reminder. Book Now!  -Jo

Patrick Moore explains why, 15 years after co-founding it, he left Greenpeace to establish a more sensible, science-based approach to environmentalism.

His book: Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (Kindle) Paperback version

 Patrick Moore’s public appearances are set for Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Perth, Hobart, Brisbane and Noosa. October 22 – November 6th. Details below… some require RSVP’s. Don’t miss it!

Watch Patrick Moore’s presentation at the Heartland  International Conference on Climate Change.


22nd October
5 for 5:30 Sydney RSL, L3 Function Room, 565 George Street
A $20 donation at the door is requested to cover costs.

23rd October
6:30 pm for 7pm The Mirrors Room, Club Five Dock, 66 Great North Road, Five Dock
A $20 donation ($10 for students) is requested at the door to cover costs
RSVP: Jim Simpson – 0417 285 884 or [email protected]

12:00-13:00 Carslaw Lecture Theatre 373  MAP:


Friday 24 October
5 for 5:30pm CQ Functions, 113 Queen Street
A $20 donation at the door is requested to cover costs

Monday 27 October
12 for 12:30 The Australian Club 110 William Street
2-course lunch $110 p.p. (dress code)


Thursday 30th October, Hughes Community Centre Wisdom Street, Hughes

  • 1st Session 2-3pm afternoon tea 3-30 pm,
  • 2nd session 3:30- 4:30 pm

$20 donation ($10 for students) requested plus $2 for afternoon tea payable at the door


Friday 31st October 2014, Upstairs at the Astor Theatre

  • Corner of Beaufort St and Walcott St, Mt Lawley
  • 6.00pm for drinks, 7.00pm speaker
  • Ticket only event: RSVP to [email protected] by 27th October 2014

Saturday 1st November, C3 Church, 95a* Waratah Avenue, Dalkeith

  • 1st meeting 4 – 5pm (GM crops)
  • 2nd meeting 5:30 – 7pm (Climate)
  • A $20 donation ($10 for students) is requested to cover costs – covers both sessions.
  • MUST BOOK: or contact Sonya at the PGA on 9212 6900


3rd November

  • Monday November 3rd – 12 noon – 3:00pm  2-course luncheon with beverages $90 p.p. at Wrest Point, Hobart. For details email: [email protected]
  • Please register your interest in the Hobart event with Garth Paltridge [email protected]


5th November

  • 7 for 7:30, Irish Club 175 Elizabeth Street
  • A $20 donation at the door is requested to cover costs.


6th November

  • 5 for 5:30 at The J, 60 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads
  • To book for this event, just click on this link
  • A $20 donation will buy a ticket.
  • Event enquiries should be directed to Paul Evans at: [email protected]
  • Media enquiries should be directed to Case Smit: [email protected]


– Sunday 19th October at 6.30pm on the Miranda Divine Show – 2GB
– Tuesday 21st October at 7.10am on the Allan Jones show – 2GB

Australian tour itinerary

8.8 out of 10 based on 75 ratings

62 comments to Patrick Moore in Australia – book your tickets now

  • #
    Lawrie Ayres

    Sometimes living in the bush has a downside. This is one of those occasions.


  • #
    Paul Evans

    Patricks presentation in Sydney will be recorded and shared for those who are unable to attend.


  • #

    O/T I’m afraid –

    It was pretty early in the morning and I may be imagining this, but I thought I heard some idiot from ANU, or somewhere, on Melbourne ABC radio saying that over 30,000 years sea levels have done not much until the last 50(?) years when they’ve shown “unprecedented” increase.

    Nothing more about this today in either radio or newspapers, so perhaps it was my auditory hallucination. Or maybe someone took him quietly aside and told him about Bass Straight, Torres Strait, the English Channel and The Black Sea. Not to mention the ancient ports of Rome and Troy now miles from the shore.

    Anyone know more about this “disappeared” alarmist item?


    • #

      Thank goodness my initial comment was nuanced – I didn’t hear it right. It has been repeated ABC radio 18.3o Melbourne.

      The good Prof dates current warming/SLR to about 150 years ago, puting it squarely at the end of the Little Ice Age and compares it (tentatively) with last interglacial. He declines to get involved in the CO2 dogfight. Sensible man, in his position.
      But lots of computer modelling in his paper, apparently.
      And still seems ignore historic SLR retreats, especially in the Mediterranean.


    • #

      That was Lambeck, a normally good scientist but a believer.

      He clams he measured sea level rise of less than 1.7 mm/year over the past 1,000 years.

      And I’m the Duke of Wellington.


  • #

    Street address in Perth (Dalkeith) appears to be wrong. The street number no longer exists. C3 is, AFAICT from my comfy chair, now at 95a Waratah Avenue.


  • #

    Great book. The people who took over Greenpeace were frustrated communists fleeing the collapse of the Soviet Union and then lawyers chasing what had become a huge donations and branding industry. However apart from one German chemist, according to Dr. Moore they had no science, so they banned Chlorine, another member of the periodic table.

    As he says, society cannot go around banning elements of the periodic table. In Australia, the so called Greens party are similarly extreme communists, like Adam Bandt and Lee Rhiannon and many more. The anarchistic damage done by Greens parties around the world has earned them their Watermelon description. What is puzzling is their hatred of Jews and Israel, something not even slightly consistent with tree hugging. The only consistent theme is the visceral hatred of successful Western consumer societies and the desire to bring them down. For the Greens, Global Warming was just too good to be true. It isn’t.


  • #
    Peter Miller

    Presumably, at least some of these meetings will be picketed and/or interrupted by the ecoloon fraternity, welfare dependents and Greenpeace fanatics.

    None of these guys like facts, and they particularly hate those who expose them for the worthless individuals they are.

    I was once speaking at the sharp end of a subject similar to this, namely exposing today’s climate change science for what it really is. It got quite ugly, all it proved was there are always worthless individuals out there trying to silence those who dare speak the truth.

    Bottom Line: You may need more security than you think. An apostate of Greenpeacethink is certain to attract a lot of attention, ABC excepted of course.


    • #
      Jim Simpson

      Truth in that Peter and as convener for one of the events that Patrick Moore is speaking at (ie; Thursday evening 6:30pm, 23rd Oct at Club Five Dock in Sydney) we will be briefing the Club’s well established security guard (complete with very large black guard dog!) to be on the look out for any EcoLoons seeking to create a disturbance and interrupt proceedings!

      Meantime, for those in Sydney interested in hearing what Patrick Moore has to say, don’t miss the opportunity! We still have seating to accommodate more guests so follow the link above to register!


  • #

    A uniquely Australian brand identity, a generic ‘Ship of Fools’ sails ever onward (forgive the poetic license) this time in a different guise unsatisfied by earlier trifling around anthropogenic climate change signature in Antarctica. Now it wants now to give name to an entirely new geological period following the Holocene. Captained by one of the ANU stars, Professor Will Steffen of the ANU Climate Change Institute, Steffan is one of the main leaders of the Anthropocene movement.

    Apparently, the age of humans is more than just climate change. It includes ozone loss, disruption of nitrogen and phosphorous cycles that are causing dead zones, changes in water, acidification of the ocean, endocrine disruptors and deforestation. Steffen said there’s no scientific consensus for the term Anthropocene yet, but he sees support growing.


    • #


      “Acidification of the oceans”? At least as a PhD in industrial chemistry, Professor Will Steffen knows this is a lie or at best, sophistry, an intention to deceive. The world’s oceans are Alkali, not acid. In fact the little bit of CO2 on top of the vast amount already in the oceans would make the oceans a little more neutral, not acid at all.

      Ozone loss? So if man released CFCs are wholly to blame, why is the ozone loss South of the Tropic of Capricorn, where less than 2% of the world’s population lives? Why not in the Northern Hemisphere? This is busted too.

      Deforestation? Man cannot eat trees. What is so good about trees against grasses? Or is that more religion, more Shamanism and tree worship?

      Perhaps as a latter day ‘climate’ scientist, Professor Steffen can explain why Antarctic ice is at a peak? Why was the opposite predicted by the infallible climate scientists? No, this is all nonsense, self justification, rubbish science. Carpetbagging, opportunism and doomsaying.


      • #
        the Griss

        Actually, because of the ABSOLUTELY HUGE reservoir of CaCO3, in the form of limestone, old shells etc, the equilibrium would barely shift.

        No amount of CO2 could shift that balance or change the pH, one iota.


        • #

          That is why it is so outrageous that a professional industrial chemist whose whole life has been about pH would blatantly play this story that the oceans are ‘acidifying’.


        • #
          Peter C

          Your supposed to be convalescing Griss!
          I take that your operation went well and that you are feeling better already.


      • #

        Wouldn’t increased concentration of CO2 in the Oceans simply increase the health, robustness, and mass of phytoplankton in the top few meters of the Oceans – thereby increasing the health of the entire oceanic food chains?

        An inquiring ExWarmist would like to know.


      • #

        In fact the little bit of CO2 on top of the vast amount already in the oceans would make the oceans a little more neutral, not acid at all.

        or Then in steps photosynthesis. CO2 + H2O + heat and energy absorbed from the sun = C6H12O6 (Glucose). This means cooling oceans and extra fish food that will cause more fish poop. The fish poop will cause the seas to go more alkaline.


  • #

    Id love to see him but Hobart…. 3 hour drive, accommodation etc etc. *le sigh*


    • #

      You might be just as quick to fly to Melbourne, those roads in Tassie can be pretty winding I guess. 🙂


  • #
     D o u g   C o t t o n 

    To Patrick Moore and Jo:

    “Climate models diminish the importance of actually reasoning about diverse types of evidence.” Well said Judith Curry.

    Real world temperature data proves beyond doubt that the most prevalent greenhouse gas, water vapor, causes mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures to be lower because its radiating properties work against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient in the troposphere. This lowers the gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature by about 10 to 12 degrees, as is confirmed by empirical evidence. Further evidence from other planets reinforces what I say. Because of this it is blatantly obvious to all those who are not gullible and understand thermodynamics that the greenhouse conjecture is totally false and carbon dioxide, like water vapor, actually cools, but only very slightly, perhaps less than 0.1 degree.

    All climate follows natural cycles which are very evident in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. In that plot (calculated from planetary orbits) we can predict slight cooling till 2028, then 30 years of warming (by about half a degree) and then 500 years of long-term cooling with superimposed 60 year cycles. This plot has been on my earth-climate dot com website for three years.


  • #

    Plain talker on climate change among Eureka Prize winners

    Lesley Hughes, from Macquarie University, was awarded the Australian Government Eureka Prize for Promoting Understanding of Australian Science Research.

    Her free online course explains the science of climate change in straightforward terms for non-scientists – and has even received praise from some climate sceptics, who found they had been lacking a clear explanation of the science.
    . . .

    Here is my certificate for passing this course, under my real name, which the conversation claimed I made up, and blocked me from commenting:

    I believe I am qualified to comment at the conversation now.

    FWIW, each module was about 1 hour long.

    You could attempt each module 3 times with your best score selected.

    I attempted each module once, keeping that score, as I wasn’t going to waste anymore time than I had to.

    The mis-information was astounding.


  • #

    OT – here we go again – from Weatherzone.

    Severe frosts will be more frequent due to greenhouse gas, say scientists
    Steven Schubert, Wednesday October 15, 2014 – 07:27 EDT
    Audience submitted image
    Severe frosts could happen in different times of the year due to greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, say scientists. – Audience submitted
    Frosts like the ones which caused so much damage to crops this season could be more common for the next 20 years.

    Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are changing the way high pressure systems form and move, causing severe frost problems for farmers.

    Frosts in August this year caused devastated grain, legume and oil seed crops across Australia’s cropping regions.

    Final crop losses won’t be known until what’s left is harvested, but anecdotal reports suggest some farmers have lost up to 80 per cent of their crop, while others have hardly been affected at all.

    But frosts like these may be something farmers will have to adjust to in the future.

    Melissa Rebbeck is an agricultural researcher at the University of Adelaide and also runs a her own consulting business.

    She says the weather system that produced the frosts was unusual.

    “This high pressure system slipped through the system and it went across the Australia Bight. It took 10 days to cross the continent.

    “It was very, very large as well, so that’s why it took so long to cross the continent and it basically just dragged very cold, dry, stable air in from the Antarctic and dumped it onto the regions affected,” she said.

    “Basically what that meant was we had five days in a row of temperatures that were sub-zero in major cropping regions for 12 hours.

    “It’s the duration of those eventa that caused the devastating damage that producers are seeing.”

    The synoptic changes are coming as a result of greenhouse gases, Ms Rebbeck says.

    “Certainly the research we’re seeing is that the high pressure systems are becoming larger than normal and that is definitely from the hole in the ozone layer and the impact of the gasses in the atmosphere which basically expand the size of these high pressure systems.”

    Steven Crimp, the senior research scientist from the CSIRO’s agriculture flagship, agrees there’s been a change in the way high pressure systems behave during crucial growing periods when crops are susceptible to frosts.

    “The period over which frosts occur has changed,” he said.

    “On the eastern portion of Australia, we find that the frost window has broadened. So that means there’s earlier starts to the season, or the period over which frosts would occur, and much later finishes.”

    Mr Crimp says the reason behind the change is manmade.

    “We believe that there’s an anthropogenic or human reason for why those high pressures have actually moved further south. We see that movement south is well correlated with the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

    But he’s less certain that the effect would be reversed if the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere was reduced.

    “That’s the next step for our research. So what we’re trying to see is is this a permanent feature going forward in the future, or is there some sort of point in which the number of frosts actually starts to decline.

    “The preliminary results at the moment would suggest that the sort of frost risk that we’re currently experiencing will be a feature probably out until around 2030, 2035 and then in association with sort of mean warming that we’re seeing then that frost risk will start to decline and become less of a risk in the production system.

    “But certainly it will still be there but will be reduced and the scale of reduction really depends on the emissions pathways that we follow going forward.”

    – ABC


    • #

      It’s ‘Climate Disruption’ dontcha know, it’s what naturally develops when the first lot of bullshit unfounded statements fail to eventuate.

      Reinvent and regurgitate I suppose.


    • #

      “Certainly the research we’re seeing is that the high pressure systems are becoming larger than normal and that is definitely from the hole in the ozone layer and the impact of the gasses in the atmosphere which basically expand the size of these high pressure systems.”

      Via The Conversation, 14 September, 2013
      Author: David Karoly

      The Antarctic ozone hole and climate change: an anniversary worth celebrating

      “Since the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole more than 20 years ago, scientists have shown that there are no direct links between global warming and the ozone hole.”

      NB: For more ‘97% settled science’ laughs @thecon ozonehole links:


    • #

      Melissa Rebbeck, agricultural researcher at the University of Adelaide needs to do some historical research……..before spouting her nonsense…..seems just like the BoM, historic records must be deleted/ignored.

      Just a couple of newspaper reports after a VERY brief look on TROVE:

      The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser – Sunday 26 August 1804
      “We are sorry to find, that the late severe frosts have greatly injured the forward crops of barley and wheat which are in ear, at Hawkesbury.”

      And this frost event certainly made an impression…………….
      The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser – Thursday 10 December 1829
      “Severe Frost. – We lament to state, that at Bathurst and Argyle there has been, 1 within the last few days, so severe and unusual a frost, that the crops have sustained the most serious injury ; in some instances, we are told, the wheat has been completely cut up.”
      The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser – Tuesday 8 November 1831
      “In the latter end of November, 1829, how the prospects of the farmer were blighted by one night of frost ! He went to bed to dream of golden harvests, but awoke to behold himself almost ruined!


  • #
    Milton Collins

    Adelaide?? Where’s that??
    Ahh, that’s that little place you fly over on the way to Perth.


    • #
      Ian Hill

      Yeah, we’re easily forgotten. Just the world’s biggest country town!


      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Well with a Premier who thinks wind energy is cheaper than coal fired, Patrick Moore probably figured there is no hope of rational thought there.


        • #

          Meanwhile in South Australia, right at this very moment, (Wednesday 15th November at 5.40PM) both units at the Northern Power Station, NPS1 and NPS2, (you know, that coal fired power plant that is not needed because they have all that yummy wind power) well, both units are pumping 340MW of power into the South Australian grid.

          So, even while wind power may have days when it might, just might, be supplying an amount of power equal to what is actually being consumed, both those coal fired units units are turning and burning, delivering their power to the grid, no matter what.

          For most of today during the Peak Period, (6AM until now) wind power delivery has been below 150MW, and in fact at around 10AM, wind delivery was, well, I can’t quite deduce because it’s so close to zero. So, with a Nameplate of almost 1500MW, and that’s more than 800 towers, well, probably less than, umm ….. 5 of them were actually turning.

          Wind power replacing coal fired power. Yeah! Right.



  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    “science-based approach to environmentalism”

    Haven’t read any of Patrick Moore’s works; however there is a fundamental problem of confusion and misunderstanding in any talk of “science-based” policy.

    Science excludes value judgments, whereas policy requires them.

    Therefore it will always be a plain and simple logical fallacy – non sequitur – to argue from a scientific premise to a policy conclusion; unless all the values in issue are common ground which they never are.

    That’s what I have found so frustrating and mystifying about the debate over global warming. All this study of the minutiae of temperature statistics – like ancient seers poring over birds’ entrails – as if this could tell us what “we” should do; as if “we” were all some solidary monolithic lump with identical interests.

    Even if all the issues of climatology were conceded – which they aren’t, obiously – there would remain two stumbling blocks which the warmists and environmentalists can never surmount:
    1. how do we know whether the result is worse rather than better, in terms of all the human evaluations affected? For example, if a field is cleared to grow food, and this entails the extinction of a species, how do we know whether the human interest in that species was greater than the human interest in the food?
    2. even if we have established that, how do we know that governmental action is going to produce a result that is better rather than worse, when all the relevant downsides are taken into account? (The answer is, they never are. The policy advocate always only ever reposes a blind faith in government’s economising supercompetence, that has no basis in reason.)

    It is all the more painful watching this well-intentioned or conceited blundering happening even at the highest levels of science and policy, when Ludwig von Mises demonstrated finally and forever why it doesn’t work and cannot work in his 1920 essay “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”:

    To be scientific, the data set that the government apologists would need, in order to validly establish the superior merits of government action, would be the subjective human evaluations of all relevant humans in both scenarios (policy action versus policy inaction) for all relevant times. (Since they are concerned about “sustainability”, this means indefinitely into the future: hundreds of thousands of years. Nor can there be any discounting for the future, since it is man’s universal tendency to do that, that is the original problem the environmentalists are supposed to be solving by political action.)

    The short answer is, they can never do it. Therefore they can never come up with a non-fallacious proposal, which is a summary of the entire CAGW debate, isn’t it?

    While money calculation has the huge advantage of enabling a calcluation of different options in units of a lowest common denominator – thus enabling rational comparison – it has the huge disadvantage that it can’t be used for things that aren’t exchanged against money, such as climate.

    However this in no way reduces the utility of money calculation, and in no way vindicates the utility of policy action.


  • #

    Usual Suspect:

    People are changing Earth so much, warming and polluting it, that many scientists are turning to a new way
    to describe the time we live in.

    Who are these scientists?

    The movement was jump-started and the name coined by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2000, according to Australian National University scientist Will Steffen.

    Maybe Will Steffen would like debate Patrick Moore.

    With 97% consensus on Steffen’s side, Steffen could convince anyone.


  • #

    14 Oct: Guardian: Oliver Milman: Commonwealth Bank sued in bid to reveal carbon pollution it finances
    Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility launches proceedings after failing to force bank to put the issue up for shareholder vote
    A court case has been launched against the Commonwealth Bank (CBA) after it rejected a shareholder request for it to reveal the level of greenhouse gas emissions it finances.
    Activist group the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), which is a minor shareholder in the CBA, banded together with more than 100 other shareholders to ask the bank to report on the amount of carbon pollution it finances…
    ACCR lodged a case in the federal court on Tuesday challenging the CBA’s refusal to put the resolution to shareholders at its upcoming annual general meeting. If it were put to shareholders, the resolution would require a simple majority to pass…
    If the test case is successful, it will allow shareholders to put greater pressure on corporations, such as banks, over issues such as climate change and human rights….
    “We think the issue of unburnable carbon is an important public interest issue that is important information for shareholders,” said Felicity Millner, the director of litigation at Environmental Justice Australia, which is representing ACCR…


    • #
      the Griss

      Maybe someone should sue this Activist group for a list of all memebers that ANY form of fossil fuel.

      Also, how many of them stand to make a buck from the demonisation of the world’s supply plant food.

      Also , how many of them advocate continuing to dis-allow the use of fossil fuels to enhance the HUMAN RIGHTS of people in African countries.

      Agenda driven, anti-human, HYPOCRITES, the lot of them. !!


      • #

        I see ANU is divesting itself of all fossil fuel shares in its Billion dollar plus portfolio.

        I’ll lay a pound to a pinch of salt that they remain connected to the electrical power grid, as probably one of the big electricity consumers in Australia, along with every other University.

        Anyway, what’s a Uni doing with a BILLION DOLLAR plus share portfolio. It is divesting itself of shares in 7 Companies, (Santos, Oil Search, Iluka Resources, Sandfire, Sirius, Newcrest and Independence Group) worth $16 Million, which is less than 2% of their estimated $1.1 Billion holdings.

        Come on ANU, be really brave. Go off the grid.

        I dare you!


        Source – ANU Divestment


        • #

          Isn’t the Internet a wonderful thing. You can laugh at these green renewable supporters and actually back it up with real time data.

          So we have a total wind power for all of Australia east of the WA border of 3342MW Nameplate, around 1800 wind towers.

          It’s currently delivering around 800MW, around 27%, so relatively close to its average 30% Capacity Factor.

          That’s the same power delivery as ONE of the three currently running units at Bayswater, and a third of the power from a second unit.

          So, in today’s dollars, all that wind has cost around $30 Billion in construction costs alone.

          And it can’t even equal a third of one power plant.

          Give me strength!

          Incidentally, those two units humming along at the Northern Power Station in SA are 30 years old, a life span wind power can only dream of reaching.



        • #

          OK, get ANU off the Grid and what about the gas pipeline from SthAus that was run into the ACT back in the 1980’s with gas discovered by, you guessed it, Santos that corporate pariah. Canberra people use natural gas to run their home central heating furnaces to get them through those cold winters,what a bunch of hypocrites.


  • #

    reality soundbites:

    VIDEO 2 mins 37 secs: 14 Oct: BBC Hardtalk: ‘No carbon tax for Australia’
    Stephen Sackur challenges Australian Treasury Minister Joe Hockey about his government’s record, and whether targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions are really going far enough?

    living in a fantasy world:

    14 Oct: ABC: Dr Karl’s Great Moments In Science: Global warming costs the economy
    Welcome back to the final episode of my epic series on the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming…
    Insurance companies are one of the biggest of big businesses on the planet. They account for about 7 per cent of the global economy. But if insurance companies want to stay in business, they have to deal with reality. They long ago accepted the science of global warming…
    It turns out that going to a non-carbon economy would actually be cheaper than burning carbon. This is because of the combination of the plummeting price of renewable energy, and the so-called ‘hidden externalities’ of burning carbon…
    Paul Krugman, the 2008 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences analysed two reports. One was by the blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, while the other was by the International Monetary Fund. These serious and thorough analyses found that limiting carbon emissions would have, according to Krugman: “hardly any effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth”…
    Whatever mix of government policies that will arise around the world, there has to be one consistent factor — the complete elimination of any emissions from the burning of carbon…
    (from the first comment: “Thanks Dr K. Very interesting to learn that a Nobel laureate in economics sees no threat to the world economy if we wean ourselves off fossil fuels.”)


  • #

    13 Oct: CanadaFreePress: Krugman vs. Krugman on Carbon Taxes
    By Institute for Energy Research
    As time passes, those calling for aggressive government action in the name of fighting climate change have had to ramp up their rhetoric and, in many cases, change their story from just a few years earlier. A recent example is Paul Krugman, when he describes a new IMF study by saying that government policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions may now have zero cost. Not only is this totally wrong—the study’s authors certainly claim no such thing—but it contradicts what a more sensible Krugman wrote back in 2009, when he warned his green comrades to not say cringe-worthy things about there being free lunches in fighting climate change.
    Krugman of Christmas Past Says Carbon Taxes Will Be Costly…READ ON


  • #

    note what Hockey said in the following beat-up and in video already posted: ““We’ve got a small population and very large land mass and we are an exporter of energy, so that measurement is a falsehood ***in a sense*** because it does not properly reflect exactly what our economy is.” etc:

    14 Oct: News Ltd: Malcolm Farr: Joe Hockey gets confused about Australia’s harmful gas emissions on BBC’s Hardtalk show
    The Treasurer described his interviewer’s statement that Australia was the worst emitter of harmful gass amongst industrialised nations as “ridiculous”.
    The trouble for Mr Hockey is that, per head of population, Australia is the worst…
    Labor’s climate change spokesman Mark Butler said the Treasurer didn’t know facts about his own country.
    “What’s ridiculous is that Australia’s Treasurer doesn’t know this about Australia,” said Mr Butler.
    “The nation’s most senior economic leader has embarrassed himself on international TV over a fact most school students would know.”…


  • #

    read all, but excerpting this for Readfearn (see second link):

    14 Oct: AFR: Misa Han: What political and business leaders say about ANU’s ban
    “There is no solution to global base-load power generation that does not feature a major role for coal. Coal fired power generation has assisted in lifting over 500 million people – principally in China – out of poverty and providing them with higher standards of living,” – Labor resources spokesman Gary Gray, Oct 13…

    14 Oct: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: How big coal is lobbying G20 leaders and trying to capture the global poverty debate
    America’s biggest coal company gave ‘self-serving’ and ‘disingenuous’ presentation to G20 meeting, claims academic
    So when Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said “coal is good for humanity” I can’t help but picture a few corks liberated from the necks of expensive bottles of bubbly in coal company boardrooms…
    But back to Brisbane (my home as it happens) where the city’s public relations arm – Brisbane Marketing – is preparing to host a series of “Global Cafe” talkfests as side-events to the G20.
    Peabody Energy is sole main sponsor of one of the five Global Cafe “themes” titled “Powering Future Economies – Energy”.
    Brisbane Marketing lists the British Broadcasting Corporation as a media partner for the coal-sponsored event…
    Almost nobody argues against the desperate need for the world’s poor to be able to access better technology to improve indoor air pollution and to be able to get access to electricity.
    The World Bank, the International Energy Agency and the United Nations are among those who say it’s an issue that needs to be urgently tackled.
    Peabody and other coal industry figures often quote those institutions in their energy poverty lobbying.
    They don’t quote the World Bank when it says: “Climate change is a fundamental threat to development in our lifetime. If we do not confront climate change, we will not end poverty”…
    In the energy poverty debate, the public needs to know where concern for the world’s poor stops and the coal industry’s profit motive starts.
    That public includes Tony Abbott.


    • #

      “14 Oct: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: …”
      No need to read any further. Know it’s just going to be just another whiney piece with plenty of bile. Since his inaugural performance at that debate in Brisbane with Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer and Barry Brook, it’s been once long road to irrelevance.


  • #

    speaking of the poor!

    14 Oct: AgriNews: Ag revolution in Africa may boost global carbon emissions
    Productivity-boosting agricultural innovations in Africa could lead to an increase in global deforestation rates and carbon emissions, a Purdue University study finds.
    Historically, improvements in agricultural technology have conserved land and decreased carbon emissions at the global level: Gaining better yields in one area lessens the need to clear other areas for crops, sidestepping a land conversion process that can significantly raise the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
    Agricultural advances in Africa, however, could have the reverse effect, increasing globally the amount of undeveloped land converted to cropland and raising greenhouse gas emissions, said Thomas Hertel, a distinguished professor of agricultural economics…
    ***The most carbon-rich land, however, should be immediately protected from conversion to cropland, Hertel said.
    “We need to prevent regions in Africa that are rich in carbon and biodiversity from being cleared for agriculture to avoid increasing emissions,” he said. “Boosting yields brings many benefits, but increasing global food supplies while minimizing the environmental footprint of agriculture remains a major challenge.”
    (The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science)

    Green Revolutions in Asia, Latin America & Middle East were good; in Africa, not so much!

    Sept: PNAS: Global market integration increases likelihood that a future African Green Revolution could increase crop land use and CO2 emissions
    Although the historical Green Revolution in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East is shown to have been land sparing, a future Green Revolution in Africa could lead to global cropland expansion in the context of a more fully integrated global agricultural economy…
    Our historical analysis demonstrates that the Green Revolution in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East was unambiguously land and emissions sparing, compared with a counterfactual world without these innovations. In contrast, we find that the environmental impacts of a prospective African Green Revolution are potentially ambiguous…

    btw Bloomberg’s Sustainability homepage has three listings today for:

    “Pentagon Warns Climate Change Will Intensify Conflict”



  • #

    What are the chances of Patrick Moore getting a gig on the AlpBC or being reported in Fauxfax when he is in Australia?


    • #
      Paul Evans

      The ABC has turned down Patrick to appear on the 7.30 Report and Lateline, as has the National Press Club and no interest so far from Fairfax.

      Waleed Ali from ABC Radio National will be interviewing him next week.


      • #
        Peter C

        Well good on Waleed Ali!

        This might be the first positive and useful thing he has done. But give credit where it is due. Maybe he is one thinking person of the ABC team.


  • #
    Sam Geoghegan

    Lol; Heartland.

    Could you be any less neutral?


  • #
     D o u g   C o t t o n 


    Patrick Moore (if you read this) …

    We know water vapour reduces the temperature gradient. So consider water vapour levels in the range of 1% to 4% in the lower troposphere. Empirical evidence shows regions with 1% have higher mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than those with 4% at similar latitudes and altitudes and more than 100Km from a large water body that may regulate temperatures. (That’s in my study.) We also know that the reduction in the gradient is less for 1% than it is for 4% water vapour, these being realistic extremes according to observation. So if the average is about 2% that would be about 15 degrees of warming for each 1%. Sketch the plot of temperature against altitude for these scenarios with 1% and 4%. How could there possibly be radiative balance if water vapour jacks up the surface temperature and reduces the magnitude of the gradient at the same time? There would be even more warming than 15 degrees per 1% in the upper troposphere because the gradient is less steep. That’s ludicrous! Radiative balance at TOA rarely gets out by more than 0.5%. This is such a glaring error in the GH conjecture that I’m astonished so many have been so seriously misled by so few.


  • #

    Seen too late…no Scotty to beam me up…well, transfer me rapidly a two hour drive into Melbourne. Rats!


  • #

    another failure for the CAGW activists in Brussels:

    24 Oct: LondonSouthEast: dpa: EU Climate Deal Disappoints Environmentalists
    Under the agreement, carbon dioxide emissions are to be cut by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and at least 27% of EU energy is to be derived from renewable sources by then.
    Energy consumption is to be cut by at least 27% – a lower figure than originally anticipated. However, countries are “free to set their own, higher national targets,” the leaders wrote in a joint statement…
    EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the EU was sending “a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries: We have done our homework, now we urge you to follow Europe’s example.”…
    Environmental groups were scathing of the compromise, with Brook Riley of Friends of the Earth Europe calling the 40% emissions reduction target “dangerously irresponsible.”
    “This deal does nothing to end Europe’s dependency on fossil fuels or to speed up our transition to a clean energy future. It’s a deal that puts dirty industry interests ahead of citizens and the planet,” Riley said.
    Natalia Alonso of Oxfam said: “Insufficient action like this from the world’s richest countries places yet more burden on the poorest people most affected by climate change, but least responsible for causing this crisis.”
    Negotiators laboured to win over Eastern European countries to the package agreed Friday…
    As part of the deal, the eastern members were granted support measures to help them on the energy front.
    Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz said she was leaving the summit with “no extra burdens” for her country, describing the deal as a “guarantee” that energy prices won’t rise until 2030.
    The deal includes a review clause, thought to have been demanded by Warsaw among others, to revisit the targets after 2015 if an ambitious international treaty is not reached…
    The international community has struggled to reverse a rise in temperatures, despite global efforts to burn less fossil fuel and use more renewable energy…

    24 Oct: Irish Times: Ireland’s reliance on agriculture recognised in EU climate deal
    Dairy industry can continue to grow without risk of EU fines for methane gas emissions
    by Suzanne Lynch, Arthur Beesley
    This marks something of a coup for Taoiseach Enda Kenny, who had argued at the outset of talks against the prospect of “unreachable” targets being set for Ireland.
    Even as EU leaders settled on overall targets, they deferred talks on specific national targets until after a UN climate conference in Paris in December 2015…
    Outgoing European Council president Herman Van Rompuy said the decision not to set national targets this point was taken at the behest of member states…
    The leaders also agreed that member states will be required to make 15 per cent of their power generation capacity available to other countries. This followed requests from Spain and Portugal, who are keen to export more energy to neighbouring countries such as France…


    • #

      Climate Commie is hailing getting her 40%.
      A good day for climate politics

      That’s short for Commisioner btw.


    • #

      ” … at least 27% of EU energy is to be derived from renewable sources by then..
      Energy consumption is to be cut by at least 27% …”

      What does that say about renewables (or should that be unreliables)?


    • #

      that member states will be required to make 15 per cent of their power generation capacity available to other countries. This followed requests from Spain and Portugal, who are keen to export more energy to neighbouring countries such as France…

      It’s as well that says capacity & not output.
      You can have our excess wind capacity. You know, the 70% or so we can never use. The bit that makes it up to nameplate.


  • #

    Meanwhile, look what’s turned up here …


  • #

    Patrick Moore on Richo and Jones.

    Patrick Moore on Miranda Devine 2GB radio show.

    Patrick Moore on Alan Jones.