Why launch a $15 billion dollar tax? Forget any scientific reason; let’s do it so people overseas don’t laugh at us. This is as good as the reasoning gets. Have you got a Nobel? You too, could waffle on about hobbling our economy in the quest for international popularity.
Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty says Australia is being seen internationally as “public enemy number one” on climate change
“Australia is being regarded as public enemy number one,” said Professor Doherty, who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine in 1996.
The evidence Australia is seen as a public enemy?
“That’s a statement that’s been made to me by a couple of people – so that’s obviously a kind of buzz that’s going around the climate change community.”
Not exactly a large poll or a mass survey, but it impressed Dan Harrison, the Sydney Morning Herald and perhaps Ben Cubby (Environment Editor) too. Who needs evidence when you have the right “buzz”? Baseless ramblings are good to go. File that rant under “Health and Indigenous Affairs” I suppose. It sure isn’t science.
The SMH could interview other Nobel Prize winners who use evidence and reason instead of ideological namecalling based on two anonymous friends.
The polls show that most of the international population don’t care about their own emissions, let alone Austria’s, err, Australia’s. Half the world thinks climate scientists don’t know what they are talking about, and with the help of Doherty, soon they won’t think much of Nobel Prize winners either.
We could have so much fun doing a show like this Busting the Religion called Climate Change.
Why recycle? “It feels good”
The show uses a few more crass words than it needs to, apart from that it’s a lighthearted satire that kills quite a few sacred cows. The first 5 minutes sets it up with a bunch of people telling us that believe it makes them a better community player, a better mom, a good example for their kids, and helps the planet etc etc. Then Penn and Teller do some creative experiments on unsuspecting victims of the Recycling Religion.
This so lends itself to climate change. We could lead people through a series of questions where they agree to statements revealing they believe windtowers stop storms and solar panels hold back the tide.
Just add your voice. (It appears to be still open, though that may change any minute). You don’t have to do a big document. My post on submissions was last week.
The Australian government website asks these questions:
Q.1 What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.
Q2. What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
Australia would be more competitive economically by removing unnecessary restrictions on CO2. As the largest driest continent with vast arid zones, both our farmers and arid conservation areas benefit from extra atmospheric CO2.
Q3 We need to get the science right before we take any more expensive action.
For the sake of the environment, town-planning, and agriculture, the first and most important priority needs to be an accurate understanding of our climate so predictions start to be useful.
For thirty years climate scientists have failed to narrow the estimates of climate sensitivity, nor produce models that work on decadal, short term, global, or continental scales. No further investments should be made to mitigate “Climate change” until we understand the climate, and predictions are useful, and models validated. Australia should invest in broad ranging, creative research, seriously investigating potential natural cause of climate change. This research should be undertaken preferably with scientists from specialties with a proven track record of scientific achievement (ie. outside the current climate science specialty.)
Many problems are evident with the Australian BOM data sets. Like all important national financial and economic data, these need independent replication.
The Calbuco volcano in Chile has suddenly erupted. People have been evacuated from a 20km radius. Local flights are canceled. The ash cloud is moving east. It’s not clear yet how much effect it will have on the climate. But it is big and worth watching. So far, there are no reported casulties. This volcano has been quiet for 42 years, and caught everyone by surprise. h/t David W
All the usual suspects declared it could never work. Instead, “Direct Action” is likely to be wildly cheaper and more effective (at reducing CO2). The catch is, it won’t reward friends of big-government and it won’t punish miners, manufacturers and small businesses — which must be why climate activists don’t like it.
Results are just in from the first Abbott government Direct Action carbon auctions. The government offered to pay for carbon reduction, and held a reverse auction (where people who bid the lowest price would win). The average price came in at $14 a ton.
The Numbers: The Australian government will spend $660 million to reduce emissions by 47mT. These projects will run for about 7 years, and mean the government is on track to meet the target of 180mT reduction by 2020. — Details are at the Clean Energy Regulator.
It’s a lot less than the fantasy schemes that use wind and solar power, of which cost estimates vary partly because no one really knows what the lifespan and disposal costs are. One MIT study estimated the cost of abating carbon with wind was about $60 AUD per ton, and the cost of solar was $700 AUD per ton. (Marcantonini, 2013). Another estimate put the price of carbon reduction at South Australian windfarms at $1484 per ton. Pick a number — whatever it is, it’s a lot more than $14.
Direct Action is 5, 10 or 327 times cheaper than The Carbon Tax
The Gillard Government’s carbon tax was advertised as $24 per ton, but it was the price of emitting a ton (which is different from the $14 per ton price of that applies to actual reductions. The carbon tax is a hopelessly indirect way to buy “carbon reduction”. It took $15 billion from Australians and only abated 2.9 million tons of emissions. In a way, Labor’s carbon price ended up being $5310 per ton. There is no denying the distorting effect on the economy of a $15 billion dollar impost. The Carbon Tax applied to everything, hoping to make all energy users more efficient, but there were not many gains to be had across the board. Energy use is fairly inelastic, people were already doing the easy and cheap things. In comparison, Direct Action takes a small slice of tax, and only tries to change the behaviour of a few industries which can make the biggest difference.
In the end, the vast bulk of the carbon abatement from Direct Action comes (predictably) from “sequestration” (28mT) and “landfill and waste” (18mT). In this auction, the cheapest form of carbon reductions come from things like forest protection, carbon farmers, and landfill gas projects.
Carbon Farming: We pay for it now, but the governments just stole it for years
Spare a thought for the first carbon farmers who were paid nothing — they were the victims of the Native Vegetation Acts. By stopping clearing of private property, the governments (of both persuasions) locked in most of our reductions for the Kyoto agreement. Our per capita emissions fell by 28% from 1990 to 2014. But two-thirds of that 28% came from “land use changes and forestry”. Some families like Peter Spencer‘s lost their life’s work. The carbon credits they were forced to provide for the Commonwealth still counted in the tallies today. When will they get paid? (At a ballpark estimate, Spencer’s property would be worth something like $40m in “carbon abatement” at todays prices.)
What Direct Action won’t “achieve” is a class of dependent corporates
The most important outcome is that, unlike a carbon market, there won’t be a new dependent class of companies who have to go to Parliament lobbyist-in-hand to beg or butter up MP’s. With a blanket carbon tax, every industry wants carbon-permits, or free passes, for themselves to keep doing business as usual. The carbon market of the EU, Rudd, and Gillard fosters these sort of deals and pleas. Big-government could use subsidies to feed industries that will vote and cheer for them (think renewables). They could use the fake free markets to put reigns on the real free market. (What would stop them?) The miners, the electricity generators, the manufacturers generate independent wealth and power, and if they choose too, they could run major campaigns against the big-government taxes and imposts. But if they need to ask special favours, they are less likely to rock the boat. A carbon price is just another tool to keep them in line and obedient; it sure isn’t much good at reducing carbon.
The bottom line
If we assume that reducing CO2 is pointless (we do), the Abbott government has wasted $660m dollars, but at least there are some not-so-bad side products. (How low are our expectations?) The Coalition has wasted less money than Labor on trying to change the weather, though both policies have the same impact on the climate. As a least-worst-scenario, we end up with more money, forests and trees, and some of the energy generated from landfill will be useful. It’s a shame the Coalition will be more efficient at reducing our emissions (because we should be emitting more CO2), but for a plan with a dumb target, this outcome is as good as it gets. Shutting it all down would be better. Tell the Abbott government what you think (last day to get your submissions in.)
Alternately, the critics (reneweconomy) say that the 7 year contracts won’t deliver in time, and it won’t meet the delusional ambits the Climate Change Authority that were put out yesterday. They were uncosted fairy wish-list aims, released by a group that is essentially an advertising panel set up by the previous Labor government. Predictably, the group announced a new pie-in-the-sky target. Today, critics of the carbon auctions can say (vaguely) “but it won’t meet the targets” which has all the right PR buzz-words, if not much relevant meaning.
Jo Nova is 100% powered by donations from people like you
REFERENCES
Marcantonini and Ellerman (2013) The cost of abating CO2 emissions by renewable energy incentives in Germany. MIT Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, CEEPR WP 2013-005
In March we enjoyed Earth Hour, when citizens were urged to turn off their lights around the world. Last week was Dark Sky Week, an effort to make citizens aware of “light pollution.” It’s always Dark Sky Week in Africa, where the majority of a billion people don’t have access to electricity.
To paraphrase: People who disagree with my economic predictions should not get funds.
UPDATE:What an extraordinary moment. UWA has announced that due to the unexpected “passion” of the staff and students they have to cancel the Lomborg Consensus Centre (May 8th 2015). Does UWA do science-by-passion?
The Australian Government is spending $2.5 billion on Direct Action to reduce atmospheric carbon. They offer to spend a tiny $4m extra setting up a centre for an economist who studies the effectiveness of action to change the climate.
“…it’s an insult to Australia’s scientific community.”
It’s an insult I tell you! Imagine taking Australia’s climate scientists seriously, and setting up an economics centre to solve the crisis they say is occurring. How could any scientist stand that.
Lomborg-the-economist agrees completely with the IPCC and Flannery on the climate science. But he disagrees on the economic and policy positions. Obviously it’s a disaster if the Flannery-IPCC economic predictions are subject to analysis.
Flannery, self-satirical, on the appointment of Lomberg:
“Mr Lomborg’s views have no credibility in the scientific community. His message hasn’t varied at all in the last decade and he still believes we shouldn’t take any steps to mitigate climate change. When someone is unwilling to adapt their view on the basis of new science or information, it’s usually a sign those views are politically motivated.”
So here’s Tim Flannery ten years ago, predicting permanent rainfall drops, back-to-back El Ninos, dry dams by 2007. How much has he changed his position based on the evidence?
ABC’s Lateline, June 10, 2005:
I’m afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly…
…. the most worrying [phenomenon] is this semi-permanent el Nino-like condition that’s occurring as the Pacific Ocean warms up, and we’re seeing much longer el Ninos than we’ve seen before and often now back-to-back el Ninos with very little of the la Nina cycle, the flood cycle, in between.
… we’ve seen some quite considerable and look to be permanent rainfall drops across much of southern and eastern Australia.
look at the Warragamba catchment figures, they’ve got about two years of supply left…
MAXINE McKEW: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with – if that’s right – back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
TIM FLANNERY: That’s right. That looks to be the case.
Who is politically motivated Tim?
This is why the work of the Climate Council is so important – to counter this continuing ideological attempt at deceiving the Australian public.
Spot the ideology: Is it better for the environment if we spend every environmental dollar carefully? Do we want to get actual environmental outcomes and reduce CO2, or is it better to spend those dollars propping up a green industry that won’t change the weather, but does sponsor Flannery’s work sometimes? Is it better to lower emissions, or to get the sort of government that pays Flannery to advertise their policies?
Hat tip to Safetyguy66 who calls the Flannery quote “pure comedy gold”. Submitted on 2015/04/22 at 9:01 am
Edit12pm : The end of the headline changed from “shoots himself in the foot”. It just wasn’t very good. – Jo
Here’s a monster number lurking under an invisibility cloak. It’s the Quadrillion dollar bomb, and either the fuse has been lit, or it’s already going off in a slow motion big-bang. I first mentioned it way back when I talked about the danger of Carbon credits as another fiat Currency (my 12th post). Hang on for the ride.
The Repo action is now much worse than in the GFC (check out that graph below — the “GFC” was a speed bump). The volcano bubbling at the end suggests that the Derivatives Bomb probably started a slow motion explosion early last year. The US Federal Reserve are trying to contain it.
Derivatives* are often used for insurance or hedging, but are mainly highly leveraged bets.They are so much larger than the actual market, it’s better described as a global casino. World GDP is around US$60 trillion but there are at least US$600 trillion of derivative contracts, perhaps as much as US$1.5 quadrillion, as measured by face value, according to the Bank of International Settlements (the “central bank of central banks”). The problem is that all the bank debt or “all the money in the world” is less than US250 trillion.
On the surface the financial world seems pretty calm about the Derivatives Monster Market. The nominal value is huge but it’s made of pluses and minuses that net to zero. For every winner there is a loser. That is to say, it’s a kind of imaginary funny-money in a zero sum game, and funny-money-debts wipe out funny-money-wins, so it doesn’t really affect the Real World. The problem is that if one bank goes broke, it doesn’t net-out, because the net disintegrates. It only works as long as almost all the losers can pay off what they owe. If a loser is bankrupted, the winner also becomes a loser. And the losses spread like an infection. The “winner” may have placed paired bets to minimize risk. So they thought they could use their winnings on one side to pay of their losses on the other. But now they default too and the financial plague grows. Funny-money losses have just become Real Debt.
In the last year some futures players have been hammered (think of the swings in oil, iron ore, the US dollar). There must have been some shocker-sized margin calls that went under the radar. Sometimes the losing side can toss some more money in to fend off the Debt Collector’s wolves; then they avoid closing out the contract and realizing the loss. Some players will have been in a life-or-death hunt for anything to pledge as collateral. When you are too big to fail, and seeking cash, who you gonna call? The guys who can create infinite money of course — the US Fed.
Total RePo’s. Compare the 2014 action with 2008. Units: “millions of dollars”
Reverse repurchase agreements held by the Federal Reserve: All Maturities
Bill Holter has a theory about how these big margin losses have been hidden. RePo’s are repurchase agreements from the US Fed, it’s like The Pawn Shop for global finance. If you have an “asset” you can swap for cash, the US Fed will “print” the money, and keep your asset. You agree to repurchase it back some day. In theory the Fed have not printed money from nothing, because the amount of money is the same as the asset’s value. But who decides that value? In extremis, the Fed could value any asset at what ever they say is worth. The assets are supposed to be AAA (and we all know what that means), but increasingly any old thing will do and the rules are ignored because “bigger things” are at stake. That last volcanic action in RePo’s could just be the speculators crashing in the derivatives game, getting margin calls then going to the Fed and to hock the best collateralised junk they have left, and get the cash to stay afloat.
For years I have described the current financial situation as a “giant margin call” waiting to happen. The derivatives market is a zero sum game where someone wins and someone loses, the danger of course is someone losing so badly they become insolvent and cannot make payment to the “winner” …which would make all parties a loser in the game. This is the fear, the derivatives chain breaks somewhere along the way and creates a domino effect both upstream and downstream causing the entire credit system to lock up.
Think about what has happened over just the last six months alone. We have seen unprecedented FOREX movements. The dollar has strengthened close to 30% over this timeframe while oil has dropped about 50%. The cross between the euro and the Swiss franc saw an almost 30% move in less than 10 minutes one Monday morning in January. There have been some very big gains AND some very big losses which would explain the need for “more collateral” which is exactly what these reverse repo’s provide.
He goes on to say “this time it’s different”. Holter argues that there must be massive hidden losses in derivatives and estimates the losses on the USD to be about $3 trillion. He (and I) wonders how any corporation on Earth could survive even “5%” of that, and that’s just the US Dollar losses.
Holter goes on to point out that what the Fed is probably doing is technically illegal. Presumably they have the best lawyers that money can buy so this is not really relevant. Hm.
So what happens now? The derivative problem can only get larger and drag down more and more participants into a mess of unpayable debt, defaults, and margin calls. Sure the central banks can create infinite cash, but eventually it becomes meaningless. According to this chart, the mess and stress is now much larger than in the GFC, and has been going on in the background for a year now. Maybe that helps explain the high number of suicides in the banking industry lately?
* Derivatives are deals on changes in any financial quantity, such as the value of a stock, a foreign exchange rate, an interest rate, a commodity price, etc.
Unskeptical-scientists, like Hansen, Trenberth, and Mann, have plastered their name on a document aiming to stop scientific research. They want less science funding. Who hates science then?
The Ethical Poseurs
Who cares about the ethics of fossil fuels funding skeptics, but doesn’t care when renewable-energy corporations sponsor pro-crisis exhibitions? Siemens was principle sponsor of the UK Science Museum’s propaganda gallery on climate science. It makes EUR 80 million profit each quarterfrom wind and renewables. Where is the outrage? When mercenary corporates use museums to boost their profits, that’s OK for Hansen, Trenberth and Mann. The other big sponsor was Shell, which profits from gas sales, when its cheap competitor coal gets hit thanks to “climate-panic”. Shell, of course, likes windmills, which need a gas form of back up.
Time skeptics stood up for science funding
We skeptics need to stop buying into the bullying and intimidation of those who say fossil fuels can fund unskeptical research but not skeptical (i.e. real) research. The sole reason they do this is to starve skeptics and to poison the well for audiences. It is anti-science, anti-free-speech, anti-intellectual in every way.
Most times when a skeptic says “we take no fossil fuel funding” it caves to that meme. It feeds the monster. It is as if skeptics are confirming that unskeptical activists are right to “expose” and discuss funding without even discussing the research. It is never OK to use an ad hom in place of an argument. The correct response of any scientist accused of receiving any money “linked” to fossil fuels is to say:
“We’d be grateful if we were. Please give my details to the Koch Brothers.
So you are still too scared to discuss the science? If you can find a problem with my research, we would talk about that instead, wouldn’t we?“
It’s time scientists talked science instead of “vested interests”
The Unskeptical-scientists don’t want to debate this through peer review, they’re terrified. Knobbling competing scientists by attacking their funding is their best strategy; their scientific case is riddled with holes.
That’s why it is great to see a group of scientists take this head-on, and you can join them.
The Natural History Museum has written an open letter to other museums – telling them to stop taking fossil fuel money (specifically Koch funding) for vapor thin ethical reasons, and because they are nice people who really care a lot about the planet.
CO2Science has an Open Response, where they are collecting names in support. Essentially, they point out that it boils down to a well funded mob complaining that skeptics got about 1% as much money from philanthropic donors as they did:
Instead of arguments based on science and facts, the movement labels any who question their dogma as “deniers,” funded, according to the letter, by “climate-change-denying organizations spending over $67 million since 1997 to fund groups denying climate change science.” The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Orders of magnitude more funding has been given by governments and foundations to organizations and individuals charged with “scientifically” proving the alleged evils of CO2 and inventing ways to cope with it. In 2011 alone, ten large foundations donated $577 million to environmental causes, nearly ten times more than the total funding since 1997 to the so-called “deniers.” And that does not count tens of billions of dollars from the government and other foundations. Apparently the movement’s scientific case is so weak that they feel threatened by any research that does not support their doctrine.
We applaud support for informative studies of the climate, for example, ocean monitoring programs, satellite instruments, or meteorological networks with high-quality data archives. This work needs no defense from scientific challenges, regardless of the source of funding. The honest scientists responsible for much of this excellent work cannot be blamed for the excesses of the anti-fossil fuel movement. But the signers of the letter include some of the biggest feeders at the climate trough, who benefit from millions of dollars of funding every year for research empires, which, in many cases, stoke a propaganda mill instead of producing real science. In the interests of transparency and intellectual integrity, the signatories of the “To the Museums” letter should have each revealed their annual and cumulative climate funding.
Their hypocritical ethics claims, and the obvious outcome of less funding for science mean it’s hard to see any aim in this other than to shut down any investigation that threatens their status, their funding or their religious belief. Pure scientific parasites.
How can more funding for science be bad? The answer is “when the funding is already monopolistic, biased, and one-sided and extra funding makes the balance worse.” Though the danger here is merely that the well funded team produces more irrelevant, repetitive papers. If science journalists were half smart and properly trained, that would hardly matter.
Funding should be declared, but always research stands or falls on it’s evidence and its arguments. The time for talking about funding only comes after some grievous problem is found with the research, or if the research is hard to replicate and dependent on data collected and maintained by the same team.
They ask museums “to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry and funders of climate science obfuscation.”
The letter has no chance of actually working because fossil fuel empire funds more pro-panic exhibits than it has ever funded skeptical ones. The UK science museum is very happy to take money from Shell and BP. Likewise British Museum, Tate, and others, ahem, are ethically quite OK with BP money, oil spills and all. Though the letter has already achieved what it probably wanted, which is mass PR as most in the gullible media sucked it up.
—
TO ADD YOUR NAME
We welcome additional signers, both US and non-US citizens, who are informed about CO2 and climate.
If you would like to add your name, please send a note to [email protected].
UPDATE: What an extraordinary moment. UWA has announced that due to the unexpected “passion” of the staff and students they have to cancel the Lomborg Consensus Centre (May 8th 2015). They give no rational reason — this is caving in to bullies. The government needs to fund this centre as an independent unit. Academia in Australia is beyond saving. “Lomborg commits the unforgivable sin of failing to feed friends of big-government.”
Bjorn Lomborg writes in The Australian reasonably often, so he is fairly well known amongst the thinking set in Australia.
The Consensus Centre is coming to UWA, my old alma mater, and former home of Steven Lewandowsky, and PhD candidate John Cook. Strange company indeed. It is promising that something rational will probably come forth from UWA for a change. It’s also promising that the Abbott government seems to recognise the need to break the monopoly in funding by a small amount. The choice of UWA might not be as outlandish as people think. It is as politically as pathetically correct as any university, but it doesn’t have a major climate gravy train. Their climate science courses page says it all — they only have a generic enviro-science major, and a bland “thesis” for postgrads. Their Climate Science page is (as wiki would say) a “stub article” in need of content. It links to the UnskepticalScience blog, Lewandowskys nearly dead blog, and one respectable twitter account. In other words, $4m would make a huge difference in UWA-climate-land, which is a vacuum. I don’t think there was any chance of Lomborg getting help from say, Uni NSW instead (where Sherwood, England, Pitman, “Deltoid” and the-man-who-got-stuck-in-Antarctic-ice, work.)
Punish the “contrarian” — even if he agrees with nearly everything
The news of this started doing the rounds a few weeks ago. Curiously, apart from tiny news stories, there was not much interest until The Guardian decided to expose the Abbott government “funding contrarians”, as if a government should only ever fund one opinion, and as if that crude descriptor fits Bjorn Lomborg, who agrees with the IPCC about the science, but not about how to solve the “crisis”. But just as with Roger Pielke Jnr, even borderline apostates must be punished. Such is the fear from the climate religion that their unscientific facade will crumble, they have to protest every grant outside the tribe. So Lenore Taylor, the author at The Guardian, didn’t miss the chance to discuss the potential, vague, undescribed “links” between the Consensus Centre and alleged fossil fuel funding. The Consensus Centre replied that it doesn’t accept any, and indeed, recommends “the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and increasing investment in RD&D for green energy technologies.” So why are we even talking about imagined possible “links” with fossil fuels? Because most well trained green-journalists can’t write an article without mentioning the “fossil fuel” ad hom. It’s reflexive.
NTEU national president Jeannie Rea said: “These [Australian] researchers will understandably be furious that the Minister for Education has found a spare $4 million to establish a research centre that has not been required to go through any competitive process and seems to have arisen from discussions between UWA, the government and departmental officials.
It’s not about finding solutions about the climate, or making enviro-dollars useful, it’s about toeing the tribal line. Poor Clodagh Guildea, the petition founder, studied science at post-modern UWA, and thinks Lomborg is “entirely out of step with scientific consensus” which shows (1) how bad she is at research, because he buys the consensus all the way, and (2) how little she knows about science. Perhaps one day UWA will teach the scientific method again, instead of training parrots to mimic authority? For UWA’s sake Clodagh, pack away your unscientific petition and stop advertising how weak the science faculty is these days.
Lomborg, half believer, half skeptic
I like Lomborg when he writes about economics. I’m not enthused about his science views. In 2010 he was using the namecalling term “denier” and appeared to know nothing much about skeptic positions apart from what he’d been taught by Al Gore. I suspect he must have improved since then — he would have met some real skeptics — because he doesn’t seem to recite that litany with the same careless habit he did then.
As for The Consensus Centre — it’s not a good name, but Lomborg’s skill is to pick a position very close to his opponents — he presents a small target, and the choice of name reflects that. Strategically, there is a certain wisdom to it, and it appears to be his genuine position too, since he does not stray far from the path. That said, I wouldn’t use it in a science debate. But they appear to have used this name since 2004.
I wish him all the best. I imagine he will hit the UWA cultural scene like a hot potato. But closet skeptics will feel more inclined to speak up. Hopefully, the climate-crisis-tribe will overplay their hand with outrage as per usual. The more the better. Sensible people can see how ridiculous it is. Good luck to him.
Let’s play the Heatwaves PR game. If CO2 had an effect we’d see a significant increase in the rate of global warming over the decades since WWII, the models would work, and climate scientists would be able to predict our climate. Since none of that is true, those with a political agenda have to clutch at noisy but marketable extremes instead. Apparently even a half-true, noisy, non-causal link is good enough for post-modern scientists.
Heatwaves are perfect for generating scientific sounding fear, but not so useful for generating actual scientific knowledge. There are an infinity of ways to measure them. They can last 3 days – 160 days, and be cut off at any number from 35 – 40C, or at some percentile outlier. They can be measured one town at a time, or on a regional or state-wide level. The permutations are rich with headline scoring possibilities. And in the end, on a long warming trend that started 300 years ago, it is obvious, inevitable, and predictable that we should score more now. What’s surprising is how often we don’t.
On ABC radio before Easter, Dr Vertessy, Director and CEO of the Bureau of Meteorology, claimed that we are seeing “of the order of five times the number of very serious heatwaves” as in the middle of last century [listen at 11 mins]. Ken Stewart wrote to Vertussy and asked what metrics he used to define heatwaves. Nearly two weeks later, Vertussy has not replied, so Ken analyzed the records himself using a 40C cut off, and also looking for the top 5% of summer maximums.
The end result is that it can be said that there happens to be more heatwaves in Adelaide, but there are less heatwaves in Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, or Darwin. When will the BOM issue headlines declaring that for nearly nine million Australians in Hobart, Melbourne, Darwin and Sydney there are less heatwaves now than there used to be. Aren’t CO2 emissions useful?
It goes without saying (nearly) that there is older Stevenson screen data for most of these locations which isn’t included, though I “can’t think why” this important historic data would be ignored.
Melbourne — top 5% “hot scoring” days (Click to enlarge)
When the Germans mess something up, they do it properly
Germany — is aiming for a 40% cut in carbon by 2020, and have “led the way” with solar and wind power. Electricity bills are now twice the price of those in North America, and some 800,000 poor people had their power cut off because they can’t pay their bills. Despite the high prices, gas power has become uneconomic, even though it is one the best methods for dealing with the erratic energy delivered from wind and solar. Nuclear can’t save them, they will have none after 2022 when the last reactor turns off.
The pain is pointless. For all the money spent, they aren’t saving much CO2, and aren’t changing the weather. They end up importing many of the goods which need energy, so the emissions occur in other countries without emissions controls. The German manufacturing sector can’t compete and struggles by on subsidies. Consumers pay more for goods or pay more through tax for the subsidies. Meanwhile, in the EU politicians seem to have realized that biofuels won’t work, but they don’t have the courage to kill them off and face the backlash — instead they fund it just enough to keep it in a zombie state.
Germany’s renewable energy levy, which subsidizes green energy production, rose from 14 billion euros to 20 billion euros in just one year as a result of the fierce expansion of wind and solar power projects. Since the introduction of the levy in 2000, the electricity bill of the typical German consumer has doubled.
As wealthy homeowners and business owners install wind turbines on their land and solar panels on their homes and commercial buildings, low-income families all over Europe have had to foot the skyrocketing electric bills. Many can no longer afford to pay, so the utilities are cutting off their power. The German Association of Energy Consumers estimates that up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they were unable to pay the country’s rising electricity bills.
Gas is uneconomic, plants are closing, 20% are unprofitable, facing shutdown:
For the last twenty years, the IPCC and co. have spared no expense in inundating us with full gloss, swanky adverts and catchy bumper stickers. The Rudd government spent $13.9 million on one advertising campaign “Think Climate, Think Change”. Yet the number of skeptics is growing — fully 53% of Australians are skeptical. The debate is more polarised than ever, and the “deniers” are often blamed for slowing action. So resolving the impasse, the stalemate, ought be the highest priority for the planet, right? But more advertising won’t change the trend, the issue has been marketed to death. What hasn’t been tried is the old fashioned, hard but honest way to resolve an issue — real public debate.
Tony Abbott could be the most forward-thinking scientifically-advanced world leader. He could be the first to take the bull by the horns and really tackle the climate stalemate. He might break the impasse. For the planet’s sake, we can’t afford to wait. Right?
The Australian Federal Government is seeking public consultation
What should the Greenhouse Gas Target be? The Federal Government is seeking your input for the UNFCCC meeting in Paris, COP 21 (see ABC news). The government also wants to know what other policies will assist the “Direct Action” approach. Submissions close Friday week. They will be published on the government website.
Let’s make it easy for the Coalition government to do the right thing by the environment and the economy, and follow the evidence. The scientific debate comes first. We need a free market in science before we get a free market in “carbon”. In order for the nation as a whole to achieve low-carbon targets, we must resolve the growing impasse.
For the sake of the environment, and the debate, we also need to replicate the BoM dataset.
If it can’t be replicated — it isn’t science.
In medicine and the economy, independent audit and replication is standard.
It’s more funding for climate research. (How can the Greens argue with that? 😉 )
The replication must be independent (not hand-picked, private forums by the BOM). Another whitewash will harden views rather than resolve them. Replication is a mere technical exercise, it works or it doesn’t; so why not get skeptics to do the replication? Then there will be no doubts about whether the independent auditors were really independent.
We also need better study of our historic records from the late 1800s. Stevenson screens were introduced across Australia during the twenty years before the BoM was formed. Why aren’t these records used in all the cities and sites that they can be? Surely we need to understand long term Australian climate variability to be able to predict and plan for the future.
Let’s move the debate forwards — hang out the dirty washing and let the sun shine in
Australia can lead the way. If the believers want to convince skeptics, the only way is to have the full public debate, and with a level field. Both teams need enough resources to make their case. Instead of silencing the doubters, a serious government provides enough funds and a platform for them to voice their questions and get real answers.
What are the BoM and climate scientists afraid of?
If the evidence is overwhelming and the research is world’s best practice, surely they will win, and this debate can be finally had and settled. Get the facts and opposing teams out, let the public watch, and may the best team win. There are no shortcuts. This public debate is not going to happen in one hour on Channel 2. It will take months of repeat rounds and be played out in many venues. As it should. The climate is too important for anything less, right? A change to government policy in education, health, defense, or interest rates gets that sort of treatment, so should the “future of the planet”. Before we spend another $2.5 billion on Direct Action, let’s spend $20 million getting the science right, understanding the uncertainties, replicating the key research, and bringing the public along. Australia will lead the way.
No one audits the IPCC, nor the BoM — yet billions depends on their reports
If the IPCC’s claims abut the climate are correct, money spent auditing would not be wasted — because it is necessary to bring the public on board. Compare this to the 2,000 public companies on the Australian Stock Exchange, many so tiny you’ve never heard of them. Twice a year every one of them pays to have their finances audited by an outside auditor, so that everyone can have confidence in what they say.
A trial without a defence is a sham.
Business without competition is a monopoly.
Science without debate is propaganda.
As long as our national climate records are managed, studied and checked and turned into press releases by the same team, the skeptical public is right to ask questions. When that team won’t answer those questions, and can’t explain why their mystery black box produces results that are different from satellites, historic records, and simple repeated statistical analysis, the skeptical public will only grow in size. Calling the skeptics names will only make the polarization worse.
Make your submission count. Read the guidelines.
1. We need real debate.
2. We need to replicate the BOM climate data.
3. We need a better understanding of our long term climate trends so we can predict and understand the impact of climate change on Australia.
h/t Eric Worrall
How to make a submission
The Australian Government values the views of the Australian community in setting Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target.
You are invited to submit your views on Australia’s post-2020 target, including:
What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.
What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?
Answering some or all of these questions will help the Government understand your views.
The Age in Melbourne published a letter from a “Maurie” declaring that the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets would “melt away in the next decade.” Monckton found it hard to believe The Age would print this drivel, and was amazed to find Maurie, apparently, is one of Australia’s foremost chemists”, — Maurice Trewhella, who seems to have won a green award at the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. (Not that I have heard of him).
So Monckton explains why the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets won’t be gone in 2024 then offers Maurie, and four others, the chance to win $100,000 each if this wild prediction comes even ten percent close. To show he is serious he offers to donate the first $10,000 to charity (so will other bet contenders). Will the “mean area of the combined Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets” in 2024 be less than 90 percent of what it was in 2014″?
Christopher Monckton:
Some 4,000 years ago, the temperature on the summit of the Greenland plateau was 2.5 Celsius degrees warmer than the present. Yet the ice did not melt. And it didn’t melt in the last interglacial period, 110,000 years ago, when again the temperature was 2.5 C degrees warmer than today’s.
When personal, ad hominem attacks are launched against a scientist there is no upside for science. People who care about science discuss the science, not the scientist’s-biography. Instead there are five potentially ugly outcomes that the mudslingers are presumably aiming for:
The target scientist may be effectively silenced: spectators tune out. Weaker journalists feel less inclined to cite them for fear of the push-back against themselves.
Another day where the scientific national conversation wallows in the gutter instead of discussing science.
The target scientist feels dissuaded. Who needs this hassle?
The message to thousands of silent skeptical scientists is unmistakable — “don’t speak” or you’re next.
Philanthropists, and corporate donors feel the heat too, and may (if they are not made of strong stuff) figure that their funding does more harm than good. This starves independent science of essential support.
These attacks don’t raise a single scientific argument. Their aim is not “better science”. Let’s turn the pain back on the mudslinger and those who aid and abet. It won’t be so much fun for them if each attack makes us stronger, crystallizes support, and exposes their anti-science intent.
This mud-ball is begging to be turned
We don’t want to play in the stupid-theater of mud, but they picked the fight, and the sooner we win, the sooner they stop. Why wait? With every email to the target and in support of the target, we win. The Smithsonian and its senior management need to hear from the good smart people of this world. Christopher Monckton, David Legates, and Matt Briggs have written a scathing report and letter inviting the Smithsonian to investigate, apologize to Willie Soon, and repair the damage. All you need to do is add your name.
For the sake of the science-donors, the other university deans, the journalists, fence-sitting politicians, and the thousands of silent onlookers, let’s stand up and stand together. Let’s let them know there are thousands of people who will not let them get away with their anti-science pogrom.
To support Willie Soon, this letter and good science, send an email with your full name and your academic qualifications to monckton[-at-]mail.com.
Christopher Monckton, David Legates, and Matt Briggs:
Researchers were sure fatter people would get more dementia, so they studied two million middle-aged people for nearly a decade but were “baffled to find the exact opposite. Their sample included 45,000 cases of dementia and the obese were 30 per cent less likely to be diagnosed with it.
This contradicts previous studies and was not at all what the researchers expected, so they analyzed the data every which way they could think of but can’t explain the results. Need I say “experts” and “consensuses”?
Scientists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said they were baffled by the results as previous studies have shown that being overweight raises the risk. —Telegraph
Risk factors such as alcohol and smoking made little difference to the results, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology. — Mirror
Dr Qizilbash said the findings held despite attempts to adjust for other causes of dementia and the tendency of obese people to die earlier. “We did a lot of analysis to see if we could explain it but just seems to persist. We couldn’t get rid of it so we’re left with this apparent protective effect,” he said. — The Australian
It’s in the Lancet (and press everywhere– like the BBC, live science, The Australian). I’m posting it for the curiosity, discussion factor, and the sheer thrill of watching the scientific method at work. (Did your government want to add food labels to tell you what to eat?)
There’s another more subtle message to politicians from the Gallop poll last week. The headline we discussed was that a whole quarter of the US are emphatic skeptics who don’t worry “at all” about climate change. But the other message is that if the politicans want to show they care about the environment, nearly every major environmental issue is more important to voters than “climate change”: 55% of the population worries about water pollution but only 32% feel the same level of concern for global warming.
On environmental concerns, climate change has the highest profile, but is consistently low ranking in the concern-stakes. People are much more worried about clean water, lakes and rivers, and air pollution rather than “climate change”. There is room here for either side of politics to step over the top of the supposedly greenest left wing parties and win voters by tackling real pollution rather than the fantasy kind. Any party that took serious action on rivers and water would earn environmental kudos and swinging votes. They wouldn’t win the die hard green vote, because those votes are not about the environment anyway. But true swingers shift between the major parties, and they are less into tribal politics and more into real outcomes. Their votes count. Wouldn’t it be something if the discussion at dinner parties was not about the “degree of green” as if it were a sliding scale from 1 – 100, but the type of green — practical, achieveable, or grandiose and grand-mal-expensive? The price of making a measurable difference to rivers and lakes is vanishingly small when compared to the cost of changing the global climate.
Most voters won’t change their vote for the environment ahead of the economy or jobs. But elections are won or lost on a few swinging percentage points. At the very least it could change the landscape of the environmental debate. There are pragmatic environmentalists, and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. As long as all political parties run in the climate changin’ race, as if it were the only enviromental issue, the greens win. Time to change the race. Other finish lines are closer
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Recent Comments