PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Desmond
14-05-2014, 09:06 PM
It's not just the rising sea level to be concerned with but also the albedo effect. Ice is a light colour and reflects heat away from the Earth. But when, for instance, the ice in the Arctic is all gone there will just be the sea left, which is dark and great at absorbing more heat. It's basically a positive feedback loop - because there is less ice, the water gets warmer, and because the water is warmer, more ice melts.

Damodevo
14-05-2014, 10:10 PM
Where is 10cm per century come from?

Andrew Revkin (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/keep-in-mind-scientific-and-societal-meanings-of-collapse-when-reading-antarctic-ice-news/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)


Some headlines are completely overwrought — as with this NBC offering: “West Antarctic Ice Sheet’s Collapse Triggers Sea Level Warning.” This kind of coverage could be interpreted to mean there’s an imminent crisis. It’s hard to justify that conclusion given the core findings in the studies. (Am I trying to maintain a hold on reality or am I a “scold”?)

Take the Science paper: “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica.” Using ice-flow models and observations, the researchers, led by Ian Joughin of the University of Washington, concluded:

Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has begun. Less certain is the time scale, with the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.

To translate a bit, that means sometime between 200 and 900 years from now the rate of ice loss from this glacier could reach a volume sufficient to raise sea levels about 4 inches (100 millimeters) a century. At that point, according to the paper, ice loss could pick up steam, with big losses over a period of decades.* But in a phone conversation, Joughin said the modeling was not reliable enough to say how much, how soon.

Rincewind
14-05-2014, 10:30 PM
OK that was based on the 200-900 years year estimate for melting but to take an estimate which is 200-900 years and then push a figure which is based on the 900 year figure is not good reporting so Revkin himself is guilty of being disingenuous there.

I do note however in that article by Revkin you found he actually talks about the very press release I linked to here. Revkin says...


The NASA news release is clear and avoids some of the pumped-up qualities of news coverage, which is inevitably torqued by what I’ve long called “the tyranny of the front-page thought.”

This the very story with the headline you described as "alarmist".

Desmond
15-05-2014, 07:46 AM
cjuGCJJUGsg

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2014, 02:39 AM
Britain Braces For World War II-style Energy Rationing (http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/britain-braces-for-world-war-ii-style-energy-rationing/)
Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller 11 June 2014

Great Britain is in the midst of an energy crisis. The country’s climate agenda has curtailed electricity production and now there may not be enough power to continually keep the lights on in the UK.

Britain’s energy crisis is getting so bad that the country faces “Second World War-style” rationing in order to keep the lights on throughout the country, according to the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/10/uk_preps_ww2style_energy_rationing/).

EU environmental rules forced many UK coal plants and other fossil fuel-fired plants to shut down. The problem is they were largely replaced with green energy, like wind power, which only produces electricity when the wind is blowing.

Opting to build costly green energy with reliability issues means UK officials are going to look at more demand-side policies to lower energy consumption. Paying factories voluntarily to shut down is just one of those options.

Despite the huge problems, Britain still plans on building more wind turbines and other green energy sources to fight global warming, reports the UK Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10890695/Wind-farm-expansion-will-see-more-factories-paid-to-switch-off.html). The UK’s National Grid CEO Steve Holliday said plans to pay factories to shut down were “just the beginning” of more policies to reduce energy demand.

The UK’s climate agenda has been hotly contested in the country as household and business energy bills rise due to green taxes, high gas prices and costly green energy. A report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/06/Tony-Kelly.pdf) argues that UK climate laws have only made energy and food prices skyrocket.

“Energy sources that are not based on fossil fuels make power and food…both of vital importance for the poor – more expensive and more difficult to obtain,” wrote Cambridge University professor Anthony Kelly for the GWPF. Sadly, Kelly passed away earlier this month (http://www.thegwpf.org/professor-anthony-kelly-1929-2014/).

Desmond
13-06-2014, 10:21 PM
Food? You seriously want to bring up food?


El Niño events occur every five years or so and peak in December, but the first, and potentially greatest, human impacts are felt in India. The reliance of its 1 billion-strong population on the monsoon, which usually sweeps up over the southern tip of the sub-continent around 1 June, has led its monitoring to be dubbed “the most important weather forecast in the world”. This year, it is has already got off to a delayed start, with the first week’s rains 40% below average.

“El Niño could be quite devastating for agriculture and the water supply in India,” said Dr Nick Klingaman, an El Niño expert at the University of Reading in the UK. Two-thirds of Indian farmland lacks irrigation and is reliant solely on rainfall, meaning even current official prediction of a 5% reduction in monsoon rains would have a major impact: a 10% fall is an official drought. Krishna Kumar, an Indian meteorologist and El Niño expert, said that even if the 2014 El Niño turns out not to be a very hot one, it can still have a major effect on the monsoon because it is the specific location of the warm Pacific water which is the critical factor. “The moderate El Niños of 2002 and 2009 impacted the monsoon in India much more greatly then the major 1997 event,” he said, adding that the biggest cut in rainfall is not usually felt until September.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/11/-sp-el-nino-weather-2014

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2014, 12:21 AM
Food? You seriously want to bring up food?
Of course, because the Green policies you love are making it more expensive. And this is proven for the here and now, unlike the warm-mongering predictions of gloom and starvation that got tiresome even when Paul R. Ehrlich was doing it over 40 years ago.

Patrick Byrom
14-06-2014, 02:16 AM
Of course, because the Green policies you love are making it more expensive. And this is proven for the here and now, unlike the warm-mongering predictions of gloom and starvation that got tiresome even when Paul R. Ehrlich was doing it over 40 years ago.
Meanwhile, back in the real world (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/fall-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-biggest-in-24-years-20140613-zs7be.html):


Australia posted its biggest annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 24 years of records in 2013 as the carbon tax helped drive a large drop in pollution from the electricity sector.

And what has been the effect on the economy (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/taxing-the-truth-on-carbon-pricing-20140613-3a1oq.html) of the tax:


Two years after Australia started pricing carbon, the economy is growing above trend, unemployment has fallen and inflation is comfortably in the Reserve Bank's comfort zone.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2014, 06:34 AM
About the only thing right in that silly Pascoe piece was:


Several swifties have been pulled on the electorate by both sides, but one of the more amazing is the idea that the Coalition will in fact scrap the carbon tax. A surprising number of people from both sides seem to believe that. As a simple fact: the government intends to maintain a carbon tax – it's just being disguised in general revenue.

The $2.5 billion for the vague "direct action" spend is raised by taxation, not being printing plastic notes. If you wanted, you could probably call it the "carbon sequester element of revenue" – anything but the "tax" word.

Damodevo
14-06-2014, 09:23 PM
Australia posted its biggest annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 24 years of records in 2013 as the carbon tax helped drive a large drop in pollution from the electricity sector.

Do you think that just maybe that might have something to do with the end (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304017204579223270798699260) of the resource boom in 2012/13?


At the end of October, there were 63 mining and energy projects that companies had committed to building in Australia, worth a combined 240 billion Australian dollars (US$219 billion), according to the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics.

That was down from 73 projects worth about A$268 billion six months earlier, the bureau said in its biannual report.

"This large drop in investment is the result of two records being set in the period—a record high for the value of projects being completed and the lowest value of new projects being sanctioned in the past decade," the bureau said.

"Both measures are initial indicators that the Australian resources boom is now transitioning from the investment phase to the production phase," it added.

Earlier this year, the bureau forecast that investment would total about A$256 billion at the end of 2013. It was the largest drop in overall resources investment since 1999, according to Barclays analyst Kieran Davies.

Desmond
14-06-2014, 09:48 PM
Do you think that just maybe that might have something to do with the end (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304017204579223270798699260) of the resource boom in 2012/13?

Do you think that maybe just maybe the carbon tax helped?

Damodevo
15-06-2014, 10:55 AM
Do you think that maybe just maybe the carbon tax helped?

Its possible the idiotic CT is helping to kill the industry most responsible for lifting the real wages of average workers but do you think that the world wide drop in commodity prices might explain it too?

Desmond
15-06-2014, 11:00 AM
...do you think that the world wide drop in commodity prices might explain it too?Explain it in its entirety or as a contributing factor?

I think it is far more likely that the carbon tax helped (the claim made in Patrick's quote that you appear to object to) than the reason you give is the sole explanation.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2014, 09:44 AM
Australia’s carbon tax has gone for good (http://m.heraldsun.com.au/business/australias-carbon-tax-has-gone-for-good/story-fni0d8gi-1226954438359)
TERRY MCCRANN
HERALD SUN
JUNE 14, 2014

TONY Abbott promised to stop the boats. They’ve been stopped.

Tony Abbott promised to abolish Julia Gillard and Christine Milne’s dishonest, punishing and utterly pointless carbon tax. When the Senate changes in two weeks, that now looks certain after Clive Palmer on Friday finally committed his four senators to abolition.

That leaves only fixing Labor’s debt and deficit budget mess to go, of the three big promises that the prime minister made in opposition.

The other two went to the fundamentals of our national sovereignty. Border protection, or in the famous words of John Howard — deciding who comes to our country — is the most basic issue of sovereignty. That’s true, whether we are talking of Japanese heading towards us in 1942, or ‘subcontracting’ our immigration policy to people smugglers in 2008-2013 as Rudd and Gillard did.

But the carbon tax was equally destructive of sovereignty. We had a government imposing a massive cost on both consumers and business, deliberately if mindlessly undermining the national economy.

At its most basic it was a government prepared to hand control of the future price of our carbon (dioxide) emissions — and so, of the price of our electricity and our key exports — over to European bureaucrats in Brussels.

Abolition of the carbon tax will deliver real cash savings to all Australians. The savings per year will go close to cancelling out ALL the cost increases imposed in the budget — if indeed they are actually imposed.

Arguably more importantly, abolition will take a great dead weight off business. It will also have huge political implications.

First off, it will demonstrate the benefit of wresting control of the Senate away from the destructive and dangerous control of the Labor-Green left combination.

Rincewind
16-06-2014, 10:14 AM
^^^ Just another piece of science denialism from the Murdoch National Party.

Desmond
16-06-2014, 12:49 PM
Speaking of Tony Abbott, from a couple of days ago - "We think that climate change is a significant problem"

Patrick Byrom
16-06-2014, 01:00 PM
Australia’s carbon tax has gone for good (http://m.heraldsun.com.au/business/australias-carbon-tax-has-gone-for-good/story-fni0d8gi-1226954438359)
TERRY MCCRANN
... Abolition of the carbon tax will deliver real cash savings to all Australians. The savings per year will go close to cancelling out ALL the cost increases imposed in the budget — if indeed they are actually imposed. …
McCrann is not only weak on science, he is also innumerate - a bit of a worry when he is writing on the economy and giving financial advice.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2014, 01:38 PM
McCrann is not only weak on science, he is also innumerate - a bit of a worry when he is writing on the economy and giving financial advice.
Much rather accept his scientific and financial advice than the repeated warm-mongering to justify tax hikes and bureaucratic control.

Rincewind
16-06-2014, 05:37 PM
Much rather accept his scientific and financial advice than the repeated warm-mongering to justify tax hikes and bureaucratic control.

With all due respect, science isn't exactly your strong suit either.

Capablanca-Fan
17-06-2014, 05:57 AM
Just another piece of science denialism from the Murdoch National Party.

Just another defender of pseudo-scientific warm-mongerism by a dupe of the Fairfax/ABC Labor/Green Party.

Desmond
17-06-2014, 07:20 AM
Just another defender of pseudo-scientific warm-mongerism by a dupe of the Fairfax/ABC Labor/Green Party.Is Tony Abbott an extension of this conspiracy, with his acknowledgement that climate change is a significant problem?

Damodevo
18-06-2014, 02:36 AM
Food? You seriously want to bring up food?


El Niño events occur every five years or so and peak in December, but the first, and potentially greatest, human impacts are felt in India. The reliance of its 1 billion-strong population on the monsoon, which usually sweeps up over the southern tip of the sub-continent around 1 June, has led its monitoring to be dubbed “the most important weather forecast in the world”. This year, it is has already got off to a delayed start, with the first week’s rains 40% below average.

“El Niño could be quite devastating for agriculture and the water supply in India,” said Dr Nick Klingaman, an El Niño expert at the University of Reading in the UK. Two-thirds of Indian farmland lacks irrigation and is reliant solely on rainfall, meaning even current official prediction of a 5% reduction in monsoon rains would have a major impact: a 10% fall is an official drought. Krishna Kumar, an Indian meteorologist and El Niño expert, said that even if the 2014 El Niño turns out not to be a very hot one, it can still have a major effect on the monsoon because it is the specific location of the warm Pacific water which is the critical factor. “The moderate El Niños of 2002 and 2009 impacted the monsoon in India much more greatly then the major 1997 event,” he said, adding that the biggest cut in rainfall is not usually felt until September.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/11/-sp-el-nino-weather-2014

Why don't you mention that El Niño effects are not uniform? Harms some but benefits (http://www.hutchnews.com/news/local_state_news/kansas-state-university-ag-economist-says-el-ni-o-expected/article_4440ce8d-44a2-54af-a9c3-4cc681c8e3bb.html) others.




MANHATTAN — A Kansas State University senior agricultural economist says there's a 70 percent chance an El Niño will arrive this fall — and that's good news for the United States.

Jay O'Neil, an instructor and specialist at the university's International Grains Program, says what happens with El Niño will affect worldwide crop production. El Niño, which is the warming of the sea temperatures off the coast of Peru, is expected to affect crops during September, October and November.

"El Niño is generally favorable to crop production in the United States because it brings extra rain and moisture into the core crop-growing areas," O'Neil said. "We're just coming out of a four-year drought cycle in the United States and we'd like to get back to what we call trend-line yields and big crop production so there's plenty for everybody."

Better crop production in the U.S. would also mean lower food prices. However, other countries would experience harsher growing conditions because of El Niño. O'Neil says South America is expected to be dryer than usual, which would have an impact on the global food market.

"If South America goes dry, that would affect next year's production worldwide," O'Neil said.

Damodevo
18-06-2014, 02:41 AM
And as for India, the El Nino events before the recent period of supposed man-made GW were just as severe (http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/03/24/idINIndia-38669820090324?sp=true).


Research showing an El Nino event in 1918 was far stronger than previously thought is challenging the notion climate change is making El Nino episodes more intense, a U.S. scientist said on Tuesday.

El Nino causes global climate chaos such as droughts and floods. The events of 1982/83 and 1997/98 were the strongest of the 20th Century, causing loss of life and economic havoc through lost crops and damage to infrastructure.

But Ben Giese of Texas A&M University said complex computer modelling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation.

The outcome of the research was valuable for several reasons, Giese told Reuters from Perth in Western Australia.

"It questions the notion that El Ninos have been getting stronger because of global warming," he said ahead of a presentation of his team's research at a major climate change conference in Perth.

The 1918 event also co-incided with one of India's worst droughts of the 20th century.

Desmond
18-06-2014, 07:48 AM
Why don't you mention that El Niño effects are not uniform? Harms some but benefits (http://www.hutchnews.com/news/local_state_news/kansas-state-university-ag-economist-says-el-ni-o-expected/article_4440ce8d-44a2-54af-a9c3-4cc681c8e3bb.html) others.I'll allow you to asnwer your own question

El Nino causes global climate chaos such as droughts and floods.


And as for India, the El Nino events before the recent period of supposed man-made GW were just as severe.Even if that were true, and I don't accept it necessarily is, it would still be an El Nino happening from a climate that has already changed, so the most extreme events will still be more extreme even if the variance provided by the event is not.

Damodevo
19-06-2014, 04:53 PM
Subglacial volcanoes melting (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0610/Subglacial-volcanoes-melting-West-Antarctic-Ice-sheet-say-scientists) West Antarctic Ice sheet, say scientists


Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West Antarctic, an area that is losing ice quickly.

Desmond
20-06-2014, 10:02 PM
Subglacial volcanoes melting (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0610/Subglacial-volcanoes-melting-West-Antarctic-Ice-sheet-say-scientists) West Antarctic Ice sheet, say scientistsYou do realize that the article affirms that climate change is melting the Antarctic and that the volcanoes are accelerating some areas, right?

Desmond
21-06-2014, 08:04 PM
The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change (http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--cartooncc.pdf)

Agent Smith
22-06-2014, 01:42 PM
Shortest day of the year today i think.

It was a icy 1 degree this morning, when i went out for my bike ride.
Now 1:30 in the afternoon and just come down a little hail storm ! , with a few mms of rain. Quite bizarre.
Our orchard has been hit by hail 8 of the last 9 years... Only ignorant city people
(which unfortunately includes politicians) can deny the increased violence of our weather.

Like Blair and Bush - "It has nothing to do with us". Idiots. :doh:

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2014, 04:37 AM
Junk Science Week: IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ‘no’ (http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/19/ipcc-climate-change-warming/)
Matt Ridley, Special to Financial Post | 19 June 19, 2014

Even if you pile crazy assumption upon crazy assumption, you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage

The debate over climate change is horribly polarized. From the way it is conducted, you would think that only two positions are possible: that the whole thing is a hoax or that catastrophe is inevitable. In fact there is room for lots of intermediate positions, including the view I hold, which is that man-made climate change is real but not likely to do much harm, let alone prove to be the greatest crisis facing humankind this century.

That is to say, even if you pile crazy assumption upon crazy assumption till you have an edifice of vanishingly small probability, you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage in the time of our grandchildren, let alone catastrophe. That’s not me saying this – it’s the IPCC itself.

The IPCC produced two reports last year. One said that the cost of climate change is likely to be less than 2% of GDP by the end of this century. The other said that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy with renewable energy is likely to be 4% of GDP. Why do something that you know will do more harm than good?

Rincewind
23-06-2014, 11:51 AM
Yes I go to the National Post for balanced scientific information. Have you seen their articles claiming that vaccinations are hogwash?

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2014, 11:07 PM
We've got 5 years to save world says Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/weve-got-5-years-to-save-world-says-australias-chief-scientist-professor-penny-sackett/story-e6frf7l6-1225806754392)
OLGA GALACHO HERALD SUN

THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist.

Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.


Oh, sorry for the urgency of this warning—it was issued almost five years ago. :lol: :lol::lol: I'm sure all the warm-mongers here were sucked in.

Desmond
24-06-2014, 08:00 PM
Perhaps not so much of an issue for those who make their living lying to people in the face, but for the rest of us the point rings home:

"I'm going to have to look at my grandchildren and say, 'we fiddled while Rome burned.'"

6Ak_n3rXKFo

Patrick Byrom
24-06-2014, 08:27 PM
We've got 5 years to save world says Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/weve-got-5-years-to-save-world-says-australias-chief-scientist-professor-penny-sackett/story-e6frf7l6-1225806754392)
OLGA GALACHO HERALD SUN
THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint. …

Oh, sorry for the urgency of this warning—it was issued almost five years ago. :lol: :lol::lol: I'm sure all the warm-mongers here were sucked in.
There is no quote in the article that refers to 'five years', despite the headline, so it appears that you have been sucked in :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2014, 10:41 PM
There is no quote in the article that refers to 'five years', despite the headline, so it appears that you have been sucked in :lol:
Was there any need to repeat what was in the headline? Please provide proof that this Sackett woman objected to the alleged misrepresentation in the headline.


Perhaps not so much of an issue for those who make their living lying to people in the face,
You mean like those who teach that we are rearranged pond scum and globull warm-mongers? Anyway, it's a case of "Fool the country 5 years ago, shame on you. Fool the country now, shame on us all."


P"I'm going to have to look at my grandchildren and say, 'we fiddled while Rome burned.'"
On the notoriously leftard GayBC, emotional claptrap from one of the Mercedes Marxists who invests in green energy and stands to profit massively if carbon taxes force out cheap coal energy. But as was pointed out, a carbon tax in Australia would not make a detectable difference to world CO2 levels.

Desmond
24-06-2014, 10:43 PM
You mean like those who teach that ...No, Jono, I don't.

Patrick Byrom
24-06-2014, 11:49 PM
Was there any need to repeat what was in the headline? Please provide proof that this Sackett woman objected to the alleged misrepresentation in the headline.
A direct quote of what she actually said would have been useful in the article to prove that she wasn't quoted out-of-context. I am fairly sure she was, but the Murdoch press is notoriously reluctant to correct its mistakes (as Stephen Koukoulas is finding out (http://thekouk.com/blog.html#.U6l-qXmKDIU)), so she probably thought it wasn't worth the hassle (and abuse) to object.

Anyway, she was obviously making the point that AGW could become irreversible in five years, not that the world would end. This may already have happened, although I suspect it hasn't. But we won't know until decades later, by which time it could be too late to stop it.

Damodevo
01-07-2014, 08:59 AM
Antarctica sets new (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/) record for sea ice area



The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.


2614

Rincewind
01-07-2014, 10:04 AM
One wonders if Damodevo realises that new records for sea ice extent is very strong evidence that demonstrates the seriousness for the global warming problem. I mean more ice sounds like a cooling effect. But remember this is not total ice or even total thermal energy but a very specific sort of ice which is proliferating probably due to change in thermal equilibrium due to the loss of land ice and changes to the circulatory systems.

The other issue is of course this only looks at one hemisphere and while there have been gains in sea ice in the southern hemisphere the ice loss in the northern hemisphere have been larger than those gains. So even of sea ice was the be all and end off of global temperature proxies. The earth is still warming.

Rincewind
01-07-2014, 10:11 AM
Arctic sea ice continues it downward spiral.

2615

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2014, 12:21 AM
Al Gore Denounced in Australian Press as Money Hungry 'Ferengi' for Suspicious Mining Magnate Alliance (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2014/06/29/al-gore-denounced-australian-press-money-hungry-ferengi-suspicious-mini?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=Gore-Australia)
By P.J. Gladnick | June 29, 2014 |

LIBERAL MP and climate change sceptic Dennis Jensen (a former CSIRO research scientist) claims Al Gore will personally profit from Clive Palmer’s new climate policy, saying the Nobel laureate “would do anything and say anything for a buck”.

Dr Jensen also likened the former US vice-president and leading climate activist to a member of a fictional, profit-obsessed alien race in the Star Trek movie and TV series.

Mr Gore last night commended the Palmer United Party’s policy of abolishing Labor’s world-leading carbon tax, while retaining the Renewable Energy Target and Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Dr Jensen, speaking in parliament, said the joint media announcement proved Mr Gore “would do anything and say anything for a buck”.

“One question that must be asked … is what investments Al Gore might have that might prove lucrative by retaining the RET and the CEFC,” Dr Jensen said, under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

“Investigation of these schemes and what organisations are getting advantage, and whether Gore has shares in those companies, would prove no doubt that Gore has a pecuniary vested interest in those schemes.”

Dr Jensen claimed Mr Gore’s personal carbon footprint was “probably larger than a number of small towns in some parts of the world”.

“Start believing Al Gore when he actually lives the carbon-dioxide-constrained lifestyle he advocates for everyone else,” Dr Jensen told parliament.

“He lives in a mansion in Tennessee where he consumes 20 times as much energy as the average American household, and Americans are not renowned for being parsimonious in their energy use. But that is only one of many houses that Al Gore has.

“Then there is Gore’s jetting around the world, once again a huge carbon footprint.”

Dr Jensen told parliament Mr Gore sold his television network, Current TV, to the Qatar state-owned satellite news network, Al-Jazeera.

“He was paid in petrodollars, despite all of his raging against the evils of the fossil fuel industry, around $70m profit. A nice little earner,” Dr Jensen said.

Desmond
02-07-2014, 07:44 AM
I wonder if many australians know or care about former US VPs.

Rincewind
02-07-2014, 12:06 PM
Jensen is a wingnut on so many issues that it is hard to imagine a less toxic advocate for climate change denial. It should surprise no one that he abuses parliamentary privileged to slander a former US vice president.

Desmond
03-07-2014, 07:34 AM
I just doubt whether many aussies care.

I mean, I do understand why the likes of Jono preaching to the far right will invoke ad hominem attacks against Gore - because in the mind of his target audience, your typical georgian redneck shirtless in his moonshine distillery, any association with a Democrat ipso facto means that it's an evil marxist conspiracy to take over the world.

But I don't see many aussies buying it.

Desmond
03-07-2014, 09:18 PM
Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mercury-Rising-2014-Sees-Warmest-May-Ever-Recorded.html)

global surface temperature anomalies for the month of May since 1880. 2014 is, globally, the warmest May in 135 years of observation.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2014, 07:13 AM
The above warm-mongers like RW and rr don't mind that their hero alGore is a first-class hypocrite who mass produces CO2 at the same time that he demands that the masses reduce their own standards of living in futile CO2-reducing gestures.

Desmond
04-07-2014, 07:25 AM
The above warm-mongers like RW and rr don't mind that their hero alGore is a first-class hypocrite who mass produces CO2 at the same time that he demands that the masses reduce their own standards of living in futile CO2-reducing gestures.I simply do not know or care what Gore does, I have never read or watched or listed to anything by him. No more do I know or care about the movements of other former US VPs who I probably couldn't even name. You seem to like talking about him so much, perhaps he is your hero.

Is it hypocrisy to spend a bit of money to save more? By Jono-logic the most cost-efficient way to run a car is to never service it, never mind that a small service cost now will avoid larger costs down the road.

Rincewind
04-07-2014, 06:18 PM
The above warm-mongers like RW and rr don't mind that their hero alGore is a first-class hypocrite who mass produces CO2 at the same time that he demands that the masses reduce their own standards of living in futile CO2-reducing gestures.

As I never mention him and you always mention him I think he is more likely your hero, not mine. :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2014, 02:35 AM
Is it hypocrisy to spend a bit of money to save more?
The hypocrisy charge was solely about the way that many leading warm-mongers live their own lives in CO2-spewing luxury while demanding that the poor masses reduce their own already-lower standards of living.

By Jono-logic the most cost-efficient way to run a car is to never service it, never mind that a small service cost now will avoid larger costs down the road.
It's actually the opposite: I object to large costs now in return for very small future savings, especially that the CO2-tax will not make a detectable difference to world CO2 levels. What is also overlooked is that the Medieval Warm Period led to much more productive agriculture during the high Middle Ages, safer northern ocean voyages thanks to less ice, international travel between the great universities founded in the Middle Ages. When the warming ended and the Little Ice Age began, there were massive rainfalls, longer winters, shorter summers, and huge famines.

Desmond
06-07-2014, 09:11 PM
It's actually the opposite: I object to large costs now in return for very small future savings,My analogy was of course referring to Gore "spending" some CO2 in order to inspire others to "save" more (in theory anyway).


especially that the CO2-tax will not make a detectable difference to world CO2 levels.We're all in this together. We all have to do our part. I can choose to put my rubbish in the bin rather than toss it out the window and it may not make "a detectable difference to world rubbish levels", but that should not mean I shouldn't do it.


What is also overlooked is that the Medieval Warm Period It isn't overlooked, it just doesn't mean what you think it means.

Patrick Byrom
06-07-2014, 09:50 PM
What is also overlooked is that the Medieval Warm Period led to much more productive agriculture during the high Middle Ages, safer northern ocean voyages thanks to less ice, international travel between the great universities founded in the Middle Ages. When the warming ended and the Little Ice Age began, there were massive rainfalls, longer winters, shorter summers, and huge famines.
The MWP was mainly a localised event. Higher than usual temperatures in colder regions may be good, but hotter areas of the globe (like Australia) are not likely to benefit. And most of the countries in the hotter areas do not have the resources to adapt, which is why the negatives outweigh the positives.

The other problem is that the global temperature is already higher than it was in the MWP, and it will continue to increase if we continue to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. At some point, the detrimental effects will be greater than the benefits for almost every country.

MichaelBaron
07-07-2014, 11:21 AM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17736-no-proof-of-man-made-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder

The link above points out that even one of the Greenpeace founders is skeptical about climate change due to lack of concrete evidence.

Rincewind
07-07-2014, 11:59 AM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17736-no-proof-of-man-made-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder

The link above points out that even one of the Greenpeace founders is skeptical about climate change due to lack of concrete evidence.

Does anyone think Patrick Moore has any environmental credibility anymore? The guy has been trading on his name as an environmentalist for ever while at the same time acting as a mouthpiece for some of the most unsustainable and environmentally damaging companies in the world.

For example, see this piece from the Guardian 2010, regarding Moore's report on Asia Pulp and Paper...

Why is a former Greenpeace activist siding with Indonesia's logging industry? (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/02/sumatra-rainforest-destruction-patrick-moore)

It is quite long but worth the read. The final three paragraphs make the point regarding Moore's credibility


But most damning is this. Moore has claimed that "people don't pay me to say things they've written down or made up. They pay me to tell them what I think." He insists that "APP has not shaped our conclusions or imposed its opinions". But sections of his report have been copied from a PR brochure produced by APP earlier this year. In some places APP's text is reproduced verbatim; elsewhere it appears to have been paraphrased. Facts and figures in its brochure are repeated unchallenged. When I asked Moore about this, he didn't deny cutting and pasting, but replied: "It does not follow that if we use language from APP's reports it is then impossible to evaluate their practices and programmes."

Whatever its merits, the "inspection" did the job. The Washington Post has repeated some of Moore's claims about APP on its website, without questioning them or explaining that he was paid by APP. Moore tells me that his report is now "in the hands of everyone in the paper trade". His credentials as a co-founder of Greenpeace, with a PhD in ecology lend it a weight it might not otherwise possess.

But it seems to me that he cannot play this card for ever. There will come a point at which his credibility as a "leading environmentalist" runs out. He too will become a toxic brand, likely further to taint a company trying to clear its reputation. But for now the work keeps rolling in.

I note too that Moore's status as Greenpeace co-founder is contested. Although he was certainly an early member.

Patrick Byrom
07-07-2014, 01:44 PM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17736-no-proof-of-man-made-climate-change-says-greenpeace-co-founder
The link above points out that even one of the Greenpeace founders is skeptical about climate change due to lack of concrete evidence.
If Moore thinks there is no scientific proof for AGW, he should publish a scientific paper refuting the scientific arguments. And if thinks there will be no future warming, there are many scientists willing to bet on their theories - although they are having a hard time finding any takers!

I wonder if Moore files in airplanes, which are based on computer models, and use computer models to predict the future:

"We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the gods," he said

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2014, 11:43 AM
The MWP was mainly a localised event.
The warm-mongers claim this, but they have to otherwise their alarmism would fail for this reason alone.


Higher than usual temperatures in colder regions may be good,
Definitely, because more people die from cold than heat. The cooling in the Little Ice Age really was catastrophic.


but hotter areas of the globe (like Australia) are not likely to benefit. And most of the countries in the hotter areas do not have the resources to adapt, which is why the negatives outweigh the positives.
They might have resources if they were not being taxed for green scams, including the forest-destroying biofuels.

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2014, 03:35 PM
The warm-mongers claim this, but they have to otherwise their alarmism would fail for this reason alone.
There is plenty of scientific evidence (http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm) to support this claim. But even if the MWP was warmer globally than it is now, that wouldn't prove that the current warming wasn't man-made - there is also plenty of scientific evidence that the MWP was not man-made but our current warming is.


They might have resources if they were not being taxed for green scams, including the forest-destroying biofuels.
You obviously have no idea what I was talking about - this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html?_r=0) explains it.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2014, 04:34 AM
Repeal carbon tax: Newspoll
THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 13, 2014 10:45PM

A MAJORITY of voters want Clive Palmer and his senators to immediately support the removal of the carbon tax as the repeal legislation is expected to be reintroduced into parliament today.

A Newspoll conducted exclusively for The Australian after last Thursday’s chaos in the Senate saw the repeal bills rejected, reveals 53 per cent want the controversial tax to be abolished.

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2014, 12:43 PM
Repeal carbon tax: Newspoll
THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 13, 2014 10:45PM
A MAJORITY of voters want Clive Palmer and his senators to immediately support the removal of the carbon tax as the repeal legislation is expected to be reintroduced into parliament today.
They probably think there will be significant savings, but they're likely to be disappointed (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/carbon-tax-going-but-dont-expect-big-savings-20140713-zt65e.html):


The $550 figure comes from Treasury modelling ahead of the introduction of the tax in 2012. But only $250 of it came from electricity and gas prices. The rest came from much smaller imposts on items such as food ($46), clothing ($29) and rent ($23). Many of the items modelled by the Treasury had price impacts described as "less than 10 cents per week".

The latest iteration of the legislation will include no penalties for businesses who don't pass their energy savings on, making a one-off saving of $250 per household more likely.


I wonder what voters' reaction will be when their power bills barely change (or actually go up) after the abolition?

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2014, 12:08 AM
People who claim to worry about climate change use more electricity (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/10965887/People-who-claim-to-worry-about-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html)
People who say they are concerned about climate change use more electricity than those who say the issue is 'too far away to worry about', government-commissioned study finds
Matthew Holehouse, Telegraph (UK), 14 July 2014

People who claim to worry about climate change use more electricity than those who do not, a Government study has found.
Those who say they are concerned about the prospect of climate change consume more energy than those who say it is “too far into the future to worry about,” the study commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change found.

That is in part due to age, as people over 65 are more frugal with electricity but much less concerned about global warming.
However, even when pensioners are discounted, there is only a “weak trend” to show that people who profess to care about climate change do much to cut their energy use.

Peter Lilley, a Conservative member of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee, said: “The survey exposes the hypocrisy of many who claim to be ‘green’: the greater the concern people express about global warming the less they do to reduce their energy usage.”
[Just like alGore jetting around and owning a mansion that uses heaps of energy, and his producer Laurie David flies on her private jet while abusing SUV drivers on the road]

Rincewind
17-07-2014, 01:38 AM
Talk about a complete beat up. Report finds no significant trend. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2014, 12:27 AM
Goodbye to the all pain, no gain carbon tax (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/davidson-goodbye-to-the-all-pain-no-gain-carbon-tax/5597614)
By Sinclair Davidson, 17 July 2014

The carbon tax lacked democratic legitimacy, hurt the Australian economy, and did nothing to address global warming. Good riddance, writes Sinclair Davidson.

The carbon tax has been repealed. While there has been a bit of kerfuffle and excitement around the repeal that will keep political junkies talking for some time, the voters will recall a promise made and a promise kept.

The carbon tax was an unpopular impost introduced by an unpopular prime minister.

Immediately prior to the 2010 election, Julia Gillard stared down the camera on Channel Ten and declared, "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." We can quibble as to what exactly she meant by that but it seems that the electorate had a very specific understanding of her words.

The introduction of the "Carbon Tax" - as it came to be known, despite efforts to recast it as a "price" or whatever - was widely perceived as being a broken promise. In response, the Coalition under Tony Abbott ran a very effective scare campaign against the tax - much as Labor and the unions had run against WorkChoices - and the rest is history.

The second major defect - arguably the most important - is that our carbon tax was a local tax. If global warming is a problem, then it requires a global solution. A local tax will do nothing to address global warming, apart from imposing high costs on the local economy.

In my view, carbon tax proponents treated people with contempt. While telling us that the costs of their proposals would be low, and that a better future beckoned, they vilified anyone who dared question their vision. This is best illustrated by an astonishing and ugly speech former prime minister Kevin Rudd delivered (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-pms-address-to-the-lowy-institute/story-e6frg6nf-1225795141519) to the Lowy Institute were he named and vilified so-called "climate change deniers".

Then there were the claims that all this was supported by "peer-reviewed science", until we saw the "Climategate" scandal break and the shenanigans climate scientists were getting up to. Even Julia Gillard has acknowledged the impact that scandal had (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/julia-gillard-labor-purpose-future).

It matters not that the individual scientists were absolved from any wrongdoing - the general public knows a con-job when they see it. The increasing gap between predicted and actual warming (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309) hasn't helped either.

Australia should fully commit to participating in a global solution to global warming - but until then, pursue our own interests. As best I can work out, that is what Clive Palmer is proposing.

Sinclair Davidson is a Professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University, and a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2014, 01:05 AM
When Bill Shorten babbles, guess who pays for it? (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/when-bill-shorten-babbles-guess-who-pays-for-it/story-fni0ffxg-1226991393852)
ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN 16 July 2014

THE hated carbon tax is finally being scrapped by Parliament, but what does the Opposition Leader now stupidly promise?

Incredible but true: there will be another carbon tax under a government Bill Shorten leads.

“The Parliament can vote for Labor’s emissions trading scheme today,” Shorten declared on Tuesday, piously adding this would ensure “there be no tears for humanity”.

No tears, that is, unless the sight of a grown politician telling porkies about the climate makes you cry.

IPCC scientist Professor Roger Jones says Labor’s carbon tax would at best cut the world’s expected temperature in 2100 by only 0.0038 degrees. We will have spent countless billions to make about zero difference. And if, as now seems clear, the planet is even less sensitive to our emissions than Jones assumes, the difference we make would be even less.

Not one Labor politician has ever disputed Jones’s figure or given one of their own. Those I’ve challenged — including then prime minister Rudd — have refused to say what difference their policy would actually make.

This is the bottom line: the world isn’t warming as predicted and even if it resumes, Labor’s emissions trading scheme would do nothing to stop it.

Rincewind
18-07-2014, 01:08 AM
The bit Jono omitted from Sinclair Davidson's piece...


Ironically, a tax is the theoretically correct market-based economic solution to a long-lived stock pollutant such as carbon dioxide. An emission trading scheme (ETS) - what the carbon tax was due to evolve into - is not. Politicians, however, have been loath to be seen to be introducing new taxes, and so had chosen an ETS mechanism over a tax. That is the first major defect of Australia's carbon tax (and indeed of every other such mechanism).

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2014, 03:35 AM
The bit Jono omitted from Sinclair Davidson's piece...
There's no pleasing our resident socialists: sometimes I quote too much, and other times too little.

Rincewind
18-07-2014, 11:23 AM
It is good to know that according to your expert that a carbon tax is the "theoretically correct market-based economic solution".

Patrick Byrom
18-07-2014, 01:07 PM
It's strange that conservatives like Bolt and Capablanca-Fan are so concerned about the carbon tax. The maximum 'cost' to Australian consumers was about $15 billion - even if you accept Abbot's inflated figure of $550 per household - over five years, and as the money was paid to the government (like any other tax) it was able to provide significant compensation for any increased prices.

However, they don't seem very concerned that electricity prices are still going to rise dramatically (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/07/17/4048480.htm), even though the carbon tax has been abolished:

"Ergon Energy spokesman John Fowler says the 13.6 per cent price rise introduced by the Queensland Competition Authority in July will drop to 5.1 per cent following the abolition of the tax."
There will be no compensation for this rise, of course.

Desmond
18-07-2014, 08:51 PM
When Bill Shorten babbles, guess who pays for it? (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/when-bill-shorten-babbles-guess-who-pays-for-it/story-fni0ffxg-1226991393852)
ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN 16 July 2014

THE hated carbon tax is finally being scrapped by Parliament, but what does the Opposition Leader now stupidly promise?

Incredible but true: there will be another carbon tax under a government Bill Shorten leads.

“The Parliament can vote for Labor’s emissions trading scheme today,” Shorten declared on Tuesday, piously adding this would ensure “there be no tears for humanity”.

No tears, that is, unless the sight of a grown politician telling porkies about the climate makes you cry.

IPCC scientist Professor Roger Jones says Labor’s carbon tax would at best cut the world’s expected temperature in 2100 by only 0.0038 degrees. We will have spent countless billions to make about zero difference. And if, as now seems clear, the planet is even less sensitive to our emissions than Jones assumes, the difference we make would be even less.

Not one Labor politician has ever disputed Jones’s figure or given one of their own. Those I’ve challenged — including then prime minister Rudd — have refused to say what difference their policy would actually make.

This is the bottom line: the world isn’t warming as predicted and even if it resumes, Labor’s emissions trading scheme would do nothing to stop it.
…Countless billions? How high can Bolt count? Not very, it would seem.

What is the cost of the the Direct Action plan? A bigger "countless" to meet the same reduction, according to experts.

Desmond
20-07-2014, 09:07 AM
Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a warming planet (http://www.skepticalscience.com/State-of-the-Climate-in-2013_NOAA.html)

This article is a reprint of a news release posted by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on July 17, 2014.

In 2013, the vast majority of worldwide climate indicators—greenhouse gases, sea levels, global temperatures, etc.—continued to reflect trends of a warmer planet, according to the indicators assessed in the State of the Climate in 2013 report, released online today by the American Meteorological Society.

Scientists from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., served as the lead editors of the report, which was compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries around the world (highlights (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2013.php), visuals (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2013-highlights), full report (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/exit.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ametsoc.org%2Fstateofcl imate2013)). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on air, land, sea, and ice.

“These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,” said NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D. “This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change.”

The report uses dozens of climate indicators to track patterns, changes, and trends of the global climate system, including greenhouse gases; temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud cover; sea level; ocean salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover. These indicators often reflect many thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets. The report also details cases of unusual and extreme regional events, such as Super Typhoon Haiyan, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia in November 2013.

Highlights:


Greenhouse gases continued to climb: ...

Warm temperature trends continued near the Earth’s surface: Four major independent datasets show 2013 was among the warmest years on record, ranking between second and sixth depending upon the dataset used. In the Southern Hemisphere, Australia observed its warmest year on record, while Argentina had its second warmest and New Zealand its third warmest.

Sea surface temperatures increased: Four independent datasets indicate that the globally averaged sea surface temperature for 2013 was among the 10 warmest on record. ...

Sea level continued to rise: ...

The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low: ...

Antarctic sea ice extent reached record high for second year in a row; South Pole station set record high temperature: ...

Tropical cyclones near average overall / Historic Super Typhoon: The number of tropical cyclones during 2013 was slightly above average, with a total of 94 storms, in comparison to the 1981-2010 average of 89. ... Super Typhoon Haiyan – the deadliest cyclone of 2013 – had the highest wind speed ever assigned to a tropical cyclone, with one-minute sustained winds estimated to be 196 miles per hour.


State of the Climate in 2013 is the 24th edition in a peer-reviewed series published annually as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The journal makes the full report openly available online. ...

Damodevo
25-07-2014, 01:43 AM
Puzzle of Deep Ocean Cooling



THE deep oceans (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/puzzle-of-deep-ocean-cooling/story-e6frg8y6-1227000811528) have been cooling for the past two decades and it is not possible to say whether changes in ocean heat adequately explain the “pause” in global warming, two of the world’s leading ocean scientists have said.

Warmer oceans have been a key explanation for the “missing” heat. Global average surface temperatures have not increased dramatically for more than a decade despite steadily rising carbon dioxide levels in the *atmosphere.

A paper by Carl Wunsch from Harvard University and Patrick Heimbach from MIT, accepted for publication with the Journal of Physical Oceanography, says more work is needed.

“Direct determination of changes in ocean heat content over the past 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing, but the uncertainties remain too large to rationalise, e.g. the apparent ‘pause’ in warming,” Professor Wunsch and Dr Heimbach say.

They conclude that much less heat is being added to the oceans than has been claimed in previous studies.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2014, 06:01 AM
Lessons From The Aussie Carbon Victory (http://ipa.org.au/news/3144/lessons-from-the-aussie-carbon-victory)
Tom Switzer, Wall Street Journal 21 July 2014

Brisbane, Australia — Five short years ago, Australian media thought that the center-right Liberal Party was crazy to oppose a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. "Unless the climate change dissidents are brought to heel," wrote one supposed expert, "the Liberals face humiliation at the polls." Conservatives, warned another commentator, "are on a political suicide mission."

How wrong they were. Yesterday, the Liberal government of conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott scored a crucial victory with the abolition of the widely detested carbon tax. The extraordinary and fascinating odyssey down under holds lessons for the rest of the world.

After Labor joined with Green Party legislators to create a minority government, Ms. Gillard went about legislating the very carbon tax she pledged not to introduce (at 23 Australian dollars price per ton). Climate enthusiasts admired her for breaking her word, but it was a dangerous backflip that would be her undoing.

Mounting mistrust in Ms. Gillard's authority led Labor to reinstate Mr. Rudd. Back in office for only two months, he pretended that he would scrap the hugely unpopular carbon tax, again as a ploy to win votes. But middle Australia, not to be fooled again, chose his opponent in a landslide last September. With a new Senate in place this month, the scene was set to repeal one of the most unpopular laws in recent times -- as senators did on Thursday.

Another lesson: Successful politicians are not afraid to challenge a stifling political consensus. When global warming alarmism was dominant in 2009, Mr. Abbott had the nerve and conviction to stand against the religious fervor of carbon pricing. He has now been able to pioneer a new climate policy that has transformed Australian politics.

Desmond
25-07-2014, 07:22 AM
Puzzle of Deep Ocean Cooling

"changes in ocean heat" :lol: yeah whatever you do don't call it warming

"Global average surface temperatures have not increased dramatically" not sure what the journalist means by "dramatically" but increase they have.

"less heat is being added to the oceans" so they are warming, and we are talking about the rate.

Cool, thanks!

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2014, 11:35 PM
Of course there will be household savings from the abolition of the ‘carbon’ tax (which exempted diamonds, an allotrope of carbon). The whole point of this tax was to make fossil fuel usage more expensive. So it's rich to see those with ADS (Abbott Derangement Syndrome) who are skeptical that the abolition would save money.

Families welcome $1b of savings thanks to carbon tax cashback (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/families-welcome-1b-of-savings-thanks-to-carbon-tax-cashback/story-fnihsrf2-1227006447774?nk=7d709a34f2c72bde81e122acdbf3ebe0)
JOHN MCCARTHY, KATE MCKENNA THE COURIER-MAIL JULY 30, 2014


Mr Sims said the ACCC was sceptical about airline claims that the costs were never imposed.

“It’s a high threshold for them to say that the surcharges they enacted did not occur,’’ he said. “They will need to demonstrate that. We need to look at their prices in detail.

“We are very confident consumers will see changes. The Prime Minister talked about $550 (for each household). We think that’s about right.”

The typical Queensland householder is likely to see a saving on their energy bill of $170, but it will depend on how much energy they use.

Ms Bennett said they noticed a large jump in their power bill after the carbon tax.

“We pay by the month and it got to about $75 a month, whereas before (the tax) we were paying about $60 a month – although we didn’t have a child at that stage,” she said.

Patrick Byrom
31-07-2014, 01:25 PM
Of course there will be household savings from the abolition of the ‘carbon’ tax (which exempted diamonds, an allotrope of carbon). The whole point of this tax was to make fossil fuel usage more expensive. So it's rich to see those with ADS (Abbott Derangement Syndrome) who are skeptical that the abolition would save money.
Who are these people? Most commentators I've read are sceptical that households will save the $550 that Abbott promised - I haven't read any commentator saying there would be no savings.

The other point is that the even if the savings are $550 per year (about the cost of a Courier Mail per day, ironically), they will soon be eaten up by increased electricity prices.

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2014, 12:53 AM
Who are these people? Most commentators I've read are sceptical that households will save the $550 that Abbott promised - I haven't read any commentator saying there would be no savings.
This makes the whole premise of the ‘carbon’ tax absurd. The whole point was surely to make it more costly to use fuel that produces CO2, thus discourage its use.

Rincewind
01-08-2014, 12:57 AM
This makes the whole premise of the ‘carbon’ tax absurd. The whole point was surely to make it more costly to use fuel that produces CO2, thus discourage its use.

Have you been reading the posts? Most commentators are saying there will be some savings but it will be less than the $550/yr/household claimed by the government.

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2014, 02:09 AM
Smart Aid for the World's Poor (http://online.wsj.com/articles/smart-aid-for-the-worlds-poor-1406326677)
How can rich countries best help poor ones? Matt Ridley identifies five priorities
WSJ, 25 July 2014


Mr. Lomborg is the founder of an international think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He has invented a useful method for dispassionately but expertly deciding how to spend limited funds on different priorities. Every four years since 2004, he has assembled a group of leading economists to assess the best way to spend money on global development. On the most recent occasion, in 2012, the group—which included four Nobel laureates—debated 40 proposals for how best to spend aid money.

The goal was simple: to create a cost-benefit analysis for each policy and to rank them by their likely effectiveness. For every dollar spent, how much good would be done in the world?

The Copenhagen Consensus Center process has won world-wide respect for its scrupulously fair methods and startling conclusions. Its 2012 report, published in book form as "How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place," came to the conclusion that the top five priorities should be nutritional supplements to combat malnutrition, expanded immunization for children, and redoubled efforts against malaria, intestinal worms and tuberculosis.

Their point wasn't that these are the world's biggest problems, but that these are the problems for which each dollar spent on aid generates the most benefit. Enabling a sick child to regain her health and contribute to the world economy is in the child's interest—and the world's.

The numbers produced by this exercise are eye-catching. Every dollar spent to alleviate malnutrition can do $59 of good; on malaria, $35; on HIV, $11. As for fashionable goals such as programs intended to limit global warming to less than two degrees Celsius in the foreseeable future: just 2 cents of benefit for each dollar spent.

Nor is this just about the cold tabulation of dollars and cents. The calculus used by the Copenhagen Consensus also includes such benefits as avoided deaths and sickness and potential environmental benefits, including forestalling climate change.

Indeed, one of the world's most pressing health problems, and the one most conspicuously missing from Mr. Annan's original development goals in 2000, is the annual death toll of more than four million people due to indoor air pollution. This enormous, abiding problem is attributable to the fact that so many of the world's poor lack access to affordable (that is, fossil-fuel-generated) electricity and therefore cook over burning wood or dung.

Patrick Byrom
01-08-2014, 11:35 AM
Smart Aid for the World's Poor (http://online.wsj.com/articles/smart-aid-for-the-worlds-poor-1406326677)
How can rich countries best help poor ones? Matt Ridley identifies five priorities
WSJ, 25 July 2014

Mr. Lomborg is the founder of an international think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He has invented a useful method for dispassionately but expertly deciding how to spend limited funds on different priorities. Every four years since 2004, he has assembled a group of leading economists to assess the best way to spend money on global development. On the most recent occasion, in 2012, the group—which included four Nobel laureates—debated 40 proposals for how best to spend aid money.…
Of course, there is absolutely no reason why money can't be spent on these projects and also on reducing global warming. If developed countries like Australia take a leading role in reducing fossil fuel use, then less developed countries will be able to continue to use fossil fuels.

Capablanca-Fan: As you've quoted this at length, I assume that you support Australia committing to this spending?

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2014, 03:51 AM
Of course, there is absolutely no reason why money can't be spent on these projects and also on reducing global warming. If developed countries like Australia take a leading role in reducing fossil fuel use, then less developed countries will be able to continue to use fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are bad for climate or they're not; it doesn't matter which country burns them.

Capablanca-Fan: As you've quoted this at length, I assume that you support Australia committing to this spending?
It's a case of: if we must give foreign aid at all, then it should do the most good as Ridley and Lomborg advocate, instead of going to corrupt murderous despots and gesture politics of little practical benefit.

Patrick Byrom
02-08-2014, 11:23 AM
It's a case of: if we must give foreign aid at all, then it should do the most good as Ridley and Lomborg advocate, instead of going to corrupt murderous despots and gesture politics of little practical benefit.
Is that a yes or a no?

Rincewind
02-08-2014, 01:35 PM
Is that a yes or a no?

I think it translates to "give money and weapons to the guys that are bombing UN schools".

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2014, 01:29 AM
I think it translates to "give money and weapons to the guys that are bombing UN schools".
Off-topic as usual, but presumably our resident antisemite means, "bombing UN schools that allow the designated terrorist group Hamas (Hebrew for "violence") to launch weapons from them at Israeli schoolchildren, thus committing a double war crime of targeting civilians and making their own civilians legitimate military targets."

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2014, 01:33 AM
Is that a yes or a no?

It's what I said. It's not really that difficult. One can be skeptical of any sort of government welfare, domestic or foreign, but still argue that if we must have government dole out money, it should be done in the most effective way. Logically one can argue for a conditional without supporting the premise.

Patrick Byrom
04-08-2014, 01:07 PM
It's what I said. It's not really that difficult. One can be skeptical of any sort of government welfare, domestic or foreign, but still argue that if we must have government dole out money, it should be done in the most effective way. Logically one can argue for a conditional without supporting the premise.
Although it is rather unusual to argue for a conditional when you don't support the premise. And to not mention that fact in your original post.

Rincewind
04-08-2014, 03:25 PM
Off-topic as usual, but presumably our resident antisemite means, ...

I'm an antisemite? Since you don't deny that Israel bombed a UN school then antisemite is just your word for "accurate".

If you mean that I am bigoted against Jews then you would have to have some sort of evidence other than being accurate. For example if I had called a respected Jewish leader (Abe Foxman) a Christ-hating Jew, that might be evidence. But of the two of us, I'm not the one that did that.

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2014, 04:17 AM
I'm an antisemite? Since you don't deny that Israel bombed a UN school then antisemite is just your word for "accurate".
It is not even a half-truth, since the UN itself admitted that there were Hamas rocket launchers there, as pointed out by the Israeli ambassador, schooling the Communist News Network for the same sort of less-than-half-truth (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/25/israeli_ambassador_slams_cnn_for_omitting_key_info rmation_in_live_cnn_interview.html):


The secretary general is alarmed to hear that rockets were placed in an UNRRA school in Gaza and that subsequently these have gone missing. He expresses his outrage and regret at the placing of weapons in a UN-administered school. By doing so—now listen, Erin, exactly what he says—By doing so, those responsible are turning schools into potential military targets and endangering the lives of innocent children, UN employees working in such facilities, and anyone using the UN schools as shelter.

I have not heard a single person say what I just said to you now, and I think that that does a disservice to your viewers to not give them the context they need to make these judgments. Hamas is placing missile batteries in schools, in hospitals, in mosques, and there must be outrage by the world and Hamas to end this.


If you mean that I am bigoted against Jews then you would have to have some sort of evidence other than being accurate.
Of course: you save your worst vitriol for Jewish members of ChessChat, Igor Goldenberg and me.


For example if I had called a respected Jewish leader (Abe Foxman) a Christ-hating Jew, that might be evidence. But of the two of us, I'm not the one that did that.
It was a statement of fact by a Christ-loving Jew. I.e. the problem was not his Jewishness, which I share, but his hatred of Christ.

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2014, 04:25 AM
Lunacy on sea: As Ministers agree to the world's biggest wind farm off Brighton, has Britain ever succumbed to a more catastrophic folly? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2713830/Lunacy-sea-As-Ministers-agree-world-s-biggest-wind-farm-Brighton-Britain-succumbed-catastrophic-folly.html#ixzz39Wau8SJH)
By CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
Daily Mail, 1 August 2014

What should be our reaction to daft stories like the one recently reported in the Daily Mail about the 60ft wind turbine put up by the Welsh government outside its offices in Aberystwyth to proclaim to the world just how ‘green’ it is?
Erected at a cost of £50,000 to the taxpayer, it turned out that this turbine was so absurdly inefficient it was providing only £5 worth of electricity a month. It would take more than 750 years to make the money back.

In recent years, we have seen plenty of little tales like this, showing how often those who build these mini-turbines just to promote the wonders of wind power seem to get horribly caught out.

There was, for instance, the windmill put up next to a school in Portland, Dorset, which had to be switched off because it was killing so many seagulls that the headmaster had to come in early every morning to remove their corpses, so the children wouldn’t be upset.

Today, we already have more than 5,000 giant turbines, with 25,000 smaller versions.

But the crucial objection to this obsession with wind farms is not just that they disfigure our beautiful countryside or kill shocking numbers of bird and bats.

In purely practical terms, the real issue must surely be that they are so astonishingly useless at achieving what they are supposed to do. Put all those 5,000 giant turbines together and their combined output still averages less than that of our single largest coal-fired power station.

The obvious reason for this - though our politicians will never admit it - is that the wind is the most inefficient means of producing electricity ever devised, because it blows so variably and unpredictably.

Davey gave the German energy firm E.on the green light to spend £2 billion on building 100 or more colossal turbines up to 700 ft tall, nearly 200 ft higher than the Blackpool Tower.

This mighty forest of turbines, we are told, will supply to the national grid ‘700 megawatts’ of power, enough to heat and light ‘450,000 homes’.

Yet, in truth, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, their actual output - as E.on’s own website admits in very small print - will be lucky to reach 240 megawatts, a third of that figure.

Even for this, E.on can hope to earn £325 million a year. Yet, shockingly, more than two-thirds of that sum, £220 million a year, will be paid by all of us in subsidies.

To see just how crazy this is in money terms, we can compare E.on’s wind farm with our latest large gas-fired power station, opened two years ago by another German firm, RWE, at Pembroke in south Wales.

Its capital cost was £1billion, half that of the wind farm. But, in return for that, the gas-fired plant can be relied on to generate nearly ten times as much electricity, 2000 megawatts, 24 hours of every day.

For that constantly available supply of power, even taking into account the price of gas compared with wind power which is free, the cost is £50 per megawatt hour. While for the wildly unreliable supply we shall get from Mr Davey’s monster wind farm, it is £155 per megawatt hour, more than three times as much.

Rincewind
06-08-2014, 10:04 AM
It was a statement of fact by a Christ-loving Jew. I.e. the problem was not his Jewishness, which I share, but his hatred of Christ.

You do like to make a lot out of your supposed Jewishness but when a Christian calls a Jew a christ-hater it is a very loaded term. It is interesting that even after all this time you haven't reconsidered your words.

Patrick Byrom
06-08-2014, 10:22 PM
Lunacy on sea: As Ministers agree to the world's biggest wind farm off Brighton, has Britain ever succumbed to a more catastrophic folly? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2713830/Lunacy-sea-As-Ministers-agree-world-s-biggest-wind-farm-Brighton-Britain-succumbed-catastrophic-folly.html#ixzz39Wau8SJH)
By CHRISTOPHER BOOKER Daily Mail, 1 August 2014

Davey gave the German energy firm E.on the green light to spend £2 billion on building 100 or more colossal turbines up to 700 ft tall, nearly 200 ft higher than the Blackpool Tower.

This mighty forest of turbines, we are told, will supply to the national grid ‘700 megawatts’ of power, enough to heat and light ‘450,000 homes’.

Yet, in truth, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, their actual output - as E.on’s own website admits in very small print - will be lucky to reach 240 megawatts, a third of that figure.

Even for this, E.on can hope to earn £325 million a year. Yet, shockingly, more than two-thirds of that sum, £220 million a year, will be paid by all of us in subsidies.

To see just how crazy this is in money terms, we can compare E.on’s wind farm with our latest large gas-fired power station, opened two years ago by another German firm, RWE, at Pembroke in south Wales.

Its capital cost was £1billion, half that of the wind farm. But, in return for that, the gas-fired plant can be relied on to generate nearly ten times as much electricity, 2000 megawatts, 24 hours of every day.

For that constantly available supply of power, even taking into account the price of gas compared with wind power which is free, the cost is £50 per megawatt hour. While for the wildly unreliable supply we shall get from Mr Davey’s monster wind farm, it is £155 per megawatt hour, more than three times as much.

I'm not sure how relevant this article is to Australia, which has plenty of solar and hydro-electric power. But it is definitely misleading, as the £155 referred to is for the most expensive type of wind generation. Onshore wind farms cost about the same as new nuclear power plants (http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21592615-britain-world-leader-something-rather-dubious-rueing-waves):

Unfortunately, offshore wind power is staggeringly expensive. Dieter Helm, an economist at Oxford University, describes it as “among the most expensive ways of marginally reducing carbon emissions known to man”. Under a subsidy system unveiled late in 2013, the government guarantees farms at sea £155 ($250) per megawatt hour for their juice. That is three times the current wholesale price of electricity and about 60% more than is promised to onshore turbines. It is also more than the £92.50 which Britain’s new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point will get—though that deal is for 35 years, not 15.

Of course, gas prices are likely to rise - possibly by quite a lot if sanctions are imposed on Russia. And there is the damage caused by AGW to worry about - although Capablanca Fan (and probably Booker) rejects the science of AGW, of course.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2014, 12:33 AM
You do like to make a lot out of your supposed Jewishness
Nothing ‘supposed’ about it. My name is fully Hebrew, and I don't need a goy telling me otherwise.


but when a Christian calls a Jew a christ-hater it is a very loaded term. It is interesting that even after all this time you haven't reconsidered your words.
It was a statement of fact. Foxman's true faith is christophobic leftardism, not Judaism.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2014, 12:35 AM
And there is the damage caused by AGW to worry about - although Capablanca Fan (and probably Booker) rejects the science of AGW, of course.
As shown, even if we accept the warm-mongering alarmism, we could take Australia back into the stone age and make no detectable difference to global temperatures. This is aside from the actual historical evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a prosperous time and the Little Ice Age a time of famine and pestilence.

Patrick Byrom
07-08-2014, 12:56 AM
As shown, even if we accept the warm-mongering alarmism, we could take Australia back into the stone age and make no detectable difference to global temperatures. This is aside from the actual historical evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a prosperous time and the Little Ice Age a time of famine and pestilence.
Your arguments are contradictory: If you don't accept the science of AGW, then there is no reason to expect that temperatures will increase, so there is no reason to expect a prosperous warm period.

But I notice that you've refused to state what your scientific objection is to the theory of AGW - which is quite common among 'rejectors'. Quite often they don't actually understand the theory, so they can't explain why they don't accept it.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2014, 05:46 AM
Your arguments are contradictory: If you don't accept the science of AGW, then there is no reason to expect that temperatures will increase, so there is no reason to expect a prosperous warm period.
Nonsense. One can accept that man-produced CO2 will warm the earth, as well as the historical evidence that some warming has been beneficial in the past. The warm-mongers have several premises: one is AGW, and another is that AGW is automatically harmful, and yet another is that methods to try to stop it will both work and do less harm than the warming.


But I notice that you've refused to state what your scientific objection is to the theory of AGW - which is quite common among 'rejectors'. Quite often they don't actually understand the theory, so they can't explain why they don't accept it.
Of course, I understand infrared absorption much better than most AGW activists, including paleontologist Tim Flummery and alGore who has very limited science understanding (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/?page=all):


In introductory economics, the only economics course Mr. Gore ever took, he received a C-, which goes a long way toward explaining his December remark that he would consider raising taxes should the economy fall into recession.

If the rudiments of fiscal policy proved to be too taxing for young Al, it should hardly be surprising that the self-appointed protector of the world's ecosystems had almost as much trouble understanding the basic concept of biology. After all, Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." … His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

And of course, some of the scientific objections pertain to how much temperature increase would be averted by the politically-driven measures such as the ‘carbon’ tax, and the inefficiency of ‘renewable’ energy sources to fossil fuels. Some who accept AGW, such as Lomborg, still think that far more good for humanity can be done by spending money on other things besides ostensible anti-warming measures.

Desmond
07-08-2014, 07:24 AM
no detectable difference to global temperatures. Wrong, it is detectable.

Rincewind
07-08-2014, 10:19 AM
Nothing ‘supposed’ about it. My name is fully Hebrew, and I don't need a goy telling me otherwise.

Goy - Too cute. :lol:

But seriously having a Hebrew surname is neither necessary nor sufficient. Apart from the affected used of Hebrew/Yiddish terms when it suits you what claim to Jewish identity do you have that is meaningful?


It was a statement of fact. Foxman's true faith is christophobic leftardism, not Judaism.

And you're an obscure Christian calling a quite respected Jewish leader a Christ-hater. Abe Foxman has been director of the Anti Defamation League for decades, written books about bigotry and in particular the new anti-semitism in America. He has been called by some (with good humour) the Jewish Pope.

This is the guy, you think, literally hates Jesus Christ?

Davidflude
07-08-2014, 04:10 PM
If you want to invest money in companies involved in these area look at

ViraLytics (melanoma even when advanced)

Benitec (one shot cure for HIV aids. One shot cure for hepatitus and various other things.)

Patrick Byrom
08-08-2014, 01:32 PM
Nonsense. One can accept that man-produced CO2 will warm the earth, as well as the historical evidence that some warming has been beneficial in the past. The warm-mongers have several premises: one is AGW, and another is that AGW is automatically harmful, and yet another is that methods to try to stop it will both work and do less harm than the warming.
Do you accept that man-made CO2 will warm the earth?


Of course, I understand infrared absorption much better than most AGW activists, including paleontologist Tim Flummery and alGore who has very limited science understanding (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/?page=all):

... [Sarfati Shuffle Snipped!]...

And of course, some of the scientific objections pertain to how much temperature increase would be averted by the politically-driven measures such as the ‘carbon’ tax, and the inefficiency of ‘renewable’ energy sources to fossil fuels. Some who accept AGW, such as Lomborg, still think that far more good for humanity can be done by spending money on other things besides ostensible anti-warming measures.
But if you don't accept that warming is happening in the first place, then any measure to stop it must be a waste of time. Lomborg is (I suspect) typical of another type of 'rejector', who does understand the science, but refuses to accept the implications on ideological grounds. They can be easily detected, because they almost never argue against the actual science, but will adopt any convenient argument, even if they contradict themselves.

Rincewind
08-08-2014, 02:15 PM
Now there is nothing stopping someone with Jewish heritage being antisemitic but it is of some consideration and but the degree that it might be relevant relates to the degree with which that person has been connected with a Jewish identity.

I see Jono is willing to hide behind his supposed Jewishness as a defense to charges of antisemitism. But when asked about the nature of his claim to Jewish identity he is strangely (for him) quiet.

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2014, 05:40 AM
But seriously having a Hebrew surname is neither necessary nor sufficient. Apart from the affected used of Hebrew/Yiddish terms when it suits you what claim to Jewish identity do you have that is meaningful?
Goy is originally Hebrew, meaning "nation", but migrated to the connotation of non-Jewish nation.

My father, brother, and their parents were very fortunate to survive the Nazi invasion of France. My grandmother attended Temple Sinai in Wellington ever since its foundation. Her brother, my great uncle, was the first New Zealander to settle in what is now the Nation of Israel, 20 years before it was founded. Many of his descendants, my second cousins, live in Israel. My granddaughters call me "Saba", Hebrew for grandfather, grandpa.


And you're an obscure Christian calling a quite respected Jewish leader a Christ-hater. Abe Foxman has been director of the Anti Defamation League for decades, written books about bigotry and in particular the new anti-semitism in America. He has been called by some (with good humour) the Jewish Pope.
Yes, but then he moved away from defending Jews to defending Leftardism, and from attacking anti-semitism to attacking conservative critics of leftardism. The Jewish conservative columnist Don Feder explained (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/juneweb-only/22.0.html?paging=off):


The Anti-Defamation League has come up before. It was started more than a hundred years ago to respond to anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, it's changed over time. It's one of many "mainline" organizations that basically have been taken over by liberals. And today, rather than fighting anti-Semitism, per se, a lot of what it does has nothing to do with combating anti-Semitism, but rather promoting the Left's agenda.

In 2009, a former ADL leader blasted Foxman for using an organization formed to fight anti-semitism to push all sorts of leftist and anti-Christian junk (http://www.rense.com/general88/exad.htm). Monty Warner writes in Abe Foxman: Disgrace to My Religion (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/adl/adl/abe-foxman-a-disgrace-to-my-religion.htm):


This past June, Carl Pearlston, a Board Member of the ADL and longtime loyalist to its early causes, resigned from the organization after 25 years of service. Pearlston began to receive increasingly hostile responses from other Board Members for his more conservative views, and was informed by Foxman that "he would have to realize that over 95% of those involved in the ADL were liberal and would be unsympathetic to his views." Notwithstanding the adage that for every five Jews in the room there are 10 opinions on everything, the notion that 95 percent (or even 55 percent) of all Jews support bilingual education, gun control, feminism, affirmative action, abortion and the homosexual agenda across the board is not only unfathomable, but further evidence that Foxman has absolutely no legitimate claim to representing the interests of the Jewish masses.


This is the guy, you think, literally hates Jesus Christ?
He does. Back in 2002, he was not so anti-Christian, writing in appreciation of Evangelical support for Israel (http://archive.adl.org/israel/evangelical.html#.U-Uj4fldVtM). But then he denounced Evangelicals as a threat to religious pluralism (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3187620,00.html).

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2014, 05:49 AM
But if you don't accept that warming is happening in the first place, then any measure to stop it must be a waste of time. Lomborg is (I suspect) typical of another type of 'rejector', who does understand the science, but refuses to accept the implications on ideological grounds. They can be easily detected, because they almost never argue against the actual science,
Most of the warm-mongers don't argue actual science but resort to scare-mongering. alGore and Flummery couldn't even tell the difference between an infrared-active and infrared-inactive vibrational mode. Even some of the scientists, such as the late Stephen Schneider, ice-age alarmist turned warm-monger, said:


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989.


but will adopt any convenient argument, even if they contradict themselves.
Lomborg is left-leaning if anything. I see no actual argument in accepting that CO2 will warm the earth, but there are many things we could do to help humanity that would be far cheaper and much more beneficial than measures to reduce CO2.

Patrick Byrom
09-08-2014, 02:32 PM
Lomborg is left-leaning if anything. I see no actual argument in accepting that CO2 will warm the earth, but there are many things we could do to help humanity that would be far cheaper and much more beneficial than measures to reduce CO2.
So you agree with me that man-made CO2 will warm the earth (I'm not sure if you're referring to your views or Lomborg's)?

Rincewind
09-08-2014, 04:53 PM
Goy is originally Hebrew, meaning "nation", but migrated to the connotation of non-Jewish nation.

I know all about the term goy and its use as a pejorative.


My father, brother, and their parents were very fortunate to survive the Nazi invasion of France. My grandmother attended Temple Sinai in Wellington ever since its foundation. Her brother, my great uncle, was the first New Zealander to settle in what is now the Nation of Israel, 20 years before it was founded. Many of his descendants, my second cousins, live in Israel. My granddaughters call me "Saba", Hebrew for grandfather, grandpa.

I take from what you haven't said that your mother was not Jewish and your father was not a practising Jew. So you have Jewish antecedents but you were not raised as a Jew. Regardless I don't think you are by nature antisemitic, you just happen to say antisemetic things from time to time. Your issue is you are so immersed in the culture war that you don;t realise out racist and antisemetic the things you say actually are.


Yes, but then he moved away from defending Jews to defending Leftardism, and from attacking anti-semitism to attacking conservative critics of leftardism.

Noted. It is about the culture war, not antisemitism.


Notwithstanding the adage that for every five Jews in the room there are 10 opinions on everything, the notion that 95 percent (or even 55 percent) of all Jews support bilingual education, gun control, feminism, affirmative action, abortion and the homosexual agenda across the board is not only unfathomable, but further evidence that Foxman has absolutely no legitimate claim to representing the interests of the Jewish masses.

Noted. Monty Warner (a republican politician) is trying to paint the Jewish minority as conservative when they overwhelming vote progressive. That is the party that does support gun control, gender equality, racial equality, pro-choice, etc. Sounds to me like Monty is just disappointed that more Jews aren't as backward as he is. But again this is just more culture war fodder.


He does. Back in 2002, he was not so anti-Christian, writing in appreciation of Evangelical support for Israel (http://archive.adl.org/israel/evangelical.html#.U-Uj4fldVtM). But then he denounced Evangelicals as a threat to religious pluralism (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3187620,00.html).

He was talking about evangelicals looking to make the US a non-secular nation but removing the separation of church and state. That is a threat to all non-Evagelicals in America. How does that constitute a hatred of Jesus Christ? This is just more of your culture war bias colouring your perception of reality.

However this is even further beside the point because the reason you called Abe Foxman a Christ-hater is because he described the pro-ID, Ben Stein film Expelled as rubbish when Stein tried to make a link between evolution and the holocaust. The theory that evolution was a major contributor to holocaust is rubbish. Foxman (who was in Poland throughout WWII) knows it and will not have the culture warriors like Stein and Jono try and score points of the backs of the 6 million Jewish victims of the holocaust.

Desmond
09-08-2014, 05:34 PM
...he described the pro-ID, Ben Stein film Expelled as rubbish ...which it absolutely is.

Damodevo
10-08-2014, 04:26 PM
Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade



The (http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/summer-2014-is-coldest-in-a-decade/) summer of 2014 has been one of the mildest on the books — and could be the first summer in a decade without a heatwave.

“It wasn’t clear if it was going to be a hot or a cool summer,” said National Weather Service meteorologist David Stark. “We started out the year very cool and it seems like we just continued that. It doesn’t look like we have any heat waves in the near future.”

Damodevo
10-08-2014, 04:28 PM
Is It The Sun?


We may (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65111) be witnessing the sun’s last dying gasps before entering into a long slumber. The impact of that slumber on Earth’s climate remains the subject of growing scientific speculation. (1)

In 2008 William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, in a controversial paper that contradicted conventional wisdom and upset global warming theorists, predicted that sunspots could more or less disappear after 2015, possibly indicating the onset of another Little Ice Age. They stated, “The occurrence of prolonged periods with no sunspots is important to climate studies, since the Maunder Minimum was shown to correspond with the reduced average global temperatures on the Earth.” The Maunder Minimum lasted for approximately 70 years from about 1645 to 1715, and was marked by bitter cold, widespread crop failures, and severe human privation.

..........................

Lawrence Solomon sums this up well, “The upshot for scientists and world leaders should be clear, particularly since other scientists in recent years have published analyses that also indicate that global cooling could be on its way. Climate can and does change toward colder periods as well as warmer ones. Over the last 20 years, some $80 billion has been spent on research dominated by the assumption that global temperatures will rise. Very little research has investigated the consequences of the very live possibility that temperatures will plummet. Research into global cooling and its implications for the globe is long overdue.”

Rincewind
10-08-2014, 05:13 PM
Anyone who thought Summer 2014 was the coldest in a decade must have been confined to a very small part of the earth surface. The latest global climate update (June 2014) contains the following highlights...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6


The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.95°C (1.71°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F), the seventh highest for June on record.
For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the highest for June on record and the highest departure from average for any month.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–June period (year-to-date) was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 13.5°C (56.3°F), tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record.


Sounds positively freezing.

Regarding the sun activity. Most of the papers cited in the denialist article are out of date (2011) and since then the cycle 25 has kicked in although at the moment it is looking weak.

The 2014 paper which seemed to be the impetus for the denialist to regurgitate the solar minimum conspiracy theory was a long term analysis of solar activity. You can read it here...

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2014/02/aa23391-14/aa23391-14.html

The key things to take out of this is that the analysis of its predictive power is untested. It might be good, but we'll have to wait and see and the cycle that the denialist was getting excited about was the Grand maximum cycle which they claim peaked in cycle 19-23 (1950-2003).

However the abstract of this paper contains the following

"The possible existence of a separate Grand maximum mode is also suggested, but the statistics is too low to reach a confident conclusion."

Now that would seem to be a salient point worth mentioning.

Desmond
11-08-2014, 07:47 AM
Is It The Sun?Woah what a great idea - I wonder why climate scientists have never thought of the sun contributing to temperatures! Looks like you're up for a nobel priae for that one. Oh wait, false alarm, they have thought of that and to answer your question no it isn't the sun.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2014, 01:36 AM
I take from what you haven't said that your mother was not Jewish and your father was not a practising Jew.
My grandmother was in my lifetime. My father, having been separated from his parents in France during the entirety of WW2 during his childhood, apparently thought overt Jewishness would only lead to more persecution. He could not bring himself to watch Schindler's List. Those who haven't been through this should not be so judgemental.

In the Bible, Jewishness always went through the father's line. Just check out the genealogies in Scripture, as well as other issues like King David having gentile foremothers Rahab and Ruth.


So you have Jewish antecedents but you were not raised as a Jew.
Most Israelis are secular. Many of the six million murdered in the Holocaust were not practising any form of Judaism. My parents, still alive fortunately, feared antisemitism, even though it was not a problem in Australia and NZ, after what my father had been through in Europe.


Regardless I don't think you are by nature antisemitic, you just happen to say antisemetic things from time to time. Your issue is you are so immersed in the culture war that you don;t realise out racist and antisemetic the things you say actually are.
I am of course an anti-racist and pro-semitic Jewish believer in Yeshua haMashiach.


Noted. Monty Warner (a republican politician) is trying to paint the Jewish minority as conservative when they overwhelming vote progressive. That is the party that does support gun control, gender equality, racial equality, pro-choice, etc. Sounds to me like Monty is just disappointed that more Jews aren't as backward as he is. But again this is just more culture war fodder.
The problem was that Foxman was trying to paint opposition to his radical leftard politics as anti-semitic.


However this is even further beside the point because the reason you called Abe Foxman a Christ-hater is because he described the pro-ID, Ben Stein film Expelled as rubbish when Stein tried to make a link between evolution and the holocaust. The theory that evolution was a major contributor to holocaust is rubbish. Foxman (who was in Poland throughout WWII) knows it and will not have the culture warriors like Stein and Jono try and score points of the backs of the 6 million Jewish victims of the holocaust.
Again, this is hardly defamation of Jews for a Jew like Ben Stein to make that claim, which was backed up by the Holocaust memorials and the Nazi film clip shown.

Rincewind
12-08-2014, 12:10 PM
My grandmother was in my lifetime. My father, having been separated from his parents in France during the entirety of WW2 during his childhood, apparently thought overt Jewishness would only lead to more persecution. He could not bring himself to watch Schindler's List. Those who haven't been through this should not be so judgemental.

I'm not being judgemental, You made the claim that you are Jewish as a defense to anti-semitism and so I believe it is reasonable to explain the extent of your claim to Jewish identity. I commend you on your openness. However I still believe it is misleading to claim to be Jewish in your case. You have Jewish ancestry and some affinity for the Jewish people but you could not be accurately described as inequivocally Jewish.


In the Bible, Jewishness always went through the father's line. Just check out the genealogies in Scripture, as well as other issues like King David having gentile foremothers Rahab and Ruth.

Perhaps but that is not how Jewish people tend to measure Jewishness and this is the problem with your claim. When both parents are Jewish the father's status is important. However if one of the parents are not Jewish then by orthodox Judaism the status of the mother is more important than the status of the father - if the mother is not Jewish then neither is the child. Even if a more liberal interpretation, cases with one Jewish parent depends on the child being raised as a Jew which does not appear to be the case here.


Most Israelis are secular. Many of the six million murdered in the Holocaust were not practising any form of Judaism. My parents, still alive fortunately, feared antisemitism, even though it was not a problem in Australia and NZ, after what my father had been through in Europe.

That's true but if you are part Jewish then you are part Jewish. Make a claim of unequivocal Jewishness is strained and misleading given the implications of the orthodox definition of that claim.


I am of course an anti-racist and pro-semitic Jewish believer in Yeshua haMashiach.

Are you an active member of a Messianic congregation?


The problem was that Foxman was trying to paint opposition to his radical leftard politics as anti-semitic.

I'm not sure of the claim you are referring to so perhaps you could repeat it and explain how that works. Monty Warner is the politician so I can imagine Warner wanting to do that but Abe Foxman is not a politician but director of an organisation charged with fighting defamation and in particular anti-semitic defamation.


Again, this is hardly defamation of Jews for a Jew like Ben Stein to make that claim, which was backed up by the Holocaust memorials and the Nazi film clip shown.

Making false claims about the cause of the holocaust is defamation as it diminishes its significance in the history of Western civilization. The holocaust had antecedents in the pogroms of Russia and eastern Europe the various persecutions in the west such as the expulsion from Spain in the 15th century, the forced conversion and mass executions in Portugal and the writing of church leaders such as Martin Luther. In the face of a history of Jewish persecution going back a millennia, the claim that evolution was a significant contributing factor is patently false. It is nothing more than Stein trying to use the 6 million Jewish victims of the holocaust to score points for his failed conjecture.

It is not anti-semitic as the Jewish people are not the target of Stein's blathering. But it does the cause of fighting against anti-semitism harm as it can be used to abrogate the European history of anti-Jewish sentiment.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2014, 08:31 AM
Power bills to fall now carbon tax gone (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/power-bills-to-fall-now-carbon-tax-gone/story-fni0cx12-1227026356097)
JOHN ROLFE COST OF LIVING EDITOR THE DAILY TELEGRAPH AUGUST 15, 2014

IT IS official: more than 1 million NSW households will save nearly 9 per cent on electricity bills this financial year — and many will also get a 4 per cent cut in gas costs — after the axing of the carbon tax.

EnergyAustralia yesterday said it would drop electricity prices by 8.9 per cent, a $158 cut in the average annual bill. It will lower gas charges by 4.4 per cent, saving customers $35.

While gas costs will be lower, bills will still increase because overall price rises are larger than the carbon tax saving. For *example, the regulated price will be more than 11 per cent steeper in 2014-15. Without the *repeal of the carbon tax, that rise would have been almost 18 per cent.

For households that take their electricity and gas from EnergyAustralia, the combined saving would be an average of $193. Origin has indicated its electricity prices will drop by a national average of 7 per cent, and the saving for NSW customers will likely be higher. The other big energy retailer, AGL, has yet to say what it will do with prices.

Desmond
16-08-2014, 08:55 AM
Power bills to fall now carbon tax gone (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/power-bills-to-fall-now-carbon-tax-gone/story-fni0cx12-1227026356097)
JOHN ROLFE COST OF LIVING EDITOR THE DAILY TELEGRAPH AUGUST 15, 2014

IT IS official: more than 1 million NSW households will save nearly 9 per cent on electricity bills this financial year — and many will also get a 4 per cent cut in gas costs — after the axing of the carbon tax.

EnergyAustralia yesterday said it would drop electricity prices by 8.9 per cent, a $158 cut in the average annual bill. It will lower gas charges by 4.4 per cent, saving customers $35.

While gas costs will be lower, bills will still increase because overall price rises are larger than the carbon tax saving. For *example, the regulated price will be more than 11 per cent steeper in 2014-15. Without the *repeal of the carbon tax, that rise would have been almost 18 per cent.

For households that take their electricity and gas from EnergyAustralia, the combined saving would be an average of $193. Origin has indicated its electricity prices will drop by a national average of 7 per cent, and the saving for NSW customers will likely be higher. The other big energy retailer, AGL, has yet to say what it will do with prices.
…More good news - the poor can't afford to own or operate a car, so they don't have to pay the petrol excise!

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2014, 08:55 AM
I'm not being judgemental, You made the claim that you are Jewish as a defense to anti-semitism and so I believe it is reasonable to explain the extent of your claim to Jewish identity. I commend you on your openness. However I still believe it is misleading to claim to be Jewish in your case. You have Jewish ancestry and some affinity for the Jewish people but you could not be accurately described as inequivocally Jewish.
Yes I could be according to most definitions, including the only one that matters to me: the biblical one—a patrilneal descendant of Abraham, Isaac,


Perhaps but that is not how Jewish people tend to measure Jewishness and this is the problem with your claim. When both parents are Jewish the father's status is important. However if one of the parents are not Jewish then by orthodox Judaism the status of the mother is more important than the status of the father - if the mother is not Jewish then neither is the child. Even if a more liberal interpretation, cases with one Jewish parent depends on the child being raised as a Jew which does not appear to be the case here.
I am certainly Jewish enough for your and Foxman's fellow evolutionist Hitler to have sent me to the extermination camps, and Jewish according to the Bible which was exclusively patrilineal.


That's true but if you are part Jewish then you are part Jewish. Make a claim of unequivocal Jewishness is strained and misleading given the implications of the orthodox definition of that claim.
That is a revisionist definition that dates to the Crusades. It is not biblical. In any case, Orthodox Jews are a small minority of Jews. Karaite, Reform, Liberal, and Reconstructionist Jews accept patrilineal descent. Israeli author Amos Oz said simply ("Who is a Jew? Everyone who is mad enough to call himself or herself a Jew is a Jew."[): "Who is a Jew? Everyone who is mad enough to call himself or herself a Jew is a Jew."


Are you an active member of a Messianic congregation?
No, but I've been welcomed as a guest speaker in a number.


I'm not sure of the claim you are referring to so perhaps you could repeat it and explain how that works. Monty Warner is the politician so I can imagine Warner wanting to do that but Abe Foxman is not a politician but director of an organisation charged with fighting defamation and in particular anti-semitic defamation.
Exactly, but he uses that position to attack conservatism.


Making false claims about the cause of the holocaust is defamation as it diminishes its significance in the history of Western civilization.
But Stein was making true claims based on what was said at the Holocaust Memorial sites and from Nazi propaganda films, and other clear connections, as I've documented (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link). Foxman objected to the attacks on his real religion: secular leftardism, which explains his christophobic lies. Foxman should stick to attacking Holocaust denial.


It is not anti-semitic as the Jewish people are not the target of Stein's blathering. But it does the cause of fighting against anti-semitism harm as it can be used to abrogate the European history of anti-Jewish sentiment.
More nonsense. There would not be a single case of antisemitism triggered by Stein's documentary, and nor was there any from The Passion for that matter.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2014, 08:56 AM
More good news - the poor can't afford to own or operate a car, so they don't have to pay the petrol excise!

Are you a fan of Joe Hockey then, with that sort of "Let them eat cake"?

Desmond
16-08-2014, 08:58 AM
Are you a fan of Joe Hockey then, with that sort of "Let them eat cake"?Oh he's just super. Not only can they not afford private transport, but he's cutting funding for public transport too. What a guy.

Rincewind
16-08-2014, 10:20 AM
Yes I could be according to most definitions, including the only one that matters to me: the biblical one—a patrilneal descendant of Abraham, Isaac,

Of course the Jewish definition doesn't matter to you. Because you are not interested in whether the things you say are misleading. In fact you deliberately craft them to be misleading.


I am certainly Jewish enough for your and Foxman's fellow evolutionist Hitler to have sent me to the extermination camps, and Jewish according to the Bible which was exclusively patrilineal.

Actually unless you were a member on a congregation you would have probably avoided the concentration camps if you were born in German. If you were in an occupied territory you may done. Certainly in German while you probably would have avoided the death camps, you still would have been a second-class citizen.


That is a revisionist definition that dates to the Crusades. It is not biblical. In any case, Orthodox Jews are a small minority of Jews. Karaite, Reform, Liberal, and Reconstructionist Jews accept patrilineal descent. Israeli author Amos Oz said simply ("Who is a Jew? Everyone who is mad enough to call himself or herself a Jew is a Jew."[): "Who is a Jew? Everyone who is mad enough to call himself or herself a Jew is a Jew."

Cool so if everyone is a Jew then anti-semitism can't possible exist. Really I wonder if there is any thought going into your posts here sometimes.


No, but I've been welcomed as a guest speaker in a number.

Yes, and I've been in a number of bakeries. It doesn't make me a baker.


Exactly, but he uses that position to attack conservatism.

Ipse dixit.


But Stein was making true claims based on what was said at the Holocaust Memorial sites and from Nazi propaganda films, and other clear connections, as I've documented (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link). Foxman objected to the attacks on his real religion: secular leftardism, which explains his christophobic lies. Foxman should stick to attacking Holocaust denial.

You miss the point. There is a difference between a regime rationalising their policies using any available scientific and psuedoscientific theory going around and that being the principle cause for those policies being generated, enacted and accepted by the general population.

The truth of the matter is that Europe has a long history of centuries of Christian persecution of Jews that has been well-documented. Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian country and heavily influenced by Luther whose antisemitic views are also widely known. The antisemitic policies of the Nazis were opposed by some (notably many catholic clergy) but largely accepted and enacted. To claim this was so mainly or even significantly because of scientific justifications just doesn't make sense. The general population were not scientists, but they were all Christians.

In simple terms the holocaust happened because Christians were doing what they had always done to Jews. The difference was it was organised and industrialised in a way that was not possible earlier in history.


More nonsense. There would not be a single case of antisemitism triggered by Stein's documentary, and nor was there any from The Passion for that matter.

You miss the point (again). It is not they trigger overtly antisemitic events but that they themselves foster and in some ways provide an environment compatible with antisemitic ideas. Stein's documentary in particular links the holocaust with a scientific theory so that the Christian element of the holocaust is downplayed which makes it easier for Christians to be antisemitic on theological grounds.

Damodevo
20-08-2014, 12:20 AM
Solar cycles linked to climate pause, assist in coastal planning


LONG-TERM (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/solar-cycles-linked-to-climate-pause-assist-in-coastal-planning/story-e6frg6xf-1227026053386) natural cycles linked to the sun could explain the pause in global average surface temperatures and offer a better guide for coastal planners to predict sea level rises, storm surges and natural disasters.

Publication of the findings in Ocean and Coastal Management follows a decade-long struggle for the lead author, Australian scientist Robert Baker from the University of New England, whose work has challenged the orthodox *climate science view that carbon dioxide is the dominant factor in climate change.

Dr Baker, a former chair of the International Geographical Commission on Modelling Geographic Systems, said what had been a purely scientific debate on climate change until 2005 had become political. His latest paper with his PhD student faced a *series of *objections from scientists close to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change but was published after an 11-member peer review panel voted 8-3 to publish. An editorial that accompanied the paper said it was an “excellent *example of how to approach these complex issues that are now vulnerable to often irrational and heated debate instead of the *required proper scientific discussion”.

Damodevo
20-08-2014, 12:57 AM
Sun’s Activity Impacts Climate Change


"A new (http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/08/sun%E2%80%99s-activity-impacts-climate-change) study from Lund Univ. has, for the first time, reconstructed solar activity during the last ice age. The study shows that the regional climate is influenced by the sun and offers opportunities to better predict future climate conditions in certain regions.

For the first time, a research team has been able to reconstruct the solar activity at the end of the last ice age, around 20,000–10,000 years ago, by analyzing trace elements in ice cores in Greenland and cave formations from China. During the last glacial maximum, Sweden was covered in a thick ice sheet that stretched all the way down to northern Germany and sea levels were more than 100 meters lower than they are today, because the water was frozen in the extensive ice caps. The new study shows that the sun’s variation influences the climate in a similar way regardless of whether the climate is extreme, as during the Ice Age, or as it is today."

Damodevo
20-08-2014, 01:00 AM
More! Adds to all the evidence of solar amplification mechanisms (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/the-amplified-climate-impacts-of-solar.html)

New paper finds (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/new-paper-finds-sun-controls-greenland.html) the Sun controls Greenland climate


An important paper published today in Nature Geoscience finds a persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the last ice age, and finds the link is similar to modern solar forcing of regional climate.

According to the authors,

"We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions."

The authors describe a solar amplification mechanism by which solar minima favor the development of high-pressure blocking systems which block the jet stream and cause increased jet stream dips of the polar vortex [just like we have seen over the past few record cold winters in the US and Europe]. Many other papers have described this solar amplification mechanism via solar effects on the stratosphere, which in turn affect the QBO, which in turn affects large scale planetary waves such as Rossby Waves and the jet stream.

Rincewind
20-08-2014, 10:14 AM
I'm don;t know who writes The Hockey Schtick but it is either someone who is scientifically illiterate and misrepresenting science because they don't understand it or else someone who is scientifically literate and is being deliberately misleading.

The headline "the Sun controls Greenland climate" is just obviously wrong and potentially deliberately so. It is not the finding of the paper cited and gives the impression that Greenland's climate is somehow magically not affected by other climate forcings like the Greenhouse Effect.

The blog also seems to think that using 10Be concentration as a proxy for solar activity is a good idea even in the present day even though industrialisation has had a significant effect on atmospheric chemistry (like the lowering of the pH of atmospheric water) and in any case we now have better proxies, like actual measures of solar activity. Although 10Be will remain a valuable proxy for pre-industrial times (when we have no direct measures).

I'm not sure which is more depressing. That The Hockey Schtick's writer misrepresenting science or the existence of people like Damodevo who think it proves some sort of scientific point. It is easy to take a paper and misrepresent its findings to the scientifically naive on your blog. What is hard is actually doing new and interesting science (in any field) and publishing it in proper peer-reviewed journal.

Capablanca-Fan
25-08-2014, 05:12 AM
Desalination plant at Kurnell costing taxpayers $534,246 a day as it sits idle while water levels remain high (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/desalination-plant-at-kurnell-costing-taxpayers-534246-a-day-as-it-sits-idle-while-water-levels-remain-high/story-fni0cx12-1227033578428?nk=7d709a34f2c72bde81e122acdbf3ebe0)
MILES GODFREY STATE POLITICAL REPORTER THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH AUGUST 24, 2014

THE desalination plant has sat idle for two years, costing taxpayers $390 million.

And with recent rain there is no prospect of the “white elephant” infrastructure being used for years.

The plant in Kurnell, which is jointly owned by a Canadian pension fund and an Australian fund management company, was turned off in mid-2012 as Sydney’s dams surged to nearly 100 per cent full.

Water levels have remained high ever since and as a result the desalination plant, which is designed to convert sea water into freshwater in times of drought, has never been switched back on.

It is costing taxpayers an incredible $195 million a year — or $534,246 a day — in “service fees” just to have the plant on standby.

Desmond
25-08-2014, 07:32 AM
Key point being:
designed to convert sea water into freshwater in times of droughtso it is no mystery that the plant is not used when it is not a time of drought.

Damodevo
25-08-2014, 09:21 AM
More evidence that IPCC CO2 sensitivity estimates are too high (http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/21/cause-of-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/#more-16678);

Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean


Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface.

Damodevo
25-08-2014, 09:45 AM
Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models


The most important of these assumptions (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/) is that a little bit of carbon dioxide-induced warming will create a substantial increase in atmospheric water vapor. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so substantial increases in atmospheric water vapor can certainly cause significant warming. United Nations computer models are programmed to assume that absolute humidity (the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere) will rise so much that even relative humidity (the percent of water vapor in the atmosphere) will at least keep pace and perhaps even increase. Warmer air is able to hold more water than cooler air, so absolute water vapor would have to increase quite substantially for relative humidity to remain constant or increase in a warming world.

Scientists, however, have been measuring relative humidity for many decades. Rather than keeping pace with modestly warming temperatures, relative humidity is declining. This decline has been ongoing, without interruption, for more than 60 years. After more than six decades of consistent data, we can say with strong confidence that absolute humidity is not rising rapidly enough for relative humidity to keep pace with warming temperatures.

Rincewind
25-08-2014, 12:05 PM
More evidence that IPCC CO2 sensitivity estimates are too high (http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/21/cause-of-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/#more-16678);

Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean

This still ignores the main problem which is we are talking in more heat than we are giving off.

The other thing it demonstrates is that hundreds if not thousands of papers in Science and Nature and other scientific papers say that global warming is a problem we need to address then that is just scientists being greedy or whatever. But if one paper appears which says it will not be a big problem for the next ten years then that is lauded as some groundbreaking and absolute truth.

The reality is that Chen and Tung's paper is interesting but far from conclusive. Also even if it is 100% correct we still need to address the problem of global warming caused by CO2 concentration. Because the next time the Atlantic cycle warming phase kicks in we are again in for rapid warming but this time starting from the present baseline.

antichrist
25-08-2014, 12:51 PM
Jono from above: It is costing taxpayers an incredible $195 million a year — or $534,246 a day — in “service fees” just to have the plant on standby.

AC: one reason is so expensive because it is privately owned and has been guaranteed by the govt to make a hefty profit for the owners no matter what

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2014, 04:43 PM
Ditch RET to set economy free
DAVID LEYONHJELM THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 27, 2014 12:00AM

ELECTRICITY bills are a huge worry for many Australians. In coming months a lot of people will receive the biggest household utility bills they have ever seen. The latest figures from the ABS show that in the five years to June 2012, Australia’s retail electricity prices rose by 72 per cent with even higher increases in Melbourne and Sydney.

If Labor, the Greens and Clive Palmer really care for social justice they will not allow working families, pensioners and the disadvantaged to be ripped off by wealthy wind generators and will back the abolition of the RET.

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2014, 04:44 PM
AC: one reason is so expensive because it is privately owned and has been guaranteed by the govt to make a hefty profit for the owners no matter what
Yes, the worst of crony capitalism, where government tries to pick winners, not the free market

Rincewind
27-08-2014, 09:13 PM
Coal powered electricity generation is only relatively cheap because they have traditionally been allowed to polute the environment without cost. They are basically ruining the environment (which belongs to everyone) for their own financial gain. A worst case of crony capitalism than anything happening in renewables.

Patrick Byrom
29-08-2014, 12:23 AM
Ditch RET to set economy free
DAVID LEYONHJELM THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 27, 2014 12:00AM
… If Labor, the Greens and Clive Palmer really care for social justice they will not allow working families, pensioners and the disadvantaged to be ripped off by wealthy wind generators and will back the abolition of the RET.
It seems that the 'rejectors' can't get their stories straight. Leyonhjelm claims the RET is increasing prices, while the Warburton inquiry claims the opposite (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/costs-of-australias-renewable-energy-target-not-justifiable-review-20140828-109m04.html):

The review acknowledged that the scheme had lowered wholesale electricity prices and that its impact on household bills over time would be "relatively small".

Of course, both want the RET abolished, but for opposite reasons :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2014, 03:12 AM
Coal powered electricity generation is only relatively cheap because they have traditionally been allowed to polute the environment without cost. They are basically ruining the environment (which belongs to everyone) for their own financial gain.
And of course, cheap electricity for everyone at a very low environmental cost—and a lower overall cost than proposed alternatives including the misnamed "renewable" energy. And the market has led to cleaner and cleaner coal-burning power plants. The white "smoke" that greenies whinge about is actually steam.


A worst case of crony capitalism than anything happening in renewables.

Hardly crony capitalism unless the government is subsidizing them. Coal historically was much cleaner than wood that was previously used, at the cost of trees of course. But now the ecofascists are returning to destroying trees:

Europe is burning our forests for “renewable” energy. Wait, what? (http://grist.org/climate-energy/europe-is-burning-our-forests-for-renewable-energy-wait-what/)
By Ben Adler
25 Aug 2014

Rincewind
29-08-2014, 11:56 AM
Hardly crony capitalism unless the government is subsidizing them.

They are subsidising them by allowing them to degrade the environment without cost.

antichrist
29-08-2014, 12:03 PM
They are subsidising them by allowing them to degrade the environment without cost.

And Jono's mind frame an environment given by God himself for us to protect and respect for future generations - until God decides Earth's demise, not environmental plunders and vandals.

Rincewind
29-08-2014, 12:43 PM
And Jono's mind frame an environment given by God himself for us to protect and respect for future generations - until God decides Earth's demise, not environmental plunders and vandals.

Perhaps but other polluters have been doing that but have had to pay for the privilege to pollute. It is just CO2 emissions which are free to emit. Because the traditional view was that they were not harmful to the environment. We now know that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to the environment and polluters like the coal power should pay for those emissions. To not do so is a form of subsidy and thus crony capitalism by Jono's definition.

antichrist
29-08-2014, 12:55 PM
Perhaps but other polluters have been doing that but have had to pay for the privilege to pollute. It is just CO2 emissions which are free to emit. Because the traditional view was that they were not harmful to the environment. We now know that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to the environment and polluters like the coal power should pay for those emissions. To not do so is a form of subsidy and thus crony capitalism by Jono's definition.

I have sort of come to the extremist position, that anything you dig up (except dirt of course but some are chemically charged) and process will cause serious pollution. Whether oil, coal, aluminium bauxite, uranium, iron ore etc. No plastics either, that are completely polluting the ocean big time. Would be extremely different life of course. We could only burn vegetative stuff, dung and the odd bbq. But at least not bringing destruction of biosphere.

If there was another sentential creature they would be barracking that AIDS or Ebola would wipe most of us humans out, just like we do with the rabbits.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2014, 03:17 PM
Interesting one in one of my areas of expertise. In 2009 the Aldabra banded snail (Rhachistia alderbrae) from the Seychelles was declared extinct by IUCN, having been assessed as such in 2006. The snail had been common on Aldabra atoll in the 1970s then declined and none had been seen since 1997.

The extinction of the snail was widely reported as the first species extinction clearly attributable to climate change in the form of an increase in dry years. Only problem: while the snail's population has certainly crashed, the species is not extinct at all just yet; the Seychelles Islands Foundation has reported its rediscovery (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1542933625930564&id=1414466072110654).

Poor effort IUCN to allow a species missing for only 12 years to be declared extinct. They do have room to vary from the 50 year criterion but there are good reasons not to do so when it comes to small organisms.

antichrist
30-08-2014, 03:24 PM
Interesting one in one of my areas of expertise. In 2009 the Aldabra banded snail (Rhachistia alderbrae) from the Seychelles was declared extinct by IUCN, having been assessed as such in 2006. The snail had been common on Aldabra atoll in the 1970s then declined and none had been seen since 1997.

The extinction of the snail was widely reported as the first species extinction clearly attributable to climate change in the form of an increase in dry years. Only problem: while the snail's population has certainly crashed, the species is not extinct at all just yet; the Seychelles Islands Foundation has reported its rediscovery (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1542933625930564&id=1414466072110654).

Poor effort IUCN to allow a species missing for only 12 years to be declared extinct. They do have room to vary from the 50 year criterion but there are good reasons not to do so when it comes to small organisms.

I imagine one would have to consider with consistent searching how often these blighters are encountered - 12 years could be a eye blink or a lifetime. But if seriously declined it is only a moot point if actually extinct or not. If climate change knocks the stuffing out of many species, including humans, then we are still greatly mistaken in letting it occur. Greatly selfish we are by causing unnecessarily causing pollution.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2014, 07:16 AM
Senator David Leyonhjelm: “Wake Up Clive!” – It’s Time to Kill the RET & Save the Poor (http://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/28/senator-david-leyonhjelm-wake-up-clive-its-time-to-kill-the-ret-save-the-poor/)
28 August 2014

The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that in the five years to June 2012, Australia’s retail electricity prices rose by 72 per cent with even higher increases in Melbourne and Sydney.

The Queensland Competition Authority’s annual report revealed recently that 344 households were disconnected every week in the Sunshine State because of non-payment of electricity bills.

Senators and MPs, however, don’t need to worry about whether staying warm in chilly Canberra may send them broke. Perhaps if they had to pay for their own heating and airconditioning in Parliament House, it would concentrate their minds on the important discussion we need to have on the future of the renewable energy target.

The repeal of the carbon tax will help, but studies show that the RET [Renewable Energy Target] has an even greater impact on the bottom line, reducing our living standards and the competitiveness of our entire economy.

The dramatic surge in power bills has been a major factor in the decline of our manufacturing sector and the loss of thousands of jobs. In a little more than 10 years the RET has rocketed Australia from almost the cheapest to almost the most expensive electricity in the world: Australian states occupy four of the top six spots beaten only by Denmark and Germany. These countries also are sapped pointlessly with punishing renewable energy policies producing small amounts of extremely expensive, intermittent power that has to be backed up by fossil fuel power anyway.

Contrary to claims by industry lobby groups and consultants representing Big Wind producers and merchant bankers, it is no coincidence that power prices went up so steeply when mandatory renewable energy targets were introduced. A report from the accounting firm Deloitte shows the RET will stifle the economy, cost jobs and drive up prices, and is a very inefficient means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It concludes that abolishing the RET would increase real GDP by $29 billion in net present terms relative to the RET continuation.

antichrist
31-08-2014, 07:54 AM
Jono, dont come out with this rubbish. Pensioners were compensated directly for any increase - that is the sticking point, Clive the popularist wants them to keep their new lollies whilst taking the tax off. And the general citizenship got the tax threshold increased from about $7K to $18K, a massive amount more than the carbon tax was costing them. Don't prove that you have absolutely no credibility. Your missus has a lot more credibility than yourself.

Patrick Byrom
01-09-2014, 10:26 PM
Jono, dont come out with this rubbish. Pensioners were compensated directly for any increase - that is the sticking point, Clive the popularist wants them to keep their new lollies whilst taking the tax off. And the general citizenship got the tax threshold increased from about $7K to $18K, a massive amount more than the carbon tax was costing them. Don't prove that you have absolutely no credibility. Your missus has a lot more credibility than yourself.
You're making a lot more sense than Leyonjhelm or Capablanca Fan, AC! Their crocodile tears for pensioners will dry up as soon as the RET is abolished, and then they can go back to arguing that the poor should be paying for every doctor's visit, which will cost them far more than the RET ever did.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2014, 01:44 AM
You're making a lot more sense than Leyonjhelm or Capablanca Fan, AC! Their crocodile tears for pensioners will dry up as soon as the RET is abolished, and then they can go back to arguing that the poor should be paying for every doctor's visit, which will cost them far more than the RET ever did.

$7 per visit will cost them more? Good grief, this is way smaller than most other countries. It's hardly "crocodile tears" to note that many leftard/green policies do hurt the poorest people. I've already noted the high marginal tax on the unemployed, as well as petrol excise that disproportionately affects low-income people.

Increasing the tax-free threshold was a very good idea, and the old LDP policy likewise proposed a higher threshold. It makes sense to reduce bureaucratic hassles for tax returns that provide little revenue for the government. The only problem is that those who pay no tax are less likely to care about government over-spending—it's not their money after all.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2014, 03:17 AM
What an imbecile:


Secretary of State John Kerry said (http://minutemennews.com/2014/09/kerry-confronting-climate-change-responsibility-laid-scriptures) “confronting climate change” is “a duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures.”

“Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures, clearly, beginning in Genesis,” Kerry claimed.

Of course, the usual atheopaths who screech the unconstitutional mantra “Separation of Church and State” whenever a conservative tries to defend unborn life or marriage will be silent when leftards like this anti-semite twist the Scriptures to support leftard causes like prenatal baby-butcher, wealth redistribution, or huge taxes and regulation to try to stop globull warming climate change.

Desmond
06-09-2014, 10:46 AM
$7 per visit will cost them more? Good grief, this is way smaller than most other countries. Can you point to any country that has better medical outcomes while spending less per GDP on it?

antichrist
06-09-2014, 10:49 AM
What an imbecile:


Secretary of State John Kerry said (http://minutemennews.com/2014/09/kerry-confronting-climate-change-responsibility-laid-scriptures) “confronting climate change” is “a duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures.”

“Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures, clearly, beginning in Genesis,” Kerry claimed.

Of course, the usual atheopaths who screech the unconstitutional mantra “Separation of Church and State” whenever a conservative tries to defend unborn life or marriage will be silent when leftards like this anti-semite twist the Scriptures to support leftard causes like prenatal baby-butcher, wealth redistribution, or huge taxes and regulation to try to stop globull warming climate change.

Now Jono, why is there climate change etc - one reason because of over population due to over procreation (shagging), lack of wars, improvement of medicine mostly immunisations, greater food production and socialistic policies that was able to feed them to survive to adolescent. BUT it all comes at a price. The planet cannot sustain over population on a long term basis. That extra food production was at the cost of artificial fertilisers and pesticides etc, cost of clearing forests that prevented global warming, the private car guaranteed pollution - so in a nutshell the earth is stuffed. Now remember Indiri Gandhi in India when you were still in shorts. Well she made birth control compulsory in India and was shot or booted out for her troubles. Now we must sell uranium and coal to them for their billions extra in body and souls (your dept). A never ending cycle into oblivion for God's planet - from an atheist like me how dare I break Separation of God and Science

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2014, 01:55 AM
As usual, Labor/Green policies especially hurt the poor that they claim to care about. Of course, many of the leading Green adovcates are Mercedes Marxists like George Clooney (http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/09/04/climate-crusaderobamacare-supporter-george-clooney-takes-private-jet-germany-medical-help/) using his CO2-spewing private jet to escape Obamovcare that he supported for the masses, so won't have to eat their own cooking. Australia would go the way of UK if the Coalition didn't get rid of the moronic RET.

BRITAIN FACES 'WINTER OF BLACKOUTS' AS FIRMS ARE ASKED TO RATION ELECTRICITY (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/03/Britain-Faces-Winter-of-Blackouts-As-Firms-Are-Asked-to-Ration-Electricity)
DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS 3 Sep 2014

"The chickens are coming home to roost". So said the UKIP energy spokesman, commenting on the news that businesses are being asked to join a 1970s style energy rationing program this winter to stop Britain being plunged into darkness. Offices and factories will be offered compensation to shut down for four hours a day so that energy can instead be diverted to households.

The scheme, reported in the Daily Mail, is part of a series of measures set to be taken by National Grid which also includes asking owners of decommissioned gas, coal and oil power stations to turn them back on. Ofgem, the industry regulator, has welcomed the proposals but pointed out that “it would cost quite a bit”. It comes as the gap between energy consumption and production has narrowed to dangerous levels, leaving the system increasingly vulnerable to unexpected events.

The scheme echoes the three day working weeks suffered by Britain during the winter of 1973/74, in which power was tightly rationed. Under Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, businesses were only allowed three consecutive days’ worth of electricity a week whilst households were subject to a ‘three hours on, three hours off’ supply. Heath lost the general election in February 1974.

Yesterday National Grid also contacted the owners of recently closed power plants to enquire as to whether they could be brought back online within the next few weeks. This is an option that has never before been used in Britain, and has been predicted to cost tens of millions as the owners would be paid all costs involved in getting the stations up and running, plus an above market rate price for electricity generated. They would be required to produce energy between 6am and 8pm between November and February.

“It is a bitter irony that DECC [the Department of Energy and Climate Change] is planning contracts with commercial companies to use diesel generators to fill the gaps when the wind doesn't blow. It is bizarre that we are paying over the odds for diesel generators when the plan was to cut emissions.

"The near-certainty of black-outs is not the only problem. We've also forced energy prices sky high, driving businesses and jobs and investment out of the UK, and leaving households and pensioners in fuel poverty".

antichrist
07-09-2014, 11:07 AM
BRITAIN FACES 'WINTER OF BLACKOUTS' AS FIRMS ARE ASKED TO RATION ELECTRICITY
DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS 3 Sep 2014

"The chickens are coming home to roost"

ac: The only chickens coming home to roost is over population and over consumerism for the past 150 years. The population is going up in billions but the atmosphere stays the same amount but decreases in certain elements due to pollution - even the family dog can understand that.

Desmond
07-09-2014, 07:26 PM
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study (http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911)

"Skeptics" please read as: Scientists Admit Chance Global Warming Not Anthrogenic

Patrick Byrom
07-09-2014, 07:46 PM
As usual, Labor/Green policies especially hurt the poor that they claim to care about. Of course, many of the leading Green adovcates are Mercedes Marxists like George Clooney (http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/09/04/climate-crusaderobamacare-supporter-george-clooney-takes-private-jet-germany-medical-help/) using his CO2-spewing private jet to escape Obamovcare that he supported for the masses, so won't have to eat their own cooking. Australia would go the way of UK if the Coalition didn't get rid of the moronic RET.

BRITAIN FACES 'WINTER OF BLACKOUTS' AS FIRMS ARE ASKED TO RATION ELECTRICITY (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/03/Britain-Faces-Winter-of-Blackouts-As-Firms-Are-Asked-to-Ration-Electricity)
DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS 3 Sep 2014
...

I'm sure that UKIP and Breitbart are extremely reliable sources :)

Britain actually has a Conservative government, so I'm not sure why "Labor/Green" policies are to blame. Even in Australia, the RET was introduced by the Howard government.

And in Australia, even the Coalition is starting to accept the reality that the RET does not increase prices:

And Coalition sources also said the political argument that the target pushed up household electricity prices was "largely dead" thanks to modelling commissioned for the review that found bills would in fact fall from 2021 if it was kept.


But I'm sure that you and Leyonjhelm will continue to claim that it does.

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2014, 12:18 AM
I'm sure that UKIP and Breitbart are extremely reliable sources :)
Definitely. Much more so than leftard and ecofascist sources.


Britain actually has a Conservative government, so I'm not sure why "Labor/Green" policies are to blame.
Because it's CINO: Conservative In Name Only. The rot started with the UK equivalent, and the Conservatives didn't undo most of it. That's why the UKIP has grown. The Conservatives talked a good game about the encroachment of the EU, but only the UKIP would withdraw from it and put sovereignty back with Britain.


Even in Australia, the RET was introduced by the Howard government.
Bad move.


And in Australia, even the Coalition is starting to accept the reality that the RET does not increase prices:

And Coalition sources also said the political argument that the target pushed up household electricity prices was "largely dead" thanks to modelling commissioned for the review that found bills would in fact fall from 2021 if it was kept.


But I'm sure that you and Leyonjhelm will continue to claim that it does.[/QUOTE]
Of course. If it did not, it wouldn't need subsidies or mandates because the market would choose them anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2014, 12:30 AM
Up to 4 million die from indoor air pollution annually (they need cheap coal-fired electricity!) (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/up-to-4-million-die-from-indoor-air-pollution-annually-they-need-cheap-coal-fired-electricity/)
Joanne Nova, September 2014

People who have no cheap electricity burn wood or coal inside their homes to make dinner and stay warm. The smoke produces real pollution (as opposed to the fake kind which feeds plants). In India, some homes have pollution levels “three times higher than a typical London street”. Not surprisingly, living in smoke does not work out well for lungs and hearts. “Estimates suggest that household air pollution killed 3·5 to 4 million people in 2010. “

We can argue about the numbers and whether they are exaggerated, but there’s no doubt that millions of people would lead better lives if they had access to cheap electricity, which in practical terms means coal-fired power. In Niger, Africa, 17 million people use less electricity than Dubbo, NSW, a town of 40,000.

Where are the Greens? Children in poverty are suffering from lung damage now. The Greens priority is to spend billions to stop them dying in 2100 from seas rising at 1mm a year. How many people does expensive electricity kill? — Jo

———————————-

Household air pollution puts more than one in three people worldwide at risk of ill health, early death

REFERENCES
Gordon et al (2014) Respiratory risks from household air pollution in low and middle income countries (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70168-7). The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2014; DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70168-7

Majid Ezzati et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8), 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 2012; 380 (9859): 2224 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2014, 02:05 AM
Whatever Happened to Global Warming? (http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855)
Now come climate scientists' implausible explanations for why the 'hiatus' has passed the 15-year mark.
Matt Ridley, WSJ, 4 Sept 2014

On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won't attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that's left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

Putting the icing on the cake of good news, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung think the Atlantic Ocean may continue to prevent any warming for the next two decades. So in their quest to explain the pause, scientists have made the future sound even less alarming than before. Let's hope that the United Nations admits as much on day one of its coming jamboree and asks the delegates to pack up, go home and concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity.

Rincewind
08-09-2014, 01:43 PM
It must be nice to publish for the WSJ and not say a scientific outlet. Since provided you toe the WSJ party line of climate change denialism you can say whatever you like without having to agree with the facts.

Patrick Byrom
08-09-2014, 06:36 PM
Of course. If it did not, it wouldn't need subsidies or mandates because the market would choose them anyway.
What do the pronouns "it" and "them" refer to in your sentence? In my original sentence, to which you are replying, "it" was the RET which would cause prices to fall. In your sentence, apparently the RET needs a mandate - which makes no sense, as the RET is a mandate. The "them" is presumably renewables, but even if they are more expensive, providing extra suppliers of energy will still reduce prices. And there is more than one market involved - installing rooftop solar power saves a homeowner money, but is of no benefit to an electricity supplier.

Of course, the main aim of the RET is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which absorbs and radiates energy (thus warming the surface) - but apparently you don't believe CO2 molecules do this.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2014, 12:44 PM
And there is more than one market involved - installing rooftop solar power saves a homeowner money, but is of no benefit to an electricity supplier.
It is a benefit for the subsidized solar PV companies, but not for the country.


Of course, the main aim of the RET is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which absorbs and radiates energy (thus warming the surface) -
alGore, Obamov, Kerry, et al. could achieve that by shutting up and stopping exhaling, as well as stop jetsetting.


but apparently you don't believe CO2 molecules do this.
Everyone who knows anything about vibrational spectroscopy, which doesn't include alGore, Flummery, KRudd, and JuLiar, knows that much. Water vapour does too, and so does any molecular vibration with a change in dipole moment. None of this proves that we should cripple our economy for immeasurably small temperature differences.

Patrick Byrom
09-09-2014, 10:16 PM
Everyone who knows anything about vibrational spectroscopy, which doesn't include alGore, Flummery, KRudd, and JuLiar, knows that much. Water vapour does too, and so does any molecular vibration with a change in dipole moment. None of this proves that we should cripple our economy for immeasurably small temperature differences.
And the more excess carbon dioxide that man adds to the atmosphere, the more the surface heats up - correct? As I'm sure you know, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature, so while it is a greenhouse gas, it does not cause increasing temperatures.

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2014, 07:25 AM
And the more excess carbon dioxide that man adds to the atmosphere, the more the surface heats up - correct?
Ceteris paribus. But we know of other warming that had nothing to do with man. Of course, the globull warm-mongers must explain away what was widely called the Medieval Warm Period or Climate Optimum, great for crops, as a local aberration.


As I'm sure you know, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature, so while it is a greenhouse gas, it does not cause increasing temperatures.
But most of the greenhouse warming is caused by water vapour. As I'm sure you know, a molecular vibration absorbs infrared radiation only if it changes the molecule’s dipole moment. CO2 is a highly symmetric linear molecule O=C=O, and a symmetric stretch of the C=O bonds (i.e. in phase) cancels out the dipole change, so this vibration doesn’t absorb, while the other ones (asymmetric stretch and bending) do. Water (H2O) is a bent polar molecule, and all its vibrational modes strongly absorb infrared.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2014, 10:27 AM
The snail I mentioned in #3133 has now suffered a fate worse than extinction. The news was pounced on and ranted about by Rush Limbaugh.

Rincewind
10-09-2014, 10:45 AM
The snail I mentioned in #3133 has now suffered a fate worse than extinction. The news was pounced on and ranted about by Rush Limbaugh.

I didn't realise Rush was a lurker on this forum.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2014, 12:03 PM
I didn't realise Rush was a lurker on this forum.

The rediscovery got picked up by a number of online news outlets, though not as many as the original so-called extinction. I actually first saw the rediscovery linked to by another snail expert on Twitter, but later it started showing up regularly on Google News. "Species rediscovered" is one of my Google News search terms ("new species" is another), but most likely Limbaugh has an army of hacks dredging Google News for adverse items about "climate change" and he would have found it that way. Most likely I have nothing to do with it.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2014, 02:49 PM
VIDEO: Hypocrite Al Gore Leaves Climate March in Suburban SUV (http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/22/video-hypocrite-al-gore-leaves-climate-march-in-suburban-suv/)
September 22, 2014 By Greg Campbell


However, it seems that while Gore believes we need to change our attitudes and behaviors to make a difference, the environmental alarmist is unwilling to do the same as on Sunday, Gore left the scene of a massive march in New York City to protest “climate change” in a Chevy Suburban SUV that gets very-low gas mileage.

On Sunday, TPNN reported that after the march to raise awareness of environmental issues attended by hundreds-of-thousands of people, the protesters left a trail of trash in their wake. Since the “feel good” moment was over, it seemed that many who self-righteously paraded to raise awareness about the environment simply didn’t care enough to pick up after themselves.

This is simply par for the course when discussing the left’s motto of “do what I say, not as I do.” Liberals love raising taxes, but hate paying them. They love campaign finance restrictions, but eagerly accept money from billionaire benefactors. They love to talk about tolerance, but refuse to tolerate the opinions of others.

Of course, Gore needs to get from Point A to Point B. But seeing how he has spent the better part of a decade lecturing the American people about the sacrifices necessary to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, it’s just flat-out obnoxiously hypocritical for him to live by one set of rules while advocating for another for the rest of us.

Rincewind
24-09-2014, 11:11 PM
VIDEO: Hypocrite Al Gore Leaves Climate March in Suburban SUV (http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/22/video-hypocrite-al-gore-leaves-climate-march-in-suburban-suv/)
September 22, 2014 By Greg Campbell

What a croc. They guy has an entourage of security personnel and the SUV is probably armoured. I've heard of armoured Chevy Suburbans, not armoured Priuses.

Desmond
25-09-2014, 09:06 AM
2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-18041)

Just days after NASA data showed that August 2014 was the warmest August on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirmed the ranking and raised the ante: There’s a good chance 2014 could become the warmest year on record.

“If we continue a consistent departure from average for the rest of 2014, we will edge out 2010 as the warmest year on record,” said Jake Crouch, a climatologist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, during a press briefing Thursday.

Specifically, if each of the remaining months of the year ranks among the top five warmest, 2014 will take the top spot, he said.
...

Damodevo
25-09-2014, 11:49 PM
MORE evidence (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/new-research-finds-earth-even-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-previously-thought/) that CO2 sensitivity has been overestimated (which means the heating effect, if real, is probably in the beneficial range).


Earlier this year, in a widely discussed report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate researcher Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok put forward a new estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity based on observational data, finding that it was much less alarming than suggested by computer simulations of the Earth’s climate.

Now, Lewis and well known American climate science professor Judith Curry have updated the Lewis and Crok report estimates using the latest empirical data, a more sophisticated methodology and an approach to accounting for uncertainties that has been described by one independent reviewer as “state of the art”. Their findings fully support the modest estimates of climate sensitivity and future warming given in the Lewis and Crok report, and compared with that report make it look even less likely that the substantially higher estimates based on computer simulations are correct.

“Our results, which use data from this year’s IPCC fifth assessment report, are in line with those of several recent studies based on observed centennial warming and strongly suggest complex global climate models used for warming projections are oversensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations,” said Nic Lewis.

Rincewind
26-09-2014, 01:53 AM
Using the word "evidence" in a link to Anthony Watt's blog is very misleading.

Patrick Byrom
27-09-2014, 12:01 AM
MORE evidence (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/new-research-finds-earth-even-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-previously-thought/) that CO2 sensitivity has been overestimated (which means the heating effect, if real, is probably in the beneficial range).
But the sensitivity specifies the temperature change due to an increase in carbon dioxide levels. So a low sensitivity - and most scientists believe the figure is much higher - only means that the increased temperatures due to current carbon dioxide levels will be lower than expected. However, if we continue to increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, then the temperature will still continue to increase. A lower sensitivity just means it will take longer.

Rincewind
27-09-2014, 10:45 AM
The other issue with Nic Lewis's approach is that it is based on a very small window of the earth's history which means it is more susceptible to short term confounding factors like aerosols. Sure the historical record is not as accurate and measurement of CO2 levels from ice core records has its own difficulties. But the historical record for ca.3% sensitivity is pretty consistent.

Damodevo
08-10-2014, 09:10 PM
No global warming in the deep oceans (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321) either

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed


The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Adamski
08-10-2014, 11:23 PM
No global warming in the deep oceans (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321) either

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not WarmedVery interesting - not surprising to me!

Rincewind
09-10-2014, 10:40 AM
The deep ocean and the ocean abyss are two different things. The deep ocean usually refers to more than 700m in depth. The abyss here refers to more than 2km deep. Although there are error bars in their calculation which is basically based on thermal expansion (not direct measurement) it is good news the ocean below 2km have not substantially warmed. The bad news is there has been substantial warming in the shallow (less than 700m) and deep (between 700m and 2 km). However the cooler than expected surface air temperatures are still a bit of a mystery. Perhaps this is of some comfort for the climate change denialist fringe however it is cold comfort for low lying developing countries like many of our Pacific neighbours as sea levels continue to rise and probably would do for some time yet even if we stopped the burning of all fossil fuel tomorrow.

Ian Murray
09-10-2014, 03:48 PM
If the heat absorbed by the oceans is not reaching abyssal depths, that's bad news for the planet. Our major energy sink is less effective than we'd thought.

Analysis of the JPL report here:
What is the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate science deniers get this wrong (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/10/07/what-is-the-role-of-the-deep-ocean-in-global-warming-climate-science-deniers-get-this-wrong/)

Ian Murray
14-10-2014, 09:26 PM
Australia may have seen 123 weather records broken in the summer of 2012-13, but we weren't alone. Recent reports have attributed the worldwide extreme weather during
2013 to climate change induced by human activity.

Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 from a Climate Perspective (http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-of-2013-from-a-climate-
perspective/) - American Meteorological Society
Scientists Trace Extreme Heat in Australia to Climate Change (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/science/earth/human-related-climate-change-led-to-extreme-heat-scientists-say.html?_r=0) - New York Times
As Northeast Asia Bakes, Climate Scientists Predict More Extreme Heat Waves on the Horizon (http://science.time.com/2013/08/15/as-northeast-asia-bakes-climate-scientists-predict-more-extreme-heat-waves-on-the-horizon)
Half of All Summers Will Soon Be Boiling Hot for Hundreds of Millions of People (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/half-all-summers-china-will-be-stupidly-relentlessly-hot-two-decades)
Rapid increase in the risk of extreme summer heat in Eastern China (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2410.html)

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2014, 11:49 AM
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41223/title/Snail-Revival-Raises-Peer-Review-Debate/

More news on the banded snail front - this species that was supposed to have become extinct because of climate change was recently rediscovered as already noted. But now it turns out that a letter criticising the extinction paper and predicting that the species would be rediscovered was rejected by the journal that covered the original extinction claim, by the same reviewers who accepted the extinction paper (a conflict of interest).

Capablanca-Fan
17-10-2014, 03:10 PM
Coal critics wasting energy
STEPHEN GALILEE THE AUSTRALIAN, 17 OCTOBER 2014

TONY Abbott has declared that coal is good for humanity, and he is absolutely right. Coal is the greatest energy source the world has seen, and one of the greatest overall products in *history.

Coal-fired energy and coal*-derived steel products, together with other hydrocarbons such as oil and gas, have been the essential building blocks of the modern world, delivering vast improvements in living standards and underpinning major leaps in innovation and human achievement in the past two centuries.

Coal also has played an important role in the development of our nation, particularly in NSW, and continues to do so. And the role coal continues to play in the alleviation of world poverty makes it an absolutely ethical investment and a product we should be proud of.

While well-meaning so-called ethical investors seek to avoid shares in coalmining companies, they should consider the major role coal is playing in saving lives and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is some of the poorest parts the world.

Affordable and reliable, coal-driven energy is the best answer to global poverty. Almost three billion people have no access to electricity. For these people, “clean energy” means not having to cook their food or heat their homes using gathered wood or animal dung. Cooking in this way emits black soot, damaging air quality inside homes, with associated health problems and millions of premature deaths each year.

Providing coal-fired electricity to the world’s poorest people helps tackle this major global health problem, while providing social and economic development. Energy delivers better sanitation, heating, lighting and the power to develop and improve households, villages and entire regions. Denying the poorest people in the world access to cheap energy is not only unfair, it is unethical. There’s simply no cheaper or more reliable energy source than coal-fired power.

Weigh up the alternatives and none delivers electricity as cheaply, reliably and safely as coal-fired power. And modern coal-fired power stations are 40 per cent or more efficient than those built previously. That’s why the International Energy Agency predicts coal will continue to be the largest provider of energy to the world for many decades to come.

So let’s be proud of our coal, underpinning progress and alleviating poverty. And let’s support our hardworking coalminers who perform an essential service for us all, keeping our lights on, and our economy moving.

Stephen Galilee is chief executive of the NSW Minerals Council.

Patrick Byrom
18-10-2014, 05:14 PM
Coal critics wasting energy STEPHEN GALILEE THE AUSTRALIAN, 17 OCTOBER 2014

TONY Abbott has declared that coal is good for humanity, and he is absolutely right. Coal is the greatest energy source the world has seen, and one of the greatest overall products in *history....

Affordable and reliable, coal-driven energy is the best answer to global poverty. Almost three billion people have no access to electricity. For these people, “clean energy” means not having to cook their food or heat their homes using gathered wood or animal dung. Cooking in this way emits black soot, damaging air quality inside homes, with associated health problems and millions of premature deaths each year.

...
Is this possibly in the wrong thread? I don't see any reference to global warming (I wonder why :) ).

Also, indoor cooking using coal isn't very healthy either (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/):


Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.
Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels.
More than 50% of premature deaths among children under 5 are due to pneumonia caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.
3.8 million premature deaths annually from noncommunicable diseases including stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer are attributed to exposure to household air pollution.

ER
18-10-2014, 08:24 PM
Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.
good piece of info pal; they might have some slight problems to get it through the body corporate meeting in a Prahran apartment block though!

Ian Murray
18-10-2014, 09:40 PM
Is this possibly in the wrong thread? I don't see any reference to global warming (I wonder why :) ).
The CEO of the NSW Minerals Council seems unaware that burning coal and dumping the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is unsustainable if the planet is to remain habitable. The divestment movement can read the writing on the wall - the miners' coal reserves will be staying in the ground as stranded assets and assets values in current balance sheets are a fiction.


Also, indoor cooking using coal isn't very healthy either (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/):


Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.
Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels.
More than 50% of premature deaths among children under 5 are due to pneumonia caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.
3.8 million premature deaths annually from noncommunicable diseases including stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer are attributed to exposure to household air pollution.

Not only does coal have the highest carbon footprint of any energy source, it has a higher deathprint than all other energy sources combined, including biomass.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Ian Murray
19-10-2014, 10:25 AM
Outrage at ANU divestment shows the power of its idea
(http://theconversation.com/outrage-at-anu-divestment-shows-the-power-of-its-idea-32736?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation+-+1989&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+-+1989+CID_6a5e9ea9f9a1b4bd2f4ee0e58be28c3d&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Outrage%20at%20ANU%20divestment%20shows%2 0the%20power%20of%20its%20idea)

Is the Australian National University’s decision to sell its shares in some resource companies merely tokenistic? Far from it. The outrage from the affected companies shows how much influence universities can wield when they put their money where their mouth is....

The outrage has been fanned by a week-long campaign in the pages of the Australian Financial Review...

On Saturday, Australia’s Treasurer Joe Hockey weighed in, describing ANU as “removed from the reality of what is helping to drive the Australian economy and create more employment”.

On the flip side, resource companies that escaped the divestment list have seized the opportunity to claim sustainable credentials. BHP Billiton’s president for environment Mike Henry hailed his employer’s resilient, diversified portfolio, and reiterated the company’s support for a price on carbon....

It is an astonishingly intense response to a relatively minor shift in a smallish investment portfolio. ANU’s divestment list represents just 5% of the university’s domestic equity, and the value of shares to be sold is around A$16 million...Why, then, has it been so controversial?

First, divestment from fossil fuels seems to hit a strong nerve with the public. Many people feel satisfaction or pride if their employer or super fund adjusts investments in line with their personal values.

Second, divestment can bring great negative visibility for individual companies. ANU certainly named names in its initial media release.

Third, it puts the spotlight on risk: fossil fuel reserves far exceed the amount that the world can use if climate change is to be addressed, and so there is a fundamental question mark over the future of fossil fuel industries...

It is not only the strength of the companies’ response and the fieriness of the AFR’s campaign that is remarkable, but also the fact that the government is getting involved in the way it has.

The Australian government seems to believe that national prosperity is tied to fossil fuels, and that “Team Australia” ought to be backing the sector and its individual companies, no matter their environmental performance. [The PM has also thrown his support behind Big Coal (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-attacks-anus-stupid-decision-to-dump-fossil-fuel-investments-20141015-116a0y.html), condemned by former Liberal Party leaders among other eminent critics]

Pitted against this are the facts that fossil fuel use must decline to avoid the worst of climate change, that this is possible without harming economic prosperity, in Australia and overseas.

Many people feel that Australia should embrace a low-carbon future rather than ride the fossil fuel wave to the end. For some, it is a question of Australia’s economic prospects. For others, it is a question of values....

The boldest recent divestment decision came not from a university, but a philantrophic trust: the Rockefeller Foundation, built on old oil money, announced that it will divest all investments in fossil fuels, and that is has already sold its investments in coal and tar sands.

Ian Murray
20-10-2014, 10:05 AM
'Absolutely ridiculous': Joe Hockey denies Australia is dirtiest greenhouse gas emitter in OECD (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/absolutely-ridiculous-joe-hockey-denies-australia-is-dirtiest-greenhouse-gas-emitter-in-oecd-20141014-115q9g.html)
Sydney Morning Herald
14 Oct 2014


Treasurer Joe Hockey has denied that Australia is the highest greenhouse gas emitting country in the OECD per capita, telling a British journalist the statement is "absolutely ridiculous".

...He laughed at the suggestion that Australia was "one of the dirtiest most greenhouse gas-emitting countries in OECD group of developed countries".

"The comment you just made is absolutely ridiculous,"

"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," Mr Hockey said.

Joe doesn't seem to quite understand what emissions-per-capita means. It's not all that hard, Joe. You take the total emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent and divide it by the total population. If you need help, someone in Treasury with a calculator should be able to give you a hand.

Desmond
20-10-2014, 06:16 PM
'Absolutely ridiculous': Joe Hockey denies Australia is dirtiest greenhouse gas emitter in OECD (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/absolutely-ridiculous-joe-hockey-denies-australia-is-dirtiest-greenhouse-gas-emitter-in-oecd-20141014-115q9g.html)
Sydney Morning Herald
14 Oct 2014


Treasurer Joe Hockey has denied that Australia is the highest greenhouse gas emitting country in the OECD per capita, telling a British journalist the statement is "absolutely ridiculous".
I don't think this characterisation of Hockey in that interview is correct. What he said was absolutely ridiculous did not have the "per capita" tag on it. That makes a big difference. And when the interviewer did qualify with the "per capita" tag, Hockey then went on to say why that was so (sparse population etc) so he wasn't denying it at all.

Rincewind
20-10-2014, 09:14 PM
I don't think this characterisation of Hockey in that interview is correct. What he said was absolutely ridiculous did not have the "per capita" tag on it. That makes a big difference. And when the interviewer did qualify with the "per capita" tag, Hockey then went on to say why that was so (sparse population etc) so he wasn't denying it at all.

Comparing emissions doesn't a per capita basis make sense?

Even after the per capita basis for comparison was spelt out Hockey tried to obfuscate with issue like energy exports and parse population but they are not sufficient to offset the fact that per capita Australia is still emitting at 2-4 times the rate of many other countries.

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2014, 01:06 PM
Inflation slows after carbon tax axed (http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2014/10/22/inflation-slows-after-carbon-tax-axed.html)
Sky News, 22 October 2014

The annual rate of inflation has slowed to 2.3 per cent, helped by a drop in electricity prices and the cost of petrol.

The consumer price index released on Wednesday now stands at its lowest level in a year after touching the top of the central bank's 2-3 per cent target band three months earlier.

It was the first official reading of inflation since the Abbott government scraped the carbon tax.

Rincewind
23-10-2014, 01:33 PM
The point of putting a price on carbon is to put a price on the climate. If you can degrade the climate for free then of course the cost of goods will be lower and therefore a lower inflation. The hidden cost lies in the degraded climate.

Ian Murray
23-10-2014, 07:12 PM
The point of putting a price on carbon is to put a price on the climate. If you can degrade the climate for free then of course the cost of goods will be lower and therefore a lower inflation. The hidden cost lies in the degraded climate.

The omission of the external social cost of greenhouse gas emissions from energy and goods production costs is a market failure - http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.htm

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2014, 02:48 AM
Of course, like all socialists, LE ↑ is happy to replace an alleged market failure with a far bigger government failure. And his fellow socialist RW ↑↑ whinges about a degraded climate, yet the repeal of the carbon tax could not make a measurable difference. Leftards are always about gestures that impute moral superiority to themselves over the actual results of their policies.

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2014, 02:50 AM
Coal-rich Poland ready to block EU climate deal (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article3317962.html)
BY MONIKA SCISLOWSKA AND MIKE CORDER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Miami Herald, 23 Oct 2014

WARSAW, POLAND
European Union leaders meeting in Brussels to set their new greenhouse gas emissions plan are facing staunch opposition from coal-reliant Poland and other East European countries who say their economies would suffer from the new target.

Poland says it's ready to veto the plan that would oblige the bloc's 28 states to jointly cut their greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2030. The EU plan would also require climate-friendly, renewable energy to provide 27 percent of the bloc's needs and demand that energy efficiency increase by a third in the next 16 years.

Poland says that pace is too fast for Eastern European countries that are trying to grow their economies as they restructure old, energy-dependent industries.

Almost 90 percent of Poland's electricity comes from coal. The nation intends to continue that way for decades because mining creates 100,000 direct jobs and many thousands more in related sectors. Warsaw argues that green energy, large wind farms and solar panels still create energy that is too expensive.

Patrick Byrom
24-10-2014, 12:09 PM
Coal-rich Poland ready to block EU climate deal (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article3317962.html)

That was yesterday's news!

Today (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/22/eu-carbon-emissions-climate-deal-2030):
Europe will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, the toughest climate change target of any region in the world, and will produce 27% of its energy from renewable sources by the same date.

Ian Murray
25-10-2014, 10:21 AM
From the Foreign Aid thread:


...economist Walter Williams explains in Job Destruction Makes Us Richer (http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/job-destruction-makes-us-richer.html) (2011):


...What technological innovation does is reduce the value of some jobs, raise the value of others and create many more jobs. Some workers are made better off through greater employment opportunities. Others are made worse off by having to accept less attractive employment opportunities, an adjustment process that can be painful. Since technological progress makes goods and services cheaper, and of higher quality, to stand in its way, in the name of saving jobs, will make us a poorer nation. What we're witnessing in our economy is what economic historian Joseph Schumpeter termed "creative destruction," the process in which something new replaces something older.
Exactly. With major technology shifts there are always winners and losers, while the overall economy gains. The auto industry replaced the horse-drawn
transport industry, electric light supplanted gaslight, the list goes on. The displaced industries fought for survival, to no avail.

There are times the cost of introducing new technology is more than the market is willing to bear. When plans were made to instal sanitary plumbing and
sewerage systems in cities, the cost of retrofitting was enormous. Even The Times campaigned against upgrading London. Government intervention forced modernisation in the interests of public health, eliminating cesspits and the nightsoil industry and saving countless lives in the process.

There is no greater threat to public health than unchecked alteration of the climate of the whole planet. There is only one long-term solution - a change of technology to carbon-free energy and synthetic fuels. The industries being displaced - coal, oil and gas - are fighting to survive, but the outcome is inevitable. Individuals and markets cannot drive the necessary mitigation and adaptation measures, so government and intergovernmental intervention is required. That's anathema to libertarians and anti-government reactionaries of course, so they deny the science and the mounting physical evidence.

Desmond
27-10-2014, 07:20 PM
Five things to know about 2014 global temperatures (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/five-things-know-about-2014-global-temperatures)
Author: Deke Arndt
Friday, October 24, 2014

No doubt about it: 2014 will go down as one of the warmest years on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center’s global surface temperature monitoring. Here are five global temperature items to keep in mind as 2014 closes out.

1. We’ve already set records at the yearly scale. People organize their lives around the calendar year, so it’s comfortable to organize our assessment of climate that way. Indeed, year-to-date (“since January”) temperature is a lens we use at the National Climatic Data Center. For the climate system, however, there’s nothing magical about the specific January-through-December twelve-month run relative to other twelve-month runs. A trip around the Sun is a trip around the Sun, whether you start the timer in January or, say, October.

With that in mind, we’ve already set some warmest-year records. The 12-month period ending September 2014 was the warmest October-through-September period on record. Beyond that, it was the warmest of any 12-month period on record, clipping a record first set in 1998 and tied twice since. October 2013, the next month to drop from the rolling 12-month average, was one of the cooler (or least warm) months of the recent stretch, so we may visit this record again soon.

2. We've done this without El Nino.
...
3. Several scenarios for 2014’s end-of-year finish point to a new record.
...
4. This year’s extreme warmth is largely driven by the global ocean.
...
5. Ranking individual years is a bit overrated. Don’t get me wrong, rankings are useful to help folks—including scientists—more easily put today’s conditions into a historical perspective. But when considering climate change, it’s more important to step back and evaluate the big picture, of which 2014 is but one detail. When 2014 goes into the books, it will probably be statistically indistinguishable from the warmest years on record, even if marginally the warmest.

In the big picture, regardless of the eventual rank—1st, 2nd or 3rd—what matters most is that 2014 will end up very, very warm compared to the historical record, will re-confirm that we live in a significantly warmed world, and will provide an exclamation point at the end of a global temperature time series that continues its long-term march toward warmer temperatures.

Patrick Byrom
28-10-2014, 09:58 PM
Inflation slows after carbon tax axed (http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2014/10/22/inflation-slows-after-carbon-tax-axed.html)
Sky News, 22 October 2014
The annual rate of inflation has slowed to 2.3 per cent, helped by a drop in electricity prices and the cost of petrol.
I received my first post-carbon-tax-repeal quarterly electricity bill last week. The cost of electricity was lower than the same period in 2013 - but only by $15. However the quarterly "Supply Charge" had jumped by $30, so I'm actually $15 worse off!

And the recent fuel excise increase makes things even worse, of course.

Ian Murray
03-11-2014, 09:04 PM
UN panel warns opportunity to stop climate change fading fast (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-panel-warns-opportunity-to-stop-climate-change-fading-fast-20141102-11fmmq.html)
Sydney Morning Herald
2 Nov 2014


The world must stop almost all greenhouse gas emissions through a phased elimination of fossil fuels by 2100 if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a new United Nations report says. And the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged companies to disinvest from fossil fuel-based industries.

There are "multiple pathways" that will keep global warming below 2 degrees, according to the IPCC's "synthesis report" released on Sunday.

However, all of these pathways require "substantial" cuts to greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades, and "near zero" emissions by the end of the century, the report's authors concluded....

Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report (full) - download (www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf)

Ian Murray
10-11-2014, 06:34 AM
Denying problems when we don't like the political solutions: Why conservatives, liberals disagree so vehemently (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106132313.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop _environment+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Environment+Ne ws%29)
ScienceDaily
6 Nov 2014


There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime.

A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists....

Ian Murray
12-11-2014, 09:03 PM
Big news on the climate front. China has committed to winding back its emissions, in lockstep with the US committing to further decrese its emissions.

China, U.S. agree to limit greenhouse gases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/china-us-agree-to-limit-greenhouse-gases/2014/11/11/9c768504-69e6-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html)
Washington Post
11 Nov 2014


BEIJING — Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Obama struck a deal Wednesday to limit greenhouse gases, with China committing for the first time to cap carbon emissions and Obama unveiling a plan for deeper U.S. emissions reductions through 2025.

China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, pledged in the far-reaching agreement to cap its rapidly growing carbon emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible. It also set a daunting goal of increasing the share of non-fossil fuels to 20 percent of the country’s energy mix by 2030.

Obama announced a target to cut U.S. emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, the first time the president has set a goal beyond the existing 17 percent target by 2020...

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2014, 12:27 AM
IPA's James Paterson described climate change policies as 'industrial scale rent-seeking':


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDfRXgxw3c

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2014, 12:29 AM
Denying problems when we don't like the political solutions: Why conservatives, liberals disagree so vehemently (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106132313.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop _environment+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Environment+Ne ws%29)
ScienceDaily
6 Nov 2014


There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime.

A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists....

Interesting and balanced article.

Desmond
14-11-2014, 05:58 AM
IPA's James Paterson described climate change policies as 'industrial scale rent-seeking':
The Liberal party's policy in particularly, more like it.

Ian Murray
14-11-2014, 07:19 AM
The Liberal party's policy in particularly, more like it.

The Liberal 'direct action' policy specifically, under which businesses will be paid from the federal purse for reducing emissions. Under a carbon tax the polluters pay until they stop emitting.

antichrist
14-11-2014, 08:51 AM
The Liberal 'direct action' policy specifically, under which businesses will be paid from the federal purse for reducing emissions. Under a carbon tax the polluters pay until they stop emitting.

But of course those polluting will pass the costs onto the consumer (would be possible for interim period at least) so the tax payer pays regardless. But under Labor scheme it would ensure reduction (in the long term) and was already doing so.

I have solar panels and pay zero for hot water in spring and summer and early autumn. The electricity is not even currently connected to the system. Year after year no pollution - what is more sensible than that.

Ian Murray
14-11-2014, 12:46 PM
But of course those polluting will pass the costs onto the consumer (would be possible for interim period at least) so the tax payer pays regardless. But under Labor scheme it would ensure reduction (in the long term) and was already doing so.
The Gillard government introduced tax cuts and rebates, funded by the carbon tax, to offset the cost increases to consumers. The carbon tax repeal has nor reduced electricity costs, which goldplating has increased beyond the 9% tax component. Now the Renewable Energy Target is under pressure to give a boost to the coalburners at the expense of renewables.


I have solar panels and pay zero for hot water in spring and summer and early autumn. The electricity is not even currently connected to the system. Year after year no pollution - what is more sensible than that.
I have solar PV, ceiling insulation, LED lighting, external sunblinds, and each year plant 100 trees through carbonfund.org to offset my carbon footprint excess.

Desmond
15-11-2014, 09:38 AM
G20: Obama to pledge up to $3bn to help poor countries on climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/14/barack-obama-to-pledge-at-least-25bn-to-help-poor-countries-fight-climate-change?CMP=ema_565)

Exclusive: Green Climate Fund commitment to be unveiled as leaders gather for G20 summit in hope of spurring others to stump up cash in a move likely to embarrass the host nation, Australia

Barack Obama will make a substantial pledge to a fund to help poor countries fight climate change, only days after his historic carbon pollution deal with China.

In a one-two punch, the US plans to pledge a maximum of $3bn over the next four years to help poor countries invest in clean energy and cope with rising seas and extreme weather, according to those briefed by administration officials.

The White House told campaign groups and thinktanks that the figure was conditional on other countries making ambitious funding commitments. The American contribution would be capped at 30% of the fund, and the US would stump up the full $3bn only if the fund met its initial $10bn target, the official said.

...

The financial commitments from the US and Japan are in strong contrast with Canada’s and Australia’s positions, which have said they will not contribute to the climate fund.

Indeed the announcement could again embarrass the G20 host country, Australia, which has been fiercely resisting climate change discussions distracting from its desired focus on “economic growth and jobs”.

The Australian government was caught off guard when Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping unveiled climate pledges on the eve of the summit.

As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.

...

Ian Murray
15-11-2014, 03:53 PM
G20: Obama to pledge up to $3bn to help poor countries on climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/14/barack-obama-to-pledge-at-least-25bn-to-help-poor-countries-fight-climate-change?CMP=ema_565)

Exclusive: Green Climate Fund commitment to be unveiled as leaders gather for G20 summit in hope of spurring others to stump up cash in a move likely to embarrass the host nation, Australia


The financial commitments from the US and Japan are in strong contrast with Canada’s and Australia’s positions, which have said they will not contribute to the climate fund.

Indeed the announcement could again embarrass the G20 host country, Australia, which has been fiercely resisting climate change discussions distracting from its desired focus on “economic growth and jobs”.

The Australian government was caught off guard when Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping unveiled climate pledges on the eve of the summit.

As revealed by Guardian Australia, Australia has been arguing against behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts for G20 leaders to promise to make contributions to the fund.

...

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Tony Abbott was planning to gain domestic kudos with the announcement of a free trade agreement with China. Instead China snuggles up with the US to announce greenhouse gas emission reductions. Now the US puts the Green Climate Fund on the G20 backroom agenda, leaving Australia as irrelevant with egg on its face.

antichrist
15-11-2014, 04:21 PM
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Tony Abbott was planning to gain domestic kudos with the announcement of a free trade agreement with China. Instead China snuggles up with the US to announce greenhouse gas emission reductions. Now the US puts the Green Climate Fund on the G20 backroom agenda, leaving Australia as irrelevant with egg on its face.

We can partly blame Rudd for not taking it to a double dissolution - instead he wrote a children's story over Christmas time. But admittedly I forget timeline of events. He may have already worn himself out on the issue overseas campaigning.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2014, 03:58 PM
Tony Abbott snubs Barack Obama’s climate fund demand (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/tony-abbott-snubs-barack-obamas-climate-fund-demand/story-fni0cx12-1227125057292?nk=7d709a34f2c72bde81e122acdbf3ebe0)
SIMON BENSON AND DANIEL MEERS THE DAILY TELEGRAPH NOVEMBER 17, 2014

TONY Abbott has foiled Barack Obama’s attempt to hijack the G20 with climate change, refusing to put a cent into the US President’s push for a $10 billion global green climate fund.

And as chair of the G20, he succeeded in ensuring global economic growth and job creation was at the top of the final declaration yesterday, delivering a blow to Mr Obama’s attempts to elevate climate change to a first order issue of the world leader’s meeting.

In one of the rare instances of an Australian leader standing up to a US President on a major policy issue, Mr Abbott refused to allow the final communiqué to include a binding requirement that all G20 nations commit to the Green Climate Fund announced by Mr Obama on Saturday at University of Queensland.

Several Australian officials, however, said privately that it had been “discourteous” of the US President to grandstand on the issue as a guest in Australia — this year’s host of the G20.
...
The incoming US Republican Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell declared that the new Republican-controlled Congress would go to war with the President over the coal industry’s future.
...
Mr Abbott said coal was critical to the world’s supply of electricity.

“There are 1.3 billion people who have no access to electricity ... we’ve got to give them access to electricity. And coal is going to be an important part of that for decades.’’

antichrist
17-11-2014, 05:30 PM
Tony Abbott snubs Barack Obama’s climate fund demand (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/tony-abbott-snubs-barack-obamas-climate-fund-demand/story-fni0cx12-1227125057292?nk=7d709a34f2c72bde81e122acdbf3ebe0)
SIMON BENSON AND DANIEL MEERS THE DAILY TELEGRAPH NOVEMBER 17, 2014

TONY Abbott has foiled Barack Obama’s attempt to hijack the G20 with climate change, refusing to put a cent into the US President’s push for a $10 billion global green climate fund.

And as chair of the G20, he succeeded in ensuring global economic growth and job creation was at the top of the final declaration yesterday, delivering a blow to Mr Obama’s attempts to elevate climate change to a first order issue of the world leader’s meeting.

In one of the rare instances of an Australian leader standing up to a US President on a major policy issue, Mr Abbott refused to allow the final communiqué to include a binding requirement that all G20 nations commit to the Green Climate Fund announced by Mr Obama on Saturday at University of Queensland.

Several Australian officials, however, said privately that it had been “discourteous” of the US President to grandstand on the issue as a guest in Australia — this year’s host of the G20.
...
The incoming US Republican Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell declared that the new Republican-controlled Congress would go to war with the President over the coal industry’s future.
...
Mr Abbott said coal was critical to the world’s supply of electricity.

“There are 1.3 billion people who have no access to electricity ... we’ve got to give them access to electricity. And coal is going to be an important part of that for decades.’’

For a lot of those without electricity it is due to corruption as well as poverty. Forty years ago the craze was nuke power for the poor and what happened? Corrupt 3 rd world govts build shonky re-actors in earth quake zones, charged double etc and then left in a big bankrupt mess that can never be switched on. The 3 rd world is much better with solar with no ongoing costs and completely decentralised so no institutionalised corruption.

Ian Murray
17-11-2014, 08:27 PM
...TONY Abbott has foiled Barack Obama’s attempt to hijack the G20 with climate change, refusing to put a cent into the US President’s push for a $10 billion global green climate fund.
With China, the EU and Japan among those on board, what Australia and Canada do is irrelevant


...Mr Abbott said coal was critical to the world’s supply of electricity. “There are 1.3 billion people who have no access to electricity ... we’ve got to give them access to electricity. And coal is going to be an important part of that for decades.’’

The 20 countries with most people without electricity are:
http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/legacy/2013/06/05/Screen%20Shot%202013-06-05%20at%204.21.26%20PM.png
http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/06/where-billion-people-still-live-without-electricity/5807/

India and Indonesia have coal reserves, and also buy Australian coal. There is no possibility, as Abbott and Hockey well know, of any of the others building port (some are landlocked of course), rail, generation and distribution infrastructure to import Australian coal to generate baseload grid power. The obvious avenue for them is small off-grid generators - solar PV, wind turbine or picohydro, depending on location. A small 3W solar panel and battery are enough to power two 0.4W LED lamps and a phone charger in a household.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2014, 01:58 PM
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewable s_engineers/)
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
By Lewis Page, The Register, UK, 21 Nov 2014

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

Incremental improvements to existing technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive.

Unfortunately the two men don't know what that is, or if they do they aren't saying. James Hansen does, though: it's nuclear power.

As applied at the moment, of course, nuclear power isn't cheap enough to provide a strong economic rationale. That's because its costs have been forced enormously higher than they would otherwise be by the imposition of cripplingly high health and safety standards (in its three "disasters" so far - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima - the scientifically verified death tolls from all causes have been and will be zero, 56 and zero: a record which other power industries including renewables can only envy*).

The Piper Alpha gas rig explosion of 1988 on its own caused three times as many deaths as the nuclear power industry has in its entire history. Bizarrely though, no nations ceased using gas.

Rincewind
22-11-2014, 04:01 PM
It is always amusing when someone with an engineering degree describes other people with engineering degrees as leading experts in mathematics.

antichrist
22-11-2014, 07:19 PM
With China, the EU and Japan among those on board, what Australia and Canada do is irrelevant



The 20 countries with most people without electricity are:
http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/legacy/2013/06/05/Screen%20Shot%202013-06-05%20at%204.21.26%20PM.png
http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/06/where-billion-people-still-live-without-electricity/5807/

India and Indonesia have coal reserves, and also buy Australian coal. There is no possibility, as Abbott and Hockey well know, of any of the others building port (some are landlocked of course), rail, generation and distribution infrastructure to import Australian coal to generate baseload grid power. The obvious avenue for them is small off-grid generators - solar PV, wind turbine or picohydro, depending on location. A small 3W solar panel and battery are enough to power two 0.4W LED lamps and a phone charger in a household.

Every country on the non-electrified list except, DR Korea, are overloaded with sunshine to tap for solar. An excessive amount for solar hot water and independent electricity supply, as a hippy chess friend has up in the mountains here. They wont have to pay another penny for years. And how many of those countries could be trusted with nuke energy manufacture, waste storage for millions of years, nuke materials for weapons, you name it. PLus the heating involved in coolant waters heating up whole rivers

Ian Murray
22-11-2014, 08:28 PM
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible...
So what's new? Renewables alone can't replace fossil fuels - that's been known for years. The solution is finding a mix of alternatives to do the job.

California has a target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. Things are ahead of the game so far, and a 60% reduction is no problem. The extra 20% is a problem. Not an impossible dream, just a problem. New technology and nuclear power are expected to supply the answer, but first the state has to teach agreement with the feds on nuclear waster disposal.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2014, 02:10 AM
So what's new? Renewables alone can't replace fossil fuels - that's been known for years.
True; most fossil fuel power stations use Rankine Cycle steam engines to about 40% efficiency since modern technology allows a big temperature difference between the hot and cold parts. The combined cycle gets about 60% efficiency with a gas turbine plus the waste heat running a Rankine Cycle steam engine. Alternative technologies can't match that efficiency or generate anything close to the amount of power.


The solution is finding a mix of alternatives to do the job.

California has a target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. Things are ahead of the game so far, and a 60% reduction is no problem. The extra 20% is a problem. Not an impossible dream, just a problem. New technology and nuclear power are expected to supply the answer, but first the state has to teach agreement with the feds on nuclear waster disposal.

Yes, nuclear, despite fanatical opposition by greenies. This is far safer than any other source of power in terms of fatalities (zero in the west, about 56 with Chernobyl). But there is too much ignorance, to the extent that the vital medical technology of making images based on NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) relaxation times is called MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), dropping the word "nuclear" to avoid scaring the scientifically illiterate.

When it comes to solar power, there is way too much rent-seeking by makers of solar PV devices. I pointed out a while back that low-tech and highly thermodynamically efficient solar water heating would be the most economical way of using the sun's radiant energy. But there is no rent-seeking here, so we don't see this as widespread as it should be, and as it has been in Israel for decades.

Now, thanks to the Nobel Prizewinning discovery of blue-emitting LEDs, cheap, long-lasting, high quality LED lighting should result in a large reduction of energy requirements in this area. Another good idea is copying the bumps on a humpback whale flipper which significantly reduce drag (http://www.ecomagination.com/a-whale-of-a-good-idea), and have proven to make fans and turbines over 20% more efficient. This would save much energy on cooling buildings and computers.

Ian Murray
23-11-2014, 09:45 AM
True; most fossil fuel power stations use Rankine Cycle ....
In a carbon-free energy environment, there won't be any fossil fuel power stations (unless there is a breakthroug in carbon capture and storage, which seems to be unattainable at scale). The basic precept is to replace fossil fuels with a viable mix of alternatives.


Yes, nuclear, despite fanatical opposition by greenies. This is far safer than any other source of power in terms of fatalities (zero in the west, about 56 with Chernobyl).
Actually wind is the safest energy source overall. Nuclear runs second. Oil and coal are by far the most dangerous.

2720


But there is too much ignorance...
Who can blame them? Those of us who have lived through two or more generations lived through the Cold War and the continual fear of nuclear annihilation. Radiation poisoning is a scary way to die. It will take another couple of generations for the world to outgrow that sort of phobia.


When it comes to solar power, there is way too much rent-seeking by makers of solar PV devices. I pointed out a while back that low-tech and highly thermodynamically efficient solar water heating would be the most economical way of using the sun's radiant energy. But there is no rent-seeking here, so we don't see this as widespread as it should be, and as it has been in Israel for decades.
Rather that rent-seeking, an obvious benefit to society is created via solar PV - the demand for coal- and oil-fired electricity is reduced and less CO2 is emitted. And solar water heating is expensive and replaces only a minor portion of household power consumption. A heat pump system is more efficient, with no reliance on sunlight. Solar PV replaces a major portion of household demand.


Now, thanks to the Nobel Prizewinning discovery of blue-emitting LEDs, cheap, long-lasting, high quality LED lighting should result in a large reduction of energy requirements in this area. Another good idea is ...
The new technology to complete the carbon replacement drive is not yet in sight, but the energy guys at UCSD I've listened to have no doubts it will come - it always does. In the meantime LED lamps are a perfect example of high-energy-saving devices now on supermarket shelves. The initial purchase is not at all cheap, but those I have at home should outlast me.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2014, 08:27 AM
In a carbon-free energy environment, there won't be any fossil fuel power stations (unless there is a breakthrough in carbon capture and storage, which seems to be unattainable at scale). The basic precept is to replace fossil fuels with a viable mix of alternatives.
I doubt that there are any alternatives that are suitably regular and high density. Hydro is good, and NZ gets over half its power from it, but it's not suitable for most of Australia. It would be worth investigating for Africa's high-head rivers. Meanwhile, natural gas is quite a clean-burning fuel—Brisbane buses run on it and they don't fumigate following drivers. And with the 60% efficiency possible with combines cycles, it would produce lots of energy for minimal CO@ emission.


Actually wind is the safest energy source overall. Nuclear runs second. Oil and coal are by far the most dangerous.

2720
That was most instructive. Also interesting how very safe air travel is, and how cars are much safer than walking or cycling.


Who can blame them? Those of us who have lived through two or more generations lived through the Cold War and the continual fear of nuclear annihilation. Radiation poisoning is a scary way to die. It will take another couple of generations for the world to outgrow that sort of phobia.
OK, I am old enough to remember the Cold War and MAD. But isn't the answer to educate the public rather than to pander and thus entrench their fears? MRI really is about the change in magnetic quantum numbers of atomic nuclei, but it is very safe, using radio waves which are very low-energy.


Rather that rent-seeking, an obvious benefit to society is created via solar PV - the demand for coal- and oil-fired electricity is reduced and less CO2 is emitted.
It's certainly clean, but much area is needed for it.


And solar water heating is expensive and replaces only a minor portion of household power consumption.
Expensive? All you need is black panels, and water piped over them. Israel has done it for decades. I thought that water heating is a big part of household power consumption because of the very high specific heat of water.


A heat pump system is more efficient,
That could well be true, if we consider input electrical energy and output heat energy. However, I doubt that the overall efficiency is greater, in terms of input solar energy and output heat energy, if we take into account the inefficiency of solar PV to run the pump. Solar heating is very efficient though; in most applications, we want to change input energy into useful work, and efficiency measures how little is turned into heat. But since the objective of solar heating is to produce heat, it is extremely efficient, in that almost all the incoming solar radiation is converted to heat.


with no reliance on sunlight. Solar PV replaces a major portion of household demand.
The new technology to complete the carbon replacement drive is not yet in sight, but the energy guys at UCSD I've listened to have no doubts it will come - it always does. In the meantime LED lamps are a perfect example of high-energy-saving devices now on supermarket shelves.
I like them—the 5000 K bulbs look almost white, a big improvement on the yellow bulbs previously. This is yet another example of how capitalism eventually improves the standard of living of all, as products once affordable only to the rich became cheap enough for everyone.


The initial purchase is not at all cheap, but those I have at home should outlast me.
Well I hope not, but take your point that they are long-lasting and draw much less power.

antichrist
24-11-2014, 09:29 AM
Do the estimations of pollution that can be saved take into consideration us all getting off our butts and riding bikes, and being compelled to live within a certain distance of our workplace etc

Desmond
24-11-2014, 05:56 PM
That was most instructive. Also interesting how very safe air travel is, and how cars are much safer than walking or cycling.
Depends how you measure it. Eg measure it by time spend doing the activity and air safety drops to around that of rail, and on foot becomes 17x safer than cars.

antichrist
24-11-2014, 08:05 PM
foot and cycling have health benefits whereas cars will help take you to the grave one way or another. Taxi drivers and truck drivers are the most at risk.

Ian Murray
25-11-2014, 06:12 AM
Do the estimations of pollution that can be saved take into consideration us all getting off our butts and riding bikes, and being compelled to live within a certain distance of our workplace etc

Such microsolutions have no real effect, being offset immediately by the increasing number of cars on the road. Do what California is doing - all light vehicles (i.e. cars) must be electric by 2050.

Ian Murray
25-11-2014, 09:50 AM
I doubt that there are any alternatives that are suitably regular and high density. Hydro is good, and NZ gets over half its power from it, but it's not
suitable for most of Australia. It would be worth investigating for Africa's high-head rivers. Meanwhile, natural gas is quite a clean-burning fuel—Brisbane buses run on it and they

don't fumigate following drivers. And with the 60% efficiency possible with combines cycles, it would produce lots of energy for minimal CO@ emission.
Just assume for a moment that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are really warming the planet. Global temperature has risen 0.8°C over the last 60 odd years. At business-as-usual the
rise could possibly be 4-5° by the end of the century, reaching a stage eventually where it becomes irreversible. Bearing in mind that a fall of 5° would put us back in an ice age, a
rise of 5° would have planet-changing consequences. If that is the future prospect (time will tell, quite soon, which of us is on the right side) then GHG emissions have to be
stopped, the sooner the better and cheaper. Short-lived emissions like methane and black soot are the low-hanging fruit; CO2 is much harder but has to be tackled.

California has begun the process, quite radically - see http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.php. The failure and closuire of the San Onofre nuclear plant was a setback, but projections are still mostly ahead of targets.


OK, I am old enough to remember the Cold War and MAD. But isn't the answer to educate the public rather than to pander and thus entrench their fears? MRI really is about the
change in magnetic quantum numbers of atomic nuclei, but it is very safe, using radio waves which are very low-energy.
Overcoming irrational fears is a slow process. No-one is afraid of Xrays nowadays, but it wasn't always so. Of course it wasn't public ignorance alone - Australian soldiers were
exposed to British atomin tests at Maralinga before the effects of gamma radiation were understood. People still think nuclear power stations can blow up (present company excepted, of
course). The occasional near-meltdown accident doesn't help. I can live with nuclear if that's what it takes to turn round global warming.


It's certainly clean, but much area is needed for it.
It's debatable which energy sources cover more ground, e.g. depleted oilfield, gas wellheads, coal mine and concentrated solar power site.

2721 2722

2723 2724


Expensive? All you need is black panels, and water piped over them. Israel has done it for decades. I thought that water heating is a big part of household power consumption
because of the very high specific heat of water.
Purchase and installation around $5000 here.
"An average household can use around 25 per cent of its total energy on heating water" http://yourenergysavings.gov.au/energy/hot-water/about-hot-water


That could well be true, if we consider input electrical energy and output heat energy. However, I doubt that the overall efficiency is greater...
You're probably right, although both use mains-powered pumps. Heat pumps can use off-peak power while solar needs continuous power.


I like them—the 5000 K bulbs look almost white, a big improvement on the yellow bulbs previously. This is yet another example of how capitalism eventually improves the standard
of living of all, as products once affordable only to the rich became cheap enough for everyone.
Not forgetting that there is a large green market in which concerned buyers will pay a premium (like $20+ for an LED lamp) to conserve energy.


Well I hope not, but take your point that they are long-lasting and draw much less power.
One of the UCSD lecturers quipped that when you change apartments these days, you take the light bulbs with you - they're a lifetime investment

antichrist
25-11-2014, 01:11 PM
Jono from above: Expensive? All you need is black panels, and water piped over them. Israel has done it for decades. I thought that water heating is a big part of household power consumption
because of the very high specific heat of water.

AC: you dont even need the black panels for basic hot water. In my farming days I just had the black agricultural pipe spread down the hill from the tank on top. Heated up beautifully every day for showers etc. I wasn't a dirty hippy.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2014, 12:23 PM
Jono from above: Expensive? All you need is black panels, and water piped over them. Israel has done it for decades. I thought that water heating is a big part of household power consumption
because of the very high specific heat of water.

AC: you dont even need the black panels for basic hot water. In my farming days I just had the black agricultural pipe spread down the hill from the tank on top. Heated up beautifully every day for showers etc. I wasn't a dirty hippy.

Makes sense. I was surprised at Finn McCool's claim that it would cost so much, although there is no reason to doubt his word. I wonder if government subsidies have driven the price up, but from AC's experience, it need not be so dear.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2014, 03:34 PM
Greens take the moral low ground (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/greens-take-the-moral-low-ground.aspx)
Why environmentalists defend the wealthy against the poor
Matt Ridley, 12 Nov 2014

The OECD’s economic models behind the two scenarios project that the average person alive in 2100 will be earning an astonishing four to seven times as much money – corrected for inflation – as she does today. That’s a 300-600% increase in real pay. This should enable posterity to buy quite a bit of protection for itself and the planet against any climate change that does show up. So we are being asked to make sacrifices today to prevent the possibility of what may turn out to be pretty small harms to very wealthy people in the future.

By contrast, the cost of climate policies is already falling most heavily on today’s poor. Subsidies for renewable energy have raised costs of heating and transport disproportionately for the poor. Subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year.

Many Green organisations now oppose biofuels made from crops, but they were instrumental in lobbying for those fuels ten years ago. Here is Greenpeace's view in 2004:


Greenpeace is asking the Government to send a clear signal that the price of oil-based petrol and diesel will increase steadily, and to make plant-based biodiesels and road fuel gas much more widely available on the forecourts.


The refusal of many rich countries to fund aid for coal-fired electricity in Africa and Asia rather than renewable projects (and in passing I declare a financial interest in coal mining) leaves more than a billion people without access to electricity and contributes to 3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung.

Greens think these harms are a price worth paying to stop the warming. They want (other) people to bear such sacrifices today so that the people of 2100, who will be up to seven times as rich, do not have to face the prospect of living in a world that is perhaps 0.8 - 1.2 degrees warmer. And this is the moral high ground?

Rincewind
27-11-2014, 03:47 PM
Matt Ridley certainly has no right to claim any sort of moral territory with his record.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2014, 01:40 PM
California has begun the process, quite radically - see http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.php. The failure and closuire of the San Onofre nuclear plant was a setback, but projections are still mostly ahead of targets.

Overcoming irrational fears is a slow process. No-one is afraid of Xrays nowadays, but it wasn't always so. Of course it wasn't public ignorance alone - Australian soldiers were exposed to British atomin tests at Maralinga before the effects of gamma radiation were understood. People still think nuclear power stations can blow up (present company excepted, of course). The occasional near-meltdown accident doesn't help. I can live with nuclear if that's what it takes to turn round global warming.
An interesting historical perspective about nucleophobia. I can live with closing down coal-fired stations here if we could replace them with nuclear. Now we might move on this: Julie Bishop reopens nuclear debate as route to cut carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-reopens-nuclear-debate-as-route-to-cut-carbon-dioxide-emissions-20141129-11w17k.html):


Dr Switkowski said community sentiment towards nuclear power had been warming in Australia until the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

But he said advances in small modular reactors could make nuclear commercially viable for Australia as early as next decade because they addressed the main concerns people typically held about reactors – waste, their proximity to population centres and the risk of a catastrophic accident.

"The small modular reactors will provide a real opportunity to consider nuclear power again because they are a tenth of the size of a nuclear or coal-fired powered station," he said.

But he agreed that if there were improvements in wind and solar technology over the next two decades to make them more reliable around the clock, renewable energy sources could be more viable than nuclear. "It's a bit of a race, given the time that's been lost due to Fukushima," he said.

The government is likely to increase its uranium trade to China and India, and has in the past sold the resource to Russia.

Mr Bishop said: "Other countries are embracing nuclear power as part of their energy mix in order to meet the kind of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is being considered.

"France is considered as one of the greenest countries on earth [and] has a significant proportion of its energy from nuclear energy."

Patrick Byrom
30-11-2014, 03:10 PM
An interesting historical perspective about nucleophobia. I can live with closing down coal-fired stations here if we could replace them with nuclear. Now we might move on this: Julie Bishop reopens nuclear debate as route to cut carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-reopens-nuclear-debate-as-route-to-cut-carbon-dioxide-emissions-20141129-11w17k.html):
So Julie Bishop and Capablanca-Fan want to spend billions of dollars building nuclear power plants, even though they don't believe that global warming is dangerous?!

The Coalition raised this same idea almost ten years ago, but did nothing about it when they had control of the House and Senate. Now that they are ten points behind in the polls, and their government is falling apart, they are going to start building nuclear power plants in our major cities? I don't think so.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2014, 09:54 AM
So Julie Bishop and Capablanca-Fan want to spend billions of dollars building nuclear power plants, even though they don't believe that global warming is dangerous?!
Maybe, because nuclear power is extremely efficient and clean, and we will probably need more energy in the future. And if we must shut down coal-fired stations to appease the green mob, we need something decent to replace it.


The Coalition raised this same idea almost ten years ago, but did nothing about it when they had control of the House and Senate.
A mistake, but blame the demagoguery of the Labor-Greens.


Now that they are ten points behind in the polls, and their government is falling apart, they are going to start building nuclear power plants in our major cities? I don't think so.
Do they have to be in major cities?

Ian Murray
01-12-2014, 09:17 PM
Makes sense. I was surprised at Finn McCool's claim that it would cost so much, although there is no reason to doubt his word. I wonder if government subsidies have driven the price up, but from AC's experience, it need not be so dear.

I happened to read today that the typical cost of a US rooftop solar PV system had fallen from $32000 to $23000, before tax credits and incentives, over the 2010-2013 period. That's way over the Australian cost. After subsidies, I paid $1000 for my first and $3000 for the second (albeit only a 1.8 kW system). There are well over a million rooftop systems installed here, cf with 400,000 in the US.

Ian Murray
03-12-2014, 08:09 PM
Greens take the moral low ground
Why environmentalists defend the wealthy against the poor
Matt Ridley, 12 Nov 2014

The OECD’s economic models behind the two scenarios project that the average person alive in 2100 will be earning an astonishing four to seven times as much money – corrected for inflation – as she does today. That’s a 300-600% increase in real pay. This should enable posterity to buy quite a bit of protection for itself and the planet against any climate change that does show up. So we are being asked to make sacrifices today to prevent the possibility of what may turn out to be pretty small harms to very wealthy people in the future.
If he finds that astonishing, he should stick to what he knows something about and leave economics to others. An annual increase of 1.65% will increase earnings four times by 2100; 2.3% would give a 7X rise. Nothing astonishing here - that's the way compound interest works. A bit trickier, but a standard economic method, is converting future costs to present-day values by applying a discount rate (http://grist.org/article/discount-rates-a-boring-thing-you-should-know-about-with-otters/) (basically compound interest in reverse) to determine at what point in time spending gives the best value. There have been two extensive in-depth economic analyses to determine such solutions by eminent economists commissioned by the British and Australian governments (the Stern and Garnaut reports respectively).


By contrast, the cost of climate policies is already falling most heavily on today’s poor. Subsidies for renewable energy have raised costs of heating and transport disproportionately for the poor. Subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year.
At ~$2 trillion, fossil fuel subsidies (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/fossil-fuel-subsidies-costing-global-economy-2-trillion-imf-79534), in place for up to a century, far outweigh those for renewables.


Many Green organisations now oppose biofuels made from crops, but they were instrumental in lobbying for those fuels ten years ago. Here is Greenpeace's view in 2004:

Greenpeace is asking the Government to send a clear signal that the price of oil-based petrol and diesel will increase steadily, and to make plant-based biodiesels and road fuel gas much more widely available on the forecourts.
Only US corngrowers support corn subsidies. Most of the national crop goes into stockfeeds, followed by ethanol production. 14% is exported and 10% goes into food production, including corn syrup etc. Corn is the lowest-yielding biofuel feedstock - there are much higher yielding plants available (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html), including non-food oilseeds which thrive in arid conditions on brackish water (e.g. jatropha, jojoba).

But none come close to the yields from green algae. Sapphire Energy (http://www.sapphireenergy.com/) has a plant operating at scale in New Mexico yielding ~5000 gals/acre (a crop harvested fortnightly). So far the cost is now below $5/gal, and is expected to pass below the price of petrol late 2016.


The refusal of many rich countries to fund aid for coal-fired electricity in Africa and Asia rather than renewable projects (and in passing I declare a financial interest in coal mining) leaves more than a billion people without access to electricity and contributes to 3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung.
A glance at this map will show that Africa and Asia (apart from China) don't have coal reserves to provide the raw material for coal-fired energy generation. So alternatives are necessary, not optional.

2732

antichrist
06-12-2014, 11:46 AM
Abbott claims that China only has to self regulate pollution control rather then being compelled to. But self regulation is all that Abbott every wants for Aust industry on any subject, including paying tax. Whether it be the ingredients of food on labels, health warnings on fag boxes etc etc

The same goes for our polluters, only they want to control pollution they will be subsidised to - but no compulsion.

Ian Murray
06-12-2014, 08:15 PM
Greg Hunt's hostile attack on the environment (https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/12/06/greg-hunts-hostile-attack-the-environment/14177844001333?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_term=PANTHEON_STRIPPED)
The Saturday Paper
6.1.214

A couple of weeks ago, when the United Nations Environment Program released its annual update on the progress the world’s major countries were making towards their greenhouse gas reduction targets, it did not get a lot of coverage in Australia.

This was understandable, in the circumstances. The report got a bit lost amid all the controversy that accompanied the G20 leaders’ meeting in Brisbane, where a succession of world leaders – the United States’ Barack Obama, China’s Xi Jinping, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s David Cameron, France’s François Hollande, India’s Narendra Modi – embarrassed Prime Minister Tony Abbott by indicating in various ways that they were serious about the global climate crisis that Abbott would rather have ignored.

The detailed but somewhat dense “emissions gap” report by the UN simply was not as sexy in news terms as the serial discomfitures of our prime minister by a succession of the world’s most powerful people.

Yet the UNEP report was actually more direct in its criticism of the Abbott government’s performance than any of those big politicians.

“Brazil, China, the EU, India and the Russian Federation are on track to achieve their pledges,” it said.

“Conversely, Australia is no longer on track, due to the abolition of its carbon-pricing mechanism.”

Even if Australia’s media – with one or two exceptions – did not pay much attention to this smackdown of the Abbott government’s climate policy, it sure looks as if someone in the government noticed.

For this week, even as delegates from around the world were gathering in Lima, Peru, for the latest round of negotiations towards stronger action on climate change, it was revealed that the Abbott government was cutting its funding to the UNEP by more than 80 per cent.
...

In the grand scheme of things, of course, the withdrawn UNEP funds were small beer, but that’s not the point. The decision looked very much like payback.

And the suspicion is made stronger by the record of this government in targeting those who advocate for environmental issues in general, and climate change in particular.

Heck, this government is prepared to go after anyone. Even the president of the United States, who made the entirely reasonable statement that climate change poses a threat to the Great Barrier Reef.

As we hit the halfway point of the Abbott government’s first term (it is 15 months old and the average time between Australian federal elections is 30.3 months), it seems fair to say its unceasing attacks on the environment and environmentalists mark this as the most hostile federal government in many decades.

It has been relentless virtually from day one, as Tim Flannery, former head of the Climate Commission, can attest.
...
Consider its attempts to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The CEFC is commonly derided by members of the Abbott government as “Bob Brown’s Bank”, but it was set up with a board and staff of hard-headed finance and energy sector experts, and chaired by Jillian Broadbent, one of Australia’s most prominent businesswomen and a Reserve Bank board member.

The CEFC’s role is to co-invest in and secure finance for renewable energy projects, on commercial terms. Thus government stands to make money from its operation.

Yet the Abbott government remains intent on shutting it down. So far the senate has blocked their plans.

So why the determination to abolish a body that not only helps preserve the environment, but also looks to return a tidy profit?
...
The reality is, the Abbott government is way out in right field on the environment, even by comparison with past Coalition governments and conservative governments overseas.
...
Another instrumentality the government is trying to kill is the National Water Commission, which was established to give expert advice on the allocation of scarce water resources in this, the driest inhabited continent.

At time of writing, a bill to abolish it was listed for debate in the senate. It appeared likely to be defeated.

“The National Water Commission was set up by the Howard government,” says O’Shanassy. “The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act also was put in place under Howard.”

The EPBC Act, which was designed to protect and manage the effects of development on fauna, flora and heritage considered to be of national or international significance, is considered to be Australia’s key federal environmental protection law.

But the Abbott government considers it a hindrance to its plan to devolve environmental approvals back to state governments so as to allow the acceleration of major resource projects.

...
All the indications are that Hockey truly doesn’t get the reality of climate change. Not at all.

When asked by Barrie Cassidy on the ABC’s Insiders program last month whether he thought climate change constituted a risk to economic growth, he answered bluntly, “No. No, I don’t. Absolutely not.”

Little wonder then that many environmentalists despair.
...
Perhaps the most cynical of the government’s anti-environment ploys was the review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET), under which the previous government had committed to having 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity sourced from renewables by 2020.

The fix was in from the start, with the appointment of a self-declared climate change sceptic (read “denier”), septuagenarian businessman Dick Warburton, the former chairman of the petrochemical company Caltex, to lead the review.

Things did not go to plan, however. Modelling conducted for the review showed that while the RET would push up electricity prices in the short term, it would bring them down in the medium term.

In any case, the Warburton report findings became irrelevant because it became apparent the government could not muster the numbers in the senate to knock off the RET.

Instead it proposed to keep it but cut the target from 41,000 gigawatt-hours to about 25,000. The Labor opposition agreed to negotiate, but only on the basis of a much smaller cut. The negotiations failed to find a compromise, leaving the RET in limbo, which no doubt suits the fossil fuel industry fine. The uncertainty is stopping investment in renewables.

Now we come to the biggest issue of all, and arguably the government’s biggest win since the election, the abolition of the Gillard government’s carbon tax and its replacement with Greg Hunt’s Direct Action policy.

Put simply, the new scheme differs from the old one in that, instead of taxing big polluters for polluting, it will pay them to pollute less.

But the details are anything but simple, as a result of amendments demanded by the Palmer United Party and independent Nick Xenophon in return for their support in the senate.

The consensus among environmentalists who actually understand it all is that the legislation was significantly improved as a result.

In particular, they like safeguard provisions inserted by Xenophon, which ensure that industry cannot simply take the government’s money for emissions reductions and then not reduce them.

These provisions are seen by some as a backdoor way of allowing the Direct Action policy to evolve into a means of putting a price on carbon, by exacting penalties from recalcitrant polluters.
...

Desmond
20-12-2014, 02:36 PM
2014 will be the hottest year on record (http://www.skepticalscience.com/2014-will-be-hottest-year-on-record.html)

For those of us fixated on whether 2014 will be the hottest year on record, the results are in. At least, we know enough that we can make the call. According the global data from NOAA, 2014 will be the hottest year ever recorded.

I can make this pronouncement even before the end of the year because each month, I collect daily global average temperatures. So far, December is running about 0.5°C above the average. The climate and weather models predict that the next week will be about 0.75°C above average. This means, December will come in around 0.6°C above average. Are these daily values accurate? Well the last two months they have been within 0.05°C of the final official results.

What does this all mean? Well, when I combine December with the year-to-date as officially reported, I predict the annual temperature anomaly will be 0.674°C. This beats the prior record by 0.024°C. That is a big margin in terms of global temperatures.
...

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2015, 05:13 AM
Five Fatal Flaws of Solar Energy (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/07/five_fatal_flaws_of_solar_energy.html)
By Viv Forbes, 25 July 2014


PV solar panels are useful in remote locations and for some portable applications. With enough panels and batteries, standalone solar can even power homes.

But solar energy has five fatal flaws for supplying 24/7 grid power.

Firstly, sunshine at any spot is always intermittent and often unreliable. Solar panels can deliver significant energy only from 9am to 3pm – a maximum of 25% of each day. Solar can often help supply the hot afternoon demand for air conditioning, but demand for electricity generally peaks at about 6:30pm, when production from solar is usually zero.

Secondly, to be a standalone energy supplier, PV solar needs batteries to cover those times when solar is not producing – about 75% of the time under ideal cloudless skies.

Thirdly, solar energy is very dilute, so huge areas of land are needed to collect industrial quantities of energy. … In the real rotating world, where sunshine reaches usable intensity for only about 25% of the time, the best-located panel would have a capacity factor of about 17%. It would receive 170 watts of energy – not quite 2 light bulbs. PV solar panels convert solar energy to electrical energy at an efficiency factor of about 15%. Thus, our panel, at the equator, year-round, should deliver 25.5 watts of electrical energy – one very dim light bulb.

The fourth fatal flaw of solar energy is the pernicious effect of the dramatic fluctuations in supply on the reliable and essential parts of the grid. When solar electricity floods the network around mid-day, the backup stations have to throttle back, all the stations needed for stability and backup have their profits reduced, and some may be forced to close, making the network even more fragile and prone to blackouts. Then, if a cloud floats across the sky, the backups have to restart swiftly.

Fifthly, large-scale solar power will create environmental damage over large areas of land. Solar collectors may manage to convert only about 10% of the sun’s energy into electricity, the rest being reflected or turned into heat. But the whole solar spectrum is blocked, thus robbing 100% of the life-giving sunshine from the ground underneath, creating a man-made solar desert. For solar thermal, where mirrors focus intense solar heat to generate steam, birds that fly through the heat beams get fried. Why would true environmentalists support industrial-scale solar energy collection?

All consumers should be free to use solar energy in their own way at their own cost. But these five fatal flaws mean that collecting solar energy will never play more than a minor and very expensive role in supplying grid power.

antichrist
05-01-2015, 05:57 AM
Jono, that is crap. I go to chess at a place entirely run on solar and only small time as is a hippy joint, and the power is mostly okay. He has a small fridge (coz for his boat really). Without perfect power it makes humans more active and healthy instead of being glued in front of the box watching money-sucking Yankee preachers insulting our intelligence.

And as well my unassisted solar hot water has been perfect, bit too hot sometimes, maybe their temperature regulator needs adjusting. After a few days cloud went bit cooler but still quite hot enough.

Ian Murray
05-01-2015, 05:08 PM
Five Fatal Flaws of Solar Energy
By Viv Forbes, 25 July 2014

...Firstly, sunshine at any spot is always intermittent and often unreliable. Solar panels can deliver significant energy only from 9am to 3pm – a maximum of 25% of each day....
The times they are a-changin'. The first solar plant generating 24/7 power at utility scale is now operational. Now it's just a matter of bringing down the cost, as with all new technology.
http://bze.org.au/blog/spain-now-producing-24-hour-solar-power-110708


Secondly, to be a standalone energy supplier, PV solar needs batteries to cover those times when solar is not producing.
Needs storage capacity, not necessarily batteries. Salt works fine - see above


...Thirdly, solar energy is very dilute, so huge areas of land are needed to collect industrial quantities of energy.
A smaller footprint than coal, oil or gas (solar farms are once-only projects, while miners continually deplete fossil fuel reserves in an area then start over in another)
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/07/new-energy-facilities-will-leave-massive-footprint-u-s-study-concludes


… In the real rotating world, where sunshine reaches usable intensity for only about 25% of the time, the best-located panel would have a capacity factor of about 17%.
The capacity is not static - it is being continually improved. The latest benchmark is 40%
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/unsw-researchers-set-world-record-solar-energy-efficiency


...25.5 watts of electrical energy – one very dim light bulb.
Someone should tell him - incandescent bulbs are so yesterday


...The fourth fatal flaw of solar energy is the pernicious effect of the dramatic fluctuations in supply on the reliable and essential parts of the grid. When solar electricity floods the network around mid-day, the backup stations have to throttle back,...
No they don't. Surplus power is sold elsewhere on the grid


Fifthly, large-scale solar power will create environmental damage over large areas of land. ...creating a man-made solar desert.
Solar farms are built on built over marginal or non-arable land, often deserts


For solar thermal, where mirrors focus intense solar heat to generate steam, birds that fly through the heat beams get fried. Why would true environmentalists support industrial-scale solar energy collection?
Anyone concerned about bird fatalities would first focus on domestic and feral cats, and then coal-fired power generators, the two major causes of avian deaths.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/coal-found-guilty-case-energy-generation-vs-birds-48624

Ian Murray
17-01-2015, 01:27 PM
It's official - 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded

2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0)
New York Times
16 Jan 2015

Last year was the hottest on Earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday, underscoring warnings about the risks of runaway greenhouse gas emissions and undermining claims by climate change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped....

In the annals of climatology, 2014 surpassed 2010 as the warmest year. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human activity and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and nature...

Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it had occurred in a year that did not feature a strong El Niño, a large-scale weather pattern in which the Pacific Ocean pumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

Skeptics of climate change have long argued that global warming stopped around 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century. Some politicians in Washington have seized on that claim to justify inaction on emissions.

But the temperature of 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, and 2014 was the first time that happened without a significant El Niño. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next strong El Niño would probably rout all temperature records...

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2015, 02:37 PM
The times they are a-changin'. The first solar plant generating 24/7 power at utility scale is now operational. Now it's just a matter of bringing down the cost, as with all new technology.
http://bze.org.au/blog/spain-now-producing-24-hour-solar-power-110708

Needs storage capacity, not necessarily batteries. Salt works fine - see above
OK, but the above was talking about solar PV. What you posted makes a lot more thermodynamic sense: turning the solar energy into heat, then using a steam engine, probably operating via the Rankine Cycle, which would be about 40% efficient. That one looks quite promising. Note that the report is correct from a chemical perspective to call it molten salt, but just note that it is not the common NaCl.


The capacity is not static - it is being continually improved. The latest benchmark is 40%
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/unsw-researchers-set-world-record-solar-energy-efficiency
That would be very good if it could be achieved on a large scale. At present, the solar-thermal one you posted looks better, both in terms of energy efficiency and evenness of power output, although it is more complex.


Someone should tell him - incandescent bulbs are so yesterday
For many countries, incandescent bulbs are still the cheapest light source, and they were a vast improvement on what came before (oil and gas lamps), and were greener as well. In fact, they are as green as the source of electricity. If we had all our electricity generated by wind and solar as you would like, then incandescent bulbs would not be a problem. Fluoro bulbs are not as good (dimmer, contain mercury), but the latest LEDs with a colour temperature of 5000 K have finally surpassed incandescents in light quality and long-term cost, and we are gradually replacing all our incandescents with them.


Solar farms are built on built over marginal or non-arable land, often deserts.
Israel turned the Negev Desert into productive land, but indeed, if solar were to work anywhere, Oz would be the place. Can't see it being much good in most of Europe though.

antichrist
17-01-2015, 02:47 PM
A sparkie told me that mod homes going away from LEDs as they cannot dim them, he has been trying to flog off cancelled orders to myself

Ian Murray
17-01-2015, 04:11 PM
A sparkie told me that mod homes going away from LEDs as they cannot dim them, he has been trying to flog off cancelled orders to myself
Not so, e.g. http://lightingmatters.com.au/10-dimmable-led

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2015, 12:22 PM
It's official - 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer lays the smack to '2014 warmest year ever' nonsense (http://www.caintv.com/climate-scientist-dr.roy-spenc)

Dr. Roy Spencer is a real problem for global warmists. They can't say he's not a climate scientist, because he is. They can't accuse him of taking oil industry money, because all the funding he's ever received has come from the U.S. government - including his work with NASA, NOAA and the Department of Energy.

And they can't refute his arguments, because he knows what he's talking about and they don't. So when he comes across their latest nonsense - this time the claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record - he takes aim and destroys the claim in beautiful fashion:


Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2015, 12:39 PM
Hmm. If it's fair to say that 2014 is the most likely candidate to have been the warmest year on record then that is still significant even if there is not certainty about which of it and another couple of recent years actually was.

It is similar to other measures subject to uncertainties: highest unemployment rate, Tony Abbott's highest disapproval rate, etc. You can really only refer to the highest estimate of these things.

Ian Murray
20-01-2015, 12:43 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer is a real problem for global warmists....And they can't refute his arguments...
Spencer's analyses have been long refuted and his errors made public, e.g.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Rincewind
20-01-2015, 12:49 PM
Roy Spencer is right that science doesn't need the political interference that comes with territory of climatology. Unfortunately when you have a big problem with requires international cooperation to address and fundamentally going to impact vested interest like the fossil fuel industry then politicisation is inevitable.

Likewise science does need faith in spiritual mumbo-jumbo to work. In fact the mumbo-jumbo tends to work to the detriment of science. So when Spencer said that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting" it doesn't fill me with much confidence in his objectiveness. He obviously has a heartfelt faith that he has a special friend in the sky who will look after us and make sure we are ok. But given the number of "natural" disasters, pandemics and other calamities we as a species have endured, I would say even if God does exist, I don't have too much faith in His faithful providence.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2015, 03:22 PM
So when Spencer said that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting" it doesn't fill me with much confidence in his objectiveness.

Me neither. While enviroscarers do tend to exaggerate actual damage caused and underestimate the ability of ecosystems and species to recover, that is only a tendency. These are matters to be assessed using empirical evidence and not religious faith or political bias (in either direction).

Ian Murray
21-01-2015, 09:56 AM
OK, but the above was talking about solar PV. What you posted makes a lot more thermodynamic sense: turning the solar energy into heat, then using a steam engine, probably operating via the Rankine Cycle, which would be about 40% efficient. That one looks quite promising. Note that the report is correct from a chemical perspective to call it molten salt, but just note that it is not the common NaCl.
The article jumps from rooftop PV to utility-scale solar.
It's not table salt, of course. There is a variety of salts in use; the Spanish plant uses a NaNO3/KNO3 mix.


For many countries, incandescent bulbs are still the cheapest light source, and they were a vast improvement on what came before (oil and gas lamps), and were greener as well. In fact, they are as green as the source of electricity. If we had all our electricity generated by wind and solar as you would like, then incandescent bulbs would not be a problem. Fluoro bulbs are not as good (dimmer, contain mercury), but the latest LEDs with a colour temperature of 5000 K have finally surpassed incandescents in light quality and long-term cost, and we are gradually replacing all our incandescents with them.
They are the cheapest but the most inefficient, wasting 95% of their output as heat rather than light. Improved energy efficiency is one of the keystones of curbing global warming. They have been unavailable in Australia since 2009.


Israel turned the Negev Desert into productive land, but indeed, if solar were to work anywhere, Oz would be the place. Can't see it being much good in most of Europe though.
Actually solar is booming in Europe, even practicable in much of Scandinavia.
http://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-management/germany-breaks-solar-power-records/
http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/em4226/
Of interest is the way roadside reserves are used as solar farms, with no loss usable land area.

Solar panels don't need direct sunlight. They run in ambient light, much as a solar-powered pocket calculator works indoors. The output is reduced, but they generate power in daylight hoirts. Here in Brisbane I'm getting power from around 5.30am till around 5.00pm at this time of year.

Desmond
21-01-2015, 07:30 PM
Spencer's analyses have been long refuted and his errors made public, e.g.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

Ian Murray
21-01-2015, 07:40 PM
Www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer (http://www.desmogblog.com/Roy-spencer)

Desmond
21-01-2015, 07:52 PM
Www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer (http://www.desmogblog.com/Roy-spencer)



Thanks. All the more reason to wonder why Cap Fan thinks that his arguments can't be refuted. Perhaps he's giddy from bouncing around the conservative websites thought echo chamber.

Ian Murray
21-01-2015, 08:46 PM
Thanks. All the more reason to wonder why Cap Fan thinks that his arguments can't be refuted. Perhaps he's giddy from bouncing around the conservative websites thought echo chamber.

Both being former working scientists and now conservative political talking heads, maybe.

Rincewind
21-01-2015, 09:06 PM
Both being former working scientists and now conservative political talking heads, maybe.

At least Spencer was. AFAICT Jono has never held a continuing position as a scientist anywhere, ever. He went pretty much straight from student to working for a church.

Davidflude
21-01-2015, 09:43 PM
The greenest electricity of all is geothermal. Across the ditch the Kiwis have closed a coal power station because it cannot compete with base load electricity generated by a geothermal power plant.

Several companies including one listed Aussie one are competing in Germany for home sized units that generate the electricity used in a house
using fuel cells and natural gas and use the waste heat to generate hot water for the house. This is a very efficient use of natural gas.

I use a brutally simple system of heating and cooling my house.

On sunny days in summer I close my wooden venetian blinds in the morning to keep the house cooler during the Day. I open them in the evening when the outside temperature drops. I reverse the process in the winter.

Capablanca-Fan
27-01-2015, 03:18 AM
[Boring nonsense from non-scientists above ↑ [not DF] snipped]


The greenest electricity of all is geothermal. Across the ditch the Kiwis have closed a coal power station because it cannot compete with base load electricity generated by a geothermal power plant.
Nice if you have geothermal sources (and plenty of hydro) as NZ does.


Several companies including one listed Aussie one are competing in Germany for home sized units that generate the electricity used in a house
using fuel cells and natural gas and use the waste heat to generate hot water for the house. This is a very efficient use of natural gas.
Yes, any sort of co-generation is bound to be more efficient. The newest fossil fuel power stations use a combined cycle of Brayton Cycle gas turbine, and Rankine Cycle steam engines powered by the waste heat. Fuel cells have been known since about 1830, and have been seriously researched as a power source for over half a century, because of their high efficiency. But they still don't seem practical yet.

Desmond
27-01-2015, 06:00 AM
Scientists confirm 2014 as the hottest year on record (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/scientists-confirm-2014-as-the-hottest-year-on-record/)

NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have confirmed 2014 was the warmest year since records began in 1880.

Global temperature in 2014 was 14.68 degrees Celsius, or 0.69 degrees above the 20th century average, according to NOAA scientists.

The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000.

2014 appears to narrowly beat 2005 and 2010 to the top spot. This is notable as, unlike those years, 2014 did not see a strong El Niño.

...

antichrist
27-01-2015, 09:03 AM
So those Kinks songs from Apeman Verses Powerman album did have some truth behind them?

Ian Murray
27-01-2015, 12:07 PM
Scientists confirm 2014 as the hottest year on record (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/scientists-confirm-2014-as-the-hottest-year-on-record/)

...2014 appears to narrowly beat 2005 and 2010 to the top spot. This is notable as, unlike those years, 2014 did not see a strong El Niño....

The cyclic effects of El Nino and La Nina events, when charted, is interesting to note:

2826
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2015, 01:40 AM
FATALLY FLAWED CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER ‘SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN’ (http://www.thegwpf.org/fatally-flawed-climate-science-paper-should-be-withdrawn/)

Date: 06/02/15 Global Warming Policy Foundation

Press Release—Authors of a fatally flawed climate study “have no scientifically-defensible choice but to withdraw the paper.”

A recent paper in Nature (http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/global%20temperature%20trends.pdf) has received worldwide media attention because of its claim to have shown that the recent hiatus in surface temperature rises was the result of natural variability. The lead author, Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute, also claimed that his work dealt a fatal blow to suggestions that computer simulations have systematically overestimated the global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations.

However, Nic Lewis, an expert in this area of climate science, today pubished an article demonstrating that there are serious errors in the paper, and that its conclusions cannot be sustained. Lewis said:


“As well as having some basic statistical errors, Marotzke’s study can be shown to utilise circular logic. This means that its conclusions are unsound. Moreover, the stability of estimates for at least one of the two key structural model properties used is so poor that even were he able to rework his paper without the circularity—which appears impracticable—it would very likely be impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. I think the authors have no scientifically-defensible choice but to withdraw the paper.”

Lewis’s findings, which have been published at the influential Climate Audit blog, have been reviewed and confirmed by two statisticians: Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University and Roman Mureika, formerly of the University of New Brunswick. Professor Hughes said of the Marotzke paper:


“The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.”

Rincewind
07-02-2015, 03:04 PM
Dishonestly, Jono puts a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal of good standing like Nature on an equal footing with a post on a denialist blog which have been checked out by some statisticians one of whom has known denialist leanings and the other is retired and obscure.

I'm not saying there are no problems with Marotzke's paper. But if Nic Lewis wants to be taken seriously then he is going about it completely the wrong way.